Seth M - Response 4

I don't think Debord's point is to set-up any clear, obviously, or concise definition of what spectacle is, but more or less what "the society of the spectacle" truly is. Through out the chapters, he switches from culture to religion and even from capitalism to time itself. All the while, Debord is continuously pointing out the intangibility of our society. Everything we've come to except as our world and it's definitions is just an image, perhaps once founded in physical space but is now only a mere representation of itself. These placeholders lack the authenticity of the original and only work to amuse our individual desires for the spectacle. I do believe that Debord is correct when he talks about our need to fill this void when he says, "human fulfillment was no longer equated with what one was, but with what one possessed." I doubt I've grasped nearly all that, honestly. However, my favorite part of this work, is actually near the end of chapter five when he talks about the power of the bourgeoisie and the way he refers to them as living outside of "historical time." He brings to light the flimsiness of time when he mentions Year One of the Republic as a measurement with "absolute origin." It was just interesting to me that Debord seems to almost worship this idea of restarting time from a solid point, almost as if it gives him some sort of reassurance. "The Society of the Spectacle" is filled to the brim with hundreds of thesis about various subjects, half of which I couldn't hope to properly understand without some serious research time. But I have enjoyed reading what I could get out of it.