Research talk:5c/YT/BaudrillardPostmodernStockMarket: Difference between revisions
Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion |
Many of Baudrillard's early works were about economics [dubious] |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.<br/> | {{li|start=y|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.<br/> | ||
truth value: not likely true due to possible category error. | truth value: not likely true due to possible category error. | ||
{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Many of Baudrillard's early works were about economics -> this feels like it needs to be tested, and like it could actually be false. find one work by Baudrillard that is supposedly about economics and analyze it, and if it clearly is not saying anything relevant to economics in a serious material way then the probability of all Baudrillard's "early works" not being about economics goes up. | |||
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality {{YouTube|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> it's somewhat fair to slam that one because it doesn't cover things like whether a product is novel versus old, in-print versus out-of-print; something that is highly useful and effective could make next to no profit at all precisely because it doesn't drive growth and speculation. | {{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality {{YouTube|g8tIs1QBORo}} -> it's somewhat fair to slam that one because it doesn't cover things like whether a product is novel versus old, in-print versus out-of-print; something that is highly useful and effective could make next to no profit at all precisely because it doesn't drive growth and speculation. | ||
Revision as of 08:21, 27 August 2026
The Death of the Economy: Baudrillard's Financial Simulacrum
- channel
- SoyGnostic Philosophy ( / ES)1
-1-1 - field, scope, or group [Item]
- postmodern philosophy ( / ES)1
-1-1 - postmodern economics ( / ES)1
-1-1
Links
- YouTube:
Nickel usage or significance
- (fill in later)
Motifs or claims
- It is appropriate to use Baudrillard to analyze the economy -> why do people think this? if I'm not mistaken, he didn't even write about economics.
truth value: not likely true due to possible category error. - Many of Baudrillard's early works were about economics -> this feels like it needs to be tested, and like it could actually be false. find one work by Baudrillard that is supposedly about economics and analyze it, and if it clearly is not saying anything relevant to economics in a serious material way then the probability of all Baudrillard's "early works" not being about economics goes up.
- Revenue is a test of whether something works in reality [2] -> it's somewhat fair to slam that one because it doesn't cover things like whether a product is novel versus old, in-print versus out-of-print; something that is highly useful and effective could make next to no profit at all precisely because it doesn't drive growth and speculation.
- postmodern economics -> well, I didn't think this was even possible, but the postmodernists showed me I guess.
- consumerism (postmodern economics) [3] -> didn't know this one was a separate motif either! postmodernists are really telling on themselves with these videos.
- Most stock trading is not done by humans but by algorithms [4] -> so... when people say it's not possible to predict the future, or not possible to predict the economy, why do these exist?
- The economy mostly moves in response to other signals within the system [5] -> isn't that how all material objects work, though? no acknowledgement of dialectical materialism / special relativity. this is one of the bluest statements I've ever seen.
- Illusion can exist where it does not announce itself as illusion [6] -> all right, technically true.
I do have a silly question though: how can you be a postmodernist and believe that hidden illusions can actually exist and maliciously deceive people if you can't know what's illusion and what's real in the first place? Marx can figure out there are hidden illusions but... for a postmodernist, haven't they already said that the existence of illusions is just their own opinion? how is discovering illusions actually in any way actionable if you view things that way? haven't you set up a framework where it's a perfectly valid "opinion" to be deceived and you can't tell people they shouldn't want to be deceived?