I Just finished listening to this episode of Philosophize This podcast https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/simulacra-and-simul.... Whole-heartedly recommend this podcast episode the entire podcast to anyone who is remotely interested in learning the "modern western canon" in Layman's terms.

I always liked his observation that Disneyland was created in order to make the rest of America seem real.

I like Existential Comic's explanation of the simulacrum concept, using football/soccer injuries as an example:

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/476

I always enjoy the moment in The Matrix where Neo flops a hollowed out copy of this book open, to fish out some illicit mini-disc he’s storing in it.

How readable and accessible is this book?

I am always attracted to philosophy and culture theory books, but more often than not they are extremely dry and academic, and sadly I require more excitement to hold my squirrel attention.

It is no wonder much more people have read the “Industrial Society and its Future” than anything by Jacques Ellul.

My favourite explanation of this is a review of the Toyota FJ Cruiser:

https://youtu.be/PA23qLvl79k?is=nkWS0Tbgcm65RCQS

The Simulation and Simulacra part starts around 4:00.

The idea of a copy with no original is even more relevant than when the book was first published as it has become possible to use AI to generate fake images. (e.g. the million "Look what they took from you" slop accounts on Twitter that post nostalgic images of "traditional values" with clear anachronisms or inaccuracies)

Current events have also been increasingly defined by fake images or videos that can be made very realistic-looking at first glance. There doesn't seem to be any effective mechanism to stop these kinds of lies from spreading. Social media incentivizes this content and whatever fact checking or correction that comes after is too slow to reverse the effects of the misinformation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15324818 (2017)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23154141 (2020)

Suddenly, wildly, pertinent to today's world.

I think most of these issues are symptoms of the fact that "People are forced to take decisions in limited time, based on limited information and possible misinformation". It has nothing to do with the fact that general public are dumb or ignorant. How do you expect me to make informed decisions about the world if I am forced to work a day job and raise a family while taking out time for personal entertainment and recharging. To remove the constraints, one must imagine an alternative universe where a person can stop time, read and reason as much as he wants. In such a universe, these theories would fall apart.

Great book, though it requires a bit of experience sifting through florid 20th century French philosophical prose. I would strongly encourage people not to get fixated too heavily on the "simulation" aspect in terms of what we think of these days when we hear "simulation". When it comes to Baudrillard, it's always important to focus on the semiotic aspect. What something is referring to, and whether there even is a thing for it to refer to.

As we approach the fall season, I'd recommend this little blog post to make it more clear: http://www.critical-theory.com/understanding-jean-baudrillar...

It discusses how the fact that we associate pumpkin spice lattes with fall, despite pumpkin not really needing to be harvested only in fall anymore and despite there not even being any pumpkin in the drink to necessitate even the tenuous seasonal connection. To quote the main arguments here:

>The fact that we welcome the return of pumpkin season, save for those who demand they buy these pumpkins from an ethically sourced gluten free farm just masks the fact that there are no seasons. We could probably ship pumpkins from all around the world to get our pumpkin fix year-round. But even then, it’s only the third order of that list above. It’s not quite at that next level pure simulacra shit.

>Did I mention that there’s no pumpkin in your pumpkin spice latte? It’s nutmeg (and a few other spices). In other words, that delicious sip of fall you just imbibed is actually a pure simulacrum, of that fourth order. Pumpkin spice doesn’t conceal the fact that there are no longer seasons, pumpkin spice has no referent in reality, it exists for its own sake. The only thing “pumpkin spice”refers to is itself– like the distinct difference between “cherry flavored” items and “red flavored” candy that claims to be cherry-flavored.

>Those who bake will quickly note that “pumpkin spice” derives from the mixtures of spices (nutmeg, allspice, etc) that go into a pumpkin pie. But that’s exactly the point: it doesn’t matter whether “pumpkin spice” actually has any correlation to reality. Ads for pumpkin spice items tout pumpkins and other fall fare, as if there’s a biological imperative to shove “things that go well with pumpkin” into our collectively fat faces when the leaves start to turn. Nutmeg and allspice are also available year-round, as is canned pumpkin, meaning we could clearly sate our desires at any time.

Someone with the same squirrel attention who starts a lot of books a rarely finishes one. I think for a philosophy book, it is quite accessible in the sense that it builds on common knowledge and known cultural phenomenon, not that much on prior theory you must have read. Regarding the language it is not that accessible, Baudrillard (in the culture of french intellectuals of the time) has a very dense, complex language. But it is not a dry philosophy lecture, its more like hackerman punk-rock philosophy.

The book consists of a set of loosely related essays, and the first essay "the precession of simulacra" is just roughly 40 pages. If you read that, squirrel brain is happy and you got most of the books content. The rest is just explaining this concept on modern (slightly outdated now, but culturally still relevant), cultural phenomenon. Once you understand his concepts of "simulacrum" and "image" it is very readable. Later he uses his concepts of "economic and symbolic exchange" which come from his earlier book Symbolic Exchange and Death. The concept is quite easy to grasp, the book is good but you don't have to have read it. The rest of the book builds on these concepts. So the key to making this book accessible is understanding these concepts, which for me took some thinking and time to actually understand deeply.

But, and that's important, once you worked through the book, it is a phenomenal tool to understand modern culture. So is it accessible: theoretically yes, linguistically not, but its worth it.

It's hard but if you read it once for the vibes and then pay closer attention the next time you go through it's not too hard. Baudrillard is a Zizek-level philosopher in the sense that his own celebrity is kind of at the centre of most of his work (this doesn't mean it's simple, dumb or low-quality, it's pretty interesting, it's just also kinda sci-fi/fanciful as opposed to hardcore logic-chopping or idk complex historiography like some of his contemporaries)

"readable and accessible" are some of the last words I would use to describe the book.

Tried to read it, gave up.

> How readable and accessible is this book?

It took me about 20-30 re-reads of the first page to understand it.

The rest of the chapter was then a bit easier. I gave up after that.

But it really is a great idea in the first few pages.

Its not great. I suggest reading Villem Flusser instead.

Depends on your proficiency. As a former philosophy student I find it one of the more readable books. It still is probably hard to wrap your head around as a layperson not used to this kind of theoretical thinking.

But what it is not: Some authors use word plays, complexity and semantics to make their ideas appear more sophisticated than they are. This is not that.

> It is no wonder much more people have read the “Industrial Society and its Future” than anything by Jacques Ellul.

Do you think it is because Ellul is hard to read or because Kaczynski is just more well-known for obvious reasons?

> How readable and accessible is this book?

As with most works of cultural theory you need to read it few times, and also check other works of his. Otherwise you may end up reducing concepts from this book to social media or AI slop.

Moreover, books like this usually are just phrases in a long dialectical process. For example, it is useful to read Debord first, and then move to Baudrillard.