
René Girard has died - lindbergh
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/rene-girard-obit-110415.html
======
keane
Peter Thiel was greatly influenced by Girard at Stanford [1] and he worked to
create the nonprofit that supports the proliferation and application of
Girard's theories, Imitatio [2]. You can get an idea of some of Girard's
thought and of related works that engage with it at the free collection of
writings maintained by Paul Nuechterlein [3].

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-on-rene-
girards-i...](http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-on-rene-girards-
influence-2014-11)

[2] [http://www.imitatio.org/](http://www.imitatio.org/)

[3] [http://www.girardianlectionary.net/](http://www.girardianlectionary.net/)

~~~
bambax
In the first article you point to, Thiel says that:

> _Economics will tell you that competition dilutes profits, and that’s one
> big reason to question it._

Hmm, actually, no and no. Economics don't tell you that competition dilutes
profits, it tells you that competition drives down prices until profits are
zero, which isn't the same thing.

And it also tells you that low prices are good, not bad; only companies care
about "profits", but the public at large benefits not from profits but from
low prices. Walmart is the best thing that ever happened to the US, economy-
wise.

Didn't know that Peter Thiel was an admirer of René Girard, but since he's
also a disciple of Ayn Rand, I guess it makes sense (in that he revels in big
empty bullshit).

~~~
treehau5
> __Walmart is the best thing that ever happened to the US, economy-wise. __

Care to elaborate? From my school of thought, Walmart is the worst thing that
has ever happened to the US economy. Sure they might have that scotch tape you
want for 50 cents cheaper, but that came at the cost of less small businesses
and lower wages overall.

Scores of businesses and shops that were once thriving and profitable in small
town main streets are now empty because Walmart opened up on the other side of
town.

Walmart also only lets their buddies near their shopping centers, and charge a
high premium to any mom and pop stores or restaurants to in the shopping
center, which is why if you drive across the South you always see the same 3-4
stores in a Walmart shopping center.

~~~
Pyxl101
Yes, and before we had efficient textile factories, scores of small businesses
and individuals worked as wool spinners - many of them women (the origin of
the term "spinster"). These businesses went kaput when industrialization came
along.

Same thing with farming. In the middle ages, and long after then, there were
many small businesses engaged in farming. In fact, quite a lot of it was
subsistence farming. Fortunately, textile manufacturing brought down the price
of clothing from thousands of dollars per suit to far less, and industrial
farming has made food (by comparison to the past) cheap and plentiful. In the
course of it, this shut down many small businesses who could not compete with
the scale and efficiency of larger ones, but it brings down prices for
everyone - as bambax mentioned, the general public cares about prices, not how
goods are provided.

In the modern age, we live better than kings did in the middle ages, with
electricity, sanitation, health/vision/dental care, access to food and water,
fuel, entertainment in our homes - all of the benefits of modern life come
from the steadily lowering price of technology and scale and knowledge. Small
businesses are not intrinsically good, and large ones are not intrinsically
bad. Large businesses tend to have economies of scale and investment in
technology that small do not, which brings down prices and raises the quality
of living for everyone.

~~~
tw04
Which works AWESOME, as long as you either: 1\. Have new jobs to shift the
people who were previously doing those other jobs to.

2\. You have a basic living wage that isn't treated like a handout to people
who can't find work.

At this point those mega-businesses are creating a lot of unemployment and
that's about it.

------
ArkyBeagle
One of the most interesting writers I've read. His theories of acquisitive
mimesis and scapegoating are towering ideas.

I have no idea how they could be made falsifiable but it would be interesting
if they could. Even if they are not falsifiable, as a theory of literature -
or just storytelling - they're still quite powerful.

~~~
Camillo
Girard was a genius. His existence redeemed the entire discipline of
anthropology in my eyes.

~~~
ngrilly
I fully agree. His books are among the most influential things I've ever read.

------
lindbergh
His book Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World had a big effect on
me and was my first contact with anthropology.

I really enjoyed how Girard theorized what made us human in the first place
(namely, rituals).

~~~
agumonkey
Noob question, I suppose anthropology is a descriptive science, did it lead to
theories about transcending human nature ? for instance avoiding (or at least
attempting) social scapegoating.

~~~
fwdbureau
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.

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

~~~
coldtea
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.

~~~
j2kun
> 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.

IIRC the Christian bible doesn't bat an eye at slavery either or voice any
dissent, rather upholding it as a moral virtue.

I don't see a big difference between justifying enslavement and murder because
the bible tells them it's okay, and justifying it because it's what everyone
else does. They're the same thing at the core but one has a superficial
narrative that lasted.

~~~
coldtea
> _IIRC the Christian bible doesn 't bat an eye at slavery either or voice any
> dissent, rather upholding it as a moral virtue._

The Christian Bible is not that much christian -- it's basically the old
jewish religious texts repackaged. As such it existed for centuries without
any external adoption outside Israel (not that it's practitioners meant it for
other peoples anyway).

What caught on in Roman times, and was revolutionary, was the New Testament.
That was the "good (new) message" (the Gospel) that caught on, and that's
where the fundamental change in mores is contained in.

Unfortunately there are a lot of "Christians" these days that are more for Old
Testament than the New Testament part of the bible (as did the most
conservative people in previous centuries too).

Consider Jesus treatment of outsiders, thieves, low-ranking people, beggars,
prostitutes, criminals etc. (as portrayed in the gospels, I'm not saying it
happened as such in real life), and how e.g. church-going "christians" think
of and treat such people.

[Add.] Now, as to what you said about "batting an eye", actually there were
several advocates for the abolition of slavery in christianity, and a long-
going internal discussion about the issue. At worst, christian thinkers were
for the humane and brotherly treatment of slaves (as opposed to downright
abolition of slavery), which is still improved than the older views on the
rights of masters. They also accepted slaves as saints (something that would
sound preposterous to Romans before).

In fact a lot if not most of the early adopters, so to speak, of the new
religion in Rome were slaves themselves -- not talking openly about abolition
was to protect themselves and because it was an ancient and accepted
institution that took ages to erode, one which not everybody (slaves included)
thought unnatural at the time. Not unlike sweatshop labor today (which you see
well educated libertarians and the like accepting still, as better than
poverty).

Heck, slavery was still practiced by open minded, modern, post-industrial
revolution and enlightenment countries, not just in the US until the Civil
War, but in most of European countries that had colonies until the '50s (and
even in the US, the same tradition carried on in the form of officially
sanctioned Jim Crow and segregation laws).

~~~
j2kun
Much of this sounds like speculation. How exactly, do you know what religious
beliefs the slaves in Rome had, and why they chose not to talk about
particular aspects of their beliefs?

~~~
coldtea
From historians and accounts of the era -- you do know that there are several
volumes of scholarly studies on the matter, right? Check out especially Rodney
Stark and Jennifer Glancy (but you can also read accounts from that very era
too -- up to the early Byzantine era, including from founding figures of the
church).

------
wyclif
Girard was an important scholar of mimetic rivalry, sacrifice, and violence in
the ancient world. For a great place to start, I recommend this book:

[http://www.amazon.com/See-Satan-Fall-Like-
Lightning/dp/15707...](http://www.amazon.com/See-Satan-Fall-Like-
Lightning/dp/1570753199/)

~~~
scorchio
Why would you recommend See Satan Fall Like Lightening over Things Hidden
Since the Foundation of the World as a starting place?

~~~
wyclif
Both of those books are great, but ISSFLL is Girard at his most brilliant,
explaining the role mimetic desire plays in human conflict.

------
thatfrenchguy
"René would never have experienced such a career in France," said Benoît
Chantre, president of Paris' Association Recherches Mimétiques, one of the
organizations that have formed around Girard's work. "Such a free work could
indeed only appear in America ".

Yeah, who really believes that ?

~~~
aexaey
Looks like times have changed in France, since Thomas Piketty had no problem
working there and writing his "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" which went
on to have millions of copies sold?

------
charlysisto
I'd like to point out that he also heavily influenced Jean Pierre Dupuy (also
professor at Standford) who wrote a few brilliant books. Among them :
"l'Avenir de l'économie". Don't know if it's translated in english but for my
fellow french hackers I highly recommend it

------
kriro
For me he is the champion of "people mimic stuff and people". Since I agree
that it is human nature to do so he's also part of my foundation of favoring
FLOSS software and being opposed to software patents (or limits on the ability
to mimic things in general).

