Généalogie de l’écriture de Jean Baudrillard

he introductory article of the book examines the personalities of libraries, the insights of the philosophy of personalism and the philosophical understanding of a fragment, trying to connect three concepts: personality, library, fragment. Personality is an individuality that is always in constant internal change. At the beginning of the 20th century, the philosophers of personalism were connected by the principle of the action of substances and the active, and self-sufficient and willing beginning of man. The first Latvian academic philosopher Jēkabs Osis was influenced by the philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. A personality, like a monad, is a living, functioning being that imagines itself, as well as the universe and the world from its own point of view. The views of Emmanuel Mounier, the founder of French personalism, were also influenced by Leibniz’s philosophy. Mounier developed ‘integral personalism’, which combines the three values of personality: being, thinking and acting. These characteristics also refer to library personalities in the world and in Latvia. In opposition to philosophy of personalism, French postmodern philosophers (Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze, Roland Barthes) write about the structural man. A structural human divides reality into fragments and then puts them back together, but when the fragments are put back together, a completely different object is formed than it was originally. A new reality is a modelled reality in which the human sometimes even remains in the status of a fragment. A fragment is a part of a whole, and it can be an article in a volume, a book on a library shelf, and even a person’s life in the world scene.

Şu an hepimiz bir simülasyon çağında yaşıyor olabilir miyiz? Bu soruyu Fransız filozof Jean Baudrillard'a soracak olursanız, her ne kadar onun simülasyon ile kastettiği ile bizim kastettiğimiz çok farklı olsa da cevabı kocaman bir evet olacaktır. Baudrillard’a göre her şey bir simülasyona dönüşmüştür. Bireyin gerçek olduğunu sandığı bu evren, artık tamamen bir kurgudan ibarettir. 1981’de Baudrillard tarafından simülasyon modeli yazıldığında, internet bir gerçek olmaktan çok varsayılan bir fikirdi ve bugün sahip olduğumuz teknolojideki ilerlemeler bir dereceye kadar bir varsayımdan ibaretti. Oysa son yıllarda popüler bir kavram haline gelen Metaverse, fiziksel hayatımızın her alanında dijital dönüşümü daha da kolaylaştırıp hızlandırırken Baudrillard’ın savlarının gerçekleştiğini ve bir simülasyon çağında olduğumuzu düşündürmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, dijital dönüşüm sürecinin bir parçası olan Metaverse kavramını açıklayarak Jean Baudrillard’ın Simülasyon Kuramı çerçevesinde Metaverse’i değerlendirmektir. Araştırmanın yöntemi, literatür taramasına dayanmaktadır. Gerçek ve sanalın bir bilim kurgu düzeninde birleştiği Metaverse, insanların gerçeğe olan bakışını kaybettiği, gerçeklik olarak algıladığı şeyin kesinlikle gerçeklik değil, hipergerçeklik olduğu, gerçeklik kavramının anlamını yitirdiği ve hatta öldüğü yeni bir dünyayı temsil etmektedir. Baudrillard’ın da açıkladığı gibi dünya, artık temsillerin temsili üzerine kuruludur. İnsanlığı gerçek ve fiziksel yaşamlarından tamamen koparabilir özelliklere sahiptir. Simülasyonlar, artık tanımlanabilir bir gerçekliğin var olduğunu düşünmemizi sağlamak için vardır.

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)Following the death of Paul Ricoeur, the scholarly assimilation of his last writings, the diligent archival work of the Fonds Ricoeur, and reflection on some heated political controversies that caught Ricoeur up late in life, we are now in a renewed period of assessment of his body of work as it affects hermeneutics. As a part of this process of reassessment, Jean Grondin gave a speech to the Ricoeur Society at Montreal in 2010 and published a paper with the same title, From Gadamer to Ricoeur: Can One Speak of a Common Understanding of Hermeneutics? A careful reading shows that Grondin gave a negative answer to this question. He believes that the two thinkers came to hermeneutics separately along very different paths, and that they described two markedly different programs. Of the seven major that he outlines, some may not reconcile. To me this is a bracing judgment, coming as it does in the wake of some ameliorative assessments that paint a picture of basic accord. Gary Madison's synoptic overview of the two hermeneuts, for instance, argued that the two thinkers offer differences not so much in substance, perhaps, as in what they choose to accentuate.11 will argue that such a harmony is a confusion that would be deleterious to hermeneutics going forward, because it would let serious issues go unaddressed, and I am heartened that Grondin does not make that mistake.2 Despite the graceful and diplomatic tone of his essay, he builds some constructive footholds for developing and clarifying serious issues of difference that need our attention.31 am going to continue along his path of discrimination by doing two things: first, I will aggregate Grondin's seven points into what I think are the two fundamental differences, and then I will elaborate on these two to show the challenge they pose for hermeneutics going forward. The tenor of Grondin's call for dialogue between Ricoeurian and Gadamerian scholars is implicitly a plea to start thinking about what a common hermeneutics might look like, so this is what I am setting out to do.First difference. Grondin starts by locating a difference in the angle of projection of the two projects at their origin, a subtle difference that will have profound consequences as the projects widen out on their respective trajectories. He frames this initial difference in terms of fundamental questions: Because Ricoeur approaches hermeneutics as an ontological radicalization of methods of textual interpretation, he believes its question is, How do we interpret? Such a query looks for the mechanisms of discursive identity that arise out of historical distance from the immediate purposes and context the inscription creates. Gadamer seeks in hermeneutics an explanation for the essentially linguistic (sprachliche) condition of human beings in the world (notre rapport au monde), and so his question is,What happens when we come to an understanding?4 This tack places the focus of hermeneutics on the Gestalt of grounded communicative interaction as it plays out-the relation of the speakers and listeners to the issue, to each other, and to the world in a constantly adjusting network of reciprocal interrelations. Historical distance is in effect the medium of belonging. By putting the matter in this way, Gadamer jumps up a metaphorical level from the text-reader relationship to the discourse-world relationship. Although Ricoeur certainly follows out the ontological consequences of textual distance, he does not make this metaphorical leap.Because of the consequences that will flow from these starting points, it is important to ask why the two thinkers set out with these different orientations. As a French philosopher more directly in the line of the reflective tradition, Ricoeur's question is rooted in the methodological preoccupations of sixteenthand seventeenth-century scholars who sought rigorous principles for interpreting the objects of human creation as distinct from the objects of natural science. …

The common understanding of fashion is the temporary dominance of certain styles, however, in fact the notion is much deeper. According to French cultural critic and philosopher Jean Baudrillard, fashion can be understood as “the most superficial and at the same time the deepest sociological mechanism”. Modern sociology of fashion links fashion to gender, age, ethnic and subcultural diversity. It involves the establishment and dissemination of an actual style in material or behavioral form. Fashion is a kind of mirror reflecting social change. It acts as a regulator of social behavior as well. Its main value is modernity. Fashion updates are often based on various social changes. In the early XX century, the gradual loss of men's role and status of the sole breadwinner of the family, the empowerment of women and their financial independence had a significant impact on the introduction and establishment of masculine style as women's outfit. Noteworthy is the opinion of the famous Georgian philosopher Zurab Kakabadze about “ultra-mini fashion”, which is associated with the danger of alienating a man and leaving unnoticed everything “divine and natural”. Fashion is a mirror of society; reflecting changes in society in a material or behavioral form; which rises sociology's interest in the world of fashion.

Electronic communication of the Christian message—online preaching—raises distinct theological challenges. Notwithstanding the undeniable convenience and unlimited geographical reach of “virtual church”, electronic media have the potential to separate preacher from congregants, congregants from one another, and—potentially of greatest concern—the church from God, even while appearing to accomplish the opposite. Communication theorist Marshall McLuhan (1911–1980) argues provocatively that virtual representation is at the cost of authentic human identity (in which case it is inimical to community), while French sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007) warns of substituting representation for reality, especially in matters of theology and the identity of God. The paradigm of Jesus’ Incarnation, by contrast, mandates un-mediated divine-human and human-to-human communication, requiring engagement between persons themselves rather than their avatars or provisional simulacra. With respect to electronically mediated communication itself, acknowledging divine initiative in the formation of identity (as a feature of soteriology) and of understanding (under the category of revelation) countermands the more dehumanizing and anti-theological influences that McLuhan and Baudrillard both identify, encouraging direct engagement with God in the person of the Holy Spirit rather than resorting to technological mediation.

The ASEAN Charter, which entered into force on 15 December 2008, asserts in Article 3 that ASEAN “as an inter-governmental organisation, is hereby conferred legal personality”. This chapter examines the legal status of the Association, as well as the political question of whether the whole is greater than (or perhaps less than) the sum of its parts. The argument presented is that legal personality at the international level is less a status than it is a capacity: the fact that ASEAN now claims international legal personality in the Charter does not mean it lacked it previously, nor that it now possesses it in any meaningful way. Rather, the key question is what specific powers have been granted to ASEAN and how those powers are used. On these questions, the Charter is largely silent. * * * In January 1991, less than two weeks before the commencement of hostilities to drive Iraq from occupied Kuwait, the French poststructuralist philosopher Jean Baudrillard published an article in Liberation entitled, “The Gulf War Will Not Take Place”. He argued that this war would never happen in a meaningful sense of the word, because technology had transformed perceptions of conflict to the point where all that was left was the simulacrum of war. As the bombs were falling and troops were moving, he produced a follow-up piece: “The Gulf War Is Not Taking Place”. After Iraq had been driven from Kuwait and tens of thousands had died, he returned to the opinion pages with “ The Gulf War Did Not Take Place ”. The three essays are now conveniently published together in a volume by Polity Press entitled The Gulf War Never Happened . Is it not a similar conceit to question the existence of ASEAN? Without doubt, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) represents an important slice of the world. It encompasses a population of around half a billion, with a combined GDP in the order of a trillion U.S. dollars. From the five countries that signed the Bangkok Declaration in 1967, it has added Brunei in 1984, and Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia between 1995 and 1999.

ABSTRACTThe contemporary French political philosopher Pierre Manent is, by his own account, deeply influenced by the Christian tradition, by Leo Strauss, and by his teacher Raymond Aron. This article explores Manent's indebtedness to Raymond Aron (1905–1983), one of the great political thinkers of the twentieth century. In a series of writings about Aron over the past thirty-five years, Manent presents a public man who spoke with “authority and competence of the things of the city, whose eloquence was able to instruct the public as it retained the ear of princes, of whom the sovereign reason seized, in each situation, the essential.” Manent has thought long and hard about Aron's lucid and courageous opposition to totalitarianism, his defense of human liberty and political reason, and his affinities with the prudence and sobriety of the first great political scientist, Aristotle. Manent's Aron is a liberal classic more than a classical liberal. His defense of modern liberty never forgot that even a free society must cultivate virtue and respect for the common good. This article shows the affinities between the later Aron in particular and Manent's own political writings. Manent's own turn to the chose publique owes much to Aristotle as indirectly mediated by Aron.

During my early introduction to architecture I found that I was motivated not only by matters pertaining to what architecture is, but also, to what it can do. Thus, the questions motivating this work derive from my education in architecture which, at their most rudimentary level, entail a deep fascination with the nature of space, and thus the problem of time. And, subsequently, a practical desire to understand the conditions that constituted experience, and thus perception, sensation and mind. My interest also developed from a general disposition towards others and world founded in principles of human equality and rights with respect to both freedom and responsibility. During my years practicing architecture, these questions as they were brought through the perspective of design continued to inspire me. At the same time, my interest in investigating these questions through theoretical and philosophical research persisted until my aspiration to engage in critical thought outpaced my desire to practice. Hence, a turn in career to work as an academic in the discipline of architecture and the area of architecture theory. This research may be perceived by some as situated outside the realm of architecture. However, this is not the case. My approach to architecture theory is not one that begins with a study of the object, or, for some, one might say the subject of architecture. That is, if the object is understood as the manifestation in thought, process or form of the building or built environment (real or conceived) itself; and if the subject is understood as the thought or idea emanating from the mind of the architect (as author). While there is much architecture theory advanced from this perspective lining my own bookshelves and utilized in my work as an educator. The concerns that have always called me towards thinking about architecture as the imagined and constructed world in which we live are those that query the very nature of concepts, notions, ideologies and intellectual constructions and beliefs upon which culture and society – architecture as both a cultural product and a social actor – are formed. This goes, as well, to the considerations that motivate my concern for people, not users or inhabitants as such, but as ontologically situated beings in the world. Accordingly, my work primarily deals with the content, history and effects of architecture as it relates to theories of space, time, the body, and cognition. Employing and developing theories and methods from disciplines including philosophy, cultural studies, literary theory, political, social and economic theory, cognitive psychology, and the neurosciences in the broadest sense. Admittedly, the nature of theoretical discourse has shown itself to be problematic over the past fifty-plus years; it has also proven to be transformative. Critical thinkers in the late 1960s developed a sustained critique of their philosophical predecessors – primarily in regard to Marx on one hand and Heidegger on the other – with a critique of social history and a displacement of metaphysics resulting in a repositioning of social and cultural discourse. Of course, the debate unfolded against the philosophical and aesthetic background of not only Marx and Heidegger, but also Nietzsche, Hegel and Freud on one hand, and Manet, Cézanne, Baudelaire and Mallarmé, Wagner and Debussy on the other. In architecture, the debate extended to Ruskin and Wölfflin, and to Wright and Corbusier, amongst others. This period, in itself, refers to an unprecedented artistic, scientific, economic, and technological mutation. Prevalent underpinnings remain identifiable, for instance an attack on the absolute nature of knowledge, which has brought about a fundamental rethinking of both the nature of consciousness, as well as a critique of science. As Foucault suggested, one of the great problems that arose in the 1950s was that of the political status of science and the ideological functions that it could serve. Another rebuke can be seen as the challenge to the primacy of truth as an adequation of subject to thing. This culminated in a radical critique of subjectivity resulting, some years later, in the so-called post-humanist-subject. In order to be rid of the subject itself, Foucault, in ‘Truth and Power’ (1977) argued that it was necessary to dispense with the essentialist subject both at the extremes and in-between the enlightenment’s humanist subject and its ideals of knowledge as self-constituting; as well as phenomenology’s fabrication of the subject as evolving through and embodying the course of history. Reflecting on this history, that post-war moment of theory, one cannot help but be struck by the complexity and the ambiguity of the adventure; qualities most evident in the fact that new spaces and new means of writing and drawing, of thinking and making emerged. Ideas that modified our understanding of both communication and the image, of both space and time. Discourses, when combined with a reflexivity within certain architectures and certain texts, rendered them somehow indefinitely open. In the 1960s, literary theory transformed thought on both sides of the Atlantic. For instance, Roland Barthes’s de-sanctioning of the biography-centric author, or the removal of authority from the author turned scriptor in ‘The Death of the Author’ (1967), or Julia Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality with ‘Word, Dialogue and Novel’ (1969). These works impacted our thinking on linguistic phenomena and the origin (or non-originality) of textual content and further, on the invention of new forms of writing and affective relations. Such theories informed and redirected thinking in architecture, for instance, Diana Agrest and Mario Gandelsonas’s work ‘Semiotics and Architecture: Ideological Consumption or Theoretical Work’ was published in the first issue of Oppositions, an architectural journal produced between 1973 and 1984 by the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies in New York. With this, the influence of the French intellectual climate as well as the Italian discourse on semiotics was brought to the centre of Anglo-American discourse in architecture theory. The intellectual trajectory along which this history is traced and the terrain on which it now takes place will be recognisable to anyone familiar with the work of such thinkers as Henri Bergson, Louis Althusser, Gabriel Tarde, Walter Benjamin, Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and, of course, Félix Guattari, Gilles Deleuze, and Maurizio Lazzarato. The importance of the radically original works that emerged in the seventies and eighties cannot be overestimated, for instance: Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and his lectures at the Collège de France, The Birth of Biopolitics, and Deleuze and Guattari’s Capitalism and Schizophrenia volumes Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These works, translated into English shortly after their original publication, were being read throughout many disciplines outside of philosophy including schools of architecture, and their influence can only be said to have increased. I share the above brief history so as to situate my work for those less familiar with the work of theory – whether architecture or otherwise – as this, too, is the intellectual trajectory and exploration along which my own work, as well as many of my contemporaries, travels. In my own work, the influence of the nineteenth/ twentieth-century French vitalist philosopher Henri Bergson – the great thinker of time and, as Walter Benjamin suggested, a seminal source to consult in considering the problem of experience – has quite profoundly informed my thinking and shaped its outcomes. Both with respect to time and space as well as body and brain, his influence is reflected in the title of this volume. That said, this is not a collection of chapters on Bergson’s philosophy. It is a collection on critical concepts I believe to be of importance for contemporary critique, delivered through topics that are relevant – at times directly and at others indirectly – to our current moment. This is a work of great commitment and it has sustained itself over time. It is my hope the reader finds some value in this as well.

Against a Perpetuating FictionDisentangling Art from Hyperreality Garen J. Torikian (bio) May not one succeed in systemizing confusion and so assist the total discrediting of the world of reality? —Salvador Dali What is wanted of such a vantage point is that it do justice to the twin aspects of art: as object and as function, as artifice and as living form of consciousness, as the overcoming or supplementing of reality and as the making explicit of forms encountering reality, as autonomous individual creation and as dependent historical phenomenon. —Susan Sontag, "On Style," in Against Interpretation The social condition labeled "postmodernism" threatens human creation and significance by denying the existence of reality. One has difficulty resisting postmodernism because doing so would presume that postmodern theory is coherent and unified; it is also erroneous to believe it is a fashionable term applied by some to seem intellectual. There is no such thing as a "postmodern theory," only postmodern theories and theorists. Even the philosophers that identified themselves with postmodernism had differing definitions and changed their attitudes on the subject throughout their lives. Postmodernism is as pervasive and chronic as a pandemic. But there is no consequence of postmodernism more appalling than the social relationship French philosopher Jean Baudrillard identified as "hyperreality." "Hyperreality" is a term used to describe the way the world is absorbed by an individual's preference for illusory objects over authentic ones. This is done through the modification of an object or cultural icon to make it more appealing than its actual form. It is specifically linked to postmodernism since it is a product of deconstructionists' attempts to discover "the truth behind truth." For them, reality is defined as the sensory perception of objects, and truth as the faith in the immutability of those objects. [End Page 100] Hyperreality tears these affirmations apart by insisting that the qualities that make an object unique (haecceitas) are not related to the essence of that object (quidditas). In other words, things are not at all what they seem. Defending oneself against hyperreality could result in a suspicion of all fictitious creations, including art. But art has its own distinct status in the world and offers alternatives to resist and combat hyperreality. Whereas hyperreality limits a person's engagement to reality, art strengthens that unity. By examining the aesthetic and social origins of hyperreality, and the development and role of art, the division between the two incompatible illusions can be recognized. Postmodernism, the progenitor of hyperreality, is principally explained as a reaction to modernism, while avoiding the linguistic paradox of being "after modern." What, then, was modernism? Or, what did modernists believe that postmodernists reject? Modernist aesthetics were an attempt to rejuvenate art in a society that had lost meaning. It explored the effectiveness of language in establishing concepts, especially words with ambiguous definitions, like "nationalism" or "good." Artists focused often on existential situations, either by praising the human condition or struggling for its improvement in a maddening world. Most modernists are seen as having a sense of hope (or at least a very firm belief) that their ideas, whether celebratory or judgmental in content, could lead to a utopian future through a reevaluation of society's flaws. But the system of postmodernism does not allow such criticism—because all criticism is inherently correct. The concept of disagreement, therefore, does not exist. The fundamental postmodernist is a skeptic investigating the validity of messages purporting to be truth. It is similar to the modernist's efforts to disambiguate words; however, the postmodernist does not offer comfort: "the postmodern mind seems to condemn everything, propose nothing. Demolition is the only job the postmodern mind seems to be good at. Destruction is the only construction it recognizes."1 The postmodernist can be seen as a person dealing with two mounds of peanuts. On one side are the shells not yet cracked, which one can discern to be a peanut and yet not, each shell only suggesting what it contains; on the other side are the discarded shells whose insides have been acknowledged and devoured. The two mounds split the truth of the peanuts only into "about to be deconstructed" and "already deconstructed." But the postmodernist...

How the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard predicted today’s AI 30 years before ChatGPT

In his famous book The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, Jean Baudrillard refers to the model of exchange defined by the myth of the pact with the Devil. The things we sell: our reflections in the mirror, our shadows, or the products of our work do not remain safely separate from us, but instead turn against us and take their revenge, sometimes even bringing us to self-destruction. However, the French philosopher claims that, nowadays, the tragedy of the subject haunted by its spectre is no longer relevant as the subject poses a spectrum, and all transcendence is lost in the order of signs. The structure of the myth about the pact with the Devil appears in Murong Xuecun’s novel Most Die of Greed. In post-reform and opening-up China, an average young man meets a mysterious older millionaire and gets involved in a risky game, in which unbridled consumption leads to degeneration and, eventually, gruesome death. As a 70 hou (post-1970, born in the 1970s) writer, Murong Xuecun addresses the transformations in his generation’s attitudes and values caused by rapid changes in both material and ideological spheres of their lives.

Dear participant of Tirana Architecture Week, In his famous book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ (1962), the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn, coined the notion of ‘paradigm shift’, intended as a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. In opposition to the activity of ‘normal science’, a ‘shift’ occurs when the current predominant paradigm, under which scientific activities are conducted becomes incompatible due to new phenomena, facilitating the research – and adoption – of a new theory or paradigm. We can also assume that, such a critical change is often driven by a ‘crisis’, a transitional moment where the appearance of new technologies, environmental conditions (ex. climate change), or political situations (ex. migration phenomena), requires the a drastic rift from the past and opens the way to a reformulation of the notion of the so-called ‘Modernity’. Indeed, according to the words of the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard: «Modernity … is what transforms crisis into a value, a contradictory moral, says Baudrillard, for it gives rise to an aesthetics of rupture». The history of Architecture and Design itself, can be also interpreted as a consequential stream of changes following the research of a new paradigm. The Industrial Revolution deeply influenced the work of professionals during the whole XX Century, leading to the appearance of an architecture that could be a response to the industry preferring a free and functional arrangement of bodies rather than typological preset; transparencyrather than opaqueness, points structures rather than tectonic configurations. In the last thirty years, with the development of computers and ICT technologies, another paradigm has raised and changed these disciplines from their inner structures. The IT Revolution has imposed itself as the central element for a new phase in all of architecture, and information hasbecome the essential component of a new way of designing and a new urban environment. A whole generation of architects has been dealing with the purpose of transferring the dynamic interconnection at the heart of IT from the digital world to a new reality of reactive, sensitive, interactivearchitectures. The aim of Tirana Architecture Week 2020 is to draw current research and design practices, as well as theoretical speculations on therelationship between the paradigm shifts in science and urbanism; in other words about the science and the city. Such mandate will be addressedin multiple scales and contexts, and from different perspectives within different fields of interest, directly or indirectly related to design, architecture, urban studies, sociology, environmental research, engineering, education and pedagogy.

"In this vertiginous cycle of the impossible exchange of death, the death of the terrorist is an infinitesimal point, but one that creates a gigantic …void."1 This is from Baudrillard's response to the events of September 11, 2001, the first in a series of four short essays published under the title The Spirit of Terrorism in 2002. Reviewing the essays in 2002, the New York Times wrote: First prize for cerebral coldbloodedness goes to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, in his slim little book THE SPIRIT OF TERRORISM AND REQUIEM FOR THE TWIN TOWERS (Verso, paper, $13). "In terms of collective drama," he writes, "we can say that the horror for the 4,000 victims of dying in those towers was inseparable from the horror of living in them—the horror of living and working in sarcophagi of concrete and steel." It takes a rare, demonic genius to brush off the slaughter of thousands on the grounds that they were suffering from severe ennui brought about by boring modern architecture.

Les troubles du récit: pour une nouvelle approche des processus narratifs