nihilism

[xxstaticxpallorx]

did fyodor really believe in nihliism?
i mean, i can see it clearly related in the book, but it is such a morbid belief i dont see how anyone bear to live that way
kind of like existentailsim..
but not

[kellyinwyoming]

yes, from what I have read Dostoevsky has incorperated some major themes of Nihilism in his main character Razkolnikov in Crime and Punishment.  Some of these are master vs. slave morality, that the "meek and powerless fear the stong and try to curb and tame them by assserting as absolute the values of the herd" (slave morality)(quote from A History of Philosophy: by Frederick Copleston) Also, that the absolute moral system is to be rejected.  I also recomend researching active and passive nihilism!
That should be plenty to get started~

Kelly[/color]

[carli made this up]

It almost seems to me that Doestoyevsky is anti-nihlism. Clearly, Rask represents the master morality because he believes that he is above the law. However, Raskolnikov is so tortured by the crimes that D. seems to be saying that Rask isn't really extraordinary. Perhaps, though, Rask really IS a "master" but has trouble accepting his role due to the socital norms which oppose his actions.

--Keighty

[r12]

What I thought was strange is how Raskolnikov has kind of a mixed view on life. You see him talking about his nihilistic way of seeing the world to Porfiry, but then this exchange takes place to lead you to believe he's Christian (p. 262 of Bantam Classic edition):
<p>
     "Then you believe in the New Jerusalem do you?" (At the end of Revelation, after the world has ended, it talks about God making a new sinless and painless new heavens and new Jerusalem, Revelation 21: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=31)
     "I do," Raskolnikov answered firmly; as he said these words and during the whole preceding tirade he kept his eyes on one spot on the carpet.
     "And... and do you believe in God? Excuse my curiosity."
     "I do," repeated Raskolnikov raising his eyes to Porfiry.
     "And... do you believe in Lazarus' rising from the dead (by Jesus, John 11: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=11&version=31)
     "I... I do. Why do you ask all this?"
     "You believe it literally?"
     "Literally."
     "You don't say so...."
 
Porfiry seems to be shocked that he is a Christian with all these ideas, as they conflict basic Judeo-Christian values and scriptures, especially the idea of condoning bloodshed, which is forbidden several times throughout, and being higher than everyone else and the law. My guess is that this is Dostoevsky's (a Christian) response to the idea of nihilism; that he realizes nobody can be a "superhuman" or "extraordinary," that position is only for God.

You can relate the irony that he's Christian to the 'horse dream' in which many townspeople doubt the faith of Mikolka, the owner who beats the helpless and old horse of his, because it is too weak. Instead of showing mercy as he should, he defies his faith and his God and tries to be above the Law because the horse is his. The Christian way of thinking about it would be that the horse is still God's and nobody has a right to abuse power over it. This is true also about the pawn broker, she is still God's. Even though she's not a great person, Raskolnikov has no authority to rid the world of her.

[axon]

Carli is somewhat right. Dostoevsky hated nihilism and nihilists - he didn't see any point to it. He refutes the idea of nihilism in many of his novels.

I think that Turgenev was the biggest nihilist out of the Russian writing elite.

r12, some good thoughts there, but how do they relate to the topic at hand? or are do you just enjoy shouting out random pieces of wisdom? :p

[Leora_and_Ali]

We definitely agree with Keighty.  
Dostoevsky seems to be anti-nihilism.  Raskolnikov wants to be a "master".  He has been kicked around by society and wants to be of master-morality, wants to separate himself from the "herd".  We think that Dostoevsky is against the idea of nihilism because Raskolnikov struggles so much with at first his conscience, but then later developing into questioning if what he has done really DID set himself apart.  By the stranger shouting out "murderer!", he begins to question whether what he did was for nothing... not measuring up to his inner "superman".  With all his struggle, it seems that Dostoevsky is saying that with master morality comes great suffering.

~~ Leora and Ali

[Leora_and_Ali]

By the way, i love r12's random wisdom.

[passivprogresiv]

I'd have to agree with Keighty too

Usuing Notes as a reference,  I think Dostoevsky is remarkably clever the way he presents the reader with a character whose suffering is almost palpable in an effort to "test the faith" of our own morality.  Of course, he's not saying any of the thoughts or feelings experienced by the character are intrinsically wrong--modern psychology tells us that some of those who suffer from depression have a more realistic, more rational, view of the world. We, Dostoevsky included, may all be nihilists at one time or another--but I think he presents the reader with a portrait of a man, a nihilist, who lives a life of unending suffering and subtly coaxes the reader away from such thoughts.  I think he wants us to learn from his character's 'mistakes' (misconceptions?), and at the very least challenge our belief.

[Dillon]

Nihilism is indeed palpable in the footsteps of Rodya and the Underground Man--both these characters are crafted by D to be, among other things, imperceptive and victimized by the increasingly apathetic 'grand scale of things' they, as intellectuals, were doomed to one day process and interpret in their quest to understand the world around them.

I agree with Passiv on the cleverness of D to be able to craft within one character a coexistence of the forces of both nihilism and profound intelligence. Nihilism is worldly, and in comparison with existentialism, far too tangible to permit its user to progress onward in the understanding of numerous elements, be they abstract or tangible. In the case of Rodya and UMan, they are both rather schismatic in their views: they are both nihilistic concerning their stance on the actions of the world around them, but are understanding enough of the existential scheme to employ it in laying out the capactiy for their knowledge concerning primarily themselves--which is another facet of nihilism: self-absorbance, using humans as means to an end, and valuing the existence of the self over the existence of others (in other words, a complete lack of the philosophical perspective that is the foundation for existentialism). It could be inferred, perhaps, that existentialism, in the case of D's characters, is an evolution. D's characters sit on a miraculous boundary between squalorous suffering and a beautiful humanistic redemption of life. Perhaps this is a major component of the echoing 'salvation through suffering' theme. Nihilism is a lack of awareness of elemetary brotherhood between humans that is compensated by a social position that, if anything, will gratify the inherently obtuse stomachs of the social monster, and rebirth of the self into existentialism is being 'saved' by being shown 'the light' that is really love and truth. Of course, this is all in accordance of D's Chrisitanity, and non-secular.

Nevertheless, Dostoevsky is so skilled a writer and thinker that he is able to use both forces, however much he may support one over the other, to provoke the reader to reconsider the half-actualized faiths and reasons they obey in day-to-day life.

[underworld men]

Dostoevsky hated nihlism or the belief in nothing or whatever you what to call it..

The underground man was NOT a nihilist. He believed he existed and suffered from being in existence and rejecting love (like the brothers karamozov). The underground man did not will- all to nothing or nihilsm. But love he rejected because it asked him to compromise himself.
I repeat the underground man was not a nihilist.
He attacked logic and symmetry because of the russian and greek tradition of apophatism.
The underground man was apophatic.
Raskin was a nihlist because eveything was corrupt and therefore-evil. Raskin believed in might is right, not law or love. He believed in the subjugation of weak to a stronger force (or started to) but was stopped down that road by the spirit of the god/love working through Sonia.

[Dillon]

The Underground Man and Rodya are both nihilists in the sense that the values and morality that have been interpreted as true and/or 'real' are of no more worth than maybe a cigarette butt floating down into a sewer. To be overly practical, they were both intelligent in the sense that they see the essential transparency of society, and by extention the honored perspectives on morality, interaction, and self-containment that were set forth by the society and inflicted upon the individual.

The Underground Man, however, was more intelligent and more of an individual because of his capacity for the coexistence in his mind of knowledge of the society that he deplored and his own individual propositions on how and why to act and analyze upon things therein--this may be why he seems apophatic to some, which indeed he is at times, but he is moreso to be labeled as a nihilist if he is to labeled at all. Rodya presents himself as more of a nihilist, let alone subject to Dostoevsky's judgment and alteration, because he is blaringly under the influence of nihilist ideals--action over theory, making oneself's existence clear over the squalor of society in the only way possible, that is, by action. Rodya is illustrative of D's complaint against nihilism because he is unwillingly (and pitifully) drawn into world and its set system of morality--no where is this more evident than in his fevered paranoia and trepidation during and after the murders. Action only, and drawn nonetheless into an objective that one will act toward--this is perhaps the reason not only for the essential inexistence of civilization (in D's world, most substantiated by the utopianism movement that was the furthest extent of the notion of civilization) but also the essential existence of nothing other than in the inherent will, logic, and imagination of the human being.

[underworld men]

Well this is opinion and thats fine.

I stand behind dostoevsky expressing apophatism.


I think many people even russian's intellectuals struggled and remained confused on the difference.

http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1907_135_4.html

(I agree with Vlad and Niko Lossky on how BERDYAEV was wrong on the void and nothingness)
Nikki Berdyaev was right on the revolution in russia though.
http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1917_276.html

And then clarification

http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/fi.postatheism.html

One who expresses a rejection of ALL systems or a belief in nothing is a nihilist.

Strange how people don't seem to think or acknowledge  that Ivan Karamozov was a nihilist.

Believe as you will but underground man rejected the world he did not reject the god.

[kudzai]

           
Excellent contribution underworld men.


Epstein discusses how the atheistic society is seething with religious substitutes. It is these 'Crystal Palace's' that the underground man rejects and not God, and it is his precise knowledge of the motivations of the utopians that is the cause of his rebellion.
It seems difficult, in my opinion also, to qualify this as nihilism.



               

[Dillon]

It is these 'Crystal Palace's' that the underground man rejects and not God

And how would you think it would be possible not to factor the concept of God, or God's will, in the formation of such 'Crystal Palaces'? Does any human being have the ability to truly perceive God as singular, and convince themselves into believing that He exists outside of any school of thought that may conspire to form a 'Crystal Palace' a.k.a. the perfect civilization, 'utopia'? And if any human would be able to perceive God as singular, all-encompassing, etc, how would they at all be able to believe that conflict against the 'Crystal Palace', which in their mind houses God, would be at all fathomable? Ultimately, this 'Crystal Palace' ideal adapts God in its own perception of how things should be, and the Underground Man attacks with his individual perception of a God, seeing that He is not at all applicable to things vulnerable to the reality of the human condition. So, we are completely contradicting ourselves by factoring this God into our judgments, you see? 'God' is interpreted by societies--by dejecting one's society, you are indirectly dejecting the 'God' they have, and so it is not possible to say that the Underground Man cherished the God he was  'accustomed' to. This could perhaps be the entire idea behind the concept of social alienation, to the greatest degree in both the individual and social logics: a society glorifying an image of a God or an absolute that is surpassable by the sheer intellect and desire of an individual.

Furthermore, I think you misinterpreted me by not indulging in what I've said--this is the way I write, and so in my mind justic is only done in response by brooding upon ideas and concepts, just as I do; and so, I think you've taken off on my words instead of my ideas--because how would someone so completely destructive of social morality and squalorous principle not place faith in a God or all-encompssing absolute and be even subconsciously driven to live? This is how D must've interpreted nihilism, labeling it as a castrated, unrealized form of freedom that ultimately lies to itself.

And so, the Underground Man was a nihilist in a rather vague sense--as was implied by my last post, only in address of a different philosophy--but a nihilist nonetheless.

[underworld men]

No one is attacking you dillion as a matter of fact most people and including Alyosha Karamozov has to pass through nihilism into the truth of negation-apophatism (the second book of the karamozov trilogy).
You are articulating a most important thing. I very much apprehiate this opportunity you present.

It should probably be noted that a very good starting point to this would be Vladimir Solovyov.

The reason I am using "outside" of Dostoevsky's work is because each of these things I am pointing out go to something very important. Orthodox Theosis.

You see Dostoevsky gained from Solovyov the understanding of godmanhood or theosis.

Theosis is the eastern understanding of holiness or sainthood.

Pay attention now it gets like nothing else. REALLY..

The crystal palaces are a metaphor for the towers of babylon.

The world in greek orthodoxy (russian orthodoxy same thing) is the ideas of men, the isms each is a daemon. Each idea is in its end a form of slavery but promising paradise (and Rousseau is a contradictory goof). Man gives up his freedom for whatever idea= slavery is the price. Think about the word slave it comes from the word slav. Now each of these ideas says just like the book daemons/besy by Dostoevsky that each idea wishes at its heart to build a paradise around man WITHOUT THE SUPERNATURAL OR WITHOUT GOD. No where does the underground man endorse a godless paradise or a paradise where man and his ideas replace the god or supernatural.

Just because the underground man rejects the "world" does not mean he rejects the god. The underground man is attacking positivism or that man is all and that all that he senses is all. There is no supernatural according to positivism which of course, makes it all a slow slide into nihilism.

Now lets go into Alyosha/Solovyov/Lossky territory.
Theosis is the idea that man receives salvation from the god or the spirit of the god. This flies in the face of platonism and or platonism post gnosis, referred to as neo platonism. Plotinus stated that all return to the source the energy that can not be created or destroyed. That energy the demiurge crafted into the real or reality. The Platonists as much as the Orthodox and the Hebrews of the time attacked gnosis for making yahweh/the demiurge/nature, the root of evil).

Theosis states that man becomes a god with a little g. Man then "ascends" through the divine ladder of ascent (st john climacus I know, I know Kierkegaard's buddy blah blah blah).

To reach theosis man must commit completely to the rejection of the 3 temptations of the devil (see tbk).

Once man has (through negation/apophatism) reached theosis he can then be received into heaven.

Heaven is not the reduction of the individuals' essence to nothing as one who returns to the source (platonism). Heaven is work it is Glory to Glory as Saint Paul and St Gregory of Nyssa explained.
It is the impossible (the greek would use the word supernatural) glory of work that in agape (means the feeling of extasy in spiritual love NOT CHARITY) gives satifaction and then expresses itself to an end which then uncovers another challenge or work that leads to even a greater glory in agape that repeats the cycle always and forever "ascending" upwards through the abyss of light.

So dillion my fellow dostoevskian or lover of the"slav/russian"
do you understand what apophatism is?

or

http://shestov.by.ru/dtn/dn_1.html