This book is unlike many of the other works that I have been immersed. Typically, I dont simply read books, I devour them. Most books that I read provide a temporary satisfaction to my insatiable desire to further my understanding of classic literature. However, Dostoevsky demands attention. His characters depict ideas and thoughts that are not only intrinsic to the plot line, but were intrinsic Russia at the time, and indeed, intrinsic to our lives today. I would also like to preface this entry by saying that although Dostoevskys ideas and thoughts are intriguing, I dont necessarily adhere to these ideas, nor do I fully reject them. His ideas are more like suggestions, as though he is asking the question, what if? Therefore, I am placing his ideas in my blog so that others may ask similar questions and perhaps even elaborate on these very ideas.
The following passage takes place in part II of the novel. This is a conversation that is occuring between two people, Stavrogan and Shatov. Both of these men are in similar situations, yet zealously wary of each other, and with good reason. I am reluctant to reveal the nature of their relationship, and even the motivation or the context of the conversation, as it is essential to the plot line and I would hate to ruin the story for any potential readers.
" 'Not one people,' he began, as though reading it line by line and at the same
time continuing to look menacingly at Stavrogin, "not one people has yet ordered
its life in accordance with the principles of science and reason. There
has never been any instance of it, except only for a moment, out of folly.
Socialism is by its very nature bound to be atheistic because it has proclaimed
from the very first that it is an atheistic instituition and that it intends to
organize itself exclusively on the principles of science and reason.
Reason and science have always, today and from the very beginning of time,
played a secondary and a subordinate part; and so they will to the end of
time. Peoples are formed and moved by quite a different force, a force
that dominates and excercises its authority over them, the origin of which,
however, is unknown and inexplicable. That force is the force of an
unquenchable desire to go on to the end and, at the same time, to deny the
existence of an end. It is the force of an incessant and persistent
affirmation of its existence and a denial of death. It is the spirit of
life, as the Scripture says, rivers of living water, the running dry of which is
threatened in Revelation. It is the aesthetic principle, as the
philosophers call it, an ethical principle, with which they identify it, the
seeking of God, as I call it much more simply. The purpose of the whole
evolution of a nation, in every people and at every period of its existence, is
solely the pursuit of God, their God, their very own God, and faith in Him as in
the only true one. God is the synthetic personality of the whole
people, taken from its beginning to its end. It has never happened
that all or many peoples should have one common God, but every people has always
had its own special one. The first sign of the decay of nations is when
they begin to have common gods. When gods begin to become common gods, the
gods die as well as the faith in them, together with the peoples
themselves. The more powerful a nation, the more individual its god.
There has never yet been a nation without a religion, that is to say, without
the conception of good and evil. Every people has its own conception of
good an evil and its general among many nations, then these nations begin to die
out, and the very distinction between good and evil begins to get blurred and to
vanish. Reason has never been able to define good and evil, or even to seperate
good from evil, not even approximately; on the contrary, it had always mixed
them up in a most pitiful and disgraceful fashion.' "
As I am sure that you can infer, a conversation such as this, taking place in Russia in the late 19th century would be quite revolutionary. I am by no means a connoisseur or Russian history, but I understand enough about the blending of church and state, as well as the results of corrupt governments (and indeed, spiritual institutions) ruling a nation, to know that this excerpt is absolutely relevant, both then and now. I am not implying that I entirely agree with the passage, but I can certainly understand the relevance of his words.
I am especially interested in the latter section of the passage, which touches on the issue of our concept of good and of evil. If you have read my blog before, then you would be familiar with my past entry regarding this very question. The definition of these two things varys with just about every individual who asks the question. In reading through this passage, I considered the possibility that perhaps there is no universal definition. If my concept of good and evil is defined by my cultural context, then it is not applicable to those existing outside of my culture. If it is defined by my spiritual context, then it is not applicable to those outside of my spiritual context either. If it is defined by my own consciencness, that is to say, my own feeling of right and wrong, then obviously that definition is not applicable to anyone outside of myself as an individual.
It would seem that what Dostoevsky says about science and reason is true, they have both failed to define good and evil. Reason endeavours to understand the nature of these things, but science, I doubt, would be able to come up with any sort of formula or mathametical equasion that can be equal to good or equal to bad. Its too subjective, but in some cases, absolute at the same time. Good and evil, by their very nature, seem to be a paradox in and of themselves. To be subjective and absolute at the same time would seem to be impossible, yet this is a question that most people have asked for thousands of years, and still there is no absolute, or even a subjective answer, only ideas and suggestions inferences even.
The easy answer seems to be, well, what is good or evil for you may or may not be good or evil for me. But then I put it into an extreme context, such as in the case of rape. How could I possibly say that to a rape victim? Then, I try to put that into a cultural context, well, if rape was culturally acceptable, then would we effectively see it as good instead of evil? That, I would think, would then change the nature of a crime. If rape were permissable then it would not be rape at all, thereby dismissing the argument for ethnocentrism. So how about the argument for a spiritual context? If a persons religion permits it, then should it be considered less evil? Again, we have the same issue as the cultural context. By the very nature of the crime, rape can not be consentual. Of course, you could have one person consenting within the confines of his or her religion, and the other person objecting, regardless of their religious beliefs, so who then is correct? Naturally, we would all say that the rapist is indeed wrong, and the victim is very right to object. I suppose that this is what can potentially happen when the laws of subjective (moral) truth and absolute truth are blurred. I do believe in tolerance but sooner or later it must be decided thar regardless of our definitions of good and evil, we have to form an idea of what is benificial, of what is right and of what is wrong.
Again, Id be more than happy to read any feedback regarding this entry, and be assured, theres more to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment