Scan barcode
A review by arthurian
Gravity and Grace by Simone Weil
2.0
after reading weil's biography i had good expectations for gravity and grace and since these are collections of personal writings, i did not plan on rating. by the time i finished, though, i felt like i need to rate and review.
while some concepts on the nature of god (both distant and personal, supernatural as not meant to be understood with logic but by another faculty that's present in us) were interesting as arguments and weil's language is beautiful, her ideology and theology leave little room for anything in this world that isn't suffering. dismissing any form of resistance or even attempts at enjoying this life as aspects of gravity, a baser form of good that is allied with evil, or The Great Beast, weil glorifies suffering. this suffering each of us experience (to different degrees as a result of race, gender, class, faith etc. which weil omits) doesn't even exist to test anyone's faith, make them learn or simply as a result or others' cruelty, but it is an inherent aspect of the universe and the god's distance from us.
also, i expected more tolerance from her in accordance with the nature of the god she initially depicts, but both the elaborated nature of the god and one's relationship with him is limited to the christian concepts of the original sin, god's grace and humans' inherent sinfulness. enjoying this world means getting further away from god, even attempting to be good means we are cut off from the real goodness. every single natural and humane emotion one might feel is seen as something that sets us apart from god. this god is not communally forgiving of everyone as salvation depends on suffering that is divorced from even expecting any salvation. so much that, she uses the idea that other religions interpret their gods differently as an argument to view them as people who strayed away from god (mostly Judaism, which becomes quite antisemitic, with some mentions of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism with the most surface level understanding of these religions). this dismissal is not limited to only religions, as political movements, any form of resistance, or even any art that does not possess the real goodness is a false ideal, a corrupting influence. in fact, her brief discussion on how some art may be corrupting explains her views on anything that might have a meaning for other people well:
"A person who is passionately fond of music may quite well be a perverted person—but I should find it hard to believe this of any one who thirsted for Gregorian chanting."
replace music with anything one believes in, and gregorian chanting with her notion of catholic faith, and you get a sum up of the logical fallacy that aims to present one true approach to spirituality.
i suppose i am not the right audience for this, as it approaches faith from the framework of christian dogmas but i was hoping i could enjoy it more.
while some concepts on the nature of god (both distant and personal, supernatural as not meant to be understood with logic but by another faculty that's present in us) were interesting as arguments and weil's language is beautiful, her ideology and theology leave little room for anything in this world that isn't suffering. dismissing any form of resistance or even attempts at enjoying this life as aspects of gravity, a baser form of good that is allied with evil, or The Great Beast, weil glorifies suffering. this suffering each of us experience (to different degrees as a result of race, gender, class, faith etc. which weil omits) doesn't even exist to test anyone's faith, make them learn or simply as a result or others' cruelty, but it is an inherent aspect of the universe and the god's distance from us.
also, i expected more tolerance from her in accordance with the nature of the god she initially depicts, but both the elaborated nature of the god and one's relationship with him is limited to the christian concepts of the original sin, god's grace and humans' inherent sinfulness. enjoying this world means getting further away from god, even attempting to be good means we are cut off from the real goodness. every single natural and humane emotion one might feel is seen as something that sets us apart from god. this god is not communally forgiving of everyone as salvation depends on suffering that is divorced from even expecting any salvation. so much that, she uses the idea that other religions interpret their gods differently as an argument to view them as people who strayed away from god (mostly Judaism, which becomes quite antisemitic, with some mentions of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism with the most surface level understanding of these religions). this dismissal is not limited to only religions, as political movements, any form of resistance, or even any art that does not possess the real goodness is a false ideal, a corrupting influence. in fact, her brief discussion on how some art may be corrupting explains her views on anything that might have a meaning for other people well:
"A person who is passionately fond of music may quite well be a perverted person—but I should find it hard to believe this of any one who thirsted for Gregorian chanting."
replace music with anything one believes in, and gregorian chanting with her notion of catholic faith, and you get a sum up of the logical fallacy that aims to present one true approach to spirituality.
i suppose i am not the right audience for this, as it approaches faith from the framework of christian dogmas but i was hoping i could enjoy it more.