Likely not at all relevant to Weil (or asceticism/excesses of the mystics*) but while at first the I-it/thou/nothing dimension seemed like a very apt distinction, on second thoughts the idea that "seeking love" (or even seeking to love) is not a version of objectifying Another as some form (even if elevated) of "it" feels dangerous; seeking anything is probably impossible without wanting, and might often change to needing (and needing is definitionally objectifying, it's impossible to need another human or anything from them without treating them instrumentally; thus need obliterates the possibility of love understood in this way -- and yes, on this account children can only love parents more gradually as they become less dependent on them with age), and when it's labelled or internally perceived as "love" it becomes often more insidious because full of righteous sanctimony. Desire/want are at least honest in way that someone seeking a love object or to be loved struggle with.
And I'm not saying the "thou" perspective is impossible in principle; I feel it mustn't come from seeking anything, but could occur in an encounter that's not sought and that's entered and conducted with no expectation of receiving anything.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment! I agree that ‘seek’ is not the right verb in the I-Thou context: perhaps ‘being loving’ (with all the ambiguity) would have been more apt. Still reflecting on this and may respond in more detail later.
Likely not at all relevant to Weil (or asceticism/excesses of the mystics*) but while at first the I-it/thou/nothing dimension seemed like a very apt distinction, on second thoughts the idea that "seeking love" (or even seeking to love) is not a version of objectifying Another as some form (even if elevated) of "it" feels dangerous; seeking anything is probably impossible without wanting, and might often change to needing (and needing is definitionally objectifying, it's impossible to need another human or anything from them without treating them instrumentally; thus need obliterates the possibility of love understood in this way -- and yes, on this account children can only love parents more gradually as they become less dependent on them with age), and when it's labelled or internally perceived as "love" it becomes often more insidious because full of righteous sanctimony. Desire/want are at least honest in way that someone seeking a love object or to be loved struggle with.
And I'm not saying the "thou" perspective is impossible in principle; I feel it mustn't come from seeking anything, but could occur in an encounter that's not sought and that's entered and conducted with no expectation of receiving anything.
[*not a philosopher here]
Thank you for the thoughtful comment! I agree that ‘seek’ is not the right verb in the I-Thou context: perhaps ‘being loving’ (with all the ambiguity) would have been more apt. Still reflecting on this and may respond in more detail later.