The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Brothers Karamazov
Fyodor Dostoevsky Collection
>
Brothers Karamazov, The 2010/11: Week 1 - Part I, Books One and Two
No, Nemo, you should read them in reverse order. They'll make much more sense that way.
John wrote: "No, Nemo, you should read them in reverse order. They'll make much more sense that way."Are you serious? Why? :)
Are you suggesting Christianity is a totalitarian framework? Not Christianity per se but the church, with its hierachy, rules and emphasis on obedience etc. The monastic orders also exhibit some features of communism in that they practice common ownership of goods, control of the means of production and so on. Quite a lot has been written about the similarities. In Socialism is pure bureaucracy Von Mises wrote:-
'Plato’s ideal of elite rule has been converted into fact by the Catholic Church. The Roman Church, under the Tridentine organization as it emerged from the Counter Reformation, is a perfect bureaucracy. It has successfully solved the most delicate problem of every non-Democratic government, the selection of the top executives. To every boy access to the highest dignities of the Church is virtually open. The local priest is anxious to smooth the way to education of the most intelligent youths of his parish; they are trained in the Bishop’s seminary; once ordained, their further career depends entirely upon their character, their zeal, and their intellect. There are among the prelates many scions of noble and wealthy families. But they do not owe their office to their ancestry. They have to compete, on almost equal terms, with the sons of poor peasants, workers and serfs. The princes of the Catholic Church, the abbots and teachers of the theological universities, are a body of eminent men. Even in the most advanced countries they are worthy rivals of the most brilliant scholars, philosophers, scientists, and statesmen.
It is to this marvellous instance that the authors of modern socialist utopias refer as an example. The case is manifest with two forerunners of present-day socialism: Count Henri de Saint Simon and August Comte. But it was essentially the same with most other socialist authors, although for obvious reasons they did not point to the Church as a model. No precedent of a perfect hierarchy could be found other than that presented by Catholicism.'
Sartre also thought that communism had things in common with catholicism and wrote 'Communism, like Catholicism, demands, or at least advocates, the submission of the mind. If it can be saved at all, the world will be saved by rebels.':-
http://www.tnr.com/book/review/letter...
I am suggesting that perhaps Ivan's views are in line with this kind of thinking, which was prevalent in Dostoevsky's time.
MadgeUK wrote: "Not Christianity per se but the church, with its hierachy, rules and emphasis on obedience etc. The monastic orders also exhibit some..."MadgeUK, if you don't me saying so, you're a gold mine! :) I like the resources you provide in this forum. Thanks.
Maybe I should take some courses in political science, but I don't see Plato's elite rule as totalitarianism at all. Von Mises's idealized description of the Catholic Church suggest that the leaders are not tyrants like Stalin or Hitler, but men who excel in knowledge and skills, if not wisdom and virtue. I for one would not mind having such men as head of states.
Nemo wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I have read these and others - I have a complete 1958 set of Dostoevsky translated by Magarshack. ..."Ah, maybe you can help me here. Do you think his works can be better understo..."
I think that Notes from the Underground (Memoirs from the House of the Dead), which is based on his time in Siberia, informs the subsequent 'big 4' novels and is useful to read before embarking on C&P, TBK etc because what is said in that work is repeated and developed in the succeeding novels, especially in TBK. Otherwise I think that, although they can be read in any order, reading them chronologically perhaps helps you to understand the emerging development in Dosteovsky's style and why TBK, his last novel, is regarded as his greatest.
Patrice wrote:it does seem that spiteful is used an awful lot and I'm not surprised that it was a trait that he may have hated in himself. Good writers write what they know! .."Good point Patrice.
BTW the New Testament was the only book available to Dostoevsky when he was in prison and he read it constantly. Do you think TBK reflects more NT views than OT ones, like the emphasis on Christ, suffering and salvation?
Nemo wrote: "MadgeUK, if you don't me saying so, you're a goldmine..."Thanks Nemo, I think being old and having read a lot has something to do with it:)
We might not mind those 'who excel in knowledge and skills, if not wisdom and virtue' being heads of a democratic state but for them to be heads of a totalitarian one is a different matter. One of the advantages of a democracy is that if rulers become unjust we can change them. And if we agree that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely', then even wise rulers may eventually need changing.
MadgeUK wrote: "We might not mind those 'who excel in knowledge and skills, if not wisdom and virtue' being heads of a democratic state but for them to be heads of a totalitarian one is a different matter...."If I remember correctly, in Plato's Republic, if one of the ruling class is corrupted, he is demoted, and if one of the "lower" class is proven capable, he is promoted. So there is provision in case of corruption, although to implement it in practice is a different matter.
Plato also posed the question Patrice asked: 'Who guards the Guardians?' :)
MadgeUK wrote: "Plato also posed the question Patrice asked: 'Who guards the Guardians?'"And who guard those who guard the Guardians? There is no end to the question.
Plato's argument, as I understand it, is that, since the Guardians, by virtue of their being Guardians, are better and wiser than the others, so they should not be governed by the others, as fools should not rule over the wise. This is a valid argument.
Nemo wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Plato also posed the question Patrice asked: 'Who guards the Guardians?'"And who guard those who guard the Guardians? There is no end to the question.
Plato's argument, as I unde..."
Yes indeed, there is no end to the question. Even the wise can make foolish decisions, or go mad. Also, as Patrice asked, who is to judge who is better and wiser?
We have strayed off topic here unless we are considering what Dostoevsky (or his characters) thought of totalitarian rule or Plato's Republic:). Any ideas on this?
Which reminds me that someone posted earlier about the three brothers representing Mind (Ivan), Body (Dmitri) and Spirit (Alexei) and Kate commented that in Freudian terms they were the Ego, Superego and Id. Plato wrote that there were three parts to a person - Reason, Spirit and Appetite so it would seem that Dostoevsky is echoing this idea.
MadgeUK wrote: "Also, as Patrice asked, who is to judge who is better and wiser? We have strayed off topic here unless we are considering what Dostoevsky (or his characters) thought of totalitarian rule or Plato's Republic:). Any ideas on this? ..."
I'm trying to answer Patrice original question about submission or obedience to another human being or an idea.
Suppose we can judge who is better and wiser, do you agree that the foolish should submit to the wise? If not, what do you think should be the course of action?
In a general way I agree with Patrice because I do not believe that submission and obedience are 'good' things, whoever you are submitting to. Isn't this what our ideas of 'freedom' are all about? Isn't it why we have changed the attitudes and laws which had women submitting to men or slaves submitting to masters? Dostoevsky appears to believe that the religious ideal of submission to God, or to an elder in this instance, is a good thing but I don't because I think the ideal is one which leads to bad outcomes. Perhaps, like Ivan, who also disagreed, I shall go mad:):).If we translate this into political terms we can see that we may need to submit to government of some kind but in a democracy we only submit temporarily if we disagree with the current 'party line'. In this sense we may think that the wise are submitting to the foolish or vice versa, depending on your p.o.v. We are also able to argue with democratic government but not with the church or God, which are 'absolute'.
But isn't this a discussion which is more relevant to later chapters in the book - after the Grand Inquisitor section perhaps?
Madge said: BTW the New Testament was the only book available to Dostoevsky when he was in prison and he read it constantly. Do you think TBK reflects more NT views than OT ones, like the emphasis on Christ, suffering and salvation? Considering Christ isn't mentioned in the Old Testament, and Christian soteriology is based on the presence of Jesus Christ, I'm going to go with "New Testament" on this one.
Patrice wrote: "Nemo, I just read some of your blog and it fits so perfectly with our discussion. Very interesting."Thanks. That's why I'm engaging in the discussion even though I haven't started TBK. :) Most people here have read Dostoevsky's other works before, which leaves me at a disadvantage. I'm going to take MadgeUK's advice and read House of the Dead first.
The only way I may be of some help here is to provide a Christian or scriptural perspective as I understand it. Of course, other people may disagree with my interpretation as I might disagree with Dostoevsky. Would that be helpful to you or anyone?
The House of the Dead is not a very easy or happy read Nemo so good luck with it. You may be interested in this BBC radio interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who examines Dostoevesky's 'conflicting ideas about spiritual regeneration and existentialism':-
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org...
What is the URL for your blog?
MadgeUK wrote: "The House of the Dead is not a very easy or happy read Nemo so good luck with it. You may be interested in this BBC radio interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury examining Dostoevesky's confl..."
Well, you recommended it and now you're telling me it's not easy. I'm going to trouble you for help if I run into difficulties :)
The URL is in my profile. I'll refrain from shameless self-promotion here.
Nemo wrote: "Just out of curiosity, has anyone read Dostoevsky's other works (e.g., The Idiot, Notes from Underground, House of the Dead, Crime and Punishment)..."I've read Crime and Punishment, Notes From the Undeground, House of the Dead, Poor Folk, and a couple of his shorter works. I didn't read Dostoevsky in chronological order, but I think Crime and Punishment is a great introduction for anyone interested in Dostoevsky.
Quotes that struck me from books one and two:(1) 'For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth.'
(2) '"Why," began the elder, "all these sentences to exile with hard labour, and formerly with flogging also, reform no one, and what's more, deter hardly a single criminal, and the number of crimes does not diminish but is continually on the increase. You must admit that. Consequently the security of society is not preserved, for, although the obnoxious member is mechanically cut off and sent far away out of sight, another criminal always comes to take his place at once, and often two of them.'
What do you guys think about these quotes, do you they ring truthful to you?
Patrice wrote: I read somewhere that he used spiteful and other words with an "s" to indicate "sin". But it does seem that spiteful is used an awful lot and I'm not surprised that it was a trait that he may have hated in himself. Good writers write what they know! The translator, do you mean?
MadgeUK wrote: ..Perhaps 'The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist' because the totalitarian framework is already there and it was thought that a Christian could more easily exchange one set of values for another, one leader for another?."
My take was the opposite. That the Christian, believing he's working towards socialism for his God,is more to be dreaded because he would be unwilling to compromise, that he would be more ardent in the pursuit of his objectives than the atheist, because the Christian believes he's doing it for a higher purpose.
(The posts on this subject have been most intereting.)
My take was the opposite. That the Christian, believing he's working towards socialism for his God,is more to be dreaded because he would be unwilling to compromise, that he would be more ardent in the pursuit of his objectives than the atheist, because the Christian believes he's doing it for a higher purpose.
(The posts on this subject have been most intereting.)
Patrice wrote: "More notes from underground (my computer is in the basement)
Zosima commands Alyosha
Leave the monastery. Even though he must leave, he cannot break the vows he's taken to follow Zossima's will..."
Why, Patrice, you are just full of question!
Zosima commands Alyosha
Leave the monastery. Even though he must leave, he cannot break the vows he's taken to follow Zossima's will..."
Why, Patrice, you are just full of question!
MadgeUK wrote: "In a general way I agree with Patrice because I do not believe that submission and obedience are 'good' things, whoever you are submitting to. Isn't this what our ideas of 'freedom' are all about? ..."
This obviously doesn't address all your points, but I think that for Dostoyevsky what is of importance is that one chooses to submit. Slaves had no choice; they had to submit. Women had very little choice; they were socially (and in some times and places legally) required to submit. But Alyosha's submission is by choice. Charlemaigne may have forced a surface submission/conversion to God, but that's not what Dostoyevsky is advocating. In fact, a submission/conversion only has meaning if it's a free will choice.
This obviously doesn't address all your points, but I think that for Dostoyevsky what is of importance is that one chooses to submit. Slaves had no choice; they had to submit. Women had very little choice; they were socially (and in some times and places legally) required to submit. But Alyosha's submission is by choice. Charlemaigne may have forced a surface submission/conversion to God, but that's not what Dostoyevsky is advocating. In fact, a submission/conversion only has meaning if it's a free will choice.
Shawn wrote: "Quotes that struck me from books one and two:
(1) 'For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day..."
I should look for these...but could you give me a short-cut? What chapter are the quotes from? Thanks very much.
(1) 'For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day..."
I should look for these...but could you give me a short-cut? What chapter are the quotes from? Thanks very much.
You people have a great religious conversation going here, and yes, I know the book revolves around the religious questions. But I'm not engaged in that quite yet. I'm still thinking characters. So, I'm posting characters.
The character I've come to dislike quite strongly is Peter Miusov. I've come to view him as worthless. Indeed, as worth less than worthless, if that's grammatically possible.
Fyodor, others, yes, are at times role-playing/acting in various scenes in the book. Sometimes because they want to project an image to others...because they want to create an impression that they are other than as they really are. And sometimes they're role-playing, I think, because the role was imposed on them ... and they believe that that is who they are or at least who they should be. (Fyodor is anything but a fool. Does he play one for personal advantage? Or because he was labeled one? Or so he can avoid feeling the pain of his own life? I don't know. Is Alexey truly called to the religious life? I'm thinking he isn't. According to the narrator, he "was not a fanatic ... he was not even a mystic. He was simply a lover of humanity..." wanting to escape the struggle of his soul. Did going through life bearing the name of "a man of God," did the vivid, emotionally tinged memories of his mother holding him, "praying for him to the Mother of God" (27) predispose him to label himself as religiously called?
Was Dmitri labeled the bad boy of the sons? And so played that role?
But whatever the truth of those questions, Fyodor, et. al., at least try to live lives! Maybe they aren't aware of what motivates them, what drives them, but they believe---or are under the illusion---that they have lives that they are engaging in.
But Peter Miusov. I have no idea what his psychological problem is, but it's deep. Peter Miusov has very carefully, very thoroughly avoided having a life. It seems to me that his life---or that portion that the narrator has allowed us to see---is for appearances only. Maybe it was something of a family trait (Adelaide Miusov. Whose marriage “was also, no doubt, an echo of other people’s ideas”).
His life looked a success. But Dmitri’s words apply to Peter Miusov as well as to any other character. “It’s all a lie! Outwardly it’s the truth, but inwardly, a lie!” (75).
Miusov was born and raised Russian, but lives instead with a veneer of “European culture.” I got the sense he left his native Russian, not because he was drawn to Paris particularly, but because that’s where an upper-class Russian went if he wanted to be thought of as “a man of enlightened ideas.” He *said he wanted to undertake Dmitri’s education. How noble that offer must have sounded to Peter Miusov, and it doubtless made him feel good about himself and contributed to his self-image. What actually happened to Dmitiri was really no concern of his. He had been interested in Adelaide, but hadn’t actually pursued her.
One of his fondest memories of his youth was that in which he had ALMOST taken part. I could complete the sentence “ALMOST’ taken part in the fighting on the barricades,” but it’s not needed; Peter Miusov’s life is just as accurately described without the qualifying description.
The blatant self-serving lies he voiced after Fyodor made a scene in Zossima’s cell: “Believe me, your reverence, I had no knowledge, …I was unwilling to believe them, I learn for the first time…”(76).
The smooth lies he asks the monk to convey to the Father Superior (77).
The lies he told the Father Superior directly, “[Fyodor] asks your blessing, and begs you to forget what has taken place” (87).
Is it any wonder the Father Superior drew his hand back before Peter Miusov could kiss it, ‘though he allowed Ivan to do so? (87).
To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: "He said and said and said those words. He said them, but he lied them."
The character I've come to dislike quite strongly is Peter Miusov. I've come to view him as worthless. Indeed, as worth less than worthless, if that's grammatically possible.
Fyodor, others, yes, are at times role-playing/acting in various scenes in the book. Sometimes because they want to project an image to others...because they want to create an impression that they are other than as they really are. And sometimes they're role-playing, I think, because the role was imposed on them ... and they believe that that is who they are or at least who they should be. (Fyodor is anything but a fool. Does he play one for personal advantage? Or because he was labeled one? Or so he can avoid feeling the pain of his own life? I don't know. Is Alexey truly called to the religious life? I'm thinking he isn't. According to the narrator, he "was not a fanatic ... he was not even a mystic. He was simply a lover of humanity..." wanting to escape the struggle of his soul. Did going through life bearing the name of "a man of God," did the vivid, emotionally tinged memories of his mother holding him, "praying for him to the Mother of God" (27) predispose him to label himself as religiously called?
Was Dmitri labeled the bad boy of the sons? And so played that role?
But whatever the truth of those questions, Fyodor, et. al., at least try to live lives! Maybe they aren't aware of what motivates them, what drives them, but they believe---or are under the illusion---that they have lives that they are engaging in.
But Peter Miusov. I have no idea what his psychological problem is, but it's deep. Peter Miusov has very carefully, very thoroughly avoided having a life. It seems to me that his life---or that portion that the narrator has allowed us to see---is for appearances only. Maybe it was something of a family trait (Adelaide Miusov. Whose marriage “was also, no doubt, an echo of other people’s ideas”).
His life looked a success. But Dmitri’s words apply to Peter Miusov as well as to any other character. “It’s all a lie! Outwardly it’s the truth, but inwardly, a lie!” (75).
Miusov was born and raised Russian, but lives instead with a veneer of “European culture.” I got the sense he left his native Russian, not because he was drawn to Paris particularly, but because that’s where an upper-class Russian went if he wanted to be thought of as “a man of enlightened ideas.” He *said he wanted to undertake Dmitri’s education. How noble that offer must have sounded to Peter Miusov, and it doubtless made him feel good about himself and contributed to his self-image. What actually happened to Dmitiri was really no concern of his. He had been interested in Adelaide, but hadn’t actually pursued her.
One of his fondest memories of his youth was that in which he had ALMOST taken part. I could complete the sentence “ALMOST’ taken part in the fighting on the barricades,” but it’s not needed; Peter Miusov’s life is just as accurately described without the qualifying description.
The blatant self-serving lies he voiced after Fyodor made a scene in Zossima’s cell: “Believe me, your reverence, I had no knowledge, …I was unwilling to believe them, I learn for the first time…”(76).
The smooth lies he asks the monk to convey to the Father Superior (77).
The lies he told the Father Superior directly, “[Fyodor] asks your blessing, and begs you to forget what has taken place” (87).
Is it any wonder the Father Superior drew his hand back before Peter Miusov could kiss it, ‘though he allowed Ivan to do so? (87).
To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: "He said and said and said those words. He said them, but he lied them."
Adelle wrote: "Shawn wrote: "Quotes that struck me from books one and two:(1) 'For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken b..."
First one is from Part I, Book I: The History of a Family, Chapter 5: Elders, Second paragraph towards the end.
The second is from Part I, Book II: An Unfortunate Gathering, Chapter 5: So Be It! So Be It!, about halfway through the chapter in a rather long paragraph by the elder.
Atheists always feel superior to other people?
Patrice wrote: ..." Regarding Peter Miusov.
Dostoyevsky must have written him rather well, don't you think? He was easy to dislike.
Dostoyevsky must have written him rather well, don't you think? He was easy to dislike.
Patrice wrote:BTW, I just got back from a performance of "The Seagull". I must be a glutton for punishment. Talk about "bleak"!
Ah, I had to google to find out what that was! You're deep in Russian atmosphere.
Ah, I had to google to find out what that was! You're deep in Russian atmosphere.
Adelle wrote: My take was the opposite. That the Christian, believing he's working towards socialism for his God,is more to be dreaded because he would be unwilling to compromise, that he would be more ardent in the pursuit of his objectives than the atheist, because the Christian believes he's doing it for a higher purpose. That was my thought, too, Adelle. When a political or sociological system becomes a religion, run the other way, because God has to be moved aside to make it work. (The system replaces God.)
Adelle wrote: " That the Christian, believing he's working towards socialism for his God,is more to be dreaded because he would be unwilling to compromise, that he would be more ardent in the pursuit of his objectives than the atheist, because the Christian believes he's doing it for a higher purpose. . Why does working for a higher purpose make it less dreaded? We have seen many examples in history of Christians ardently pursuing objectives without compromise, as with the Crusades or the Inquisition, or pogroms against the Jews.
The church can become an oppressive political system too and there is evidence that this was the case in both France and Russia before the revolutions, and in Spain at the time of the Inquisition.
Dostoevsky, because of his own ardent beliefs, is making a strong case against atheism and atheists in TBK and he links socialism with atheism, which is incorrect as there are many religious socialists all over the world - in the UK, for instance, we have a large political group called Christian Socialists:-
http://www.thecsm.org.uk/Groups/87271...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internat...
He also suggests that atheists have no morals which is patently incorrect as a lack of morality can be found in all kinds of people and there is no evidence that atheists are less moral than others, or that religious people are more moral. Similarly, there is no reason to suppose that atheists (like Musov) feel more superior to other people, this is just another of Dostoevsky's prejudices. Musov could have felt superior to others whether he was an atheist, Christian, Muslim or Hindu! He could even have had the psychological condition called a superiority complex!
Adelle wrote: "but I think that for Dostoyevsky what is of importance is that one chooses to submit. Slaves had no choice; they had to submit. Women had very little choice; they were socially ..."Wasn't Aloysha persuaded to submit by Zossima? Aren't Christians in general persuaded to submit by their priests/religion, because they are told it is better for them to do so? (Submission to Allah is also a strong tenet of Islam.) IMO 'free will' is a misnomer because none of us are really free, we are all influenced, and circumscribed, by our genetics, our upbringing, our teachers, our friends, our governments etc.
Patrice wrote: "Patrice wrote: "John wrote: "Atheists always feel superior to other people?"The point I was making was that in Russia at that time being an atheist was a sign of being an "enlightened" European..."
In the United States - one of the most culturally and religious Protestant countries in the world? No, not especially. If I do, it's mostly directly toward fundamentalism ... but then again, they're sort of asking for it when you go around claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Shawn wrote: "Quotes that struck me from books one and two....do they ring true...:'For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day..."
As explained in another post, this is one of Dostoevsky's prejudices against both atheism and socialism. There were religious people, as well as atheists, all over Europe engaged in promoting Socialism in Dostoevsky's day, as now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of...
http://www.kudin.org/en/book3/index.html
Also, quite a lot of leading Catholics and Jews were involved in promoting socialism in Europe in the 19C and given Dostoevsky's prejudices against those groups, this may have been another reason for his vehemence against socialism. Ivan expresses strong views against catholics, Jesuits in particular (ie: chapter 36) and Jews are mentioned unfavourably in several chapters, especially Chapter 72.
Patrice wrote: "The point I was making was that in Russia at that time being an atheist was a sign of being an "enlightened" European. An intellect, a modern man. At least that's the way Musov thought of it.' It was the French philosophers of the Enlightenment who promoted reason above religion. This view did not pervade British or American thinking as much. Some Russians who looked to France (and Napoleon) for intellectual stimulus did reject religion, just as the French rebelled against the church at the time of the Revolution. Russia was a scientifically backward country at this time and it was thought by some that rejecting religion in favour of a more 'enlightened' scientific outlook would help their country to progress. This is Dorida Outram's brief definition of the Enlightenment:-
'Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition.'
Tolstoy embraced this outlook in:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frui...
Dostoevsky did not embrace it, instead he argued, like Chateaubriand, against the Enlightenment ideal that humanity is rational and perfectible, and that all knowledge can be ascertained through science. For Dostoevsky humanity's only salvation was through the Christian faith; he saw the rejection of God and Christ as dangerous since it caused people to 'engage in the impossible and self- destructive to transcend their condition.' Dostoevsky's evangelistic mission was to call his country to return and stay true to its Orthodox heritage. For this reason I think Dostoevsky should be regarded as an unreliable narrator when it comes to expressing views about any ideology other than Russian/Eastern Orthodoxy - he even criticises the American way of life towards the end of the book!
Patrice wrote: "Actually, even today, haven't you noticed a kind of intellectual snobbery towards people of faith?.."No more than in previous eras when there has been an intellectual snobbery towards atheists. Because there is now less opprobium towards atheists than in former times, they are more able to speak out and this makes their views more noticeable, as with Dawkins et al.
Patrice wrote: "John wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Patrice wrote: "John wrote: "Atheists always feel superior to other people?"The point I was making was that in Russia at that time being an atheist was a sign of be..."
Yes, I live in Texas. But my feet are cemented to the ground.
Offend me? No, not at all. Like you said earlier, I was just pointing out that I've noticed things are different in other parts of the country and the world.
Don't know where it is in the book, but the statement was "The Christian who is a socialist is more to be dreaded than the atheist who is a socialist."
MadgeUK wrote: "Adelle wrote: " That the Christian, believing he's working towards socialism for his God,is more to be dreaded because he would be unwilling to compromise, that he would be more ardent in the pursu.......
Madge wrote: Why does working for a higher purpose make it less dreaded?"
I wasn't agruing "less". I was arguing "more" dreaded.
Again, I take this position simply because a Christian, (not a nominal Christian), working on behalf of his God, would be less prone to compromise....from either side.
Let's assume one wants to advance the cause of socialism. I'm thinking the Christian would be more likely to view matters in absolute terms. An atheist would, I think, be more willing to bargain/compromise on details here or there if he thought it would advance his cause. But the Christian, if the bargaining was in violation of what he felt his God approved of, wouldn't go along, thus the Christian might be dreaded because he wouldn't do what it took to advance the cause of socialism.
On the other hand, let's say one doesn't want to advance the cause of socialism. The Christian who wants to advance the cause might in that case be dreaded more than the atheist because, as he's working for his God, won't allow himself to quit or be sidetracked or be bought off.
(Granted, an atheist who viewed socialism as his religion might be quite ardent as well....but in that case wouldn't we be describing a religious atheist?)
MadgeUK wrote: "Adelle wrote: " That the Christian, believing he's working towards socialism for his God,is more to be dreaded because he would be unwilling to compromise, that he would be more ardent in the pursu.......
Madge wrote: Why does working for a higher purpose make it less dreaded?"
I wasn't agruing "less". I was arguing "more" dreaded.
Again, I take this position simply because a Christian, (not a nominal Christian), working on behalf of his God, would be less prone to compromise....from either side.
Let's assume one wants to advance the cause of socialism. I'm thinking the Christian would be more likely to view matters in absolute terms. An atheist would, I think, be more willing to bargain/compromise on details here or there if he thought it would advance his cause. But the Christian, if the bargaining was in violation of what he felt his God approved of, wouldn't go along, thus the Christian might be dreaded because he wouldn't do what it took to advance the cause of socialism.
On the other hand, let's say one doesn't want to advance the cause of socialism. The Christian who wants to advance the cause might in that case be dreaded more than the atheist because, as he's working for his God, won't allow himself to quit or be sidetracked or be bought off.
(Granted, an atheist who viewed socialism as his religion might be quite ardent as well....but in that case wouldn't we be describing a religious atheist?)
MadgeUK wrote: "Adelle wrote: ."
Madge: Wasn't Aloysha persuaded to submit by Zossima?
I don't think so. Though, admittedly, I might have missed noticing that passage. But even if he had been persuaded by Zossima, that wouldn't bother me.
I'm assuming for this book that the characters have free will. If we/and the characters/Zossima live in a world of free will, and if we believe that we know a better way (in this case, a better way to save one's soul), then wouldn't it be our moral duty to try to persuade --- not force, mind you, but persuade --- others to follow the better way? If we were in a burning building, and if we believed that we knew the way out (that the way out was up the stairs), and if we saw that almost everyone was heading downstairs (where we believed there was no exit), wouldn't it be our moral duty to try to persuade the others to head upstairs with us to safety?
And IF we have free will, and we've listened to arguments from various sides, wouldn't it be imcumbent upon us to allow ourselves to be persuaded/convinced by the best argument? To heed that which seems most reasonable to us, or that which seems truest to us.
But really, I don't think Zossima persuaded Alyosha. "[Alyosha] entered upon this path only because, at that time, it alone struck his imagination and seemed to him to offer an ideal means of escapge for his soul from darkness to light" (Early in "Elders" page 34). "The path that Alyosha chose..." (Early in "Elders page 34). "He [Zosimma] had impressed Alyosha by some peculiar quality of his soul" (Early in "Elders page 37).
Madge: Aren't Christians in general persuaded to submit by their priests/religion, because they are told it is better for them to do so? (Submission to Allah is also a strong tenet of Islam.)
Mmm. "Better" here seems such a subjective word. I'm not sure what you're referring to, not sure what you mean by "better." And I can't speak for Islam. In regards to the Christian question, I think??? I have to answer, "No."
But I don't really understand your question. What do you mean by "submit"? Submit to what? Submit to who? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're asking here.
Madge: IMO 'free will' is a misnomer because none of us are really free, we are all influenced, and circumscribed, by our genetics, our upbringing, our teachers, our friends, our governments etc.
Oh, sure, I lean quite a bit that way myself, all that stuff you said...influenced, upbringing, etc. etc. Still, I believe there is that little bit of "us" in us, or that little bit of the godhead in us, and that we do have a little free will in us. The more we use it, the stronger it becomes. (Mmm. On the other hand, the less we use it, the more we go through life acting habitually, the stronger habitual actions become.)
But for the purposes of TBK, I'm granting all the characters free will. (Influenced lives, and they have to live where they live; what is is; but I'm reading them as free will characters, if only they can realize it.)
Madge: Wasn't Aloysha persuaded to submit by Zossima?
I don't think so. Though, admittedly, I might have missed noticing that passage. But even if he had been persuaded by Zossima, that wouldn't bother me.
I'm assuming for this book that the characters have free will. If we/and the characters/Zossima live in a world of free will, and if we believe that we know a better way (in this case, a better way to save one's soul), then wouldn't it be our moral duty to try to persuade --- not force, mind you, but persuade --- others to follow the better way? If we were in a burning building, and if we believed that we knew the way out (that the way out was up the stairs), and if we saw that almost everyone was heading downstairs (where we believed there was no exit), wouldn't it be our moral duty to try to persuade the others to head upstairs with us to safety?
And IF we have free will, and we've listened to arguments from various sides, wouldn't it be imcumbent upon us to allow ourselves to be persuaded/convinced by the best argument? To heed that which seems most reasonable to us, or that which seems truest to us.
But really, I don't think Zossima persuaded Alyosha. "[Alyosha] entered upon this path only because, at that time, it alone struck his imagination and seemed to him to offer an ideal means of escapge for his soul from darkness to light" (Early in "Elders" page 34). "The path that Alyosha chose..." (Early in "Elders page 34). "He [Zosimma] had impressed Alyosha by some peculiar quality of his soul" (Early in "Elders page 37).
Madge: Aren't Christians in general persuaded to submit by their priests/religion, because they are told it is better for them to do so? (Submission to Allah is also a strong tenet of Islam.)
Mmm. "Better" here seems such a subjective word. I'm not sure what you're referring to, not sure what you mean by "better." And I can't speak for Islam. In regards to the Christian question, I think??? I have to answer, "No."
But I don't really understand your question. What do you mean by "submit"? Submit to what? Submit to who? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're asking here.
Madge: IMO 'free will' is a misnomer because none of us are really free, we are all influenced, and circumscribed, by our genetics, our upbringing, our teachers, our friends, our governments etc.
Oh, sure, I lean quite a bit that way myself, all that stuff you said...influenced, upbringing, etc. etc. Still, I believe there is that little bit of "us" in us, or that little bit of the godhead in us, and that we do have a little free will in us. The more we use it, the stronger it becomes. (Mmm. On the other hand, the less we use it, the more we go through life acting habitually, the stronger habitual actions become.)
But for the purposes of TBK, I'm granting all the characters free will. (Influenced lives, and they have to live where they live; what is is; but I'm reading them as free will characters, if only they can realize it.)
Patrice wrote: ". We only believe in the God we believe in and we're atheists to all other Gods.
What an intriguing way to put it.
Am I mis-remembering...Wasn't one of the reasons the Romans were against the Christians was because the Christians were in effect atheists to the existing Roman gods?
What an intriguing way to put it.
Am I mis-remembering...Wasn't one of the reasons the Romans were against the Christians was because the Christians were in effect atheists to the existing Roman gods?
Adelle wrote: " An atheist would, I think, be more willing to bargain/compromise on details here or there if he thought it would advance his cause. But the Christian, if the bargaining was in violation of what he felt his God approved of, wouldn't go along, .."Sorry I put it the wrong way round.
I think that anyone ardently pursuing a cause would not lightly make compromises. We see this in political 'causes' all the time. The pursuing of ideals often leads to inflexibility, which is why that can lead to totalitarian regimes, either religious or secular.
But I don't really understand your question. What do you mean by "submit"? Submit to what? Submit to who? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're asking here.
In Alexei's case I meant submit to Zossima, as outlined in Chapter 5. There must surely be a great deal of 'persuasion' in Zossima's regime, even though the initial act by Alexei was voluntary:-
'What was such an elder? An elder was one who took your soul, your will, into his soul and his will. When you choose an elder, you renounce your own will and yield it to him in complete submission, complete self-abnegation. This novitiate, this terrible school of abnegation, is undertaken voluntarily, in the hope of self-conquest, of self-mastery, in order, after a life of obedience, to attain perfect freedom, that is, from self; to escape the lot of those who have lived their whole life without finding their true selves in themselves. This institution of elders is not founded on theory, but was established in the East from the practice of a thousand years. The obligations due to an elder are not the ordinary "obedience" which has always existed in our Russian monasteries. The obligation involves confession to the elder by all who have submitted themselves to him, and to the indissoluble bond between him and them.'
In scriptural terms it means submission to God, and is a tenet of the Christian church. As here:-
http://www.discipleshiptools.org/apps...
There is more about submission in Chapter 36 The Grand Insquisitor. (BTW The meaning of the word Islam is Submission.)
That we submit to the rules of our mothers or the law of the land is a different matter and not of the same ilk as religious submission.
But for the purposes of TBK, I'm granting all the characters free will.
I am not so sure that the characters have free will because they are being manipulated by Dostoevsky in accordance with his personal beliefs. We know early on in the novel that 'good' things will come to Alexei the devout Christian and that 'evil' ones will affect the atheist Ivan, for instance. Even if our reading did not tell us this, a reading of Dosteovsky's life experiences and his stated decision to evangelise via his novels would reveal it to us.
Patrice wrote: "People seem to want something to believe in and any "ism" will do...."This review of Religion Explained: The Human Instincts that Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors by Pascal Boyer addresses this point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/...
As does this summary of a BBC programme:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/...
Dostoevsky worried that atheism was taking over Russia/the World but apparently that is unlikely:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comm...
My hardwiring must be deficient:D.
Patrice wrote: "My take on what Dostoyevsky is saying is more along the line of, it's our responsiblity as individuals to take care of each other. And we do that through active love. We're all in it together and we can't turn our backs on each other and not suffer the consequences. ..."
I agree Patrice but that does not say that we must be religious, or be Christians, to do this. This is just the Ethic of Repricocity, The Golden Rule, which existed in many societies long before Christianity.
Dostoevsky may have thought that because this was part of the Sermon on the Mount that it was 'invented' by Jesus but research has shown that the phrase did not originate with him and occurs elsewhere in various formats:-
http://www.unification.net/ws/theme01....
Patrice wrote:
As for submission, Similarly, if we live in a family or a community, it can be in our own self-interest to put aside some of our immediate desires, to submit to the good of the family or community.
A bit off topic, and I'm only vaguely familiar with the terminolgoy, but isn't that The Social Contract?
As for submission, Similarly, if we live in a family or a community, it can be in our own self-interest to put aside some of our immediate desires, to submit to the good of the family or community.
A bit off topic, and I'm only vaguely familiar with the terminolgoy, but isn't that The Social Contract?
Rousseau actually wrote a book called "The Social Contract," but the concept of social contract theory very much antedates Rousseau. It goes at least all the way back to Hobbes.
John wrote: "Rousseau actually wrote a book called "The Social Contract," but the concept of social contract theory very much antedates Rousseau. It goes at least all the way back to Hobbes."
There's only about a hundred years between Leviathan and The Social Contract, and there were some others in the middle. You have Locke in there somewhere. All of them mostly writing, it seems to me, to figure out a mechanistic (Hobbes) and logical framework to replace a social structure based upon divine law (as determined and enforced by the Church) with a structure based upon nature and human reason. The older, God-ordained structure of society required unquestioning submission and acceptance of one's place in the world. Changing that to a contract-based system implies that one has a voice and must agree to the contract, so the submission is voluntary and not unquestioning.
I think Dos. explores some of these kinds of issues with Zossima. What kinds of obedience should you question, when should you submit to God's will (as expressed through Zossima) without questioning. In the mid 19th century Russia was very much in transition between an old feudal order upheld by the church and something new. Dos. obviously didn't really like the secular path that Europe had taken and was perhaps playing with various ideas as alternatives.
Blithering. Sorry. Not enough coffee.
There's only about a hundred years between Leviathan and The Social Contract, and there were some others in the middle. You have Locke in there somewhere. All of them mostly writing, it seems to me, to figure out a mechanistic (Hobbes) and logical framework to replace a social structure based upon divine law (as determined and enforced by the Church) with a structure based upon nature and human reason. The older, God-ordained structure of society required unquestioning submission and acceptance of one's place in the world. Changing that to a contract-based system implies that one has a voice and must agree to the contract, so the submission is voluntary and not unquestioning.
I think Dos. explores some of these kinds of issues with Zossima. What kinds of obedience should you question, when should you submit to God's will (as expressed through Zossima) without questioning. In the mid 19th century Russia was very much in transition between an old feudal order upheld by the church and something new. Dos. obviously didn't really like the secular path that Europe had taken and was perhaps playing with various ideas as alternatives.
Blithering. Sorry. Not enough coffee.
Patrice wrote: "I read that book. But wouldn't you say that it goes back to Socrates? In the Crito isn't that how he explains his decision to accept execution rather than flee Athens? The laws gave him everythi..."You are right Patrice, and to Plato. This is the Socratic argument:-
http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#H1
Even so, in the terms of The Golden Rule the idea of the social contract/reciprocity goes back at least as far as Confucious' Analects:-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/con...
However, Dostoevsky was opposed to Rousseau's ideas, which were permeating Western society in his time, which he came across when he travelled in Europe and thought decadent. He was essentially an autocrat not a democrat. There are some observations about his views in this online book Dostoevsky the Thinker:-
http://books.google.com/books?id=lbMY...
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
Notes from Underground, White Nights, The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, and Selections from The House of the Dead (other topics)The House of the Dead (other topics)
Crime and Punishment (other topics)
The Idiot (other topics)
The House of the Dead (other topics)
More...
Ah, maybe you can help me here. Do you think his works can be better understood if read in chronological order?