Dostoevsky and Existentialism

[Ivan]

I was wondering what other people thought Dostoevsky's relationship to existentialism was?  
I, in other words, just want to start a discussion on D and existentialism...
What other existentialists ask the same kind of "questions" as Dostoevsky? etc etc  
I'll chime in after we get a couple of posts.

For an intro to existentialism check this out, it's something I wrote a while ago for fun  
http://www.butchywaffers.com/foxexistentialism.html

[Alyosha]

Regarding existentialism, I think Dostoevsky both anticipates and refutes it. Nietsche and Camus are great, but there is so much pessimism in them.

It is hard to understand Dostoevsky without a christian perspective. Dostoevsky was one of the few writers courageous enough to say that there is a line that cannot be crossed. That line is related to Christian theology, which does not imply any weakness, like Nietsche might say.

[Ivan]

I would agree that there is a lot of pessimis in Camus... altough he has his optimistic points.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, isn't pessimistic at all.  But I guess this depends on where you're coming from when you read his works.  If you are monotheistic, then you will probably think that he is pessimistic, if you aren't, well then you'll think he is optimistic.  I think it is important to point out that it was Nietzsche's intention to be optimistic!  That is exactly what he was attempting in The Gay (Happy and Joyful; i.e. Optimistic) Science.

After I read your post saying that "it is hard to understand Dostoevsky without a Christian perspective," I began to think of how much "baggage" we force on a novel when we read it.  I would say that it is hard to understand Dostoevsky unless you understand Nietzsche's philosophy and Heidegger's idea of worldviews.  These are obviously not Christian ideas...

We could battle these ideas out but will we really end up convincing each other unless we refute each other's "baggage" first?  Because I am certainly not denying my forcing other ideas onto Dostoevsky's works.

Well, lets pretend that we don't have to and get our hands dirty anyways  

[Ivan]

Ok, in order to get my ideas clear of what I think Dostoevsky is saying (at least in the three works I've read, C&P, Bros. K and Notes) I need to explain the concept of worldviews.  Just in case it isn't clear...

By worldviews, I mean a system of encompassing the world with some definitive foundation, such as God or mathematics.

This is why Dostoevsky is considered polyphonic, because he argues the virtues of the religious worldview and because he argues for the mathematic (scientific)worldview.

Dostoevsky is satirizing the characters who adopt logic, who use utilitarian moral mathematics and characters who devote themselves to reason.  This satirization is a response to the Russian journalist, Chernyshevsky, and to the Russian social nihilist movement at the time.  Dostoevsky obviously thought that these students of Chernyshevsky were persuing an avenue that would lead them crawling back to the other worldview, Christianity.
This doesn't necessarily mean that Dostoevsky is supporting Christianity as the worldview....

Why can't there be more than just two worldviews?  Nietzsche created a third worldview and he bashes the scientific and the religious worldview just as much as Dostoevsky does.  It is my thought that Dostoevsky, like Nietzsche, is arguing against both worldviews, thus opening the door for a third worldview.

That last point can be argued again from the standpoint of Dostoevsky's polyphonic qualities.  He bites at both worldviews, and very effectively!  The reason Christianity wins(?) is because it is more supportive than the scientific worldview, but Dostoevsky's polyphonic techniques never allows us to attribute Dostoevsky with saying that Christianity has any other virtue than consoling the lost man or woman who ventured into a scientific worldview.

[Worm]

Dostojewski was definitly a strange fish in the sea.  He's been noticed.

I don't have much to comment on the things said in this topic.

[Golyadkin]

Dostojewski was definitly a strange fish in the sea.  He's been noticed.

I completely agree. But then again, aren't we all strange ourselves?

[ache]

Although much can be left open to interpretation, and, in turn, can then be victimized by countless interpretors, I believe that it is entirely accurate to state that Dostoevsky was not an existentialist, as evidenced by at least Crime and Punishment + Notes From Underground.  However, he created quite a few existential characters, whom he portrays with a powerful element of psychological reality that seems to veil and obscure the fact that those existential characters do not serve as Dostoevsky's mouthpiece, but exemplify precisely the kind of ideology he is intending to refute.

[Ivan]

Well, although your argument concerning Dostoevsky's relationship to existentialism is thorough and overwhelming, I must disagree.

I think you have a distorted view of what an existentialist is.  

This is why Dostoevsky is considered polyphonic, because he argues the virtues of the religious worldview and because he argues for the mathematic (scientific)worldview.

Maybe that was a little misleading... I meant to say that he also argues against the mathematic worldview but I think that is made clear in the next paragraph.

You will also be quite mistaken to assume that Raskolnikov is existentialist.  He is quite obviously utilitarian and the character from Notes... I have no clue as to which existentialist supports those actions.  These people are satirical characters -- NOT of existentialism --but of utilitarianism and logic!!!!

[Golyadkin]

You use such big words! By brain hurts!

[ache]

Ivan:

Fair enough; we're both obviously operating under our own definitions of existentialism.  I am interested in what you think.  Please define 'existentialism.'

[Golyadkin]

dictionary.com defines it as:
1. A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.
2. a 20th-century philosophical movement; assumes that people are entirely free and thus responsible for what they make of themselves.

Hope that helps!

[Ivan]

I posted my definition of existentialism when I started this link:

For an intro to existentialism check this out, it's something I wrote a while ago for fun  
http://www.butchywaffers.com/foxexistentialism.html

Thanks for the research Golyadkin but _ache_ was right in saying that people define existentialism differently.  There isn't really a definition that is correct, only interpretations.

In case you don't want to click on that link (I highly recommend you do, however, as what I've copied and pasted might not join to make a coherent whole) I'll try and summarize what I think of existentialim--- all copied and pasted from what I wrote on that link--

"Existentialism should be defined much more historically and such a definition will help to provide for an understanding of the movement and its implications. Existentialism is a reaction to a secularized world. Where religion gave meaning, purpose, morals, virtues and universal truths, an increasingly secular world provided nothing in the way of meaning and purpose. This resulted in the philosophical scurry for meaning known as existentialism. Philosophers were lost without universal truths, the same truths that most of Western philosophy had been based on for the last couple thousand years suddenly lost all philosophical foundations. Without truth and meaning philosophy did not know what to do with itself and instead of trying to solve the problem of a purposeless life, most (i.e.; Camus and Dostoevsky) existentialists spent their time describing the implications and possibilities of this new foundationless world. There were attempts in existentialist literature to provide answers but they were, with a few exceptions, figurative, allegorical and weak. I have only found the philosophy of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to give any real attention to consoling and "healing" this existential despair."

Existentialism can even be considered a sociological event, one described by Max Weber as the "disenchantment of the world," one described by Nietzsche as "the Death of God," one described by Heidegger as humans being the kind of being for which its Being is at stake, and an event that is more popularly recognized as the secularization of the world. Agree with the actual "statistics" of this sociological event or not makes no real difference as there was a reaction to the loss of meaning by both atheist and theist philosophers. The main elements to this reaction were far from optimistic as existentialism is repeatedly associated with despair, hopelessness and nihilism. Samuel Beckett's play, Waiting for Godot, is the epitome of existential despair, because what the main characters in the play are really waiting for is meaning and purpose and sadly enough, by the end of the play, they are still in despair, waiting. We also have many other challenges to "normality" with the loss of meaning and significance. Albert Camus published an article entitled, "The Myth of Sisyphus" that challenged the sin of suicide, Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment challenges the sin of murder, another book of Dostoevsky's, Notes From Underground, deals with the social implications of the loss of meaning and these works are just an incredibly small sample of existentialist reactionary literature."

"According to existentialism what is "good" for us cannot be determined and so we must be the founder of our own values and projects. Radical sovereignty comes with radical failure and we must be prepared to deal with both. "

[Golyadkin]

I agree that _ache_ has a good definition. I just go with what google give me.

[Golyadkin]

Just found this:
http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/westspringfieldhs/academic/english/1project/99exist/home.htm

[Ivan]

What? My definition isn't good enough for you?  

Trust me!  The definition on that website is sub-par and definetely based around a high school class that revolved around "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead."  
Saying that existentialism appeared in the 1950s is absurd!  Has anyone even read what I've written?

Existentialism wasn't a movement that was started by Sartre (or by anyone for that matter).  It was a reaction that had philosophers and writers asking questions for a long time!  Kierkegaard was the first to react to this "problem" in the early 19th C.  If existentialism is a reaction (I dare anyone to point to any sort of movement that is NOT) then there can always be more than one kind reaction.
Because Dostoevsky's reaction was different than some atheist existentialist's reaction does NOT mean that they were not reacting to the same thing.  Reacting against this "thing" is being an existentialist.
IF you want to know what this "thing" is, please read what I wrote on that link!