In my article “Being Alone with One’s Thoughts” 1 I discussed the issue of being alone versus being lonely. The need for constantly stimulation is very prevalent in Western society, but was not always found in other cultures around the world. For example, Russian society has always had a more reflexive mindset. This may be changing now that Western culture has made its way into Russia and that part of the world. Hopefully, it will continue to endure into the next generation.
In an interview, Russian film director Andrei Tarkovsky [Андрей Арсеньевич Тарковский] (1932-1986) was asked what message he would like to leave for young people. Tarkovsky said that they should learn to love solitude and to be able to be alone with themselves. He believed that young people were carrying out noisy and aggressive actions in an effort not to be alone. He felt that all individuals must learn to be on his own as a child. This is not the same as being alone. He is referring to the idea of not becoming bored with oneself, which is sees as a very dangerous symptom, almost a disease.2
One thing which being alone can inspire, regardless of whether this isolation is voluntary or forced, is a sense of creativity. There are numerous examples of highly creative people who chose to be alone for extended periods of time and others who were forced into solitude as a result of imprisonment.
On Christmas Day 1849, Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) began the long journey from St. Petersburg to Siberia where he was to spend the next four years in a prison camp. Together with other members of the Petrashevsky circle, a group of intellectuals, he had been arrested in April 1849, and had already spent eight months as a prisoner in the Peter and Paul fortress. During this initial period, he was in solitary confinement, and, at first, was not allowed books or writing materials. In spite of this, he discovered that he had inner resources which enabled him to tolerate captivity far better than he had initially expected. His arrest may even have saved him from a breakdown, rather than precipitating it; for there is evidence that his participation in an underground revolutionary organization had been preying on his mind during the previous winter, and had brought him to the edge of a collapse.
When, at the beginning of July, the prisoners were allowed to receive books from the fortress library Dostoevsky fell upon them. He also wrote to his brother, Mikhail, telling him that he had thought out three stories and two novels. The famous incident of the mock execution in Semenovsky Square, when Dostoevsky faced a firing squad, only to be reprieved at the last minute, followed on December 22nd. In Siberia, Dostoevsky’s only literary activity keeping a surreptitious notebook in which he noted the phrases and expressions used by his fellow convicts. He managed to give the notebook to one of the medical assistants who returned it to him upon his release. Its contents were used in House of the Dead, the book which described his prison camp experience.
This experience was horrific, not only because of the appalling physical conditions in which the convicts were housed, and the perpetual threat of flogging under which they lived, but Dostoevsky found himself, as a ‘gentleman’, totally rejected by the brutish peasant prisoners whose cause he had espoused and for whose sake, as a potential revolutionary, he was suffering exile and imprisonment. During the time of his imprisonment, Dostoevsky underwent a conversion experience in which his total dissolution with the peasantry was replaced by an almost mystical belief in their essential goodness. This was based upon an involuntary memory which came back to him from his childhood of an incident in which one of his father’s serfs, Marey, had comforted him when he was terrified. Although Dostoevsky suffered deeply from never being alone while in the prison camp, his emotional isolation and lack of companionship had the effect of turning his attention inward, and allowing his mind to wander in the past.
All through his four years in camp he had employed the technique of involuntary association, which probably served somewhat the same purpose as psychoanalysis or drug therapy in releasing repressed dreams and thereby relieving his psychic blocks and morbid fixations. This technique also served the additional and reassuring function of keeping alive his artistic faculties under conditions where he was forbidden to put pen to paper.3
Dostoevsky’s experience of penal servitude permanently influenced his view of human nature and hence permeated his novels. More particularly, his experience of seeing convicts who for years had been ruthlessly crushed suddenly break out and assert their own personalities, often in violent and irrational fashion, made him feel that individual self-expression or self-realization was a basic human need, a need which did not accord with the subordination of individuality to the collective demands of the State.4
Other creative people who experienced forced solitude included Edith Bone, M.D. (1889-1975), Christopher Burney (1917-1980), and Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827). Unlike Burney and Bone, Beethoven’s forced solitude was the result of his deafness which began in 1796 and continued for many years. His famous “Ninth Symphony” was written after his hearing loss had become more pronounced. In fact, after he played this symphony for the first time he actually cried because he was not able to hear the applause.5
Creativity inspiration is something which needs to be both encouraged and supported. Being alone is certainly a source of inspiration for various creative genius. In the case of some of these people they actually had difficulty interacting with other adults and some never had any type of intimate relationship and very few close friends. This may not be the type of solitude that every person can engage in, but it was certainly successful of some people.
End Notes
1) “Being Alone with One’s Thoughts” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/06/being-alone-with-ones-thoughts.html (accessed 5/7/12)
2) “Being Alone with One’s Thoughts”
3) Joseph Frank Dostoevsky: The Years of Ordeal, 1850 to 1859 Five Volumes, (Princeton: 1983), Vol. II, p. 122
4) Anthony Storr Solitude: A Return to the Self (NY: Ballantine Books, 1988), p. 59
5) “Ludwig van Beethoven” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven (accessed 5/7/12)
Showing posts with label Orthodox culture.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orthodox culture.. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Two Different Worlds
One of the most popular songs in the United States in 1956 was entitled “Two Different Worlds”. The title of this song can easily describe one of the many themes which took place in The Uncle’s Dream by Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881). Like most, if not all, of Dostoevsky’s novels there are numerous themes working their way through this novel at the same time.
This novel takes place in a small provincial town called Mordasov which has within it what might be referred to as a mini-salon; similar to those in St. Petersburg. However, it is much smaller and of less significance. The main character is a rather shallow woman named Maria Moskalyova. She is more interested in appearances than substance and would be considered “plastic” in American society. She is deceitful, a liar, but, unlike many “plastic” people she lacks any sort of power.
Maria has a very attractive, head strong daughter named Zina. She has a desire to be honorable in her dealings with men, but lacks a suitable female role model and she also considers herself to be too good for the local men. As a result of this Zina is very confused. Her father, Afanasy, is not exactly an ideal male role model.1
Afanasy is a completely ignorant fool who received his position as a result of his connections. He is completely clueless and dominated by Maria. Her father is not exactly the ideal role model when his young daughter is looking for a husband. In fact, he is the type of man that Zina would not be attracted to at all. Is it any wonder why she is confused?
Zina is a pursued by many men, but one, in particular, was a rather sympathetic character known as “The Prince”, a man distantly related to the old gentry of Russian society. This character calls to mind Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin from Dostoevsky’s novel The Idiot. Prince Myshkin is a beautiful soul that he is often taken for an idiot, and indeed, he considers himself to be stupid. However, while he suffers from mental illness, he is only “simple” in the sense that he cannot grasp evil. He thinks good of everyone he meets and expects that everyone else does too. This simple acceptance of people, and his simple way of living, leads those around him to befriend him and yet to feel themselves smarter and better than him.2
The Prince has a small fortune and some land, but, like almost all the characters in this novel, he is as clueless about the world as anyone else. He is a much older man with several health problems. Even though there is a major age difference between the Prince and Zina, Maria encourages the relationship as a way of assuring her family that they will inherit the Prince’s fortune. Actually, the primary concern is that she and Zina will inherit this fortune. There is very little indication that Maria is concerned about her husband at all.
Another major character is Pavel Morglyakov. He is very attracted to Zina and Maria decides to use the prince as a way of getting Pavel out of Zina’s life. The Prince is invited to Zina’s home, given quite a bit to drink, and Zina begins to sing various songs which are meant to inspire feelings of love. This plan works. The Prince proposes to Zina and her mother encourages her to go along with this plan. Zina is not particularly interested in marrying a much older man who is in such poor physical condition, but Maria finally explains to her the morality of this act.
Pavel overhears the conversation between Zina and Maria and informs the Prince of this plan. Pavel realizes that Maria is doing this for the purpose of her own personal advancement and is aware that she will be throwing a major ball for all the most important people in the town so that she can announce Zina’s engagement. Pavel’s plan is to convince the Prince that this entire event was only a dream, which does not take a great deal of effort given the Prince’s state of confusion.
At this banquet, Maria is waiting for the proper moment to make the announcement; however, the Prince is now convinced that the entire event was a dream. Maria is mortified and does what she can to maintain her dignity, but the Prince is convinced that it was a dream. Maria is so frustrated that she calls the Prince “an imbecile” and the entire event is a major humiliation for Maria. A short time later the prince dies.3
Zina finds out that Vasya, a poet who Zina loves, is dying and she spends every moment at this bedside. Vasya is a romantic. He is intelligent, artistic, and more concerned by his work and the arts than about money. As you imagine, such a relationship between Zina and Vasya would never appeal to Maria. There is no ability for personal advancement if your daughter marries a penniless poet.
What does all this have to do with “two different worlds”? Well, the reality is that there are two completely different worlds in this novel. The Prince represents “Old Russia”. Old Russian culture, life in Russia prior to the influence of western culture, was very appealing to Dostoevsky. In The Idiot, Prince Myshkin is also representative of Old Russia. Its values and traditions appeared to be outdated and dying among those who accepted post-Petrine Russian society. Old Russian culture can be seen in the characters of Alexei and Dmitry Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov as well as Sonya in Crime and Punishment.
Dostoevsky would definitely have been considered a Slavophile. Slavophiles believed that the Russians have a special relationship with authority. The people lived as if they are in a "contract" with the civil system - they are community members, they have their own life, you - the power, you have your own life. Konstantin Sergeyevich Aksakov (1817-1860) wrote that the country has a deliberative vote, the force of public opinion, but the right to make the final decision belongs to the monarch. An example of this relationship may be the relationship between the king and the Zemsky Sobor (first Russian parliament in the 16th Century) in Moscow between the state, which allowed Russia to live in a world without the shocks and the revolutionary upheavals like the French Revolution. "Distortion" in Russian history Slavophiles associated with the activities of Peter the Great (1672-1725), who "opened a window to Europe" thus violating the contract, the balance in the life of the country, and knocked her off the path charted by God.4
The Prince represents simplicity and grace. He is the only one to refer to the Old Russian religion as he prepares to spend time with Father Michael at a nearby monastery. In a telling and comic line in this story, the Prince tells a local gathering at Maria’s house that he is going to go abroad to soak in the “new ideas” of western Europe, just after returns from the monastery. Those two ideas are opposites, and the Prince has no idea that they are, having no concept whatsoever what the “new ideas” are in western Europe, he just knows that the elites speak this way, therefore, he must as well. It is obvious that he is completely out of place in modern Russia.5
In contrast, Maria is presented as a representative of modern Russia culture. She is an opportunistic, self-absorbed, uncaring woman who will even go so far as to use her daughter in order to accomplish her personal goals. The only thing which is important in modern culture is a manifestation of power which is falsely associated with strength and virtue. This idea is associated directly with the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), particularly his novel The Prince.
Maria is the exact opposite of Old Russia. She does not believe in its values, but she attempts to make use of these values in order to accomplish her own agenda. Dostoevsky emphasizes this point by situating this novel in a small insignificant town instead of St. Petersburg. She presents herself as an extremely large fish is a very small pond.
It is highly unlikely that Maria and her friends would have understood the philosophical foundation associated with bringing western culture to Russia or the possibility that such changes might destroy their homeland. Instead, they were concerned about what benefits they could receive from such changes and if people’s lives were destroyed in the process that would simply be the end result of “progress”.
Between the Prince and Maria, there are several characters that represent a bridge between these two different worlds. Zina, for example, is confused. Even though she finally goes along with her mother’s plan to deceive the Prince, she does not believe this is right, but is not sure why. On the one hand, she finds something very appealing about the culture of Old Russia, but she is heavily influenced by her mother.
In The Idiot, this character is represented by Nastasya Filippovna. Prince Myshkin professes his love for Nastasya and she finds something very appealing about him, but the westernized culture of St. Petersburg pulls her in the direction of Parfyon Rogozhin who turns out to be a poor choice for her. Nastasya felt caught between the culture of Old Russia and the “progress” of modern Russia. This tension becomes a major source of conflict throughout the rest of this novel.
The 1956 song I mentioned at the beginning of the article speaks about two people who come from two different worlds, but they have come to believe that their love will overcome this divide. If these people can come together from two completely different worlds it can be a wonderful experience. Potentially, this is also true when it comes to two different cultures within one nation.
One of the major challenges is that there is really no way to blend these two cultures. Instead of being harmonious, one culture will succeed and one will fail. Even though students from the former USSR are required to read classic Russian novels as part of their education, there is very little indication that these novels are read by many of them after their formal education is finished or that they have a great appreciation for the culture that these novelists were espousing.
As a result of Russia having kept the West at a distance, by her refusal to imitate the intellectual forms of the Western world, Russia was spared many of the problems which faced the West. Her westernizing philosophers and rulers were erroneous, for they were importing the seeds of revolution and class war. For Russia, the patristic tradition from Greece and the Near East was a holistic way of thinking, taking to itself faith, social life, society, and philosophy into a larger whole animated by the Holy Spirit, rather than becoming a sect dedicated to the teachings of one man or office. The spirit was internalized, and authority was something shared by the body of believers guided by the hierarchy (though not entirely by them), rather than alien ideas spoken in an alien tongue. The notion of the state and law immediately followed from this, for the state was not a cold and distant monster, but was represented by the “little father” who shared their concern and pain. However, the invasion of western ideas was starting to vitiate this idea. For the Slavophiles, the structure of the basically independent commune was always to be the living answer to the West and the guarantee of the communal and cultural idea of liberty that the West had long forgotten; of course, Aleksey Khomyakov also believed that Russia was heading down that same path if the state continued her centralizing and standardizing tendencies.6
Based upon my conversations with many friends in the former USSR, life has not changed for the better as a result of introducing Western culture. Contrary to Orthodox tradition, the culture has become more materialistic and people are becoming more selfish. It is very sad that my friends have experienced this, but if this is a reality for the vast majority of the people it is not only sad, but dangerous.
The younger people seem to show little or no interest in their heritage, but want to become more “American” (the premier representative of Western culture). One major challenge is that Western and Eastern culture are vastly different. This is based upon a variety of factors including location and the influence of the Orthodox Church in the East.
Instead of being happy with these changes, my sense is that many of these people are confused. Internally they realize that there is something very unique and special about their culture, but they are having Western ideas thrust upon them. This confusion leads to a sense of sadness which may not be easy to vocalize.
Living on the border between two different worlds can be challenging for anyone. In order to so properly it is important to have a proper understanding of both worlds so that a proper decision can be made regarding which world a person chooses to live in. Giving up one’s world (culture) without a profound understanding of it will not only lead to confusion, but a feeling of being lost because they have turned away from one culture while not being fully accepted by the other.
End Notes
1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 152
2) “A Truly Beautiful Soul” http://www.suite101.com/content/the-idiot-by-fyodor-dostoevsky-a123952 (accessed 4/15/12)
3) Johnson, p. 157.
4) “Westerners and Slavophiles” http://istorya.ru/referat/referat2/23642.php (accessed 4/21/12)
5) Johnson, p. 158
6) Johnson, p. 223
This novel takes place in a small provincial town called Mordasov which has within it what might be referred to as a mini-salon; similar to those in St. Petersburg. However, it is much smaller and of less significance. The main character is a rather shallow woman named Maria Moskalyova. She is more interested in appearances than substance and would be considered “plastic” in American society. She is deceitful, a liar, but, unlike many “plastic” people she lacks any sort of power.
Maria has a very attractive, head strong daughter named Zina. She has a desire to be honorable in her dealings with men, but lacks a suitable female role model and she also considers herself to be too good for the local men. As a result of this Zina is very confused. Her father, Afanasy, is not exactly an ideal male role model.1
Afanasy is a completely ignorant fool who received his position as a result of his connections. He is completely clueless and dominated by Maria. Her father is not exactly the ideal role model when his young daughter is looking for a husband. In fact, he is the type of man that Zina would not be attracted to at all. Is it any wonder why she is confused?
Zina is a pursued by many men, but one, in particular, was a rather sympathetic character known as “The Prince”, a man distantly related to the old gentry of Russian society. This character calls to mind Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin from Dostoevsky’s novel The Idiot. Prince Myshkin is a beautiful soul that he is often taken for an idiot, and indeed, he considers himself to be stupid. However, while he suffers from mental illness, he is only “simple” in the sense that he cannot grasp evil. He thinks good of everyone he meets and expects that everyone else does too. This simple acceptance of people, and his simple way of living, leads those around him to befriend him and yet to feel themselves smarter and better than him.2
The Prince has a small fortune and some land, but, like almost all the characters in this novel, he is as clueless about the world as anyone else. He is a much older man with several health problems. Even though there is a major age difference between the Prince and Zina, Maria encourages the relationship as a way of assuring her family that they will inherit the Prince’s fortune. Actually, the primary concern is that she and Zina will inherit this fortune. There is very little indication that Maria is concerned about her husband at all.
Another major character is Pavel Morglyakov. He is very attracted to Zina and Maria decides to use the prince as a way of getting Pavel out of Zina’s life. The Prince is invited to Zina’s home, given quite a bit to drink, and Zina begins to sing various songs which are meant to inspire feelings of love. This plan works. The Prince proposes to Zina and her mother encourages her to go along with this plan. Zina is not particularly interested in marrying a much older man who is in such poor physical condition, but Maria finally explains to her the morality of this act.
Pavel overhears the conversation between Zina and Maria and informs the Prince of this plan. Pavel realizes that Maria is doing this for the purpose of her own personal advancement and is aware that she will be throwing a major ball for all the most important people in the town so that she can announce Zina’s engagement. Pavel’s plan is to convince the Prince that this entire event was only a dream, which does not take a great deal of effort given the Prince’s state of confusion.
At this banquet, Maria is waiting for the proper moment to make the announcement; however, the Prince is now convinced that the entire event was a dream. Maria is mortified and does what she can to maintain her dignity, but the Prince is convinced that it was a dream. Maria is so frustrated that she calls the Prince “an imbecile” and the entire event is a major humiliation for Maria. A short time later the prince dies.3
Zina finds out that Vasya, a poet who Zina loves, is dying and she spends every moment at this bedside. Vasya is a romantic. He is intelligent, artistic, and more concerned by his work and the arts than about money. As you imagine, such a relationship between Zina and Vasya would never appeal to Maria. There is no ability for personal advancement if your daughter marries a penniless poet.
What does all this have to do with “two different worlds”? Well, the reality is that there are two completely different worlds in this novel. The Prince represents “Old Russia”. Old Russian culture, life in Russia prior to the influence of western culture, was very appealing to Dostoevsky. In The Idiot, Prince Myshkin is also representative of Old Russia. Its values and traditions appeared to be outdated and dying among those who accepted post-Petrine Russian society. Old Russian culture can be seen in the characters of Alexei and Dmitry Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov as well as Sonya in Crime and Punishment.
Dostoevsky would definitely have been considered a Slavophile. Slavophiles believed that the Russians have a special relationship with authority. The people lived as if they are in a "contract" with the civil system - they are community members, they have their own life, you - the power, you have your own life. Konstantin Sergeyevich Aksakov (1817-1860) wrote that the country has a deliberative vote, the force of public opinion, but the right to make the final decision belongs to the monarch. An example of this relationship may be the relationship between the king and the Zemsky Sobor (first Russian parliament in the 16th Century) in Moscow between the state, which allowed Russia to live in a world without the shocks and the revolutionary upheavals like the French Revolution. "Distortion" in Russian history Slavophiles associated with the activities of Peter the Great (1672-1725), who "opened a window to Europe" thus violating the contract, the balance in the life of the country, and knocked her off the path charted by God.4
The Prince represents simplicity and grace. He is the only one to refer to the Old Russian religion as he prepares to spend time with Father Michael at a nearby monastery. In a telling and comic line in this story, the Prince tells a local gathering at Maria’s house that he is going to go abroad to soak in the “new ideas” of western Europe, just after returns from the monastery. Those two ideas are opposites, and the Prince has no idea that they are, having no concept whatsoever what the “new ideas” are in western Europe, he just knows that the elites speak this way, therefore, he must as well. It is obvious that he is completely out of place in modern Russia.5
In contrast, Maria is presented as a representative of modern Russia culture. She is an opportunistic, self-absorbed, uncaring woman who will even go so far as to use her daughter in order to accomplish her personal goals. The only thing which is important in modern culture is a manifestation of power which is falsely associated with strength and virtue. This idea is associated directly with the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), particularly his novel The Prince.
Maria is the exact opposite of Old Russia. She does not believe in its values, but she attempts to make use of these values in order to accomplish her own agenda. Dostoevsky emphasizes this point by situating this novel in a small insignificant town instead of St. Petersburg. She presents herself as an extremely large fish is a very small pond.
It is highly unlikely that Maria and her friends would have understood the philosophical foundation associated with bringing western culture to Russia or the possibility that such changes might destroy their homeland. Instead, they were concerned about what benefits they could receive from such changes and if people’s lives were destroyed in the process that would simply be the end result of “progress”.
Between the Prince and Maria, there are several characters that represent a bridge between these two different worlds. Zina, for example, is confused. Even though she finally goes along with her mother’s plan to deceive the Prince, she does not believe this is right, but is not sure why. On the one hand, she finds something very appealing about the culture of Old Russia, but she is heavily influenced by her mother.
In The Idiot, this character is represented by Nastasya Filippovna. Prince Myshkin professes his love for Nastasya and she finds something very appealing about him, but the westernized culture of St. Petersburg pulls her in the direction of Parfyon Rogozhin who turns out to be a poor choice for her. Nastasya felt caught between the culture of Old Russia and the “progress” of modern Russia. This tension becomes a major source of conflict throughout the rest of this novel.
The 1956 song I mentioned at the beginning of the article speaks about two people who come from two different worlds, but they have come to believe that their love will overcome this divide. If these people can come together from two completely different worlds it can be a wonderful experience. Potentially, this is also true when it comes to two different cultures within one nation.
One of the major challenges is that there is really no way to blend these two cultures. Instead of being harmonious, one culture will succeed and one will fail. Even though students from the former USSR are required to read classic Russian novels as part of their education, there is very little indication that these novels are read by many of them after their formal education is finished or that they have a great appreciation for the culture that these novelists were espousing.
As a result of Russia having kept the West at a distance, by her refusal to imitate the intellectual forms of the Western world, Russia was spared many of the problems which faced the West. Her westernizing philosophers and rulers were erroneous, for they were importing the seeds of revolution and class war. For Russia, the patristic tradition from Greece and the Near East was a holistic way of thinking, taking to itself faith, social life, society, and philosophy into a larger whole animated by the Holy Spirit, rather than becoming a sect dedicated to the teachings of one man or office. The spirit was internalized, and authority was something shared by the body of believers guided by the hierarchy (though not entirely by them), rather than alien ideas spoken in an alien tongue. The notion of the state and law immediately followed from this, for the state was not a cold and distant monster, but was represented by the “little father” who shared their concern and pain. However, the invasion of western ideas was starting to vitiate this idea. For the Slavophiles, the structure of the basically independent commune was always to be the living answer to the West and the guarantee of the communal and cultural idea of liberty that the West had long forgotten; of course, Aleksey Khomyakov also believed that Russia was heading down that same path if the state continued her centralizing and standardizing tendencies.6
Based upon my conversations with many friends in the former USSR, life has not changed for the better as a result of introducing Western culture. Contrary to Orthodox tradition, the culture has become more materialistic and people are becoming more selfish. It is very sad that my friends have experienced this, but if this is a reality for the vast majority of the people it is not only sad, but dangerous.
The younger people seem to show little or no interest in their heritage, but want to become more “American” (the premier representative of Western culture). One major challenge is that Western and Eastern culture are vastly different. This is based upon a variety of factors including location and the influence of the Orthodox Church in the East.
Instead of being happy with these changes, my sense is that many of these people are confused. Internally they realize that there is something very unique and special about their culture, but they are having Western ideas thrust upon them. This confusion leads to a sense of sadness which may not be easy to vocalize.
Living on the border between two different worlds can be challenging for anyone. In order to so properly it is important to have a proper understanding of both worlds so that a proper decision can be made regarding which world a person chooses to live in. Giving up one’s world (culture) without a profound understanding of it will not only lead to confusion, but a feeling of being lost because they have turned away from one culture while not being fully accepted by the other.
End Notes
1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 152
2) “A Truly Beautiful Soul” http://www.suite101.com/content/the-idiot-by-fyodor-dostoevsky-a123952 (accessed 4/15/12)
3) Johnson, p. 157.
4) “Westerners and Slavophiles” http://istorya.ru/referat/referat2/23642.php (accessed 4/21/12)
5) Johnson, p. 158
6) Johnson, p. 223
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Suffering and Community in "The Brothers Karamazov"
In my article about Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy1 I spoke about the fact that one of the things which distinguish Orthodox culture from Western culture is the understanding of the importance of family and relationships. From my earliest days in school, I was raised to be a completely autonomous human being. My father, in particular, told me repeatedly that I should never have to rely upon anyone and since both of my parents are only children the day would come that I would have no one left to turn to, so I need to become completely self-sufficient.
Yet before his “rebellion” against God's world, Ivan exclaims to Alyosha, “you are trying to save me, but perhaps I am not lost,” and appeals to the Karamazov “thirst for life regardless of everything,” or regardless of what logic might conclude. Ivan invokes Dostoevsky's “Ridiculous Man”; he speaks of his capacity for irrational love, “loving with one's insides, with one's guts,” and proclaims,
At the end of his poem; however, Ivan determines to “escape the cup” once aged past his youth, appealing to the other, darker, “bug-like” side of the “thirst for life” – the “Karamazov baseness.” Thus, the Karamazov “thirst for life” can be seen to correlate to the contrasting forces within Ivan.
The Grand Inquisitor himself, as Ivan's creation, embodies this same inner struggle; he too was once a genuine believer in the Christian faith. “I too have been in the wilderness, I too lived on roots and locusts, I too prized the freedom with which Thou hast blessed us, I too was striving to stand among Thy elect, among the strong and powerful…But I awakened and would not serve madness.” The Grand Inquisitor has also rejected God's world; he is a reflection of Ivan's own wishes to reconstruct the world in a manner devoid of the misery and suffering at the source of his rejection.
The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor finds Christ on the steps of the Seville Cathedral during the Spanish Inquisition, restoring sight to an old man and bringing a little girl back from the dead. Discovered by the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor, he is arrested and sentenced to be burned at the stake. The Grand Inquisitor views Christ's presence as a step backwards in his own work; in Christ's rejection of the Devil's three temptations, he sees a rejection of happiness for mankind for the sake of freedom. The Grand Inquisitor, noting Christ's error, asks, “Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering.” The Grand Inquisitor and his church have “corrected Thy work, and founded it upon miracles, mystery, and authority” – corresponding to the three temptations of the Devil – under the false guise of Christ himself.” Humanity can never be free, for it is “weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious.” Thus, members of the church – the few “wise men” - sacrifice themselves for the happiness of others, while deprived of the very freedom Christ wished to provide them. 2
Despite declaring the Inquisitor to be an atheist, Ivan also has the Inquisitor saying that the Catholic Church follows "the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction," i.e. the Devil, Satan. He says "We are not with Thee, but with him, and that is our secret! For centuries have we abandoned Thee to follow him?" He, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and for humanity to unite under the banner of the Church. The multitude then is guided through the Church by the few who are strong enough to take on the burden of freedom. The Inquisitor says that under him, all mankind will live and die happily in ignorance. Though he leads them only to "death and destruction," they will be happy along the way. The Inquisitor will be a self-martyr, spending his life to keep choice from humanity. He states that "Anyone who can appease a man's conscience can take his freedom away from him."
The Inquisitor advances this argument by explaining why Christ was wrong to reject each temptation by Satan. Christ should have turned stones into bread, as men will always follow those who will feed their bellies. The Inquisitor recalls how Christ rejected this saying, "Man cannot live on bread alone," and explains to Christ "Feed men, and then ask of them virtue! That's what they'll write on the banner they'll raise against Thee." Casting himself down from the temple to be caught by angels would cement his godhood in the minds of people, who would follow him forever. Rule over all the kingdoms of the Earth would ensure their salvation, the Grand Inquisitor claims.
The segment ends when Christ, who has been silent throughout, kisses the Inquisitor on his "bloodless, aged lips" instead of answering him. On this, the Inquisitor releases Christ but tells him never to return. Christ, still silent, leaves into "the dark alleys of the city." Not only is the kiss ambiguous, but its effect on the Inquisitor is as well. Ivan concludes, "The kiss glows in his heart, but the old man adheres to his idea." 3
This notion of personal autonomy and complete self-sufficiency is a product of the Enlightenment and a uniquely Western idea. Complete self-sufficiency does not involve only our relationships with others, but with God as well. As a child I was fascinated with religion and religious ideas. When I presented these ideas to my parents, my father would say, “God is too busy to be bothered with what is going on in our lives.” Therefore, I should not even consider turned to God because He will not help me.
What I was told as a child was certainly not unique to me or my family. Since the period of the Enlightenment, which began in the late seventeenth century, these ideas have been alive in the West and finally made their way to Russia at the time that Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) was writing. In his most famous novel, The Brothers Karamazov, we are introduced to three brothers who are each living out their lives in accord with a particular idea and personal philosophy.
In one particular scene in the novel, two of the brothers, Alyosha and Ivan, are having a discussion about God. Ivan is the embodiment of Enlightenment ideas. He does not believe in God and sees himself as a completely autonomous person who does not have to rely upon anyone. However, he also deeply resents his father because he realizes that he is dependent upon his father, to a certain extent, and this dependence goes against his notion of personal autonomy. Alyosha is a novice at a local monastery. He believes that we are completely dependent upon God and finds a sense of belonging and purpose for his life by being a member of a religious community.
Ivan tells Alyosha a story about Jesus which has comes to be known as the legend of “The Grand Inquisitor”. Ivan’s main struggle is with God’s world. He cannot make sense of the fact that little children suffer or why, if God is seen as a source of order in the universe there appears to be such randomness and absurdity.
“Even if I didn't believe in life, if I lost faith in the order of things, were convinced in fact that everything is a disorderly, damnable and perhaps devil-ridden chaos, if I were struck by every horror of man's disillusionment – still I would want to live, and, having once tasted the cup, I would not turn away from it till I had drained it.”
At the end of his poem; however, Ivan determines to “escape the cup” once aged past his youth, appealing to the other, darker, “bug-like” side of the “thirst for life” – the “Karamazov baseness.” Thus, the Karamazov “thirst for life” can be seen to correlate to the contrasting forces within Ivan.
The Grand Inquisitor himself, as Ivan's creation, embodies this same inner struggle; he too was once a genuine believer in the Christian faith. “I too have been in the wilderness, I too lived on roots and locusts, I too prized the freedom with which Thou hast blessed us, I too was striving to stand among Thy elect, among the strong and powerful…But I awakened and would not serve madness.” The Grand Inquisitor has also rejected God's world; he is a reflection of Ivan's own wishes to reconstruct the world in a manner devoid of the misery and suffering at the source of his rejection.
The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor finds Christ on the steps of the Seville Cathedral during the Spanish Inquisition, restoring sight to an old man and bringing a little girl back from the dead. Discovered by the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor, he is arrested and sentenced to be burned at the stake. The Grand Inquisitor views Christ's presence as a step backwards in his own work; in Christ's rejection of the Devil's three temptations, he sees a rejection of happiness for mankind for the sake of freedom. The Grand Inquisitor, noting Christ's error, asks, “Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering.” The Grand Inquisitor and his church have “corrected Thy work, and founded it upon miracles, mystery, and authority” – corresponding to the three temptations of the Devil – under the false guise of Christ himself.” Humanity can never be free, for it is “weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious.” Thus, members of the church – the few “wise men” - sacrifice themselves for the happiness of others, while deprived of the very freedom Christ wished to provide them. 2
Despite declaring the Inquisitor to be an atheist, Ivan also has the Inquisitor saying that the Catholic Church follows "the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction," i.e. the Devil, Satan. He says "We are not with Thee, but with him, and that is our secret! For centuries have we abandoned Thee to follow him?" He, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and for humanity to unite under the banner of the Church. The multitude then is guided through the Church by the few who are strong enough to take on the burden of freedom. The Inquisitor says that under him, all mankind will live and die happily in ignorance. Though he leads them only to "death and destruction," they will be happy along the way. The Inquisitor will be a self-martyr, spending his life to keep choice from humanity. He states that "Anyone who can appease a man's conscience can take his freedom away from him."
The Inquisitor advances this argument by explaining why Christ was wrong to reject each temptation by Satan. Christ should have turned stones into bread, as men will always follow those who will feed their bellies. The Inquisitor recalls how Christ rejected this saying, "Man cannot live on bread alone," and explains to Christ "Feed men, and then ask of them virtue! That's what they'll write on the banner they'll raise against Thee." Casting himself down from the temple to be caught by angels would cement his godhood in the minds of people, who would follow him forever. Rule over all the kingdoms of the Earth would ensure their salvation, the Grand Inquisitor claims.
The segment ends when Christ, who has been silent throughout, kisses the Inquisitor on his "bloodless, aged lips" instead of answering him. On this, the Inquisitor releases Christ but tells him never to return. Christ, still silent, leaves into "the dark alleys of the city." Not only is the kiss ambiguous, but its effect on the Inquisitor is as well. Ivan concludes, "The kiss glows in his heart, but the old man adheres to his idea." 3
Throughout the rest of the novel Ivan struggles with the idea of human cruelty and the role that he plays in perpetuating such cruelty. In fact, he is driven to the point of insanity when he appears at his brother, Dmitry’s trial and professes that it was he, and not Dmitry, who responsible for the death of their father. Ivan did not physically kill his father, but becomes convinced that his desire that his father would die was the impetus which set everything in motion and lead to the death of his father at the hands of the family cook, who is also the illegitimate half-brother of these three men.
It is in this exchange with his brother that Ivan is showing his need for relationship. Even though his views are not completely accepted by Alyosha, Ivan still wants to know that his younger brother does not reject him because of his views and asks him that directly. Alyosha tells Ivan that he does not reject him and this can be seen as a source of comfort to Ivan.
The importance of this dialogue between Alyosha and Ivan is two-fold. It helps to gain insight into Ivan’s thought process and to be able to understand his world-view, which impacts how he interacts with others, and it gives the reader an opportunity to understand how important the role of dialogue is in regard to Dostoevsky’s personal philosophy and writings.
While we might, and I use the phrase loosely, want to think of ourselves as autonomous human beings who do not need the approval of others and can operate independent of the rest of the world, the fact is that this is not true. The Ancient Greek philosophers, particularly Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, wrote about the important of dialogue and the fact that we are “political animals” by nature. We do not exist in a vacuum and we not only desire, but truly need the approval and support of others, even if we do not want to admit it.
The Grand Inquisitor is Dostoevsky’s way of showing what Utilitarianism would look like if it were accepted as a lived philosophy. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) proposed a philosophy called Utilitarianism which taught that ethical principle to be followed was “the greatest good for the greatest number.” If more people benefit from a particular action than are hurt by it, then it is permissible and, in fact, encouraged.
Ivan’s Grand Inquisitor has set himself up as the judge to determine who would suffer and whether or not this suffering in the greatest public interest. He believes that suffering is inevitable, so he might as well use it to his advantage. This includes burning people at the stakes that he considers heretics and even burning Jesus at the stake. Such philosophical ideas may have some immediate positive emotional appeal; however, once the consequences of these ideas are taken into consideration they often lose their appeal.
Fyodor Dostoevsky, a deeply religious man, believed that we are created in the image and likeness of God and are therefore connected to one another at a very profound level. This idea was not accepted by many people who became proponents of Enlightenment ideas in Russia and it is not accept by many people today.
What was the patriarch of this family like? Fyodor Karamazov is portrayed as a rather self-absorbed man who believes in the notion that he is an autonomous human being; however, he too craves the attention of others. However, instead of receiving such attention in a positive way, he chooses to act like a clown. It has been said that there is no such thing as “negative attention” because any attention at all is better than no attention for someone who craves it so badly.
Dmitry is very much like his father; however, instead of taking on the role of a clown, he takes on the role of a scoundrel. Throughout the novel, the only thing that is important to Dmitry is his own well-being and happiness. However, everything changes for him while he is in prison.
After being convicted of the murder of his father, Dmitry is sent to prison and one evening he has a dream in which he encounters a little child who is suffering. Dmitry is moved with pity for this child and wants to find a way to relieve his suffering, but, instead, the little child kisses Dmitry on the head and comforts Dmitry instead.
Dmitry tells his dream to Alyosha and declares that he is willing to suffer in prison if it means that others can be happy. Dostoevsky is asking a profound question. Does someone’s happy have to come at the expense of someone else’s suffering? Dmitry has spent his life thinking only about himself and now he is prepared to offer himself as a “martyr for happiness”.
Alyosha, moved by his brother’s new found compassion, said that there is an alternative to this idea. The novel ends at the grave site of Illyusha Snegiryov, a child who had been mistreated and emotionally abused by his classmates. Illyusha’s father, Captain Snegiryov, had earlier been publicly humiliated by Dmitry and this brought shame on the entire family.
IlIyusha was excluded from any “community” developed by the other boys in his village and his suffering became a source of amusement for them. All of these things contributed to Illyusha becoming more and more ill.
At one point, Illyusha becomes convinced that he had killed a little dog. His caretaker, who knew the truth, refused to tell Illyusha that the dog had recovered. However, as Illyusha was close to death the other boys in the village experienced a sense of conversion. Instead of excluding Illyusha, they chose to include him in their “community” and his caretaker brought the little dog to him. Seeing how happy this made Illyusha was a source of joys to these little boys.
While at the gravesite, Alyosha tells these boys that they will never forget IIlyusha. Illyusha was a fine, caring, loving, young boy who wanted to be happy. He tells the boys that they should love each other and that they will always remember when they were at the grave stone. The twelve boys, now in tears, take each other by the hand and return to the Snegiryov family home.
The issues discussed by Dostoevsky in this novel are very profound. Written in the 1870s, this novel could just have easily been written in 2000. His last, and perhaps greatest, novel raises many important questions which will be asked by generations to come. How we answer these questions will determine whether we choose to live in isolation from each other and treat others as a means to an end or in community and see each other sources of support and encouragement as we continue the journey of life.
Another major point that Dostoevsky made was the need for forgiveness. The Grand Inquisitor does not see any value in forgiveness and this is true of many people today. Forgiveness is the only thing that restores relationships and allows us to live in harmony. Suffering is part of human life and it is important that we not only avoid becoming a source of suffering for others, but that we join with others in their suffering and share their burden with them.
End Notes
1) “Things Done in the Name of Love” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/08/things-done-in-name-of-love.html
2) “The ‘Legend of the Grand Inquisitor’: Moral Transformation in Brother Karamozov” (accessed 8/17/11)
3)”The Grand Inquisitor” (accessed 8/17/11)
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The Kindness of Others
The simplest acts of kindness on the part of one person can be understood as signs of weakness by someone else. There are some who have a certain childlike innocence about them which is often mistaken for either naiveté or stupidity. Has our society become so blind to the concept of basic human goodness that we feel the need to attempt to take advantage of someone or show our superiority over that person simply because they are kind and gentle?
There was a time when we expected such innocence from children, but even this is slowly being taken away. Children are exposed to so many things on the internet or television which only serve to undermine their innocence and make them into “young adults” way before they are ready for this.
The truth is that these issues are not unique to our generation. While earlier generations did not have to deal with the internet or other factors, there were those who would prey upon adults with childlike innocence and attempt to ruin their lives. They would take advantage of this person’s basic goodness and pervert it so that they were able to manipulate this person.
Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) wrote about such a person in his novel, The Idiot. The main character is Prince Myshkin. He is such a beautiful soul that he is often taken for an idiot, and indeed, he considers himself to be stupid. However, while he suffers from mental illness, he is only “simple” in the sense that he cannot grasp evil. He thinks good of everyone he meets and expects that everyone else does too. This simple acceptance of people, and his simple way of living, leads those around him to befriend him and yet to feel themselves smarter and better than him. 1
He is compassionate, benevolent, patient and forgiving. He arrives in Russia at the age of twenty six having spent four years in Switzerland treating his epilepsy and mental illness. He refers to himself as an 'idiot' because of this illness. The reason for his arrival to St. Petersburg is to start a new life with the help of his distant relative, Yelizaveta Prokofievna Yepanchin, General Yepanchin's haughty yet sensible wife. At the General's house he is attracted to Aglaya, the General’s youngest daughter, as a new hope. He is, to some extent, an amateur psychologist who can find out a great deal about people looking at their faces, pictures or handwriting. This ability draws him compassionately toward Nastasya Fillipovna as he sees great suffering in her and he wants to save her from self-destruction.On the matters of the real world, as the world that people find it necessary to operate in, the Prince is not able to detect the proportions of things- as he himself puts it. This is because his view of the world is of no deceit or make over. He views all the people as good and debases himself in comparison to them. He has no definite tact to go about his objectives and insists on going to it openly and frankly. His insistence on doing good to all the people crosses the boundary of human limitations and practicability. In the end his actions end up hurting more than doing good. He gets obsessed with trying to save Nastasya. Parfyon Rogozhin out of his love for Nastasya, and seeing she loves the Prince nearly tries to kill him. In the end, however, he stabs Nastasya to death. Prince Myshkin chooses Nastasya over Aglaya overlooking their engagement and her love towards him. This stains the family reputation of the Yepanchins and devastates Aglaya's true love.
His character is of a good ideal Christian and he does good to the people around him expecting them to be the same as himself. This of course isn't how the world operates and not knowing the boundary line or the proportion of things, his actions end up blowing the hopes of a new life for him to smithereens. In the end the results are devastating to himself and to the people around him. Thus he is an irony and a paradox to the modern society: Is the modern society so twisted that acts of simple goodness is equivalent to acts of idiocy? Is an ideal Christian and his conception of good so basic and simple that modern world sophistication looks down upon such acts of goodness? 2
In contrast, there is Parfyon Rogozhin. He is a rich merchant's son who meets the Prince on a train, by which they are both going to St. Petersburg. Rogozhin is going home from hiding because he squandered his father's money to buy presents for Nastasya. Now that his father had died he is going to claim his inheritance.
Rogozhin is the sort of person who when they want something do not stop at anything and go to any extreme to obtain it. He is a man driven by passion. His fate is intertwined with that of the Prince and Nastasya Fillipovna. Rogozhin is a rich man so he is an indulgent in his passions. His love for Nastasya is a full fervor passion, with both love and hate. She totally possesses him. When she asks him to buy her something for one hundred thousand rubles he does without a word of protest. When Nastasya runs away from him to Myshkin he follows her swallowing reproach and humiliation from her. He is totally mastered by this passion and to fulfill it squanders his wealth, time and energy. In the end when he knows for sure that he can never have Nastasya forever he kills her. He isn't totally bad, as many of his conversations with the Prince reveal, it is only that the passionate love for Nastasya that ruins him.
Here we have a character that would be considered by most to be “self-absorbed”. He wants what he wants when he wants it. While he may be completely bad, he is guided by his passions and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish his goal. Such a person would see someone like Prince Myshkin as foolish. We have all met people like Rogozhin in our lives. They can be very charming and personable; however, do not stand between them and what they desire. Such people would turn against you in an instant and not even feel the slightest tinge of guilt because their only motivation is their own desires.
Dostoyevsky's motives in writing The Idiot stem from his desire to depict the "positively good man". This man is naturally likened to Christ in many ways. Dostoyevsky uses Myshkin's introduction to the Petersburg society as a way to contrast the nature of Russian society at the time and the isolation and innocence of this good man. This is highlighted by his conflicts and relationship with Rogozhin. Indeed, Myshkin and Rogozhin are contrasted from the outset. Myshkin is associated with light, Rogozhin with dark. For example, in their initial descriptions on the train, Myshkin is described as having light hair and blue eyes, while Rogozhin has "dark features". Rogozhin's house is submerged in darkness, with iron bars on the windows. He is not only an embodiment of darkness, but surrounded by it. The two characters are clearly antithetical. If Myshkin should be seen as Christ, Rogozhin could easily be seen as the Devil. "Rog", in Russian, means horn, adding credence to such an assertion, although the primary association of his name is with rogozha ("bast"), possibly hinting at his humble origins. The novel effectively serves to show the folly of altruistic kindness in a society that is rife with self-advancement and unscrupulous behavior, as Myshkin is consistently manipulated and exploited by others around him.
Despite their difference, Myshkin and Rogozhin are both after Nastasya Filippovna—good and bad (and mediocre, in the image of Ganya) strive for the same thing. Love itself is shown in various manifestations, spurred by various motives. While vain Ganya wishes to marry Nastasya in order that he might, through acquisition of a large dowry, spark some of the individuality which he senses he lacks; Rogozhin loves Nastasya with a deep passion. Myshkin, however, loves her out of pity, out of Christian love. This love for her supersedes even the romantic love he has for Aglaya. It is important to note that Aglaya developed a great appreciation for Myshkin's purity of heart and capacity for empathic love, even which he felt for Nastasya. Aglaya and her sisters came to identify Myshkin with the protagonist of a famous Russian poem by Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837), "The Poor Knight", because of the Prince's quixotic, tragic quest to defend the honor of Nastasya in the face of the ridicule, and at times contempt, of all his acquaintances. And she grew to love him not in spite of this, but even more so because of it. At a gathering at the Prince's home that included her family and several of the Prince's friends, Aglaya flushes hotly when Kolya enigmatically and ironically declares "There's nothing better than the Poor Knight!" Though the comment is partially mocking him, in the depths of Aglaya's heart she agrees with this fully. In the end, though, Aglaya cannot completely eradicate her jealousy of Nastasya, and cannot measure up to the heights of the Prince's sympathetic love when he apparently scorns her in a final effort to save Nastasya.
There is a parallel between Rogozhin and the Russian upper-class society. The materialistic society which praises the values Myshkin represents and professes itself to be "good” cannot accommodate Prince Myshkin; Rogozhin, though he truly loves Nastasya, commits murder in the end. Nastasya herself has been corrupted by a depraved society. Her beauty and initial innocence have led Totsky (perhaps the most repugnant of all the characters in the novel) to keep her as a concubine and she falls into a quasi-madness, so strongly aching for freedom that she rejects moderate behaviors in favor of the extremity of running off with Rogozhin.3
There certainly is evidence that people are becoming more depraved in our own society as well. Common decency is not all that common any more. People are treating others as a means to an end, instead of as an end in themselves (which is what they truly are). In our own society kindness is very often mistaken for weakness. Living according to what were once known as “Judeo-Christian values” actually makes one appear like a simpleton according to our present culture.
Throughout history there have always been people who have taken advantage of others and there have always been those who had difficulty understanding how others can be genuinely kind without expecting something in return. The challenge now is that we no longer live in a society which even fosters such values as altruism. In earlier periods of history there were those who would take advantage of others, but the culture, as a whole, encouraged altruism and helping one’s neighbor simply because it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, that period of history is now just distant memory.
Whether or not our society will change in the future depends upon what type of values we wish to encourage. Based upon what is going on at the present time, it does not appear that altruism will be encouraged any time soon and we will actually grow further apart as human beings instead of coming closer together.
End Notes
1) “A Truly Beautiful Soul” http://www.suite101.com/content/the-idiot-by-fyodor-dostoevsky-a123952
2) “Prince Myshkin” http://community.middlebury.edu/~beyer/courses/previous/ru351/novels/idiot/index1.shtml
3) “The Idiot” (novel) http://pediaview.com/openpedia/The_Idiot_(novel)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)