/lit/ - Literature

>In certain unedited writings just before his final breakdown, Nietzsche escapes the twin errors of the positivists and the nihilists, and he discovers the truth that I only repeat after him, the truth that dominates this book: in the Dionyisian passion and in the Passion of Jesus there is the same collective violence. But the interpretation is different:

"Dionysos versus the "Crucified": there you have the antithesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom--it is a difference in the meaning of it. Life itself, its eternal fruitfulness and recurrence, creates torment, destruction, the will to annihilation. In the other case, suffering--the "Crucified as the innocent one"--counts as an objection to this life, as a formula to its condemnation."

>Between Dionysos and Jesus there "is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom." In other words, the accounts of the Passion recount the same kind of drama as the myths, but the "meaning" is different. While Dionysos approves and organizes the lynching of the single victim, Jesus and the Gospels disapprove. This is exactly what I have said and keep on saying: myths are based on a unanimous persecution. Judaism and Christianity destroy this unanimity in order to defend the victims unjustly condemned and to condemn the executioners unjustly legitimated.

>As incredible as it may seem, no one made this simple but fundamental discovery before Nietzsche--no one, not even a Christian! So on this particular point we must give Nietzsche his just due. But beyond this point, sad to say, the philosopher becomes delirious. Rather than recognizing the reversal of the mythic scheme as an indisputable truth that only Judaism and Christianity proclaim, Nietzsche does all he can to discredit the Christian awareness that this type of victim is innocent. He sees perfectly well that one is dealing with the same violence in both cases ("there is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom"), but he doesn't see or want to see the injustice of the violence.

Girard's theory is so powerful
>destroys pagan ethics
>destroys subjective relativism
>establishes Christianity as the greatest intellectual development in human history

why do I never hear about him?

>>17490930
>You think too much faggot.
What I'm saying is fairly simple. Also there are far better critics of technology than Ted K, who even failed to understand the anthropological dimensions of his beloved "nature".

>>17348497
You're not quite there friend.