“In a word, the Self has two qualities: it is unjust in itself since it makes itself the centre of everything; it is inconvenient to others since it would enslave them; for each self is the enemy, and would like to be the tyrant of all others. You take away its inconvenience, but not its injustice, and so you do not render it lovable to those who hate injustice; you render it lovable only to the unjust, who do not any longer find in it an enemy. And thus you remain unjust, and can please only the unjust”
Explore This Quote Further
Analysis of Quote by Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal argues in this quote that the self, characterized by selfishness and a desire for power over others, is inherently unjust and inconvenient to those around it. He suggests that even if the inconvenience of the self is removed, its inherent injustice remains, making it unappealing to those who value fairness. Instead, the self becomes appealing only to others who share its unjust tendencies. Pascal warns against falling into this trap of pleasing only the unjust, as it perpetuates a cycle of injustice.
Modern Relevance of Blaise Pascal's Quote
In this quote, Blaise Pascal explores the idea of self-centeredness and injustice. He suggests that when individuals prioritize their own desires and needs above all else, they become not only unjust but also inconvenient to others. This concept remains relevant today in a world where selfishness and self-centered behavior can lead to disharmony and conflict. Let's unpack how this idea can be applied in modern contexts.
In the age of social media, where self-promotion and personal branding are highly valued, Pascal's observations about the Self being unjust and inconvenient to others ring true. People often prioritize their own interests and needs without considering the impact on those around them. This can lead to a lack of empathy and understanding, creating tension and division in relationships and communities.
Moreover, Pascal's warning about the Self becoming the enemy and tyrant of others is evident in instances of power dynamics and exploitation. When individuals or groups seek to dominate and control others for their own gain, it not only perpetuates injustice but also creates a cycle of oppression and harm.
Ultimately, Pascal's insights serve as a reminder of the importance of empathy, compassion, and humility in navigating interpersonal relationships and societal dynamics. By recognizing and addressing our own self-centered tendencies, we can strive towards a more just and harmonious world for all.
Analysis of Blaise Pascal's Quote
"In a word, the Self has two qualities: it is unjust in itself since it makes itself the centre of everything; it is inconvenient to others since it would enslave them; for each self is the enemy, and would like to be the tyrant of all others. You take away its inconvenience, but not its injustice, and so you do not render it lovable to those who hate injustice; you render it lovable only to the unjust, who do not any longer find in it an enemy. And thus you remain unjust, and can please only the unjust” - Blaise Pascal"
This quote by Blaise Pascal delves into the concept of the self and its inherent qualities. Pascal argues that the self is unjust and inconvenient to others, as it seeks to prioritize itself and potentially dominate others. The removal of inconvenience does not eliminate the injustice of the self, leading to a situation where the unjust are pleased but those who abhor injustice are not. This thought-provoking statement invites reflection on human nature and interactions.
Reflection Questions:
Reflect on the concept of the Self being described as unjust and inconvenient to others by Blaise Pascal. Consider the implications of putting oneself at the center of everything and how this may impact relationships with others.
- How do you see yourself in relation to others? Are you inclined to prioritize your own needs and desires over those of others?
- In what ways do you think placing yourself at the center of everything can be harmful or detrimental to your relationships?
- Do you believe that being self-centered is inherently unjust? Why or why not?
- How can you strive to be more considerate of others and their needs, while still maintaining a sense of self-worth and identity?
- Reflect on a time when you may have exhibited behavior that was self-centered or unjust. How did this impact those around you and how can you work towards change in the future?
Similar quotes
“And if one loves me for my judgement, memory, he does not love me, for I can lose these qualities without losing myself. Where, then, is this Ego, if it be neither in the body nor in the soul? And how love the body or the soul, except for these qualities which do not constitute me, since they are perishable? For it is impossible and would be unjust to love the soul of a person in the abstract and whatever qualities might be therein. We never, then, love a person, but only qualities. Let us, then, jeer no more at those who are honoured on account of rank and office; for we love a person only on account of borrowed qualities.”
“For it is beyond doubt that there is nothing which more shocks our reason than to say that the sin of the first man has rendered guilty those, who, being so removed from this source, seem incapable of participation in it. This transmission does not only seem to us impossible, it seems also very unjust. For what is more contrary to the rules of our miserable justice than to damn eternally an infant incapable of will, for a sin wherein he seems to have so little a share, that it was committed six thousand years before he was in existence? Certainly nothing offends us more rudely than this doctrine; and yet, without this mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we are incomprehensible to ourselves. The knot of our condition takes its twists and turns in this abyss, so that man is more inconceivable without this mystery than this mystery is inconceivable to man.”
“Why should I choose to divide my ethics into four rather than six? Why should I define virtue as four, or two, or one? Why as desist and resist rather than 'follow nature' or 'discharge your private business without injustice', like Plato, or anything else?'But,' you will say, 'there everything is summed up in a word. - 'Yes, but that is no good unless you explain it.' And when you come to explain it, as soon as you open up this precept which contains all the others, out they all come in the original confusion that you wanted to avoid. Thus when they are all enclosed in one they are concealed and useless, as if they were in a box, and they only come to light in their natural confusion. Nature has laid them down, without enclosing one inside another.”
“What is the self?A man goes to the window to see the people passing by; if I pass by, can I say he went there to see me? No, for he is not thinking of me in particular. But what about a person who loves someone for the sake of her beauty; does he love her? No, for smallpox, which will destroy beauty without destroying the person, will put an end to his love for her.And if someone loves me for my judgement or my memory, do they love me? me, myself? No, for I could lose these qualities without losing my self. Where then is this self, if it is neither in the body nor the soul? And how can one love the body or the soul except for the sake of such qualities, which are not what makes up the self, since they are perishable? Would we love the substance of a person's soul, in the abstract, whatever qualities might be in it? That is not possible, and it would be wrong. Therefore we never love anyone, but only qualities.Let us then stop scoffing at those who win honour through their appointments and offices, for we never love anyone except for borrowed qualities.”
“The brutes do not admire each other. A horse does not admire his companion. Not that there is no rivalry between them in a race, but that is of no consequence; for, when in the stable, the heaviest and most ill-formed does not give up his oats to another as men would have others do to them. Their virtue is satisfied with itself.”
“The world is a good judge of things, for it is in natural ignorance, which is man's true state. The sciences have two extremes which meet. The first is the pure natural ignorance in which all men find themselves at birth. The other extreme is that reached by great intellects, who, having run through all that men can know, find they know nothing, and come back again to that same ignorance from which they set out; but this is a learned ignorance which is conscious of itself. Those between the two, who have departed from natural ignorance and not been able to reach the other, have some smattering of this vain knowledge and pretend to be wise. These trouble the world and are bad judges of everything. The people and the wise constitute the world; these despise it, and are despised. They judge badly of everything, and the world judges rightly of them.”