Dostoevsky's question.

[Canerican]

Can a man of perception respect himself at all?


Is this at all true? Are all men ugly to themselves? Is this simply based on Christianity?

Seems like a perfect Catch-22. Either you have no perception, or no self respect.

I think that I will write an essay on this for my advanced writing class. Please give your input.

[poor knight]

That's a very good anti-existential question. For me, I'd say it all depends on whether having respect for something depends on it being perfect. If so, then your paradox is correct. If, however, you can respect something that is less than perfect, the paradox disappears. FD was firmly in the latter camp, of course. Some of the characters he respects the most are seriously flawed. And what holds true of our perceptions of others should hold true for our perception of ourselves.

[Canerican]

And what holds true of our perceptions of others should hold true for our perception of ourselves.

The key word is should, and I believe that the flaws of the characters are more telling than anything else.

I believe that what you said above is how it ws meant to be percieved by Dostoevsky. The Bible says, "Judge by the same measure that you wish to be judged." I flawed characted would obviously not follow this tenet, simply because he is flawed.

I would have to agree that the imperfect in FMD's work were often well respected, Alyosha was a flawed in so many senses. He was strong in following the ways of Saint Alexis, but I believe that he weaknesses and flawed, although not dominent, were important. I think one of Alyosha's biggest flaws was that he was unable to defend himself, and seemed to need to help everyone. He would be viewed as a saint today, but that certainly does not mean he was perfect.

Of course FMD was Christian, do you think that he might actually believe that Christ was the only person deserving of respect? I doubt it, that would not be Christian.

I have kind of been thinking out loud, and I believe that it is likely that your hypothesis is correct. I believe that I will write my essay on this, and will most likely post it here after I am done. But any more thoughts will still be appreciated... as you can see, my mind needs direction.  

[poor knight]

Well maybe it is the definition of respect.  I use the term, not lightly, but not reverentially either. I'm sure FD would have thought Christ the only person worthy of reverence, in the way of worship, but as for respect, it is to me a lesser term that simply recognizes some part of a character that we acknowledge as positively noteworthy. I respect FD's writing, and many other things about him. His views on Jews, however, not so much.

Now, if you replace "respect" with worship, then again, your statement makes much sense. A man of perception cannot worship himspelf, becaue he will undoubtedly find many things not worth worshiping. Certainly, this is a basic teaching of Christianity, and in Raskolnikov, for example, we find a man who FD paints as self-worshipful in an existential (superman) sense, who, only thorugh the love of Sonya and his discovery of Christ realizes that he is in fact imperfect.

But that said, I don't think we have to consider ourselves "ugly" as you say, unless in comparison to the perfect ideal.

[Canerican]

Now, if you replace "respect" with worship, then again, your statement makes much sense. A man of perception cannot worship himspelf

Now, I don't remember the passage well. In TBK I remember something about a missionary to the "Mohamedans" (Muslims). I believe that there may have been some mention of self-worship, in the Islamic religion. Am I correct? Because if I am remembering right, this would be very important.

Would you say that any form of self worship should be considered to be a sense of sacrilege?

If so then what can we make of the newer Episcopalian church? The more non-traditional view takes more of a stand that "it is what is in you that is important." The same with Buddism.