I'm a little skeptical about karma myself, or least without the inclusion of some explicitly religious ideas. Some people commit murder, never regret it, benefit from the murder, and never get caught. Unless there's an afterlife (and for HIndus that's a matter of reincarnation), what goes around does NOT come around.
Well, Woody Allen certainly did not believe in it. His movie Crimes and Misdemeanors is based on the idea that it's possible to get away with murder.
ReplyDeleteA brilliant exposition of the logical consequences of atheism. It's an atheistic rebuttal to Crime and Punishment.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Some years ago there was a discussion on this blog as to whether there were any "great" works of atheist art. Not, that is, art by atheists (of which there is quite a lot), but rather art about atheism - with atheism as its subject matter.
ReplyDeleteI recall that the movies of Woody Allen came up, and specifically Crimes and Misdemeanors. Other suggestions were Lenin's Tomb in Red Square, the novels of Ayn Rand, and certain works by H.G. Wells. There was more, but those are all I can recall for now.
Regarding Crime and Punishment:
ReplyDeleteIn the novel, Dostoevsky pinpointed the dangers of both utilitarianism and rationalism, the main ideas of which inspired the radicals, continuing a fierce criticism he had already started with his Notes from Underground.[28] Dostoevsky utilized the characters, dialogue and narrative in Crime and Punishment to articulate an argument against Westernizing ideas. He thus attacked a peculiar Russian blend of French utopian socialism and Benthamite utilitarianism, which had developed under revolutionary thinkers such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky and became known as rational egoism. The radicals refused to recognize themselves in the novel's pages, since Dostoevsky pursued nihilistic ideas to their most extreme consequences. Dimitri Pisarev ridiculed the notion that Raskolnikov's ideas could be identified with those of the radicals of the time. The radicals' aims were altruistic and humanitarian, but they were to be achieved by relying on reason and suppressing the spontaneous outflow of Christian compassion.
What I find interesting is that Dostoevsky's purpose was to demonstrate the utilitarianism underlying the radicals' program were opposed to Christianity and that the utilitarianists did not recognize that Dostoevsky was talking about them. I agree with Dostoevsky that the 2 are incompatible.
My priest (Fr. James) and I have been discussing Crime and Punishment. I read it in college when I should have been studying my chemistry textbooks. It's interesting now that I'm old to reread Dostoevsky again.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing is when we read favorite parts of the book to each other and explain why that part is meaningful.
Here's an interesting question raised from this discussion.
ReplyDelete"Is it possible to separate socialism from utilitarianism ?"
I think Christianity is opposed to utilitarianism. Who disagrees?
Well, since you brought up Dostoevsky, he says in The Brothers Karamazov that it is impossible to separate Christianity from socialism. But then, in his novel The Possessed, he equates revolutionaries with demons.
ReplyDeleteThis book review disagrees
ReplyDeleteSummary of Dostoevsky’s Philosophy
Dostoevsky was well-versed in two fundamental philosophies: Orthodox Christianity and Utopian Socialism. Each had its own distinct and highly calibrated understanding and reason for suffering, as well as its remedy. An assessment of his works, on the other hand, casts questions on whether Dostoevsky’s ideology was ever properly implemented. His works scream loudly and fiercely against the ideals and principles claimed by Socialism; they shout out loudly and passionately against the doctrines and ideas of Socialism. He did not, however, accept all aspects of Russian Orthodox Christianity. Within his works, Dostoevsky underlined the relevance of humanist values and the social application of Christian love. In contrast to conventional Orthodoxy, he did highlight that misery is a part of life.
However, I don't think utilitarianism is the same, necessarily, as socialism.
https://orthodoxnet.com/blog/2013/07/dostoevsky-fear-the-christian-socialist/
ReplyDelete“The socialist who is a Christian is more to be feared than the socialist who is an atheist.” ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov)
Part I. Book II: An Unfortunate Gathering
Chapter 5: So Be It! So Be It!
However, I don't think utilitarianism is the same, necessarily, as socialism.
ReplyDeleteNow that I think about it, it seems to me that you can't have socialism without utilitarianism although it may be possible to have utilitarianism without socialism. If socialism necessarily entails utilitarianism then it is anti-Christian.
Without a clear definition of socialism, debates about it descend into meaninglessness.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
ReplyDeleteWhile no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[16] social ownership is the one common element.
If all forms of socialism insist on social ownership, then what is best for the most people is also best for the owner (society) regardless if individuals are killed in the process, right?
So then, don't all forms of socialism entail utilitarianism?
What I love about Dostoevsky is he is able to take me mentally into a completely different world. When I read Crime and Punishment I go from middle-class California 2022 to 19th century Saint Petersburg. He immerses my imagination in that world and then adds the psychological drama of conscience and murder. It's the society, the darkness, the evil, and the redemption are what capture me.
ReplyDeleteDude,
ReplyDeleteYou live in California in 2022. It's darker, more evil, and sociologically more corrupt than St Petersburg in the 1800's...and redemption seems even more impossible since Christianity is so over.
A good storyteller with that as a background could stomp Dostoevsky. But of course no one would publish him.