Mimetic Desire | René Girard's Mimetic Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2024
- Mimesis, mimetic desire, and metaphysical desire are the fundamental building blocks of Girard’s psychology. They will show us how even the most intimate aspects of our identity can be radically shaped by others and how to distinguish vanity from authenticity. These psychological fundaments are what make humans social animals, why prestige and recognition matter so much to us, and how we are able to form cultures and even language itself. They are responsible for humanity’s greatest achievements, but they also render us helplessly fallen. Under scrutiny, metaphysical desire will reveal itself to be none other than original sin.
00:00:00 Introduction
00:03:51 Mimesis
00:08:16 Mimesis and Normativity
00:17:34 Mimetic Desire
00:29:17 What is Meant by "Being"
00:31:53 The First End of Being: Reality
00:34:38 The Second End of Being: Persistence
00:35:31 The Third End of Being: Self-sufficiency
00:41:36 Metaphysical Desire
00:50:14 The Malleability of Metaphysical Desire
00:52:09 The Power of Metaphysical Desire
00:53:30 The Deceitfulness of Metaphysical Desire
00:58:18 The Ungovernability of Metaphysical Desire
01:00:31 Original Sin
To be notified of future lectures, essays, and book reviews, subscribe to my newsletter: johnathanbi.com/newsletter
Full transcript: johnathanbi.com/interpreting-girard-lecture-ii-transcript
Just want to also commend Jonathan on this part right here. It’s such a great point about how desire can start in one form and move into another.
Authenticity: Fake it til you make it
T shirts coming soon 🙂
Motivations for going to the Gym are a good example for many.
Been waiting six months for this. It was worth the wait.
Thanks gerbil!
This series is an absolute gem!! Johnathan is extremely impressive. The setting and tone of the conversation are well done and engaging. I would love to watch more series like this one, with other polymath thinkers, coving other important topics.
When I watched the 1st episode, I thought that is one of the best content I have ever kistened to for years. When I watched the 2nd episode I think that is one of the most useful, relevant and eye opening stuff I have ever watched. This mimetic dimension of human kind is absolutely central to understand the latter.
Johnathan, I discovered mimetic theory a week ago after watching a video about Peter Thiel. I wanted to learn more, and most videos about it on youtube being of you on different channels, I watched you for about 10 hours since. You are really dominating the mimetic theory field. It's not a big pie currently, but you have almost all the slices. Good job!
I do like pie
@@bi.johnathan are you sure? 😏
I feel obliged to disclose that this split between physical and metaphysical desire is not a common way of reading Girard. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no other Girard scholar/commentator draws out this distinction. Even Girard himself neglects one-half of this binary (physical desire).
With that said I do believe it is an important distinction to make if we are to make sense of mimetic theory. I articulate my reasons for doing so and how I believe this adds to the current scholarship in more depth in Chapter 2 of my book-length treatment on Girard: johnathanbi.com/manuscript/chapter-2
Just saw this after posting my comment above. First, I would distinguish between appetitle and desire. If I'm thirsty and I go to the fridge for a Perrier and there's only Evian, I don't care -- I'm just thirsty and want a drink. If it's a long time ago, when Perrier was cool, and I felt the sting of disappointment because there was no Perrier (bottle to show!) then it's desire. What you're calling "physical desire" is perhaps better designated appetite. By the way, I'm enjoying the lectures and gaining a better understanding of Girard from them.
Finally! Been waiting for this for a long time. It's gonna be a great weekend - thanks Johnathan!
Hope it's worth the wait Jacob :)
Been waiting for this since ep.1
Hope we don't disappoint.
My wholeness of being is touched by this lecture series. Understanding metaphysical desire fulfills my physical desire.
Whose library is this?
Thank you for the high quality lectures! I have been reading Girard's and girardian writers' books and writings every now and then for over 20 years. I find Girards thought very fascinating and it's always interesting to see how people from different backrounds utilize and interprete Girard's thought slightly differently. Keep up the great work!
I love every bit of these lectures! Thank you.
Wow! specially the ending, original sin reworked in most powerful and gripping way. Thanks a 1000x guys!
Glad it resonated with you!
Perfect Algorithm has been trained well -timing was just right as I was further diving into Philosophy at this point of my life 📝
Grateful to have come across this, wandering the concrete jungle I could not find direction toward a clearing and so settled for the liminal approximation present and closed my eyes. Hoping my ears might be the sense in which to navigate until I can open my eyes once more. Girard seems the sculpture to which I might sit down beside and breathe
I can’t wait for this!!!!!
I had an angry thought earlier this morning after a doom-scroll. Just kind of a mental shout aimed out into the void saying, “my mind is not your trashcan!” Contrast this to the moment when in a similar doom-scroll this evening, I stumbled upon this. I can tell when my mind is being filled with good things. Thank you for sharing good things.
Whereas I don't doubt the lecturer's knowledge of Girard, his delivery feels likes he's working extra hard to demonstrate how smart he is. Find videos of Girard if you are interested. A gentle, humble, genius there
The charge of my arrogance is not baseless, but the praise of Girard’s humility is, I’m afraid, not the full extent of the story. If he appears as such in these videos it has more to do with age. One does not title one’s book “Thing Hidden Since the Foundations of the World” out of humility. In interviews he confesses that, as a young academic, he was often guilty of the very prideful mechanisms he captured in his work - perhaps that’s why he captured them so well. Alas, you were at least right about one of us. Here’s to the hope that I become as humble and gentle as he was with age.
The lecturer is very smart and he's working hard to be interesting, clear and entertaining -- and doing a pretty good job! I know Girard's work fairly well, and I'm learning enough to keep me listening and excited about future lectures.
As a follow-on to this lecture, I recommend the book "The Worm at the Core" about legacy as a means to escape death.
Very well done. This was a great melding of the intellectual/secular and the spiritual to illuminate the truth.
Thanks Andrew, this psychological/existential interpretation of original sin has made it much more palatable to me as well.
Thanks for the course from Ukrainian researchers of Girard`s theories
An example of Girard's Mimetic Theory in action is the way modern childhood is structured like a conveyor belt.
Every kid progresses at the same speed, no matter how much they learn. Follow the conveyor belt and you’ll be successful. High school leads into college, which leads into graduate school, which leads into a prestigious career.
Whenever I meet a college kid, I ask: “Would you rather get a C in a class but actually learn the material, or an A in the class without learning anything?”
Most kids conform to conveyor belt logic and reluctantly choose the A.
Sure, some students like the conveyor belt. They like knowing what they need to do and when they need to do it. Generally, these conformists are more interested in the rewards of good grades than the fruits of knowledge. They're good students and good employees. Other people, like me, loathe the conveyor belt system. They feel like the rewards aren’t worth the effort. They don’t want to follow the syllabus in class and certainly don’t want their instructional manual for life to come from bureaucrats and school teachers.
René Girard says there are two kinds of desire: physical and metaphysical desire. Physical desire is wanting an object for its inherent qualities, like a glass of water because you’re thirsty - or learning for the sake of learning. This is healthy.
Metaphysical desire is different. Acquiring the object only brings you joy because of the person it makes you become. You only care about it because of what it says about you - like learning for good grades or a diploma. This is unhealthy.
People driven by metaphysical desire think achievement will bring them complete satisfaction. They think Straight A’s and an impressive job will fulfill them. But no matter what they achieve, and no matter how much they progress down the conveyor belt, they still feel empty. The conveyor belt runs on the fuel of metaphysical desire. We copy other people's desires and mistake them for our own. Eventually, we can no longer hear the whims of our inner voice. Our desires undermine us and go against our best interests.
Too many students are numb to the inherent joys of working. "Learning” is only a worthy endeavor when it helps them advance to the next stage. Their satisfactions are fleeting and followed by emptiness. Like a mirage in the desert, they never quench their thirst for achievement. In schools, there is a scarcity of physical desire and a surplus of metaphysical desire. Even after a 16 years in the classroom, too many students are unaware of who they really are and what they really care for. They have no sense of curiosity and no clue what interests them. Intuitively, they know something is off. They're ruled by metaphysical desire. As a student recently told me: “I feel like nobody enjoys school. They all just put up with it. I feel like nobody likes this shit, and I’m at a point in my life where I can’t put up with it anymore.”
Kids who follow the conveyor belt path have mirroring desires, which leads to stress and anxiety. Each year, more and more high schoolers dream of getting into Ivy League schools that promise salvation, but cap their acceptance numbers like a Berlin nightclub.
With the conveyor belt mindset comes a fear of failure. Fall off and you fall behind… so don’t make any mistakes. One poor test, and their report card will be forever tainted. One poor semester, and their chances at an Ivy League education are gone. And since your advancement has capped upside, why be creative?
Real life doesn’t work like this though. There is no speed limit. An interesting life has no default path. Learning is crucial, but perfection isn't what it's cracked up to be.
If we’d explicitly designed an environment for Mimetic competition, we’d build a system like the one we have today: insane competition for limited spots, and the pursuit of meaningless rewards, and undifferentiated students who compete for the same scarce status symbols. Meaningless prizes lead to brutal rivalries. Reflecting on his time at universities, Henry Kissinger once said: “Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small.”
The alternative is differentiation.
Why is differentiation important? Peace and stability. People don’t envy those who are very different from them, which is why people have historically envied their neighbors and friends more than billionaires. “Love thy neighbor” can be harder than loving someone distant. The worst fighting happens amongst equals. The first line of Romeo and Juliet says: “Two houses, both alike in dignity.” The hatred between the Montagues and the Capulets is so fierce because they are so similar.
For Girard, a lack of differentiation sows the seeds of violence. Facebook’s mission of connecting the world is something to fear instead of celebrate. Global visibility increases the scale of imitation and the potential for Mimetic rivalry. By reducing distance between the poor and the rich, social media makes us hate billionaires. Gatsby’s parties were invite-only and reserved for the West Egg elite, while these days, Elon Musk’s private jet is tracked in real-time on Twitter.
The arc of history is leading to less differentiation. The common core has every public school student in America following the same curriculum. SATs have them studying for the same tests. The prestige of an Ivy League diploma has them applying to the same schools. Multinational corporations have them competing for the same jobs. Nearly every college kid wants to work in the same five industries: law, tech, medicine, investing, and consulting - which is what Girard feared. They’re stuck in claustrophobic bubbles and blind to opportunities. Fueled by Mimetic contagion, they avoid industries like plumbing, traffic management, power plant operations, and electrical engineering even though they also pay well.
Kids are told that riding the conveyor belt is the key to success. But schools are procrustean, individuality-smashing machines. The trophies are hollow. The grades are basically meaningless. Their rewards bring fleeting satisfaction.
Does their angst surprise you?
The alternative is a school system that encourages differentiation. A system where kids are encouraged to explore their curiosity and escape the narrow, conformity-inducing conveyor belt.
Girard's philosophy holds the keys to rewiring your mind and escaping the traps of Mimesis.
Loved this:
"For Girard, a lack of differentiation sows the seeds of violence. Facebook’s mission of connecting the world is something to fear instead of celebrate. Global visibility increases the scale of imitation and the potential for Mimetic rivalry. By reducing distance between the poor and the rich, social media makes us hate billionaires. Gatsby’s parties were invite-only and reserved for the West Egg elite, while these days, Elon Musk’s private jet is tracked in real-time on Twitter."
"Kids who follow the conveyor belt path have mirroring desires, which leads to stress and anxiety. " - Could you please explain?
I’m drawn to the promise of this series and there is no question that Jonathan has a deep knowledge of mimetic theory. But the use of the language is complex and makes it more difficult to follow - maybe it’s the format which has a thin veneer of a conversation when in fact it’s a monologue or maybe it’s because it feels the production is metaphysical desire embodied (the appearance to attempt what one could say is intellectual sophistication - maybe it’s tongue in cheek but I don’t get this feeling)
In summary I think the intent and potential of this series is stunted somewhat by the execution and production.
To be a philosopher king you must first be king. Authenticity about these topics would be good from the lives and stories around both of these speakers not in abstract terms.
Another nuanced point. Mimetic desire seems to be negatively portrayed from the get go. It would be good to hear where the balance of mimetic desire is favorable to be larger and where it’s better smaller. Team culture I think is a manifestation of mimetic desire, and yet amazing things are done with a united team. And mimetic desire in fashion in extremes leaves one hollow.
Hi, I fullharthedly agree with you that the language is more difficult than it needs to be, maybe it's because it conveys Gerard's work better or it suits Johnathan. Either way, I found it very useful to follow the transcript of the conversation and even take some notes.
As a result of me taking notes, I think I also can answer the second point where memetic is being portrayed in a negative light. I quote Johnathan from the first lecture: "The species of mimetic behavior that most concerns Girard, in both senses of the word, is desire. It's fine and dandy when what mimesis transmits is accents or cultural codes, but when mimesis converges the desires of people -- well that invites them into competition, conflict, and often violence."
Hope it helped.
@@Fenifiks Transcripts available: johnathanbi.com/interpreting-girard-lecture-ii-transcript
I would say it's a lecture, but enlivened by a format of pseudo-dialogue. I'm OK with that though because Jonathan is a skilled speaker and comes across as deeply thoughtful. And compared to a typical academic, I find the language surprisingly clear, considering the newness (to me at least) of the ideas. My main quibble is that his language is sometimes a bit stilted. I note that Jonathan also has an interest in buddhism, and I hope he addresses the Buddhist idea that craving--desire--is at the root of suffering.
I would say this is one the necessary evils of philosophy, which typically necessitates jargon to be precise
The metaphysical desire is born out of passive aggression, it is invisible that's why it is equated to “sin”.
Setting physical desire above metaphysical desire is interesting.
25:00 "All vanity and snobbism."
This is set against authenticity as metaphysical desire is replaced by physical desire. It sounds like one is exchanging an immature ideal for a more mature actuality.
It seems the answer as one grows is to accept the actuality and abandon the ideal. For example, it is dangerous to compare an actual husband or wife to any ideal.
Acceptance precludes the necessity of comparison and judgment. Acceptance must be practiced first for oneself and then for one's husband or wife. Ideals come later, or maybe we apply them elsewhere - whichever.
Powerful idea... Metaphysical desires are idealized, exaggerated forms that are not representative of the reality presented by actual, physical desires. Acceptance must therefore make up the gap between what we think we want or wanted and what we have, so to speak.
Never see yourself against anything in opposition. You'll never escape it if you do. Acceptance is the alternative.
Acceptance is not approval. It is the only acceptable form of compromise available to us. We cannot be authentic people without accepting others.
I think of desire as being always metaphyscial. If I'm buying a car and I'm solely concerned about practical matters like comfort and economy, not to ignore it being a nice-looking car, too, but investing no prestige in the purchase -- it's not desire. No big deal if it turns out to cost more than I want to pay, I'll look for another car.. If I desire the car, then I won't want to give up the purchase and, for example, I'll be more willing to pay more than the car is worth.
Judging, Judgment, is what lead us into looking for prestige. If we stop judging, we could finally stop the circle of desire and disappointment.
Good work!!
Thanks Martin!
Incredible!
On quite the marathon I see :)
This is CONTENT
'tis indeed
I have discovered you today and as a philosophy scholar I applaud your almost perfect analysis, Jonathan. One question: Unlike Vanity (Satanic "Pride"), Pride (in a Nietzschean sense, not in a reactive, perverse sentiment of romanticism) has contempt of others and does not recognize the value of other's opinions, only one's own (opinion based on one's own criterion, not that of the masses or the shepherd). If so, how can pride stimulate mimetic desire, i.e. how does mimetic desire promise to increase one's pride, the belief in one's superiority over one's past self and other humans based on one's own standard?
With two guys under 40 talking like this…There is hope for the world. 🌎
Having the desire to have the outcome of endless hard work (see the onion article of kid staring down the endless abyss of school) without the JOY of the work involved
27:50 even physical desire is indirectly informed by memesis through the normative values we hold
38:00 3 goals of metaphysical desires
Somehow it’s irony to see you two present this lecture in such a “prestige” and traditional set up and appearance. I do enjoy the lecture for sure, don’t get me wrong. Just a little observation that I can’t help to say it out since it somehow echos what the topic is about.
The topic requires such. It's difficult to escape misesis. Whatever they're antimimetic by not following vloggers footsteps, whether they're geniuses that have don't it like it was never done before - I leave that judgment to you.
It's not entirely correct to say that Girard declares"metaphysical desire" as our Original Sin. In fact, he abstained from pronouncing on it (lest he fall into error or heresy vis-a-vis orthodox catholic teaching), and variously elsewhere also stated, in the context of Cain's killing Abel, that "vengeance" approaches closest to what we mean by original sin.
This is an unresolved but fundamental issue with Girard's work, one which gives Nietzsche's critique of Christianity renewed vigour. If there is no real Adam - a man created in original justice, who nevertheless fell into sin - then there is no need for a Redeemer, and certainly not one who comes to rescue man from his true, "violent nature" (per Nietzsche).
I happen to have a resolution to the problem, which redeems Girard's masterful theory for orthodox teaching about evil, original sin, and salvation.
I look forward to the subsequent lectures.
Thank you for making time to so clearly frame your point. Would you please share your resolution?
Thanks for your comment Levi.
You are right: Girard, does not, in any of his works, equate metaphysical desire to be Original sin explicitly. This is an interpretive move made by me to better make sense of Girard and tie it to more familiar theology. However, I would suggest that this move is not completely groundless. There are instances such as pg. 57 in Desire, Deceit, and the Novel where Girard draws a strong relation between the two concepts (the context in this passage is he is talking about the mechanisms of metaphysical desire): "Each one believes that he alone is excluded from the divine inheritance and takes pains to hide this misfortune. Original sin is no longer the truth about all men as in a religious universe but rather each individual's secret, the unique possession of that subjectivity which broad casts its omnipotence and its dazzling supremacy." Passages like these compelled me to draw a stronger connection than what Girard himself may have.
On a broader point, you will not find direct textual equivalents for many of the moves I make in this lecture series: combining Girard's pathologies in Lecture III as a theodicy, introducing the idea of "physical desire" which makes only a handful of appearances in Girard's work in Lecture II, describing hypocrisy as the shape of modern perversion in Lecture VI, highlighting law, capitalism, and war as the Katechons in Lecture VII ... I think the role of a philosophical interpreter is not mere regurgitation but creative synthesis and, in many cases, pushing the intuitions of the original author to their logical conclusion.
As my Buddhist professor used to say "Nagarjuna may not be the best interpreter of Nagarjuna." Perhaps Girard, then, is not the best interpreter of Girard :)
@@bi.johnathan Indeed, this is a subject that cannot be summarised in a glib UA-cam comment, and I apologise if I came across as such. Your perspective is certainly neither inaccurate nor unwarranted, as it seems fairly clear that Girard himself was aware of the implications of his theory as well as the danger that, were he to pronounce definitively on the matter, he would likely be rejected by orthodox Christian theologians as heretical, as he had already been rejected by the secular academics as heretical.
An analogous case is instructive : the matter of the sacrificial character of Christianity, which he had previously pronounced as opposed to paganism *therefore anti-sacrificial*, an error that, though he later corrected, has had very damaging consequences for the comprehension of his work as well as its uptake. His intellectual humility allowed him to recognise and correct that error, and in the case of original sin, to avoid pronouncements altogether.
This, I believe, is because at the end of his life he came to see the total revelation as that which was contained in the teachings of the Catholic Church, and therefore in intellectual humility to fully to submit himself as a Catholic, seeking as far as possible that his theory be consistent or at least to not be in conflict with the doctrines of the faith, especially on the essential doctrine of Adam as the first man (though not necessarily the first talking hominin!) and the *genealogical father* of all living men.
Girard ran out of time working all the tangents out himself. This leaves us Girardians the task of fumbling forwards with what he's left us, and Jonathan, you are doing excellent work!
You'll have to wait for my book, but in short, the Catholic teaching on Adam is correct if difficult to comprehend scientifically (hence the need for my work which will "complete" Girard's) and Girard's Fundamental Anthropology can be shown to complement this doctrine without any violence done to either.
You would do well to learn Aristotle's idea of hylomorphism (and familiarise yourself with Aquinas), Julian Jaynes' bicameral theory of consciousness, and S Joshua Swamidass' work on Adam as a scientifically-defensible recent *genealogical* universal ancestor. Best wishes, L.
@@Louis.R Thanks, Levi. I'm ready to pre-order your book. I've got lots to read and reflect upon.
oh man, you should see my dogs - they definitely exhibit memetic desire
what is a good introductory book to Girard?
When these things begin
❤️❤️❤️🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Please tell me that is a real set.
'tis
What broke the socialist experiment in the USSR, has nothing to do with the lack of freedom. The reason is that although they eliminated the economic clases, they kept the social clases, the statified society. They compulsively gave prizes, and recognized effort, recreating a stratified society, precicely what they eliminated apparently with the revolution. Keeping the Meritocracy, praising the personal merits, supports the looking for prestige. So there is no difference in a capitalist and socialist economy, as long as there is a stratified society that rewards effort with prestige.
Hey friend, you might want to hear from Confucius's great grand son
There is something somewhat ironic of men talking about mimesis while obviously indulging in mimetic desire regarding fashion.
It's not fashion, they just seem really pretentious.
@@soulmydear Facts
11:30 or the Babylon Bee's example of the consevative kid ostracized by queer parents. Or the metaphysically conservative Christian world, ostracized by Western companies misusing the rainbow symbol purposefully (while simulaneously submitting to Islamic standards in their Eastern counterparts for June)
33:49
This is very aligned to what is described in the book a course in miracles
Metaphysical desire = ego
Original sin = separation
Derp 😢
1:07:30 Metaphysical desire is satanic
Mom I want Jordan Peterson.
We got Jordan Peterson at home.
Don´t you think that these lectures should have been anonymous and a podcast? "Signing" them means that you are looking for prestige. Far from moving away from the looking for fame, you go to the centre of mimetic behaviour. I love that you give, record, and post these lectures and that you give your knowledge freely, but through your behaviour, you are not manifesting your understanding of mimetic behaviour and how to avoid it and then end with violence etc.
This would be better if it were more conversational. The scripting needs work. Eye movements betray the prompter. Too many hand motions and too exaggerated. Too much pretentious vocabulary. The 45 degree camera angle is underused. The 90 degree angle is not framed very well. Aim the camera a little to the right to give space for the speakers hands.
Great information!
he said from the beginning that this is a lecture not a conversation between two people
This is ai.
?
What do you mean?
That is a compliment