|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Start-class)|
On 9 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See defaultlogic.com Resource: 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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really a novel. It's not a work of fiction, but of philosophy. 18.104.22.168 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 22.214.171.124 (talk o 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."
Shouldn't it read like the following:
I'm going to change it, I just thought I'd clarify. Maprovonsha172 8 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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? 126.96.36.199 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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 o contribs) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I used a hard copy of this version . Notice that 'The simulacrum is true', implying that 'simulacrum' is singular. Also,  agrees with this. Here it is in the Matrix , 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)
Here's the Stanford version which I previously linked to . 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)
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)
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.
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!
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)
Apparently someone has re-added The Matrix page and told me (the deleter of the section) to discuss it here. Look, if you want to know my drift just read the prior paragraph. Until someone can rationally explain why THIS page needs anything of The Matrix on it, it will be deleted. Also, it seems like the re-addition of the information fell into the very categories I was discussing previously. If this user can't even look at this section for what he/she is telling me to do (or use a screen-name), then I can't help them. willsy 08:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The association with the film is obviously notable. As far as your "fanboy" comment above, you appear to be a fanboy of Baudrillard, which is clouding your judgement of what should and should not appear in a general knowledge encyclopedia article. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"The Matrix projects the image of a monopolistic superpower the likes of which can be seen today, and it participates in its refraction" The Conspiracy of Art (203). "The Matrix is the kind of film about the Matrix that the Matrix itself could have produced" The Conspiracy of Art (202). "The most embarrassing part of the film is that it confuses the new problem raised by simulation with its arch-classical, Platonic treatment. This is a serious flaw." The Conspiracy of Art (202). Do you understand yourself to be an "agent" of The Matrix now? willsy 08:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm having strong doubts that any single person who keeps re-posting The Matrix section has even read Baudrillard's book. This is becoming blatantly clear b/c no one seems to really be able to give me (the deleter of the section) any clear and plausible reason why it should come back and remain on this entry of Wikipedia. Trust me on this: the section skews everything Baurdillard talks about in order to sound "awesome" and/or "cool," exactly what the Wachowski brothers did: in so few words, 'close but no cigar.' I'm going to keep deleting it b/c it is misinformative to anyone who is just coming to this entry for general knowledge. The Truman Show has more to do w/ Baudrillard's book than The Matrix. Baudrillard even states The Truman Show is actually more accurate to what he is talking about in Simulacra and Simulation in the book of interviews, The Conspiracy of Art. If you want to keep making fools of yourselves: be my guest. I'm sure Baudrillard is laughing either way. willsy 08:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Clamosa. I've been fighting this battle for a while now w/ people who seem to just pop by the article. The Matrix article does have stuff about the book on there, but I figure it will be almost impossible to have any affect b/c people are such big fans of the movie. It does state, "However, Baudrillard commented that The Matrix misunderstands and distorts his work," which is fine enough for me. As long as it's not on the article of the book confusing people about what the book is about and the movie article continues to have that note I'm fine. Just trying to help people out a bit b/c enough people are already confusing things. willsy 04:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
These random barrage of edits in favor of The Matrix are becoming desperate. There are no longer any usernames attached to the edits themselves and one can tell that these edits are merely done by people who have seen the movie and have never read the book, also people who just happen by the page w/ no other regard than to paste The Matrix everywhere. These edits in favor of The Matrix having its own spot on this page will continue to be deleted b/c of the prior discussions on this talk page in regard to The Matrix and Baudrillard's actual book--also that Baudrillard's book is in the actual movie has no relevance to this book b/c the book does not need the movie to achieve some form of status, etc. willsy 3:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have a problem against "The Matrix." But, people consistently refuse to discuss the film in context w/ this book, merely offering comments in the Editing history. The book, "Simulacra and Simulation," maintains and states an entirely different thesis than that which "The Matrix" proposes. Now, they might appear similar, the film might even have the book included in the film, but they are nothing alike. The author of the book, Jean Baudrillard (whom I've quoted above), even states "The Matrix" misrepresents his book. Due to this misunderstanding w/in the film, and the basic user coming to read this article, I still protest "The Matrix" being included at all in this article due to this misunderstanding. But, if it is absolutely imperative that a film be the main-guide to a book that it purports to emulate, then by all means: please, use the film to dictate the article of this book. Otherwise, I strongly suggest reading the actual book b/c the author, Jean Baudrillard, surely must have known what he was stating when he wrote it and is not trying to be cool (or w/e else you might come up w/) by stating "The Matrix" gets his work wrong. willsy 2:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
"In this world apathy and melancholy permeate human perception and begin eroding Nietzsche's feeling of ressentiment." This doesn't make sense! -VirianFlux --184.108.40.206 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
The definition of "simulation" here does not seem Baudrillard's: "Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time." The citation is "J. Banks, J. Carson, B. Nelson, D. Nicol (2001).Discrete-Event System Simulation. Prentice Hall. p. 3.ISBN 0-13-088702-1." Baudrillard names as the third order of simulacra, "simulacra of simulation, founded on information, the model, the cybernetic game - total operationality, hyperreality, aim of total control."Doughboy1234 (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the top of the article:
Simulacra and Simulation (French: Simulacres et Simulation) is a 1981 philosophical treatise by Jean Baudrillard, in which he seeks to examine the relationships between reality, symbols, and society, in particular the significations and symbolism of culture and media involved in constructing an understanding of shared existence.
Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no original, or that no longer have an original. Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.
" . . in particular the significations and symbolism of culture and media involved in constructing an understanding of shared existence."
What does this mean? Is the writer talking about the significance of symbols? And, if so, symbols that appear in "culture" (which, as far as I can tell, is every symbol ever created or used) and "media involved in constructing an understanding . . . " and my head explodes. I have no idea what the writer is trying to say.
"Simulacra are copies that depict things that had no original . . . " - how can you have "copies that depict things" which never existed (had no original)?
And, I checked four online sources, including the Oxford English Dictionary, and it seems simulacra and simulacrum represent(s) a thing or things which existed. A simple definition of simulacrum, for example: "An image or representation of someone or something" from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/simulacrum.
Or, maybe, the author means a copy of a copy. I really can't tell.
Re: "Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time."
Seriously? Must we torture everything? Can't we just assume people know what constitutes a simulation? And, if it's used in some specific way in the book cited, shouldn't that be made clear? Otherwise we are just defining a relatively common word - and doing it rather badly.
"Over time" makes it art.
Manage research, learning and skills at defaultlogic.com. Create an account using LinkedIn to manage and organize your omni-channel knowledge. defaultlogic.com is like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.