HMMM… I NEED TO READ THIS…

(from Junius): Jean Baudrillard’s new book: The Spirit of Terrorism. A quote:“In dealing all the cards to itself, the system forced the Other to change the rules of the game. And the new rules are ferocious, because the game is ferocious.”
And from the publisher’s blurb: Continuing an analysis developed over many years, Baudrillard sees the power of the terrorists as lying in the symbolism of this slaughter. Not merely the reality of death, but a sacrificial death that challenges the whole system. Where the past revolutionary sought to conduct a struggle of real forces in the context of ideology and politics, the new terrorist mounts a powerful symbolic challenge, which, when combined with high-tech resources, constitutes an unprecedented assault on an over-sophisticated, vulnerable West.
I just ordered it…

3 thoughts on “HMMM… I NEED TO READ THIS…”

  1. Date: 09/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
    Hi A.L. -If you?re trying to learn more about bad philosophy, then Baudrillard is a perfect choice. He doesn?t just apologize for terrorists, he openly admires their work. He sees beauty in bombs and burning cars. He considers science to be ?a system of defense and imposed ignorance.? He also believes that in the United States couples are encouraged to exchange wedding rings every year, that a credit card ?frees us from checks, cash, and even from financial difficulties at the end of the month.? Like bin Laden, Baudrillard is privileged, lacking in compassion, and completely clueless about the western world that he hates. Unfortunately, Baudrillard lives here in the western world, so his idiocy is even more profound.

  2. Date: 09/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
    “oversophisticated” – what does that mean, we have flush toilets? Or could it mean only the West can produce navel-gazers like Baudrillard.As for “vulnerable,” ask the Taliban who is more vulnerable, us or them.

  3. Date: 09/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
    Hi A.L.,Ugh. Baudrillard claims he’s not a post-modernist, and I think I agree: based on the two books of his that I’ve read, he’s too incomprehensible to be given a school. I think he’s even less coherent than Derrida (and certainly nothing like Fish, who actually knows how to write). Good luck getting through it…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>