2007-05-02

Obama Vs. MySpace

I don't know why I've been so politicized of late, it seems that everytime I open my mouth lately some political polemic pours forth with the requisite amount of piss and bile. This post is no exception.

The beloved co-frontrunner of the mainstream Democratic party, and media darling, Barack Obama has decided to hijack a MySpace page from its rightful creator and owner, and then commenced (or at least his campaign has) to spread rumors about the sites original creator being "in it for the money", and allegation that he denies vehemently.

Yes, this is a rather small thing, MySpace is extremely insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Yet we can learn a lot about someone by their small actions, how they treat their associates. They original guy's MySpace page represented a genuine grassroots effort, developed independently from the campaign, and only out of a genuine passion for Obama's politics. The 160,000 "friends" were genuine and organic, representing people who actually are interested of Obama, without any political manipulations or machinations. For the Obama campaign to ruthlessly seize control of this shows that they value victory over ethics, or treating people fairly. A sad statement on the morals and ethics of Obama. Victory is not, nor ever, worth stomping on the common man, especially one who devoted his time and energy to your cause with no want or expectation of re-compensation.

It also highlights how "grassroots" is now being supplanted by the IMAGE of "grassroots", leading me to be wary of anything that appears as an organic popular movement, since increasingly it only is a manipulation by some powerful entity to get its way. Increasingly there is nothing genuine in the world, everything is some manipulation trying to use us as tools. Perhaps we shouldn't stand for this.

Obama, tangent aside, has never been my favorite, he actually is in the bottom of the heap, just above Hillary, as far as democratic contestants go. But thats a story in the works, my analysis of the democratic debates. I'm slacking, I know. To many causes to write about, too little time. But if I was a fence sitter, this would throw me off that fence, and into someone else's yard. Obama is against people, and for his own power, or at least that is the image that this fiasco presents.

For more reading, please see:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/2/93621/10103

http://www.techpresident.com/node/301

(Note: I generally try to keep politics away from Non Servium to keep it in the impersonal realm of thought. But lately I've been on an activism spree, so I feel I might as well mass-publish it. Politics are a valid realm of intellectual discussion, as well, so feel free to publically disagree.)

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

2007-05-01

Geek Ethics: A Modern Digital Mass Movement

Its odd when you realize that there is a strange informational ethic involved with geeks on the internet. Every-time something is censored, over covered-up geeks propagate the information to the point where enforcement becomes futile. This can be seen with web-pages such as The Memory Hole, which serves to document changes in records, and disappearing public records. And most lately in the "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" fiasco.

To explain, "09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0" is half of the digital key to decrypt HD-DVDs (the other half being unique to each HDDVD), allowing it to be played on unlicensed platforms. Much the same thing happened with regular DVDs a long time ago, allowing them to be playable on older Macs and Linux machines(since the encryption is copyrighted, only authorized paying vendors are/were allowed access legally, which amounts to extortion, and precludes smaller vendors from supporting the ubiquitous technology). This code (and the one hidden within the HD-DVD itself) make it possible to rip HD-DVDs to data files, playable on all platforms.

Some noble hacker discovered this, and now it has lead to a cascade of DMCA take-down notices, burying its mention in blogs and large news services such as Digg, basically government enforced censorship. Censorship of a NUMBER. Yes, for all its cryptic looks it is a simple number encoded in hexadecimal. For a silly analogy, lets say that someone develops a new technology based on a circle, they copyright this. Then some intrepid Greek hacker known as Pythagorus on the internet finds the secret number that makes this "wheel" possible, lets call his number π. The cartel that brought you the wheel decides to censor this number, banning all public use of it under threat of legal attack.

But here comes the internet, a group of libertarian amoral egotists who read to much William Gibson books, and for all their faults still buy the old hacker adage "information wants to be free". Nothing pisses of the internets like censorship. Thus EVERYONE spreads it, copies it, makes poems and videos of it, and thus transform it into the common place, and make it so ubiquitous that no one could ever remove its mention, ensuring its free existence in the public domain. For all their faults, geeks have this one thing going for them.

EDIT: Even Wikipedia is riding the censorship train. Which is VERY shameful. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for knowledge that is useful, and not just that knowledge that a corporation or government decides we should see for their convenience. This is very much like the China issue I talked about the other day, where American online companies behave unethically for their own interests.

Happy May-Day. In related news.

Edit: This entry is post-dated to when I originally posted it to my other (more informal) blog. In the mean time Digg.com capitulated to the wishes of its users, but only after being nearly crippled with activity. It is amazing what a small mass-movement can actually do, at around 12 noon (MST) Google showed around 1000 hits for said number, while now, a little over 24 hours later, it shows 316,000. Many of these are fallout from the Digg Revolt itself, but many of them are still independent pages, thus securing the number to remain in the public domain by shear numbers. Though this still could be hurt by the "take down notice" sent to Google. Even if this is blacklisted by the top search engine, it has reached enough critical mass to never go away. Like many other things, an attempt at censorship has cause an idea to become more known than it ever would have without it.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

2007-04-17

Dehumanization

In America, today, humanity is slowly and quietly being annihilated. This is an insidious destruction of self-hood in which most of us are gleefully contributing too. This assault on being is being committed on several fronts, including pharmaceutical companies, the psychiatric trade, and the sciences, combined with the changing standards of how we work and find recreation. All together this represents a serious change in our operational episteme, or world view. The result of this shift is that the very idea of humanity, and how we see ourselves, is being radically redefined. This means that our being itself is changing, since how we define ourselves limits our potential modes of being.



Science and the pharmaceutical trade are slowly diminishing humanity into a series of blind and meaningless chemical reactions, at the expense of the reality of us being the masters of our own fate, and ultimately responsible for our actions and internal state. Psychiatry is slowly changing us into a series of chemical imbalances that we have no ultimate control over outside of various prescription regimes. The emphasis has shifted away from us struggling to control our nature, and thus ultimately to blame for it. We are no longer responsible for ourselves. This can be seen in medicine with its various "quick fixes" to aesthetic and health problems, such as obesity and distorted body image, replacing a willfully healthful lifestyle as a cure. In mental health we deal with problems with drugs, and a de-emphasis on any form of psychoanalysis or cognitive therapy, nor introspection into possible environmental causes of psychological ailments. We are seen as decreasingly culpable for our actions and predicaments, instead physiology and chemistry carry the weight of responsibility. The self is becoming a base physical construct as opposed to an individual.



The current crop of "evolutionary" scientists, and physical reductionists are adding to the destruction of self-hood by removing the aspect of choice from our very being and existence. Agency and self-hood are being replaced by invisible law, and a theory of illusionary being, where we have the illusion of choice and being, but actually this is instilled in us by Darwinism and blind adaptability. I have covered this ad nauseam in my various critiques of determinism. We have become mindless tools of natural law, and not agents free to act within their constraints. There is no longer any room for self-hood with in the constraints of naturalism and scientism. The self becomes a mere illusionary consequence of chemistry (and thus physics), and a long natural history. The consequence of this view is that our nature is immutable, and inevitable, and thus is meaningless to view us as being free to change ourselves. It takes the humanity out of human nature.



Between these shifting scientific perspectives we witness the "nature vs. nurture" debate shifting so far into the realm of "nature,” that "nurture" becomes a mere subordinate synonym of nature. Our mental being has become pure chemistry and physiology, which in turn is almost purely genetic, which is only the consequence of natural history. The self is now completely subordinate to science, and scientists. Gone are the brief glory days of nature being tied to nurture (and visa versa), where changes in your consciousness and willful behavior could influence your chemistry and gene expression, which in turn would influence your consciousness and behavior, in a complex feedback loop. This view is dying a rapid death at the hands of cognitive science, neuroscience, and evolutionary biologists (with the help of pharmaceutical reps). This first aspect of the on going episteme change is definitely worthy of closer philosophical scrutiny, but we will have so save that for a later date.



The second flank in this process is the change in the structure of our society, and our interactions with it. Where the first change is almost wholly philosophical, the second is environmental, and can be traced almost purely to the current conception of capitalism.



In our interactions with society, we are more and more dehumanized; we are seen more as data or as a part of a process to be completed towards the ends of some "greater" productive goal. This infects our day-to-day work experience, and our other myriad interactions with mass society. At our jobs we are more and more subjected to Marxist alienation, we do meaningless tasks tat are so compartmentalized that we often lose sight of the meaningful whole that we are participating in (if it indeed even exists). We have no stake in our work except money (itself an arbitrary symbol), and thus we fundamentally don't care. We get called associates, or partners, which is a thin mask to the fact that we are utterly expendable, we are mere means of production, and becoming more and more replaceable with cheaper systems (out-sourcing, or automation). We are paid the minimum to keep people working, as balanced with pure profit (the ultimate goal). Our well-being is irrelevant. Conversely our lives are slowly being redefined as pure consumption, our very worth is being defined by what we buy, and what products we prefer. Again, this is for pure profit, and no actual intrinsic benefit toward us as people, and as such we are charged the absolute maximum that will keep us consuming, regardless of various cost saving devices (usually resulting in us losing jobs or money).



This cycle has rendered us as pure consumers. Increasingly we are assaulted by invasive ads, when we seek recreation, when we attempt to commute, when we do anything. This is because we are, again, merely a means to profit, and nothing more. Increasingly we are carved into demographics (which we increasingly wear as a badge). This invasion becomes more and more subtle, no longer is it oblique and obvious, but has become subtle like various forms of artificial "word of mouth" campaigns, to elaborate games such as the marketing of the new Nine Inch Nails CD. This leads us to be suspicious of all forms of cultural conversation, since it could be a subtle trick to manipulate us. Advertisement has become part of our culture, even though it exists only to manipulate us for capital. Both our work, and cultural utility treats us as a means towards ends, and thus ultimately objectifies us, striping us of the respect and regard that comes with humanity. We are units of value, instead of the arbiters of value. We are raised from birth, now, to be perfect consumers, our subjective meaning is slowly being defined only in terms of consumption.



We add to this the apparent view that our governments have taken of us, where we only are tools to sustain various ideological systems. Our importance and protections become subordinate to corporate interests thanks to the ideology of supreme capitalism. The very systems that envelop us have taken to pure manipulation of their constituents (us) towards their own well being, at the expense of ours. We can see this in more and more forms of legislation, where our rights are legislated away in favor of ideological platforms, and corporate interests. Again, the individual has changed into a mere token to be manipulated, and not a being in-itself.



Worse, thanks to the pervasiveness of this new environmental paradigm we have begun to internalize this world, since we feel as if we must fit. We are losing sight that these systems and structures are in place to benefit us, and not visa versa. We are the ends in which they should be turning, since we permit their existence. But we while away more and more of our lives being "productive" towards some externally motivated ends. Constantly we use emergent technology to get more and more work done, even if this work does not benefit us in any personal sense. We feel that our efforts are wasted if spent on internal, or merely self-important activities, and not thing that our environment judges important. This can be seen in the popularity, and increasing amount of cult of productivity sites such as 43 Folders and Lifehacker. The reason why productivity as an ends in itself is an ultimate goal escapes me, shouldn't the value of that which is produced matter too, or the self-meaning we get from production?



This emphasis of environment over individual probably leads to the over-treatment of psychological conditions stated in the first section, we now struggle to fit in an environment hostile to our natures, instead of trying to change the environment to fit our needs. We view ourselves as powerless, and we view our lack of fit this alien atmosphere as a self-problem, even while denying our ultimate culpability for this problem. We are stuck between two dehumanizing paradigms. This results in what the sociologists call anomie, or the general feel of detachment from society and the world.



These two forces combine into a single phenomena whose main result is changing our definition of ourselves in a way that is alien to how we actually experience ourselves. Definitions are things of power, since they operationally define entities, and limit their possibilities. If we cannot see our capability of defining our own meaning, we risk losing this as an essence of our being, and then our world will collapse into meaninglessness. These forces represent a violent attack on the self.



The general result of this change is the removal of the idea of humans as autonomous agents, and also the destruction of the values that result from this previous view. In the past humans were the creators of meaning, living in an self-constructed sea of meaning in which we were the center. The primary values dominating this view were self-autonomy and freedom, which lead us to view the world and situations as ultimately changeable. The consequence of this was a feeling of personal responsibility, which could flow into angst or empowerment. We were the arbiters of value in the world, the creators of meaning, and with this view we were free to attempt to shape the world, and ourselves to better match our ideals.



If we removed the encroaching fog of dehumanization we might be forced to contemplate the meaning of this change. Generally definitions of human nature serve some ulterior purpose. Redefinition is a very utilitarian thing, it is benefiting some modern structure of power, and this should be questioned. Look towards eugenics*, slavery, and Medieval Christianity for further examples of historic redefinitions of man. The modern changes, like the past benefit some existent power structure. For all changes in episteme, the first question we should ask is "cui bono?"



A partial solution to this problem is to embrace our individual autonomy, and to carve out space for individually meaningful tasks. Also we must recognize that we are the ultimate ends of the social, economic, and political structures that hope to ultimately subvert us towards their ends, and force them to reconcile this fact. More so, we must realize that we have the ability to create meaning, even if many of these expression are now deemed worthless to society being that they are not for the ultimate ends of capital. The scientific front is more difficult to combat, and I will save that for a forthcoming article, but we still must approach psychopharmacology carefully since there are indeed real physiological problems that should be dealt with treatment. But a vast majority of prescriptions and diagnosis are ultimately hinged on the presumption that we have no control, and this is a myth that we must not take for granted. Most common modern psychological "epidemics" are directly related to us, as humans, no longer fitting to what our environments want from us, and our environment not supplying what we need as humans. We must change our environments, not ourselves, this will lead to empowerment, the ultimate enemy of feeling of futility.



The mental illness problem is deeper, though, since it has become a way to be special, as we can see in the increasing number of adults proudly announcing the fact that they have some trendy "illness" such as Asperger's or "Adult ADD", both of which are absolutely absurd, and probably purely mythological. This is a way for individuals to claim some uniqueness, to standout in the more and more faceless, and impersonal world. ADD (adult and child) and depression probably are mostly the result of the aforementioned lack of fit into the changing external world, which is pointed to by the rapid increase of diagnosis with the increasing application and pervasiveness of the above episteme, they are more signs of anomie than chemistry.



To close, I'll include the catch-phrase for my cure to our lack of self-meaning: "Don't consume, PRODUCE!" Don't be productive, don't take Prozac, go find a canvas or notebook, some paint or a pen, and grab control of at least a small portion of your reality. That blank slate is wholly yours, and no paradigm can take that away. Creation is the key to existence, we create ourselves, and hopefully through smaller acts we may discover this.





Technorati Tags: , , , , ,



Powered by ScribeFire.

2007-04-06

Two Media Related Polemics on Religion

Goto Section II, A critique of Dawkins' view on agnosticism.

I. Commentary on the Documentary "Jesus Camp":

If ever there was a frightening documentary which fills me with fear for the future this would be it. In this rather even handed documentary we delve into the practices that Evangelical Christians bring to bear on their children, turning them into little hyper-religious time bombs. While most children are busy playing in the dirt (as they should be), these poor children are being indoctrinated in abrasive fundamentalist and political principles, such as creationism, "anti-global warming", and the pro-life ethos. We see how their parents deprive them of all semblance of childhood, and instead instill a vaguely creepy religious fervor upon them, for the pure sake of "winning" some delusional "War".

Slightly tangentially there is a severe ethical problem behind this view of their children. They acknowledge using their children (or indoctrinating) towards their (the parents) ends. This is in violation with Kant's second formulation (or the "humanity formulation") of the Categorical Imperative:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." *
Treating humans as means essentially depersonifies them, and removes their autonomy. It turns people into mere objects, or tokens to be utilized for someone else's purpose, eliminating their self-sovereignty and agency.

Actually the Christians portrayed in this movie use martial terminology over and over, going so far as painting their children's faces in camouflage, and referring to themselves as "warriors", or an army. Who the enemy is, is ambiguous, but I'm guessing that it is everyone who isn't them, and by them I do not mean the pious, or even the Christians, but just their little extremist sect. This means that as far as their concerned the rest of humanity is their enemy. I am sure that I am not the only person to see the problem with this view. Ominously their views are not purely religious, it also is strangely politicized, early in the movie when on the parents is seen indoctrinating their child against the belief in global warming. How global warming is a religious belief eludes me, but I'm guessing it has to do with the single most fearsome aspect of these fundamentalists that I will speak on a little later.

Unlike the early Christians this is a fully totalitarian sect, they can be heard in the film to talk against democracy since it allows atheists (meaning even Christians who are not Evangelical) to vote. In the same scene as above their is an insidious aside, one that is easy to miss, saying that evolution should not be taught in schools, period, contrary to the front that they present saying that both "intelligent design" and evolution should be taught as rival theories.† All of this points to the fact that they have no qualms of elimination all dissenting opinions that differ from their own. Oddly for such a blindly patriotic group, this is essentially anti-American, especially from a group that all but idolizes the current American president for his perceived theocratic tendencies (which are, incidentally, hardly evident in practice). Politically this group also supports Israel and some of their more dubious actions for the sole reason that it will bring about the end of the world, how the end of the world can be seen as a positive goal I will leave to the reader. Evangelical Christians fulfill the definition of "fascists" with rather eerie, and ominous, exactitude. To call this sect a future threat to the freedoms granted by secular government would be an understatement.

The dangers presented by fundamentalists can be traced to three related features of their collective psyche. The first is a biproduct of all forms of extreme idealism, the misguided premise that you "know better" than the unenlightened masses, and thus have some right to dictate your version of reality to them, at the cost of their ability to judge for themselves, generally this is a road that leads only to atrocity. Any action perpetrated by fundamentalists (of any class, not just religious), is seen by the perpetrator as ultimately good, this greatly inhibits the ethical scope of potential actions, since idealists are always right, and doing good, in their own eyes. Doubt and introspection is immoral, and a breach of whatever ultimate purpose the fundamentalist subscribes to, thus unthinking action is acceptable, and encouraged. Again, like the use of children as future "warriors", this using other as a means, and not as their own ends, dehumanizing the very people that are being misguidedly "helped".

The second problem is the classic sociological principle of in groups and out groups, where every clique in society always values external forces as a threat, or enemy. This causes groups to feel almost paranoiac illusionary persecution ("our way of life is threatened"), and allows the group to lash out at any perceived threat to group cohesion as a mechanism towards a delusional feeling of self-defense. Once again we have a fallacious rational towards the ends of negatively effecting others.

The third feature is the most problematic, and can be seen in the apocalyptic Zionism of the Evangelical right, the fact that the after-life is a more desirable place than the here and now. In the light of some future paradise the physical and immediate world dims in importance, as do all of the living beings who currently inhabit it. Why worry about long term temporal problems when some glowing heaven awaits us? This view allows unparalleled opportunities towards purely self-serving actions and egotism. The rest of the world can be damned (and is, in there view), they are the chosen. This also plays into the first feature of their flawed consciousness, any action intended to "save" the heathens is appropriate and ultimately good, no matter that immediate suffering involved, since this world is less real than the potential one awaiting all who subscribe to whatever particular religion the fundamentalist follows (this is true mainly in the big three monotheisms, mainly Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, though).

On a more flippant note, it is a necessary fact that all death-centric religions have a built in safety valve: religious tenets against suicide. Being that the after-life is more desirable than the world the rest of us inhabit, it is not inconceivable that all of the followers would gleefully kill themselves to ignore all of the beautiful banalities that we are forced to endure in the mortal here and now. Sadly, even if this ban on suicide was lifted, many would stay around gleefully meddling with the affairs of others in the name of "saving" them, whether they want this or not.

Sadly, this is a rapidly growing 25% of the American population, a portion of the population with an unhealthy over abundance of political influence, and the gumption to use it for the harm of the rest of us who do not belong to their clique. This is further evidence to why we should shore up our educational system (sadly not for the benefit of their, mostly home schooled, children, who I fear are doomed). The only way to combat this militant extremist threat is to breed a competing cadre of children with a rational mindset, and an appropriate skeptical tool-kit. We also need an insurgence of secularists, to secure the protections from religious tyranny that the constitutional framers built into the grounding of America. Perhaps the rest of our political differences should fall by the wayside while we protect our very right to dissent in the first place. If worse comes to worse we can bask in the potential of America's influence waning, to protect the rest of the world from more harm and death caused by religious extremists, and their genocidal feelings of self-righteousness.

II. A Preliminary Critique of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion":

While it can generally be seen as bad form to critique a portion of a book that one has not read in its entirety, I feel is appropriate due to its fit with the previous section on fundamental Christianity. Please bear with me, and feel free to ignore this, or correct me on any misperceptions I have due to my incomplete knowledge of the contents of Dawkins book. This (hopefully) small critique will mostly reflect an objection to two sections of the second chapter, "The Poverty of Agnosticism" and "NOMA" (On Stephen J. Gould's idea of "magesterium").

First off I level the same problems that is encountered on Daniel Dennett's like minded book, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", which I covered and reviewed earlier. In both books science is assumed to be able to be capable of fully comprehending existence as a whole. This is quite an assumption, even from a wholly naturalistic stance, thanks to the infinite complexity of the subject under study, and the inductive nature of our basis of understanding the natural world. More philosophically we have no tool to judge the potential completeness of any coherent logical system (such a science), there is no tool that can recursively analyze sciences current, or potential, completeness. Yes, science is the best tool we have for understanding the world, but this does not make it the perfect tool. Also science is completely aloof on questions of "meaning", while showing its remarkable ability to answer the "how" and "why" of existence.

The greatest checks to any scientific theory is observation (empiricism), and predictability. But of late science, in general, and physics in particular, have been denying even these two checks for theoretical validity. This can be seen Leonard Susskind's book "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design", where the author (an eminent physicist) proposes that empirical observation and theoretical predictability should not be necessary conditions to theoretical, or scientific, understanding. He opts, instead, for mere systematic, or theoretical, coherence, as a judge for validity. This is a weakness, since there is no guarantee that ungrounded theories accurately reflect the actual state of nature. Basically he puts modern science in the same shoes as the metaphysicians of old, denigrating scientists to mathematicians and the modern incarnation of monadologists. This is troublesome if we wish to claim the ascendancy of science.

Also his comparison of God (or your diving reality of choosing) to rather inane entities such as the tooth fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is fallacious and rather loaded. Neither of these fictions have the same weight of inherent incomprehensibility as any accepted deity. The idea of God, as a definition is innately ambiguous, and unprovable. Critiquing a deity whose vary definition can be defined as alogical is rather absurd. God is, as conceived by believers, outside of logic. This view, again, is based on a shaky assumption that logic is all-containing, that everything can be understood by it. I also fail to see how we can positively say that the universe would be different depending on the existence of god, or his nonexistence. With a highly interventionist deity this might be a sensible conclusion, but with a more passive "deist" deity this becomes more dubious, this flaw might be do to some misunderstanding on my part since he does hint at deeper enlightenment further on.

Let me be frank, I am not defending religion of any stripe. Taking the opposite view of Dawkins' I use the fundamental unprovability of deity as a sign of it's ultimate nonexistence. Armed with the philosopher Karl Popper's weapon of empirical falsifiability, used against God's built in ambiguity, I can stand solidly in practical atheist, or at least very strong agnosticism. God, as hypothesis, can not be disproved, or tested, which is a strong strike against it's relevance. God is a null set, and thus it's existence or lack there of is irrelevant in a physical sense, we must only worry about it's psychic reality (as a guide for it's followers actions, see above).

I have two other problems with the ideologies of both Dawkin's and Dennett, the two largest popularizers of atheism. The first is the perceived necessary connection between scientism (a quasi-religious faith in the universal power of science and rationalism, and the view that science can ultimately answer everything), and atheism. This, as I've encountered, is a common item of dogmatic groupthink in the contemporary atheism movement (as typified by the "Brights" movement), which serves to limit acceptance by more skeptical people.‡ Also both Dennett and Dawkins are basically the atheist equivalent of the force they will to combat, fundamentalists. So much is their fervor against the threat of religion (perceived, and real, as above), that they risk becoming what they fear. Both of them cross into the territory of evangelical atheists.

---

* Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, sec. 419, available from Project Gutenberg.

† I've touched on this issue previously, and sadly in terms that would obviously always be rejected by Christian extremists.

‡ This does not keep me from being a somewhat reluctant member, though this problem can be seen in this post to their forums.





Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2007-03-15

Postmodern Eulogy

Jean-Paul Baudrillard died on the 7th, apparently. Its always a tragedy when one of our unique and controversial thinkers die, especially in this day and age. Baudrillard can be seen as one of the fathers of post-modern philosophy and cultural studies, and the proponent of many controversial ideas. He personally was very influential to me, even in the parts of his philosophies that I didn't (or don't want to) agree with, especially his views of the Hyper-real and simulacra which many of you have heard me rant about nearly daily. He may also be seen as one of the last of the great contemporary wave of French intellectuals which started late in the 19th century.



Agree with his avant-garde theories or not, he was an intellectual force to be reckoned with. His work will live on if by nothing else but the shear weight of controversy that surrounds it, which, indeed, is a distinction.



For more about the man please refer to the SEP article, or to the articles on his page though the European Graduate School. While his philosophy was difficult, it is engaging to read, as he tried to discuss issues important to us, things in our culture and world, a thing most academic philosophers are loath (or frightened) to do.



Another light goes out in the darkening world.




Technorati Tags: , , ,



powered by performancing firefox