Kirilov in Demons

[Worm]

I was just reading Part 2 of Chapter 6 in Demons, (right after Part 1, the major axis of the book) and was hypnotized by the beautiful discussion between Kirilov and Virginski...  the contrast between the characters is beautiful.. on the one hand there is the withdrawn Kirilov, with his ball and unique philosophical look on things, and on the other hand, there is the elegant revolutionary Virginski...


... maybe the board can help me piece this difficult chapter together?..

... I got stuck at this point..
".. I mean, everybody searches on his own way for comfort; that's all.  That's been known for ages.
- Comfort, you say?
- Wel, it's worth the effort to argue over a word..
- No, you've said it well; comfort, for all I care.  God is inevitable, and henceforth He must exist.
- Now, that's just marvelous.
- But I know he doesn't exist and cAn't exist..
- That's more correct.
- Then do you really don't understand how someone with such a double thought can't stay amongst the living?"

... why not?...

[Suvorov]

I believe it refers to the idea that Kirillov expresses not long before his suicide when conversing with Pyotr Verkhovensky. As I remember it, Kirillov states that because there is no God, he (the individual) must be God. But how can he be God if there is no God? There is the contradiction and there is the contradiction which drives him mad.

A rather simplistic interpretation, I admit, but the best I can come up with at short notice.

[poor knight]

I finished Demons for the second time a few months ago and I've annotated and underlined that very conversation in several places. It's a great dialogue (Part III, Chapter 6, Section 2, to be precise for others) and just to clarify, it's between Kirilov and Verkhovensky.

As Suvorov suggests, Kirilov belives that God must exist yet cannot exist and for that paradox alone he cannot go on living. I believe that Kirilov encapsulates the existential philosophy in his statement that begins "if there is a God, then it is always His will, and I can do nothing against His will. If there isn't, then it is my will, and I am bound to express my self-will [by killiing myself]."

Kirilov is a wonderfully sympathetic character. He is always ready to help others, is generally kind hearted, smart (a structural engineer like myself   ), sacrificing of his property for the benefit of others. I think his death is one of the saddest moments in the book.

I also beleive that FD (also a civil engineer, not that it matters) felt compassion for Kirilov. Perhaps more than anyone in the book he had the most to offer society. What a sad irony befitting of the theme of the book, that he throws away his life on as Foxhead quoted, "arguing over a word." Kirilov envisions his suicide as a sacrifice for  the world in, "the only salvation for all is to prove this idea to everyone." What a waste.

Contrast this with Verhkovensky, to whom I personally would not attach the appelation "elegant," who is conniving, manipulative and cares nothing for anyone else beyond what they can do to serve his own devilish purposes. It is as if, to me, FD is comparing Peter to the demon possessing the swine fron the biblical quote at the front of the book. He infects the minds of otherwise good people with madness. I know Kirilov had planned on suicide beforehand, but in this particular conversation Peter's evil comes through so strong.

Foxhead, thanks for starting this thread. I've been meaning to start a fresh one on Demons. Having read through it again, I was just astounded by the power this book has.

[K.]

"Stavrogin, too, was eaten up by an idea. […] If Stavrogin believes in God, then he doesn’t believe that he believes. And if he doesn’t believe, then he doesn’t believe that he doesn’t believe." -Kirilov

One of my favorite queotes of the book, I think provides some intereseting parallels with Kiri's own metaphysical/existential dilemma (or whatever one may call it).

[Worm]

Forgive my small confusion of characters, it's indeed Verkhovensky, not Virginski, or anybody else.

... Kirilov shot himself, thus he proved his idea, he expressed the freedom of man... but still it feels rather pointless, and that it changed nothing at all, instead of it being some sort of grand breakthrough.. was it a breakthrough or was it a waste?

this is a relevant point,
because,
if you weigh it out to what Kirilov threw away, like poor knight observed well, it makes a difference whether he made the right decision or not.


"Stavrogin, too, was eaten up by an idea." God, I love that line.  Thx for quoting it, K.

[Worm]

... there still hasn't been any answer to my question...

perhaps i've worded it out unclearly...


did Kirilov's suicide prove to be a philosophical breakthrough (=proving the freedom of man), or was the bullet a waste?
an important factor in this matter, is the potential of Kirilov... which went lost forever when the bullet went straight through his head.

[lerik]

... there still hasn't been any answer to my question...

perhaps i've worded it out unclearly...


did Kirilov's suicide prove to be a philosophical breakthrough (=proving the freedom of man), or was the bullet a waste?
an important factor in this matter, is the potential of Kirilov... which went lost forever when the bullet went straight through his head.

In my opinion Kirilov is an existentialist.According to him,only God can give meaning to life and if God doesn't exist(at Dostoevsky's time a lot of young people were atheist),then there's no point in life and there's no reason to continue it.Death rulls the world,its chaotic and there's nothing we can do about it.However,we still have freedom of choice.And Kirilov suggests that this choice should be made i.e. suicide.Thats what he tries to prove by commiting suicide.
Not sure if its of any help though

[poor knight]

Foxhead,  

As I was alluding to in my earlier post, and perhaps I need to be more succinct; I do think Kirilov's death was a waste, not any profound existential breakthrough. I think that is how FD wrote it to be at any rate. It in some ways encapsulates the entire theme of the book in the one character: the waste of an entire generation of smart, capable young people who are possessed by the false idealism of western socialism.

[Worm]

.. although the discussion between Kirilov and Verchovensky was long, there are still many gaps that need filling.... why did Kirilov believe a God was necessary for life, for example..

anyway, I agree that in the case of K, the bullet was definitly a waste~the philosophical breakthrough didn't break through anything.

[lerik]

.. although the discussion between Kirilov and Verchovensky was long, there are still many gaps that need filling.... why did Kirilov believe a God was necessary for life, for example..

anyway, I agree that in the case of K, the bullet was definitly a waste~the philosophical breakthrough didn't break through anything.

Quite agree.Plus Kirilov was so obsessed with his 'philosophy' helping mankind,eventhough the only people that heard about his views were Verhovensky and Shatov and by the time Kirilov did commit suicide,Shatov was dead anyway.And Verhovensky was never interested in spreading Kirilov's philosphy.

[Worm]

right.. Kirilov went into a dead-end street..

[brainless]

if you remember that quote from apocalypse, the one about "cold", "hot" and "warm",  - consider that kirillov is "cold" (lebyadkina is "hot", stavrogin is "warm") according to dostoyevsky's conception...  you decide yourself - if it was pointless or not. i guess for dostoevsky himself it was kinda honest error. and therefore this suicide differs so much from stavrogin's - 'cause stavrogin is "warm" and he made no choice and in comparison with kirillov's death his was really pointless, though natural... imho.

[lerik]

Actually,I am quite confused about Kirillov's character.On one hand,he is cold(in religious meaning) because he tells Verhovensky that God doesn't exist,but on the other hand,he has icons in his room,which shows that he isn't completely cold.

[brainless]

"completely"... hm..  
i found this conception - hot-warm-cold - in dostoevsky's notes to the demons.

and kirillov as a "cold" character, intelligent atheist, philosopher and ivan karamazov's "shadow", who suffers because he KNOWS that there is no God and for whom it is a tragedy because he cannot stand lies and God is lies.
icons in his room.. - do you remember, what he says verkhovensky about christ? that if law of nature didn't have mercy even for its own miracle and made it live for lies and die for lies that means that all the world, and this very law is lies and "devil's vaudeville".

btw, Shatov as far as i remember also suffers because he can't believe and remember kirillov's words about stavrogin: if he believes he doesn't believe that he believes; and if he doesn't believe he doesn't believe that he doesn't believe)) it could be the main tragedy not only of demons but the whole dostoevsky's life - this struggle of christianity and atheism, when you know and you can not believe, but even if you can not believe you can be cheated.
so the only way is to believe that you can be cheated. that's sad.

[poor knight]

An interesting comment about that passage in Revelation: 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.' It was written by John to the church in Laodicia, one of the wealthiest town in the early church. It was known however, for spending money extravagently on itself without any real purpose or service. It was situated between two other towns, Hierapolis and Colossae, which were known respectively for their fresh, cool water and healing hot springs. Both served tourists who came to the town to find healing and refreshment. The water that came into Laodicia, however, was from aquaducts they built from Hierapolis and Colossae and ended up after the trip being lukewarm and bitter.

The message is not that God prefers that we either reject or accept Him over not taking no stand at all. Rather, in whatever  way we serve Him we are to be fervent, active followers and servants.

I hadn't known this before reading Demons, but now I see the scene with Stavrogin possible reflecting Dostoyevky's admonition to both the younger and older generations to devote themselves to serving Russia's common good, rather than either selfishness couched as Utopian idealism or a stale sort of stagnant aristocracy. Stavrogin, who has a foot in each community, is told to make a decision one way or another; and whatever decision he makes, to make a real difference.