French traditionally hold for their rulers. Four obstacles are listed that make it difficult to inspire a people towards genuine goodness. First and foremost a false conception of greatness, based on the prestige of might and conquest. Weil opines that France was essentially still motivated by the same sense of greatness that drove Hitler. The other obstacles are idolisation of money, a degraded sense of Justice, and a lack of religious inspiration. Only the first and last problem are discussed at length. Weil asserts that prior to about the 16th century religion and science were united by the search for Truth, but have since become separated and in some cases even mutually hostile, with religion often the loser in the battle for public opinion. She suggests religion and science could become reconciled if the spirit of truth is breathed into both; despite the assertions of some scientists to the contrary, the thirst for truth is not a common motivation for science. As an example she discussed the habit of mathematicians who deliberately obscure proofs for their discoveries, showing that they were motivated by competitive instincts and the desire to be recognised above their peers. Weil suggests that the highest study of science is the beauty of the world. In the book's last few pages Weil returns to a discussion of the spirituality of work, presenting the case that physical labour is spiritually superior to all other forms of work such as technical planning, command, art or science. Assessment and reception Weil's first English biographer Richard Rees has written that Need for Roots can be described as an investigation into the causes of unhappiness and proposals for its cure. Writing in 1966 he says it contains more of what the present age needs to understand and more of the criticism it needs to listen to than any other writer of the 20th century has been able to express. According to Dr Stephen Plant, writing in 1996, Need for Roots remains just as relevant today as it was in the 1940s when the majority of European workers were employed by heavy industry. T. S. Eliot praised the work's balanced judgement, shrewdness and good sense. The Times Literary Supplement wrote that the book is about politics in the "widest Aristotelian understanding of the term" and that is displayed "exceptional originality and breath of human sympathy". For Weil scholar Sian Miles the book is