What do you think?
Rate this book
Pensées and Other Writings
For much of his life, Pascal (1623-62) worked on a magnum opus which was never published in the form the philosopher intended. Instead, Pascal left a mass of fragments, some of them meant as notes for the Apologie. These became known as the Pensees, and they occupy a crucial place in Western philosophy and religious writing. This translation is the only one based on the Pensees as Pascal left them. It includes the principal dossiers classified by Pascal, as well as the essential portion of his important Writings on Grace."
267 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1670
32 people are currently reading
657 people want to read
About the author
Blaise Pascal
1,484 books832 followersEarly work of Blaise Pascal of France included the invention of the adding machine and syringe and the co-development with Pierre de Fermat of the mathematical theory of probability; later, he, a Jansenist, wrote on philosophy and theology, notably as collected in the posthumous
Pensées
(1670).
This contemporary of René Descartes attained ten years of age in 1633, when people forced Galileo Galilei to recant his belief that Earth circled the Sun. He lived in Paris at the same time, when Thomas Hobbes in 1640 published his famous Leviathan (1651). Together, Pascal created the calculus.
A near-fatal carriage accident in November 1654 persuaded him to turn his intellect finally toward religion. The story goes that on the proverbial dark and stormy night, while Pascal rode in a carriage across a bridge in a suburb of Paris, a fright caused the horses to bolt, sending them over the edge. The carriage, bearing Pascal, survived. Pascal took the incident as a sign and devoted. At this time, he began a series, called the Provincial Letters , against the Jesuits in 1657.
Pascal perhaps most famously wagered not as clearly in his language as this summary: "If Jesus does not exist, the non Christian loses little by believing in him and gains little by not believing. If Jesus does exist, the non Christian gains eternal life by believing and loses an infinite good by not believing.”
Sick throughout life, Pascal died in Paris from a combination of tuberculosis and stomach cancer at 39 years of age. At the last, he confessed Catholicism.
This contemporary of René Descartes attained ten years of age in 1633, when people forced Galileo Galilei to recant his belief that Earth circled the Sun. He lived in Paris at the same time, when Thomas Hobbes in 1640 published his famous Leviathan (1651). Together, Pascal created the calculus.
A near-fatal carriage accident in November 1654 persuaded him to turn his intellect finally toward religion. The story goes that on the proverbial dark and stormy night, while Pascal rode in a carriage across a bridge in a suburb of Paris, a fright caused the horses to bolt, sending them over the edge. The carriage, bearing Pascal, survived. Pascal took the incident as a sign and devoted. At this time, he began a series, called the Provincial Letters , against the Jesuits in 1657.
Pascal perhaps most famously wagered not as clearly in his language as this summary: "If Jesus does not exist, the non Christian loses little by believing in him and gains little by not believing. If Jesus does exist, the non Christian gains eternal life by believing and loses an infinite good by not believing.”
Sick throughout life, Pascal died in Paris from a combination of tuberculosis and stomach cancer at 39 years of age. At the last, he confessed Catholicism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
March 9, 2018
Introduction, by Anthony Levi
Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Blaise Pascal
--Pensées
--Discussion with Monsieur de Sacy
--The Art of Persuasion
Writings on Grace:
--Letter on the Possibility of the Commandments
--Treatise concerning Predestination
Explanatory Notes
Thematic Index
Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Blaise Pascal
--Pensées
--Discussion with Monsieur de Sacy
--The Art of Persuasion
Writings on Grace:
--Letter on the Possibility of the Commandments
--Treatise concerning Predestination
Explanatory Notes
Thematic Index
April 27, 2013
Men are so necessarily mad that it would be another twist of madness not to be mad.
And what completes our inability to understand things is that they are not so simple in themselves, and we are made up of two different kinds of opposing natures, body and soul...For this reason almost all philosophers confuse the ideas of things, and speak spiritually of corporeal things and corporeally of spiritual ones...Instead of accepting the idea of these things in their pure state, we tint them with our qualities, and imprint our composite nature on to all the simple things we see.
The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me.
March 24, 2015
Pascal's Pensées were never intended to be read, much like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. As such, they honestly reveal the private thoughts of great philosophers on the human condition, and lo, they speak of how miserable people are. Both were lonely men made so by their great intellect and great character. While Marcus continues to strive with Ragnarokian futility to fulfill all his duties in a life of perfect virtue, Pascal is a bit more pessimistic, yet in the end more hopeful when he looks to Christ for ultimate purpose.
Even those who don't believe in God will extract much wisdom from Pascal. His one-liners are some of the most devastating observations of human psychology. Even a cursory exercise in quote-mining will yield many seeds for extended thought. This book should be read carefully and digested fragment by fragment, line by line.
Some of my favorite one-liners:
- 'We search for happiness and find only wretchedness and death.'
- 'I blame equally those who decide to praise man, those who blame him, and those who want to be diverted. I can only approve those who search in anguish.'
- 'If you do not think about it enough, or if you think about it too much, you become obstinate and blinkered.'
- 'Man's condition: Inconstancy, boredom, anxiety.'
- 'What is based on reason alone is very ill-founded, like the appreciation of wisdom.'
- 'Anyone who does not see the vanity of the world is very vain himself.'
- 'But take away their distractions and you will see them wither from boredom.'
- 'When we read too quickly or too slowly we understand nothing.'
- 'More often than not curiosity is merely vanity. We only want to know something in order to talk about it.'
- 'It is easier to put up with death without thinking about it, than with the idea of death when there is no danger of it.'
- 'Our instinct leads us to believe we must seek our happiness outside ourselves.'
- 'Humans, it is hopeless to look for the remedy for your wretchedness in yourselves. All your intelligence can only bring you to realize that it is not in yourselves that you will find either truth or good.'
- 'We are fools to rely on the company of our equals as wretched and helpless as we are. We will die alone.'
- 'Contradiction is not an indication of falsehood and the absence of contradiction is not a sign of truth.'
- 'There are many who believe, but through superstition. There are many who do not believe, but through licentiousness.'
- 'To uphold piety to the point of superstition is to destroy it.'
- 'Knowing God without knowing our wretchedness leads to pride.'
- 'Knowing wretchedness without knowing God leads to despair.'
Even those who don't believe in God will extract much wisdom from Pascal. His one-liners are some of the most devastating observations of human psychology. Even a cursory exercise in quote-mining will yield many seeds for extended thought. This book should be read carefully and digested fragment by fragment, line by line.
Some of my favorite one-liners:
- 'We search for happiness and find only wretchedness and death.'
- 'I blame equally those who decide to praise man, those who blame him, and those who want to be diverted. I can only approve those who search in anguish.'
- 'If you do not think about it enough, or if you think about it too much, you become obstinate and blinkered.'
- 'Man's condition: Inconstancy, boredom, anxiety.'
- 'What is based on reason alone is very ill-founded, like the appreciation of wisdom.'
- 'Anyone who does not see the vanity of the world is very vain himself.'
- 'But take away their distractions and you will see them wither from boredom.'
- 'When we read too quickly or too slowly we understand nothing.'
- 'More often than not curiosity is merely vanity. We only want to know something in order to talk about it.'
- 'It is easier to put up with death without thinking about it, than with the idea of death when there is no danger of it.'
- 'Our instinct leads us to believe we must seek our happiness outside ourselves.'
- 'Humans, it is hopeless to look for the remedy for your wretchedness in yourselves. All your intelligence can only bring you to realize that it is not in yourselves that you will find either truth or good.'
- 'We are fools to rely on the company of our equals as wretched and helpless as we are. We will die alone.'
- 'Contradiction is not an indication of falsehood and the absence of contradiction is not a sign of truth.'
- 'There are many who believe, but through superstition. There are many who do not believe, but through licentiousness.'
- 'To uphold piety to the point of superstition is to destroy it.'
- 'Knowing God without knowing our wretchedness leads to pride.'
- 'Knowing wretchedness without knowing God leads to despair.'
Read
October 20, 2018This was a fantastic reading experience - in what I suspect maybe the most obscure and unhelpful comparison I may make on Goodreads - the literary version of Janacek's
On an Overgrown Path
in which as the cycle of pieces continues the music grows sparser and the silences speak ever louder until a few bare notes are richly poignant.
Now, how was the Pascal similar? In the edition I came across you effectively read the pensees in reserve order, starting from the most developed form of the idea and then working backwards towards Pascal's original thought. And when you get there, suddenly a single, brief, elusive sentence is heavily pregnant, about to give birth to its own universe of thought .
I was led to Pascal's Pensées when studying Brothers Karamazov as a student. There was a brief reference that it had been one of the books that Dostoevsky had read as a young man and occasionally being prone to flights of fancy I had a notion it might have been an influence.
Reading the Pensées I was quickly and resolutely unsure if I had been right or wrong in my guess. True, one can find wagers and God in both but the dynamic between the two is not shared by the two authors. But then again, that's not to say that the later author didn't read one of those single, brief, sometimes gnomic sentences and himself become pregnant with its possibilities.
On the other hand I was more confused about Jansenism after reading the introduction and the notes than I had been beforehand. Before the introduction it had all seemed so simple and straightforward and I fear that I will never recover the innocent clarity of my original misconceptions. Alack.
Now, how was the Pascal similar? In the edition I came across you effectively read the pensees in reserve order, starting from the most developed form of the idea and then working backwards towards Pascal's original thought. And when you get there, suddenly a single, brief, elusive sentence is heavily pregnant, about to give birth to its own universe of thought .
I was led to Pascal's Pensées when studying Brothers Karamazov as a student. There was a brief reference that it had been one of the books that Dostoevsky had read as a young man and occasionally being prone to flights of fancy I had a notion it might have been an influence.
Reading the Pensées I was quickly and resolutely unsure if I had been right or wrong in my guess. True, one can find wagers and God in both but the dynamic between the two is not shared by the two authors. But then again, that's not to say that the later author didn't read one of those single, brief, sometimes gnomic sentences and himself become pregnant with its possibilities.
On the other hand I was more confused about Jansenism after reading the introduction and the notes than I had been beforehand. Before the introduction it had all seemed so simple and straightforward and I fear that I will never recover the innocent clarity of my original misconceptions. Alack.
May 30, 2020
I honestly don’t know what to think of this little work called Pensées (1670). Which perhaps is only fitting, considering I honestly don’t know what to think of its author Blaise Pascal as well. Pascal was a very gifted intellect, home-schooled by his father, and through this father from a very early age on he was engaged with the intellectual circles of the time.
In his early twenties he built the first calculator, basically invented probability theory, made discoveries in the natural sciences (proving the existence of vacuums), and was the inventor of the roulette machine. Safe to say, this was one of the brightest minds of the time.
But Pascal is mostly known for his Pensées – literally penned thoughts on scribbled notes. These jotted down thoughts were the building blocks of a planned apologia for Jansenism (Catholic Lutheranism, if you will). Alas, the apologia never was written. Why, we don’t really know. Perhaps Pascal died to early, but there are many clues that he already had abandoned the project before he became debilitatingly ill during the 1650’s.
The question is: How does one of the brightest and most productive scientific minds of the time end up as an ascetic and fanatic follower of Jansenism?
According to Pascal himself, he once had this extraordinary vision of God, after which he gave up on all his earlier projects and subsequently devoted all of his life to the religious life. So, in the Pensées, we see all the inner thoughts that captivated Pascal’s mind during its religious travels. As Friedrich Nietzsche would later proclaim “I have to confess that I don’t read Pascal, but rather that I love him.” For Nietzsche, Pascal is the most heroic victim of religious delusion in the history of mankind. Whether we agree with Nietzsche or not, it’s safe to say that Pascal’s conversion and his subsequent life are very curious phenomena.
To understand the Pensées, it is (very) necessary to understand the context in which Pascal grew up and in which he wrote. He lived during the time of the Religious Wars which destroyed huge swaths of Europe (and its populations). It was the aftermath of the reformation, in which the Catholic Church was forced to adhere more to strict Christian doctrines, under the pressure of Luther’s ‘sola scriptura’. Luther drew heavily from Augustinian doctrines of human sin, predestination, etc. The result (which holds for most Protestant religions) was a very strict belief which was drenched in human sinfulness and eternal suffering. The Catholic Church had made Christianity too much of an earthly party, so to speak.
In these times, the Catholic Church responded with more strictness and rigidity in their doctrines, and more hostility towards deviant opinions. The Jesuits became the symbol of this new era – they were literally the Pope’s servants and emphasized casuistry in the practice. Of course, pretty soon freethinkers start to deviate – as is always the case – and the seventeenth century saw the spread of such a deviant movement within Catholicism: Jansenism.
Cornelius Jansen, a Catholic theologian, created a new movement centred on doctrines that drew – like Luther – heavily from Augustinian sources. Without going any further into all the details of who wrote what in response to whom, the main thing is the evolution of a French movement that was hostile to the Church in Rome, and that played a pivot role in the battle in France between the King, the Jesuits and the Pope.
Pascal’s religion was strict Jansenism – he despised the relaxed morality of the Jesuits and fulminated against the view that salvation is in the hands of human beings. Pascal’s religion is generally one of emphasizing human vanity and sinfulness; God as the only truth there is (effectively renouncing all his earlier scientific endeavours); and the human self as both solipsistic and aggressive (with regard to other selves). Human beings should stop escaping the fundamental decision they have to make – do I believe in God? – and should stop fleeing into fleshly and grotesque distractions.
During his youth Pascal heavily read Montaigne’s Essays (1580), which basically advocates a radical scepticism, echoing the Ancient Greek Pyrrho of Elis. We don’t know anything, since we can’t know anything – even the statement that ‘I don’t know anything’ is uncertain. This has consequences for science and morality. Science is the quest for knowledge – this seems vain when we accept Montaigne’s principles. Morality is knowledge of good and bad – this seems to be an illusion, when we accept Montaigne’s principles.
Pascal did accept the certainty of geometrical deductions, but – inspired by Montaigne – held that natural science is at best certain. How certain? To answer this question, he tried to develop a theory of probability.
Another important influence on Pascal was the (re-discovery) of ancient Stoic writings, especially Epictetus. The Stoic, unlike the sceptic, claims we can know things of the universe, since we are all part of it, and the universe as a whole is a Spirit, a God. The implications of this principle are that everything happens on purpose and necessarily, therefore we cannot do anything about it and not only should we stop worrying about our fate, we should accept it fully in the knowledge that we are part of God.
For someone like Pascal, the Stoic doctrines were much more acceptable than the scepticism, since it implies a duty towards God. Yet, scepticism has the advantage of recognizing the powerlessness of human beings. According to Pascal, stoicism leads to vanity while scepticism leads to apathy. What is needed is salvation: yes we, as well as all of nature, are weak – but we, unlike the rest of nature, are saved by the Gospels!
This last step is a very interesting one, since it touches on the key theme of Pascal’s Pensées. In a small essay on how to convince others, Pascal recognizes that people are convinced of truths through two ways. First there’s the natural and hard route: reason. Mathematical deduction leads to reasonable convictions. Yet, most of the time, we let ourselves be convinced through bodily affections: will. This is the unnatural way, the easy way of distraction. Reason (or mind) and will (or heart) are the two routes through which we know truths. We see here, again, the distinction between stoicism and scepticism (respectively). And this fits perfectly within Pascal’s scheme: both our mind and our heart are delusional when it comes to truth.
The only way to truth is belief in God, particularly in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is truth and it cannot be reached through bodily pleasures or mathematical deductions. It seems we need mystic experiences à la St. Paul, Luther or Pascal in order to fully embrace the one and eternal Truth, that is the truth of the Scripture.
And this is where the Pensées come in: it is a collection of hundreds and hundreds of thoughts on all the above mentioned aspects – the vanity and nothingness of human life, the craving of bodily distractions in order to escape human fate, the sinfulness of man, etc.
Perhaps the most known fragment of the Pensées deals with Pascal’s ‘wager’. He seems to recognize that most of humanity is not particularly prone to or fond of mysticism and supernatural experiences (miracles, etc.). But how can these stupid and base herds be guided to the light? Well, you have to speak to their reason. Pascal claims everyone has to decide if he believes in God – even if you not decide this is a decision. And in deciding whether to believe in God you are already in the sphere of reason. Why should I, or should I not, believe in Him?
This is where Pascal inserts the wager. Every decision is certain to have uncertain outcomes. The trick is to evaluate the possible risks and gains of each option. If you don’t believe and you die, God will punish you for eternity. If you do believe and you die, God will reward you for eternity. If you don’t believe, you can pursue bodily pleasures and live immoral. If you do believe, you have to lead the ascetic life and attend all the religious rituals. From these considerations, he concludes that even if you don’t believe, it is more reasonable to start believing, since you have to give up some finite gains to avoid infinite suffering and reap infinite rewards. The atheist, according to Pascal, has nothing to gain by being an atheist.
The crucial question now is: How can I decide to believe in God? It seems this is more a felt conviction – a surrender, if you will. Well, you have to simply start practicing the religious life: just start going to the Mass, start imitating all the rituals and practices. If you imitate other believers long enough, your heart will surrender itself to God.
Although this is a very interesting and original argument for believing in a religion, I’ve always wondered why it’s taken seriously. For starts, Pascal presents his wager as if there’s only two alternatives: you’re either an atheist or you are a Christian believer. But of course, there have been thousands and thousands of religions and religious sects in the history of mankind. Why doesn’t he include all these gods as possible options as well? Perhaps you can work your way around this by first proving that the Christian God exists as sole being. More fundamentally, the problem for Pascal is the type of God he assumes. This is a God who punishes you for eternity for not believing in him, and rewards you for eternity for deciding to believe in him as the outcome of a rational analysis of risks and gains. This God demands perfect obedience to his commands under the threat of eternal torture and rewards selfish prudential decisions.
Now, I’m no theologian, but as far as I can tell, this is not the type of God that most Christians believe in. The Christian God, through Jesus Christ, is supposed to be infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, and infinitely benevolent. He loves us so much that he chose to sacrifice Himself in order to relieve us of our Original Sin. Without going into all the absurdities and internal contradiction of these notions, I simply mention this because it fully destroys Pascal’s argument.
As a final remark, I always feel revulsion and disgust when reading pessimistic descriptions of human nature and the supposed solutions to our sinfulness that are inspired on religion. Christian religion seems to find love in hating humanity. All these claims of human beings being intrinsically wicked and bad, the hate of the human body, the endless threats of eternal torture – it’s simply too misanthropic to me. It takes a certain kind of person – usually men born with tendencies of ultra-rational thinking and consequentialism – to espouse such views. The intolerance and hate it reeks of are unbearable for me.
Nevertheless, this book was an interesting read. Although I wouldn’t recommend it to the general reader – it’s not really a book to read for fun or passing time. It’s simply a collection of thoughts that were jotted down by Pascal. And that’s that.
In his early twenties he built the first calculator, basically invented probability theory, made discoveries in the natural sciences (proving the existence of vacuums), and was the inventor of the roulette machine. Safe to say, this was one of the brightest minds of the time.
But Pascal is mostly known for his Pensées – literally penned thoughts on scribbled notes. These jotted down thoughts were the building blocks of a planned apologia for Jansenism (Catholic Lutheranism, if you will). Alas, the apologia never was written. Why, we don’t really know. Perhaps Pascal died to early, but there are many clues that he already had abandoned the project before he became debilitatingly ill during the 1650’s.
The question is: How does one of the brightest and most productive scientific minds of the time end up as an ascetic and fanatic follower of Jansenism?
According to Pascal himself, he once had this extraordinary vision of God, after which he gave up on all his earlier projects and subsequently devoted all of his life to the religious life. So, in the Pensées, we see all the inner thoughts that captivated Pascal’s mind during its religious travels. As Friedrich Nietzsche would later proclaim “I have to confess that I don’t read Pascal, but rather that I love him.” For Nietzsche, Pascal is the most heroic victim of religious delusion in the history of mankind. Whether we agree with Nietzsche or not, it’s safe to say that Pascal’s conversion and his subsequent life are very curious phenomena.
To understand the Pensées, it is (very) necessary to understand the context in which Pascal grew up and in which he wrote. He lived during the time of the Religious Wars which destroyed huge swaths of Europe (and its populations). It was the aftermath of the reformation, in which the Catholic Church was forced to adhere more to strict Christian doctrines, under the pressure of Luther’s ‘sola scriptura’. Luther drew heavily from Augustinian doctrines of human sin, predestination, etc. The result (which holds for most Protestant religions) was a very strict belief which was drenched in human sinfulness and eternal suffering. The Catholic Church had made Christianity too much of an earthly party, so to speak.
In these times, the Catholic Church responded with more strictness and rigidity in their doctrines, and more hostility towards deviant opinions. The Jesuits became the symbol of this new era – they were literally the Pope’s servants and emphasized casuistry in the practice. Of course, pretty soon freethinkers start to deviate – as is always the case – and the seventeenth century saw the spread of such a deviant movement within Catholicism: Jansenism.
Cornelius Jansen, a Catholic theologian, created a new movement centred on doctrines that drew – like Luther – heavily from Augustinian sources. Without going any further into all the details of who wrote what in response to whom, the main thing is the evolution of a French movement that was hostile to the Church in Rome, and that played a pivot role in the battle in France between the King, the Jesuits and the Pope.
Pascal’s religion was strict Jansenism – he despised the relaxed morality of the Jesuits and fulminated against the view that salvation is in the hands of human beings. Pascal’s religion is generally one of emphasizing human vanity and sinfulness; God as the only truth there is (effectively renouncing all his earlier scientific endeavours); and the human self as both solipsistic and aggressive (with regard to other selves). Human beings should stop escaping the fundamental decision they have to make – do I believe in God? – and should stop fleeing into fleshly and grotesque distractions.
During his youth Pascal heavily read Montaigne’s Essays (1580), which basically advocates a radical scepticism, echoing the Ancient Greek Pyrrho of Elis. We don’t know anything, since we can’t know anything – even the statement that ‘I don’t know anything’ is uncertain. This has consequences for science and morality. Science is the quest for knowledge – this seems vain when we accept Montaigne’s principles. Morality is knowledge of good and bad – this seems to be an illusion, when we accept Montaigne’s principles.
Pascal did accept the certainty of geometrical deductions, but – inspired by Montaigne – held that natural science is at best certain. How certain? To answer this question, he tried to develop a theory of probability.
Another important influence on Pascal was the (re-discovery) of ancient Stoic writings, especially Epictetus. The Stoic, unlike the sceptic, claims we can know things of the universe, since we are all part of it, and the universe as a whole is a Spirit, a God. The implications of this principle are that everything happens on purpose and necessarily, therefore we cannot do anything about it and not only should we stop worrying about our fate, we should accept it fully in the knowledge that we are part of God.
For someone like Pascal, the Stoic doctrines were much more acceptable than the scepticism, since it implies a duty towards God. Yet, scepticism has the advantage of recognizing the powerlessness of human beings. According to Pascal, stoicism leads to vanity while scepticism leads to apathy. What is needed is salvation: yes we, as well as all of nature, are weak – but we, unlike the rest of nature, are saved by the Gospels!
This last step is a very interesting one, since it touches on the key theme of Pascal’s Pensées. In a small essay on how to convince others, Pascal recognizes that people are convinced of truths through two ways. First there’s the natural and hard route: reason. Mathematical deduction leads to reasonable convictions. Yet, most of the time, we let ourselves be convinced through bodily affections: will. This is the unnatural way, the easy way of distraction. Reason (or mind) and will (or heart) are the two routes through which we know truths. We see here, again, the distinction between stoicism and scepticism (respectively). And this fits perfectly within Pascal’s scheme: both our mind and our heart are delusional when it comes to truth.
The only way to truth is belief in God, particularly in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is truth and it cannot be reached through bodily pleasures or mathematical deductions. It seems we need mystic experiences à la St. Paul, Luther or Pascal in order to fully embrace the one and eternal Truth, that is the truth of the Scripture.
And this is where the Pensées come in: it is a collection of hundreds and hundreds of thoughts on all the above mentioned aspects – the vanity and nothingness of human life, the craving of bodily distractions in order to escape human fate, the sinfulness of man, etc.
Perhaps the most known fragment of the Pensées deals with Pascal’s ‘wager’. He seems to recognize that most of humanity is not particularly prone to or fond of mysticism and supernatural experiences (miracles, etc.). But how can these stupid and base herds be guided to the light? Well, you have to speak to their reason. Pascal claims everyone has to decide if he believes in God – even if you not decide this is a decision. And in deciding whether to believe in God you are already in the sphere of reason. Why should I, or should I not, believe in Him?
This is where Pascal inserts the wager. Every decision is certain to have uncertain outcomes. The trick is to evaluate the possible risks and gains of each option. If you don’t believe and you die, God will punish you for eternity. If you do believe and you die, God will reward you for eternity. If you don’t believe, you can pursue bodily pleasures and live immoral. If you do believe, you have to lead the ascetic life and attend all the religious rituals. From these considerations, he concludes that even if you don’t believe, it is more reasonable to start believing, since you have to give up some finite gains to avoid infinite suffering and reap infinite rewards. The atheist, according to Pascal, has nothing to gain by being an atheist.
The crucial question now is: How can I decide to believe in God? It seems this is more a felt conviction – a surrender, if you will. Well, you have to simply start practicing the religious life: just start going to the Mass, start imitating all the rituals and practices. If you imitate other believers long enough, your heart will surrender itself to God.
Although this is a very interesting and original argument for believing in a religion, I’ve always wondered why it’s taken seriously. For starts, Pascal presents his wager as if there’s only two alternatives: you’re either an atheist or you are a Christian believer. But of course, there have been thousands and thousands of religions and religious sects in the history of mankind. Why doesn’t he include all these gods as possible options as well? Perhaps you can work your way around this by first proving that the Christian God exists as sole being. More fundamentally, the problem for Pascal is the type of God he assumes. This is a God who punishes you for eternity for not believing in him, and rewards you for eternity for deciding to believe in him as the outcome of a rational analysis of risks and gains. This God demands perfect obedience to his commands under the threat of eternal torture and rewards selfish prudential decisions.
Now, I’m no theologian, but as far as I can tell, this is not the type of God that most Christians believe in. The Christian God, through Jesus Christ, is supposed to be infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, and infinitely benevolent. He loves us so much that he chose to sacrifice Himself in order to relieve us of our Original Sin. Without going into all the absurdities and internal contradiction of these notions, I simply mention this because it fully destroys Pascal’s argument.
As a final remark, I always feel revulsion and disgust when reading pessimistic descriptions of human nature and the supposed solutions to our sinfulness that are inspired on religion. Christian religion seems to find love in hating humanity. All these claims of human beings being intrinsically wicked and bad, the hate of the human body, the endless threats of eternal torture – it’s simply too misanthropic to me. It takes a certain kind of person – usually men born with tendencies of ultra-rational thinking and consequentialism – to espouse such views. The intolerance and hate it reeks of are unbearable for me.
Nevertheless, this book was an interesting read. Although I wouldn’t recommend it to the general reader – it’s not really a book to read for fun or passing time. It’s simply a collection of thoughts that were jotted down by Pascal. And that’s that.
December 12, 2011
Wow- I read the edited version, which the Levis got down to about 180, plus a few other essays which were reasonably helpful. Having done this, I'm pretty happy saying that someone should really do a 90 page version, which would give you much of the important material, without any of the random notes. When people read, say, Heidegger or Dostoevsky, they don't feel obliged to read the notes they made on the back of restaurant menus along the lines of "look up Kierkegaard on the color green" or "think through monasticism viz self-hatred". But apparently you need them for Pascal. Well, it ruins the reading experience.
Also ruining the reading experience is Pascal being a Jansenist, which raises my Pelagian hackles; and his droning on about miracles, which raises my rationalist hackles. Really, nobody alive today who is reading Pascal needs 40 pages on miracles.
Despite which, I can see that this would have been a really amazing book if he'd lived to re-draft it about a billion times.
Start with the modern, reflective, rational self; add grand conversion experience. Okay- now think about 'human nature,' concluding that it's a combination of reason and passions; of will and heart and so on. Look around you and realize that everything is shitty, thanks to original sin. Remember that you've only been happy since you converted: no more scepticism, no more self-obsession. Don't you want other people to be like that? Of course you do. You think everyone's an asshole, but you're nice enough to wish they weren't, and that they were happy. Okay. Think about conversion. Because you're a Jansenist (jerk) you believe that conversion comes from the grace of God, and only from God. Now you're in a bind: you want other people to convert, and that you should help them; and you believe that there's nothing you can do to help them. Yes, reason is important, but it can't help us be happy. Yes, (eternal) happiness is the most important thing, but there's nothing we can do to be happy. Oh shit. Begin angsting in a highly entertaining, intelligent way, which anticipates, among others, Kant and Adorno. Voila: a great book. That happens to be 100 pages too long thanks to the inclusion of nonsense about miracles.
The famous wager's pretty boring by comparison to all that: just an attempt to provide a 'proof' for belief that Pascal thinks can never work without grace.
Anyway, these editors do a fantastic job giving you a way in to this mess, which is otherwise totally overwhelming (qua quantity) and underwhelming (qua quality).
Also ruining the reading experience is Pascal being a Jansenist, which raises my Pelagian hackles; and his droning on about miracles, which raises my rationalist hackles. Really, nobody alive today who is reading Pascal needs 40 pages on miracles.
Despite which, I can see that this would have been a really amazing book if he'd lived to re-draft it about a billion times.
Start with the modern, reflective, rational self; add grand conversion experience. Okay- now think about 'human nature,' concluding that it's a combination of reason and passions; of will and heart and so on. Look around you and realize that everything is shitty, thanks to original sin. Remember that you've only been happy since you converted: no more scepticism, no more self-obsession. Don't you want other people to be like that? Of course you do. You think everyone's an asshole, but you're nice enough to wish they weren't, and that they were happy. Okay. Think about conversion. Because you're a Jansenist (jerk) you believe that conversion comes from the grace of God, and only from God. Now you're in a bind: you want other people to convert, and that you should help them; and you believe that there's nothing you can do to help them. Yes, reason is important, but it can't help us be happy. Yes, (eternal) happiness is the most important thing, but there's nothing we can do to be happy. Oh shit. Begin angsting in a highly entertaining, intelligent way, which anticipates, among others, Kant and Adorno. Voila: a great book. That happens to be 100 pages too long thanks to the inclusion of nonsense about miracles.
The famous wager's pretty boring by comparison to all that: just an attempt to provide a 'proof' for belief that Pascal thinks can never work without grace.
Anyway, these editors do a fantastic job giving you a way in to this mess, which is otherwise totally overwhelming (qua quantity) and underwhelming (qua quality).
December 6, 2025
fter reading The Pensees of Blaise Pascal, it is hard to know what to say. At Pascal's passing, the fragments—some of which resembled aphorisms and some of which stretched to several pages of prose—were left unorganized and unedited. Since then, readers have contemplated The Pensees (literally, thoughts), attempting to decipher them and extract some sort of worldview. As I read, I also attempted to understand the fragmentary remarks and discovered that, to the extent that I could understand them, Monsieur Pascal's opinions differed from my own. According to Pascal, man's reason is a weak thing that life ultimately cannot rely on, making the human condition miserable. His worldview is imbued with a supernatural and otherworldly perspective that is challenging to reconcile with reality due to the overwhelming significance of ideas like immortality and original sin. It's possible that his personal physical illnesses led him to believe that all people detested the human body. Voltaire expresses ideas similar to mine when he states, "Nature does not make us unhappy all the time," among the many intellectuals who have thought about Pascal over the years since his Pensees were left to us in 1670. Pascal always talks like a sick man who wants everyone on the planet to suffer."Twenty-fifth Letter, On Mr. Pascal's Pensees" in Philosophical Letters. According to Pascal, we are doomed to be unhappy, the body is completely corrupted and unredeemable, self-esteem is to be despised, and God's thoughts are impenetrable, but we would be better off if we accepted the wager that he does exist. For my part, I reject both Mr. Pascal's bet and his worldview. I celebrate the ongoing advancements made by humans through reason, despite our limitations, and I look forward to continuing to be amazed by the mysteries of life.
April 16, 2007
Not to be mixed up with his first, somewhat less mature work of theology, "Peeneses," this collection of aphorisms and assorted sentence-long bits of wisdom has been pleasing everyone it could since it was written nearly eight thousand years ago. Pascal's influence on such diverse thinkers as Dostoevsky and Wittgenstein has been incalculable, though his fame probably reached its apex when the world-famous comic strip "Modesty Blaise" was named in his honor.
I am no worshipper of the Christ, but Blaise does a good job of demonstrating the impossibility of life without faith... after which you're one good strong push from taking Eucharist and saying rosary. I think of him as a precursor of the critics of Enlightenment like Kierkegaard, but I'm probably overstating my case. He was definitely a precursor of John Updike's, though, and some would say that's enough.
I am no worshipper of the Christ, but Blaise does a good job of demonstrating the impossibility of life without faith... after which you're one good strong push from taking Eucharist and saying rosary. I think of him as a precursor of the critics of Enlightenment like Kierkegaard, but I'm probably overstating my case. He was definitely a precursor of John Updike's, though, and some would say that's enough.
August 21, 2010
This is a tough one.
There are two reasons why I read this book: (1) For years a long time ago, in my capacity as Production Manager for a printing company, I helped produce the local high school’s annual literary/arts magazine, The Thinking Reed. It won First Prize in the statewide Scholastic Publications Competition every single year. On the back cover of every issue was: “Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed. —Blaise Pascal.” All my life I’ve been totally fascinated by evolutionary biology and the phenomena of human consciousness and adaptability. Pascal, who was also a famous mathematician, died in 1662, almost two hundred years before Darwin published On The Origin of Species. Thus I was struck by his foresight/insight. (2) Over the years I had heard and read again and again about Pascal’s famous and penetrating Pensees, his collection of “thoughts” — sometimes nothing more than scribbles in the margins of other notes he was making, upside-down, sideways, and so on — that he intended to make into a book. He died before he could actually write it.
So I finally read this book. And I hated it.
I forced myself to read the whole of the Pensees as well as the “Discussion with Monsieur de Sacy,” the essay “The Art of Persuasion,” and “The Treatise on Grace,” all of which are included in this edition of his writings.
I found one insightful passage in the entire thing:
“What is the self?
“A man who sits at the window to watch the passers-by; can I say he sat there to see me if I pass by? No, for he is not thinking of me in particular. But someone who loves a person for her beauty, does he love her? No, because smallpox, which will destroy her beauty without destroying the person, will ensure that he no longer loves her.
“And if someone loves me for my judgement, for my memory, is it me they love? No, because I can lose these qualities without losing myself. Where is the self, then, if it is neither in the body nor the soul? And how can you love the body or the soul except for its qualities, which do not make up the self, since they are perishable? For would we love the substance of a person’s soul in the abstract, whatever qualities it contained? That is impossible, and would be unjust. Therefore we never love a person, only qualities.
“So let us stop mocking people who are honored for their appointments and offices. For we love no one except for his borrowed qualities.”
That’s very good, but that’s it — in 226 pages.
Pascal spends almost the entire Pensees castigating Montaigne — from whom he steals most of his ideas, as is clearly pointed out in the book’s Introduction — whose Essays I read a few years ago and immensely admire; and the rest of the time he belittles Epictetus, the great Stoic teacher. I am a Stoic, so this naturally didn’t sit well with me either. Pascal goes on and on and on about how, due to the sin of Adam — curiously, he never mentions Eve — we human beings are totally wretched, vain and short-sighted, wholly ruled by “concupiscence” — a word I’d never encountered before and that he uses constantly. It means “desire” or “appetite,” especially but not limited to the sexual kind. In other words covetousness, gluttony, et al. We are therefore all condemned to eternal damnation upon our deaths and the only way out of all this is through belief in Jesus Christ as embodied in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, this belief coming not by use of the mind but from the heart. He goes to great pains to explain the difference in one tedious argument after another, giving examples, analogies … ad infinitum.
Needless to say he makes no mention of the utter atrocities said Holy Church had committed over the centuries, including just recently burning Giordano Bruno alive at the stake in 1600 or its persecution of Galileo in 1633, both for the “heresy” of rational thinking — specifically, that the Copernican theory was quite simply more reasonable and better explained the facts as clearly observed in the motion of the planets than the church’s position that the earth was the center of the universe. Bruno went even further, proclaiming the sun to be just one of many of the stars in the night sky and that the universe itself was infinite.
Galileo: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” The Catholic Church admitted in1992 it made “a mistake” in placing him under house arrest for the last nine years of his life, 359 years after the fact. I’m sure Galileo was thrilled. No such “apology” has been forthcoming in regard to the murder of Bruno as far as I know.
Yet it’s allegedly through the use of said rationality that Pascal tries to convince us to embrace his faith. And then of course there’s the famous Pascal’s Wager, his “mathematical” attempt to persuade us of the wisdom of believing in God, preferably his version thereof. Google it. It’s too downright goofy to go into here.
To be clear about where I’m coming from in all this: I absolutely abhor organized religion of ANY kind. I was raised and confirmed a Roman Catholic but when people ask me if I’m a Christian I always say, “I believe in just about everything Jesus taught but as far as I’m concerned the churches that grew out of those teachings are without exception a bunch of crap.” Over the last 40 years I’ve studied Zen Buddhism and have found its insights invaluable in daily life. My best friend from childhood, Mike, is a Zen priest, and I’ve told him that I frankly have no desire to “sign up” — especially after reading about the totally inappropriate sexual behavior and ridiculous political maneuverings that go on in Zen temples and monasteries.
In short, I believe the problem with organized religion is that it’s run by people.
So, to me, this book — beautifully and, in parts, even brilliantly written, hence the single star — was a phenomenal waste of Pascal’s intellect and my time.
What a shame.
There are two reasons why I read this book: (1) For years a long time ago, in my capacity as Production Manager for a printing company, I helped produce the local high school’s annual literary/arts magazine, The Thinking Reed. It won First Prize in the statewide Scholastic Publications Competition every single year. On the back cover of every issue was: “Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed. —Blaise Pascal.” All my life I’ve been totally fascinated by evolutionary biology and the phenomena of human consciousness and adaptability. Pascal, who was also a famous mathematician, died in 1662, almost two hundred years before Darwin published On The Origin of Species. Thus I was struck by his foresight/insight. (2) Over the years I had heard and read again and again about Pascal’s famous and penetrating Pensees, his collection of “thoughts” — sometimes nothing more than scribbles in the margins of other notes he was making, upside-down, sideways, and so on — that he intended to make into a book. He died before he could actually write it.
So I finally read this book. And I hated it.
I forced myself to read the whole of the Pensees as well as the “Discussion with Monsieur de Sacy,” the essay “The Art of Persuasion,” and “The Treatise on Grace,” all of which are included in this edition of his writings.
I found one insightful passage in the entire thing:
“What is the self?
“A man who sits at the window to watch the passers-by; can I say he sat there to see me if I pass by? No, for he is not thinking of me in particular. But someone who loves a person for her beauty, does he love her? No, because smallpox, which will destroy her beauty without destroying the person, will ensure that he no longer loves her.
“And if someone loves me for my judgement, for my memory, is it me they love? No, because I can lose these qualities without losing myself. Where is the self, then, if it is neither in the body nor the soul? And how can you love the body or the soul except for its qualities, which do not make up the self, since they are perishable? For would we love the substance of a person’s soul in the abstract, whatever qualities it contained? That is impossible, and would be unjust. Therefore we never love a person, only qualities.
“So let us stop mocking people who are honored for their appointments and offices. For we love no one except for his borrowed qualities.”
That’s very good, but that’s it — in 226 pages.
Pascal spends almost the entire Pensees castigating Montaigne — from whom he steals most of his ideas, as is clearly pointed out in the book’s Introduction — whose Essays I read a few years ago and immensely admire; and the rest of the time he belittles Epictetus, the great Stoic teacher. I am a Stoic, so this naturally didn’t sit well with me either. Pascal goes on and on and on about how, due to the sin of Adam — curiously, he never mentions Eve — we human beings are totally wretched, vain and short-sighted, wholly ruled by “concupiscence” — a word I’d never encountered before and that he uses constantly. It means “desire” or “appetite,” especially but not limited to the sexual kind. In other words covetousness, gluttony, et al. We are therefore all condemned to eternal damnation upon our deaths and the only way out of all this is through belief in Jesus Christ as embodied in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, this belief coming not by use of the mind but from the heart. He goes to great pains to explain the difference in one tedious argument after another, giving examples, analogies … ad infinitum.
Needless to say he makes no mention of the utter atrocities said Holy Church had committed over the centuries, including just recently burning Giordano Bruno alive at the stake in 1600 or its persecution of Galileo in 1633, both for the “heresy” of rational thinking — specifically, that the Copernican theory was quite simply more reasonable and better explained the facts as clearly observed in the motion of the planets than the church’s position that the earth was the center of the universe. Bruno went even further, proclaiming the sun to be just one of many of the stars in the night sky and that the universe itself was infinite.
Galileo: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” The Catholic Church admitted in1992 it made “a mistake” in placing him under house arrest for the last nine years of his life, 359 years after the fact. I’m sure Galileo was thrilled. No such “apology” has been forthcoming in regard to the murder of Bruno as far as I know.
Yet it’s allegedly through the use of said rationality that Pascal tries to convince us to embrace his faith. And then of course there’s the famous Pascal’s Wager, his “mathematical” attempt to persuade us of the wisdom of believing in God, preferably his version thereof. Google it. It’s too downright goofy to go into here.
To be clear about where I’m coming from in all this: I absolutely abhor organized religion of ANY kind. I was raised and confirmed a Roman Catholic but when people ask me if I’m a Christian I always say, “I believe in just about everything Jesus taught but as far as I’m concerned the churches that grew out of those teachings are without exception a bunch of crap.” Over the last 40 years I’ve studied Zen Buddhism and have found its insights invaluable in daily life. My best friend from childhood, Mike, is a Zen priest, and I’ve told him that I frankly have no desire to “sign up” — especially after reading about the totally inappropriate sexual behavior and ridiculous political maneuverings that go on in Zen temples and monasteries.
In short, I believe the problem with organized religion is that it’s run by people.
So, to me, this book — beautifully and, in parts, even brilliantly written, hence the single star — was a phenomenal waste of Pascal’s intellect and my time.
What a shame.
November 25, 2024
sure, things of this life/world can be good—but what if we die and it all just ends? isn’t that the most important question? doesn’t the answer change everything? isn’t the only reasonable action to spend your days in “anguished search” for God?
if you obey reason’s dictate to search beyond reason for God, you’ll be able to Him. God hides his presence such that he’s only visible to those who look for him with love. He hides because he’s not the God of the philosophers; He’s not a mathematical principle. He’s a person who loves, and to find that kind of God means to love him back.
if you obey reason’s dictate to search beyond reason for God, you’ll be able to Him. God hides his presence such that he’s only visible to those who look for him with love. He hides because he’s not the God of the philosophers; He’s not a mathematical principle. He’s a person who loves, and to find that kind of God means to love him back.
November 6, 2024
This was one of the most beautifully written theology accounts I’ve ever read. Humans are desperately wicked, God is forever good. Our hearts can feel that he is with us instead of our minds trying to reason his presence.
“plus poetice quam humane locutus es” (you speak more poet than human) is a banger line. And he uses it to prove that nature speaks to theology.
So good.
“plus poetice quam humane locutus es” (you speak more poet than human) is a banger line. And he uses it to prove that nature speaks to theology.
So good.
August 8, 2024
Find the ⭐ to learn why you should read Pascal. The rest of this review is extra!
Pascal! Where were you in my four years of undergrad philosophy? 😭 You would have been such a welcome friend 🙁 Beyond one class that (unsurprisingly) used Pascal's wager (and was quite unkind to his argument for that matter), Pascal was completely absent—and we were all worse off for it, no joke!!!
It was in a Kant course, when my professor encouraged me to read Pascal (Thank you, Prof. Owen P.! You are still one of my favourite and most inspiring profs! 🤩). I don't remember why, but I'm glad he did! I like Pascal much more than Kant 🥲 (though Kant still has my admiration, he has less real estate in my brain).
The Pensees are incredibly profound, but also profoundly incoherent. 😅 The form we have it in now are fragments from what would have been a complete apologetic work if he had not died so soon. For this reason, it can get repetitive and feel incomplete (an invitation to carry on the work that he has left behind?). We need an edition of the Pensees that gather all his thoughts on various topics together (with the French!)—does this already exist???
"I will write down my thoughts here in no order, but not perhaps in aimless confusion. It is the true order and will still show my aim by its very disorder. I would be deferring too much to my subject if I treated it in an orderly way, since I want to show that the subject does not admit of order" (pensee 457). 😂😂😂 I don't know if this was meant to describe the final form of his intended apologetic work, but it's funny considering what the work has now become. 😍
⭐ Why should one read Pascal today? Because he speaks about things we need to think about (Christian and non-Christian alike). He talks about distraction (or "diversions"), boredom, the relationship between reason and feeling, the relationship between the heart and knowing "the hidden God", a realistic anthropology (wretchedness and greatness in counterbalance—Pascal has a very strong understanding of human psychology infected by sin) and, if this counts as a reason, he loves St. Augustine! In addition to these, he has interesting parables, devotional gems, theologically rich meditations, salient one-liners and apologetic arguments (with an obsession with miracles—this, I'm less interested in).
Lastly, the OWC edition has extra documents after the Pensees.
1. "Discussion with Monsieur de Sacy": This is a helpful piece. It outlines Pascal's views on the "third way" between stoical self-effort and Montaignian scepticism (or Pyrrhonism). The Gospel is the third way that "unites the truths of both and banishes the falsehoods". This is one of the main themes in the Pensees and now we have his views all in one place! 🔥
2. "The Art of Persuasion": This is not about persuading people of "divine truths". Pascal thinks only God can put divine truths into souls via grace. Instead, this document is about convincing others about "self-evident" axiomatic truths that can be shown by reason. I liked his part about the distinction of the two persuasions. I was less interested in the methodology.
3. "Writings on Grace": Here, Pascal tries to refute Calvinism and Molinism with Augustinian soteriology. I appreciate his attempt, but, besides it being complete, it still had some problems—I also wonder if he straw-manned Calvinism. These are not major concerns I would hold against Pascal though.
Pascal! Where were you in my four years of undergrad philosophy? 😭 You would have been such a welcome friend 🙁 Beyond one class that (unsurprisingly) used Pascal's wager (and was quite unkind to his argument for that matter), Pascal was completely absent—and we were all worse off for it, no joke!!!
It was in a Kant course, when my professor encouraged me to read Pascal (Thank you, Prof. Owen P.! You are still one of my favourite and most inspiring profs! 🤩). I don't remember why, but I'm glad he did! I like Pascal much more than Kant 🥲 (though Kant still has my admiration, he has less real estate in my brain).
The Pensees are incredibly profound, but also profoundly incoherent. 😅 The form we have it in now are fragments from what would have been a complete apologetic work if he had not died so soon. For this reason, it can get repetitive and feel incomplete (an invitation to carry on the work that he has left behind?). We need an edition of the Pensees that gather all his thoughts on various topics together (with the French!)—does this already exist???
"I will write down my thoughts here in no order, but not perhaps in aimless confusion. It is the true order and will still show my aim by its very disorder. I would be deferring too much to my subject if I treated it in an orderly way, since I want to show that the subject does not admit of order" (pensee 457). 😂😂😂 I don't know if this was meant to describe the final form of his intended apologetic work, but it's funny considering what the work has now become. 😍
⭐ Why should one read Pascal today? Because he speaks about things we need to think about (Christian and non-Christian alike). He talks about distraction (or "diversions"), boredom, the relationship between reason and feeling, the relationship between the heart and knowing "the hidden God", a realistic anthropology (wretchedness and greatness in counterbalance—Pascal has a very strong understanding of human psychology infected by sin) and, if this counts as a reason, he loves St. Augustine! In addition to these, he has interesting parables, devotional gems, theologically rich meditations, salient one-liners and apologetic arguments (with an obsession with miracles—this, I'm less interested in).
Lastly, the OWC edition has extra documents after the Pensees.
1. "Discussion with Monsieur de Sacy": This is a helpful piece. It outlines Pascal's views on the "third way" between stoical self-effort and Montaignian scepticism (or Pyrrhonism). The Gospel is the third way that "unites the truths of both and banishes the falsehoods". This is one of the main themes in the Pensees and now we have his views all in one place! 🔥
2. "The Art of Persuasion": This is not about persuading people of "divine truths". Pascal thinks only God can put divine truths into souls via grace. Instead, this document is about convincing others about "self-evident" axiomatic truths that can be shown by reason. I liked his part about the distinction of the two persuasions. I was less interested in the methodology.
3. "Writings on Grace": Here, Pascal tries to refute Calvinism and Molinism with Augustinian soteriology. I appreciate his attempt, but, besides it being complete, it still had some problems—I also wonder if he straw-manned Calvinism. These are not major concerns I would hold against Pascal though.
October 26, 2015
Pascal gets four stars. The 1995 Oxford/Levi translation/edition gets two.
Pensées is 30% nonsense, 30% genius, and 40% somewhere in between.
Pascal is a Reformation-era Roman Catholic in good standing. He is Augustinian, and therefore Calvinist in many respects, but despises Calvin. To top it off, he's a mathematician, not a theologian. So the outcome can be quite scattered at times. Still, for a book that he never actually wrote, this is a remarkable book.
As far as the Levis (translator/editor), the translation seems alright, but the caustic perspectives on the Reformation that seep through in the Introduction/Notes damage trust and rapport with the reader. The introduction also misrepresents Calvin so blatantly as to be embarrassing coming from such a reputable scholar. Also, the notes aren't as helpful as I'd hoped they would be and are hidden away at the end of the book (vs. in the footnotes).
Overall, Pascal is well worth the read.
Pensées is 30% nonsense, 30% genius, and 40% somewhere in between.
Pascal is a Reformation-era Roman Catholic in good standing. He is Augustinian, and therefore Calvinist in many respects, but despises Calvin. To top it off, he's a mathematician, not a theologian. So the outcome can be quite scattered at times. Still, for a book that he never actually wrote, this is a remarkable book.
As far as the Levis (translator/editor), the translation seems alright, but the caustic perspectives on the Reformation that seep through in the Introduction/Notes damage trust and rapport with the reader. The introduction also misrepresents Calvin so blatantly as to be embarrassing coming from such a reputable scholar. Also, the notes aren't as helpful as I'd hoped they would be and are hidden away at the end of the book (vs. in the footnotes).
Overall, Pascal is well worth the read.
Read
January 10, 2016I wanted to enjoy reading this more than I actually did. At this point in my reading life I find it a real challenge to greet, with unclenched jaw, presentations of proofs for God's existence. Ultimately, Pascal does and doesn't do that. I finished the book feeling slightly annoyed at the amount of time I put into it but with a begrudging respect for what he seemed to be trying to do.
His actual intent is not clear as Pensées are a loosely cataloged series of fragmentary notes that might have been intended to be put into book form. You've been warned.
On the plus side, it isn't a long read and this translation made the work as palatable as I was ever going to find it.
His actual intent is not clear as Pensées are a loosely cataloged series of fragmentary notes that might have been intended to be put into book form. You've been warned.
On the plus side, it isn't a long read and this translation made the work as palatable as I was ever going to find it.
May 3, 2017
Pascal lived to be 39 and I understood more about christianity from this little book than I have from going to church or having discussions on religion.
I would say any serious religious person deserves to read this.
"You can purchase the mind of Pascal for a crown. Pleasures even cheaper are sold to those who give themselves up to them. It is only luxuries and objects of caprice that are rare and difficult to obtain; unfortunately they are the only things that touch the curiosity and taste of ordinary men."
Luc de Clapiers
I would say any serious religious person deserves to read this.
"You can purchase the mind of Pascal for a crown. Pleasures even cheaper are sold to those who give themselves up to them. It is only luxuries and objects of caprice that are rare and difficult to obtain; unfortunately they are the only things that touch the curiosity and taste of ordinary men."
Luc de Clapiers
October 26, 2021
'Human sensitivity to little things and insensitivity to the greatest things: sign of a strange disorder.'
August 29, 2024
Why certain books get famous is a pretty interesting thing to think about. The Pensees are not, precisely, a book at all: they were collected from scattered notes for a book after their author's death. They are fragmented and more or less artless, and for some reason that makes them feel more earnest, more mysterious, more connected with some vital truth? And it can't be mere championing for one's theological 'side' that has kept this relevant; the Catholics apparently made Pascal's chosen way of thinking a heresy soon after his death.
Anyway, this book/ non book is one that could make you wise, if you happen to be interested in things like the possible existence of God, how people think, and what it means to be a thing that knows it will die. I'm planning to leave it by my desk and flip through it once every few months and be sobered and sharpened by the experience.
At random (which is apparently the correct way to read anything in here):
-The feeling of the inauthenticity of present pleasures and our ignorance of the emptiness of absent pleasures causes inconsistency.
-They have never found another way of satisfying their concupiscence without harming others.
-We are fools to rely on the company of our equals as wretched and helpless as we are. We will die alone.
-Begin by pitying unbelievers. They are unhappy enough in their condition. They must not be abused, except if it helps them. But it harms them.
-Reason's last step is to recognize that there is an infinite number of things which surpass it. It is simply feeble if it does not go as far as realizing that.
and my new favorite:
-But is it probable that probability leads to certainty?
Anyway, this book/ non book is one that could make you wise, if you happen to be interested in things like the possible existence of God, how people think, and what it means to be a thing that knows it will die. I'm planning to leave it by my desk and flip through it once every few months and be sobered and sharpened by the experience.
At random (which is apparently the correct way to read anything in here):
-The feeling of the inauthenticity of present pleasures and our ignorance of the emptiness of absent pleasures causes inconsistency.
-They have never found another way of satisfying their concupiscence without harming others.
-We are fools to rely on the company of our equals as wretched and helpless as we are. We will die alone.
-Begin by pitying unbelievers. They are unhappy enough in their condition. They must not be abused, except if it helps them. But it harms them.
-Reason's last step is to recognize that there is an infinite number of things which surpass it. It is simply feeble if it does not go as far as realizing that.
and my new favorite:
-But is it probable that probability leads to certainty?
February 3, 2016
I suppose this is a great book, but the Oxford World's Classics translation does not do it justice. The translation is confusing, and the introduction and the notes are too preoccupied with theological issues that are not interesting to the lay reader.
August 28, 2023
1st Read: ★★★★
First book of the semester finished!!
This book should also be titled: Enlightenment Shower Thoughts
This was a chaotically organized book, and yet, it somehow worked. I enjoyed our class discussions and all Pascal's thoughts.
First book of the semester finished!!
This book should also be titled: Enlightenment Shower Thoughts
This was a chaotically organized book, and yet, it somehow worked. I enjoyed our class discussions and all Pascal's thoughts.
January 2, 2010
Blaise Pascal has much the same insight, wit, and persuasive power as C. S. Lewis. Welcome my new hero.
June 12, 2025
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), figura poliedrica del XVII secolo, è universalmente riconosciuto per i suoi contributi rivoluzionari in matematica, fisica e filosofia. La sua opera filosofica più celebre, i Pensieri, è una raccolta postuma di frammenti destinati a un'imponente apologia del cristianesimo, spesso denominata "Apologia della Religione Cristiana". Questo ambizioso progetto rimase incompiuto a causa della morte prematura di Pascal all'età di 39 anni. I Pensieri rappresentano il testamento spirituale di Pascal, esprimendo una forma di esistenzialismo cristiano che si pone in diretta opposizione al razionalismo dominante della sua epoca, in particolare quello promosso da René Descartes. Un momento cruciale nella vita di Pascal, una profonda esperienza mistica avvenuta nel 1654 e nota come la "Notte di Fuoco", ha modificato irreversibilmente la sua traiettoria esistenziale, infondendo nei Pensieri la loro profonda urgenza teologica.
Il cuore dei Pensieri risiede nella critica incisiva di Pascal al razionalismo cartesiano, considerato insufficiente per affrontare i dilemmi esistenziali più profondi dell'umanità. Egli sosteneva che la scienza e la ragione pura, sebbene potenti nei loro specifici ambiti, sono intrinsecamente limitate di fronte a questioni di significato ultimo, sofferenza umana ed esistenza divina. La forma testuale stessa dei Pensieri riflette questa posizione filosofica; ritrovati in fascicoli disorganizzati dopo la sua morte, la loro natura frammentaria ha posto immense sfide editoriali, dando origine a una ricca "molteplicità di pensiero" attraverso le varie edizioni. Lo stile aforistico distintivo di Pascal, caratterizzato da "detti" concisi e spesso paradossali, non è una mera scelta letteraria, ma una strategia retorica deliberata volta a servire il suo progetto teologico: guidare il lettore verso una percezione della presenza divina ("scrupolosa decifrazione dei segni di Dio") che trascende l'apprensione puramente intellettuale e si appella direttamente al "cuore".
La natura incompiuta dei Pensieri, lungi dall'essere un mero accidente dovuto alla morte prematura di Pascal, può essere compresa come un'affermazione filosofica intrinseca. Il testo, con la sua "instabilità enigmatica", costringe il lettore a un ruolo attivo nella ricostruzione del significato. Questa "apertura" del testo riflette la convinzione di Pascal che la verità ultima, in particolare quella divina, non possa essere completamente racchiusa in un sistema umano chiuso e finito. La forma stessa dell'opera, quindi, incarna il suo contenuto, sottolineando i limiti della ragione sistematica e invitando a un'esperienza più dinamica e partecipativa della ricerca della verità.
La critica di Pascal a René Descartes costituisce una delle scissioni più significative nel pensiero moderno, evidenziando divergenze fondamentali nelle loro epistemologie e metafisiche. L'accusa di Pascal a Descartes, riassunta nella celebre formula "Descartes inutile et incertain" , rivela una profonda divergenza epistemologica. Per Pascal, la filosofia cartesiana era "inutile" perché non conduceva l'uomo alla salvezza e "incerta" perché fraintendeva la vera natura della certezza. Pascal distingue due concetti di certezza: quella derivante dalla fede e quella dalla scienza. La certezza basata sulla fede, per Pascal, è un dono divino, un'infusione diretta di Dio che permette la credenza e dissolve il dubbio. Egli la differenzia nettamente dalla "fede umana", che, fondandosi sulla ragione umana, è intrinsecamente incapace di eliminare l'incertezza. La certezza ultima della verità, secondo Pascal, non scaturisce da dimostrazioni razionali dell'esistenza di Dio, come l'argomento ontologico cartesiano, ma piuttosto da un atto di fede e dalla rivelazione divina. Questa convinzione è espressa nella sua celebre affermazione: "il cuore, e non la ragione, sente Dio" , indicando una modalità di apprensione che trascende la deduzione logica.
Per quanto riguarda la certezza scientifica, Pascal, pur essendo egli stesso un matematico e scienziato di genio, riconosceva l'efficacia dell' "esprit de géometrie" per la comprensione del mondo esterno e fisico. Tuttavia, ne delineava rigorosamente i limiti intrinseci, sostenendo che la ragione scientifica è vincolata dall'esperienza, non può dimostrare i propri primi principi ed è "impotente" di fronte alle questioni esistenziali fondamentali della vita umana. In netto contrasto, il razionalismo di Descartes mirava a stabilire una "piena fiducia nella ragione" , costruendo un nuovo sistema filosofico su "percezioni chiare e distinte". Descartes credeva che l'esistenza di Dio potesse essere provata dalla ragione naturale, fornendo così una base per tutta la conoscenza e un'immunità dal dubbio scettico. Pascal, invece, criticava Descartes per aver fondato la certezza scientifica sulla metafisica, il che, a suo avviso, "falsificava" la natura stessa della verità scientifica, ponendola su un fondamento instabile e di costruzione umana.
Pascal presentava una visione radicale dell'immaginazione come una forza "onnipotente e illimitatamente pervasiva" che plasma la percezione umana di "bellezza, giustizia e felicità". In modo cruciale, definiva l'immaginazione come una "facoltà ingannatrice, che sembra esserci stata data apposta per indurci a un errore necessario". Questo "errore necessario" non è accidentale, ma una parte intrinseca della condizione umana, minando ogni possibilità di certezza oggettiva perché l'immaginazione "segna con lo stesso carattere il vero e il falso".
Questo concetto si pone in diretta e vigorosa opposizione alla "teodicea dell'errore" di Descartes, articolata nella sua Quarta Meditazione. Descartes rifiutava esplicitamente l'idea che Dio, essendo veritiero, potesse dotare gli esseri umani di una "facoltà di commettere errori". Per Descartes, l'errore era una deficienza, una conseguenza della finitudine umana e della disparità tra l'intelletto finito e la volontà infinita. Egli postulava che gli esseri umani potessero raggiungere la "perfezione umana" acquisendo l' "abitudine di non commettere errori" attraverso l'uso corretto delle loro facoltà. L' "anti-teodicea" di Pascal, affermando un "errore necessario" divinamente ordinato, sfida direttamente la visione ottimistica di Descartes, implicando una forma di inganno divino e negando la possibilità di perfezione umana senza l'intervento della grazia divina.
La critica di Pascal a Descartes non è una mera disputa filosofica, ma affonda le sue radici in presupposti teologici fondamentalmente diversi riguardo alla natura di Dio e alla condizione decaduta dell'umanità. Descartes, nella sua teodicea dell'errore, cerca di preservare la natura non ingannatrice di Dio e la perfezione umana, consentendo la certezza razionale. Pascal, al contrario, abbraccia l'idea di un "Dio nascosto" e la "miseria" e l' "errore naturale" dell'uomo. L' "errore necessario" causato dall'immaginazione è precisamente ciò che Descartes cercava di evitare. Questo suggerisce che il "ripudio" di Pascal non riguarda solo metodi diversi, ma una più profonda convinzione teologica che la ragione umana, senza l'aiuto della grazia, sia intrinsecamente imperfetta e insufficiente a cogliere la verità ultima, in particolare Dio. Il progetto di Descartes di costruire la certezza dalla ragione è, per Pascal, un tentativo fuorviante di trovare Dio in un regno dove Egli ha scelto di nascondersi.
Sia Pascal che Descartes si confrontarono profondamente con lo scetticismo di Montaigne, un'influenza intellettuale comune del loro tempo. Per Descartes, il dubbio era uno strumento metodico e provvisorio, un "strumento epistemico" per smantellare la vecchia filosofia scolastica e l'inaffidabile evidenza dei sensi. Il suo dubbio iperbolico, inclusa l'ipotesi del "genio maligno", serviva come mezzo per giungere a verità indubitabili, come il Cogito, stabilendo così una solida base per un nuovo sistema razionale. Il dubbio, per Descartes, era un passo verso la certezza, non un fine in sé.
L'approccio di Pascal allo scetticismo era fondamentalmente diverso. Egli credeva che nessun principio puramente razionale potesse resistere alla piena forza degli argomenti scettici, concludendo che la vera certezza poteva essere trovata solo nella fede e nella rivelazione. Pascal dichiarò celebremente che "il Pirronismo è vero" , sostenendo che gli esseri umani, prima dell'avvento di Cristo, erano ignari della loro vera condizione, e solo la rivelazione religiosa poteva fornire le risposte che cercavano. Per Pascal, lo scetticismo serviva a evidenziare la fragilità intrinseca e i limiti della ragione umana, sottolineando in ultima analisi che "non c'è verità al di fuori della fede".
Questo portò alla celebre distinzione di Pascal tra l' "esprit de géometrie" (spirito di geometria) e l' "esprit de finesse" (spirito di sottigliezza o intuizione). Mentre Descartes riponeva una "piena fiducia nella ragione" come fondamento dell'indagine scientifica moderna , Pascal sosteneva che la ragione, in particolare nella sua forma matematica e deduttiva, è intrinsecamente limitata nella sua capacità di cogliere verità relative alla condizione umana e a Dio. Per Pascal, le verità divine "entrano dal cuore nella mente, e non dalla mente nel cuore", un processo che serve a umiliare il "superbo potere del ragionamento". Egli affermava che un'esclusiva dipendenza dalla ragione renderebbe l'individuo "completamente pazzo" e distaccato dall' "esperienza fondamentale del vivere nel mondo".
La metodologia di dubbio di Descartes conduce a un fondamento razionale per la conoscenza. L'approccio di Pascal allo scetticismo, tuttavia, non mira a superare il dubbio razionalmente, ma a sfruttarlo per evidenziare i limiti della ragione e orientare verso la fede. Questo percorso conduce alla "scommessa". La scommessa è un argomento pragmatico, non una prova logica dell'esistenza di Dio. Sposta l'attenzione dal conoscere Dio attraverso la ragione all' agire come se Dio esistesse, preparando così il cuore alla credenza. Questo passaggio dalla certezza teorica all'impegno pratico segna una svolta cruciale nel pensiero moderno, anticipando temi esistenzialisti in cui la scelta e l'azione precedono o abilitano la credenza. La critica di Pascal a Descartes non è quindi solo un rifiuto del razionalismo, ma un'argomentazione implicita a favore di un diverso tipo di "ragionevolezza" – una che riconosce le limitazioni umane e la necessità di un "salto di fede" o di un impegno pragmatico, specialmente in questioni di ultima importanza. Questo preannuncia una più ampia tendenza filosofica verso il pragmatismo e l'esistenzialismo.
La natura frammentaria dei Pensieri di Pascal e le sfide editoriali che ne derivano sono centrali per la comprensione della sua opera e del suo impatto filosofico. I Pensieri nacquero come una raccolta di note e riflessioni compilate da Pascal per la sua opera apologetica cristiana, che, purtroppo, rimase incompiuta al momento della sua morte nel 1662. Alla sua dipartita, i suoi scritti furono ritrovati in uno stato di notevole disordine, costituiti da numerosi appunti e frammenti. Il metodo di lavoro personale di Pascal prevedeva la stesura di riflessioni, schizzi e talvolta testi elaborati su grandi fogli di carta. Successivamente, egli tagliava fisicamente questi fogli e organizzava le parti risultanti in fascicoli tematici. Questo indica un processo di composizione e organizzazione dinamico e in corso, che fu interrotto prima del completamento.
Riconoscendo l'importanza del materiale, la sorella maggiore di Pascal, Gilberte Périer, avviò la copiatura dei manoscritti poco dopo la sua morte. Furono prodotte due copie principali (C1 e C2), che si rivelarono inestimabili poiché il manoscritto originale subì ulteriori alterazioni nel XVIII secolo, quando i suoi fogli furono nuovamente tagliati e incollati su pagine di quaderno. Queste prime copie rivelano una porzione strutturata del piano di Pascal, contenente 27 fascicoli intitolati che rappresentano il suo ordine previsto per quasi 400 frammenti. Inoltre, includono circa 30 fascicoli senza titolo, la cui disposizione differisce tra C1 e C2, illustrando ulteriormente il disordine intrinseco. La prima edizione pubblicata, intitolata Les Pensées de M. Pascal, apparve il 2 gennaio 1670, curata dai suoi amici dell'abbazia di Port-Royal. Tuttavia, l'ordine in cui queste note avrebbero dovuto essere lette fu immediatamente oggetto di un intenso disaccordo accademico, un dibattito che continua ancora oggi. Inoltre, la pubblicazione iniziale subì la censura della Chiesa Cattolica.
La "riflessione frammentaria" di Pascal e il suo meticoloso processo di "taglio di ogni pietra" seguito da una "disposizione progressiva" verso un' "architettura" più ampia rivelano un processo di pensiero intrinsecamente dinamico ed evolutivo, piuttosto che rigidamente lineare. Lo stato incompiuto dei Pensieri ha paradossalmente contribuito al suo duraturo successo e alla sua ricchezza filosofica. Questa "apertura" del testo invita costantemente i lettori a riflettere sulla sua stessa costruzione e sul processo di indagine filosofica.
La natura esigente delle riflessioni di Pascal, che miravano a collegare tutti gli elementi in unità strettamente connesse, simili alle diverse fasi della dimostrazione di un'equazione matematica, solleva la profonda questione se Pascal avrebbe mai potuto veramente completare un tale progetto. Ciò suggerisce che l'atto stesso del "ben pensare", come lo concepiva Pascal, potrebbe essere intrinsecamente dinamico e forse mai completamente riducibile a un sistema statico e chiuso. La forma frammentaria non è una mera conseguenza di limitazioni logistiche, ma è profondamente intrecciata con il contenuto della filosofia di Pascal e la sua sofisticata comprensione delle tecniche di persuasione. Essa costringe il lettore a diventare un "archeologo dell'atto di pensare" , ricostruendo attivamente la coerenza e il significato del testo. Questo impegno attivo e interpretativo da parte del lettore conduce naturalmente a una "molteplicità di pensiero" e a diverse interpretazioni, poiché ogni lettore deve confrontarsi con l'instabilità intrinseca e ricomporre il puzzle filosofico.
La costante disorganizzazione dei manoscritti di Pascal e il suo singolare metodo di lavoro, che prevedeva il taglio e l'incollaggio di fascicoli tematici, implicano che i brevi frammenti pascaliani dovrebbero essere considerati elementi di uno sviluppo più ampio. L'assenza di una struttura definitiva e completa, lasciata da Pascal stesso, rende necessario lo sforzo interpretativo del lettore. Questo significa che il lettore non è un semplice fruitore passivo di un argomento finito, ma un partecipante attivo nella "ricostruzione della coerenza di questo pensiero". La "molteplicità di pensiero" non è solo una conseguenza dei frammenti, ma un effetto inteso dell' "apertura" del testo, che invita a interpretazioni diverse e a un coinvolgimento intellettuale. L'instabilità testuale non è un difetto, ma una caratteristica che approfondisce l'esperienza filosofica, costringendo il lettore a confrontarsi con il processo del pensiero di Pascal, piuttosto che solo con il suo prodotto, riflettendo la ricerca dinamica della verità di Pascal stesso. Questo rende i Pensieri un testo filosofico unicamente interattivo.
I Pensieri di Blaise Pascal si ergono come un'opera apologetica profonda, sebbene incompiuta, che sfida fondamentalmente il razionalismo sistematico incarnato da René Descartes. La sua critica a Descartes espone meticolosamente i limiti intrinseci della ragione umana nell'affrontare questioni esistenziali e teologiche ultime, sostenendo invece il primato indispensabile della fede e dell'apprensione intuitiva del "cuore" nella percezione della verità divina. La frammentarietà intrinseca dei Pensieri, conseguenza diretta sia del suo stato incompiuto sia del metodo di composizione dinamico e iterativo di Pascal, ne accresce paradossalmente la profondità filosofica. Questa "apertura" testuale funge da specchio alla "nascondimento" di Dio e alla natura paradossale, spesso contraddittoria, dell'esistenza umana. Inoltre, lo stile aforistico distintivo di Pascal, lungi dall'essere un mero abbellimento letterario, funziona come uno strumento retorico e filosofico sofisticato. Esso presenta le verità in un modo che bypassa l'assenso puramente intellettuale, coinvolgendo invece l'intuizione, le emozioni e la volontà del lettore, culminando infine nell'imperativo pragmatico della "scommessa" – un appello decisivo all'impegno di fronte all'incertezza ultima.
I Pensieri hanno inaugurato una "scissione decisiva nel pensiero moderno" , stabilendo un profondo contrasto con il razionalismo fondazionale di Descartes. L'enfasi di Pascal sull'intuizione, sui sentimenti e sui limiti dell'apprensione puramente intellettuale ha prefigurato e influenzato movimenti filosofici successivi, inclusa la reazione contro l'assoluta fiducia dell'Illuminismo nella ragione e l'emergere del pensiero esistenzialista. La sua duratura esplorazione della condizione umana – la tensione tra miseria umana e grandezza intrinseca, i limiti riconosciuti della ragione umana e la necessità esistenziale della fede – continua a risuonare profondamente. Questo rende i Pensieri un testo fondamentale per comprendere la complessa interazione tra fede, dubbio e la condizione umana nell'era moderna, assicurandone il posto come opera senza tempo di profondo significato filosofico e teologico.
L'enfasi di Pascal sulla "miseria e grandezza" dell'uomo , l'inadeguatezza della ragione per le questioni esistenziali , la necessità della scelta (la scommessa) di fronte all'incertezza , e il ruolo del "cuore" e dell'esperienza soggettiva indicano tutti temi che sarebbero poi diventati centrali per l'esistenzialismo. La sua opera costringe a un confronto con la finitudine umana e la necessità di una risposta personale e impegnata alle questioni ultime, piuttosto che puramente intellettuale. La duratura rilevanza dei Pensieri risiede non solo nei suoi argomenti teologici, ma nelle sue profonde intuizioni psicologiche ed esistenziali sulla condizione umana, rendendola un'opera senza te
July 27, 2013
Books don't get any better than this. While this work does not have a narrative or a particular argument running through it, but is a collection of thoughts, pensées, any one of which is worth entire oeuvres of other authors. there is never a time where i don't pick up this book, read a page, or a thought, and i'm not blown way. Fragment 230, perhaps the longest "thought" of the book, speaks of the two infinites and the disproportion of man. To quote briefly from that passage, "What is man in infinity? But to present ourselves with an equally astonishing wonder, let us search in what we know for the tiniest things. In its miniscule body a mite shows us parts incomparably tinier: legs with joints, veins in its legs, blood in its veins, humours in its blood, drops in its humours, vapours within the drops." He then says that there is an abyss -- in both directions, smallness and greatness -- with regards to the universe outside of us (the starry skies above) and the cells within us, but also the tiniest things (as expressed so well in 'Horton hears a who!' If one really thinks about this, Pascal believes, one cannot help tremble. This is where his most famous analysis of how we, as human beings, are 'halfway between nothing and everything'. It doesn't get any more brilliantly theologically, existential philosophically, and scientific, all that same time, than this. For more on this brilliance, see my (edited) book Philosophy Begins in Wonder: An Introduction to Early Modern Philosophy, Theology, and Science, where there is a wonderful chapter on Pascal.
November 7, 2013
I have a feeling in my bones that someday I will work over my own problems, return to this book, and love it. For the time being, however, it's all like vinegar to the teeth. Maybe it was because Pascal never married. Maybe it was because he had ill health. Maybe it was because his sister became a nun.
What's my beef?
The most depressing thing for me was his continued emphasis that in this life we cannot find happiness without God. There is a sense this is true: without acknowledging God and thankful for all He gives us, we are unhappy and all our delight in this world will run dry. However, Pascal seems to think the delights of the world really are worthless, even for the Christian. And he seems to believe God continues to taunt us with unhappiness so we do not get too comfortable with anything but Him. It seems like all the soul was made for was to sit around enjoying the vision of God in heaven; God likes matter and gave it for man to find his joy in it. This is a path for suicide, not beatitude. His hyper-Calvinism also surprised me. Man is evil, wretched, worm-food. To be fair he admits man is both great and wretched, but he definitely dwells on the wretchedness and spends most of his time there. That he was a Catholic makes me see our Calvinist ancestors.
Still, neither Pascal nor I likes the stoics and I would like to continue in his tradition of keeping belief grounded as much in emotion as in reason. On that concession of agreement I will cease my melodramatic complaints.
What's my beef?
The most depressing thing for me was his continued emphasis that in this life we cannot find happiness without God. There is a sense this is true: without acknowledging God and thankful for all He gives us, we are unhappy and all our delight in this world will run dry. However, Pascal seems to think the delights of the world really are worthless, even for the Christian. And he seems to believe God continues to taunt us with unhappiness so we do not get too comfortable with anything but Him. It seems like all the soul was made for was to sit around enjoying the vision of God in heaven; God likes matter and gave it for man to find his joy in it. This is a path for suicide, not beatitude. His hyper-Calvinism also surprised me. Man is evil, wretched, worm-food. To be fair he admits man is both great and wretched, but he definitely dwells on the wretchedness and spends most of his time there. That he was a Catholic makes me see our Calvinist ancestors.
Still, neither Pascal nor I likes the stoics and I would like to continue in his tradition of keeping belief grounded as much in emotion as in reason. On that concession of agreement I will cease my melodramatic complaints.
March 24, 2013
It's difficult to rate a work like this. The Pensees are the notes and fragments Pascal left behind for what would probably have become his masterpiece had he not died so young. This particular edition (the Honor Levi translation) has a solid introduction and valuable "lesser" writings tacked on at the end. The most important of these being his "Writings on Grace," which I'd consider necessary for understanding the rest of Pascal's work. The main points underpinning his thinking (as I understand it) are: original sin left man in a wretched state which can only be overcome through the grace of God (specifically through Jesus); and rational reason is clearly limited and God/the world/etc can only be understood through faith and grace (the heart, not the mind). Not being a Christian myself, his apologetics don't really do much for me (though it's interesting to read someone lucidly rationalizing their faith), but the gist of his thoughts about the limits of pure reason were right up my alley.
October 22, 2010
A wonderful collection of thoughts on the nature of Christianity and the human condition. Though he is obviously not an existentialist one can see traces of Kierkegaard and Camus in his contemplation of "the wretchedness" and misery of man and his attempts to find a solution for it: God. One can only wonder what his text would have accomplished had he not died so early in life.
Nevertheless it took many a secondary source to even begin to understand the depth that each fragment carried. I'll have to read it again after completing my major - people like Pascal have reaffirmed my faith.
Nevertheless it took many a secondary source to even begin to understand the depth that each fragment carried. I'll have to read it again after completing my major - people like Pascal have reaffirmed my faith.
November 30, 2012
Pascal does what few philosophers are willing to do: unabashedly embraces the paradox of Jesus Christ as the center and explanation for the human experience. He feigns no intellectual superiority or autonomy, but accurately observes the simultaneous wretchedness and glory of man, the corruption of nature and the redemption of Christianity, and nails all his philosophy to the God-man in the center, supporting it all.
May 19, 2020
I have been reading this book on and off for a while. It is rich in axioms and wise observations collected from Pascal's notes and letters. I enjoyed ruminating on and annotating this treasure trove of "thoughts" on range of topics. He writes about humanity, philosophy, mathematics, and faith. This strange, eclectic, and enlightening collection of insights are well worth the read, even if taken in small dosages.
August 21, 2007
I need to pick this up again. I read about a third of it. It is, of course, a collection of notes Pascal intended to use as the basis of a magnum opus, so there's no real organixation. Almost every comment invites a serious pondering. Slow going, but rewarding.
Read
June 4, 2007the everyday thoughts of a brilliant man, from bridge construction to friendship to god.
Want to read
June 21, 2011Theoretical book. Blaise Pascal's thoughts on Christianity, faith, the human condition, and God.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews