Anybody around here know much about her theology? She apparently believed God, existing as a perfect being, created the universe necessarily apart from Himself. Consequently, the universe is absent God, but it is in this absence that we can discover God. The longing for that which we don’t have. And of course the longing leads to a renunciation of things of this world, even a renunciation of the self. That concept (the annihilation of the self) isn’t unique to Weil, of course. But this idea of a universe separate and apart from God seems unique, at least with respect to the mystics. Am I understanding it properly?
Just seems like a dumb broad to me.
It’s been a long time since I read Simone Weil’s works. IMHO, she died of empathy–in trying to live as workers and soldiers did despite her frail disposition. Did this invalidate her spiritual insights? Most certainly not.
Could you give us examples of her teachings that impressed you?
Empathy for a species that deserves none.
That’s a rather jaded appraisal of a sweet, mystical spirit. How much you hate Mankind includes hatred of yourself.
I would argue that god created the universe out of himself, that we are all a part of god, but have lost this understanding to ego attachments. This understanding would still account for the “annihilation of the Self” as prerequisite for understanding our union with god, that is if self is ego. Does this contradict Weil’s ideas?
Yes, apparently it does. This is from Gravity and Grace:
God can only be present in creation under the form of absence.
Elsewhere in G&G, she explains further:
God could create only by hiding himself. Otherwise there would be nothing but himself.
That has a certain logic to it. The reason for the absence is so that we may (Simone’s words) have need of God. In a universe devoid of God, we can presumably know of God by knowing of that which is not God:
The world, in so far as it is completely empty of God, is God himself.
I suppose this is how she arrived at her mysticism. Strange way to get there, I think. She wasn’t the first mystic, of course, to struggle with the absence of God. This was John of the Cross’s “Dark Night.” But whereas John eventually found communion, Simone found only confirmation in her unrequited love of God:
I am quite sure that there is a God in the sense that I am quite sure my love is not illusory.
This unrequited love is the cross.
“My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” There we have the real proof that Christianity is something divine.
Interesting, no?
Shes a dumb broad who wouldn’t have taken the time out of her oh so busy schedule to give me the time of day. She gets what she got. Sweet mystical spirit my ass, shes just flesh and brains.
Weil was a French intellectual, yes; but she cared for persons other than herself. She would have cared for you. So why do your posts tell me more about you than about Simone Weil?
She wouldn’t have cared for me, that I guarantee. If you were a truly good person you’d be a misanthrope, instead you’re a phony styrofoam container, part of the problem.
I cannot understand how god must be absent in order to be present. Maybe I should reread Weil. All I remember about her is my wife’s and my discussions about her in the 1980s. The situation of her death impressed us. But that is too shallow a consideration of her life and thought.
Have you never longed for something that was unattainable? Or felt unrequited love for someone? In such a case, never is something or someone so present as when it or s/he is out of reach. The longing and the search can become consuming, in fact. The desire becomes even greater. The absence is filled with it.
So, what you are saying, is God is a girl who doesn’t love or care about you, and wants to avoid you…Hallelujah!
The word “unrequited” was mine, not Simone’s, and I use it only as an example.
Obviously Simone did not conceive of God being unloving.
A woman uses henids, half formed thought patterns, you completed her patterns for her, you found the root of her cause.
If, by this, you mean I have tried to understand her ideas, yes, I have. Much like someone might try to understand the ideas of any theologian-philosopher.
Sometimes, in order to help with this, you log onto a popular, long-standing, and venerable philosophy forums site (like this one, for instance) and you post about the subject you might wish to learn more about to discover, through intelligent discourse, informed ideas from others who are (as one might expect in such an environment) knowledgeable about the subject at hand.
Sometimes you’re successful and you learn something.
Other times, not so much.
I wish I could contribute more to the subject. My memories of Weil’s works are vague. The thread deserves more than that. Apparently, not many here are aware of Weil.