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
Adelle wrote: 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?Yes this is a fair criticism from Dostoevsky's p.o.v. but IMO it is based on an erroneous premise. Some hold that life comes from a Creator but the liberties and equalities we enjoy do not come from that source. Why the French Revolution or the War of Independence? Why the long fights for the Abolition of Slavery and Women's Rights? Why didn't people just sit back and let the Creator give them those rights? I think it denigrates those who gave their lives for such causes to say that their achievements were given by a Creator. Blood has been spilt over these things and it was not a Creator's blood (should such a thing exist). Dostoevsky was an arch conservative who believed in the status quo but I can think of umpteen things historically where our lives have been improved by men and women, not by the church or a Creator. Indeed, the church has impeded many scientific ideas which would improve lives. It impedes contraception even today, thereby adding to multiple deaths in AIDS-ridden Africa. Believing in the status quo did not propel the Puritan Fathers to rebel against their church and country and sail across the Atlantic to found a New World!
Also, if you agree that some art like beautiful buildings, paintings, sculpture and music, is 'spiritual', then these things are man-made too, often created by 'sinners'. (A definition of spiritual being 'concerned with sacred or religious things, holy, divine, inspired.)
Patrice wrote: "I think that the specific interpretation of religion in BK is not the bitter, hateful, oppresive version of the church. Zossima very clearly states that God is active love. It is not faith, it is... It is about service. About putting your ego aside, your beliefs, your doctrines, and really reaching out to others."Socialists would certainly not argue with it! You do not have to be spiritual or religious to do any of these things. To give (via taxation) to others, like prostitutes and criminals, is putting aside your own beliefs and doctrines and reaching out to others.
We probably ought to give up on this subject as it is rather exhausting for me to argue effectively with half a dozen people at once! Suffice it to say that I have lived a good life despite atheism and socialism and you have lived good lives despite religion and capitalism! :) Dostoevsky, by all accounts, did not live a very good or happy life despite his beliefs:(.
John wrote: "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."/i>I think much the same about Tony Blair and quite a few other men:). (Hitchens is bald because he is undergoing chemo-therapy for terminal oesophagal(sp?) cancer.)
MadgeUK wrote: "
Yes, I am one against many here and do not know where to start except to say that socialism is being confused with communism in a ..."
I think your posts are wonderful. You jump in and engage. It comes through that these are aspects of life that matter to you. In the areas of our lives that are important to us, Alyosha might be a role model: "I will accept no compromise" (34 CG). As you noted, we happen to disagree in a number of areas.
But that, too, is an aspect of TBK. (Always relieved when I can bring it back round to the book. As my former-English teacher friend is wont to say, "Look at the text!" Oh, how often I have been admonished. Because, yes, it's so fun to wander down the side paths and wonder. As I'm sure I'm will throughout the book.)
Dmitri speaking with Alyosha, early in the book, "God and the devil are fighting there [in the heart] and the battlefield is the heart of man" (106).
And what we hold to be important in our lives is very often not simply an intellectual position; very often it is something we feel. I would go so far as to suggest that very often we "feel" first, and then go about the business of finding the intellectual arguements to back our positions. So the heart of man is a good description.
And the GI chapter, too, concerns important issues. The GI makes strong arguments from a worldly position. If one doesn't believe there to be immortality, then the worldly position might be what one choses to embrace. Again, the duality of man's nature comes to the fore. Man DOES have earthly needs. Indeed, man may not live by bread alone, but he can't live without bread.
[Aside. I love how the word "bread"---and before that, "dough"---was a hip slang term for money. Cuts right to the heart of the matter.]
And man, according Dostoyevsky, also is designed with sprititual needs. The duality.
Even the GI recognizes that man needs something more. Perhaps the "Something" you had mentioned above? The GI: "The secret of man's being is not only to live, but to have something to live for. Without a steadfast faith in the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, but would rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance." And thus the GI lies to the people, assuring them that there will be immortality for them.
I don't recall the GI mentioning hell, or hooks, so perhaps the GI doesn't beleive in an immortality of eternal damnation. Perhaps, just supposition, the GI believes that if man's divine spirit is disengaged and withers away, that when such a man dies, having no longer a spiritual aspect to his life, he simply dies and is no more. ?? I don't know what the GI position is on an afterlife.
But in assuring his flock that the sins are acceptable, the GI has freed man from his burden of consience. Such a man would not undergo mental anguish over his actions. Without the mental suffering, so Dostoyevsky seems to say, man has no chance of making that connection with God which will bring him immortality.
For Dostoyevsky, this point, it seems, was of paramount importance. He wrote in The Diary of a Writer:
If man loses his belief in immortality, suicide becomes an absolute and inevitable necessity...But the idea of immortality, promising eternal life, binds a man closely to the earth....
Man's belief in a personal immortality is the only thing which gives point and reason to his life on earth. Without this belief, his bond with the earth loosens, becomes weak and unstable;
the loss of life's higher meaning---even if it felt only as a most subconscious form of depression and ennui---leads him inevitably to suicide.
People will suddenly realize that there is no more life for them; that there is no freemdom of spirit, no will.....that someone has stolen everything from them;
that the human way of life has vanished, to be replaced by the bestial way of life, the way of cattle, with this difference, however, that the cattle do not know that they are cattle, whereas men will discover that they have become cattle. {Adelle: and recall that in TBK, the name of the village means, "beast pen"}
...And then, perhaps, others will cry to God, 'Thou art right, oh Lord! Man lives not by bread alone!'
Back to Adelle speaking:
Now very obviously there are millions and millions and probably even more millions living who are avowed atheists or unaggressive agnostics. And very obviously they are not committing suicide en mass. (Is that proper terminology?)
But that was Dostoyevsky position and pertains to his book.
Oh, just quick like, I don't think there is really any confusion over the difference between socialism and communism.
Also, you're right about the charity stats. I re-googled as per person --- which is what we were talking about --- and Norway and Sweden come out on top.
I know that in the US, the 25 monetarily poorest states give the most per person in charity. The people from the more well-to-do states, not so much.
My gosh, look at what a small percentage of income some of those in high positions in Washington, D.C., give!
Yes, I am one against many here and do not know where to start except to say that socialism is being confused with communism in a ..."
I think your posts are wonderful. You jump in and engage. It comes through that these are aspects of life that matter to you. In the areas of our lives that are important to us, Alyosha might be a role model: "I will accept no compromise" (34 CG). As you noted, we happen to disagree in a number of areas.
But that, too, is an aspect of TBK. (Always relieved when I can bring it back round to the book. As my former-English teacher friend is wont to say, "Look at the text!" Oh, how often I have been admonished. Because, yes, it's so fun to wander down the side paths and wonder. As I'm sure I'm will throughout the book.)
Dmitri speaking with Alyosha, early in the book, "God and the devil are fighting there [in the heart] and the battlefield is the heart of man" (106).
And what we hold to be important in our lives is very often not simply an intellectual position; very often it is something we feel. I would go so far as to suggest that very often we "feel" first, and then go about the business of finding the intellectual arguements to back our positions. So the heart of man is a good description.
And the GI chapter, too, concerns important issues. The GI makes strong arguments from a worldly position. If one doesn't believe there to be immortality, then the worldly position might be what one choses to embrace. Again, the duality of man's nature comes to the fore. Man DOES have earthly needs. Indeed, man may not live by bread alone, but he can't live without bread.
[Aside. I love how the word "bread"---and before that, "dough"---was a hip slang term for money. Cuts right to the heart of the matter.]
And man, according Dostoyevsky, also is designed with sprititual needs. The duality.
Even the GI recognizes that man needs something more. Perhaps the "Something" you had mentioned above? The GI: "The secret of man's being is not only to live, but to have something to live for. Without a steadfast faith in the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, but would rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance." And thus the GI lies to the people, assuring them that there will be immortality for them.
I don't recall the GI mentioning hell, or hooks, so perhaps the GI doesn't beleive in an immortality of eternal damnation. Perhaps, just supposition, the GI believes that if man's divine spirit is disengaged and withers away, that when such a man dies, having no longer a spiritual aspect to his life, he simply dies and is no more. ?? I don't know what the GI position is on an afterlife.
But in assuring his flock that the sins are acceptable, the GI has freed man from his burden of consience. Such a man would not undergo mental anguish over his actions. Without the mental suffering, so Dostoyevsky seems to say, man has no chance of making that connection with God which will bring him immortality.
For Dostoyevsky, this point, it seems, was of paramount importance. He wrote in The Diary of a Writer:
If man loses his belief in immortality, suicide becomes an absolute and inevitable necessity...But the idea of immortality, promising eternal life, binds a man closely to the earth....
Man's belief in a personal immortality is the only thing which gives point and reason to his life on earth. Without this belief, his bond with the earth loosens, becomes weak and unstable;
the loss of life's higher meaning---even if it felt only as a most subconscious form of depression and ennui---leads him inevitably to suicide.
People will suddenly realize that there is no more life for them; that there is no freemdom of spirit, no will.....that someone has stolen everything from them;
that the human way of life has vanished, to be replaced by the bestial way of life, the way of cattle, with this difference, however, that the cattle do not know that they are cattle, whereas men will discover that they have become cattle. {Adelle: and recall that in TBK, the name of the village means, "beast pen"}
...And then, perhaps, others will cry to God, 'Thou art right, oh Lord! Man lives not by bread alone!'
Back to Adelle speaking:
Now very obviously there are millions and millions and probably even more millions living who are avowed atheists or unaggressive agnostics. And very obviously they are not committing suicide en mass. (Is that proper terminology?)
But that was Dostoyevsky position and pertains to his book.
Oh, just quick like, I don't think there is really any confusion over the difference between socialism and communism.
Also, you're right about the charity stats. I re-googled as per person --- which is what we were talking about --- and Norway and Sweden come out on top.
I know that in the US, the 25 monetarily poorest states give the most per person in charity. The people from the more well-to-do states, not so much.
My gosh, look at what a small percentage of income some of those in high positions in Washington, D.C., give!
I think your posts are wonderful. You jump in and engage. It comes through that these are aspects of life that matter to you.Thankyou, yours are pretty good too:)> These things do matter to me, just as religion and 'spirituality' matter to other people here.
Now very obviously there are millions and millions and probably even more millions living who are avowed atheists or unaggressive agnostics. And very obviously they are not committing suicide en masse. But that was Dostoyevsky position and pertains to his book.
Yes, and it is one of the many reasons why I do not respect his beliefs - this is a ridiculous position to take, so how am I to respect his other positions?
I know that in the US, the 25 monetarily poorest states give the most per person in charity
This is the case in most of the Western countries. Perhaps it is because poorer people feel nearer to being in need themselves and can empathise?
I don't think there is really any confusion over the difference between socialism and communism.
Bringing up the situation in countries which are communist shows there is a confusion. There is such a lot of difference between being able to vote about where your taxes are spent ('No Taxation Without Representation'!!) and not being able to do so.
Patrice wrote: "As for "helping" others. Remember in the Republic when Socrates asks if it is "helping" to give a man who is out of his mind a knife? Is it "helping" to give a crack addict cash to buy more?"Is it helping society or those at risk from being mugged by an addict, not to assist him/her? What would you do - leave him/her on the streets to be driven to ever more extreme acts of desperation? Addicts here are assisted only if they also agree to attending rehabilitation projects - a carrot and stick approach. Withdrawing cash or other assistance does not cure addiction but it does create problems for society as a whole.
I think that politicians are bribing the citizens with their own money to vote for them.
I do not understand this statement. Politicians in Europe are not allowed large amounts of money at election time, it is strictly controlled and monitored.
Patrice wrote: ...I think that the welfare state has changed our values to the point that most people feel entitled to other people's money. In one way, yes, it has provided a safety net for the poor, but from what I have seen, in the long run, it has put the poor into entrenched poverty. it has broken up homes, increased illegitimacy and created an underclass that did not exist previously.There are absolutely no statistics to prove these statements but rather there are a lot to disprove them. Look at Victorian Society, look at Hogarth's Gin Street and Beer Alley, read Dickens and Zola. For that matter, look at the streets of Delhi or Calcutta today where these conditions still appertain. No handouts there, just dead people (including children) in the gutter - that is entrenched poverty.
If your aunt had been living in a socialist society she would not have have been destitute because the state would have looked after her basic needs adequately. She deserved to be looked after because she was a citizen of that state and her husband did his best to contribute to it when he could. His unemployment was not his fault. Your aunt raised children who would pay taxes and fight in wars so she deserved benefits too. I find it absolutely unacceptable that any citizen of the rich western societies should go hungry and believe that we have sufficient resources to share with others. Care for the weak, poor and vulnerable should be axiomatic in so-called 'Christian' countries. By your argument, myself and my four children should have lived on the street when I was very ill and should not have received any state 'handouts' (horrible word!), or perhaps we should have begged. Maybe we should have died (or gone hungry) sooner than accept them. I find that cruel and heartless and not at all Christian, looking at the teachings of Christ as I understand them.
I would guess that even during the Depression your unemployed uncle received unemployment benefit: 'It was created in the US in 1935 in response to the Great Depression, when millions of people lost jobs. They couldn't buy goods and services, which contributed to more layoffs', so giving them something to spend boosted the economy. That was a state benefit paid for by other people's taxes, and by the taxes paid by your uncle when he was in employment. Without it your aunt and family would have starved or been sent to a workhouse, as in Victorian times. Remember Oliver Twist and his mother? These are the times you are, unwittingly, condemning us to by saying there should be no 'handouts' via taxation. The Victorians learned the hard way and Dickens and Zola told us about their travails. This is why things changed.
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/u...
In Russia, in Dostoevsky's time, tens of thousands starved to death because there was no poor relief. (Hence the storming of the Winter Palace). 'Poor relief' would have constituted socialism to Dosteovsky, inadequate alms from the church were acceptable. The Russian famine of 1891-2, killed between 375,000 and 500,000 people. Poor though it was, especially during the Industrial Revolution when the population vastly increased, England had poor relief from Elizabethan times, when 'socialistic' thinking first made an impact on government - if only to stop riots!
I know there are abuses of the welfare system but to my mind putting up with some abuse is better than condemning a significant part of a country's population to poverty. That way lies Revolution.
I understand and didn't mean to imply that you came from a privileged background. But there is no all-powerful socialist state in Europe! All powerful states have been (are) communist (or Nazi) ones. Even the days of powerful monarchs are long gone. Nothing drastic is going on in Europe at present which has not happened before. It is no worse than what is happening in the US as a result of the financial crisis. There are street protests because we are historically more used to protesting about things, that's all. I am very proud that my grand-daughter has taken to the streets to fight for her rights, just as I did - that couldn't happen under an all powerful state. However, it is generally agreed that the most powerful state in the world at present is the US and that certainly isn't a socialist one, even though Obama has been accused of bringing in 'socialism' (which amuses me:)).
There are economists who think that it will be the US which becomes more 'socialistic' after this crisis, not the other way around. It will soon have to fight the megalith economies of 'Chindia' which may require different economic policies. Only time will tell and I will probably be dead by then:).
Oh! Ahhhhh! ow! (Reads a bit like the old Batman TV series.)
Well, early on in this book discussion Kate Mc virtually saved me from a life of drinking shots of bad vodka hand-over-fist. Or she saved me virtually.
I'm in dire straits again, my keyboard spattered with "virtual" blood as I repeatedly bite my tongue.
So sorely tempted to respond to some of the last posts. Exercising such constraint not to.
I've decided to start reading the next book, Book Six.
Look forward to seeing you all on there.
(Will of course enjoy reading whatever you should post here.)
Well, early on in this book discussion Kate Mc virtually saved me from a life of drinking shots of bad vodka hand-over-fist. Or she saved me virtually.
I'm in dire straits again, my keyboard spattered with "virtual" blood as I repeatedly bite my tongue.
So sorely tempted to respond to some of the last posts. Exercising such constraint not to.
I've decided to start reading the next book, Book Six.
Look forward to seeing you all on there.
(Will of course enjoy reading whatever you should post here.)
LOL. Don't hold back Adelle! We still both live in democracies!:D:D
lol back. i thought that, too wrote adelle/ee cummings. :)
But look at the date. Today's the 3rd and almost gone and the little family won't let me read tonight as they insist on dragging me off to see a moive; and the next section discussion starts on the 5th. Every time so far I have failed to finish reading the selection prior to the start date. THIS time, I am determined to have done my homework and be out of the starting gate, as it were, with everyone else.
Hope you, and all, enjoy your weekend.
But look at the date. Today's the 3rd and almost gone and the little family won't let me read tonight as they insist on dragging me off to see a moive; and the next section discussion starts on the 5th. Every time so far I have failed to finish reading the selection prior to the start date. THIS time, I am determined to have done my homework and be out of the starting gate, as it were, with everyone else.
Hope you, and all, enjoy your weekend.
You too Adelle - it is a very cold one here, not fit for old ladies to go out:(.
Adelle wrote: "Oh! Ahhhhh! ow! (Reads a bit like the old Batman TV series.)
Well, early on in this book discussion Kate Mc virtually saved me from a life of drinking shots of bad vodka hand-over-fist. ..."
Yay for the self restraint Adelle, whatever your reasons. :)
I wanted to jump in too, but this really doesn't need to turn into a thread discussing the relative merits of various socio-political systems so I made myself sit on my hands. Man is that hard to do around here!!!
Book 6 provides an interesting counterpoint to Ivan's book so it will be interesting to hear what everyone has to say.
Well, early on in this book discussion Kate Mc virtually saved me from a life of drinking shots of bad vodka hand-over-fist. ..."
Yay for the self restraint Adelle, whatever your reasons. :)
I wanted to jump in too, but this really doesn't need to turn into a thread discussing the relative merits of various socio-political systems so I made myself sit on my hands. Man is that hard to do around here!!!
Book 6 provides an interesting counterpoint to Ivan's book so it will be interesting to hear what everyone has to say.
Kate Mc. wrote: "so I made myself sit on my hands. Man is that hard to do around here!!!
.."
Oh, your poor little hands. Probably bare little hands, without even the beautiful gloves such as Lize's mother wore. And now they are all squashed-like.
Madge: It was Dostoevsky's fault Kate:D Madge may be right. I think he wanted to toss us about in turmoil.
Mmm. Maybe Alyosha will be in Book Six. He's a soothing character. Or has been thus far.
.."
Oh, your poor little hands. Probably bare little hands, without even the beautiful gloves such as Lize's mother wore. And now they are all squashed-like.
Madge: It was Dostoevsky's fault Kate:D Madge may be right. I think he wanted to toss us about in turmoil.
Mmm. Maybe Alyosha will be in Book Six. He's a soothing character. Or has been thus far.
You'll remember there was the question of gratitude with Smerdyakov, too. Grigory wanting/expecting/demanding that Smerdyakov be grateful. Something rather difficult for a small child, I should think.
Much more reasonable to think that Grigory and his wife might have been grateful that a baby had came into their lives after their own had died.
So did you guys discuss Smerdyakov? Can you get into it with us...? Or do future facts come into play, and thus your lips are sealed?
Much more reasonable to think that Grigory and his wife might have been grateful that a baby had came into their lives after their own had died.
So did you guys discuss Smerdyakov? Can you get into it with us...? Or do future facts come into play, and thus your lips are sealed?
But bottom line, if life is a gift, and the world is paradise, there are obligations.My younger son acknowledges his gift of life to me by telephoning me every year on his birthday to say 'Thanks for having me Mum! :).
Why the tremendous guilt - what about? What a dreadful burden to bear:( And how depressing to think of life this way:( A Big Hug to you both.
How can the world be paradise, in a religious sense, if heaven is paradise?
I read this about Smerdyakov: 'The bastard son of Karamazov, embodies Dostoevsky's vengeful and dark side in his resentment of the government Likewise, Lizaveta represents the entire group of Russian peasants, raped and pillaged by the government and giving birth to bastard children who will share in their poverty when they come of age. Through the enigmatic Smerdyakov, Dostoevsky delivers one final blow to the system that destroyed his father as well as his own self-confidence. Though the beliefs exhorted by Father Zosima contradict Smerdyakov's personality, Dostoevsky wished to lash back once and for all by fictitiously achieving vengeance, thus paving way for his eventual spiritual reform....Dostoevsy's "The Brothers Karamazov" delved deep into the human mind to search for answers that troubled a cruel world. He used his characters to enlighten his beliefs, formed through hard years of joy and torture.'This seems a believable analysis given Dostoevsky's embittered state of mind and known spitefulness.
I liked reading that very much.
I don't think I'm going to end up agreeing with it, though.
Because...
Did Dos. see the government as illegitimate?
I was somewhat drawn to the Lizaveta/peasant analogy...
except, if the government raped her,
then Smerdyakov wasn't doing the raping...
as he was the offspring
so, as I see it, the analogy doesn't hold.
And, I think, wasn't Dos. father thought/held to have been murdered by his peasants? Might someone here have read biographical information on Dos.? Was life difficult for Dos.'s father in the system in which he worked and lived? He was a doctor, wasn't he?
Also, perhaps most importantly, (I'm going with my feelings and then finding justification for my my feelings), I have a good deal of sympathy for Smerdyakov. Even if he is evil. Which I'm not sure he is.
I don't think I'm going to end up agreeing with it, though.
Because...
Did Dos. see the government as illegitimate?
I was somewhat drawn to the Lizaveta/peasant analogy...
except, if the government raped her,
then Smerdyakov wasn't doing the raping...
as he was the offspring
so, as I see it, the analogy doesn't hold.
And, I think, wasn't Dos. father thought/held to have been murdered by his peasants? Might someone here have read biographical information on Dos.? Was life difficult for Dos.'s father in the system in which he worked and lived? He was a doctor, wasn't he?
Also, perhaps most importantly, (I'm going with my feelings and then finding justification for my my feelings), I have a good deal of sympathy for Smerdyakov. Even if he is evil. Which I'm not sure he is.
Was Dos. a bitter, spiteful man?
Madge, do you have a link-- (and I'm sure you do, as you are the Link Queen)-- for background information on Dostoyevsky? I suppose I could go to wikipedia, but probably you have something better. Please post if you have such info. Thanks.
Madge, do you have a link-- (and I'm sure you do, as you are the Link Queen)-- for background information on Dostoyevsky? I suppose I could go to wikipedia, but probably you have something better. Please post if you have such info. Thanks.
Thanks. There are quite a few references to his wife and his contemporaries saying that he was very spiteful. I think it was Patrice who mentioned earlier the number of times he uses the word 'spiteful'. Here is a Google book referencing the word:- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lb...
I put some links on the Resources thread. The Dartmouth link refers to his bitterness. Let me know if you want anything more.
Adelle wrote: "if the government raped her,
then Smerdyakov wasn't doing the raping...
as he was the offspring "
I read Madge's post to mean that Smerdyakov is an anti-government figure, not that he represents an illegitimate authority. And he does get the best of the better born, legitimate brothers (We should discuss when we get to those chapters so I'll gloss here). He is the clever, wily abused peasant who strikes back against the power structure which oppresses him.
Smerdyakov seems to refuse any feelings of gratitude/guilt doesn't he? If we're sticking a word on him I would say he displays resentment. His resentment is clearly aimed toward the Karamazovs, but his step parents come in for a fair share as well.
He and Fyodor are the most intriguing characters in the story.
Hard to say if Dos. was bitter. I'm not getting bitterness from this story, more a sense of confusion and futility. After I finished this book, it felt weirdly incomplete and made me wonder what he had intended for the sequel. He obviously still had more to say.
then Smerdyakov wasn't doing the raping...
as he was the offspring "
I read Madge's post to mean that Smerdyakov is an anti-government figure, not that he represents an illegitimate authority. And he does get the best of the better born, legitimate brothers (We should discuss when we get to those chapters so I'll gloss here). He is the clever, wily abused peasant who strikes back against the power structure which oppresses him.
Smerdyakov seems to refuse any feelings of gratitude/guilt doesn't he? If we're sticking a word on him I would say he displays resentment. His resentment is clearly aimed toward the Karamazovs, but his step parents come in for a fair share as well.
He and Fyodor are the most intriguing characters in the story.
Hard to say if Dos. was bitter. I'm not getting bitterness from this story, more a sense of confusion and futility. After I finished this book, it felt weirdly incomplete and made me wonder what he had intended for the sequel. He obviously still had more to say.
Adelle wrote: "I liked reading that very much.I don't think I'm going to end up agreeing with it, though.
Because...
Did Dos. see the government as illegitimate?
I was somewhat drawn to the Lizavet..."
Mmmm...I think the 'illegitimacy' of the government meant the way his father was treated by the government (can't remember the details - see Resources) and his own treatment when he was arrested. It wasn't S. who raped Lizaveta (his mother), it was Fyodor. I think (not sure though) that Fyodor represents the rapacious side of government.
MadgeUK wrote: "It wasn't S. who raped Lizaveta (his mother), it was Fyodor. I think (not sure though) that Fyodor represents the rapacious side of government. "
You can definitely make an argument for that view. This aspect shows up in Fyodor's unsavory deal making, where he has enriched himself by appropriating his wife's money but is unwilling to share the proceeds with her offspring.
You can definitely make an argument for that view. This aspect shows up in Fyodor's unsavory deal making, where he has enriched himself by appropriating his wife's money but is unwilling to share the proceeds with her offspring.
Here is an interesting and quick analysis of the Grand Inquisitor argument:
Analysis of the Grand Inquisitor
Analysis of the Grand Inquisitor
Thanks Kate - very useful. II C1 is very pertinent as is IV C 1-3.
MadgeUK wrote: "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 ..."
Where in this novel is Dostoevsky making a plea for feudalism?
Phew! Well, there's so much in this thread about what Dostoevsky is saying and Dostoevsky's point of view that I would be most grateful to know where in this piece of FICTION, Dostoevsky's point of view is unambiguously stated?
Patrice wrote: "But... was life really easier for people under the GI?No, I think the time of the Spanish Inquisition is not considered to be a high point in human history.
MadgeUK wrote: "Yes, I am one against many here and do not know where to start except to say that socialism is being confused with communism in a ..."Not sure why you're wasting your time on this one, Madge. The word 'socialism' has been so contaminated in the US that it would take a life-time to unpick all the prejudices and assumptions that now adhere to it. I'm not intending to get involved in this mare's nest, but you and I know that, in the UK at least, those principles that we hold dear - free health care, free education, universal adult suffrage, women's rights, gay rights, equal opportunities, welfare provision, etc. have been achieved largely as a result of the efforts of socialists. 'Charity' (the very word makes me shudder) is no substitute for any of these.
It wouldn't strike most people in the United States to recognize that even our fire departments, police departments, and K-12 education are all socialist.
Kathy wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Yes, I am one against many here and do not know where to start except to say that socialism is being confused with communism in a ..."Not sure why you're wasting your time on this..."
Thanks Kathy, I agree. I was responding (as a socialist) to questions/opinion put by folks here.asked the question because folks here. They were raised because TBK contains many references to socialism, which was then being discussed by intellectuals in Russia (like Tolstoy and Gorky). Dosteovsky became an arch conservative after his prison experience in Siberia and campaigned against the 'social contract' ideas of the European Enlightenment in favour of the Tsar and the Russian Orthodox church. But we have finished discussing this topic now.
Kathy wrote: "Phew! Well, there's so much in this thread about what Dostoevsky is saying and Dostoevsky's point of view that I would be most grateful to know where in this piece of FICTION, Dostoevsky's point of..."There is quite a lot about Dostoevsky's intentions in the Resources section Kathy. Sometimes novelists (like Dickens) write fiction in order to promulgate certain causes.
Re feudalism: Dostoevsky wanted Russia to retain its old ways, which were feudal, hence my reference. He was in favour of autocracy - I have posted something about this elsewhere.
MadgeUK wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Phew! Well, there's so much in this thread about what Dostoevsky is saying and Dostoevsky's point of view that I would be most grateful to know where in this piece of FICTION, Dostoev..."Dear Madge
This is where I think coming to a novel with some prior belief about what the novelist is intending is a mistake. I am reading the novel with no prior knowledge (about Dostoevsky) and I have (so far) found nothing particularly pro-Christian or pro-feudalism about it. I am finding the book almost entirely ambiguous. If anything, I think it is an indictment of the whole of Russian society - the Church seems to be doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of the poor and the upper classes are just playing about with ideas like atheism and socialism in a completely ridiculous and dilettante manner. Ivan's question about the role of God in a world where children are made to eat their own excrement has just been left hanging in the air and, if the power of the writing can be a measure of where Dostoevsky is coming from, then I would say that he presents a very convincing argument for atheism.
Nonetheless, I'm only a third of the way through the book, so I'm reserving judgement. I'm astonished to find that most members of this group seem to think they've got Dostoevsky sown up already. I thought we were warned pretty early in the book about people who only hear what they want to hear (or something like that)!
John wrote: "It wouldn't strike most people in the United States to recognize that even our fire departments, police departments, and K-12 education are all socialist."Yes, John, in the US you haven't much history of socialism, so I suppose it is only in the field of wages and working conditions that unions have fought for the rights of workers. But in Europe many socialists have achieved great social reforms and I'm sorry that Americans are mostly so ill-informed that they are not aware of this. We Brits are very proud of the fact that no-one who is ill in this country has to enquire about the cost of their medical treatment and that, no matter how ill we are or for how long, we will not have to be anxious about the money running out. And we are astonished that anyone in a wealthy, free, civilised country could perceive this system in anything but a positive light. I, for one, have watched your country's wrangling about health care reform with a mixture of amazement and pity. So there you go. It's all about point of view, isn't it? And I don't think anyone on your side of the pond needs to be attacking socialism when they really don't know much about it.
I have to heartily agree with Kathy. Perhaps the thing I'm relishing most about the book is one's fundamental inability to say much about it without the novel refuting itself on the next page. Even Ivan says that he believes in God in the prelude to the "Grand Inquisitor." Kathy, I think it's probably okay to have a fair amount of biographical information about an author before one starts reading about them (I read Joseph Frank's five-volume biography of Dostoevsky a few years ago.) But I think what Madge might be doing is (perhaps inadvertently) imputing authorial intent where there is none - that is, taking the opinions of Fyodor, Ivan, Alexei, and Dmitri as Dostoyevsky's own, when really they're "just" fictional inventions. That's not, of course, to say that his characters and he can't share any opinions, but it's quite another matter to mistake the beliefs of one for the beliefs of the other.
Where do you think he's providing a good argument for atheism?
Kathy wrote: "John wrote: "It wouldn't strike most people in the United States to recognize that even our fire departments, police departments, and K-12 education are all socialist."Yes, John, in the US you ha..."
Well, I think attacking socialism is fine - if you have a knowledge of it. As an unbashed socialist myself, the only pity I have is that we haven't co-opted it further. We had a history of it, as you might know, in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth century with the likes of Eugene Debbs, but it died a quiet death in the pre-War years. I'm not quite sure why, but it might have something to do with the fact that rightists began to think that they were all Communists (McCarthy). Perhaps that's where the whole misconception stems from.
However, the term here is just casually thrown around to do damage to Democrats, even though there are only about two or three people in the Senate and House that would actually openly identify as a Socialist.
John wrote: "I have to heartily agree with Kathy. Perhaps the thing I'm relishing most about the book is one's fundamental inability to say much about it without the novel refuting itself on the next page. Ev..."Yes, John, I am holding in my mind the two external facts that I do know about Dostoevsky: 1. that this book was subject to censorship, so the writer is NOT free to tell us what he really thinks; 2. Dostoevsky's 'conversion' (if you want to call it that) occurred as a result of him coming under the extreme duress of political imprisonment.
I posted on an earlier thread a comment about the Jesuits' teaching about 'mental reservation' in Early Modern England (I think Shakespeare refers to it as equivocation). This is a doctrine that espouses ambiguity! Basically, if someone is going to threaten your life because of what you believe, the thing to do is hedge around everything you say with the vague, the contradictory and even the untrue. As far as I can see, this is exactly what Dostoevsky is doing and so I regard this as an indicator that we have to be very careful not to take anything at face value.
(There is a third external fact that's also in the back of my mind - that not very long after this book was written, one of the Elders got to be quite famous. His name was Rasputin.)
John wrote: "Kathy wrote: "John wrote: "It wouldn't strike most people in the United States to recognize that even our fire departments, police departments, and K-12 education are all socialist."Yes, John, in..."
Oh, John, I think that for me to mention McCarthyism would be a low blow!
And while I believe everything that I wrote above, I still believe in the essential ability of the novelist to be a social commentator, too. Which means that, even if we can't directly read his characters' beliefs and intentions as the author's own, there is an overall effect or "aura" (uh oh - spiritual word - Madge might come down on me) that we can discern in the writing relating to the world outside of the book itself. That's why I'm interested in what you said about Dostoevsky providing a good argument for atheism. I'm not much further along in the book than you are (page 322 out of 776 of the P&V translation), but what I'm getting is a deep sense of a tormented, existentially angst-ridden Christian and much less an atheist. I feel like I'm reading someone that appreciates the traditions of faith, but relentlessly questions them as any intellectual, of course, would. For better or worse.
Kathy wrote: "John wrote: "Kathy wrote: "John wrote: "It wouldn't strike most people in the United States to recognize that even our fire departments, police departments, and K-12 education are all socialist."..."
I won't mention Cromwell if you don't mention McCarthy. :)
This is where I think coming to a novel with some prior belief about what the novelist is intending is a mistake.Unfortunately, at 78 years of age I have read all of Dostoevsky's works and several of his biographies so I cannot easily put what I know about him behind me! I first read him at university when I was studying politics, social history and comparative religion (PSE at the LSE!). His views were of great interest then because of post war disaffection with communism (cf McCarthy & Co) and the fact that he had 'forecast' a totalitarian state for Russia when he wrote TBK. His views on atheism (that it leads to madness!) were also of interest to myself and my atheist family and provided us with some amusement.
But I think what Madge might be doing is (perhaps inadvertently) imputing authorial intent where there is none
As I have posted in the Resources thread, Dostoevsky announced his 'authorial intent' to denounce atheism, socialism and Western Enlightenment and to promote Holy Russia and the autocracy of the Tsar in his diaries and Memoir and wrote that he would use his novels to do that. I do not see how you can refute what he actually wrote. Of course anyone can read anything else into the novel, make it into a romance even, or a murder mystery but that does not mean that it was what Dostoevsky intended. One of the reasons that he was so disliked by his contemporaries was because of the retrograde views expressed in his novels at a time when Russian was just beginning to emerge from serfdom (feudalism) and its intellectuals, like Tolstoy, Pushkin, Gorky et al were promoting more liberal views, experimenting with communes, criticising the church etc.
Having been an atheist/socialist in his youth, he became a religious conservative during his spell in Siberia and remained so, as is attested by his contemporaries. Yes, he uses a form of dialectic in TBK by concocting arguments both for and against atheism and for and against socialism mainly in the Grand Inquisitor chapter but also scattered throughout the book to a lesser degree. He says somewhere that atheism leads to madness and has an atheist character go mad, he forecast that socialism leads to totalitarianism.
I agree with Kathy about ambiguity and the way it is used to disguise certain views in the novel but he was not ambiguous in his private diaries, his intent was made quite clear. In fact, there was little need for his work to be censored after he came out of prison because his views were supportive of both the Tsar and the church, although, of course, in putting opposing arguments into the mouths of his characters, he had to be careful.
Well, I think attacking socialism is fine - if you have a knowledge of it.
I qualify then and it sounds as if Kathy does. But Dosteovsky did not qualify as his views on socialism were gleaned from his days in Paris and their more atheistic/revolutionary brand of socialism. He did not appear to take into consideration what was happening vis a vis Rousseau's social contract in either England or the US, where democratic ways of pursuing socialism were emerging. (Marx himself said that he did not think a revolution would be necessary in England because of the strength of the trade union movement and its influence on government and to some extent that applied in the US where trade unionism was gaining a hold.)
John wrote: .I won't mention Cromwell if you don't mention McCarthy. :)
."
LOL! A difference of over 300 years makes a bit of a difference, don't you think! Not really comparable eras.
(BTW you must be careful not to stray into the realm of modern politics and religion here as the Moderator has already been critical about this.)
A low blow is a low blow, Madge, whether it's from the twentieth or the seventeenth century.That's an awfully long disquisition on the book for someone who stopped reading it. Yet full of opinions, as ever!
That's an awfully long disquisition on the book for someone who stopped reading it.I last read it around 50 years ago but I am blessed with a good memory and the ability to use the internet for research purposes when needed. You are the one who has been offering opinions without looking into the facts or at what a number of intelligent folks have already written here.
Oh, and Madge pulls out those gnarled, yellow claws!And you're not guilty of offering up opinions on Kierkegaard, whom you've obviously never read?
I have read Kierkagaard! I just prefer to forget him (and most philosophers).
I doubt you really want to forget about him at all, since you're so willing to throw around your opinions about him willy-nilly.
Sorry, I'm not very well up on philosophy, but I do know something about literature and, for my money, the chapter called Rebellion is by far the strongest piece of writing, so far, in the book - and that puts the atheist case most eloquently.
Yes, when Ivan speaks about the pain of children, he is very moving. There is more of Ivan and atheism much later in the book. The other interesting thing about this chapter is Ivan's reference to the 'tears of that one tortured child' etc in the light of Dostoevsky's own study of the abuse of children, and the accusations against him of paedophilia, to which I have given links in the Resources section. In Chapter 5 there is a a statement that all socialists are atheists:
'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.'
There is also this little comment in Chapter 5
'But there are a few peculiar men among them who believe in God and are Christians, but at the same time are socialists. These are the people we are most afraid of. They are dreadful people The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist.'
And another reference socialists here (chapter 65):-
'That's when all are equal and all have property in common, there are no marriages, and everyone has any religion and laws he likes best, and all the rest of it...'
To summarise, the French socialists at this time were much more atheistic than English and American socialists, perhaps as a result of their Revolution which had, in part, been a reaction to the influence the catholic church exercised over Louis XIV. Dostoevsky came across this sort of socialist when he visited , Paris and Berlin. Significantly, he did not visit England or America, where Christian socialists like Charles Kingsley were very prominent.
In Chapter 39 there is this hope that the Russian people will turn away from atheism' (a frequent theme of Dostoevsky):
'One who does not believe in God will not believe in God's people. He who believes in God's people will see His Holiness too, even though he had not believed in it till then. Only the people and their future spiritual power will convert our atheists, who have torn themselves away from their native soil.
And again in Chapter 41:-
'And the Russian monk has always been on the side of the people. We are isolated only if the people are isolated. The people believe as we do, and an unbelieving reformer will never do anything in Russia, even if he is sincere in heart and a genius. Remember that! The people will meet the atheist and overcome him, and Russia will be one and orthodox. Take care of the peasant and guard his heart. Go on educating him quietly. That's your duty as monks, for the peasant has God in his heart.'
Yes, I am one against many here and do not know where to start except to say that socialism is being confused with communism in a lot of the instances given. Communism is not a democratic philosophy, socialism is. Tito was a communist not a socialist and his was a dictatorial regime, however well he played his hand. Ditto Castro. It makes a lot of difference to the freedoms citizens enjoy. Yes, socialism is materialistic but I still hold that things like equality, fraternity and liberty have a spiritual element - Christians often tell me that to be spiritual you don't need a God so my definition of spiritual is different to theirs. And I also think that the church is equally materialistic and that Dostoevsky did not acknowledge this. Churches want bums on seats as much as politicians want votes!
As for the Victorians wanting to help prostitutes - they were trying to reform them and to prevent the spread of STDs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
From my p.o.v., a European socialist one perhaps, everyone is worth helping, yes, even paedophiles or murderers. If we can help fellow citizens to make a better life I think we have a duty to do so and I prefer that my government makes social policy decisions democratically rather than my society rely on subjective, biased, possibly religious, decisions made by individuals who would leave certain sections of the population to rot in the street:(. Which does not seem very Christian to me!
Statistics going back to Victorian times show that as a result of later social programmes (some, such as Children's Homes, first instituted by reforming Victorians) show a reduction in all kinds of poverty and crime. Poverty and crime are always with us yes, but both can be alleviated by certain social policies paid for by taxes. Alleviating poverty and crime can also, IMO, help with spiritual development because it can help the poor and oppressed to raise their heads above the parapet of everyday grind. A Russian peasant on the verge of starvation, grubbing for ears of corn in the dirt for her children might get consolation from a wealthy, richly decorated church and priest but her everyday cares, her ill-health, are not going to leave much energy for spiritual concerns. It might have 'done her good' but it would not have prevented her or her children from dying young or suffering from poverty related diseases. It was government programmes which did this. Just 'Loving one another' or praying for those less fortunate is an easy way out which does not require us to do anything. Loving and praying for a teenager in Kenya will not definitely help to get her through school but my country's aid will. Loving and praying for a drug addict will not definitely effect a cure but my taxes paid towards a drug rehabilitation clinic can. Father Zossima takes the easy way out IMO and Dostoevsky seems too embittered to care a damn about his fellow man.
Patrice says she would not want a handout but that feeling comes from already having a roof over your head and a full belly, it is not what the poor and oppressed are likely to feel. Why did the French peasants march on Versailles? Why did the Russian peasants march on the Winter Palace? In any case, I do not think that the redistribution of taxes is the same as a charitable handout because that redistribution contributes to the general welfare of society which, in turn, leads to less poverty overall. It is long term, not short term good.
However, there is a vast gulf between us here as I do not care a jot about spiritual development because I do not really know what it means but I do care that those around me are cared for, I do care very much about 'doing unto others as I would be done unto' because one day, I might be poor and need a handout. Indeed, perhaps I am the only person here who has been very poor and ill and who has benefited enormously from state 'handouts', as have my children. Without them I might have died and my children might have ended up in permanent care. As it is, having been given state assistance, we all eventually got good jobs and have happily contributed large amounts of tax so that others can be helped. Our spiritual development has been by way of having a comfortable lifestyle which enabled us to enjoy the 'spirituality' of art and music which, when you are at the bottom of the heap, you scarcely know exists. Give me and my children full bellies and a roof over our heads over airy-fairy spirituality any day! My experience of poverty and of mixing with the very poor and sick in mental hospital and, later, on charitable 'soup runs' is that they do not much think about freedom, they are much more concerned about where the next meal is coming from or how to get rid of the rats and cockroaches in their run-down accommodation. Freedom is a relative concept; until you have the money to go to the Ritz, you are not free to go to the Ritz. The poor in the US are therefore just as 'unfree' as the poor in China.
(Aid statistics are generally based on the percentage of GDP given and UN statistics always show the Scandinavian countries as being at the top of that league table. Those were the charity statistics I was thinking of.)