Simone Weil

[tbieter]

There is a lot of argument as to whether or not Simone Weil was a feminist. IMO it is a necessary question for saving the spiritual lives of many young women. Modern feminism furthers political indoctrination promoting a shallow mind and heart. Simone provides food for thought and even more important, the feeling of what it means to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” A woman is capable of more than an obsession with secular concepts of gender equality and approved abortions. She can feel objective value that doesn’t come from closing the mind and heart but by opening it to receive the heart felt experience of objective value. This quality makes facts meaningful.

When Julia showed the documentary in Canada it inspired a group of students to form a group to study and to try and feel the value of her ideas. It is the mind opening alternative to the obsession with gender rights and abortions and what should be the goal of feminism.

I live in NY. Next year I’ll contact some women’s clubs in Westchester and see if they are open to showing the film followed by discussion. Julia lives in Brooklyn so she may come and explain her attraction. If this can inspire some meaningful discussion on what it means to contemplate beyond the normal goals of political indoctrination so a woman can come to experience her objective value, such discussions can become useful throughout society. Hey, it’s worth a shot. Must the concept of feminism be restricted to blind indoctrination? If not, those like Simone will provide the alternatives. Nick, please keep me informed on the outcome of this project. Tom


http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... mone-weil/

Tom, with your interest why not join the American Weil Society (AWS)? It is only $15 a year and if you attend a colloquy you can meet many highly intelligent people with spiritual depth. The questions raised for the colloquy are a real mind stretch.

http://www.americanweilsociety.org/

Nick, I took your advice and joined the American Weil Society ($20). I had a membership in the American Maritain Association. Attended 4 or 5 annual meetings. Wonderful experiences for this old shyster lawyer - hobnobbing with professors, priests, monks, all experts on Maritain. Have you ever attended an annual Weil meeting?

[Nick_A]

Tom, with your interest why not join the American Weil Society (AWS)? It is only $15 a year and if you attend a colloquy you can meet many highly intelligent people with spiritual depth. The questions raised for the colloquy are a real mind stretch.

http://www.americanweilsociety.org/

Nick, I took your advice and joined the American Weil Society ($20). I had a membership in the American Maritain Association. Attended 4 or 5 annual meetings. Wonderful experiences for this old shyster lawyer - hobnobbing with professors, priests, monks, all experts on Maritain. Have you ever attended an annual Weil meeting?

I joined six years ago and have been only able to attend one colloquy because of my work situation. It was a meaningful experience. The colloquy took place in Boston College so was easy to get to. Here is an example of the quality of papers that are written. It includes a description of Simone's dedication to truth, saintliness, and the spirituality of work, topics which all interest me. For example:


http://rivertext.com/weil1v.html

From all accounts, Weil was not an easy person to live with. And she is a decidedly difficult writer, in that she demands so much of her readers. One of the principle reasons for this rigid, inflexible, demanding character in both her writings and her interpersonal relationships is that she was so intolerant–toward herself as well as others--of any discrepancy between one's beliefs and one's way of life. Above all else she hated compromise, and her devotion to truth and obedience were significant contributing elements of her philosophy of vocation.

Her dedication to truth is not politically correct. Philosophers are supposed to be obnoxious while living a life opposing their beliefs. Simone lived her philosophy. Such an attitude is looked upon suspiciously. Can you imagine Simone in an Interfaith group where everyone is compromising in order to flatter everyone elses ego. This wouldn't work.

This state of perfection to which we all are to aspire would result in "une nouvelle sainteté," a phrase that, while she did not borrow it from Maritain, she acknowledged him as having called for before her. Like the older Thomist philosopher for whom she had little sympathy, Weil saw that the moral complexities of the twentieth century called for a new kind of saintliness. And even though she used the word "exiger" (or "demand"), it was clearly a calling, a vocation. Maritain's originality had been to show that the call to saintliness was not limited to specially favored heroic exceptionality; it was a universal call, somewhat in the sense of the priesthood of all believers. But for Simone Weil, the new saintliness was not just on a different scale, but also of a different order. It was to involve a miraculous dose of genius
A new type of sanctity is indeed a fresh spring, an invention. ... It is almost equivalent to a new revelation of the universe and of human destiny. It is the exposure of a large portion of truth and beauty hitherto concealed under a thick layer of dust. More genius is needed than was needed by Archimedes to invent mechanics and physics. A new saintliness is a still more marvelous invention. ... The world needs saints who have genius, just as a plague-stricken town needs doctors. (WG 51)

I see you have an interest in Maritain. Are you aware of what Maritain wrote about this idea of the New Saint and the quality of saintliness? I am unfamiliar with him but this idea of the New Saint does interest me and if you are aware of it, perhaps we could discuss it as they understood it. Will the concept of the New Saint be rejected by the majority much like Einstein's Cosmic Man? Probably so but why ignore the great minds of the past if we can learn from them just to please the majority?

[tbieter]

I am not aware of either Maritain or Weil on the concept of the New Saint.

[Nick_A]

I am not aware of either Maritain or Weil on the concept of the New Saint.

Simone Weil wrote:

"We are living in times which have no precedent, and in our present situation universality, which could formerly be implicit, has to be fully explicit. It has to permeate our language and the whole of our way of life.

"Today it is not nearly enough merely to be a saint, but we must have the saintliness demanded by the present moment, a new saintliness, itself also without precedent. "

Maritian said this, but he only enumerated the aspects of saintliness of former days, which for the time being at least, have become out of date. He did not feel all the miraculous newness which the saintliness of today must contain in compensation.

"A new type of sanctity is indeed a fresh spring, an invention. If all is kept in proportion and if the order of each thing is preserved, it is almost equivalent to a new revelation of the universe and of human destiny. It is the exposure of a large portion of truth and beauty hitherto concealed under a thick layer of dust. More genius is needed than was needed by Archimedes to invent mechanics and physics. A new saintliness is a still more marvellous invention.

"Only a kind of perversity can oblige God’s friends to deprive themselves of having genius, since to receive it in superabundance they only need to ask their Father for it in Christ’s name.
"Such a petition is legitimate, today at any rate, because it is necessary. I think that under this or any equivalent form it is the first thing we have to ask for now, we have to ask for it daily, hourly, as a famished child constantly asks for bread. The world needs saints who have genius, just as a plague-stricken town needs doctors. Where there is a need there is also an obligation."
- Simone Weil, from ‘Last Thoughts', 1942

I believe that part of what she means relates to the ideal relationship between science and the essence of religion. Science at least in theory has the goal of revealing impartial truth. It is obvious that the modern goal of science is to serve social pragmatism as opposed to objective truth.

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Could saintliness ever become influential enough to cause abandonment of the dominance of pragmatism in favor of its original goals? Who knows?

[tbieter]

The other day I finished reading Robert Coles' book, Simone Weil - A Modern Pilgrimage.
Coles is a well-known psychiatrist and author.
https://www.amazon.com/Simone-Weil-Dr-R ... imone+weil

The last chapter -" 7. Idolatry and the Intellectuals" - contains these thoughts:

“Throughout her intellectual life, she realized that a danger of that life is a particular kind of idolatry, whereby the person who lives by ideas ends up treating them with an excessive reverence.” Locations. 2365-66, Kindle Fire

“Idolatry is in our very nature, she is declaring, and when disguised (as scientific pursuit, as politics, as a deep affection for nature, as a religious ritual and practice) is no less what it is, though perhaps more dangerous, potentially, because not even acknowledged.” Location 2416

The antinatalist philosopher, David Benatar, (neither antinatalism, nor Professor Benatar yields an entry in the Philosophy Now archives) comes to mind.

Is the object of his reverence, his idolatry, the existential constant and fact of human suffering?

This recent interview with Professor Benatar is instructive:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/perso ... being-born
See also viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15952&p=236856&hili ... ar#p236856