Did his theory justify his conversion to Christianity, or is it cope?I will tell you what I think: theory of mimetic desire fails because who was the original desire based on? If desire is always copied, what’s the origin of the first copy?Overall he is brilliant but seems ultimately like a misguided attempt at being the lawful good Nietzsche, all to run cover for Jewish power
Too high iq for this board I guess
>>23824786>If desire is always copied, what’s the origin of the first copy?God, the font of self-mimesis, the generative ontological principle that instantiates its own instantiation, the binding power in every link of the infinite causal chain, the immanent transcendence/unitive particularity that makes itself known at all times, in all places and through all things
>>23824786that's chicken/egg or what came before the big bang tier logic it does not discredit it
>>23824786>mimetic desire fails because who was the original desire based on?animals
>>23824786>what’s the origin of the first copy?it's based on a false understanding of what someone else wants. When you copy what someone wants you don't know what they really want, it is what you think they want.
>>23824786>conversion to Christianityiirc he admits in his books that its just cope, that he's not a 'true believer'.His books are brilliant though.
>>23824786>I will tell you what I think: theory of mimetic desire fails because who was the original desire based on?Animals? Slaves to their own instincts? Or just humans first instincts? Isn’t that obvious?
