Mimetic Theory in High School- by Eric Buys
Eric Buys has written an excellent piece imagining mimetic theory being taught as a high school course. Human beings are essentially crisis managers. According to Buys, in the face of any major crisis, humans ask three types of questions: Scientific Questions How do crisis situations in human life arise out of mimetic interactions? How are these mimetic interactions influenced by conditions of the natural environment? Or, on the other hand, how do mimetic interactions construct patterns of human behavior that influence the natural environment in negative or positive ways? How do we normally deal with crisis situations arising out of mimetic interactions? 2. A First Set of Philosophical Questions (Meaning) What goals are desirable for human life, considering the mimetic nature of human beings? What are we trying to accomplish by studying mimetic interactions 3. A Second Set of Philosophical Questions (Ethics) How should we behave if we want to accomplish our goals? Should we deal with crisis situations, arising out of mimetic interactions, like we normally do – like our ancestors did, for instance? Should we accept certain morals (of which the origins can be scientifically explained)? Or should we try to change our behavior? The goal of the course would be to make students more aware of mimetic mechanisms, hold up a mirror to their lives so they can better see their desires for what they are. It allows students to analyze actual, real-world events (like commercials/advertisements) and their own lives, and see the way that mimetic forces are actually at work. They will come away with a much better understanding of their own mimetic impulses and know how to manage them. All of this material is based on a fundamental understanding of René Girard’s mimetic theory. High schools are more than capable of grasping this theory, and there is perhaps no more important time for them to learn how to do so.
Mimetic Theory and Islam: “The Wound Where Light Enters” – by Michael Kirwan & Ahmad Achtar
This volume explores mimetic theory and its shared ground between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—the Abrahamic religions—which seems to have a spiritual and ethical breakthrough: a move away from scapegoating rituals and toward a concern for innocent victims. This is a move away from negative cycles of desire that lead to violence and toward positive cycles of desire that lead to communion. The table of contents of the book is as follows: Part I: THE ARGUMENT 1:The Wound Where Light Enters: Mimetic Theory and IslamMichael Kirwan and Ahmad Achtar Part II: TEXTS 2: Islamic Anthropology, based on Key Passages in the Qur’anZekiriga Sejdini 3: Adam and Eve in the Qur’an: A Mimetic PerspectiveAhmad Achtar 4: The Becoming of a Model: Conflictive Relations and the Shaping of the Quranic IbrahimMichaela Quast-Neulinger 5: Fathers and Sons, Sacrifice and Substitution: Mimetic Theory and Islam in Genesis 22 and Sura 37Sandor Goodhart 6: From Structure to Interpretation of the Joseph SuraMichel Cuypers PART III: TRADITIONS 7: Spiritual Love and Sacred Suffering: Mimetic Theory from the Shi’ah PerspectiveHabibollah Babaei 8: The Philosophy of Dialogic Engagement: Two Muslim Dialogue Thinkers vis-a-vis Mimetic TheoryOemer Sener PART IV: CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM IN RESENTFUL MODERNITY 9: Islam and Islamism in the Mirror of Girard’s Mimetic TheoryThomas Scheffler 10: Prison Violence in France and Mimetic TheoryYaniss Warrach 11: Muslim Brotherhood, Social Justice and ResentmentWilhelm Guggenberger 12: Vox victima, vox moderna? Modernity and Its DiscontentsMichael Kirwan Check out Mimetic Theory & Islam on Amazon
Desire: Flaubert, Proust, Fitzgerald, Miller, Lana Del Rey – by Per Bjørnar Grande
“A common theme in films, novels, or plays is how desire works in characters and how it creates and changes their destinies.” So begins this work by Norweigen professor and Girard scholar Per Bjørnar Grande in this Breakthroughs in Mimetic Theory series by Michigan State University Press, a series supported by Imitatio, a project of the Thiel Foundation. This book is comprised of 5 chapters: Chapter 1: The Nature of DesireChapter 2: Desire in Madame BovaryChapter 3: Proustian DesireChapter 4: Desire in The Great GatsbyChapter 5: Desire in Death of a SalesmanChapter 6: Desire in Lana Del Rey A highlight of this work is Chapter 4 on The Great Gatbsy, in which Grande frames F. Scott Fitzgerald in terms of his tortured mimetic relationship with his own characters, and how The Great Gatsby is actually a step forward for Fitzgerland in removing himself from the story. “Fitzgerald writes from a distance that enables him to discover a more refined literary structure,” notes Grande. “There is no longer any authorial voice or narrator with full access to the characters.” He continues: “In his previous novels, This Side of Paradise (1920) and The Beautiful and Damned (1922), Fitzgerald was playing out his own life, letting his protagonists wrestle with his own conflicting ideas regarding such philosophical perspectives as Nietzscheanism, naturalism, Romanticism, and Catholicism. The omniscient narrators in these novels are therefore constantly shifting perspectives in order to explore the author’s ideological frustrations. In contrast, the story told in The Great Gatsby is narrated by a character with limited access to the other characters.” Check out Desire: Flaubert, Proust, Fitzgerald, Miller, Lana Del Rey on Amazon
Mimetic Martinis: Contagious Desire Explained, by James Bond
The drama of everyday life is that people are constantly seeking other people to imitate while simultaneously unaware that they imitate. I plan to order a beer from the bar, but my friend orders a gin martini first. Suddenly, I “realize” that I want a martini, too. (If I’m honest with myself, I didn’t want a martini when I entered the bar. I had my heart set on a cold beer. Why the sudden change? My friend didn’t remind me of some subconscious inner desire that I have for a martini; he gave me the desire. I want one because my friend wanted one first. This is mimetic desire.) But what if, while we’re bellied up to the bar drinking our gin martinis, my friend tells me about a new position at his company that he wants: Managing Director of something. If he gets it, he’ll receive a $20,000 boost in salary and have a new title. It comes with more vacation time, too. As I smile and tell him that I hope he gets it, I feel some anxiety. Shouldn’t I be making an extra $20,000, too? Will my friend and I still be able to plan vacations together if he gets twice as much paid time off as I do? And lastly, what the hell? We graduated from the same school and I worked twice as hard as he did in school and after. Am I falling behind? Did I choose the right path in life? Even though I used to tell myself I could never be in his line of work, now I’m second-guessing myself. He seems more eager than I to go to work every day. My friend has become a model of desire to me. We will never speak of it. But an inner force has been activated in me which, if left unchecked, will cause conflict. I start to make decisions based on what my friend wants. If he’s competing fiercely for status, then it’s impossible for me not to have status anxiety. If he reaches Delta Skymiles Platinum status, then I want to reach it too. Sometimes, I imitate him negatively. If he buys a Tesla, then I could never own a Tesla. I have to differentiate myself from him. I don’t want any more reminders that I’m always one step behind. So I buy a classic Ford Camaro and start to hate-watch Tesla drivers on the road—not acknowledging that my behavior revolves around a model of desire. In the passage from childhood to adulthood, open imitation usually turns into hidden mimesis. Gone are the days of childhood when we openly imitated and expressed our true desires. In adulthood, there is an underground imitation game going on around us—and within us—all the time.
Mimetic Theory – A Compendium of Videos
This is a complete list of every pedagogic video on mimetic theory and René Girard. This list will be updated weekly as new content arises. “When scandals proliferate, human beings become so obsessed with their rivals that they lose sight of the objects for which they compete and begin to focus angrily on one another.” Ameer Rosic – What Is Mimetic Theory – A Short Basic Introduction Jess Marshall – Mimetic Theory and Scapegoats: A Basic Guide Hoover Institution – Insights with Rene Girard Commons Church – An Introduction to Rene Girard: Mimetic Desire John Crowder – Mimetic Theory: The Jesus Trip Then & Now – Rene Girard: An Introduction Imitatio – Rene Girard Explains Mimetic Desire Les Bridgeman – Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory in Under 5 Minutes Imitatio – Peter Thiel on Rene Girard Amor Sciendi – Andy Warhol and the Mimetic Theory of Art | AmorSciendi Craig Stewart – Mimetic Theory – Section One – Part 1 ( Numerous Episodes) Redeeming God – A Theory of Everything – Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory The Raven Foundation – Why Should Anyone Care About Mimetic Theory The Raven Foundation – Mimetic Theory 101 ( Numerous Sessions ) Craig Stewart – Mimetic Theory Podcast ( Numerous Sessions ) Amy Crist – Mimetic Theory PPT New Then & Now – CoronaVirus and Scapegoats: Rene Girard Imitatio08 – Imitatio Conf 2008: Rene Girard Genesis of Mimetic Theory 1 Peter Rollins – The Fundamentalists | Mimetic Desire and Violence Intellectual Deep Web – René Girard – Mimetic Desire in the Prehistorical Period Intellectual Deep Web – René Girard – Mimetic Desire in Shakespeare Ulster Law School, University of Ulster – Rene Girard’s mimetic theory: an ‘anti-political theology’? – Dr Michael Kirwan Michael Hardin – Brian McLaren and Michael Hardin teaching on René Girard and Mimetic Theory Part 1 ( Numerous Parts ) Morgan Street Media – David Gornoski Explains The Concept of Mimetic Theory Greatstephen3 – René Girard CBC interview part 1 of 5 ( Numerous Parts ) Wondering Pilgrim – Mimetic Theory with David Gornoski The Raven Foundation – Christianity 21 Talk: Mimetic Theory and the Nonviolent God COV & R – The Patho-logies of Exclusion: Mimetic Theory, Crowd Psychology, (New) Fascism Jonathan Pageau – René Girard: Desire and Sacrifice – with Craig Stewart Psych Reviews – The Origin of Envy & Narcissism – René Girard Libertarian Christian Institute – Ep 34: Mimetic Theory UFVedu – Refresher on Mimetic Theory The Raven Foundation – The RavenCast: Islam, Nonviolence, and Mimetic Theory 정일권 박사 TV – Mimetic Theory of René Girard, Buddhist Studies and God-debate The Raven Foundation – Dr. Stephen McKenna: Political Rhetoric and Mimetic Theory The James Fox Higgins Show – MIMESIS – The Unifying Theory Exposed in the Bible w/ David Gornoski The Raven Foundation – Chat with Jim Warren on Magic, Mimetic Theory, and “Compassion or Apocalypse” Intellectual Deep Web – Rene Girard – Violence & Religion IIT Kanpur July 2018 – Lecture 04-Literature & Mimesis Aristotle Did You Know Podcast – Episode 61: David Gornoski On Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory David Gornoski – Michael Shermer, David Gornoski on Heavens on Earth, Mimetic Theory The Raven Foundation – Who Do You Follow? – Mimetic Theory, Politics, and Taylor Swift Intellectual Deep Web – René Girard – The Mimetic View of the Apocalypse Imitatio08 – Imitatio Conference 2008: Rene Girard on Mimetic Theory COV & R – The Patho-logies of Exclusion: Mimetic Theory, Crowd Psychology, (New) Fascism with Nidesh Lawtoo COV & R – Jack Miles – Is the Qur’an the Word of God? Mimetic Theory and the Anxiety of Scriptural Influence New Economic Thinking – Intersubjectivity: Rene Girard’s Vision of Mimetic Desire and Economic Dynamics – INET Hong Kong The Raven Foundation – Mimetic Theory and Physician Assisted Suicide Cannabis Heals Me – Ep. 83 – David Gornoski – Mimetic Theory & Scapegoating Drug Users The Raven Foundation – Battling from the Beginning Mimetic Theory Columbus Day and the War in Afghanistan David Gornoski – Zak Slayback on his Conversion to Christian Faith, Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory, Civil Unrest Libertarian Christian Institute – Ep 175: COVID, Riots, and Mimetic Theory, with Michael Hardin The Raven Foundation – Mimetic Insights with Dr. Chris Haw Bishop Robert Barron – Bishop Barron on René Girard Theology and Peace Videos Paul Nuechterlein – Advanced Mimetic Theory The Raven Foundation – The RavenCast: Mimetic Theory, Post-Truth, and Donald Trump’s Cabinet Theology and Peace Videos – Advanced Mimetic Theory Panel Responses The Raven Foundation – Richard Beck on Mimetic Theory, Christus Victor, and the Satan The Raven Foundation – Teaching Nonviolent Atonement: Rev Paul Nuechterlein on Mimetic Theory, Religion, and Secularism The Raven Foundation – RavenCast Episode 2 with Suzanne Ross: Mimetic Theory, Montessori, and Parenting VSauce2 – The Invention of Blame (Scapegoat Mechanism) InkSoft – How The Mimetic Desire Theory Can Help You Optimize Your Marketing David Gornoski – David Gornoski Speech “Our Failing Mimetic Culture” – Mises Institute Orlando Gregory Sadler – Plato’s Republic book 10 | Ideas, Things, Imitations, and their Makers | Philosophy Core Concepts Imitatio08 – Imitatio Conference 2008: Robert Hamerton-Kelly on Mimetics David Gornoski – Jordan Hall, David Gornoski on Rene Girard, Gospel Technology vs Myth Libritarian Christian Institution – Ep 47: 2017 Through a Mimetic Lens with David Gornoski Imitatio Video – René Girard / Charles Darwin Carneades.org – What is Mimesis? (Aristotle’s Poetics) Always Loved – Movements of Desire – Mimesis Church Next – Violence, Myth, and Scripture with Suzanne Ross Peter Rollins – Mimetic Desire and Violence Lumen Christi Institute – Sacred Violence: The Legacy of René Girard Canon Press – Rene Girard, the Atonement, and Christians Boston College School of Theology and Ministry Continuing Education – Principle and Practice: René Girard, Politics, Religion, and Violence The Raven Foundation – RE: Voice of Moderation: Mimetic Theory, Science, and the Bible
Mimetic AI—Mimesis and Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence and two of its sub-domains, machine learning and deep learning, often develop with the aid of mimetic algorithms. Financial engineers use mimetic algorithms to drive momentum trading in stocks and other financial assets; sex robots are programmed to mimic the facial expressions and flirtatious voices of their suitors; and even moral theorists and behavioral economists have been using mimesis to try to determine what a self-driving car should do, for instance, if it has to make a decision between avoiding one person and hitting another one, or in cases of traditional moral casuistry. In many of these algorithms, researchers simply gather data about what the majority of people in different cultures around the world say they would do, and use that to program a form of mimetic morality into the machines. In the moral domain, mimesis is often used over and against “anchored values”, which are intrinsic or anchored to something that is not subject to mimetic delta. Tae Wan Kim, Thomas Donaldson, Mimetic vs Anchored Value Alignment in Artificial Intelligence, arguing for the superiority of anchored values rather than mimetic values in mimetic values when it comes to things like self-driving cars. The abstract of that paper reads: ”Value alignment” (VA) is considered as one of the toppriorities in AI research. Much of the existing research focuseson the “A” part and not the “V” part of “value alignment.”This paper corrects that neglect by emphasizing the “value”side of VA and analyzes VA from the vantage point ofrequirements in value theory, in particular, of avoiding the“naturalistic fallacy”–a major epistemic caveat. The paperbegins by isolating two distinct forms of VA: “mimetic” and“anchored.” Then it discusses which VA approach better avoidsthe naturalistic fallacy. The discussion reveals stumblingblocks for VA approaches that neglect implications of thenaturalistic fallacy. Such problems are more serious in mimeticVA since the mimetic process imitates human behavior thatmay or may not rise to the level of correct ethical behavior.Anchored VA, including hybrid VA, in contrast, holds morepromise for future VA since it anchors alignment by normativeconcepts of intrinsic value. And the conclusion of their study: The preceding discussion reveals stumbling blocks for VAapproaches that neglect implications of the naturalistic fallacy.Such problems are more serious in mimetic VA since themimetic process imitates human behavior that may or maynot rise to the level of correct ethical behavior. AnchoredVA, including hybrid VA, in contrast, holds more promise forfuture VA since it anchors alignment by normative conceptsof intrinsic value.
Cancel Culture
So-called “Cancel culture” could be thought of as a modern-day form of bloodyless scapegoating—a scapegoating mechanism which, having lost its power because it has been exposed by Christian revelation, is a victim-making machine. No sooner than one person get cancelled and hashtags start trending on social media then another scapegoat is sought. Cancelled victims only have the power to unite people for a day, and in some cases only a few hours. Cancel culture is the equivalent of a modern day social stoning. Cancel culture is addressed in a hilarious set of cartoons here, in the blog Mimicking Machines: Mirror Neurons & Mimetic Theory And from Alex Danco’s blog post on mimetic theory: Coming back to the online world, we seem to be iterating through progressive cycles of a modern sort of anger: “outrage culture”, “cancel culture”, or whatever you want to call it, which has some recognizable characteristics of scapegoating that we talked about earlier. Our instinct to blame is strong, and we target that blame into specific people or groups of people as a way to protect our own community. It’s especially strong when that blame is justifiable to everybody in your peer set, and singling out a particular person as being worthy of outrage can provoke a definitive wave of pile-on mimicry among your group. They, after all, have just seen you successfully earn praise for casting blame on someone, so the instinct is strong to join in. The internet lets this mimetic behaviour scale far faster and far broader than ever could before. People get “cancelled”; modern-day sacrifice, basically.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Psychologist Abraham Maslow first published his famous “Hierarchy of Needs” in 1943. He illustrated the way that he believed human motivation moves—from the fulfillment of basic physiological needs to the fulfillment of the self. Maslow’s hierarchy gives the appearance that “physiological” needs and “safety” needs make up the foundational and largest set of needs for a person. But this is a great deception. In reality, physiological and safety needs—the things we really need to survive—make up the smallest set of needs that people in modern societies spend their time pursuing. There are only so many calories to eat in a day, only so many sexual experiences, only so many different degrees of temperature that are comfortable, only so many styles of roof that can go over a person’s head. When it comes to true needs, we don’t need much. Our first brain is all we need to handle them. All of the “needs” above the first two levels—belonging and love, self esteem, and the fulfillment of creative activities, or self-fulfillment—belong to the world of desire. There are a finite number of things a person needs. But there are an infinite number of things to desire. Transforming Needs Into Desires One of the greatest tricks that the corporate world ever played is transforming needs into desires. Some people might ask: don’t we also have a ton of choices when it comes to physiological needs and safety? Take food. There are over 200 brands of cold breakfast cereal in the typical grocery store aisle, 50 different kinds of hot sauce at the Bloody Mary bar, and 100 different kinds of sneakers that I can choose from at the shoe store. At this moment, you probably have the option to choose from hundreds of restaurants spanning every major type of cuisine in the world on your phone. All can be delivered to your doorstep within 45 minutes. The transposition of basic needs into the world of desires has been going on since the early days of Eddie Bernays’ public relations coup after the first World War. Products used to be advertised based on their “usefulness” or the true need that they served around the house. Throughout the course of the 20’s, there was an explosion of consumer brands that began appealing directly to desire, linking products to identity. Paul Meazar, a banker at Lehman Brothers in the 1920’s, told a group of businesses that “We must shift America from a needs to a desires culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things even before the old had been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America. Man’s desires must overshadow his needs.” The U.S. Department of Commerce secretary (later, President Herbert Hoover) told American corporations in 1928, that: “You have taken over the job of creating desire and transforming people into constantly moving happiness machines; machines which have become the key to economic progress.” If people could be convinced to operate according to the third brain alone, they could be turned into “constantly moving” happiness machines, moving from one desire to the next as different models of desires came into and out of their lives. Mimetic desire would reign. Because we live in a world where there is less and less need, there is more and more desire. For the first time in human history, we’re not struggling with scarcity but coping with abundance—and that means coping with mimetic desire. When a person has satisfied all of his basic needs and begins moving up the hierarchy of “needs,” he doesn’t typically narrow in on a limited set of needs that contribute to his fulfillment of self. Instead, he’s sucked into a universe of competing desires that is more likely to make him act schizophrenic than self-actualized. My friend who bought BitCoin in 2012 and sold at the top of the bubble didn’t narrow in on fulfilling a personal mission once he cashed out. He bought a kimono, moved into a yurt, adopted a new religion, and became a vegan who held legume-cooking contests with his rich new friends. And when all the best legume recipes had been tested, he moved on to wanting something else. A basic look at human experience shows something that looks like almost the opposite of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Lottery winners are more likely to declare bankruptcy within three to five years than the average American. Jack Whittaker, who won $315 million in the West Virginia lottery in 2002, lost his daughter and granddaughter to drug overdoses after winning. His life began to unravel. “I just don’t like Jack Whittaker,” he told Time. “I don’t like the hard heart I’ve got. I don’t like what I’ve become.” But why? Maslow’s hierarchy of needs suggests that these people should be moving up the pyramid, one step closer to becoming who they want to be. That isn’t what happens. In order to get a better picture of human needs and desires, we have to invert the pyramid. After a person has satisfied all of his basic needs, he looks up at a universe of possible things to want. And this universe of desire—the universe of the third brain—is infinite. There is never a point where we have satisfied all of our desires. There is always another model to imitate. Desires, unlike biological needs, don’t have a built-in homing mechanism. Instead of looking to physiological signals (the first brain) or logic (the second brain) to make choices, people look to other people.
Abortion as Ritual Sacrifice: A Girardian Take on the Scapegoat Mechanism in Sexual Politics
The following are excerpts from the essay Bernadette Waterman Ward called ABORTION AS A SACRAMENT: MIMETIC DESIRE AND SACRIFICE IN SEXUAL POLITICS The key elements of sacrificial religion, as Girard defines it, are the presence ofintolerable tension that must lead to social disruption; the choice of a victimwho cannot strike back to absorb the community’s violence; and theconcealment of the function of the sacrifice, which employs actual violencefor the purpose of stabilizing institutional violence. Abortion in America isupheld not as medical or even political policy, but as, in fact, a religioussacrifice. Abortion in America precisely fits the structure of religious sacrifice,where the best victims are the most defenseless. Like a classic sacrificialvictim, the fetus is both blamed for the disorder surrounding its conceptionand acknowledged as innocent, sometimes at the same time. Here anabortion worker displays sacrificial ambivalence, as if not “we” but otherforces made abortion happen: I see more of murder the further along they get….I believe that,yes, it is a potential life or being, person, but at the same time itis not independent ofthe mother and it’s not able to live by itself.Until we can reach that point.. .it’s really the mother that has thedecision over the life.(Reardon 254) But on the other side of the battle line in the culture wars, abortion is noless a religious issue. Abortion directs violence toward an entity which hashuman ancestry, but is denied the right to vengeance, which defines a personin the community. The real nature of the violence and the victim areconcealed, in defiance of rationality, for the violence works in a powerfullyconservative way to preserve the current social structure while satisfyingmimetic cravings. The structural violence of a society which values theachievements of male bodies and denigrates those of female bodies remainsin place, but women are allowed the chance to escape the violence byshedding their own blood and that of their offspring. The women remaineternal disciples, despising their own bodies as the source of their socialconstriction and seeking always to deflect the death of being that seems tobe their lot. The fears assuaged by abortion are atavistic and at the root ofhuman culture; the language of rights and social contracts does not touchthem. Cooperation in abortion is cooperation in a sacrificial system, with allthe deceit, oppression and futility that that entails. Does such a recognition free us from mimetic desire? No; our desiresand envies remain. But to recognize the devices that conceal our owndependency from us is to do much towards enabling us to choose ourmasters wisely. Indeed, we may be able to emulate one another in thefreedom that is willing to endure suffering to proclaim truth and justice. Toprovide an escape from the endless cycle of sacrificial violence—ofsacrificial abortion in particular—we must recognize the ways in whichreproduction is a burden for women and address the truly deep terrors ofsexuality with self-restraining love, love which agrees to suffer theconsequences of evil it has not caused. Such love constitutes the onlyrational way to live.
Mimetic Appetite
Mimetic appetite is a way to describe the power of mimesis as a kind of passion, to take a category from classical metaphysics. According to Thomas Aquinas, humans and the rest of creation have appetites that drive them toward their telos, or ultimate ends. Humans, though, are more complicated than any other kind of being because they have three different kinds of appetites. Inanimate and vegetative beings have natural appetites; animals have both natural and sense appetites; and God and angels have intellectual appetites. Only humans have all three. The mimetic appetite, it could be argued, would be a kind of fourth appetite—something unique to humans which drives their desires not only due to the intellect but a power of imitation which makes them want what other people want. Different people can have differing levels of mimetic appetite. Often times the mimetic appetite in a person can be so strong so as to override their intellectual appetite. There is a general mimetic appetite that every human person has. But there can be specific mimetic appetites for certain things—for instance a mimetic appetite for marriage, in which the desire of men and women to get married is mutually reinforcing. In Thomistic metaphysics, the function of the passions is not to decide upon a course of action but to respond to stimuli and prompt the human person to act according to the face value of those stimuli. Then the passions defer to the judgment of reason because only the rational appetite can command human action and because the sense analysis concludes that acting on a certain prompting of the passions is not conducive to final happiness. In the mimetic appetite, though, as conceived by some Girardians, this principle would not hold. The intellect itself may be more or less mimetic depending on the strength of the mimetic appetite. The passions respond to intentional objects—not objects considered in themselves (material objects). For instance, the passion to steal a purse is not focused on the object of a purse itself; the object of that action is to take, secretly, another person’s property for one’s personal enrichment. The purse, as an object in and of itself, is not the important thing.The purse could be blue, gold, or orange. It could contain $100 or $500. These facts are somewhat incidental to the intentional object of the action. In the case of the mimetic appetite, the intentional object is apparently the acquisition of some object that is mediated by a model; the real intentional object is the acquisition of some quality of being that the imitator presumes is possessed by the model. The object is merely an accident in this pursuit.