Friday, October 21, 2005
Case Against Utopia?
From Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground:
This quote in comparison to a quote earlier in his notes where he calls twice two equals four insolent.
Is he really arguing against fighting for the way things ought to be, or merely against imposed utopic visions?
He goes on to say
Interesting book, and interesting diary.
Do you think he's railing against static utopia? Is he in a way saying that this life is imperfect and that is what makes it real?
As far as my personal opinion is concerned, to care only for well-being seems to me positively ill-bred. Whether it’s good or bad, it is sometimes very pleasant, too, to smash things. I hold no brief for suffering nor for well-being either. I am standing for ... my caprice, and for its being guaranteed to me when necessary.
This quote in comparison to a quote earlier in his notes where he calls twice two equals four insolent.
Is he really arguing against fighting for the way things ought to be, or merely against imposed utopic visions?
Suffering would be out of place in vaudevilles, for instance; I know that. In the “Palace of Crystal” it is unthinkable; suffering means doubt, negation, and what would be the good of a “palace of crystal” if there could be any doubt about it? And yet I think man will never renounce real suffering, that is, destruction and chaos.
He goes on to say
Why, suffering is the sole origin of consciousness. [...] Consciousness, for instance, is infinitely superior to twice two makes four. Once you have mathematical certainty there is nothing left to do or to understand. There will be nothing left but to bottle up your five senses and plunge into contemplation. While if you stick to consciousness, even though the same result is attained, you can at least flog yourself at times, and that will, at any rate, liven you up. Reactionary as it is, corporal punishment is better than nothing.
Interesting book, and interesting diary.
Do you think he's railing against static utopia? Is he in a way saying that this life is imperfect and that is what makes it real?
// posted by John B. Manos @ 10/21/2005 03:37:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
The Honorable Judge Manos:
In my opinion, Dostoevsky is railing against static utopia because he has a less than perfect faith. Utopia is subjective to earthly beings. To me, utopia is pommes frites 24/7. To you, quite possibly, kielbasa. In this life, even consciousness and contemplation are not perfect. I can state that Satan is imperfect, and that is reality.I can state this, unequivocally, because my Lord said it. Original sin caused suffering, and, thereby, life as we know it...aka "reality".
So, is Dostoevsky railing against static utopia? Most certainly. Why? Because it does not exist, and, therefore, paradoxically, must be questioned.
Post a Comment
In my opinion, Dostoevsky is railing against static utopia because he has a less than perfect faith. Utopia is subjective to earthly beings. To me, utopia is pommes frites 24/7. To you, quite possibly, kielbasa. In this life, even consciousness and contemplation are not perfect. I can state that Satan is imperfect, and that is reality.I can state this, unequivocally, because my Lord said it. Original sin caused suffering, and, thereby, life as we know it...aka "reality".
So, is Dostoevsky railing against static utopia? Most certainly. Why? Because it does not exist, and, therefore, paradoxically, must be questioned.
# posted by 
: Fri Oct 21, 10:03:00 PM CDT
: Fri Oct 21, 10:03:00 PM CDT << Home
Copyright 2005 All Rights Reserved
