I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I do not understand philosophy. I’m sure Pascal has some brilliant philosophical points (mostly because I cannot understand what he is saying). Even though I didn’t understand what I read, I still have a few thoughts on it. I really liked the metaphors he used to describe mankind. I remember the “thinking reed” from a quote my ninth grade history teacher had me memorize. I never knew where exactly it came from; now I do. The other metaphor I liked was the chimera. Pascal said that mankind has such a complex nature that he is a chimera, a mythical creature with three heads (from three different animals) and a snake for a tail. It certainly is “an incomprehensible monster” (441) and Pascal equates it to humanity.
Another surprising thing Pascal says is that “to make light of philosophy is to be a true philosopher” (436). At first, this didn’t seem to make sense. Aren’t philosophers those old men with long white beards who take themselves way too seriously and use fancy words that go over everybody’s heads? How can Pascal say that true philosophers don’t take themselves seriously? I think the answer is in the fact that Pascal does not believe that people can really understand anything. In his mind, true philosophers recognize that they don’t actually have all the answers. I think Pascal, if asked if he was sure about an idea, would shrug his shoulders and say ‘I’m a philosopher, I’m not really sure about anything.’ That's how true philosophers make light of philosophy.
P.S. I commented on Addison’s and Hailey’s posts
Comments