This article demonstrates the unique role of the Russian philosophical tradition in the formation of an individual’s self-consciousness and attempts to overcome the limitati...

Fyodor Avgustovich Stepun was one of the involuntary emigrants of 1922.1 He became particularly well known in the Federal Republic of Germany through his autobiographical writings, which for him were a form not only of remembering, but also of philosophizing. The first section of this article is devoted to the topic of “Community and totalitarianism.” In various works in the 1920s and 1930s Stepun sought to identify the mental causes of Europe and Russia’s precipitous decent into totalitarianism. (...) He saw these in the demonic absolutizing of one-sided worldviews as a primary factor. The counter-model for him was the concept of “all-unity,” as can already be found in Vladimir Solovyov. The second section is dedicated to the context of “Dialogue and culture.” Dialogicity is always the opposite of totalitarianism and is also founded in the concept of “all-unity.” The concluding section, entitled “Experiencing and remembering,” is devoted to Stepun’s autobiographical writings and his notion of “experiencing” (perezhivanie). (shrink)

In this article, the author examines the work of Boris Pasternak, primarily his novel Doctor Zhivago, in the context of his Marburg experience and Kantian ideas as the basis of his moral-aesthetic...

The manifestation of the significance of geographic specificity in the formation and development of society is the most crucial research vector in the study of socio-philosophical doctrines. The tradition of conceptualizing the meaning of geography in the history of Russia was significantly contributed by Sergey Solovyov and Vasily Klyuchevsky. Fyodor Stepun also correlated geographic conditions and social practices within the philosophy of landscape, which he successfully integrated into his socio-philosophical doctrine. This research paper is undertaken to reveal the (...) essential principles of Stepun's social philosophy and to determine the features of his argumentation, which he used to interpret the mechanism of the socio-cultural process. Comparing the landscapes of Europe and Russia is Stepun's favorite method to focus on entirely different systems of social practices formed in different natural conditions. The limited/unlimited opposition is the foundation of Stepun's landscape philosophy. Stepun emphasizes that religion plays a significant role in forming the existence of social beings. Religion creates and maintains the unity of society, without which it is impossible to include geographic space in social practices. Religion forms a collective social subject from a multitude of individuals and collective formations and from their various activities - a unity tradition: a culture that has its strategy for the social development of the landscape. Stepun believed that the loss of religion's functionality as an instrument of social cohesion leads, in the long term, to the death of culture. Orthodox politics will help in the conditions of Russia's infinite space to ensure social cohesion and thus incorporate the landscape into social area. This policy knows the unique role of religion in socio-cultural development. Thanks to the Orthodox policy, it is possible to integrate the Russian landscape into the economic system effectively. (shrink)

The economic crisis has created a basically new situation. Russia should reduce its geopolitical ambitions, which have emerged in the last few years, as well as its national budget. The illusions of might, based on the possession of expensive commodities that everyone needs, are fading. There is no doubt that in a couple of years the demand for energy resources will grow again. But until then, Russia will have to go through another period of difficulties, whose outcome is not clear. (...) Depending on its outcome, Putin's epoch will be viewed either as a time of lost opportunities, or as the eve of a real revival of Russia as a modern great power. (shrink)

This article discusses the meanings of “creativity”—tvorchestvo—as we encounter it in Georges Florovsky’s thought, first and foremost in his magnum opus Ways of Russian Theology (1937). Tvorchestvo had by this time become a key concept in Russian pre-revolutionary and later émigré thought. It is associated above all with Nikolai Berdyaev’s philosophy, but it also plays an important role in Sergei Bulgakov’s philosophy of economy. In both cases, it stands for the human response to divine creation. Moreover, and somewhat less famously, (...) it was also an epistemological concept in the religious idealism of Vladimir Solovyov as well as in Russian neo-Kantianism (Fyodor Stepun), where it stood for the active, synthetic faculty of our minds. Florovsky, meanwhile, used it as a description of how we should relate to the patristic heritage, but also to history more generally: Our attitude should be “creative,” active, as well as both backward- and forward-looking. This “return to the Fathers” was a central component of Florovsky’s neopatristic program, but, interestingly, in order to conceptualize this return, Florovsky took over a concept from traditions that his own approach otherwise firmly criticized. By analyzing Florovsky’s use of tvorchestvo, this article addresses the broader question as to the differences and parallels between the neopatristic movement and the legacy of the Russian Renaissance (Silver Age). (shrink)

The author uses the conceptual and methodological apparatus of social constructivism, perspectivism and phenomenology to discuss the phenomenon of the invisible enemy in the context of modern warfare. The concept of the invisible enemy is explicated in the works of Vladimir Solovyov, Lev Karsavin, Ernst Jünger, Fyodor Stepun and other authors. The article substantiates the legitimacy of the semantic expan­sion of this concept and the possibility of its application to a number of objects. It reveals such personifica­ tions (...) of the invisible enemy as a victim and a violent actor, a fighter and an intelligence officer, a collective and an individual subject. The relationship between the traditional identity of the combatant («the killing one – the one to be killed») and the anthropological structure «the seeing one – the visible one», which is being destroyed in modern wars, are also exposed. The inversion of the categories «visible» and «invisible» in the context of military activity is substantiated. (shrink)

This article analyzes the similarity of the revolutions of 1917–1918 with earlier revolutions in Russia and Germany. Several common characteristics are noted: “theatricality”, the connection of politics with Bohemianism, and politics’ concealed connection with art. The revolution presents a theatre stage on which representatives of the Boheme play their dreams out in politics. Furthermore, the article investigates methodological pluralism, which constitutes the philosophical foundation of Bohemianism. Finally, the author distinguishes two types of Bohemian politicians: the first type, a “fantasist, dreamer, (...) poet,” is represented by Kurt Eisner, whereas the other type, that of a “multi-souled artist” is represented by Fyodor Stepun. (shrink)

This article explores the question of literary criticism in the context of interactions between literature and philosophy. The best example of such interaction is the legacy of the early twentieth century Russian literary critic, Yuly Aykhenvald. This article gives a brief overview of his works of literary criticism and their thematic repertoire. Aykhenvald’s philosophical background, professional education, and personal connections with renowned Russian thinkers, including Vladimir Solovyov, Fyodor Stepun, and Semyon Frank, are included in an evaluation of Aykhenvald’s (...) position on one of the most discussed relationships in Russian culture—that of Russia and the West. The issue of relations between the West and Russia acquired a particular urgency after the October Revolution of 1917, when Russian culture split into two realms—Soviet and émigré. This article analyzes Aykhenvald’s position on this issue, which is present in both his philosophical responses to the Eurasianists and in his essays written on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of Pushkin’s birth. Throughout the mid-1920s Aykhenvald wrote that Pushkin was the ideal of spiritual and aesthetic balance. In Pushkin’s work Aykhenvald found the embodiment of his own historiosophical aspirations—the harmonious fusion of Russia and the West. (shrink)

The subject of the article is the problem of the crisis of ideals generated by the European Enlightenment and the Modern era, as interpreted by Russian thinkers of the first third of the 20th century. Building on the conception of Semyon Frank, the author analyzes the relationship between the socio-political ideals of the Enlightenment in the Russian version and false “idols” that led Russia and Europe to an unprecedented escalation of evil in the early 20th century, is analyzed. Particular attention (...) is paid to the assumption that the ideals of democracy as a true power of the people, as a result of uncritical imple­mentation, lead to revolutionary violence and further reproduction of tyranny. Two ver­sions of democracy are considered: according to Frank, one of them is genuine, based on the idea of disinterested service to the truth, and the second is “false”, oriented to­wards a totalitarian utopia, fundamentally hostile to freedom. The author also analyzes Frank’s views on the phenomenon of the “idol of culture”, which is based on the idea of linear progress. According to Frank, linear progress cannot prevent Russia and Europe from falling into barbarism. Moreover, it even significantly contributed to that break­down. It is concluded that Frank as a Christian philosopher and political thinker became one of the relatively few (along with, for example, Fyodor Stepun and Vladimir Weidle), but all the more significant conductors of the Russian cultural tradition in Europe and the European cultural tradition in Russia: that is, a genuine personification of the phe­nomenon of a “Russian European”. (shrink)

This article addresses the famous 1910 debate between Vladimir F. Ern and Semyon L. Frank centered around the problem of identifying the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy. The debate was a continuation of Ern’s debates with Russian philosophers associated with the international journal Logos (Sergei I. Hessen, Fyodor A. Stepun, Boris V. Yakovenko, and others). The author shows that Ern’s understanding of an original Russian philosophy is organically related to his overall philosophical doctrine. As for Frank, his views (...) during the 1910s on the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy were different in nature. It is worth noting that in the 1920s articles written during his émigré period, Frank’s views on the distinguishing features of Russian philosophy undergo a decisive change. Frank’s new ideas about Russian philosophy turn out to be extremely close to those of his late opponent, both on the whole and in the details. At the same time, Frank’s overall philosophical views do not undergo as dramatic a change and develop in a fully evolutionary mode. The author attempts to identify the reason for these changes. (shrink)

The article provides a comparison of two intellectual accounts of experiences in the First World War—From the Letters of an Artillery Ensign by the Russian philosopher and writer Fjodor Stepun and The Storm of Steel by the German essayist Ernst Jünger. The aim of this article is to reveal similarities and differences between the “optics” of Jünger and Stepun who are reporting one and the same event but deal with two different images of the Great War.

The article provides a summary of “Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky and European Culture” International Scientific Online Conference, held by the International Laboratory for the Study of Russian-European Intellectual Dialogue of the National Research University Higher School of Economics in cooperation with the Dostoevsky’s Moscow House Museum Center. At the conference, leading experts in various fields of the humanities presented various reports on the mutual influence of Dostoevsky and European culture. Research attention was paid to the problem of the influence of (...) the Russian writer on the creative development of European philosophical and artistic thought. The speakers demonstrated the history of translations of Dostoevsky’s novels into foreign languages. The participants of the conference also reflected the influence of the concepts of Western European philosophy, literature, and culture on the fiction and religious thought of the writer. A number of conference reports were devoted to the cultural and philosophical problems of Dostoevsky’s works. The researchers examined the religious and philosophical dialogues of the novel Demons, paying special attention to the controversial image of the protagonist of the novel – Nikolai Stavrogin. Leading Dostoyevsky specialists turned to the littlestudied aspects of his journalism, defining the role of the “Jewish question.” The conference presented literary critics’ interpretations of Dostoevsky’s novels, the history of screen and musical adaptations of his works in European and Russian art. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis article deals with Dostoevsky’s controversial concept of love and its relation to that of Nietzsche. Despite many parallels, Dostoevsky’s thought on love can be viewed as a criticism, avant la letter, of Nietzsche’s claim to having unmasked the Christian idea of neighbour-love ‘for God’s sake’ as an illusion. Yet, in addition to neighbour-love, Dostoevsky also entertains the idea of ‘furthest love’, love for the Übermensch of the future. The article examines Dostoevsky’s experiments with love’s different forms and argues that (...) the question underlying these explorations is whether Christian love can positively impact the world or whether it is doomed to be ineffectual, even destructive. It is argued that, while Dostoevsky’s novels often expose love’s fallibility and even its impotence, they nonetheless manifest the quest for a love capable of redeeming the world. It is shown how Dostoevsky considered one’s understanding of love to hinge on anthropological views, such as belief in the immortality of the soul or the degree of human freedom and responsibility; and how the reality and practice of love, in turn, influences both who we are and understand ourselves to be.​. (shrink)

The paper discusses Dostoevsky’s insight into the oxymoronic metaphysics of the Russian revolution. The keys to it are contained in two of Dostoevsky’s works. The first is Demons with Kirillov’s idea of self-deification in death intended to fill the gap left by the proclaimed absence of God. The second is Notes from the House of the Dead, where Dostoevsky depicts the Russian peasants as people for whom even such notions as freedom, happiness and honor are expressed in monetary terms. The (...) Russian revolution was created by people of Kirillov’s persuasion; yet this ideal was offered to people whose teleology was firmly rooted in the earthly life. The interpenetration of these worldviews resulted in the initial victory of the revolution, but the dominance of the peasant Weltanschauung with its earthly teleology ultimately led to the collapse of the communist project a few decades later. (shrink)

This article compares the works of Lev Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky as interpreted by the philosopher Lev Shestov. The author shows how Shestov analyzes Anna Karenina and War and Peace in light of...

The article examines the historiosophical reflections of F. I. Tyutchev, presented in his treatises, letters, poems, and substantiates the idea that Tyutchev does not proclaim slogans of either Slavophil or Westernist doctrines, but creates an original imperial ideology. Tyutchev views Russia as an equal and integral part of Europe, linking the existence of the empire with the development of the European spirit in Russia. The main criterion for the existence of the empire is unity. If it does not exist, then (...) the state as an empire cannot exist. Tyutchev treated Orthodoxy as a historiosophical category. He bases his concept of the historical process on the traditions of Eastern Christianity and the legacy of the Byzantine Empire. In the idea of an empire based on Christian principles, Tyutchev sees the best system of statehood. For Tyutchev, the Russian people and Orthodoxy play a major role in the transformation of the world. In the concept of state and power, the categories of Christian ethics are especially important for Tyutchev, which, in his opinion, were not really relevant for the upper strata of society and representatives of the Russian government. The poet calls power "godless", claiming that it does not come from God, but is based on its material power, without recognizing a higher Divine authority over itself. The reason for the "godlessness" of the authorities was the separation from the Russian people and their national traditions and the departure from the historical past of "Holy Russia". This, from Tyutchev's point of view, is the main existential problem of Russia. Tyutchev's concept of empire was not a reproduction of the realities of the political life of Russia in the XIX century, but was an attempt to answer how the state should be built. Tyutchev's ideal of the Russian state is based on a society united by a single Christian faith. (shrink)

This edition contains the correspondence between Paul Tillich and his friend Fedor Stepun, a sociologist and philosopher of religion. Tillich and Stepun had been colleagues at Technische Universität Dresden in the mid 1920s. The correspondence covers the period between 1934 and 1964. The early letters address the situation in Germany during the onset of National Socialism: the so-called Röhm-Putsch, the Kirchenkampf, the institutional changes in the university system and, later, the dismissal of Stepun as professor in Dresden (...) in 1937. After a hiatus of several years, the correspondence continues in 1946. The correspondence shows the search for a new positioning in the postwar years, from the perspective of the émigré Paul Tillich and Stepun, the expert on Russia, who from Munich observed the political developments of the Cold War with great concern. Stepun consistently proves an acute critic of the political theologian Paul Tillich. In particular, Tillich's Christology and his program of religious socialism met with his friend's fierce criticism. (shrink)

In his book Iris Murdoch: The Saint and the Artist, Peter J. Conradi suggests that “a task for critics today would seem to be to understand the indebtedness of her demonic, tormented sinners and saints and of the curious coexistence in her work of malevolence and goodness, to the dark tragi-comedies of Dostoevski.”1 In his 1986 essay “Iris Murdoch and Dostoevskii,” Conradi goes even further to argue that Fyodor Dostoevsky has been “unnoticed by commentators, a hovering or brooding presence (...) for at least two decades.”2 Both here and in his book Fyodor Dostoevsky, Conradi demonstrates “convergence” through a number of remarkable similarities: the parallels between Dostoevsky’s holy... (shrink)

The paper discusses the perception of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s work by Yuly Aykhenvald (1872–1928), a famous literary critic of the first quarter of the twentieth century. It shows that Aykhenvald’s attitude toward Dostoevsky had undergone a certain evolution from a rejection via demands to “overcome” him to his recognition as one of the “spiritual leaders” of the thinking Russia alongside Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy. Yet Aykhenvald still had some controversy with Dostoevsky, above all over philosophy of history. The ques­tion of (...) Russia’s destiny and its relation to the West is addressed by Aykhenvald following the same algorithm that is used in the article by Thomas G. Masaryk (to which Aykhen­vald was reacting), namely through the prism of and in dispute with Dostoevsky. The pa­per proves that Aykhenvald focuses not on interpreting or analyzing Masaryk’s ideas, but on refuting the views of the Eurasianists and that Eurasian ideas are the very philosophi­cal context that serves as a background for his argument with Dostoevsky. In refuting Dostoevsky’s views on Europe and justifying his own historiosophic view of the entire world as a unified Europe, Aykhenvald eventually comes to the paradox that Dostoevsky, being the “denier of Europe”, is the “intercultural cross-link” that ties Europe and Russia even more closely together. In this way, Dostoevsky’s work turns out to be a starting point for Aykhenvald’s own historiosophic framework, which brings him closer to both Russian interpreters of the Silver Age (Vikentii V. Veresaev) and the European philosoph­ical and political tradition (Thomas G. Masaryk). (shrink)

The article discusses the characterization of the visualization of visible reality in Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The author suggests that semiotic and legal analysis should be used to understand the meaning of the color code of the novel. Semiotic discourse reduces the ambiguity, uncertainty, and expression of the color code to a conscious, discrete, and conditioned meaning of individual colors. Legal analysis helps to better understand the main idea and other aspects of the novel, encoded in colors. (...) Psychological, personal associations, and symbolic methods are used to reveal direct and indirect meaning of the colors used by Dostoyevsky. The basic characterization of colors proposed by Goethe is employed as a key for color decoding. The article also establishes the correlation of the color code of the novel with the colors of the flags of the Russian Empire and the German Confederation. The message and meaning of the same colors of these national flags are contrasted. The interpretation is complemented by the author’s drawings, which enable to visualize the color code that stores and transmits information about national identity. (shrink)

The relation between aisthesis and interiority manifests in Wittgenstein’s account of the subject and his private language argument. But it is also an overlooked leitmotif in Dostoevsky’s novels—one of Wittgenstein’s favorite authors, and in W.G. Sebald’s work—who was inspired by Wittgenstein’s philosophy. This book reflects on the role literature can play in answering the philosophical question of an adequate presentation of intention and pain.

The article surveys various potential sources for Dostoevsky’s knowledge of the Faust legend, examines a range of arts, from literature to music, and focuses on the novel of Friedrich Maximilian Klinger as an important influence for Dostoevsky as the writer interacts with Faustian themes in The Brothers Karamazov on both literary and meta-literary levels. Klinger’s novel is considered in terms of the problems of epistemology and the limits of human cognition, problems rooted in finiteness as a defining characteristic of human (...) nature. In the literary worlds of Klinger and Dostoevsky, the attempts to establish limited human cognition as unlimited, essentially divine, and capable of grasping the entire picture of the existence of both the individual human being and humanity as a whole cause unforeseen and tragic consequences. The article treats the Faustian musical scene in The Adolescent as a variation on the relevant scene in Gounod’s Faust, exploring similar epistemological problems. The article claims that Dostoevsky grants his characters and readers the same degree of freedom in exploring the nature of their cognitive processes and in choosing the voice they decide to listen to and follow. (shrink)

A MAN IS FREE AS HE IS THE IMAGE OF GODLY FREEDOM. FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY’S FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT FREEDOM. The article presents Fyodor Dostoevsky’s considerations of freedom based on both The Brothers Karamazov and The Idiot. The writer shows, that dealing with own freedom is one of the greatest tasks in human life and man's future fate depends wholly on how he copes with this task. Freedom is a fundamental concept in a philosophical anthropology of the Russian novelist. According (...) to his grasp of the problem of evil this is a man, who appears the source of all misery, which he brings upon himself, among which not atheism but false understanding of God is the greatest one. (shrink)

One of the trends of modern mass perception of Dostoevsky, denial and controversy with a classic, is described in the article. The work also contains a brief history of this tradition of perception. From the point of view of its structure, any renunciation of Dostoevsky or any polemics with him is founded on the rejection of the ‘fantasticality‘ of his poetics or the identification of the writer with one of his heroes. The paradigm of this receptive tradition was defined in (...) the first lifetime responses about Dostoyevsky. In the twentieth century, the controversy with Dostoevsky turned into a purely ideological plane. New rethinking of the writer began only in the middle of the century. The article gives notoriety to the unknown until recently historical source - youth diary of Romain Nazirov, who later became the largest Russian literary scholar. The most recent element of negative perceptive tradition of Dostoevsky - is rejection of him as of boring cultural stamp. It is noteworthy that in recent decades the trend of mass and elite culture is largely identical in relation to Dostoevsky . From this perspective, the article analyzes the series of mass and elite interpretations of Dostoevsky in Contemporary Culture. (shrink)

The thematic structure of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel ‘Netochka Nezvanova‘ is revealed in the article through the system of leitmotifs rising to elementary semantic oppositions. The topical opposition of high and low is traced throughout the semantics of space. The periphery of the story - the estate of a landowner, a music-lover, and its sacral centre - the ’sunny’ home of Prince H. in St. Petersburg are brought together by the main character’s lifelong way. In Yegor Efimov’s biography, this is (...) predetermined in the same way as the initiation of a fairytale hero is predestined. It should be emphasized that the unique temporal structure of ‘Netochka Nezvanova‘ is analyzed in this aspect for the first time. Like many other Dostoyevsky’s works, this particular story displays signs of ‘inoculations‘ from different poetic systems and other texts which form a complicated system of intertextual connections. The leading motif of the story belongs to the circle of the basic mythopoetic topic: Man’s temptation by Satan. The demon’s intrusion into Efimov’s life is especially well traced in his friendship with the Italian conductor and in inheriting the latter’s violin. The history of the violin is accompanied by the marginal demonic background created by the stable mythologem - ‘the Satan’s violin‘. Within the borders of mythopoetic concept of music, an artist is a medium, a person who has the power to influence other people in the name of good or evil by supernatural forces. In this respect, the life story of Efremov the violinist can be compared to the adventures of a mythological ‘cultural hero‘ presented as a non-stop chain of events: meeting a magical sorcerer, receiving a magic weapon from him as a gift and the ensuing sequence of dreadful ordeals. Yegor Efimov’s life story is shown in the article against the background of the mythopoetic concept of music, as Man’s temptation by Satan, and in the historical and cultural context, as shattering a romantic myth about ‘a demonic artist‘. (shrink)

SUFFERING, ANUISH, DISTRESS: THE DESTRUCTIVE EROS IN THE WORK OF FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY My paper discusses the idea of destructive eroticism in the work of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Eros is posited here as manifesting in two, opposite forms: the Christian virtue of agape consisting in a humble service to a beloved person, and the Greek eros which in Dostoevsky is transformed into destructive love, one steeped in egoism and sadistic-masochistic impulses. I want to argue that destructive eroticism is for Dostoevsky (...) of greatest interest, while love conceived as agape serves in his work only as a minor, normative projection, a tribute paid to the Russian Orthodox worldview. In my analysis I refer to Georges Bataille’s philosophical thought to combine the pattern of unfulfilled and ruinous love in Dostoevsky with his conviction that irrational aspects of man, his penchant to evil and transgression can be seen as a measure of the intensity and authenticity of one’s spiritual life. Contrary to religious interpretations of Dostoevsky, I argue that the author of Crime and Punishment prefers to cast his protagonists into the limbo of suffering, anguish and distress and therefore he ultimately rejects the possibility that human beings can content themselves with a mediocre life in which existential complacency is bought at a price of resignation from dangerous passions of which one could say that were “worth a life”. (shrink)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky expressed a strange and surprising sentiment through one of the characters of The Brothers Karamazov. A dying young man named Markel declares: Every one of us has sinned against all men, and I more than others." He later says: "...every one of us is answerable for everyone else and for everything." Markel's absurd claims have engendered many reflections on the nature of suffering and what it means to be responsible for someone else's suffering. The world has no (...) shortage of pain and evil; what exactly is the relationship between suffering and responsibility? Markel's declarations press forward a question that drives this essay collection: how responsible should we consider ourselves for the suffering of the world? This volume is a collection of essays that struggle in various ways to understand and respond to several philosophical, theological and practical problems. In each case the authors grapple with issues surrounding suffering, immorality, evil, exploitation and oppression. The contributors share a clear concern for the ways that philosophers and theologians should respond to the problems of suffering and evil. They also share a conviction that these remain intense and central problems for philosophy and theology. Evil is an obstacle for belief, for morality, for hospitality, and for hope. This book struggles to address the particular and strong sense of responsibility that falls on Christians when it comes to understanding and, more importantly, responding to the problems of suffering and evil in the world. (shrink)

In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s influential novel Notes from underground, we find one of the most memorable characters in nineteenth century literature. The Underground Man, around whom everything else in this book revolves, is in some respects utterly repugnant: he is self-centred, obsessive and cruel. Yet he is also highly intelligent, honest and reflective, and he has suffered significantly at the hands of others. Reading Notes from underground can be a harrowing experience but also an educative one, for in an encounter (...) with what at first seems unfamiliar and disorienting we can awaken the ‘stranger within’. Dostoevsky’s work, if we are ready for it, can shake us from our slumbers and allow us to see that what appears to be strange may in fact be deeply familiar to us. (shrink)

Fyodor Dostoevsky is renowned as one of the greatest psychologists in world literature, but what we know about the origins and the workings of the human mind has changed drasti­cally since the late nineteenth century. If Dostoevsky was such a sensitive reader of the human condition, do his insights hold up to modern research? To judge just by the issue of the psychology of confession, the answer appears to be: yes. The work of Michael Tomasel­lo indicates that the human (...) conscience evolved in order to make people obey group norms. From this I draw the proposition that confession should be best directed to the group as a whole, and not to an individual. Judging by Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment and an assortment of characters in The Brothers Karamazov, this appears to be exactly how confes­sion works in Dostoevsky’s novels: sin is against all, so forgiveness must be from all. (shrink)

Fyodor Dostoevsky understood this practical dimension well, and it is embodied in his literary treatment of the problem of evil in his masterpiece, The Brothers' Karamazov.1 In what follows, I will interpret the powerful existential repudiation of Christianity based on the facts of human suffering voiced by the antagonist, Ivan. After noting some similarities of Ivan’s case to that given by the French existentialist philosopher Albert Camus in his novel, The Plague, I then turn to Dostoevsky’s response, expressed through (...) the final discourse of the Elder Zossima. My goal here is solely to interpret and to set in a clearer focus the way Dostoevsky approaches the problem of evil. At the end, I briefly note some outstanding issues facing his strategy for resolving it. (shrink)