-13 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Was Jean Baudrillard just a parasite?
"The parasite serves as a useful simulacrum for post-modernism. Post-modernity engages us with a kind of viral discourse, which seeks to comprehend an object without subsuming it under a system of concepts. Baudrillard’s discourse can itself be described as potlatch. An obscene ecstatic ritual exhibiting pure excess and self-effacement. [Baudrillard's 1977 book] Forget Foucault seems to be nothing more than a regurgitation of an otherwise excellent meal, which just happened to be ill-digested by a ruined palette. Is this Baudrillard’s provincialism? His 'superficiality?' Let us not forget that Baudrillard’s interest in writing came nowhere near to Foucault’s passion for letters. Baudrillard enjoyed a rich and diverse life full of various activities outside of academia. A jack of all trades, he only wrote when he felt like it, while Foucault made sure he himself always felt like writing, even at the cost of violent self-mutilation. As difficult as it is to admit, symbolic reversals will never be able to challenge the complex armament of Foucauldian strategies for resistance."
Comment by [deleted] at 05/02/2024 at 13:31 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Calling someone a parasite is suspicious. Who wrote the quote you are using? And by ‚who‘ wrote it I mean what is their academic background and what‘s their credibility
Comment by [deleted] at 05/02/2024 at 13:28 UTC
8 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[deleted]