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 4 - Part II, Book Five
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Nov 27, 2010 07:29PM
Here is the Book 5 thread. This includes The Rebellion and the Grand Inquisitor, so people should have some interesting things to say. The floor is obviously wide open for religious discussion on this one. Have fun.
reply
|
flag
Patrice wrote: "I agree, that was a great way of putting it."Patrice wrote: "I agree, that was a great way of putting it."
I came across this excellent analysis of 'Ivan Karamazov's Mistake' by a Professor of Theology and think others might appreciate it (there is some Nietzche here HB:)):-
http://payingattentiontothesky.com/20...
MadgeUK wrote: "I came across this excellent analysis of 'Ivan Karamazov's Mistake' by a Professor of Theology and think others might appreciate it (there is some Nietzche here HB:)):- http://payingattentiontoth..."
Thanks, Madge! I've copied it to read when I have more time.
Patrice wrote: "I've been reading it too Madge. It's long! Hope to finish it soon, but it's very interesting. Thanks."I echo these words.
Thanks Madge! A very interesting read. I think this paragraph succinctly captures a lot of what BK is about:
"...The most notable fact about the monastic elder and his young disciple is that, unlike Ivan, they are not Euclidean men. They believe that, in the most important matters, parallel lines do indeed meet. Things counter can converge because the deepest truths are not univocal but analogical and paradoxical. Theirs is not a three–dimensional block universe but rather a layered cosmos containing multiple orders of being. For Zosima and Alyosha, the material and immaterial worlds are never distant and remote from each other, as in much of Western thought. The created and uncreated realms are deeply intertwined, each participating in the life of the other."
Can you repost it in the resource thread too? There is some very useful info about Russian Orthodox belief in there.
"...The most notable fact about the monastic elder and his young disciple is that, unlike Ivan, they are not Euclidean men. They believe that, in the most important matters, parallel lines do indeed meet. Things counter can converge because the deepest truths are not univocal but analogical and paradoxical. Theirs is not a three–dimensional block universe but rather a layered cosmos containing multiple orders of being. For Zosima and Alyosha, the material and immaterial worlds are never distant and remote from each other, as in much of Western thought. The created and uncreated realms are deeply intertwined, each participating in the life of the other."
Can you repost it in the resource thread too? There is some very useful info about Russian Orthodox belief in there.
Glad it was useful folks. Will post again in Resources.
Patrice wrote: "I have just discovered how it was that Dostoyevsky "loved" the tsar. The Tsar Alexander of his time was a reformer. Unfortunately he was killed by revolutionaries and the tsar that followed was r..."
I looked up Alexander a while back when we first discussed this and I think you're right about Dostoevsky's admiration for "his" tsar. But he also embraces the concept of tsar as something that Russians need at the top of the social order. He seems rather feudal in the way he prefers society to be structured.
I looked up Alexander a while back when we first discussed this and I think you're right about Dostoevsky's admiration for "his" tsar. But he also embraces the concept of tsar as something that Russians need at the top of the social order. He seems rather feudal in the way he prefers society to be structured.
Is anyone trying to read Frank's biography as a complement, or for ancillary material?
Kate wrote: "He seems rather feudal in the way he prefers society to be structured. ..."Feudal is a good word Kate because the old Russia Dostoevsky was making a plea for was indeed feudal. That was one of its problems because other parts of Europe had long moved out of feudalism and they hadn't. It was the ability of agricultural workers to move freely from their villages which enabled the 17C British Agricultural Revolution and later their ability to move from the land to factories in English towns fuelled the 18C British Industrial Revolution. Serfdom had been abolished in England in 1574 and in France in 1789.
From Wikipedia on Russian serfdom: 'By the mid-19th century, the peasants composed a majority of the population, and according to the census of 1857 the number of private serfs was 23.1 million out of 62.5 million Russians,37.7% of the population.....The exact numbers, according to official data, were: entire population 60,909,309; peasantry of all classes 49,486,665; state peasants 23,138,191; peasants on the lands of proprietors 23,022,390; peasants of the appanages and other departments 3,326,084.[8] State peasants were considered personally free, but their freedom of movement was restricted...In 1861 all serfs were freed in a major agrarian reform. However all the land stayed in noble hands and labor rent lasted till 1868. It was replaced with landless laborers and sharecropping (halbkörner)....The nobles kept nearly all the meadows and forests, had their debts paid by the state while the ex serfs paid 34% over the market price for the shrunken plots they kept.'
In those parts of Eastern Europe which bordered with Russia or were in its sphere of influence, like Austro-Hungary and part of Germany/Prussia, serfdom remained until the mid-19C.
So Dostoevsky offers a life of servitude. I would rather rebel from time to time and suffer the consequences. Maybe if I had spent four years in a Siberian penal colony I would think otherwise.
John wrote: "Is anyone trying to read Frank's biography as a complement, or for ancillary material?"
Which bio, John? Do you have a link?
Which bio, John? Do you have a link?
Patrice wrote: "I just had a thought and I thought I'd throw it out there. Take it for what it's worth.
I think what Dos. is saying is that man is born a rebel.
He will do as he pleases to prove his freedom. Ea..."
Patrice, were you part of the Western Canon group when we did Paradise Lost? Milton wrestled with that same idea, albeit from a completely different religious viewpoint. But the idea of graceful submission to God's will, of obeying God for your own well being are definitely front and center. It's interesting in a way that both the mystic (Dos.) and the Puritan (Milton) arrive at the same place via different paths.
I think what Dos. is saying is that man is born a rebel.
He will do as he pleases to prove his freedom. Ea..."
Patrice, were you part of the Western Canon group when we did Paradise Lost? Milton wrestled with that same idea, albeit from a completely different religious viewpoint. But the idea of graceful submission to God's will, of obeying God for your own well being are definitely front and center. It's interesting in a way that both the mystic (Dos.) and the Puritan (Milton) arrive at the same place via different paths.
Yes, much of mystic Dos is reminiscent of puritanical Milton. Presumably 'faith' in whatever religion keeps you on the same straight and narrow path. The word Islam means submission to God so presumably there are Muslim writers who have arrived 'at the same place' too.
What is 'truth'? What is a 'good life'? I suspect that my life falls well outside of what many religious people would call a good life. It isn't that living this mythical good life is servitude, it is the idea of doing so at the behest of a supernatural being or, for that matter, at the behest of a benevolent dictator were I to live under such a regime.
Patrice wrote: "I agree. I think that's why the Grand Inquisitor said that it was a "mistake" to expect people to come to Christ in freedom. It's expecting a lot.
I think that everyone has to come to their ow..."
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large -- I contain multitudes."
— Walt Whitman
I think that everyone has to come to their ow..."
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large -- I contain multitudes."
— Walt Whitman
In Book 1, Ch iv, Dos. (talking about Aloysha) says this about socialism and atheism:
As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: “I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise.” In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labor 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.”
This fear that socialism will create a "heaven on earth" and thus turn men's minds away from the idea of redemption (immortality?) through God is restated in the Grand Inquisitor.
Don't you have to conclude from this that Dos. saw suffering as a necessary human condition? That without suffering there would be no need for God and without God everything would devolve to anarchy? It is a very interesting argument that shared suffering prevents anarchy.
As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: “I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise.” In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labor 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.”
This fear that socialism will create a "heaven on earth" and thus turn men's minds away from the idea of redemption (immortality?) through God is restated in the Grand Inquisitor.
Don't you have to conclude from this that Dos. saw suffering as a necessary human condition? That without suffering there would be no need for God and without God everything would devolve to anarchy? It is a very interesting argument that shared suffering prevents anarchy.
Kate wrote: "John wrote: "Is anyone trying to read Frank's biography as a complement, or for ancillary material?"Which bio, John? Do you have a link?"
Kate -
Joseph Frank, whom most people consider to be the premier living scholar of Dostoyevsky, wrote a five-volume biography which he spent about 30 years working on. In total, the thing comes in at around 3,000 pages, but there is a "condensed version" at just under 1,000 pages. Here's a link to the condensed version:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49...
For those interested in focusing in on the novel itself, the condensed version has a 65-page discussion, interpretation, historical/contextual analysis of the entire book. The original fifth volume (not condensed) has 140 pages of the same. If anyone else is curious about the contents of the volumes, you can view all the tables of contents on Amazon.
I'm very tempted to treat myself to the fifth volume for Christmas just so I can read his undiluted comments on the novel.
John wrote: "For those interested in focusing in on the novel itself, the condensed version has a 65-page discussion, interpretation, historical/contextual analysis of the entire book."
Sounds interesting. I'll check the library. Someone will have it. ILL is a great thing :)
Sounds interesting. I'll check the library. Someone will have it. ILL is a great thing :)
Patrice wrote: "Kate wrote: "In Book 1, Ch iv, Dos. (talking about Aloysha) says this about socialism and atheism:
As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and a..."
No I copied that from the Garnett translation on line at Gutenberg. But the Avsey that I'm using is almost identical. Sorry. It's in Chapter v, not iv. Somewhere around p. 23.
ETA: As far as what the Grand Inquisitor says about socialism I found it implied in his discussion on how to control the masses in the first temptation of Christ:
Thou wouldst go into the world, and art going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand,...But seest Thou these stones in this parched and barren wilderness? Turn them into bread, and mankind will run after Thee like a flock of sheep, grateful and obedient...But Thou wouldst not deprive man of freedom and didst reject the offer, thinking, what is that freedom worth, if obedience is bought with bread? Thou didst reply that man lives not by bread alone. But dost Thou know that for the sake of that earthly bread the spirit of the earth will rise up against Thee...Dost Thou know that the ages will pass, and humanity will proclaim by the lips of their sages that there is no crime, and therefore no sin; there is only hunger?...Thou mightest have...cut short the sufferings of men for a thousand years...They will find us and cry to us, “Feed us...And we alone shall feed them in Thy name, declaring falsely that it is in Thy name. Oh, never, never can they feed themselves without us! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us.” They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man? And if for the sake of the bread of Heaven thousands shall follow Thee, what is to become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? Or dost Thou care only for the tens of thousands of the great and strong, while the millions, numerous as the sands of the sea, who are weak but love Thee, must exist only for the sake of the great and strong?
Second ETA: I don't think Dostoevsky advocates suffering for its own sake. I meant he sees it as a normal, even necessary, human condition which can be transcended by love of God and even mitigated by the love of other people. But that mitigation has to be an act of will (love), not the mechanistic depersonalized function of the state or church (socialism). Thus society remains connected through love of God and acts that result from it.
But if the state (church) can supply all of man's temporal needs, then life on earth becomes very pleasant and immortality isn't as pressing an issue. In Dos. view, this would lead to atheism. So my conclusion is that his religious views require a certain degree of unrelieved physical hardship.
As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and a..."
No I copied that from the Garnett translation on line at Gutenberg. But the Avsey that I'm using is almost identical. Sorry. It's in Chapter v, not iv. Somewhere around p. 23.
ETA: As far as what the Grand Inquisitor says about socialism I found it implied in his discussion on how to control the masses in the first temptation of Christ:
Thou wouldst go into the world, and art going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand,...But seest Thou these stones in this parched and barren wilderness? Turn them into bread, and mankind will run after Thee like a flock of sheep, grateful and obedient...But Thou wouldst not deprive man of freedom and didst reject the offer, thinking, what is that freedom worth, if obedience is bought with bread? Thou didst reply that man lives not by bread alone. But dost Thou know that for the sake of that earthly bread the spirit of the earth will rise up against Thee...Dost Thou know that the ages will pass, and humanity will proclaim by the lips of their sages that there is no crime, and therefore no sin; there is only hunger?...Thou mightest have...cut short the sufferings of men for a thousand years...They will find us and cry to us, “Feed us...And we alone shall feed them in Thy name, declaring falsely that it is in Thy name. Oh, never, never can they feed themselves without us! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us.” They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man? And if for the sake of the bread of Heaven thousands shall follow Thee, what is to become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? Or dost Thou care only for the tens of thousands of the great and strong, while the millions, numerous as the sands of the sea, who are weak but love Thee, must exist only for the sake of the great and strong?
Second ETA: I don't think Dostoevsky advocates suffering for its own sake. I meant he sees it as a normal, even necessary, human condition which can be transcended by love of God and even mitigated by the love of other people. But that mitigation has to be an act of will (love), not the mechanistic depersonalized function of the state or church (socialism). Thus society remains connected through love of God and acts that result from it.
But if the state (church) can supply all of man's temporal needs, then life on earth becomes very pleasant and immortality isn't as pressing an issue. In Dos. view, this would lead to atheism. So my conclusion is that his religious views require a certain degree of unrelieved physical hardship.
Patrice wrote: "My chapter 5 is "So Be it! So Be It". It's about the ecclesiastic courts. I'll have to look in the morning."
My chapter 5 is "Startsy", so it's probably the same. It's within 2 pages of the beginning of the chapter.
My chapter 5 is "Startsy", so it's probably the same. It's within 2 pages of the beginning of the chapter.
Patrice wrote: "I just had a thought and I thought I'd throw it out there. Take it for what it's worth.
I think what Dos. is saying is that man is born a rebel.
He will do as he pleases to prove his freedom. Ea..."
I see it very similarly...but slightly differently. I think he's saying that man rebels when man feels/thinks he's being told what he should do...not as an advisement, but as a "should:"....man rebels when he doesn't think/feel that choices are available to him.
That's why Dos. hated the Grand Inquistor. The GI was making everything nice for the people/the cattle. BTW, the name of the village means something like "beast pen." It made me think of the movie out a few years ago, Babe in which the animals were all nicely taken care of...no troubles, mate...no souls either...and then they went peacefully to the slaughter...and died like animals.
I suspect that Fyodor Karamazov acts the buffoon, as he self-destructively does, as a giant middle finger to society. His wives, or his society, or both, have told him how he "should" behave. "I'll show them," resolves Fyodor. It's not particularly "the good life," but it's a lifestyle freely CHOSEN.
I think what Dos. is saying is that man is born a rebel.
He will do as he pleases to prove his freedom. Ea..."
I see it very similarly...but slightly differently. I think he's saying that man rebels when man feels/thinks he's being told what he should do...not as an advisement, but as a "should:"....man rebels when he doesn't think/feel that choices are available to him.
That's why Dos. hated the Grand Inquistor. The GI was making everything nice for the people/the cattle. BTW, the name of the village means something like "beast pen." It made me think of the movie out a few years ago, Babe in which the animals were all nicely taken care of...no troubles, mate...no souls either...and then they went peacefully to the slaughter...and died like animals.
I suspect that Fyodor Karamazov acts the buffoon, as he self-destructively does, as a giant middle finger to society. His wives, or his society, or both, have told him how he "should" behave. "I'll show them," resolves Fyodor. It's not particularly "the good life," but it's a lifestyle freely CHOSEN.
This fear that socialism will create a "heaven on earth..If only! The early socialists were much more idealistic than those of today although they were not all atheists by any means. Tolstoy took up socialist ideas and remained religious, for instance. It was French socialism which preached atheism at this time, English and American socialism didn't. The author of The Water Babies, Charles Kingsley, was one of the leaders of the English Christian Socialist Movement from 1848 to 1854 and the Society of Christian Socialists was founded in America by the Rev Bliss in 1889. Dosteovsky got a lot of his ideas about socialism from his stay in Paris. Socialism was also strongly criticized in the 1878 papal encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris by Pope Leo XIII.
God may or may not exist. Otherwise, why would he say "Given a choice between "truth" and "God" I choose God." He knows there is no certainty in this world.
From Dostoyevsky's POV, there MUST be uncertainty over the existence of God. If God had "proved" himself beyond a doubt to man, if Jesus, in the GI story had taken the power and "proven" himself beyond a doubt to man, then man would have no choice ... man would HAVE to believe ... man's belief would be automatic...and worthless...coersided (spelling?) by the weight of non-negotiable facts.
From Dostoyevsky's POV, there MUST be uncertainty over the existence of God. If God had "proved" himself beyond a doubt to man, if Jesus, in the GI story had taken the power and "proven" himself beyond a doubt to man, then man would have no choice ... man would HAVE to believe ... man's belief would be automatic...and worthless...coersided (spelling?) by the weight of non-negotiable facts.
Patrice, the "Nationalism" of the National Socialists was much more important than the "Socialism" when thinking about the Nazis as a movement.
Patrice wrote: So, what I think Dos. is saying is, obey. The rules laid out by God are good ones to live by. Yes, you want to rebel and spite God and everyone else but don't. The rules are there to protect you from yourself.
I, too, think he's saying these "rules" are good to live by. But man has a choice. And it's the choice that makes all the difference. Man has a little God in him. If he can get in touch with his own inner divinity, then he can will himself --- of his own free will --- to care for himself and for his society: We are all responsible for everyone. And man has a little Devil in him. If he succombs to the self-centered aspects ... then there are all the horrors Ivan described.
Interestingly, Father Zosimma said something to the effect, We are all responsible for everyone. Ivan said something to the effect, No one is guilty.
Certainly not Ivan, to Ivan's mind. Ivan took no actions to improve the lives of anyone else. I think he valued himself for his intellect. Maybe that was all he felt was of value in himself. His ability to outargue others. Cleverly constructed agruments that showed off his talents. No matter their effect on others.
I, too, think he's saying these "rules" are good to live by. But man has a choice. And it's the choice that makes all the difference. Man has a little God in him. If he can get in touch with his own inner divinity, then he can will himself --- of his own free will --- to care for himself and for his society: We are all responsible for everyone. And man has a little Devil in him. If he succombs to the self-centered aspects ... then there are all the horrors Ivan described.
Interestingly, Father Zosimma said something to the effect, We are all responsible for everyone. Ivan said something to the effect, No one is guilty.
Certainly not Ivan, to Ivan's mind. Ivan took no actions to improve the lives of anyone else. I think he valued himself for his intellect. Maybe that was all he felt was of value in himself. His ability to outargue others. Cleverly constructed agruments that showed off his talents. No matter their effect on others.
Adelle said: "Certainly not Ivan, to Ivan's mind. Ivan took no actions to improve the lives of anyone else. I think he valued himself for his intellect. Maybe that was all he felt was of value in himself. His ability to outargue others. Cleverly constructed arguments that showed off his talents. No matter their effect on others."I think Dostoyevsky might have said that Ivan is the hubris of the "head" (the intellect) and the individual person in service of nothing but themselves. Alexei is the heart, in service of everyone.
MadgeUK wrote: "So Dostoevsky offers a life of servitude. I would rather rebel from time to time and suffer the consequences. Maybe if I had spent four years in a Siberian penal colony I would think otherwise."
But it's not the peasants or the serfs that are rebelling in TBK.
And it's not the Father Zossimas, leading lives of service, that are rebelling.
It's the people who already "have"/and aren't sacrificing who are rebelling.
Maybe I misunderstood your positon. What sort of servitude are you referring to.
But it's not the peasants or the serfs that are rebelling in TBK.
And it's not the Father Zossimas, leading lives of service, that are rebelling.
It's the people who already "have"/and aren't sacrificing who are rebelling.
Maybe I misunderstood your positon. What sort of servitude are you referring to.
I sort of read the "rebellion" as something that will eventually happen to all of, as it were, God's creatures who naturally resist their place in Dostoyevsky's feudal-moral world. The people who have and the people who don't rebel throughout the novel, no?
MadgeUK wrote: "Yes, much of mystic Dos is reminiscent of puritanical Milton. Presumably 'faith' in whatever religion keeps you on the same straight and narrow path. The word Islam means submission to God so pr..."
Except, I think, not "faith." Smerdykov was right about that mountain. Man is not capable of that sort of sustained faith. Dos, too, wrote that he was "the child of his age" and had doubts. Faith doesn't keep one on the straight and narrow. It's the decision, made by choice, to walk that path.
Interesting on the definition of Islam.
Except, I think, not "faith." Smerdykov was right about that mountain. Man is not capable of that sort of sustained faith. Dos, too, wrote that he was "the child of his age" and had doubts. Faith doesn't keep one on the straight and narrow. It's the decision, made by choice, to walk that path.
Interesting on the definition of Islam.
Patrice wrote: "Madge, perhaps you could explain to me why the Nazi Party considered itself "socialist"? At the beginning of his administration, Hitler pursued certain popular socialist policies, like the building of the autobahns with public money but other than that his ideology did not resemble the policies of other socialist parties in Europe which were never, for instance, anti-semitic. The Nazi Party was unique in Europe and is not to be confused with other socialist parties. They were never members of the Socialist International. It pursued a right wing ideology based on a combination of the anti-Semitism of the counter-revolutionary right, and the socialism, nationalism, and republicanism of the 19C French anti-liberal left. Some of the first people who Hitler imprisoned were socialists and communists who belonged to the Internationale. In the main and throughout the world, socialists are internationalists, not nationalists.
The Nazi party had its origins, pre Hitler, in the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, NSDAP). After Hitler came to power in 1933 the membership changed, trade unionists were imprisoned, and the word Nazi came to be used derisively by those opposed to Hitler. After the war it was renamed the Social Democratic Party. European socialists (as opposed to communists) have always been in favour of democracy.
Patrice wrote: One thing I couldn't make sense of in the GI, didn't Christ perform miracles? Even in the GI he brought a girl back to life. I couldn't understand why Ivan was saying that Christ refused to perform miracles.
He didn't when the devil tempted Him to. (See the temptation in the wilderness.) His miracles were all for the purpose of giving glory to God and leading people to Him. He was not in the business of bread and circuses.
Message 34.
Oh, yeah. I forgot about the burnings and such. I was just remembering the bread. Ok, will go back and re-read.
Thank you.
Oh, yeah. I forgot about the burnings and such. I was just remembering the bread. Ok, will go back and re-read.
Thank you.
Adelle wrote: Interestingly, Father Zosimma said something to the effect, We are all responsible for everyone. This perhaps accounts for Dostoevsky's fear of socialism, which preached the same thing and was therefore a competing ideology. The old 1918 Clause IV of the British Labour Party, setting out its Aims and Values, encapsulates this sharing principle quite well:-
'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'
Tolstoy's communes were founded upon these principles and he corresponded with leading socialist thinkers like George Bernard Shaw in England and Henry George in America.
Adelle wrote: "Message 34.
Oh, yeah. I forgot about the burnings and such. I was just remembering the bread. Ok, will go back and re-read.
Thank you."
Well the GI was all about controlling the population and ensuring their absolute loyalty. Feeding the masses was one element of that. Burning a few heretics in the auto da fe falls into the category of pour encourager les autres.
Oh, yeah. I forgot about the burnings and such. I was just remembering the bread. Ok, will go back and re-read.
Thank you."
Well the GI was all about controlling the population and ensuring their absolute loyalty. Feeding the masses was one element of that. Burning a few heretics in the auto da fe falls into the category of pour encourager les autres.
MadgeUK wrote: "Adelle wrote: Interestingly, Father Zosimma said something to the effect, We are all responsible for everyone.
Madge wrote: This perhaps accounts for Dostoevsky's fear of socialism, which preached the same th..." Post 45.
I think this is an important point to respond to.
I got the sense that Dostoevsky despised socialism and viewed it as a wrong path for mankind to follow. Perhaps, though, your use of the word "fear" is appropriate.
Perhaps he "feared"/was deeply concerned...that people would be deceived by socialism....much like in the GI story....that they would be beguiled by what was presented to them as benefits...and would be willing, perhaps even eager, to give up their freedoms in exchange for someone/some government agency/(some Church become State---so again, your terminology.... "socialism, which preached..." was especially apt)...
perhaps Dos. did fear socialism in that way.
Because on the surface, socialism seemed, if one didn't look too closely, to be "preaching" the same thing as Father Zosimma.
But in reality, Father Zosimma and socialism are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Or so it seems to me. (Like Ivan's clever essay...implying one thing, actually advocating something else.)
Father Zosimma said we are all responsible for everyone. Morally. And thus we must engage with our conscience, we must decide how we are going to ... of our own accord ... serve our fellow man.
Socialism,
'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'
Socialism is concerned only with the material aspects of life. Furthermore, the people living and working under the socialist model do not have the freedom to decide on their own how much they should materially contribute to the welfare of another.
On the contrary, whatever the Entity in Control determines to be the correct amount ... due ... for the welfare of the various workers will be "secured."
It's a mechanical distribution of material goods enforced by the Entitiy without any valuation of individuals as individuals; nor did the conscience, the soul, of the individuals ever come into play...they never had the opportunity to learn to give...they simply learned to accept being taken from. Just as the the GI enforced a mechanical "justice system." The conscience, the soul, of those being judged was never engaged, and thus those individuals never improved as human beings.
It wasn't, I thought, that Dos thought that man would build himself the Tower of Babel and create a heaven on earth. It was that Dos thought that man would decide that man himself could/had the capability to build such a tower, would attempt to build, would deceive the people into thinking it was a short-cut route to heaven in which they didn't have to be resposible for the tough decisions in their lives.... and the results would be, well, what we have. Man rules leading to man-made problems.
And, as the responsibilty has been given over to the Entity, then none of the individuals are really responsible....and feel themselves relieved of the need to take any actions to help their fellow man.
Aside: I used to prepare tax returns. A good number of people were of the opionion that they didn't have any obligation or desire to contribute to charity "because the government has already taken my money and distributes it."
Madge wrote: This perhaps accounts for Dostoevsky's fear of socialism, which preached the same th..." Post 45.
I think this is an important point to respond to.
I got the sense that Dostoevsky despised socialism and viewed it as a wrong path for mankind to follow. Perhaps, though, your use of the word "fear" is appropriate.
Perhaps he "feared"/was deeply concerned...that people would be deceived by socialism....much like in the GI story....that they would be beguiled by what was presented to them as benefits...and would be willing, perhaps even eager, to give up their freedoms in exchange for someone/some government agency/(some Church become State---so again, your terminology.... "socialism, which preached..." was especially apt)...
perhaps Dos. did fear socialism in that way.
Because on the surface, socialism seemed, if one didn't look too closely, to be "preaching" the same thing as Father Zosimma.
But in reality, Father Zosimma and socialism are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Or so it seems to me. (Like Ivan's clever essay...implying one thing, actually advocating something else.)
Father Zosimma said we are all responsible for everyone. Morally. And thus we must engage with our conscience, we must decide how we are going to ... of our own accord ... serve our fellow man.
Socialism,
'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'
Socialism is concerned only with the material aspects of life. Furthermore, the people living and working under the socialist model do not have the freedom to decide on their own how much they should materially contribute to the welfare of another.
On the contrary, whatever the Entity in Control determines to be the correct amount ... due ... for the welfare of the various workers will be "secured."
It's a mechanical distribution of material goods enforced by the Entitiy without any valuation of individuals as individuals; nor did the conscience, the soul, of the individuals ever come into play...they never had the opportunity to learn to give...they simply learned to accept being taken from. Just as the the GI enforced a mechanical "justice system." The conscience, the soul, of those being judged was never engaged, and thus those individuals never improved as human beings.
It wasn't, I thought, that Dos thought that man would build himself the Tower of Babel and create a heaven on earth. It was that Dos thought that man would decide that man himself could/had the capability to build such a tower, would attempt to build, would deceive the people into thinking it was a short-cut route to heaven in which they didn't have to be resposible for the tough decisions in their lives.... and the results would be, well, what we have. Man rules leading to man-made problems.
And, as the responsibilty has been given over to the Entity, then none of the individuals are really responsible....and feel themselves relieved of the need to take any actions to help their fellow man.
Aside: I used to prepare tax returns. A good number of people were of the opionion that they didn't have any obligation or desire to contribute to charity "because the government has already taken my money and distributes it."
Well, I could, of course be mistaken.
But I'm reading really slowly. Because that's the only way I can mull.
But I'm reading really slowly. Because that's the only way I can mull.
I think you've captured Dos. stance very well.
A casual look through this wiki article on religion in europe would seem to indicate that the more socialistic countries are ones with the lowest % belief in "a god" so you could say Dos. was right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion...
On the other hand, if you look carefully, this trend is offset by the large numbers who believe in a "spirit or life force" instead. Perhaps in Dostoevsky's view these would be atheists since they aren't bound together through ties of a formal religious faith, of a god who demands belief and obedience.
A casual look through this wiki article on religion in europe would seem to indicate that the more socialistic countries are ones with the lowest % belief in "a god" so you could say Dos. was right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion...
On the other hand, if you look carefully, this trend is offset by the large numbers who believe in a "spirit or life force" instead. Perhaps in Dostoevsky's view these would be atheists since they aren't bound together through ties of a formal religious faith, of a god who demands belief and obedience.
Socialism is concerned only with the material aspects of life. Furthermore, the people living and working under the socialist model do not have the freedom to decide on their own how much they should materially contribute to the welfare of another.I find this to be a blanket condemnation of socialism and not at all related to the socialism I have seen practised in Europe and Scandinavia during my long lifetime (and I am NOT referring to communism).
Socialism is a political philosophy, not a spiritual one, although the beliefs in welfare provision are about the more spiritual aspects of well-being, like happiness and good health. Socialists also believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence that 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' and that people have a right to 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. The difference is that some of them do not believe these rights were 'endowed' by a creator but that they were fought for by man/woman.
All taxation systems, even in capitalist countries, take away the freedom of what people contribute to. Thus we all contribute to wars, whether we want to or not. Nor is the redistribution of wealth 'mechanical' in socialist countries, it is the result of a great deal of social research and parliamentary debate. Manifestos regarding such redistribution are voted upon. Therefore the conscience of the individual is morally engaged at each election when there are many arguments about such things, just as the Tea Party activists and the Democrats have been arguing about taxation in the capitalist US. Socialists also have the freedom to demonstrate and protest, as can be seen with the recent student protests against the cuts in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. They can also write to newspapers, lobby their MPs etc etc.
Aside: I used to prepare tax returns. A good number of people were of the opionion that they didn't have any obligation or desire to contribute to charity "because the government has already taken my money and distributes it."
The Victorians were great philanthropists but it was found by social reformers of the time that they were also very selective. For instance, charities which sought to help unmarried mothers or prostitutes got very few donations. This is why the early socialists, after much research, decided that state provision was better because the state had a duty to all of its citizens, not just a select few. This also accords with Father Zossima's principle that we must help everyone. Clause IV was just a socialist expression of the Golden Rule - Do as you would be done by. It was also written at a time when extreme poverty and degradation was very common in the wealthy Western world.
they never had the opportunity to learn to give...they simply learned to accept being taken from. Just as the the GI enforced a mechanical "justice system." The conscience, the soul, of those being judged was never engaged, and thus those individuals never improved as human beings.
This is a very blanket judgement! There is a great deal of giving in socialist countries. Norway, for instance, has one of the highest rates of charitable giving in the world. Nor is there any evidence that people in socialist countries have not improved as human beings or are any better or worse than those in capitalist countries. The socialist Scandinavian countries have some of the highest standards of living in the world, with very little poverty.
and the results would be, well, what we have. Man rules leading to man-made problems.
It was ever thus - nothing to do with socialism. Indeed in the very religious Medieval period the lives of ordinary people were dire - or as Hobbes put it later 'nasty, brutish and short'. It could therefore be argued that since the Enlightenment, the ideas behind the 'social contract' regarding 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité' have contributed a great deal towards the 'pursuit of happiness' and that people's lives have improved - slavery has been abolished, both men and women are enfranchised, children are better cared for, democracy flourishes and so on. These things have not been accomplished by taking away people'e freedom as individuals, they have been the result of better education and welfare for all, not just for the few, via redistribution of national wealth - even in the capitalist US.
Kate: I do not think we can say that the decline of religion in Europe and Scandinavia is the result of socialism. There has been a backlash against the church since Luther's time and a great deal of oppression and injustice was perpetrated by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches, which caused people to reappraise religion. As you say, many still believe in a 'spirit or life force' and in gods but they appear to have lost their faith in the church. When asked about their beliefs folks over here will often say that they believe in 'something'. I think Somethingism is more popular than Atheism but there isn't a space for it on the Census forms:). It may also be a fear of 'not letting go of Nurse for fear of finding something worse.'
Dostoevsky seemed to have had the opposite experience, he went to Siberia because of his socialist/anarchist activities and came out an arch conservative. Reading some of his more hysterical passages about socialism, I sometimes think that he had a great fear of again being arrested for dissident ideas so he made quite sure he never expressed any again! Methinks he perhaps protested too much!
MadgeUK wrote: "Socialism is concerned only with the material aspects of life. Furthermore, the people living and working under the socialist model do not have the freedom to decide on their own how much they shou..."
I don't think there is a causality between socialism and lack of belief in a single God. But there is an interesting correlation between the two. I just pointed out that one could use that data to support Dostoevsky's personal arguments against socialism.
I don't think there is a causality between socialism and lack of belief in a single God. But there is an interesting correlation between the two. I just pointed out that one could use that data to support Dostoevsky's personal arguments against socialism.
Thanks Kate, I realise that and you are right that you could use that data. I do think it is a great mistake to think that the church is not concerned with material wealth. Both the Orthodox and Catholic churches are enormously wealthy, as anyone who visits Vatican City or St Petersburg can see. They own vast tracts of land all over the world, priceless works of art, gold plate, jewels etc etc and have done so for centuries. When I was 16, just after the war, I visited Southern Ireland (Eire) which was strongly catholic but very poor. I was appalled to see poor, ragged people begging in the streets in villages where the church was displaying many gold and jewel encrusted artefacts and where their priests wore gold embroidered, expensive vestments. I understand this is still true many other catholic and orthodox countries, where the church has accrued material wealth which vastly exceeds that of any political party.
Monasteries, such as the one Father Zossima lives in, are also extremely wealthy and own huge tracts of land and many valuable artefacts. These passages from Chapters 7-13 of TBK illustrate the wealth and good living which the monks were accustomed to, even though beggars waited outside the hermitage gates:-
'It was strange that their arrival did not seem expected, and that they were not received with special honour, though one of them had recently made a donation of a thousand roubles, while another was a very wealthy and highly cultured landowner, upon whom all in the monastery were in a sense dependent as a decision of the lawsuit might at any moment put their fishing rights in his hands.'
'Before one huge ancient ikon of the virgin a lamp was burning. Near it were two other holy pictures in shining settings, and, next them, carved cherubim, china eggs, a Catholic cross of ivory, with a Mater Dolorosa embracing it, and several foreign engravings from the great Italian artists of past centuries.'
'...there were three kinds of well-baked bread, two bottles of wine, two of excellent mead, and a large glass jug of kvas -- both the latter made in the monastery, and famous in the neighbourhood. There was no vodka. Rakitin related afterwards that there were five dishes: fish-soup made of sterlets, served with little fish patties; then boiled fish served in a special way; then salmon cutlets, ice pudding and compote, and finally, blanc-mange.'
Not exactly a non-materialistic lifestyle!
It can be seen from this list of where the Russian Orthodox church gets its income, that a great deal of materialism is still involved:-
http://www.eastwestreport.org/article...
A bit off-topic but in the first of these two debates Christopher Hitchens tackles the subject of submission and in the second Tony Blair tackles the spiritual aspect of faith:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msnKNd...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq9RO3...
(There are 9 parts of these Munk debates from Canada on Is Religion a Force for Good on Youtube.)
Chris Hitchens is so good at thinking he's clever. One wonders how many hours he stood in front of a mirror vainly wondering if his bald head would detract from his mordant wit.
Kate Mc. wrote: "Don't you have to conclude from this that Dos. saw suffering as a necessary human condition? That without suffering there would be no need for God and without God everything would devolve to anarchy?.
Post 24
Dostoyevsky certainly doesn't downplay suffering in his book.
Yes, I, too, think that Dostoyesky saw it as necessary. That without suffering man wouldn't find God. Probably wouldn't even look for Him.
Dos.'s concern, it seems, is that without suffering, probably without a good deal of suffering--- in his own case, maybe without a mock execution and four years in Siberia--- man wouldn't even make the effort to search his own soul to discover what was missing, and would not look for his connection to God. The more most men's basic needs were being met, the less motivation such men would have to search for God...with so many of his earthly needs being met, I think Dos says, his proper balance...which should prompt him to look seriously for spiritual answers...would be deadened... * Such a man would be lost, spiritually.
In The Underground Man Dos. wrote of suffering: "it is the sole cause of the awakening of consciousness."
*Lize's mother, Mrs. Hahlakov, from the chapter entitled "A Lady of Little Faith," she with the beautifully gloved hands and the dreams of forsaking the burden she's been given (Lize) to help the deserving she hasn't met personally with their unspecified burdens...if only they are grateful enough to her...She comes to mind.
Given the duality of man, with a spiritual side to be realized and developed, and a natural, earthy side insistent on its demands being met, man is, it seems Dos. would say, quite purposefully designed to suffer.
Don't feel I can speak much towards the anarchy aspect. On the larger, social scale, I might think of Tito and how he kept Yugoslavia together and avoided outright anarchy for so many years.
On the other hand, what anarchy there must have been suppressed just under the thin veneer of ... non-anarchy, as all hell broke out when he died.
Post 24
Dostoyevsky certainly doesn't downplay suffering in his book.
Yes, I, too, think that Dostoyesky saw it as necessary. That without suffering man wouldn't find God. Probably wouldn't even look for Him.
Dos.'s concern, it seems, is that without suffering, probably without a good deal of suffering--- in his own case, maybe without a mock execution and four years in Siberia--- man wouldn't even make the effort to search his own soul to discover what was missing, and would not look for his connection to God. The more most men's basic needs were being met, the less motivation such men would have to search for God...with so many of his earthly needs being met, I think Dos says, his proper balance...which should prompt him to look seriously for spiritual answers...would be deadened... * Such a man would be lost, spiritually.
In The Underground Man Dos. wrote of suffering: "it is the sole cause of the awakening of consciousness."
*Lize's mother, Mrs. Hahlakov, from the chapter entitled "A Lady of Little Faith," she with the beautifully gloved hands and the dreams of forsaking the burden she's been given (Lize) to help the deserving she hasn't met personally with their unspecified burdens...if only they are grateful enough to her...She comes to mind.
Given the duality of man, with a spiritual side to be realized and developed, and a natural, earthy side insistent on its demands being met, man is, it seems Dos. would say, quite purposefully designed to suffer.
Don't feel I can speak much towards the anarchy aspect. On the larger, social scale, I might think of Tito and how he kept Yugoslavia together and avoided outright anarchy for so many years.
On the other hand, what anarchy there must have been suppressed just under the thin veneer of ... non-anarchy, as all hell broke out when he died.
Kate Mc. wrote: "Second ETA: I don't think Dostoevsky advocates suffering for its own sake. I meant he sees it as a normal, even necessary, human condition which can be transcended by love of God and even mitigated by the love of other people. But that mitigation has to be an act of will (love), not the mechanistic depersonalized function of the state or church (socialism). Thus society remains connected through love of God and acts that result from it.
But if the state (church) can supply all of man's temporal needs, then life on earth becomes very pleasant and immortality isn't as pressing an issue. In Dos. view, this would lead to atheism. So my conclusion is that his religious views require a certain degree of unrelieved physical hardship.
..."
Ignore my post above. This says, I think, about the same thing, and says it much better. Thank you.
Also, what does ETA stand for? I googled and found a long list of possibles, my favorite being: Elvis Tribute Artist...but not, I think, your use of the acronym.
But if the state (church) can supply all of man's temporal needs, then life on earth becomes very pleasant and immortality isn't as pressing an issue. In Dos. view, this would lead to atheism. So my conclusion is that his religious views require a certain degree of unrelieved physical hardship.
..."
Ignore my post above. This says, I think, about the same thing, and says it much better. Thank you.
Also, what does ETA stand for? I googled and found a long list of possibles, my favorite being: Elvis Tribute Artist...but not, I think, your use of the acronym.
Adelle wrote: "Well, I could, of course be mistaken.But I'm reading really slowly. Because that's the only way I can mull."
Adelle, I, too, think your analysis of socialism is brilliant and is just what Dostoevsky was warning against. I especially like your remarks about the new Babel.
Patrice wrote: Post 34
But the GI was he making things nice for people? I know he gave that as an excuse. But he burned people! The GI, I think, wanted power..."
I see that I, too, had scribbled in the margins, "GI. Power."
Well, he made it easier in this world...for most people. The ones he didn't burn. They didn't have to wrestle with what was right and what was wrong. The people could indulge their earthy desires: "Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell tehm that every sin will be atoned if it is done with our permission...[and promise them heaven]...Though if there were anything in the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they" (239 CG translation).
But the GI was he making things nice for people? I know he gave that as an excuse. But he burned people! The GI, I think, wanted power..."
I see that I, too, had scribbled in the margins, "GI. Power."
Well, he made it easier in this world...for most people. The ones he didn't burn. They didn't have to wrestle with what was right and what was wrong. The people could indulge their earthy desires: "Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell tehm that every sin will be atoned if it is done with our permission...[and promise them heaven]...Though if there were anything in the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they" (239 CG translation).
Adelle wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "Second ETA: I don't think Dostoevsky advocates suffering for its own sake. I meant he sees it as a normal, even necessary, human condition which can be transcended by love of God a..."
ETA = Edited To Add. Sorry. I'm turning into an acronym junkie around here to speed up my slow and clumsy typing. I usually don't bother with this unless I think I changed my original posting substantially.
I thought your comment on Tito was interesting. His ability to hold the Balkans together and quiescent for so long has always amazed me. Especially, as you say, because all hell broke loose as soon as he wasn't holding the reins.
ETA = Edited To Add. Sorry. I'm turning into an acronym junkie around here to speed up my slow and clumsy typing. I usually don't bother with this unless I think I changed my original posting substantially.
I thought your comment on Tito was interesting. His ability to hold the Balkans together and quiescent for so long has always amazed me. Especially, as you say, because all hell broke loose as soon as he wasn't holding the reins.
Laurele wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Well, I could, of course be mistaken.
But I'm reading really slowly. Because that's the only way I can mull."
Adelle, I, too, think your analysis of socialism is brilliant and is ..."
Yes, I thought your remarks were excellent and well thought out.
But I'm reading really slowly. Because that's the only way I can mull."
Adelle, I, too, think your analysis of socialism is brilliant and is ..."
Yes, I thought your remarks were excellent and well thought out.
MadgeUK wrote: "Socialism"
Madge, I so appreiciate your writing a long, thoughtful, response. But, oh, how difficult it will be to see what you wrote AND to see what I wrote. Guess I can only try. I respect your opinions, but I differ.
I've never been to Europe and obviously have no first-hand knowledge of life there. I can't speak to actual life there. I was using the term socialism from my general sense... but still, you moved me to look it up.
From Wikipedia: "The socialist perspective is generally based on materialism and the understanding that human behavior is largely shaped by the social."
And in looking up materialism, from Wikipedia, "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, materialism denies the existence of both deities and "souls."[23] It is therefore incompatible with most world religions including Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In Buddhism, materialistic beliefs are considered wrong view, and holds that the all-out pursuit of wealth and other external commodities encouraged by materialism is dangerous and self-destructive since such a system encourages attachment to the material realm which is ultimately transitory in nature and thus increases the amount of pain and suffering in the world."
I had thought that from Dostoyevsky's point of view, socialism would be held to be a negative.
Socialism is a political philosophy, not a spiritual one, although the beliefs in welfare provision are about the more spiritual aspects of well-being, like happiness and good health. Socialists also believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence that 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' and that people have a right to 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. The difference is that some of them do not believe these rights were 'endowed' by a creator but that they were fought for by man/woman.
But, you see, I don't believe that happiness or good health fall under the category of spiritual. Nice things to have? Oh, my, yes. I want both of those. But I don't think they can be considered spiritual aspects of a person's life.
And regarding Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, I think that Dostoyevsky's criticism was very much directed towards just what you say: to the fact that a good number of socialist hold that those rights came not from their Creator, but from the work of men and women. From Dostoyevsky's argument, wouldn't that be a fair criticism of socialism?
All taxation systems, even in capitalist countries, take away the freedom of what people contribute to. Thus we all contribute to wars, whether we want to or not. Nor is the redistribution of wealth 'mechanical' in socialist countries, it is the result of a great deal of social research and parliamentary debate. Manifestos regarding such redistribution are voted upon. Therefore the conscience of the individual is morally engaged at each election when there are many arguments about such things, just as the Tea Party activists and the Democrats have been arguing about taxation in the capitalist US. Socialists also have the freedom to demonstrate and protest, as can be seen with the recent student protests against the cuts in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. They can also write to newspapers, lobby their MPs etc etc.
I'm fairly certain that Dostoyevsky would lump capitalism in there right alongside socialism. Yes, we, too, have to contribute to various social programs, even if we don't want to. Even when we think they are morally wrong.
But it doesn't matter, it seems to me, how much committees might meet, or parliaments palaver, or how many letters might be written, that fact remains that one person's property, or substance, is being taken from him and given to another. Tocqueville warned of the "tyranny of the majority," when the people figured out that they could vote benefits for themselves....and if they were voting and someone else was paying for it...human nature being what it is, the people start looking at what is good for themselves rather than what is good for the country.
{I think I'm straying from Dostoyevsky. Must find my way back.}
The Victorians were great philanthropists but it was found by social reformers of the time that they were also very selective. For instance, charities which sought to help unmarried mothers or prostitutes got very few donations. This is why the early socialists, after much research, decided that state provision was better because the state had a duty to all of its citizens, not just a select few. This also accords with Father Zossima's principle that we must help everyone. Clause IV was just a socialist expression of the Golden Rule - Do as you would be done by. It was also written at a time when extreme poverty and degradation was very common in the wealthy Western world.
Of course, they were selective. It was their money. They very probably, very reasonably, believed that contributing to unmarried mothers would lead to more unmarried mothers. NOT supporting unmarried mothers was to their minds the decent, and in the long term the kind, action to take. Who would support the children? Today, looking at the US and Europe, both with social programs we can neither of us pay for.
And can not imagine that Victorians would want to contribute to prostitutes. And again, it's their money. They should be able to contribute to the charities they wish and to not contribute to the charities they do not wish to.
Mmmm, I don't think Father Z said we had to help everyone. I think he said we are all responsible for all. I didn't take that as a financial admonition. It wasn't spelled out, but I took it that we should love one another, accept other people without perhaps calling them names, probably doing what we as individuals feel we should do to help them....but that whatever we do, it's our individual call and not the decision of anyone else.
This is a very blanket judgement! There is a great deal of giving in socialist countries. Norway, for instance, has one of the highest rates of charitable giving in the world. Nor is there any evidence that people in socialist countries have not improved as human beings or are any better or worse than those in capitalist countries. The socialist Scandinavian countries have some of the highest standards of living in the world, with very little poverty.
http://www.cafonline.org/PDF/World_Gi...
This has the US at number 5 and Norway at number 25, Sweden at 45. Just the first site I happened upon when asking Google. Doubtless there are are stats that show a different ranking. But it doesn't matter. The important line, for this discussion I think, is that last sentence: "the highest standards of living....the lowest poverty" From Dostoyevksy pov, that would be an argument the GI would make. It's a material aspect of life; not a spiritual aspect. The GI: "Feed men, and then ask of them virutue!" that's what they'll write on the banner which they'll raise against Thee'(233 CG translation). {Whew! I've found my way back to Dostoyevsky. Thank God!}
It was ever thus Indeed. It was ever thus.
Poor people and problems in Gilamesh. He struggled, too, being one third god and two-thirds human. I absolutely loved that line: "Learn what sorrow taught him." And appropriate in this conversation. Totally.
Poor people and problems in the Medieval religious times.
Poor people and problems in the non-religious Mao times.
As Jesus himself said, "The poor always ye have with you." (Matthew 26:11).
Poverty, problems, oppression, injustice...Bambi's father was unto something. "Man."
Madge, I so appreiciate your writing a long, thoughtful, response. But, oh, how difficult it will be to see what you wrote AND to see what I wrote. Guess I can only try. I respect your opinions, but I differ.
I've never been to Europe and obviously have no first-hand knowledge of life there. I can't speak to actual life there. I was using the term socialism from my general sense... but still, you moved me to look it up.
From Wikipedia: "The socialist perspective is generally based on materialism and the understanding that human behavior is largely shaped by the social."
And in looking up materialism, from Wikipedia, "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, materialism denies the existence of both deities and "souls."[23] It is therefore incompatible with most world religions including Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In Buddhism, materialistic beliefs are considered wrong view, and holds that the all-out pursuit of wealth and other external commodities encouraged by materialism is dangerous and self-destructive since such a system encourages attachment to the material realm which is ultimately transitory in nature and thus increases the amount of pain and suffering in the world."
I had thought that from Dostoyevsky's point of view, socialism would be held to be a negative.
Socialism is a political philosophy, not a spiritual one, although the beliefs in welfare provision are about the more spiritual aspects of well-being, like happiness and good health. Socialists also believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence that 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' and that people have a right to 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. The difference is that some of them do not believe these rights were 'endowed' by a creator but that they were fought for by man/woman.
But, you see, I don't believe that happiness or good health fall under the category of spiritual. Nice things to have? Oh, my, yes. I want both of those. But I don't think they can be considered spiritual aspects of a person's life.
And regarding Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, I think that Dostoyevsky's criticism was very much directed towards just what you say: to the fact that a good number of socialist hold that those rights came not from their Creator, but from the work of men and women. From Dostoyevsky's argument, wouldn't that be a fair criticism of socialism?
All taxation systems, even in capitalist countries, take away the freedom of what people contribute to. Thus we all contribute to wars, whether we want to or not. Nor is the redistribution of wealth 'mechanical' in socialist countries, it is the result of a great deal of social research and parliamentary debate. Manifestos regarding such redistribution are voted upon. Therefore the conscience of the individual is morally engaged at each election when there are many arguments about such things, just as the Tea Party activists and the Democrats have been arguing about taxation in the capitalist US. Socialists also have the freedom to demonstrate and protest, as can be seen with the recent student protests against the cuts in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. They can also write to newspapers, lobby their MPs etc etc.
I'm fairly certain that Dostoyevsky would lump capitalism in there right alongside socialism. Yes, we, too, have to contribute to various social programs, even if we don't want to. Even when we think they are morally wrong.
But it doesn't matter, it seems to me, how much committees might meet, or parliaments palaver, or how many letters might be written, that fact remains that one person's property, or substance, is being taken from him and given to another. Tocqueville warned of the "tyranny of the majority," when the people figured out that they could vote benefits for themselves....and if they were voting and someone else was paying for it...human nature being what it is, the people start looking at what is good for themselves rather than what is good for the country.
{I think I'm straying from Dostoyevsky. Must find my way back.}
The Victorians were great philanthropists but it was found by social reformers of the time that they were also very selective. For instance, charities which sought to help unmarried mothers or prostitutes got very few donations. This is why the early socialists, after much research, decided that state provision was better because the state had a duty to all of its citizens, not just a select few. This also accords with Father Zossima's principle that we must help everyone. Clause IV was just a socialist expression of the Golden Rule - Do as you would be done by. It was also written at a time when extreme poverty and degradation was very common in the wealthy Western world.
Of course, they were selective. It was their money. They very probably, very reasonably, believed that contributing to unmarried mothers would lead to more unmarried mothers. NOT supporting unmarried mothers was to their minds the decent, and in the long term the kind, action to take. Who would support the children? Today, looking at the US and Europe, both with social programs we can neither of us pay for.
And can not imagine that Victorians would want to contribute to prostitutes. And again, it's their money. They should be able to contribute to the charities they wish and to not contribute to the charities they do not wish to.
Mmmm, I don't think Father Z said we had to help everyone. I think he said we are all responsible for all. I didn't take that as a financial admonition. It wasn't spelled out, but I took it that we should love one another, accept other people without perhaps calling them names, probably doing what we as individuals feel we should do to help them....but that whatever we do, it's our individual call and not the decision of anyone else.
This is a very blanket judgement! There is a great deal of giving in socialist countries. Norway, for instance, has one of the highest rates of charitable giving in the world. Nor is there any evidence that people in socialist countries have not improved as human beings or are any better or worse than those in capitalist countries. The socialist Scandinavian countries have some of the highest standards of living in the world, with very little poverty.
http://www.cafonline.org/PDF/World_Gi...
This has the US at number 5 and Norway at number 25, Sweden at 45. Just the first site I happened upon when asking Google. Doubtless there are are stats that show a different ranking. But it doesn't matter. The important line, for this discussion I think, is that last sentence: "the highest standards of living....the lowest poverty" From Dostoyevksy pov, that would be an argument the GI would make. It's a material aspect of life; not a spiritual aspect. The GI: "Feed men, and then ask of them virutue!" that's what they'll write on the banner which they'll raise against Thee'(233 CG translation). {Whew! I've found my way back to Dostoyevsky. Thank God!}
It was ever thus Indeed. It was ever thus.
Poor people and problems in Gilamesh. He struggled, too, being one third god and two-thirds human. I absolutely loved that line: "Learn what sorrow taught him." And appropriate in this conversation. Totally.
Poor people and problems in the Medieval religious times.
Poor people and problems in the non-religious Mao times.
As Jesus himself said, "The poor always ye have with you." (Matthew 26:11).
Poverty, problems, oppression, injustice...Bambi's father was unto something. "Man."
Thank you, Madge. And just see the stream of posts you generated. But it is 1:30 in the morning. How glad I will be of the fresh-brewed cup of coffee come 6:30.
Good night, all.
Good night, all.
