[FRA:] Zizek & Koenigsberg on The Matrix, Human Batteries & the Symbolic Orde

[James Rovira]

I think those problems are fairly easily solved by both Baudrillard
and Kant.  In Baudrillard, no, I don't think there's an authentic
anything to begin with, therefore there's no point talking about a
"more" authentic...anything (at least in Baudrillard's S and S).

In Kant, we can't "know" the object, but all rational agents
necessarily reconstruct the object in the same way -- which is,
effectively, knowledge of the object.  It is -our- knowledge of the
object but not arbitrary knowledge of the object.

Jim R

On Jan 15, 2008 8:08 PM, matthew piscioneri <mpiscioneri at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think you have located in Baudrillard the usual suspect reasoning of any type of ontology that suggests either (i) a "more" authentic, "hidden" or "unknowable" Other (Kant's noumenal/phenomenal split is paradigmatic)...(ii) equally so in totalizing critiques (H&A's DoE thesis, Foucault's all truth claims = power claims) that (i) if the Other is so unknowable (Kant) or the simulacrum of a more authentic or original Other, then just how do we gain knowledge of this Other...deus ex machina...the transcendental deduction comes to the rescue. It's funny just how much of a Kantian Baudrillard is. As for (ii) if all forms of reasoning are instrumental and subject to inversion, so too the DoE thesis/if all claims to Truth are really power claims, so too Foucault's theses on power.
>