Mikhail Bakhtin on Dostoevsky

[LoeMa]

I have occupied a little bit with Kierkegaard – I read some of his books. Anyway I’m interested in existential philosophy (personally I prefer Sartre ).
I would like to add, that Kierkegaard’s connection to religion sometimes is defined as some kind of evasion (by Sartre and Camus): Kierkegaard takes refuge to religion – to avoid getting lost in real existentialism.
I’m not an expert, but in my opinion this could be right. The most important principle of existentialism is that there is only the person itself that makes decisions how life has to go on. And in such “hardcore existentialism” there is no need for a god.

Greetings

 

[SFG75]

I’m not an expert, but in my opinion this could be right. The most important principle of existentialism is that there is only the person itself that makes decisions how life has to go on. And in such “hardcore existentialism” there is no need for a god.

Greetings

I believe that it runs the gamut. Christian-existentialists are big fans and proteges of Paul Tillich. You have a few in the middle, with Camus and Sartre being on the otherside of the belief scale. It's interesting to note that in the Brothers Karamazov, it is Alyosha, the youngest brother and monk, who is the one who decides to follow hope and have faith, that there is something to live for and that it is a good thing to have goals, no matter how utopian in nature.

 

[LoeMa]

I read a very, very interesting essay by Simone de Beauvoir (in english maybe titled "A Moral of Duality"). There she quotes Dostoyevsky: “If there exists no god everything will be allowed.” Human beings can do what they want and don’t have to take responsibility, don’t have to be afraid of punishment.
Beauvoir takes the opposite opinion: In this absolute freedom people have to decide, how life should go on – they have the duty to decide and they are responsible for their decisions, because there is no god who can forgive them (of course, there is a strong influence by Sartre).
I think in reference to Raskolnikov this could be a very interesting aspect.

Greetings

 

[Peder]

This discussion is getting to have its own existential quality, where quotes appear of posts that no longer appear. That definitely promotes a here-today gone-tomorrow feeling.
Sorry. That is off topic, I know, but I couldn't resist since the number of ephemeral comments on TBF seems to be growing lately, and now here. Unless of course my eyesight is failing, which is entirely possible.
Peder

 

[Flowerdk4]

I found this report online from a student that deals with guilt and repentance in Dostoyevsky's life. It is an interesting read, though I still have to look through it more closely. While it may not explain everything, it is also fair to say that it isn't a stretch to use the study of the mind to try and understand the characters and the man himself.

SFG75,
I read that report last night. I have one question which I hope you can clear up for me.
On page 3 it says:
"The id seeks gratification in the masochistic self-abuse of guilt, while the super-ego is also placated by the morality of martyrdom. It is commonly accepted that a weak ego is the root of neurosis"
Like the above, he mentions a lot about the id and the super-ego, but what about the ego??? In my understanding, the ego is surposed to balance and controll both the id and the super-ego, but here its hardly ever mentioned.
Does he mean that when Dostojevsky´s id and super-ego have had their way by Dostojevsky´s gambling, then the ego can take over the controll and its then he is able to write his books as he has got peace of mind so to speak??

I find the report to be very interesting and it makes me understand Raskolnikov much better as I then believe that Raskolnikov had this form of personality from page 1, but we as the readers just dont know that.

Flower

 

[SFG75]

From what I can gather, the few lines above it give a good example. The Id took on the cruel and vindictive character of Dr. Dostoyevsky, while the Super-ego took on the internalizing guilt that is referred to as masochism by Freud due to Dostoyevsky's unconscious guilt of wanting to murder his father. Essentially, the ego, which is the referee of character to use this analogy, was passive while the other two were super-strong, hence his problems with being in a trance-like state, being pre-occupied with the concept of death(i.e.-leaving notes about having died during the previous evening) and of having a desire to harm his father. In other words, the Id wants to re-create the careless and dangerous lifestyle of the father, while the super-ego wants to punish him for the bad thoughts about his father and inclination to excess through his epileptic fits and trance-like states. The ego is absent, and thus, can't get both of the other parties to behave.

Definitely a fascinating article.

 

[Flowerdk4]

The ego is absent, and thus, can't get both of the other parties to behave.

This has really got me thinking! I never thought that the ego could be absent! But after thinking more carefully about it, I think I understand what you mean. That you can be in the power of either the id or the super-ego, they somehow take over. I think everybody has felt the id to take over for a short period of time, I just never thought that this could be a permanent state.
I am learning new things every day!

 

[SFG75]

This has really got me thinking! I never thought that the ego could be absent! But after thinking more carefully about it, I think I understand what you mean. That you can be in the power of either the id or the super-ego, they somehow take over. I think everybody has felt the id to take over for a short period of time, I just never thought that this could be a permanent state.
I am learning new things every day!

Exactly!. It's also interesting when one or the other is more powerful than the other two. Sometimes, the super-ego takes reign and you get a person who is just downright a stickler on rules and things like cleanliness and dressing. Let the id go, and you have a person who will revel in bachanaalian behavior or engage in hedonism with reckless abandon without restraint.