Jean Baudrillard's "The Gulf War did not take place"

Link to Podcast site (new episodes added daily): theoretician.podbean.com/
Link to Patreon (for those whom can afford it): / theoryandphilosophy In this episode, I turn my attention to Baudrillard's first book on the topic of war. I attempt to defend Baudrillard from some of the criticisms that have been mounted against him for some of his problematic claims by contextualizing this project within his entire theoretical corpus.

[@gwinocour]

I going through your whole serious of that prophet Baudrillard. Best one on the internet! Thank you for illuminating this difficult and obscure material.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Thank you for the nice words!

[@tricky1992000]

who's here listening, after the invasion of Ukraine?

[@vivicohen199]

@tricky1992000: Question appreciated. I'm listening .... and it's getting on my nerves! The object of the exercise here seems to be the lifting of the matter/topic/events, i.e. Ukraine, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, inter alia, into the realm of theorising/philosophising about 'mediasisation' which, in turn, begs the question: which media influences which sectors within which societies? How does this help Ukraine? How does it solve the problem of Ukraine having to respond to a politically and ethically unjustifiable invasion? S--t happens; it hits the fan. What does philosophical theory have to do with the fact of a war taking place and the realities of death, mutilation, deprivation, terror, grief, etc? Ukraine, Vietnam et al aren't 'ideas', toys to be played with in the corner of lofty philosophising.

[@wretched_scrivener]

@@vivicohen199It’s not just theoretical. He’s talking about, in part, the way in which the media presentation of war radically distorts and supplants the true horrors and complexities of war in the minds of those consuming that presentation. That has very real political and social consequences for Americans and everyone else.

[@dominiklangiewicz689]

i don't think Baudrillard can be applied here - this is not televised war, it is in fact war and it is not western war, although i would consider applying this essay to some extend to Israeli destruction of Gaza.

[@PamirTea]

This is great content. Thank you.

[@isoinic4575]

Very interesting decision to not clean out short talking points. It makes the listening experience way more natural. Keep it up

[@connectionerror2312]

🎈Incredible Baudrillard series!🎈 Never have I ever read a philosopher whose words had such an effect. Erotic poetry for 🧠👁🧠.

[@jeffsmith673]

5:20 That's the most nonchalant way I think I've ever heard anyone speak about the possible annihilation of the human race ever lol.

[@nintendoblood4835]

KZbin seems to prioritize the streaming of more popular viral videos. The connection to their server that hosts this video is cutting out frequently, despite my strong internet connection..

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Ya well my videos are the antithesis to click bait and they challenge the idea that people have short attention spans and need to be constantly stimulated so ya. Not surprised they dont give thm much love lol

[@nintendoblood4835]

@@TheoryPhilosophy hahaha it's true though

[@nintendoblood4835]

@@TheoryPhilosophy i enjoy what work of yours i have seen and think it is a good deal more accessible and detailed than others.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

@@nintendoblood4835 happy to hear it! It's important, I think, to actually read the texts though because I really only scratch the surface!

[@isseyashaile7307]

Thank you for your content and rip to Jean

[@SnivelyTheGlamful]

Great channel 😎👍

[@mertmaximilian880]

You are my favourite channel from now on. Using your own genius to accentuate Baudrillard's.

[@quagapp]

The Enlightenment (say the 1700s more or less) was not all bad. A contradictory time itself.... (Baudrillard is not talking of a 'plot' or anything though.)

[@josephsmith4147]

You're a genius.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

I'll have to respectfully disagree but I appreciate it haha

[@quagapp]

'Without human losses' as the loses are of 'the other'. Baudrillard is interesting. To be taken with a few pinches of salt....But has some interesting ways of thinking....

[@rayquaza1245]

I just stumbled into this topic, and I don't really understand. To me, isn't this theory just applying an arbitrary definition of "war," to say this isn't a war? But I think we all understand what "war" means as a general term. Also, It seems this theory doesn't understand that total war isn't the only kind of war. Overall, there were tons of times you make an outlandish claim and move on as if it was nothing. For example you said something like the US interest in Vietnam would've been bringing them into the global system. But this makes no sense on so many levels, so I surely must be missing something. Another example was you claiming more Americans would've died staying home rather than fighting, according to Baudrillard. Would like to understand more about this theory.

[@rayquaza1245]

@@anthonypaculan385 Well I wasn't alive during the Gulf War, so I guess I can't understand what the media coverage was like. But did they really portray the Gulf War as fighting insurgence in a guerrilla war? I'm not sure I totally believe that. The Gulf War was a conventional war, and people at the time would've known that. What would be the medias interest in falsely portraying it as an insurgency and how did they do it? "Cold war" does not refer to a type of war. It's just a term to describe countries who are directly competing against each other, without actually going to war. Also, what is "trench guerilla warfare?"

[@rayquaza1245]

@@anthonypaculan385 The Gulf War mainly a proxy war where the US supplied arms and didn't do much actual fighting? We talking about the same war? If anything i get the opposite sense; that it's portrayed as a united effort among many nations to give a sense of legitimacy to the war. But the US was indisputably the main force of the coalition, and did the majority of "fighting" on the ground + air. It's true that the word "fighting" doesn't properly describe what happened, it's more like a massacre. But this was due to the massive advantage the Coalition had over Iraq in nearly every category. I can't really fault the media for portraying it as a "normal war" at the time, because that's what it was going in. Only with hindsight can we see how much of an outlier it was in military history.

[@quagapp]

INteresting but the Englightenment and logic and science are, well they are things Baudrillard knew well about...they can be seen, those ideas as part of a long term dialectical process, a discussion, there were good ideas from the Englightenment and ideas that are "oppressive" but Baudrillard avoids careful logic. Sure he is interesting and in general right re the Gulf war and Vietnam....and people should read 'Savages' by Christopher Hampton. But the problem is: what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Rousseau disagreed with Locke as did others in the Enlightenment time, but his statements needed to be said, just as Dr Johnson felt the need to kick a rock and say: "There! I refute it thus!". There are many ways of looking at things. I see it as all a phenomelogical process, neither good nor bad. It all just happens. Unstoppable.

[@quagapp]

How can logic be oppressive? Baudrillard says a lot but it is de facto rhetoric. Nevetheless he interesting, so I am reading The Simulacra etc right now....but this fellow I think gets a bit confused etc

[@FolkeBernadotte2]

Now I know how Neil Armstrong felt hearing people arguing that the moon landing never occurred!!!! I’m a survival of the gulf war. I remember the bombing was louder than a thunderbolt, our concrete house was shaking like it’s an earthquake, my uncle was taking hostage by Saddam’s troops & and is almost executed. In fact Saddam’s troops murdered 3 of my relatives, including a handicapped.

[@gammakay521]

baudrillard's argument is that the conflict was a series of atrocities carried out by both sides- coalition troops against conscripts, saddam's troops against the people- which was then moulded by politicians, generals and the media into a war

[@krell1080]

yeah don't think he would invalidate any soldier's direct experience. his point is for the majority of us, the conflict was largely a spectacle that only took place as a series of repeated images displayed alongside nonstop propaganda. i think he addresses this multiple times.

[@rayquaza1245]

@@krell1080 What does this even mean? Of course the war was a "spectacle" for the people not involved. That's just what current events are at the end of the day. Of course everyone was getting fed propaganda during a war. The amount of images and videos are an obvious result of the new advances in technology allowing it. How do those things make the Gulf War so difference from any other war, to the point it can't be classified as one?

[@krell1080]

@@rayquaza1245 regarding the current events, exactly. there is a banality to fourth and fifth generation warfare. for example, how many years straight has America remained in a state of war with any given country? if not directly, through what proxy? it's all murky military industrial complex moves furthering inhuman economic interests more often than representing any actual clash of ideals. no longer clear where any battle lines are drawn or when it begins or ends. permanent invisible war of information. reminds me of the concept about over-sexualization, if sex is ubiquitous in our lives thru media and culture then it seems robbed of any "special" qualities that made it vital. if everything is sex, nothing is sex. if everything is war, nothing is war. anyway that's my take on what Baudrillard is saying. i don't even really care for him as i feel he has surrendered to nihilism.

[@vivicohen199]

@@rayquaza1245 People who watch wars as a spectacle on a screen and people who think of war as something 'spectacularised' obviously live in a separate reality to those who are in the thick of it, fighting and suffering because of the war.

[@bozoc2572]

people are dying ...more precisely, the empire is killing them

[@matthewangelucci4849]

I wonder, are you aware of the Metal Gear series and Hideo Kojima? Specifically, The Phantom Pain and MGS2 seem to be heavily influenced by Baudrillard, and motivations of characters in The Phantom Pain (one of whom who represents the proverbial state, America, the CIA, as an individual) to eradicate all difference and opposition, or marginalize and make more consumable. In this game, the man, who finds himself at the center of power, ruling the United States from behind the scenes during the 1970s and 80s. His goal is to eradicate all difference in all systems, interpersonal, racial, ethnic, and national and create a united humanity. He failed. The game thoroughly explores why. He and his system are undone by a person whos face has been taken from him and whos identity has been erased by the hegemonic systems that preceded both of them. And rather than create a united brotherhood of humanity with divisions erased focused towards peace, he instead created a united brotherhood of humanity with divisions erased focused on war and violence.

[@yeetyeetonthestreet-colinm1186]

always heard people talk about metal gear and i never realized it went that deep, i need to play it

[@greentilde4751]

wtf was that Bill & Ted intro 💀

[@MuhammedAL-Chad-nz4jx]

10:02 The Iraqi Army Only Lost 1500 Soldiers According To This Book...

[@ryanlewis5845]

Poig nant lee

[@quagapp]

He attacks and swears at some people at the end, that's not in the spirit of philosophy. Certainly not cricket for sure...

[@frankspig]

Drivel

[@wretched_scrivener]

Cool argument

[@piyushshrivastava3623]

Please speak clearly

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Will do!

[@seanslocum262]

The sound of a vector field of ocean currents shifting directions infinitesimally as the infrared heaters warm to chase the signal. (Hint: Buzz Aldrin, Bam Margera).

[@_JP18]

the missile crisis or "whatever"...? you have lost all credibility there. never use the word "whatever" you're an adult. also.. not your fault (i guess) but its very apparent you have never served in the military. you spend 17 minutes talking complete nonsense. ill be honest, i stopped listening after that. I really have difficulty understanding how you can critique anything past that. OK , i kept listening, but my opinion did not change. thank you for speaking freely, but i strongly disagree with the majority of what you say.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Word

[@aarnilapsi9336]

Should our use of words dictate our credibility, whether or not we know our stuff?