Dostoevsky appears to present the most advantageous advantage in the fallowing way: “but I repeat for the hundredth time, there is one case, one only, when man may purposely, consciously, desire what is injurious to himself, what is stupid, very stupid – simply in order to have the right to desire for himself even what is very stupid and not to be bound by an obligation to desire only what is rational” (Dostoevsky in Solomon, 45). That is, this most advantageous advantage appears to be presented in a way that hinges on a functioning free will. Without the freedom to choose that which is rationally ridiculous, humans appear to be nothing more than mathematically predictably machines. Without free will, we would not choose by choice, but by those rules or laws which dictate how we should choose. However, this is a problematic theme, for as Dostoevsky points out, “for who would want to choose by rule? Besides, he will at once be transformed from a human being into an organ stop or something of the sort; for what is a man without desire, without free will and without choice” (Dostoevsky in Solomon, 44).
So it would appear as if we can associate this idea of the most advantageous advantage with a simple automaton. Yet, would you argue that this advantageous advantage should really be recognized as simply that, an advantage? What about the idea that a true free will is accompanied by the realization of a crushing amount of responsibility. To many (or the weak class of individuals which was discussed by the second portion of class), a life of knowing such a free will may produce pain and suffering. As Dostoevsky point out, “consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer be responsible for his actions, and life will become exceedingly easy for him” (Dostoevsky in Solomon, 42).
This notion of responsibility and how it should be considered a by-product of free will is a good point to transfer attention to the previously mentioned idea of a weak and strong class. Yet, these two terms appear ambiguous on their face value, so how should we differentiate between the week and the strong? To be sure, a great starting point for identifying these two classes can be found within the parable of the Grand Inquisitor. Here, the Church appears to take the role of the strong, while the weak appear to be those that are fed earthly pleasures. In other words, it almost appears as if the deciding factor for these two classes is how one considers and handles the notion of their own free will.
We are presented with the story of Christ and how he had resisted the three temptations presented by Satan. In resisting these three temptations, Christ seems to have affirmed the notion of free will for all. Once again, however, this can be argued to be problematic in the sense that some people can be seen to be naturally weak, while some can be seen as naturally strong. The weak appear to be those who have an underlying necessity to fallow those that can ease their suffering in their current life. That is, free will and the idea that your fate is fully within your control is a massively heavy idea which cannot be fully embraced by all. They need someone to turn to, someone that can provide for them. This is the case in the parable in which the Church provides for their followers, certainly to the extent in which Christ is portrayed as now being an unnecessary element of the church.
The final point that I wish to make in this essay relates to the differentiation between the weak and strong class that is portrayed in Dostoevsky’s work and the master and slave moralities which were introduced by Nietzsche. Once again, I would argue that the difference between these two classifications hinges on the notion of freedom. Nietzsche takes a strong stance when references the master and slave moralities, in which you can see how he would most likely reference the master morality as being distinctly better than a slave morality. These moralities function along with the will to power, and the ubermensch. So for Nietzsche, the ubermensch is something to strive for, and the master morality is certainly something that is more admirable than a slave morality. However, I do not think that this is even close to what Dostoevsky is referencing with the use of a weak and a strong class. To me, the weak and strong classes are used to illustrate that there are always going to be those individuals that have an underlying necessity to fallow those that can provide for them. Those that can provide the earthly pleasure and dull the suffering are the strong, while the weak are those that fallow.
First I would like to say that I enjoyed reading your blog, and I used many of the same quotes in my blog. Great minds think a like I guess. I agree with you because Dostoevsky is all about freedom and how that being a human is the ability to make these choices freely, even if they go against reason you are still allowed to do what you please. I think that this free choice is what inherently makes us human, because we can pick something that goes against reason or effects yourself negatively. But for this reason you are able to grow as a person and become a better individual for it. That old saying of “cannot be old and wise without being young and dumb.” And this is exactly what I think of when reading Dostoevsky. I feel that he would agree with this statement and that he thinks we have this free choice because we need it in order to grow as a person and not always listen to reason, but rather the opposite that we should sometimes go against reason. It is like an old Tom Petty song “Into The Great Wide Open”. To experience the treasures of life you must take risks sometimes.
ReplyDelete