• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Episode 184: Pascal on Human Nature (Part One)

February 19, 2018 by Mark Linsenmayer 6 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PEL_ep_184pt1_1-28-18.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 49:48 — 45.7MB)

On Blaise Pascal's Pensées (1670).

Is it rational to have religious faith? You're likely familiar with "Pascal's Wager," one of the most famous arguments for the existence of God, but it's not clear that Pascal bought into the argument as it is usually understood.

To see why, you have to get Pascal's picture of human nature, which is surprisingly insightful, and is what Mark, Wes, and Dylan spend all of part one discussing. Pascal thinks that humanity in its actuality is thoroughly wretched. We're morally wretched: innately selfish, really despising each other, vain, self-deceiving, unable to focus on the good, always chasing after one imaginary lure or other. We're epistemically wretched: Our reason deceives us, our senses deceive us, our instincts are self-destructive, and our imagination, again, is the worst. Pascal believes that we need to follow "heart" over reason, but that doesn't mean what we mean, e.g., in talking about romantic love, which Pascal sees as exactly the kind of destructive, ultimately imaginary drive that I've just been describing. Our greatness comes from realizing our wretchedness, from the fact that we have ideals that let us see our depravity, and he thinks that these come from God. And since "God" qua infinite being is nothing that we could really understand, much less have a personal relationship with, he thinks that Jesus is absolutely essential for authentic religiosity.

To return to the wager (which, again, we don't actually discuss until part 2): Yes, reason is inadequate to tell you definitively whether or not to believe (though Pascal thinks that reason does tell you that it's not unreasonable to believe, and thinks that the miracles were and are pretty darn properly convincing to people on purely rational grounds), so all those arguments by Descartes and St. Thomas are for naught.

Pascal does, then, say that the risk you incur by believing is negligible: human life and its non-religious pursuits are all such crap that you're not giving up anything by putting all your energy toward God. And on the other side, if you "bet against God," then you're risking your eternal soul, potentially winning eternal bliss if the Christian God is real. But you can't actually just "choose" to believe; that's not how human psychology works, and Pascal knows this. You can, however, go through the motions: Go to church, open yourself toward God, and at the very least, virtue will be its own reward, and with grace, you'll end up a real believer.

Pascal has anticipated your objections: What if Zeus or some other God is the real one? Well, that's why he spends so much time arguing that only Christianity accurately describes human nature, both in laying out our wretchedness and giving us the cure for it. Those other alleged gods just wouldn't do the trick, so we can rule them out (you'll have to actually read the book to get the details of his arguments here). And simply not making a choice is not an option, and deciding not to care about the question is irresponsible to the point of monstrous.

Pascal's take on our psychology includes some surprising verdicts about political authority and tradition. Pascal is liberal enough that he recognizes the arbitrariness and illusory character of a lot of this, but he also understands how these things are emergent properties of human nature, and as such are better guides to our action than the vain flights of fancy of revolutionary political philosophers.

Pascal's biography is probably the most interesting thing about him; I recommend this account by Will Durant, which describes his work in science and mathematics before his turn to religion, as well as his other famous book, Lettres Provinciales.

Buy the Penguin edition that we all used to prep, or take a look at the differently organized Trotter translation free online.

Continues with part 2. Get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!

Pascal picture by Drew Blom.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: Blaise Pascal, human nature, philosophy of religion, philosophy podcast

Comments

  1. Jason Beebe says

    February 20, 2018 at 2:44 pm

    I’m curious about his criticisms of the Jewish god. Supposed to be the same god right? Revealed through an encounter, in relationships with humans (who can change his mind), and passed down through family stories and traditions…. and changing with time. I don’t see where the infinite fits in, or eternal bliss. My main argument against the wager is similar to those expressed on the podcast: where’s this concept of infinite come from, how much of the Bible actually points at it? It seems like more of a distortion and obsession than a foundation. Same with human wretchedness. How much of the Bible suggests this? In it I see humans taking on traits of angles, living 500 years, and changing God’s mind… Moses broke the tablets to save his nation, choosing his people over Gods word. And going New Testament, which I know less about: Saul/Paul, in the face of God, chose to cast off the “curse” of the his laws that were in existence to him to that point in time. These stories point at humans having more sway in the godly realm than Pascal seems to suggest with his “wretchedness” concept. God’s choosing humans and having an interest in a relationship with them suggests the same. Is the Christian god really that radically different?

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      February 20, 2018 at 3:24 pm

      His criticisms of Judaism are many, but it comes down to two points: First, per my blog post, you need the interface of Jesus to actually connect in a concrete way with God (I don’t buy this at all). Second, he puts a lot of stake in Judaism having predicted a messiah, and then when Jesus came, he came with miracles such that anyone who wasn’t actively turned against God should have recognized Him and signed on to Christianity, so the Jews are and were wicked. A yucky argument.

      Reply
      • Jason Beebe says

        February 20, 2018 at 7:25 pm

        Mark!
        Thanks for the response! I’ll check out the blog post when I get these kids to sleep. I kind of wish my first interaction was about a topic less controversial than religion. I’ve been loving the stuff on pragmatism, psychology, existentialism, and feminism. And at the risk of sounding like I’m blowing smoke… PEL has even improved my marriage; through some content, but mostly in general through my learning how to better communicate, listen, and give more “generous reads.” I know the verdict isn’t in, but I have a feeling that studying this stuff (i.e. philosophy) can make one less of a moron. So, thank you! And thanks again for responding.

        Reply
        • Mark Linsenmayer says

          February 20, 2018 at 7:31 pm

          That’s gratifying to hear. Our main criteria for picking this episode was that a) it was on Wes’s list of things he wanted to cover at some point (I assume because he studied it at St. John’s), and b) that Seth wouldn’t mind missing it.

          So there ya go!

          Reply
          • Jason Beebe says

            February 21, 2018 at 8:56 am

            I do appreciate Wes’s keeping the Left honest.

Trackbacks

  1. The Philosophy of Blaise Pascal: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes – The Daily Idea says:
    September 5, 2019 at 7:22 pm

    […] Pascal on Human Nature (Part One) […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • Wayne Barr on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in