Girard vs. Guenon

>no mention of Bataille
r u kidding me niggaz

Bump.

how did he do it?Which work?

This is the first time I see Girard being mentioned here.
I didn't read Guenon, but which part of their work is contradictory?

if he contradicts guenon just reject him and move on

>being this much of a fangirl brainlet

Guenon was corrected multiple times throughout his writing life, by his own admission.

>contradictory
I mean contradictory with Girard's thoughts

where is girardfag?

brilliant post, entirely explains why RG is a guy

guenon's aight

sheesh

interesting. some people just like to make things difficult tho. i agree girard, JDM & schmitt make a powerful cocktail tho

just taking a breather from this place to ask myself why the fuck i bother opening my trap at all

at present: not sure

probably a good scene

>How to combine traditionalism and the theory of mimetic violence?
here's one possible ten-cent thought: you turn your violence inwards. this is what the saints and ascetics do. it is a perverse and paradoxical undertaking but witness the fruit of the crusades: the streets run red with jewish blood and the entry of the crusaders into the kingdom of heaven is an unknown quantity.

there is a crucial aspect of masochism in all of these questions; deleuze knows it also. life is suffering. finding a way to grasp the necessity of that suffering is the project for philosophers and authors of great literature. projected and externalized exculpatory violence is exactly what makes scapegoating what it is. the apparent historical necessity of violence as a political tool is what makes for critique of ideology.

the central question is always violence. but this is what makes the crucifixion what it is. quite possibly the ultimate work of symbolic violence and its meaning for human civilization (with land's reading of kant's invention of capitalist time being somewhere up there, if you're into that stuff). it would seem to me that traditionalism would ultimately understand that the gnostic violence done in the name of politics and utopia would be a thing the traditionalists would understand as a sad and self-refuting symptom. mark lilla has some interesting thoughts on this ('The Great Separation', &c) but liberal society is just in a tough spot right now. b/c consumer happiness is not enough. we want meaningful suffering. and only zealots find that in gnostic politics, which rewards zealotry with orgies of blood and destruction.

life sure is complicated sometimes. but because i am not feeling like taking myself too seriously these days, i will use a picture of some hot dogs rather than something more conventionally aesthetic. if only to make life more difficult and irritating than it already is. i'm sort of on hiatus from Veeky Forums for a while. capital is placing its own inexorable demands on my life-time.

love to all. good luck out there.

Are you French?