kfitz/kfitz.info
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

upgrade to 3.0

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
2024-10-14 19:27:15 -04:00
parent e8f8a543de
commit 655ad0ded8
1988 changed files with 47081 additions and 263 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

20
content/blog/2018-06-03-generosity-and-attention.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
---
title: 'Generosity and Attention'
date: '2018-06-03T08:45:57-04:00'
permalink: /generosity-and-attention/
tags:
- writing
---
Among the reading I’ve picked up thanks to suggestions from the most generous readers of the draft of [*Generous Thinking*](http://generousthinking.hcommons.org) is a bit of Simone Weil. Alan Jacobs, who pointed me toward her work in a couple of spots, noted in particular that she [“seems to have thought that /[attention/] is the primary form of generosity.”](https://generousthinking.hcommons.org/1-introduction/generous-thinking/#comment-94) So I’ve been reading around in the places where her thoughts turn to attention, including [*Gravity and Grace*](https://amzn.to/2J9buN0) and [*Waiting for God*](https://amzn.to/2LTrjck).
A quick search online for Weil and attention, however, surfaces a vast number of references to her most quotable quote:
> Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.
But that quote is never accompanied by a citation; in fact, [this incompletely answered question on Quora](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-exact-source-and-citation-for-the-Simone-Weil-quotation-%E2%80%9CAttention-is-the-rarest-and-purest-form-of-generosity?share=1) leads not to a source but to yet another quotation. It’s the free-floating nature of that aphorism that I suspect leads Alan to say that she “seems” to have thought this connection between attention and generosity.
So I find myself in an odd spot: The quotation, assuming it’s a quotation, perfectly describes the thing I am trying to explore. And yet this specific point is small enough, and there are so many other issues in revising the manuscript that also demand my attention, that I can only give so much time to running down the source, assuming there is one.
I’m opting to go with an “attributed to” reference, at least for the moment, but I’d be enormously grateful if anyone were able to point me to an actual original.