The philosopher Simone Weil distinguished between two ways of relating to the suffering of others. The first treats the sufferer as occupying a category — "the poor," "the displaced" — whose features are summarized in advance and whose particular situation is filled in only insofar as it confirms the category. The second, which Weil called "attention," begins by acknowledging that one does not yet know who this person is or what is happening to them, and by recognizing that the answer cannot be supplied by any prior categorization.
Which conclusion most logically follows from Weil's distinction as presented?
- A
Weil holds that all encounters with suffering should begin with categorical assumptions
- B
Weil treats categorical identification as fully equivalent to attention
- C
Weil regards attention as a category that supersedes specific knowledge of individuals
- Dcheck_circle
For Weil, attention requires the suspension, rather than the application, of conclusions held in advance
Explanation
Beginning by acknowledging one does not know supports B. A, C, D contradict the distinction.