Dostoevsky Individualism

[underworld men]

I think that Dostoevsky was developing a form of individualism that was evolving over the course of his works. His novels are case studies if you will, of individual "voices" and then also the mixing of those "each unique voices", together.

I think his individualism though was always grounded in the eastern tradition of the concept.

He outlines several types of "individualisms".



Rational/logical types (nous)

The unromantic loneliness of the underground man
guarded and unwilling to compromise any aspect of his person or perceived individual, even to love.

The ridiculous man's renunciation of his individual person (via illusionary suicide). But then finding out that it was indeed his individualism that was corrupting to the innocent. Therefore he spent the rest of his waking life denying himself so he could (rightfully) be with the ones in heaven without corrupting them.

The athiest (Raz, Ivan,) were impious men that are rational beings, that must die, who willingly run away from life, and refuse to believe in the existence of the everlasting Creator. (aka St John Climacus/Ivan's trial speech in TBK).  Though ultimately both must face the limits of rationality.



Irrational types

Kirilov and his inability to give meaning through logical conclusions. It is in the absurd that he finds expression.

Rogozhin conflicted between the rational ideas of his head and his associates but then unminded by the destructive obsession and emotions he has for Nastassya. Broken and disfunctional.

Fyodor Karamazov wanting to be exceptional but lacking self control. The conflict always raging in his character because of his inability to be honest about who he is to himself.

Dmitri Karamazov being the son who follows his father's example but is ultimately undermind by his own passion and rage at who his father really is.

Marmeladov the dumba$s drunk full of ideas and unable to manifest them because he himself does not believe in himself.




Mystical types

Sonya beautiful and wanting to have the best for all mankind but forced because of her father to sell herself into prostitution.
Even though she is repressed she remains kind and somehow (obviously not through rational or irrational though) does not become bitter. And this makes her a hero.

The prince was kind and humble a lover of all mankind and hoping to bring about a better world through kindness. Which he partially achieves with Maria and the children but ultimately loses with Rogozhin.

Alyosha exhibits were the nous of the person or the rational or logical mind is but one of several componenets within the person. Alex was as much heart and loving compassion as he was spiritual and intelligent. Look as his response to the grand inquisitor. It was but a kiss. Alex was Dostoevsky's expression of a complete and good person.

The individual in the east taken to it's most extreme would be
monasticism. The individual in the west taken to the most extreme would be a romantic expression of a very lonely isolated person along the lines of the underground man.
And it's OK to disagree.

[Radio Saturday]

I'm not quite sure where you're taking your argument here. Do you mean that Dostoyevsky was using the idea of eastern individualism (i.e. monaticism or isolation with God) to show the weaknesses of western individualism (i.e. unlovely loneliness or isolation without God)? I've noticed a streak of anti-rationalism in Dostoyevsky, to a certain extent -- that his beliefs and the ideas he discusses can only be discussed so far and after that have to be understood at a fundamental level. He seems to use the "Rational / Logical Type"  as an example of this -- the tragedy of these characters is that they must discus and reason and therefore can't quite gain true understanding.

I think I'm reiterating / missing the point. I'm sorry.

And sorry for all the em-dashes, too.

[underworld men]

I'm not quite sure where you're taking your argument here. Do you mean that Dostoyevsky was using the idea of eastern individualism (i.e. monaticism or isolation with God) to show the weaknesses of western individualism (i.e. unlovely loneliness or isolation without God)? I've noticed a streak of anti-rationalism in Dostoyevsky, to a certain extent -- that his beliefs and the ideas he discusses can only be discussed so far and after that have to be understood at a fundamental level. He seems to use the "Rational / Logical Type"  as an example of this -- the tragedy of these characters is that they must discus and reason and therefore can't quite gain true understanding.

I think I'm reiterating / missing the point. I'm sorry.

And sorry for all the em-dashes, too.

Sorry but I was just trying to show how the mix match for what individualism is in the east seems to be contradictory to what it means in the west.

Individualism is self sufficiency yes, but one has this with technology (the west) the other with humanity (the east).

[Radio Saturday]

Individualism is self sufficiency yes, but one has this with technology (the west) the other with humanity (the east).

I'm still not sure I understand the concept here. Self-sufficiency with humanity? What do you mean by this?

I'm not just playing dumb here; I honestly don't understnad the point you're making.

[Worm]

I believe self-sufficiency with humanity is a very valid and realistic idea.
It's about being self-sufficient in the area of your own humanity, in daily life - rather than needing technology like yer average materialist to dampen your own imperfections, people like them, use themselves, to perfect themselves.

that's my interpretation at least

PS: UM, i believe the idea of individualism in the west contradicting the idea of individualism in the east, is a very normal thing ... if you look at it from the perspective, of how undefined philosophical ideas like "individualism" are nowadays.  What IS individualism?  Individualists can go with the flow ....

[underworld men]

I believe self-sufficiency with humanity is a very valid and realistic idea.
It's about being self-sufficient in the area of your own humanity, in daily life - rather than needing technology like yer average materialist to dampen your own imperfections, people like them, use themselves, to perfect themselves.

that's my interpretation at least

PS: UM, i believe the idea of individualism in the west contradicting the idea of individualism in the east, is a very normal thing ... if you look at it from the perspective, of how undefined philosophical ideas like "individualism" are nowadays.  What IS individualism?  Individualists can go with the flow ....

Foxy your a godsend! Perfect.

[underworld men]

I'm not quite sure where you're taking your argument here. Do you mean that Dostoyevsky was using the idea of eastern individualism (i.e. monaticism or isolation with God) to show the weaknesses of western individualism (i.e. unlovely loneliness or isolation without God)? I've noticed a streak of anti-rationalism in Dostoyevsky, to a certain extent -- that his beliefs and the ideas he discusses can only be discussed so far and after that have to be understood at a fundamental level. He seems to use the "Rational / Logical Type"  as an example of this -- the tragedy of these characters is that they must discus and reason and therefore can't quite gain true understanding.

I think I'm reiterating / missing the point. I'm sorry.

And sorry for all the em-dashes, too.

I think this is an excellent post by the way. It would be good to say that Dostoevsky really just wanted to put rationalism in its place. Dostoevsky saw rationalism as a part of the complete picture. Where he wanted to show it's deficiencies as an 'ism. Meaning a whole or complete system and approach to existence that would give people a complete and functional understanding of now. As this rationalism was deficient and came up way way to short to do anything but make people partially functional and or disfunctional.

[Radio Saturday]

Thank you. I value your opinion very highly and I say that in all earnesty.

[underworld men]

Thank you. I value your opinion very highly and I say that in all earnesty.

The feeling is mutual.  

[underworld men]

I like the idea that individualism is subjective.

To me it carries a certain Kantian feel to it.

A priori being the memory or abstraction of ones experience seems to me to be the perfect formulation of
what knowledge ontologically and or epistemologically is.

It is perspective memory.

Individualism is in my opinion the essence/ousia of the person.

This essence is more then a priori even though modern existentialist nihilists like Satre and Camus would jump on this as validation, well. I am not stating that experience makes the whole person.

Case in point.

As there is internal and external experience
A priori and a posteriori.

There to is types of those experiences
noumenon and phenomena.

The greek word for noumenon in a philosophical sense is
hypostasis.

Now "remember/know" is the key to this reduction of existence.

Here instead of us stopping at the modern resolve to the question of validating, if one exists (AKA Martin Heidegger, existence is being in time).

If we go back to Dostoevsky's time - being, existence and individualism was still not a closed topic (AKA Martin Heidegger).

You see Dostoevsky expressed a different individualism.
If you look at notes from the underground what makes an individual is not internal or external in a philosophical sense.
Philosophy deals with functions.

This gets alittle heavy, sorry.
See a thing within its self would have it's own meaning/uniqueness.
So that thing would be unique in an internal and or external way. AKA you have a unique set of fingerprints, retina, voice, DNA (or close enough not to statically matter). Now your nous or rational mind is unique because of your experience AND YOUR hereditary instincts. Yes a possible scientific explaination of the theory of forms!

So there is in a Kantian mets Heidegger way to say that there is a set of perceivable beings that are unique internally and externally. All this relating to experience.

History within this frame work is a recording of beingS in time.

This is not Dostoevsky's individualism.

Dostoevsky believed that one validates one's self by proving freewill (yeah yeah Kant was a libertarian too so what). One has all of the above but none of this matters unless one can truely love (not in the romantic sense either) and if one has no freedom and can not openly be without secret or freedom to be whatever THEN THERE CAN BE NO LOVE.

No freedom no love.
One has to choose.
This is the whole arriving at becoming.

Brother Kierkegaard understood all of this. K's problem was he was human. He was in love with someone who was now beyond his reach (Beautiful Regine). This made K
blinded. Dostoevsky was not in such a place.

He was human yes but not poisoned by romance. That is why the underground man is bitter. The underground man chooses his uniqueness and individualism over true love in a vain selfish way. K chose it in a self sacrifice way.

Now Dostoevsky's angle could be expressed that the potential to have and having freedom are both validation of existence. One can rebel one can most definitely screw up proof of freewill (over determinism) is our mistakes. Freedom is the most pervasive component of a person's psychological well being. In an external sense.

How one becomes an individual internally and therefore completely is by loving other people. By kindness.

This is a radical departure from western individualism that states there is really is no God: only an impersonal reality called "existence," and it doesn't have a will or criteria that I have to respect above my own personal wants, wills or desires AKA the world or passions. Outside of myself there is no other truth or authority. Anyone challenging that is trying to oppress me. "Truth" or what is "real" is whatever I say it is. Inessence the west embraces freewill but then rejects it by rejecting voluntarism or better yet perverting voluntarism.

This above is said many different ways by many different people (hey the quote isn't even mine). This above is the heart of individualism west versus east.

[Radio Saturday]

It's interesting that you should say this. Just yesterday, my father and I were talking about the same thing.

I agree with you that the west has, in a strange, strange way, embraced free will only to, ultimately, reject it. That is, the west (actually, come to think of it, the modern world) has embraced the idea of free will in that it says that anyone can do anything they want, but rejected it in that everyone claims their every action was someone else's fault. I think Dostoyevsky refutes this by saying, through the suffering of his characters, that they have taken responsibility for their actions and are now atoning for them.

I think you're also right about romantic love in Dostoyevsky. It's my opinion, personally, that romantic love (in the style of Tristan and Isolde etc.) has been detrimental to western society on the whole. I think Dostoyevsky saw this and realized that love is necessary, that it's wonderful and the only true path to freedom, but not romantic love. Basically, it's the way of the flesh versus the way of the spirit.

Have I got this right?  

[underworld men]

Yup.

One must love- love (agape) above all else.

Then one becomes realized even at the fear of what being completely conscious really is.

Love is the truth that sets you free from the drunkiness of now.

This is the St John Climacus "free individualism". John's  Freedom is not materialistic based(socialism, capitalism).

Now don't get me wrong I am not taking a jab at Kierkegaard.
He was brilliant and he reminds me of St John Chrysostom in many respects but anyone who has read the "marriage part" of Either/or knows that K was big time romantic. Let alone if you read it and are actually a long time married person.

[MikeK]

Now don't get me wrong I am not taking a jab at Kierkegaard.
He was brilliant and he reminds me of St John Chrysostom in many respects but anyone who has read the "marriage part" of Either/or knows that K was big time romantic. Let alone if you read it and are actually a long time married person.

No, no, no.  Kierkegaard is actually very good on the concept of 'romantic' love vs. 'Christian' love.  You should read his "Works of Love" from 1847.  Just a couple of quick excerpts, I won't quote at length (but you should read the whole thing yourself).  In speaking about the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself', Kierkegaard says:

     "But would this really be the highest form of love?  Would it not be possible to love another person better than yourself?  We hear people talk like that from time to time; they speak with the enthusiasm of poets.  Could it be that Christianity refused to soar to such a high standard, because it wanted to appeal to simple, ordinary folk?  Is Christianity in this sense a rather feeble religion, making very meagre demands?  Does Christianity, in using the pedestrian term 'neighbor' show that it lacks the noble ambition of poets, who speak of a 'beloved' and a 'friend'?  Certainly no poets have ever sung about loving your neighbor, any more than they have sung about loving your neighbor 'as yourself'.  Should we despise Christianity?  OR SHOULD WE MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LOVE OF WHICH POETS SING, AND THE LOVE WHICH CHRISTIANITY COMMANDS? [my bold letters]  Should we humbly praise the sober realism of Christianity and its understanding of life?  Should we honor it for being so firmly rooted in this earth?"

Kierkegaard then answers those rhetorical questions:

"Christianity has far better answers to questions about love - about the nature and expression of love - than any poet.  The love which poets praise is secretly self-love; and this explains its intoxicated notion about loving another person more than yourself.  Earthly love is not eternal love.  It is a beautiful image of the infinite; it is the highest earthly reflection of the eternal.  That is why it contains an element of fantasy, and even entertains the fantastic idea that people can love one another more than God.  This kind of foolishness pleases the poet beyond all measure; it is delicious to his ears, and inspires him to sing.  But alas, Christianity teaches us that it is blasphemy."

Hardly an endorsement of 'romantic' love, that.  Remember, Judge William in "Either/Or" is speaking for Judge William, NOT Kierkegaard.

[underworld men]

Excellent!

But uh I was more going from sickness until death and the anti-climacus individualism angle.

To point out why the work was "anti-climacus" more so then to simply label K a romantic. Reading back over what I wrote I was way too "final". My mistake.

As for "the works of love"- excellent work (one I haven't read) it very much changes my percepts of sickness until death. I am glad he did address it!

Lots and lots of reading to do...

I have not read all of K the "Post-script" alone really hurts my brain and even though I have read it I feel like I have not.
Now "Sickness" is just pure existiential brillance.

Any how MikeK whats your angle on the whole east versus west individualsim.

Mr Cemetary included. You see I think that one word encapsulates why K parted with Climacus and the east (and possibly Dostoevsky) over individualism- the word is,
autonomy.

Climacus believed that when one learns they must first find the best teacher they can and then submit to the teacher "unconditionally".

Now I don't know and I am guessing but I think that with K
he realized (yes because he REALLY was that smart) that Hegel was full of poo poo.

I don't know but I think anyone who has read Sickness and understood it to some degree should at least give John Climacus a shot. I mean I absolutely adore Climacus his stories are beautiful.

As for
"This is a radical departure from western individualism that states there is really is no God: only an impersonal reality called "existence."

It think that this is a kind of Aristotle thing. God as an object (Mr Cemetary/K again). Existence as an object.

It has a really weird way in that Islam to seems to say submit to God but that God is not human and could never be.

Where as orthodoxy teaches that God is philosophical (Justin Martyr)Where Justin fell short was this understanding in that God is incomprehesible in origin -Father, Life/animation and light and existence - the creator or holy spirit, and the physical King and example to us all- Christ.

And of course this explanation above is a frightful reduction.

All three of these "function" and make "us/now".

This is were the meta-physical ends.

[underworld men]

At some point we must of course address the ultimate distortion of "individualism". We must address satan.