Simulacra
Two completely unrelated blogs (one Jewish skeptic, one Icelandic philology student) mention Baudrillard on the same day - what an uncanny coincidence.
I am often surrounded by conversations of five year olds these days. It seems that they must be hitting some kind of developmental milestone because there is strong focus on confirming what is "real" and what is "not real".
Raccoons are real. Harry Potter is not real. Monsters are not real.
I am often surrounded by conversations of five year olds these days. It seems that they must be hitting some kind of developmental milestone because there is strong focus on confirming what is "real" and what is "not real".
Raccoons are real. Harry Potter is not real. Monsters are not real.
posted by e-kvetcher at 11:46 AM
3 Comments:
Realler than raccoons one can hardly get.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/fraternities/raccoons.html
That's keeping it real man. Bensonhurst represents!
I protest. Harry Potter is real, as a fictional character. Monsters are real and not, depending on definition. Raccoons also don't exist in Iceland, and I've never seen one, so I don't know how real they are.
Sophist, tell your little kids that monsters are real, and then we'll talk.
Of course, you'll probably be less than coherent after not sleeping for a few months because you're up with them all night.
Besides, my point was not to be the authority on what is "real" and what is not "real" but to point out that the need to distinguish between the two states, however you define it, seems to be hardwired at an early age.
It is only later on that we try to put a more "sophisticated" spin on this distinction.
Post a Comment
<< Home