Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote:If what you imply is true we would be incapable of the sacred impulse of HOPE. Stephanie Strickland wrote in the intro to her award winning poem: "The Red Virgin:"

Simone Weil belongs to a world culture, still to be formed, where the voices of multiple classes, castes, races, genders, ethnicities, nationalities, and religions, can be respected. To achieve this culture is an impossible task, but, as Weil would remind us, not on that account to be forsaken.

I don't think what you describe is HOPE but BELIEF.

You talk much about Weil and I can well understand why given your perspective but take a look at what she chose to rest her beliefs in, Marxism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Marx(I can hear the knives folks) and I think the Marxists did implement what belief and action is but this multicultural dream is a myth in a Marxist world of limited space and scarce resources. You want this then you need Henry Quirks model of unlimited Space as the aim, as are you telling me you'd like to live in a world where baby boys are castrated and inducted into an extreme Matriarchal society? Could you live in a society where this is a possibility but not one you happen to be born in? See if you want 'multiculturalism' then you are dealing with a contradiction in terms and that is a pretty difficult thing to resolve.

I believe it is an impossible task. I intellectually doubt humanity as a whole will survive the catastrophic results of technology. There seems to be too much against it. ...

Your 'God' is not very powerful then? Me, I think the possibilities are endless barring ecological catastrophe and even then.

However I cannot intellectually deny the possibility. I have hope Simone inspires hope. I can doubt it intellectually but cannot intellectually deny it. Denial would be a blind reaction of negative emotion.

You need a more cheerful 'God'.

Arising, hope is one thing and belief is another. Are you really unable to to distinguish between hope and belief?

Simone Weil was a much admired young Marxist and atheist. Leon Trotsky praised her intelligence. She abandoned Marxism and died a Christian mystic. Any student who researches how and why it happened and wrote a paper on it for a political philosophy course will either be praised by an open minded prof. or kicked out of school by the usual suspects.

God is absent from the World. You are free to argue with mother nature and the Great Beast for inviting the demise of humanity but you can’t blame a source too distant from our earth. Attack mother nature and the Great Beast and show them your greatest look of righteous indignation. Who knows, you may change history.

Nick_A wrote:Arising, hope is one thing and belief is another. Are you really unable to to distinguish between hope and belief?

Simone Weil was a much admired young Marxist and atheist. Leon Trotsky praised her intelligence. She abandoned Marxism and died a Christian mystic..

A tragically sad case of growing senility. The abandonment of a concern for social justice, and a move to the realm of the fascist, like so many of her generation. The lure and charisma of Hitler and Mussolini were perhaps the 20thC's greatest tragedy.
I understand that spell still has its consequences in the likes of Ayn Rand and her teenie disciples.

Nick_A wrote:Simone Weil... etc., etc...

Nick, surely you know that EVERYONE who has walked this earth has had blindness, and self-absorption, and delusion, and all that comes with this human package. For you to wear anyone else's views like a coat, surely restricts you with the same limitations, and dulls your ability to clearly see what is right here and now in front of you.

I've wanted to ask you... who would you be if there had never been a Simone Weil? And if you could never say her name or quote her words or ideas again, what would that feel like?

Lacewing wrote:

Nick, surely you know that EVERYONE who has walked this earth has had blindness, and self-absorption, and delusion, and all that comes with this human package. For you to wear anyone else's views like a coat, surely restricts you with the same limitations, and dulls your ability to clearly see what is right here and now in front of you.

I've wanted to ask you... who would you be if there had never been a Simone Weil? And if you could never say her name or quote her words or ideas again, what would that feel like?

Actually Simone is a secondary influence for me. I don't refer to the man whose ideas have influenced me the most or my talented ancestor whose art has helped my understanding. It would be like a man bringing his wife who he respects into a bar filled with sleaze and prostitutes. The man can go there and learn but wouldn't want to bring his wife.

Condemning Simone is easy. She doesn't fit in so most prefer to criticize her ideas without understanding them as a matter of principle. Yet there are a minority more open minded who I appreciate exchanging with. Simone isn't for the women and children. Anyone looking for ego inflation should avoid Simone. The depth and sincerity of her ideas are very disarming. If people want to curse her out it is OK. it my be the norm. The point is that as an individual attitudes toward her do not affect anything else.

Nick_A wrote:Arising, hope is one thing and belief is another. Are you really unable to to distinguish between hope and belief?

Sure, for me, hope is what you've got when you don;t believe something.

Simone Weil was a much admired young Marxist and atheist. Leon Trotsky praised her intelligence. She abandoned Marxism and died a Christian mystic. ...

From the looks of it she died believing in both.

Any student who researches how and why it happened and wrote a paper on it for a political philosophy course will either be praised by an open minded prof. or kicked out of school by the usual suspects.

I pity you your school system as over here if set such a task we'd just get graded.

God is absent from the World. ...

Is it? Then what are you contemplating?

You are free to argue with mother nature and the Great Beast for inviting the demise of humanity but you can’t blame a source too distant from our earth. ...

I don't as I think 'it' non-existent.

Why would I argue with Nature? As it's not conscious.

For sure I'll work within the collective for change.

Attack mother nature and the Great Beast and show them your greatest look of righteous indignation. Who knows, you may change history.

I prefer Marx and would look for the pivot points in History if I wished to change things.

Arising wrote: Sure, for me, hope is what you've got when you don;t believe something.

Not necessarily. A person can lack belief and find their situation hopeless. Hope and belief are not the same.

From the looks of it she died believing in both.

Simone lost faith in Marxism because of her uncompromising dedication to truth. She was initially attracted to Marxism because she believed its aim was to benefit humanity. She came to see that it was impossible because of the hypocrisy normal for the human condition. She saw that without the help of grace humanity just turns in circles regardless of political beliefs

I pity you your school system as over here if set such a task we'd just get graded.

The open minded prof would give the kid an A while the usual suspects will give the student an F. It is all the same.

Is it? Then what are you contemplating?

The connection between the world of darkness and the light

Why would I argue with Nature? As it's not conscious.

We as animal man are within nature residing in Plato’s cave. As such we lack consciousness. So whether you are outside arguing with nature or arguing with people, lacking consciousness it is all the same. At least the trees are intelligent enough not to argue.

I prefer Marx and would look for the pivot points in History if I wished to change things.

Marx wrote that: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

Simone Weil retorted that “Revolution is the opiate of the masses.”

Since we are as we are, everything continues as it is so revolutions produce the same essential results as before. Only the form changes. I’ll put my money on Simone.

Lacewing wrote:

I've wanted to ask you... who would you be if there had never been a Simone Weil? And if you could never say her name or quote her words or ideas again, what would that feel like?

One more thing I should add about Simone in conjunction with the Demonic Possession thread. Have you ever asked yourself what the cause of the cult mind is? Why and how do groups become cults? How does it feel to become free of this influence? It could never be discussed here simply because the attitudes would never allow it. But regardless, anyone with a concerned mind should be concerned with the cult mind manifesting as religious cults or political cults of personality.

Religion leaves itself open to cults. Some even think it is nothing but a cult. However, what if the religious impulse is a human need but corrupted in every way possible including the creation of the cult mind. It requires a quality of impartial emotion and reason absent for the cult mind

Simone Weil is a valuable influence in many ways. One important way is that she was a true individual dedicated seeker of truth. She didn't belong to any group so can never be used in the creation of a cult. So when discussing her ideas a person cannot say she is acting like a Christian, a Buddhist, a marxist, or any other category. With the right people it opens a whole new avenue of dialogue. Instead of defending a blind belief or a blind denial full of preconceptions related to a a particular teaching, an idea can be discussed free of a group or cult influence. My quoting Simone doesn't indicate idolatry but rather makes it impossible to say that she is thinking to justify either blind belief or blind denial but rather for the sake of impartial contemplation.

Nick_A wrote:Simone Weil is a valuable influence in many ways. One important way is that she was a true individual dedicated seeker of truth. She didn't belong to any group so can never be used in the creation of a cult. So when discussing her ideas a person cannot say she is acting like a Christian, a Buddhist, a marxist, or any other category.

Trying to untangle your argument here Nick_A. From what I can gather:
Simone Weil was a seeker of truth.
So she can't be the object of a cult.
Christ, Buddha and Marx are the objects of cults.
Therefore, none of them was a seeker of truth.

uwot wrote:

Trying to untangle your argument here Nick_A. From what I can gather:
Simone Weil was a seeker of truth.
So she can't be the object of a cult.
Christ, Buddha and Marx are the objects of cults.
Therefore, none of them was a seeker of truth.

No, Christ and Buddha were not seekers of truth. They were the truth of humanity and lived the human condition. They had to by example show the way out. Marx believed he had the truth though didn't live it so became part of a secular philosophy to further it.

It is different with Simone. She never professed to become capable of communicating the truth of the human condition. She didn't feel able to "turn the water into wine." She never wrote anything or participated in anything for the sake of organizing a spiritual movement. In fact the only book she wrote was "The Need for Roots" as she was dying of TB as a contribution to the debate on how to reconstruct France after Hitler's devastation. All other books are compilations of her personal letters and essays not intended for publication compiled at personal expense. There is no money in Simone. If you want to make money from writing, stick with porn..

Nick_A wrote:Not necessarily. A person can lack belief and find their situation hopeless. Hope and belief are not the same.

What do you mean by 'lack belief'? As if a person finds their situation hopeless they have a belief 'the situation is hopeless', change this no hopelessness.

Simone lost faith in Marxism because of her uncompromising dedication to truth. ...

I thought one reasaon she died was because she was showing solidarity with the comrades? Hardly a loss of faith

She was initially attracted to Marxism because she believed its aim was to benefit humanity. She came to see that it was impossible because of the hypocrisy normal for the human condition. She saw that without the help of grace humanity just turns in circles regardless of political beliefs

Seems to have been spinning much the same way when religion was the bag, in fact religion has pretty much been the longer belief system.

The open minded prof would give the kid an A while the usual suspects will give the student an F. It is all the same.

What on earth is going on with your education system? Over here a philosophy essay would be judged upon many things but whether the professor liked of disliked the philosopher would not be one of them.

The connection between the world of darkness and the light

What?

We as animal man are within nature residing in Plato’s cave. As such we lack consciousness. ...

We obviously don't.

So whether you are outside arguing with nature or arguing with people, lacking consciousness it is all the same. ...

No it's not as if you do the former you're heading for the loony bin.

At least the trees are intelligent enough not to argue.

They aren't 'intelligent' at all?

Marx wrote that: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

Simone Weil retorted that “Revolution is the opiate of the masses.”

I think that's opium. Marx had a pretty nuanced view of religion, you ought to read the whole passage.

I can understand what she means but it's also fairly false as the people actually prefer a quiet life if possible.

Since we are as we are, everything continues as it is so revolutions produce the same essential results as before. Only the form changes. I’ll put my money on Simone.

To do what? You think that the idea of a 'God' gives enough of an idol to produce a kingdom upon earth? Doesn't seem to have. Why not another ideology made-up by man as this is clearly one. Although personally I think all these idols not enough and never will be, bottom-up material health and wealth seems to be the way but then I'm an old reader of Marx.

Arising wrote: Nick_A wrote:Not necessarily. A person can lack belief and find their situation hopeless. Hope and belief are not the same.
What do you mean by 'lack belief'? As if a person finds their situation hopeless they have a belief 'the situation is hopeless', change this no hopelessness.

When a person lacks belief they are expressing a conditioned reaction. Belief isn’t required. A parrot doesn’t believe what it says but is just expressing a conditioned reaction. Hope as an acquired aspect or having hope IN something also becomes a conditioned reaction. Hope as a human attribute like the potential for love is something we are born with and can become a conscious expression.

Simone lost faith in Marxism because of her uncompromising dedication to truth. ...
I thought one reasaon she died was because she was showing solidarity with the comrades? Hardly a loss of faith

That is part of the reason but another part is far deeper and is only possible through faith as a human quality rather than a means for escapism

“Human beings are so made that the ones who do the crushing feel nothing; it is the person crushed who feels what is happening. Unless one has placed oneself on the side of the oppressed, to feel with them, one cannot understand.”Simone Weil

Those like Jesus and Socrates welcomed the experience of conscious death. They had to consciously experience the blindness of human reaction as part of death to accomplish their mission. Consciously experiencing the human condition for what it is without negative defensive emotions is the path of conscious evolution. Simone needed direct conscious experience of the human situation so became part of it so as not to consciously forget it and lose her destiny.

What on earth is going on with your education system? Over here a philosophy essay would be judged upon many things but whether the professor liked of disliked the philosopher would not be one of them.

Over here we have tenure so education isn’t the goal; indoctrination is. Professors indoctrinate students into secular statism. The students as a whole just go along. Only a minority object and often they suffer as a result.

The connection between the world of darkness and the light
What?

Simone Weil: “Love is the Intermediary Between Us and the Divine”

Since we are as we are, everything continues as it is so revolutions produce the same essential results as before. Only the form changes. I’ll put my money on Simone.
To do what? You think that the idea of a 'God' gives enough of an idol to produce a kingdom upon earth? Doesn't seem to have. Why not another ideology made-up by man as this is clearly one. Although personally I think all these idols not enough and never will be, bottom-up material health and wealth seems to be the way but then I'm an old reader of Marx.

Our essential difference is that you only accept one level of reality. I believe in levels of reality or conscious evolution. That is why you only recognize secular expressions of religion or the exoteric with all its mixed blessings. I appreciate the purpose of the essence of religion is to help our species out of its slavery Plato described as if in a cave. We are always being bombarded with new paths of self deception which is the norm for cave life. You seem concerned with how best to adjust to cave life. Others like me are concerned with how to get out of the cave. That is why we cannot communicate. We begin with different foundations.

As an aside, if you’d like to read Simone’s critique of Marxism, you can find it here. This is the first paragraph:

http://www.commonsensereligion.com/2010 ... rxism.html

Simone Weil was concerned. In the name of liberation and revolution power was being abused. Ideological orthodoxy and state bureaucracy were crippling the freedom of the individual to critically engage with the world. New social forces both sacred and secular were promising salvation but delivering oppression. Weil's response was to do what she knew how to do best: think. To think however meant a radical departure from the norm, a fiercely independent critical analysis and most significantly the capability to pause. And it was with this spirit that she critiqued Marxism; one of the fastest growing and powerful political ideologies of her day. Neither her youth nor the religious fervor surrounding this new doctrine prevented her from delivering an unrelenting rebuke, "That is why it is possible to say, without fear or exaggeration, that as a theory of the workers' revolution Marxism is a nullity. The rest of his theory of social transformation is based on a number of foolish misapprehensions." Weil disagreed with almost every element of Marx’s theory, whether it was his theory of productive forces or the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Her critique was fuelled by both an intellectual and experiential dimension as she rigorously deconstructed Marx’s theory as well as worked in the factory and participated in labor struggles. Despite her sweeping critique of Marx she still appreciated his contribution and reserved the word “genius” for him. What of Marx did Weil believe was worthy of retaining? How did Weil understand Marx and his theory? What role did power as a source of social examination play for Weil?.....................

Nick_A wrote:No, Christ and Buddha were not seekers of truth. They were the truth of humanity...

But no longer? So what did they both say that makes their agreement the truth?

Nick_A wrote:It is different with Simone. She never professed to become capable of communicating the truth of the human condition.

So she couldn't see something in Christ and Buddha that you believe you can.

Nick_A wrote:When a person lacks belief they are expressing a conditioned reaction.

Oh Nick... where do you come up with this stuff? You don't think that expressing belief is a conditioned reaction? You don't realize that a person can lack belief and still make freely intelligent choices beyond that of a parrot? Honestly, the stuff you say is just so made-up to suit whatever narrow argument you're claiming in the moment, it blatantly ignores broader realities/truths. Such blind manipulation is scary stuff.

Uwot wrote: k_A wrote:No, Christ and Buddha were not seekers of truth. They were the truth of humanity...

But no longer? So what did they both say that makes their agreement the truth?

Communication is more than secular speeches. Do you really think that the apostles dropped everything to follow Jesus because he was making a speech? Those like Jesus and Buddha communicated from what they were. Near her death, Simone Weil started being able to communicate something from a deeper level. She began communicating from the depth of her being. I am far from that real.

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon wrote of Simone Weil