Dostoevsky and Existentialism

Just so you know, I edited the previous post a little. One paragraph in particular needed a little work.

I mentioned previously that two different people have been called 'the father of existentialism.' One of them is Soren Kierkegaard, and he's probably the one I would give the credit to. But old Soren will take longer to discuss, so I want to say something about Dostoevsky first.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was the son of a Russian military officer. In young adulthood he ran with the young liberals in Europe that would end up changing the world. His ideas were not that much different from those that led to Marxism, etc. But somewhere along the way he became serious about his Christian faith. If I remember right it was about the same time he was in prison. He spent time in prison both for his associations with one of the underground, liberal, political groups, but also ended up in debtors' prison (he had a gambling problem). I don't want to say too much about his faith because I don't want to misrepresent it, but he was a Christian, and very much Russian Orthodox.

Much of his writing is specifically aimed at those young liberal intellectuals that he hung around with for a while. In The Brothers Karamozov he addresses the issues of what life is like without God. (Please forgive that very brief summary.) In Crime and Punishment he ridicules the liberal intellectuals quite severely, and I think successfully. In that book Raskolnikov, the main character, is a young intellectual who brutally murdered an old woman who owned a pawn shop because he needed her money. It was the working out of his own philosophy. There was no god, and no right or wrong, so why not kill a worthless, crotchety, old woman. But it didn't work out so well for Raskolnikov. He thought he had beaten the system, but the real significance of what he did was constantly invading into reality, and it drove him mad.

I think the reason some people consider Dostoevsky the 'father of existentialism' was because he dealt with some issues of interest to those who would later be called existentialists. He was one of the first novelists/thinkers to address the issues. He did deal with the point of view of individuals, and he certainly dealt with the alienation of individuals from society, which is a big existential topic. But I find it hard to call him an existentialist, or even the father of existentialism, because his conclusions are so different from existentialism. As can be seen with Rakolnikov, he couldn't really determine his own essence. Reality was always crashing in on him and spoiling his illusion.

Another way he may seem a little existential can be seen in The Brothers Karamozov. Without getting into too much detail, that is where the famous line is, "If there is no God, all things are permissible." Dostoevsky's conclusion is that of course there is a God, because all things are not permissible. But in typical Orthodox fashion, he seems to leave the issue as a mystery. Yes, it is mysterious that there is a God and yet he allows innocent people to suffer intensely sometimes. But yet I know there is a God. It is just an existential 'leap of faith' to accept God. (That's not Dostoevsky's phrase, but an existentialist could say it fits here).

Personally, I think that is the wrong way to take Dostoevsky. To him it isn't a 'leap of faith'. I think he did the logic. "I know that all things are not permissible. So there must be a God. If I torture or murder someone, that is very wrong. Why God allows it is a mystery. But mystery is ok."

That is actually one thing I like about the Eastern Orthodox churches. They can accept mystery. Yes, at times they take it a little far. But part of the problem with the western Protestant churches is the division that results over trying to 'pin down' theological issues that are really beyond our grasp. I happen to believe that exploring all those theological mysteries can be very profitable. But you have to humble about it.

So, that's what I have to say about Dostoevsky. Anyone else have anything to add?

Existentialism

First things first, so let's talk about what existentialism is. It is one of those things difficult to define in one sentence. Some catch phrases used to explain it are things like 'reality viewed from the perspective of the actor' and 'existence precedes essence.' Basically, the individual person decides what is right and wrong, and decides for himself what meaning and purpose is attached to reality.

In the ancient and medieval worlds man was compared to things higher than himself, ie, God/gods and angels, etc. There was a reality that transcended the physical universe. Mankind had a place of authority on earth, but understood there were laws, authorities, and reality that were greater that man was subject to.

Francis Schaeffer wrote a short little book on the history of the decline of western thought called Escape From Reason. It might be something worth exploring for us, as it is so short. He points out that starting with Thomas Aquinas, a schism was introduced into reality. Now, Aquinas was a smart guy, and I admire him a lot. So I had a hard time accepting what Schaeffer said at first. It is still true that there is a lot to admire about Aquinas, but in the end I saw that Schaeffer was right. Whereas prior to Aquinas there was one reality that involved both our everyday experience in the physical world and with 'higher' or 'heavenly' things, after Aquinas there was a separation. Although I think scripture itself does make a distinction between the two in some way, I think a lot of that has to do with the Fall. Although there are some distinctions, they are both aspects of one reality. Paul talks in Ephesians 6, for example, about spiritual realities that definitely are to be considered part of our everyday reality. But Aquinas separated reality into a 'higher story' and a 'lower story.' The rules were different if you were discussing 'things of faith' or 'things of reason.' This distinction was highlighted when it came to Kant, who called the two stories noumena and phenomena.

In addition, in the late medieval world, art (as an expression of the thought of the time) started to have less to do with strictly religious or heavenly things, and more about man in a more realistic setting. And then in the Renaissance man become less of an object of art altogether. The 'real' word became the focus, and things like landscapes began to show up in art.

These changes in focus were not necessarily bad in and of themselves. It reminds me a little of what happened in the 50's. There wasn't really anything wrong with rock 'n roll music, per se. But there was an attitude of rebellion that did come with it that was wrong. There is nothing wrong with the painting of landscapes. And some artists actually did try to present landscapes as a celebration of God's creation. But there was also a misguided sense of freedom from the reality of that 'upper story.'

Man's view of his relationship to the world went from an upward view, to a downward view. He stopped comparing himself to things above, and started comparing himself to things below. In particular man started comparing himself to the animals. This is particularly evident in Darwinism.

More or less at the same time this transition from the upward comparisons to downward comparisons was happening, the scientific revolution came along. We've talked about the birth of modern science before, but it is relevant here as well. Descartes' statement, 'I think, therefore I am,' is considered by some to be the start of modern science. Descartes' thought there shows the tendency to rely on yourself and your own observations of the world. Not that it was totally new or totally bad, but that thought allowed science to flourish. Not that science is bad, if it is kept humble, but there is an aspect of science that involves human self-reliance.

So as man's focus went from upward to downward, it also started going inward. The 'higher things,' the things of God and angels were no longer as important, and were started to be seen by many as irrelevant altogether. All that is left is man. Man doesn't have an essence determined for him any more, and there is no purpose or meaning presupposed in creation. But once man comes on the scene and develops this self-awareness, he is able to determine meaning and purpose for himself. Thus, 'existence precedes essence.'

This is a very brief overview. There is much more that could be said. So please do. Some similarities to other things we've talked about, like Nietzsche, can certainly be seen. But hopefully this helps with an understanding of what existentialism is. Then I think talking about Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky will make more sense.

Existentialism

Chuck brought up the issue of existentialism, and thought that would be a good direction to take the discussion. Soon I plan on talking a little about Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky. Both of them have been called the 'father of existentialism'. Interestingly, both of them were Christians. For now, I'm just bringing them up, and if anyone wants to start by defining what existentialism is, go ahead.

Is anyone interested in meeting next Wednesday, the 16th? There is a lot going on at the church that night, but we could meet at someone's house. Rustin has said his place is open in the past, or my house. Just let me know.

I am using a book for some of Caleb's homeschooling called Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. It is a supplement to his logic course. I just read a section that spoke to some things we've been talking about recently and I thought I'd share it with you. Here he they are talking about getting back to a more traditional, Aristotelian, view of logic.

Restoring the Older Notion of Reason
To make this restoration possible, another restoration is necessary: a restoration of the older, larger notion of reason itself. This means essentially two things:
1. seeing our subjective, psychological, human processes of reasoning as participation in and reflections of an objective rational order, a logos, a "Reason" with a capital R; and

2. seeing reason not as confined to reasoning, calculating--what scholastic logic calls "the third act of the mind"--but as including "the first act of the mind": apprehension, intellectual intuition, understanding, "seeing," insight, contemplation.

Using Aristotelian Logic
These two positions we take concerning the nature of reason lie behind our use of Aristotelian logic. This is a logic of (linguistic) terms, which express (mental) concepts, which represent (real) essences, or the natures of things. (The Greek word logos has all three of these meanings.) Many modern philosophers are suspicious and skeptical of the venerable and commonsense notion of things having real essences or natures and of our ability to know them. Aristotelian logic assumes the existence of essences and our ability to know them, for its basic units are terms, which express concepts, which express essences. But modern symbolic logic does not assume what philosophers call metaphysical realism (that essences are real), but implicitly assumes instead metaphysical nominalism (that essences are only nomina, names, human labels), since its basic units are not terms but propositions. Then it relates these propositions in argumentative structures just as a computer can do: if p, then q; p; therefore q.

The human mind is indeed a computer--we do compute, after all--but it is much more than that. We can also "see," or understand. Behind our use of Aristotelian logic is our hope that all our arguing will begin and end with seeing, with insight. Thus, we usually begin by defining terms and end by trying to bring the reader to the point of seeing objective reality as it is.

Cory,

This is really fascinating. That the spoken word, linquistics, are
the basis and substance of all reality seems absurd to us. It is
absurd of course when we think our words for our reality and define
it for us. I loved your final paragraph about "God's Word" being the
substance that forms our reality.

Reality is only subjective to the "subject" that performed the action
of the verb "created." It's objective to every other entity that can
perceive it.

Thank you for these thoughts. Wittgenstein might be worth some future
study sometime.

Chuck

Yes, I think this is great advice for dealing with Post-Modern
people. If they can come to accept the presence of evil, they must
recognize a standard by which it can be measured. That brings them
back to the possibility of an "objective" truth appropriate for all
humanity. That's what God gave us in the 10 commandments (or the
whole corpus of scripture!)

Thanks again Cory for your thinking in these areas.

Chuck

Wittgenstein

The other day at church Chuck brought up Wittgenstein, the German philosopher. That is another subject I passed over in regard to postmodernism, but I just wanted to make a comment about Wittgenstein.

I'm obviously not an expert, but I've always wanted to study up on him a little bit. It is hard to pin him down, because there is a lot of disagreement about him. His early views are different from his later views. And some people think his later views were kind of an argumentum ad absurdum and didn't reflect what he really thought. I think that might be the case. Or maybe he was just brain storming. During WWI he was actually somewhat of an evangelist. But I get the feeling he later lost his faith.

But the postmoderns picked up on his later thoughts having to do with language. What they take from him is that all of creation is just a linguistic construction. Both personally and in community we create our own reality. This gets to a really deep level for some people. Some people with more extreme views would say that the computer I'm using, the house I'm in, and the food I'm eating also only has existence as we create that existence with our words. Is there really an objective reality of an apple apart from the language I've used to talk about it. Those are extremes, and it gets kind of weird, but when it comes to morality it is easy to see how some people would say that those ideas are just linguistic creations.

I've thought about this a lot, and as with any good deception, I think there at least a hint of truth in that idea. I think all of creation is linguistically created. But we aren't the creators. "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD as with God, and the WORD was God."