9 Comments

XC
December 8th, 2010 | 5:31 pm

The danger is not lest the soul should doubt whether there is bread, but lest, by a lie, it should persuade itself it is not hungry. — Simone Weil

Tito Edwards
December 8th, 2010 | 7:08 pm

Very interesting.

Botolph
December 8th, 2010 | 11:05 pm

This is affirmed by Paul’s Letter to the Romans where he speaks about ‘impiety’ as underlying seemingly everything

Given that our Supreme Court in the 90′s has judged that each individual has the right to have and pursue their own happiness………..

There is a Hindhu proverb that states, ‘one becomes what one desires’

Matt Hummel
December 9th, 2010 | 7:45 am

Indeed. In fact one wonders if a great deal of the New Atheism is the wolf of sovereign desire in intellectual sheep’s clothing. I am reminded of a story told me by wise Irish speaking monsignor who found himself in a contentious conversation with a woman over the Magisterium. He ended the conversation with this observation: “The problem (for you) is not that there is a Pope. The problem is that you are not it.”

Phil swain
December 9th, 2010 | 8:24 am

Sovereign desire is an emperor with no clothes.

Stuart Koehl
December 9th, 2010 | 8:30 am

The opposite of piety is impiety. One can be impious while believing, but also without sovereign desire.

Craig Payne
December 9th, 2010 | 8:55 am

Is it possible that sovereign desire is the opposite of every grace?

arty
December 9th, 2010 | 10:50 am

Thus Foucault, on one side, and Philip Rieff, on the other

Lawrence Cunningham
December 10th, 2010 | 9:17 am

Of course, “desiderium” in the sense that one finds it from the Patristic tradition and maximally in the great Cistercian writers ought to be sovereign!