Dostoevsky and Existentialism

[mrmetalgear]

hi Ivan,

Would you be able to explain to me why Dostoevsky and for that matter Kafka to be considered as the earliest existentialists? why not Sore Kierkegaard? -- thanks

[Leora_and_Ali]

Although we are getting a little bit of topic...
I don't beleive existentialism can defined by Google or Dictionary.com.

Existentialism is a study.  A long, long study.

"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!!!! "

We agree.  Raskolnikov is most definitely not an existentialist, for he goes "against" existential ideas.
Although he shows Alienation from Society (a common existential idea), he also is concerned with where his life is heading, providing meaning to his life.
 
 

[axon]

haha, defining existentialism is quite paradoxical, isn't it?

[Dillon]

haha, defining existentialism is quite paradoxical, isn't it?

I have crafted a very practical [and thus, yet again, paradoxical in a sense] perception of existentialism as it relates to things:

Image that you have built and engine for a car. You are delighted, and consider the building of this engine to be one the greatest extensions of your effort. Some time later, you begin building another auto engine, and are continually finding new methods of improvement upon your scheme of mechanics--soon, these are all actualized in the completion of your second engine. At this juncture, you take from your first creation the admiration you have placed upon it, and transfer it to the second. You continue building engines for cars, each time finding new and more elaborate ways to improve your method of construction, ultimately making every engine better than the one previous to it. You ask yourself: "Who is greater, myself for creating these things that are put into use, or the things themselves for simply being able to be used?" Now image doing this as a human being unto every institution, social code, expectation, reason, feeling--everything you have ever formed within yourself, every attitude or wit or interpretation of your creativity and imagination, address them as though they served no purpose but in the still, dead interpretation of your unerring will to exist and to make things exist. Consider that perhaps the inclination to believe nothing exists is borne from this--perhaps because so much of society has succeeded in believing that we are interpretations of our surroundings, and not vice versa--not the existential standpoint, which says that everything exists only within our perception, and not as things-in-themselves, as Kant, the pioneering existentialist, said.

Existentialism is freedom, pure, simple freedom, and so by even including it into our germination of languages and basic life concepts we are disgracing, tarnishing this true and brilliant freedom. Ah, you do see the paradox, don't you?!?! Things not as things-in-themselves, only as we interpret them? you see it? And so, here we create our opinion of existentialism (and by extension, nihilism, of which I will speak soon) as being the belief of inherent emptiness of all things around us, a kind of profound fundamental cynicism of the world--maybe...well, some of us do--and subsequently, we negate the meaning of things we experience, and since our lives are incidental occurences of ideas bouncing off of stone walls [read NFU], we are negating our lives. This may lead on to make one believe that their percepetion of the world is, more or less, worthless. This may be the founding force of nihilism: the world is worthless, and only I exist, so why the hell shouldn't I exist only to fulfill my own wants and needs? Or perhaps not, because Kant said that "human beings are ends, and so do not use them as means for an end." Perhpas this was why Dostoevsky was disgusted with nihilism, because it was a half-realized, philosophically lazy principle of action that resulted a lack of progression.

                         Edit: Postscript
           Welly welly welly welly well, just call me the Undergound Man. I realize I don't come across as very understandable, and I apologize to those who can't read this without thinking I'm another Dostoe impersonator--I'm just immature in my expressive impressionability.

                         Postscript II
            Major indulgent mistake made in introduction of concepts. Further apologizes. My confidence has reduced drastically.

[Tiffaneener]

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

Yes, I agree with Allyosha, both were very pessimistic, but yet they shared other similarities as well, suh as the alienation theme, Mersault and Raskolnikov both alienate themselves from society by certain means, and also they express passive/active nihilism at points, such as merault in the stranger when he lets the world go by with out a care, and Raskolnikov drifts in and out of both ways of living, contributing to the presence of his split personalities. (ex: Watching the girl drown, Hellping Marmeladove)

[mjmcneill]

I can't understand how anyone can read The Brothers Karamazov without realising that for Dostoevsky Christ was the only salvation.  It is a deeply Christian book.  The so-called polyphony is there, but just because Dostoevsky wrote the Grand Inquisitor does not mean he supported the ideas - it is a polyphony of representations, not of authorial convictions.  For Dostoevsky, those ideas were an abhorrence, an illness - the great sin of Roman catholicism, which had, according to Dostoevsky's beliefs, destroyed Christ.  He wrote that part so he could knock it down with Zosima's 'response'.  He didn't write it because he was confused or uncertain or of two minds.  If you think this was the case you need to read his Writer's Diary, which will set the record straight if you have any doubts.  After his conversion Dostoevsky was deeply religious, conservative and Orthodox.  There are Christian existentialists of course, but I don't think Dostoevsky himself can be described as an existentialist, even though many of his characters were in situations and states of mind that pre-figured existentialist concerns.  But all of these characters were people criticised by Dostoevsky - he knew they existed, he even predicted their numbers would increase, he knew that this was the current situation people were living in and heading towards.  If anything, his works were to warn people away from existentialism!

[lerik]

I do not see how anyone can see anything in common between Dostoevsky and existentialism.Existentialists theory is deeply pessimistic,they do not see any point of existence.Dostoevsky was a deeply religious person,so he saw the reason for existence in religious perspective and was an optimist.

[underworld men]

I do not see how anyone can see anything in common between Dostoevsky and existentialism.Existentialists theory is deeply pessimistic,they do not see any point of existence.Dostoevsky was a deeply religious person,so he saw the reason for existence in religious perspective and was an optimist.

Man were the hell have you been? You are dead on the money. I have athiests on here tell me Zosima/Ambrose from the brothers karamazov was an athiest. Check out the "if there is no god points" thread. Having said that Dostoevsky did however address the depressed as a by product of lack of faith. I think he was a master in understanding despair even more then depression.

Ha I hope you stick around that way I can leave. I have angered even fellow slavs on here.

They are digging out their tiki torches and axe handles and coalescing.

[lerik]

I do not see how anyone can see anything in common between Dostoevsky and existentialism.Existentialists theory is deeply pessimistic,they do not see any point of existence.Dostoevsky was a deeply religious person,so he saw the reason for existence in religious perspective and was an optimist.

Man were the hell have you been? You are dead on the money. I have athiests on here tell me Zosima/Ambrose from the brothers karamazov was an athiest. Check out the "if there is no god points" thread. Having said that Dostoevsky did however address the depressed as a by product of lack of faith. I think he was a master in understanding despair even more then depression.

Ha I hope you stick around that way I can leave. I have angered even fellow slavs on here.

They are digging out their tiki torches and axe handles and coalescing.

Sorry,but i just got registered yesterday.I am not sure where you got that info,but Zosima cannot be an atheist,simply because he was a monk.If you read TBK carefully,you will see that Zosima was religious

[underworld men]

I do not see how anyone can see anything in common between Dostoevsky and existentialism.Existentialists theory is deeply pessimistic,they do not see any point of existence.Dostoevsky was a deeply religious person,so he saw the reason for existence in religious perspective and was an optimist.

Man were the hell have you been? You are dead on the money. I have athiests on here tell me Zosima/Ambrose from the brothers karamazov was an athiest. Check out the "if there is no god points" thread. Having said that Dostoevsky did however address the depressed as a by product of lack of faith. I think he was a master in understanding despair even more then depression.

Ha I hope you stick around that way I can leave. I have angered even fellow slavs on here.

They are digging out their tiki torches and axe handles and coalescing.

Sorry,but i just got registered yesterday.I am not sure where you got that info,but Zosima cannot be an atheist,simply because he was a monk.If you read TBK carefully,you will see that Zosima was religious

Man I am agreeing with you. Other people on here are not.
 
Hey your a female. OK, so the man thing is wrong but very cool (that your a girl) .
Girls aren't supposed to like Dorkstievsky.  That's like girls who read comic books or play video games. Thats just unheard of.
 
Scandalous!

[lerik]

I do not see how anyone can see anything in common between Dostoevsky and existentialism.Existentialists theory is deeply pessimistic,they do not see any point of existence.Dostoevsky was a deeply religious person,so he saw the reason for existence in religious perspective and was an optimist.

Man were the hell have you been? You are dead on the money. I have athiests on here tell me Zosima/Ambrose from the brothers karamazov was an athiest. Check out the "if there is no god points" thread. Having said that Dostoevsky did however address the depressed as a by product of lack of faith. I think he was a master in understanding despair even more then depression.

Ha I hope you stick around that way I can leave. I have angered even fellow slavs on here.

They are digging out their tiki torches and axe handles and coalescing.

Sorry,but i just got registered yesterday.I am not sure where you got that info,but Zosima cannot be an atheist,simply because he was a monk.If you read TBK carefully,you will see that Zosima was religious

Man I am agreeing with you. Other people on here are not.
 
Hey your a female. OK, so the man thing is wrong but very cool (that your a girl) .
Girls aren't supposed to like Dorkstievsky.  That's like girls who read comic books or play video games. Thats just unheard of.
 
Scandalous!

Lol,i didnt know that liking Dostoevsky was "scandalous".True,i havent seen alot of girls like him.The usual reply when i ask Russian students(both males and females) if they like Dostoevsky is "boring" and "I cant imagine how i am going to survive reading Crime and Punishment"(it is compulsory in Russian schools).
This is going off-topic though

[underworld men]

Well Dostoevsky was an existentialist in his portrait of the underground man.

This was just another archetyping of Dostoevsky.
Dostoevsky understood different people's perspectives.
He wrote them out so people could fully understand them.

Kierkegaard was an existentialist pure and simple and yet ,you see just like Dostoevsky, K believed that existentialism validated that there was a god.

Or as Heidegger stated.
If nihilism be true-
"Why are there Beings at all, instead of nothing?"

Or Dostoevsky would say.
"If I believe in nothing, I can not believe in a me or in existence. Since believing in nothing means that those things
can not be."

Athiesm/Nihilism are really quite incompatible with existentialism as existentialism in history.

Start with Descartes -
Now is the only thing thats real.  Or "I think therefore I am."
This was a redunction of the true, to meer moment to moment.
Kierkegaard went way beyond this - to the idea that existentialism was the first awakening in the person to the idea of self reflective. Or the characters becoming self realized and or self actualized in the dream of the god.

You will see over and over again the misuse of things to prostitute existentialism to athiesm/nihilism and the occult.


These ideas are the ideas that man can be completely awake in his existence in life.

Many religions reflect this of course orthodoxy treats it as a state of individual maturing, toward theosis.

It to Dostoevsky and Orthodoxy is part of the theurgy in the church.

To reconcile the despair of existence one must experience god-
AKA have gnosis.

Once one has this then one reachs meta-gnosis.

All of these things are discarded as non existent by the european atheist bufoons who high jacked the works of K and Dostoevsky aka existentialism.

They stated that existence does not need a foundation in the supernatural in order to be explained.

Kierkegaard and Heidegger are radical in their definition of existence.

Heidegger stated that existence was Being in time.
Kierkegaard stated that existence was the journey to self awakening in the nous of god (like Socrates).
Dostoevsky (through the underground man/TBK) stated that existence was the individual caught between the

Finite
and
the infinite.

That through the finite (that man created through poor choice)
man is in a place where he can choose to be good or evil.

IF man chooses good he validates that god is not a tyrant.
IF man chooses evil, man shows why evil is wrong in a finite
passing reality (hypostasis). Therefore the damage is not permanent.

Where as in infinity all that is destroyed, all that is - is permanent.

Man is given freewill by the by product of his existence.

Man is in a finite reality of his own making by his own flawed choices as individuals and the collective.

Dostoevsky/orthodoxy start here and go way beyond anything else religion or philosophy wise. K was about all of this stuff too.

Christianity is way beyond other "stuff".

Though god speaks to man through whatever means god can.

Here is a good place to start.

I would suggest Phaedo after this and then Parmenides (the book by Plato not the pervert in the book)..

This is the structure...

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Plato/Timaeus/timaeus1.htm

And then the coolest of cool the man!

Plotinus...

Yes yes yes...

[underworld men]

Ah yeah now this is da bomb...

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/nyssa-man/default.asp