Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2014, Vol. 9 Issue (2) : 194-212    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-003-014-0017-5
research-article
The Embrace of Radical Philosophical Emptiness as a Liberating Conceptualization of Thought in Roland Barthes and Jean Baudrillard
Gerry Coulter()
Sociology Department, Bishop’s University, Quebec, J1M 1Z7, Canada
 Download: PDF(282 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Among the challenges of poststructuralist thought has been the demand that we acknowledge a kind of philosophical emptiness which many feel accompanies the perceived decline in foundationalist thought. By looking more closely at Barthes and Baudrillard’s writing on meaning, writing, language, truth, and the real, we can come to a better understanding of the emergence and implications of the poststructural challenge. The paper argues that Barthes’ and Baudrillard’s writing on these five key concepts can lead us to a more liberating conception of thought and contribute to our individual effort to become more challenging thinkers. This paper also (unavoidably) points to several points of convergence and divergence between Barthes and Baudrillard.

Keywords poststructuralism      Barthes      Baudrillard      writing      language      meaning      truth      real     
Issue Date: 04 July 2014
 Cite this article:   
Gerry Coulter. The Embrace of Radical Philosophical Emptiness as a Liberating Conceptualization of Thought in Roland Barthes and Jean Baudrillard[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 194-212.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-003-014-0017-5
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2014/V9/I2/194
[1] Dmytro Mykhailov. The Phenomenological Roots of Technological Intentionality: A Postphenomenological Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 612-635.
[2] XU Difei. Hintikka’s Logical Revolution[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 630-648.
[3] Jan Szaif. Drunkenness as a Communal Practice: Platonic and Peripatetic Perspectives[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 94-110.
[4] Thalia Wheatley, Terence Horgan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 349-360.
[5] Terence Horgan. Seventy Years in Philosophy of Mind: An Overview, with Emphasis on the Issue of Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 300-331.
[6] Hye Young Kim. A Phenomenological Approach to the Korean “We”: A Study in Social Intentionality[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 612-632.
[7] CHEN Yajun. Between Darwin and Hegel: On Dewey’s Concept of Experience[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 104-119.
[8] GAO Kun. A Naturalistic Look into Maddy’s Naturalistic Philosophy of Mathematics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 137-151.
[9] ZHOU Lian. Can Rawls’ Constructivism Avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma? In Reply to Shafer-Landau[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 568-578.
[10] XU Difei. Is Intuition Necessary for Defending Platonism?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(3): 492-509.
[11] Roger T. Ames. “Bodyheartminding” (Xin 心): Reconceiving the Inner Self and the Outer World in the Language of Holographic Focus and Field[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 167-180.
[12] Wai Wai Chiu. Goblet Words and Indeterminacy:A Writing Style that Is Free of Commitment[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 255-272.
[13] MOU Bo. On the Double-Reference Character of “Hexagram” Names in the Yijing: Engaging Fregean&Kripkean Approaches to the Issue of How Reference Is Possible[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 523-537.
[14] Byeong-uk Yi. Numeral Classifiers and the White Horse Paradox[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 498-522.
[15] YUGUO Fei. Scientific Realism and the Meanings of Theoretical Terms[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 431-440.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed