A new forum has been created from a growing feeling that a lot of the high-level philosophy was getting lost amongst beginners’ questions and general drivel. The heavy moderation of the forum is there to allow this sort of discussion to flourish.
These rules apply specifically to this new forum:
Philosophy (Heavily Moderated)
Your posts will be deleted if they are:
Unresearched
One-liners
Aggressive in any way
Off-topic
This forum is NOT for beginners of philosophy to post. Please try the other Philosophy forum.
Of course I haven’t been invited, but that’s because I’ve been holding back. You didn’t know about my research in precapitalist narrative and Baudrillardist simulation…
Berfore I suggest a topic, and a question, here’s some brief background…
If one examines pretextual nihilism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the structural paradigm of expression or conclude that the Constitution is intrinsically used in the service of outdated perceptions of class, but only if culture is distinct from consciousness. Sartre uses the term ‘Baudrillardist simulation’ to denote not theory, as Marx would have it, but subtheory.
Thus, Sartre promotes the use of postdialectic textual theory to deconstruct and read sexual identity. Lacan uses the term ‘Baudrillardist simulation’ to denote a mythopoetical paradox.
Therefore, Brophy[1] implies that we have to choose between the textual paradigm of reality and neodialectic theory. Lyotard’s analysis of postdialectic textual theory holds that narrative is created by the masses. It could be said that Marx suggests the use of pretextual nihilism to attack sexism. If semiotic capitalism holds, we have to choose between pretextual nihilism and Sontagist camp.
So the question is, what the fuck am I talking about?