/lit/ - Literature

>>16314787
>he thinks /lit/ actually reads anything beyond navelgazing nihilist pseuds
heh thanks for the chuckle OP

>>16314804
This, but unironically. It just happens that the canon is composed most of nihilists, and /lit/ only reads the canon.

Any relation to Rene Guenon?

>>16314861
Yes they were lovers.

>>16314804
>>16314857
>everyone I disagree with is a nihilist
Just stop

>>16314861
Girard > Guenon > Evola >>>>>>>>> everything else /lit/ reads

Violence and the Sacred is his magnum opus. Great to see another Girardchad here.

>>16314787
I'll actually answer your question OP. You should read Violence and the Sacred next. It's more political vs religious but once again Girard hammers on mimesis and its power over culture

Anyone have this in an ebook in english?

>>16314977
>>16314988
Thanks boys

>>16315000
It's cheap bro. Got the paperback for $15

>>16314787
Do you believe in the afterlife?

>>16314964
I never said I disagree with the cannon. By the contrary, it is the only thing I read.

>Rene Girard
speaking of, how's the FAG doing?

>>16315027
Afterlife is the reunion of the shape with the form

>>16314972
More like

Everything /lit/ reads = Girard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guenon > Evola

>>16315045
Girard was married and had 3 kids. What are you referring to dumbo?

>>16315053
>being this new

>>16315053
our very own girard is a bachelor

post the pdf

>>16315186
second this

>>16314787
>what should I read next by him
You should read what refutes him next.

>>16315333
he’s irrefutable

>>16315035
>cannon
Boom boom

>>16314861
He was a disciple and changed his first and middle name. They even look related.

>>16314787
Wtf this looks awesome

Why have I never heard of this dude before. Thanks for posting OP.

Anyone know where to start with him?

>>16315450
How so?

>>16315504
I really dislike your posts.

>>16315519
stop giving trannyfly attention he likes the hate

>>16315519
Why? Can’t you answer the question?
I just want to understand this guy, or what you think of him.

>>16315524
You his lawyer?

>>16314787

Is this a good book for me to read and base my personality around if my goal is to appear intelligent to my pseud friends who don't really keep up with the latest meme french philosophers?

>>16314787
>the only path to salvation
From what do we need saving? Let us say that Girard is correct in his interpretation of sacrifice as protecting a community from wanton violence. Here, sacrifice "saves" the community by offering an apparently sensible mechanism for dealing with "the plague," or whatever sort of turmoil demands a scapegoat. Now if sacrifice is prodigiously effective in creating and maintaining communities, why should we get rid of it? Well, says Girard, it is not so much a matter of getting rid of it, but rather, it would be quite a different world if we CONSCIOUSLY sacrificed, or perhaps the sacrifice would not even "work" if as Girard believes, the modern world actually has knowledge of it. Girard attributes this knowledge not to a self-development in human reflection but to the entrance of a truly divine man into human affairs (Girard does not believe humanity could have acquired this knowledge "on its own"). So let us say that a Christ has exposed this mechanism--was it that we were doing something wrong, or were we merely ignorant of what we were doing, or both? Girard is no moral philosopher--he seems to be more concerned with the threat of violence and the continuation of the human race than with some sort of Kantian transcendent morality. But he asserts that the Christian event is what leads us now CLOSER to a violence surpassing anything our ancestors were capable of. This leaves us in a situation where the threat of violence is upon us, as it was in any early community, but instead we can invent no new religions to deal with it. Thus, the last option is to deal with the propensity for violence (which in Girard stems from mimesis) directly. But... what for? All the early Christian said, let the world perish, our Savior has made a place for us in heaven, and at any rate the flesh will be resurrected as per divine decree, so what have we to do with stopping violence? The violence that gave birth to religion, and which brought Jesus to the cross, what is this but an earthly affair? The Father did not stop it, nor did Christ, and when one of his apostles made ready to defend his lord, he rebuked him, healed the soldier that had been maimed, and told everyone he had no worldly empire to rival those of others. So the Christian Savior did not come into the world to save mankind from violence and therefore there can be no argument which says that we ought to turn to Christianity to prevent violence, or in order to be saved from it. Christianity, in short, offers no such salvation in this respect. What then, are we to be saved from? Does following Christ lead to some sort of redemption? As in, if we cease to imitate each other and lose our personalities in rivalry, and if we cease to partake of religious rites and institutions, are we now good, morally, or at least in the eyes of God, whereas before we were bad? It seems to me that in Girard we are right back where we started: indebted to a deity.

take the Gans + Lacan + Rotman-pill

Take the Girard + Boehme + Heidegger pill

>>16315810
Seething Stirnerfag

>>16316489
>Poseur posting
The whole thread. Poseurs

>>16316506
You have contributed nothing to it as well

>>16316261
Girard retroactively refuted Heidegger.
>>16315884
A meme. Go back to your discord server.

>>16314787
Things Hidden and then Battling to the End.

>>16316532
Asked a question. Still waiting.