Beautiful essay. My two loves, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Here is a rebuttal to consider, or perhaps wrestle with.
Simone Weil presents a radically different conception of will than what is commonly understood in Western moral and philosophical traditions. Her critique centers on the inefficacy and even spiritual danger of relying on willpower for moral or intellectual improvement. Instead, she elevates the faculty of attention as the central means of transformation. For example, to listen intently to suffering. Attention and awareness can be the divine activity, when it is pure. Prayer.
The difference between sympathy and pity, from pure attention, is that when it is untrue, or on the basis of a falsehood. It is then hard to imagine that one is transformed by it.
The will is active and assertive. Ultimately, will must become still (hesychia), emptied of self-assertion, open to the grace that transforms it into a tool of divine operation. Ultimately sites of affliction (malheur) and consent cannot become existential, free, de-created.
Weil herself remained profoundly active—writing, reflecting, and even risking her health through solidarity with the oppressed. Clearly, Weil found some way to maintain an ethical commitment that, paradoxically, presupposes an active form of willing, even while theoretically dissolving it.
There has been a debate between the vivere attiva (active living) and vivere contemplativa (contemplative living) which goes back to the Renaissance and even beyond. Those who advocate the contemplative life are following in the footsteps of Boethius.
I think there should be a mix between action and contemplation. Christianity, especially the monastic side, has gone too far into contemplation and this lead many to reject the social life. Nietzsche tried to correct this, but he actually lived the vivere contemplative.
Beautiful essay. My two loves, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Here is a rebuttal to consider, or perhaps wrestle with.
Simone Weil presents a radically different conception of will than what is commonly understood in Western moral and philosophical traditions. Her critique centers on the inefficacy and even spiritual danger of relying on willpower for moral or intellectual improvement. Instead, she elevates the faculty of attention as the central means of transformation. For example, to listen intently to suffering. Attention and awareness can be the divine activity, when it is pure. Prayer.
The difference between sympathy and pity, from pure attention, is that when it is untrue, or on the basis of a falsehood. It is then hard to imagine that one is transformed by it.
The will is active and assertive. Ultimately, will must become still (hesychia), emptied of self-assertion, open to the grace that transforms it into a tool of divine operation. Ultimately sites of affliction (malheur) and consent cannot become existential, free, de-created.
Weil herself remained profoundly active—writing, reflecting, and even risking her health through solidarity with the oppressed. Clearly, Weil found some way to maintain an ethical commitment that, paradoxically, presupposes an active form of willing, even while theoretically dissolving it.
https://ia600308.us.archive.org/20/items/Philokalia-TheCompleteText/Philokalia-Complete-Text.pdf
There has been a debate between the vivere attiva (active living) and vivere contemplativa (contemplative living) which goes back to the Renaissance and even beyond. Those who advocate the contemplative life are following in the footsteps of Boethius.
I think there should be a mix between action and contemplation. Christianity, especially the monastic side, has gone too far into contemplation and this lead many to reject the social life. Nietzsche tried to correct this, but he actually lived the vivere contemplative.
Absolutely 💯 I agree.