Pensees: more to think on...

p. 1 "The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not..." etc. Does this section relate to p. 11, where he discusses man's inability to fathom the infinitely large and the infinitely small? Are those who are more imaginative, intuitive, and abstract the more clear-sighted people who can better conceive the concept of God and infinity? Or perhaps those who are more mathematical, analytical, and logical? I think Pascal is saying that we need to find the mean between these states of mind, because either type of person is inevitably occupied with the less extreme concepts nearer to himself, in the center of the cosmic scheme. Could a blend of these two intellectual abilities allow us to follow both logic and intuition? This fits with his statement somewhere that the heart is guided by its own form of reason, intuition.

p.3 "People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the minds of others." How true. This reinforces our entire "classical school" deal by the way, because this is the philosophy behind the Socratic Method. Is this a good thing, however? Does this make us inflexible, or is it merely a natural defense against misinformation? It reflects our logical nature, as we are more inclined to believe things we have reasoned out ourselves, rather than trusting others--but oops is it bad not to trust others?

also p.3 "...seek an opportunity of awakening them in the heart of another, in order that we may receive the same pleasures and the same sacrifices which we have seen so well represented in the theatre." Is this true? Particularly these days, when everyone gets their ideas of societal norms from movies. Are the emotions praised and emphasized by culture just fabrications that delude us until they become our reality? How many times do we think we "feel" a certain way just because we're supposed to, like people who "fall in love" because they think they should be married before they get too old? This leads to
p. 17, where he discusses ("Because, say some...") the effects of education on natural intuition. How many things do we think and believe because someone has taught us they are true? Many times, especially in math, science, ethics and other abstracts, we are taught facts that we have no way of validating, because, for example, we can't even see Pluto. How do we know if it's a planet, a planetoid, or nonexistent? Even if we could see it, even if we went there, we still couldn't know. As we discussed the other day, even our perceptions are sometimes wrong. On the other hand, can we always believe our intuition? We don't even know where that comes from. It seems to be a choice between believing an unknown source or an unreliable source. Forms or tabula rasa?

p.5 "Eloquence--it requires both the pleasant and the real; but the pleasant must itself be drawn from the true." Maybe? How often do we give ourselves pleasure with completely fictional delusions? And yet if there was no shred of truth in them, would they still give us pleasure? And what in fact is the value of eloquence? He gives it a lot of credit in here, which I happen to agree with, but is "a picture instead of a portrait" a good thing? By arming men with eloquence, are we not in fact allowing them to convince us more easily and quickly that fallacies are truth and truth fallacy? Or is this what he refers to when he says that eloquence must have truth? Is it still eloquence if you are convincing someone of an untruth?

p.7 "We should not be able to say of a man, 'He is a mathematician,' or 'a preacher,' or 'eloquent'; but that he is 'a gentleman.'" I love this. Remember Emerson's "man thinking" versus the thinking man? Echoes doesn't it? How beautiful. But what, in this case, is a gentleman? Someone who opens the door for you, or someone who is learned in all areas? Or maybe someone who pursues what is really important, rather than some worldly attribute or profession?

p.8 "The same meaning changes with the words which express it. Meanings receive their dignity from words instead of giving it to them." This is one of the stupid things our society does: changing the connotation of something by using a euphemism. Like, say, Pro-Choice instead of Pro-Killing-Little-Babies. Does this also apply within the Christian community? I think so... For example, saying 'Christian' as opposed to 'Catholic.' This not only imposes an unrealistic barrier between Protestantism and Catholicism, it implies that Catholics are heathen or something. I find it annoying. How about being a 'Fundamentalist' or an 'Evangelist' instead of Christian. True names, but they have begun to take on very sectarian natures. When a word becomes your identity, you're in trouble. I used to be a Methodist; if I had identified myself as "A Methodist," I would have found it much more difficult to realize that I no longer agreed with their doctrine and I needed to change denominations. Thinking of myself as a Christian, equal to Methodists and Presbyterians both, made it much easier for me to maintain my intellectual and spiritual honesty. Even the word Christian, though, holds dangers. Words change definition quickly and often. When all about you (calling themselves Christians) are acting in a way that shames the title, would you still wish to be associated with them? Because that is the entire point of identifying ourselves with words. Words are wonderful things, but if we cling to them we lose our own identity and become lost in groups.

I'm stopping now but I have more. Comment cause I really like talking about this!