A Conversation With Simone Weil

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:45 pm

Wyman wrote:
Nick_A wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Oh right. Of course. :|
Vege defines humor as the ability to make an arse out of oneself. He does it well.
I was under the impression that vege is a 'she.'

Even I, the epitomy of PC, must have goofed. It would be sexist to call vege either a he or a she. Discriminating is sexist. I'll call vege a thing free of any sexist implications and leave it at that. The sentence should have read:
Vege defines humor as the ability to make an arse out of oneself. This thing does it well.


That will make the clique happy

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Harbal » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:40 pm

Nick_A wrote: Proving you are not a misogynist requires you to take a stand on Rick Lewis' appearance since his efforts initiated the posting of the article.
I don't mind you calling me a misogynist but I'm quite happy to "take a stand" on Rick Lewis's appearance: In my opinion Rick Lewis is fairly average looking. I would say he is neither unattractive nor strikingly handsome, he lies somewhere between the two.
You have already posted your subjective impressions of Simone Weil's appearance with the implication that it has something to do with the merits of the article.
No, I was just making an observation regarding the state of her face, I don't know why you thought I was implying it had anything to do with the article. I haven't read the article so the only thing I'm in any position to imply about it is that I'm not interested in it.
The same must be true for Rick Lewis.
Must it? I can't really make an observation about him because I don't really know anything about him. I do know what he looks like now but as his appearance is fairly unremarkable it hardly seems to merit making the observation that Rick Lewis has the appearance of a perfectly normal person. But, if it makes you happy, then I'm quite happy to make that observation, Nick.
Is your subjective impression of Rick Lewis as that of an ugly man or a handsome man?
I think I've already answered that, Nick. I must say you seem to be very preoccupied with Rick Lewis' looks, there's more to the man than his appearance you know, Nick.
After that you must explain what it has to do with the article.
Why, what's going to happen to me if I don't?
You cannot say that it doesn't have anything to do with the article
It doesn't have anything to do with the article.
You have to clarify. In your eyes is Rick Lewis an attractive man or an ugly man?
Well I'm not attracted to him but that doesn't mean he's ugly, he's just not my type.
I want to know and perhaps Rick may want to know by now.
Well now you do know. Are you going to tell Rick or should I?

Nick_A
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:25 pm

Harbal wrote:
Nick_A wrote: Proving you are not a misogynist requires you to take a stand on Rick Lewis' appearance since his efforts initiated the posting of the article.
I don't mind you calling me a misogynist but I'm quite happy to "take a stand" on Rick Lewis's appearance: In my opinion Rick Lewis is fairly average looking. I would say he is neither unattractive nor strikingly handsome, he lies somewhere between the two.
You have already posted your subjective impressions of Simone Weil's appearance with the implication that it has something to do with the merits of the article.
No, I was just making an observation regarding the state of her face, I don't know why you thought I was implying it had anything to do with the article. I haven't read the article so the only thing I'm in any position to imply about it is that I'm not interested in it.
The same must be true for Rick Lewis.
Must it? I can't really make an observation about him because I don't really know anything about him. I do know what he looks like now but as his appearance is fairly unremarkable it hardly seems to merit making the observation that Rick Lewis has the appearance of a perfectly normal person. But, if it makes you happy, then I'm quite happy to make that observation, Nick.
Is your subjective impression of Rick Lewis as that of an ugly man or a handsome man?
I think I've already answered that, Nick. I must say you seem to be very preoccupied with Rick Lewis' looks, there's more to the man than his appearance you know, Nick.
After that you must explain what it has to do with the article.
Why, what's going to happen to me if I don't?
You cannot say that it doesn't have anything to do with the article
It doesn't have anything to do with the article.
You have to clarify. In your eyes is Rick Lewis an attractive man or an ugly man?
Well I'm not attracted to him but that doesn't mean he's ugly, he's just not my type.
I want to know and perhaps Rick may want to know by now.
Well now you do know. Are you going to tell Rick or should I?
Again, you conveniently avoided the reason why you are a proven misogynist. You admit that referring to Rick Lewis' appearance has nothing to do with the thread. Yet in your mind a condemnation of Simone Weil's appearance does. Why? There is only one reason. Misogyny. You didn't begin by condemning Rick Lewis' appearance, you began with Simone Weil's appearance which has nothing to do with the thread. It is just an off topic anti-woman attack against what you don't understand.

You have no shame. The clique protects you from this normal meaningful human experience.

Impenitent
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Impenitent » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:53 pm

my mouse is almost silent...

-Imp

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Harbal » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:06 pm

Nick_A wrote: you are a proven misogynist.
Where's the proof?
You admit that referring to Rick Lewis' appearance has nothing to do with the thread.
That's because it hasn't.
You didn't begin by condemning Rick Lewis' appearance
If you've got an issue with Rick Lewis, deal with it yourself. I'm not here to fight your battles, if you want Rick Lewis condemning, you do it.
, you began with Simone Weil's appearance which has nothing to do with the thread.
So what?
It is just an off topic anti-woman attack
My "attack", as you call it, was directed at Weil, not women in general.
You have no shame.
About what?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6290
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:50 pm

Nick_A wrote:Even I, the epitomy of PC, must have goofed. It would be sexist to call vege either a he or a she. Discriminating is sexist. I'll call vege a thing free of any sexist implications and leave it at that. The sentence should have read:
Just as I thought. You are nothing but another annoying troll. A PC person would never describe themselves as such. They are just as delusional as any religious nut. As for Rick, if you insist, he has a pleasingly intelligent look about him (but not in an up-himself way). Rather like the way journalists often look.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Greta » Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:52 am

Addressing the OP: I have an issue with the romanticising of freedom in this way. I see a taking of the good things for granted and a concomitant self-entitlement for perceived lacks. People can wax lyrical about freedom and being slaves to industry and so forth, but they ignore the fact that the very institutions they despise keep them alive. Put all the complainers out in the wild to fend for themselves and only a small minority would thrive.

If one is to enjoy the protections and resources provided by membership of a large population group, then one must accept that these groups are sustained by rules, and they have a stake in pushing for those rules to be obeyed. At best we can say that Simone W is against excessive demands and controls, but not of inhibited freedoms per se. At worst, SW basically wants a free lunch, rebelling like an angry teenager against the very society that protects and sustains her life. Like teenagers, we take so much of society's benefits for granted, as famously characterised in Life of Brian's "What have the Romans ever done for us?" skit.

Obviously democracies are based on dissent, and blind obedience is neither good for individuals nor societies, which require the stimulation of creativity as well as measures of obedience. As societies become larger, they need to impose more rules. In time, the empowerment and security of a united entity may seem less beneficial than the burden of its impositions, at which time there may be a split. Not that the split increases freedom because, while there will be fewer rules, those rules can be enforced with greater focus in a smaller society; it's easier to "disappear into the crowd" in large societies.

Nick_A
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:58 am

Harbal wrote:
My "attack", as you call it, was directed at Weil, not women in general.
Quite true. You attacked Simone's appearance in a manner having nothing to do with the substance of the thread. Show me on this site where you attacked the appearance of Nietzsche or any other male philosopher.

The idea of a woman whose intellectual and emotional intelligence is far beyond your own is intolerable. In addition she has the courage to sacrifice her body necessary to verify the truth of the human condition and what it deprives us of. It is offensive to you that a woman should have such quality. These uppity women must be put in their place and the easiest and most simplistic attempt is by attacking their appearance. Since mutually defended simplistic stupidity is the chief characteristic of a clique, attacking appearance is perfectly natural for those representing a clique.

You have no reason to attack Kim Kardashian since she is an approved woman in your eyes. Simone is a threat to your misogyny so you attack in any way you can.

Wyman
Posts: 941
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Wyman » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:55 am

Nick_A wrote:Harbal wrote:
My "attack", as you call it, was directed at Weil, not women in general.
Quite true. You attacked Simone's appearance in a manner having nothing to do with the substance of the thread. Show me on this site where you attacked the appearance of Nietzsche or any other male philosopher.

The idea of a woman whose intellectual and emotional intelligence is far beyond your own is intolerable. In addition she has the courage to sacrifice her body necessary to verify the truth of the human condition and what it deprives us of. It is offensive to you that a woman should have such quality. These uppity women must be put in their place and the easiest and most simplistic attempt is by attacking their appearance. Since mutually defended simplistic stupidity is the chief characteristic of a clique, attacking appearance is perfectly natural for those representing a clique.

You have no reason to attack Kim Kardashian since she is an approved woman in your eyes. Simone is a threat to your misogyny so you attack in any way you can.
Socrates' ugliness was legendary - Plato probably mentioned it in his dialogues a dozen times.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Greta » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:08 am

Wyman wrote:Socrates' ugliness was legendary - Plato probably mentioned it in his dialogues a dozen times.
Stephen Hawking is not model material either. It makes sense that if one's body doesn't provide one the same opportunities as those of others, then one might focus more on the mental life if the inclination was already there.

I obviously have no problem with women whose hair is more uncontrollable than my own, far from it :) However, I do see a sense of entitlement in SW and others calling for freedom from society's so-called tyranny in the west. What about "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"? How do you weigh up what is fair and what isn't?

Yes, politicians overstep the mark and frequently need reminding to back off from their "projects" and focus on steering the damn ship (preferably away from the rocks). However, the system is in essence ethically correct, just unbalanced due to the systematic removal of checks and balances by greedy big players. The principle of the community as a whole rendering services to individuals who are expected to make a contribution in turn is fine. We should accept limits to our freedoms unless we are willing to live as hermits.

The issue is not what society asks of us, or how it sometimes tries to direct our thoughts and actions, just the amount that a few dominant piggies are consuming from the communal trough and how they trample the little piggies to maintain their position.

Nick_A
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:23 am

Wyman wrote:
Nick_A wrote:Harbal wrote:
My "attack", as you call it, was directed at Weil, not women in general.
Quite true. You attacked Simone's appearance in a manner having nothing to do with the substance of the thread. Show me on this site where you attacked the appearance of Nietzsche or any other male philosopher.

The idea of a woman whose intellectual and emotional intelligence is far beyond your own is intolerable. In addition she has the courage to sacrifice her body necessary to verify the truth of the human condition and what it deprives us of. It is offensive to you that a woman should have such quality. These uppity women must be put in their place and the easiest and most simplistic attempt is by attacking their appearance. Since mutually defended simplistic stupidity is the chief characteristic of a clique, attacking appearance is perfectly natural for those representing a clique.

You have no reason to attack Kim Kardashian since she is an approved woman in your eyes. Simone is a threat to your misogyny so you attack in any way you can.
Socrates' ugliness was legendary - Plato probably mentioned it in his dialogues a dozen times.
That is the point Wyman. How many times has Socrates' ideas been condemned because of appearance by Harbal or anyone else? When a man is totally baffled by the depth of a woman who is highly regarded yet beyond their comprehension so attacks their looks, what is it called?

Nick_A
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:37 am

Greta wrote:
Wyman wrote:Socrates' ugliness was legendary - Plato probably mentioned it in his dialogues a dozen times.
Stephen Hawking is not model material either. It makes sense that if one's body doesn't provide one the same opportunities as those of others, then one might focus more on the mental life if the inclination was already there.

I obviously have no problem with women whose hair is more uncontrollable than my own, far from it :) However, I do see a sense of entitlement in SW and others calling for freedom from society's so-called tyranny in the west. What about "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"? How do you weigh up what is fair and what isn't?

Yes, politicians overstep the mark and frequently need reminding to back off from their "projects" and focus on steering the damn ship (preferably away from the rocks). However, the system is in essence ethically correct, just unbalanced due to the systematic removal of checks and balances by greedy big players. The principle of the community as a whole rendering services to individuals who are expected to make a contribution in turn is fine. We should accept limits to our freedoms unless we are willing to live as hermits.

The issue is not what society asks of us, or how it sometimes tries to direct our thoughts and actions, just the amount that a few dominant piggies are consuming from the communal trough and how they trample the little piggies to maintain their position.
The basic difference between us is that you believe the purpose of society is to create conditioned automatons who will serve what has been determined in one way or another as the needs of the state.

I believe the essential purpose of a society capable of serving humanity must be dedicated to the creation of conscious individuals. Simone came to understand the necessity for a society to be dedicated to conscious individuality if humanity can ever truly profit from technological advances rather than becoming consumed by them. That is why she itemized the needs of the soul and how society should nourish them. This would be seen as ludicrous in a secular society which is why technology will become a primary cause for a coming human catastrophe.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Greta » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:38 am

Nick_A wrote:The basic difference between us is that you believe the purpose of society is to create conditioned automatons who will serve what has been determined in one way or another as the needs of the state.
Shall we consider the shades of grey, or should we just "represent" each others' positions with cartoonish ciphers and treat them as though they are real?

Meanwhile I note that you are a strong advocate of increased religious conditioning of children in schools. Is conditioning only okay when it's of the "right" variety?
Nick_A wrote:I believe the essential purpose of a society capable of serving humanity must be dedicated to the creation of conscious individuals.
There is a conflict of interest between society-at-large and the individual.

You posit the self serving nature of modern institutions in their interactions with individuals as intrinsically corrupt. Rather, you seem to expect a parental style society that helps its individuals grow beyond the qualities required by that society. Why would it do that? Economic rationalism decrees that individuals should be trained just enough, no more.

In truth, each entity - the collective and the individual - has a righteous case. This is a battle of rival goods - cohesion vs freedom - and the conflict ensures that neither "side" achieves an absolute result, which tends more to be "messy". Many worry about that 'messiness". I see it as SNAFU, which is fine.

From a personal POV, I've been happy enough to contribute my little bit and would never expect society to help me be an independent thinker. Quite the contrary. Becoming a free thinker was my personal job and it was achieved by swimming against the stream, not though ideals, just because I was compelled.

Unless groomed for power, societies generally want you to be smart enough to operate within the basic systems of your class and make no effort to take you further. If you wish to do more, then it's up to you to push for it. One can't expect help to grow into an "actualised human being" through help from a paternalistic "mentor state".

Strong individuality doesn't happens because it was encouraged, but because some people are compelled to swim against the stream (whether they want to to or not).

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Harbal » Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:21 pm

Nick_A wrote:has the courage to sacrifice her body
If her body had a similar aesthetic quality to her face then let's face it, Nick, it wasn't that much of a sacrifice.
You have no reason to attack Kim Kardashian since she is an approved woman in your eyes.
I've heard the name but I don't know who she is, so she's an unknown woman in my eyes.

Nick, I honestly believe you are completely bonkers.

Nick_A
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:35 pm

Harbal wrote:
Nick_A wrote:has the courage to sacrifice her body
If her body had a similar aesthetic quality to her face then let's face it, Nick, it wasn't that much of a sacrifice.
You have no reason to attack Kim Kardashian since she is an approved woman in your eyes.
I've heard the name but I don't know who she is, so she's an unknown woman in my eyes.

Nick, I honestly believe you are completely bonkers.
You seem to suffer from Xenaphobia. It isn't your fault but your attitude suggests it. Somehow you've been conditioned into it. You may outgrow it and you may not but I do hope it all works out for the best.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests