Which isn't a theme exclusive to that novel. But look, "realistically" and "truthfully," in the real world, that's not the a good metric. People can be good yet still flawed, hold all sorts of dichotomies in themselves, in their thoughts, and in their behaviors without ever warranting titles such as "hypocrite" or "bad person." I know people who want the best for their kids and go out of their way to try and give them every opportunity they can, but at the same time feel like supporting public schools so other kids can have similar opportunities shouldn't be their responsibility. I know people who are kind, generous, and charitable, and extremely concerned for the happiness and the well being of people in their lives, but at the same time argue against social safety net programs. I know people who have very strong sense of right and wrong and do their best to live by those ideals, but are quick to judge and condemn anyone who can't keep pace with them. Even those with the kindest of hearts and the best of intentions and who want nothing but good things for the world and the people in it have their flaws, short comings, and blind spots. Dostoevsky is allowed his world view. I bet it's complex and compelling, I bet it's poetic. But I don't think it reflects reality. People are good, not because they choose to be in times of convenience or in times of adversity, but because they want to be. That's the true metric. Everything else is circumstance. It's up to each of us, both as individuals as well as collectively, to do what we can to help empower others to be good, to do the right thing. Hence the Catch 22.A large, recurring theme in that novel is that, to truly live a life of goodness, you must know and acknowledge everything that the cynical man believes and decide, simultaneously, while acknowledging that, to love the world anyway.
Dostoevsky is a poet. But if that quote is exemplary of his philosophy, then I wonder if he really knows what makes someone "good." Wanting to be a good person is what makes someone a good person. It is the very beginning, the spark, the catalyst, that can drive their hopes, their thoughts, their words, their actions, their whole being towards goodness. For most people though, we cannot expect them to develop goodness through sheer force of will. It has to be developed and nurtured and brought forth, by educating people about what is important and just, by encouraging them and inspiring them through our actions and examples of goodness in the world that surrounds us, and by empowering them by not only creating an environment that promotes good behavior, but by creating opportunities for them to make choices that allow them to express their good will, their generosity, their kindness, their humility. Goodness in a person is more than just the product of personal choices, it is a reflection of the world they live in. It's incumbent upon all of us to help build that world.
I'm not getting defensive. I'm saying that what makes a good person is more than just the choices they make and I never said that people aren't allowed to be flawed or make bad choices. In fact, just the opposite. By saying that all that a person requires to be good is the desire to be good, they're given all the space in the world to be flawed and make mistakes because their choices and actions and mistakes and flaws haven't even been factored into the equation, yet. Eventually, their actions have to reflect their desires, but like I said, the desire is the catalyst. Philosophically, we're on similar pages but not. Being good and loving isn't about active or passive choices, because those are conditions of living we all go through whether we want to be good or not. The same is true of feelings of frustration and of attempting things and brushing up with failure. But that's part of the point. The frustrations and failures? We need those in our lives. They keep us humble, they make us cautious. More importantly though, they make us forgiving, so that we can first learn to forgive ourselves for the mistakes we make and learn to try to right our wrongs, and in doing so we learn how to forgive others and help them express contrition and grow as individuals. And thus, we further shape the world in a mindset that encourages people to be good, because instead of making people feel like they're condemned to their failures and flaws, we give them the opportunity to try again.
Here's the issue we're coming across. I'm not talking past you, you're talking past me. I'm not worried about what Dostoevsky thinks at this moment and I'm not worried about what Kierkegaard thinks at this moment. If I did, I'd pick up their books, read about what they have to say, and form my own opinions on their opinions. What occupies my mind, in this, are your thoughts and feelings on the matter, you, Odder, as a person. I've been trying to tease it out of you, first by bringing up the concept of what makes a person good. Then by bringing up the concept of why we fall short of our intent to be good and what why it's important we try to overcome it. Then by bringing up the concept of social contentedness and our responsibility to ourselves and each other to shape our environment to empower others to be good. Then by bringing up the issue of why we struggle, why we fail, why we suffer, and why those hardships matter. I figure sooner or later detachment could be brought up, if you really wanted to have this conversation with me. There is a lot of depth to this conversation to explore, because I've had these conversations before and I love exploring these issues, but instead you say this . . . Instead of having a conversation, you keep on leaning back into your original argument, instead of branching out, you're outright saying "I'm gonna be dismissive of your thoughts on the matter and consider them invalid until you read Dostoevsky (and now Kierkegaard)." I don't want to be "indulged" I want to have a conversation. I want to think "Wow, this person here on the internet has some really interesting points" and I want you to think "Wow, this person here on the internet has some really interesting points." But we don't get to have that, because apparently, in order to earn your respect I have to read Dostoevsky, as if that matters more than being an individual with his own books he's read, his own thoughts, his own experiences with triumphs and hardships, his own worldview. I mean, legit? I could try and talk about r/politics and where that anger comes from and what we can do about it. But why would I want to at this point? You seem to be more interested in championing the thoughts of dead men, however insightful and compelling they might be, than carrying a conversation with a live human being who is more interested in what you have to say. That's not healthy friend, not in the slightest, and it's part of why the world is what it is today. I'm not saying you're an r/politics kind of person, but I will say part of the reason people in r/politics are so angry is because they're more concerned about being able to crow about their worldviews than they are trying to actively engage and connect with the world. I could read Dostoevsky, but I don't want to. I got all the time in the world for that. I want to talk to Odder, because that's here and now.And regardless of whether or not you ultimately decide you agree with the Existentialist definitions of "Faith" and "Love," you will need to come to terms with them before you can decide if you agree with them or not. Otherwise we'll just keep talking past each other after a certain point.
I sincerely hope that I'm not coming off as condescending here when I say that you haven't even yet grasped what I'm talking about - the idea of Kierkegaard's "Knight of Faith" and Dostoevsky's "Active Love" are complex philosophical ideas that take a rather large amount of effort to comes to terms with, and I am doing them a bit of a disservice by indulging you here instead of just telling you to study the course that I linked five-ish posts ago.
No. You start with the abstract and drill down. We're going in circles because you don't want to drill. If you're telling me to go read Plato and Descartes, then no, you don't want to have a discussion. What you're saying is "I'm right. I don't value your thoughts. Go read these guys to see why I'm right. Conversations with you aren't worth it." Personal stuff edited out Honestly? If it wasn't for my wife and loving friends? I'd be one of those "deaths of despair" statistics you read about in the morning news and then tut tut to yourself about how the world is so cruel. I don't need to read Dostoevsky, because my life might as well be one of his novels. I want a conversation because these are concepts I care about. You want me to validate your worldview. So now there's no conversation, not because I'm mad at you, but because we can't agree on the conditions as to how this conversation should take place.Here's the problem with philosophical discussion, though - if you just discuss things in the abstract you'll be limited on where you can go and who you can learn from. We're already going in circles here
I'm happy to have those conversations with you even though I could just tell you to start with Plato and Descartes.
Because the arguments you are making? They're the kind of positions you take because you haven't lived them
I'm not mad. But honestly? You're being so dismissively condescending and assumptive of me that it's honestly baffling. I'm overwhelmed. Look at me, I'm not over here assuming and stating your positions for you so you have to waste your time taking them apart. Dude. Seriously? First of all, massively insulting. Second of all, I'm not the one who approaches conversations like "in order to have a conversation with me, you should read some Baha'i Writings, The Quran from cover to cover, a little bit of Tich Nach Hahn, some Saint Augustine." I can easily say "this is what I think and why" and when asked, expand on those thoughts. If you were to ask "Where did you get such an idea" I can often cite chapter and verse. I mean, the fact that you say "I can't talk with you about these things until you read these authors first" hints that you have less of a concrete grasp on your world view than I do on mine. Furthermore, I never asked you to expand on Dostoevsky, or existentialism, or anything of the sort. You just keep pushing the subject. Mercy. I mean, on I can go, but honestly? To be blunt? I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here, but make you understand the reality of the situation? You're being a condescending asshole. Like, massive, to the point of where everything you just typed is less of a conversation and more of an experiment in surrealist prose. I'm baffled. Utterly baffled. When you come here with your intro philosophy 101 student ideas of the nature of "goodness" and ask for debate without any references, you are being asked to be indulged without needing to learn.