Thursday, December 4, 2014
The Nihilism of Dostoevsky
Read the handout given that is titled "The Nihilism of Dostoevsky". Read the first section and the sections titled "Political Nihilism" and "Philosophical Nihilism" - the last two excerpts are optional readings. Please make a response to both the "Political" and the "Philosophical" Nihilism sections. Be sure to separate each section with a space and title each section so readers can clearly distinguish each of the responses. Your responses should be thoughtful insights that also recollect specific points from the novel, Crime and Punishment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Political Nihilism
ReplyDeleteMy first impression of this article was that it was a shame the writer could take the time to use words such as "demonstrative" and "circumspectly," which I confess I had to look up, but also make careless mistakes in phrases such as "when Ivan Turgenev have wrote" and "image has became." My second impression was who the heck are all of these Russian people? Should I know any of them except Dotoevsky? So, it was the large words and the unfamiliar names that led me to write all over this paper just like we used to in AP Language, and I finally discovered that this article was briefly explaining the politics that writers faced when approaching nihilism. Dostoevsky obviously disagreed with nihilism, which is why his influential works were essentially banned from the Soviet Union until "Khrushchev's epoch" when the Russian citizens became frightened by the "repressions" they faced and sought out their "historical homeland." For those of you who do not know, because I did not, "Khrushchev's epoch" would have occurred between the years of 1958 to 1964 when Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was the political leader of Russia.
So basically the article told me this - nihilism was not important to the people of Russia in the form of a news article, as "publicist Nadezhdin" presented it in 1829. They only found it realistic, frightening, and revolutionary when almost subliminally fed to them through an all to relatible novel such as "Crime and Punishment" or "Fathers and Sons." This was why, in the time of Khrushchev which was also around the time of the Cold War, the Russian people reverted to writers such as Dostoevsky because they questioned the possibility of there being "extraordinary" men, or they feared it. There are few books in this world that make a political statement as strong as Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" which both introduced the idea of nihilism and tore it to pieces. He summarized the perks and, mainly, downfalls of the "revolution of demons" that was occurring in the Russian culture and compromising their future balance.
Philosophical Nihilism
In this part of the article, which is written with the same language and occasional grammatical error of the last, the author talks about nihilism and some of the men who adhered to its belief system. What particularly interested me was the part where he mentioned Nietzche, one of the nihilists we talked about briefly in our study of "Crime and Punishment." I immediately recalled what Dr. Diiulio had taught us about Nietzche becoming crazy after watching a horse being beat and how this was similar to Raskolnikov's dream. Dostoevsky obviously chose to make an example of Nietzche.
In his article, the author says the Nietzche studies "The Demons" by Dostoevsky and said that he, as well as Tolstoy, was "inclined to compassion." This is strange because the article also states that "compassion" was one of the "fundamental signs of nihilism" that Nietzche "distinguished." For me, this did not make sense because Dostoevsky plainly disagreed with nihilism yet the author states that Nietzche considered him a "classical representative" of nihilism. Was Dostoevksy actually a nihilist or was Nietzche attempting to discredit Dostoevsky's literary works against nihilism? And was this what led Dostoevsky to create a dream for Raskolnikov that mirrored the downfall of Nietzche and his nihilistic ways? I have to admit that these articles mostly confused me. I think they were beyond me, and I hope that I will gain a better understanding of them when I read your blogs.
Ann,
DeleteI, too, was disappointed in the grammatical errors found in both articles, specially since the author had such a great vocabulary otherwise. I'm glad you explained the "Krushchev's epoch" as it helped me understand things a bit better, although I'm still confused by these articles, and I'm glad I was not the only one. When you said that nihilism was not that important to the Russians when in the form of articles, it made me think of when Raskolnikov published his article about being extraordinary in Crime and Punishment. It was not touched by many, except for Porifry. I found it interesting that you noted that during that time, people looked at Crime and Punishment because they questioned the authenticity of being extraordinary. Maybe that was why Lenin was so against Dostoesky.
I had completely forgotten that we had talked about Nietzche in class! That is such a great point to make about him though, as he seemed similar to Raskolnikov is his thinking. I thought it was good that you questioned the whole "compassion" situation. I would not associated compassion with being nihilistic, but perhaps Nietzche looked at the concept wig a different angle. Overall, this was great job, Ann!
Ann,
DeleteWelcome to the realm of crazy Russian name madness! Actually, this kind of added some mystery to the article. I like how I had to pay attention to the names so that I could really understand it. Your blog was really interesting. You and I had similar thoughts on these articles. Well, I didn't vocalize mine in the way you did. However, I like your blog better so it's ok! Anyway, your comments about Kruschev's epoch was very enlightening. I didn't look up that, instead choosing to focus on Vladimir Lenin. But with these two pieces of information, I have a much better understanding of the entire first article.
You brought up Nietzsche! Excellent! He is one crazy man. I really loved how you paralleled Raskolnikov and him so that others could see this comparison. Your questions that you bring up are very interesting because I didn't really think about that too much as I was preoccupied by other thoughts on the article. I really believe that these articles forced me to focus on one topic or thought path so that I could get through them with even an iota of understanding. They were confusing. But I really enjoyed the as it seems you did too. Great work Ann!
Political Nihilism
ReplyDeleteI must say this article was truly confusing to me at first with all the Russian names; I pondered who they were and why they were important. Secondly what is wrong with this writer I mean I make mistakes in grammar but seriously, “Ivan Turgenev have wrote” and “when he have wrote about the hero”. Either these two examples were lost in translation or a failed attempt of trying to write in English from a foreign perspective. I didn’t feel the necessity to dig into the names that were mentioned in the blog. As to the importance of the blog I can understand the reason for the ridicule of Dostoevsky’s work. Back in that time anything that was a means of changing the status quo was crazy and unwelcomed. This is shown in the article when Vladimir Lenin criticizes Dostoevsky’s work as “moralizing vomiting”. Although this is quite a harsh critique, it simply proves his point that nihilism had no place in politics. This is quite funny simply because Dostoevsky didn’t support nihilism in his book Crime and Punishment. Yet they criticize him for explaining his thoughts on the topic with a novel in which the main character sees the errors of his ways in the end. Something just tells me that they didn’t fully comprehend Dostoevsky’s vision/underlined message in his novel.
This might be only a speculation, but given the basic knowledge we have learned about nihilism from Crime and Punishment their views are understandable. One can only imagine having someone deeply rooted with nihilistic beliefs having the authority that comes with a high position in any government. For example, imagine for a moment having Rodion Romanivitch Razkolnikov as a high ranking government official. In his mental state there would most likely have been a World War III, or a nihilistic revolution. This of course is only in theory but it seems logical in my perspective.
Philosophical Nihilism
Fyodor Dostoevsky was truly a great writer as we now know from his work “Crime and Punishment”. Although he was hated for his creativity by “the demons” of Russian society he could take the reader in to the mindset of the character he was portraying in his words. I do not agree with the perspective of Vladimir Lenin or Anatoly Chubais. They saw his novel’s characters as “each character who appeared…remained the same up to the end.” This is not true however, I can’t think of any similarities in any of the characters from Crime and Punishment beside the point of each having a rift/split in their character. The philosophy of nihilism according to the article “approves a non-existence priority above the life, up to the full annihilation of life.” This is quite extreme as far as a concept of an individual’s philosophy, in which one person can be set above everyone else and doesn’t have to answer for their actions. Although we know that this was the underline meaning of Crime and Punishment, and Razkolnikov eventually sought help to eliminate his nihilistic thoughts/ beliefs. This act showed that nihilism wouldn’t be able to survive in the real world; it would eventually fall into ruins.
In this article I feel that it was to further expose nihilism as a potential threat to everyone. The way they explained it, it seemed to sound like a contagious disease. That’s only my personal opinion of this but alas these thoughts could become a lifestyle of a power hungry individual. This article also referred to one of the "fundamental signs of nihilism" that Nietzche saw in the writings of Dostoevsky. For me personally, this made little to no sense because Dostoevsky plainly disagreed with nihilism; yet the author states that he seemed to be a perfect "representative" of nihilism. Was Dostoevsky actually a nihilist or was this just a way of another jealous writer trying to slander Dostoevsky’s name? I have to admit that these articles were a bit confusing for me, but between the grammar and all the names I fear I might have lost something in translation.
Devyn,
DeleteThe grammatical mistakes in the article really irked me as well! I thought it was interesting that you said that you understood why Lenin and the rest of society did not appreciate Dostoesky coming in and openly opposing nihilism. I guess I hadn't thought about it, but it does make sense. Maybe they were afraid to question nihilism, and the views of Dostoesky confused them because he wasn't scared. Your theory seems a little far fetched, but I understand what you mean.
I also disagreed with Lenin and Chubais. Every character went through some sort of change in Crime and Punishment that altered either their physical or mental being. Raskolnikov, especially, did not remain the same. I liked that you pointed out how his confession proved that nihilism would never work out. This was a great blog, Devyn!
Devyn, I was anxious to read your blog for this week because we never really get to hear your opinion in class. Although that is mostly our fault for being overly vocal with our opinions, I still want to hear yours. Because we’re very loud and you tend to be outnumbered, I’m still unsure of your feelings towards “Crime and Punishment”. Did you like it? Hate it? Are you indifferent about the whole thing? I’m glad I was given the opportunity to find out. First let me start off by saying that I liked how, like me, you didn’t like how Vladimir Lenin critiqued Dostoevsky’s work yet you didn’t scold him for stating his own opinion. I loved how you mentioned him stating his own ideas on the whole thing only prove that nihilism has no role in politics. I however don’t think those who criticized Dostoevsky didn’t understand his book as much as they didn’t agree with his topics and ways of portraying his ideas. Your mention of Raskolnikov being a government official and then about a nihilistic revolution made me start to think of how the tables could have easily have been turned. That was creative and I applaud you greatly for thinking of that.
DeleteI have to disagree with your thoughts on philosophical nihilism. I don’t blame you for not agreeing with Lenin’s thoughts on “Crime and Punishment” but I do blame you for not seeing similar characteristics from characters throughout the novel. Dounia is always caring and trying to help her brother in any way possible all throughout the storyline. Raskolnikov is constantly battling with his alienation and guilt. Porfiry is continuously trying to get Raskolnikov to confess not only because it’s his job but also because he is worried about Rodya and his mental sanity. Going in another direction, I never thought of nihilism as a contagious disease. That was an interesting twist that I never would have thought of. I also found myself thinking that Dostoevsky’s attempts to disprove nihilism only made them more realistic. I more think “Crime and Puinshment” proved the concept but that’s my own opinion. I wish you would have used more examples from the book. You had a lot of great, creative ideas, but I feel like if you would have related the articles more to the novel itself you wouldn’t have been as confused. Overall, good work though. It was nice to finally hear your ideas!
Political Nihilism
ReplyDeleteDostoevsky proved that nihilism was not a "revolution of Russian people," but rather a "revolution of some active minority." Using Raskolnikov as his main character allowed Dostoevsky to show the public that nihilism starts with a single person and ends with one. He was not the first one to write about the Russian nihilistic views. In 1829, Nadezhdin published an ignored article called "The congestion of Nihilists." Ivan Turgenev wrote a novel called "Father and Sons" which caught the attention of the youth. This reminds me of Raskolnikov when he published his article of nihilism. No one seemed to pay any attention to it until he was being accused of murderer. Raskolnikov allowed his enemies, in his mind, to see what he thought through a simple article. Why would they not assume that Raskolnikov thought he was an "extraordinary" man if he believed he was one of the few. Nihilism in Russia spread quickly, but if nihilism was the belief that only a few "special" people were above the law, would they all not assume they were the "chosen one?" This leaves me with so many question that may possibly never get answered. But I do know, for "Crime and Punishment" and from this section on political nihilism, that nihilism bring destruction to all involved and maybe even some more.
Philosophical Nihilism
According to Vladimir Nabokov, Doestoevsky's "world [of the writer] was the world of sick people which is only interesting only to those who was sick himself." Well, call me a sick person! Reading about the other views people have SHOULD be enjoying due to expanding of our own knowledge and understanding of others. I bet at some point in our lives each one of us has acted as a nihilist. Most likely, we did not kill the way Raskolnikov did, but we have all shot down ideas or people because they were not good enough for the "common good." Having Raskolnikov become a murderer allowed Dostoevsky to present the extremities of how nihilists feel, "maybe I should not have done that." How many of us had to choose between to dishes at a restaurant, but once we received the dish that was ordered, we wished we got the plate? That is how I see nihilism. A single person is deciding between right and wrong, they choose wrong because, to them, the pros were greater than the cons at the present time. In the end, wish they chose right because it did not satisfy them the way they would have liked. Their feelings could be regret, because they did not listen to their first instinct, or of guilt, because they went against their some force that determines right and wrong in their mind. Nihilists are selfish, in my opinion. They cause harm truly believing they are bettering others and themselves when, in reality, they are only making things worse for everyone.
These articles about nihilism really expanded my knowledge of how close minded an open minded person can be. Nihilism, to me, will never be good in our world. It will destroy us all if we are not careful. However, I believe we have something to learn from nihilists. Although they seem to be cold, I strongly feel they just do not care what a person may think of them. They are who they are, and we do not have to accept them because they could care less. My favorite part between the two different nihilistic views is the very last quote of the "Philosophical Nihilism," "I say let the world go to hell, but I should always have my tea." In my mind, I had this "yes!" moment. Nihilists want to help the common good, but the rare person would just let them destroy the world on their own. They would not involve their self in a matter that does not really pertain to them, unlike a nihilist where they would involve them self in some way. To me, it just really meant to let others be and you shall be.
Kaitlin,
DeleteYour blog this week had some points I agree with and some I do not, but that’s a given from anyone of these blogs. It is true that Dostoevsky used Raskolnikov as his main tool to show the effects of nihilism, and how it is almost guaranteed to fail. However I do not think that any movement can start with one and end with one, because then it would seem to be more of a personal revelation rather than a movement. Some famous people throughout history had embraced their individual abilities, and saw themselves above the law. For example, Julius Caesar, the Emperor of Rome brought a single city/country to control over half of the European continent before his assassination by his cabinet. He was way before the time of nihilism, but he expressed many of the values that this article brought out in regards to nihilism (just a little something to think about). Also your point on “the belief that only a few ‘special’ people were above the law” is one that I had completely forgot about. Nihilism allows oneself to be the center of the universe in their mind. I will admit to your point that everyone has had a nihilistic thought in their life. Also your point in which nihilists cause harm when they think they’re doing good for themselves or society, is another point I never would’ve thought to put into this blog. My favorite part however is your final paragraph of this blog. We could learn a lot from them especially at our age in high school, since we are the center of a lot of drama. I must’ve passed over that sentence about “letting the world go to hell, but I should always have my tea.” in my time reading the articles. That says a lot about the author as you pointed out, but one other thing is that he is willing to let the world rot as long as he can have his daily pleasures. I find it truly hilarious that he is writing about how nihilists think, yet that statement sort of makes him sound a lot like one himself. Good job, Kaitlin.
Political Nihilism
ReplyDeleteLet me just say, Vladimir Lenin is a despot. I read this and immediately took a very strong disliking to him. "Moralizing vomitizing", "rubbish", and "threw aside" are phrases that absolutely have no place in a discussion of Fyodor Dostoevsky and his masterful work. However, this is my opinion. Vlad is welcome to his own despite the fact that I believe that his opinions are rubbish. Despite the fact that the beginning was upsetting, this article was very compelling. After re-reading it I noticed a few grammatical errors, but I feel that added to the authenticity of the article. It was really interesting, and my first through was that the entire reason that Vladimir Lenin did not like the opinions that Dostoevsky was spouting because they were powerful enough to completely undermine the power that Lenin had gained. He was the leader of the Soviet Union, a leader that adhered to the same nihilistic beliefs as other people in his country. For Dostoevsky, a man of great brilliance, to publish works that so completely went against the nihilistic belief system could possibly have a devastating effect on all of the things Vladimir Lenin had accomplished. So, by discrediting Dostoevsky, he was taking on the role of underminer, removing the danger that he was facing.
It is interesting how Dostoevsky's work was even forbidden in the USSR until around 1950, and even then, only some of his weaker novels were used. Only after another individual paved the way did Dostoevsky's novel, "Crime and Punishment" finally become allowed back in Russia. This is really interesting because his novel holds a prominent place in literature, but because of the ideas expressed in it, it was forbidden from being read by anyone in his own native country.
Philosophical Nihilism
Everything is nothing. At least, that's what is going to happen. All life will be destroyed, and the world will ascend to nothing. These are the beliefs held by philosophical nihilists. There is no God, in fact he has perished according to Friedrich Nietzsche, a prominent nihilist and philosopher. They feel that "distinguished compassion, contempt, and destruction" to describe the nihilist. This is intriguing because the wording is extremely important in this sentence. Notice the word "distinguished". It describes compassion. So, a nihilist must be compassionate, but in a distinguished way. What exactly does this mean? Distinguished really means to do something in an authoritative way or to do something to command respect. So the only ways in which nihilists are supposed to be truly compassionate are in times when their compassion is going to earn them respect and authority, or at least they will look like they hold these qualities. The other two we already knew. Contempt and destruction are obvious pieces of nihilistic theory, but "distinguished contempt" was a little unexpected.
This article was really interesting and held my attention while I read it. The "Underground Man" who "rejected society" and wanted freedom from himself, not from any physical or figurative chains holding him down. He felt that his own self had trapped him, which is characteristic of Raskolnikov. The entire time that we discussed "Crime and Punishment" we mentioned his need for freedom from his guilt and his own mind. He needed solitude in a way that he could completely withdraw from everything, paralleling himself to this "Underground Man".
Hannah, let me just start off by saying that you calling Vladimir Lenin a despot makes you no better than him. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. As much as I can agree that his phrases about the novel were harsh and unnecessary, I have to disagree with you to agree with him. As much as I respect Dostoevsky and his work, I did not like “Crime and Punishment” at all and do not consider him a “master”. He will forever be a great author, don’t get me wrong, but I would not consider his work, or at least “Crime and Punishment” “masterful”. I can see where you were coming from when it came to why Lenin didn’t like Dostoevsky’s work, but I don’t agree. Yes he may have been afraid of losing the power he currently possessed or that could have had nothing to do with it. I believe that Lenin was only thinking about continuing things running smoothly. It would be the same as someone in America going against our country; they wouldn’t be allowed and something would be done to discredit them.
DeleteI was disappointed that you didn’t really mention anything specially about the book. You mentioned your thoughts on “Crime and Punishment” and Dostoevsky, but didn’t mention any other examples from the novel except in the last paragraph and even there they were scarce. I appreciate that you gave your opinion to the articles we were supposed to, but the directions mentioned to use the book for specific examples. I think you have strong ideas, I just believe that more examples would have helped convince me of your points. Sorry I had to disagree with the majority of your blog, but just like Vladimir Lenin and Dostoevsky, we both have the right to disagree with each other without being criticized.
Hannah,
DeleteFirst off I understand your furry at Vladimir, but he is entitled to his own opinion like our discussions not everyone likes Dostoevsky. In my eyes he is merely an excellent author, if he were a master than he could make a novel that no one could ever decipher completely. He also would’ve made such a complex character that everything about him is questioned by any critic. I don’t think the grammatical errors added at all to the authenticity of the article. Personally as I stated in my blog that they might’ve been mistakes in translation, I know that you are good in Spanish and that not everything can be translated, one must consider that. Another thing is that we are human we are imperfect he might’ve just made the mistakes accidentally; none of us know the direct purpose of the grammar errors. If one were to dig into the reason for Crime and Punishment being banned from Russia I’m sure we’d find something to do with a government official of some sort. That’s only a hunch but most likely we’d find conspiracy theories of nihilism in the government of that time.
Your Philosophical Nihilism paragraph I find quite interesting. The beliefs of a philosophical nihilist sound like that of a character I read about from forever ago, but the name escapes me. The fact that there is no God in their process of moralization is the reason for many of their thoughts/actions. We truly see this in Razkolnikov when he is beginning to think of repentance with Sonia. This is the cause of his sudden outburst to go to the light, and away from the darkness that is the nihilism that engulfed his true being. Your point of “distinguish[ing]” to the forefront of your blog was a very good point to make. The two things that came immediately to my mind were that of Razkolnikov’s constant contradictions and the terrorists that threaten today’s world. Razkolnikov as we remember contradicted himself constantly, and then he would scorn himself for showing “weakness”. The idea of “distinguished contempt” are what made me think of those terrorist cells that are against the world and its further evolution into the future. I realize that it’s a long shot but when one truly looks back on any major attack from a terrorist cell, it had two or three of the nihilistic beliefs.
Hannah,
DeleteI read your blog along with Devyn and Jessicas comments, but I must agree with you. After I looked up the word “despot”, I could not think of a better way to describe Vladimir. (I also laughed when I saw you called him Vlad) You posted your honest opinion of him, which I see no problem. I agree with you completely.
Also in Devyn’s comment, He mentioned on how the grammatical errors were acceptable and did not take away from the quality of the writing, in which I must disagree. After all, we are a judgmental society.
Im not going to lie, reading and understanding these articles was a bit of a struggle for me. I had a hard time focusing, and I couldn’t fully grasp all that I was reading. Your blog was very detailed and in depth and helped be grasp a better understanding of what exactly I was reading and struggling with. I really do admire you intelligence.
Great blog, and great comments with both could bring about a great discussion.
Political Nihilism
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be completely honest--this article greatly confused me. The author referred to several Russian figures that are not familiar to me. After looking past these names and poor grammar (which I was surprised to find), I have come to the conclusion that this article is meant to recognize the different political perspectives that Russians incorporate in their works and leadership skills, particularly that of nihilism. Dostoesky, obviously, sincerely opposed the ideas of nihilism. Vladimir Lenin, on the other hand, considered Dostoesky's beliefs to be childish and unworthy of his attention. With this article I found that Lenin did not like anyone who had different views on nihilism, which he apparently was all for.
Dosteosky said that the Russian revolution was "the revolution of some 'active minority', or revolution of demons." This minority would be people who Raskolnikov represented in Crime and Punishment. I'm not sure I would call them demons per say, but I would outcast them as something abnormal for thinking they are extraordinary. Perhaps Lenin was a nihilist who believed himself to extraordinary and above everyone else because he was the first Soviet leader. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov was not impressed by those he felt were ordinary. It is possible that he characterizes what Dostoesky saw in Lenin.
Philosophical Nihilism
According to philosophical nihilism, life simply starts and ends with emptiness and nothing. In this article, the author pointed out that Nabokov said that Raskolnikov "remained the same up to the end." I find this to be partially true, as he was still focused on being extraordinary and having people recognize that quality of himself. But, he went through a psychological change and became a different person. Raskolnikov was not the same at the end of the novel as when we first met him worrying about his hat being too recognizable. I think that Dostoesky did this to prove that nihilism changes a man, and not for the better.
The whole of everything being nothing makes me wonder how anyone could be so pessimistic about the world. I get the feeling that nihilists were all about destroying the positivity in people, which is probably why they did not believe in religion. Dostoesky used the Undergound Man to get his pout across. The Undergound Man rejects the laws of human nature and reality. Yet to be successful in his nihilistic ways, he needed society, which he essentially rejected as well. This whole twisted situation just goes to show that nihilism does not work, and that man needs to follow human nature in order to be happy.
Natalie,
DeleteThank God I was not the only person who was slightly confused! I think I remember my dad talking with my brothers about something with the Soviets before, but I can’t really recall. They love political history things like that, with wars and what not, but that is just not my thing. I as well was surprised to find such poor grammar! It made it a bit harder to read, I had to re-read a few times. I also agree how you said you didn’t know if nihilists were exactly comparable to demons, that seems a bit exaggerated!
I also agree with your last paragraph. Sometimes I tend to be someone of a pessimist, but the world is hardly nothing! How lonely their minds must be to make them think that. It is actually pretty sad.
I really liked your blog this weekend, it seemed very though out and honest. Great job, Natalie!
Natalie,
DeleteGreat blog! I really loved that you mentioned that the articles confused you because they confused me as well. You also mentioned that the grammatical errors bothered you, but I did not focus on them too much. After I thought about it, I kind of made me believe that the author did this to emphasize how elementary Vladimir Lenin's argument against "Crime and Punishment" is. I loved that you mentioned the "demons!" I thought this was a ludicrous way of addressing a group of people. If you asked me, I would say that Lenin is the demon in the situation. He was haut angry that someone did not worship his nihilistic beliefs. And like you said, maybe Raskolnikov is a representation of Lenin. I never thought about that, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I also did not think about Lenin believing he was an "extraordinary" man. It makes sense that he would believe such a thing because he became a leader. Only a special kind of person can rule an entire nation, whether they are good at it or not. I know I could never be able to do such a thing.
The way you put nihilism in your first sentence made me cringe! Not because you put it badly, but because you put the truth! I can not imagine not having something after earth. It does not make sense for everything to end without some greater purpose. But hey! Who am I to say what is or isn't going to happen? The end of your blog put it right out there for the world to see. NIHILISM DOES NOT WORK. It brings destruction that can not be repaired without a higher power. Good job!
Natalie,
DeleteI loved what y had to say in the first half of your blog. It is interesting to consider that nihilism, which we have characterized as the movement of young Russian students, could have corrupt high political figures and led them to shun Dostoevsky. At the same time, maybe those political figures did not like to recognize the ideas of nihilism because they were frightening and they found "Crime and Punishment" to be something that could spread nihilism even though it served to unravel the logic behind the system of beliefs. I also agree with your opinions about nihilism as well as the confusion you expressed towards this article. I think that, after reading all of these blogs, pretty much all of us felt like this article was above our understanding of nihilism as well as Russia at the time of nihilism. However, I really appreciated that, while you expressed your confusion, you still managed to offer interesting opinions on the information you got from the article. Nice job!
Like many of my classmates, I found the articles very confusing. First of all, who the heck are Vladimir Lenin, Lev Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Peter Verkhovensky? I felt very negative about myself for having to read something like the articles and not knowing who the people in them even are. Besides not even knowing who any of the people in either article were, both articles mostly mentioned things from Russian history. As fascinating as that is to some, I found the literary pieces very hard to follow, comprehend, and write about. Keeping the people straight was one task, but my main task throughout the entire piece was looking up the words to make sure I understood the meaning behind them.
ReplyDeletePolitical Nihilism
I was happy to discover that Vladimir Lenin was like me in the sense that he was not the biggest fan of Dostoevsky’s creativity. Although I would not necessarily use the words “rubbish” and “moralizing vomiting”, it was nice to know that I was not alone. In “Crime and Punishment”, Raskolnikov believes himself to be an extraordinary being. With this he believed that he could not be charged for his wrong actions. In this article it is mentioned that Dostoevsky said that the Russian revolution, or turning against someone or thing for the desire of something else, was not actually a “revolution of the Russian people, but was a Revolution of some “active minority”, or revolution of demons”. Now I’m not saying that Rodya was a demon, I’m saying he could be considered in that “active minority” group. He was one of few and not considered to be a threat.
In the paragraph at the end of the first page there is a story being told about Turgenev’s return to St. Petersburg. It tells of the fires that were burning all throughout the city. This reminded me of the “fires”, even though not physically fires, in characters such as Dounia and Raskolnikov. Dounia had a fire to try and help her brother. The “fire” was lit by the desire to help him at any cost. Raskolnikov’s fire was not as positive. The fire burning inside of him paralleled the burning desire to confess to what he had done. It burned in the means of guilt; every where he turned there was another source to add to the flame. Like bad politics in the twenty first century, political nihilism, in ways like “Crime and Punishment” are not good for society in any way, shape, or form.
Philosophical Nihilism
Oh no, more unfamiliar people. Even though this was my thought after skimming this article, I actually found myself liking it more than the first. This particular piece begins with a quote from Dostoevsky. I, personally, cannot help but agree when he said “right or wrong, it’s very pleasant to break something from time to time”. I mean come on, who doesn’t like to break something once in a while? Raskolnikov, while breaking his mental sanity for himself, broke the trust of most people in his life because of the crime he committed. Although Sonya did not lose all her trust in him, she became afraid of what he was capable of. Vladimir Nabokov wrote, “Dostoevsky – first of all – was the author of detective novels, where each character who has appeared before us, remained the same up to the end, with developed habits and hyphens”. This could not have been more true. In the novel, Raskolnikov believes that he is that extraordinary being, even into the epilogue. Dounia is described as a very caring character and that proceeds through the story as well. Dostoevsky had a way of thoroughly describing character’s traits and personalities and then sticking to them. Raskolnikov is portrayed as a mentally ill person during the novel. Nabokov “summarized that the world of the writer was the world of sick people which is interesting only to those who was sick himself”. Friedrich Nietzsche, in summarizing Dostoevsky’s novel “The Demons” was able to find examples of compassion, contempt, and destruction. I didn’t find this ironic because all of those were detectable in “Crime in Punishment” specifically in Raskolnikov’s character.
Although I do not like “Crime and Punishment” I have a healthy level of respect for it as long with Dostoevsky. He is a master when it comes to writing. I have to say that trashing his creativity and calling his writings “moralizing vomit” and “rubbish” is wrong. Nihilism is a rather dumb concept in my personality. The idea that any one person, besides Jesus himself of course, is above anyone or anything else, is just stupid. I am glad that we had the opportunity to read and respond to the two articles we had to because it allowed us to see that everyone has a different opinion and that none of them are wrong. Although the concept that the opinion is about may be wrong, everyone thinks differently. Because of this, criticism was invented and pushes everyone to strive to be better.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePolitical Nihilism
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I am not the best with names. Sometimes I have trouble remembering exactly who someone was, but I am almost positive that I have never even heard of Vladimir Lenin. I have no idea who he is, aside from what I have read, but I do not think he has any right to refer to Crime and Punishment as “moralizing vommiting rubbish.” I was repulsed by his description of the book and taken aback by his comments. His third quotation just made me flat out mad, though… “Re-read his book and threw aside.” Why? It doesn’t even make sense! If he hated it so much, why did he read it again? Was he just looking to find more ways to insult and degrade it?
Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and of course I have read books that I did not particularly like or agree with. However, in my opinion, Vladimir Lenin is just completely out of line in regards to his comments. He doesn’t have to love the book but he doesn’t have to make a big deal about it either. With all the commotion it seemed he caused, it is almost as if he hates it because so many other people like it. Either way, it didn’t take long at all for me to realize that I do not like Vadimir Lenin.
I was shocked to read that Dostoevsky was forbidden in the USSR for awhile. I had not even thought about the impact the book must have had on certain groups of people. It does make a lot of sense though.
Philosophical Nihilism
First of all, I love the quote that this article opened with. It is so true! Most of the time, breaking something wont be the best choice and you will probably face some consequences, sometimes we all just need a little bit of release.
“The world of the writer was the world of sick people which is interesting only to those who was sick himself.” This really got me interested. I don’t even know if I agree or disagree with it. People write as an escape, and people read as an escape. But there are also other kinds of escapes for people who don’t read or write, everyone has their own sort of escape, but that doesn’t mean that they are sick. So maybe we are all sick. But then again, a lot of the time a sickness can control you. You thinking about it and research it and write it and read it. The topic of Nihilism surely isn't a sane one. No matter what way you look at this quote, I love it.
Felicia,
DeleteYou made some great points in your blog this week. I'm going to start of with political nihilism first. I wholeheartedly with you on who Vladimir Lenin is. I think if he was so against "Crime and Punishment" he should have kept his mouth shut because he obviously has not made a great impact on the world like Dostoevsky has. Jealous much? Also, the who thing about re-reading the book. I literally had to read that countless time trying to understand him. Most of the time, if you do not like something, you do not go back for more. It is common sense! Just because a book was not for him, does not mean that it is not for others.
Now, about the philosophical part. The quote you focus on, "the world of the writer was the world of sick people which is interesting only to those who was sick himself," you said you did not know if you liked it or not. I can tell you that I hated it! It is a false statement. I love Dostoevsky's novel, and I am NOT a sick person. He was simply stating facts about Russia in the 1800s. I think people were most likely angry with him because he wrote about the truth, which happens quite often, but it is still the truth. They can ridicule and victimize the novel all they want, but the words will never change.
Great job on you blog this week! I loved being able to discuss something I did not prefer this week. Haha.
Felicia,
DeleteThis was an interesting blog. I really enjoyed it and liked how you chose to focus on specific quotes from the articles. I also agree about Vladimir Lenin. I was a bit harsh on his input in my blog, but I understand why he would choose to have the opinion he has about Dostoevsky's work. When I read the article, I wanted to know who he was, so I took a quick peek at his Wikipedia article. It painted the picture of a powerful man who used his power to help the people who didn't have everything, and made them believe that they could have what they want. But it also stated that he used his power to stay in control, and used terror and other tactics to force people to comply. I was a bit disappointed. I thought a man of such tactics might have a little bit of a better vocabulary, but I doubt these comments truly displayed his argument.
Your comment on Dostoevsky's literary exile from Russia was interesting. I knew, only because of a trip to the library during their week of banned books, that "Crime and Punishment" had been banned from many different countries. This little lucky piece of information helped me understand this article. Your comments on the philosophical nihilism are a bit short, but interesting. I like how you said about that quote, especially because it is such an interesting concept to think of. Sickness in writing and reading? Only the people who were sick like him could understand it I son't know that sounds a bit odd, but it actually kind of makes sense. You need the same mentality to understand what a person is really writing about.
Anyway, good work!
Felicia,
DeleteThis blog definitely made your opinion clear and I think that you, like me, had a little trouble understanding all of the names and technical terms used in these articles. Personally, I felt as if I was thrown into a river without knowing how to swim - we knew no background information on anything we were reading. This article was very advanced and I think that maybe the point was to move us beyond our critical thinking and get us to do some real research. Anyway, I found your opinion to be very similar to mine, except after reading a bit more about the people mentioned in the article I began to realize that Dostoevsky was probably crazy for his time. We do not like to think that his ideas would have been banned but they were frightening to the Russian people. Nice job expressing your opinion on this!