Note: This post will be making a lot of references to The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, so it may be a bit incomprehensible…and will basically be a ramble.

So I just wrote a 7-page paper on why Dostoevsky believes Ivan does not know how to deal with suffering and why Alyosha does…but I didn’t get a chance to try and figure out how this applies to my life. That’s the whole reason I’m taking this class on existentialism, isn’t it? To attempt to figure out why my so-called existentialist philosophy on the world may or may not work for me… So, I’m going to try and flesh out my thoughts here.

While I argue in my paper that Ivan does not know how to deal with suffering, and that his view on the world is problematic, I find myself identifying with the majority of Ivan’s beliefs. Here are some examples:

“the absurd is only too necessary to earth. The world stands on absurdities, and perhaps nothing would have come to pass in it without them. We know what we know! …I made up my mind long ago not to understand. If i try to understand anything, I shall be false to the fact, and I have determined to stick to the fact” (Dostoevsky 220).

“What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured?” (221)

However, a discrepancy between Ivan’s and my views is that he oscillates between claiming God exists and God does not exist; for me, God does not exist. Perhaps I don’t have a clear understanding of Ivan’s belief about God’s existence. But the fact of the matter is, he did not existentialize God the way Alyosha seemed to have been able to.

For Alyosha, the existentialization of God was the ability for him to get in touch with agape love – the Christian love of brothers, an “interestedness” in people. Through such, he is able to escape suffering and despair. I like to believe that I have “existentialized God” in the sense that the meaning others attribute to God, I’ve attributed to other things in my life. Vague, perhaps. But at the same time, how could I have ever existentialized God if I were never really exposed to it in the first place? That’s the issue with my trying to understand the philosophies of philosophical thinkers Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, and the like: that they come from a background of Christian religion (or even Western religion, at that), and that it was after they were exposed and taught it, that they attempted to reconcile such with their own existential beliefs. What am I reconciling?

I’ve had friends who wanted me to go to church and try and be exposed to Christian teachings. It’s one thing to be exposed to it — which I have, mildly, through most of my classes involving philosophy and/or English — but it’s another to attempt to learn it for your own life and own philosophy. I honestly just don’t see the need to do that, because why would I need to learn about Christian teachings only to have to reconcile those teachings and “beliefs” that I may obtain with my current views?

Anyhow, that wasn’t the point – the point is that I need to figure out what it is I’m missing – the steps between Ivan and Alyosha… Because in the novel, Ivan goes into despair and becomes crazy. I argue that it’s his logical nature and his need to rationalize everything with reason that becomes his downfall. For me, I reason things – to an extent. But then it’s like Ivan’s own quote about the absurdities. There are things on earth (and even beyond, if you’d like to believe) that we can never understand – that I can never understand. I’m trying to, which is why I even take these classes to begin with, but I know that there are always going to be aspects of our existence that are just incomprehensible and inexplicable. But I’m okay with that.

…And I think that’s what may be “bad.” Ivan was okay with it – or so he thought. His doubts and so-called “convictions” come back to haunt him and, in my reading, attribute to his downfall/craziness. I can see my similarity to Ivan: we are both so convicted in our convictions. What if that’s all we have? I always like to think that it’s enough, that it is all we have and that’s the beauty of it…Because what I believe, I so strongly believe it’s true for me, that there can be nothing else of a fundamental truth in my mind. Is it bad, to have this strong of a conviction, through reasoning?

Alyosha, on the other hand, gets in tune with this interconnectedness and “agape” love that Dostoevsky supposed believes we need to do. How do I do this, via a non-Christian context? Alyosha does it by existentializing the religious sacraments and being incarnation of God (or, rather, Dostoevsky existentalizes them..), but what would be the need for me to existentialize these sacraments if I never had them in my life to begin with?

So, somehow, I need to figure out how to get “in touch” with this interconnectedness amongst people. I don’t think it’s really socially or anything in that sense. A disconnect I can pinpoint would begin with basically the content of this post. In my lifetime, I’ve come across very few people who share similar sentiments or are even willing to discuss these types of issues with me. I think it’s difficult for me to feel “interconnected” with others in this sense when I don’t feel like I can connect with others philosophically(?). But I don’t think it’s so much that they need to have the same philosophy as I do, for what would be interesting to discuss then?, but as that few people think about these issues and question their beliefs. Again, this is probably an issue I’ve struggled with for who knows how long now, but I think the fact that I still feel this disconnect is something that should be figured out… But how??? Practically, it’s not really possible. Who has time to think about fundamental beliefs such as these. Some people don’t want to, because then it shakes the very foundations of their existence…etc.etc.

…so what is it?? I’m confusedddddddd. Obviously I’m not going to evaluate my life and philosophy exactly as how Dostoevsky pictured it, for how do we even know 100% that that was really even his philosophy? But it’s an everyday struggle (yes, I am being overly dramatic) in figuring out how we (myself include, and perhaps the human race too…and no, I am not trying to be patronizing nor all-knowing) get out of despair and find meaning in our lives, or else everything is rendered ‘pointless’ and what would be the point of that?

Note: My reading of Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov is via my professor’s (Professor Hubert Dreyfus) interpretation of the novel. The class it’s for is “Existentialism in Literature and Film.”

In search of an article/study to write my psych paper on, I stumbled across a couple articles that seemed very interesting but too long (they had to be 10 or less pages) to base my paper on. I read one of them, “Common Senses: Water, Sensory Experience and the Generation of Meaning”, and thought I’d post some excerpts here–

“The thesis proposed is that the formal qualities and characteristics of the object – whatever it is – are crucial in that they provide a common basis for the construction of meaning. Equally critical to this discussion is an acknowledgement that (while acknowledging minor evolutionary adaptations) in general terms humans share common sensory and perceptual processes, although their experiences are, as noted previously, also composed of culturally specific beliefs and expectations, learned behaviours and embodied predispositions.”

“The article attempts to show that, although meaning is a human product, the environment is not a tabula rasa, but instead provides elements whose consistent characteristics are the basis for meanings that flow cross-culturally, creating common undercurrents in culturally specific engagements and interpretations.”

“Water’s diversity is, in some respects, a key to its meanings. Here is an object that is endlessly transmutable, moving readily from one shape to another: from ice to stream, from vapour to rain, from fluid to steam. It has an equally broad range of scales of existence: from droplet to ocean, trickle to flood, cup to lake…This process of transformation never ceases: water is always undergoing change, movement and progress. Captured in a cup or pond or lake, it evaporates or escapes and runs away: it is always physically flowing from one place to another in streams, torrents, waves and currents.”

“The overarching theme, which in many ways contains all of the other meanings encoded in water, is that water is the literally ‘essential’ matter of life and death.”

“The imposition of Christianity that subsumed Pagan cosmological beliefs reframed the ‘water of life’ considerably. Biblical descriptions demonstrate a shift from ancient visions of water as a source or personification of god-ness (primarily female) to a more ‘rational’ and abstract vision of ‘living water’ as the product of a single male God…However, even with the ascendance of the patriarchal Christian God, homologous Biblical imagery retained a vision of water as the essence of life.”

“With the Enlightenment, water became a ‘fountainhead’ of spiritual knowledge and wisdom, and eventually, under the weight of Rationalism, the ‘living water’ of the Bible was overtaken by a more Cartesian vision of water as H2O. However, the flow of ideas and images linking water and the spirit has not evaporated (Figure 4), and even in a primarily secular cosmos, water is still presented as the ‘essence’ of a living, functioning ecology of existence.”

“…a reality that water always contains the potential to be benign or harmful, and that the safety of interactions with it depends upon sufficient human control of the engagement.”

Source
Strang, Veronica. “Common Senses: Water, Sensory Experience and the Generation of Meaning.” Journal of Material Culture 10.1 (2005): 92-120.
Available for download (if you have a subscription) here. Or, e-mail me and I will send it to you.

I’m taking a philosophy class this semester in which we discuss great “works of art.” The philosophy course itself is rooted in the belief that something in our modern world has gone wrong. Thus, we study great “works of art” and try to understand the multiplicity of worlds in hopes of fixing or even realizing what is wrong with our world. Because, according to my professor, maybe there isn’t even a “world” in modern times.

This course might just be my favorite course I’ve taken at Berkeley thus far…it reminds me so much of AP Literature, my high school senior year’s English class. The discussions and content of the courses are quite similar, although my current course covers more complicated topics and subjects, which is pretty normal considering this is a college course… But anyhow, we finished reading The Odyssey.

In my discussion section today, we discussed just what it is that Homer is trying to teach us. Here are some lessons we (meaning my section and my GSI) came up with –

1. We should stop trying to climb the ladder and just be good and comfortable in our roles.
2. All possible good lives have to take account of man’s limitation. You can’t be whatever you want to be.
3. Be more committed. Learn how to be passionate to one mood. Throw away the “whatever” attitude, the indifference.
4. Stop trying to calculate and deliberate things in our lives, and allow ourselves to be swept away by mood.
5. In some sense, Odysseus is like us. Like him, we live in cross-worlds. Odysseus can teach us how to be  across-world being and find meaning. The difference between Odysseus and us is that his worlds are interconnected. In our world, we come home from work and we want to forget about it. We come back from a day of school and don’t want to think about it. The meaning of each world in our lives are not connected. We need to have unity in our lives, just like Odysseus’ life consisted of unity despite the many roles he played, including father, king, wanderer, and warrior, all of which fit together.
6. The good of one world is deeply, fundamentally connected with the good of another world.

What is it about the Greek world that is all deeply connected?

It’s the work of art. In our world, we lack this work of art.

The Greek’s lives and society as portrayed by Homer is quite different from our lives and our society… It’s almost admirable to be able to throw away all the plans we seem to have and instead just let ourselves be taken over by instinct, by moods, and be okay with whatever that happens. But it’s not practical. How can we live that way, when there are rules and requirements we must abide by and fulfill? It almost seems like the kind of lives we lead are pointless, but then again are they really? Who defines what is pointless and what isn’t, what’s good and what is not good, what is admirable and what is not admirable?

And then in the end I realize that it really doesn’t matter, because the meaning I find in my life is derived by me and what’s around me, and at the end of the day, that’s enough for me. Regardless of what I believe, though, it’s so interesting and mind-opening to me to study these cultures and societies, attempting to understand the beliefs and thoughts behind such worlds… I am definitely looking forward to reading more of the books for this class and discussing them.

[Site update] — Also, new header image, inspired by this post. Haha. It was time for a change anyway! Also, I’ve added some new favorite quotes.