Rebellion
Dostoevsky creates debate almost exclusively through conflict of some sort. The characters in his most important novels are essentially materializations of particular ideas. In Notes from Underground (1864), Dostoevsky is very skeptical in his approach to science and more particularly, what we refer today to today as 'scientific progress'. He rejects western rationalism, believing it to be too dogmatic and arbitrary: « I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too » (Notes from Underground, p.44) [1].
He denounces the self-proclaimed objectivity of western sciences that create axioms and arrive at un-nuanced, indifferent conclusions which inhibit true freedom of conscience. To put it differently, he’s saying: two plus two is four whether you like it or not, but is this what your freedom depends on? Science conceals the doubt that constantly tugs at it in order to establish itself as irrefutable and universal. This doubt is the driving force of characters in Dostoevsky’s novels and is what taunted him throughout his life[2].
This quandary is what pushed him to explore the possible forms of rebellion. In Demons (1872), Dostoevsky explores the theme of political engagement and expresses strong skepticism towards utopic socialist movements. He reproaches them for demanding material means to survive rather than spiritual means to live. He believes that this can only lead to yet another form of subservience of the masses to a new atheist class who imposes its values on society. The final outcome of the Bolshevik revolution unfortunately proves him right. Although not an ideologist, Dostoevsky valued above all else the intrinsic value of the individual, as an independent conscience which has the potential to exist beyond political or religious institutions[3].
Several years later, many writers and philosophers identified him as the founder of existentialism. Every character evolves with the narration and is defined only by his or her actions[4]. They are who they chose to be, and are not definite or pre-established. Raskolnikov, Alyosha, Ivan: all of them are shaped dialectically throughout the novels through admiration or rejection, but always in suffering. The characters embody to absurdity the human condition and how it suffers from free will. As Sartre put it: « Man is condemned to be free » (Being and Nothingness, 1943).
References and further reading:
<references>