Existentialism is not really a school of thought nor reducible to any set of tenets. The three writers who invariably appear on every list of “existentialists”, Jaspers, Heideger, and Sartre, are not in agreement on essentials. Their alleged precursors, Pascal and Kierkegaard, differed from all three men by being dedicated Christians; and Pascal was a Catholic of sorts while Kierkegaard was a Protestant’s Protestant. If, as is often done, Nietzche and Dostoevsky are included in the fold, one must make room for an impassioned anti-Christian and an even more fanatical Greek-Orthodox Russian imperialist. By the time we consider adding Rilke, Kafka, and Camus, it becomes plain that one essential feature shared by all three men is their perfervid individualism.
The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life—that is the heart of existentialism. Existentialism is a timeless sensibility (again, not a school of thought) that can be discerned here and there in the past; but it is only in recent times that it has solidified into a sustained protest and preoccupation. In Notes From Underground no good society can rid man of depravity: the book is among other things an inspired polemic against Rousseau and the whole tradition of social philosophy from Plato and Aristotle through Hobbes and Locke to Bentham, Hegel, and John Stuart Mill. The man whom Dostoevsky has created in this book holds out for what traditional Christianity has called depravity; but he believes neither in original sin nor in God, and for him man’s self-will is not depravity; it is only perverse from the point of view of rationalities and others who value neat schemes above the rich texture of individuality.
Dostoevsky himself was a Christian, to be sure, and for that matter also a rabid anti-Semite, anti-Catholic, and anti-Western Russian nationalist. We have no right whatsoever to attribute to him the opinions of all of his most interesting characters. Unfortunately, most readers fail to distinguish between Dostoevsky’s views and those of the Grand Inquisitor in Ivan’s story in The Brothers Karamazov, though it is patent that this figure was inspired by the author’s hatred of the Church of Rome; and many critics take for Dostoevsky’s reasoned judgments the strange views of Kirilov, though he is mad. As a human being, Dostoevsky was as fascinating as any of his characters; but we must not ascribe to him, who after all believed in God, the outlook and ideas of his underground man.
Filed under: Books, Literature, Reading, Reading Challenge, Russian Literature | Tagged: Books, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Literature, Russian Literature, The Brothers Karamazov
How fascinating, all this, and much appreciated (and a little intimidating, I must confess). In the preceding post, you introduced an intriguing sequence of rhetorical questions, and the speculations and supplemental information you’ve included in these two posts have provided much food for thought; I’ve been reading and re-reading both texts. My own lack of experience with this author (and existential philosophy) denies me the means to form much of an opinion at this juncture–but there is a lot of percolation going on in my mind; I like what I am reading and where your ideas seem to be heading. The thoughtful replies from some of your readers have also been stimulating, and I look forward to more discussion between you and them.
I really need to read more existentialism. I, for a long time, thought of myself as one, but that was in college when I thought I was everything every time I read something new (I think of that as the WebMD phenomenon – read about an illness and suddenly develop it). But Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky are two of my favorites – so maybe there’s something more than a fad. Thanks for the post.
Dear Matt,
Thanks for sharing. Regarding the last paragraph, I am not that certain that D was anti-Semite, anti-Catholic and anti-Western Russia. If he held those views what is the relationship of those views with existentialism, or an individual’s concern about his unique existence and his ultimate concern? surely D put words in the mouth of the underground man. So in a way the outlook and idea of the underground man partly reflects D’s outlook and concern at the time he wrote the notes from underground, which is his most philosophical writing.