Philosophy, etc.

[Mogwai]

Very true, Lev - great observation!

[Ivan]

I don't know, Ivan. Especially when you consider the passages in Demons where Kirillov and Stavrogin and later Kirillov and Pyotr Stepanovich

I was referring specifically to those two passages (Rask's speech and Ivan's talk with the Devil)...  So anything I said shouldn't be applied to other characters or scenes.  
These passages are for sure dealing with the same types of "problems," but just from different stand-points.  One is more revolutionary and the other is more "post-revolutionary."

[Lev]

Well, okay, I'm sorry Ivan. I didn't mean to stretch your words or anything. I am just having trouble understanding what you mean I guess. So, you don't think that these passages are too closely connected... but they are similar, wouldn't you say? Do you have the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation? Pevear, in the forward, has a better way of explaining it... "...the lie here is the same as in the beginning: 'You will be like God...' It is what we have referred to as autonomy, embodied most fully in Stavrogin and most purely in Kirillov. The assertion of human autonomy is finally a revolt against God; it is also the final lie.... It was in this light that Dostoevsky saw not only the political movements of his day, but the ideas that nourished them...." Do you agree with that interpretation generally?

[Ivan]

I agree with everything but the part about it being a "lie..."
I don't think that Dostoevsky definitively called anything a lie or anything truth.

[Lev]

Pretty subjective... but who can argue with subjectivism, right? Who can say I've even interpreted your reply correctly --   --- ? I guess we could ask Axon if his non-fiction works are "definitive" in any way... (I've only seen quotes whereas he says he's read several of them.) To be sure, I don't know much about it -- but it sure doesn't seem like Dostoyevsky is playing games or being sarcastic. If he wanted to say the opposite of what he made apparent why didn't he just come out and say it? He had an awful lot to say for somebody who didn't want to call the ball (I don't like baseball that much, it just came to mind -- )

PS -- I'm not trying to get on your nerves... we can drop it whenever you like, though I think it's an interesting thread.  

[axon]

>> I agree with everything but the part about it being a "lie..."
>>I don't think that Dostoevsky definitively called anything a lie or anything truth.

I do agree with this I would, however, replace 'lie' with 'sin'. There are definitive sins for D, that he states very clearly in all his books.  

The only book that D is being somewhat sarcastic at points, is the Notes. This is done on purpose though, and we have been through this in that other thread In D's letters it is pretty clear what D considers sin - I'll give you a silly example ; in TBK, Smerdyakov plays the guitar - at D's time this was unheard of, and the guitar was viewed as something bad. That is what D was aiming for, but for us it doesn't really make sense.

[Lev]

So are we agreed that Dostoyevsky thought the "assertion of human autonomy" was a sin in his opinion? In our own opinions we may or may not agree that he was right (i.e., that it was a "sin" = "wrong" = "lie" as opposed to "virtue" = "right" = "truth"), but I think we can safely say he felt that way about it, don't you?
About the "sin" you mentioned -- that's funny! I play the guitar actually -- . I hate to go against my favorite author, but hey, he is free to be wrong as well, right?

[Ivan]

but it sure doesn't seem like Dostoyevsky is playing games or being sarcastic. If he wanted to say the opposite of what he made apparent why didn't he just come out and say it?

Well, not saying something is a style and it is argued that not saying something has more of an impact than saying something.  Showing the "fate" of these satirical characters is, in my opinion, much more forceful than just saying that utilitarianism/etc is bad.

"assertion of human autonomy" was a sin in his opinion?

I think Dostoevsky disagreed with the level in which his contemporaries were taking the concept of "human autonomy."  The key word is "level," so I don't think he thought that "human autonomy," as a concept, was a sin, I think D wanted a more structured "human autonomy"  

[Lev]

I don't see much evidence for that... but then again you probably would say the same about me! Let's leave it at that -- unless you have something else of course. Like I said in the other post, I'd love to hear what, in your theory, Dostoyevsky might have been suggesting. Add to that, if it's okay, this idea of a "structured human autonomy." It all sort of ties in. I should probably just make a list for you but -- -- that's kind of demanding. Take your time -- I'll be around.

[Worm]

So are we agreed that Dostoyevsky thought the "assertion of human autonomy" was a sin in his opinion? In our own opinions we may or may not agree that he was right (i.e., that it was a "sin" = "wrong" = "lie" as opposed to "virtue" = "right" = "truth"), but I think we can safely say he felt that way about it, don't you?
About the "sin" you mentioned -- that's funny! I play the guitar actually -- . I hate to go against my favorite author, but hey, he is free to be wrong as well, right?

HAHAHAhahahahaHAPPY NEW YEAR!!

[germ15]

Well...

We have to view the extraordinary man, the ubermensch, etc as being a person who brings, what Rask calls a "new word."  In other words, he or she is someone who brings about a new worldview.  The morals in which the extraordinary man is operating are only necessary to the ordinary men, but only for a time.

Ok.  The extraordinary man's intention is to overthrow the old morals or the old worldview and so why would he follow them?  
Nietzsche uses thinkers and philosophers to describe the extraordinary men; i.e. Jesus, Plato, etc.  Dostoevsky uses military figures like Napolean.  They both serve society to the same extent inasmuch as they create revolutions; politically or idealogically.
How the ordinary are to act according to the new worldview brought to the world by the extraordinary is something that hasn't been answered.  Or, at the very least, it has been answered with as much pessimism and fear as possible.
I am, therefore, not going to try and explain a new "morality" for the ordinary man, that is under the extraordinary man's new worldview.  Not only is this something not successfully explored (i.e.: Nietzsche's Zarathustra is a hermit!) but is something highly controversial.
In an environment where this revolution has not occurred, where the old morals are still followed, extraordinary men do not have to follow moral codes.  They (Rask) are still experimenting with the parameters of this revolution, hence breaches of morality.  Defining the parameters begins with defining the faults of the old worldview, this is exactly the flesh of Nietzsche's work.
Without a revolution, without a new worldview, the ordinary men and women must follow the moral codes that the extraordinary men are seeking to destroy.

This, I think, is the nature of the beast

i think that nietzsche would not consider himself extraordinary when compared with the 'overman'.  i believe that n. would consider himself as a mere bridge to this type of man (he may have even said so himself).  by setting parameters for some revolutionary change in morality, one is conceded the point that these individuals are humbling themselves to morality.  they may be hesitant to believe that man is not ready for the sudden change.  yet, this seems contradictory to the type of make up that n. has in mind for Man.  this idea seems more machiavellian in its concepts.  this type of change would be best suited for the few Men to employ mercenaries for their ends.  however, what to do with thes mercenaries later is problematic.  it is also problematic that only a few Men lead this charge.  the history of civilizations would influence one to believe that the majority would still rule.  hence, although more advanced (even that can be argued) these individuals would not yet have the strength to carry hammers.  maybe, go underground and wait. to keep them busy they can flatter each other with there 'knowlegde'