Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume 4 Number 3, December 2003
_______________________________________________________________
Scanlan,
James P., Dostoyevsky: The Thinker. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2002.
251 pp., ISBN: 0-8014-3994-9. $29.95 cloth.
Reviewed by
Scanlan’s
study of Dostoyevsky examines all aspects of Dostoyevsky’s thought, exploring
the immortality of the soul, an objection to rational egoism, ethics and
altruism, aesthetics, advocacy of a Christian utopia and, finally, a powerful
nationalism. Scanlan praises the dialectical method that allows Dostoyevsky to
develop complex, original responses to the age-old question “what is man?”
For example, Dostoyevsky’s rejection of Western individualism creates
an impassioned nationalist position. As
a result, Scanlan argues for Dostoyevsky as a dynamic thinker intrinsically
linked to the political, religious, ethical and aesthetic debates raging in late
nineteenth century Russia.
This
book will serve as a valuable, if not, indispensable resource for scholars in
literature, philosophy, history and political science by providing a portrait of
Dostoyevsky’s philosophical strengths and weaknesses. Given the philosophy profession’s affection toward
Dostoyevsky’s works, it is rather amazing that such a study has not yet been
undertaken. We should thank Scanlan
not only for following through on this endeavor, but also for doing so with
extensive references to Dostoyevsky’s notebooks and letters. Scanlan, a force in Russian studies, co-editor of the
expansive, three-volume work on Russian Philosophy, writes with extensive
knowledge of Russian intellectual movements. Delightfully, however, Scanlan’s
book will also be accessible to the generalist and the Dostoyevsky buff seeking
more information.
Scanlan
openly confronts the challenge of compiling the philosophical views of a writer
by recognizing that this text may be “unsettling to both writers and
philosophers.” Scanlan’s reading is not literary and he does not interpret
symbols and metaphors. Rather, he
sticks to the philosophical tenets presented by the main characters and the
supporting material in Dostoyevsky’s “capacious notebooks.” (3) While the
typical reader of this text may be familiar with the novels, the material
Scanlan collects from Dostoyevsky’s notebooks provides us with direct insight
into the author’s belief system. Organized philosophically, the text includes
chapters on matter and spirit, rational egoism, altruism, aesthetics, utopianism
and “the Russian idea.” Scanlan does not hesitate, however, to recognize
where Dostoyevsky has contradicted himself or changed his views.
Such unbiased reading makes this work even more useful as a scholarly
tool. We can no longer read Dostoyevsky reductively: as exemplified by the
existential, “irrationalist” protagonist in The Notes from the
Underground or as a proponent of evil in human nature by examining The
Brothers Karamazov. For, as
Scanlan shows, Dostoyevsky cannot be reduced to one of his tenets, nor can we
ignore some of the unsettling nationalistic beliefs he holds later in life.
Scanlan
begins his study by responding to philosophers who have long valued Dostoyevsky
as an irrationalist. He realizes that he must clarify this distinction in order
to go on to explore Dostoyevsky’s logical-philosophical structures. Scanlan
does not often linger on issues of translation but does note, in his
introduction, when the two Russian terms, razum
and rassudok, are both translated
as “reason,” they fail to grasp the Russian distinction between higher and
lower reason. Therefore, when English readers acknowledge Dostoyevsky’s
critique of reason (rassudok), we
cannot account for the fact that Dostoyevsky criticizes only one form of reason,
not all forms. As a result, Scanlan claims, while Dostoyevsky exhibits some
irrationationalist views, he cannot be reduced to the existentialist’s
irrationalist who criticizes only one form of reason.
Dostoyevsky’s views on matter
and spirit reflect his views on immortality, the soul, faith and reason, and the
existence of God. He separates
reality into higher and lower domains, characterized by Christian beliefs that
associate the higher with spirituality and the lower with material needs.
Dostoyevsky revises this dualism by embracing the human dilemma of being
stuck in both worlds at once. As
Scanlan describes: “a spiritual soul immersed in matter, a disjointed creature
with roots in one world but stranded in another.” (53) To comprehend the
spiritual world, Dostoyevsky sought his own definitions for the immortality for
the soul and the existence of God. To
comprehend the material world, Dostoyevsky resigned himself to acknowledge the
objective reality of this world, even as it posed challenges to spiritual
understanding and fulfillment. To
this end, Dostoyevsky mixes rational arguments for the existence of God with the
necessity of personal revelation and subjective experiences enhanced by faith.
Scanlan concludes:
Critics have tried to make
Dostoyevsky an irrationalist in metaphysics by suggesting that he believed
reason to be on the side of atheism and materialism, both of which he detested,
and to be antithetical to faith. In
fact he believed that reason, too, is on the side of God and immorality, but
that it is not immune to question and cannot provide certainty. God and immortality can be supported by reasons but the
reasons are not unassailable. (55-6)
A
turning point in the development of Dostoyevsky’s idea occurs at the death of
his first wife. In notebook entries
that follow her death, Dostoyevsky reflects on the relation between the faulty
self and the ideal self. Dostoyevsky
is troubled over the difficult dialectic within the search for moral perfection
given by the possibility of an immortal soul.
Later, Dostoyevsky implies that our just reward for Christian purity is
immortality of the soul. Even later, Dostoyevsky suggests that immortality
provides our material lives with an essential “higher” meaning, which saves
us from suicide. He also suggests
that immortality and the ability to love are precisely what distinguish humans
from beasts. The novelist
contemplates God’s existence only according to the “argument by design,” a
being accessible through reason as a “full synthesis of being” (50), while
also a being that requires spiritual comprehension (through faith) as
benevolent. Perhaps one of the strengths of Dostoyevsky as a writer is that he
can linger over difficult questions, playing them out through various
protagonists, without the (philosopher’s) obligation to come to some final
postulate or formula regarding these matters.
In the chapter on rational
egoism, Scanlan asks whether or not the character of the underground man, who
appears to be a rational egoist, actually reflects a rejection of rational
egoism. In others words, Notes
from The Underground must be read ironically.
Scanlan shows Dostoyevsky to reject actions based from securing one’s
own “best interests.” Dostoyevsky’s
case is based on recognizing that human needs exceed the “needs of the
belly” and include intellectual, emotional and aesthetic needs.
Ignoring these latter needs serves to distort human possibility.
While physical needs are real, a need for free expression cultivates
other needs that are required, not just for individual welfare but, rather, for
social welfare. Therefore, the
rational egoist view is empirically false and contradictory.
These thinkers need to recognize the multiple needs that fulfill and
motivate the human subject, driven by an essentially free will.
Further, Dostoyevsky presents a positive view of the human subject as a
moral creature. These presentations
further support an ironic reading of the underground man.
This, however, is Scanlan as his
most creative: piecing together elements from a variety of texts in order to
develop a coherent theory that is not presented systematically by Dostoyevsky
himself. Drawing from the “saints
and sinners” in the novels, Scanlan draws a picture of Dostoyevsky’s
“ethical universe,” dealing with free will, suffering, love, good and evil,
conscience and religion. (82) Dostoyevsky’s ethical universe is constituted,
according to Scanlan, by: the law of love, the law of personality, the
epistemology of conscience and faith, moral responsibility and the significance
of suffering. The “absolute moral good” for humans is a selfless, Christian
love for others, which is challenged, for each of us, by our particular blend of
material and personal characteristics. Human
beings, as both good and evil, as a combination of divine and vulgar elements,
must employ their conscience in order to aspire toward greater goodness.
Such an endeavor can be furthered by one’s faith or through a devotion
to Christ. One’s faith, further,
takes priority to and guides one’s conscience.
As a result, we also have a “universal responsibility,” which
includes taking on the sins of one’s ancestors.
Finally, the ethical universe rests on the reality of suffering that
challenges and humbles the egoist. In
the Christian spirit, suffering becomes an opportunity to demonstrate one’s
love for others, one’s conscience, one’s faith and moral responsibility.
The final three chapters,
excluding the conclusion, present a coherent picture of Dostoyevsky’s
aesthetics, utopianism and his nationalism.
As a result, we begin to see how Dostoyevsky’s epistemology, ontology
and theology are linked to writing in a heated political climate.
Scanlan must address aesthetics
insofar as expression and art have been identified, earlier in this text, as
fundamental human needs and, in deed, the need Dostoyevsky must fulfill as his
writing develops.
The aesthetic that Dostoyevsky
develops responds to the utilitarian aesthetic put forth by the Chernyshevsky
school. This school advocated that
aesthetics was a purely supplementary human need, trivial in relation to the
fundamental needs of food, shelter and physical survival.
According to this school, art serves simply to “represent nature and
life.” In so doing, art does not
“embellish” reality but only aids us when we need a representation.
Dostoyevsky, however, objects to this view on the basis that it neglects our
spiritual needs, need that might be addressed in aesthetic experience.
As Dostoyevsky explains:
The
need for beauty develops most when people are in discord with reality, in
disharmony, in conflict, that is, when they are most
alive, for people are most alive when they are searching for something and
trying to obtain it; it is then that there arises in them the most natural
desire for everything harmonious, for tranquility, and in beauty there is both
harmony and tranquility. (128)
One’s discovery of beauty,
moreover, links one to the “moral ideal” within humanity and, therefore,
serves an ethical purpose. As a
result, Dostoyevsky holds that
“beauty can save the world.” Such
art, however, cannot be measured in relation to utilitarian goals but must,
rather, be evaluated in terms of “artistry” or harmony.
While Scanlan ends the text with
Dostoyevsky’s views of utopia and nationalism, these ideals are inextricably
linked. Russia provides the
possibility for realizing Dostoyevsky’s utopia as the nation most likely to
realize a “panhuman ideal.” At
this point, Scanlan recognizes that Dostoyevsky’s nationalist rhetoric becomes
somewhat irrational. Russia should
lead humanity insofar as Russian citizens demonstrate more universal characters.
In this view, Russia will “understand the requirements of every other
nation better than that nation itself does.” (228) This extreme nationalism,
Scanlan acknowledges, becomes difficult for Dostoyevsky to defend and untenable
in practice. However, the novelist will continue to argue that Russian
nationalism will make possible the “Christian utopia” which is the “full
kingdom of Christ.”
Dostoyevsky The Thinker
shows the full scope of Dostoyevsky’s struggles with epistemology, theology,
aesthetics, ethics and politics. Throughout
this account, Scanlan provides a historical account Dostoyevsky’s evolving
thought, as reflected in his novels and notebooks.
While the novelist may not have been a flawlessly systematic thinker,
Scanlan demonstrates how Dostoyevsky’s works reflect coherent philosophies,
philosophies deeply linked to theological and political debates taking place in
nineteenth century Russia.
To Scanlan’s credit, this was a
difficult review to write. At every
re-read of the material, I made new discoveries and established a deepened
appreciation for the depth of analysis and research invested in this project.
I will certainly use this text as a teaching and research tool in the
future.