hermit's thatch
Skip to content
  • Home

Weil’s hypothesis

In a poignant passage of her last letter to Father Perrin, Simone Weil expresses “an absurd hypothesis”: that if she were to die without serious sin but find herself fallen into hell, she would not or could not blame God, who had always extended his infinite mercy to her in her earthly life.

Weil had already proposed that obedience must reconcile one to infinite acceptance. She makes a human analogy: a mother’s loves for her child is infinite and that joy is everything, and all else is “superfluous.” Yet that mother cannot infinitely safeguard her child from accident, circumstance, danger, or destruction. Thus, in the hypothesis, God’s love and mercy is everything, is infinite. Yet God does not intervene. The only relevant fact is God’s love. “The rest is the affair of God alone and does not concern us.”

There are complex themes to Weil’s simple hypothesis, but these were the sorts of statements to her correspondent Father Perrin that reinforced her simultaneous attraction and repulsion to Catholicism. Here God’s capacity to express mercy is thwarted, and God’s ability to intervene in the universe is unmasked.

But the “absurd” hypothesis is not incompatible with theological speculation; it is, however, completely at odds with the fragile premises of the churchmen about what God is. Infinite is the condemnation of one in hell, and irreducible is the universal order that condemns the given soul to hell. Weil only takes that premise to its logical or “absurd” conclusion, that God can condemn one to hell for no apparent reason (like Kafka’s antihero in “The Trial”) and one will have to accept that it is for something one did but does not remember or cannot deny not matter how absurd. Another possibility (which is perhaps emblematic of Weil’s whole life) is that the condemned stands in the place of others — not as Christ does in saving humanity and himself, but as the poor and ignorant condemned one who lives and dies in vain in the unconscious quest to save others if not himself.

What sort of love and mercy is this, let alone the proposition that it constitutes “infinite” love and mercy? Weil gives the churchmen the backdoor psychological (but not theological) solution: that obedience overrides logic, reasonableness, or discernment. Obedience is an infinitely compelling necessity in theology. Obedience overrides mystery — the usual kindness given to absurd or illogical or unreasonable behavior on the part of God. And obedience overrides love, or rather reciprocated love, like that of the child toward its parent. How many children really do not love their parent, given the complex of instincts and urges and identity frustrations that plague childhood? Obey but not necessarily love.

Obedience, together with poverty and chastity, became the third virtue of the cenobite, but must necessarily be transformed by the solitary or religious hermit because obedience is clearly presented by the church as a way of frustrating will, reason, and logic, even love.

Weil has exposed this flaw at the heart of Christian theology. And yet she resolves nothing theological, for the dilemma remains even for non-believers. Rather than God, we may say that the universe nurtures us with infinite love and mercy (like the mother’s love for a child). Over the course of millions of years, the universe labors to create us, specifically us. And in the end, the universe casts us into old age, infirmity, suffering, and death — our earthly hell. And we have no choice but to obey. The non-believer cannot even pray to hope to enter heaven instead of hell, cannot pray for mercy or solicit God’s love, for these have all been exhausted in creating the conscious creature that is a human being. And like the existential coreligionist, the non-believer joins his side in sighing, “Why?”

So Simone Weil, infinitely conscious of her solitude, strikes the reverberating chord that shatters the hope and acquiescence of belief. We have no choice but to obey, meaning that we have no choice but to accept our fate, however “absurd.”

What a gadfly was Simone Weil, even to the last moments of her young life, rabidly ethical and ascetic, rivaling any believers’ piety, outdoing many a comfortable saint.

I feel that it is necessary and ordained that I should be alone, a stranger and an exile in relation to every human circle without exception.

This was written by Meng-hu. Posted on Friday, June 8, 2012, at 2:54 pm. Filed under thatch. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
‹ Travel
Berry’s shortfall ›
  • Links

    • hermit’s slate (forum)
    • hermitary
    • hermits around the web
  • Recent Posts

    • Thoughts at large
    • Berry’s “house”
    • Just for today
    • Garden
    • Renunciation
    • Youth vs. Age
    • Creature’s death
  • Archives

    • April 2013 (2)
    • March 2013 (3)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (1)
    • December 2012 (2)
    • November 2012 (2)
    • October 2012 (2)
    • September 2012 (2)
    • August 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (2)
    • June 2012 (2)
    • May 2012 (2)
    • April 2012 (2)
    • March 2012 (2)
    • February 2012 (3)
    • January 2012 (2)
    • December 2011 (3)
    • November 2011 (2)
    • October 2011 (2)
    • September 2011 (2)
    • August 2011 (3)
    • July 2011 (3)
    • June 2011 (2)
    • May 2011 (2)
    • April 2011 (2)
    • March 2011 (2)
    • February 2011 (3)
    • January 2011 (2)
    • December 2010 (3)
    • November 2010 (3)
    • October 2010 (3)
    • September 2010 (3)
    • August 2010 (2)
    • July 2010 (4)
    • June 2010 (3)
    • May 2010 (2)
    • April 2010 (4)
    • March 2010 (3)
    • February 2010 (3)
    • January 2010 (3)
    • December 2009 (4)
    • November 2009 (3)
    • October 2009 (4)
    • September 2009 (3)
    • August 2009 (3)
    • July 2009 (3)
    • June 2009 (2)
    • May 2009 (5)
    • April 2009 (3)
    • March 2009 (4)
    • February 2009 (2)
    • January 2009 (3)
    • December 2008 (4)
    • November 2008 (3)
    • October 2008 (5)
    • September 2008 (4)
    • August 2008 (4)
    • July 2008 (5)
    • June 2008 (4)
    • May 2008 (3)
    • April 2008 (5)
    • March 2008 (4)
    • February 2008 (5)
    • January 2008 (5)
    • December 2007 (4)
    • November 2007 (6)
    • October 2007 (6)
    • September 2007 (6)
    • August 2007 (6)
    • July 2007 (6)
    • June 2007 (6)
    • May 2007 (12)
    • April 2007 (6)
    • March 2007 (4)
    • February 2007 (5)
    • January 2007 (5)
    • December 2006 (4)
    • November 2006 (4)
    • October 2006 (5)
    • September 2006 (4)
    • August 2006 (5)
    • July 2006 (5)
    • June 2006 (5)
    • May 2006 (6)
    • April 2006 (5)
    • March 2006 (6)
    • February 2006 (5)
    • January 2006 (7)
    • December 2005 (5)
    • November 2005 (7)
    • October 2005 (7)
    • September 2005 (6)
    • August 2005 (6)
    • July 2005 (6)
    • June 2005 (8)
    • May 2005 (6)
    • April 2005 (8)
    • March 2005 (9)
    • February 2005 (7)
    • January 2005 (10)
    • December 2004 (12)
    • November 2004 (11)
    • October 2004 (10)
    • September 2004 (10)
    • August 2004 (7)
    • July 2004 (6)
    • June 2004 (12)
    • May 2004 (8)
    • April 2004 (8)
    • March 2004 (9)
    • February 2004 (6)
    • January 2004 (10)
    • December 2003 (6)
    • November 2003 (5)
    • October 2003 (12)
    • September 2003 (10)
    • August 2003 (14)
    • July 2003 (7)
    • June 2003 (5)
    • May 2003 (11)
    • April 2003 (6)
    • March 2003 (1)
    • February 2003 (1)
    • January 2003 (3)
    • December 2002 (3)
    • November 2002 (2)
  • RSS Links

    • All posts
    • All comments
© 2013 Hermitary & Meng-hu ¶ WordPress & veryplaintxt