Видео

thanks for watching! :)

The distinction between capitalism and materialism is a good point! Baudrillard is more critical of capitalism, since it is a powerful structural phenomena, which commodifies signs and symbols, including meaning, leading to the hyperreal stage of reality where meaning is imploding. There is no longer reference to the real world, only to other signs. Materialism, at least for Baudrillard, is not as harmful. Since a focus on acquiring physical goods and possessions can still contain some connection to the real world. It still maintains a connection with an object's use-value. But capitalism takes materialism to an extreme. It transforms useful material objects into commodities that are valued not for their use or their symbolic meaning, but for their exchange value in a market economy. (an example would be designer shoes that people never wear but are worth lots of money and are endlessly bought and sold) But someone participating in a job is by no means a 'capitalist pig'. They are still a person with their own individuality and desires and purpose etc. But the capitalist system they are in is one that does not make it easy to pursue these parts of their identity.

@@FeelingPhilosophical I would argue the other way around, wherein Capitalism is merely an overt expression of the Will to Power- as opposed to Materialism, which is a much more insidious way of expressing one's Will to Power as it's basically (material as opposed to moral) virtue signalling, which is a manifestation of neuroticism, as all religiosity is. Also, anyone clinging to Ressentiment may dispute you on your "capitalist pig" take. I don't, personally, but then, beneath every subjective truth lies Objective Truth: the vitality (or lack) of one's mitochondria! Time on the body is the best judge of any opinion or course of action.

Hi there, no I am not currently

I don't currently but maybe in the future!

Thanks, glad you enjoyed!

Thanks for commenting! I'm certainly keen to explore Baudrillard's idea of reality (untainted by simulation) in more depth in a future video. But roughly he thinks of reality (the real world, separate from simulation) as being that which is clearly differentiable or distinct from simulation. An example of a real event is death. Something untouchable by simulation/representation. So intensely real that it scares us. We prefer the comfort of simulation. An example of a society more connected with reality would be primitive cultures, which participate not in hyperreality, but in something Baudrillard called symbolic exchange (what the next video will be on). In this system, signs are still filled with meaning, and provide a clear reference to reality. They facilitate connections with the REAL world, such as building social relationships/trust, giving meaning to life, death, and survival. Unlike in the modern day, where signs discourage an authentic connection with the real world. Also, your comment about books raises an interesting point. Just because something is a (type of) simulation, like a book, does not mean it is bad. Books can enhance our understanding of reality since they represent it. This form of representation is distinct from hyperreal simulation. Hopefully my first video on Baudrillard makes this a little clearer, where the earlier stages are different (and less dangerous) than the later stages.

Yep, from a secular/atheistic viewpoint, that could certainly be the case

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed and there are more videos on the way!

Thanks will!

Oh no! What particular parts do you disagree with? Baudrillard's view on the hyperreal isn't perfect as he doesn't consider some of its positive uses and his writing can sometimes lack clarity. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it

@@FeelingPhilosophical Let's just agree to disagree.

@@andthingsofthisnatureLol😂 such an npc comment

@@THIZA-x2m despite us all having differing opinions, I would never insult without provocation.

You can't even present an argument

Thanks Beth :)

Thanks Rahul!

Thanks for watching! Really glad you enjoyed the video! I did some extra research on video games specifically and here are a couple of articles with some useful insights.Some parts of video games, like real-time involvement or DLCs or augmented reality, are incredibly effective in creating a hyperreal environment for the player - The Hidden World of Gaming by Simon Beneke - Cybernetics and Simulacra: The Hyperreality of Augmented Reality Games by Rhoderick V. Nuncio and Johannah Mari B. Felicilda

@@FeelingPhilosophical Thank you, I will check it out. Keep making good videos🏆

Hey! I have a degree in maths and philosophy :)

@@Milo-109 apologies! I’ve got a better mic now so hopefully that helps. there should be auto-generated subtitles on all the videos too? I will look into writing my own subtitles in future videos to help with this :)

@@FeelingPhilosophical thanks sir

yep exactly, the omnipresence of simulations makes the real world forgotten, barren, and deserted - an empty 'desert of the real'. Thanks for raising this quote, I want to explore it more in the next video on the hyperreal

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it

really good example, thanks! certain labels (that of an 'established artist') have attained so much power and influence, the reality under them (their sh*t) does not matter. labels mean so much in certain communities, particularly elitist or traditional ones, that from an outside perspective it makes no sense and is hard to understand. but it highlights how much of our life and our social success is dependent on labels which seem objectively arbitrary, but have been injected with meaning from certain groups and institutions

@@FeelingPhilosophical thank you. That was coming from an artist by the way. Mostly I do Impressionism but I am working to improve my skills and break into classical painting. But what is traditional art? Many people will point at the impressionists and say they are traditional. Yet they were rejected from the Paris academy of arts exhibition in their day because they were not considered traditional by the realist and the realists themselves were once considered odd and non traditional. Even cubism, modernism, surrealism, minimalism, post modernism and post Impressionism which are all considered traditional arts were new and untraditional at one time. I personally wouldn’t lump anti-art in with any of these. Love them or hate them each of these art forms speak to some section of the huddled masses in some way - some to the extent that they choose to become creators of the art form - but anti art only speaks to the self important in their ivory tower. I used to dream about reaching that level of art but then I discovered 2 things 1) the glass ceiling separating them from us lesser artists who actually labor at our craft every day and continually seek to improve our skills and them is shatter proof and 2) when I looked through it I realized that as nice as it would be to make that kind of money a larger paycheck isn’t worth being like the ‘artists’ on the other side.

It becomes negative once the model is mistaken for reality instead of as what it is…a model and a simplification. I’m currently experiencing an issue with higher-ups doing exactly this and it’s creating problems for everyone in that they think solutions are as easy as their 1-2-3 diagrams on a ppt slide, when reality has so much more detail and background to it.

I believe Baudrillard hated the matrix because it attempted to explain the simulation within the media of the simulation which is basically impossible and contradictory.

It is referenced by the Matrix! It's what initially made me aware of the book's existence haha. Although Baudrillard wasn't a big fan of the film since he thought it oversimplified his ideas: for example, it made the distinction between reality and simulation very obvious, but in the later stages of simulation (phase 3 and 4), reality and simulation become almost impossible to break apart also money is certainly a simulation. old forms of money like gold were phase 1 - they had a clear connection to the real world and their value was based on their physical availability. paper money like banknotes (used in the past, before digital currency) was phase 2 - as it still was used in place of gold. it still had a link to a basic reality, but was distorted. digital currency and fiat money are examples of phase 3 simulation. they have no intrinsic value and real-world backing. they operate based on symbolism and a mutual trust that there's a substance behind the monetary symbol phase 4 money would be cryptocurrency since these are not backed by any government. cryptocurrencies don't pretend to represent something real. similar with stock market speculation. the value of the money here is based upon demands/trends/predictions. it is becoming self-referential, removed from any real-assets, where value is generated within the system

Appreciate it mate! :)

Thanks! For sure, I will look at covering Twilight of the Idols in the future. And will at some point aim to continue the Zarathustra series

I love Thich Nhat Hanh! I actually wanted to include some quotes from him in this video but forgot to weave them in!

Thanks for watching! Great questions! I will try to make some videos on these topics in the future as there is lots to talk about here. For now, I will just say that it is a very personal thing what goals are meaningful to a person, it depends very much on who they are and where they've come from and what inspires them. Journalling, reflecting on what motivates you, and what type of 'work' you feel excited to do is extremely useful. What 'work' could you do for 10,20,30+ years without you ever getting bored, and feeling excited to do it more and more every day? Find this, even if it takes years, it's worth it. Doing this is one of the best ways to combat lethargy, always coming back to this thing that truly drives you and gives you energy rather than takes energy from you

Good points! To be honest, I thought a similar thing when reading the 'diminishing emotionality' quote at 4:34. I think the quote is implying that mindfulness intends to stop us from reacting strongly to our emotions, and advises instead for us to let them pass through us whilst we passively observe and see the peace lying behind the chaos of emotions. However, by viewing our emotions in this way, we perhaps miss out an opportunity to react POSITIVELY to our emotions. For example, if we are feeling lazy, unproductive, and unsuccessful, then feeling these emotions and acting on them in a positive(!) way (for example, starting work, reflecting on one's goals and career) is better than passively observing these feelings of laziness and letting them pass but doing nothing about them. Even though mindfulness is still incredibly useful in stopping us from reacting negatively to our emotions, there are still instances where it may be in our best interest to react in a positive productive manner to our emotions.

Thanks Stephan! :)