Talk to me about Pascal's Pensees

[Anonymous No.19035904]

What makes it such an important work of Christian Philosophy/Theology?

Is there more to Pascal than Pascal's Wager? What do you like about him as a thinker?

I'm reading the Pensees now. I had not realized that this is an unfinished work and is basically a collection of notes and seeds of ideas that he never got the chance to expand upon. Why is he considered one of the pivotal Christian thinkers of the enlightenment? I understand he was a polymath in mathematics and science, etc., and is thus at least interesting as a highly intelligent and learned man who believed in God. Is he primarily fitting in somewhere between Descartes and Spinoza? I have read Descartes Discourse on the Method and enjoyed it, but have not read Spinoza.

I want to give a little more effort than just "Explain Pascal to me," since I know there are a million posts on /lit/ like that and I would like to see the level of discourse here raised, but I don't really know what to make of him yet. I do find the idea of him interesting as I have seen him connected to the Stoics and Augustine, as well as influencing contemporary Christian theologians like William Lane Craig. Could you guys give me some help here?

[Anonymous No.19035934]

>>19035904
Because it's the same illogical schizo nonsense you get in other Christian texts, but it happens to have been written by a generally respected mathematician.

[Anonymous No.19036373]

>>19035934
Filtered hard ma boy

[Anonymous No.19037736]

>>19035904
BUMP

[Anonymous No.19037893]

>>19035904
I'm sorry, anon, I haven't read Pascal yet, but I plan to do it soon. Thus what all my help can be for now is a bump.

[Anonymous No.19037903]

>>19035904
>>19035934
This is the point. Religion is illogical. Faith is absurd. Pascal is theorized to have had some kind of seizure which caused him to hallucinate and write that famous
>FIRE.
quote. I think this is what makes religion so profound, that spur of the moment medical conditions can inspire a burst of creative genius.

[Anonymous No.19038354]

He's generally recognized as a proto-existentialist for being one of the first philosophers to approach things from the point of view of existence instead of systemizing things. Pascal's wager is a good example of this, where a lot of new atheists think he is making a metaphysical claim when it's an argument for someone making a personal, existential decision, regardless of if it's ultimately true or not (though Pascal knew Christ to be True). The Pensées were initially notes for a work to be called something along the lines of "Apology of the Christian Faith", and while they are only brief notes they are still appreciated as apologetics due to the existential point of view and his great wisdm. In my opinion this makes it even more relevant these days in an era of nihilism and post-modernism.

He's more in line with Montaigne than Descartes and Spinoza, a lot of excerpts from Pensées are paraphrases of Montaigne, and many of them are direct counterarguments to Montaigne. This makes it difficult to know on which points he did agree with Montaigne since he might as well just have written them down to remind himself to write a counter argument.

If you have the pleasure of reading the original French I suggest the Michel Le Guern edition.

[Anonymous No.19038488]

I have heard about the point of Pascal's Wager being about the place of Faith as beyond mere reason, a grace and a true force in an individual's life. The wager posits a rational basis for belief, but it has no force by itself even though it has the embellishment of logical reasoning and, as such, belief can only gain force through Faith and not reason. Finally, Faith is only bestowed by Grace, it cannot be acquired by discursive examinations, logical training.

[Anonymous No.19038733]

>>19035904
He was the first person to realise the new sciences were in the process of BTFOing traditional religious belief and defenders of it needed arguments based on faith not reason.

[Anonymous No.19039020]

>>19037903
I had seizures before and they are nothing like fire

[Anonymous No.19039039]

>>19038354
>>19038488
WAGER BTFO

[Anonymous No.19039213]

>>19035934
didnt read. a lot of it is philosophical musings largely unrelated to any particular religion that are very profound even to a nonreligious.
>>19037903
that might be part of it. in christian doctrine at least there is definitly the acknowledgement of the supralogical/profound, but thats no solely it when it comes to pansees.
>>19035904
I feel like most havent read. it is largely scraps, but it is some sublime writting and insights. also its pretty great prose, especially if you read it in og french, but there are some decent english translations too. tbqh, i much more enjoy it as a collection and window into a real geniuses mind. all the small things he ponders about. What is important to him, the melancholy of life, seeming controdictions in logic and conception. I really wish that pascal was seperated from the common close association with "pascals wager" which I assume most are familiar with him from. Its a relitvelly small part in his larger design, and its often applied for very low brow apologetics, when Pascal was thinking on a much higher registrar of concepts. Its unironically one of my favorite things to go back and read. its very "in the moment". There was one hing about the classic
>"we are so small in this universe of ours, we are misguided"
but then he actually completes the loop where most just jo to the extestentialism of the concept, and continues on
>But there is also an infinitesimal smallness in the universe too. What i may be in relevence to the moon, a mite may be in revelence to me. Its not that we are small, not that we are large, but we are relitive and the grandure of everything is in this infinite recursion in both directions.
Not exact quote, but thats the idea. There are a number of these really great insights, hes hardly ever accusatory, but simply additive. Not saying something is wrong, but musing how they may have gotten their, then proposing a more encapsulating theory. IDK if I got everything across what I like about pansees.

[Anonymous No.19040252]

>>19039039
>didn't understand the wager

[Anonymous No.19040256]

It's pushed because his wager seems to reveal the gambling aspect of Christianity...which cheapens it.

As a rule, any "famous" or "influential" book is usually made so by some political undercurrent. "White Fragility" as a a modern example.

Only the cumstained notebooks of dead anons found in mother's basements around the world are the real deal.