Simone Weil rejects the building blocks of modern life, such as democracy and personal identity, and offers a radical alternative.
Weil denounces political parties and argues for the abolition of institutions, like science and the Catholic Church, that corrupt truth.
Deep dives
Simone Weil's Contempt for Intellectuals
Simone Weil, a contemporary writer, shares similarities with George Orwell. Both had contempt for intellectuals who did not act on their political views. Weil's own experience led her to seek poverty and deprivation to understand it firsthand. She worked in a factory despite not being suited for manual labor, and later volunteered for the Spanish Civil War despite not being cut out to be a soldier. She rejected the idea of majority opinion and believed in standing up to democratic opinion. Weil also embraced mysticism but refused to join any institutional form, including the Catholic Church, as she believed that they compromised the truth.
Simone Weil's Rejection of Political Parties
Weil denounced political parties, arguing that they tend towards totalitarianism by subsuming the individual for the sake of power and growth. She extended her criticism beyond extreme parties like Nazis and Communists, including liberal democratic parties as well. She called for the abolition of political parties, rejecting the assumption that if it were possible, it would have been done. A pure democracy, according to Weil, values the pursuit of universal truths that everyone can agree on, rather than relying on collective opinion or majority endorsement. She believed that the pursuit of equality through political parties would inevitably lead to corruption and the stifling of individual conscience.
Simone Weil's Critique of Institutions and Rights
Weil argued that all institutions, including science, corporations, and the Catholic Church, corrupt the truth they claim to espouse. She asserted that modern science is subjective and driven by fashion, while institutions like corporations and the church fail to uphold the truth due to their hierarchies, doctrines, and intolerance for dissent. She rejected the idea of personal rights, considering them part of the cult of personality and susceptible to being taken away. Weil saw collective pursuits as futile, where even scientific endeavors were reduced to subjective and personally-motivated pursuits. She contended that suffering is the common human experience, and that recognizing and hearing the suffering of others is a more essential pursuit than asserting personal rights or affiliating with institutions.
Simone Weil's Search for Silence and the Sacred
Weil proposed that the way to understand and alleviate human suffering is through silence and recognition of the sacred. She believed that there are individuals who have reached a level of impersonality and transcended the desire for status or talent, and their understanding of human suffering could bring solace. Rather than focusing on political parties or intellectual discourse, Weil urged people to hear the suffering of others, particularly those who are unheard or inarticulate, such as the village idiots. She called for a rejection of the cult of personality, as well as institutions and ideologies that try to collectivize human personality. Weil saw suffering as the universal aspect of being human, and the recognition of suffering as the source of goodness.
This week’s episode in our series on the great essays and great essayists is about Simone Weil’s ‘Human Personality’ (1943). Written shortly before her death aged just 34, it is an uncompromising repudiation of the building blocks of modern life: democracy, rights, personal identity, scientific progress – all these are rejected. What does Weil have to put in their place? The answer is radical and surprising.
‘Many parents, one imagines, would echo the words of Madame Weil, the mother of Simone Weil, a child every bit as trying as Kafka must have been. Questioned about her pride in the posthumous fame of her ascetic daughter, Madame Weil said: “Oh! How much I would have preferred her to be happy.”’