[wrp]

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".

[braiamp]

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).

[lapcat]

> 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.

[neom]

misuse is the central point...