I wrote a grad paper on video game audio and hyperreality and I actually came across what I think is a great example of hypereality. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was sworn in as president. At his inauguration Yo-yo Ma and other professional musicians played an original composition written by John Williams for the occasion. Viewers heard the beautiful tones of the ensemble, but unbeknownst to them, the musicians were actually miming their parts. They had recorded themselves two days prior and were silently playing to that recording at the inauguration. This was because it was below freezing on the 20th, and wooden instruments are very susceptible to the cold. They were worried that strings might snap, or instruments might crack if they were played. Yo-yo Ma rubbed soap on his bow so it would make no sound on the strings. If they had actually played their instruments it would have been a horrible and out of tune mess, not becoming of a presidential inauguration. This is an example of the image (of the flawless performance) eclipsing the reality of the situation. I would say this is an example of a simulacrum.
Interesting claim. It definitely seems to be a representation of a representation that is mitigated by technology, so seems like a simulacrum. I don't know if it rises to hyperreality because Yo-yo Ma is actually a great performer and did actually perform that piece, just not in that time and place. Hyperreality is where the simulation goes so far as to no longer represent something real, or something true (if the music were computer generated, autotuned, performed by someone completely different). It makes me think of the Gettier problem, someone forming a true, justified, belief that "Yo-yo Ma performed this piece" without that belief being knowledge (Yo-yo Ma did perform that piece, but your justification was unlinked from the truth of the claim).
The fact that they mimed along to an actual real performance should be your first clue that this not a simulacrum. Yo-yo Ma and the other players are capable of playing and have played/did play the piece as you heard it, just not at that moment in time. The performance, as we saw it, wasn't really a *representation* of anything, at least not of an ideal hyperreality.
Theres a moment in the opening scene of Suspiria 2018 where a psycologist witnesses what he believes is a patient experiencing a delusion. He thinks his patient is fabricating a mythology, but it turns out that whats shes going through is actually happening. So her experience of reality is a sumulacrum of reality, and his intepretation of her experience is a simulacrum of a simulacrum. Holy crap, thanks for this video!
Girl I gagged. I've been trying to understand what this means for SO long and you just threw it out there like a professional. My brain has finally eaten something today. Thank you so much!!
I’ve watched many of videos on this topic and this is one of the best explanations I’ve ever heard cause it doesn’t sound like a bunch of double talk. It’s actually understandable. Thank you so much. I will be watching more of your videos.
I think it's time to really consider the possibility that we may indeed be living in a simulated reality, where our understanding of an objective reality is just another illusion.
Baudrillard's book Simulacras and Simulation makes an appearance in the film The Matrix. I find that film quite prescient of the current social media culture and data collection policies of massive corporations.
I recommend Dark City. In that film, the main character manages to escape the Simulacrum he is imprisoned in and build his own. It's great subversion of the Cave Allegory imo. The problem I have with The Matrix though, is that it really doesn't do anything new. I mean, The Matrix follows the same old hero's journey without trying to do anything with it.
@@CosmoShidan That's if you are talking about the 1st Movie. Now, in the sequels they deconstruct and disarm the path of the hero as just another simulacrum, another lie implemented by the system as a mean of control; which is why people found them so (subconsciously) shocking and disliked them.
To answer your question - it is not even the question. The entire world we percieve as "real" is just a simulacrum our brains created for us, because it is way easier to navigate then overalaping quantum fields.
What quantum fields have anything to do with it? Using "quantum" just as a signifier for anything "mystical" or "not determinate" or "random" or "wave-like" is a simulacra of the quantum field phenomena. Also, isn't " just a simulacrum our brains created for us" just another way to say we have our own subjective experiences? It's not like the brain, which is technically you, is distorting the experience of the real, captured through our limited sensorial apparatus, to create a simulacrum. It's we, know by getting a limited grasping of reality due to our perspective, therefore, limitations on space and time and information, assume things to "fill the gaps" instead of catching them all by sensorial experience. So it's not our brains that create simulacra for us, It's we that try to "fill the gaps" in our knowledge, and that might make us assume some simulacras are the real deal.
I'm currently writing a research portfolio based on simulacrum in photography, i need about 6-8 textual references and this has honestly helped me understand the basics of jean baudrillards theory
For anyone that wants to look into this subject more joscha Bach did a podcast with lex Friedman and they discuss simulacrums in depth. Joscha is a cognitive neuroscientist and truly is a brilliant individual. Id highly recommend you give it a watch. (There are two different podcasts, the second one is better but you need to watch the first one for context)
Gilles Deleuze works a lot with 'Immanence'. I don't think that Immanence is a post-modern/post-structuralist concept. But could you do a video on it regardless? :) I'm enjoying ur current series a lot!
A lot of the ideas brought up here strongly beg the question about what reality actually is and whether we can know reality. Our senses give us sensory inputs and our brain interprets our sense. So our brain gives us a representation of a representation. So everything we know through sensory input is some sort of hyperreality. And since we can't know reality's true form, our reality would probably even be considered a simulacrum under this way of thinking. If we were to assume we can know reality -- and everything that comes with that -- we would be accepting a metanarrative. Moreover, if we were to accept we can know reality, then why can't we know reality through the hyperrealities in our daily lives? I don't know... the more I learn about this, the less sense it makes. It all doesn't seem very cohesive and a lot of aspects seem very self-defeating. Whomever mopped all these ideas together under the moniker of "postmodernism", hasn't done a very good job as far as I can see. The only way I see this ending, is in nihilism.
1.Even if sense-datum is true, there are inevitably different levels of reality we as humans can agree upon (unless you accept scepticism of the outside world). We can trust on people with good vision to agree upon an apple as being red, but not with an plastic apple as being a real apple. The primary accessible reality can be used to create concepts agreed upon as being "real" while the concepts resembling those but with not identical set of characteristics can be seen as simulacrum. 2.According to your theory, we'd have to believe that a composite of chemicals whose taste resemble syrup (as those sold in the supermarket) is the same thing as true maple syrup. That sad people posing as happy people on insta are actually happy and that crazy people are actually living in a different but identical reality than ours. There would be no true or false perceptions. A view like that of the world would inevitably lead to absurdism and possibly nihilism. 3. Can realism really be classified as a meta-narrative? I thought those would be more akin to progress, religion, enlightenment and others that can have or not realism as its background.
HJ GE If your want to learn more about this subject you might enjoy a short essay written by Friedrich Nietzsche titled “On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense” it discusses the inability to access complete truth due to the process you described. It also talks about the effect this has on language.
From mass print, to radio, to film, to the internet- and a whole bunch of other inventions- there's obviously been a steady increase of "images". But I don't think *Direct Experience* is necessarily gone. I think all things outside that should be held with a certain lever of discretion, maybe even skepticism in some cases.
I couldn’t make sense of 2001: A Space Odyssey when I first watched it-nor when I read the book-but i think Kubrick was playing with this exact concept. The film suggests that humanity tends toward artificiality; in fact, in the future, astronauts quite literally consume representations of representations of real food. The film Kubrick was never able to direct himself, A.I., suggests (I surmise) that humanity‘s apotheosis culminates in a transformation into synthetic beings. But who knows-we might already be in a simulation according to our programming. If only I had access to harder drugs, I might know the answer.
thanks! i think hyperreality is a huge risk. we need to stay vigilant, meditate, stay close to nature, and stay close to friends and other people, imho
While working with a class of middle schoolers at a nature center I was quite shocked to find out that they had no idea potatoes and carrots came out of the ground. In their reality vegetables come from the grocery store. Our entertainment, with cgi technology good enough that a real appearing object or person can be digitally created, is IMO an example of where hyperreailty is going. The icecaps are melting, Arctic animals are disappearing... but so what when 3D immersion technology allows you to harmlessly walk through the ice caves of a pristine glacier? Or with a click you can stroll through a post-apocalyptic city hunting rogue cyborgs? Who needs reality? Maybe a better question is how do you define reality?
Absent a rigorous theory of representation itself, I don't know what to make of this notion. Representation would seem to depend on resemblance among other things, but that leads to such difficulties as to render the idea of simulacrum somewhat pointless. And what does the theory have to say about type vs. token uses of a word? Take a word like 'simulacrum', e.g. Is it, when I use it, merely itself a simulacrum? In fact, how does a word used in naming anything, like a new species, for example, get to be considered a representation, except by dint of the christener's proclaiming it to be the word for the new species? How do we test this representation claim? How does any word get to be a representation of an abstract object; and how do we know if a two-dimensional photo is actually a bona fide representation - rather than a mere simulacrum - of the four-dimensional President Biden? It makes sense that a myth used as the basis for a political campaign would inspire us to cry foul, to claim illegitimate representations are being put forth, but it seems like we already have ways of saying things like that. Further, it seems questions of resemblance, representation, naming and reference, etc. have been, and are being, considered and debated, but found to be very thorny issues not easily resolved and not advanced by pointing out that my writing of the word 'seven' is extremely far removed (as being the umpteenth token use) from its first use.
Wow. I think lives can be like that too. Some people don't look like they are there when they stand in the grocery store line. Running an errand in general seems for some to be a side quest, a behind the scenes thing. It's not part of it all. Life begins when they meet their friends, go to events, and do things that seem exciting, or meaningful in social context. So called memorie producing events. Thats humans making a simulacrum out of their own life. Wow interesting concept all of this.
@@HighVybeTribe Maybe Everyone is an NPC to some degree in another person's perspective. When we "turn down" our higher thinking and operate solely by following the routine, without much mental engagement to it or when men in particular entered that "Nothing mode" when watching TV at night after a tired day at job, to someone else's eyes, we effectively stopped "playing life", just answering automated commands we learned throughout our lives, maybe not even noticing what comes out of our mouth.
Sounds like Baudrillard really needed the concept of direction-of-fit, and was poorly gesturing at something like that. Direction-of-fit is the difference between a picture drawn as a still life, meant to represent the world, descriptively conveying truth or reality; and a picture drawn as a blueprint, meant to *shape* the world, *prescriptively* conveying *goodness* or *morality* . Neither is further detached from the world: a prescription isn't just a description of a description. They're both one layer separate, though you can layer either deeper and deeper as you like, and the direction-of-fit doesn't flip when you layer deeper levels of either on top of themselves. A description of a description is still descriptive, and a prescription of a prescription is still prescriptive.
Don’t mistake this RUclips misreading of Baudrillard’s work as representative of his actual work. Read the work, then engage with it. You’ve strawmanned a youtuber’s misreading.
Yes- hasn't our own lived experience become for many a simulacra of what it "ought" to be due to living and perceiving one's self through the eye of the filtered image documented on social media? The saying "it didn't happen if you didn't post it" comes to mind. And it didn't happen if you didn't post a posed, doctored image or account of it and then experience yourself experiencing the self who is supposed to be in the image. Many people have become hyperreal.
A simulacra can become an independent reality/object without being dependent on its original source. A video game maybe a simulation, but it’s its own alternative world.
Here's a question: Drag queens, and some M to F transgendered people, adopt a persona/identity which is based upon a particular, what some might call patriarchal, interpretation of "femininity". This image of "femininity" is something that feminists have criticized as being a representation of a reality, a fiction essentially, of what a woman "should be". Is the adoption of this image, then, a simulacra of "the feminine"? One might argue that it is a representation of a fiction. This is not meant to be a criticism of anyone for any reason whatsoever. I'm honestly asking a question based upon what I understood the definition of simulacra to be.
I mean …. saying something is not representative of “the real” seems like a bad definition of simulacra. Are Simulacra just bad simulations and it’s only a question of quantifying where the distinguishing line is or is there a qualitative difference?
I don't think hyperreality is good or bad, per se. I do think we as a culture/species should learn to be more mindful of it, though. It has its uses in the context of escapism, art, entertainment, etc. but certainly becomes dangerous in the realm of real-life decision-making, especially the political variety. What I find interesting in particular is whether hyperreality can inform us about potential *actual* realities that would not have occurred to us if it weren't for our tendency to consider the hyperreal. Science fiction (i.e. scenarios that are essentially artistic in nature but based around imagined future scientific innovation) sometimes being a precursor to scientific discovery occurs to me as a possible example of this but I'm not 100% sure it qualifies - I haven't thought about it enough yet.
Yurchak drew from Baudrillard quite a bit in his book. These philosophical concepts are quite practical, as socialistic societies are always engaging in some form of performative hyperreality. I think when AI video becomes indistinguishable from real video, the process will accelerate worldwide, where grounding in the real world will become no longer possible outside of one's personal orbit.
huh, it is like I'm learning about philosophy filtered through a few layers, mediated by technology, several layers from the original texts. I think the assumed value judgement is backwards though, what if the hyperreal layer is better and no one cares about what it used to represent, it is a subjective decision, each should make it & not automatically winge about how things used to be more authentic
so an example on a simulacrum is the 4th dimension because we have no perception of it so we think it is better than our 3rd dimension the same goes for the robot filled future we have thought of when there is little proof its going to happen near in the future when it may take several years to perfect maybe even an entire century or two
I always think that the advance of augmented reality and hyper reality in immersion games is going to be responsible in part (or more) for the loss of the natural world. Why would any immature person give a damn about species extinctions and climate destruction when it is possible to escape into an artificial world that creates experiences far more spectacular than what is available in the real world? The future will not be good for living things because people will tune into escapist game-playing for entertainment and distraction from what needs to be done.
why would you want an immature, fantasy-seeking person meddling with such matters? Leave conservation efforts to specialists alone, whom studied and know what to do, because they chose to do it in the real world in the first place. If a person doesn't want to leave fantasy and do something in the real world, it's because they don't care about these issues in the first place, and having a person that isn't engaged with the problem might even be detrimental. It's like trying to teach geography or history to people whom don't really care about it. You might succeed, they might even become geographers or historians, but if they didn't chose to engage it in the first place, just passively absorbing knowledge and "going with the flow", they weren't going to be good geographers or historians. The thing is, people whom didn't care in the first place won't care what "needs to be done", even if they were forced to do. For example, where I live, there are two types of garbage trucks, one for recyclable garbage and other for organic one. They even travel in different days and have different bells and designs, so even a person whom just lived in the neighborhood for a week will figure out. Very few people bother to separate their trash, only those that are either "environmentally conscious", so engaged to begin with, or want to help the "trash collectors" whom come earlier than the trucks, to take paper boxes and metals to sell for profit. There were campaigns to "teach" people about the subject, and yet, people won't engage, because they don't care. You might force them by law to separate the trash properly, just like you can force gamers to be more "environment-friendly" but you can't force them to care, and they might even hurt your efforts out of spite when before, they were simply, neutrally not caring.
@@Bronze_Age_Sea_Person No one is advocating forcing anyone to do anything, despite what you long harangue suggests. The point being made is not to force someone to care about the environment. We already see that there are some people who would deliberately destroy natural habitats or wipe out endangered species just for the hell of it. That's the kind of world in which we live. The point being made is that there is an overabundance of artificiality in the type of entertainment that is produced deliberately to snag young minds into its orbit. You should know that their visual and aural enticements are cleverly engineered just for that purpose. And why? MONEY... BIG PROFITS for those developers. What is being espoused, encouraged, is to provide at least an equal amount of programming (or games) that look at the real world, not just the fake one, which is basically escapism. If a person chooses non-engagement with the real world and all of its citizens (human and non-human), that person has taken a path that serves no one meaningfully, including himself. But those who design and program the pseudo-world may want to explore the broader possibilities.
Anime is technically an "illusion-level" simulacrum. It pretends to be real, not in the sense of being 3d and tangible or anything, but you assume those characters are real characters for the sake of immersion, but they don't really have any direct connection with anything real. You aren't trying to replicate anything real according to one sensorial cathegory such as photos for visions or recordings for audio, nor you are doctoring or embezzling it to "hide defects" and creating a more "clean" or "verissimillant" display of the real, which is the "mask-level" of the simulacrum. You are clearly making things up with the digital pen and the DAW and assuming that artisitic creation is based on real things. Not replicating real things, but referencing it. An Isekai for example assumes there's another world where a JRPG-like world that is a pastiche of all Isekais and JRPGS before it exists. It loosely references the european middle-ages, but it's not even trying to replicate any real traits of the medieval world, just referencing what people "assume" it's "medieval-ish", which is based on the "mask-level" simulacra of the medieval world, like knights and clerics and dragons. One clear example of this is how despite having paladins and clerics, there is no semblance of catholicism in it, even when the "nuns" are literally wearing crosses and rosariums. It's not a real catholic nun which they are referencing, but the image, therefore the simulacra, of one.
By calling the simulacrum a "simulacrum", we are already taking part in the simulacra proces... Isn't this paradoxal? How can a human being avoid simulacra? And if we cannot avoid it, what is this knowledge for? Is it just for literature, socwe have something interesting to write about? I mean, what's the practical, more pragmatic of this theory/phenomenon? That is my main question I think. I just fail to see any value in this whole "simulacra" concept. It seems shallow and a bit of a mumbo-jumbo for me. It's a lot of talking, but not a lot of making sense... so maybe anyone can answer, what is it really about, and do we actually need to even know about simulacrum?
at a core it points towards how reality is completely subjective. the practicality of this theory is having the awareness of it, which allows you to see everything is just a made up representation, and each human has a different meaning for each. meaning communication is not fluent or fluid, as different people have different meanings for different things, which could only happen in hyper reality. because if these simulacrums where truly real and where exactly what they where, then people would have a synchronised vision of what reality is and what it means. for example, globally we seem to associate the swastikka with german nazis, but that sign was long known as a sign of peace in different cultures. this is an example of how collectively we may agree on a symbol meaning something, when in actual reality the symbol means nothing. everything means nothing until we assign it our own subjective meaning. now i could wear a swastika shirt and hat around the city centre and tell eveyone that im promoting love and peace, but i would probably get beaten or abused, thats because people who see the swastikka as a sign of evil, are acting on hyper reality as if it is actual reality, without consideration that another may have adopted a different meaning for the sign. meaning people are living in the hyper reality without truly knowing that the symbol or sign they are reacting too is actually subjectively self detailed. this means people are out of touch with what reality actually is. and if 2 people where able to have a conversation about how the swastikka and hyper reality, both could agree that the sign means whatever meaning they give it. this is the main reason, because hyper reality causes disagreement, confusion, miscommunication, and can control your life if you truly believe things that are hyper real to be real.
@@lucidsymmetry okay, first of all thank you for your explanation, wonderful response, I appreciate that. But... You just seem to have only described something that I already knew... I mean, I studied simulacra, and I know that a symbol can have double-edged/abmbiguous meaning, depending on the certain person or situation. But still, reality is reality. Let's take, If I eat five bananas, I will not starve. This is a fact. If I go without eating bananas (or anything), I will eventually starve and die of hunger. These are *facts* . This is not simulacra, this is not hyper reality. It's just a well-known fact. So this is what I tried to say, this is what I mean when I say "practical". I see simulacra only as a theory that - of course - makes sense, but it is a mere describtion/analysis of human condition. What does it serve, other than just being a theory? This is my question. You said, this serves, so that I become aware of the world and patterns that happen around me. Okay, I have become more aware, and now - what of it? What is the next step? Or is it over, and realizing this theory is the closing point? I kind of wish there was more to it. If I get hit by a car, I will probably die. This is real life, this is physics, laws... Something we can measure. So how does simulacra apply to this, how does simulacra relate to my view of what's real (getting hit by a car, eating bananas to survive, boiling water in order to prepare a tea, etc...)?
@@bsnf-5 i have become more aware, and now - what of it? . is the key here. anything that heightens awareness on this kind of level would surely be seen as a theory that has a practical use. in that it raises awareness not just in the self, but in regards to the the awareness between 2 different people being able to coherently progress, rather than disagree. as a thought experiment on a global scale if everyone was aware of this concept of hyper reality then there would be a major flip from conflict, miscommunication, discourse, disagreement, hate, etc.. into contemplative open discussion, agreement, correct communication through the understanding of hyper reality and subjectivity of meaning. essentially becoming more aware is the main goal of the human consciousness as it evolves. the theory proposed cleaves open multiple rifts to different modes of thinking that allow an individual to make a positive impact in their own life and the life of others. the theory is still just a theory, you could even say the theory itself is a simulacrum of what actually is going on here. like you said I explained something that you already knew. the theory is simply somebody’s attempt at giving it certain terminology in order to make it understandable for someone who’s never even been able to comprehend any version of the concept. and so I will leave you with never mind the theory just internally focus on what actually is.. and to answer your question of is it practical my opinion would be yes and for the reasons I have listed in this response and their response previous. if you do not believe a collective rise in awareness will be result of the understanding of the idea or any version of the idea on a global scale through this thought experiment , i would have to disagree and proceed to make the claim that this rise in awareness serves the evolution of the human race possibly more crucially than any other theory. as the synchronisation of what is, is vital to the organisation of a group of observers navigating a plane of existence via the understanding of what is.
I think that artificial intelligence art in the prompts themselves would perfectly describe what a simulacrum is. Just look at your AI art if you are into it.😊😊
I don't think that Simulacra are a postmodern phenomenon because basically, the very concept of a religion, especcialy the depiction of the supposed supernatural by means of religious idols or prayers or mythical stories are simulacras. They represent a representation. For example: Jesus tells made up stories to transport moral values. These stories would be simulacra, because they represent the representation of god's supposed justice, which is the moral dogma that is core to christianity and is explained by Jesus partically through the stories he tells.
This is a fairly hamfisted misreading of the concept. Art representing art has no relevance to hyperreality. Baudrillard wasn’t clear about much but he was crystal clear about the nature of the hyperreal. Chief among its characteristics is the inability for anyone to distinguish between the real and the symbolic. There would be no capacity for “art to represent art,” for example, as representation is not at all what is done by simulacra. Baudrillard’s simulacra have entirely sublated their originals. There is no representation whatsoever. That’s the whole point. In fact that’s the aspect that the Wachowskis themselves completely missed with The Matrix and precisely why Baudrillard called it “exactly the kind of movie The Matrix would have made” as he shunned any connection between it and his theories. I highly recommend you actually read his works and audit your understanding of this concept. I strongly implore you to delete this video but I expect you won’t.
If we're to use usernames or graffiti tags as examples of simulacra, then wouldn't identities themselves be simulacra? A name is conceptually no different from a tag or username except that it is given rather than chosen. The formation of an identity is a representation of our genetics' and environment's collective representation in our behavior, and nature and nurture themselves are representations derived from physical laws of the universe which do not, in themselves, exist on a physical level but merely in a conceptual way. Even if we're all to follow an empirical approach to knowledge as most in our day do, the problem persists that our qualitative senses are, themselves, a representation of objective reality that our brains cobble together. Objectively, there is not one perspective in three dimensions from which to look nor a color which is more correct than another. Sound is vibration which, objectively sounds like nothing. It's a pressure wave. Since everything empirical that a human person can experience is a representation of but not anything constituting objective reality, every representation built on top of and representative of this empirical model is also thus a simulacra. The symbolic nature of our interaction with reality truly knows no bounds as how our brains process is built purely on representative figures, schemata if you will, completely divorced from whatever we assume is objective. I find even myself wondering whether the original objective reality my consciousness seems to be built onto even exists outside of our understanding of it. Conscious interaction with superpositions will most certainly collapse them into a discrete fashion, and while this is a matter of entire speculation as to why, I can't help but feeling a significance to this. There is no question to the reality of consciousness, but as to how subjects relate to objects . . that's just an interesting question. Are our simulacra, in fact, more objective than any reality would be with no subject? Does objective existence necessitate discrete measurements or are things more flux than that? Does consciousness, in fact, impose discrete qualities to what would otherwise be a continuous universe? I cannot know.
No so long ago many would have called this lies, deception and delusion. Now we need fancy words like simulacra and post modernism to describe the situation. In a generation or two this hyperreality would be accepted as real and 'natural' progression of human development over the course of history.
@@classicpinball9873 Can't describe what ??? An experience inside of an advanced virtual reality machine connected via our central nervous systems ??!? Death equals "Game Over" ... Jebus told us not to fear death blah blah blah. Why.. Possibly to find out who we "REALLY" are inside ourselves ?!?!? How we would treat others if left to our own devices?!?!? Whom knows.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I wrote a grad paper on video game audio and hyperreality and I actually came across what I think is a great example of hypereality. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was sworn in as president. At his inauguration Yo-yo Ma and other professional musicians played an original composition written by John Williams for the occasion. Viewers heard the beautiful tones of the ensemble, but unbeknownst to them, the musicians were actually miming their parts. They had recorded themselves two days prior and were silently playing to that recording at the inauguration. This was because it was below freezing on the 20th, and wooden instruments are very susceptible to the cold. They were worried that strings might snap, or instruments might crack if they were played. Yo-yo Ma rubbed soap on his bow so it would make no sound on the strings. If they had actually played their instruments it would have been a horrible and out of tune mess, not becoming of a presidential inauguration. This is an example of the image (of the flawless performance) eclipsing the reality of the situation. I would say this is an example of a simulacrum.
Interesting claim. It definitely seems to be a representation of a representation that is mitigated by technology, so seems like a simulacrum. I don't know if it rises to hyperreality because Yo-yo Ma is actually a great performer and did actually perform that piece, just not in that time and place. Hyperreality is where the simulation goes so far as to no longer represent something real, or something true (if the music were computer generated, autotuned, performed by someone completely different).
It makes me think of the Gettier problem, someone forming a true, justified, belief that "Yo-yo Ma performed this piece" without that belief being knowledge (Yo-yo Ma did perform that piece, but your justification was unlinked from the truth of the claim).
The fact that they mimed along to an actual real performance should be your first clue that this not a simulacrum. Yo-yo Ma and the other players are capable of playing and have played/did play the piece as you heard it, just not at that moment in time. The performance, as we saw it, wasn't really a *representation* of anything, at least not of an ideal hyperreality.
No , its similar to lip synching lol
@@masterchain3335it was a re-presentation of the of actual performance of it
Excellent analysis could I read the paper
Theres a moment in the opening scene of Suspiria 2018 where a psycologist witnesses what he believes is a patient experiencing a delusion. He thinks his patient is fabricating a mythology, but it turns out that whats shes going through is actually happening. So her experience of reality is a sumulacrum of reality, and his intepretation of her experience is a simulacrum of a simulacrum. Holy crap, thanks for this video!
Girl I gagged. I've been trying to understand what this means for SO long and you just threw it out there like a professional. My brain has finally eaten something today. Thank you so much!!
I’ve watched many of videos on this topic and this is one of the best explanations I’ve ever heard cause it doesn’t sound like a bunch of double talk. It’s actually understandable. Thank you so much. I will be watching more of your videos.
Hyperreal spectacles 👓 to see a hyperreal spectacle
Very clever :) Emoji do seem to be representations of representations.
Hyperreal glasses 🧐 to see a hyperreal comment
@@Jared-vq8qg is this a hyperreal comment ?☹️☹️
I think it's time to really consider the possibility that we may indeed be living in a simulated reality, where our understanding of an objective reality is just another illusion.
100% love from the Archaix family 💚138...Phoenix 👍
Life is only Real then , when, I Am
It’s very very clear we are.
@@sarah369.omg.. fellow errant!!! That man change everything
@@dannykicks603love telling others about this word thanks to Archaix!!
Great video! This takes me back to my college years, learning so many concept from Baudrillard, Foucault, Habermas etc.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed.
Baudrillard's book Simulacras and Simulation makes an appearance in the film The Matrix. I find that film quite prescient of the current social media culture and data collection policies of massive corporations.
I recommend Dark City. In that film, the main character manages to escape the Simulacrum he is imprisoned in and build his own. It's great subversion of the Cave Allegory imo. The problem I have with The Matrix though, is that it really doesn't do anything new. I mean, The Matrix follows the same old hero's journey without trying to do anything with it.
@@CosmoShidan That's if you are talking about the 1st Movie. Now, in the sequels they deconstruct and disarm the path of the hero as just another simulacrum, another lie implemented by the system as a mean of control; which is why people found them so (subconsciously) shocking and disliked them.
@@JohanAdrian Still, in the end, Neo is the Messiah of humanity by the end of the third film.
@@CosmoShidan We could also say that he's the Messiah for the machines since he saves both worlds from the Smith Virus
@@CosmoShidan More on this here: ruclips.net/video/ZdaaV5095U4/видео.html
To answer your question - it is not even the question. The entire world we percieve as "real" is just a simulacrum our brains created for us, because it is way easier to navigate then overalaping quantum fields.
What quantum fields have anything to do with it? Using "quantum" just as a signifier for anything "mystical" or "not determinate" or "random" or "wave-like" is a simulacra of the quantum field phenomena. Also, isn't " just a simulacrum our brains created for us" just another way to say we have our own subjective experiences? It's not like the brain, which is technically you, is distorting the experience of the real, captured through our limited sensorial apparatus, to create a simulacrum. It's we, know by getting a limited grasping of reality due to our perspective, therefore, limitations on space and time and information, assume things to "fill the gaps" instead of catching them all by sensorial experience. So it's not our brains that create simulacra for us, It's we that try to "fill the gaps" in our knowledge, and that might make us assume some simulacras are the real deal.
Literally all that exists are quantum fields.@@Bronze_Age_Sea_Person
honestly, does it matter? We’re in a simulacrum nonetheless.
pog new carneades video
Both your username and profile picture are such great instances of simulacra. :)
Mobile phones, television, radio and many other technological devices are all a simulacrum of our natural psychic capabilities.
yes , Have you come across Archaix...
1st time to hear about this. Thanks to my professor, Dr. EF for giving me this idea for my research. Nice video!
Why was Philosophy Overdose, the RUclips channel, taken down?
I want to be in the know as well
There's a new one.
Wait that happened?
@@ThickWhiteDuchess Fellow Ian (that’s my name too) what is it called? Same channel name?
@@pinecone421 Yes, it only has 600 subs. The old one got taken down.
I'm currently writing a research portfolio based on simulacrum in photography, i need about 6-8 textual references and this has honestly helped me understand the basics of jean baudrillards theory
This seems extremely relevant in today's world. It's a way of life in the age of "social" media.
Many would agree with you.
For anyone that wants to look into this subject more joscha Bach did a podcast with lex Friedman and they discuss simulacrums in depth. Joscha is a cognitive neuroscientist and truly is a brilliant individual. Id highly recommend you give it a watch.
(There are two different podcasts, the second one is better but you need to watch the first one for context)
Thanks!
Archaix
Gilles Deleuze works a lot with 'Immanence'. I don't think that Immanence is a post-modern/post-structuralist concept. But could you do a video on it regardless? :)
I'm enjoying ur current series a lot!
A lot of the ideas brought up here strongly beg the question about what reality actually is and whether we can know reality.
Our senses give us sensory inputs and our brain interprets our sense. So our brain gives us a representation of a representation. So everything we know through sensory input is some sort of hyperreality. And since we can't know reality's true form, our reality would probably even be considered a simulacrum under this way of thinking.
If we were to assume we can know reality -- and everything that comes with that -- we would be accepting a metanarrative. Moreover, if we were to accept we can know reality, then why can't we know reality through the hyperrealities in our daily lives?
I don't know... the more I learn about this, the less sense it makes. It all doesn't seem very cohesive and a lot of aspects seem very self-defeating. Whomever mopped all these ideas together under the moniker of "postmodernism", hasn't done a very good job as far as I can see.
The only way I see this ending, is in nihilism.
1.Even if sense-datum is true, there are inevitably different levels of reality we as humans can agree upon (unless you accept scepticism of the outside world). We can trust on people with good vision to agree upon an apple as being red, but not with an plastic apple as being a real apple. The primary accessible reality can be used to create concepts agreed upon as being "real" while the concepts resembling those but with not identical set of characteristics can be seen as simulacrum.
2.According to your theory, we'd have to believe that a composite of chemicals whose taste resemble syrup (as those sold in the supermarket) is the same thing as true maple syrup. That sad people posing as happy people on insta are actually happy and that crazy people are actually living in a different but identical reality than ours. There would be no true or false perceptions. A view like that of the world would inevitably lead to absurdism and possibly nihilism.
3. Can realism really be classified as a meta-narrative? I thought those would be more akin to progress, religion, enlightenment and others that can have or not realism as its background.
HJ GE
If your want to learn more about this subject you might enjoy a short essay written by Friedrich Nietzsche titled “On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense” it discusses the inability to access complete truth due to the process you described. It also talks about the effect this has on language.
Yes!
From mass print, to radio, to film, to the internet- and a whole bunch of other inventions- there's obviously been a steady increase of "images". But I don't think *Direct Experience* is necessarily gone. I think all things outside that should be held with a certain lever of discretion, maybe even skepticism in some cases.
I couldn’t make sense of 2001: A Space Odyssey when I first watched it-nor when I read the book-but i think Kubrick was playing with this exact concept.
The film suggests that humanity tends toward artificiality; in fact, in the future, astronauts quite literally consume representations of representations of real food.
The film Kubrick was never able to direct himself, A.I., suggests (I surmise) that humanity‘s apotheosis culminates in a transformation into synthetic beings.
But who knows-we might already be in a simulation according to our programming. If only I had access to harder drugs, I might know the answer.
next watch the movie on 5g shrooms
thanks! i think hyperreality is a huge risk. we need to stay vigilant, meditate, stay close to nature, and stay close to friends and other people, imho
Hi, may i translate some of your videos and upload them in my channel?
While working with a class of middle schoolers at a nature center I was quite shocked to find out that they had no idea potatoes and carrots came out of the ground. In their reality vegetables come from the grocery store. Our entertainment, with cgi technology good enough that a real appearing object or person can be digitally created, is IMO an example of where hyperreailty is going. The icecaps are melting, Arctic animals are disappearing... but so what when 3D immersion technology allows you to harmlessly walk through the ice caves of a pristine glacier? Or with a click you can stroll through a post-apocalyptic city hunting rogue cyborgs? Who needs reality? Maybe a better question is how do you define reality?
eXCELLENT OBSERVATIONS!
The ice csps just melt from time to time.
Cyclical.
@@Agapismene Not this time.
Absent a rigorous theory of representation itself, I don't know what to make of this notion. Representation would seem to depend on resemblance among other things, but that leads to such difficulties as to render the idea of simulacrum somewhat pointless. And what does the theory have to say about type vs. token uses of a word? Take a word like 'simulacrum', e.g. Is it, when I use it, merely itself a simulacrum? In fact, how does a word used in naming anything, like a new species, for example, get to be considered a representation, except by dint of the christener's proclaiming it to be the word for the new species? How do we test this representation claim? How does any word get to be a representation of an abstract object; and how do we know if a two-dimensional photo is actually a bona fide representation - rather than a mere simulacrum - of the four-dimensional President Biden? It makes sense that a myth used as the basis for a political campaign would inspire us to cry foul, to claim illegitimate representations are being put forth, but it seems like we already have ways of saying things like that. Further, it seems questions of resemblance, representation, naming and reference, etc. have been, and are being, considered and debated, but found to be very thorny issues not easily resolved and not advanced by pointing out that my writing of the word 'seven' is extremely far removed (as being the umpteenth token use) from its first use.
Such a Fascinating explanation!!!
Thank you!
Bravo! clear correct and concise
LOVE FROM THE ARCHAIX FAMILY 💚138...PHOENIX 🕊🇬🇧2106CAPSTONE...
Errant strong 💪😎👍
Do something on the Spectacle!
Very interesting and concise ty for being so clear! I could barely understand the text from my philosophy book lol
Wow. I think lives can be like that too. Some people don't look like they are there when they stand in the grocery store line. Running an errand in general seems for some to be a side quest, a behind the scenes thing. It's not part of it all. Life begins when they meet their friends, go to events, and do things that seem exciting, or meaningful in social context. So called memorie producing events. Thats humans making a simulacrum out of their own life. Wow interesting concept all of this.
Maybe there is no one really there! Look up backdrop people Dolores Cannon ❤
@@lasarelight
'The kill Shot' seperated
the Real from Unreal. ❤
Some of those people are Npc's !!
@@lasarelightalso called Npc
@@HighVybeTribe Maybe Everyone is an NPC to some degree in another person's perspective. When we "turn down" our higher thinking and operate solely by following the routine, without much mental engagement to it or when men in particular entered that "Nothing mode" when watching TV at night after a tired day at job, to someone else's eyes, we effectively stopped "playing life", just answering automated commands we learned throughout our lives, maybe not even noticing what comes out of our mouth.
Sounds like Baudrillard really needed the concept of direction-of-fit, and was poorly gesturing at something like that. Direction-of-fit is the difference between a picture drawn as a still life, meant to represent the world, descriptively conveying truth or reality; and a picture drawn as a blueprint, meant to *shape* the world, *prescriptively* conveying *goodness* or *morality* . Neither is further detached from the world: a prescription isn't just a description of a description. They're both one layer separate, though you can layer either deeper and deeper as you like, and the direction-of-fit doesn't flip when you layer deeper levels of either on top of themselves. A description of a description is still descriptive, and a prescription of a prescription is still prescriptive.
thanks, very insightful
I hadn't heard of this concept before. Thanks for the great explanation 👍
Don’t mistake this RUclips misreading of Baudrillard’s work as representative of his actual work. Read the work, then engage with it. You’ve strawmanned a youtuber’s misreading.
Yes- hasn't our own lived experience become for many a simulacra of what it "ought" to be due to living and perceiving one's self through the eye of the filtered image documented on social media?
The saying "it didn't happen if you didn't post it" comes to mind. And it didn't happen if you didn't post a posed, doctored image or account of it and then experience yourself experiencing the self who is supposed to be in the image. Many people have become hyperreal.
Exactly, and Baudrillard was writing this in 1981!
Thanks sir, I got new knowledge today
This describes the metaverse
Yep. I am sure Baudrillard is turning in his grave and saying "I called it!"
A simulacra can become an independent reality/object without being dependent on its original source. A video game maybe a simulation, but it’s its own alternative world.
This physical world reality is a simulacrum of the original infinite reality
Here's a question:
Drag queens, and some M to F transgendered people, adopt a persona/identity which is based upon a particular, what some might call patriarchal, interpretation of "femininity". This image of "femininity" is something that feminists have criticized as being a representation of a reality, a fiction essentially, of what a woman "should be".
Is the adoption of this image, then, a simulacra of "the feminine"? One might argue that it is a representation of a fiction.
This is not meant to be a criticism of anyone for any reason whatsoever. I'm honestly asking a question based upon what I understood the definition of simulacra to be.
Absolutely true! This is Post-modern
The movie Being there (1979) is a man, and a society, that can be said to sort of live in a hyperreality?
just a small note on pronunciation: the d in Baudrillard is silent ! :-)
I mean …. saying something is not representative of “the real” seems like a bad definition of simulacra. Are Simulacra just bad simulations and it’s only a question of quantifying where the distinguishing line is or is there a qualitative difference?
Where the human race resides-Simulacrum
I don't think hyperreality is good or bad, per se. I do think we as a culture/species should learn to be more mindful of it, though. It has its uses in the context of escapism, art, entertainment, etc. but certainly becomes dangerous in the realm of real-life decision-making, especially the political variety. What I find interesting in particular is whether hyperreality can inform us about potential *actual* realities that would not have occurred to us if it weren't for our tendency to consider the hyperreal. Science fiction (i.e. scenarios that are essentially artistic in nature but based around imagined future scientific innovation) sometimes being a precursor to scientific discovery occurs to me as a possible example of this but I'm not 100% sure it qualifies - I haven't thought about it enough yet.
Yurchak drew from Baudrillard quite a bit in his book. These philosophical concepts are quite practical, as socialistic societies are always engaging in some form of performative hyperreality. I think when AI video becomes indistinguishable from real video, the process will accelerate worldwide, where grounding in the real world will become no longer possible outside of one's personal orbit.
Huh. I just thought about this but the idea of a simulacrum sounds like the idea of a derivative in calc
Has anyone seen the movies - Surrogates
and The signal ?? Those should open your eyes
huh, it is like I'm learning about philosophy filtered through a few layers, mediated by technology, several layers from the original texts. I think the assumed value judgement is backwards though, what if the hyperreal layer is better and no one cares about what it used to represent, it is a subjective decision, each should make it & not automatically winge about how things used to be more authentic
so an example on a simulacrum is the 4th dimension because we have no perception of it so we think it is better than our 3rd dimension the same goes for the robot filled future we have thought of when there is little proof its going to happen near in the future when it may take several years to perfect maybe even an entire century or two
✨
We’re in a triple entendre simulacrum. Thrice removed at least.
My mind 🤯🤯
Wow this very eye opening. 😮 And im not even high. 😂
I always think that the advance of augmented reality and hyper reality in immersion games is going to be responsible in part (or more) for the loss of the natural world. Why would any immature person give a damn about species extinctions and climate destruction when it is possible to escape into an artificial world that creates experiences far more spectacular than what is available in the real world? The future will not be good for living things because people will tune into escapist game-playing for entertainment and distraction from what needs to be done.
luckily most of us won't even live long enough to see it happen. It will be a problem for much later generations.
why would you want an immature, fantasy-seeking person meddling with such matters? Leave conservation efforts to specialists alone, whom studied and know what to do, because they chose to do it in the real world in the first place. If a person doesn't want to leave fantasy and do something in the real world, it's because they don't care about these issues in the first place, and having a person that isn't engaged with the problem might even be detrimental.
It's like trying to teach geography or history to people whom don't really care about it. You might succeed, they might even become geographers or historians, but if they didn't chose to engage it in the first place, just passively absorbing knowledge and "going with the flow", they weren't going to be good geographers or historians.
The thing is, people whom didn't care in the first place won't care what "needs to be done", even if they were forced to do. For example, where I live, there are two types of garbage trucks, one for recyclable garbage and other for organic one. They even travel in different days and have different bells and designs, so even a person whom just lived in the neighborhood for a week will figure out. Very few people bother to separate their trash, only those that are either "environmentally conscious", so engaged to begin with, or want to help the "trash collectors" whom come earlier than the trucks, to take paper boxes and metals to sell for profit. There were campaigns to "teach" people about the subject, and yet, people won't engage, because they don't care.
You might force them by law to separate the trash properly, just like you can force gamers to be more "environment-friendly" but you can't force them to care, and they might even hurt your efforts out of spite when before, they were simply, neutrally not caring.
@@Bronze_Age_Sea_Person No one is advocating forcing anyone to do anything, despite what you long harangue suggests. The point being made is not to force someone to care about the environment. We already see that there are some people who would deliberately destroy natural habitats or wipe out endangered species just for the hell of it. That's the kind of world in which we live.
The point being made is that there is an overabundance of artificiality in the type of entertainment that is produced deliberately to snag young minds into its orbit. You should know that their visual and aural enticements are cleverly engineered just for that purpose. And why? MONEY... BIG PROFITS for those developers.
What is being espoused, encouraged, is to provide at least an equal amount of programming (or games) that look at the real world, not just the fake one, which is basically escapism. If a person chooses non-engagement with the real world and all of its citizens (human and non-human), that person has taken a path that serves no one meaningfully, including himself. But those who design and program the pseudo-world may want to explore the broader possibilities.
You need a mic
This is all anime made today and people continuously eat it up just cos it’s new
Anime is technically an "illusion-level" simulacrum. It pretends to be real, not in the sense of being 3d and tangible or anything, but you assume those characters are real characters for the sake of immersion, but they don't really have any direct connection with anything real. You aren't trying to replicate anything real according to one sensorial cathegory such as photos for visions or recordings for audio, nor you are doctoring or embezzling it to "hide defects" and creating a more "clean" or "verissimillant" display of the real, which is the "mask-level" of the simulacrum. You are clearly making things up with the digital pen and the DAW and assuming that artisitic creation is based on real things. Not replicating real things, but referencing it.
An Isekai for example assumes there's another world where a JRPG-like world that is a pastiche of all Isekais and JRPGS before it exists. It loosely references the european middle-ages, but it's not even trying to replicate any real traits of the medieval world, just referencing what people "assume" it's "medieval-ish", which is based on the "mask-level" simulacra of the medieval world, like knights and clerics and dragons. One clear example of this is how despite having paladins and clerics, there is no semblance of catholicism in it, even when the "nuns" are literally wearing crosses and rosariums. It's not a real catholic nun which they are referencing, but the image, therefore the simulacra, of one.
By calling the simulacrum a "simulacrum", we are already taking part in the simulacra proces... Isn't this paradoxal? How can a human being avoid simulacra?
And if we cannot avoid it, what is this knowledge for? Is it just for literature, socwe have something interesting to write about? I mean, what's the practical, more pragmatic of this theory/phenomenon? That is my main question I think. I just fail to see any value in this whole "simulacra" concept. It seems shallow and a bit of a mumbo-jumbo for me. It's a lot of talking, but not a lot of making sense... so maybe anyone can answer, what is it really about, and do we actually need to even know about simulacrum?
at a core it points towards how reality is completely subjective. the practicality of this theory is having the awareness of it, which allows you to see everything is just a made up representation, and each human has a different meaning for each.
meaning communication is not fluent or fluid, as different people have different meanings for different things, which could only happen in hyper reality. because if these simulacrums where truly real and where exactly what they where, then people would have a synchronised vision of what reality is and what it means.
for example, globally we seem to associate the swastikka with german nazis, but that sign was long known as a sign of peace in different cultures.
this is an example of how collectively we may agree on a symbol meaning something, when in actual reality the symbol means nothing. everything means nothing until we assign it our own subjective meaning.
now i could wear a swastika shirt and hat around the city centre and tell eveyone that im promoting love and peace, but i would probably get beaten or abused, thats because people who see the swastikka as a sign of evil, are acting on hyper reality as if it is actual reality, without consideration that another may have adopted a different meaning for the sign.
meaning people are living in the hyper reality without truly knowing that the symbol or sign they are reacting too is actually subjectively self detailed.
this means people are out of touch with what reality actually is.
and if 2 people where able to have a conversation about how the swastikka and hyper reality, both could agree that the sign means whatever meaning they give it.
this is the main reason, because hyper reality causes disagreement, confusion, miscommunication, and can control your life if you truly believe things that are hyper real to be real.
@@lucidsymmetry okay, first of all thank you for your explanation, wonderful response, I appreciate that.
But... You just seem to have only described something that I already knew... I mean, I studied simulacra, and I know that a symbol can have double-edged/abmbiguous meaning, depending on the certain person or situation. But still, reality is reality.
Let's take, If I eat five bananas, I will not starve. This is a fact. If I go without eating bananas (or anything), I will eventually starve and die of hunger. These are *facts* . This is not simulacra, this is not hyper reality. It's just a well-known fact.
So this is what I tried to say, this is what I mean when I say "practical". I see simulacra only as a theory that - of course - makes sense, but it is a mere describtion/analysis of human condition. What does it serve, other than just being a theory? This is my question.
You said, this serves, so that I become aware of the world and patterns that happen around me. Okay, I have become more aware, and now - what of it? What is the next step? Or is it over, and realizing this theory is the closing point? I kind of wish there was more to it.
If I get hit by a car, I will probably die. This is real life, this is physics, laws... Something we can measure. So how does simulacra apply to this, how does simulacra relate to my view of what's real (getting hit by a car, eating bananas to survive, boiling water in order to prepare a tea, etc...)?
@@bsnf-5 i have become more aware, and now - what of it? . is the key here. anything that heightens awareness on this kind of level would surely be seen as a theory that has a practical use. in that it raises awareness not just in the self, but in regards to the the awareness between 2 different people being able to coherently progress, rather than disagree. as a thought experiment on a global scale if everyone was aware of this concept of hyper reality then there would be a major flip from conflict, miscommunication, discourse, disagreement, hate, etc.. into contemplative open discussion, agreement, correct communication through the understanding of hyper reality and subjectivity of meaning.
essentially becoming more aware is the main goal of the human consciousness as it evolves.
the theory proposed cleaves open multiple rifts to different modes of thinking that allow an individual to make a positive impact in their own life and the life of others.
the theory is still just a theory, you could even say the theory itself is a simulacrum of what actually is going on here.
like you said I explained something that you already knew.
the theory is simply somebody’s attempt at giving it certain terminology in order to make it understandable for someone who’s never even been able to comprehend any version of the concept.
and so I will leave you with never mind the theory just internally focus on what actually is..
and to answer your question of is it practical my opinion would be yes and for the reasons I have listed in this response and their response previous.
if you do not believe a collective rise in awareness will be result of the understanding of the idea or any version of the idea on a global scale through this thought experiment , i would have to disagree and proceed to make the claim that this rise in awareness serves the evolution of the human race possibly more crucially than any other theory. as the synchronisation of what is, is vital to the organisation of a group of observers navigating a plane of existence via the understanding of what is.
I think that artificial intelligence art in the prompts themselves would perfectly describe what a simulacrum is. Just look at your AI art if you are into it.😊😊
Any creation not directly made by or ordained my the one true God
I don't think that Simulacra are a postmodern phenomenon because basically, the very concept of a religion, especcialy the depiction of the supposed supernatural by means of religious idols or prayers or mythical stories are simulacras. They represent a representation. For example: Jesus tells made up stories to transport moral values. These stories would be simulacra, because they represent the representation of god's supposed justice, which is the moral dogma that is core to christianity and is explained by Jesus partically through the stories he tells.
Pretending to be wise, they became fools.
This is a fairly hamfisted misreading of the concept. Art representing art has no relevance to hyperreality. Baudrillard wasn’t clear about much but he was crystal clear about the nature of the hyperreal. Chief among its characteristics is the inability for anyone to distinguish between the real and the symbolic. There would be no capacity for “art to represent art,” for example, as representation is not at all what is done by simulacra. Baudrillard’s simulacra have entirely sublated their originals. There is no representation whatsoever. That’s the whole point.
In fact that’s the aspect that the Wachowskis themselves completely missed with The Matrix and precisely why Baudrillard called it “exactly the kind of movie The Matrix would have made” as he shunned any connection between it and his theories.
I highly recommend you actually read his works and audit your understanding of this concept. I strongly implore you to delete this video but I expect you won’t.
are we living in a simulacrum?
No wonder the Luciferic love this word.
If we're to use usernames or graffiti tags as examples of simulacra, then wouldn't identities themselves be simulacra? A name is conceptually no different from a tag or username except that it is given rather than chosen. The formation of an identity is a representation of our genetics' and environment's collective representation in our behavior, and nature and nurture themselves are representations derived from physical laws of the universe which do not, in themselves, exist on a physical level but merely in a conceptual way.
Even if we're all to follow an empirical approach to knowledge as most in our day do, the problem persists that our qualitative senses are, themselves, a representation of objective reality that our brains cobble together. Objectively, there is not one perspective in three dimensions from which to look nor a color which is more correct than another. Sound is vibration which, objectively sounds like nothing. It's a pressure wave. Since everything empirical that a human person can experience is a representation of but not anything constituting objective reality, every representation built on top of and representative of this empirical model is also thus a simulacra.
The symbolic nature of our interaction with reality truly knows no bounds as how our brains process is built purely on representative figures, schemata if you will, completely divorced from whatever we assume is objective. I find even myself wondering whether the original objective reality my consciousness seems to be built onto even exists outside of our understanding of it. Conscious interaction with superpositions will most certainly collapse them into a discrete fashion, and while this is a matter of entire speculation as to why, I can't help but feeling a significance to this. There is no question to the reality of consciousness, but as to how subjects relate to objects . . that's just an interesting question. Are our simulacra, in fact, more objective than any reality would be with no subject? Does objective existence necessitate discrete measurements or are things more flux than that? Does consciousness, in fact, impose discrete qualities to what would otherwise be a continuous universe? I cannot know.
🌹🌹
The Dead Won.
No so long ago many would have called this lies, deception and delusion. Now we need fancy words like simulacra and post modernism to describe the situation. In a generation or two this hyperreality would be accepted as real and 'natural' progression of human development over the course of history.
Is reality a Simulacrum ?!?
If it was it wouldn’t matter since you can’t describe why
Yes
@@classicpinball9873 Can't describe what ??? An experience inside of an advanced virtual reality machine connected via our central nervous systems ??!? Death equals "Game Over" ... Jebus told us not to fear death blah blah blah.
Why.. Possibly to find out who we "REALLY" are inside ourselves ?!?!? How we would treat others if left to our own devices?!?!? Whom knows.
The narrator’s shrill, nasal voice doesn’t help. Try breathing from the stomach. And the “u” in simulacrum is not pronounced “you.”
Dark souls 2
Sounds like Kermit the frog
Lol this is the WORST video on the Simulacrum that I've ever seen.
Nuh uh