Talk:Simulacra and Simulation

Philosophy: Literature Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

"In this world apathy and melancholy permeate human perception and begin eroding Nietzsche's feeling of ressentiment." This doesn't make sense! -VirianFlux --144.124.16.33 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was just wondering the same. I understand the concept of ressentiment in Nietzsche's work but I am completely bewildered as to how it relates here. this sentence should be rewritten.

Vfd

On 9 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Simulacra and Simulation for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 02:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

The hyperlink at the bottom for the book Evolution Psychology leads to the article on Evolutionary Psychology. I'm wondering if this is a bad link-- I tried searching for the book but couldn't find it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.158.25 (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a novel. It's not a work of fiction, but of philosophy. 24.148.136.192 06:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's bad enough to think while reading it that it's actually just a parody of modern intellectual thought. Perhaps they got confused.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.210.110 (talk • contribs) .

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but in the following text shouldn't the first "is" towards the end of the sentence be "as."

"Baudrillard claims that our society has replaced all reality and meaning into symbols and signs, and that in fact all that we know is real is actually a simulation of reality."

Shouldn't it read like the following:

"Baudrillard claims that our society has replaced all reality and meaning into symbols and signs, and that in fact all that we know as real is actually a simulation of reality."

I'm going to change it, I just thought I'd clarify. Maprovonsha172 8 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

I think something needs to be said about the unusual style and structure of the work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prometheus912 (talk • contribs) .

If the author claims that The Matrix has nothing to do with his work, then he clearly does not understand the movie.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtravaglini (talk • contribs) .

Baudrillard is a peculiar philospher and one should never take what he says at face value. The movie did in many ways attempt to reflect ideas put forth in Simulcra. Its very possible thought that they missed the point but it would not have been for lack of trying. To this end I have added the link on the Matrix site discussing Baudrillard and Simulations. mice 05:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I'm not surprised that Baudrillard said that the Matrix had nothing to do with his work. I too would say the same thing if somebody attempted to draw comparisons between my work and a Hollywood production designed for entertainment, regardless whether the Matrix draws upon points of Simulacra and Simulation or not. All in all, I'm sick and tired of hearing Matrix references in every piece of work related to Hyper reality, Solipsism, etc. --Rathilien 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thr reason I have not read the entire text of Simulacra and Simulation is that I came to a point of understanding that the text itself was not real giving me good reason to stop reading. This philosophy raises some good topics and gives the reader much to ponder, however it also self destructs in five pages. That said, I will be purchasing a copy and reading it fully as I do admire the sections of the work which I have read so far.--1910049 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over the text of the interview linked to where someone claims that Baudrillard refutes a connection between The Matrix and this book, I don't think he does that. It sounds more like he says "it's not a good representation." Anyone want to read over it and change this maybe? 165.82.80.81 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to discuss the matrix film you need to appropriately address it in relation to baudrillard otherwise people will mis-understand his theory and think that baudrillard is literally suggesting a form of social "illusion".Deformat. 31 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deformat (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The section under Jean Baudrillard contains approximately as much information as this article does, but most of it is different. The two should be merged into this article, and, assuming this article is to be kept, a brief summary should be included in the Baudrillard article. The Jade Knight 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I believe the title should be changed, in the English text I've been using, it's called 'Simulacra and Simulations'. I think there may have been some mix up from the French and perhaps the incorrect belief that 'simulacra' is singular. 'Simulacrum' is the singular . Both should be plural. Kapil 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an amazon link that says you're wrong :) [1]. If you've other sources than this, and what's provided in the book box, post them on the talk page and let's see if we can figure out what is the better option. I don't want to say it, but I kinda have to, that the best name might be the one used in the Matrix, 'cause that's probably the one most known to the most people. But first, we should review other options with sources. WLU (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used a hard copy of this version [2]. Notice that 'The simulacrum is true', implying that 'simulacrum' is singular. Also, [3] agrees with this. Here it is in the Matrix [4], using what would seem to be the incorrect spelling. I think the erroneous spelling may have stemmed from the fact that this is assumed to be English, it could be a French version. Having said that, the book you linked to was published before the Matrix was released. The writers on the Matrix may have simply used that spelling believing it to be correct. I understand that most people probably visit the page via the Matrix and hence use 'Simulacra and Simulation' although would it not be possible to redirect such queries? Of course that's assuming 'Simulacra and Simulations' is correct. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the best course of action. Kapil (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Stanford version which I previously linked to [5]. The text from which it's from, 'Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings' could be used in the book box. Kapil (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavoj Zizek

I'm not entirely sure that Zizek should be mentioned in this article (section The Matrix). The sentence makes it sound as if Zizek coined the term prior to Baudrillard, which is obviously not true. From what I can tell, Zizek's work is from 2001 and has little to do with Simulacra - only the title and a short reference contain the actual line, and Baudrillard is never mentioned. I'm not crystal clear on this, however, so I'll leave it to someone more outgoing to make the appropriate edit. Thanks, Luinfana (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Removed it, it didn't seem to have anything to do with his work, or have any actual source information. The language of the section was also as if someone on wiki were directly criticizing the book rather than finding notable criticisms of it.

Quotation / Context

Umm, not sure if I'm following some kind of standard here as this is my first Wiki-edit. Anyhow..

The quote "The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true." is credited to the book Ecclesiastes, but there is to my knowledge no such reference in there? He is using a simulacrum to prove a simulacrum and is not intended to be taken literally..

So to put that quote on top of the wikipage is misleading, even to a larger extent as the book that the quote is attributed to has been removed from the quote!

Discussion http://ask.metafilter.com/106459/Is-that-EcclesiastesBaudrillard-quote-accurate

... how could one take wiki, or google for that matter, literally? 77.70.2.106 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix

I think this is a joke to keep this misunderstanding w/in The Matrix on the page. If someone was to read this article w/out any context to Baudrillard's work, I think they inherently would relate simulation(s) and simulacrum to some Hollywood pop-fantasy that boasts of understanding, but, ironically, has no clue. Now, it's fine in my book for it to be on The Matrix article, just as long as it quotes/relays back to "The Consiracy of Art" where Baudrillard talks about this misunderstanding that really needs to get cleared up. In summation, this section of the article becomes detrimental to knowledge and also becomes a misguided fan-boy/girl area if it remains. willsy 17:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]