5 ms·

I'm going to over-simplify, but according to Girard, the greatest social attempt to avoid scapegoating and civilize human nature has been christianity. The figu

I'm going to over-simplify, but according to Girard, the greatest social attempt to avoid scapegoating and civilize human nature has been christianity. The figure of the Christ, and his sacrifice, was a smart operation to replace real scapegoats by a symbolic one, allowing the community to unite against an innocent without having to kill anyone. This has been successful for centuries, but it's interesting to note that in his latest books, Girard sounds pretty disillusioned about this. "Achever Clausewitz" (strangely translated in english by "Battling to the end") is quite a frightening apocalyptic book that I would recommend to anyone interested in Girard's work.

agumonkey 11y ago
Very interesting, I tried to theorized the Christ idea, but never thought of it as a safety valve. So far all I got was the 'took our sins' as quick path to an everloving alter ego that can empathize with anybody since he sinned too. ps: Achever clausewitz sounds like a bad portemanteau. I guess on purpose.
binarymax 11y ago
I challenge that it has been successful. Many people have been slain in the name of christ.
- marincounty 11y ago
  Yea, you're right. I just wonder what society will look like without all the oral literature, mythology, folklore, fact-- for some, becomes really fashionable? I just don't think human beings are born moral, and I've met more than a few individuals who should spend a Sunday in church, and leave the filthy lookers club--just for a few Sundays. Just kidding with the lookers; not kidding about dudes who pride themself's on making it to the top of the shit pile, at any cost. And I've meet too many of those guys lately. I don't find them clever, cool, or hip. I sometimes visualize a Roman Emperor, like Constantine, looking over society, and thinking, 'I need to control the debachery that's getting out of hand.' (Just found out that Emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the formation of the canon. I always though he did?)
  - binarymax 11y ago
    Humans are not born moral because morality is a human intellectual construct and is taught. Nature, without humanity, is neither moral nor amoral, it is just nature. I agree with Girards postulation that sameness begets violence because there is always non-uniformity, and those who seek to control and organise want uniformity (sometimes violently). I do wonder if there would be less violence not with the abolishment of all religion, but with the abolishment of all but one.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >umans are not born moral because morality is a human intellectual construct and is taught. Nature, without humanity, is neither moral nor amoral, it is just nature. That's not exactly accurate. For one, animals are also capable of handling "intellectual constructs" (even if less complex) and teaching them to their offspring or herd. Some starters: http://www.amazon.com/Can-Animals-Moral-Mark-Rowlands/dp/019024030X http://www.amazon.com/Can-Animals-Moral-Mark-Rowlands/dp/019... http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Lives-Animals-Dale-Peterson/dp/1608193462 http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Lives-Animals-Dale-Peterson/dp/1...
      - keane 11y ago
        While both humans and animals may practice empathy, cooperation, or other behaviors that help them as individuals or groups to survive or thrive, this falls short of 'morality'. Morality is positions about what one should do: eg "one should not murder humans for sport". Hume's observation of the Is-Ought problem shows us that we cannot reason "humans practice X therefore humans should practice X" as we similarly cannot reason "humans believe X therefore X is objectively the case". Saying that animals or humans practice empathy is merely observing something they do, the "Is". We can't say "humans sometimes practice empathy therefore humans should practice empathy" like we can't say "humans sometimes practice violence therefore humans should practice violence". You could add a condition, such as "If humans do not want to be put in jail by society, then they should not murder (or at least get caught having murdered)". But this is known as Hypothetical Morality, and with dependence on the conditions it becomes merely advice about cause and effect and is to be ignored by those who don't find the conditions compelling.
- coldtea 11y ago
  It's not about people not being slained anymore. Obviously that's always going to happen in some degree. It's about how they're slain and why. An pre-Christian society did not need pretenses like "bringing democracy", "fighting for good", "civilizing" etc to attack their enemies. Merely their interests and wanting to plunder was enough -- and nobody would ask for a justification anyway. Before Christianic ideas spread nobody (or very few) in the ancient world would bat an eye for slavery, slaining captives, eradicating whole villages and cities etc. Afterwards these things continue to happen, but with strong voices and agreement against them as immoral / inhuman etc. For an ancient, Greek, Persian, Roman etc, war and killing was on the contrary not inhuman but all too human -- and they didn't even need to formulate theories like the Europeans and Americans that blacks are inferior, etc to justify that (like we justified colonialism and slavery). They just accepted slavery as part of life for the losers. It's also interesting to note that possibly the worst offender regarding war crimes et al, the Nazi regime, was influenced by an open attempt to annul Christian morals (e.g. with "ubermensch" mentality). Nietzsche and other thinkers popular in Germany at the time were quite open about this.
  - bambax 11y ago
    Very Christian and Catholic societies fought one another with absolutely no other motive than territorial gain. That's the whole history of Europe from 450 AD to WWI. Also, the Nazis thought they were doing God's work; they had written on their belt "God is with us" (Gott mit uns), which they did not invent (the origin is ancient) but did not suppress either. And of course, the original idea of the "chosen people" and the "holy land" is found in the scriptures, that the Nazis subverted for their own use.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >Very Christian and Catholic societies fought one another with absolutely no other motive than territorial gain. Sure. Like they did for millenia before that too. Having adopted christianism doesn't mean people get perfect or all good or something. It's more of a moral compass than actual everyday conformance. We might point the "hypocrisy" but then we ignore the importance of having a moral compass, even if don't follow it all the time, which is that it helps shape mentalities, laws and practices. And that's something that doesn't happen in a day -- it takes centuries of slow progress, while the new values kick in, to the point that their nominal carrier isn't even needed anymore (e.g. we now have codified christian originated values in non-religious forms, including in the Declaration of Independence). >Also, the Nazis thought they were doing God's work; they had written on their belt "God is with us" (Gott mit uns), which they did not invent (the origin is ancient) but did not suppress either. They never had any special relationship with the church -- only attempted to keep it to not alienate the huge christian population, but first cleaning it of jewish influence (including lots of new testament). The "Gott mit uns" is just a relic, not a central tenet of their philosophy. Which is not exactly tied to the christian god's either, it has more to do with the pagan gods of the past, the kind Wagner also celebrated. Early tendencies in 20th century Germany, that later turned pro-nazi, were in favor of such a pagan revival, including naked dances/rituals in the forests, occultism, and other such BS. The fact that Jesus was jewish itself is enough of an issue for most top nazi's to avoid christianity altogether (although they also maintained that he wasn't, in an attempt to keep the devout masses with them). See also: http://www.amazon.com/New-Religions-Nazis-Karla-Poewe/dp/0415290252 http://www.amazon.com/New-Religions-Nazis-Karla-Poewe/dp/041... http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sun-Esoteric-Politics-Identity/dp/0814731554 http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sun-Esoteric-Politics-Identity/d... and especially: http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-History-Involvement-Occult/dp/0826414095/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=51HSJFJMRRL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR108%2C160_&refRID=0AE8XN59C2JAPTSZWPZA http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-History-Involvement-Oc...

agumonkey 11y ago

Very interesting, I tried to theorized the Christ idea, but never thought of it as a safety valve. So far all I got was the 'took our sins' as quick path to an everloving alter ego that can empathize with anybody since he sinned too. ps: Achever clausewitz sounds like a bad portemanteau. I guess on purpose.

binarymax 11y ago

I challenge that it has been successful. Many people have been slain in the name of christ.

marincounty 11y ago
Yea, you're right. I just wonder what society will look like without all the oral literature, mythology, folklore, fact-- for some, becomes really fashionable? I just don't think human beings are born moral, and I've met more than a few individuals who should spend a Sunday in church, and leave the filthy lookers club--just for a few Sundays. Just kidding with the lookers; not kidding about dudes who pride themself's on making it to the top of the shit pile, at any cost. And I've meet too many of those guys lately. I don't find them clever, cool, or hip. I sometimes visualize a Roman Emperor, like Constantine, looking over society, and thinking, 'I need to control the debachery that's getting out of hand.' (Just found out that Emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the formation of the canon. I always though he did?)
- binarymax 11y ago
  Humans are not born moral because morality is a human intellectual construct and is taught. Nature, without humanity, is neither moral nor amoral, it is just nature. I agree with Girards postulation that sameness begets violence because there is always non-uniformity, and those who seek to control and organise want uniformity (sometimes violently). I do wonder if there would be less violence not with the abolishment of all religion, but with the abolishment of all but one.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >umans are not born moral because morality is a human intellectual construct and is taught. Nature, without humanity, is neither moral nor amoral, it is just nature. That's not exactly accurate. For one, animals are also capable of handling "intellectual constructs" (even if less complex) and teaching them to their offspring or herd. Some starters: http://www.amazon.com/Can-Animals-Moral-Mark-Rowlands/dp/019024030X http://www.amazon.com/Can-Animals-Moral-Mark-Rowlands/dp/019... http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Lives-Animals-Dale-Peterson/dp/1608193462 http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Lives-Animals-Dale-Peterson/dp/1...
    - keane 11y ago
      While both humans and animals may practice empathy, cooperation, or other behaviors that help them as individuals or groups to survive or thrive, this falls short of 'morality'. Morality is positions about what one should do: eg "one should not murder humans for sport". Hume's observation of the Is-Ought problem shows us that we cannot reason "humans practice X therefore humans should practice X" as we similarly cannot reason "humans believe X therefore X is objectively the case". Saying that animals or humans practice empathy is merely observing something they do, the "Is". We can't say "humans sometimes practice empathy therefore humans should practice empathy" like we can't say "humans sometimes practice violence therefore humans should practice violence". You could add a condition, such as "If humans do not want to be put in jail by society, then they should not murder (or at least get caught having murdered)". But this is known as Hypothetical Morality, and with dependence on the conditions it becomes merely advice about cause and effect and is to be ignored by those who don't find the conditions compelling.
coldtea 11y ago
It's not about people not being slained anymore. Obviously that's always going to happen in some degree. It's about how they're slain and why. An pre-Christian society did not need pretenses like "bringing democracy", "fighting for good", "civilizing" etc to attack their enemies. Merely their interests and wanting to plunder was enough -- and nobody would ask for a justification anyway. Before Christianic ideas spread nobody (or very few) in the ancient world would bat an eye for slavery, slaining captives, eradicating whole villages and cities etc. Afterwards these things continue to happen, but with strong voices and agreement against them as immoral / inhuman etc. For an ancient, Greek, Persian, Roman etc, war and killing was on the contrary not inhuman but all too human -- and they didn't even need to formulate theories like the Europeans and Americans that blacks are inferior, etc to justify that (like we justified colonialism and slavery). They just accepted slavery as part of life for the losers. It's also interesting to note that possibly the worst offender regarding war crimes et al, the Nazi regime, was influenced by an open attempt to annul Christian morals (e.g. with "ubermensch" mentality). Nietzsche and other thinkers popular in Germany at the time were quite open about this.
- bambax 11y ago
  Very Christian and Catholic societies fought one another with absolutely no other motive than territorial gain. That's the whole history of Europe from 450 AD to WWI. Also, the Nazis thought they were doing God's work; they had written on their belt "God is with us" (Gott mit uns), which they did not invent (the origin is ancient) but did not suppress either. And of course, the original idea of the "chosen people" and the "holy land" is found in the scriptures, that the Nazis subverted for their own use.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Very Christian and Catholic societies fought one another with absolutely no other motive than territorial gain. Sure. Like they did for millenia before that too. Having adopted christianism doesn't mean people get perfect or all good or something. It's more of a moral compass than actual everyday conformance. We might point the "hypocrisy" but then we ignore the importance of having a moral compass, even if don't follow it all the time, which is that it helps shape mentalities, laws and practices. And that's something that doesn't happen in a day -- it takes centuries of slow progress, while the new values kick in, to the point that their nominal carrier isn't even needed anymore (e.g. we now have codified christian originated values in non-religious forms, including in the Declaration of Independence). >Also, the Nazis thought they were doing God's work; they had written on their belt "God is with us" (Gott mit uns), which they did not invent (the origin is ancient) but did not suppress either. They never had any special relationship with the church -- only attempted to keep it to not alienate the huge christian population, but first cleaning it of jewish influence (including lots of new testament). The "Gott mit uns" is just a relic, not a central tenet of their philosophy. Which is not exactly tied to the christian god's either, it has more to do with the pagan gods of the past, the kind Wagner also celebrated. Early tendencies in 20th century Germany, that later turned pro-nazi, were in favor of such a pagan revival, including naked dances/rituals in the forests, occultism, and other such BS. The fact that Jesus was jewish itself is enough of an issue for most top nazi's to avoid christianity altogether (although they also maintained that he wasn't, in an attempt to keep the devout masses with them). See also: http://www.amazon.com/New-Religions-Nazis-Karla-Poewe/dp/0415290252 http://www.amazon.com/New-Religions-Nazis-Karla-Poewe/dp/041... http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sun-Esoteric-Politics-Identity/dp/0814731554 http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sun-Esoteric-Politics-Identity/d... and especially: http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-History-Involvement-Occult/dp/0826414095/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=51HSJFJMRRL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR108%2C160_&refRID=0AE8XN59C2JAPTSZWPZA http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-History-Involvement-Oc...