/lit/ - Literature

>tfw you can’t even tell people to lurk moar because there are no original posters left to demonstrate the ignorance of the OP

>>12007872
lit loves simoney weil

>>12007872
>platonist
>meme catholic
>top notch prose
>troubled lonely woman who is pretty in an odd way that they fantasise about "saving"

ticks all the boxes i think

>>12007872
Her LARPY lifestyle when it came to politics and her utterly hypocritical and heretical Catholicism are too much for even channer standards

>>12007872
Be sure to read her On Abolishing Political Parties . It's going to get increasingly relevant in the populism polemic.

>>12008770
How so?

>>12008815
why don't you just read it retard

>>12008816
Because you havent really given much of reason to. Have you read it?

>>12008851
no

>>12008815
The essay lists the reasons why parties based on common ethical principles are more like religions than anything else, due to the requirement of their members to act upon the blind faith entrusted in the organisation to know the exact reply to all questions concerning the life of citizen. She thinks that the original will of the people inevitably get lost in the sounds echoed by the parties ethos as the MPs of a party can't reply to a problem with authenticity and consciousness but rather with prescribed solutions from an idealistic and in the end, religious toolset.

Populist parties are the exact opposite of that (which isn't to say that they are right) and generally, to unveil the nature of a reality it is helpful to describe its opposite.

>>12008747
>utterly hypocritical
how

>>12007872
I've only read her essay on the Iliad and yikers it was awful. She renounced her pacifism eventually so I don't judge her too harshly for it but it was seriously terrible. Also she liked to role-play as working class.

>>12008967
That doesn't seem to be a terribly new or even accurate analysis of political parties - Im guessing its something she wrote during to war period?

> religions than anything else
Or perhaps sport clubs, unions, guilds or indeed even businesses.
>due to the requirement of their members to act upon the blind faith entrusted in the organisation to know the exact reply to all questions
No political party of consequence does that and you would have to hunt down tiny far left and right parties to find that kind of system and even in them individuals take on a pretty noteworthy level of prominence over the organisation.

>but rather with prescribed solutions from an idealistic and in the end, religious toolset.
This is something which particularly has failed hard since the 1980s - the loss of optimism and dominance of a pervasive and short sighted realism.
>Populist parties are the exact opposite of that
Its a shame she didnt live longer to see how populist parties fell into the exact same patterns and problems - far from being the opposite.

Overall whilst this might be a nice period piece or something of interests to fans of her it doesn't really seem to be something relevant to the developing situation any more than say the Green Book is.

>>12008979
The acceptance of Catholic Christianity and Jesus whilst also refusing to be baptised because she had not been personally commanded by God to do so and because under the Christian outlook her Jewish, Atheist friends would go to hell.

"Vaccinations are true and work - but I refuse to get vaccinated because I love anti vaxxers"

>>12009101
> Also she liked to role-play as working class.
Source?

>>12009146
>No political party of consequence does that and you would have to hunt down tiny far left and right parties to find that kind of system and even in them individuals take on a pretty noteworthy level of prominence over the organisation.
All Continental Europe democracy works on the principle of party line, that MPs of their respective parties and groups must vote coordinatedly. Even the foreword of the essay ridicules that 'conscience vote' isn't a pleonasm. Ruling populist parties are different not in the process of getting their initiatives into laws but in the content and application of their norms.

I say they are the opposite because they are not driven by any moral or ideological guidelines, but on marketing research.

>Green Book
By Gaddafi?

>>12009180
>"Vaccinations are true and work - but I refuse to get vaccinated because I love anti vaxxers"
Quote me where she states that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

>>12009186
She didn't "role-play": she worked in a Renault factory for two years then she went to help the republican side in the Spanish Civil War, and then she became a farm worker before joining de Gaulle in London in 1942 (surprisingly being named Weil in Petain's France was not really a good situation) all of this while being increasingly sick... It would have been role-play if she only did that for a few months and without engaging herself which is obviously not the case.

>>12009213
>All Continental Europe democracy works on the principle of party line, that MPs of their respective parties and groups must vote coordinatedly.
All soccer players have to try and kick goals in the opposing sides nets and businesses frown on their workers on upon making money at the expense of themselves but perhaps these dont make for as nice a book. She is making an unjustifiable leap to equate that kind of unified action to equal "blind faith". Likewise the fact that you would use continental social democratic parties as your example is a poor example given their abject abandonment of idealism for realism has been more profound than other political parties.
>but in the content and application of their norms.
Its that process of getting their initiatives into laws which shapes their content and application of their norms - hence the all too common massive purges of radical elements when populists seize power
>By Gaddafi?
Yes

>>12008747
>>12009101
>LARPY lifestyle
>Also she liked to role-play as working class.
She wanted to know firsthand what was like to be part of the working class, so she took a year and worked a shitty factory job at Renault. For an entire year, and living off with her salary alone in a shitty apartment in the working class area.
That way she realised how the left was speaking about workers' conditions without any clue of what's like to actually wotk in a a factory, and the general antics of politics.
She had a shitty life because she put her principles before anything, and she literally starved herself to death.
Now you can say she was a troubled woman and not like her work, you can say she was full blown nuts but accusing her of hypocrisy is really out of place.

Should I get Gravity and Grace or the Simone Weil Reader?

>>12009238
Authenticity is over played by contrarians

>>12009215
>Quote me where she states that baptism is a requirement for salvation.
When one affirms Christianity and Catholicism you affirm the authority of the clergy and the teachings of the Apostles - indeed its a sacred duty ordered by Christ. She then rejects the Bible, rejects the Apostles and replaces their authority with her own - only when God personally commands her to will she act. Talk about ego.

>>12009239
I haven't read The Simone Weil Reader but Gravity and Grace is a good starting place IMO because its a quick read, it's mostly simple to get (if you have at least a little background in philosophy and christianity that is), it's really moving while also being quite profound.

>>12009239
I'd suggest Oppression and Liberty as a first read. She wasn't in her christian phase yet but you can have a picture of her forma mentis

>>12009238
>She wanted to know firsthand what was like to be part of the working class, so she took a year and worked a shitty factory job at Renault. For an entire year, and living off with her salary alone in a shitty apartment in the working class area.
You forget the part about her coming from a wealthy family who as a personal favour had the manager arrange a safe role for her (give her frailty) whilst she was able to go home to her wealthy parents at any stage in effect proto voluntourism.

>She had a shitty life because she put her principles before anything
Hardly when the factory work as artificial as it was got too hard she quit and went back the largess of her wealthy family, when things got uncomfortable in Spain her parents bailed her out again. She never had to deal with the harshness of reality beyond her control like the majority of the world until her death and even that was fully under her control and choice -something which could have been halted at any time - she literally LARPd her whole life.

>>12009301
>You forget the part about her coming from a wealthy family who as a personal favour had the manager arrange a safe role for her (give her frailty)
Would you care to give a source to this statement?

>when things got uncomfortable in Spain her parents bailed her out again
She had an incident where she scalded her feet, and she was physically unfit even for a support role in a war scenario. Is parents worrying about their daughter's physical safety unethical?

>she literally LARPd her whole life.
She would have larped if she claimed to belong or vome from the working class. She never did that. She was from a wealthy family, what she did was to know realities that were alien to her in order to make her intellectual work more honest. A thing that her colleagues of the time never even though of doing. They were the larpers.

>>12009301
When you use words like "voluntourism" I have to wonder what your baseline for an "authentic" experience is--just seems like a cop out for westerners to never try to do anything for anyone.

>>12009269
>>12009279
I think I will get both of these.

>>12009357
>Would you care to give a source to this statement?
The Wes Cecil lecture on her.

>She had an incident where she scalded her feet,
Yeah and why dont you elucidate just how her feet came to be scaled - convenient you should forget that rather comical part. Is there a reason you seem to go out of your way to hide the embarrassing, and hypocritical parts of her life? Dont think I didnt notice you ignoring >>12009261
>she was physically unfit even for a support role in a war scenario
Again you leave out the part about her trying to argue her way into a combat role despite being frail, nearsighted and completely inexeprianced and a burden to everyone around her who was a greater threat to herself and her comrades than to any nationalist. Had she the humility to listen to them and not demand a gun she would never have injured herself. Who cares about the war as long as Simone gets to feel good about herself
>Is parents worrying about their daughter's physical safety unethical?
Again you miss the point where did I say her parents were unethical?

>She would have larped if she claimed to belong or vome from the working class
She would have been a liar if she said that. I dont think you understand what is meant by LARPing. The essence of the LARP is the game and false element of it - those guys dont think they are literal European knights do they? They play as knights with their blunt swords and refereed battles ready to step in and stop things from getting dangerous. After which they take of their kit and drive home and go back to their normal lives - if things get too rough they simply find another group or quit the hobby.

This was Weils life a game - she played as a member of the working class, she played as a revolutionary and she played as a christian.

>>12009362
>just seems like a cop out for westerners to never try to do anything for anyone.
When it comes to volunteering an experience that inst curated for the personal gratification of the volunteer

>>12009455
To clarify that last point curated primarily for the gratification of the volunteer - for instance

>At 16 years old, Pippa Biddle volunteered to help build a library in Tanzania. She and her friends took on the task, unskilled and untrained in construction. Skilled locals had to fix their work every night—essentially rebuilding the school themselves.

https://www.savethechildren.org.au/Our-Stories/The-truth-about-voluntourism

Let's see how smart /lit/ is, analyze this situation, basic sociolinguistics rhetoric, syntax, and all that

>>12009455
>Wes Cecil
Who?
>I live a shit life, have no family or husband, work in a factory and take a part in a war for pleasuring myself. Oh and I starve to death because it's funny!
Srsly you are just embarrassing yourself. You seem just to hate her or have been brainwashed to hate her. Just tell that and you'll make a far better figure. Your arguments aren't simply holding together.

>>12009471
im not that guy, but i think his arguments have coherence. i think he refer more to simone weill psycology than nothing anyway.
this conversation remember me this song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTMWgOduFM

>>12009455
>When it comes to volunteering an experience that inst curated for the personal gratification of the volunteer
Therein lies your cop out mentality--*how can it be really selfless if it is also self gratifying?" This is a very common evasion of ones duty to help others --Pedantry for the sake of being self absorbed as usual.

>>12009471
>Who?
Just a professor at a community college
>Srsly you are just embarrassing yourself
Ive provided examples of her being a LARPer and a hypocrite when it comes to Christianity and simply filled in some of the gaps you left out. You known like poor Weil injuring herself in the war with her nearsighted blundering into fireplaces and accidentally shooting pots. I even pointed out where you failed to understand what is meant by the term LARP.
>You seem just to hate her or have been brainwashed to hate her
Ive said nothing hateful - and have no ill will against her I just find her to be a tragic and comical figure.
>Your arguments aren't simply holding together.
How so?

>>I live a shit life,have no family or husband, work in a factory and take a part in a war for pleasuring myself. Oh and I starve to death because it's funny!
I never said she did it for fun - only for self gratification, Max Stirner would be quite proud of her.

>>12009497
>Therein lies your cop out mentality--*how can it be really selfless if it is also self gratifying?" This is a very common evasion of ones duty to help others --Pedantry for the sake of being self absorbed as usual.
You are missing the point the issue is when that self gratification takes the primary role over helping others - to the point its no longer about actually helping anymore. For instance consider the fake orphanages and construction projects that are propping up due to voluntarism. See >>12009463. There are plenty of ways to actually help out these situations but people forgo them because raising money to employee locals or skilled tradesmen to fix and build houses isnt as personally gratifying as doing it yourself. That is the true evasion of ones duty to help.

>>12009497
>how can it be really selfless if it is also self gratifying?
you are evading a crucial contradiction too.

sounds like socrates' statue

Im going to be heading off but if the thread is still up tomorrow Ill respond - also just note that I never rubbished her philosophical ideas, works or said that people should not read her books.

Weil being a lifetime LARPer has zero bearing on any of her ideas or literary ability.

>>12009522
You're really assuming the worst from people because you disagree with their tactics; it's pointless to talk, do what you can even if it may not work out optimally and even if an online debater calls you selfish and larping after you are long dead

>>12009522
>How so?
Your entire critique is asserting she did what she did out of self gratification.
If you were I'm not saying familiar woth her work, but if you'd actually read literally a FUCKING PARAGRAPH of her late writings you should know very well how she was first and foremost against the Self, she was for the annihilation of the self as the first step into a higher consciousness. She brought the concept either from western philosophy and from Christianity.
You basically exposed yourself not knowing shit about Weil if not for some hate talk by a dr. Nodody who teaches at a community college, and you just like using the expression "LARP" because dang IT'S A COOL MAYMAY

>>12009525
It isn't a crucial contradiction it is a problem arising from imperfect usage in an imperfect language

>>12009225
Her father was a wealthy Jewish doctor; people like this can't just spend a year working in a factory with nothing really at stake and suddenly have the authority to speak on behalf of the working class. For her to imply that she understands those workers who don't share the safety-net of paternal wealth and who will continue to work in these conditions their entire lives, not just on an amusing little lark, is offensive. She liked to play dress-up as a soldier and pose for photographs while holding rifles but during the war she fled from France to America with her parents. She attacked anybody who would speak ill of the Resistance yet she herself had abandoned her country. She thought that starving herself from America would place her in solidarity with her countrymen while the only thing it accomplished was deteriorating her health.

>>12009600
this

>>12009705
Quasi-sincere slacktivism vs. smug disaffected apathy

The second is a much greater evil, make no mistake

>>12009522
Have you seen her "translations" of Homer in Poem of Force? It is downright dishonest. She takes passages out of context and even omits words that would conflict with her interpretation. She was very well educated of course so ineptitude is no excuse; it's clear that she was being intentionally misleading. Bespaloff's essay on Homer (which shares many similarities with Weil's) was much better IMO. I really don't understand the love for Weil, she seems so obnoxious.

>Beauvoir recounts her first—and last—conversation with Simone Weil: She intrigued me because of her great reputation for intelligence and her bizarre outfits.... I don't know how the conversation got started. She said in piercing tones that only one thing mattered these days: the revolution that would feed all the starving people on the earth. I retorted, no less adamantly, that the problem was not to make men happy, but to help them find a meaning in their existence. She glared at me and said, "It's clear you've never gone hungry." Our relations ended right there.

>>12009777
>Have you seen her "translations" of Homer in Poem of Force? It is downright dishonest. She takes passages out of context and even omits words that would conflict with her interpretation.

Any examples? Are these deviations from/distortions of the original text or paraphrasable content?

>>12009777
Beauvoir BTFO

>>12009641
the hypocrisy of "the selfless" because literally you are always a self is for you a problem of language?. or is a problem of the word selfless to debscribe acts of altruism who needs the self in first place.

>she was first and foremost against the Self, she was for the annihilation of the self as the first step into a higher consciousness.
you cant get always what you want. the criticism dont dissapear only because she "believe" in something. she was for the self gratification the whole time. is not selfish, is more complex than that.

>>12009877
It is a problem of language; the "self" is a nebulous concept at best. To claim that someone acts solely upon self interest when they intentionally starve to death is really a laugh, you are speculating about her psychology anyway, it's pointless.

>>12009799
Here are some excerpts from Christopher Benfey's introduction in the NYRB edition:

>In both scenes, however, Weil modifies Homer’s version in slight but telling ways. She introduces the first passage, characteristically, without names or encompassing narrative: “A man stands disarmed and naked with a weapon pointing at him, this person becomes a corpse before anybody or anything touches him.” Then she quotes a few lines from Book 21:

>Motionless, he pondered. And the other drew near,
>Terrified, anxious to touch his knees, hoping in his heart
>To escape evil death and black destiny.
>With one hand he clasped, suppliant, his knees,
>While the other clung to the sharp spear, not letting go.

>We have the image clearly in mind: a callous soldier points his spear at a naked man begging for his life, who realizes that the weapon which is pointing at him will not be diverted. But it turns out that this Vivid image owes more to Goya’s menacing bayonets than to Homer. Lycaon, one of Priam’s sons and a half-brother to Hector, has just dragged himself from the rapids of the Scamander River, unarmed, it is true, but not naked. Achilles, who captured and enslaved Lycaon on a previous raid, is determined not to let him get away this time. He throws his heavy spear but misses: “the spear shot past his back and stuck in the earth, still starved for human flesh.” It is at this point that Lycaon “clung to the sharp spear, not letting go." Weil tells us, twice, that there is “a weapon pointing at" Lycaon, when in fact Achilles’ spear is stuck in the ground.

>>12009799
>>12009912
And another:

>Weil also manipulates for her own purposes the culminating encounter in Book 24 when the Trojan king Priam comes to Achilles’ tent to beg for the corpse of his son Hector:

>No one saw great Priam enter. He stopped,
>Clasped the knees of Achilles, kissed his hands,
>Those terrible man-killing hands that had slaughtered
>so many of his sons.

[...]

>For Weil, Achilles’ harsh gesture is yet another example of force turning a person into a thing: It was not insensibility that made Achilles with a single movement of his hand push away the old man who had been clinging to his knees... It was merely a question of his being as free in his attitudes and movements as if, clasping his knees, there were not a suppliant but an inert object.

>This analysis would be convincing if Achilles had indeed “with a single movement of his hand pushed away the old man.” But Weil has suppressed a key word from the passage, and this suppression undercuts her interpretation of the entire scene. That word is ”gently.” Here is Robert Fagles's translation:

>Those words stirred within Achilles a deep desire
>to grieve for his own father. Taking the old man is hand
>he gently moved him back. And overpowered by memory
>both men gave way to grief.
>Then, when brilliant Achilles had had his fill of tears
>and the longing for it had left his mind and body,
>he rose from his seat, raised the old man by the hand.

>>12009902
you dont understand the concept of self interest. i dont say is the best way to explaining, the word "interest" maybe confuse you.
>To claim that someone acts solely upon self interest when they intentionally starve to death is really a laugh,
i dont know why is a laugh. if i said somebody commit suicide for his self interest you really dont understand it?. i dont say in any moment solely. the self interest have many reasons inside.

>>12009912
>>12009928
Huh. Is Weil's essay based on her own translations or did she omit "gently" from a French text? Could chalk it up to her facility with Greek, depending on how consistent a tendency Benfley shows.

>>12009799
>>12009912
Excerpt from Weil's Essay:

>So Achilles shuddered to see divine Priam;
>The others shuddered too, looking one at the other.

>But this feeling lasts only a moment. Soon the very presence of the suffering creature is forgotten:

>He spoke. The other, remembering his own father
>longed to weep;
>Taking the old man's arm, he pushed him away.

Now compare with Fagles:

>Those words stirred within Achilles a deep desire
>to grieve for his own father. Taking the old man's hand
>he gently moved him back.

For Weil, Achilles "pushed him away", for Fagles, Achilles "gently moved him back".

>>12009999
The translations are her own.

>>12009936
>Destroying the self in self interest
Not a reasonable conjecture

>>12010035
so why do people commit suicide?.

>>12010063
No matter what gratification they believe they may get by suicide, the result of their own death is that they will not get it.

>>12010087
and if what they want is to stop existing?.

>>12010111
You can't actually want that and even if you could, you could never actually have it.

>>12010142
you cant want to stop existing?. why?.
you cant die?. you think you have knowledge of what happenned after death?. ok, that "knowledge" prevent you from suicide. but if someone think there is no afterdeath?
anyway, this is turbo religious now. if you are a catholic or something now i understand why you dont know a shit about the self.

>>12009522
>Just a professor at a community college

L O L

Im currently reading the need for roots - probably not the best place to start but oh well

>>12010177
That was my whole point the self is different for a religious person; thus self interest is different for a religious person

>>12010225
yes, but not only a religious person. practically nobody recognize the self interest behind his decisions. its pretty common. you hyde behind your religion, others hyde behind his notion of society. is the same in the end.
for me there is no diference between the self interest of a religious person and another person.

>>12010283
>practically nobody recognize the self interest behind his decisions.

Just stop posting

>>12010308
i agree with them on that one (poor wording aside), but i disagree with the rest

>>12010225
>tfw when they think im interested in a conversation when i really do it for god.

>>12010380
Why don't we argue about a strawman of Weil and ignore the defining characteristics of her thinking?

>>12010400
im only try to talk about self interest and self gratification hidden beneath religious and altruistic feelings. (something you cant even start to realize like a possible pseudotruth) not about weil thinking.

>>12010442
Okay well you have no material facts to prove your theory you're just assuming what people are thinking or feeling; I disagree with you

>>12010508
a religious guy asking for material facts?. really?.
are you other person than>>12010225

>>12010063
People commit suicide when the fear of living becomes greater than the fear of death.

>>12010754
>>12010754
>People commit suicide when the fear of living becomes greater than the fear of death.
so in his self definition, from the suicide´s position is still in self interest. (i know is a shitty definition...)

>>12008169
Sounds like a good reason to avoid her.

>>12008169
Roastie SEETHING

Hey you all clean your mouth with soap saying Weil committed suicide. She didn't.

>>12009600
>You're really assuming the worst from people because you disagree with their tactics
Not at all, if I was assuming the worst I would be saying things like "she did all this to make her parents suffer" which whilst she did undoubtedly make her parents suffer is not a motivation that could easily be pinned on her.

Think of the voluntourists who in those examples - going to poor countries to build a library/school. Doing manual labour in a harder conditions away from family and friends was gratifying not because of the action itself but because it engages their idealism so they feel like their helping of the poor is more real - even when it is false or even the opposite. One can be self serving without simple physical pleasure even when it means destruction of that self ultimately.

Likewise remember that for all the beautiful talk on the annihilation of self she was terrified when it meant surrendering control to the representatives of God on earth. Who do you think she was serving when she denied the Great Commission?

>>12009610
>her late writings you should know very well how she was first and foremost against the Self, she was for the annihilation of the self as the first step into a higher consciousness
Thats why I think its so comical and tragic - the disconnect between her writings and her life. Ive said it before I dont have a problem with her writings though it looks like her work on Homer might be suspect.
> Nodody who teaches at a community college, and you just like using the expression "LARP" because dang IT'S A COOL MAYMAY
What do you think LARPing means? I explained it earlier but I dont think you agree with that definition.

>>12009777
Ill check it out

>>12011578
>Going to a poor country to build a school..because it is more gratifying
You don't understand how charitable organizations work and you're still making leaps assuming what their motivations are; it's all dress up. Anyway I'm finally off work. I don't know what your beef with her as far as heresy goes but I will just say Christ himself was put to death for heresy.

>>12011600
>You don't understand how charitable organizations work
I posted a link discussing the negative impacts and industry surrounding voluntourism from a charity organisation + I did not say all volunteering organisations were voluntouristic - do you want me to show you reports on fake orphanages or is this some other proof you would like?

>you're still making leaps assuming what their motivations are
So tell me what do you think their motivations are?

> I don't know what your beef with her as far as heresy goes but I will just say Christ himself was put to death for heresy.
Because Jesus was pretty serious on the matter see matthew 7:21-23 so leads to her either being ignorant of basic Christian teachings (which seems unlikely), dishonest or consciously rejecting Christian truth. None of which are particular respectable positions. Christ was killed by heretics for upholding orthodoxy and prophecy.

What do you think of Weils "unless God personally confirms each individual teaching or command its invalid" approach to Christianity and what does it say about her?

>>12010182
Starving yourself to death will also bring yourself closer to God if only temporarily.

>>12011686
So can I ask what do you do to put Christ's words into practice? Denigrating the works of others?

>>12008747
You don’t know what you’re talking about, you idiot.

>>12009705

Really makes you think...

>>12011731
>So can I ask what do you do to put Christ's words into practice? Denigrating the works of others?
You can but it seems to be avoiding the questions there. Relevant to this conversation though I have the humility to not demand God personally affirm each teaching to me through personal revelation. Secondly pointing out a rejection of basic Christian principles is not an unfair criticism. Thirdly by following the teachings of the bible and submitting to Church authority to the best that I can.

>>12011781
>Submitting to church authority
Well there you have it folks, the Hardline Catholic.

You're barking up the wrong tree putting down "voluntourism" as you call it, one should affirm the best intentions of other people while remembering that they are above all a sinner. Anyway that is my biggest beef with what you are saying. Basically arguing her attempts at connecting with the common people were disingenuous as if you could know that with any certainty, but you infer it with the relish of resentment from her perhaps unavoidable shortcomings AS a human being--doesnt seem to support your claim of humility

>>12011811
>Well there you have it folks, the Hardline Catholic.
Why do you think that stance makes it hardline and not simply someone who believes in Christianity even when its uncomfortable?

>You're barking up the wrong tree putting down "voluntourism" as you call it
I specifically made a point of distinguishing between this and actual volunteering though. Its something that has parallels to some of the most important parts of the faith.

>should affirm the best intentions of other people while remembering that they are above all a sinner.
It doesn't mean being blind to them either, and using it to justify teachings and practices which will literally lead people to hell and away from God. Do you think Jesus was wrong to criticise the practices of the pharisees for instance?

>Basically arguing her attempts at connecting with the common people were disingenuous as if you could know that with any certainty.
Well help me out here - a lot of this flows from her religious actions and views. From that earlier post how can you take her stance on baptism to be anything but ignorance of basic Christian teachings (which seems unlikely), dishonesty or consciously rejecting Christian truth.

Going from her incredibly egocentric understanding of God and simply truth how can one not view her corresponding actions in a similar light?

>but you infer it with the relish of resentment
Thats mainly just a bit of 4chan fun + I can tell her writings clearly have a special place in your life such to the point where you have become unduly and uncritically credulous of her. I had a similar patch with another French thinker and discourses like this even if they did nothing good in the short term did eventually bear fruit.

>Doesnt seem to support your claim of humility
If you were to affirm the best intention in me what do you think my intentions are?

Is that the lady who wrote milk and honey?

>>12012870
gave me a chuckle

What was her relationship to Catholicism?

>>12012036
>Why do you think that stance makes it hardline and not simply someone who believes in Christianity even when its uncomfortable?
Not the guy you're replying to, and not even saying you're wrong, but submitting to church authority as an act of faith "even when it's uncomfortable" is fairly descriptive of hardline catholicism. It's not at all something christians in general can subscribe to.

>>12009455
>that one anon that watched the Wes Cecil hit-piece on her and has been spamming the board with anti-Weilian propaganda ever since

>>12012036
I think you're heart is in the exact right place, and I have never read Weil or even thought of her before this thread; lately I have been trying to pray at least once a day and my impulse has become to look for the good in everything and every one. So you are right to defend your faith, but go easy on well meaning people; I have to admit I am always suspicious of "mystics" as I prefer "mere Christianity". What is your opinion of Thomas Merton?

>>12013706
*Your heart
Sorry it is early and I'm an actual proletarian about to go back to the job site right now. Have a good day.

>>12013709
wew, glad I'm not you. Have a good day buildings things anon

>>12013715
Thanks bro it shouldn't be too bad

>>12013677
Bear in mind being uncomfortable isnt all Abraham and Issac but comparatively little things like say contraception and the veneration of Saints.
>>12013704
>Wes Cecil hit-piece on her and has been spamming the board with anti-Weilian propaganda ever since
Thats where you are wrong anon - its literally in the award winning biography of her by classmate Simone Pétrement. The stuff about her factory work starting around page 225 and the stuff about her Spanish LARP in the 270s - another hit piece perhaps? As for spamming this is the first thread ive posted in on lit in about a year.

>>12013706
>but go easy on well meaning people
Id say ive gone fairly easy - I havent told people not to read her works or that people who do read her are bad and the like. Seeing my former idols dealt with in a fiery fashion helped me work through things so Im a bit biased.
>lately I have been trying to pray at least once a day
Great to hear it its a very good start.
>What is your opinion of Thomas Merton?
I confess Im not familiar with him.

>>12013833
>Bear in mind being uncomfortable isnt all Abraham and Issac but comparatively little things like say contraception and the veneration of Saints.

I feel like we're talking past eachother. I get what you're saying now but if you're throwing all of that under the banner of "uncomfortable" there's going to be confusion. I also wouldn't call it "submitting to church authority".

>>12013833
>Seeing my former idols dealt with in a fiery fashion helped me work through things
I wonder what negative impact Weil had had on you? I've had a similar experience. I became strangely attached to her after reading her work (largely due to what I think is similarity in personality between me and her). Since then God has told me to avoid her, at least for the time being. I still maintain that she is a good philosopher, and I still have my books by her. But she is not a good guide to Christianity.

>>12013868
>God has told me to avoid her
How'd that happen?

>>12013855
Well as you know we live in a pretty secular period so people have very different understandings of what is considered comfortable or not - I just wanted to make it clear to others as well.
>I also wouldn't call it "submitting to church authority".
I do because it involves ceding authority to the Church to be the final arbiter of what constitutes Gods will and proper Christian practice.

>>12013868
>I wonder what negative impact Weil had had on you?
She hasn't I can just see the potential for it to cause troubles in others + just there being the presence of good old fashion idolising. Wanna bet that the that constanza poster will just ignore or handwave the sources I provide?

> still maintain that she is a good philosopher, and I still have my books by her. But she is not a good guide to Christianity.
Thats the challenge we face when dealing with intelligent (and doubly so for the charismatic or talented in writing) its very easy to assume that a person being intelligent in one area makes. them correct in others or simply just moral and good people.

>Since then God has told me to avoid her
Me personally, I tend to lean on study and deduction + the clergy to help me with issues like this. Though Im a bit biased against personal revelations coming from an ex mormon background.

>>12013833
Thomas Merton was a monk and a mystic so... within prescribed discipline more than any lay person and yet he may make you uncomfortable. Also a very good writer.

How good are the translations of her work ?

bump