Talk:Simulacra and Simulation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've got an amazon link that says you're wrong :) .  If you've other sources than this, and what's provided in the book box, post them on the talk page and let's see if we can figure out what is the better option.  I don't want to say it, but I kinda have to, that the best name might be the one used in the Matrix, 'cause that's probably the one most known to the most people.  But first, we should review other options with sources.  WLU (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slavoj Zizek 

message: 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!
Discussion http://ask.metafilter.com/106459/Is-that-EcclesiastesBaudrillard-quote-accurate
... how could one take wiki, or google for that matter, literally? 77.70.2.106 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation / Context 

message: 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)
replies: text: willsy: I agree, the book is not about the film and the film is only name dropping the book (and a lot of other stuff), so removing this piece of popculture makes sense to me.  However, The Matrix#Production is linking to this article so it will probably make life easier if you add the references above to the The Matrix article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Matrix 

message: Maybe add a redirect if the title is searched for the other way around?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.44.134 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: "In this world apathy and melancholy permeate human perception and begin eroding Nietzsche's feeling of ressentiment." This doesn't make sense!
-VirianFlux --144.124.16.33 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: 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.."  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)
replies: text: What is his different definition of "simulation"?  BrianPansky (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: definition of "simulation"

message: 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.[1] Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.[2]
" . .  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.[2]"
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.
Rblack2001 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have no clue what any of this means 

message: This article should discuss the reception of the work.
Currently it deals purely with the content of the book, which gives no indication why any of it matters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1045:10:13EF:E38B:3198:8E76 (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 129.161.237.95 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Some mention should be made of Guy Debord's 1967 Society of the Spectacle, which contains the key ideas of "Simulacra and Simulation" within its first page. Philgoetz (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Did Baudrillard credit Debord? The concept of The medium is the message also comes to mind. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle 

message: Simulacra and simulation 194.102.194.166 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simulacra and simulation