> 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.
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.
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".
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).
> 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.
misuse is the central point...
Long but very good piece, although I was surprised to not see Tolkien mentioned even once, who Thiel has given essentially the same treatment.
Tolkien like Girard was explicitly a Christian writer and if there's one message in his books it was of course: "do not take the ring". Thiel somehow turned this around into "VC fund the forging of the ring and use it against our perceived enemies".
Girard's argument was that the logical endpoint of mimetic violence and technology is apocalypse, and the only solation is love of your enemy. Likewise Tolkien points out that it is the very logic of power that destroys. Yet Thiel somehow took Tolkien's work, slapped his names on weapons and tools of surveillance. It's honestly kind of bizarre the extent to which Thiel openly twists the people he claims to admire.
Could it be Peter Thiel doesn't know how to generate love. What does he or anyone similar then do when love is suggested as a solution to complexity?
Sad seeing formally geeky and entrepreneurial HN being converted into political agitprop. Eternal September.
Sad seeing people not recognizing that this is actually the kind of topics that HN is not shy about. The site is for "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity", so critiquing someone for using the knowledge that come from that pursue, to weaponize it must be discussed. As the other commenter points out, Girard's tesis is used for political convenience. Also, if anyone saw Girad's work as apolitical, I don't think the understanding of the work was acquired.
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.
How can this be avoided when the tech companies themselves, as well as their founders, are engaging in political agitprop? Of course Peter Thiel has been very active in politics for a long time. In fact the whole "PayPal mafia" is now. Elon Musk was the largest campaign contributor in the 2024 elections and has become a political appointee of sorts in the US government. Not to mention his acquisition of Twitter. Jeff Bezos acquired The Washington Post and has undermined its editorial independence. There are many other examples I could list.
The days of obscure geeks are long gone. The "geeks" have inherited the Earth. Tech has eaten the world. With great power comes great responsibility... or irresponsibility, as the case may be.
"no, I mean I have an income that insulates me from politics regardless so please don't make me think about the poors." - OP probably.
thiel and vance are not people that anyone should look to for any type of philosophical wisdom.
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).
>thiel (as someone who likes him and his ideas)
It blows my mind the opinions that people can have.
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.
I‘m sure it does.
Did the same. Summarizing the summary:
René Girard’s ideas about mimetic theory of desire and scapegoating are being misappropriated and distorted by Thiel, who participated in Girard’s Stanford study group, and Vance, who didn’t.
Girard’s core concept is that human desires are imitative, leading to rivalry and conflict, which societies historically resolve through scapegoating, unifying around the victim to restore order. Girard believed the Judeo-Christian tradition exposes and challenges this mechanism, fostering awareness and rejection of violence. Both Vance and Thiel twist these ideas.
Vance claims to have learned from Girard to avoid scapegoating but then engages in scapegoating immigrants.
Thiel interprets Girard’s ideas to support a worldview rooted in conflict, rivalry, and the necessity of decisive, often authoritarian action. Thiel’s 2004 essay “The Straussian Moment” reveals his fascination with figures like Carl Schmitt and Strauss, advocating for a post-liberal order that recognizes human violence, promotes elite control, and considers dismantling democratic norms.
Thiel’s use of esoteric, Straussian techniques allows him to hide radical intentions beneath a veneer of philosophical caution. Thiel’s interpretation of key concepts, such as the friend/enemy distinction, reveals a tendency to conflate external enemies with internal moral questions, leading to a dangerous cycle of escalation and dehumanization. His admiration for Schmitt’s political theology, combined with his hostility toward political correctness and victim culture, underscores a worldview that seeks to simplify human nature into inherently violent terms, often dismissing Girard’s more nuanced view of mimetic desire as fundamentally good and capable of positive development.
Thiel’s true political aim is a move toward a post-democratic, authoritarian order aligned with Spengler’s fatalism. His fascination with “Caesarism” and rejection of liberal institutions suggest he envisions a society governed by strong, charismatic leaders, bypassing constitutional checks, which is an outcome that Girard’s theories warn could lead to chaos and violence.
Overall, Thiel and Vance’s use of Girard’s ideas is shown to be a form of intellectual manipulation, serving their ambitions for power and societal transformation under the guise of philosophical insight.
Just an FYI, posting the output of LLMs on HN is forbidden per the rules.
There's no mention of llm or chatgpt or even ai in this https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
He should update that page. Anyway: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I know because I was contacted and asked not to do this.