What do you think?
Rate this book
Gravity and Grace
Simone Weil, the French philosopher, political activist, and religious mystic, was little known when she died young in 1943. Four years later the philosopher-farmer Gustave Thibon compiled La pesanteur et la grâce from the notebooks she left in his keeping. In 1952 this English translation accelerated the fame and influence of Simone Weil.
The striking aphorisms in Gravity and Grace reflect the religious philosophy of Weil’s last years. Written at the onset of World War II, when her health was deteriorating and her left-wing social activism was giving way to spiritual introspection, this masterwork makes clear why critics have called Simone Weil “a great soul who might have become a saint” and “the Outsider as saint, in an age of alienation.”
The striking aphorisms in Gravity and Grace reflect the religious philosophy of Weil’s last years. Written at the onset of World War II, when her health was deteriorating and her left-wing social activism was giving way to spiritual introspection, this masterwork makes clear why critics have called Simone Weil “a great soul who might have become a saint” and “the Outsider as saint, in an age of alienation.”
250 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1947
1081 people are currently reading
24479 people want to read
About the author
Simone Weil
338 books1,857 followersSimone Weil was a French philosopher, Christian mystic, and social activist. Weil was born in Paris to Alsatian agnostic Jewish parents who fled the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. Her brilliance, ascetic lifestyle, introversion, and eccentricity limited her ability to mix with others, but not to teach and participate in political movements of her time. She wrote extensively with both insight and breadth about political movements of which she was a part and later about spiritual mysticism. Weil biographer Gabriella Fiori writes that Weil was "a moral genius in the orbit of ethics, a genius of immense revolutionary range".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 515 reviews
March 27, 2025
Have you ever had the freeze-out existential heeby-jeebies? That inner gnawing and glacial apprehension of the glaring Void within you?
It’s irksome.
And it can be relentless.
Simone Weil had it, big time.
She FORCED herself into its demesne - “coure le Froid, avec ses silences de sceau!” - by undertaking the brutal and menial work (considering she was a brilliant mathematician) of wartime factory labour in France.
Why’d she do it?
Out of a compassionate sense of SOLIDARITY with the soulless wartime work force within it.
In short, Evangelization!
Graham Greene said she Tried Too Hard. I say, if you’re called to be a saint, you DO it.
I read this wonderful book back in 1972: I had picked up two music options in the last year of my degree work, and practical classical music was a prerequisite.
In previous academic years I had always bought myself tickets for our collegiate concert series. Big names like Julian Bream and big works like Britten’s harrowing Curlew River were often on the bill.
I remember one professor and his wife - I was somehow certain that this guy was an emigrated Russian Lit prof, so intense was his soulful appreciation of all music. As the music swelled from the stage, his woebegone look belied the fact that he had been swept away.
Psychiatric retread that I was, I must say I envied him!
Well, that final year, my music teacher enjoined me to be her guest for that series. She musta seen promise in my abilities, though music nowadays lags far behind in priority with my reading addiction.
But I’ll never forget the time I went alone (she had a previous engagement)...
There I was, without light conversation, fidgeting in my seat before the concert (and at intermission) while wrapped up in Weil’s grave and monumental book, Gravity and Grace.
That night, Weil showed me the Absolute Otherness of God.
She knew that only in this Otherness can eventual Peace bloom.
What a lady! “Aux glaciers attentatoire” - and SO attentive was she that her acutely sensitive soul could detect the subterranean distant rumble of an impending avalanche of sheer evil.
The Void is only a dark, frozen lake - which MUST be Melted by our Love of God!
“Do not go gentle into that good night”? Weil did not.
She went in agonized solidarity with the less fortunate - her final act.
A hunger strike.
NOW that it’s in a New Edition - having been out of print for so long - new readers have No Excuse for not reading this masterpiece.
Grab your chance, BEFORE it’s off the market again!
It’s irksome.
And it can be relentless.
Simone Weil had it, big time.
She FORCED herself into its demesne - “coure le Froid, avec ses silences de sceau!” - by undertaking the brutal and menial work (considering she was a brilliant mathematician) of wartime factory labour in France.
Why’d she do it?
Out of a compassionate sense of SOLIDARITY with the soulless wartime work force within it.
In short, Evangelization!
Graham Greene said she Tried Too Hard. I say, if you’re called to be a saint, you DO it.
I read this wonderful book back in 1972: I had picked up two music options in the last year of my degree work, and practical classical music was a prerequisite.
In previous academic years I had always bought myself tickets for our collegiate concert series. Big names like Julian Bream and big works like Britten’s harrowing Curlew River were often on the bill.
I remember one professor and his wife - I was somehow certain that this guy was an emigrated Russian Lit prof, so intense was his soulful appreciation of all music. As the music swelled from the stage, his woebegone look belied the fact that he had been swept away.
Psychiatric retread that I was, I must say I envied him!
Well, that final year, my music teacher enjoined me to be her guest for that series. She musta seen promise in my abilities, though music nowadays lags far behind in priority with my reading addiction.
But I’ll never forget the time I went alone (she had a previous engagement)...
There I was, without light conversation, fidgeting in my seat before the concert (and at intermission) while wrapped up in Weil’s grave and monumental book, Gravity and Grace.
That night, Weil showed me the Absolute Otherness of God.
She knew that only in this Otherness can eventual Peace bloom.
What a lady! “Aux glaciers attentatoire” - and SO attentive was she that her acutely sensitive soul could detect the subterranean distant rumble of an impending avalanche of sheer evil.
The Void is only a dark, frozen lake - which MUST be Melted by our Love of God!
“Do not go gentle into that good night”? Weil did not.
She went in agonized solidarity with the less fortunate - her final act.
A hunger strike.
NOW that it’s in a New Edition - having been out of print for so long - new readers have No Excuse for not reading this masterpiece.
Grab your chance, BEFORE it’s off the market again!
February 9, 2011
10 metaphors Weil uses that I want to remember:
1. the chlorophyll metaphor (p. 47): God, as the source of humankind’s moral energy, is likened by Weil to sunlight; she then expresses a longing for a “chlorophyll” that would enable her to feed directly on this sunlight.
2. the screen metaphor (p. 78): Harkening back to the myth of Semele, Weil compares suffering to a “screen” standing between humankind and God. If this screen did not exist, Weil argues, direct exposure to God’s radiance would cause humankind to instantly evaporate “like water in the sun.” I don’t see how anyone could buy this one.
3. the shadow metaphor (p. 87): Philosophers, especially those of the Buddhist ilk, frequently liken the self to a substanceless “shadow”; no less frequently, they enjoy comparing God to sunlight. Weil seamlessly melds those two metaphors, creating this breathtaking sentence: “The self is only the shadow which sin and error cast by stopping the light of God.”
4. the balance metaphor (p. 97): Weil argues that people’s actions should be driven by attention toward the impulsion of divine necessity, rather than by will/intention toward an ego-chosen object or goal. Then comes this cryptic metaphor: “Action is the pointer of the balance. We must not touch the pointer, but the weight.”
5. the walking-stick metaphor (p. 111): Like a blind man’s walking stick, “the only organ of contact with existence is love. That is why beauty and reality are identical. That is why joy and the sense of reality are identical.”
Like the Buddhists, Weil rejects all attachments; nevertheless, she is able to conceive of a definition of love that is independent of attachment. For Weil, pure love is simply recognition of the existence of, and the inherent value of, a person other than oneself. Pure love is when you are grateful to someone simply for existing and have no desire to possess them or change them: “To love purely is to consent to distance, it is to adore the distance between ourselves and that which we love” (p. 115).
6. the mountain metaphor (p. 152): Someone standing on a mountain’s slope can only see the part of the mountain they are standing on, but someone standing on the mountain’s peak can see the entire mountain. Weil uses this as a metaphor for the path to sainthood and the acquisition of virtues along the way.
7. the pincers metaphor (p. 155): For Weil, logical contradiction is a pincers for “catching” the divine.
8. the window-washing metaphor (p. 186): Wiping the dust off of a windowpane makes the windowpane transparent; likewise, science “wipes the dust off of” the natural world. The danger, Weil cautions us, lies in forgetting that the purpose of window-washing is not to make the window more visible, but to make the landscape beyond the window more visible. I.e., the ultimate purpose of science ought not to be illumination of the natural world, but of the divinity that lies beyond it.
9. the wall-between-two-prison-cells metaphor (p. 200): Paraphrasing this one would only do it injustice. “Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication. It is the same with us and God. Every separation is a link.”
10. the tangent metaphor (p. 223): Weil conceives of humanity as a line (one-dimensional), God as a circle (two-dimensional, a “higher order” of being), and Christ as the point of tangency where the two meet. “It is impossible for an order which is higher [than another] to be represented in it except by something infinitely small. A grain of mustard seed, etc.”
1. the chlorophyll metaphor (p. 47): God, as the source of humankind’s moral energy, is likened by Weil to sunlight; she then expresses a longing for a “chlorophyll” that would enable her to feed directly on this sunlight.
2. the screen metaphor (p. 78): Harkening back to the myth of Semele, Weil compares suffering to a “screen” standing between humankind and God. If this screen did not exist, Weil argues, direct exposure to God’s radiance would cause humankind to instantly evaporate “like water in the sun.” I don’t see how anyone could buy this one.
3. the shadow metaphor (p. 87): Philosophers, especially those of the Buddhist ilk, frequently liken the self to a substanceless “shadow”; no less frequently, they enjoy comparing God to sunlight. Weil seamlessly melds those two metaphors, creating this breathtaking sentence: “The self is only the shadow which sin and error cast by stopping the light of God.”
4. the balance metaphor (p. 97): Weil argues that people’s actions should be driven by attention toward the impulsion of divine necessity, rather than by will/intention toward an ego-chosen object or goal. Then comes this cryptic metaphor: “Action is the pointer of the balance. We must not touch the pointer, but the weight.”
5. the walking-stick metaphor (p. 111): Like a blind man’s walking stick, “the only organ of contact with existence is love. That is why beauty and reality are identical. That is why joy and the sense of reality are identical.”
Like the Buddhists, Weil rejects all attachments; nevertheless, she is able to conceive of a definition of love that is independent of attachment. For Weil, pure love is simply recognition of the existence of, and the inherent value of, a person other than oneself. Pure love is when you are grateful to someone simply for existing and have no desire to possess them or change them: “To love purely is to consent to distance, it is to adore the distance between ourselves and that which we love” (p. 115).
6. the mountain metaphor (p. 152): Someone standing on a mountain’s slope can only see the part of the mountain they are standing on, but someone standing on the mountain’s peak can see the entire mountain. Weil uses this as a metaphor for the path to sainthood and the acquisition of virtues along the way.
7. the pincers metaphor (p. 155): For Weil, logical contradiction is a pincers for “catching” the divine.
8. the window-washing metaphor (p. 186): Wiping the dust off of a windowpane makes the windowpane transparent; likewise, science “wipes the dust off of” the natural world. The danger, Weil cautions us, lies in forgetting that the purpose of window-washing is not to make the window more visible, but to make the landscape beyond the window more visible. I.e., the ultimate purpose of science ought not to be illumination of the natural world, but of the divinity that lies beyond it.
9. the wall-between-two-prison-cells metaphor (p. 200): Paraphrasing this one would only do it injustice. “Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication. It is the same with us and God. Every separation is a link.”
10. the tangent metaphor (p. 223): Weil conceives of humanity as a line (one-dimensional), God as a circle (two-dimensional, a “higher order” of being), and Christ as the point of tangency where the two meet. “It is impossible for an order which is higher [than another] to be represented in it except by something infinitely small. A grain of mustard seed, etc.”
April 26, 2014
There is no way to review this book without coming-off as if you were too young to have read it.
August 17, 2021
Of all the fundamental forces, perhaps people are most familiar with gravity. And not just because we study it a lot in school, but also because it is the most intuitive one. You cannot be a creature of this universe and not know the heaviness of gravity, and with millions of years of evolution working towards familiarising us with its effects, it is now embedded in our very consciousness. Weil's writing evokes a similar immediate, intuitive understanding. You are instantly drawn to it, there is a compassion and honesty within it that is a truly long-scale, intense force to be reckoned with. It is so precise in its simple beauty, that it's almost mathematical.
In a letter to the editor of this book Weil wrote that she is not a person with whom it is advisable to link one's fate. And that line in the preface made my heart ache for her even before I read the book. She was aware of her own gravity and the inescapable effect it could potentially have. And in ways that remained true to her principles, she tried to empty herself, to create a void into which grace could enter.
We all try in our own ways to fight that double movement of descent, we try to arrest in time that point of maximum altitude at which our motion is purely static. An instance of true rest, of zero velocity that we try to extend over all of eternity. But time, as always, fails us and directs us through its unidirectional arrow. We come down, crash down, careen. Always.
Equilibrium alone reduces force to nothing.
Where is this equilibrium to be found? A state, stable or unstable, that could liberate us from gravity? Perhaps in fighting the contradictions of the mind that Weil calls 'criterion of the real.' Or perhaps by making the 'I' universal, as gravity is.
Simone Weil levitates before me now, gracefully and against gravity.
Stars and blossoming fruit-trees: utter permanence and extreme fragility give an equal sense of eternity.
In a letter to the editor of this book Weil wrote that she is not a person with whom it is advisable to link one's fate. And that line in the preface made my heart ache for her even before I read the book. She was aware of her own gravity and the inescapable effect it could potentially have. And in ways that remained true to her principles, she tried to empty herself, to create a void into which grace could enter.
We all try in our own ways to fight that double movement of descent, we try to arrest in time that point of maximum altitude at which our motion is purely static. An instance of true rest, of zero velocity that we try to extend over all of eternity. But time, as always, fails us and directs us through its unidirectional arrow. We come down, crash down, careen. Always.
Equilibrium alone reduces force to nothing.
Where is this equilibrium to be found? A state, stable or unstable, that could liberate us from gravity? Perhaps in fighting the contradictions of the mind that Weil calls 'criterion of the real.' Or perhaps by making the 'I' universal, as gravity is.
Simone Weil levitates before me now, gracefully and against gravity.
Stars and blossoming fruit-trees: utter permanence and extreme fragility give an equal sense of eternity.
June 23, 2016
'The great sorrow of human life is knowing that to look and to eat are two different operations.'
'Love is not consolation. It is light.'
'Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer. '
Creation as god's distance, etc -
In my judgment Weil was one of the most fascinating people to ever live. We're all just playing games by comparison.
'Love is not consolation. It is light.'
'Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer. '
Creation as god's distance, etc -
In my judgment Weil was one of the most fascinating people to ever live. We're all just playing games by comparison.
September 6, 2025
Camus la consideraba la mente más lúcida de su tiempo. Simone de Beauvoir dijo que tenía un corazón capaz de latir para todo el mundo. Célebre fue aquel debate en el que Beauvoir sostenía que el problema no era hacer felices a los hombres sino darle un sentido a sus vidas, Weil replicó: “cómo se nota que usted nunca ha padecido hambre”.
Después de leer este libro, yo también estoy de acuerdo con lo dicho por Camus, pero no sé si estoy de acuerdo con todas sus afirmaciones, aunque proceden de una dialéctica implacable. Sus deducciones lógicas son irreductibles. Pero su pensamiento sí está marcado por su compromiso social, el sindicalismo, la causa obrera, pero desde la crítica profunda hacia el marxismo y el materialismo dialéctico. No obstante, también parten de la experiencia, como para borrar cualquier veta de empirismo, ya que Weil se convirtió en verdadera practicante de lo que predicaba: se hizo obrera de fábricas para vivir en carne propia esa realidad. También se enroló en la facción anarcosindicalista de la Guerra civil española. Y de esa encarnación y de la lucidez extrema de su mente sale toda su filosofía. De eso y del descubrimiento de la necesidad de lo sobrenatural en la existencia humana. Aunque de su experiencia obrera concluyó que el trabajo en esas condiciones obnubilaba e impedía pensar. “Lo enormemente doloroso del trabajo manual es que se está obligado a esforzarse durante largas horas simplemente para existir”. Sin embargo, su solución era la de confesarse a sí mismo ese hastío que produce el trabajo manual para elevarse.
Me hallo incapaz de hacer una reseña justa de este libro porque es irreseñable y cualquier intento se convertiría en una tesina. Esto por la densidad de su contenido, la cantidad de ideas por párrafo es enorme. Una línea es una noción distinta encadenada a otra, que va revelando una concatenación de ideas, las cuales están divididas en pequeños capítulos que tienen una continuidad dialéctica que marca justamente la relación entre la gravedad (lo que opera de forma similar a las leyes físicas, materiales y naturales, es decir, todo lo que nos atrae a lo bajo, a lo oscuro, lo indigno, el mal, el pecado, la opresión social) y la Gracia (lo que nos eleva y libera espiritualmente, es decir, lo eterno, lo divino, Dios). El hombre sin Dios está abocado a la gravedad, a lo temporal, a la gran bestia socratiana.
Existencialismo de lo natural en su relación con lo sobrenatural, así puedo definir este libro. “Dios ha confiado todos los fenómenos a la mecánica del mundo”. Es una visión determinista cartesiana y spinoziana de los fenómenos naturales y del hombre y su psicología. Según su visión, sólo la gracia puede hacer fracasar la gravedad (como ley natural). Pero ello no incluye la paradoja de la gratuidad incluida por Dios en la naturaleza (que posibilita la libertad y el milagro), pero aún así la gravedad es todopoderosa.
Ahora, retomo el mito del gran animal de Sócrates, sacado de La República de Platón, según el cual, la voluntad del hombre obedece a lo colectivo. Es el actuar según los prejuicios y reflejos de la muchedumbre. Weil lo compara con el marxismo. Plantea si en una sociedad en la que únicamente reina la gravedad es necesario lo sobrenatural:
“El servicio al falso Dios (a la bestia social) purifica el mal mediante la eliminación de su horror. A quien le sirve nada le parece mal, salvo el incumplimiento de ese servicio. Pero el servicio al Dios verdadero deja que subsista, e incluso que se vuelva aún más vivo, el horror al mal. A ese mal, del que se siente horror, se le ama al propio tiempo como la emanación de la voluntad de Dios”.
Ahora, advertencia, aunque su filosofía es una filosofia teológica con base de contraste con el cristianismo (y el catolicismo específicamente), Simone Weil era judía y por ello se puede permitir hablar de este modo sobre el Judaísmo y los judíos sin sonar antisemita (aunque parecería en superficie):
Para Weil, Israel tiene al Dios que merecía, un Dios carnal que nunca habló al alma de nadie. Pero según su pensar, el contacto entre Dios y el hombre sólo puede darse a través del Mediador (Cristo). Fuera de ello solo puede darse una presencia de Dios colectiva, nacional, un Dios tribal. “Israel escogió al Dios nacional al tiempo que rechazaba al Mediador”. Religión colectiva versus religión personal (Dios es persona).
“Pueblo elegido para la ceguera, para ser el verdugo de Cristo”. Para Weil, los judíos, pueblo desarraigado, generaron desarraigo en el mundo entero. Luego, la mentira del progreso ha aumentado el desarraigo. El silogismo continúa así: Europa desarraigó al resto del mundo por la conquista colonial. El capitalismo y el totalitarismo son parte de ese desarraigo. Pero también para Weil el Cristianismo fabricó la noción de progreso basándose en la pedagogía divina que prepara a los hombres para recibir a Cristo. Es decir, la conversión de todas las naciones y el fin del mundo (la Parusía). Nada de esto sucedió y la prolongación de esa noción de progreso rebasó el momento de La Revelación cristiana. “El cristianismo pretendió hallar una armonía en la historia. Ese es el germen de Hegel y Marx. La noción de historia como continuidad dirigida es cristiana”. Para Weil esa una noción fallida, pues no se puede buscar la armonía en lo contrario a la eternidad: el devenir. “La libertad sin amor sobrenatural es vacía, una mera abstracción”.
Ahora, sobre la dialéctica de opresores versus oprimidos, Weil también la considera errónea, pues ésta asegura falsamente que cuando el poder sea dado a los vencidos (u oprimidos) o las víctimas de la fuerza, éste será usado con justicia. “El mal que se halla en la empuñadura de la espada se transmite a la punta (...). Y las víctimas acaban haciendo un daño igual o mayor, y pronto vuelven a caer en lo mismo”. “El socialismo consiste en poner el bien en los vencidos, y el racismo en los vencedores. Pero el ala revolucionaria del socialismo se sirve de quienes, aunque nacidos abajo, son vencedores por naturaleza, de manera que desemboca en la misma ética”.
Para Weil la única solución a esto es la recuperación de lo sobrenatural, de la jerarquía interior que ella consideraba perdida en su tiempo (primera mitad del siglo XX). Auguraba el hundimiento de la civilización (sobreentendiéndose que es la occidental) y que solo hay dos caminos: perecer por completo o adaptarse a la descentralización. La jerarquía social para Weil es nada más que una imagen grosera de la jerarquía interior, por lo cual considera que tampoco puede subsistir en esos tiempos. Quizás tenga razón ochenta años después. A mi entender, lo que Weil plantea es que la ausencia de espiritualidad se ha reflejado en occidente en lo social y lo político. Un traslado desde el inconsciente del individuo hacia lo colectivo. Para Weil lo espiritual es político.
Pero el Dios en el que cree Weil no es el Dios judío ni el cristiano (aunque se acerca por momentos y por otros se aleja) sino uno más filosófico, uno paradójico en su absoluto. El Dios que se ausenta de la creación para dejar libre al hombre por amor, pero a la vez lo hace para cumplir el plan divino de atraer al hombre hacia sí, lo cual sólo es posible al desconocer a Dios (por eso incluso asegura que el ateísmo es un paso más cercano a Dios, “el ateísmo purificador”, que la falsa creencia fariseica en Dios; esto es un tema más largo y complejo pero no voy a entrar en él ahora). Ella misma habría pasado por ese ateísmo purificador hasta que tuvo un momento epifánico con Cristo. Entonces, es en esa ausencia de Dios en la que el hombre clama y el propio Dios desciende encarnado para amar al hombre a través del sufrimiento (Cristo). El anodadamiento de Dios es análogo al anodadamiento del hombre para hallar a Dios. Y lo halla a través de la atención pura (la contemplación que puede darse en la oración y en la belleza), y a través de la aceptación por igual de lo bueno y lo malo que acaezca (una visión estoica) sin inmutarse, la negación del yo y la aceptación del sufrimiento como vía para el contacto con el amor divino.
“El secreto de la condición humana es que no hay equilibrio entre el hombre y las fuerzas de la naturaleza que le rodean, las cuales le superan infinitamente en la inaccción; tan sólo hay equilibrio en la Acción con que el hombre recrea su propia vida en el trabajo”. Todas las demás creaciones del hombre recrean lo mismo.
Esta es apenas una mínima parte de la profundidad y cantidad de ideas que expone Weil en este libro, abarcarlo todo sería escribir otro libro. Realmente Simone Weil es una pensadora formidable, de un ingenio y precocidad enormes (murió a sus 34 años pero ya había dejado una obra vasta). Creo que nadie había pensado lo que ella escribe aquí, sus dilucidaciones y deducciones son tremendamente novedosas y la velocidad de su mente y el nivel de asociaciones es inédito, al menos en lo referente a lo filosófico-teológico católico. Hay ideas que ya he leído en Spinoza, San Juan de la Cruz, Kierkegaard, el Maestro Eckhart (siglo XIV) y en el Hinduismo (que ella misma cita), pero Weil rebasa varios esquemas de pensamiento al ensamblarlos con su idea de lo colectivo (influido por su veta sindicalista y social) y de la ausencia presente de Dios, y con su propia capacidad de llevar la lógica hasta niveles incognoscibles.
Después de leer este libro, yo también estoy de acuerdo con lo dicho por Camus, pero no sé si estoy de acuerdo con todas sus afirmaciones, aunque proceden de una dialéctica implacable. Sus deducciones lógicas son irreductibles. Pero su pensamiento sí está marcado por su compromiso social, el sindicalismo, la causa obrera, pero desde la crítica profunda hacia el marxismo y el materialismo dialéctico. No obstante, también parten de la experiencia, como para borrar cualquier veta de empirismo, ya que Weil se convirtió en verdadera practicante de lo que predicaba: se hizo obrera de fábricas para vivir en carne propia esa realidad. También se enroló en la facción anarcosindicalista de la Guerra civil española. Y de esa encarnación y de la lucidez extrema de su mente sale toda su filosofía. De eso y del descubrimiento de la necesidad de lo sobrenatural en la existencia humana. Aunque de su experiencia obrera concluyó que el trabajo en esas condiciones obnubilaba e impedía pensar. “Lo enormemente doloroso del trabajo manual es que se está obligado a esforzarse durante largas horas simplemente para existir”. Sin embargo, su solución era la de confesarse a sí mismo ese hastío que produce el trabajo manual para elevarse.
Me hallo incapaz de hacer una reseña justa de este libro porque es irreseñable y cualquier intento se convertiría en una tesina. Esto por la densidad de su contenido, la cantidad de ideas por párrafo es enorme. Una línea es una noción distinta encadenada a otra, que va revelando una concatenación de ideas, las cuales están divididas en pequeños capítulos que tienen una continuidad dialéctica que marca justamente la relación entre la gravedad (lo que opera de forma similar a las leyes físicas, materiales y naturales, es decir, todo lo que nos atrae a lo bajo, a lo oscuro, lo indigno, el mal, el pecado, la opresión social) y la Gracia (lo que nos eleva y libera espiritualmente, es decir, lo eterno, lo divino, Dios). El hombre sin Dios está abocado a la gravedad, a lo temporal, a la gran bestia socratiana.
Existencialismo de lo natural en su relación con lo sobrenatural, así puedo definir este libro. “Dios ha confiado todos los fenómenos a la mecánica del mundo”. Es una visión determinista cartesiana y spinoziana de los fenómenos naturales y del hombre y su psicología. Según su visión, sólo la gracia puede hacer fracasar la gravedad (como ley natural). Pero ello no incluye la paradoja de la gratuidad incluida por Dios en la naturaleza (que posibilita la libertad y el milagro), pero aún así la gravedad es todopoderosa.
Ahora, retomo el mito del gran animal de Sócrates, sacado de La República de Platón, según el cual, la voluntad del hombre obedece a lo colectivo. Es el actuar según los prejuicios y reflejos de la muchedumbre. Weil lo compara con el marxismo. Plantea si en una sociedad en la que únicamente reina la gravedad es necesario lo sobrenatural:
“El servicio al falso Dios (a la bestia social) purifica el mal mediante la eliminación de su horror. A quien le sirve nada le parece mal, salvo el incumplimiento de ese servicio. Pero el servicio al Dios verdadero deja que subsista, e incluso que se vuelva aún más vivo, el horror al mal. A ese mal, del que se siente horror, se le ama al propio tiempo como la emanación de la voluntad de Dios”.
Ahora, advertencia, aunque su filosofía es una filosofia teológica con base de contraste con el cristianismo (y el catolicismo específicamente), Simone Weil era judía y por ello se puede permitir hablar de este modo sobre el Judaísmo y los judíos sin sonar antisemita (aunque parecería en superficie):
Para Weil, Israel tiene al Dios que merecía, un Dios carnal que nunca habló al alma de nadie. Pero según su pensar, el contacto entre Dios y el hombre sólo puede darse a través del Mediador (Cristo). Fuera de ello solo puede darse una presencia de Dios colectiva, nacional, un Dios tribal. “Israel escogió al Dios nacional al tiempo que rechazaba al Mediador”. Religión colectiva versus religión personal (Dios es persona).
“Pueblo elegido para la ceguera, para ser el verdugo de Cristo”. Para Weil, los judíos, pueblo desarraigado, generaron desarraigo en el mundo entero. Luego, la mentira del progreso ha aumentado el desarraigo. El silogismo continúa así: Europa desarraigó al resto del mundo por la conquista colonial. El capitalismo y el totalitarismo son parte de ese desarraigo. Pero también para Weil el Cristianismo fabricó la noción de progreso basándose en la pedagogía divina que prepara a los hombres para recibir a Cristo. Es decir, la conversión de todas las naciones y el fin del mundo (la Parusía). Nada de esto sucedió y la prolongación de esa noción de progreso rebasó el momento de La Revelación cristiana. “El cristianismo pretendió hallar una armonía en la historia. Ese es el germen de Hegel y Marx. La noción de historia como continuidad dirigida es cristiana”. Para Weil esa una noción fallida, pues no se puede buscar la armonía en lo contrario a la eternidad: el devenir. “La libertad sin amor sobrenatural es vacía, una mera abstracción”.
Ahora, sobre la dialéctica de opresores versus oprimidos, Weil también la considera errónea, pues ésta asegura falsamente que cuando el poder sea dado a los vencidos (u oprimidos) o las víctimas de la fuerza, éste será usado con justicia. “El mal que se halla en la empuñadura de la espada se transmite a la punta (...). Y las víctimas acaban haciendo un daño igual o mayor, y pronto vuelven a caer en lo mismo”. “El socialismo consiste en poner el bien en los vencidos, y el racismo en los vencedores. Pero el ala revolucionaria del socialismo se sirve de quienes, aunque nacidos abajo, son vencedores por naturaleza, de manera que desemboca en la misma ética”.
Para Weil la única solución a esto es la recuperación de lo sobrenatural, de la jerarquía interior que ella consideraba perdida en su tiempo (primera mitad del siglo XX). Auguraba el hundimiento de la civilización (sobreentendiéndose que es la occidental) y que solo hay dos caminos: perecer por completo o adaptarse a la descentralización. La jerarquía social para Weil es nada más que una imagen grosera de la jerarquía interior, por lo cual considera que tampoco puede subsistir en esos tiempos. Quizás tenga razón ochenta años después. A mi entender, lo que Weil plantea es que la ausencia de espiritualidad se ha reflejado en occidente en lo social y lo político. Un traslado desde el inconsciente del individuo hacia lo colectivo. Para Weil lo espiritual es político.
Pero el Dios en el que cree Weil no es el Dios judío ni el cristiano (aunque se acerca por momentos y por otros se aleja) sino uno más filosófico, uno paradójico en su absoluto. El Dios que se ausenta de la creación para dejar libre al hombre por amor, pero a la vez lo hace para cumplir el plan divino de atraer al hombre hacia sí, lo cual sólo es posible al desconocer a Dios (por eso incluso asegura que el ateísmo es un paso más cercano a Dios, “el ateísmo purificador”, que la falsa creencia fariseica en Dios; esto es un tema más largo y complejo pero no voy a entrar en él ahora). Ella misma habría pasado por ese ateísmo purificador hasta que tuvo un momento epifánico con Cristo. Entonces, es en esa ausencia de Dios en la que el hombre clama y el propio Dios desciende encarnado para amar al hombre a través del sufrimiento (Cristo). El anodadamiento de Dios es análogo al anodadamiento del hombre para hallar a Dios. Y lo halla a través de la atención pura (la contemplación que puede darse en la oración y en la belleza), y a través de la aceptación por igual de lo bueno y lo malo que acaezca (una visión estoica) sin inmutarse, la negación del yo y la aceptación del sufrimiento como vía para el contacto con el amor divino.
“El secreto de la condición humana es que no hay equilibrio entre el hombre y las fuerzas de la naturaleza que le rodean, las cuales le superan infinitamente en la inaccción; tan sólo hay equilibrio en la Acción con que el hombre recrea su propia vida en el trabajo”. Todas las demás creaciones del hombre recrean lo mismo.
Esta es apenas una mínima parte de la profundidad y cantidad de ideas que expone Weil en este libro, abarcarlo todo sería escribir otro libro. Realmente Simone Weil es una pensadora formidable, de un ingenio y precocidad enormes (murió a sus 34 años pero ya había dejado una obra vasta). Creo que nadie había pensado lo que ella escribe aquí, sus dilucidaciones y deducciones son tremendamente novedosas y la velocidad de su mente y el nivel de asociaciones es inédito, al menos en lo referente a lo filosófico-teológico católico. Hay ideas que ya he leído en Spinoza, San Juan de la Cruz, Kierkegaard, el Maestro Eckhart (siglo XIV) y en el Hinduismo (que ella misma cita), pero Weil rebasa varios esquemas de pensamiento al ensamblarlos con su idea de lo colectivo (influido por su veta sindicalista y social) y de la ausencia presente de Dios, y con su propia capacidad de llevar la lógica hasta niveles incognoscibles.
October 20, 2024
Paslaptingoji mistikė Simone Weil ir jos Sunkis ir Malonė.
Skaitėsi ilgai, sunkiai, bet ne be malonumo. Prie daugelio jos minčiu reikia grįžineėi ir grįžinėti…ir vis tiek lieki iki galo neįsikirtęs. Prie jos norisi grįžti ir grįžti - provokuoti savo stabarėjanti mąstyma…
Sunkiai skaitėsi dar ir del to, kad knyga - chaotiska, nesušukuota. Ji sudaryta iš Simone užašų sau, gal būt manant kada nors juos parengti spaudai. O gal ir ne.
Tekstas, mano galva, kupinas prieštaravimų. Su ja sutinki ir nesutinki, kartu nepaliauji stebėtis jos labai sąžiningu mąstymu…ir galiausiai įsimyli ją.
Nemažiau stebiesi ir jos asmeniniu gyvenimu, nes ji savo tikėjimą/filosofiją taikė būtebt kasdieniame buvime…ir užbaigė gyvenimą ji (nusimarindama badu) nė kiek nenusižengdama savo įsitikinimams.
Skaitydama W. Gobrowicz dienoraščius užtikau įdomių jo pastabų apie Simone Weil. Nepatingėsiu ir pasidalinsiu:
“Žvelgiu į Simone Weil, ir man nekyla klausimas: ar yra Dievas? – aš tik nustebęs žiūriu ją ir sakau: kaip, kokiai magijai padedant ši moteris įstengė taip sutvarkyti savo vidų, kad gali įveikti tai, kas mane triuškina? Dievą, uždarytą tame gyvenime, jaučiu kaip grynai žmogišką jėgą, nesusijusią su jokia dangiška sritimi, kaip Dievą, kuri ji sukurė savyje savo pačios jėgomis. Fikcija. Bet jeigu šitai palengvina merdejimą…
[…]”Weil nėra “tikinti”, ji myli. […] toji moteris sugebėjo išleisti iš savo vidaus antžmogiškos galios dvasines sroves ir verpetus”.
[..]”G. Thibon rašo apie Weil: “Prisimenu vieną jauną darbininkę, kurioje ji atrado – taip jai atrodė – polinkį į intelektualumą ir kurią be perstojo vaišino nuostabiais pasakojimais apie upanišadas. Vargšė mergina mirtinai nuobodžiavo, bet iš mandagumo bei nedrąsumo neprotestavo”. Vadinasi “vargšė mergina mirtinai nuobodžiavo”? Teisingai, paprastiems žmonėms kelia nuobodulį gelmės ir viršūnės. Ir “iš mandagumo bei nedrąsumo neprotestavo”? Taip ir mes iš mandagumo pakenčiame išminčius, šventuosius, didvyrius, religiją ir filosofiją? O Weil? Kaip ji atrodė tame fone. Beveik pamišusi, uždaryta hermetiškoje sferoje, nežinanti, kur gyvena, kame gyvena, neturinti su visais kitais bendro vardiklio. Atplaisa. Tas didumas, susiduręs su banalumu, pralošia, iš karto įvyksta juokingas nuopolis, ir kas gi lieka? Isterikė, kelianti susierzinimą ir nuobodulį, egoistė, kurios pasipūtusi ir agresyvi asmenybė nei pati moka pamatyti kitus, nei sugeba pažvelgti į save kitų akimis - įtampos, kančių, haliucinacijų ir manijų kamuolys, kazkoks, besiblaskantis išoriniame pasaulyje, tarytum iš vandens ištraukta žuvis, nes tikroji tos sielos stichija yra jos pačios sultys. […]Ramiau. Mane užgauna, kad jos didumas ne visu atžvilgiu funkcionuoja deramai.”
Jos užrašus galima cituoti ištisai -
...būti nepririštam- tai nebesiveržti į ateitį.
Apsivalymo būdas: melsti Dievą ne tik slapta nuo žmonių, bet ir manant, kad Dievas neegzistuoja.
Jei pasineri į save, pamatai, kad turi kaip tik, ko trokšti.
Tėvynė žadina jausmą, kad esi namie. Paiimti jausmą, kad esi namie, į tremtį. Įsišaknyti vietos neturėjime.neturėjome.
Veržiesi prie kokio nors dalyko, nes manai, kad jis geras, ir lieki prie jo prirakintas, nes jis tampa būtinas.
Skaitėsi ilgai, sunkiai, bet ne be malonumo. Prie daugelio jos minčiu reikia grįžineėi ir grįžinėti…ir vis tiek lieki iki galo neįsikirtęs. Prie jos norisi grįžti ir grįžti - provokuoti savo stabarėjanti mąstyma…
Sunkiai skaitėsi dar ir del to, kad knyga - chaotiska, nesušukuota. Ji sudaryta iš Simone užašų sau, gal būt manant kada nors juos parengti spaudai. O gal ir ne.
Tekstas, mano galva, kupinas prieštaravimų. Su ja sutinki ir nesutinki, kartu nepaliauji stebėtis jos labai sąžiningu mąstymu…ir galiausiai įsimyli ją.
Nemažiau stebiesi ir jos asmeniniu gyvenimu, nes ji savo tikėjimą/filosofiją taikė būtebt kasdieniame buvime…ir užbaigė gyvenimą ji (nusimarindama badu) nė kiek nenusižengdama savo įsitikinimams.
Skaitydama W. Gobrowicz dienoraščius užtikau įdomių jo pastabų apie Simone Weil. Nepatingėsiu ir pasidalinsiu:
“Žvelgiu į Simone Weil, ir man nekyla klausimas: ar yra Dievas? – aš tik nustebęs žiūriu ją ir sakau: kaip, kokiai magijai padedant ši moteris įstengė taip sutvarkyti savo vidų, kad gali įveikti tai, kas mane triuškina? Dievą, uždarytą tame gyvenime, jaučiu kaip grynai žmogišką jėgą, nesusijusią su jokia dangiška sritimi, kaip Dievą, kuri ji sukurė savyje savo pačios jėgomis. Fikcija. Bet jeigu šitai palengvina merdejimą…
[…]”Weil nėra “tikinti”, ji myli. […] toji moteris sugebėjo išleisti iš savo vidaus antžmogiškos galios dvasines sroves ir verpetus”.
[..]”G. Thibon rašo apie Weil: “Prisimenu vieną jauną darbininkę, kurioje ji atrado – taip jai atrodė – polinkį į intelektualumą ir kurią be perstojo vaišino nuostabiais pasakojimais apie upanišadas. Vargšė mergina mirtinai nuobodžiavo, bet iš mandagumo bei nedrąsumo neprotestavo”. Vadinasi “vargšė mergina mirtinai nuobodžiavo”? Teisingai, paprastiems žmonėms kelia nuobodulį gelmės ir viršūnės. Ir “iš mandagumo bei nedrąsumo neprotestavo”? Taip ir mes iš mandagumo pakenčiame išminčius, šventuosius, didvyrius, religiją ir filosofiją? O Weil? Kaip ji atrodė tame fone. Beveik pamišusi, uždaryta hermetiškoje sferoje, nežinanti, kur gyvena, kame gyvena, neturinti su visais kitais bendro vardiklio. Atplaisa. Tas didumas, susiduręs su banalumu, pralošia, iš karto įvyksta juokingas nuopolis, ir kas gi lieka? Isterikė, kelianti susierzinimą ir nuobodulį, egoistė, kurios pasipūtusi ir agresyvi asmenybė nei pati moka pamatyti kitus, nei sugeba pažvelgti į save kitų akimis - įtampos, kančių, haliucinacijų ir manijų kamuolys, kazkoks, besiblaskantis išoriniame pasaulyje, tarytum iš vandens ištraukta žuvis, nes tikroji tos sielos stichija yra jos pačios sultys. […]Ramiau. Mane užgauna, kad jos didumas ne visu atžvilgiu funkcionuoja deramai.”
Jos užrašus galima cituoti ištisai -
...būti nepririštam- tai nebesiveržti į ateitį.
Apsivalymo būdas: melsti Dievą ne tik slapta nuo žmonių, bet ir manant, kad Dievas neegzistuoja.
Jei pasineri į save, pamatai, kad turi kaip tik, ko trokšti.
Tėvynė žadina jausmą, kad esi namie. Paiimti jausmą, kad esi namie, į tremtį. Įsišaknyti vietos neturėjime.neturėjome.
Veržiesi prie kokio nors dalyko, nes manai, kad jis geras, ir lieki prie jo prirakintas, nes jis tampa būtinas.
January 9, 2018
I've struggled to find the right entry point to Simone Weil, having dipped into various collections of her essays and reflections. I reached Gravity and Grace because Susan Sontag mentioned it in an essay on filmmaker Robert Bresson. For me, at least, this was by far the best approach. G&G belongs in the genre of aphoristic/essays; it includes several dozen pieces extracted from Weil's notebooks entrusted to a Catholic priest she'd met in France during the period when she was gravitating to Christianity, though not in any vaguely orthodox sense, Catholicism. She's far too radical a thinker to have fit well into any hierarchy and there are many passages that bear about as much affinity with Zen as with any Western church.
It's hard to imagine a vision more unsparing than Weil's. Her psychology reminds me at times of Dostoevky's--I started reading G&G when I was also reading Crime and Punishment. She has less than no sentimental believe in what she refers to as "consolations." (See the quote on friendship below.) Rather, she encounters the universe as a kind of dialectic between gravity--everything that weighs us down, drawing us into a fundamentally corrupt and hypocritical social, material world--and grace, the energy that can transform suffering into....the fact that I can't finish that sentence tells you something about the elusiveness, the spiritual rigor, of Weil's thought. I think the best way to go from there is to provide a montage of quotes from the book. It's not easy to read or comprehend--I limited myself to a couple of essays (none longer than ten pages, a few only two or three) each day.
“Creation is composed of the descending movement of gravity, the ascending movement of grace, and the descending movement of the second degree of grace.” (48)
“Man only escapes from the laws of this world in lightning flashes. Instants when everything stands still, instants of contemplation, of pure intuition, of mental void, of acceptance of the moral void. It is through such instants that he is capable of the supernatural.” (56)
“Unconsoled affliction is necessary. There must be no consolation. Ineffable consolation then comes down.” (57)
“Humility consists in knowing that in what we call ‘I’ there is no source of energy by which we can rise. Everything, without exception, that is of value in me comes from somewhere other than myself, not as a gift, but as a loan which must be ceaselessly renewed.” (76)
“In general, we must not wish for the disappearance of any of our troubles, but grace to transform them….May they rather be a testimony, lived and felt, of human misery. May I endure them in a completely passive manner.” (82)
“We must prefer real hell to an imaginary paradise.” (101)
“To wish to escape from solitude is cowardice. Friendship is not to be sought, not to be dreamed, not to be desired; it is to be exercised (it is a virtue). We must have done with all this impure and turbid border of sentiment. Schluss!” (116)
“The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering, but a supernatural use for it.” (132)
“The world, in so far as it is completely empty of God, is God himself. Necessity, in so far as it is absolutely other than the god, is the good itself. That is why all consolation in afflication separates us from love and from truth.” (162)
“Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer.” (170)
It's hard to imagine a vision more unsparing than Weil's. Her psychology reminds me at times of Dostoevky's--I started reading G&G when I was also reading Crime and Punishment. She has less than no sentimental believe in what she refers to as "consolations." (See the quote on friendship below.) Rather, she encounters the universe as a kind of dialectic between gravity--everything that weighs us down, drawing us into a fundamentally corrupt and hypocritical social, material world--and grace, the energy that can transform suffering into....the fact that I can't finish that sentence tells you something about the elusiveness, the spiritual rigor, of Weil's thought. I think the best way to go from there is to provide a montage of quotes from the book. It's not easy to read or comprehend--I limited myself to a couple of essays (none longer than ten pages, a few only two or three) each day.
“Creation is composed of the descending movement of gravity, the ascending movement of grace, and the descending movement of the second degree of grace.” (48)
“Man only escapes from the laws of this world in lightning flashes. Instants when everything stands still, instants of contemplation, of pure intuition, of mental void, of acceptance of the moral void. It is through such instants that he is capable of the supernatural.” (56)
“Unconsoled affliction is necessary. There must be no consolation. Ineffable consolation then comes down.” (57)
“Humility consists in knowing that in what we call ‘I’ there is no source of energy by which we can rise. Everything, without exception, that is of value in me comes from somewhere other than myself, not as a gift, but as a loan which must be ceaselessly renewed.” (76)
“In general, we must not wish for the disappearance of any of our troubles, but grace to transform them….May they rather be a testimony, lived and felt, of human misery. May I endure them in a completely passive manner.” (82)
“We must prefer real hell to an imaginary paradise.” (101)
“To wish to escape from solitude is cowardice. Friendship is not to be sought, not to be dreamed, not to be desired; it is to be exercised (it is a virtue). We must have done with all this impure and turbid border of sentiment. Schluss!” (116)
“The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering, but a supernatural use for it.” (132)
“The world, in so far as it is completely empty of God, is God himself. Necessity, in so far as it is absolutely other than the god, is the good itself. That is why all consolation in afflication separates us from love and from truth.” (162)
“Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer.” (170)
August 27, 2021
Uff, I think I need to read the silliest book possible after this..
Did I liked this book? I’ll let my 110 highlights answer this.
Was it easy reading this? Absolutely not
Do I agree with everything she says? No I don’t..
This was for me one of the most complex books of philosophy I have read, not because it’s difficult to understand, it’s just dense, it requires a lot of re reading and sharp concentration. As it happens with most of the Philosophy books I’ve read I don’t agree with 100% Simone Weil says and sometimes it can get pretty dense for my liking, but she’s absolutely incredible and I respect her enormously.
There are many, many powerful phrases in this book, so much that I had to stop reading due to the heaviness of absorbing them. A lot of very big and complex ideas.
This is a book that challenges you, a lot, wether you agree with her o not, sometimes it can get very uncomfortable for many reasons but I have a lot of respect for her as a thinker, as a philosopher, as a writer and as a human.
And in words of Susan Sontag:
“No one who loves life would wish to imitate her dedication to martyrdom nor would wish it for his children nor for anyone else whom he loves. Yet so far as we love seriousness, as well as life, we are moved by it, nourished by it. In the respect we pay to such lives, we acknowledge the presence of mystery in the world—and mystery is just what the secure possession of the truth, an objective truth, denies.”
Did I liked this book? I’ll let my 110 highlights answer this.
Was it easy reading this? Absolutely not
Do I agree with everything she says? No I don’t..
This was for me one of the most complex books of philosophy I have read, not because it’s difficult to understand, it’s just dense, it requires a lot of re reading and sharp concentration. As it happens with most of the Philosophy books I’ve read I don’t agree with 100% Simone Weil says and sometimes it can get pretty dense for my liking, but she’s absolutely incredible and I respect her enormously.
There are many, many powerful phrases in this book, so much that I had to stop reading due to the heaviness of absorbing them. A lot of very big and complex ideas.
This is a book that challenges you, a lot, wether you agree with her o not, sometimes it can get very uncomfortable for many reasons but I have a lot of respect for her as a thinker, as a philosopher, as a writer and as a human.
And in words of Susan Sontag:
“No one who loves life would wish to imitate her dedication to martyrdom nor would wish it for his children nor for anyone else whom he loves. Yet so far as we love seriousness, as well as life, we are moved by it, nourished by it. In the respect we pay to such lives, we acknowledge the presence of mystery in the world—and mystery is just what the secure possession of the truth, an objective truth, denies.”
September 28, 2013
I must love being nothing. How horrible it would be if I were something! I must love my nothingness, love being a nothingness. (111).
Like that Emily Dickinson poem? Or that Múm album?
Like that Emily Dickinson poem? Or that Múm album?
May 24, 2021
Not religious, and certainly not a believer in the blue eyed, bearded dude in the sky version of god, but my fear of 'scientism' overrunning the world makes me drift into theology from time to time. ‘Gravity and Grace’ is by no means an easy read, but it is a fascinating one that offers lots of little valuable thought-provoking insights. This is my first foray into Weil’s work, but definitely not my last, and I have already added her to my list of interesting religious philosophers along with Pascal and Kierkegaard. I am not surprised that Camus called her “The only great mind of our times.”
June 10, 2012
Simone Weil is mentioned several times in the correspondence of Thomas Merton and Czeslaw Milosz (compiled in the book "Striving Towards Being"). The favorable words of these admired authors made me curious to explore Weil's work. I started with "Gravity and Grace." For those also new to Weil's work I should point out this book is not a continuous narrative: it is a compilation of writings from the notebooks she entrusted to her friend Gustave Thibon before her death in 1943. For this reason the book reads like a series of thoughts--in some cases it seems Weil is trying to reason out a complex concept for herself in much the same way an artist might doodle or a scientist might scribble down formulas. I will admit there were parts of this book that were maddeningly confusing. However these were balanced with nuggets that I found to be entirely fresh and hopeful: "God's love for us is not the reason for which we should love him. God's love for us is the reason for us to love ourselves. How could we love ourselves without this motive?"
I read "Gravity and Grace" from beginning to end, but it doesn't have to be consumed this way. In fact I will probably come back to this material repeatedly because there are many deep thoughts here that just need to be chewed over in that way. Since it is organized by topic you can pretty much dive into it wherever you like. I say go into this book with an open mind and a sufficient appetite for spiritual discovery.
I read "Gravity and Grace" from beginning to end, but it doesn't have to be consumed this way. In fact I will probably come back to this material repeatedly because there are many deep thoughts here that just need to be chewed over in that way. Since it is organized by topic you can pretty much dive into it wherever you like. I say go into this book with an open mind and a sufficient appetite for spiritual discovery.
October 4, 2022
Requiere una relectura periódica, más profunda y paciente que la recién hecha. Gran parte del contenido queda por encima de mis capacidades de absorción. La de Simone Weil es una inteligencia apabullante. Llama la atención la extrema exigencia que se impone e impone, de alguna manera, al lector. Verdades incómodas atraviesan el texto esculpidas con precisión. El mensaje traído de no sé qué sitio apela al lector, le fuerza a responder, a responsabilizarse. Quizá en un contexto como el nuestro su voz sea tomada por la de una loca ingenua. Quizá en cualquier contexto histórico su voz está condenada a ser desatendida, como la de los profetas. Eso no le resta fuerza, al contrario, mantiene puro el timbre. Un ser humano asombroso.
A esto debía de referirse Kafka con aquello de "Un libro debe ser el hacha que quiebre el mar helado dentro de nosotros."
A esto debía de referirse Kafka con aquello de "Un libro debe ser el hacha que quiebre el mar helado dentro de nosotros."
September 16, 2021
Não tem datas de leitura pois é um livro que não se encerra
April 24, 2017
A method of purification: to pray to God, not only in secret as far
as men are concerned, but with the thought that God does not
exist. (p.20)
Libro sublime, complejo y peligroso si se lo agarra en momentos de trasnoche. En sus puntos más altos pega como Bataille, ambos comparten el tono místico/poético y radical (particularmente: la obsesión con la comunión y la distancia/soberanía). En sus fuentes Weil va más lejos: Platón, los Upanishads, el Tao Te King. Más lejos... es más tierna y más brutal cuando quiere; su dios es casi todo pulsión de muerte, aniquilación del yo, la vía negativa. La ceguera suya es la de la noche oscura del alma de San Juan de la Cruz. Definitivamente se merece sus buenas relecturas en el futuro.
February 6, 2023
«اگر بخواهي ميتواني مرا پاك ساختن. »متي ٢:٨
«آتمن.بگذار روح انسان همه ي جهان را تن خود بشمارد.هر چند من ميميرم.اما جهان ادامه مي يابد.اگر من هر چيزي غير از كل جهان باشم تسلي نخواهم يافت.»
«از ميان دو انسان كه هيچ تجربه اي از خداوند ندارند،آن كه او را انكار ميكند محتملا از آن ديگري به خداوند نزديكتر است.خداي دروغين در همه چيز به خداي راستين شبيه است جز در اين نكته كه نميتوان با او پيوندي برقرار كرد او تا ابد ما را از رفتن به سوي خداي راستين باز ميدارد.»
آتمن: در زبان سانسکریت معانی گوناگونی دارد:روح،اصل حیات و شعور،ادراک،عشق،برترین اصل حیات
از افاده هاي خداباوران و خدا ناباوران ،دين گرايان و دين ستيزان از حرف ها و برهان ها و نفرت ها و از خود متشكر بودن ها و نادان پنداشتن ها و كلمه هايي كه گويي قرن هاست ديگر راه هيچ گونه ارتباطي نيستند جز ابزار و ابراز جنگ و خون ریزی، از پدیده های طبیعی و طبیعت از جغرافیا و تاریخ بی عدالت ،از خودم، از نفیسه در این غریب ترین موضع ممکن ،بيزار و خسته و دلزده ام خانم سيمون وي اما شما را دوست دارم و از شما ممنونم كه اينقدر خارق العاده ايد و اينها را نوشته ايد.و من و آن تنها آرزوي كودكي هام كه هيچ گاه برآورده نشد.نبض داشت جهنده و بي طاقت و من لمسش كردم و من لمسش كرده بودم ،حالا تو تنها تماشا كن . ميدانم. من خود همه ي اينها رو ميدانم.در خانه منتظرم بمان.حالا كه انگار من نيز از خود رفته ام بي هيچ بازگشتي،در آن همواره خانه همواره مأمن همواره پناهگاه در آن يگانه آغوش آهنگين در آن رستاخيز پر درد بي سخن و سرشار از عشق و ادراك منتظرم بمان.روحيه ي كلمه گُساري در جمع را هم همچنان از دست داده ام و گرنه اين خطوط پر اعوجاج ترین و طولاني تربن ريويوي بي ارتباط گودريدز ميشد.او در يك روز برفي در يك روز سپيد پر آفتاب ،رازهاي چندين هزار ساله را كنار ميزند همه ي ستاره ها را در يك نگاه روشن نگاه ميدارد ،مي آيد و ما نجاتش ميدهيم و نجات داده ميشويم خانوم وي.حتا اگر ديگر اينجا نباشيم.مجددن و مكررن دوستتان دارم.
مجددن و مكررن دوستدار و ارادتمند كوچكتان؛نفيسه .
دل برقرار نیست که گویم نصیحتی
از راهِ عقل و معرفتش رهنمون شود
(استاد سعدی و استاد شجریان)
June 15, 2009
Sometimes Weil seems awfully austere. However, her work is full of soul-rearranging gems like this:
"Justice. To be ever ready to admit that another person is something quite different from what we read when he is there (or when we think about him). Or rather, to read in him that he is certainly something different, perhaps something completely different from what we read in him.
Every being cries out silently to be read differently."
"Justice. To be ever ready to admit that another person is something quite different from what we read when he is there (or when we think about him). Or rather, to read in him that he is certainly something different, perhaps something completely different from what we read in him.
Every being cries out silently to be read differently."
February 26, 2025
4.5
The beautiful is that which we cannot wish to change.
To love purely is to consent to distance, it is to adore the distance between ourselves and that which we love.
The beautiful is that which we cannot wish to change.
To love purely is to consent to distance, it is to adore the distance between ourselves and that which we love.
September 29, 2025
Entregada como una brizna de hierba al viento. Valiente como un barco desafiando la tormenta. Brillante como una estrella en el firmamento. Humilde como el barro sobre el que caminan las botas. Una mujer y un libro de lo más especiales.
May 10, 2021
Benim için tam bir başucu kitabı oldu. Tekrar tekrar okuyabileceğim bir kitap oldu. Tekrar tekrar okuyup güç alabileceğim bir sığnak.Bu kitap ağır bir dile sahip ama bundan hoşlandım. Çünkü bana yaşam konusunda pek çok bakış açısı kattı.
September 16, 2018
Simone Weil was a Platonist Christian Jewish mystic which can make it hard to understand what she is saying if there is not much context. But here are some of my favorites....
"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity"
“To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul.”
“There is something else which has the power to awaken us to the truth. It is the works of writers of genius. They give us, in the guise of fiction, something equivalent to the actual density of the real, that density which life offers us every day but which we are unable to grasp because we are amusing ourselves with lies.”
“The love of our neighbor in all its fullness simply means being able to say, "What are you going through?”
“Compassion directed toward oneself is true humility.”
“The joy of learning is as indispensable in study as breathing is to running.”
“How many people have been thus led, through lack of self-confidence, to stifle their most justified doubts?”
“Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being.”
"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity"
“To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul.”
“There is something else which has the power to awaken us to the truth. It is the works of writers of genius. They give us, in the guise of fiction, something equivalent to the actual density of the real, that density which life offers us every day but which we are unable to grasp because we are amusing ourselves with lies.”
“The love of our neighbor in all its fullness simply means being able to say, "What are you going through?”
“Compassion directed toward oneself is true humility.”
“The joy of learning is as indispensable in study as breathing is to running.”
“How many people have been thus led, through lack of self-confidence, to stifle their most justified doubts?”
“Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being.”
May 28, 2020
If you like to spend hours disentangling texts only to realize you know nothing, this is the book for you. If you are a Platonist, knockout. Welcome to high Platonism, population legion. We have cookies, we have flowers, we have Marxist mystics.
What should a book of mystical theology do: Restate old truths? Provoke mystical experiences? Inspire the reader to action? On the first day of discussing Gravity and Grace with a reading group of ten people, the prevailing question was not 'What should we do?' but, 'How should we discuss this book?'
Weil's aphorisms do not tell a story. They cut to the chase, giving the insights of Weil's spiritual life without the fluff.
They tell us to accept gravity, love distance, and pay attention.
Her message is enticing to anyone in a similar spiritual headspace as Weil—me and possibly you. But as a result, they can also easily conform to what you already believe even if that is not Weil's intention. Be careful. There is no guidebook. Where we're going we need no maps.
Gravity and Grace is an arrangement of Weil's aphoristic notebooks scrawlings by topic instead of chronology. I'm glad the editor juxtaposed Weil's statements so well here, but I am suspicious of whether this book conforms to what Weil would want to communicate to us in a wholistic work. Maybe, whether it is arranged right is not the question to ask—it is what it is. Nonetheless, I left the book looking for places where Weil would give a more clear account of her provocative and inspiring ideas. GG can provoke deep reflection and spiritual experiences through punchy aphorisms. It may be for you, it may not. As I read Weil's essays in Waiting For God, I am getting more accessible and well-expounded ideas, but I still wonder—is this who we should all be reading?
What should a book of mystical theology do: Restate old truths? Provoke mystical experiences? Inspire the reader to action? On the first day of discussing Gravity and Grace with a reading group of ten people, the prevailing question was not 'What should we do?' but, 'How should we discuss this book?'
Weil's aphorisms do not tell a story. They cut to the chase, giving the insights of Weil's spiritual life without the fluff.
They tell us to accept gravity, love distance, and pay attention.
Her message is enticing to anyone in a similar spiritual headspace as Weil—me and possibly you. But as a result, they can also easily conform to what you already believe even if that is not Weil's intention. Be careful. There is no guidebook. Where we're going we need no maps.
Gravity and Grace is an arrangement of Weil's aphoristic notebooks scrawlings by topic instead of chronology. I'm glad the editor juxtaposed Weil's statements so well here, but I am suspicious of whether this book conforms to what Weil would want to communicate to us in a wholistic work. Maybe, whether it is arranged right is not the question to ask—it is what it is. Nonetheless, I left the book looking for places where Weil would give a more clear account of her provocative and inspiring ideas. GG can provoke deep reflection and spiritual experiences through punchy aphorisms. It may be for you, it may not. As I read Weil's essays in Waiting For God, I am getting more accessible and well-expounded ideas, but I still wonder—is this who we should all be reading?
December 19, 2021
Christian anarchists 😩
A pretty exceptional piece of philosophy, imho. Pretty dense, and by nature of reading most of this for a course and having to sort of speed-run it, I’ve probably missed some nuance, but it all logically tracks I think! Essentially, the fact that we feel an absence at the core of our being, and are cognizantly aware that goodness is missing in the world, is proof both of God’s existence and transcendence from the world, and so the solution to achieving closeness with God is doing our best to practice detachment from love of anything that isn’t God Godself, which entails suffering pretty much constantly as you try to detach yourself from your ego, your sense of self, your connections to anything in the material world (including relationships to an extent) and embracing the void at the core of your being. In doing so, you exacerbate and open up the emptiness that you feel, and God works through filling this up with grace (which is the only substance/essence one can experience that isn’t stuck in a closed, corrupted system of material cause-and-effect), which liberates you and brings you closer to God.
It’s an idea I think I understand, and is beautiful insofar as it emphasizes the power of detachment and examining oneself painfully thoroughly as a means to achieve transcendence/peace, but not one that I agree with really at all? Like on an instinctual level it feels wrong to say that the way of getting closer with God is through detachment from everything God, theoretically, created, and focusing on the emptiness and experiencing suffering—I highly doubt suffering is the way to God, if God exists. But her emphasis on God’s transcendence and passion in describing how we can abnegate ourselves to get filled with grace is pretty neat! I just disagree with it (probably for the same reasons that I really don’t care too much for Plato, and the idea of idealism/immaterial-world-good-and-real-material-world-bad-and-less-real philosophy); Thomas Merton explores much the same territory as Simone Weil, and comes to a conclusion that I vibe with HEAVY, but I do not yet have it in me to do a review of his book because, well, it’s phenomenal.
A pretty exceptional piece of philosophy, imho. Pretty dense, and by nature of reading most of this for a course and having to sort of speed-run it, I’ve probably missed some nuance, but it all logically tracks I think! Essentially, the fact that we feel an absence at the core of our being, and are cognizantly aware that goodness is missing in the world, is proof both of God’s existence and transcendence from the world, and so the solution to achieving closeness with God is doing our best to practice detachment from love of anything that isn’t God Godself, which entails suffering pretty much constantly as you try to detach yourself from your ego, your sense of self, your connections to anything in the material world (including relationships to an extent) and embracing the void at the core of your being. In doing so, you exacerbate and open up the emptiness that you feel, and God works through filling this up with grace (which is the only substance/essence one can experience that isn’t stuck in a closed, corrupted system of material cause-and-effect), which liberates you and brings you closer to God.
It’s an idea I think I understand, and is beautiful insofar as it emphasizes the power of detachment and examining oneself painfully thoroughly as a means to achieve transcendence/peace, but not one that I agree with really at all? Like on an instinctual level it feels wrong to say that the way of getting closer with God is through detachment from everything God, theoretically, created, and focusing on the emptiness and experiencing suffering—I highly doubt suffering is the way to God, if God exists. But her emphasis on God’s transcendence and passion in describing how we can abnegate ourselves to get filled with grace is pretty neat! I just disagree with it (probably for the same reasons that I really don’t care too much for Plato, and the idea of idealism/immaterial-world-good-and-real-material-world-bad-and-less-real philosophy); Thomas Merton explores much the same territory as Simone Weil, and comes to a conclusion that I vibe with HEAVY, but I do not yet have it in me to do a review of his book because, well, it’s phenomenal.
February 27, 2021
bom...
certamente é um livro que causa uma impressão fortíssima. eu não sabia nada sobre a simone weil antes de lê-lo, e também não acho que vou saber muito mais depois de terminar. é um livro bonito e rígido: ela vivia e pensava de um jeito particular demais. pode haver uma vontade de ler esses fragmentos como preceitos, mas são preceitos impossíveis, acredito. talvez me falte fé, talvez eu seja hedonista demais, mas muitas vezes tudo o que eu pensava lendo sua filosofia era "calma!".
isso não tira o mérito de serem lindos pensamentos. alguns soam como confissões, esses são ainda mais bonitos, quase frágeis no meio de toda a dureza, essa coisa escrita em pedra que ela faz. eu me sinto diante de uma mística, não de uma filósofa, e acho que diante de todo místico nos sentimos distanciados...
me senti muito distante desse livro, exceto por algumas passagens específicas, e ao mesmo tempo, me senti sendo cortada por ele muitas vezes. é bonito. mas também áspero.
certamente é um livro que causa uma impressão fortíssima. eu não sabia nada sobre a simone weil antes de lê-lo, e também não acho que vou saber muito mais depois de terminar. é um livro bonito e rígido: ela vivia e pensava de um jeito particular demais. pode haver uma vontade de ler esses fragmentos como preceitos, mas são preceitos impossíveis, acredito. talvez me falte fé, talvez eu seja hedonista demais, mas muitas vezes tudo o que eu pensava lendo sua filosofia era "calma!".
isso não tira o mérito de serem lindos pensamentos. alguns soam como confissões, esses são ainda mais bonitos, quase frágeis no meio de toda a dureza, essa coisa escrita em pedra que ela faz. eu me sinto diante de uma mística, não de uma filósofa, e acho que diante de todo místico nos sentimos distanciados...
me senti muito distante desse livro, exceto por algumas passagens específicas, e ao mesmo tempo, me senti sendo cortada por ele muitas vezes. é bonito. mas também áspero.
January 2, 2022
Há muito que um livro não me era tão pesado. Um combate com as imagens de Weil, onde sinto uma luta pelo despojamento, pela busca da pureza pura, pela anulação do peso do que faz afundar, cair no poço da autocomiseração, da bondade humilde como palco para uma suposta ascensão. Tudo é denso, duro, com os joelhos do intelecto e do espírito a sangrar, uma travessia pela leitura. E aqui jaz a suprema (divina?) contradição - "A Gravidade e a Graça" é um livro que, ao lembrar ao leitor da gravidade do acto da leitura lenta e dolorosa, começa a desenhar, frase a frase, página a página, a superação desse peso, e nela talvez uma hipótese de elevação, a Graça.
December 25, 2017
far more satisfying than lovey dovey contemporary christianity, simone presents a horrifying image of god whose very presence annihilates our selfhood and whose love commands us to submit to his will as slaves. sometimes it is difficult to discern wisdom which is applicable to life and that which is really scary and unpleasant to think about
February 2, 2022
”Förnuftet säger oss att det förnuftet inte fattar är verkligare än det det fattar.”
Hon föddes 1909 och dog 34 år senare av tuberkulos och svält. Hon vägrade äta mer än de som satt i koncentrationsläger fick att äta. Hon föddes i Paris och gick i skola tillsammans med Camus och de Beauvoir, men hon valde bort den priviligierade ställning hon fötts in i och tog avstånd från den intellektuella eliten. Istället ägnade hon sitt liv åt att praktiskt leva i enlighet med den politik och filosofi som hon tog för sann. Det innebar att hon avslutade sitt arbete som lärare i filosofi och matematik för att jobba på fabrik och bli ett med industriproletariatet. Hon satte sitt jordiska liv på spel för sin politiska aktivism och sitt experimentella tänkande vars själva motor drevs av medlidande mot sin nästa. För det hon hann med i sitt korta liv helgonförklarades hon.
Tyngden och nåden är en postumt utgiven (1952) bok sammansatt av anteckningar och brev, som hon lämnade efter sig. Den består av fragmentariska maximer, enkelt beskrivna men ganska svåra att förstå. Det här är utmanande läsning vars innehåll till stora delar går över min horisont. Men jag tycker det är en stimulerande uppgift som jag hoppas ska kunna utveckla min läsförståelse, mitt språk och min kunskap om filosofi.
Simone Weil var mystiker och religiös men inte direkt ansluten till någon av de namngivna religionerna vi känner. Hon menar att Gud drog sig tillbaka från det hen skapat för att det skapade skulle kunna ta plats. Människan kan liksom Gud dra sig tillbaka från sin plats som centrum i tillvaron och genom denna ”avskapelse” upplåta plats åt Guds ljus i världen. Denna nåd är vår enda möjlighet att undkomma själens tyngdkraft och behålla vår fria vilja.
”Alla naturliga rörelser i själen styrs av lagar motsvarande dem som gäller för den materiella tyngdkraften. Det enda undantaget är nåden.”
”Hur kommer det sig, att så snart någon visar att han har mer eller mindre behov av en annan människa, så drar hon sig undan? Tyngdlag.”
Människan är initialt god, menar hon. Men en förslavad människa kan inte längre välja sina mål. Vilket mål som helst är som grenen för den som håller på att drunkna. Låga känslor som fruktan, girighet, avund, hämndlystnad, lust att slå rekord och vinna utmärkelser är ytliga. Allt man kallar låghet är ett tyngdkraftsfenomen. Att ge efter för tyngdlagen, att sprida det onda utanför sig själv genom att göra en människa illa fysiskt eller verbalt är den svåraste av synder. Man fördärvar med den senare språkets uppgift att uttrycka samband mellan tingen.
”Om den andliga tyngdlagen gäller: sänka sig är att stiga. Den andliga tyngdkraften får oss att falla uppåt.”
Hennes filosofi tar avstamp ifrån de lägsta stegen i behovstrappan. Den står helt och hållet i motsats till det vi i vår tid tycker så mycket om; självförverkligande. I mitt personliga krig mot våra jag-styrda samhälleliga normer – tyngdkraften i mitt liv – fungerar den här läsningen som en lisa för mitt inre. På många sätt påminner maximerna om indisk filosofi i det att det handlar om sanningssökande, medveten närvaro, lidande, asketism, avskapande av sitt ego. Weil menar att sanningen är som djupast i lidandet. Att den fattige som lider olycka besitter den stora kunskapen och är därför den som på riktigt är priviligierad. Med olycka avser hon förnedring, slaveri, trötthet, nöd etc. Hon menar att det är ingen skillnad på att vara medveten om eller att själv uppleva olycka, tack vare uppmärksamhet. Vi bör försöka förbättra våra brister, inte genom vilja utan genom uppmärksamhet. All undervisning borde ha som enda mål att träna uppmärksamheten.
”Att se och äta är två olika slags verksamhet – det är människans stora sorg, som börjar i barndomen och varar tills hon dör. Den eviga saligheten är ett tillstånd då se är detsamma som att äta.”
”Det är svårt för den rike och mäktige att få kunskap om människans elände, emedan han nästan oemotståndligt förleds att tro att han är något. Lika svårt är det för den fattige, ty han förleds nästan oemotståndligt att tro att den rike och mäktige är något.”
”Vi äger ingenting i världen – ty slumpen kan beröva oss allt – utom makten att säga jag.”
Som vetekornet måste dö för att dess inneboende energi ska frigöras måste människan utplåna sitt jag. Målet är att vara ingenting. Man måste rycka upp sina rötter. ”Alla ting jag ser, hör, vidrör, andas, förtär; alla väsen jag möter – alla dem hindrar jag att få beröring med Gud, och jag hindrar Guds beröring med dem, i samma mån som någonting hos mig säger ’jag’”.
”En kvinna som ser sig i spegeln och gör sig vacker, blygs inte över att hon – ett oändligt väsen som ser allt – begränsar sig till en liten yta. […] En mycket vacker kvinna som ser sin bild i spegeln kan mycket väl tro att den är hon. En ful kvinna vet att den inte är hon.”
Det handlar om att uthärda tomheten som hon kallar ”mörk natt”. Att inte låta sig luras av fantasin. ”Människor – även jag själv – är en annan än den jag inbillar mig vara. Att veta det, det är förlåtelsen.” Människans inbillade rikedomar är det förflutna och framtiden. Hon skriver att det andliga livet levs inte i världsfrånvändhet utan i den materiella världen med dess brister, tillkortakommanden och lidanden. Uppgiften är att bemöta människans utsatta situation med kärlek och den omtanke som ligger i handlingar. Men människan är på samma gång bara fullkomligt ren och naken i två ögonblick; födelsen och döden.
Så varför fortsatte då helgonförklarade Simone Weis så intensivt att sträva mot denna renhet? Det är motsägelsefullt tycker jag. Människan kan ju helt uppenbart inte klara det. Dock är det fascinerande och inspirerande att läsa om en människa som var tankesätt och leverne diametralt skiljer sig från vad vi är vana vid.
”Varje person som har möjlighet att ge någonting är skyldig att göra det.”
Hon föddes 1909 och dog 34 år senare av tuberkulos och svält. Hon vägrade äta mer än de som satt i koncentrationsläger fick att äta. Hon föddes i Paris och gick i skola tillsammans med Camus och de Beauvoir, men hon valde bort den priviligierade ställning hon fötts in i och tog avstånd från den intellektuella eliten. Istället ägnade hon sitt liv åt att praktiskt leva i enlighet med den politik och filosofi som hon tog för sann. Det innebar att hon avslutade sitt arbete som lärare i filosofi och matematik för att jobba på fabrik och bli ett med industriproletariatet. Hon satte sitt jordiska liv på spel för sin politiska aktivism och sitt experimentella tänkande vars själva motor drevs av medlidande mot sin nästa. För det hon hann med i sitt korta liv helgonförklarades hon.
Tyngden och nåden är en postumt utgiven (1952) bok sammansatt av anteckningar och brev, som hon lämnade efter sig. Den består av fragmentariska maximer, enkelt beskrivna men ganska svåra att förstå. Det här är utmanande läsning vars innehåll till stora delar går över min horisont. Men jag tycker det är en stimulerande uppgift som jag hoppas ska kunna utveckla min läsförståelse, mitt språk och min kunskap om filosofi.
Simone Weil var mystiker och religiös men inte direkt ansluten till någon av de namngivna religionerna vi känner. Hon menar att Gud drog sig tillbaka från det hen skapat för att det skapade skulle kunna ta plats. Människan kan liksom Gud dra sig tillbaka från sin plats som centrum i tillvaron och genom denna ”avskapelse” upplåta plats åt Guds ljus i världen. Denna nåd är vår enda möjlighet att undkomma själens tyngdkraft och behålla vår fria vilja.
”Alla naturliga rörelser i själen styrs av lagar motsvarande dem som gäller för den materiella tyngdkraften. Det enda undantaget är nåden.”
”Hur kommer det sig, att så snart någon visar att han har mer eller mindre behov av en annan människa, så drar hon sig undan? Tyngdlag.”
Människan är initialt god, menar hon. Men en förslavad människa kan inte längre välja sina mål. Vilket mål som helst är som grenen för den som håller på att drunkna. Låga känslor som fruktan, girighet, avund, hämndlystnad, lust att slå rekord och vinna utmärkelser är ytliga. Allt man kallar låghet är ett tyngdkraftsfenomen. Att ge efter för tyngdlagen, att sprida det onda utanför sig själv genom att göra en människa illa fysiskt eller verbalt är den svåraste av synder. Man fördärvar med den senare språkets uppgift att uttrycka samband mellan tingen.
”Om den andliga tyngdlagen gäller: sänka sig är att stiga. Den andliga tyngdkraften får oss att falla uppåt.”
Hennes filosofi tar avstamp ifrån de lägsta stegen i behovstrappan. Den står helt och hållet i motsats till det vi i vår tid tycker så mycket om; självförverkligande. I mitt personliga krig mot våra jag-styrda samhälleliga normer – tyngdkraften i mitt liv – fungerar den här läsningen som en lisa för mitt inre. På många sätt påminner maximerna om indisk filosofi i det att det handlar om sanningssökande, medveten närvaro, lidande, asketism, avskapande av sitt ego. Weil menar att sanningen är som djupast i lidandet. Att den fattige som lider olycka besitter den stora kunskapen och är därför den som på riktigt är priviligierad. Med olycka avser hon förnedring, slaveri, trötthet, nöd etc. Hon menar att det är ingen skillnad på att vara medveten om eller att själv uppleva olycka, tack vare uppmärksamhet. Vi bör försöka förbättra våra brister, inte genom vilja utan genom uppmärksamhet. All undervisning borde ha som enda mål att träna uppmärksamheten.
”Att se och äta är två olika slags verksamhet – det är människans stora sorg, som börjar i barndomen och varar tills hon dör. Den eviga saligheten är ett tillstånd då se är detsamma som att äta.”
”Det är svårt för den rike och mäktige att få kunskap om människans elände, emedan han nästan oemotståndligt förleds att tro att han är något. Lika svårt är det för den fattige, ty han förleds nästan oemotståndligt att tro att den rike och mäktige är något.”
”Vi äger ingenting i världen – ty slumpen kan beröva oss allt – utom makten att säga jag.”
Som vetekornet måste dö för att dess inneboende energi ska frigöras måste människan utplåna sitt jag. Målet är att vara ingenting. Man måste rycka upp sina rötter. ”Alla ting jag ser, hör, vidrör, andas, förtär; alla väsen jag möter – alla dem hindrar jag att få beröring med Gud, och jag hindrar Guds beröring med dem, i samma mån som någonting hos mig säger ’jag’”.
”En kvinna som ser sig i spegeln och gör sig vacker, blygs inte över att hon – ett oändligt väsen som ser allt – begränsar sig till en liten yta. […] En mycket vacker kvinna som ser sin bild i spegeln kan mycket väl tro att den är hon. En ful kvinna vet att den inte är hon.”
Det handlar om att uthärda tomheten som hon kallar ”mörk natt”. Att inte låta sig luras av fantasin. ”Människor – även jag själv – är en annan än den jag inbillar mig vara. Att veta det, det är förlåtelsen.” Människans inbillade rikedomar är det förflutna och framtiden. Hon skriver att det andliga livet levs inte i världsfrånvändhet utan i den materiella världen med dess brister, tillkortakommanden och lidanden. Uppgiften är att bemöta människans utsatta situation med kärlek och den omtanke som ligger i handlingar. Men människan är på samma gång bara fullkomligt ren och naken i två ögonblick; födelsen och döden.
Så varför fortsatte då helgonförklarade Simone Weis så intensivt att sträva mot denna renhet? Det är motsägelsefullt tycker jag. Människan kan ju helt uppenbart inte klara det. Dock är det fascinerande och inspirerande att läsa om en människa som var tankesätt och leverne diametralt skiljer sig från vad vi är vana vid.
”Varje person som har möjlighet att ge någonting är skyldig att göra det.”
August 6, 2017
Iš tikro mūsų tikėjimas (ar netikėjimas - būna ir taip, tik pažvelkit į mūsų tūlą ateistą ir suprasit apie ką aš) yra vertingi tiek, kiek yra autentiški, nutolę nuo masių kanono.
Daugiau nežinau, ką ir pridurti: tai yra viena viena tų knygų, nors ir rašytų neknygiškai, t.y. sau, be tikslo spausdintis, kurių klodai, - jauti tai, - dosniau atsiveria tau bręstant, todėl, manau, skaitysiu ją po 10 ar 20 metų.
Visai kaip geras prancūziškas vynas, kuris palytėtas laiko tik gerėja.
Žiauriai įdomios, autentiškos mintys, ir tai sako prisiekęs ateistas.
Daugiau nežinau, ką ir pridurti: tai yra viena viena tų knygų, nors ir rašytų neknygiškai, t.y. sau, be tikslo spausdintis, kurių klodai, - jauti tai, - dosniau atsiveria tau bręstant, todėl, manau, skaitysiu ją po 10 ar 20 metų.
Visai kaip geras prancūziškas vynas, kuris palytėtas laiko tik gerėja.
Žiauriai įdomios, autentiškos mintys, ir tai sako prisiekęs ateistas.
June 19, 2013
Deserves ten out of five stars. No, all of the stars in the universe. This medium cannot express its greatness.
August 30, 2023
Maybe 3.5 stars (between good and very good)
Simone Weil is definitely very interesting. Her life was short, yet remarkable for many reasons, and her writings are always, at a minimum, intriguing. She seems to reside in the strange liminal area between philosopher and mystic. Between Christian and I’m not sure what.
I will admit there are many places in this book where Weil completely loses me and I have no idea what she means. Many statements are cryptic or confusing. Or mysterious or jolting. Yet often arresting. Often her thoughts seem weird, and some just seem to be wrong.
This work reminded me of Pascal’s Pensées in that much of it feels incomplete or unfinished. Some parts seem barely more than some thoughts jotted down. There are certainly many thoughts and provokers of thoughts, but like Pensées, while one can surely gain from reading and ruminating on what the author really meant by these little seeds, and pondering the implications, I think both works would benefit from some further unpacking. It would be nice to see someone do for this book what Kreeft did for Pascal’s in Christianity for Modern Pagans—explain and expound.
The introductions included in this edition are quite helpful. I was thankful for the handholding.
I’m going to save just a few of the quotes I found interesting:
“To say that the world is not worth anything, that this life is of no value, and to give evil as the proof is absurd, for if these things are worthless, what does evil take from us?
“Thus the better we are able to conceive of the fullness of joy, the purer and more intense will be our suffering in affliction and our compassion for others. What does suffering take from him who is without joy?
“And if we conceive the fullness of joy, suffering is still to joy what hunger is to food.”
[p 136]
“It is not good which evil violates, for good is inviolate: only a degraded good can be violated.
“That which is the direct opposite of an evil never belongs to the order of higher good. It is often scarcely any higher than evil! Examples: theft and the bourgeois respect for property; adultery and the ‘respectable woman’; the savings bank and waste; lying and ‘sincerity.’
“Good is essentially other than evil. Evil is multifarious and fragmentary, good is one; evil is apparent, good is mysterious; evil consists in action, good in non-action, in activity which does not act, etc.”
[p 120]
“The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering, but a supernatural use for it.”
[p 132]
“So that the love may be as great as possible, the distance is as great as possible. That is why evil can extend to the extreme limit beyond which the very possibility of good disappears. Evil is permitted to touch this limit. It sometimes seems as though it overpassed it.
“This, in a sense, is exactly the opposite of what Leibnitz thought. It is certainly more compatible with God's greatness, for if he had made the best of all possible worlds, it would mean that he could not do very much.”
[p 142]
“The mysteries of the Catholic faith are not intended to be believed by all the parts of the soul. The presence of Christ in the Host is not a fact of the same kind as the presence of Paul's soul in Paul's body (actually both are completely incomprehensible, but not in the same way). The Eucharist should not then be an object of belief for the part of me which apprehends facts. That is where Protestantism is true. But this presence of Christ in the Host is not a symbol, for a symbol is the combination of an abstraction and an image, it is something which human intelligence can represent to itself, it is not supernatural. There the Catholics are right, not the Protestants. Only with that part of us which is made for the supernatural should we adhere to these mysteries.”
[p 183]
“Wishes in folklore: What makes wishes dangerous is the fact that they are granted.
“To wish that the world did not exist is to wish that I, just as I am, may be everything.”
[p 197]
“Atheistic materialism is necessarily revolutionary, for, if it is to be directed toward an absolute good here on earth, it has to place it in the future. In order that this impetus should have full effect there must, therefore, be a mediator between the perfection to come and the present. This mediator is the chief: Lenin, etc. He is infallible and perfectly pure. In passing through him, evil becomes good.”
[p 227]
“Workers need poetry more than bread. They need that their life should be a poem. They need some light from eternity.
“Religion alone can be the source of such poetry.
“It is not religion but revolution which is the opium of the people.
“Deprivation of this poetry explains all forms of demoralization.”
[p 235]
Simone Weil is definitely very interesting. Her life was short, yet remarkable for many reasons, and her writings are always, at a minimum, intriguing. She seems to reside in the strange liminal area between philosopher and mystic. Between Christian and I’m not sure what.
I will admit there are many places in this book where Weil completely loses me and I have no idea what she means. Many statements are cryptic or confusing. Or mysterious or jolting. Yet often arresting. Often her thoughts seem weird, and some just seem to be wrong.
This work reminded me of Pascal’s Pensées in that much of it feels incomplete or unfinished. Some parts seem barely more than some thoughts jotted down. There are certainly many thoughts and provokers of thoughts, but like Pensées, while one can surely gain from reading and ruminating on what the author really meant by these little seeds, and pondering the implications, I think both works would benefit from some further unpacking. It would be nice to see someone do for this book what Kreeft did for Pascal’s in Christianity for Modern Pagans—explain and expound.
The introductions included in this edition are quite helpful. I was thankful for the handholding.
I’m going to save just a few of the quotes I found interesting:
“To say that the world is not worth anything, that this life is of no value, and to give evil as the proof is absurd, for if these things are worthless, what does evil take from us?
“Thus the better we are able to conceive of the fullness of joy, the purer and more intense will be our suffering in affliction and our compassion for others. What does suffering take from him who is without joy?
“And if we conceive the fullness of joy, suffering is still to joy what hunger is to food.”
[p 136]
“It is not good which evil violates, for good is inviolate: only a degraded good can be violated.
“That which is the direct opposite of an evil never belongs to the order of higher good. It is often scarcely any higher than evil! Examples: theft and the bourgeois respect for property; adultery and the ‘respectable woman’; the savings bank and waste; lying and ‘sincerity.’
“Good is essentially other than evil. Evil is multifarious and fragmentary, good is one; evil is apparent, good is mysterious; evil consists in action, good in non-action, in activity which does not act, etc.”
[p 120]
“The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering, but a supernatural use for it.”
[p 132]
“So that the love may be as great as possible, the distance is as great as possible. That is why evil can extend to the extreme limit beyond which the very possibility of good disappears. Evil is permitted to touch this limit. It sometimes seems as though it overpassed it.
“This, in a sense, is exactly the opposite of what Leibnitz thought. It is certainly more compatible with God's greatness, for if he had made the best of all possible worlds, it would mean that he could not do very much.”
[p 142]
“The mysteries of the Catholic faith are not intended to be believed by all the parts of the soul. The presence of Christ in the Host is not a fact of the same kind as the presence of Paul's soul in Paul's body (actually both are completely incomprehensible, but not in the same way). The Eucharist should not then be an object of belief for the part of me which apprehends facts. That is where Protestantism is true. But this presence of Christ in the Host is not a symbol, for a symbol is the combination of an abstraction and an image, it is something which human intelligence can represent to itself, it is not supernatural. There the Catholics are right, not the Protestants. Only with that part of us which is made for the supernatural should we adhere to these mysteries.”
[p 183]
“Wishes in folklore: What makes wishes dangerous is the fact that they are granted.
“To wish that the world did not exist is to wish that I, just as I am, may be everything.”
[p 197]
“Atheistic materialism is necessarily revolutionary, for, if it is to be directed toward an absolute good here on earth, it has to place it in the future. In order that this impetus should have full effect there must, therefore, be a mediator between the perfection to come and the present. This mediator is the chief: Lenin, etc. He is infallible and perfectly pure. In passing through him, evil becomes good.”
[p 227]
“Workers need poetry more than bread. They need that their life should be a poem. They need some light from eternity.
“Religion alone can be the source of such poetry.
“It is not religion but revolution which is the opium of the people.
“Deprivation of this poetry explains all forms of demoralization.”
[p 235]
Displaying 1 - 30 of 515 reviews