The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
A Focus on Our Authors
>
The Philosophy of Fyodor Dostoevsky
date
newest »
newest »
This has been moved from another thread. Bear with me for a moment because I need to answer John:
1) If you find what I'm saying disparaging, you're reading into it something that was never there.
Then be careful with your phrasing.
Yes, Dostoesvky was a Christian. Yes, he believed in immortality. Does that mean you're unable to learn anything from it? I don't know your religious affiliation, but are you unable to draw anything from the poetry of Tagore (if you're not Hindu)? Or Dante (if you're not Catholic)? Or Isaac Bashevis Singer (if you're not Jewish)? When Ivan says that "if God doesn't exist, everything is permissible" that didn't raise points that you'd never considered before?
This has an awful lot of "you's" in it, making it both personal and pointed.
2) I never found that I said Dostoevsky "inspiring." Or even insinuate it.
Right back at you. I never said you did. See how easy it is to be misunderstood?
3) I can guarantee you that most contemporary American literature professors don't accept the premise that "God by his very nature makes certain things impermissable [sic]" and other similar endorsements of Christian orthodoxy. Yet most of them would rank this novel as one of the best written (probably in the top couple of dozen) in any language. Much, yet not all, of its merit is placed on the author's ability to ask religious, moral, and philosophical questions of the reader. What do you understand that they seem not to?
Herding will never be a useful argument with me. Call me part of the 15-30% outliers who don't agree and convince me where I've made a mistake. I don't see Dostoevsky's questions as provocative, nor particularly interesting. I find them limited, and squeezed down to fit a narrow slice of western philosophical thought. I understand why Dostoevsky was parochial. I don't see how he fits into a broader view of the world. This is the question that I'm asking.
4) The idea that God sets out moral proscriptions doesn't mean that you first have to believe in God. You don't have to believe in gravity for your pencil to fall to the ground when you drop it.
This is an interesting point. But again, it starts with the pre-supposition that God is both a) real and that b) God sets moral proscriptions. You are correct that if both a) and b) are true, that my personal belief about God is irrelevant. But if a) isn't true then what? It is at this point that Dostoevsky's argument for God falls apart, because he never goes there. For him God is the only possible source of moral behavior and God is real even to his unbeliever Ivan. Ivan rejects God, but doesn't disbelieve in God.
1) If you find what I'm saying disparaging, you're reading into it something that was never there.
Then be careful with your phrasing.
Yes, Dostoesvky was a Christian. Yes, he believed in immortality. Does that mean you're unable to learn anything from it? I don't know your religious affiliation, but are you unable to draw anything from the poetry of Tagore (if you're not Hindu)? Or Dante (if you're not Catholic)? Or Isaac Bashevis Singer (if you're not Jewish)? When Ivan says that "if God doesn't exist, everything is permissible" that didn't raise points that you'd never considered before?
This has an awful lot of "you's" in it, making it both personal and pointed.
2) I never found that I said Dostoevsky "inspiring." Or even insinuate it.
Right back at you. I never said you did. See how easy it is to be misunderstood?
3) I can guarantee you that most contemporary American literature professors don't accept the premise that "God by his very nature makes certain things impermissable [sic]" and other similar endorsements of Christian orthodoxy. Yet most of them would rank this novel as one of the best written (probably in the top couple of dozen) in any language. Much, yet not all, of its merit is placed on the author's ability to ask religious, moral, and philosophical questions of the reader. What do you understand that they seem not to?
Herding will never be a useful argument with me. Call me part of the 15-30% outliers who don't agree and convince me where I've made a mistake. I don't see Dostoevsky's questions as provocative, nor particularly interesting. I find them limited, and squeezed down to fit a narrow slice of western philosophical thought. I understand why Dostoevsky was parochial. I don't see how he fits into a broader view of the world. This is the question that I'm asking.
4) The idea that God sets out moral proscriptions doesn't mean that you first have to believe in God. You don't have to believe in gravity for your pencil to fall to the ground when you drop it.
This is an interesting point. But again, it starts with the pre-supposition that God is both a) real and that b) God sets moral proscriptions. You are correct that if both a) and b) are true, that my personal belief about God is irrelevant. But if a) isn't true then what? It is at this point that Dostoevsky's argument for God falls apart, because he never goes there. For him God is the only possible source of moral behavior and God is real even to his unbeliever Ivan. Ivan rejects God, but doesn't disbelieve in God.
First of all, do we even know, beyond a reasonable doubt, what his philosophical and religious beliefs are?
Quick answer is no.
Longer answer is: Dostoevsky saw himself as an artist, a writer. He rejected the idea that he was a philosopher and was quick to say he had no background in philosophy, was poorly read in the subject. He probably would have said the same thing about theology. But his writing raises philosophical and religious questions, to which he seems (at least to me) to imply answers.
Longer answer is: Dostoevsky saw himself as an artist, a writer. He rejected the idea that he was a philosopher and was quick to say he had no background in philosophy, was poorly read in the subject. He probably would have said the same thing about theology. But his writing raises philosophical and religious questions, to which he seems (at least to me) to imply answers.
First of all, do we even know, beyond a reasonable doubt, what his philosophical and religious beliefs are?He wrote at length in all of his books about religion and political philosophy Nemo and although there was some ambiguity, I think most analysts have pinned him down to him being, after his imprisonment, anti western Enlightenment socialism/liberalism and pro the Russian (Eastern) Orthodox church, even though he criticised the latter.
Just to get the discussion started, since I know the least about F.D. in this group, I'll be the one who ask honest / stupid questions about his views, and others can answer them point by point, preferably with chapter and verse from his own writings. Let's see if we can pin down his beliefs one by one. 1. Why is he against western Enlightenment?
Thanks for moving this Kate but where is it moved from??You wrote: I find [Dostoevsky's views] limited, and squeezed down to fit a narrow slice of western philosophical thought. I understand why Dostoevsky was parochial. I don't see how he fits into a broader view of the world. This is the question that I'm asking.
I agree that he is narrow and parochial in his thinking but I think his views fit into a broader view of the world because anti-Enlightenment views are still prevalent today, particularly in religious circles. Creationism, for instance, is a pre-Enlightenment philosophy. And in America under Obama you have seen the same sort of fears about socialism expressed by the Tea Party. In this sense, Dostoevsky is still provocative because these 'Tea Party' views were what enraged his contemporaries and still enrage people today. We are, after all, only just out of the Cold War against Russia which arose from the very philosophies he held.
For him God is the only possible source of moral behavior and God is real even to his unbeliever Ivan. Ivan rejects God, but doesn't disbelieve in God.
I agree and feel that Ivan's is a philosophy of agnosticism rather than atheism. Steeped as he is in orthodox Christianity because of his background, Ivan cannot 'let go of Nurse for fearing of finding something worse'.
Psychologically and philosophically I think that Dosteovsky very much fears the future and wants to hold tight to the present and what he knew before he was sent to Siberia. Which is understandable, given the horrific things he endured. He is a sort of flat-earthist, fearful of dropping of the end of the world as he knows it and he has concocted wild arguments to support his fears, just as the flat earthists did. This, again, is provocative because most of us have put such fears behind us. Communism as a philosophy is now at bay and religion, despite setbacks, is still very much part of Western thought. In Russia it was remarkable how quickly Russian Orthodoxy made a comeback after the fall of the USSR, proving that Dostoevsky's fears were for the most part unfounded. Communism lasted less than 100 years, the Church has lasted for centuries, as did the Tsars. Socialism has made an impact on Europe but it is by no means a dominant political philosophy, tempered as it is by capitalism.
I don't see Dostoevsky's questions as provocative, nor particularly interesting..
I think that Dostoevsky's questions are only interesting those who are interested religion, politics and psychology. It is perhaps interest in the former which keeps his books in the Western canon. As we have seen from the discussions on other threads here, interest in politics is a minority sport!:). His characters seem to be there to further his polemics and even though they are well drawn psychologically, these polemics can alienate the reader. He seems more like a Victorian sermon writer than a novelist and we generally find sermons less interesting than novels.
Nemo wrote: "Just to get the discussion started, since I know the least about F.D. in this group, I'll be the one who ask honest / stupid questions about his views, and others can answer them point by point, pr..."
Plagiarizing with abandon here from random commentary on the internet:
Notes from Underground is Dostoevsky's groundbreaking philosophical prologue to his later novels, and it wrestles with modern existential questions which deal with Man's role in a world where the idea of God was being rejected more and more.
The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries espoused the value of reason, proclaimed the potential improvement of Man and Society, and freed humanity from superstition. By the 19th century, with the belief in God declining, Dostoevsky saw mankind having lost its moral bearing, wafting directionless in the tempest that is life. Instead of liberating Man for the better, the Enlightenment had renounced his spiritual connection.
Notes provides a greater perspective in European thought. The 19th century was the characterized by a brutal polarization of existential thinking in which there was no synthesis. Dostoevsky and Friedrich Nietzsche epitomize this philosophical schism: at one end, Dostoevsky calls for Man to embrace faith and Christian morality; at the other stands Nietzsche, rejecting religion as unnatural and entreating Man to transgress contemporary moral values. By the turn of the century, Man and God were still as much a mystery as before, and so remain.
In Notes, Dostoevsky shows us the Underground Man, a despicable and pitiable creature who betrays himself and is not even aware of it. He is the creation of a thoroughly anti-modern author imploring his fellow Russians to resign from the West.
Dostoevsky seems to have undergone a complete revulsion of his earlier, Enlightenment-friendly philosphy while he was imprisoned in Siberia. He thoroughly embraced religion and began to look upon European intellectualism as threatening to Man's moral health. Most people agree on at least those points. I see him as Madge seems to, very much clinging to the past and fearful of the kinds of changes that late 19th century thought was leading to.
Notes from the Underground is short (~150 pages or so) and I intended to read it this week. Arguing nuances Dostoevsky's overall philosophy from the basis of reading one book is a bit much, so I shall expand my knowledge base a little before trying to sound like I have definitive answers.
Plagiarizing with abandon here from random commentary on the internet:
Notes from Underground is Dostoevsky's groundbreaking philosophical prologue to his later novels, and it wrestles with modern existential questions which deal with Man's role in a world where the idea of God was being rejected more and more.
The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries espoused the value of reason, proclaimed the potential improvement of Man and Society, and freed humanity from superstition. By the 19th century, with the belief in God declining, Dostoevsky saw mankind having lost its moral bearing, wafting directionless in the tempest that is life. Instead of liberating Man for the better, the Enlightenment had renounced his spiritual connection.
Notes provides a greater perspective in European thought. The 19th century was the characterized by a brutal polarization of existential thinking in which there was no synthesis. Dostoevsky and Friedrich Nietzsche epitomize this philosophical schism: at one end, Dostoevsky calls for Man to embrace faith and Christian morality; at the other stands Nietzsche, rejecting religion as unnatural and entreating Man to transgress contemporary moral values. By the turn of the century, Man and God were still as much a mystery as before, and so remain.
In Notes, Dostoevsky shows us the Underground Man, a despicable and pitiable creature who betrays himself and is not even aware of it. He is the creation of a thoroughly anti-modern author imploring his fellow Russians to resign from the West.
Dostoevsky seems to have undergone a complete revulsion of his earlier, Enlightenment-friendly philosphy while he was imprisoned in Siberia. He thoroughly embraced religion and began to look upon European intellectualism as threatening to Man's moral health. Most people agree on at least those points. I see him as Madge seems to, very much clinging to the past and fearful of the kinds of changes that late 19th century thought was leading to.
Notes from the Underground is short (~150 pages or so) and I intended to read it this week. Arguing nuances Dostoevsky's overall philosophy from the basis of reading one book is a bit much, so I shall expand my knowledge base a little before trying to sound like I have definitive answers.
MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks for moving this Kate but where is it moved from??
You wrote: I find [Dostoevsky's views] limited, and squeezed down to fit a narrow slice of western philosophical thought. I understand why ..."
I moved this here from Nemo's Kierkegaard thread, which we had hijacked.
We're probably on similar pages wrt to Dostoevsky. I think he was a fearful of change, a political reactionary who welcomed the structure he was familiar with. Although he did see the weaknesses in both the existing political system and the entrenched church. All of that is understandable from his life experiences.
I think that Dostoevsky's questions are only interesting those who are interested religion, politics and psychology.
Dostoevsky, like other Western religious thinkers, seems to structure his thinking around a dichotomy: Man can have freedom (or free will) without happiness, or happiness without freedom. But he can't have both. This "choice" is the basis for the Grand Inquisitor story. It's the same choice offered to Adam and Eve (recall our Paradise Lost reading). And I keep standing to the side saying "I reject that limitation". If you don't agree with that either/or, then it's hard to find any traction in TBK.
You wrote: I find [Dostoevsky's views] limited, and squeezed down to fit a narrow slice of western philosophical thought. I understand why ..."
I moved this here from Nemo's Kierkegaard thread, which we had hijacked.
We're probably on similar pages wrt to Dostoevsky. I think he was a fearful of change, a political reactionary who welcomed the structure he was familiar with. Although he did see the weaknesses in both the existing political system and the entrenched church. All of that is understandable from his life experiences.
I think that Dostoevsky's questions are only interesting those who are interested religion, politics and psychology.
Dostoevsky, like other Western religious thinkers, seems to structure his thinking around a dichotomy: Man can have freedom (or free will) without happiness, or happiness without freedom. But he can't have both. This "choice" is the basis for the Grand Inquisitor story. It's the same choice offered to Adam and Eve (recall our Paradise Lost reading). And I keep standing to the side saying "I reject that limitation". If you don't agree with that either/or, then it's hard to find any traction in TBK.
Dostoevsky, like other Western religious thinkers, seems to structure his thinking around a dichotomy: Man can have freedom (or free will) without happiness, or happiness without freedom. But he can't have both. This "choice" is the basis for the Grand Inquisitor story. It's the same choice offered to Adam and Eve (recall our Paradise Lost reading). And I keep standing to the side saying "I reject that limitation". If you don't agree with that either/or, then it's hard to find any traction in TBK.Yes I think we are mostly singing from the same hymn sheet Kate, although it is more likely to be a popular song:).
I reject these limitations too but I try to get into the heads of those that don't and so find my 'traction' there. So many of the writers of the period we study in RR have this same p.o.v. that I feel I have to try to get into their moccasins or I wouldn't be able to read any of them here. I have nevertheless, thrown down TBK in despair, particularly when Dostoevsky equates atheism and socialism with madness! What arrogance. what intolerance! Thank goodness that, for the most part, most of us in the Western world today can appreciate other points of view without being so sure that we are 'right'. Even dyed in the wool, old-fashioned, utopian socialist atheists like Moi:D.
I think that Tolstoy who remained religious despite his doubts but who also thought deeply about socialism and tried to create 'communes' on his estate, is a much better writer than Dostoevsky because he manages to put over his views in a more entertaining, less didactic way.
Nemo wrote: 1. Why is he against western Enlightenment?..."There is a lot about this in the Resources section Nemo but perhaps the key point here is that the Enlightenment represents post Rousseau, post Darwinian et al views of the world which Dostoevsky rejected. Enlightenment views were gaining currency in the rest of Europe, especially France, and were gaining currency in Russia at the time Dostoevsky was writing. He had also visited Paris and became aware of French Enlightenment/Socio-anarchic thinking, which was much more atheistic than that of England and America, and this coloured his viewpoint. Perhaps if he had spent time in England and America and looked their more democratic ways of thinking, he might have been consoled although, unfortunately, Russia was more influenced by France because of its long historical association with that country and the Tsars' attachment to its culture since the time of Catherine the Great.
MadgeUK wrote: "Even dyed in the wool, old-fashioned, utopian socialist atheists like Moi:D..."Have you always been a socialist atheist or have your beliefs changed over the years?
I was born into a socialist atheist family Nemo and so was brainwashed at an early age:) I did, however, study other religions and political philosophies at university, where if anything, I became more left wing than my family. My political views have changed since I was a teenager though because then I did believe in the utopian socialist ideal of the 'perfectability of man' but now I am less sure and worry more about it. I have been heartened by recent scientific findings that man is hard-wired for altruism so still think there is hope for mankind:).No religion appeals to me and if anything I have become hardened in my views in recent years after seeing fundamentalists opposing one another to the death in Ireland and the Middle East.
Nemo wrote: "Just to get the discussion started, since I know the least about F.D. in this group, I'll be the one who ask honest / stupid questions about his views, and others can answer them point by point, pr.....Was he against Western Enlightenmet?"
From Pachmuss, it would appear he wasn't against the scientific aspects of the Enlightenment, indeed, he was in favor of such for Russia, but that he believed other aspects of Western thought would be harmful to his beloved Russia.
From F. M. Dostoevsky by Temira Pachmuss http://news.illinois.edu/news/01/0327...
"Dostoevsky's awareness of the human soul's duality and its conquest through integration underlies his philosophy of life and his artistic work (xiii)....
His awareness of man's spiritual suffering in a God-created world becomes the starting point of his lifelong wanderings in the mysterious depths of the human soul. This awareness establishes a certain similarity between D's outlook and the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Both consider suffering to be such a fundamental factor of human life that they finally identify life with suffering (xiv)....
This leads him to speculate on the purpose of life, and on the nature of life and death. Man's ability to fathom the relationship between life and death is for D the most poignant expression of man's dual nature. His intellect, that quality which distinguishes man from all other animal beings, enables man to grasp this relationship....
Since man is exposed to inevitable death, his intellect seems to be not only meaningless and superfluous, but even the immediate cause of his spiritual suffering; for it is his intellect which enables him to recognize the insignificance of his temporal being and discloses to him the duality of his own nature....(xiv)....
…Dostoevsky’s passionate idealism does not allow him to make [the conclusion that Schopenhauer makes, i.e. that life has no further meaning or purpose]. Dostoevsky’s belief in the ultimate truth is to be found in his passionate affirmation of suffering and of life with its ordeals (xv).
Dostoevsky argues that so long as man is compelled to strive for his final ideal [here on earth], he will yield to the temptation to take his own well-being as his provisional aim. At the same time, however, he will suffer because of his dual nature, for his spirit will strive until the last minute of this life to free itself from the limitations imposed by the physical aspect of his being.
On the one hand, then, man strives for personal betterment and develops his ‘spiritual world’; and on the other hand, he clings to the opposite aspect of his personality, which is immersed in the natural world. There cannot be an absolute reconciliation between these two contradictory aspects of human nature. The absence of spirit and spiritual life in man is a debasement of the divine image and consequently of man himself. If he renounces the ‘spiritual world’ in his nature and severs himself from God, he is condemned to a divided existence. His life loses its purpose, and he begins to suffer. If, on the other hand, he is resolved to favor his spiritual element, the opposite side will inevitably claim its rights, driven by the powerful instinct of self-preservation (16-17).
The basest motives in man exist side by side with the utmost sincerity and purity. Man is endowed with intellect which he can use a freely as he chooses. Therefore he is tempted first to choose the easier way and use his reason not for the benefit of the spirit, but to gratify his creaturely being. The more in indulges in his ‘flesh and lust,’ in Raskolnikov’s words, the more he departs from his destiny as a spiritual being, a being which strives to remain one with God, with the harmonious unity of the universe. Dostoevsky’s novels dramatize this duality in man. They show man in all his hidden perplexities and contradictions and reveal powers of goodness and evil within him such as most men would seldom be ready to acknowledge to themselves. With merciless artistic force, the writer exposes human nature with its deeply rooted conflict between reason and instinct, and the dual struggle between man’s spiritual and creaturely being (17).
Convinced that material wealth deprives man of freedom, (48), Dostoevsky wrote his brother:
The unruliness of desires only leads to slavery. That is why almost the whole contemporary world sees its freedom in financial well-being as well as in the laws which guarantee such material security. ‘If I have money it means that I can do whatever I like; with this money I shall neither perish nor ask anyone for help, which is the highest freedom.’ However, [D continued], this ins not really freedom, but slavery, slavery imposed by money. The highest freedom is not found in financial security, but ‘in distributing all one has among others, and serving them all.’ If man is capable of such an action, capable of overcoming himself to such an extent, is it not he, then who is free? This is the loftiest manifestation of freedom.”
D’s years of imprisonment defined and deepened his interest in the human soul….he began a metaphysical examination of good and evil in the human soul….The years in Siberia also provided D with rich material for studying the type of man who can be dominated by his baser passions to such an extent that he may finally fall prey to spiritual disintegration….(51).
On the metaphysical level, D’s preoccupation with the theme of duality was prompted, it may be supposed, by his epileptic attacks (53-54). About himself, Dos wrote the following to N. N. Strakhov: ‘For a few seconds, I experience such a happiness, one which is quite impossible in man’s normal condition, and of which other people have no idea. I feel complete harmony within myself in the whole world, and this sensation is so strong and so sweet that I could imagine one giving away ten years of his life, probably his whole life, for a few seconds of this bliss.”
A further motive inducing D to take up the problem of duality in man, as well as in the structure of the world, may be found in the Russian thought of the period. D’s views of Russia’s cultural, ideological, and economic development resembled, and were influenced by, the tenets of the two antithetical schools of literary and political thought, the Slavophils and the Westernizers.
He agreed with the Slavophils that Russia, infused with true Chirstianity and deep feeling, had a historic mission of redeeming Europe from the rationalism, materialism, and egoism which weakened her stability.
He shared the enthusiasm of the Westernizers for the reforms of Peter the Great, but sharply opposed their conviction that Russia was to imitate the West, and attacked their failure to emphasize the significance of religion and spirituality (55-56).
As Zernov points out, “D was disgusted by the cult of egoism among individuals and nations in the West; he deplored the exclusive preoccupation with material comfort and the acquisition of wealth among the European people.” (quoted on page 56).
This dual attitude is also characteristic of D’s complicated ideas concerning the Europen influence upon Russia. While he wholeheartedly accepted the ruthless and vigorous reforms of Peter the Great and held that they were propitious of Russian technological, economic, and scientific advances, he contended that the new ideas developed by Western political thought were harmful for Russia in her adherence to national cultural traditions.
The new ideas and the flow of foreign life were so intoxicating to the Russian upper classes that the ties with the cultural and historical traditions of the past were gradually servered. Large sections of the Russian aristocracy looked upon the decline of old values without misgivings and with a calm detachment. The disdained the cultural past of their country, advocated the latest modes of life and thought in Europe, and underestimated Russian’s indigenous culture and civilization (56-57).
This usurping of Russia’s tradition disheartened D. He was disturbed by the thought that Russia, having her own individual intellectual and cultural development, which differed from that of the West, would be forced to assimilate European influences without having passed through the developmental states in succession….
It could only have an adverse effect, he considered, because the moral strength of Western Europe was extraneous to Russia.
He was convinced…that the Roman Catholic church could not redeem Europe from the scepitism and rationalism which undermined her vitality, nor could it succeed in the procreation of friendship, mutual understanding, and co-operation among the European countries (58).
A main concern in D’s fiction is the moral decay of the individual which springs from the neglect of his spiritual being (61).
From Pachmuss, it would appear he wasn't against the scientific aspects of the Enlightenment, indeed, he was in favor of such for Russia, but that he believed other aspects of Western thought would be harmful to his beloved Russia.
From F. M. Dostoevsky by Temira Pachmuss http://news.illinois.edu/news/01/0327...
"Dostoevsky's awareness of the human soul's duality and its conquest through integration underlies his philosophy of life and his artistic work (xiii)....
His awareness of man's spiritual suffering in a God-created world becomes the starting point of his lifelong wanderings in the mysterious depths of the human soul. This awareness establishes a certain similarity between D's outlook and the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Both consider suffering to be such a fundamental factor of human life that they finally identify life with suffering (xiv)....
This leads him to speculate on the purpose of life, and on the nature of life and death. Man's ability to fathom the relationship between life and death is for D the most poignant expression of man's dual nature. His intellect, that quality which distinguishes man from all other animal beings, enables man to grasp this relationship....
Since man is exposed to inevitable death, his intellect seems to be not only meaningless and superfluous, but even the immediate cause of his spiritual suffering; for it is his intellect which enables him to recognize the insignificance of his temporal being and discloses to him the duality of his own nature....(xiv)....
…Dostoevsky’s passionate idealism does not allow him to make [the conclusion that Schopenhauer makes, i.e. that life has no further meaning or purpose]. Dostoevsky’s belief in the ultimate truth is to be found in his passionate affirmation of suffering and of life with its ordeals (xv).
Dostoevsky argues that so long as man is compelled to strive for his final ideal [here on earth], he will yield to the temptation to take his own well-being as his provisional aim. At the same time, however, he will suffer because of his dual nature, for his spirit will strive until the last minute of this life to free itself from the limitations imposed by the physical aspect of his being.
On the one hand, then, man strives for personal betterment and develops his ‘spiritual world’; and on the other hand, he clings to the opposite aspect of his personality, which is immersed in the natural world. There cannot be an absolute reconciliation between these two contradictory aspects of human nature. The absence of spirit and spiritual life in man is a debasement of the divine image and consequently of man himself. If he renounces the ‘spiritual world’ in his nature and severs himself from God, he is condemned to a divided existence. His life loses its purpose, and he begins to suffer. If, on the other hand, he is resolved to favor his spiritual element, the opposite side will inevitably claim its rights, driven by the powerful instinct of self-preservation (16-17).
The basest motives in man exist side by side with the utmost sincerity and purity. Man is endowed with intellect which he can use a freely as he chooses. Therefore he is tempted first to choose the easier way and use his reason not for the benefit of the spirit, but to gratify his creaturely being. The more in indulges in his ‘flesh and lust,’ in Raskolnikov’s words, the more he departs from his destiny as a spiritual being, a being which strives to remain one with God, with the harmonious unity of the universe. Dostoevsky’s novels dramatize this duality in man. They show man in all his hidden perplexities and contradictions and reveal powers of goodness and evil within him such as most men would seldom be ready to acknowledge to themselves. With merciless artistic force, the writer exposes human nature with its deeply rooted conflict between reason and instinct, and the dual struggle between man’s spiritual and creaturely being (17).
Convinced that material wealth deprives man of freedom, (48), Dostoevsky wrote his brother:
The unruliness of desires only leads to slavery. That is why almost the whole contemporary world sees its freedom in financial well-being as well as in the laws which guarantee such material security. ‘If I have money it means that I can do whatever I like; with this money I shall neither perish nor ask anyone for help, which is the highest freedom.’ However, [D continued], this ins not really freedom, but slavery, slavery imposed by money. The highest freedom is not found in financial security, but ‘in distributing all one has among others, and serving them all.’ If man is capable of such an action, capable of overcoming himself to such an extent, is it not he, then who is free? This is the loftiest manifestation of freedom.”
D’s years of imprisonment defined and deepened his interest in the human soul….he began a metaphysical examination of good and evil in the human soul….The years in Siberia also provided D with rich material for studying the type of man who can be dominated by his baser passions to such an extent that he may finally fall prey to spiritual disintegration….(51).
On the metaphysical level, D’s preoccupation with the theme of duality was prompted, it may be supposed, by his epileptic attacks (53-54). About himself, Dos wrote the following to N. N. Strakhov: ‘For a few seconds, I experience such a happiness, one which is quite impossible in man’s normal condition, and of which other people have no idea. I feel complete harmony within myself in the whole world, and this sensation is so strong and so sweet that I could imagine one giving away ten years of his life, probably his whole life, for a few seconds of this bliss.”
A further motive inducing D to take up the problem of duality in man, as well as in the structure of the world, may be found in the Russian thought of the period. D’s views of Russia’s cultural, ideological, and economic development resembled, and were influenced by, the tenets of the two antithetical schools of literary and political thought, the Slavophils and the Westernizers.
He agreed with the Slavophils that Russia, infused with true Chirstianity and deep feeling, had a historic mission of redeeming Europe from the rationalism, materialism, and egoism which weakened her stability.
He shared the enthusiasm of the Westernizers for the reforms of Peter the Great, but sharply opposed their conviction that Russia was to imitate the West, and attacked their failure to emphasize the significance of religion and spirituality (55-56).
As Zernov points out, “D was disgusted by the cult of egoism among individuals and nations in the West; he deplored the exclusive preoccupation with material comfort and the acquisition of wealth among the European people.” (quoted on page 56).
This dual attitude is also characteristic of D’s complicated ideas concerning the Europen influence upon Russia. While he wholeheartedly accepted the ruthless and vigorous reforms of Peter the Great and held that they were propitious of Russian technological, economic, and scientific advances, he contended that the new ideas developed by Western political thought were harmful for Russia in her adherence to national cultural traditions.
The new ideas and the flow of foreign life were so intoxicating to the Russian upper classes that the ties with the cultural and historical traditions of the past were gradually servered. Large sections of the Russian aristocracy looked upon the decline of old values without misgivings and with a calm detachment. The disdained the cultural past of their country, advocated the latest modes of life and thought in Europe, and underestimated Russian’s indigenous culture and civilization (56-57).
This usurping of Russia’s tradition disheartened D. He was disturbed by the thought that Russia, having her own individual intellectual and cultural development, which differed from that of the West, would be forced to assimilate European influences without having passed through the developmental states in succession….
It could only have an adverse effect, he considered, because the moral strength of Western Europe was extraneous to Russia.
He was convinced…that the Roman Catholic church could not redeem Europe from the scepitism and rationalism which undermined her vitality, nor could it succeed in the procreation of friendship, mutual understanding, and co-operation among the European countries (58).
A main concern in D’s fiction is the moral decay of the individual which springs from the neglect of his spiritual being (61).
He was convinced…that the Roman Catholic church could not redeem Europe from the scepitism and rationalism which undermined her vitality, nor could it succeed in the procreation of friendship, mutual understanding, and co-operation among the European countries.Although he was right about the totalitarianism which engulfed Russia he was not right about Europe because Europe, through the EEC, has succeeded in 'the procreation of friendship, mutual understanding, and co-operation'. I would argue that it was the monolith of the Russian Orthodox Church which contributed to the former and that the lack of such a monolith in Europe, which had diverse religions, contributed to the latter. He misread European Enlightenment which, in breaking away from the oppression and autocracy of all churches, enabled people to explore other philosophies and ways of life both religious and non-religious.
A main concern in D’s fiction is the moral decay of the individual which springs from the neglect of his spiritual being.
Myself and those around me must be morally decayed as we do not believe in the existence of a soul:).
I think that Dostoevsky put too much emphasis on religious aspects of 'spirituality' and neglected other things which can contribute to it like art, literature and music.
MadgeUK wrote: "he was not right about Europe because Europe, through the EEC, has succeeded in 'the procreation of friendship, mutual understanding, and co-operation'..."
Yes, eventually. But Europe was engulfed in a number of devestating wars between the time of Dos. (about 1850) and the time of the EEC (I think you said 1957). So in the short term, at least, he might have had a point.
enabled people to explore other philosophies and ways of life both religious and non-religious.
But he wasn't in favor of the non-religous...so from his pov, it would seem that turning Russians from SOME of the ideas of Europe was indeed the position he would have wanted to take.
I think that Dostoevsky put too much emphasis on religious aspects of 'spirituality' and neglected other things which can contribute to it like art, literature and music
See? You have just possibly proved Dos's point. There you are, neglecting relisious aspects
So again, it, it might seem that Dos concerns regarding European ideas was valid if you keep in mind what was of importance to him
And we all tend to focus on what is important to us.
BTW, I like art, literature and music, too.
Yes, eventually. But Europe was engulfed in a number of devestating wars between the time of Dos. (about 1850) and the time of the EEC (I think you said 1957). So in the short term, at least, he might have had a point.
enabled people to explore other philosophies and ways of life both religious and non-religious.
But he wasn't in favor of the non-religous...so from his pov, it would seem that turning Russians from SOME of the ideas of Europe was indeed the position he would have wanted to take.
I think that Dostoevsky put too much emphasis on religious aspects of 'spirituality' and neglected other things which can contribute to it like art, literature and music
See? You have just possibly proved Dos's point. There you are, neglecting relisious aspects
So again, it, it might seem that Dos concerns regarding European ideas was valid if you keep in mind what was of importance to him
And we all tend to focus on what is important to us.
BTW, I like art, literature and music, too.
The wars were not religious wars to do with the enlightenment, they were about territory and royal family disputes. Ideas about the Enlightenment carried on during the turmoil and France and England escaped them altogether. (Ideas about republicanism gained hold at this time for instance.)I am not saying that he should have ignored the religious aspects altogether but that he put too much emphasis on them - could not see the wood for the trees - and so could see none of the advantages of the Enlightenment from which Europe (and America) were benefiting.
It was this backwardness of thinking amongst the intelligentsia, the nobility and the church which led to the communist revolution and the problems Russia has even today. Compared with the rest of Europe and America, Russia (and the Eastern bloc) are backward in many things. In some ways they resemble the Islamic countries who also have not had an 'enlightenment'.
Good!
I am sorry to say that I just joined this group and can't believe how insulting and closed-minded everyone on here is. Goodbye!! :) The moderators are not doing their jobs.
Example, please, if you're so inclined.
There is an outside chance that participants here might examine---though probably not change very much---their posts if it were pointed out to them just what in their posts is thought to be insulting or close-minded.
I say this in the nicest way, or such at least is my intent: I went back and re-read this thread. Although the posters don't agree with one another, I didn't personally see anything overtly offensive.
There is an outside chance that participants here might examine---though probably not change very much---their posts if it were pointed out to them just what in their posts is thought to be insulting or close-minded.
I say this in the nicest way, or such at least is my intent: I went back and re-read this thread. Although the posters don't agree with one another, I didn't personally see anything overtly offensive.
Magdalena wrote: "I am sorry to say that I just joined this group and can't believe how insulting and closed-minded everyone on here is. Goodbye!! :) The moderators are not doing their jobs."
I can see where my initial post responding to John could be read as insulting, but the rest of this doesn't seem to be anything but a vigorous discussion. It would help if you could point out what you think is inappropriate or closed minded so that it could be addressed.
I can see where my initial post responding to John could be read as insulting, but the rest of this doesn't seem to be anything but a vigorous discussion. It would help if you could point out what you think is inappropriate or closed minded so that it could be addressed.
Magdalena wrote: "I am sorry to say that I just joined this group and can't believe how insulting and closed-minded everyone on here is. Goodbye!! :) The moderators are not doing their jobs."I think somebody got out of bed on the wrong side this decade.
On the positive side...(I'm feeling quite Polly-annish [spelling?] this afternoon)....
On the positive side, the decade is still young! Changes can be made. Let me amend that. Changes for the better can be made.
Happy Chinese New Year, All! Year of the Rabbit.
On the positive side, the decade is still young! Changes can be made. Let me amend that. Changes for the better can be made.
Happy Chinese New Year, All! Year of the Rabbit.
Year of the Rabbit: "It looks like we've got quite sophisticated period with gracious manners and sensitivity."
Looking forward to it. Happy Chinese New Year, everyone.
Looking forward to it. Happy Chinese New Year, everyone.
MadgeUK wrote: "I think that Dostoevsky put too much emphasis on religious aspects of 'spirituality' and neglected other things which can contribute to it like art, literature and music."Since Dostoevsky was reacting against the influx of western ideas (especially French enlightenment), he probably swung the pendulum too much in the other direction. So unlike most of the intellectuals, like Turgenev, he returned Russian values to fight against what he, probably through experience, believed to be the evils of the time. To the extend that he saw the dangers of Nihilism, he was a prophet; but to the extend that he relied on Russian Orthodox belief for salvation, he was a reactionary.
Dostoevsky is not as greater a writer as Tolstoy in the sense that the latter worked better in plots and storyline. However, Dostoevsky, probably through personal experience, was able to dissect a mind haunted by various ideas that vied for supremacy over the individual. It is interesting that his novels has so much of Freud's psychoanalysis.
Since Dostoevsky was reacting against the influx of western ideas (especially French enlightenment), he probably swung the pendulum too much in the other direction.Thanks Leonard, I agree and had posted about this elsewhere.
Freud was a great reader and used several novels of this period to inform his theories:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoan...
Please be respectful of others opinions and keep the discussion pertinent to Dostoevsky and his writings.