While I’m sure some might debate, this was a strong overview of his central thesis. I do sometimes question the logic that with Christianity we permanently reached some liminal zone between scapegoating delusion and Christian revelation. Do we not fall back and forth between these? I could accept the idea of cycles, and perhaps even the definitive power of Christianity as a worldwide and influential example of transcendence…but could the apocalypse of Girard actually be the egotism of a man who believes it was the French who finally ushered in Armageddon? Perhaps it is the Armageddon of the West, but not the final end. Though yes nuclear war etc I get it. I don’t know, it’s difficult to fully embrace the stark cynicism - especially when it now seems most weaponized by those selling the weapons.
Great piece. Have you read George Steiner's In Bluebeard's Castle? It's a similar theme - that the Holocaust was a rebellion against the cultural structure and demands of monotheism itself, with Jews as the scapegoat who brought those impossible demands.
I love French sorcerors as much as the next man, but there comes a point when you have to wonder whom you're trying to kid, or what you're trying to prove.
Take this, for example: " From the outset, we are violent creatures, our societies forged not through peaceful social contracts but through cycles of rivalry and domination." Human beings certainly are superb makers of war ("the ultimate art awaiting its ultimate practitioner"), but on what basis can we be claimed to be distinctively 'violent creatures'? We are not even in the top thirty species that kill their own kind, and our lives, both in infancy and throughout adulthood, can be defined just as easily by utter dependence on one another as by rivalry or conflict.
None of this is to presume to overturn the arguments or insights of this essay, which contain much truth. But here is another French sorceror, Baudrillard: "Theory can be no more than this: a trap set in the hope that reality will be naive enough to fall into it." If Girard's ideas are useful tools for understanding the world, then they are worth using prudently.
Of course, you are correct in a sense. Girard would not deny that our mimetic nature is also what makes us so social and even loveable to one another.
But the point of the article still stands. We are the most violent of creatures. According to conservative estimates, 180 million people died because of war and political violence alone during the 20th century.
"Thus, the two definitive marks of our era, even if they seem utterly antithetical: compassion for victims, concern for the downtrodden, care for the marginalized; alongside the looming specter of mutual assured destruction, the product of two world wars whose bloodshed has no parallel in history."
While it is difficult to deny the vast windy generalization of the second "definitive mark", the first can only elicit a vast guffaw. There is a difference between "a manner of speaking" and how we actually live in this era. Girard at least pretended to be committed to a common sense view of reality.
While I’m sure some might debate, this was a strong overview of his central thesis. I do sometimes question the logic that with Christianity we permanently reached some liminal zone between scapegoating delusion and Christian revelation. Do we not fall back and forth between these? I could accept the idea of cycles, and perhaps even the definitive power of Christianity as a worldwide and influential example of transcendence…but could the apocalypse of Girard actually be the egotism of a man who believes it was the French who finally ushered in Armageddon? Perhaps it is the Armageddon of the West, but not the final end. Though yes nuclear war etc I get it. I don’t know, it’s difficult to fully embrace the stark cynicism - especially when it now seems most weaponized by those selling the weapons.
Great piece. Have you read George Steiner's In Bluebeard's Castle? It's a similar theme - that the Holocaust was a rebellion against the cultural structure and demands of monotheism itself, with Jews as the scapegoat who brought those impossible demands.
Wow. This was great.
Wow. Thank you. This is 🤯.
I love French sorcerors as much as the next man, but there comes a point when you have to wonder whom you're trying to kid, or what you're trying to prove.
Take this, for example: " From the outset, we are violent creatures, our societies forged not through peaceful social contracts but through cycles of rivalry and domination." Human beings certainly are superb makers of war ("the ultimate art awaiting its ultimate practitioner"), but on what basis can we be claimed to be distinctively 'violent creatures'? We are not even in the top thirty species that kill their own kind, and our lives, both in infancy and throughout adulthood, can be defined just as easily by utter dependence on one another as by rivalry or conflict.
None of this is to presume to overturn the arguments or insights of this essay, which contain much truth. But here is another French sorceror, Baudrillard: "Theory can be no more than this: a trap set in the hope that reality will be naive enough to fall into it." If Girard's ideas are useful tools for understanding the world, then they are worth using prudently.
Of course, you are correct in a sense. Girard would not deny that our mimetic nature is also what makes us so social and even loveable to one another.
But the point of the article still stands. We are the most violent of creatures. According to conservative estimates, 180 million people died because of war and political violence alone during the 20th century.
"Thus, the two definitive marks of our era, even if they seem utterly antithetical: compassion for victims, concern for the downtrodden, care for the marginalized; alongside the looming specter of mutual assured destruction, the product of two world wars whose bloodshed has no parallel in history."
While it is difficult to deny the vast windy generalization of the second "definitive mark", the first can only elicit a vast guffaw. There is a difference between "a manner of speaking" and how we actually live in this era. Girard at least pretended to be committed to a common sense view of reality.
What planet do these boys live on?