Campbell Corner Language Exchange
Manifestations of the Supernatural
According to Simone Weil
by Diogenes Allen
Presented April 1, 1998, Henry LeRoy Finch
Memorial Lecture, Hunter College
I wish to examine the place of Simone Weil’s
mystical experience in her thought and to show
the inadequacy of the typical responses to mysticism
by the disciplines of philosophy of religion,
biblical studies, and theology. I will grapple
with the issue of the truth of her claim to have
had a visitation by Christ. In this examination
we will uncover a method of reasoning that allows
for the personal affirmation, with intellectual
integrity, of the major Christian doctrines that
are above the capacity of the mind directly to
affirm or deny. This method of reasoning will
have far-reaching implications for understanding
the nature of theological reasoning and its philosophic
integrity. Both the context of Weil’s mystical
experience and what she believed she learned from
it are crucial. Weil herself gives us the context
of her mystical experience in her “Spiritual Autobiography.”
She writes,
As soon as I reached adolescence, I saw the
problem of God as a problem the data of which
could not be obtained here below, and I decided
that the only way of being sure not to reach
the wrong solution, which seemed to me the greatest
possible evil, was to leave it alone. So I left
it alone. I neither affirmed nor denied anything.
It seemed to me useless to solve the problem,
for I thought that, being in this world, our
business was to adopt the best attitude with
regard to the problems of this world, and the
such an attitude did not depend upon the solution
of the problem of God. (WG, p. 62)
Her stance is that of the late Enlightenment:
metaphysical matters are beyond our capacity,
but as they are irrelevant to our earthly problems,
it does not matter. Although Weil was at this
time an agnostic, she points out that her conception
of life, as far as she was concerned, was Christian.
She had developed the conviction that pure desire
had an efficacy in the realm of spiritual goodness.
She had a spirit of poverty, which attracted her
to St. Francis of Assisi, a love of Neighbor,
which she called justice, and the amor fati of
the Stoics, which for her did duty for the will
of God. The beauty of a mountain landscape impressed
upon her the beauty of personal purity or chastity.
But she stressed that to add Christian dogma to
this conception of life without being forced to
by indisputable evidence would have been to lack
honesty.
I should even have thought I was lacking in
honesty had I considered the question of the
truth of dogma as a problem for myself or even
had I simply desired to reach a conclusion on
this subject. I have an extremely severe standard
for intellectual honesty, so severe that I never
met anyone who did not seem to fall short of
it in more than one respect; and I am always
afraid of failing in it myself. (WG, p. 66)
Even though she set aside the problem of God
and Christian dogma, she subsequently had three
significant contacts with Catholicism (WG, p.
66). The first occurred after she had worked for
a year in a factory, where she had direct contact
with affliction, and was taken by her parents
to recuperate in Portugal. There she witnessed
a religious procession in a very poor fishing
village. The heart-rending sadness of the hymns
filled her with the conviction “that Christianity
is pre-eminently the religion of slaves.” (WG,
P. 67) That is to say, it is directed to those
who are wretched – not that it is embraced only
by the lowly.
Her second significant experience took place
in Assisi while visiting church in which St. Francis
often used to pray. “Something stronger than I
was compelled me for the first time in my life
to go down on my knees.” (WG, p.67-8) Here she
seems to have discovered a force or compulsion
that was elevating, in contrast to the force of
necessity which when painful is hateful and degrading,
but when pleasant is gratifying but not elevating.
Finally, at Solesmes, Weil attended services
in Holy Week, she simultaneously was burdened
by a splitting headache and experienced a pure
and perfect joy in the beauty of the chanting
and the words of the service. “ It goes without
saying that in the course of the services the
thought of the Passion of Christ entered into
my being once and for all.” (WG, p. 68) What she
learned from these three experiences can be summarized
as follows. Christianity is a religion primarily
for those who are wretched, and one experiences
in it a force unlike those forces that are either
degrading, or merely pleasant. The elevation to
be found in Christianity comes in the midst of
suffering.
While at Solesmes, Weil was introduced to the
17th century English Metaphysical Poets. She was
particularly struck by George Herbert’s poems.
She tells us that she memorized “Love” and used
to recite it when she was suffering from violent
headaches.
I used to think I was merely reciting it as
a beautiful poem, but without my knowing it
the recitation had the virtue of a prayer. It
was during one of these recitations that, as
I told you, Christ himself came down and took
possession of me. (WG, p. 69)
The poem is about Jesus sacrificing himself for
those who are wretched and offering his crucified
body at a banquet to nourish the wretched. In
her experience of Christ in the midst of her suffering,
Weil did not see him. She merely felt herself
in the presence of love. Why then does she say
“Christ himself came down and took possession
of me?” It is the intersection of wretchedness
and elevation by love that was the core of her
three previous significant experiences with Christianity.
Here the poem she recites is about Christ in whom
affliction and love intersect. So it is not surprising
that Weil identifies the love by which she is
possessed as the presence of Christ. Weil tells
us,
in all my arguments about the insolubility
of the problem of God I had never foreseen the
possibility of that, a real contact, person
to person, here below, between a human being
and God. (WG, p. 69)
She continues, making a point of crucial importance,
Yet, I still half refused, not my love but
my intelligence. For it seemed to me certain,
and I still think so today, that one can never
wrestle enough with God if one does so out of
pure regard for the truth. (WG, p. 69)
This means that she does not regard her mystical
experience as itself sufficient to establish the
reality of God or the truth of Christian dogmas.
Nor does she follow the common route found in
the philosophy of religion, which focuses exclusively
on the mystical or religious experience itself,
to see if such experience is sufficient to establish
either the reality of God or the truth of Christian
dogmas. Nor does she claim that mystical experience
is the source of Christian dogmas, or replaces
Christian dogma, as so many biblical scholars
and theologians think mystics are committed to.
Finally, Simone Weil is not like Friedrich Schleiermacher,
who stakes everything on the bedrock of a pure
feeling of absolute dependance, and who treats
Christian doctrines as the inadequate verbal articulation
of the feeling.
Rather, Weil engages in intellectual work in
order fully to convince her mind of the reality
of God. Her method is, on the one hand, to use
the intersection of wretchedness and love as a
key to the interpretation of Christian dogmas.
She gave remarkably fresh accounts of the doctrines
of creation, incarnation, and crucifixion. Then,
on the other hand, she employs these doctrines
to cast light on such things as work, oppression,
war, the destructive power of nature operation
on our bodies, which at the same time reveal great
beauty to our minds and senses. She uses Christian
doctrines to illuminate our self-understanding,
personal relations, such as friendship, and social
and political issues. Various philosophical questions,
literary questions, including myths and legends
are all examined in terms of the light given to
various conflict of the good and necessity by
a supernatural perspective. The illumination given
to various aspects of what is here below by Christian
dogma convinces her mind of the reality of God.
It is not a mystical experience by itself, but
that experience and the light Christian dogmas
shed elsewhere that brings intellectual conviction.
The intellectual analyses of things here below
from the point of view of a divine, suffering
love yield an understanding of various things
of this world, and at the same time mediate contact
with a divine love. Unlike so much of biblical
study and theological construction, Weil’s intellectual
work is directed toward giving a person nourishment
through contact with God’s love. In this, Weil
is very much in the ancient and medieval theological
tradition in which the Bible and theology are
concerned with enabling us to increase our knowledge
and love of God. To know God is to know the things
of this world as they are related to a divine,
suffering love. Secure in that knowledge the mind
finds a satisfaction and the heart a good that
is not subject to necessity, that is, that cannot
be destroyed.
For Weil, as in orthodox Christianity, Christian
doctrines, such as creation, incarnation, trinity,
and the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist,
are “above the intellect.” That is, the mind cannot
and should not submit to them directly, because
the kind of reasoning and the criteria we use
for and against various truth - claims are not
applicable to matters which are above the intellect.
What then can we do? We can do nothing, as Weil
did before she had a mystical experience. But
after her mystical experience, she realized that
a person can understand even what one cannot fully
comprehend. That understanding can prove to be
enough for one to become attracted by the suffering
love that Christian doctrines portray. Even though
doctrines are above the power of the intellect
to affirm or deny, they can still evoke love within
us. With a perception of suffering love, and the
evocation of love within us, we can now analyze
an immense range of things, as she did, and come
to a new understanding of them.
To use one of Weil’s one images, the mind illumined
by love is like a flashlight casting light where
otherwise much remains in the darkness. She wrote,
Faith is an experience that the intelligence
is lighted by love...The organ in us through
which we see truth is intelligence; the organ
in us through which we see God is love. (Panichas,
p. 419)
Although the Christian mysteries cannot be affirmed
or denied directly by the intellect, when loved,
those mysteries illumine the mind and enable the
mind to gain a new understanding of many things
here below. That understanding convinces the mind
of the truth of the mysteries. The mind makes
its affirmations, then, not by a direct examination
of the mysteries, but indirectly by the illumination
they give elsewhere. But for the mysteries to
be a source of understanding which can lead to
the conviction of their reality, intellectual
work must be done.
I can here only briefly illustrate that intellectual
work, since it is so extensive. In fact, it comprises
the entire corpus of Simone Weil. In the five
remaining years of her short life after her visitation
by Christ, she never ceased her intellectual inquiry.
She sought to understand all things in terms of
the light shed by the intersection of wretchedness
and an elevating love, and sought to make that
love more accessible to us through a reorganization
of our social and political life, as well as accessible
in our personal lives.
Consider, for example, her essay, “Iliad: Poem
of Might.” Force or compulsion in war is necessity,
the source of wretchedness, in its most naked
form. Homer’s account of the Trojan war shows
the sway of force over both victors and victims
until it reduces both to things. The person who
wields a sword and strikes another down becomes
as much a thing-like object, acting mechanically,
as the person who is struck down.
The true hero, the real subject, the core of
the Iliad, is might. The might which wielded
by men rules over them, and before it man’s
flesh cringes. (Intimations of Christianity
Among the Ancient Greeks, Trans. E.C. Geissbuhler,
p. 24)
Homer portrays both the Trojans, who are his
enemies, and the Greeks, who are his compatriots,
with the same sympathy and compassion. The Iliad
is not a story of Greek triumph. It is about people
caught in coils too strong for them to manage,
subject to forces which even the gods, who are
immensely stronger than humans, cannot control
or manage. Necessity reveals itself more and more
clearly as events go on, until victor and vanquished
cease to be people, and have become reduced to
things, obedient to forces that have established
dominion over them.
It is this which makes Iliad a unique poem, this
bitterness, issuing from its tenderness, and which
extends, as light of the sun, equally over all
men...The destitution and misery of all men is
shown without dissimulation or disdain, no man
is held above or below the common level of all
men, and whatever is destroyed is regretted. The
visitors and the vanquished are shown equally
near to us, in an equal perspective, and seen,
by that token, to be fellows as well of the poet
as of the auditors. (p. 48-9)
Weil claims that no person could so honestly
portray people at war, and have the whole work
bathed in such beauty, compassion, and a sense
of solidarity with both victors and vanquished
alike, as does Homer, without knowledge of a power
utterly different from compulsion, of a power
utterly different from necessity, namely divine
grace.
One cannot perceive the presence of God in
a man, but only in the reflection of that light
in his manner of conceiving earthly life. Thus,
the true God is present in the Iliad and not
in the book of Joshua.
The author of the Iliad depicts life as only
a man who loves God can see it. the author of
Joshua as only a man who does not love God can
see it.
One who does not testify so well for God by
speaking about Him as by expressing, either
in actions or words, the new aspect assumed
by the creation after the soul has experienced
its Creator. Indeed, the truth is that the latter
is the only way. (Panichas, p.427)
For this reason, Weil claims that
In a certain way, Patroclus occupies the central
position in the Iliad, where it is said “he
knew how to be tender toward all, “ wherein
nothing of a cruel or brutal nature is even
mentioned concerning him. (Geissbuhler, p. 44)
Again and again in various ancient Greek writings,
she sees the contrast between necessity or gravity,
as she often calls it, and grace. She sees the
contrast between brute power and social power,
which can reduce people to things, on the one
hand, or a witness to another power, on the other
hand. Again and again, she claims that those who
portray such forces have an intimation of grace
or divine love. Such people see themselves separated
only by chance from those who are reduced to rubble.
They know they could just as easily, for all they
could plan or do, become caught in the mechanism
and be crushed by it as well. So they are no better,
no more meritorious than those who are crushed.
“The cold brutality of the facts of war is in
no way disguised just because neither victors
nor vanquished are admired, despised or hated.”
(Panichas, p. 50)
Such humility in the ancient writers indicates
that they have learned to think of themselves
and others as limited, dependent beings. They
have recognized the sway of gravity, and yet,
have not given their full allegiance to it. To
withhold one’s allegiance from gravity, even when
one knows of no other power that can defeat it
or redeem it, is the result of the presence of
divine grace, whether it is realized or not.
Weil claims that this has happened in many faiths
and not just among the ancient Greeks. She documents
it in the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh
(having taken the trouble to learn the original
language) and in the sacred Hindu Upanishads.
Her basic claim is that there has always been
a witness to the Cross of Christ, even when it
has not been known as such. For the forces which
led to Jesus’ crucifixion are the same forces
operative in war, social life, and natural material
processes. The Cross symbolizes these forces that
reduce us to things, and at the same time, the
love that can be present in and through them.
We see a similar pattern of intellectual work
in Weil’s reflections on one of the most basic
convictions of western society: the absolute value
of every human being. Weil considered it in the
context of her reflections on capitalism and Marxism.
She points out that in western liberal democracy
every person has inalienable rights to life, liberty,
and property. No government can violate these
rights or take them away from us justly. Every
person has equality before the law. If you work
in a factory and get paid the wage that supply
and demand establish for your work, your rights
are not violated. No one has deprived you of life,
liberty or property. No injustice has been committed.
What is wrong with this view? Marx criticized
it because it exploits the worker. The worker
is the producer of wealth, yet the worker receives
only a wage – a part of the wealth. The rest of
the wealth is taken as profits by the owners of
the means of production. The worker is thus exploited
because the worker’ s right to the product of
labor is violated.
Although both theories have different views of
what human rights are, both seek to protect these
rights. However, neither shows that every person
has absolute value. People have value in terms
of what they produce. The theory of liberal democracy
allows the marketplace to determine the value
of a person’s labor, The Marxist values labor
differently. But neither political nor economic
shows that people have an absolute value. Their
value is relative to their work; their value is
relative to each other. Not only is absolute value
not even broached by these theories, they do not
consider the depth of harm and injury which be
done to a person. For this we must look elsewhere.
One of the places for Weil was the parable of
the Good Samaritan. A man is robbed, beaten, and
left as a heap of battered flesh beside a road.
A Levite and a priest pass by without helping.
She asks, “Do they violate the injured man’s rights?
Could anyone take them to court for not helping?
Could they be said to have acted unjustly?” A
theory of alienable rights, which a government
must protect, a theory of equality before the
law, would not convict the Levite or the priest
who passed by of injustice. Yet Jesus once praised
those who gave drink to the thirsty, fed the hungry,
clothed the naked, and visited the prisoner. He
called them just. They had performed acts of justice.
In the New Testament the same Greek word is translated
as “just” and “righteous.” The Good Samaritan
was a righteous or just person. He performed a
just act. This story reflects a different view
of justice in the New Testament from that of democratic
liberalism. The New Testament view of justice
is not limited to the protection of rights. Its
view of justice is deeper because it has a deeper
view of what people are and the harm that can
be done to them. This is why it seems strange
to us to consider the act of the Good Samaritan
as an act of justice. To those who think in terms
of liberal democratic theory, it is an act of
mercy, not justice. But sense can be made of the
New Testament view of justice.
The man who was beaten and robbed no longer had
any possession to cause anyone to take notice
of him. He had no clothes to indicate his social
position; were he a person of distinction, perhaps
notice would have been taken of him. Since his
relative value cannot be estimated, what claim
did he have to consideration? If his claim is
based on rights – if rights are the bottom line
– then he has no claim. What applies to him applies
to all of us. Any of us can be reduced to anonymity
in which we have no claim on others. We can be
left without family, money, friends. Talk to any
refugee who has been reduced to nothing or fears
it. what basis does he or she have for making
a claim on anyone? All such a person can do is
beg, beg for mercy. People may listen or they
may turn away. But no injustice is committed.
That is, no injustice is committed if rights are
the final and ultimate ground for a claim to consideration
by others.
Weil did not believe that the bottom line was
rights. We do have a claim on others and others
have obligations to us because we all have absolute
value. But in earthly terms if we are stripped
of all that we have – possessions and social standing
– people can pass us by without committing an
injustice. None of us can ensure that we will
not be stripped of all we gave. Indeed, as Weil
never failed to pint out, it is a condition we
shall all actually be in one day, when we become
reduced to dust. If rights are our only claim
to consideration, no harm has been done to us,
no injustice, no violation has been committed.
Unless we have absolute value, then we have no
grounds for complaint. If we do have absolute
value, then indeed we have been harmed; we do
have a reason to cry out in adversity: Why? Why
must I bear this kind of life? Why must I live
this way day after day? Why am I neglected? Why
must I die? If we have absolute value, to be deprived
is a reason to cry out. And when something of
absolute value cries out, it is unjust not to
answer. It is unjust to allow that which is of
absolute value to be wretched, mangled, twisted,
neglected, unnoticed, unwanted, resented, hated.
But what gives us absolute value? Nothing earthly
can. In every way we are unequal – in ability,
good fortune, health, and the like. We only have
relative value, limited value, conditional value.
Our value is determined by our standing compared
to other people. Weil claimed that only what is
utterly and wholly free of defilement and corruption
has absolute value. Only what is absolutely and
wholly good can give us absolute value. We have
absolute value only because we have been made
to receive that good. Without that good, we have
no absolute value. We must keep our eyes closed
to what is around us and before us: a physical
universe that is utterly indifferent to us and
a great, deep, empty abyss toward which we are
headed. The cry of the human heart – which makes
sense only if we are being violated – is met with
silence when it looks to anything earthly. Only
those who recognize in their own hearts the harm
we can suffer, the anguish of what it is to be
a human being, can act as the Good Samaritan acted.
They can see that it is unjust to allow that cry
to be unanswered. They can recognized that it
is an outrage to allow that brokeness to lie unnoticed
and unattended.
Weil thought that the reality of absolute good
and correspondingly absolute value are above the
power of the intellect to establish. Weil thinks
they are above the intellect because the intellect
cannot give absolute certainty. Yet in these matters,
she claimed there is absolute certainty. It is
in our very bones; it is in our cry of anguish.
It resides in our every wretched life that feels
that somehow I was made for more than this kind
of life. This for her is a manifestation of the
supernatural good in our lives.
Ernest Bevin, who led the dockworker’s union
in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s, stressed that
the most important goal of the labor movement
was for the workers to gain a sense of human dignity
and to stop feeling like second-class people.
In the 1930s a Parliamentary Commission was appointed
to hear the case of the dockworkers. The management
was represented by an eminent King’s Counsel.
The dockers chose Ernest Bervin to present their
case, even though he had little education and
legal or economic training. Bevin mastered the
immensely complicated economic and legal facts
relevant to the inquiry in a short time and presented
their case magnificently. He became known as “Docker’s
K.C.,” and it became a point of pride among the
dockers that one of their own was able to make
their case. For Weil this too would become a manifestation
of the supernatural in our lives.
According to Weil, Marx’s theory of oppression
did not show a full awareness of the real nature
of oppression. The injury to people is not finally
expressible in economic terms. In far too many
situations, it is the experience of work that
oppresses. We have learned from Arthur Miller
how humiliating it can be to be a salesman. In
management too, humiliation must be endured in
order to move up or stay in place, and dismissal
can mean utter collapse. A theory of oppression
that is only or primarily economic does not allow
the depths of oppression to be articulated, and
thereby actually leads to an increase in human
oppression.
Weil believed that Jesus can open our eyes to
the depths of injury that human beings endure.
Consider, for example, the emphasis on lepers
in the Gospels. Lepers were socially uprooted
from the fabric of society. They were forced to
live outside of towns and villages and to call
out as a warning to anyone who approached them,
“Unclean!” It is no accident that the Gospels
frequently mention that Jesus healed lepers –
restored them to the social fabric – nor is an
accident that his imitator St. Francis kissed
their sores. By that very disgusting act, Francis
restored the outcast to personhood. He affirmed
the absolute value of those whose social value
was less than nothing.
These are a few examples of Weil’s attempt to
show that God and the supernatural mysteries of
Christianity, though above reason, nonetheless
when loved, give illumination to our intellectual
work. her method of reasoning suggests to me that
in order to evaluate mystical experience in the
philosophy of religion, or theology, we should
not look exclusively at the experience itself,
as is now commonly done. Rather, we should examine
and evaluate the understanding that a supernatural
perspective can give us of things such as war,
the nature of justice, and the like. As Weil put
it,
If I light an electric torch at night out of
doors I don’t judge its power by looking at
the bulb, but by seeing how many objects it
lights up.
The brightness of a source of light is appreciated
by the illumination it projects upon non-luminous
objects.
The value of a religious or, more generally,
a spiritual way of life is appreciated by the
amount of illumination thrown upon the things
of this world.
Only spiritual things have value, but only
physical things have a verifiable existence.
Therefore the value of the former can only be
verified as an illumination projected on to
the latter. (Panichas, p. 430-1)
This is certainly a novel approach, and one
that should not only be considered by philosophers
of religion, but by theologians as well.
|