Thursday, December 18, 2008

Trust Thyself



Trust thyself: Every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine Providence has found for you; the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events. Great men have always done so and confided themselves childlike to the genius of their age, betraying their perception that the absolutely trustworthy was seated at their heart, working through their hands, predominating in all their being.
– Ralph Waldo Emerson (“Self-Reliance”)

Would Dostoevsky agree or disagree with Emerson? Explain ...

8 comments:

Brenda said...

think he wouldn't because in Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky shows himself through his main character, Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov does trust himself at first, he believes that he is right to kill the old women for the good of society. In believing he is right and following through with the act, he shows that he trusts himself and allows his thinking to work through his hands, not taking into account society's general belief that killing is wrong. Yes, he did hear the idea in the bar, but he also reasoned it out hiimself and went through with it.But then, after the act, Rask is met by society's outrage at the killing and he begins to feel guilty. He begins to second guess his action and feel more and more guilty. I think it is through this doubt and guilt that Dostoevsky is telling us that he believes trusting yourself completely is not the right thing to do becasue the mind can reason anything and maybe Raskolnikov should have taken into account morals set forth by society.

Pauly P said...

Well, I don't really know Dostoevsky personally, so I don't think that I can make such a judgement. Based on "Crime and Punishment" and the character of Raskolnikov, I would have to say no because Raskol isn't going with the flow and he isn't willing to accept his place in society the way Emerson believes. Raskolnikov is deliberatly overstepping moral law to transgress against society, so, of course, he(Raskol) would not believe in staying put in the stratum that "providence" has put him in. He certainly would not beleive that all "extaordinary" men found thier place by obeying the law either (the way Emerson believes). It is also true though that Dostoevsky often creates characters that hold beliefs completly contrary to his own, as Raskol does. Dostoevsky ended up dying renouncing all of his initial radical beliefs and embracing Christianity and absolute monarchy. This would mean that Dostoevsky, but not Raskolnikov, would agree with Emerson. Is this some sort of a trick question?

Cianflone said...

Trick question, Paul? Well, perhaps. I think you're definitely on to something, though, by differentiating Dostoevsky's perspective from Raskolnikov's ...

Anonymous said...

I think it can foremost be easily established that Raskolnikov the character would agree with Emerson's credo of "self-reliance" in many ways. His theory of extraordinary and ordinary people and the means by which he isolates himself from society are two examples that reflect two of Emerson's ideals: 1.) To trust thyself 2.) Providence plays some role in an individual's life. Raskolinkov despises society at times and appears to be very independent, although many times he is very dependent on others. He also trusts his own instinct and ideas, in which he decides to act upon his sense of moral superiority. However, when the question comes to deciding if Dostoevsky, Raskolnikov's creator, agrees with Emerson, it's not that cut and clear. Of my reading of the novel thus far, I don't think this answer is one hundred percent discernible yet. I don't think I know enough about the entire to say for sure at this moment. Nevertheless, I do think that Dostoevesky's Crime and Punishment poses the question not "To trust or not trust thyself," but the question "When and how to trust thyself." Dostoevsky appears to both contradict and support Emerson's self-reliance plea.

Natalie Battistone said...

I've been thinking about this one for a while actually. I've been driving up to Michigan all day...so I've had a lot of time. =)

I totally see where Paul is coming from and sort of kind of agree.

I definately think that Raskol and Dostoevsky would have differing views on this one.

At first Raskolnikov is really flustered by his dreams of killing the pawn broker. He really isn't sure what he wants to do. He feels out the situation, he doesn't know whether or not to trust himself. Finally, after much inner turmoil he gets up the nerve to committ the murder and then regrest it. His consience is much stronger than he anticipated as well as the bounds of morality. He completely goes off the deep end trying to rationalize and determine what happens next.

I feel similar to Brenda. That Dostoevsky wouldn't quite agree with Emerson. He realizes that the mind can be tricky and listening explicitly to oneself can blind a person to reality and the repercussions of their actions. Dostoevsky, like Paul said, ended up renouncing his beliefs and conforming to society after almost having his life taken for going against the grain.

I think Dostoevsky recognizes the difference between having a strong sense of self (which includes conscience and consideration of society's morals) and being rashly stubborn about how you feel.


He realizes that it isn't just you that is affected by your actions. Yes, its important to listen to yourself but at the same time...think about the results.

I think he'd UNDERSTAND where Emerson was coming from, but not completely agree.

Kristen Stewart said...

I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one and say that dostoevsky would agree. As much as I like raskolnikov, i think that Dostoevsky is trying to show that he's wrong. He's trying to agree with emerson by showing the negative effects of the other side. Raskolnikov does not accept that he is not an extraordinary man and ends up crazy and hurting the people that he loves. Dostoevsky is saying that if he had been like these men he would NOT have done that. Those men that are extraodinary know that they are and are allowed to betray people. However, rasknolnikov is not this person. Just like Dostoevsky shows differences in his religious views and those of his characters to prove the good that his christianity, he does the same thing with this philosophy.

dovilev said...

i have absolutely no idea if dostoevsky would agree or disagree with that statement. rodya would at first, and might even reconsider it at the end. but authors don't always show themselves through the main character, for example, rodya=atheist dostoevsky=jesus freak. dostoevsky could be mocking the idea by installing it in rodya and then making him seem like an utter fool (oh i like that word) or he could just randomly have mixed up his own ideas into rodya (those of supreme humans) that happens. so unless i meet dostoevsky (i know he's dead) not i nor anyone else can really say wether he would or not.

KatieL said...

I completely agree with Kristen. By showing that Raskolnikov has lost is mind and is potraying every negative quality you could think of, Dost. is trying to portray the bad in society. The line that "great men have always done so and confided themselves childlike to the genius of their age..." applies directly to Crime and Punishment. Great men is the same as extraordinary men which relates back to Raskolnikov's theory. Within Dostoevsky's novel, I believe that what Emersonn is saying is everything that Raskolnikov isn't. He really is not an extraordinary man at all which all catches up to him in the end. Dostoevsky writes Raskolnikov as a man that does not accept the place the divine Providence has found for him.