Talk:Simulacrum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiktionary?[edit]

Yet another term that seems like it whould be in wiktionary.

Perhaps so but real or not, this seems to be a sort of phenomenon and I would categorize it as Forteana - in fact I think I will! — FJ | hello 05:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I agree that it's a wiktionary term. I think it can be treated as a philosophical/critical concept. Not that this article really rises to the occaision yet though. — AdamDiCarlo 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This is biased language:

It is notable that many pages are littered with factoids about the meaning of words in the fictitious context of popular movies, video and role-playing games, usually derivative cliches in imitation of other such fictions.

It should be changed.

Rintrah 07:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree! — AdamDiCarlo 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simulacrum (Podcast)[edit]

Looks like Google has cached an older version of this page that makes reference to Simulacrum, the british podcast. I think we should include a link to it, even if only as a disambiguation line.

I'm going to remove simulacrum here and apophenia on simulacrum's sight, I don't see any connection between the two.Maprovonsha172 16:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. What is being suggested really and why? — AdamDiCarlo 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
@Maprovonsha172: "apophenia on simulacrum's sight"? Were you referring to the page as a misspelled site? (Not that I really expect an answer after 8 years!) --Thnidu (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial rewrite[edit]

Hi folks. Long time reader, first time submitter. I tried to take a stab at 'being bold'. Essentially, I paired down the Philip K. Dick homage, because it really wasn't supporting the point, tossed in a real definition for the word, and broke the article into 3 distinct parts for each meaning of the word, with examples. Yes, it lost a lot of the richness about in jokes with the Matrix movies and whatnot, but IMHO it gained clarity and structure. (Anon. post by User:Evil Twin Skippy, 24 October 2005)

Restored the "pared down" content, trying to retain more recent edits as well. Wikipredians should be more wary of this kind of well-meaning destruction, which results in the loss of information. It is much harder to restore content after intervening edits have been made. (By the way, note the other contributions of this user). --Wetman 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism[edit]

Should be merged in some way:

Though difficulties have arisen in offering a definitive, categorical definition of Gnosticism (see below), various strategies have been employed in overcoming the problem, with varying degrees of success. It is therefore appropriate to offer a typological model of those ancient philosophical movements typically called Gnostic; the model offered is adapted from Christoph Markschies' version, as described in Gnosis: An Introduction.....The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow. This world is typically an inferior simulacrum of a higher-level reality or consciousness. The inferiority may be compared to the technical inferiority of a painting, sculpture, or other handicraft to the thing(s) those crafts are supposed to be a representation of. In certain other cases it is also percieved as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants... (from Gnosticism). —Viriditas | Talk 08:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Simulacrum vs. Android[edit]

What exactly is the difference (if any!) as a few articles linked to here could very well be on the Android page Alastairward 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person(s) who wrote this article seem to only think that simulacra are androids. Let me elaborate though. All androids are simulacra, but not all simulacra are androids. Other examples of simulacra that should go on the site are things like Disney World\Land (that's a perfect example). The article mentions the robots and agents from The Matrix, yet the matrix itself is a simulacrum. The book Simulacrum and Simulacra even makes an appearance in the film as the book that Neo throws the money into and takes the 'program' he made for that guy out. The way the book is represented there, it is also a simulacrum (kind of an ironic nod for those in the know). I'll alter the article a bit, but I hope that little description helps. --Thaddius 02:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article a bit to make it less 'simulacrum is a synonym for android' to be more reflective of the definition 'simulacrum is an imperfect copy of the original'. --Thaddius 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems[edit]

This page is in need of serious work. Many important details of Baudrillard's writing on simulacra are missing. The science fiction examples mentioned earlier are still overrepresented. I am considering removing the example from mathematics as the term usage is likely a coincidence and its content seems to have little to do with the simulacra described on this page. There are many significant examples from art that are missing.

I believe the definition of simulacra addressed here needs to be narrowed, and it needs to be explored in more detail. A good example is the article communist state, which succeeds in describing a complex concept by focusing on the primary definition of it and makes it very clear when it is instead addressing the alternate definitions. I believe the same needs to be done here by focusing on Baudrillard's definition, which is the one with the most philosophical and cultural value.

DarwinPeacock 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This page is an abomination. It reads as if it were written by small children. A Baudrillard-centric re-write is in order. LeonStiel 10:11, 16 April 2007 (EST)

Fiction examples[edit]

I added an OriginalResearch tag to the Fiction examples section because I am not sure that the examples listed fit under the primary contemporary usage of Simulacra. To make sure that they do, editors should reference sources which describe the Fiction examples as cases of Simulacra.

DarwinPeacock 11:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

word history[edit]

  • Simulacrum (plural: simulacra), from the Latin simulare, "to make like, to put on an appearance of": simulacrum is actually an English adoption (loan word) of Latin "simulacrum", which in turn derives from "simulare".
  • originally meaning a material object representing something (such as a cult image representing a deity, or a painted still-life of a bowl of fruit): "originally", i.e. in Latin, or in English? In classical and medieval Latin, a simulacrum was not necessarily a material object but rather the material or immaterial representation or simulation of something ordinarily material or at least represented as such (including, for instance, the image of an object reflected by water, or the mental representation of an external object by human imagination, in ordinary perception as well as in visions and dreams)
  • By the 1800s it developed a sense of a "mere" image, an empty form devoid of spirit, and descended to connote a specious or fallow representation: formerly "material", and then "devoid of spirit"?? I wonder what the sources for this claim might be. I don't read much English, but judging from Latin and a few other European languages, there are only three significant turns in the history of this word that I can see. The first was at its earliest stage, when Lucretius introduced this word (which had made its first attested appearance in Plautus) as a term to natural philosophy (using it in his theory of visual perception for thin material emanations absorbed by the human eye: De rerum natura IV). The second was in early Christianity, when Christian authors began to use simulacrum as a quasi synonym to pagan cult image (e.g. Exodus 34,15 in Jerome's Vulgate). This specific meaning had already been widespread in classical Latin, yet the focus -- and the pejorative sense, or at least its ideological background -- was new. The third was in our modern or postmodern 1980ies, when Baudrillard and others narrowed the sense down to a "copy of a copy", a specific meaning which seems not to have played a prominent role in earlier times.--84.60.214.64 10:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I agree with all of the commentary in this talk section, but what's going on with the article itself. It's incoherent to the point of being a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbySimulacrum (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) --Thaddius 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to illustrate 'simulacrum'?[edit]

Pareidolia not simulacrum?

Isn't the image of a tree that presents itself to the eye as if it represents something else an example of Pareidolia rather than a simulacrum (in Baudrillard's or anyone else's sense of the word)? I refer to the image at right, which currently illustrates the page. Don't all the meanings of simulacrum presented here imply a human maker? An exception might be the Epicurean simulacrum of Lucretius, translating the Greek εἴδωλον, which is absent from this article. But if I understand the Epicurean theory of vision, which depends on the reliability of the senses, the simulacrum bears a direct relationship to material reality; I don't recall what Epicureans make of illusions or pareidolia. Even so, the image seems completely misleading, so ... with regret at undoing someone's good effort, shouldn't it be deleted? I hesitate, since I know so little about the subject. I'm going to add it to the gallery at pareidolia, anyway. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in developing the section "Simulacrum in philosophy" by adding the Lucretian simulacrum might take a look at this source, which discusses the simulacrum as a form of analogy, to see how it would dovetail with Baudrillard. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Simulacrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Online etym dict says "simulacrum (n.) Look up simulacrum at Dictionary.com 1590s, from Latin simulacrum "likeness, image, form, representation, portrait," dissimilated from *simulaclom, from simulare "to make like, imitate, copy, represent" (see simulation). The word was borrowed earlier as semulacre (late 14c.), via Old French simulacre."

Miriam-Webster "Origin of simulacrum Middle English, from Latin, from simulare

First Known Use: 15th century"

So I would say first known use is NOT 16th c but 14c in English. Spelling was not uniform then, so spelling difference does not mean it is a different word..

"World Wide Web" section just added[edit]

@Filipplenoir: today added a new section "World Wide Web". There are a number of problems with this section.

1) The section heading "World Wide Web" is a specific not present in the provided definition. I can easily imagine, for example, a cybersimulacra based in an IRC chatroom. IRC is not part of the "World Wide Web". I have no suggestion for a better title, but "World Wide Web" is unsourced and, as I demonstrated, probably inadequate.

2) The provided definition is an almost exact word for word copy from a paper by a grad student at https://www.academia.edu/37288676/What_are_CyberSimulacra_and_Cyberdeutocracy_ . Filipplenoir added the word "therefore" but beyond that it's a direct copy. This, of course, is contrary to policy which require either quotation with attribution, or a rephrasing in the editors own words. Filipplenoir has been warned about this before on their talk page, but they do not seem to have taken that warning to heart.

3) Filipplenoir added text saying word was first introduced by two authors, and cites their work. However, their work does not say it was the first usage of the word. Their work does use the word, in other words, but they do not claim they invented the word or that it is the first use of the word.

4) Filipplenoir, every edit for this addition is marked as a "minor" edit. "Minor" edits are considered edits which no other editor could conceivably object to (e.g. for typo fixes and the like). Those edits certainly were not "minor".

I'm going to go ahead and revert. Baba Rum Raisin (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of focus[edit]

Article totally lacks any focus. It's just all the uses of the term "simularcrum" in various contexts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odd logic[edit]

Hi,
to my eye, the "accurate" should be "inaccurate" (or 'flawed', or 'false')in the sentence " ... the tendency of some philosophers to distort truth so that it appears accurate unless viewed from the proper angle ...". I'm not sure if the author tries to say that philosophers mimic sculptors by distorting truth so that it communicates truth when viewed from a certain angle ('true in one place'), or that the truth of some philosophers is merely apparent, unless you happen to be at that odd place from where it actually seems to be true, but still isn't (false, but looks true in one place'). And perhaps that's even the same thing; Idk, not being a native speaker. I'd amend it to " is accurate only when viewed (etc.) ..." for the first case, or "can be seen to be false except when" for the second. Or forget it, if I'm up the garden path. T 88.89.217.49 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caricature[edit]

The following sentence is subjective and incorrect and is used to attempt to add weight to the author's description of a caricature...

"When an artist produces a line drawing that closely approximates the facial features of a real person, the subject of the sketch cannot be easily identified by a random observer; it can be taken for a likeness of any individual."

Any close approximation to the facial features of a real person is, by definition, easily identifiable by an observer. It would be as transparently incorrect to suggest that the subject of a photograph is not easily identifiable because the photograph closely approximates the subject.

Suggest removal of the incorrect sentence, leaving the actual description of a caricature to stand on its own merit.

A caricature is also easily identified by someone familiar with the dominant features of the subject, i.e. the ones that the caricature exaggerates as the expense of being realistic.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simulacrum&oldid=1198989600"