Simone Weil The Need for Roots

[mel_77777]

I am finding this to be one of the most difficult texts.
So if anyone has any words of comfort and support on this text that would be greatly appreciated.

Also just a couple of questions,
What is Weil's concept of beauty?
From my understanding, she thinks that the order of the world, the fact that so many random acts move in cohesion, points to something more in this world.?.... im not sure whether that is right.

Aslo,
Rights? What is an example of a right and its connection to an obligation?

Thanks in advance

[Ghost!]

Wow, you seem to be on this early! Have you already finish Nietzsche?

[mel_77777]

Wow, you seem to be on this early! Have you already finish Nietzsche?

Yeah we have, Neitzsche is actually quite an interesting read, Weil on the other hand needs a bit of motivation to be read.
What are you up to?

[Ghost!]

Wow, you seem to be on this early! Have you already finish Nietzsche?

Yeah we have, Neitzsche is actually quite an interesting read, Weil on the other hand needs a bit of motivation to be read.
What are you up to?

Yep, I'm a huge fan, considering ordering his complete works. I had a read of her work at the start of the year, it seemed a little simplistic to be perfectly honest (without seeming judgemental hopefully)

I've got my Nietzsche SAC tomorrow afternoon, pretty nervous! I meant to study tonight because I've just gotten back from an Outdoor camp, and discovered I left all my material at school. I've got a pretty solid understanding of GOM, so I should be okay!

[mel_77777]

Good Luck with your SAC tomorrow, i have one this wednesday on Neitzsche and Weil. Neitzsche's philosophy feels like one of the most useful, i'm certainly going to carry his philosophy around with me.

Weil is killing me! im currently doing questions on her text that were due last week...
I agree that her work is kinda simplistic, but the way the text is worded makes it difficult to understand her, i think she will be my downfall.

[Dr.Lecter]

If you understand Nietzsche, you should have no problem with Weil - she is more straightforward than Nietzsche.

[Menang]

Haven't started Weil - you're all so fast!

Our Nietzsche SAC is on Tuesday (next week) so a whole week to go.

[Ghost!]

If you understand Nietzsche, you should have no problem with Weil - she is more straightforward than Nietzsche.

Certainly agree with this. Nietzsche is arguably the most complex philosopher on the course, if you can wrap your head around his concepts you should be okay.

Haven't started Weil - you're all so fast!

Our Nietzsche SAC is on Tuesday (next week) so a whole week to go.

Good luck Menang! We start Weil on Wednesday, it's going to be a relief to have a break from Nietzsche. Feels like we've been talking about the Master/Slave morality for months now, most of my class struggled on the SAC today. Probably a good thing really, means Rank 1 will be that much easier for me to ascertain.

Speaking of the Master/Slave morality, what does everyone think of it? Lets get deep here people!

[Menang]

Hmmm.
I think it's a little... narrow.

The world doesn't have to be divided into the dichotomy of slaves and masters. What if I'm a master in some situations and a slave in others? There should be some middle ground, and Nietzsche doesn't really provide for that.

I think this concept is really only an observation - there's nothing prescriptive, unlike Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (which, incidentally, is all about middle grounds). It celebrates the good in nobles and condemns the bad in slaves, but ultimately doesn't really tell you how to live a good life. What if I'm a slave? Not in my attitude towards life, but in the fact that I'm a weak person. Just because a person is born mentally or physically weaker doesn't mean s/he doesn't deserve equality. After all, I think Nietzsche does state somewhere that not everyone can be an ubermensch. This makes it really hard (or impossible) for the majority (the 'weak') to have a truly good life.

[mel_77777]

Hmmm.
I think it's a little... narrow.

The world doesn't have to be divided into the dichotomy of slaves and masters. What if I'm a master in some situations and a slave in others? There should be some middle ground, and Nietzsche doesn't really provide for that.

I think this concept is really only an observation - there's nothing prescriptive, unlike Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (which, incidentally, is all about middle grounds). It celebrates the good in nobles and condemns the bad in slaves, but ultimately doesn't really tell you how to live a good life. What if I'm a slave? Not in my attitude towards life, but in the fact that I'm a weak person. Just because a person is born mentally or physically weaker doesn't mean s/he doesn't deserve equality. After all, I think Nietzsche does state somewhere that not everyone can be an ubermensch. This makes it really hard (or impossible) for the majority (the 'weak') to have a truly good life.

I think you are right in saying that in some situations we may be a master and in others the slave, but from my understanding Nietzsche does state that we must accept our position in life. Just like lambs by nature do not kill, and how birds of prey by nature kill, it is just how things are and we must accept it, no one is at fault. What i love about Nietzsche's philosophy is (again from my understanding) is that his philosophy conveys not how to get a good life, but to use the situation we are in and to look at it differently. His work is all about perception to me, the way we percieve things is what enables us to achieve a good life.

[Menang]

So if I'm weak I'm supposed to accept the fact that I am weak and let the strong dominate me, because it is in their nature to do so? That's a massive naturalistic fallacy, and I personally think that if someone is, for example, physically weak, they're allowed to make up for that in cleverness or any other form they so choose, including a moral construct.

While I agree with Nietzsche that spending your energies on an 'imaginary revenge' isn't very helpful, if moral constructs protect one from attack, then by all means go ahead and do your best to enforce them.

[mel_77777]

You're right in everything you are saying.
However, i believe Nietzsche to be the most realistic. There are always going to be people ahead of us, as you said, in some situations we are the slave and in others the master which i believe Nietzsche does not touch on, even so in each situation we are in, we must accept our placing. From my interpretation, one may be considered the master in terms of their intelligence but the slave in terms of physical strength. I go back to Nietzsche's analogy, the lamb is a lamb it cannot learn to kill, that is not in its nature but there are things that are in its nature and things that the lamb can only do and in these he is the master.
It's about accepting the situation you are in.

[Dr.Lecter]

In ways he is very similar to Callicles' from Plato's Gorgias. He suggests that everyone should aspire to become the 'ubermensch' or 'superman' - one who frees themselves from being bound to something, ie; institutional authority, morality, religion...etc. Society would end up similar to this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l84MdfAox0Y

[Menang]

You're right in everything you are saying.
However, i believe Nietzsche to be the most realistic. There are always going to be people ahead of us, as you said, in some situations we are the slave and in others the master which i believe Nietzsche does not touch on, even so in each situation we are in, we must accept our placing. From my interpretation, one may be considered the master in terms of their intelligence but the slave in terms of physical strength. I go back to Nietzsche's analogy, the lamb is a lamb it cannot learn to kill, that is not in its nature but there are things that are in its nature and things that the lamb can only do and in these he is the master.
It's about accepting the situation you are in.

I definitely agree with you that Nietzsche values perspective - accepting the situation you're given and making the most of it. I think that's a good way to look at life.

As stated before, though, I don't agree with the compartmentalising of nobles and slaves, and I absolutely disagree with him that moral concepts are bad because they derive from ressentiment because:
a) Not all moral constructs are derived from ressentiment and
b) even if they are, slaves have every right to use moral constructs to defend themselves.

[mel_77777]

And a moral construct that is not derived from ressentiment would be?