During Dostoevsky's time, Russia was undergoing a subtle-kind of enlightenment. Still very much a medieval country, Russia's government was very autocratic and valued religious tradition over modern scientific thought. Yet there was an unofficial class of society, the intelligentsia, who studied the progressive theories and political philosophies of Europe, and tried to revolutionize their country through their public writings. One of the issues which the intelligentsia - who are represented by Rakitan in the book - seek to resolve is the issue of whether human beings can truly be held responsible for their actions, or if their actions are simply the result of external forces which influenced their development.
In Chapter 4, Rakitan attempts to enlist Mitya's help in using the publicity of the latter's trial to advance the cause of nature over nurture. "He wants to write something with a progressive tendency," says Mitya, "that says something like: 'He couldn't help committing murder, he'd fallen prey to his environment." (752) But Rakitan's presence raises the debate to a level much more fundamental than nature vs. nurture: it is a question of whether men are influenced by spiritual forces or by a more natural force.
Mitya associates Rakitan's brand of socialism with chemistry by referring to its adherents as "Bernards", a reference to Claude Bernard, a chemist who appears to have regarded humans as more as animalistic beasts than as spiritual beings. (752, 1008n3) Mitya hints to Alyosha that chemistry, with its new theories regarding the influence of neurotransmitters over human action, threatens religion's monopoly on moral teaching. "Your Reverence, you must move over a little, chemistry is coming!" (753) Mitya seems to have been somewhat persuaded by Rakitan's argument when he comments that there are devils with tails "in the nerves inside my head". (753) But he cannot admit that God and spirituality are completely dispensable in the grand scheme of human survival. When he looks forward to spending his life in penal servitude, Mitya professes that he will need the belief in God to sustain him, to help him believe that his life is not void of meaning. (756-57) Dostoevsky himself would understand the necessity of having a spiritual belief system in order to persevere, seeing as he himself was faced with the type of banal existence which Mitya contemplates.
This reminds me of Ivan's comment that if God did not exist, man would be justified in creating Him. It is true that it does nothing in the way of proving God's existence to say that He is comes in handy when we are in need of a reason to transcend our boring, earthly existence. But it supports the notion that the invention of God was inevitable in the history of the human race, that we are not equipped by nature to keep from going crazy in a nihilistic world - and therefore have no choice but to create a mythology which will serve as a type of analgesic in times of suffering.
Thank you for your comments about chemistry. I did not take much note of that topic when I read this book. I also appreciate the background you provided on Russia. I believe that the fact that God comes in handy is a major clue that He exists. All of the things we desire in life, such as feeling loved, worthy, and beautiful, having adventure in our lives, being protected, and being happy, all these desires point to God because He alone can fulfill them. All the things humans desire actually exist. For instance, we get hungry and desire food, and food exists. We have sexual desires, and sex exists. We get tired and desire to rest, and sleep exists. Since we desire someone who can provide us with the things I mentioned earlier (such as feeling loved and having adventure and happiness), then there must be someone who can fulfill these things. Since all the things we desire exist (such as food, sex, and sleep) then God must exist too, since every human has a desire for Him (someone who provides feelings of love and happiness, one who protects us).
ReplyDeleteI think you have been reading C.S. Lewis...
DeleteWhy do you say that?
DeleteOh, the argument she uses for God's existence is very similar to one used by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity.
DeleteGraham, congratulations on your award! I no of no one more qualified and worthy of representing out senior class! Onto Dostotyevsky: I personally was annoyed by Raikitin's visits. To me he once again is out to make a profit off of the misery of another individual. Since his flirting with Mrs. Khoklakova did not turn out too well, he has now moved on to Mitya. I do remember how in his article he argued that Mitya was in a sense cornered with no way out. But I did not really pick up on him trying to prove that all human action is the result of external forces; outside of our control. However, after reading your blog I agree. This is probably Dostoyevsky's subtle little way of interjecting this argument. However, as you mentioned in your blog, Dimitry wants nothing to do with it. He clings onto the notion of free will and the neccessity of God. Not as Ivan argues, the necessity to create a God but the necessity of God to exist. However, I do wonder, as do you, if the creation of gods was inevitable by human societies?
ReplyDelete