1. Dostoevsky wrote, in "The Idiot, that his idea was to “portray a perfectly beautiful man.” Did he succeed? Can you formulate what is “beautiful” about Prince Myshkin? If Dostoevsky did not succeed, in what particulars did he fail?
I view that Myshkin was not beautiful. He was neither aesthetic nor socially acceptable. We find that he was very sickly and was unable to care for himself without direct assistance from a caregiver. He angered those around him in many ways; Rogozhin became so angered with him that he tried to kill him. Myshkin was made to be naïve. Although he cared greatly for those around him, and only spoke ill of them to their faces. It was in an attempt to help them. Although his views were almost always taken as slights and insults, he viewed that what he said should have be said and understood just as he spoke it. His naiveté was his beauty, even though all those around him saw it as his greatest flaw and detraction.
2. Is it difficult, or even impossible, for one to go through life in imitation of Christ – because of the inevitability of human egoism or because of “our age of vices and railways”?
I view that is it impossible to be truly Christ-like because of “our age of vices and railways”. The time that Jesus was said to have lived, and our modern world are very different. Jesus came from a well-off enough family to be able to go into the wild and learn what he must, and to come to terms with being the Son of God. His notoriety then allowed him to be able to not “work” for a living. Food and shelter were given to him any where he went because his reputation preceded him. In the Bible, every stop he made he was taken in by a follower of his work and teachings.
In the case of Myshkin he was also taken in by family or those that felt sorry for him because of his illness. At the beginning of the story, they were ready to kick him out of their homes because he upset them so greatly. However, when he suddenly came into contact with a great sum of money, due to the death of a relative, he was welcomed back with open arms because they thought he may help them financially since they had opened up their home to him when he was poor and in need. But all the while they ridiculed him for being jobless and only having a talent for pretty writing. Those around him viewed him as an unbearable burden and viewed him being a “philosopher” as a waste of time and belittled him for it constantly.
It shocks me to see that they put up with the Prince as they did. I view that anyone wishing to do the same, in our modern time, would be treated even worse. Plus, we have had so great a number of people claiming to be the second coming of Jesus that without showing god-like powers no one would believe anyone acting in absolute accordance with Jesus’ teachings could be Jesus. I believe that one cannot live in a totally Christ-like nature without being seen as a freeloader and waste in today’s society. They would be viewed much like the homeless are viewed.
3. Is there anything in this novel for the atheist? Can the religious issues be read as metaphors for psychology or as psychological symptoms?
I do view that an Atheist can read and get a great amount of insight into religious psychology from this novel. I base this intrinsically on myself being an atheist and having gotten a great deal from this classic novel myself. I simply saw the religious issues as societal issues. They were more over inquires into the society, and mass psychological issues to me.
Prince Myshkin expounded upon not seeing how anyone could be Catholic after all that was shown of Catholicism during the Reformation of the 1600’s. I felt this came from the view points of the author himself. After having read other examples of Dostoevsky’s religious views, and views of Christ, I felt that the words of Prince Myshkin were merely the feelings and ideas of Dostoevsky himself. This novel and that character, were just ways for him to be able to get out his personal views of religious diversification and his feelings upon those subjects. By definition, the personal thoughts of an individual and how they affect his actions is psychology. This is especially seen as true because he did not go into any non-Christian religions, and therefore anything outside of his own thoughts and mind. The closest he came to this was talking of Jesus being a Jew and not understanding how the Jews did not progress to viewing him as a savior when they had walked among Him as a people.
These views were seen, by myself, as a way of looking into the society, and the psychology of the individual people. This was much like when I looked into the lives of those in Ireland during the religious wars that took place there. That case seemed to be just what Prince Myshkin spoke of, but with physical violence as the ultimate result. (I believe that Russia may have come to the same result if economic and political issues had not become the greater concern that they did.)
I view that Myshkin was not beautiful. He was neither aesthetic nor socially acceptable. We find that he was very sickly and was unable to care for himself without direct assistance from a caregiver. He angered those around him in many ways; Rogozhin became so angered with him that he tried to kill him. Myshkin was made to be naïve. Although he cared greatly for those around him, and only spoke ill of them to their faces. It was in an attempt to help them. Although his views were almost always taken as slights and insults, he viewed that what he said should have be said and understood just as he spoke it. His naiveté was his beauty, even though all those around him saw it as his greatest flaw and detraction.
2. Is it difficult, or even impossible, for one to go through life in imitation of Christ – because of the inevitability of human egoism or because of “our age of vices and railways”?
I view that is it impossible to be truly Christ-like because of “our age of vices and railways”. The time that Jesus was said to have lived, and our modern world are very different. Jesus came from a well-off enough family to be able to go into the wild and learn what he must, and to come to terms with being the Son of God. His notoriety then allowed him to be able to not “work” for a living. Food and shelter were given to him any where he went because his reputation preceded him. In the Bible, every stop he made he was taken in by a follower of his work and teachings.
In the case of Myshkin he was also taken in by family or those that felt sorry for him because of his illness. At the beginning of the story, they were ready to kick him out of their homes because he upset them so greatly. However, when he suddenly came into contact with a great sum of money, due to the death of a relative, he was welcomed back with open arms because they thought he may help them financially since they had opened up their home to him when he was poor and in need. But all the while they ridiculed him for being jobless and only having a talent for pretty writing. Those around him viewed him as an unbearable burden and viewed him being a “philosopher” as a waste of time and belittled him for it constantly.
It shocks me to see that they put up with the Prince as they did. I view that anyone wishing to do the same, in our modern time, would be treated even worse. Plus, we have had so great a number of people claiming to be the second coming of Jesus that without showing god-like powers no one would believe anyone acting in absolute accordance with Jesus’ teachings could be Jesus. I believe that one cannot live in a totally Christ-like nature without being seen as a freeloader and waste in today’s society. They would be viewed much like the homeless are viewed.
3. Is there anything in this novel for the atheist? Can the religious issues be read as metaphors for psychology or as psychological symptoms?
I do view that an Atheist can read and get a great amount of insight into religious psychology from this novel. I base this intrinsically on myself being an atheist and having gotten a great deal from this classic novel myself. I simply saw the religious issues as societal issues. They were more over inquires into the society, and mass psychological issues to me.
Prince Myshkin expounded upon not seeing how anyone could be Catholic after all that was shown of Catholicism during the Reformation of the 1600’s. I felt this came from the view points of the author himself. After having read other examples of Dostoevsky’s religious views, and views of Christ, I felt that the words of Prince Myshkin were merely the feelings and ideas of Dostoevsky himself. This novel and that character, were just ways for him to be able to get out his personal views of religious diversification and his feelings upon those subjects. By definition, the personal thoughts of an individual and how they affect his actions is psychology. This is especially seen as true because he did not go into any non-Christian religions, and therefore anything outside of his own thoughts and mind. The closest he came to this was talking of Jesus being a Jew and not understanding how the Jews did not progress to viewing him as a savior when they had walked among Him as a people.
These views were seen, by myself, as a way of looking into the society, and the psychology of the individual people. This was much like when I looked into the lives of those in Ireland during the religious wars that took place there. That case seemed to be just what Prince Myshkin spoke of, but with physical violence as the ultimate result. (I believe that Russia may have come to the same result if economic and political issues had not become the greater concern that they did.)
4. Can one extract from this novel a critique of the social structure in which the characters must move and live and have their being?
I believe one can critique the social structure of the characters from this novel. I believed that it showed very well the limits of the society, and the unwritten laws of society that they were obliged to hold on to. We saw this greatly in the cases of the female characters and who they were and were not allowed to be with, and the times of day certain interactions were allowed to take place. We also saw how certain topics were only allowed in letters and could not be spoken. Then, there was the rigidity of engagement vows and who could be seen with the engaged woman by the public without scandal. I feel these were expressed very well and in a very understandable manner even for those unfamiliar with that culture and sociological practices.
5. Are the tribulations of Alglaia and Nastasya the result of their personalities, or even their womanhood? Or are they caused by the position of woman in the particular society that the novel portrays?
I feel that both their personalities and their society have a great deal to do with who they are. Alglaia has been brought up sheltered and pampered. The only family that she ever lived with was the household of her parents.
Nastasya lost both of her parents and was shunned in society, and by herself, for being a married man’s mistress while she was too young to be able to change her situation. In today’s society the man would be seen as the wrong-doer and Nastasya would be seen, rightly, as the victim. Plus we saw how her being a kept mistress caused her great trouble and psychological turmoil. It was very easy to see how these events lead to her choices in romance, company, and ultimate death throughout the novel. It also showed where she had more freedom of choice in society but her own psychology did not allow her the same level of freedom. So, in reality, she was never free of the choices that were thrust upon her while she was young.
We can also see how these same life choices were in Aglaia’s life, but her young age and privilege helped her. We also see how their lives were completely decided by their elders. Both of these women had very little decision over what happened in their lives, in youth, and when they did try to make a choice the society around them forced them to alter what really took place. We were shown that being a woman in the late 1800’s of Russia was not enjoyable or free. These women simply had to take the life that was given to them and submit to it. If they tried to fight it they found themselves in an even worse place than if they had just let their world be decided for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment