According to Simone Weil, risk is a necessary part of human life. Without risk, we experience “a type of boredom which paralyzes in a different way from fear, but almost as much.” However, the experience of risk must be balanced between stimulating and fatal.
Quote
”The protection of mankind from fear and terror doesn’t imply the abolition of risk; it implies, on the contrary, the permanent presence of a certain amount of risk in all aspects of social life; for the absence of risk weakens courage to the point of leaving the soul, if the need should arise, without the slightest inner protection against fear.” — Simone Weil, The Need for Roots
This stands in contrast to Bynug-Chul Han’s claim in his essay “Profound Boredom” that Idleness is needed for creative generation.
Question #concept-question
How are Weil’s and Han’s definitions of boredom differently characterized? Can the two perspectives be reconciled?
Weil assumes a society without sufficient scaffolding for human flourishing; Han sees construction conditions for boredom as precisely the means for development. Weil examines the affliction and grace of individuals; Han seeks to characterize modern society as a collective. Weil and Han also hail from very different historical contexts—this is most likely the main explanation for their differences.