/lit/ - Literature

>>11598032
maybe it would be better to ask if perhaps land's own demolition of his leftist compadres was in a way comparable to D&G's assault on psychoanalysis: that leftism thought it was giving you the solution when it was just conceptually unable to see the forest for the trees. schizoanalysis was perhaps intended to break you out of oedipal formalism that could only keep you in analysis forever; can we say that land had, perhaps, a kind of similar intent w/r/t whatever postmodernity had in mind? even knowing that what lay on the other side of analysis was madness?

that'll be my last one for the night, catch up with all you war-machines later.

>>10181841
>It is also worth noticing that the process even if you are on the "winning team", the losers won't simply decide to humbly accept their defeat.
yes, absolutely. indeed, being defeated is only likely to produce the stronger and even more powerful counter-narrative: redemption, taking back the homeland, revenge, whatever. "humbly accepting defeat" is a rare thing indeed. it's hard to do.

>Today, we have weapons of destruction more powerful than ever so an exercise of conquest isn't going to end well regardless of who ends up winning.
that's right. these are points girard makes also: states grow in power, the consequences of war become more destructive, involve greater degrees of mobilization and so on. the necessary question to ask here is: do they also become "more glorious?" thucydides believes his war to be the greatest and most significant of all time; certainly homer would have felt the same about the iliad (although homer is an interesting case, since someone like simone weil will argue, convincingly, that there is a lot more sympathy for the defeated in the iliad than is often thought); there are the wars of revolution, ww2, the already-nascent desire for ww3 that is building today...gloriousness is a kind of inevitable aesthetic byproduct that can't be ldismissed. it is very human.

>Also, the Beckett guy seems to think in the old good/evil model. This is simply unreasonable, even if you share the same flag with the others, it does not mean that they share the same interest, or do you think that people will simply be satisfied in "conquering"?. Ultimately, the winners will wage war against themselves.
i think his point was slightly more nuanced than this; he made an interesting point about actualizing things at the level of the self, which is to my mind crucial, and incredibly honest. and it part of what makes these conversations interesting: we *do* internalize things, at deep levels. we *are* crowd-driven beings (especially so in times of crisis). and so we *cannot* say that a patently glorious thing is not patently glorious!

again, all this to make the claim that girard's thought is *cautionary* - he's the last person to say, well, war is stupid. he knows patently well that, *if we were there, we would feel differently.* but then, of course, wars *end*...and we begin having to deal with the question of bodies, and justifications, and so on...

>Ultimately, the winners will wage war against themselves.
very probably yes. or to look somewhat cynically at the contemporary politics of outrage: the winners argue over who has the most victimized by their own having won everything. is this uncharitable? i'm trying not to be triggered by the triggered, but this is what i invariably wind up feeling.