Has anyone else noticed a trend where people who tend to have an affinity for Peter Thiel tend to also profess having their mind blown by the ideas of Girard, specifically mimetic theory? It seemed like shortly after it became well known that Thiel liked Girard, many people who find his form of contrarianism as gospel suddenly migrated to viewing nearly everything through the prism of Girard. When Zero to One came out, it was certainly refreshing, but much of what Thiel does/states publicly aside from that comes across as if he's a rather dimwitted political hack. Not to mention that Girard's views on mimetic theory aren't that new to anyone who has kids and wants them to learn from others.
>Has anyone else noticed a trend where people who tend to have an affinity for Peter Thiel tend to also profess having their mind blown by the ideas of Girard, specifically mimetic theory?
Haven't noticed it, but then again I don't closely follow Thiel.
I do however have read Girard's work for 15 years now, and consider it important. Especially the "Things hidden since the foundations of the world" discussion (the title does not allude to some literal conspiracy theory - it's a quote from the New Testament, Matthew 13:35) made several things about the development of human societies, customs, political systems, and the role of religion and violence, click. (It's however a hefty tome 500+ pages iirc, in the form of a long disccusion/interview with 2 other academics).
>Not to mention that Girard's views on mimetic theory aren't that new to anyone who has kids and wants them to learn from others.
That doesn't dismiss Girard (or any thinker for that matter). When it comes to a thinker, what's important is not whether the surface idea or observation is new, but about how deep is is thought, and how much of its subtleties and variances they have covered.
Girard himself repeatedly gives tons of examples of his mimetic theory expressed in 3 millennia of texts, often not as a mere case of people expressing it without knowing it, but knowingly too.
I think the people who get their mind blown by Girard never read any other literary theory. Yes, my 10x Rockstar Ninja friend, Girard is from the literature department! Horror! But wait, what other mind blowing insights on life might those English majors know that you don't? Uh oh!
Who else is there to read? They didn't do to much literary theory in my engineering courses :-). I am finding lately the humanities do have something to offer after all.
I suppose it's highly personal, but I'd say Carl Jung is pretty good. Also Schopenhauer, Tillich, Niebuhr, Emerson, Thoreau, Kierkegaard, St. Augustine, Will Durant, Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche.. Plato and Socrates are usually good starting points in the 'Western tradition'.
I dunno, Aristotle seems kind of important. Or if you must have someone more recent, Alasdair MacIntyre.
I confess I didn't get much out of my forays into Girard. It seems to mostly be amateur primatology. It's entirely possible I didn't try hard enough, or whatever Thiel got out of it, he got out of it in person rather than from the books. It's also possible Girard is overrated by Thiel fanboy types.
I had the reverse happen, where, once I knew of Thiel’s affinity and support for his work, I became far more disinterested.
I’ve read most of Girard’s books and while I think they’re a good critique of both desire and the formation of religions, it has a great deal of shortcomings because of Girard’s retreat into theology. Instead of really tackling the problems his work raises, he simply sets it aside with something to the affect of “be a Christian,” (while nowhere acknowledging how modern Christianity has been weaponized to spread the kind of contagion and scapegoating his work sought to expose.)
I do think an understanding of Girard’s philosophy is necessary to understand Thiel’s political project. But I think he’s actually taken a quite dark lesson from Girard, allying himself with a new, scapegoating sacrificial order to attain further economic and political power.
I'm actually not clear on Thiel's intent with his 'political project' or how it relates to Girard. Is it that Thiel believes Trump is an ideal scapegoat to break the cycle of violence in US politics? Or does he see Trump as the false scapegoat and is supporting him since he thinks it's a good long run bet comparable to Jesus? It's hard to cut through and in my view makes Thiel look wholly unserious given that he obtained New Zealand citizenship after the election and stated that there's a 50% chance Trump could be a disaster.
