Existentialism Dostoevsky1

Dostoevsky (1821-1881)

Dostoevsky is surely one of the greats of world

literature
Walter Kaufmann notes that though he is not really an
existentialist
Part One of Notes from Underground is the best
overture for existentialism ever written1
Notes from Underground was published in 1864
followed by Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The
Possessed, and The Brothers Karamazov
he was a national hero when he died in 1881
became widely known in the world only after World
War I

Kaufmann tells us that Nietzsche discovered Notes from

Underground in 1887 and supplies us with this remark
(from a postcard to a friend):
I did not even know the name of Dostoevsky just a few
weeks ago . . . An accidental reach of the arm in a bookstore brought to my attention Lesprit souterrain,
a work just translated into French. . . . The instinct of kinship (or how should I name it?) spoke up
immediately; my joy was extraordinary.2

What prompted this feeling of joy and kinship in Nietzsche?

Kaufmann further quotes from the postcard where Nietzsche describes Part One of Notes as
really a piece of music, very strange, very un-Germanic music3
this reference to music is significant
as music was a major theme in Nietzsches life
he actually played piano himself and even composed some music
he was close to Wagner in his early Basel years and his break with Wagner in 1876 was a major turning
point in his life
the rest of his life could easily be characterized as a reaction against everything German
against Wagner and German musichis late exhilaration with Bizet and Carmen
against German patriotism (embracing the goal of becoming a good European rather than vowing
allegiance to the fatherland
against anti-Semitism (unfortunately Dostoevsky was a rabid anti-semitea fact Nietzsche was probably
unaware of)
against German philosophy (in both content and style: Nietzsche embraced the aphorism, a particularly
French style of philosophizingMontaigne)
thus we can perhaps understand his exhilaration at finding in Dostoevsky something very much un-
German

1
W alter Kaufmann, Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (New York: Meridian, 1975). P. 14.

2
Ibid., p. 52.

3
Ibid.
Existentialism Dostoevsky2

but another hint on the postcard suggests even more Nietzsches sense of kinship with the underground
man
he refers to the reflections of the underground man as a kind of self-derision of the Socratic know
thyself
and here is where we detect a theme that connects Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and Kierkegaard
by the way, Kaufmann comments on the sequence of the three
Kierkegaard was dead nine years when Dostoevsky published Notes from Underground
neither of them knew of the other
though Nietzsche had discovered Dostoevsky, he had only heard of Kierkegaard, too late to have read
any of his works
though chronologically Kierkegaard comes first (as in our Solomon reader)
Kaufmann places Dostoevsky first in his reader
Those . . . who listen to the Notes from Underground as to an overture, are well prepared when the
curtain rises to hear Kierkegaards account of how he first became a writer. Even his Point of View for
My Work as an Author wont be altogether unfamiliar. It is as if Kierkegaard had stepped right out of
Dostoevskys pen.4

It is this self-derision of the Socratic know thyself that immediately ties the three together
in Socrates and Plato we find the very optimistic view that if only man were rational
then he would have virtue and happiness
Socrates thinks that no one would do injustice willingly
injustice is simply the result of ignorance
to know thyself is thus the first Socratic commandment
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both share with Dostoevskys underground man a derision of the Socratic
optimistic triad: reason=virtue=happiness
we see this clearly in Sickness unto Death:
the Greek mind does not have the courage to declare that a person knowingly does wrong, knows what
is right and does the wrong5
in Nietzsche we find this derision of the Socratic know thyself a constant refrain
the very first words of On the Genealogy of Morals:
We are unknown to ourselves, we men of knowledgeand with good reason. We have never sought
ourselveshow could it happen that we should ever find ourselves? . . . So we are necessarily strangers
to ourselves, we do not comprehend ourselves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law Each
is furthest from himself applies to all eternitywe are not men of knowledge with respect to
ourselves.6

Dostoevskys underground man anticipates much of Nietzsches psychological insight:

reason is not in control, but actually operates in the service of the will which lies beneath the surface of
consciousness which is thus unconscious (or underground)

4
Ibid., pgs. 14-15.

5
Sren Kierkegaard, The Sickness unto Death, trans. Howard and Edna Hong in The Essential Kierkegaard
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 370.

6
Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, trans. W alter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale (New
York: Vintage Books, 1969), p. 15.
Existentialism Dostoevsky3

Part One of Notes from Underground is divided into eleven sections

in our reader Solomon gives us the famous opening paragraph from section 1
then skips forward to give us all of sections 7 & 8
it is in these two sections that we find the underground mans ridicule of the Socratic know thyself
Oh, the babe! Oh, the pure innocent child! the underground man howls at this Socratic optimismthis
notion that if only we were enlightened to ourselves, if we only knew what was truly in our own best
interests, that we would become good and noble
the underground man protests that the evidence is overwhelmingly against this naivete
that there are plenty of examples of people who knowingly act against their own best interests
who knowingly act against what reason tells them

the underground man further ridicules the idea that through civilization (reason) mankind becomes softer,
less bloodthirsty, less fitted for warfare
this passage is especially interesting and perhaps relevant today
the underground man comments on the propensity of man to distort truth intentionally
and the result:
Only look about you: blood is being spilled in streams, and in the merriest way, as though it were
champagne. Take the whole of the nineteenth century. . . Take Napoleonboth the Great and the present
one. Take North Americathe eternal union (Solomon, 41)
Of course, this was being written during the American civil war, where blood spilled in rivers, all for the
idea of the union
and today? all in the name of freedom?
Perhaps the underground mans psychological insight could be turned on America today

Have you noticed that the subtlest slaughterers have almost always been the most civilized gentlemen,
to whom the various Attilas and Stenka Razins could never hold a candle... (Solomon, 41)

Formerly he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated whomever he
thought he should. And now while we consider bloodshed an abomination, we nevertheless engage in this
abomination and even more than ever before (Solomon, 42)

think about today, how our leaders (the most civilized gentlemen) have used Saddams past atrocities
against his own people as justification for further atrocities
Americans like to think of themselves as rational and civilized
and yet will grasp at any distortion rather than face the facts about the current war
America itself is perhaps a perfect example of self-delusion
where largely unconscious drives stand directly opposed to clear sighted reason

Another theme taken up by the underground man: the question of free-will

this idea that science will uncover the laws of nature
not only for natural sciences but the human sciences as well (against Descartes)
Consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer be responsible for
his actions, and life will become exceedingly easy for him (Solomon, 42)
he goes on to talk of a calculus (a computer?)
in which everything will be so clearly calculated and designated that there will be no more incidents or
adventures in the world
and eventually, new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and computed with
mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in a twinkling, simply because every
Existentialism Dostoevsky4

possible answer to it will be provided (Solomon, 42)

it is here that he refers to the construction of a crystal palace
and halcyon days in which life has become exceedingly easy

in regard to this mentioning of new economic relations

perhaps one can go in a number of directions here
a foreshadowing of Orwells 1984?
a critique of Marxism before Marxism had made its way into political history?
or even a critique of our own global Capitalism which aims to construct such a crystal palace?

in any case the underground man gives voice to one major theme of existentialism in the notion of
rebellion
What do you think, gentlemen, hadnt we better kick over all that rationalism at one blow, scatter it to
the winds, just to send these logarithms to the devil, and to let us live once more according to our own
foolish will! (Solomon, 43)
the nature of man, according to the underground man:
man everywhere and always, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he wished and not in the least
as his reason and advantage dictated (Solomon, 43)

but what if there is no free-will anyway?

the underground man laughs at this question and in so doing gives expression to
the existentialist theme of freedom
if, for instance, some day they calculate and prove to me that I stuck my tongue out at someone because
I could not help sticking my tongue out at him and that I had to do it in that particular way, what sort of
freedom is left me...? (Solomon, 44)
his answer to this is that man is only partly rational
You see, gentlemen, reason is an excellent thing, there is no disputing that, but reason is only reason and
can only satisfy mans rational faculty, while will is a manifestation of all life, that is, of all human life
including reason as well as all impulses (Solomon, 45)
I think this passage especially is what led to Nietzsches feeling of kinship

a human being, the underground man suggests, will act against reason precisely
because in any case it preserves for us what is most precious and most importantthat is our
personality, our individuality (Solomon, 45)

the history of the world, so the underground man charges, is anything but rational
he acknowledges there might be cases in which individuals who make it their goal to live as morally and
rationally as possible
but sooner or later toward the end of their lives have been false to themselves (Solomon, 46)
this anticipates so much of Nietzsches psychological analysis

the underground man asserts that even if science were to prove that man is nothing other than a machine
and that there is no free will that man will still rebel
he will launch a curse upon the world
this then is what distinguishes man from the animals
according to Aristotle, man is the rational animal
according to the underground man, man is the animal that curses!

Its too bad Solomon stopped here at the end of section 8

Existentialism Dostoevsky5

section 9 begins:
Gentlemen, of course Im joking, and I know I am not doing it very successfully, but you know you
mustnt take everything I say for a joke.7

He goes on to question whether we should even want to remake man

to correct his will and make it conform to the demands of common sense
even if it were possible, perhaps it would not be good for man

there follows what I think might be the most well-known passage from Notes from Underground:
Perhaps you think Im mad gentlemen? Let me make a reservation. I agree that man is an animal
predominantly constructive, foredoomed to conscious striving towards a goal, and applying himself to the
art of engineering, that is to the everlasting and unceasing construction of a roadno matter where it
leads, and that the main point is not where it goes, but that it should go somewhere. . . .8

Compare this with the opening section of Nietzsches The Antichrist which characterizes the condition of
modern man:

Let us look one another in the face. We are Hyperhoreanswe know well enough how
much out of the way we live. Neither by land no by sea shalt thou find the road to the
Hyperboreans: Pindar already knew that of us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice,
beyond deathour life, our happiness. . . . We have discovered happiness, we know the
road, we have found the exit out of whole millennia of labyrinth. Who else has found it?
Modern man perhaps? I know not which way to turn sighs modern man. . . . it
was from this modernity that we were ill from lazy peace, from cowardly
compromise, from the whole virtuous uncleanliness of modern Yes and No. [. . .] We
were brave enough, we spared neither ourselves nor others: but for long we did not know
where to apply our courage. We became gloomy, we were called fatalists. Our fatality
was plenitude, the tension, the blocking-up of our forces. We thirsted for lightning and
action, of all things we kept ourselves furthest from the happiness of the weaklings, from
resignation . . . . There was a thunderstorm in our air, the nature which we are grew
dark for we had no road. Formula of our happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal . .
.9

The Grand Inquisitor

is a story from The Brothers Karamazov
it is told by Ivan, the older brother who is a skeptic
to his younger brother Alyosha, who is on the way to the priesthood
the context of the story is that the two brothers had just been discussing the problem of evil
Ivan tells a few tales of incredible evil

7
Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground, trans. Jessie Coulson (New York: Penguin Books, 1972),
p. 39.

8
Ibid.

9
Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (New York: Penguin
Books, 1968), p. 115. Hollingdale notes that the Hyperboreans were in Greek mythology a race dwelling beyond
the north wind (Boreas) in a country of warmth and plenty.
Existentialism Dostoevsky6

a small boy of 8 torn to pieces by dogs in front of the mother

how can one believe in a just God in the face of such evil?
One classic answer is that we just cannot see the big picture
if we could we would see that evil doesnt really exist
that in the end it will all be made justified
in the greater harmony mother and child will be reunited in heaven
Ivan lays out a kind of wager
if you could gain heaven but the price would be the suffering of one innocent child
he would reject his ticket to heaven
Alyosha says that he would not agree to such a bargain either
Ivan responds:
And are you able to allow the idea that the people for whom you are constructing the edifice would
themselves agree to accept their happiness being bought by the unwarranted blood of a small, tortured
child and, having accepted it, remain happy forever?10

Alyosha responds that Ivan has forgotten Jesus, the Being that could forgive everything and everyone
Ivan responds that he has not forgotten Him
and then proceeds to tell this story of Christs return
not at the end of the world but in 15th century Spain, during the Inquisition
the day after a hundred heretics have been burned at the stake

the context of the story is thus the problem of evil

the traditional response is that evil exist because God gave humans free-will

Christ comes into the town and without saying a word is instantly recognized by all
the old Cardinal (The Grand Inquisitor) who the day before had burned the heretics
recognizes Him too
and promptly has Him arrested and thrown into the dungeon
the story that follows is the Inquisitors interrogation of Christ
he claims that despite Christs good intentions
Christ misunderstood human nature
and thus the Church corrected his mistake
and He thus has no right to come back and interfere

the story is a profound exploration of human nature

who is right in their estimation of human natureChrist or the Inquisitor?

The implication of the story is that the Church has all along been on the wrong side
it is certainly a devastating critique of the Roman Church during the Inquisition
but to what extent is the critique still applicable to Christianity in the 19th century (Alyoshas question) or
to Christianity today (our question)

I am not sure if Nietzsche had read The Brothers Karamazov

but since he was so impressed by Notes from Underground it certainly seems possible
and his own polemic against Christianity in The Antichrist seems perhaps to have been influenced by a

10 10
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. David McDuff ( New York: Penguin Books,
1993), p. 282.
Existentialism Dostoevsky7

reading of The Grand Inquisitor

in any case, the exploration of human nature that goes on in Ivans story certainly reflects key themes of
existentialism:
the terrible burden of freedom of choice
in short, the Inquisitor thinks that human beings are incapable of freedom
they want nothing more than for someone to take away the terrible burden
especially the freedom of choice in matters of good and evil
and also especially the burden of freedom in determining the meaning of existence
The Inquisitor says: For the secret of mans being is not only to live, but to have something to live for.
Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, and would
rather destroy himself than remain on earth. . . . (Solomon, 54)

compare with Nietzsche: If we possess our why of life, we can put up with almost any how (Twilight of
the Idols, Maxims and Arrows, 12)

this is also the main theme of Viktor Frankels Mans Search for Meaning

according to Ivans story, Christ came to give the gift of freedom but the Church took that away
the story centers around the story of the three temptations in the desert
the Inquisitor tells Jesus that he answered wrongly on each temptation
that this displayed his ignorance of human nature
who is right about human nature?