3 ms·

Are there works that test Girard's theories? Is there some evidence?

by mo_42 3y ago

082349872349872 3y ago
evidence for 8 and 9: homoousios vs homoiousios. northern ireland. football hooligans. etc. in fiction: Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of X, {star,plain}-bellied Sneetches I had thought Covid would've been a uniting scapegoat, but no, the hairless apes had to make it all about themselves.
downut 3y ago
This [1] cured me of Girard. Read that and then read the rest of the comments here. Don't worry, it's very well written and quite funny. Also provides an implicit side view of Silicon Valley culture. [1] https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/deceit-desire-and-literature-professor-why-girardians-exist https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/deceit-desire-and-literatur...
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Yeah. The ability to torture your citations until they say what you want does not make them evidence for your theory. (Seriously, I second downut - read the reference before you decide you agree with Girard.) And if he's doing that to the foundational texts of Christianity, that makes me inclined to view his statements about Christianity very skeptically, for all he claims that he is consistent with Christianity and supporting Christianity.
- BenFeldman1930 3y ago
  Is Landy envious of Girard? With Landy having just 1 (one) wikipedia article to his name, and Girard 36 (thirty-six)? Who knows. Thanks for the reference.
ajkjk 3y ago
They're more like interpretative theories than scientific theories. Different kind of thing. Their validity is in that they seem to pattern-match to a lot of experience, so the only test is really "do they ring true?"; there's not a sense in which they would be scientifically testable. (well- I should say, this is how I feel about how the high-level impression of Girard's ideas, like the notion of mimetic desire in this article. I haven't read him so I dunno about his actual takes; maybe they're more concrete and therefore falsifiable. For instance the actually detailed scapegoat theory, which I have heard about elsewhere, seems obviously silly to me.)

Are there works that test Girard's theories? Is there some evidence?

by mo_42 3y ago

Are there works that test Girard's theories? Is there some evidence?

evidence for 8 and 9: homoousios vs homoiousios. northern ireland. football hooligans. etc. in fiction: Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of X, {star,plain}-bellied Sneetches I had thought Covid would've been a uniting scapegoat, but no, the hairless apes had to make it all about themselves.

downut 3y ago

This [1] cured me of Girard. Read that and then read the rest of the comments here. Don't worry, it's very well written and quite funny. Also provides an implicit side view of Silicon Valley culture. [1] https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/deceit-desire-and-literature-professor-why-girardians-exist https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/deceit-desire-and-literatur...

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Yeah. The ability to torture your citations until they say what you want does not make them evidence for your theory. (Seriously, I second downut - read the reference before you decide you agree with Girard.) And if he's doing that to the foundational texts of Christianity, that makes me inclined to view his statements about Christianity very skeptically, for all he claims that he is consistent with Christianity and supporting Christianity.
BenFeldman1930 3y ago
Is Landy envious of Girard? With Landy having just 1 (one) wikipedia article to his name, and Girard 36 (thirty-six)? Who knows. Thanks for the reference.

ajkjk 3y ago

They're more like interpretative theories than scientific theories. Different kind of thing. Their validity is in that they seem to pattern-match to a lot of experience, so the only test is really "do they ring true?"; there's not a sense in which they would be scientifically testable. (well- I should say, this is how I feel about how the high-level impression of Girard's ideas, like the notion of mimetic desire in this article. I haven't read him so I dunno about his actual takes; maybe they're more concrete and therefore falsifiable. For instance the actually detailed scapegoat theory, which I have heard about elsewhere, seems obviously silly to me.)