Derrida also points out that there is no law without force (Kant) and brings Freud into it when talking about the impulses and conflicts of interest that, in the best case scenario (after a reform of international legal institutions), can only be suppressed by the “gewalt juridique” or violence/authority of the law.

listener who wasnt alive at that time 🙋

i see A Thousand Years of Non-linear History on your shelf

You're the best! Thank you David and greetings from Algeria 🇩🇿🇩🇿🇩🇿

Fascinating debate, in which both were correct but in different ways.

Derrida taking a realpolitik view, Baudrillard a symbolic view.

Even if 911 has no real impact on US foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq would have happened anyway; but 911 still has an enormous cultural, symbolic and psychological resonance.

Something like Vietnam War having far more of a cultural effect than a military or political effect.

The symbolic, cultural effects of politics and war, may be a facade - but still facades are all important in the maintenance of empire.

In fact 911 was similar to Apocalypse Now in its triumph for America, in that the defeat is turned to a great cultural success.

An act of terrorism so Wagnerian, so epic, so cinematic - it could only take place in America.

Almost as if standard terrorism just won't do against a hyper power like America, an act of terror worthy of the greatest empire in history. The sheer size of the event becoming a backhanded compliment, wherein the terrorists are influenced by Hollywood disaster movies, the iconic New York skyline,  the grand Biblical anachronisms inherent in American literature .

All great powers require worthy adversaries, and require great events.  Otherwise empire just becomes a sordid exorcise in death and trade.

Someone named Kofi Annan? That was the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the time.

Thank you immensely for this. It is an important debate.

This was an interesting breakdown of a pretty important debate, so thank you for that.  I think it might be interesting if for videos like this you would offer some of your own input and perspective on the issue once the ideas of the other philosopher(s) have been presented.  I think the aspect of philosophy as dialogue is something quite important, especially to continental thought, and it would be nice to have some new voices that have an understanding of the underlying concepts start to push the needle forward and get beyond bare re-presentation.

Such a great video, you speak with such a soft voice it's really comforting!

imagine not being alive during 9/11

commenting to please the algorithm and to say thanks for all your work, David

Hey, thank you for the episode! Been waiting for this from the Guattari's podcast haha.

Anyway, I just want to say I really love your Baudrillard's videos and I have followed you on Podcast for as long as I can remember. I also have read through your Master's thesis, "The Mirror of Humanism". I see that you have delved into the posthuman domain, which you have rarely discussed in your podcast and videos.

If possible, do you think you can give us some outline about posthuman, and how Baudrillard's posthumanism is different from other thinkers, say Braidotti, stance on the topic? I know I'm asking too much and I should make a request through your patreon, but I'm dirt poor haha.

I hope this might come to your consideration sometimes (;. Anyway, thank you for your podcasts, really help me a lot!

Excuse me, correction. France and Germany did not in the end approve of the war. (20:27) Also, the then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan explicitly declared the war illegal. But that wasn't until September 2004, after their debate.  Does this suggest that Derrida turned out to be more correct in his assessment, because international law did not approve of the war? Thank you just the same for your very thought provoking analysis, as I am not fluent in French.

loving ur videos, a viewer from China

22:22 is what I'm here for. 😹😹

Thank you excellent vid , i didnt know such  a debate ever took place, of course i totally  imagine  baudrillard being   at odds with derrida's light take on 9-11 since for Baudrillard those terrorists  attacks were nothing but the absolute event or the mother of all events as opposed to  his theorizing on non events developed in his 90s books, 9 11 was such an ocurrence of which  there is no model to fit into it hence a perfect instance of reversibility or the revenge of the object brought about by the western semiotic order  ,also worth mentioning baudrillards  follow up articles on the subsequent occupation of iraq ( war porn) where he gave his take on abu ghraib,claiming that was just the system suicidal response ( wiping out its simulated superpower  signs: human rights, etc) following the attack on its own democratic values ( patriot act)and on its own people ( terrorism)

This was great. Can you please do one video on Derrida and Agamben debate about biopolitics as well?

Thank you David. Good discussion. It made certain concept very clear like Slave master relationship.

I can only say you are doing a great job! Keep it up! This is the most lucid and neutral expression that I have ever got regarding this supposed debate and the fact that you have still retained your own perspective into it. Kudos!

This video was very informative! I like the way you explain things. Thank you!!