experiencing life through an always-nuanced worldview.

In a previous post on “Convictions, interconnectedness, and getting out of despair,” I wrote about the conflicting rationales of Ivan’s ways of thinking and my own identification with various aspects of Ivan’s philosophy. I was troubled by Ivan’s inability to deal with his suffering and wavering convictions. I have been meaning to follow up with this post on him and my perceived analysis behind his philosophy, because the next paper I did for this existentialism class infused Nietzsche’s “passive” and “active” nihilist views and Ivan’s “convictions.” Whether or not I “correctly” read Nietzsche’s nihilist philosophy is, as always, in question, but it makes sense to me and I am glad I think I resolved this conflict in my mind… So I went back and re-read parts of my paper and am going to share some of them here now…

However, Ivan’s positing of his world as the truth is problematic: the “escape” Ivan creates is one of wavering conviction. In the progression of the novel, Ivan’s convictions come back to haunt him via the Devil in his nightmare. Ivan characterizes the Devil as his “illness…, the incarnation of…only one side of [him]…, the nastiest and stupidest of [his own thoughts]” (Dostoevsky 592). In his self-proclaimed belief of absolute nothingness, much like a passive nihilist, Ivan gets into a feeling of despair. Ivan claims everything to be “disorderly, damnable, and perhaps devil-ridden chaos” (207-208). Later on, all the worlds of God and Satan are “not proved, to [his] mind” (597). Ivan clings onto the need for proofs, rationality, and logic in order to justify his true world he has created. However, Ivan’s despair and confusion is the natural result of the “escape” that follows from the first two psychological stages of nihilism.

Ivan develops his philosophy by relying on reasoning, logic, and rationality. However, he does not realize that “the strength of knowledge does not depend on its degree of truth but… on the degree to which it has been incorporated” (The Gay Science; 169). Ivan has not incorporated his knowledge and philosophy into his character and his being. He created his beliefs through logic, on the notion that there exists nothingness and that faith in a higher being cannot and does not provide value for him. Logic and reason, however, prove faulty for the basis of “truth.”

…

What Ivan would have needed was to reach the third psychological state of nihilism. This last state begins with the realization that the reason one must invent and create a new true world is derived from one’s psychological needs (The Will to Power), just as “achieving,” “becoming,” and “aims” are psychological needs. Thus, one then concludes that one has “absolutely no right” to the truth one has created, by which one can then realize that “the reality of becoming…[is] the only reality” and there remains no reason to convince oneself that there exists a “true” world. When aim, unity, and being – the highest values – devaluate themselves, Nietzsche argues that one should become an active nihilist in order to truly grasp and take advantage of life…[Ivan] did not want to discover another world because he became obsessed with trying to find meaning and make sense of the one sun, the one world he was in.

Ivan should have embraced the realization that there is no truth by becoming a free spirit and living life dangerously. When Ivan’s god began to die – began to lose its meaning –  Ivan slipped into further despair and confusion; an active nihilist, in hearing that the old god is dead, would feel “as if a new dawn shone on [him]” and his heart would overflow with “gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation” (The Gay Science; 280). The active nihilist would view the old god’s death as a wonderful opportunity to venture out into the unknown, into the “open sea,” and embrace “what is beautiful, strange, questionable, terrible, and divine” (346).

Herein lies where, in the past 6 months (however long ago it was that I wrote this paper/took this class…) I think I’ve come to my own understanding of “life” and reconciling the seemingly “meaningless” world with an amazing, “beautiful..terrible..divine” life I am living. So this is my new sun, and while I am relishing in this “new sun” I am going to embrace the meaning I derive from it, until one day — if ever — my god/sun/meaning begins to die or devaluate itself…by which point it will be time to venture onto a new sea.

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.”

Also, I have written a follow-up entry to this: “Creating and discovering new suns..” as of May 8, 2010.