Let's start with two quotes from Weil's essay:
"...at each instant of our life we are gripped from the outside...by meanings that we ourselves read in appearances." (p. 22*)
"The sky, the sea, the sun, the stars, human beings, everything that surrounds us is ... something that we read." (p. 23)
Recall this iconic painting of death by John Everett Millais, which portrays the death of Ophelia, Hamlet's forsaken lover: Ophelia (Millais , 1852)
"...we can argue endlessly about the reality of the external world, since what we call the world are the meanings that we read; they are not real" (p. 22).
Here, Weil is talking about "what we call the world"; i.e., what we think the world is — in other words, what the world means to us. As perceiving subjects, we each have different perspectives — i.e., our experience of the world is subjective. This is why we argue so much. We are not omniscient — arguably, only God sees reality as it really is.
However, in Weil's view, there is an underlying reality. God is a part of reality that is independent of how we "read" Him. God is what He is regardless of what we believe or fail to believe. Similarly, each one of us is a human being, despite the fact that we tend to "read" others as objects for scientific study, threats, or human resources.
The difficulty is that reality is often hidden from us; we are confused by erroneous readings.
Q: Where do these "erroneous readings" come from?
One source is human ignorance**. But sometimes misreadings are instilled in us. Some illusions are manufactured. During wartime, for example, it is useful and profitable to create the illusion that the enemy is subhuman — the enemy is a monster, a threat, or a target. The article "WWII Propaganda: The Influence of Racism" by Hannah Miles illustrates one of many examples.
Often, dehumanization is more subtle. For example, an exploitative employer might see his employees merely as "human resources" — i.e., as a source of profit, not as human beings. The employer's misreading may not even be evident to himself, let alone his employees.
We need to learn how to correctly discern right from wrong by "reading" people and situations in the right way, in a way that is truthful.
To use one of Weil's examples, a lost bank deposit may appear to be free for the taking (p. 27). But this way of seeing the lost deposit is dishonest. It doesn't recognize the truth that the deposit belongs to someone else. The deposit should be read as the lost property of another person — this is the correct way to read it.
Countless questions are raised by Weil's essay. Here are a few:
Q: How should you read an enemy soldier who is pointing a gun at you? What is the reality of such a situation?
Q: How should an employer read his employees? An employer who treats his employees as human beings may not be as "efficient" as his
competitors.
Q: How should you read a parent who neglects you?
Q: How should you read the noise that is blasted by your neighbor's radio?
Q: How should you read the cry of an animal in pain?
Q: How should you read the sound of the wind at night?
Again, we are dealing with uncertainty. If, as Socrates states in Meno, we only have beliefs and opinions about right and wrong, how can we be certain that our readings are virtuous? This question indicates a limitation of Weil's essay: it does not tell us how to read correctly.
* Unless otherwise stated, page numbers refer to: "Essay on the Concept of Reading" by Simone Weil (1941). Excerpted from Simone Weil: Late Philosophical Writings, edited by Eric O. Springsted, University of Notre Dame Press (2015).
** e.g., see Socrates' remarks about human wisdom in the Apology (Plato: Five Dialogues, p. 27).
