Because of the way other people have been responding to me lately, I thought only you would care to listen to these thoughts. I've been reading Russian Philosophy: Vol. I -- The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy, The Slavophiles, the Westernizers, and its authors Edie, Scanlan, Zeldin, and Kline seem to agree that Russians, throughout history, have been keenly concerned about "practical truth-justice" or "pravada" (pravda or пра́вда), which is now related to Soviet propaganda (no doubt). I do not know if there has been any separation between propaganda and "pravada" in modern time. However, according to the same authors, philosophy survived in the Russian tradition via literary criticism, resulting in literature being the best medium to philosophize in the Russian language because of academic censorship in the universities: Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Pasternak are examples of writers who concerned themselves with philosophy.
It made me wonder what pravada was being explored in Crime and Punishment. From what I recall, it seems like Dostoevsky and Aquinas are speaking the same language. Raskolnikov thought he could bend the law and define justice as whatever suits his needs after he kills both the old lady and her sister. Since he feels guilt and is punished both divinely and earthly, I would feel Dostoevsky would seem to agree with a lot of what Aquinas believes, in which they would say humans make laws to reflect those of God's, which is written in their conscience.
Then it made me think of Aristotle. And what made me think of Aristotle was actually a thought I had when I woke up this morning. I said to myself, for no reason really, that Aristotelian thought has ruined America. Now, I had no real intentions to write out a thesis for this idea, but it seemed to have spurt out of a half-awake deduction in my head that a literal interpretation of Aristotle has led to the idea that one can pursue for happiness, and whatever happiness is is good. Now there are tons of qualifies for "good" and "happiness," which is state, but no one has the intention span to think that "Oh, happiness is a state." And who has time to think when there is a reality and no luxury for thought.
"Is Plato any different? Because when people speak of Aristotle, they speak of Plato as his opposite." So I compared the two, again in the morning while scratching myself as I looked in the pantry for some protein, and my conclusion was that Plato and Aristotle come to the conclusion that there are two types of souls: a ruler and the ruled. There are those who are better suited to rule, and then there are those who are better suited to be ruled. Unfortunately, in that system, I would not fit in the latter -- where my parents are politically, financially, and physically; but since that's the case, I do then, fit within the "lower" souls (hence my Great Books club's name: The Iron Society, which is often criticized as being like a country club name -- we're reading Plato's Apology and Crito now) because if I were to be a ruler soul, I would either rise to be one or be born into the proper family. This is why Plato has the gold and silver souls separated from the iron and other metals. He wants the ruling class to stay pure.
Aristotle basically allows for a free, natural aristocracy to bloom. The "gold souls" will always blend with the gold and the silver with the silver and the iron with the iron... unless on accident, something happens. And if that's the case, well then, the gods bless them.
Then, working back to Crime and Punishment, because Raskolnikov was who he was, a cultured person from a poor, cultured family, he would be a ruling soul in a ruled situation. Since he could either not submit to his position or rise to it, he murdered someone, being that he believed he had the right to do so. But by murdering the old woman, he is not only making a personal statement to himself but also a political one that referred to Rousseau's Social Contract. Since naturally, he had the right to be equals with the pawnshop owner instead of a debtor because of his nature of being both intelligent and from a cultured family, he was naturally the one who ought to be the one to overthrow her though legally, he had no right to.
Rather than living within the framework of society, he pursues an ideal happiness that could not be achieved, and it makes me wonder why the ideal could not be reached. Was it because he killed the pawnshop owner's sister? And if so, then what would happen if he hadn't? Would he have achieved happiness? I still find his choice to end the woman to be evil and unnatural, but these insights and connections to philosophy have brought me a different perspective on the novel.
No comments:
Post a Comment