The Power of Words

by Simone Weil

'There are certain words which possess, in themselves, when properly used, a virtue which illumines and lifts up towards the good'

The philosopher and activist Simone Weil was one of the most courageous thinkers of the twentieth century. Here she writes, with honesty and moral clarity, about the manipulation of language by the powerful, the obligations of individuals to one another and the needs - for order, equality, liberty and truth - that make us human.

One of twenty new books in the bestselling Penguin Great Ideas series. This new selection showcases a diverse list of thinkers who have helped shape our world today, from anarchists to stoics, feminists to prophets, satirists to Zen Buddhists.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Essays, France, Womens, French Literature

111 pages, Paperback

First published September 24, 2020

About the author

Simone Weil was a French philosopher, Christian mystic, and social activist. Weil was born in Paris to Alsatian agnostic Jewish parents who fled the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. Her brilliance, ascetic lifestyle, introversion, and eccentricity limited her ability to mix with others, but not to teach and participate in political movements of her time. She wrote extensively with both insight and breadth about political movements of which she was a part and later about spiritual mysticism. Weil biographer Gabriella Fiori writes that Weil was "a moral genius in the orbit of ethics, a genius of immense revolutionary range".

Reviews

[emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

welcome to: THE PENGUIN GREAT IDEAS PROJECT!

i am both addicted to projects and very into short books that make me look smart, so this project (which has been on pause for 3 months while i attempted to finish my reading challenge without having an average page count of 14) is a perfect fit.

i have acquired a couple dozen penguin great ideas installments, and i will be attempting to read one a day until i get bored, catch up, or reach spiritual fulfillment!

find past books here:
WHAT IS EXISTENTIALISM?
REFLECTIONS ON THE GUILLOTINE
THREE JAPANESE BUDDHIST MONKS
REFLECTIONS ON THE GUILLOTINE
THE DECAY OF LYING
AIN'T I A WOMAN
BRIEF NOTES ON THE ART AND MANNER OF ARRANGING ONE'S BOOKS

from page 4 this was already alarmingly prescient, but it never approached the same level of clever and eloquent that its first and title essay did for me — an issue i keep finding myself having with these books.

also, weil contradicted herself pretty often, was very much a moralist here, and at one point advocated against the need for freedom of speech, so.

weird. fun, but weird.

[Catarina Neves · Rating 3 out of 5]

2021 Reading #3 | First(s) of the Year
(My brain hurts.)

I am honestly getting mixed feelings from having finished this book. One of my 2021 reading goals was to (try to) read more philosophy books — and as small as this one might be, as long as it took me to finish it, and as many times as I wanted to give up because my brain was hurting , I did it! I should be happy about that... right?

No. Something feels off. No matter how much I understood and actually liked some of the subliminal messages in what I considered some very straight-forward essays on philosophy and society (but, please, do correct me if I am wrong!), I found it difficult to keep up with its ramblings most of the time. I also found myself constantly getting outraged by some of Weil's ideas — but, then again, this book reflects the times in which the philosopher lived, between two World Wars. In her first essay, The Power of Words , Simone Weil threw fascism and communism into the same mix, as if they were just two sides of the same coin. In my humble opinion, these ideologies are neither synonyms nor antonyms... just simply not comparable! (And, you might have guessed it: I am very tempted to go read about both ideologies next...)

Nevertheless, if I had to choose my favorite essay, it would have to be Human Personality . I would especially like to emphasize this passage, on the incompatibility of perfection and society:

"Perfection is impersonal. Our personality is the part of us which belongs to error and sin. (...) Impersonality is only reached by the practice of a form of attention which is rare in itself and impossible except in solitude; and not only physical but mental solitude. This is never achieved by a man who thinks of himself as a member of a collectivity, as part of something which says 'We'." (p. 34)

Again: I am not sure if it was the circumstances we are currently living in — *ahem* a month of lockdown number two & a year of the pandemic... Who is with me? *ahem* — or the actual book, but I did not end up becoming a fan of Simone Weil (based on this book alone). My pile of books to read this year keeps on growing like crazy, and I was hoping that this slim title could provide me some comfort before I moved on to bulkier 'pastures'... But I believe it did quite the opposite. Its density and my constant feeling of disbelief towards some of Weil's ideas — which, again, I know were shaped by the times she was living in — pushed me to avoid reading at times, making this my first challenge of the year.

The fact that it took me so long to finish such a small book clearly shows why reading philosophy books is so nerve-wracking to me: I feel like my brain and attention span really get lost when I am reading. Even if it was not my favorite read ever, I am very proud to have finished it. Hopefully, a first great step — or the whole "one small step for Catarina, one giant leap for her reading habits" thing. Still not sure.


[Read between 30 January 2021 - 16 February 2021. | Review written on 22 February 2021.]

[Lego, legis, legit, legimus, legitis, legunt · Rating 2 out of 5]

I must definitely admit that this book (or to better call it, this pamphlet) did not match my expectations at all.

I went into reading it expecting a rather rational essay about the manipulative power of words that could, to such an extent, equip my mind with tools to avoid falling into the trap set by manipulative communication which I think constitutes the very fundamentals of our society nowadays. But I must say that, as previous stated, I found my expectations falling short.

The main topic of the book is so incredibly vague and confused that at times it left me wondering if I was misenterpreting what I was reading.

From what I came to understand the author states that society is fundamentally ill and identifies a "cure" to this illness in acknowledging the existence of a human soul (which I'm not inclined to do as I'm naturally an atheist) and basically building up a society based on what seems to me just Utopic and catholic ideals that definitely don't hold up to the test of time very well.

At some point, while on the topic of freedom of speech, the author even comes to suggest something that looked so contradictory to me that I was tempted to just dnf the book.

She states that on the one hand every single individual must be allowed to express his thoughts (even if completely against all of human rights) without any kind of restrictions. But on the other hand there must be a supervisor (namely a court of some sort) that needs to condemn and severely punish any kind of propaganda that aims to increment the number of people inside an association purely based on ideas.

I think it's clear to everyone that it does not make any sense since whoever was put in charge to decide what's propaganda and what's not must be a human just like everyone else, so being by definition imperfect and well capable of making mistakes on such a delicate matter.

Before putting an end to my review I want to point out just another unrealizable and rather contradictory statement that I found while reading this book.

I am talking about the explicit suggestion, coming from the author himself, of the complete abolition of any political party.
She states that politics must be up to individuals and not parties which according to the author naturally have the tendency to annihilate democracy and gain absolute power over a country.

I find it completely unreasonable and, although I understand that it might be exacerbated by the author's experience of WWII and the disillusionment coming from it, I find it nonetheless a very dangerous way of conceiving the political life of a country.

At the end I am inclined to suggest this book only if you seek something to stimulate thoughts about social, political and religious themes but it definitely wasn't meant for me.

[Lee Foust · Rating 3 out of 5]

I went from 100% agreeing to the first essay, to agreeing/disagreeing about 50/50 with the second essay, to agreeing/disagreeing about 25/75% to the third essay. The third, "Needs of the Soul" went further into this abstract pseudo spiritual/religious language to attempt a rational philosophy outside of the tired political parties and struggles of the WWII era. While I sympathize wholeheartedly with the limits and ineffectiveness of democracy, communism, and fascism to save us/solve the most pressing problems of humankind, I fear some vague religious chicanery even more than those political categories and the blind allegiance to them to which so many cling--I mean, are those political parties really very different from the various religious sects that have enslaved us and sent us out to slaughter one another so many times over the centuries? Anyway, Weil's solutions aren't my solutions, although, like so many thinkers before her (like myself I suppose) she was pretty good at isolating the problems. But, well, when the needs of the soul include order and punishment and things like that, the words always abused to repress and silence us, I can only see her as missing the mark.

[Nicholas Nilsson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can excuse it from Plato, but the moment a philosopher from the last century starts talking about shit like ”the eternal destiny of the soul” my eyes just immediately glaze over

[Oziel Bispo · Rating 4 out of 5]

"O Poder das Palavras" e a Vida de Simone Weil: Uma Análise Profunda."

"O Poder das Palavras" é um livro de ensaios da filósofa francesa Simone Weil, que nos desafia a pensar profundamente sobre a sociedade e a política. Publicado em 1960, mas com base em textos escritos por Weil em 1937, este livro compacto de 80 páginas é repleto de ideias intensas.

Weil argumenta que as únicas lutas sociais verdadeiramente válidas são as lutas de classes, nas quais as pessoas buscam igualdade e justiça sem recorrer à violência, ao contrário das guerras entre nações, que ela considera absurdas e muitas vezes sem um propósito claro. Um exemplo histórico que ela usa é a Guerra de Tróia, onde a disputa era por Helena.

Um ponto crucial discutido no livro é o papel da imaginação coletiva na política e como isso influencia o poder. Weil destaca a importância de líderes políticos agirem estrategicamente, antecipando ações para alcançar resultados melhores.

Weil também usa sarcasmo para questionar a noção de progresso com base em indicadores como hospitais, automóveis, canhões e casos de tuberculose. Ela nos faz refletir sobre o que realmente importa na sociedade.

"O Poder das Palavras" nos apresenta uma mente brilhante e inovadora do século XX, cujo reconhecimento veio após sua morte em 1943. Este livro desafia o pensamento convencional e convida o leitor a questionar as estruturas sociais e políticas. É uma leitura essencial para aqueles que desejam uma compreensão mais profunda do impacto das palavras na política e na sociedade.

A morte de Simone Weil em 1943 foi marcada por uma tragédia heroica. Sendo portadora de tuberculose e desesperada por não poder deixar a Inglaterra e retornar à França ocupada, ela escolheu recusar-se a comer mais do que os trabalhadores na França, morrendo de inanição. Sua morte foi um gesto de protesto e um testemunho do compromisso de Weil com sua visão de justiça e igualdade.

Além disso, é interessante notar que a obra de Simone Weil, "O Poder das Palavras", continua a ser objeto de análise e discussão até os dias atuais. O impacto de suas ideias transcende seu tempo de vida e continua a influenciar pensadores, filósofos e teólogos. A abordagem multifacetada de Weil, que incluiu elementos de ativismo social, misticismo religioso e crítica à burocracia moderna, torna sua obra uma fonte rica de inspiração para uma variedade de campos intelectuais.

Simone Weil também oferece uma perspectiva única sobre a relação entre poder e espiritualidade. Sua crença na presença de Deus fora do mundo e sua ênfase na graça como um contraponto à necessidade ressoam com muitos que exploram as complexidades da fé e da existência humana. Sua abordagem, que une elementos do pensamento cristão com uma profunda preocupação pelos oprimidos, desafia as convenções e convida os leitores a repensarem sua compreensão do poder e da justiça.

Como mencionado anteriormente, Simone Weil deixou uma marca indelével na história do pensamento do século XX, e sua influência persiste. É um testemunho de sua profundidade intelectual e humanidade que seus escritos e sua vida continuem a ser objetos de estudo e admiração, e que ela seja considerada uma das vozes mais importantes na reflexão sobre as palavras, o poder e a condição humana. A morte de Weil, um ato de profunda convicção e sacrifício, ecoa sua dedicação às causas que defendeu durante toda a sua vida.

[chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Breves ensayos de Simone Weil de 1936-37, en pleno apogeo de la Guerra Civil Española y del auge de los totalitarismos en Europa.
Ha sido mi primera introducción formal a los textos de Weil y debo decir que ha sido una lectura fructuosa y reflexiva.

[John Defrog: global citizen, local gadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve never read Simone Weil before, but a lot of people I respect tend to quote her a lot, so naturally when I saw this in a local indie bookstore, I decided to give it a try – not least since (as part of Penguin’s “Great Ideas” series) it’s basically a taster of two of her books: The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties towards Mankind and Selected Essays 1934-43. So I figured it was an easy commitment and a short read. As it turns out, “short” in this case doesn’t equal “easy”. Weil was a serious intellectual and she wrote like one. Moreover, her “great ideas” essentially called for a radical rethink and overhaul of accepted conventions, concepts and institutions by getting to the true heart of the fundamental problem of the human condition.

For example, in the title track, Weil argues that words have power when they are empty of meaning – as they so often are in political discourse – so that words like “fascism”, “Communism” and “democracy” become vacuous labels that men will kill and die for without understanding what those words actually mean, which also prevents us from seeing the true nature of the issue at hand. The second essay, “Human Personality”, is related in that Weil says the term “human rights” in popular discourse fails to capture the essence of what we think of as rights, as opposed to words like “justice” and “truth”. Finally, “The Needs of the Soul” looks at rights in the broader context of the human “obligations” to respect each other and ensure everyone’s physical and spiritual needs are met – which involves not just obvious things like equality, liberty and freedom of opinion, but also order, obedience and punishment.

So yeah, it’s challenging stuff. And that’s a good thing. I won’t say I agree with all of Weil’s ideas, and some of her ideal suggestions for correcting the problems she points out are complex and seem less practical or workable in this crazy mixed up world of 2023 than it did when she wrote these essays in the 1930s-40s. On the other hand, she also sounds like a prophet when she writes stuff like: “A democracy where public life is made up of strife between political parties is incapable of preventing the formation of a party whose avowed aim is the overthrow of that democracy.” What you make of if will obviously depend on your current political outlook and your openness to having your sociopolitical ideologies seriously challenged. For me, I got a lot out of this, and I’ll probably try to find some other writings by Weil.

[Daan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Weil was spot on when she wrote these essays, and her theories still remain incredibly relevant in our day and age. The idea that the oppressor and the oppressed have different languages, which the oppressor controls and manipulates, is something that I fear gets overlooked nowadays. But it should nevertheless play a great role in contemporary social discourse because of the immense, but nearly invisible, impact that language has on every aspect of our lives.

[Fin Quinlan · Rating 2 out of 5]

First essay is good. It feels like she looks at communism and fascism as being both two sides of the same coin (which is obviously untrue and a strange conclusion from someone devoted to left wing activism) although I may have misread it. The second essay was impenetrablly written almost stereotypically so and the third didnt really say much.

[Manon Rhoswen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why is power of words not mandatory reading for politicians I want it tattooed on my face x

[Bartek · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5; the last two essays read a bit like a high-concept utopian novel with really unapproachable worldbuilding, love the contents, don't love the form

[Dans · Rating 5 out of 5]

i swear if u read "power of words" and "human personality" you will know everything you need to learn about the current moment

[Emelie · Rating 3 out of 5]

“It is always language that formulates opinions, even when there are no spoken words. The natural faculty called intelligence is concerned with opinion and language. Language can express relations; but it expresses only a few, because its operation needs time. When it is confused and vague, without precision or order, when the speaker or listener is deficient in the power of holding a thought in his mind, then language is empty or almost empty of any real relational content. When it is perfectly clear, precise, rigorous, ordered, when it is addressed to a mind which is capable of keeping them both present while it adds another to it and of keeping them both present while it adds a third, and so on, then in such a case language can hold fairly rich content of relations. But like all wealth, this relative wealth is abject poverty compared with the perfection which alone is desirable.”

Människan är så spännande, och sättet vi uttrycker oss på likaså. Som små komplicerade varelser, som egentligen inte är särskilt komplicerade. Vi gör det ofta mer komplicerat än det behöver vara (aka jag nu c:). Men hur som helst. Ord – och språk överlag – kan verkligen begränsa oss ibland. Trots att det är genom detta som vi kommunicerar med varandra och bildar en uppfattning av vår omvärld. Människan har en otrolig förmåga av att vilja kategorisera ting. Att ständigt definiera och identifiera det som pågår både inom oss själva och runtomkring oss. Detta för att få ett så tydligt grepp som möjligt om vårt känsloliv och det vi erfar i vår vardag. Språket blir grunden för att en förståelse överhuvudtaget ska vara möjlig. När vi uttrycker oss så formas våra åsikter, och en förbindelse mellan olika tankar och idéer växer fram. Men språket kan också manipuleras för att passa in i en viss grupperings agenda, eller för att få en viss idé eller tanke att röra sig i en särskild riktning. Och här kan det ganska snart uppstå en skevhet, samt en begränsning för att nå det som faktiskt är sant och av värde. Risken finns här att man fastnar i ett svart på vitt tänk, där man tvingas till att ta ställning i frågor som man inte riktigt har utforskat eller tagit till sig ännu. Exempelvis då om man inte är aktivt för en viss fråga, så kan man automatiskt nästintill klassas som att man är emot den (och vice versa). Det riktigt fina i språket uppstår först när man på riktigt tar till sig en idé eller tanke, och låter den gro inom en. Därefter kan man bygga vidare på det hela genom sina egna tankar och erfarenheter, och låta samtalet fortsätta att växa fram. Kanske kommer även samtalet att kunna dra i nya riktningar, och där båda parter tillåts att komma till nya insikter. Men detta sker såklart främst om båda parter utstrålar en vilja av att tankelivet ska fortsätta att expandera, samt att det som de först uttryckt inte är sanning per se, utan bara “tillfälliga” åsikter som kan komma att ändra form. Åsikter som vägrar att rubbas kommer från ett slutet inre, där tankeverksamheten är begränsad. Att lära sig att röra sig fritt mellan olika åsikter och tankar, och att konstant bygga på och lägga till nya idéer – det är något som man bör sträva efter. Allt är flytande, man vet egentligen ingenting osv. 🌼

[Giorgia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Il libro raccoglie tre dei saggi pubblicati da Weil tra il 1934 e il 1943, legati dal tema del linguaggio e dai suoi usi nella quotidianità.
Il primo in ordine di apparizione è ”The Power of Words”, in cui analizza il pericolo delle astrazioni linguistiche identificando nelle “parole in maiuscolo” inneschi di conflitti distruttivi senza via di compromesso e suggerendo strategie sintattiche per ancorare il linguaggio alla realtà.
Nel secondo, “Human Personality”, critica il concetto di legge/diritto di fronte alla vulnerabilità ed all’afflizione umana. Questo infatti, affidandosi alla forza per essere applicato, evoca contesa invece che spingere alla carità ed all’amore. L’autrice cosí identifica nel contatto con la sacralità il punto di arrivo di un percorso volto a superare l’inespressibilità dell’afflizione.
Infine in “The Needs of the Soul”, in linea con i pensieri espressi nei saggi sopracitati, stabilisce quali siano i bisogni dell’anima che regolano la subordinazione dei diritti alle “obbligazioni”. Nel quadro da lei definito Weil colloca una critica piú ampia verso la manchevolezza della collettività nei confronti dell’individuo, esortando al controllo delle prime in quanto strumenti per la libertà dell’uomo e non pozzi in cui l’individuo si immola. Cosí la legge dovrebbe definire regole di comportamento dei gruppi, tali che il loro effetto sugli individui rispetti i loro bisogni.

[Wei Jie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bought it for the cover but stayed for the book (the first chapter at least). The idea that wars without a defined objective last endlessly is thought provoking, and the subsequent dismissal of loaded words (think words ending with -ism) too.

She argues that there is often a lack of nuance, an example being countries being classified as strictly democratic vs dictatorial. Also that power is arbitrary but made to seem absolute so as to ensure stability, and that wars occur due to countries' urge to preserve power and prestige. Definitely an interesting perspective on issues that I haven't given much thought into.

The later 2 chapters were convoluted and confusing, and I couldn't bring myself to decipher them in detail :')

[LuchiLuch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muchas gracias mi Jen por este regalo de amigo invisible. Me ha encantado!!! Me gusta cómo escribe Weil, aunque tengo que releer las partes de Meditación sobre un cadáver porque no entiendo muy bien el contexto. Me parece genial las analogías que hace con el mundo griego y entre la guerra y la Ilíada. Y me parece que en estos artículos ya se ve reflejada esa idea de la fuerza como aquello que cosifica a los seres humanos, que los hace "cosas" (cadáveres), aunque todavía no había escrito el libro de "Ilíada, o el poema de la fuerza".

Muy chulo! Con ganas de seguir leyéndola 😊

Te quiero infinico mi amor 🥰💕🐈

[Brette · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5

[Lara]

these essays went places and i don’t think any star rating would do them justice, respectfully.

[Celia · Rating 4 out of 5]

empecé con mentalidad de bully este libro de cara a weil pero algunos points tiene y escribe bonito. elitista de mierda.

[Anita · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simone Weil es de esas figuras que es imposible resistir porque era brillante y estos ensayos muestran cómo pensaba sobre el lenguaje y la influencia de éste en la política.

[Elvis Galera · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5… hot…
fue un viaje en tren realmente intenso, me volvieron tantos sentimientos bueno del bachillerato… puf, maravilla.
cuando me meta con sus cosas místicas voy a flipar, ganas!!!!

[Alice]

I preferred the first essay out of them all, but the final essay 'Needs of the Soul' had some very pertinent points that are even more relevant today.

[pasecolega · Rating 3 out of 5]

no he entés la mitat sorry no soc economista

[Riwa · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 not because of agreement but of how thought provoking i found it.

[Marius · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 - perhaps a bit outdated, especially the "Needs of the Soul" essay. What struck me was the omnipresent gendered language throughout the book

[Rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really got on with the first essay, and both enjoyed reading it and found it helped me look at things from a different angle. The other two essays I found a harder read - in both I found the writing style more impenetrable. Paragraphs and sections would often open with a sentence which at face value I couldn't agree with, and it was only after a paragraph or two of explanation that I felt like I began to grasp what was being got and, and found it made more sense. As a result, reading the later two essays was a constant up and down of finding something disagreeable, then carefully making sense of it over the course of a page or two. Even though there was a lot in the essays that I still found interesting to consider, the mental work it took to arrive at a point where I could make sense of it didn't feel worth it. Of course, this might just be me being a lazy reader (and a lazy thinker, by extension), but there you go.

[Lourens Van Hoorn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh

[Christian]

Weil's first essay is exceptional in both its eloquence and philosophical curiosity. Seeking to answer the question of how wars are begun, Weil ultimately argues that modern conflict is characterised by loosely defined "goals" that are principally described by hollow, vacuous rhetoric. She derides fascism, communism and the concept of "national interest" as insubstantial when held up to scrutiny - certainly not worthy of dying for. And yet people are routinely killed for them. If I took one thing away from her essay, it is her insight that many combatants in war simply exist on a continuum of apparently endless violence. Their goal in warfare is essentially non-existent; they fight because the blood spilled before them is a hefty, burdensome inheritance, and they know their children too must fight on. The modern soldier, according to Weil, is just playing their part in an inevitable history of violence.

What makes the essay particularly fascinating is the context in which it was written. Writing in France in 1937, Weil was about to be witness to the bloodiest conflict in human history - but one which almost all would agree was a justified one. I would need to undergo a closer reading of the text to grasp her argument more fully, but I fear that in her commitment to pacificism, Weil becomes unduly optimistic about peaceful solutions to conflict, as well as somewhat paradoxically cynical about what constitutes a proper casus belli. Take the quote:

"if this transformed France goes to war with Germany then these Frenchmen will allow themselves to be killed, having first killed as many Germans as possible, in the touching belief that their blood is being shed for democracy. It does not occur to them that dictatorship arose in Germany out of certain conditions, and that an alteration of those conditions...might be more effective than killing the young men of Berlin..."

Her sentimenn is admirably optimistic, but blind to the harsh realities of Nazi totalitarianism. Such was the grip the Nazis had on Germany, France could not realistically affect change to bring about peace. Moreover, would a war with the Nazis really be that bad? Is defiance of their evil ideology not a valid reason to take up arms, even preemptively? It is here where I interpret Weil as overly cynical. Whilst I agree some aspects of political rhetoric are the manipulative machinations of a self interested elite, some concepts, among them truth, liberty and national defence, are absolute and worth fighting for absolutely.

But being a philosophical novice, I conceed I may have missed certain nuances on Weil's argument. Part of me wonders whether she changed her views, or at least would have phrased herself differently, in 1945...

(I would be fascinated to see her ideas applied to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. I can see them being as insightful as they could be contentious. For some, that conflict likely typifies the tragic aimlessness and conceptual cesspit of modern war. For others, they will see it as a conflict entirely grounded in the realities of land, resources and broken lives....)

[June García · Rating 3 out of 5]

No sé cómo, ni por qué, disfruto tanto los libros de Simone Weil al mismo tiempo que coincido tan poco con lo que escribe. Totalmente en desacuerdo con que el comunismo y el fascismo son un mal similar, pero sí me gustó mucho donde analiza las diferencias de los discursos entre opresores y oprimidos, y cómo opera el lenguaje en las manipulaciones de los sistemas dictatoriales. Todo lo relacionado con dios quedé ??? Pero bueno, misma conclusión de siempre: por algo Simone Weil es Simone Weil.