Pensées

by Blaise Pascal

Blaise Pascal, the precociously brilliant contemporary of Descartes, was a gifted mathematician and physicist, but it is his unfinished apologia for the Christian religion upon which his reputation now rests. The Penseés is a collection of philosohical fragments, notes and essays in which Pascal explores the contradictions of human nature in pscyhological, social, metaphysical and - above all - theological terms. Mankind emerges from Pascal's analysis as a wretched and desolate creature within an impersonal universe, but who can be transformed through faith in God's grace.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, Religion, Theology, France, Christianity

Paperback

First published January 1, 1670

About the author

Early work of Blaise Pascal of France included the invention of the adding machine and syringe and the co-development with Pierre de Fermat of the mathematical theory of probability; later, he, a Jansenist, wrote on philosophy and theology, notably as collected in the posthumous Pensées (1670).

This contemporary of René Descartes attained ten years of age in 1633, when people forced Galileo Galilei to recant his belief that Earth circled the Sun. He lived in Paris at the same time, when Thomas Hobbes in 1640 published his famous Leviathan (1651). Together, Pascal created the calculus.

A near-fatal carriage accident in November 1654 persuaded him to turn his intellect finally toward religion. The story goes that on the proverbial dark and stormy night, while Pascal rode in a carriage across a bridge in a suburb of Paris, a fright caused the horses to bolt, sending them over the edge. The carriage, bearing Pascal, survived. Pascal took the incident as a sign and devoted. At this time, he began a series, called the Provincial Letters , against the Jesuits in 1657.

Pascal perhaps most famously wagered not as clearly in his language as this summary: "If Jesus does not exist, the non Christian loses little by believing in him and gains little by not believing. If Jesus does exist, the non Christian gains eternal life by believing and loses an infinite good by not believing.”

Sick throughout life, Pascal died in Paris from a combination of tuberculosis and stomach cancer at 39 years of age. At the last, he confessed Catholicism.

Reviews

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 4 out of 5]

De la Blaise Pascal cititorii au reținut cîteva formule potrivite pentru conversațiile subțiri. Cea mai cunoscută dintre ele e, desigur, aceea în care omul e comparat cu o trestie firavă, pentru a-i sublinia (a cîta oară?) fragilitatea.

Înțelepciunea populară a produs și alți termeni de comparație: viața e ca iarba cîmpului, ca o „scrisoare” pe nisip sau pe apă etc. Dar Pascal găsește aici o consolare: „Omul este doar o trestie, cea mai firavă din natură, dar e o trestie gînditoare. Pentru a-l zdrobi, nu e nevoie ca întregul univers să se înarmeze: un abur, o picătură de apă ajung să-l ucidă. Dar chiar dacă universul l-ar zdrobi, omul încă ar fi mai presus decît ceea ce îl ucide, pentru că el știe că moare..., dar universul nu știe nimic”. Bietul univers!

Nu cred că omul se simte mai presus de natură (și devine fericit) pe motivul că doar el știe că e muritor. Conștiința (și gîndirea) nu reprezintă întotdeauna un avantaj. Sînt mai degrabă o pedeapsă. Noroc că omul nu meditează prea mult la sfîrșitul propriu, e destul de inteligent (sau destul de leneș) să nu facă din asta o obsesie strivitoare.

Blaise Pascal intenționa să redacteze o teodicee și o apologie a creștinismului. Făcuse un plan aproximativ. Nota în grabă pe foi izolate gînduri, opinii, citate din „autorități” (din sfîntul Augustin, de exemplu) și spera că va putea pune totul într-o formă organizată. Din păcate, sfîrșitul prematur (în 19 august 1662, la doar 39 de ani) l-a împiedicat să-și realizeze scopul. A avut un suflet chinuit și nu cred că a fost un credincios perfect, deși comentatori (ca Chestov și alții) nu se îndoiesc de asta. Dar pariul care a primit numele lui demonstrează că el însuși accepta și posibilitatea necredinței (și, pe cale de consecință, a inexistenței divine): dacă nu crezi și Dumnezeu nu există, n-ai pierdut nimic...

Un astfel de argument pragmatic nu e cîtuși de puțin constrîngător. Rostul lui e să ofere mîngîere. Ce-i drept, cînd nu accepți argumentul ontologic al sfîntului Anselm (oricum nu e valid) și cauți „justificări” alternative ale credinței, e vădit că ai vrea să crezi, iar cine vrea să creadă de fapt nu crede. Totuși: „A te îndoi de existența lui Dumnezeu înseamnă deja a crede”. Mai tîrziu, James Beattie și William James au propus și ei astfel de argumente.

Prietenii janseniști de la Port Royal i-au cenzurat drastic manuscrisele. Ei au intuit înaintea tuturor că aveau de-a face cu un individ situat în proximitatea ereziei. Editorii moderni au reconstituit textele și au încercat să le așeze în ordinea intenționată de Pascal. Ediția cea mai cunoscută a fost realizată de filosoful Léon Brunschvicg în 1904. Ediția cea mai bună, în opinia mea, este aceea a lui Louis Lafuma. Specialistul a lucrat la această ediție între 1951 și 1964.

Într-o vreme, eram în facultate, învățasem pe de rost un pasaj, e imposibil să-l uit: „Totul e o sferă infinită al cărei centru se află pretutindeni, iar circumferința nicăieri. Închipuirea noastră se pierde la acest gînd”.

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/...

Perhaps half of this was basically wasted on me. As an atheist, books providing proofs for the existence of God are perhaps 40 years or so too late. The problem here isn’t so much that he is trying to prove the existence of an entity that he himself admits particularly likes to hide – presumably you can see the problem here – but also that some of his proofs seemed utterly bizarre to me. One of my favourites was him saying that the Old Testament was the oldest book in the world. You see, it was written not terribly long after the world had been created. And, at that time there wasn’t a hell of a lot to talk about – science hadn’t really gotten going and that sort of thing – so people mostly sat around talking about their family tree. So, that is why you can pretty well rely on the fact that the first part of the Bible is – well – gospel. I know, you think I’m making this sound dafter than it actually is as one of those standard ploys atheist engage in. You are right to be cynical. So, here it is, quoted in full:

“625
The longevity of the patriarchs, instead of causing the loss of past history, conduced, on the contrary, to its preservation. For the reason why we are sometimes insufficiently instructed in the history of our ancestors, is that we have never lived long with them, and that they are often dead before we have attained the age of reason. Now, when men lived so long, children lived long with their parents. They conversed long with them. But what else could be the subject of their talk save the history of their ancestors, since to that all history was reduced, and men did not study science or art, which now form a large part of daily conversation? We see also that in these days tribes took particular care to preserve their genealogies.”

Other parts of this require a much closer knowledge of the Bible than I have to be able to follow. All the same, it didn’t exactly inspire me to go rushing off to look up Deut. xxx.

So, my advice, unless you are interested in these more or less iffy proofs of the existence of God, is to stop about halfway though this. You’ll know when – it will become quite clear.

The only thing I would point to in the last half of this book is something I had always thought was said by an atheist.

“894
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

The reason why I read this was because Bourdieu calls himself a Pascallian and so I thought I had better see why. And there are lots of reasons why this might be the case and I think they are all in the first half of the book.

The first is the bit that almost completely reminds me of a couple of books on happiness I read a few years ago: both The Happiness Hypothesis and Stumbling on Happiness. The main lesson to be drawn from both of these books is that we humans are pathetically bad at knowing what it is that will make us happy. Pascal makes the point that we do things happily where the prize itself really isn’t what we are after. The example he gives is spending a day chasing a hare that you wouldn’t buy in the market or accept as a gift. The modern version of this is ‘it’s about the journey, rather than the destination’ – and I think this is really true. I think the worst thing that can happen to you is to have an achievable goal in life and to reach that goal. He makes the point repeatedly that if you were given whatever you were likely to win at the beginning of the day and then told to enjoy your leisure for the rest of the day that nothing would be more likely to make you miserable. That activity with some form of reward provides us with the greatest source of happiness.

The other thing he says is his most quoted line: The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. This is one of the ideas that Bourdieu certainly borrows from Pascal, this whole notion of habit and embodied reasons that we justify afterwards with our mental reason. I kept thinking of Haidt’s elephant and elephant driver (reason and habit) and his saying that habit wins in the end (the elephant) because eventually reason needs to sleep. Pascal would have had no trouble accepting this idea.

The first half of this book is just brimming over with lovely thoughts – the meaning of the title of the book, after all – and that is possibly also true of the second half of the book, but as I’ve said, a lot of that went over my head. A large part of this is designed to convince non-believers of the benefits of belief. But anyone who says things like - we laugh and cry about the same things – honestly, they can’t be all bad.

[Théo d'Or]

Pascal's philosophy is quite simple, far from being a conceptual or speculative exposition, as it would seem at first sight. It is an experience of thinking in meditation on human being, and on the christian faith, à result of a passionate spirit, particularly sensitive to the turmoil and contradictions in man and in the age in which he lived.
I would place his thoughts on the line of a protestant or catholic theology, but also as an anticipation of a contemporary pragmatism or irrationalism.
The central problem of Pascal's philosophy is the harmonization of reason with faith, but everywhere the problem of man - a being difficult to define - follows him as a shadow, for he lets himself be guided by the heart, and " the heart has reasons which reason itself does not know ".
This edition is an abbreviated one, of only 92 pages, but so dense, that on any page I would open the book, it is full of strong sentences, it is practically a river of maxims of a staggering depth.
The general idea focuses on one statement : man is a heap of contradictions, contradictions between thought and deed, and as a true christian you must be able to recognize these contradictions. His misery comes from originar sin, and greatness from a divine vocation, but paradoxically, the source of these contradictions is Reason, because of it we are subject to originar sin, and at the same time, through it man can prove his greatness.
I could not say that I was overly enthusiastic about this volume, but as a reading it was an absolutely delightful one, each sentence making me reflect on my own self, in relation to the contradictions listed by Pascal :)
And I think, that, despite Pascal's apparent attempt to convert the reader religiously, the book can also be read without believing in God, but in the power of writing.

[Luís · Rating 2 out of 5]

This bushy and dense work is the last book of Jansenist Blaise Pascal, singing the praises of the Christian religion in the face of non-believers and skeptics in many reflections. For my part, this reading was compulsory in the academic baccalaureate program; since I only put two stars, it goes without saying that I did not stick at all to Pascalian ideas.

[Laura González · Rating 5 out of 5]

La que leí es una selección de los famosos Pensamientos de Pascal, uno de los grandes intelectuales de la historia cuyas ideas han permeado el acervo de nuestra cultura. Matemático, físico y filósofo francés del siglo XVII que, como curiosidad, inventó la calculadora, bautizada como “pascalina”.

Pascal se había propuesto confeccionar una apologética de la religión cristiana, pero la muerte tocó a su puerta antes de terminarla. Por suerte, el francés dejó una ingente cantidad de reflexiones desperdigadas en cientos de papeles. De aquellas anotaciones nacieron sus Pensamientos, publicados póstumamente, en 1669.

El autor abordó la relación entre la fe y la razón de una forma singular. Insistía en la relevancia de la experiencia personal y de la intuición en la comprensión de la fe. Para él, la creencia religiosa es mucho más que un mero ejercicio intelectual: es también una experiencia profundamente sentida. Como dijo San Agustín: In interiore homine habitat veritas.

Conocemos la verdad, no solamente por la razón, sino también por el corazón. De esta última manera es como conocemos los primeros principios y es en vano que el razonamiento, que no tiene ninguna parte en ello, trate de combatirlos.

Una de las ideas más conocidas de Pascal es su Apuesta, según la cual, desde un punto de vista puramente pragmático, conviene creer que Dios existe:

Usted tiene dos cosas que perder: la verdad y el bien, y dos cosas que comprometer: su razón y su voluntad, su conocimiento y su bienaventuranza; y su naturaleza posee dos cosas de las que debe huir: el error y la miseria. Su razón no resulta más perjudicada al elegir la una o la otra, puesto que es necesario elegir. Ésta es una cuestión vacía. Pero ¿su bienaventuranza? Vamos a sopesar la ganancia y la pérdida al eligir cruz (de cara o cruz) acerca del hecho de que Dios existe. Tomemos en consideración estos dos casos: si gana, lo gana todo; si pierde, no pierde nada. Apueste a que existe sin dudar.

No obstante, no es ésta una reflexión que me guste del todo, ya que presenta la fe como un juego de ganar o perder, lo que, así, sin más, sugeriría una creencia no genuina.

En definitiva, aquellas anotaciones de Pascal desafían a explorar la hondura de la condición humana al lector que las acoja con los ojos bien abiertos.

[Peiman E iran]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، در این چرت و پرت نامه که نامِ آن را کتاب نهاده اند و آن را با عنوانِ "تفکرات" میشناسیم، <پاسکال> به عالم و آدم تاخته است و تنها مسیح و مسیحیت و کاتولیک را خوب و نیک میداند
‎پاسکال تصور کرده که تمامیِ انسانها همچون خودش بیشعور و بیخرد هستند
‎تعصب به مسیحیت، چشمِ خردِ پاسکال را کور کرده و استعدادی را که او در ریاضیات داشته است را نابود کرده است... برخی از دینداران، او را با عنوانِ فیلسوف میشناسند. امّا این به نوعی بی احترامی به فلاسفهٔ اندیشمند و خردگرا، در طولِ تاریخ میباشد... پاسکال فقط و فقط مدافعِ مسیحیت بوده و هیچ ارتباطی میانِ فلسفه و اندیشه با نوشته هایِ بیخردانهٔ او، دیده نمیشود
‎پاسکال تا آن اندازه به دینِ خود متعصب بود که مینویسد: بدونِ خداوند، ما دقیقاً همچون چهارپایانِ بیخرد هستیم... عزیزانم، پاسکال نمیدانسته که چهارپایان نیز شعورشان نسبت به این جهان و طبیعت و هستی، از موهوم پرستانی همچون پاسکال و امثالِ او بیشتر بوده است
‎این موجود بیخرد مینویسد: بدونِ خدا، ما انسانها نه تنها شاد نیستیم، بلکه درستکار و نیکوکار نیز نمیباشیم و تا آخرِ عمر محکوم به بدکاری و نادانی و سیاه روزی میباشیم
‎خوب.. دوستانِ من، به نظرِ شما میتوان چنین موجودِ بیخردی را فیلسوف و اندیشمند نامید!؟؟؟ به ما ثابت شده است که دین و مذهب انسانها را غمگین و مرده پرست و ناامید ساخته است، کجا و کی سراغ دارید که دین شادمانی آورده باشد!؟ ایران زمین که فستیوالها و جشنهایش بیشتر از سوراخ های غربال بود، اکنون اسلام چه به روزش آورده است؟ مردمی افسرده و قبر پرست و ناله کن و بیچاره و پرخاشجو... دین و مذهب قانون را از میان میبرد و قانون که از میان برود دیگر اخلاقِ نیک و خوب نیز معنا نداشته و همه برای له کردنِ طرفِ مقابل آماده هستند
‎اگر امثالِ <ویکتور هوگو> نبودند، در حال حاضر در فرانسه، افکارِ فاسد و کرم خوردهٔ موجوداتی همچون پاسکال، راه پیشرفتِ فرانسه و جوانانِ فرانسوی را بسته بود و مغز این جوانانِ بیچاره را فاسد کرده بود
‎پاسکال، تا آنجایی موهوم پرست و بیخرد شده بود که حتی از جانبِ آن خدایِ موهوم و نامرئی خود نیز سخن میگوید و مینویسد: انسانها میخواهند خویش را در کانونِ توجه قرار دهند و از من طلبِ کمک و یاری نداشته باشند.. آنها خودشان را از فرمان رواییِ من دور کرده و شادکامی را در مبارزه بر علیهِ من یافته اند.. من انسانها را به حالِ خودشان رها نمیکنم.. من بینِ انسانها دشمنی انداخته ام و آنها مدام با یکدیگر در جنگ هستند و اطرافشان را از حیواناتِ دیگر خالی کرده ام... بدونِ من، امروزه زندگیِ انسانها همچون زندگیِ حیواناتِ وحشی شده است
‎عزیزان و دوستانِ باشعور، ببینید دین و مذهب با مغزِ انسان چه میکند! این متوهمانِ بیمار و خطرناک، از جانبِ خدایشان سخن میگویند و نتیجهٔ آن میشود تروریستهایِ حرام زاده ای همچون داعش و حزب الله و اخوان المسلمین و دیگر گروه هایِ کثیفِ ضدِ انسانی .. بعد نامِ این روانی های متوهم را فیلسوف میگذارند!!! پاسکال یادش رفته که با نامِ مسیح، کلیسا چه بر سرِ دانشمندان و فلاسفه آورد.. ما نخواهیم خدایِ شما را داشته باشیم، باید به کجا فرار کنیم!!.. ما نخواهیم که شما دینداران خود را وارد مسیرِ دانش روزِ بشری کنید، باید چه کسی را ببینیم؟؟ ما بهشتِ شما متوهمانِ بیمار را نخواهیم، باید به چه کسی فریاد بزنیم؟؟
‎دوستانِ بزرگوار، پاسکال، خزعبلاتش را به ریاضیات و احتمالات نیز کشانده است و بدون اندکی فهم و درک، مینویسد: ما انسانها به کدام سو گرایش داریم؟ خرد در موردِ وجودِ خدا و در این میان نمیتواند هیچ انتخابی داشته باشد.. آشفتگی ما را از یکدیگر جدا کرده است... در آن سویِ این فاصلهٔ بیکران، یک بازی و قمار بر پا شده است و سکه ای به منظورِ شیر یا خط آوردن، به پایین پرتاب شده است.. چه مقدار بر رویِ آن شرط میبندید؟؟ خرد نمیتواند شما را وادار به برگزیدنِ شیر یا خط، نماید... خرد نمیتواند شما را وادار به پشتیبانی از یکی از این دو حالتِ ممکن کند.. ولی اگر شما به رویِ بودنِ خداوند، شرط ببندید، این تنها شرط بستنِ خردمندانه میباشد... اگر قیامت وجود داشته باشد، آنکسی برد کرده است که شرطش را بر رویِ وجود خدا بسته است
‎عزیزانم، شما متوجه شدید که این بیخرد چه گفت و چگونه با نام بردن از احتمالات مغلطه کرد!! شرط بستن به رویِ احتمالِ شیر یا خط بودن، چه ارتباطی با خرد دارد؟؟ سکه که یک جسم است، چه ارتباطی به موجودی نامرئی به نامِ خدا دارد که تا کنون به کمکِ هیچ روش علمی و خردمندانه، وجودش ثابت نشده است!! اتفاقاً هرچه انسانها خردمندتر میشوند و از موهومات فاصله میگیرند، در میابند که قوانینِ طبیعت هیچ ارتباطی به خدا و یا هر موجودِ نامرئی دیگر ندارد... جالب است که در طولِ تاریخ این بیشعورهایِ موهوم پرست، خود را خردمند دانسته و هرکه را که به آنها و دین و خدایشان باور ندارد، بیخرد و نادان و کافر قلمداد کرده اند و مانعِ پیشرفتِ دانش شده اند و دانشمندان را به نامِ کافر و ملحد، اعدام کرده و آتش زده اند.. بعد این حیوان صفت هایِ وحشی از شادمانی انسانها و چهارپا بودن و وحشی گری و رفتار انسانی سخن میگویند.. حرامی ها، شما دستتان در تاریخ برایِ هر انسانِ باشعور و خردی رو شده است و نیاز به هیچ احتمال و شیر یا خط آوردن نیست... واقعیت و حقیقت نیاز به احتمال و شرط بندی ندارد... تاریخ نشان داده است که دین و مذهب انسانها را وحشی و درنده خو کرده است
‎پاسکال میگوید: اگر آخرتی وجود داشته باشد، ما دینداران سود کرده ایم و شما ناباوران زیان برده اید
‎عزیزانم، بگذارید تا این شادمانی جاودانه در آن جهانِ موهوم و بهشتِ خیالی و غیر واقعی، برایِ این بیخردهایِ موهوم پرست باشد.. ما زندگی خودمان را در این جهان و طبیعت زیبا با تمامِ سختی هایش انجام میدهیم.. بهشت در جای جایِ این کرهٔ خاکی دیده میشود... ما با کمک به دانش، روز به روز به شناختِ بیشترِ این جهان دست میابیم و نیازی به هیچ موهومات و خزعبلات غیر عقلانی نداشته و نداریم... هیچ انسانِ خردمند و با شرفی، حاضر نیست در بهشتِ موهوم و آن فاحشه خانه در کنار تازیانِ وحشی و قاتل و زنباره و کشیشانِ بچه باز و غارتگران و دروغگویانِ پست باشد.. ما بهشتمان را در همین دنیایِ واقعی میسازیم تا آیندگانمان از آن بهره مند شوند... احتمالاتِ پوچ و بی اساسِ قمارباز و دائم الخمری همچون پاسکال هم بماند برای پیروانش و موهوم پرستانِ بیخرد
------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ فرزندانِ خردگرایِ سرزمینم، مفید بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[David Sarkies · Rating 5 out of 5]

Religious Thoughts of a Mathematician
29 August 2016 - Paris, France

When I was learning French I was rather thrown by the way their numbers work after about 60, as is demonstrated by this picture, which shows how English, German, and French construct the number 98:



My first thought was 'this is absolutely ridiculous, how on Earth could the French have produced any mathematicians?” Well, it turns out that they produced at least two – Rene Descartes (notable for Cartesian Geometry) and Blaise Pascal (who built his own calculator, most likely to assist him in deciphering the French numerical system). At least the Germans only switch their numbers around, it just seems like the French reached the number 60 and simply became too lazy to work out any beyond that (and if you look at the numbers 17, 18, and 19, you will see a similar pattern there). Anyway, I'm not writing this to bag the French (only the way they count), but to have another look at Pascal's Pensees.

This is the second time I have read this book, and I thought it was an appropriate book to read while travelling through France, and I have just managed to finish it off on my first day in Paris (while sitting out the front of a cafe drinking what was effectively an overpriced beer and an over priced bottle of Pine-apple juice, which is another oddity – the English refer to them and Pineapples while those on the continent refer to them as Annanas – but that is another story). As I have done previously, I have left my previous review below, though that was written back when I was studying Church History at a Bible college and having realised that I had already written a review on it I was about to move on to another book when I felt that I should read him again, just to see if I end up viewing him differently.

Well, I'm going to have to agree with what Trevor said in his review in that the first part of the book, namely the section where Pascal managed to order his Pensees, is actually pretty good, but when you get to the section where the editor has then tried to put them into some sort of order, and failing that just thrown the rest of them into a miscellaneous chapter, it does sort of start to go down hill. For instance you will find some that are simply huge chucks of the Bible, and not really ethical thoughts, but rather ideas on prophecies and their fulfilments. Like a lot of fundamentalist preachers these days he does seem to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on the book of Daniel.

The other thing is that Pascal spends a lot of time arguing that Christianity cannot be proved through reason, however the proceeds to use reason to try to prove Christianity. I remember my father telling me once that it is impossible to prove Christianity by using science namely because non-scientists generally don't understand the detailed scientific explanations, and non-Christian scientists have their own explanations as to why things happen. For instance, I asked my Dad why is it that the events at the Big Bang seems to go against the Law of Therodynamics, that is the scientific law that says that everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder. Well, just like gravity (what goes up, must come down), there are exceptions (unless you have a really big rocket underneath you). The other thing with the Big Bang is that nobody was around to measure it so we don't actually know what went on. Also the universe is also constantly expanding, which once again seems to go against the law of entropy, though I think I'll leave it at that is it is starting to make my brain hurt.

Anyway, reading through the Pensees it seems as if Pascal was one of those guys who started off as a scientist (or rather a mathematician), discovered God, and then started to try to use science to prove God. It reminded me a lot of those Creation Scientists, the ones who go around claiming that if you don't believe in a six-day creation you are denying Christ, and if you deny Christ then you are going to hell. Well, I guess that is it for me then, but that is beside the point. The thing is that while I believe that they have some valid ideas, I do try to leave my mind open for other possibilities. However, as I was reading Pascal this time I simply found how his arguments simply didn't seem to work all that well, and while it might have worked with the people of his time period, these days it simply seems that his writings would probably only appeal to the fundamentalist sects (and even then they would probably end up rejecting him as a heretic namely because he is a Catholic).

Despite all that, I do feel that he does have a lot to say and I will touch on a couple of things here, the first being distractions. There is a lot of criticism of distractions in the modern world – such as sport, movies, Keeping up with the Kardasians, et al – and that these distractions serve to keep the actions of the power elite from being known by the common people. Well, Pascal suggests that this is not necessarily the case, and I sort of agree with him. The thing is that the common people generally don't care what the power elite are doing, and as long as they have their goodies they will be happy. It is not a question of human rights, nor is it a question of freedom of speech – people will do what they are prone to do – no it is a question of boredom. It is not as if the common person, if the truth is revealed to them, are suddenly going to take to the streets with pitchforks – the Peasants in France knew what the Aristocracy and the Church was all about, they only revolted when their own situation became so dire that they had nothing left to lose (and were also prodded on by a pretty powerful bourgeoisie). Rather, it is to prevent boredom. The thing is that if a person is bored they get up to mischief, and if a lot of people get up to mischief together then anarchy reigns.

The other thing about distraction is how it is used in relation to the monarch. Pascal suggests that the monarch is fed distractions by his advisors to prevent the monarch from establishing his (or her) own agenda. Mind you, that depends on how strong the monarch actually is – a strong monarch is going to do their own thing no matter what. However, in most cases, as is suggested by Pascal, it is the advisors and the inner circle that actually dictates how the country is administered. The king is fed distractions so that he will in effect relinquish his (or her) power to them. It could be said that it is the same with politicians today, especially career politicians who probably have no skill set outside of doing what politicians actually do (which is a question to which I an struggling to find an answer). The reality is that most politicians (and cabinet ministers) have no idea how to actually do their job and thus rely on advisors to help them make the decision. In the end the politician, seeing that it is all too hard, arranges for another overseas junket and gets the advisors to make the final decisions and simply signs on the dotted line.

One of the things that seems to get up Pascal's nose are vain people – namely those who think of themselves over others. Mind you, he is probably right because it is our vanity that seems to be the cause of a lot of problems that we face in the world, and it is not just the question of the rich not paying their taxes because many of us in the Western World (me included) generally think of our own happiness above the welfare and security of others. In fact it is coming to the point where many of our countries are doing everything that we can to close our borders to refugees and immigrants and blaming in influx of foreigners for all of our woahs. In a way one of the main reasons that the leave vote won out in Britain was because people believed that by voting leave they would get rid of all of the immigrants and return Britain to that of the Anglo-Saxons. In many cases we in the west are hoarders – sure, we might be generous to an extent, even the absurdly rich are pretty generous with their money – they give to charities and to cultural institutions – in fact on a proportionate basis they are probably more generous than many of us who can actually afford to be charitable (though I am not taking into account the reasons for their giving since many of us give for ulterior motives such as a tax deduction). However, when Pascal looked around he we would see an awful lot of vanity in the world, and even when people appeared to be kind and generous he tended to see something beyond that. As Jesus pointed out at the temple one day it was the poor widow who gave the single coin who was the more generous because while the rich gave out of their wealth she gave out of her poverty.

Which leads me to the concept of the inversion – people who consider themselves good and righteous end up being anything but. Mind you, this isn't something that Pascal comes up with himself but rather something that is a constant theme throughout the Bible and can best be seen in the Sermon on the Mount, in particular the beatitudes – the poor become rich, the weak become strong, the sorrowful become joyful. In a way it is not a question of outward appearances but inward appearances. Isn't it interesting that when somebody gives out of their wealth an organisation will reward them for that, which means that such people continue to give knowing that their generosity will be rewarded and they will be viewed as a generous person. As Jesus suggests these people have received their reward in full, especially if that is the reason for them giving generously. However those who give a small amount tend to never to be recognised. Well, they might get a thankyou (or a Merci Beaucoup) but a lot of organisations will tend to ignore them when they give and only say thankyou when tapping them for more money. This is another thing that I have noticed – when you start giving to these organisations they will continue to ask for money, and normally will ask for more and more – if I give them $500.00 within a month I will receive a letter asking for $750, $1000, or even $2000. In fact the only letters that I seem to get from them is 'can you make another donation and can you make it more this time'.

I should finish off with the idea of the wager, that is that life is a wager and the stakes are eternity, so you either have the choice to live a moral life or an immoral one. The results are that if you live a moral life but it turns out that God doesn't exist then you lose nothing because the moral life is always the better life, but if you live an immoral life and it turns out that God does exist then you lose out big time. Mind you, I have simplified it somewhat, especially since it should actually be 'Christian life' instead of 'moral life' but I'm sure you understand what I mean. The thing is that people outwardly parade their goodness to receive praise from those around them tend not to actually be moral people – sure, they may life immaculate lives in front of everybody but their private life may hold a huge number of dirty secrets. As far as I am concerned it is always going to be a heart things, you don't do things because you want people to say 'gee, what a good person' you do things because it is always better to live a moral life than an immoral life, especially since the immoral life always comes back and bites you.

A collection of Theological statements
11 May 2012 - Adelaide, Australia

Blaise Pascal is an enigma. He is a Catholic who in his book writes like an evangelical (or, more to the point, protestant as they were in those days). He is also a scientist/mathematician/engineer who writes what I must admit is an incredibly intense theological treatise. Well, not so much a treatise, but more a collection of sayings (some short, some quite long) exploring the nature of God, Jesus, the Bible, and our relationship with the Trinity. The book is not finished. He became too sick to continue the work and what we have now is a collection of the 'sayings' (if that is what you want to call them) in the order that he wanted them to be in, and a whole heap of others with no rhyme or reason (or at least they are not quite complete nor are they in any particular order). As such the later editors have done their best to attempt to put them where they think they best fit, but it is highly unlikely anybody would be able to know what Pascal's original intentions were.

This book does allow one to get into Pascal's mind and understand his theology and his response to it, though Pascal was one of those very rare individuals that appears to live in a world of his own, though through this book we do catch a glimpse of this world.

[P.E. · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapour, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him; the universe knows nothing of this.”

Originally intended to be an Apology for Christianism, this book comes out as a unique mashup of casual notes, musings, ethical, logical and metaphysical observations put together by Pascal's family.

As it is, it is mainly about two unsplittable halves : the vanity of Man, the greatness of Man.

------------------

“L’homme n’est qu’un roseau, le plus faible de la nature; mais c’est un roseau pensant. Il ne faut pas que l’univers entier s’arme pour l’écraser : une vapeur, une goutte d’eau suffit pour le tuer. Mais quand l’univers l’écraserait, l’homme serait encore plus noble que ce qui le tue, parce qu’il sait qu’il meurt, et l’avantage que l’univers a sur lui, l’univers n’en sait rien”

Comme le nom l'indique, vous tenez une collection hétéroclite de pensées sur l'éthique, le droit, la puissance de l'habitude et de l'imagination chez l'homme. Ce qui devait former les fondations d'une apologie de la Chrétienté par Blaise Pascal, d'obédience janséniste.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pascal seems to have been born for greatness. At a young age he displayed an intense talent for mathematics, apparently deducing a few propositions of Euclid by himself; and he matured into one of the great mathematical minds of Europe, making fundamental contributions to the science of probability. While he was at it, he invented an adding machine: the beginning of our adventures in computing.

Later on in his short life, after narrowly escaping a carriage accident, the young man had an intense conversion experience; and he devoted the rest of his energies to religion. A committed Jansenist (a sect of Catholics deeply influenced by Calvinism), he set out to defend his community from the hostile Jesuits. This resulted in his Provincial Letters, a series of polemical epistles now considered a model and a monument of French prose. This was not all. His most ambitious project was a massive apology for the Christian faith. But disease struck him down before he could bring his book to term; and now all we are left with are fragments—scattered bits of thought.

Strangely, it is this unfinished book—not his polished prose, not his contributions to mathematics—which has become Pascal’s most lasting work. It is a piece of extraordinary passion and riveting eloquence. Yet it is also disorganized, tortured, incomplete, uneven, abrupt—at times laconic to the point of inscrutability, at times rambling, diffuse, and obscure. How are we to judge such a book?

Pascal alternates between two fundamental moods in the text: the tortured doubter, and the zealous convert. Inevitably I found the former sections to be far more compelling. Pascal was an avid reader of Montaigne, and seems to have taken that French sage’s skepticism to heart. Yet Pascal could never simulate Montaigne’s easy acceptance of his own ignorance; the mathematician wanted certainty, and was driven to despair by Montaigne’s gnawing doubt. Thus, though Pascal often echoes Montaigne’s thoughts, the tone is completely different: anguish rather than acceptance.

Montaigne’s influence runs very deep in Pascal. Harold Bloom famously called the Pensées “a bad case indigestion in regard to Montaigne,” and notes the many passages of Pascal which directly echo Montaigne’s words. Will Durant goes even further, writing that Pascal was driven nearly to madness by Montaigne’s skepticism. There is, indeed, a shadow of mania and mental imbalance that falls over this work. Pascal gives the impression of one who is profoundly unhappy; and this despair both propels him to his heights and drags him to his depths.

At his best, Pascal strikes one as a kind of depressed charismatic genius, writing in the mood of a Hamlet. Cynicism at times overwhelms him, as he notes how our vanity leads us to choose our professions and our habits just to receive praise from other people. He can also be a pessimist—noting, like Schopenhauer, that all earthly pleasures are unsatisfactory and vain. Pascal had a morbid streak, too.

Imagine a number of men in chains, all under sentence of death, some of whom are each day butchered in the sight of the others; those remaining see their own condition in that of their fellows, and looking at each other with grief and despair await their turn. This is an image of the human condition.

We also have the misanthrope, in which mood he most nearly approached the Danish prince:

What sort of freak then is man! How novel, how monstrous, how chaotic, how paradoxical, how prodigious! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sink of doubt and error, glory and refuse of the universe!

But I think even more moving that these moods is Pascal’s metaphysical despair. He wants certainty with every inch of his soul, and yet the universe only inspires doubt and anguish: “The eternal silence of these infinite spaces fills me with dread.” As a scientist during the age of Galileo, Pascal is painfully aware of humanity’s smallness in relation to the vast void of the universe. He struggles to establish our dignity: “Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed.” Yet his existential desperation continually reasserts itself, no matter how often he defends himself against it:

This is what I see and what troubles me. I look around in every direction and all I see is darkness. Nature has nothing to offer me that does not give rise to doubt and anxiety. If I saw no sign there of a Divinity I should decide on a negative solution: if I saw signs of a Creator everywhere I should peacefully settle down in the faith.

He finds neither negative nor positive confirmation, however, and so must resort to a frenzied effort. Perhaps this is where the famous idea of the wager arose. Pascal’s Wager is simple: if you choose to be religious you have very much to gain and comparatively little to lose, so it is an intelligent bet. Of course there are many problems with this line of thinking. For one, would not an omniscient God know that you are choosing religion for calculated self-interest? Pascal’s solution is that, if you force yourself to undergo the rituals of religion—fasting, confession, mass, and the rest—the belief will gradually become genuine.

Perhaps. Yet there are many other problems with the wager. Most noticeable, nowadays, is Pascal’s treatment of the religious problem as a binary choice—belief or unbelief—whereas now we have hundreds of options to choose from as regards religions. Further, Pascal’s insistence that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose is difficult to accept. For we do have something to lose: our life. Living a strictly religious life is no easy thing, after all. Also, his insistence that the finite existence of our life is nothing compared to the potential infinity of heavenly life leaves out one crucial thing: If there is no afterlife, than our finite existence is infinitely more valuable than the nothingness that awaits. So the wager does not clarify anything.

In any case, it is unclear what use Pascal wished to make of his wager. The rest of this book does not make any mention of this kind of strategic belief. Indeed, at times Pascal seems to directly contradict this idea of an intellectually driven faith, particularly in his emphasis on the role of emotion: “It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason.” Or, more pithily: “The heart has its reasons of which the reason knows nothing.”

This, for me, summarizes the more enjoyable sections of the book. But there is a great deal to criticize. Many of the arguments that Pascal makes for belief are frankly bad. He notes, for example, that Christianity has been around since the beginning of the world—something that only a convinced young-earther could believe nowadays. There are many passages about the Jews, most of which are difficult to read. One of his most consistent themes is that God hardened the hearts of the Jews against Christ, in order that they be unwilling “witnesses” to future generations. But what kind of divine justice is it to sacrifice a whole people, intentionally blinding them to the truth?

Indeed, virtually every statement Pascal makes about other religions reveals both an ignorance and a hostility greatly unbecoming of the man. And his explanation of the existence of other religions, as a kind of specious temptation, is both absurd and disrespectful: “If God had permitted only one religion, it would have been too easily recognizable. But, if we look closely, it is easy to distinguish the true religion amidst all this confusion.”

I suppose this is one of the great paradoxes of any kind of religious faith: Why did God allow so many to go astray? But conceiving of other religions as snares deliberately placed by God seems extremely cruel on God’s part (as well as wholly dismissive of other faiths). In any case, it is just one example of Pascal’s pitiless piety. He himself warns of the danger of the moral sense armed with certainty: “We never do evil so fully and cheerfully as when we do it out of conscience.” And yet his own religious convictions can seem cruel, at least psychologically: dwelling obsessively on the need to hate oneself, and insisting that “I am culpable if I make anyone love me.”

Pascal also has a habit of dwelling on prophesy, repeatedly noting that the Old Testament prefigured the coming and the life of Jesus—which is clear if we interpret the text in the “right” way. Of course, this is open to the obvious objection that any text can predict anything if it is interpreted in the “right” way. Pascal’s response to this is that God is intentionally mysterious, and it would have been too obvious to have literally predicted Jesus and his works. The ability to see the prophesy differentiates those to whom God sheds light, and those whom God blinds. Once again, therefore, we have this strangely cruel conception of God, as a Being which arbitrarily prevents His creatures from seeing the truth.

As I think is clear from the frantic tone, and the many different and contradictory ways that Pascal tries to justify belief, he himself was not fully convinced by any of them. His final desperate intellectual move is to abandon the principle of logical consistency altogether. As he says: “A hundred contradictions might be true.” Or elsewhere he tells us: “All their principles are true, skeptics, stoics, atheists, etc. … but their conclusions are false, because the contrary principles are also true.” Yet if he had taken this idea seriously, he would have seen that it completely erodes the possibility of justifying any belief. All we have left is to go where the “heart” guides us; but what if my heart guides me towards Chinese ancestor worship?

Another reviewer on this site noted Pascal’s power to convince religious skeptics. But, as you can see, I found the opposite to be true. Pascal’s morbid unhappiness, his frantic doubt, his shoddy reasoning, do not inspire any wish to join him. To the contrary, one regrets that such a fine mind was driven to such a self-destructive fixation. Still, this book deserves its canonical status. Though at times nearly unreadable, in its finest passages the Pensées is as sublime as anything in literature. And, though Pascal falls short of Montaigne in many respects, he is able to capture the one element of experience forbidden to the benign essayist: an all-consuming despair.

[Michael Perkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

"We never keep to the present. We recall the past; we anticipate the future as if we found it too slow in coming and were trying to hurry it up, or we recall the past as if to stay its too rapid flight. We are so unwise that we wander about in times that do not belong to us, and do not think of the only one that does.

Let each of us examine his thoughts; he will find them wholly concerned with the past or the future. We almost never think of the present, and if we do think of it, it is only to see what light it throws on our plans for the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means, the future alone our end. Thus we never actually live, but hope to live, and since we are always planning how to be happy, it is inevitable that we should never be so." (# 47)

======

"Living for today.....yooh, ooh"

still my favorite song....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CELqt...

[Sandu Andronic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Una din cărțile de seamă ale culturii, umanității și filosofiei. Mare păcat că nu a avut privilegiul de a o finaliza.

[Tom LA · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nota per l’editore italiano: ma che cippa ti sei fumato? Avete messo in copertina il dipinto di “un vecchio” che non c’entra niente con la faccia di Pascal.
———


When the love of God strikes your heart and your mind, you are elevated to a plane where you can find the most extraordinary happiness in your life, and where you understand the possibility to become the best that you can be.

Christian life, when lived authentically, is filled with joy, even in the midst of difficulties. Not the “hahaha” type of joy — in fact, I would argue that comedians don’t bring joy to the world, but distraction and entertainment, which is different — but the deepest and most satisfying type of joy.

So if this is true, why doesn’t everyone turn to Christ and give themselves to Him?

Mainly because of the times we live in, where Truth is opposed, concealed, hidden, ostracized and abused.

We live in times of big egos. And no humility, no faith. No suffering, no faith. No kneeling in front of the Creator, no faith and no salvation.

Salvation comes from lat. “salus” = good health.

Kneeling is painful to the secular thinker.

What’s really astounding is that, if you open your heart to God’s love after having kept it close for some time, that moment (and it’s always one moment) feels incredibly painful and unfair: you have been your own god for so long, why should you ever kneel in front of anyone? Anyone at all?

But what comes immediately after, and perhaps unexpectedly, is the realization that now you’re more free than you’ve ever been. You are more yourself than you can ever be, because we are made in the image pf God, we are made for Him, and our hearts can rest only when they rest in Him.

This is all well-documented in Augustin’s Confessions, and in Pascal’s Pensees, but it’s also something that I’ve had the blessing to experience in my own life.

[Olga · Rating 5 out of 5]

On the human nature:

'What a Chimera is man! What a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm of the earth; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe.'

'This twofold nature of man is so evident that some have thought that we had two souls. A single subject seemed to them incapable of such sudden variations from unmeasured presumption to a dreadful dejection of heart.'

'There is internal war in man between reason and the passions. If he had only reason without passions. If he had only passions without reason. But having both, he cannot be without strife, being unable to be at peace with the one without being at war with the other. Thus he is always divided against, and opposed to himself.'

'The grandeur of man is great in that he knows himself to be miserable.'

'The strength of a man's virtue must not be measured by his efforts, but by his ordinary life.'

On faith:

'There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.'

[Jonfaith · Rating 2 out of 5]

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.

Pascal maintains a certain antipathy to Montaigne throughout this collection. Despite my assertion being a specious argument, feel free to embrace that fact to avoid this. It is is clear why the essayist so unnerved Pascal: the self is always multitudes.

My response to The Wager is but a sigh.

I just responded to someone asking about my health, I'm incredibly drawn these days to Coriolanus and Antigone: I'm an asshole, but one for proper reasons.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Do you wish people to believe good of you? Don’t speak.”

Pascal was the master of the one liner. Pensées is laced with aphorisms. It also overflows with serious considerations. Not to be read fast or superficially. (Unfortunately my first reading in the 1960s was both.) Therefore, this review will be in sections, as I read the major subdivisions of the text.

“The last thing one settles in a book is what one should put in first.”

Since Pensées was not published before Pascal died in 1662, textual inclusion and order are disputed. This 1958 English translation (available free on Project Gutenberg) includes an excellent Introduction by Nobel laureate T. S. Eliot.

Part Two.

“The last act is tragic, however happy all the rest of the play is; at the last a little earth is thrown upon our heads, and that is the end forever.”

The first two sections of Pascal’s Pensées is filled with disconnected thoughts and aphorisms generally pointing to man’s misery separate from God. Now Pascal turns to his infamous wager. Here his argument becomes dense and philosophic. The casual reader is tempted to think, “I can skim this. Everyone knows what Pascal’s Wager is.” No, you don’t. In simplifying Pascal’s argument, modern scholars miss his point, and mislead you as well. If you read only one section on Pensées, read Section Three. Here his avowed purpose was “to incite the search after God.”

In brief, Pascal reasons why you should make the wager, only secondarily how you should make it. He was surrounded by mature, intelligent people who spent their entire life diverting themselves from the most important issue of life. The following are key thoughts, in his own words:

“Men despise religion; they hate it; and fear it is true.”
“[God] will only be perceived by those who seek him with all their heart.”
“They believe they have made great efforts for their instruction, when they have spent a few hours in reading some book of scripture, and have questioned some priest on the truths of the faith. After that, they boast of having made vain search in books and among men. This negligence is insufferable.”
“They did not find within themselves the lights which convince them of it [and] neglect to seek them elsewhere.”
“It is a great evil thus to be in doubt. The doubter … is altogether completely unhappy and completely wrong.”
“All I know is that I must soon die, but what I know least is this very death which I cannot escape.”
“It is not natural that there should be men indifferent to the loss of their existence.”
“Let them at least be honest men, if they cannot be Christians. There are two kinds of people one can call reasonable; those who serve God with all their heart because they know Him, and those who seek Him with all their heart because they do not know Him.”
“Let us imagine a number of men in chains, and all condemned to death, where some are killed each day in the sight of the others, and those who remain see their own fate in that of their fellows, and wait their turn, looking at each other sorrowfully and without hope. It is an image of the condition of men.”
“We seek the truth without hesitation.”
“Between us and heaven or hell there is only life, which is the frailest thing in the world.”
“Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds number, time, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls nature, necessity, and can believe nothing else.”
“It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that He should not exist.”
“You can defend neither of the propositions. Do not reprove then those who have made a choice. The true course is not to wager at all.”
“Yes, but you must wager. It is not optional.”
“If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.”
“It is impossible to take one step with sense and judgment, unless we regulate our course by the truth of that point which ought to be our ultimate end.”
“Every play stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty.”
“At least learn your inability to believe. Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Follow by acting as if [you] believed. What have you to lose?”
“You will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.”
“If we must not act save on a certainty, we ought not to act on religion, for it is not certain. But … there is more certainty in religion than there is as to whether we see tomorrow.”
“According to the doctrine of chance, you ought to put yourself to the trouble of searching for the truth; for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost--‘But,’ you say, ‘if He had wished me to worship Him, He would have left me sign of His will.’ He had done so, but you neglect them.”

Did you notice how current some of that was? Moderns don’t even go so far as to read a little Bible and talk to a clergy, they read someone like Richard Dawkins and think they understand the whole issue. Tell me, do you believe what politicians claim their opponent believes or intends? Of course not. Then why do you accept the hatchet job of an unbeliever as definitive?

His argument is flawed, but deserves better treatment than it’s gotten. One problem is with his comparing infinities. He was supposed to be the greatest mathematician of his age, but equating mathematical infinities with supernatural ones appears unreliable.

Quibble: All that untranslated Latin was acceptable in 1660, when all educated people read Latin. It is not acceptable in a 1958 translation, when few read Latin, to not render the Latin into English. (Yes, the language and punctuation is archaic; blame that on the translators, too, not Pascal.)

So you see, Pascal’s wager is not believing or not believing, but on making a serious inquiry into the truth claims of Christianity. His argument was with his contemporaries (and ours) who amused themselves to death trying to avoid the most critical decision of their lives. Because, as he says, “We [all] die alone.”

“It is far better to know something about everything, than to know all about one thing.”

Being an unfinished work, inconsistency of flow and expression are not surprising. What is unexpected is that he beat the Enlightenment by a century and even anticipated some modern thinking.

“Who doubts that our soul, being accustomed to see number, space, motion believes that and nothing else?”

One of the greatest mathematical and scientific theorists of his time, Pascal intended Pensées to be a defense of the Christian religion, but boldly admitted the case of the skeptic. Pascal’s other great work, Provincial Letters, addressed abuses of contemporary Catholicism even though Pascal remained a communicant his whole life. He died in Paris at age 39.

“What is a man in the infinite?”

(Part Three)

“True nature being lost, everything becomes its own nature; and the true good being lost, everything becomes its own true good.” ¶ 426

A significant effort on the part of a troubled Catholic in 17th century France. At odds with his church, especially the Society of Jesus, on one hand and the secular humanist, such as Voltaire and Montaigne, on the other. That he carried his manuscript sewed inside his coat is indicative of how heretical he knew his Jansenist thoughts to be. (The thoughts of the Jansenists were condemned by Pope Innocent IX in 1653.)

“Nature confutes the sceptics, and reason confutes the dogmatists.” ¶ 430

I have reviewed the opening sections of this tome in two previous review. This will try to review the rest of the book and summarize my thoughts. Without a doubt, Pascal was an original and creative thinker, one of the first mathematicians worthy of the term. He was also an orthodox Christian, whatever the Catholic hierarchy of the day thought of him.

“We must love a being who is in us, and is not ourselves.” ¶ 485

Therefore, much of his sections on Fundamentals, Perpetuity, Typology, Prophecies, Proofs of Jesus Christ, and Miracles will be only of interest to students of theology. His last section, however, Polemical Fragments is a hodgepodge of thoughts on a variety of topics which strata yield the occasional gem of a quote, as follows (referenced by their paragraph within the larger work):
¶ 832. “As it is certain that these are exceptions to the rule, our judgment must though strict, be just.”
¶ 860. “The Church is in an excellent state, when it is sustained by God only.”
¶ 861. “Faith embraces many truths which seem to contradict each other. The source of all heresies is the exclusion of some of these truths.”
¶ 863. “Truth is so more obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”
¶ 875. “God does not perform miracles in the ordinary conduct of the Church.”
¶ 894. “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

Concerning this text, my primary criticism is that, even in the 1950s, few would have been fluent in Latin and Greek to read all the quotes as rendered. Fortunately, nearly half were Biblical citations, easy enough to obtain an English translation.

“There are only two kinds of men: the righteous who believe themselves sinners; the rest, sinners, who believe themselves righteous.” ¶ 533

As I said in my opening review, Pascal is worth reading in his own words if only because the great mass of humanity regularly misrepresent his famous “wager.” (I was among them.) He was not saying one should gamble on believing that God exists because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but that you should gamble on investigating whether God exists because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. A difference in far more than semantics.

“We cannot know Jesus Christ without knowing at the same time both God and our own wretchedness.” ¶ 555

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pascal's classic thoughts on numerous topics related to Christianity. This book is at times difficult to read, since he died before he finished it thus leaving many sections only outlined in note form. But slogging through those portions is worthwhile when you get to the good, thought-provoking parts. In some ways Pascal reminds me of Kierkegaard since both were reasonable men who realized that it takes more than just reason alone to come to faith in Christ. Pascal's apologetic reflects this. He is most famous for his Wager, which is often castigated, probably because it is misunderstood. Pascal's Wager does not state, as some seem to think, that you should just believe in God because he might exist, even though such belief is unreasonable. Rather, Pascal's argument was that it is just as reasonable to believe as not to believe; reason cannot prove faith yet faith is not unreasonable. Since reason alone places us in the middle, it is better to take the step in faith and trust in God.

[Nelson Zagalo · Rating 2 out of 5]

O livro "Pensamentos", de Blaise Pascal, nunca existiu enquanto tal, à semelhança do "Livro do Desassossego" foi compilado por quem encontrou milhares de notas soltas depois da sua morte. Diferentemente do livro de Pessoa, e provavelmente por ter sido descoberto noutro tempo, a sua primeira versão, e mais amplamente reproduzida, opta por apresentar apenas uma parte dos documentos deixados por Pascal. Catalogado como edição Port-Royal (1670), apresenta-se como um livro de capítulos completos, reescrito por familiares e organizadores, todos em defesa dos elementos da religião cristã - Deus, Jesus, Igreja, o Céu e o Inferno. Só em 1897 é publicada a edição de Brunschvicg, a qual apresenta, de forma numerada, todos os textos de Pascal, cerca de 900. Mais tarde, em 1935, descobre-se que a primeira parte destes textos tinha já sido ordenada por Pascal para a escrita de um livro, já a segunda parte eram textos pensados para um livro que estava a escrever quando morreu, "Apologia da Religião Cristã". Exposta a forma, temos dois livros, ou dois grandes temas num mesmo livro, memórias autobiográficas e o questionamento de si, e na segunda parte, uma defesa acérrima da religião cristã.

Imagem de Blaise Pascal (1623 — 1662)
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...

Sobre a primeira parte, senti um Pascal reflexivo, em busca de respostas, com muitas dúvidas e vontade aprofundar o que lhe ia na alma. Contudo na segunda parte é como se Pascal desistisse dessa senda, abraçasse a religião cristã, e deixasse simplesmente de pensar, para seguir apenas e só o que a religião tinha para lhe oferecer. Se a primeira parte consegue ser instigante, a segunda é desoladora, principalmente se tivermos em conta que Pascal foi uma das mentes mais brilhantes que já passou por este planeta. Contudo, como venho verificando no estudo de vários destes homens do renascimento, apesar de terem tocado em muitas áreas, dificilmente as dominaram, o que deita um pouco por terra o mito dos polímatas renascentistas. Pascal foi um grande matemático, mas nem por isso um grande filósofo, e os ataques caricatos que faz a Montaigne são disso a maior prova.

Em certos momentos quase consigo compreender o desespero de Pascal, pegando no infinito que a matemática nos oferece para tentar explicar o infinito que só Deus poderia criar. Ou seja, a nossa incapacidade para compreender e abarcar a matemática em toda a sua extensão reduz-nos a algo insignificante. Mas é por isso que não devemos submeter o nosso pensamento a uma ciência única. A matemática é uma das mais importantes ciências alguma vez criadas pelo ser-humano, mas não pode responder a todos os nossos dilemas. Por outro lado, não posso deixar de condenar veemente a atitude discriminatória e autoritária de Pascal ao longo de toda a segunda parte, procurando impor as ideias da religião cristã como as únicas capazes, ao que sem pejo junto o medo como figura persuasora. Deixo como resposta a Pascal, um excerto de Bertrand Russell:

"Devemo-nos manter de pé com os nossos próprios meios e olhar francamente para o mundo — ver os seus aspectos bons, seus aspectos maus, suas belezas e suas fealdades; olhar para o mundo tal qual ele é, sem pavor. Conquistar o mundo pela inteligência e não nos deixarmos subjugar como escravos do terror. Todo o conceito de Deus é tirado do velho despotismo oriental. É uma concepção absolutamente indigna de homens livres. Quando sei de pessoas que se curvam nas igrejas confessando-se miseráveis pecadoras, e tudo o mais, tenho isso como desprezível, incompatível com o respeito que devemos a nós próprios. Devemos, ao contrário, olhar o mundo francamente e no seu rosto. Devemos melhorar este mundo e, se ele não é tão bom quanto desejávamos, que ele seja melhor do que o construído no passado pelos outros. Um mundo à nossa medida exige saber, bondade e coragem; não exige uma intensa nostalgia do passado, nem o acorrentar da livre inteligência aos entraves impostos pelas fórmulas que os antigos ignorantes inventaram. O que uma perspectiva do futuro desligada do terror exige é uma visão clara das realidades. O que exige a esperança no futuro não é o refluxo constante a um passado morto, que, estamos certos, será em muito ultrapassado pelo futuro que a nossa inteligência é capaz de criar."

Bertrand Russell, (1927). Por que não sou cristão. Retirado de Critica na Rede. Podem ainda ouvir as respostas de Russel já na velhice, em vídeo.

Sabendo que "Pensamentos" versaria tanto, e desta forma desenfreada, sobre a defesa da religião cristã, não o teria lido. No entanto o que me fez chegar a esta obra foi o seu surgimento em várias listas de grandes obras de não-ficção. Quase no final encontrei um texto de TS Elliot defendendo todo o pensamento e filosofia de Pascal, surpreendido, fui depois descobrir que Elliot era ele próprio um acérrimo defensor da religião cristã, o que responde às razões porque o livro surge amiúde em algumas listas. Deixo, ainda assim, alguns excertos da primeira parte que me tocaram de algum modo, com a referência ao número da edição de Brunschvicg:


"Quando penso na pequena duração da minha vida. Absorvida na eternidade anterior, no pequeno espaço que ocupa, fundido na imensidade dos espaços que ignora, aterro-me e me assombro de ver-me aqui e não alhures, pois não há razão alguma para que esteja aqui e não alhures, agora e não em outro qualquer momento. Quem me colocou nessas condições? Por onde e obra e necessidade de quem me foram designados esse lugar e esse momento? A lembrança de hospede de um dia que passa." (B.67)

"Por que são limitados meus conhecimentos, minha estatura, a duração de minha vida a cem anos e não a mil? Que motivos levaram a natureza a fazer-me assim, a escolher esse número em lugar de outro qualquer, desde que na infinidade dos números não há razões para tal preferência, nem nada que seja preferível a nada?" (B.49)

"A vida humana é apenas uma ilusão perpétua; o que fazemos é enganar-nos e iludir-nos mutuamente. Ninguém fala de nós na nossa presença como na nossa ausência. A união que existe entre os homens é fundada sobre este mútuo embuste; e poucas amizades subsistiriam se cada um soubesse o que o seu amigo diz dele quando não está presente, ainda que ele fale então sinceramente e sem paixão. O homem é apenas disfarce, engano e hipocrisia em si mesmo e para com os outros." (B.100)

“Imagine-se um certo número de homens presos e todos condenados à morte, sendo todos os dias uns degolados à vista de outros, os que ficam vêem a sua própria condição na dos seus semelhantes, e, olhando-se uns aos outros com dor e sem esperança, esperam a sua vez. É a imagem da condição dos homens.” (B.199)

“Tédio. — Nada é mais insuportável para o homem do que estar em pleno repouso, sem paixões, sem afazeres, sem divertimento, sem aplicação. Ele sente então todo o seu nada, o seu abandono, a sua insuficiência, a sua dependência, a sua impotência, o seu vazio. Imediatamente nascerão do fundo da sua alma o tédio, o negrume, a tristeza, a mágoa, o despeito, o desespero.” (B.131)

“O único bem dos homens consiste, pois, em divertir o pensamento de sua condição, ou por uma ocupação que dele os desvie, ou por alguma paixão agradável e nova que os ocupe, ou pelo jogo, a caça, algum espetáculo atraente e finalmente por aquilo a que se chama divertimento.
Daí vem que o jogo e o entretenimento com mulheres, a guerra, os grandes empregos sejam tão procurados. Não é que neles haja realmente felicidade, nem que imaginemos que a verdadeira beatitude consista em se ter o dinheiro que se pode ganhar no jogo, ou na lebre que se persegue; não se quereria nada disso se fosse dado de mão beijada. [...] Razão pela qual se gosta mais da caçada do que da presa.
Daí resulta que os homens gostem tanto do barulho e do reboliço; daí resulta que a
prisão seja um suplício tão horrível; daí resulta que o prazer da solidão seja uma coisa
incompreensível E, finalmente, que o maior motivo de felicidade da condição dos reis
consista em procurar diverti-los sem cessar e proporcionar-lhes todas as variedades de
prazeres. ” (B.139)

"O homem não passa de um caniço, o mais fraco da natureza, mas é um caniço pensante. Não é preciso que o universo inteiro se arme para esmagá-lo: um vapor, uma gota de água bastam para matá-lo. Mas, mesmo que o universo o esmagasse, o homem seria ainda mais nobre do que quem o mata, porque sabe que morre e a vantagem que o universo tem sobre ele; o universo desconhece tudo isso. Toda a nossa dignidade consiste, pois, no pensamento. Daí que é preciso nos elevarmos, e não do espaço e da duração, que não podemos preencher. Trabalhemos, pois, para bem pensar; eis o princípio da moral. (B.347)

"Não é no espaço que devo buscar minha dignidade, mas na ordenação de meu pensamento. Não terei mais, possuindo terras; pelo espaço, o universo me abarca e traga como um ponto; pelo pensamento, eu o abarco". (B.348)


Publicado no VI com links e formatação:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very famous book. It largely consists out of small passages, some aphoristic, not unlike Wittgenstein or Lichtenberg. And you can find great wisdom in it if you are prepared. But at the same time one must say that Pascal did live in an intellectual world that is very hard for me (and probably most modern readers) to comprehend.

You must love only God and hate yourself. That is the philosophy in a nutshell. His favorite word is
concupiscence, a technical term unknown to me, that describes the desire of man to sin.

Maybe a different way to say what is different in his thinking and very hard to grasp is his conviction that the question of the immortality of the soul determines the morality of society. This is something that I never understood but seems to be a truism for some Christians to this very day (i.e. Jordan Peterson.)

Nothing, says Pascal is more indignant to our reason than the notion of original sin. But, he says, without it, we would be incomprehensible to ourselves without it. Which means, we must totally surrender our reason.

But he is very rational all the same. When he criticizes Descartes, for example, one gets the impression, that he knows exactly what he is talking about. Just one example that shows how intellectual superior he was to modern Christian fundamentalists is his claim that, of course, there are contradictions in the Bible. Sometimes it is heretical to understand "all" as everyone, and sometimes it is heretical to understand it as not meaning everyone. (Bibite ex hoc omnes. - In quo omnes peccaverunt.) One has to rely on the Church Fathers.

The question is why was he so obsessed with sin? And grace? Why did he feel he had to write an apology of Christianity? I do not know. The arguments he gives are for the most part ridiculous, especially the arguments against the Muslim religion.

Pascal was a Jansenist (although he says at one point it is a lie). But what Jansenism really is, does not become very clear. Most of the things Jansenism is supposed to teach is propaganda designed by the Jesuits. (When I read Voltaire as a young man I learned to despise both, but Jansenism a bit more.) It is fair to say probably though, that Jansenism is a kind of Calvinistic Catholocism. Meaning, he took the worst of both worlds as his doctrine. Just amazing.

And the most amazing thing to me is that he says that miracles are the most important thing about Christianity. Without Miracles, one does not have to believe in Christ. - This is what my teacher of Religion taught me when I was 11. I found this appalling then and I still do. It seemed and seems to me that either the teachings in itself make sense or not. But this is obviously wrong. And heretical.
When Moses (with God’s help) transformed the sticks to snakes it was a miracle. And the fact that the Egyptian priest did the same was to me prove that the belief in miracles is nonsense. We are supposed to believe that our God is the true God because his snakes were larger! And Pascal actually says so. (Our) God performs the bigger Miracles.




"Wenn man nicht weiß, wie es um etwas in Wahrheit bestellt ist dann ist es gut, wenn es einen allgemein geglaubten Irrtum gibt, der das Denken der Menschen festlegt, etwa zum Beispiel, der Mond, dem man der Wechsel der Jahreszeiten und den Fortschritt der Krankeiten usw. zuschreibt." (18)

"Es gibt Gelegenheiten, wo man Paris Paris nennen und andere wo man es Hauptstadt des Reiches nennen muß" (49)

"Die Wahrheit ist dem von Nutzen, dem man sie sagt, aber schädlich für die, die sie sagen, weil sie sich verhasst machen" (100)

Andere Moral je nachdem Seele sterblich oder unsterblich 218

"Atheismus ist das Kennzeichen eines starken Geistes, aber nur bis zu einem gewissen Grade"(225)

Wette 233

"Das Herz hat Gründe, die die Vernunft nicht kennt" (277)

"Nichts kann lächerlicher sein, als daß ein Mensch das Recht hat mich zu töten, weil er jenseits des Wassers wohnt..." (294)

"Also liebt man niemals die Person, sondern immer nur Eigenschaften" 323

"Der Widerspruch ist weder Zeichen des Falschen, noch die Widerspruchsfreiheit Zeichen des Wahren." 384

Was ist wahrhaft gut, die Keuschheit? 385

"Denn fraglos, nichts gibt es, was unsere Vernunft mehr empört, als die Aussage, daß die Sünde des ersten Menschen alle die schuldig gemacht haben soll, die das sie so entfernt von diesem Ursprung sind unfähig zu sein scheinen, daran teilzuhaben." .." sind wir uns selbst ohne dies Mysterium unbegreifbar" darum " schlichte Unterwerfung der Vernunft"

Nur Gott muss man lieben, sich selbst hassen.

"Alle Menschen hassen sich untereinander" (451)

"Es ist häretisch, wenn man immer unter omnes 'alle' versteht, und häretisch, wenn man es nicht mitunter als 'alle' erklärt." 775

"Ohne Wunder wäre es keine Sünde gewesen, wenn man nicht an Jesus Christus geglaubt hätte." 811

"Drei Kennzeichen der Religion: Beständigkeit, sittliches Leben, Wunder." 844


Gott wird falsche Wunder nicht zulassen oder größere vollbringen 846

Luther, völlig außerhalb der Wahrheit 926

"Ihr sagt, ich sei Jansenist und Port-Royal verteidige die fünf Lehrsätze und deshalb verteidige ich sie. Drei Lügen." 929

[Andrew]

I'm the wrong person for this, the wrong person entirely. It's hard to fault Pascal's prose, and while a lot of these little aphorisms are rather wonderful, melancholy mutterings. But he just keeps getting bogged down in the “proofs of Jesus,” which are really just Pascal grabbing at straws, what's wrong with the Jews, and other hallmarks of the big game of pinball that was 17th Century theology. And in fact, it comes off as rather desperate towards the end, which, perhaps can be expected from the father of fake-it-til-you-make-it theology. Some beautiful bits though, especially earlier on.

[Marc Lamot · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ultra-apologetic pro-Christianity, with criticism on islam and Judaism (but at the same time a lot of appreciation for Judaism). Faith has to come by heart, not by reason; God hides and reveals himself at the same time; criticism on scepticism. Also strong criticism on scientific rationalism (Descartes), but at the same time Pascal also appreciates the use of reason. Pascal is a man of contrast and paradoxes.

[Ashley Hurst]

This was...wow
I loved this book so much more than I thought I would. Pascal is absolutly brilliant.
Thet being said, I am still confused on his obsession of Cleopatra's nose, not to mention Moses and China :)

[Alp Turgut · Rating 3 out of 5]

İlk altı bölümüyle Montaigne’in "Denemeler"i gibi başucu kitabı niteliği taşıyan Pascal’ın "Düşünceleri"nin geriye kalan bölümleri için ne yazık ki aynı şeyi söylemek çok zor. Keşke kitap ikiye bölünüp o şekilde okuyucuya sunulsaymış çünkü Hristiyan Dininin Savunması olan 350 sayfalık kısım Pascal’ın kendini nasıl Tanrı’ya adadığının göstergesi olmakla beraber okuyucuya da yararlı hiçbir şey sunmuyor. Sadece Pascal’ı daha iyi tanımamıza yardımcı olan bu kısım yüzünden kitabın ilk 150 sayfasını öneriyorum. Genç yaşında kansere yenilen ünlü Fransız matematikçinin insanların ne kadar sefil varlıklar olduğunu altını çizdiği eserde her ne kadar Montaigne’i eleştirse de onun izinden giderek hayata dair önemli vurgular yapmaktan kendini alamamış. Neredeyse her satırın altını çizebileceğiniz ilk altı bölümüyle Pascal’ın filozof kişiliğine hayran kalıyorsunuz; fakat yavaş yavaş din savunmasına dönen kitap bir yerden sonra kendini tekrar ederek yazara karşı ilginizin kaybolmasına neden oluyor.

24.07.2018
İstanbul, Türkiye

Alp Turgut

http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...

[Fadi · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The profoundest and least exhausted books will probably always have something of the aphoristic and unexpected character of Pascal's Pensées.”

―Friedrich Nietzsche

[David Huff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Imagine keeping a journal of your private thoughts, opinions, and deep philosophical and theological musings --- collected snippets and notes never intended for publication in any way --- and then having them appear in book form for three and a half centuries after your death. That, basically, is how the Pensees ("thoughts expressed in literary form") of Blaise Pascal came to exist.

This was a fascinating read, filled with many short, sometimes cryptic aphorisms, a good number of which -- but not all -- concern theological topics. Pascal was a devout Christian, a Catholic much influenced by Augustine as well as the Jansenists (think deeply committed Catholic Calvinists) with whom he met for worship. His temperment also clearly seems to lean toward the melancholy side, but doesn't diminish his writing.

Occasionally, a passage in Pensees can seem a little obscure or confusing, and there are sections where he dwells on one particular subject or another at length. There are also moments of unexpected humor, and also prosaic sections that are suddenly deeply profound. I happened to read an article about the structure and background of Pensees before I tackled it, which was very helpful! This is the sort of volume that is as enjoyable to review later for all the quotes you inevitably underlined, as it is to read initially.

A couple of typical passages:

"Some seek their good in authority, some in intellectual inquiry and knowledge, some in pleasure."

"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping"

A solid classic worthy of being acquainted with!

[Warren Fournier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Blaise Pascal must not have been very fun at parties.  But like Schopenhauer, this 17th Century philosopher and mathematician has provided a ray of hope and light for many readers despite his bleak and depressing pessimism.

Poor Pascal was sickly much of his life, and during protracted periods of convalescence, he had plenty of time to think about how miserable life could be.  So we get pages and pages of this kind of cheerful stuff:

"The last act is tragic, however happy all the rest of the play is; at the last a little earth is thrown upon our head, and that is the end for ever."

Geez, that reminds me of the time I scared the hell out of my high school English teacher when he read my poetry submission that I wrote while binging on Joy Division after my girlfriend broke up with me, and I was feeling particularly goth. 

But Pascal was a genius, so he wasn't going to just sit in his bed and whine.  His mind tried to find meaning in it all.  He came to the conclusion that the human condition is quite a dichotomy between incredible greatness and astounding lowliness.  Hegel obviously wasn't the first to use a dialectic to reach conclusions about the mysteries of our existence.

And from this conclusion, Pascal became incredulous at how many people, even in his day, stumbled through life willfully ignorant to matters of the soul and the infinite.  After all, he can't think of anything of greater importance to ourselves than our own ultimate end, and so he assumes you must be absolutely brainless to have no interest in knowing more about it.  He says he has little patience for people who are content to say, "Oh, I don't believe in all that God stuff, or eternal life, or a soul, because there's no proof anyway," then spend their lives immersed with work and diversions so as not to think anymore about it.  What do they mean by there's no proof?  Did they even bother to look for any?  Or did they just read a few pages of scripture and found it too preachy, or did they have a bored football coach teaching them religious studies in school, or some neurotic Bible-thumping parent who turned them off to the whole idea of active spirituality?

"We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is."

Remember, Pascal was, after all, a mathematician.  So he tried to appeal to the rational side of the unbeliever, even though ultimately God's existence cannot be proven by reason.  "If you were the bettin' kind," he would say in his own 17th Century vernacular, "and if you had about a 50/50 chance of winning infinite money or losing nothing by believing in God, but a 100% probability of getting zilch by not believing in God, wouldn't you take the odds of believing in at least the possibility of God?" 

This is known as Pascal's Wager, and if it sounds familiar, well, it came from this book.  

Of course, when Pascal was talking about "God," he meant the Christian God.  Catholic, in fact.  The same odds didn't apply to "false" religions.  Now, I personally have all kinds of issues with this whole idea which I won't get into here.  But his philosophy is hardly universal.  At least I don't think he was necessarily trying to convert anyone, if I take his words at face value.  Rather, he wanted to stimulate interest within the agnostic or the sceptic to spend more time trying to enlighten themselves on the subject and to maybe try living a more moral life rather than going hunting for wabbits or whatever else people did when there were no smart phones, flat screen TVs, or video games, "so strength be given to lowliness."

I have some other quibbles with the book overall.  Part of it may be attributable to the fact that it is unfinished.  His thoughts are often very disjointed, he repeats himself often, some sentences are not even complete statements, and he tries to organize his wisdom into some sort of number system which is ultimately arbitrary and useless.  It does make it easy to refer back to specific lines, however.  

But not all the lines are worth remembering.  He and his sister, Jacqueline, had to split their inheritance, but she wanted to join a convent in Port-Royal and pressured him to sign over her portion of the money to the nuns.  Not only did he consider the sisters of Port-Royal a "cult," but to give them so much of the family estate left him quite pissed off.  So he couldn't help but give them a little dig in this book.

"The children of Port-Royal, who do not receive this stimulus of envy and glory, fall into carelessness."

That's philosophy at its most analytic and finest, right there.

We also get some other gems like, "Sneezing absorbs all the functions of the soul..." Okay, that's taken a little out of context, but after reading the whole section multiple times, I can't figure out for the life of me what he meant.  

This book is often hailed as one of the greatest examples of literature in the French language, but I can't get fully behind that assessment.  I do appreciate what Pascal was trying to do, and there is a lot of what he says that is very poignant, but his talent was in inventing calculators and prooving Euclidean propositions, not necessarily in theology.

But should you read it?  Absolutely.  See for yourself what you think.  It's not terribly long and is rather easy to read.  And who knows?  He might just make a believer out of you.


SCORE: 3.5, rounded to 4 Pensées out of 5

[Scipio Africanus · Rating 3 out of 5]

A long boring slog with golden nuggets interspersed within. Love hate relationship with this book. Been an updown on the shelf journey of several years

[Miclea Paula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Primul lucru pe care l-am învățat a fost că sunt om prin excelență, 'nici înger, nici jivină'. Pascal așază omul de la bun început la mijlocul celor două extreme - neantul și infinitul: "Mărginiți cum suntem în tot felul, starea aceasta de mijloc între două extreme, se regăsește în toate facultățile noastre."
Să ne cunoaștem așadar puterile: "suntem ceva, dar nu suntem totul; pentru că suntem ceva, principiile primordiale, care purced din neant, scapă cunoașterii noastre; iar pentru că suntem numai ceva, priveliștea nemărginirii ne este ascunsă. Odată bine înțelese toate acestea, cred că fiecare se va împăca cu starea pe care i-a randuit-o natura. Condiția aceasta de mijloc care ne-a fost hărăzită, fiind mereu departată de extreme, ce mai contează că omul pricepe lucrurile o idee mai bine?
Dacă omul s-ar cerceta mai întâi pe sine, ar vedea cât este de neputincios să treacă dincolo de el. Cum s-ar putea ca o parte să cunoască întregul?"
Știm unde și cât suntem, dar ce suntem? - O trestie gânditoare- "Demnitatea nu trebuie să mi-o caut nicidecum prin întindere, ci prin buna rânduială a gândirii mele. Stăpânind pământuri nu voi avea niciun avantaj. În întindere, universul mă cuprinde și mă înghite ca pe o nimica toată; prin gândire, eu il cuprind.
Așadar, toată demnitatea noastră își are temeiul în gândire. Să ne străduim să gândim curat."
Deci, în calitate de ceva, am libertatea să mă avânt încotro doresc, să fug cât doresc spre extremele de neatins "E bine să fii sleit și istovit de căutarea zadarnică a adevăratei fericiri, pentru ca să implori ajutorul Mântuitorului."

[أسيل · Rating 3 out of 5]

قد عرفت باسكال العالم والمخترع للآله الحاسبة وقوانين باسكال بايام المدرسة
والآن نقرأ بباسكال الانسان (بنفسه وعقله وقلبه)
النزعة الصوفية وحب الله تغلب على باسكال وواضح تأثير مرضه وتربيته الدينية عليه

فخواطره دارت بعقيدته وبالكون وبتأملاته ورده على الملحدين وتمسكه بعقيدته المسيحية وميوله لليهوديه
وهو من الفلاسفة الذين طالبوا باعادة اليهود لفلسطين
ومن المناصرين لقضية عودة اليهود إلى فلسطين على أسس دينية فيقول " إن بقاء اليهود 4000 سنة سبب كاف للاقتناع بأن الله موجود"

اقتبس من خواطره

ثمة فئتين من الناس يمكن ان يسموا عاقلين وهم اما الذين يخدمون الله من كل قلوبهم لانهم يعرفونه واما الذين يبحثون عنه من كل قلوبهم لانهم لا يعرفونه
اما الذين يعيشون دون ان يعرفوه ويبحثو عنه فهم يرون انهم غير جديرين ان يهتموا بانفسهم فهل يكونوا جديرين باهتمام الغير؟

يجب ان لا تصدق شيئاً ما لم تحتكم الى ذاتك وكأنك ما سمعت شيئاً قط
ان انقيااد ذاتك لذاتك وصوت عقلك المستمر لا عقل غيرك هو ما يجب ان يحملك على التصديق
وتصديقك له من الاهمية بمكان اذ لو لم تكن ثمة قاعدة للتصديق لامكن ان يكون مئة من الاشياء المناقضة لبعضها حقيقة في وقت معاً

لا يمل الانسان المأكل والنوم في كل يوم لان الجوع يعاوده وكذلك النعاس ولولا ذلك لملها ولذلك يمل الامور الروحية من لم يجع اليها

العلائق التي تربط بعض الناس باحترام البعض الآخر هي في الغالب علائق ضرورية لان الناس يجب ان يكونوا على مراتب مختلفة, جميعهم يريد السيطرة ولا يستطيعها جميعهم وانما يستطعيها بعضهم

الاحترام معناه ازعج نفسك!

هذه الحرب الباطنية القائمة بين العقل والاهواء قد قسمت شداة السلام الى فئتين فمنهم من ارادوا الكفر بالاهواء ليصبحوا الهة وغيرهم ارادوا الكفر بالعقل ليصبحوا بهائم ولكن لا هؤلاء ولا اولئك استطاعوا الى ذلك سبيلا فالعقل باق ابدا يتهم الاهواء بالحقارة والجور ويعكر صفو المستسلمين لها والاهواء حية ابداً# في الدين يريدون الانصراف عنها

الولد هو الفضيلة والملك هو خبث الانسان وقد سمي ملكاً لان جميع الاعضاء تطيعه وشيخاً لانه في قلب الانسان منذ الحداثة الى الشيخوخة وجاهلاً لانه يقود الانسان في طريق الهلاك التي لا يتبصر في عواقبها

ليست السعادة خارجاً عنا ولا فينا انها في الله وهي خارجاً منا وفينا

انما الطريق هو ان تريد ما يريد الله

[andreea. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Only read the first half because the second one is unreadable unless you're a religious fanatic. There's something so utterly charming in Pascal's saying, while trying to prove God's existence:
222 / Atheists. "Why cannot a virgin bear a child? Does a hen not lay eggs without a cock?"

That's it. That's exactly it. Women are just like hens.

[Mike (the Paladin) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't finished this and I still feel almost ready to give it a 5, Be sure what you believe from the Bible. But read this for insight even should you disagree with it.

Update: I'd call this a book to "read in" rather than a book to read only cover to cover, just me,