Weil and Rights

[Anonymous No.13013698]

> Among the lies in question is the eighteenth-century materialists' notion of natural right. We do not owe this to Rousseau, whose lucid and powerful spirit was of genuinely Christian inspiration, but to Diderot and the Encyclopedistes. It was from Rome that we inherited the notion of rights, and like everything else that comes from ancient Rome, who is the woman full of the names of blasphemy in the Apocalypse, it is pagan and unbaptizable. (81, Simone Weil An Anthology)


In her essay "Human Personality" Simone Weil rejects the idea of rights, because for her, they are essentially anti-democratic and only further ego -- not justice. Weil, then, says that Rome is: "[...] the Great beast of atheism and materialism adoring nothing but itself (143)" while on the other hand she proposes and says: "The Greeks had no conception of rights. They had no words to express it. They were content with the name of justice (82)" Weil is also for the abolition of political parties for similar reasons. She says that they are an English invention and cater only to passions.

So anon, what is your view about rights and Weil, should the current culture start with the Greeks again, and, are the Romans essentially the Anglos of the Ancient World?

[Anonymous No.13013736]

Further quotes from her to make her case even more clearer, if necessary:

> The notion of rights i s linked with the notion of sharing out, of exchange, of measured quantity. It has a commercial flavour, essentially evocative of legal claims and arguments. Rights are always asserted in a tone of contention ; and when this tone is adopted, it must rely upon force in the background, or else it will be laughed at. (81)

> It is singularly monstrous that ancient Rome should be praised for having bequeathed to us the notion of rights. If we examine Roman law in its cradle, to see what species it belongs to, we discover that property was defined by thejus utendi et abutendi. And in fact the things which the property owner had the right to use or abuse at will were for the most part human beings. (82)

> If you say to someone who has ears to hear : 'What you are doing to me is not just', you may touch and awaken at its source the spirit of attention and love. But it is not the same with words like ' I have the right . . . ' or 'you have no right to. . . . ' They evoke a latent war and awaken the spirit of contention. To place the notion of rights at the centre of social conflicts is to inhibit any possible impulse of charity on both sides. Relying almost exclusively on this notion, it becomes impossible to keep one's eyes on the real problem. (83)

[Anonymous No.13014754]

>>13013698
>>13013736
Based

[Anonymous No.13015612]

>>13013698
>Weil, then, says that Rome is: "[...] the Great beast of atheism and materialism

As far as the Catholicism is concerned, yes.

[Anonymous No.13015649]

>>13013698
Simone is a CUTE

[Anonymous No.13015662]

What did she think of the Medievalists?

[Anonymous No.13015965]

>>13015662
I think she admired and loved the neoplatonic and poetic thing about medieval art and thought, she writes:
> By means of these symbols, men and
women could live constantly surrounded by an atmosphere of supernatural poetry, as they did in medieval times,perhaps even better than then, for why limit hope for the good ?

Also (from her essay "On the Abolishion of All Politial Parties", she disliked St. Thomas.
> How can anyone subscribe to statements the existence of which he is not even aware? By simply and unconditionally submitting to the authority which issued them! This is why Saint Thomas Aquinas wished to have his affirmations supported only by the authority of the Church, to the exclusion of any other argumentation. Nothing more is needed for those who accept this authority, he said, and no other argument will persuade those who reject it. Thus the inner light of evidence, this capacity of perception given from above to the human soul in answer to its desire for truth, is discarded or reduced to discharging menial chores, instead of guiding the spiritual destiny of human creatures.

[Anonymous No.13016778]

>>13013698
>tfw haven't read much philosophy so can't assess the validity of Weil's views yet they always seem so based and completely true

WHYYYYY

[a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i No.13016813]

>>13013698
She's 100% right about parties. George Washington warned of the same in his farewell address. That they have become overgrown to their current strangling of American democracy indicates we are missing some checks against them.

>start with the Greeks again
There is no reset button except collapse. No one can push it. And we are continually starting with the Greeks, or should be.

>>13013736
Disagree. She is conflating natural rights with a material lack. There is never a lack of justice, only a refusing to deliver it. Rights are not a commodity, or a quid pro quo. If they seem to be, then society is ill. I am well aware this describes us. Pic related. Not every citizen is equally free. This is not the fault of rights, but oppression.

[Anonymous No.13016891]

>She had another, more powerful, revelation a year later while reciting George Herbert's poem Love III, after which "Christ himself came down and took possession of me",[42] and, from 1938 on, her writings became more mystical and spiritual, while retaining their focus on social and political issues. She was attracted to Roman Catholicism, but declined to be baptized, preferring to remain outside due to "the love of those things that are outside Christianity".[43][44][45] During World War II, she lived for a time in Marseille, receiving spiritual direction from a Dominican Friar. Around this time, she met the French Catholic author Gustave Thibon, who later edited some of her work.
>Christian
>refuses Baptism
???

[Anonymous No.13016984]

Weil was so fucking based. Gravity and Grace changed my life

[Anonymous No.13017048]

>>13016891
She was afraid that accepting a creed would compromise her ability to think, so she avoided baptism for that reason

[Anonymous No.13017065]

>>13013698
reminder she was a bumbling heretic and in hell as we speak

[Anonymous No.13017074]

>>13017065
>she was a bumbling heretic
yes
>and in hell as we speak
no

[Anonymous No.13017083]

>>13013698
>>13013736

She is a miracle. Based Jewish and Woman.

[Anonymous No.13017119]

>>13017083

Unfortunately those are not perfect criteria. Here's another Simone Veil (not Weil). This one was very unbased and pretty much the complete opposite of Weil.

[Anonymous No.13017170]

>>13016813
>>13016813
If I understood your and her claims correctly, then I'd like to say the following:

Her views of rights is not really a material lack, I think, as it is the clam that (personal) rights are given to people by the state -- not nature as in today's liberal sense -- and work in the dichototomy, opresion-privilege that drives a personal desire for consumption which she considers bad since the purely personal ought to be overcome. She writes:

> The person, being subordinate to the collective both in fact and by the nature of things, enjoys no natural rights which can be appealed to on its behalf. It is said, quite correctly, that in antiquity there existed no notion of respect for the person. The ancients thought far too clearly to entertain such a confused idea. The human being can only escape from the collective by raising himself above the personal and entering into the impersonal. The moment he does this, there is something in him, a small portion of his soul, upon which nothing of the collective can get a hold.

Also, I do have a feeling that she seems to agree with you in this point.

> Relying almost exclusively on this notion, it becomes impossible to keep one's eyes on the real problem. If someone tries to browbeat a farmer to sell his eggs at a moderate price, the farmer can say : 'I have the right to keep my eggs if I don't get a good enough price.' But if a young girl is being forced into a brothel she will not talk about her rights .In such a situation the word would sound ludicrously inadequate.

Idk anon, I mean, not sure how to solve all of it or with whom I agree/disagree, but I wanted to make a response to your comment since she does seem to address it and because I think it's an interesting discussion and I wonder what your response will be? (genuinely curious since you seem fairly knowledgeable on the subject) :)

[Anonymous No.13017749]

>>13017170
To word my own shit better for better discussion (since it appears as if I'm explaining material lack in my own first statement, while I want to say the opposite).

For Weil, I think, the way she understands and uses the word right/rigts is that they are not the material lack, but the very drive itself for consumption and self-gratification (be it personal, emotional or material), and make the conversation not about (real) justice --whatever that is, but instead about the superficial self or "muh right" and restricts the viewer from considering other people and a general will/good.

[a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i No.13017905]

>>13017749
Yes, right in the Max Stirner sense. Might makes "right" rights.

This is at odds with the natural rights which are NOT given to the people by the state but rather natural (God-given) rights which are expressly protected by the state's founding document but infringed nonetheless. This is why when they are infringed it is a commodification of rights, it does become a quid pro quo. To continue the example, only the wealthy, famous, and powerful get to carry handguns in NYC. Everyone else may as well not even apply for a license. Meanwhile, in other states, carry is either shall-issue or does not require permission. The small folk have no recourse. Ideally, the court would hear the appeal but given that judges reflect the political will of a majority and it's all locked up anyway there's no choice but to move elsewhere.

I think Weil's example is definitely rooted into something she personally saw. The farmer's labor is his own, same as the girl's. Only the girl is tread upon because she has no recourse. The farmer can eat his eggs. The girl can't satisfy her appetite with sexual favors.

The girl could "raise herself into the impersonal," but given that she (in this example) cannot support herself without a brothel, would have to suffer some other means.

Weil is right about rights being something that can't really be taken, only removed from practice, but I think her call to asceticism in that way is misdirected. In a religious context, rights are of course known but the liberties they grant are not practiced voluntarily. Typically because of a sacred vow. Poverty, chastity, obedience, do-no-harm, humility, etc.

[Anonymous No.13017912]

>>13013698
Based jewess

[Anonymous No.13017925]

>>13013698
Weil is the most based female writer to ever live. Makes Nietzsche look like a school boy

[Anonymous No.13017943]

>>13013698
Where do I start with this jew? Is she a meme? I suspect you fags only read because she's cute