Abstract
At the core of Dostoevskij’s philosophy and theology lies a concept according to which the Truth (Istina) is antinomical: it contains both a thesis and its antithesis without expectation of synthesis. This concept can be traced to Eastern Patristics. After Dostoevskij, the theory of antinomies was elaborated by 20th century Russian religious thinkers such as Pavel Florenskij, Sergej Bulgakov, Nikolaj Berdjaev, Semën Frank, and Vladimir Losskij. Their ideas help us to understand that Dostoevskij’s dialogism, made famous in its secular guise by Bakhtin, has a theological underpinning. Dostoevskij’s exposition of conflicting truths should therefore be seen not as a case of irresolvable contradiction or paradox but as an organic wholeness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Caryl Emerson has noted the “beneficence” of Bakhtin’s readings, how Bakhtin remains relatively aloof toward the vertical axis of Dostoevskij’s world and the heroes’ religious epiphanies, rarely analyzing scenes of radical transfiguration. See Emerson (1995).
The idea of pairs of opposite statements is introduced in Chapter 6 and various pairs are examined in Chapters 7 and 10 of Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione (1963).
See Florenskij, “Dogmatism i dogmatika” (1994b).
Although Losskij considers the antinomism to be an idiosyncratic feature of the Eastern theology, it can also be found in the West, specifically in Nicholas Cusanus’s (15th century) writings. In his Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance) he elaborates on the idea of a coincidence of opposites. See Nicholas of Cusa (1981).
According to the intellectual historian Randall Poole, Bakhtin’s thought has connections with both the Eastern tradition of the unknowability of God and with Kant’s “unknowable thing in-itself.” The Eastern and Western apophatic trends are merged in Sergej Bulgakov’s Svet nevechernij, which devotes a whole section to Kant. Although there is no evidence that Bakhtin was familiar with Bulgakov’s book, he might have been familiar with negative theology through Sergej Askol’dov. The apophatic moment in Bakhtin’s philosophy of consciousness, Poole argues, reveals itself in the unknowability of the self to itself. See Poole 2001, p. 159.
Originally published in 1914 in Bogoslovskij vestnik, edited by Florenskij.
On Florenskij’s essay “Reason and Dialectic,” it is worth noting one more parallel concerning authorial position. Florenskij asserts that the “I” of the author who has chosen dialectic as his creative method must be personal and simultaneously supra-personal—“wholesome and generic” (celostno-kharakternyj), “concretely-general” (konkretno-obshchij), “symbolically-personal” (simvolicheski-lichnyj) (1996b, p. 140). He states: “Let us call this I ‘methodological’”. And since dialectic implies those who δια–λέγονται, who converse (pere-govarivajutsja), who talk (raz-govarivajut), to this methodological I corresponds the methodological WE, as well as other methodological personae dramatis dialecticae. It is they who bring into action certain dia- (pere-, raz-), i.e. methodological environment, which merge its personal energies with the object (1996b, p. 141). In this regard, it is significant that The Pillar and Ground of the Truth is written in the form of letters to a friend. Florenskij’s definition of the authorial position is very similar to Bakhtin’s, according to which authorial position in Dostoevskij’s novels is located on the same plane as the opinions of his characters. To be sure, as a person, Dostoevskij had certain views and beliefs, in which he was either consistent or inconsistent. But in his novels, his authorial “I” is not only personal; it is also supra-personal.
Jakov Golosovker (1963) claims that in The Brothers Karamazov Dostoevskij polemicizes with Kant and refutes his treatment of antinomies. In response to Golosovker, Steven Cassedy points out that we do not possess any proof that Dostoevskij was acquainted with Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. It should be noted, however, that the likelihood of Dostoevskij being acquainted with the translation of this work into Russian is very high. This treatise came out in Russian in Mikhail Vladislavlev’s translation in 1867. Vladislavlev (1840–1890) was Dostoevskij’s friend, co-author, and close relative. They first met in 1861 in the house of Mikhail Dostoevskij, whose daughter Vladislavlev married in 1865. In mid-1860s, Vladislavlev regularly contributed the magazines “Vremja” and “Epokha” published by Fëdor Dostoevskij and his brother Mikhail. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason does not figure in the inventory of Dostoevskij’s personal library. This fact may be explained by the very tense relationship between Dostoevskij and Vladislavlev after Vladislavlev married Dostoevskij’s niece. See Dostoevskij (PSS 28/II, pp. 294, 330). In other words, even if Dostoevskij was acquainted with the major work of the major German philosopher of the time, he might not have wanted to advertise this fact. Dostoevskij’s home library did contain Vladislavlev’s book Logika: obozrenie induktivnykh i deduktivnykh priemov myshlenija i istoricheskie ocherki logiki Aristotelja, skholasticheskoj dialektiki, logiki formal’noj i induktivnoj, published in 1872.
If we take into consideration the structure of the novel, the Book Five: “Pro and Contra” can be considered as a thesis, and Book Six: “The Russian Monk” as an antithesis, not vice versa as Cassedy suggests.
References
Aristotle (1963). Categories and de interpretatione, trans. with notes by Ackrill J.L., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics, C. Emerson (ed.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Berdjaev, N. (1989). Stilizovannoe pravoslavije. Tipy religioznoj mysli v Rossii, Vol. 3 of his Sobranie sochinenij (pp. 543–566). Paris: YMCA-Press.
Bulgakov, S. (1999). Svet nevechernij: sozercanija i umozrenija, Vol. 1 of his Sochinenija v dvukh tomakh. Мoskva: Iskusstvo.
Cassedy, S. (2005). Dostoevsky’s religion. Stanford: Stanford California Press.
Clark, K., & Holquist, M. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dostoevskij, F. (1972–1990). Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v 30 tomakh, Leningrad: Nauka.
Dostoevsky, F. (1990). The Brothers Karamazov, trans. By Pevear R. & Volokhonsky L., New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Emerson, K. (1991). Russkoe Pravoslavie i rannii Bakhtin. In: Bakhtinskii sbornik: Bakhtin mezhdu Rossiei i zapadom, Moscow, (Vol 2, pp. 44–69).
Emerson, C. (1995). Word and image in Dostoevsky’s worlds: Robert Louis Jackson on readings that Bakhtin could not do. In: E. C. Allen & G. S. Morson (Eds.), Freedom and responsibility in Russian literature, essays in honor of Robert Louis Jackson (pp. 245–266). Evanston, Illinois.: Northwestern University Press; [New Haven]: Yale Center for International and Area Studies.
Felch S. M., & Contino P. J. (Eds.). (2001). Bakhtin and religion: A feeling for faith, Evanston. Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Ferrari-Bravo, D. (1990). More on Bakhtin and Florensky. In: C. Thomson (Ed.), Mikhail Bakhtin and the epistemology of discourse (pp. 111–121). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Florenskij, P. (1994a). Florenskij P.A. Avtoreferat, Vol.1 of his Sochineniia v chetyrekh tomakh (pp.37–43). Moskva: Mysl’.
Florenskij, P. (1994b). Dogmatism i dogmatika, Vol.1 of his Sochineniia v chetyrekh tomakh (pp. 550–570). Moskva: Mysl’.
Florenskij, P. (1996a). Kosmologicheskie antinomii Immanuila Kanta, Vol. 2 of his Sochineniia v chetyrekh tomakh (pp. 3–33). Moskva: Mysl’.
Florenskij, P. (1996b). Razum i dialektika, Vol. 2 of his Sochinenija v chetyrekh tomakh (pp. 131–142). Moskva: Mysl’.
Florensky, P. (1997). The pillar and the ground of the truth, trans. by Yakim B., with an introduction by Gustafson, R.F., Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Florenskij, P. (1999). Ob orientirovke v filosofii (filosofiia i zhiznechuvstvie), Vol. 3(2) of his Sochineniia v chetyrekh tomakh (pp. 359–487). Moskva: Mysl’.
Florovskij, G. (1990). Religioznye temy Dostoevskogo. In: V. M. Borisov & A. B. Roginskij (Eds.), Tvorchestvo Dostoevskogo v russkoj mysli 1881–1931 (pp. 386–390). Moskva: Kniga.
Frank, S. L. (1983). The Unknowable: An Ontological Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, trans. by Jakim, B., Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Golosovker Ia., E. (1963). Dostoevskij i Kant. Razmyshlenie chitatelja nad romanom “Brat’ja Karamazovy” i traktatom Kanta “Kritika chistogo razuma”. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR.
Jastrow, J. (1900). Fact and fable in psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lossky, V. (1973). The mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. Ltd.
Mihailovic, A. (1997). Corporeal words: Mikhail Bakhtin’s theology of discourse. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Nicholas of Cusa (1981). On Learned Ignorance, trans. and an appraisal of De Docta Ignorantia by Hopkins, J., Minneapolis: The Arthus J. Banning Press.
Pétrement, S. (1973–1974). Dualism in philosophy and religion. In: P. P. Wiener (Ed.), The dictionary of the history of ideas: studies of selected pivotal ideas, (Vol. 2, pp. 39–44). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Pool, R. (2001). The apophatic Bakhtin. In: S. M. Felch & P. J. Contino (Eds.), Bakhtin and religion: A feeling for faith (pp. 151–176). Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Pseudo-Dionysius (1987). The Divine Names. In his Complete Works (pp. 47–132), trans. by Luibheid C., New York: Paulist Press.
Scanlan, J. (2002). Dostoevsky the thinker. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Tamarchenko, N. D. (2001) Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva Bakhtina i russkaia religioznaia filosofiia. Moskva: Rossiiskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations, trans. by Anscombe G. E. M., Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Acknowledgement
I am most grateful to Caryl Emerson, whose natural dialogism has been my inspiration during the past six years.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blank, K. The Rabbit and The Duck: Antinomic unity in Dostoevskij, the Russian religious tradition, and Mikhail Bakhtin. Stud East Eur Thought 59, 21–37 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-007-9019-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-007-9019-6