Episode #221 ... Dostoevsky - The Idiot

everyone, I'm Stephen West.

This is Philosophize This.

So there's a story from Dostoevsky's life that's usually one of the first things you hear about him when you start looking into his work.

I personally think the story hits a bit better when you already know a little bit about what he was going for in his work, which at this point we do, this episode being part four in the series we've been doing.

That said, the story's about the time in Dostoevsky's life that he almost got shot by a firing squad.

Classic story, I'm sure he used to tell around the campfire to all the kids.

And one version of this story that we have comes from the main character of the book we're talking about today, another one of the five great novels of Dostoevsky.

It's called The Idiot.

We'll talk more about the book here in a second, but first let's hear this story, though, and understand how some of the intense experiences that Dostoevsky had in his life led to the conclusions in the rest of his work, to what he thinks a good life is, to his views on beauty and love, and more specifically what he means when he says, a now famous quote that's been associated with this book, The Idiot, what did he mean when he said that he thought that beauty will save the world?

There's been a lot of discussion surrounding this particular quote, and we'll be a lot closer to understanding it by the end of the episode here today.

See, when Dostoevsky's writing the book Demons we just talked about, and when he talks about a revolutionary cell that's planning stuff to potentially bring down the government in the book, that's not just him sitting around, you know, method-acting what it would be like to be a revolutionary.

No, Dostoevsky, early in his writing career, really was a member of what's now known as the Petrushevsky Circle, meaning he was part of one of these revolutionary groups, which is part of what gives him so much insight into the psychology of these kinds of people, multiple of which, the characters in the book Demons, are based on people from this Petrushevsky circle that he knew.

So like any revolutionary at the time that's living in czarist Russia, a Russia that's trying to maintain the status quo for people as much as they can, yeah, turns out they don't take too kindly to you if you're plotting to overthrow the government every day.

So Dostoevsky gets arrested.

He gets processed, charged, and then sentenced to death.

Then he gets led out into a field.

There's stakes driven into the ground, the kind of stakes they tie you to when they're about to get shot by a firing squad.

And he and his friends have been dressed up by them in a sort of white uniform that they put people in right before they shoot them.

The bags are ready to go over their heads.

And as the version of the story goes that's in the book, Dostoevsky is apparently told by the people with the guns in this moment that he has five minutes left to live.

So go ahead, make your peace, say a prayer, do whatever it is you're going to do.

And he says when you're in this kind of moment, your whole relationship to time starts to change.

Like that five minutes minutes that he was given felt to him like it was actually an enormous amount of time.

Like each minute felt to him like it was a different lifetime that he was living.

And much like we normally do in life, when you always feel like you have all the time in the world to do the stuff you want to do, he said in that moment, he came up with a plan for how he's going to use each of these five minutes that he had left.

First couple minutes were going to be for saying goodbye to his friends around him.

The two minutes after that were going to be for going over his life, thinking about what he did while he was here on this planet.

And then the last minute, he says, he's going to dedicate it to looking around him and taking in a glimpse of the world for one last time.

These last three minutes, he says, he's going to really think about it.

He's going to finally come to a decision as what his whole life has been for up until this point.

And while he's doing this, he looks off into the distance a little bit.

He's taking in the world as part of his plan.

And he sees a church a little ways off just sitting there.

Now, this church had a spire on top of it.

And he remembers the light from the sun was bouncing off the spire, just shooting off in all directions.

It was beautiful to him in the moment.

And Dostoevsky thinks here, hmm, in about two minutes, I am essentially going to become one of these rays of light that I'm looking at.

I mean, I certainly won't be a thinking, feeling person anymore.

What will I be, if anything, at that point?

But then this question leads to another question for him.

And any time that he might have been able to spend marveling at the light show that was going on, well, that came to an end real quick, because he all of a sudden becomes consumed by the follow-up question, what if I wasn't going to die right now?

What would I do with my life if I were somehow able to keep on living?

And he says he couldn't stop thinking about it.

He becomes overwhelmed by just the eternity of days that would be ahead of him, all that he could do with that time if he took it as seriously as he was taking time right now.

He says in that moment he knew that he would count up every minute of it if he could.

He wouldn't waste a single second of it.

And eventually this thought that started as a very nice thought, at some point it just starts to weigh on him.

I mean, you can imagine why, the number of seconds he's wasted up until this point, the fact he's having this insight just right now before he's about to die.

He says the feeling that comes over him eventually is that he wishes they'd just hurry up and shoot him so he doesn't have to feel the weight of this thought anymore.

At which point, in what he thinks are the final seconds of his life, a person rides up on a horse carrying a piece of paper.

It's a stay of execution from Tsar Nicholas I.

The whole thing, it turns out, was set up, staged as a mock execution, and they did this for a couple different reasons.

One, to psychologically torture the people like Dostoevsky, and two, as a political maneuver, to make the king look like he's a really decent guy.

Oh, look at him, isn't he so benevolent that he lets him live even despite their treason.

Now from the firing squad, it's not like they're just going to take off his handcuffs and let him go free.

Dostoevsky gets sentenced to four years in a Siberian prison and then is required for five years after that to serve in the Russian military.

And you can imagine what kind of an impact this event has on him and his writing that comes after this.

Just as some time context here, I mean, he gets done serving his prison sentence and gets out of the military in 1859, and he comes out with notes from underground just five years later in 1864.

Now, it's not a coincidence that this story is one that he wanted to tell in this book in particular, The Idiot.

And it's not a coincidence that this story is told by the main character of the book, a guy named Prince Mishkin.

Because to understand why this story means so much to him, the philosophy behind it, we have to understand what Dostoevsky was going for in the character of Prince Mishkin.

First of all, just for clarity, A lot of modern readers might expect that someone we're calling Prince Mishkin would have to be a prince that's part of a royal family living in a castle somewhere.

But that's not the case when it comes to this Prince Mishkin.

In Russian society at the time, a person could theoretically come from a family that has a kind of royal status in terms of respect because of what their family used to be back during the feudal system, but isn't anymore.

What I mean is, to be called a prince like this, yeah, it does mean you're part of some kind of aristocratic family from the past.

It just doesn't mean your lifestyle today looks anything like what we typically think of as royalty.

And Prince Mishkin in the book is a great example of this sort of person.

He starts the book almost completely broke, sitting on a train, returning from years that he had just spent getting treatment from what somebody today might call a mental hospital.

But even these details about Prince Mishkin, his health, his finances, this is all me getting ahead of myself here.

Because the real thing we need to understand about Mishkin as a character is what Dostoevsky was going for when he wrote him, which to put it simply, he was trying to create a Christ-like figure that was living on planet Earth among all the humans.

Or as he wrote to his niece niece in a letter later about Michigan, he was trying to create in this character an example of the, quote, positively beautiful man, end quote, or positively good man, as it's sometimes translated.

In fact, since we're talking about his notes and letters about the book, he told a couple other people at another point in the letters about his mindset when he was getting ready to write this book.

He said that there's a lot of attempts he sees out there where great authors will try to bring a Christ-like figure to life in one of their novels.

He cites Don Quixote as an example of this, Pickwick from the Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens, Dickens, Jean-Valjean from Les Miserables.

He gives several other examples other than this.

The point is, to Dostoevsky, every one of these attempts by these other authors comes up short for him in some crucial way at depicting a Christ-like figure.

Because knowing what we know about Dostoevsky so far in his work, think of what's uniquely interesting about him exploring a character like this.

What is it that he's so good at doing as an author?

Well, for the 1860s and 70s, it's his realism that sets him apart.

As we know, he's always trying to genuinely explore the complexity and the messiness of the internal human experience.

Well, how could that ever work if you have someone like Christ as a character?

I mean, that might be one of the most idealistic characters you could possibly try to create.

What would happen if you dropped someone like Jesus into the middle of actual messy human relationships, psychology, and society?

Well, hence the title of the book.

Dostevsky thinks that most people in the kind of modern society we live in, from the outside at least, they'd probably look at how a truly Christ-like person would be acting, and they'd probably think they're just an idiot.

And not only is this a funny idea, but if you think about it, it's actually an incredibly honest thing for Dostoevsky to do as a thinker as well.

Remember towards the end of last episode, how we were talking about how people who give commentary on his work, how they typically break the characters in his books down into two different categories.

They're either the madman or the saint.

The madman being people like Raskolnikov, the underground man, Stevrogan, the saint being people like Lisa, Sonia, and now Prince Mishkin.

Well, no doubt you can hear this and be like, oh, well, obviously, obviously, Dostoevsky thinks we should all be saints, right?

He probably has an online course he's going to sell me, five ways to be more saintly in your morning routine or something.

But no, Dostoevsky's not going to say that the madman is evil and the saintly way is always the right way to live.

No, there's actually downsides to being a saint sometimes, he thinks.

Where even if you could be some sort of morally ideal figure that's floating around as everyone else is deeply flawed, there'd still be this curse of sainthood, as it's called, that's a crucial thing for a thinking person to understand.

And this is a big part of what Dostoevsky wanted to get across in this book.

To put this another way, and to connect the episodes of this series together a bit, if Crime and Punishment was Dostoevsky testing the ideals of Raskolnikov and showing where they come up short, and if demons was him testing the ideals of Western liberalism and the idea of building our lives around these isms, then in this book, The Idiot, the ideal he's testing and finding the limitations of here is his own ideal, the ideal of sainthood.

And this is what makes it a very honest book, I think.

And I mean, have you ever had a similar thought along these lines he's getting into?

You ever thought about an example of some moral sage, like a monk or Jesus or something?

And you ever wondered how they would act if you planted them not into a story that's designed to show how moral they are, but into an actual scenario that's annoying to them?

Like, what does the Christ-like figure do when someone's just harassing them at the mall and won't leave them alone?

Like trying to manipulate them, take advantage of them, hurt them, and they literally will never stop.

Picture someone harassing a monk at the mall, and this is the kind of person that sees this is someone who can be abused and they're not going to do anything to me about it.

So they just keep going.

They camp out on their front lawn, send them 800 text messages.

What would a moral sage do in this situation?

And the point is not that you couldn't come up with an answer as to what would Jesus do.

The point for Dostoevsky is, how helpful or how tenable is that kind of Jesus response if you actually acted that way in the real world?

Because Prince Mishkin in the book, book, the resident Christ-like figure, he doesn't end up making the world around him a better place at all, as we'll end up seeing.

In fact, what Dostoevsky wants to get across is that sometimes the kind of religious self-sacrifice, the humiliation that someone like Christ endures for the sake of helping other people, sometimes in the real world, when you're dealing with insecure people or severely damaged people or sick people even, the true complexity of human life, sometimes this approach can actually end up just making their lives even worse than they were before they met you.

So let's talk about some examples of this curse of saintliness that go down in the book.

And let's at the same time talk about the other main subject he wants to explore here at a deep level, beauty.

See, Prince Mishkin's entire journey that he goes on throughout this book has been described by some people as one giant conversation about beauty that's going on at multiple different covert levels.

It's been said that every main character in this book has a different way that they think about beauty that then determines a lot about how they're different as people.

The story begins with Prince Mishkin sitting on a a train.

Again, he's returning from the last couple years he's just spent in a hospital where he's been getting treatment for epilepsy.

A parallel to Dostoevsky himself, by the way, who also suffered from epilepsy.

But Mishkin is sitting on this train, and he runs into a guy that's going to be one of the central characters for the rest of the book.

He runs into a guy named Rogozhin.

If Prince Mishkin is the resident Christ-like figure in this book, then Rogozhin's going to be the resident shallow, selfish, kind of cringe character of this book.

Because from the moment Prince Mishkin meets him, he is the definition of someone that's really only thinking about himself.

He speaks very loudly on the train.

He'll have emotional ups and downs.

One sentence he'll say in a calm way.

And the next sentence he'll say is something that needs to be heard now.

And what this comes off as to people then is that he's a very intense kind of person.

He's strong-willed.

He's a kind of person where, if he wants something, doesn't really feel like there's going to be too many moral hang-ups that'll stop him from trying to get what it is he wants.

And if he wanted some evidence for this, he tells Mishkin not long after meeting him that he's on the train that day because he's just inherited a ton of money from his father.

And now what he wants to do is he wants to go and use that money to try to impress this woman he's met through social circles that's named Nastasia.

And Nastasia is going to be another one of the main characters for the rest of the book.

Rogozhin shows Mishkin a picture of this Nastasia.

He talks for a while about how beautiful she is to him.

He says he wants to marry this woman, and strong-willed as he is, and with a bunch of money burning a hole in his pocket, there's nothing that he wants more in this entire world than for this woman right here in this picture to be his.

Now, Nastasia in the book is much more than just this picture, and she's much more than an idea in Burgozhin's head as to how he wants to possess her and claim her as his own.

Through conversations about her, we find out that Nastasia lost her parents at a very early age.

She was taken in by a man named Totsky, who from the day he took her in has been grooming her to become his mistress, which she now is.

The even more messed up part about it is that even though she's the one being taken advantage of and really has no choice but to go along with it, the society around her judges her as the one that's been tainted by this whole situation.

But still, even in spite of this unfair judgment from people, Nastasia, just as a person, turns out to be a force of nature.

She comes off as so smart and charismatic to people, and she still has guys that are lining down the block to try to be with her.

In other words, this Burghosian guy on the train has some serious competition, and he knows this fact.

For example, there's this other guy named Ganya that wants to marry Nastasia, but he wants to marry her because her father, you know, the one that took her in and abused her, he has a ton of social connections that Ganya thinks would be really good for him.

See, for Ganya, the way he sees marriage and love, marriage is more about social mobility than it is about romance or a commitment to someone else.

And to have someone at social events that's so beautiful and so good at speaking, you know, to have someone who's so well connected, to have a woman that checks all the boxes on my list of things that I want her to be.

Well, this makes her seem like a perfect candidate for what he wants from a relationship.

And if these two weren't enough to deal with, and of course, each of these, when we break them down, are going to represent problematic ways of viewing beauty and love that Dostoevsky wants to critique in the book.

If these two weren't enough, well, now we got Prince Mishkin throwing his hat into the ring because he starts to feel love for Nastasia as well.

Because when he sees this picture of her from Rogoshin, when he hears about her past, He can't help but start to see an incredible amount of beauty in this person that goes far beyond anything these other two guys are looking at her as.

So just to recap here, if a love triangle can be something that's hard for people to deal with, then what we have here, folks, is a love quadrilateral with a Jesus-like figure named Mishkin being one of the points of this love quadrilateral.

And in true Dostoevsky fashion, by the way, as chaotic as this can all seem, for him, this is going to be a perfect setting to explore things like beauty and love at a deeper level than he ever really has in any other book.

And for clarity, this conversation he's having goes beyond just how we view people as beautiful.

It applies to everything in the world.

It's just in a book, a love interest like Nastasia is the example he uses to get all this across.

See, to Dostoevsky, when someone says that something is beautiful to them, and then you look at it and you say, oh yeah, I also think that thing is beautiful too.

You can think the two of you are talking about the exact same feeling you're having, just as deep.

But in reality, words can be very misleading when we're trying to sync up our experiences of the world.

And what one person calls beautiful, or what one person describes as love, no matter how passionate their behavior may look around that thing, it could actually be based on things that are surprisingly shallow.

Take Rogoshin as an example of this.

Rogoshin's an intense dude, for sure.

But everything that he thinks is beautiful about Nastasia is based on having no understanding as to who she is more fully as a person.

Think of what he knows about her.

She's a well-formed molecule to him, and now he wants to own her.

He couldn't care less about her inner complexity, how she connects to the network around her, what she loves and cares about.

He doesn't care about any of that.

No, to Rogoshin, he has a superficial understanding of her, which for Dostoevsky leads to a superficial way of describing his feelings as love.

It really is a superficial connection to reality overall.

She is a thing to him, a shiny thing that he wants to possess.

So what naturally happens when this is the level of connection that grounds your relationships?

Well, jealousy, possessiveness, angry, passionate outbursts of entitlement for how this person is owed to you in some way.

That's what happens.

And usually this kind of person will call these sorts of outbursts, oh, it's just how passionate I am about you.

It's how much I love you is the reason I do all this.

Well, this is the kind of behavior we see out of Regosian for the entire book.

And just so we don't kind of interrupt the show at any point beyond this, I want to thank everybody that supports the sponsors of the show today.

First up today is Zock Doc.

Have you ever needed to see a doctor, but you put it off because I'm too busy?

Or, eh, it'll heal on its own.

I know I have.

But with Zock Doc, there's no reason to delay those appointments any longer.

ZocDoc is a free app and website where you can search and compare high-quality in-network doctors, then click to instantly book an appointment.

We're talking over 100,000 doctors across every specialty from mental health to dental, primary care to urgent care, and more.

You can even filter for doctors who take your insurance, are nearby, or just ones that fit your needs.

Once you find the right doc, pick an actual appointment time that works for you and then book it right there on the spot.

Most visits happen fast, often in 24 to 72 hours, but sometimes even the same day.

Listen, I use ZocDoc, and you should too.

Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to zocdoc.com slash philo to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today.

That's z-oc-d-oc-c.com slash philo.

ZocDoc.com slash philo.

Next up today, this show is sponsored by BetterHelp.

As we enter 2025, think of your life as a story that's waiting to be written.

Maybe you're ready for a plot twist, or maybe there's a chapter or two you'd like to rewrite for yourself.

Therapy can be like having an editorial partner, helping you shape the narrative and create a more fulfilling life in however you want to write it.

Therapy has been a big part of my development as a person over the years.

It's not just for people who have experienced major traumas.

Whether or not you've tried therapy before, it can be a powerful tool for learning positive coping skills, setting healthy boundaries, and becoming the best version of yourself.

And with a network of over 30,000 credentialed licensed therapists with a variety of different specialties, BetterHelp is a company that's helped connect over 5 million people worldwide to someone they can talk to.

Just fill out a questionnaire, get matched with a therapist, and switch therapists at any time for no additional cost.

Write your story with BetterHelp.

Visit betterhelp.com slash fill this today to get 10% off your first month.

That's betterhelp, h-el-p.com slash fill this.

And last but not least, NordVPN.

So let's talk about internet privacy for a moment.

Imagine a digital invisibility cloak, like from Harry Potter, for all your online activities.

That's what NordVPN offers.

Look, browsing online shouldn't make you feel like you're being watched all the time.

And with a VPN, you don't got to worry about it as much.

Whether you're getting some work done at your favorite coffee shop or planning that dream vacation, a VPN ensures your personal info stays private and secure.

But it's not just about staying safe.

A VPN also opens up a world of possibilities to you.

If you want to catch shows from other countries or get a deal that isn't available in your country, with a VPN, you can easily access content from offers all around the globe.

NordVPN is the fastest VPN in the world and it's only the price of a cup of coffee per month.

One account can be used on up to 10 different devices, so as you know, even little Timmy's protected while surfing the internet in his nursery.

To get the best discount off your NordVPN plan, go to NordVPN.com slash philo this.

Our link will also give you four extra months plus a free bonus gift.

There's no risk with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee, and you'll help support our podcast.

The link is in the podcast episode description box.

And now, back to the podcast.

Take Ganya next as another example of a perspective on beauty and love.

Ganya thinks Nastasia is beautiful, but only as much as it helps him check the boxes on this list of things he wants from his wife socially.

I mean, sure, she's beautiful now and is great at parties, but what happens when she's not?

What happens if she can't be on all the time?

She goes through a period of her life where she's feeling sad and not very social.

What happens if this father of hers gets caught for sexually abusing his daughter, becomes disgraced, and now being connected to this family becomes a liability for you socially?

What happens with love like this when it's so conditional?

Is this even love?

Ganya would certainly say that it is.

The same way you might be standing in line somewhere, talk to someone next to you and say, hey, this is my friend John I just met.

But is that really a friend?

See, we can throw these words around so casually in everyday conversation, but to Dostoevsky, to truly respect something like love or beauty is to critically examine it and more to get a better understanding of what specific people are meaning when they say it.

And Rogozhin, clearly, to Dostoevsky, when he says he loves Nastasia, all that means is that he wants to possess her.

And Ganya, clearly, when he says Nastasia is beautiful, all that means is that he sees her as one piece of a project that fuels his own ego.

But when Prince Mishkin says that he finds Nastasia beautiful, this is something that's coming from a totally different place.

He didn't fall in love with her picture on the train.

He didn't fall in love with how good she is at social events.

The place he's coming from is more of a tragic perspective, like we've been talking about.

He acknowledges the good and the bad about her and tries to understand her more fully as a person on her own terms.

Yes, she's strong and charismatic on the surface, but he also realizes that she's emotionally wounded from all the things she's been through.

Yes, she's great in conversations a lot of the time, and that's something to admire.

But she also does stuff sometimes that hurts the people around her because her inner experience is actually very conflicted.

She has lower self-esteem.

She's confused as to how to act sometimes.

Now, none of these things to Michigan are seen as black marks on her record.

None of these are caveats next to the person he chooses to love.

No, loving someone in a more Christ-like way is to affirm these things about them and not just to see them in terms of how they benefit you and your own immediate projects.

Prince Mishkin then is able to find her beautiful at this deeper level because he's done the work to understand who she truly is at a deeper level on her own terms.

Now, part of loving her in this way is that he sees the situation that she's in.

He sees how she has multiple people trying to marry her based on stuff that's going to end up poorly for her and whoever she decides to marry.

So what this leads Mishkin to do in the book is to offer to marry her himself.

I mean, from his perspective, here is a beautiful person who's in a bad situation with her fake father who's going to marry someone bad for her simply because they're a little less bad than her current situation.

But nobody should have to marry for those kinds of reasons.

And Mishkin, who it turns out is getting an inheritance soon himself in the book, he offers this money to her as an act of self-sacrifice and self-humiliation.

Meaning, he doesn't want to tie this woman down.

He doesn't want to have kids with her, make her his wife in that sense.

No, in a very Christ-like way, he wants to sacrifice his own finances so that this beautiful person doesn't have to sacrifice her own life.

Now, some modern readers might hear about this move from Prince Michigan, and they might say, wow, wow, Rogozhin sounds like an incel, and that Prince Michigan guy just sounds like a total simp.

This guy isn't a great human being.

This guy's just an idiot.

Well, hence the title of the book again.

See, from the outside, why would anyone ever sacrifice themselves in this way for someone?

It's not healthy, they would say.

It's not setting good boundaries.

He's just going to lose all his material stuff that he's worked so hard to collect over the years.

But for Prince Mishkin, that sort of utilitarian calculation when it comes to people just isn't the way that he's looking at the world.

But what if somebody said, okay, Mishkin, I give you a pass on bailing out Nastasia there, but I disagree with you and your whole take on beauty.

Because isn't beauty, when it comes down to it, ultimately just subjective?

I mean, I get that everyone's not talking about the exact same thing when they say something's beautiful, and I get that some people put more thought into it than others.

But no matter how much thought someone's put into it, when someone looks at a painting or a view from the top of a mountain or a person, and when they say that thing is beautiful, look, all that is, is a subjective aesthetic preference of that person, nothing more.

How can Dostoevsky talk about beauty as though it's anything other than an aesthetic preference?

I mean, Rogozhin may be shallow, for sure, but his view of beauty is just as valid as Prince Mishkin's.

Well, here's the thing.

Dostoevsky doesn't see beauty as simply an aesthetic judgment that someone is making about the world.

It's partly aesthetic, but whenever someone says that something is beautiful, whether they're aware of it or not, to him they are also making an implicit moral judgment about the thing, right along with the aesthetic judgment.

This is sometimes called by people who analyze Dostoevsky's work as his moral aesthetic spectrum of beauty.

To him, when we say that something's beautiful, We're not just saying that we like the photons or the sound waves and how they're being processed by our eyes and ears right now.

We are always noticing something deeper about the thing that connects it to some set of higher ideals that are embedded in a network that we are a part of as a person.

Notice how a newborn baby, if you looked at it from purely an aesthetic perspective, it's oftentimes something that's very ugly.

Sorry, any newborns, if you're listening to this.

And yet we find them beautiful for what they represent to us at a higher level.

Notice how something aesthetically beautiful can be seen as ugly.

Triumph of the Will, it's a movie from the 1930s made in Nazi Germany, influenced heavily by Nazi propaganda, pretty widely considered to be a breakthrough moment for cinema in terms of the stuff it did aesthetically.

But for so many people, they would have a really hard time ever seeing it as beautiful because of what it represents and connects to beyond just the mere aesthetic appearance of the thing.

To Dostoevsky, beauty and morality are inseparable, no matter how many people may throw around the word beautiful in a surface-level way as they go throughout their life.

Think of how this applies to Brigozhin and Ganya and their relationship to Nastasia.

Does Rogozhin think that Nastasia is beautiful?

Or is he really just talking about something like the form and symmetry of her face?

Does Ganya really think she's beautiful?

Or is he more talking about something like she's useful to me right now or she makes me feel good about myself?

See, once we get beyond the superficial engagement with the world, because things we think are beautiful are always connected to something we see as ethical, then it stands to reason for Dostoevsky that one way to think of the ethical goals that we set for ourselves is that it's a type of beauty that we're striving for internally.

Beauty and ethics, in other words, are far more connected than most modern people realize.

And what this means for him, an interesting conclusion that he draws, is that somebody's ability to spot beauty in the world and their ability to strive for beauty in their own character, these are really two skills for Dostoevsky that are incredibly linked together.

And this is why, when Dostoevsky is creating a character that's a morally bad person, he will often make them incapable of seeing beauty in the world around them.

The two often go hand in hand for him.

See, if Raghoshian and Ganya in the book represent this superficial framing of beauty, this egoist, utilitarian, rational framing of the world that limits our understanding of things to how they can be manipulated to benefit me and my own projects, if that's what they represent, then being able to see the beauty in the things and people around you, to practice seeing a more full picture of what they are and how they co-constitute the world you're in.

Well, for Dostoevsky, that becomes a gateway into this more immediate connection connection with being that we've been talking about for quite a while on this show.

What I'm saying is, for Dostoevsky, just like Prince Mishkin did with Nastasia, doing the work to uncover the beauty that's in the world around you becomes another one of these exercises that's built around self-emptying.

And think about this point in the context of everything else he's been going for in his work.

Remember, crime and punishment was about the power of confession.

How to confess to something is to acknowledge the limitations of your own ego and to consent to your place in a higher network, self-emptying.

Notes from Underground, among other things, was about love and how Lisa's unconditional embracing of the underground man and all his flaws, her love, this self-emptying became a direct attack on his whole existence and all the barriers he put up to keep every relationship he has transactional.

Demons was about the self-emptying process of taking true responsibility for ourselves, of not just outsourcing who we are to a set of isms that can demonically possess us.

Well, here we are reading The Idiot, and Dostoevsky's saying that beauty, or at at least the ability to uncover the beauty in things, requires a similar type of self-emptying.

That to see beauty is to have the ability to self-empty, take a step back, and to see the thing you're looking at on its own home ground, as Nishitani might put it.

And again, it's in this way that for Dostoevsky, someone's ability to see beauty in the world has a direct relationship to their level of moral development.

I mean, no person that is obsessed with themselves all day long can ever step outside themselves long enough to see the beauty in the world around them.

They'll often just think the world is boring or horrific.

More than that, is it possible to be a passive nihilist that thinks everything around you is completely meaningless, but still be someone who sees immense beauty in everything?

Dostoevsky would say no.

And steering into the beauty of things and their full complexity, again, this becomes an exercise he thinks is worth spending a lot of time on.

See, beauty, for Dostoevsky, is something that's always connected to truth and goodness.

That beauty, truth, and goodness co-inhere each other, as it's said.

That these three things, while they may seem like they're very different things on the surface, they're all actually pointing towards the same thing, that same thing in this case being God.

Now, on the surface, that may sound like the biggest load of BS you've ever heard in your life.

Like from an atheist perspective, that could sound like the pastor down at your local church who doesn't know what he's talking about, just taking three words that sound really religious and wonderful that everybody approves of, and then trying to get a monopoly over them by saying they're all really just God.

But Dostoevsky's not the first one to be saying this kind of stuff.

He's continuing a long tradition in Christian theology and philosophy, specifically in the Russian Orthodox variety that he's a part of.

And it's a tradition that for many reasons will group these three things together into a trio, beauty, truth, and goodness.

Which brings us to the quote we talked about at the beginning that's often associated with this book, that beauty will save the world.

What does that mean?

If beauty, truth, and goodness are all things that co-inhere each other, then when you see this quote, you might think, well, can we just interchange the words there in that quote of his?

If beauty will save the world, then couldn't we also say that truth will save the world or goodness will save the world?

Why does Dostoevsky think beauty holds a special place here?

Well, think about what truth and goodness do that beauty doesn't.

You try to show somebody the truth about something, and if the truth is inconvenient to them, or it's uncomfortable, they're likely to just deny the truth.

We see this all the time.

The truth becomes antagonistic to people.

Similarly, when it comes to goodness, I mean, to show someone goodness and to have it show them that the way they're behaving is not good in some way, well, that becomes antagonistic as well.

Like you're just going around trying to moralize at people about their behavior.

But if beauty is something that's ultimately connected to these other two, well, beauty isn't abstract or moralizing.

Nobody feels attacked when they're told that they can see more beauty in the world.

And more than that, beauty is something that just hits you viscerally.

It has the power to make you feel love and awe towards people or things around you.

It has the power to captivate someone at that immediate experiential level, even it turns out when they're about to be put to death.

Think of the beauty that Dostoevsky noticed in that moment.

Meaning, beauty is not something that exists theoretically.

Beauty is phenomenological.

Beauty has the power to change you.

It has the power to direct you towards a fuller understanding of how the world is connected.

And it's in this sort of unique accessibility and redemptive power.

It's in this way that Dostoevsky believes that beauty can save the world, especially considering for him the specific kind of world we're in, a very superficial world that he thinks needs saving.

This is why Prince Mishkin in the book is meant to embody the positively beautiful man.

And it's the reason why his actions, as in touch with true beauty and love as they may be, his actions just make him look like an idiot to the people in the world he's in.

But to be called an idiot by a society that's fundamentally sick may in fact be the greatest compliment that anybody could ever get.

Look, we can definitely see how beauty at this level may have had a redemptive effect on some of the characters in this story.

And to return back to the events of the book, we're hit by the complexity of the point that Dostoevsky is going for in it.

That yes, there are superficial versions of beauty that lead people in their lives to have superficial connections with people.

And yes, there's a deeper understanding of beauty and love that leads to a deeper connection with people.

But even when this is done at this level of depth, There is still no guarantee that you're ever going to be helping anyone in the world while you're doing it.

Because consider a couple other classic moments where Prince Mitchkin feels the curse of sainthood while he's living in the real world.

So when he offers to marry Nastasia and he tells her the loving, kind intentions behind why he's doing it, well, this should make, in theory, pretty much anybody just jump for joy at how nice he's being.

But when Nastasia, someone modeled after a real person with a history that makes her question her own worth, when she hears about what he wants to do, well, she doesn't feel worthy of love like this.

Truth be told, she kind of thinks this guy's an idiot if he really wants to do something like this.

But even if he's coming from a totally good place, she wants to take the money.

But at another level, this kind of love is something that she's never experienced before, and it's something she has a hard time shoring up with everything else she knows about the world.

So far from this being something that makes her feel happy and calm, this marriage proposal from him sends her into a tailspin.

She accepts the proposal.

Then she goes back on it and decides she wants to be with Rogosian instead.

Then she thinks about it, goes back to Michigan.

Then she goes back to Rogosian.

Point is, this act of self-sacrifice doesn't end up making the world a better place at all.

It just ends up creating more problems for all the people involved.

And this gets deeper, by the way.

Because when it comes to Rogoshin, being in the presence of a Christ-like figure, being such a morally shallow person himself, and then being just one person competing with Prince Mishkin for Nastasia's attention, well, all these things combine together in his own psychology, and it just breeds resentment towards Mishkin as a person.

Jesus' presence in the actual real world wouldn't be all about performing miracles and making people start singing the gospel.

Yeah, Rogozhin's not grateful to be around this walkin'-talkin' Jesus figure.

He hates this goody two-shoes guy that in his mind is just trying to steal his possession and nostasia.

Being around moral strength to a deeply insecure person just ends up making him angry.

And when you combine that with his strong will and his lack of moral hang-ups, Rogozhin, eventually in the book, just tries to kill Prince Mishkin.

Now in the story, Mishkin has an epileptic seizure right before Rogozhin can do it.

Rogoshin gets scared at that point and decides to run away.

And on the other side of waking up from this seizure, Prince Mishkin, being a saintly kind of person, treats Rogozhin with forgiveness and love.

There's no need to report you to the police.

I forgive you for what you have done here, my child, says Jesus.

Fast forward to later in the book, though, spoiler alert, but this same Rogozhin guy that may have been picked up by the police if Mishkin wasn't so forgiving, When Nastasia, for the 12th time or something, has gone back and forth between him and Mishkin, when his possessiveness takes over and he can't stand losing this shiny object yet again.

Well, he kills Nastasia, to him the ultimate expression of possessing her.

Dostoevsky ultimately thought that he failed at presenting the positively beautiful man.

And if you read his accounts of what it was like to write this book, he was under a ton of financial pressure at the time.

Most of it, he was traveling around Europe, trying to pick up the pieces for his family after his brother died.

He actually had two epileptic seizures, apparently, in the process of writing the last couple chapters of the book with Rogozhin and Nastasia and all that.

I mean I guess one way of measuring the intensity of a book is how many epileptic seizures you have while writing it.

That said, one thing I think most people agree he succeeded at here is in showing how the ideal of sainthood, when we try to live in a way that experiences things on their own home ground, It's not just that these ideals will come up short in the real world sometimes.

It's that if we don't have a vigilant, tragic perspective towards the things in the world that matter to us, then even something done out of genuine love or generosity can can be something that destroys us or the other people around us.

What I also think he does well is to show that beauty is a gateway towards understanding how connected things are, and is thus a way that leads people towards compassion for the things around them, things they increasingly realize co-constitute them.

Now, both of these points are going to be crucial to talk about the last of the five great novels by Dostoevsky.

It's the book over the years that's been most requested out of any of them.

It's a book that's considered to be the culmination of his work.

It's also the last book he wrote before he died.

It's called The Brothers Karamazov, and we'll be talking about it next episode.

Hope you enjoyed this one.

Patreon.com/slash philosophize this if you value the show as a resource and want to help make it available for everybody.

As always, thank you for listening.

Talk to you next time.