/lit/ - Literature

you're just a little kid

This guy seems right to me, but what's the current consensus on his works? Especially in anthropology...

>>17155303
>Prove him "wrong" - pro tip, you can't
you are not even the master of your desires

You’re critique of an ancient religous text is relating it to an internet meme. Why don’t I stop you there, cause it’s already clear you don’t take any of this seriously.
Oh, by the way, quit scapegoating.

2019... I am forgotten

>>11888838
>my dude, i really hope the smart motherfuckers of this world get their shit together and really make some good happen. i am trying on my end, working on it, i hope you believe in yourself.
it's all mutual anon. a marathon and not a sprint. but that is the hope. there has to be hope. of course the usual rule is barbarism, stupidity, ignorance and the rest. i've been stewing on that stuff for years. but every now and again you hit on some writer or encounter someone who just seems to see things a little too much like you to believe they're full of shit. it's just a surprise to realize that you're not alone, that's mainly what does it. that's always been the attraction of philosophy for me: 'hold on, wait, *you saw this too?* holy shit!'

b/c once that happens, once you realize that even in the darkest recesses of your imagination, someone else has basically been to the same places...you just feel less lonely, less alienated. de-alienating, or dis-alienating, is kind of a nice goal to have. just so that people don't feel the need to re-invent the wheel (or, more likely, the torture device) to cure some existential need that in fact people have already written extensively about...

true, some things - like capitalism, or technology, or whatever else remain puzzles. but that is the point of the philosophy stuff, imho: not to solve the problems but to re-open some of the questions and just look at them, so that we can maybe de-escalate some of the hyper-intense mimetic shit-flinging that is going around these days. i kind of used to think that that was, in the end, the only way to go. but then i discovered my favorite guy and had a change of perspective. i've had a bunch of favorite guys along the way - heidegger, baudrillard, the chinese, many others - but girard is basically my guy for the foreseeable future. i would prefer, of course, to live in a world - or perhaps be a different person - where the bulk of my thoughts weren't always about scapegoating, mimesis, envy, desire, greed and hysteria. but these are the times and i am that shitposter. so here we are.

>you're onto some really good shit here.
it's good because people enjoy it. and i didn't invent any of this, or even plan to become obsessed with it. i thought shit would *end* someday! or that people knew what the fuck they were talking about...so really, all i'm doing is just passing along what much, much wiser people than me puzzled with. but it is a sincere pleasure to share and i'm happy to do it. bonus points if others like it also. no need to thank me or embiggen my ego, it's big enough already! trust me...
>and it's a pain in the ass

>thank you again
it's my pleasure anon. take care. and have fun! fun is important...

>>11665277
yeah. well, it's not going to happen for my guy either. culture is a fickle mistress.

Why has he been forgotten?

How to combine traditionalism and the theory of mimetic violence? Guenon was a discovery for me. Now I read Girard and this is in contradiction with what I learned from Guenon.

Any thoughts?

Anyone read this guy's stuff? Worth reading?

>>9655424
You rang?

I actually started this thread. I'm interested in OOO as it's tangential to acceleration but doesn't get me as much in the feels. Was hoping somebody else could make it more interesting. Wolfendale's book seemed to skewer Harman but guys like Bryant et al are way smarter than me, so there must be something going on here.

I've been preoccupied with seeding the Nick Land/acceleration threads with weird quotes borrowed from SC Hickman and various other nerd stuff from tumblr. I'm on the Land Rover for now and for the foreseeable future.

>>9625348
Yeah, mercifully there are no thetans in Girard's work. He's just got a nice elegant old-school theory of reading great literature. No shenanigans required.

You desire "Stacy" like most other boys (mediators of desire)

Girls desire "Chad" like most other girls (mediators of desire)

Try and articulate your own desire

>>8861998
>>8862033
see
>>8862059

Because that's the answer. The day in which somebody other than me would bring up Girard.

>>8862071
This is also true.

So I'm not OP but I am the fag who spergs about Girard as >>8862085 has said. I sperg about RG here: >>/lit/thread/S8727128

And as that anon has indicated I go well and truly beyond all norms of decency and restraint here:
>>8825554

Anyways that's all. I'm notablog-anon. And Girard is my homeboy. Hence the surprise at seeing a thread appear here.

>>8813777
>>8813807

i'm OP and a good chunk of this thread. i do a passably good exegesis of lacanian theory halfway in, but i was helped by having a way cool hegelian to talk to as well, and so the thread is dope. have a gander

>>/lit/thread/S8727128

as indicated in the thread, i've recently discovered this handsome motherfucker and it is for that reason that i have mellowed ever so slightly on religion. not going fullbore yet but i'm picking up what RG is laying down

plz note that i am not an academic, not a scholar, not anything. i am a fuckface recluse who lives under a stone and i have a mcjob. i am not a guy to be taken seriously. i just have a lot of time to read and shitpost on 4chan

i'm assuming you mean the roudinesco biography. i have it but i haven't read it. most of my serious reading got shelved to stare into the trump-abyss for the past year or so. i've mostly been too fucking confused to know what i believe

i have to head out for a bit now, but i'll be happy to offer a ten-cent hot take on any questions you might have

Can we get a Rene Girard thread going? I'm only discovering his work recently, but I'm very interested in his theory of desire and mimesis and was wondering what /lit/ thought of the man and his work.

I guess what makes this interesting for me is that I've encountered this idea of desires as mimetic through Lacan/Freud and in a sense through Baudrillard, but it's rare to get a Christian (Girard), a Marxist-turned-Nietzschean (Baudrillard) and a psychoanalyst/Freudian (Lacan) all kind of triangulating on the same phenomenon. They're all 20C French thinkers as well, of course, and that perhaps is part of it - but I don't want to get ahead of myself.

Rather, just this idea of desire as mimesis, desiring the desire of the other and so on. Anyone here done the reading on Girard (or Lacan/Zizek?) Thoughts?