Jean Baudrillard Excerpt from part (simulacra and simulation) | KA PHILOSOPHY / selection of texts /
KA PHILOSOPHY / selection of texts / Presentation of the original (and not only) philosophical texts - the basic principle of the presentation of the text is the curriculum, what did the headright system do then, our affinities towards what did the headright system do some philosophical themes.
Hide and pretend that we do not have what we have. Simulate and pretend that we have what we have. The former refers to a presence, the other one on a leave of absence. But the thing is complicated because simulate does not pretend to be "one who pretends to be suffering from something simply to lie down in the bed so that he poveruju he was sick. One that simulates a disease in itself causes some of her symptoms "(liter). * Thus, converting or concealing leave intact the principle of reality: the difference is always clear, it is only masked. Simulation, however, raises the question of the difference between "true" and "false", "real" and "imaginary". Is simulant what did the headright system do sick or not, since it produces "true" symptoms? With him can not be treated objectively either as a disease or as a healthy man. There psychology and medicine stopping in front of one truth now unknowable disease. For if any symptom can be "produced", then every illness may be considered "feasible" and simulated, and medicine loses its meaning, because it may leaflets only "real" disease, that is, its objective causes. Psychosomatics evolves in a suspicious manner, at the extreme limits of the principle of the disease. As for psychoanalysis, it is starting from the symptoms organically in nature, suggesting an unconscious nature: and this again should be "true" truer than the other - but why should the simulation stopped at the threshold of the unconscious? Why do the "work" of the unconscious could not be "manufactured" in the same way as any symptom of classical medicine? So they already produce dreams.
Naturally, the psychiatrist argues that "for any form of mental disorder what did the headright system do there is a special place in the order of symptoms simu lator does not know, and whose absence can not shrink deception." This was said (in 1865) to at all costs be preserved principle of truth and to avoid the question posed by simulation - that is, that the truth, reference, objective cause, ceased to exist. What, however, can do medicine with something moving inside and outside of the disease, both within and outside of health, what did the headright system do with some doubling of disease in a certain discourse that is neither true nor false? What can psychoanalysis and doubling the discourse of the unconscious in a discourse of simulation that can never be revealed, as it is not false.
What can you do with an army simulants? Traditionally, she discovers them and punished, for one clear principle finding. what did the headright system do Today it can be to let go of some very good simulants, what did the headright system do just as a homosexual, a heart patient, or a "real" crazies. Even military psychology what did the headright system do recoils from the Cartesian clarity and hesitant what did the headright system do to make a difference between "true" and "false", between "produced" and the authentic symptom. "If you are so good playing the madman, it means that you are crazy." And he is right in this sense all lunatics what did the headright system do simulate, what did the headright system do and this lack of distinction between the worst subversion. It is against her classic mind armed with all your categories. But they are now back splashes and flooding principle of truth.
Beyond medicine and the army, prevashodnih areas of simulation, the thing referred to religion and the simulacrum of divinity: "I forbade that the temple is a statue, because the divinity that animates nature can not be present." It is, however, possible. But What deity becomes when propagated what did the headright system do in icons, when it is multiplied by the statues-idols? Does the then supreme instance that is simply embodied in the images in a visible what did the headright system do theology? Or izvitoperava the statues, themselves, spread their grandeur and power of fascination what did the headright system do - with visible machinery of icons replace a clean and understandable idea of God? It was feared that the iconoclasts what did the headright system do whose centuries-old dispute between us and today runs. Just because predosećali the omnipotence of idols, the ability what did the headright system do to erase God from human consciousness and the truth that is in them can be glimpsed, destructive, extinguish, that God never existed, that has always existed only its simulacrum, that is, that I God has always been just an illusion of their own - they were encouraged to furiously destroying the image. That they were able to believe that they only cover up or mask the Platonic idea of God, there would be no reason to uništavaju.Može to live from one idea changed the truth. But their metaphysical despair what did the headright system do system was based from the idea that images are nothing obscure and that they, in fact, and were not images, harsh in what turns them and changing the original model, but are just perfect idols, who will forever radiate its own fascination. However, we should by all means to prevent the death of the divine refercncijala.
We see that the iconoclasts, who accuse
KA PHILOSOPHY / selection of texts / Presentation of the original (and not only) philosophical texts - the basic principle of the presentation of the text is the curriculum, what did the headright system do then, our affinities towards what did the headright system do some philosophical themes.
Hide and pretend that we do not have what we have. Simulate and pretend that we have what we have. The former refers to a presence, the other one on a leave of absence. But the thing is complicated because simulate does not pretend to be "one who pretends to be suffering from something simply to lie down in the bed so that he poveruju he was sick. One that simulates a disease in itself causes some of her symptoms "(liter). * Thus, converting or concealing leave intact the principle of reality: the difference is always clear, it is only masked. Simulation, however, raises the question of the difference between "true" and "false", "real" and "imaginary". Is simulant what did the headright system do sick or not, since it produces "true" symptoms? With him can not be treated objectively either as a disease or as a healthy man. There psychology and medicine stopping in front of one truth now unknowable disease. For if any symptom can be "produced", then every illness may be considered "feasible" and simulated, and medicine loses its meaning, because it may leaflets only "real" disease, that is, its objective causes. Psychosomatics evolves in a suspicious manner, at the extreme limits of the principle of the disease. As for psychoanalysis, it is starting from the symptoms organically in nature, suggesting an unconscious nature: and this again should be "true" truer than the other - but why should the simulation stopped at the threshold of the unconscious? Why do the "work" of the unconscious could not be "manufactured" in the same way as any symptom of classical medicine? So they already produce dreams.
Naturally, the psychiatrist argues that "for any form of mental disorder what did the headright system do there is a special place in the order of symptoms simu lator does not know, and whose absence can not shrink deception." This was said (in 1865) to at all costs be preserved principle of truth and to avoid the question posed by simulation - that is, that the truth, reference, objective cause, ceased to exist. What, however, can do medicine with something moving inside and outside of the disease, both within and outside of health, what did the headright system do with some doubling of disease in a certain discourse that is neither true nor false? What can psychoanalysis and doubling the discourse of the unconscious in a discourse of simulation that can never be revealed, as it is not false.
What can you do with an army simulants? Traditionally, she discovers them and punished, for one clear principle finding. what did the headright system do Today it can be to let go of some very good simulants, what did the headright system do just as a homosexual, a heart patient, or a "real" crazies. Even military psychology what did the headright system do recoils from the Cartesian clarity and hesitant what did the headright system do to make a difference between "true" and "false", between "produced" and the authentic symptom. "If you are so good playing the madman, it means that you are crazy." And he is right in this sense all lunatics what did the headright system do simulate, what did the headright system do and this lack of distinction between the worst subversion. It is against her classic mind armed with all your categories. But they are now back splashes and flooding principle of truth.
Beyond medicine and the army, prevashodnih areas of simulation, the thing referred to religion and the simulacrum of divinity: "I forbade that the temple is a statue, because the divinity that animates nature can not be present." It is, however, possible. But What deity becomes when propagated what did the headright system do in icons, when it is multiplied by the statues-idols? Does the then supreme instance that is simply embodied in the images in a visible what did the headright system do theology? Or izvitoperava the statues, themselves, spread their grandeur and power of fascination what did the headright system do - with visible machinery of icons replace a clean and understandable idea of God? It was feared that the iconoclasts what did the headright system do whose centuries-old dispute between us and today runs. Just because predosećali the omnipotence of idols, the ability what did the headright system do to erase God from human consciousness and the truth that is in them can be glimpsed, destructive, extinguish, that God never existed, that has always existed only its simulacrum, that is, that I God has always been just an illusion of their own - they were encouraged to furiously destroying the image. That they were able to believe that they only cover up or mask the Platonic idea of God, there would be no reason to uništavaju.Može to live from one idea changed the truth. But their metaphysical despair what did the headright system do system was based from the idea that images are nothing obscure and that they, in fact, and were not images, harsh in what turns them and changing the original model, but are just perfect idols, who will forever radiate its own fascination. However, we should by all means to prevent the death of the divine refercncijala.
We see that the iconoclasts, who accuse
No comments:
Post a Comment