"But man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic." — Zeus
I would like to discuss Notes from the Underground. A curious "novel". — David Mo
"But man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic."
On what grounds have Dostoyevsky made such a remark? Is there at all any truth in this?
Also, I wonder if we could have a discussion on Dostoyevsky's Notes From The Underground in general. — Zeus
In a way then Doestoevsky is painfully wrong in claiming that logic does something like "distort the truth intentionally" and that to "deny the "evidence" of his senses only to justify his logic" is bad. — TheMadFool
Yes, Dostoevsky is wrong. The senses do not contradict logic, but some abuses of logic do. In opposing Chernyshevsky's narrow positivism he identifies reason or science with this kind of positivism. Notes from the Underground is dedicated to attacking Chernyshevsky's utilitarianism in the name of a "divine utilitarianism". He summarizes utilitarianism in two propositions:
Men always do what they think is best for them.
Reason can show what is best for every man.
Then Dostoevsky shows a man who, in the name of freedom and passion, chooses what is not better for himself or for others.
He extrapolates this case to every man.
And he concludes that reason=logic is not only wrong but bad.
This is the summary of Notes from the Underground.
What comes next is the justification that only belief in Jesus Christ can make men good. This is what I called "divine utilitarianism". — David Mo
Well, as I wrote in another thread, what could possibly be better than logic or even reason itself? — TheMadFool
"Better" in what sense? Epistemological, moral...?
Dostoevsky's epistemology is very weak. His political theology is a disaster. His ( relatively ) better chances are in ethics. — David Mo
Perhaps the original quote was saying something like Hume's ironic assessment : "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions".Background: Against rationalism and science. In behalf of irrational belief in Christ. — David Mo
Well, if reason = logic is bad there must be a sense in which this is true. If so, what could be a better substitute within this sense? — TheMadFool
It's the æsthetic principle, as the philosophers call it, the ethical principle with which they identify it, 'the seeking for God,' as I call it more simply. — Dostoevsky, Ibid.
.Reason has never had the power to define good and evil, or even to distinguish between good and evil, even approximately; on the contrary, it has always mixed them up in a disgraceful and pitiful way; science has even given the solution by the fist. This is particularly characteristic of the half-truths of science, the most terrible scourge of humanity, unknown till this century, and worse than plague, famine, or war — Dostoevsky, Ibid.
"But man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic."
On what grounds have Dostoyevsky made such a remark? Is there at all any truth in this? — Zeus
"But man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic."
On what grounds have Dostoyevsky made such a remark? Is there at all any truth in this?
Also, I wonder if we could have a general discussion on Dostoyevsky's Notes From The Underground. — Zeus
It seems that Post-Enlightenment Science gradually but deliberately abandoned the philosophical search for moral truths, in order to focus on facts that were more stable than debatable ethical & metaphysical principles. Thus Science became amoral, much to the chagrin of moralizing Priests. At first, Science dealt mostly with passive non-human objects, while Priests had to manage passionate human subjects. But, as time went by, scientists began to extend their amoral agnostic methods to social topics, including the mechanistic theories of Social Darwinism --- which infuriated the Priesthood, and Dostoevsky.Nevertheless, what is notable is that another bastion of reason, philosophy insofar as it is what it claims it is - rational in the truest sense of that word - isn't heavily involved in religion-bashing. Yes, if what I hear is correct, philosophy has taken turn towards materialism and that spells bad news for religion, but there's nothing really anti-theistic in philosophy per se. Philosophy doesn't take sides or if I were to be more accurate, philosophers are as happy to fight for religion as they are to fight against it. — TheMadFool
The problem is different for me: How can a rational man enjoy the writings of a fanatical believer in God and the Czar, such as Dostoevsky? Can aesthetic pleasure be separated from ideological fanaticism? — David Mo
I would like to know on what data you base this statement. My experience is the opposite. At the beginning of the 19th century theodicy was omnipotent. If an applicant for a professorship declared himself an atheist, he was barred from admission, and if a professor declared himself an atheist, he was expelled. At the beginning of the 21st century, theodicy is a non-existent or secondary subject in almost all faculties of philosophy. In Europe at least. Generally, religious philosophy is hidden in other subjects such as the history of religions or metaphysics (which is also in decline).Philosophy doesn't take sides or if I were to be more accurate, philosophers are as happy to fight for religion as they are to fight against it. — TheMadFool
Philosophy is opposed to religion in a fundamental sense: autonomy. Whatever philosophical method is defended, it must be based on the free examination of arguments on the basis of autonomous reason. There it clashes head-on with religiosity, which always puts divine norms above human ones. Every attempt to rationally demonstrate the religious faith has failed. That is why priests do not look kindly upon a rebellious philosophy that pretends to be based on itself. And if they don't take measures, it's because they no longer have the power they had in the 19th century.So, modern philosophy, following the impartial agnostic principle, allows us to argue for both sides of the science/religion divide - — Gnomon
Dostoyevsky the writer transcends Dostoyevsky the thinker. — SophistiCat
With systems and abstract deductions comes a sense of order and the illusion that we understand exactly how to deal with the world. — Possibility
Also in the paragraphs where he accuses the Jews for their demonic power of hatred towards the Russians in particular and Humanity in general? Do you enjoy these paragraphs? Also in the poems in which he manifests a doglike submission to the divine presence of the Tsar? — David Mo
Can aesthetic pleasure silence moral outrage? — David Mo
I would like to know on what data you base this statement. My experience is the opposite. At the beginning of the 19th century theodicy was omnipotent. If an applicant for a professorship declared himself an atheist, he was barred from admission, and if a professor declared himself an atheist, he was expelled. At the beginning of the 21st century, theodicy is a non-existent or secondary subject in almost all faculties of philosophy. In Europe at least. Generally, religious philosophy is hidden in other subjects such as the history of religions or metaphysics (which is also in decline). — David Mo
It seems that Post-Enlightenment Science gradually but deliberately abandoned the philosophical search for moral truths, in order to focus on facts that were more stable than debatable ethical & metaphysical principles. Thus Science became amoral, much to the chagrin of moralizing Priests. At first, Science dealt mostly with passive non-human objects, while Priests had to manage passionate human subjects. But, as time went by, scientists began to extend their amoral agnostic methods to social topics, including the mechanistic theories of Social Darwinism --- which infuriated the Priesthood, and Dostoevsky.
Although the Enlightenment opened a split between Moral philosophy and Natural philosophy, the rapid worldly success of expanding mechanical knowledge seemed to make the philosophers jealous with "physics envy". They got tired of recycling the same 2500-year-old ethical questions. So, some philosophers turned their focus from the subjective mental aspects of humanity (faith) to their objective actions (behavior). Thus, psychology abandoned Freud's attempts to read minds and interpret dreams, and were pleased to make rapid progress with Behaviorism, which allowed them to manipulate people without worrying about what they were thinking. This was, as you said, "a turn toward materialism" --- treating men as machines --- and away from spiritualism --- men as embodied spirits.
Ironically, the "physics envy" of rational philosophers has recently allowed them to find clues to spiritual questions in the paradoxes of Quantum Theory. So, modern philosophy, following the impartial agnostic principle, allows us to argue for both sides of the science/religion divide --- as exemplified in this forum. My own philosophy is not religious, but it is also not anti-theistic. :cool: — Gnomon
if so then science is circling back towards religion - scientists are on a path that will take them back to the priests they abandoned long ago. — TheMadFool
I don't know of any scientist who links quantum mechanics with religion. There are pseudoscientists, New Age mystics and theologians who try.
To say that there is an open path where quantum mechanics and religion can go together has no basis. It's important not to create confusion.
Anyway, Dostoevsky was not opposed to social Darwinism. He made a parody of a peculiar Russian Darwinist. He was against any attempt to link religion and science because he thought that science had perverse results in morality. — David Mo
It is one thing to defend science and another to believe that science explains everything and that there is no more rationality than science. This is a position that is rarely found among philosophers and is very common among forum scientists. — David Mo
Can aesthetic pleasure silence moral outrage?
— David Mo
I don't know if I would call the experience of reading Dostoevsky an esthetic pleasure. He was not a fine stylist in the usual sense (for that try someone like Turgenev). There is a wicked pleasure to be had in his caustic humor, but when Dostoevsky is in his more serious mood, reading him is about as pleasurable as a hallucinatory fever. — SophistiCat
Pierre Simon Laplace one replied, to the question of god's role in his science, "I had no need for that hypothesis" and that is the essence of the attitude of science towards religion - not anti-religious but simply non-religious. — TheMadFool
The only info I could find on D's anti-semitism was from a letter where he responded to a Jew who accused him of anti-semitism: — BitconnectCarlos
I haven’t said anything about ‘science’ in particular. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.