Much of Girad's political thought seems informed by Karl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. If so, Rene demonstrated that there is a fundamental ground of being that informs all human behavior (on an abstract level) then projects itself into day-to-day activities (on a concrete level)...
44:23 This explanation is very interesting, but seems so wrong. It feels like, in the pursuit to apply Girard's ideas to the geopolitical dynamics between the U.S. and China, no counterarguments were considered. Meanwhile, there is an enormous list of points of tension between the two which have little to do with "being similar". I can easily imagine that if Canada or Britain were able to overtake the U.S. in GDP and military might, there still wouldn't be much extra tension between us. In fact, I think most Americans would be relieved if we no longer had to be the police of the world. The reasons for tension between the U.S. and China are fairly obvious and don't require a deep dive into philosophy. The main reason is of course that China presents a different model of governance which is not compatible with a liberal-centric rules based international order. If China were to become more similar than they are now by having a multi-party government with regional and national officials elected either by popular vote or by representatives directly answerable to the people they represent, the adversarial angle on China in the U.S. would loose significant ground. That being said, even with this, there are particular flash points which would remain unacceptable, but these are not vague things that require philosophy to understand.
Britain and Canada have already been neo-colonized by the USA. Their cultures are similar in significant ways to the USA, whereas China represents a totally different ancient culture that threatens the assumptions of the Western world. However, if China and the USA both wanted the same resources, there could be conflict whereas Britain and Canada would probably accede to whatever arrangement the USA wanted for all 3.
Seems like a pluralistic and integrated society needs cultural groups which compare withn each other (with perceived equity within group) to reduce competition conflict or institution breakdowns.
Anyone knows the background of Bi? His linkedin lists founding team member of Opto Investments and current employer. However, the company's website does not list him. I suppose you can be a founder without being on the website. His slickness is somewhat suspicious.
Girard didn t seem to understand the implications of his own theory. Mimesis is kinda gross; among others, in society, in the realm of the Gaze, we are always shot through with mimesis. This would seem to point to the imperative of dropping out, of finding a refuge in some sort of Walden, of disembedding oneself from the trammels of culture, which is, of course, nothing but a mimetic system. The ideal outcome, marking a deep purification of consciousness, would be something like Milan Kundera s character Agnes. (Kundera greatly admired Girard; his fictional insights, represented by Agnes, seem so much more profound and liberating than anything Girard did with his ideas.)
Bi, request from an Aussie, can you see what you can do with the American 'Far-Right's obsession with mis-placing the context of anything with the word 'liberal' attached to it? I'm sure the world, and not just myself, would give you heart-felt thanks.
Your best political philosophers are going to be Aquinas, the Salamanca School, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Can add people like De Maistre and De Jouvenal too. One of the beauties of praxeology and tha Austrian methodology is it does give you that capacity for logical deduction of human action (see Hoppe's work on the Austrian Method as to why inference is a failure for human action)
Yeah, Human Action as a bitch of a read. Austrian economics, I find most persuasive. Unfortunately, many folllowers of austrian economics are garishly materialistic.
@@jmc0369 you might benefit from reading Man, Economy, and State along with Power and Market by Rothbard. Much clearer and easier read than Human Action. I don't get that impression of materialism from the Mises Institute. You definitely don't get that impression from Hoppeans.
I've read and enjoy much of Rothbard. I at one time called myself an AnCap. No longer. I'm a market anarchist. I deeply appreciate the human action contribution from Austrian theory. I however find most AnCaps are spiritually immature or just focused so much on material and the dogma of the "free" market; so much so as to support IP, and corporate "legal fictions". I have no interest in salvaging the name "capatalism" as now even the one world bankers are taking a turn on the name by calling it "stake holder" capitalism. Market anarchism for a real freed market. i have not interest in salvaging the name capitalism.
So let me break this down for anyone who is not familiar with philosophy. This guy is a rich kid who’s parents paid for him to go to Columbia from which he dropped out to start a startup which his parents also funded which failed so he decided to go to Nepal which his parents paid for and now he is a philosopher. Which is why I’m sure his parents are still paying for him. Moral of the story don’t pay for your kids to do anything. It’s better they learn about the philosophy of a hard knock life. Your welcome.
I like having a guest on to talk about philosophy, but I wasn't convinced that René Girard is a superior framework to understanding today's politics. It seems like a very Western approach - arbitrarily splitting the appetites of the body and mind. Surprising considering Jonathan's background as a buddhist that he doesn't address this. Mimesis is an interesting topic, but discussing it in terms of "purifying consciousness" seems like a philosophical retreat from the demands of everyday politics. I also thought there was too much hand waving about the nature of warfare. It's an overgeneralization to say that the history of pre-modern and medieval warfare has been the era of the "gentleman" and today is "total" war...perhaps only in the sense of total industrial mobilization... but how are we to explain the enormous focus today on collateral damage, civilian casualties? The very fact that drone strikes are such a sticking point for the US shows that there's a actually a great deal of "friction" in warfare between developed countries, no? We have long since passed the era of pillaging cities, taking no prisoners...true genocide between nations. And in the case of Russia in Ukraine, the European community is loudly condemning it. Yes, nuclear weapons reduce our "cooling off" period in the event of catastrophe. But short a total nuclear strike there seems to be plenty of time and consideration in the international community about the hot war in Ukraine...the firebombing of Tokyo this is not.
there are a lot of interesting philosophers and philosophical ideas to explore but the world has focused on Rene Girard because of popularity not so sophistication
