Nietzsche was WRONG about Christianity: René Girard

The Nietzsche Podcast, episode 88, "The Case for the Crucified".

Among Nietzsche's critics, René Girard is perhaps unique. Girard's understanding of human civilization and the origins of human culture is that it is based on ritual, collective violence against a scapegoated individual - and he argues that Nietzsche is one of the only thinkers hitherto who understood this. Nietzsche's famous formula - Dionysus versus the Crucified - is the title of Girard's critical essay on Nietzsche. He does not quibble with Nietzsche's framing of the situation, but rather with Nietzsche's conclusions. While Nietzsche takes up for the side of Dionysus, Girard stands on the side of the Crucified, arguing that Nietzsche was fundamentally wrong to lament the ascendance of Christianity and to yearn for a return to the Dionysian. In the course of Nietzsche's defense of Dionysus, he put forward moral theories that were "untenable", and become increasingly "inhuman". Among the many commenters of Nietzsche, both disciples and critics, it is rare to find a figure like Girard, who recognizes Nietzsche's brilliance, but totally condemns his legacy. Join me today to learn about the life of Rene Girard, his theories of mimetic desire and scapegoating, and the impassioned case he puts forward for The Crucified.

#renegirard #girard #nietzsche #philosophy #philosophypodcast #thenietzschepodcast #history #historyofphilosophy #greekphilosophy #frenchphilosophy #christianity #atheism #religion #religiousphilosophy

[lbjvg]

Wow! Thanks for introducing René Girard - I have to say that this quote hits hard “He [Nietzsche] did not see that the evil he was fighting [resentment] was a relatively minor evil compared to the more violent forms of vengeance….Such frivolity could flourish only in our privileged centuries, in privileged parts of the world where real vengeance had retreated so much that its terror had become unintelligible.”

[manchester]

Your best video…I’ve read girard, Nietszche, the Bible, etc…if viewers go into the implications of this video and even partially understand they will have a large shift in their understanding of the most foundational underpinnings of our individual and collective humanity.

[virtue_signal_]

I didn't want to listen to this until I found out everyone else wanted to.

[whoaitstiger]

My name is Nietzsche!
It's nice to meet'cha!
I'm really quite a fascinating creature.
Schopenhauer
Was much too sour!
I took his will to life and made it power!

[charlesgoodyear]

It may be revealed to Girard that if the scapegoated God Christ was historically “unique” in that he abstained absolutely from enacted revenge and internal resentment, then it follows that he, a first of his “spotless” kind, did not desire per se what others desired. Truly, Christ himself was a creator: his individualism, or to put it in Nietzsche’s artistic terms, his style of character, was also a “formidable lie” — in so far as self-believing art is technically an error. But no creator is more “unique” than another than by arbitrary judgment: Jesus’s death is no more inherently “unjust” than Dionysus’s; and, in fact, by the Will to Power judgment, is Dionysus’s death not more unjust than Christ’s?

[NorthernObserver]

If you replace Christianity with Protestantism in Neitzsche’s writings, his theories hold up much better. Which is probably what he had in mind anyway, coming from a Lutheran family.

There is very little of the mob in the Apostolic Churches, whereas it is all over Protestantism, especially the radical reformation.

[JingleJangleJam]

Nietzsche's worldview doesn't celebrate or commemorate violence in a religious sense. ''The morality of the crucified'' is ambigious because the symbol of the cross implies suffering, and suffering itself implies violence as a virtue. Therefore Nietzsche struggles between violence itself and pacifism, a kind of violent final act whereby he will throw down all swords, lay down all arms, against Christianity's war on the passions, in a final solution the the metaphysical, other-worldy roots of propaganda which fuels modern war. Christianity, Nietzsche acknowledges, shares this contradiction with him of struggling between non-violence (rebuking binary good and evil, transvaluation one might say is impossible in an actual war, you cannot transvalue the values you fight for or else you become an adversary of your own side) and Christianity's contradictory violence inherent in its pacifist models of creating moral duality and enemies of types of human conditions, between the peace orated about on the pulpit and the historical side of its many acts of grnadiose historical violence.

''With God war is declared on life, nature, and the will to life! God is the formula for every calumny of this world and for every lie concerning a beyond!''

Nietzsche says, and so can come across as acting violent in self-defence in a sense.

''The environment in which this strange figure moved, must have left its mark upon him, and the history, the destiny of the first Christian communities must have done so to a still greater degree. Thanks to that destiny, the type must have been enriched retrospectively with features which can be interpreted only as serving the purposes of war and of propaganda. That strange and morbid world into which the gospels lead us—a world which seems to have been drawn from a Russian novel, where the scum and dross of society, diseases of the nerves and “childish” imbecility seem to have given each other rendezvous.''

There in the Twilight of the Idols he says ''the type'' within the Christian community serve ''the purposes of war and of propaganda.''

This is political, in the world and in spirit;

In the elevation of suffering, pain and the rebuking of leisure and happiness, in Christianity Nietzsche sees meta-physical causes for the political propaganda of war, ''dividing nation between nation'' in the historical era of the growth of science as a force to challenge religious dogma, in the final part of chapter 48 of Twilight of the Idols, he says ''God'' will favour nationalist propaganda between nations in its place to avoid the corrosive effect knowledge will have on the false boundaries we put between humans based on binaries;

''man must be kicked out of paradise! Happiness, leisure leads to thinking, —all thoughts are bad thoughts.... Man must not think.—And the “priest-per-se” proceeds to invent distress, death, the vital danger of pregnancy, every kind of misery, decrepitude, and affliction, and above all disease, —all these are but weapons employed in the struggle with science! Trouble prevents man from thinking.... And notwithstanding all these precautions! Oh, horror! the work of science towers aloft, it storms heaven itself, it rings the death-knell of the gods, —what’s to be done?—The old God invents war; he separates the nations, and contrives to make men destroy each other mutually (—the priests have always been in need of war....) War, among other things, is a great disturber of science!—Incredible! Knowledge, the rejection of the sacerdotal yoke, nevertheless increases.—So the old God arrives at this final decision: “Man has become scientific, —there is no help for it, he must be drowned!” ...''

[rapidopato]

Girard's conception of mimetic desire someway resemblance to Lacan's. In this way we desire what we imagine the others desire. We desire the desire of the Other. I guess this is what Lacan calls the phantasma (so it is related to phantasy).

[Doctor.T.]

Excellent presentation, but just because you disagree with Nietzsche doesn't make him wrong. In Genealogy of Morals he makes his position very clear. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your conclusion.

[charlesgoodyear]

Girad’s collective violence, scapegoat theory is spot on. Question: what if we continued this practice — in light of Christ and all pagan sacrifices before him — CONSCIOUSLY, such that its means were TAILORED to the end of discharging pent up resentment as a catalyst for cultural correction? I have a general idea applied specifically to the State: MMA fights between China and America, East and West, wherein two REPRESENTATIVE Warriors fight to the death: the victor is proclaimed stronger, the vanquished is lauded, even deified, with full honors for his cultural valor and sacrifice.

[localuser]

I think Girard over-eggs the Christian end of violence thing, if this podcast is a fair characterisation. In the ensuing world of Christianisation, did we see any less recourse to violence? Yes the end of symbolic blood sacrifices but was this really some metaphysical overturning of the necessity of violence?

Jesus does not actually rebuke violence in of itself, but displays a radical non-resistance that I think Nietzsche gives a very good account of in The Antichrist. This account also counters Girard's claim that Nietzsche says Christianity is fathered by ressentiment - the religion yes but not Christ himself who he paints quite differently as far beyond the pettiness that the Church later takes on.

Remember also, Christ is set to return with a sword, to judge the living and the dead, separate the wheat from the chaff and bring a war against Satan. What would Girard do if he saw the Second Coming? Cry 'Wait, no, we're done with all that!'? Please don't scapegoat the devil!

The devil also is concretised in Christianity and has created a spiritual 'scapegoat' that can move as it wills and be embodied by whoever we dislike.

[briyo]

Great video! Its hard to find good stuff on Nietzsche or Girard online.

One thought, according to Girard, the unveiling actually makes it less possible to scapegoat (hence the Salem witchtrials arent modern myths, theyre chronicles of injustice). Assuming hes not wrong, is it possible for us to return to Dionysus? What would that look like if not various forms of resentment or half hearted bursts of anger, only to be followed up by collective guilt. Whats the path forward for the Dionysisn who rejects both resentment and straight foward reactionary scapegoating like you see on the far ends of the political spectrum?

[lukaszwalaszczyk]

Girard was wrong; its not collective desire that drives us, its greed. And opposite is fear.

[kennethanderson]

As a representative of the non collective of Christian existentialists, I thank you for this episode. Also, as an aside, “pyroclastic flow of collective violence”, is a beautiful phrase. It fits nicely with the evolution of Yahweh from angry volcano god, to redeemer God. (we truly are a weird bunch of creatures)

[StevenDykstra-ub]

Of course, violence is not the celebration of logic for those in power that hold power as the highest value. Violence is a tool, but not an admitted admission of failure. As for Christianity's willingness to accept suffering for a hypothicated compensation in a beyond, well, could that also not serve as a great tool for those holding power?

[andreasbillqvist]

Deeply appreciated! The relevance of this is overwhelming. Girard appears foremost as you declare a merited critic of Nietzsche. Yet his further arguments regarding the uniqueness of Christianity are less informed and weaker. For example just to propose a simple counter argument to the latter: why shouldn't John the Baptist be the fulfilment of Judaic tradition, as he also was murdered sacrificially and proclaimed "messiah" by some?

[zerotwo]

23:28 this insight I agree, the interactions of people are more fundamental. My dog don't care about the bone, until I reach it with my hand, than it becomes the most important object in the room.
If we only have scapegoating, if this whole subject can be reduced to this... this... 'god to end all gods'. And now this is a worldwide phenomena, everyone knows it and attacks it.
Edit: ("what happens when people fake to be the innocent" should be the question.) We are screwed.
Class Day Lecture 2009: The Uniqueness of Humans - what if we see how primates deal with this situation, will this 'lift the veil' even further?

[SL-eskb]

Great video! Definitely not enough dissemination of Girard or consideration his work in dialogue with others. Great job- I hope you use your work here in essays, you have created an asset and there is a gap.

[timothylamattina]

What effect, would or should, the acknowledgement to the a. priori truth, that a physical jesus never roamed the earth.
What I mean to say is, how can any of the philosiphical conclusions posited, be given serious consideration, knowing that the foundation of their philosophical thought is based on a false premise.

[robertb]

Very interesting. I'm not totally convinced Girard is right to say mankind could never have come up with reasons for what they did before the Christian. Look around the world and culture from ancient times, which had been formed by Do's and Don'ts that had their "reasons." The Christian mythology is not a "reason" either, but only a certain confirguration of assumptions that ultimately don't have rational grounding but are indirect and consequentialist. In any case the Christian idea grew from a broader set of human experiences that it is a subset of.