Live data from Hacker News

From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

salmagundi.skidmore.edu

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#11
> Indeed, all the critical discussions I have seen regarding Thiel’s reverence for Girard share a single pattern; they seek an opportunity for a negative judgment of Girard—believing this will help them cut Peter Thiel down to size and further their efforts to obliterate the reactionary right.

This article is compelling to me as someone who’s come to Girard’s ideas through criticism of Thiel. Girard’s thought has always seemed reasonable as a descriptive theory. But it’s been presented through Thiel and others as a prescriptive means for manipulation. It’s interesting to read that Girard identified the weaknesses in his own theory and, according to this author, would consider the prescriptive take an abuse of his theories.

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#12
post #2

I only read the chatgpt summarized version of this but it makes decent steelman points against thiel (as someone who likes him and his ideas).

[flagged]

That's a good argument, it's really making me reconsider previously held beliefs

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#14
I read this as an age old problem... It's an imperative to recognize and protect the innocent. However, who the victim is depends on the lens. One man's freedom fighter is another mans terrorist and all that. This is the problem with victimhood. Not to dismiss the very real brutal victimization of targeted groups. Simply that: it's much better to say we're all victims of the infliction of life, have revere for all fellow humans, something I beseech our species to come into alignment with.

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#15
TFA indulges in a type of fallacious reasoning I see way too much of in philosophical discussion. The general trend of the argument goes:

1. "A" proposed theory "X".

2. "B" interpreted "X" as "Y" and used that as a guide to action.

3. Since "X" and "Y" are different, the actions of "B" are somehow illegitimate.

If the actions of "B" are of interest, the proper focus of study is what "Y" really consists of and how it relates to the actions and outcomes of "B". What "A" did or did not propose really is of no interest unless you are specifically studying "A" instead of "B".

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#16
post #15

TFA indulges in a type of fallacious reasoning I see way too much of in philosophical discussion. The general trend of the argument goes: 1. "A" proposed theory "X". 2. "B" interpreted "X" as "Y" and used that as a guide to action. 3. Since "X" and "Y" are different, the actions of "B" are somehow illegitimate. If the actions of "B" are of interest, the proper focus of study is what "Y" really consists of and how it…

misuse is the central point...

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#17
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's a good argument, it's really making me reconsider previously held beliefs

I'm not arguing against you, I'm just expressing my surprise.

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#18
post #15

TFA indulges in a type of fallacious reasoning I see way too much of in philosophical discussion. The general trend of the argument goes: 1. "A" proposed theory "X". 2. "B" interpreted "X" as "Y" and used that as a guide to action. 3. Since "X" and "Y" are different, the actions of "B" are somehow illegitimate. If the actions of "B" are of interest, the proper focus of study is what "Y" really consists of and how it…

> 2. "B" interpreted "X" as "Y" and used that as a guide to action.

This is missing something essential: did B correctly or incorrectly interpret X as Y?

The argument is that if B had correctly interpreted X, and used X as a guide to action, then B's actions would have been quite different from what they are.

It would be strange to say, "Who cares about what Jesus said? We're only interested in what contemporary Christians are doing." It's strange because contemporary Christians themselves claim that they are following Jesus and care what Jesus said. If they've grossly misinterpreted Jesus, then that's a legitimate criticism of their beliefs and actions.

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#19
post #15

TFA indulges in a type of fallacious reasoning I see way too much of in philosophical discussion. The general trend of the argument goes: 1. "A" proposed theory "X". 2. "B" interpreted "X" as "Y" and used that as a guide to action. 3. Since "X" and "Y" are different, the actions of "B" are somehow illegitimate. If the actions of "B" are of interest, the proper focus of study is what "Y" really consists of and how it…

Then how are we supposed to discuss these kinds of misinterpretations then? The central point is that Girard was proposing that a maxim like "protection of the victims" was used to dispense violence against the innocent, to then someone using that as a template to further the violence against the innocent, by portraying some kind of in-group victim (usually, the victim is the same that dispenses the violence).

Re: From Philosophy to Power: The Misuse of René Girard by Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance

#20
post #6
post #3

Sad seeing formally geeky and entrepreneurial HN being converted into political agitprop. Eternal September.

Thiel actively attributes his entrepreneurial success to Girard’s ideas. I don’t disagree it would be nice to have less explicitly political topics but the reality is that the ideas of those who historically are the discussion of HN, Silicon Valley, and tech in general are ascendant in politics. It doesn’t strike me as off topic to critically evaluate those ideas.

Except they are not critically evaluated, they’re used as props in an ideological battle.

The result is pre-determined.

Post reply on HN