The Devils - Part I

Disclaimer: This blog entry was cut and pasted from my msn myspace blog, hence the reference to my other blog entries based on literary endeavours. Happy Reading!

Yet another blog entry based on my literary endeavours. I really should find something else to write about, but literature gives such a good basis for extracting ideas. I really dont know what I would do without my books.

Currently, I am reading "The Devils" by Dostoevsky. The story revolves around the nihilists and revolutionaries of Russia who are scheming to dispose of the Russian government and the Russian church. It was published in 1871 and so offered a fairly prophetic account of Russian events. I have only just begun the book, and am not very close to the end, but already I am entirely intrigued by the diverse and charismatic characters that have been created by Dostoevsky.

Within Part I, the reader is introduced to a spectrum of colourful characters, all of which are unique in their own right, but equally as intriguing. Already I am captured by the question, "where are these people going, and what has happened to them before the start of this narration?" If a reader can be genuinely interested in questions such as this, after barely turning the first few pages, my guess is that its probably a work of literature worth reading.
This entry is not intended to be a technical analysis of my first impressions. Rather, it is going to be a discussion based on an excerpt taken from the text that I found to be particularly interesting. Please permit me to quote the passage so as to give you the context for this entry.

The two characters are having a psychological and spiritual discussion regarding the suicide rate in Europe. The dialogue takes place between the narrator and a man named Mr. Kirilov.

" 'There are two kinds [of people who commit suicide]: those who kill themselves from great sorrow or from spite, and those who are mad or whatever it is-those who do it suddenly. They think little about the pain, but do it suddenly. But those who do it from reason-they think a lot.'

'but are there people who do it from reason?'

'Lots. But for prejudice there would be more many more; all.'

'Not all, surely?'

He said nothing.

'But arent there ways of dying painlessly?'

'Imagine,' he said, stopping before me, 'imagine a stone as big as a large house; its suspended and you are under it; if it fell on you - on your head would you feel any pain?'

'A stone as big as a house? Of course, I'd be frightened.'

'I'm not talking of fear. Would it hurt?'

'A stone as big as a mountain weighing millions of pounds? Of course, it wouldn't hurt.'

'But if you stood under it while it was hanging over you, you'd be terrified of the pain. Everybody would be terrified the greatest scientist the greatest doctor. Everyone will know it won't hurt, and everyone will be afraid that it will hurt.'

'Well, and what is the second reason, the big one?'

'The next world!'

'You mean punishment?'

'Makes no difference. The next world just the next world.'

'But arent there atheists who do not believe in the next world at all?'

Again, he said nothing.

'Perhaps you judge from yourself?'

'Everyone must judge from himself,' he said, reddening. 'Full freedom will come only when it makes no difference whether to live or not to live. That's the goal for everybody.'

'The goal? But perhaps no one will want to live then.'

'No one.' He said emphatically.

'Man's afraid of death because he loves life,' I remarked. 'That's how I see it, and that's how nature had ordered it.'

'That's despicable and that's where the whole deception lies.' His eyes flashed. 'Life is pain, life is fear, and man is unahppy. Now all is pain and fear. Now man loves life. And that's how they've done it. You're given life now for pain and fear, and that's where the whole deception lies. Now man is not yet what he will be. A new man will come, happy and proud. To whom it wont matter whether he lives or not. He'll be the new man! He who conquers pain and fear will himself be a god. And that other God will not be.'

'So, according to you, the other God does exist, after all?'

'He doesn't exist, but He is. There's no pain in a stone, but there's pain in the fear of a stone. He who conquers pain and fear will himself become a god. Then there will be a new life, a new man, everything will be new. Then history will be divided into two parts: from the gorilla to the annihilation of God, and from the annihilation of God to-'

'To the gorilla?'

'to the physical transformation of the earth and man. Man will be god. He'll be physically transformed. And the world,too, will be transformed, and things will be transformed, and thoughts and all feelings. What do you think? Will man be physically transformed then?'

'If it is all the same whether to live or not to live, everyone will kill himself and that's perhaps the only change that will come about.'

'It makes no difference. Deception will be killed. Everyone who desires freedom must dare to kill himself. He who dares to kill himself has learnt the secret of the deception. Beyond that there is no freedom; that's all, and beyond it there is nothing. He who dares to kill himself is a god. Now everyone can make it so that there shall be no God and there shall be nothing. But no one has done so yet.'

This is a heavy, albeit long, passage. Several different ideas are discussed here. I dont think that suicide is really the main point of the dialogue. A person could look at this conversation and see positive vs. negative, atheism vs. spiritualism, humanist vs. humility. Obviously, such statements as in the quote above can not be slotted into nice clean catagories such as "humanism" or "atheistic existentialism." It seems to be so much broader than that. So what is the essence of this passage? What exactly is Dostoevsky trying to communicate?

Mr. Kirilov is of the opinion that should man rise above fear and pain, he will become a god, thereby dispelling the obsolete idea of our current pereception of who God is. Neitchze, I am sure, would have something very interesting to say about this.

This concept is very interesting coming from Dostoevsky, especially when compared to the character of Raskolnikov from "Crime and Punishment." Raskolnikov felt that some men are better than others, and therefore have a right to live outside the bounds of the law. Napoleon, for instance, was a great man (according to our hero) and so had the right to lead an army into battle, causing the death of thousands. Raskolnikov put this theory to the test by brutally murdering the pawn broker and her sister. If you have read this brilliant book, then you know the dark and chaotic results of his actions.

But I have been distracted. Dostovesky seems to be driving at a concept relating to man's place in this world. If we are the dominate life form, the intelligent life form, the "responsible" life form and we are essentialy nothing but evolved animals (which I do not believe) then is it natural that some human beings would evolve beyond others: that is, evolve past this "deception" of fear and pain and then move forward into whatever ensues after this evolution?
Perhaps fear and pain has been placed in us for a reason? I am not saying that these are good things, however, they do tend to act as quality control. There are plenty of things in life that are not physically painful, but they can still be damaging, and so the fear of that pain, however contrived, is still valuable, and therefore prevents us from doing things that we could regret. I am not referring to my moral conscience, as that can be easily disuaded in some situations. It is allowing my irrational mind, which says, "that will hurt" take control of my rational mind, which says, "that will not hurt, therefore, allow it to happen."

Mr. Kirilov uses the example of a large hovering stone and insists that if we put aside our fear of the non-existent pain, we will become gods. I beg to differ. If every person managed to arrive at that "god-like" mentality, would we not all inevitably be crushed? Where would that bring us, as a social order? Would it not then be anarchy that would come about? I have played with the idea of anarchy, and in theory it's an idea that makes me smile. However, if humanism has showed us anything, it is that we are not capable of surviving in such a state. Too much freedom seems to bring chaos, and too much control, as in a dictatorship, seems to do the same. Democracy at the moment seems to be a bit of a disappointment as well, given the current state of things. So what then is our option? How then, as a "civilised" society (and I use the word civilised loosely) should we proceed?

It would seem that regardless of our government controls, or lack thereof, our human nature, our fallibility, our selfish nature, will still lead to some sort of digression. We have free will and we make decisions, and each of those decisions effect others, just as the decisions of others effect me. Most of the time the decisions of others are decisions that I cannot control or influence, but I can certainly control my own decisions. Therefore, we are left with a responsibility to make choices that will ultimately result in good. Of course that begs the question of, "what is good?" but that's another blog entry altogether. As mentioned above, according to Kirilov, some people would then be able to evolve beyond others, becoming gods. However, I personally believe that when a person is humble, (ie. Christ washing the feet of His disciples), then much more can be accomplished. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last" and so on. Obviously when only one or two people live by such principles, it is easy for others to take advantage of them, but surely, surely if the goal of a human being were to be one such as this, instead of being power-driven, our society would be completely transformed.

I would honestly appreciate any feedback on this entry. These are ideas that surely everyone has some sort of opinion on, and I'd be more than happy to receive yours!