You capture Pascal’s depth with admirable clarity, especially his themes of self-love, diversion, and the tension between greatness and wretchedness. Yet a few refinements would bring it even closer to Pascal’s own logic.
He is less a teacher of civility than a surgeon of the soul—he wounds to heal. His Pensées do not seek balance but exposure: our failure to hold truth and tenderness reveals the corruption of the heart. Where you write that Pascal “offers no comfort, only clarity,” he would say rather that he consoles after he wounds—clarity first, then remedy. His warnings about "automated flattery" are most Pascalian when tied to his real enemies: the imagination that deceives us and the self-love that needs to be fed.
Your closing invitation beautifully channels his spirit; it could go one step further: after hearing the hard truth, ask what in you wanted the flattery. That turn to humility—wound to cure—would make the piece fully Pascalian and truer to the demands of civility.
“Human society is grounded on mutual deceit; few friendships would endure if each person knew what his friend said about him in his absence.””
In his book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen called the antithesis of this “loyalty to the absent.” Of course, Pascal references “friendships” and Stephen Covey was talking about friends and also work colleagues. People we know who know us. He went on to expand, in some of his presentations, that it doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with the absent person. The focus is would you say that same thing, in that same way, if the person were there?
Alexandra, I too am fond of Blaise Pascal (the heart …, Fire…), but explain to me how to see—has he been shallowly misinterpreted?—someone putting forth Pascal’s wager as not missing something in genuine apprehension of the divine? Could you justify belief on these terms?
The main problem for me, with the claim that modern things can't truly, authentically, or legimately, help us with the human condition, & that our struggles & conflicts, with others & ourselves, is strictly a spiritual problem & must be solved with faith - or perhaps, more accurately, there are 2 main problems.
The first, of course, is that after all this time, humans still can't decide with faith, or even which version of a faith, is the correct one for us. And sure, it could be argued that humans & life is complex enough, & we all live in a variety of cultures & societies, so different versions of faith for different people is fine - but, why do so many of the faithful seem unwilling to accept that themselves?
The other main issue is that if this idea were true, true enough that it works, why are so many religious people, even more dissatisfied with even their own lives? Wouldn't they, their families, & their communities be happy, positive, civil places? Instead, many of the most active & passionate ones, seem very determined to try to demand, or even force the rest of us to follow their ideas, but I can't see much stability or happiness in them.
You capture Pascal’s depth with admirable clarity, especially his themes of self-love, diversion, and the tension between greatness and wretchedness. Yet a few refinements would bring it even closer to Pascal’s own logic.
He is less a teacher of civility than a surgeon of the soul—he wounds to heal. His Pensées do not seek balance but exposure: our failure to hold truth and tenderness reveals the corruption of the heart. Where you write that Pascal “offers no comfort, only clarity,” he would say rather that he consoles after he wounds—clarity first, then remedy. His warnings about "automated flattery" are most Pascalian when tied to his real enemies: the imagination that deceives us and the self-love that needs to be fed.
Your closing invitation beautifully channels his spirit; it could go one step further: after hearing the hard truth, ask what in you wanted the flattery. That turn to humility—wound to cure—would make the piece fully Pascalian and truer to the demands of civility.
Thanks again for another thoughtful post.
“Pascal wrote:
“Human society is grounded on mutual deceit; few friendships would endure if each person knew what his friend said about him in his absence.””
In his book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen called the antithesis of this “loyalty to the absent.” Of course, Pascal references “friendships” and Stephen Covey was talking about friends and also work colleagues. People we know who know us. He went on to expand, in some of his presentations, that it doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with the absent person. The focus is would you say that same thing, in that same way, if the person were there?
Alexandra, I too am fond of Blaise Pascal (the heart …, Fire…), but explain to me how to see—has he been shallowly misinterpreted?—someone putting forth Pascal’s wager as not missing something in genuine apprehension of the divine? Could you justify belief on these terms?
The main problem for me, with the claim that modern things can't truly, authentically, or legimately, help us with the human condition, & that our struggles & conflicts, with others & ourselves, is strictly a spiritual problem & must be solved with faith - or perhaps, more accurately, there are 2 main problems.
The first, of course, is that after all this time, humans still can't decide with faith, or even which version of a faith, is the correct one for us. And sure, it could be argued that humans & life is complex enough, & we all live in a variety of cultures & societies, so different versions of faith for different people is fine - but, why do so many of the faithful seem unwilling to accept that themselves?
The other main issue is that if this idea were true, true enough that it works, why are so many religious people, even more dissatisfied with even their own lives? Wouldn't they, their families, & their communities be happy, positive, civil places? Instead, many of the most active & passionate ones, seem very determined to try to demand, or even force the rest of us to follow their ideas, but I can't see much stability or happiness in them.