When Girard says that man is too weak to desire and he needs the strength of the other to desire and through imitation is able to find the strength to desire, is he creating a Big Other that has the strength to "desire authentically" or is he commenting on our habit of creating a Big Other who has "the strength to desire authentically"?
Obviously confused.
Other urls found in this thread:
Why does he look like Derrida's evil twin
every pua asshole under the sun has the insight that women want what they think other women want, which is why you get chads that get 80% of the pussy because once one chick wants them they all do, so did girard ever develop anything beyond pua-tier pseudo insights? why should i order one of this overpriced books?
He's basically trying to avoid saying he's personnally too weak to desire. It's a diary entry presented as a blanket statement.
Because he is. An evil Catholic twin.
The latter.
The great novelists reveal the imitative nature of desire. In our days its nature is hard to
perceive because the most fervent imitation is the most vigorously denied. Don Quixote
proclaimed himself the disciple of Amadis and the writers of his time proclaimed themselves
the disciples of the Ancients. The romantic vaniteux does not want to be anyone's disciple. He convinces himself that he is thoroughly original. In the nineteenth century spontaneity
becomes a universal dogma, succeeding imitation. Stendhal warns us at every step that we must not be fooled by these individualisms professed with fanfare, for they merely hide a new form of imitation. Romantic revulsion, hatred of society, nostalgia for the desert, like gregariousness, usually conceal a morbid concern for the Other. In order to camouflage the essential role which the Other plays in his desires, Stendhal's vaniteux frequently appeals to the clichés of the reigning ideology. Behind the devotion, the mawkish altruism, the hypocritical engagement of the grandes dames of 1830, Stendhal finds not the generous impulse of a being truly prepared to give itself but rather the tormented recourse of vanity at bay, the centrifugal movement of an ego powerless to desire by itself. The novelist lets his characters act and speak; then, in the twinkling of an eye, he reveals to
us the mediator. He reestablishes covertly the true hierarchy of desire while pretending to
believe in the weak reasoning advanced by his character in support of the contrary hierarchy.
This is one of the perpetual methods of Stendhal's irony.
The romantic vaniteux always wants to convince himself that his desire is written into the
nature of things, or which amounts to the same thing, that it is the emanation of a serene
subjectivity, the creation ex nihilo of a quasi-divine ego. Desire is no longer rooted in the
object perhaps, but it is rooted in the subject; it is certainly not rooted in the Other. The
objective and subjective fallacies are one and the same; both originate in the image which we
all have of our own desires. Subjectivisms and objectivisms, romanticisms and realisms,
individualisms and scientisms, idealisms and positivisms appear to be in opposition but are
secretly in agreement to conceal the presence of the mediator. All these dogmas are the
aesthetic or philosophic translation of worldviews peculiar to internal mediation. They all depend directly or indirectly on the lie of spontaneous desire. They all defend the same
illusion of autonomy to which modern man is passionately devoted.
He looks like the dude who pisses off Joe Pesci in Goodfellas.
introducing the romantic vaniteux, Veeky Forums's newest bogeyman
better check my library for fictional characters, then
Ey ey I'm over here breakin balls and you're already gettin fuckin fresh
>there is no such thing as pure desire
Is he saying anything more than that?
And if so, what are the ramifications of this debt we have toward "the mediator"? Who/what is the "mediator"?
What if I consciously appropriate desire? What then?
Green text an instance of what this would like as actually occurring. A very small instance would suffice. Not sure I understand.
Like Oscar Wilde in the Decay of Lying, he's saying that Life imitates Art, essentially. Is television (for instance) not a great civilizing medium? Where did all those gangstas come from? Etc?
Not that user, but when I was watching the sopranos I would buy coke and cold cuts to eat just like Tony, fully conscious that I was just imitating his desires
That's fair. But I would guess most appropriation is not so conscious.
You know how you technically can't steal land, because land divisions are imaginary? It's more or less like that. Sure desire is not created by "me", but then it's not really created anywhere either.
That's true enough. My point's merely that behavior's imitative, fashion it in whatever language or lingo (you) choose.
Oh, sure. But is there something stopping me from imitating how to stop imitating? Not totally, at least, but to an extent. I mean, I obviously don't do everything I see; so how does that work?
What do (you) want to be? A basketball player? A jazz musician? A writer? Regardless, it's probably been done before and a little 'culture' has sprung up around this or that occupation (note the word) to clue all those in who 'desire' to join their ranks just what it is that's necessary in order to do so. But beyond learning and exercise a certain manner must also be attained if one is to be either this or that. And beyond even that a more generalized manner- call it a 'professional manner'- for all those who actually find 'success' (and those who fail to achieve this final mimesis wind up looking not like 'mavericks' -itself a species of imitation- but idiots, for the most part). The same holds true in business, in politics, in medicine. Everyone is trying to figure out what's expected of them, and to meet those expectations. And how is this done?
Precisely. Through imitation.
This focus on 'occupation' is a single instance. Imitation pervades the whole of human life.
To combat it as a writer I'd say read a ton, mix up your sources, take notes, learn to -really- listen to yourself, and be slow to adopt, i.e. to imitate, what's current.
...
Just came in here to see if girardfag had posted yet.
>Is he saying anything more than that?
Yes
>And if so, what are the ramifications of this debt we have toward "the mediator"?
We want his shit, our desire can be imitated by him and his desire also grows, we can become rivals or fill ourselves with envy, jealousy, hate, sometimes we fight, other times he's out of our league and we end up treating him with reverence. Think of violent behavior over pretty much anything and the people memorizing how many mansions a celebrity has.
>Who/what is the "mediator"?
A third party between subject and object, the person the subject gets the desire from
in case anyone was wondering...
i've been trying to maintain a vow of Veeky Forums silence for a while. i still check Veeky Forums daily and have ofc been following this thread and others - land, chinese stuff, et al. but i mostly only read taoist stuff these days. calms the butterflies.
'twas a great deal of shitposting done in 2016-2017 & i am eternally grateful for having been able to work out no small amount of neurosis here v/land, bannon (RIP), capital, acceleration, mimesis & all the rest. basically, pandora's fucking box.
so i'm withdrawing from Veeky Forums for a while to digest. and to give threads some space to breathe also so that i don't fucking opioninize things to death like a hysterical retard. good luck to all you sexy motherfuckers tho in the meantime. hope the daily battle with sanity goes well for all.
Veeky Forums needs you through girardfag. Hopefully you apply to some academic programs in the meantime to help channel your chaotic genius.
Pls stfu
Tom! Howdy!
that's very kind user. no chaotic genius tho. i checked. i'm extraboring & plan to become moreso
paranoid girardfaggery now goes into shit-tier pulp fiction with plots blatantly and shamelessly ripped off from final fantasy games. the dialogue is atrocious & i couldn't be happier. but getting over a world-class lump of writer's block and embracing my karma as a living shitpost wouldn't have been possible w/o having first talked out much Fun here. 'twas good times indeed and i love this place 4ever. there's no place else like it
maybe when that's done we'll try academia. who knows. life is mysterious but it's probably a bad idea to try and pay your rent with opinions about the feels. especially when one is as neuroplastic as me
props to nick land tho for making continental philosophy great again. we're all going to die but at least we can have the appropriate facial expressions & meme references on deck during the cranial drilling procedures
hi jon
anyways silence > girardfag. Veeky Forums is the best. hope you guys are enjoying writing weird fiction or philosophy, it's the coolest
Dude
You need to stop taking yourself so seriously. I don't like that you have an ID on an anonymous board. your need to attach your posts to an identity like a mark of pride is just another example of taking yourself seriously. I would distinguish the difference between taking yourself seriously in life vs Veeky Forums, but I'd say theres little difference. You seem behind the times in regard to nueroscience and identity itself. Although I normally fucking hate this dude, this was a great video youtu.be
Anyway, I remember u in a thread and I like you so stop being a whiny bitch
my attempt at cheering u up
>props to nick land tho for making continental philosophy great again
"dude the silicon valley reich will last 1000 years!" i seriously hope you dont consider this good philosophy. the dude has views about tech that are as naive reddit
The body is not an illusion--and you very much are your body.
>doesn't read post
>responds to it
this needs to stop
harris is a way cool guy. i like him. he's completely right about this
>you need to stop taking yourself so seriously
you're 100% right about this also
>I don't like that you have an ID on an anonymous board
wasn't the plan. other anons were mistaking me for other people tho. i didn't like that. i say enough dumb things on my own
>your need to attach your posts to an identity like a mark of pride is just another example of taking yourself seriously
all true. you're not wrong
>you seem behind the times in regard to neuroscience and identity itself
probably true
>stop being a whiny bitch
good advice tbqh. i'm fine with this
i feel cheered, thx bro
>i seriously hope you dont consider this good philosophy
the age of derrida et al was enervating af. nick land does two things i like
1) opens up a giant chasm underneath the floor of red team/blue team histrionics. the more silly & reactive both sides get, the worse things get for both of them. true, rooting for skynet accordingly is ridiculous, but that's not the point. the point is
2) philosophy actually means something again. again, this after much much exhausting horseshit w/r/t What Did He Mean By This. if acceleration is real then suddenly thought seems interesting again. true, in horrifying ways. but at least it clears out of the way some very foolish old roadblocks that allow for interesting conversations again. and lots of other stuff
i can be fairly direct about this: personally i think landian thought is something to be transcended and overcome, not despairingly surrendered to. i think it makes a lot of wisdom philosophy cool and interesting again: if the spice must flow, it's not crazy to think that something like Virtue might be worth thinking again. or, just as deleuze says:
>become worthy of that which happens to you
so land's thought is scary but i think there's a lot o positive stuff that follows from it: nihilism as speculative opportunity. good scene i think. and i'm not an academic, i gain nothing from this. but if it makes intellectual life worth taking seriously, i think that's cool. it's a sea-change in intellectual culture in many ways and he is a part of it
the point, however, i would say, is aesthetics > metaphysics. art - a good piece of art - does more for this than all of the hysterical shitposting in the world. art is the place to put philosophy imho. but you have to be on reasonably consistent terrain before that is possible, or else you wind up with ideology. it's why i came here in the first place
so silicon valley reich will not last 1000 years, but tech is a thing and the spice must flow. thus sanity & the tao for me. and trying not get trigged by everything i see in the news
>posts a video
>gets buttmad when someone responds to said video and not his twaddle
this needs to etc etc eat me faggot
How is knowing who you're talking to a mark of pride? What's so bad about taking things seriously? Under whose authority is anonymous the default?
We are all God's creature "user".
Ralph Cifaretto?
>GO
>GET
>YOUR
>FUCKING
>SHINE BOX
YOU MUDDAFUCKA
...