The Three Forms of Dostoevsky’s Philosophy

2.1 Dostoevsky’s Discovery of Psychology

Researchers often refer to Dostoevsky’s depiction of existential philosophy as the first discovery of psychology. Of course, the meaning of psychology here goes far beyond the usual sense of the word, mainly referring to emotions, desires, and the freedom of will within individual personalities. But one might ask, doesn’t every writer depict psychology? Didn’t Gogol and Tolstoy portray psychology? Why is Dostoevsky specifically noted for the “discovery of psychology”? In my understanding, the distinction lies in the following. First, Dostoevsky reveals the private, unspeakable psychology to the public, including secrets one is unwilling to disclose to the masses, to friends, and even to oneself (Dostoevsky 1995). Second, Dostoevsky distinguishes and opposes individual psychology from collective values (reason and conscience). Third, Dostoevsky declares the legitimate rights of individual psychological freedom.

Specifically, Dostoevsky’s philosophy of existence divides a person’s inner world into two: reason/conscience and psychology. Here, reason and conscience are set against psychology as two different realms of human existence. Reviewing the history of philosophy, in the traditions of ancient Greek and modern Enlightenment philosophy, these two realms were not equal but maintained a hierarchical relationship. In this hierarchy, reason and conscience had the highest legislative authority: determining “ought” from “ought not”, what is moral and what is immoral. In other words, the standards of ought and ought not, reasonable and unreasonable, moral and immoral, were measured by reason and conscience. Psychology was subordinate; it encompassed merely personal desires and inner demands, with its role solely being to inform people of what has occurred. This traditional positioning of the relationship between these two realms viewed reason and conscience as supreme and decisive, while psychology was often seen as spontaneous, instinctive, inferior, irrational, and insignificant. The direct confrontation between these two realms was never openly acknowledged. From ancient Greece and Socrates to Kant and Tolstoy, an opposition was maintained between reason/conscience and psychology. In the perspectives held by these figures, reason and morality were dominant. It was from Dostoevsky onwards that an intense confrontation between these two realms began, marking the advent of a new era – the era of psychology. In this era, the needs of the soul, previously hidden behind reason and conscience, began to surface, clashing with reason and conscience, demanding their legitimate rights.

When Raskolnikov’s conscience led to criminal behavior, and when Ivan Karamazov asked, “Why should we recognize the cursed good and evil if it costs so much?” (Dostoevsky 1996, 171), the necessity of adhering to universal moral laws was questioned. The issue of whether individuals have the freedom to disobey collective rational and moral norms was also raised.

2.2 Irrational Freedom

In existential philosophy, traditional rational norms have lost their legitimacy and authority. The Underground Man views the relationship between reason and life, and reason and will, in this way:

Reason is a good thing, indubiously, but reason is ultimately just reason. It can only satisfy man’s intellectual capabilities, but will is the manifestation of the entire life, the entire human existence, including reason, and all inner turmoil. Although our lives often seem quite terrible in this manifestation, it is still life and not merely the squaring of a number.

What can reason know? Reason only knows what it can know (it may never be able to know anything else, which, though not comforting, should be acknowledged), whereas human nature operates in its entirety, both consciously and unconsciously, even when lying, it is still life. (Dostoevsky 1995, 54–5)

One might wonder how it is possible that the rationalist philosophers were not aware of the “underground” – the irrational elements of people’s inner world. Of course, they knew, but they regarded these elements as irrational, dark, evil, instinctual, and something to be overcome. This is the fundamental notion of modern Enlightenment philosophy. Dostoevsky, however, saw that these irrational elements were not entirely dark but had its rationality for the completeness of human life. The traditional standards for distinguishing good from evil (that is, universal moral norms) are not entirely reliable. Thus, the Underground Man’s existential philosophy expands the scope of human life and the right to freedom. But it should be noted that the core purpose of this existential philosophy is to resist the hegemony of rationalism, not to advocate and encourage individual whimsy.

It is fair to say that Dostoevsky’s moral philosophy and existential philosophy represent the author’s narration, teaching and reasoning of certain universal philosophical principles, and that he believed in their correctness with clear positions and conclusions. The third one, however, paints a different image.

3.1 The Philosophy of Tragedy Differs from Everyday Philosophy

The philosophy of tragedy is not omnipresent but arises when a person finds themselves in a critical situation, “when one is confronted by fate with the true tragedy of life”. As Shestov writes:

Only at this moment does a person become overwhelmed by an uncontrollable doubt that, in an instant, demolishes those old, seemingly solid castles in the air. Socrates, Plato, goodness, humanity, ideals – all the angels and saints that once protected innocent human hearts from the demons of skepticism and pessimism – vanish without a trace. For the first time, a person faces the most terrifying enemy and feels a horrifying loneliness that loyalty and a loving heart cannot overcome. This is where the philosophy of tragedy begins. (Shestov 2005, 245)

Here, it is evident that when one faces tragedy, traditional moral teachings and notions of duty lose their effectiveness, leading to an individual’s isolation and mental collapse, which prompts a search for new spiritual support.

3.2 The Philosophy of Tragedy Reveals the Reality of Life

Shestov observed, “In Nietzsche’s works, we should not seek conclusions that contradict his inner natural needs… We listen to Nietzsche narrating his own life in his works” (Shestov 2005, 302). This assertion can also apply to Dostoevsky. In his philosophy of tragedy we see two opposing elements: on one hand, the universal truths declared and sanctioned by reason and conscience; on the other hand, the real needs and expressions of individual life. In this opposition, what is real? Here, a distinction between reality and truth arises. In our view, adding reason to truth does not necessarily depict a genuine phenomenon, but rather conveys universality and generality. When truth acquires universality, it becomes compulsory, and whether this compulsion is real becomes another question. In the philosophy of tragedy, there exists a conceptual and value opposition – reality, truth and reality versus falsity, lies, and teaching. In Shestov’s view, where Kant and Tolstoy’s philosophy stops, Dostoevsky enters a dark and unknown realm: “You cannot be sure if you will find what you need here – even any kind of beauty. Perhaps there is nothing here but ugliness. But one thing is undeniable: there is reality here, new, unheard of, unseen, or more precisely, a reality that has not been revealed until now” (Shestov 2005, 246).

In the depths of tragedy, the everyday norms and moral comforts absolutized by reason become hypocritical lies and useless preaching. The only real things are personal life experiences and needs. This is the fundamental viewpoint of the philosophy of tragedy in distinguishing between reality and illusion. In the tragic experience, resistance to universality and necessity is the reality of life; although it may not be the universal truth of human society, it is certainly the reality of life. Of course, this reality may be a pitfall from which one either ascends to a higher level of life or descends into the abyss of crime. But the philosophy of tragedy faces this fact directly: “Respecting for great ugliness, great misfortune, and great failure is precisely the latest achievement of the philosophy of tragedy” (Shestov 2005, 348).

So, what causes one to feel ugliness, misfortune, and failure? In Dostoevsky’s world, it is a profoundly selfish issue.

3.3 What Does Tragic Philosophy Explore and Question?

The issue that evokes feelings of ugliness, misfortune, and failure is the crime of conscience. It is the individual’s opposition to the world.

While fighting against evil, Dostoevsky also proposes reasons for upholding evil, reasons that evil itself could never dream of. Conscience itself commits the crime! In Crime and Punishment, Razumikhin comments on Raskolnikov’s article, saying,

But what frightens me is that the genuinely novel idea, the one that truly belongs to you alone, is that you agree it is permissible to commit bloodshed in the name of conscience. … That is the main idea of your article. Know this, that acting in the name of conscience, justifying bloodshed, this… in my view, is more terrifying than the officially sanctioned bloodshed, the legally allowed bloodshed. (Dostoevsky 2011, 254–5)

It would be from the perspective of everyday morality and law to see Raskolnikov’s tragedy as his crime and punishment, including the punishment by his conscience. But from the viewpoint of tragic philosophy, the tragedy does not lie in the punishment, but in his lack of power to commit the crime, because for a great person with power, this act would not be a crime. It is precisely because he holds this view that his crime was supported by his conscience. It is as if he has two consciences: one conforms to moral norms, leading him to self-punishment and confession; while the other transcends the standards of good and evil, making him believe even during his penal servitude that he is not at fault: “He scrutinized himself strictly; even his cold conscience did not find any particularly terrible sins in his past, aside from the kind of negligence that could happen to anyone… he did not repent of his crime” (Dostoevsky 2011, 525).

If the issue of conscience can be explained with the concept of dual consciences, then the problem of “individual versus the world” is even more contrary to common sense and morality. The Underground Man rebels against the law of science and nature, like stone walls and the equation of two times two equals four. He disregards reason and conscience, opposes the individual to the entire world and presents an extremely selfish problem:

Do you know what I really want? I want you all to go to hell; that’s what I want. I need peace and quiet. For the sake of my peace, I’d sell the whole world for a penny. Let the world perish but let me always have my tea. (Dostoevsky 2004, 289).

Similarly, Ivan Karamazov directly declares, “I do not accept this world.” As clearly expressed by Shestov:

When a person faces the threat of inevitable destruction, when a chasm opens before him, when the last hope fades away, he suddenly sheds all heavy obligations to others, to humanity, to the future, to civilization, and progress. Instead, a trivial personal question arises. All tragic figures are “selfish”. Each of them blames the entire world for their misfortune. (Shestov 2005, 276)

Although it seems to be utterly rebellious and selfish for an individual to oppose the whole world, this is not a simple issue of selfishness to Berdyaev, but rather “a philosophical, ethical, and religious issue”:

If every individual’s personal existence cannot attain eternal life, if they cannot achieve the greatest happiness, strength, and perfection, then the future happiness, strength, and perfection of the human world, consisting of countless individuals, should be condemned. This is an issue of individuality, the fundamental issue of human life, and the root of all religion. (Xu 2013, 758–9)

Dostoevsky deeply understood that this was an unsolvable problem. However, he did not stop; instead, he used the characters in his novels to explore and question the depths of the soul. According to Shestov, these rebellions and inquiries are Dostoevsky’s true thoughts, representing the profound essence of tragic philosophy.

Since these thoughts are contrary to traditions and habits, as well as science and morality, they are difficult to express. This difficulty includes two aspects. First, from the perspective of opposition to others, “before Dostoevsky, no one dared to express such thoughts… It requires immense despair for such thoughts to arise in a person’s mind, and it requires superhuman courage to present these thoughts before people” (Shestov 2005, 223). Second, from his own perspective, because these thoughts contradict traditions and habits, “Dostoevsky never admitted these vile thoughts as his own. He always maintained some ideals for others to see. The deeper the discrepancy between these superficial ideals and the true essence of his hidden desires, the more hysterically he shouted about these superficial ideals. His late works are filled with this duality” (Shestov 2005, 223).

Because of this, D. S. Mirsky states in History of Russian Literature: “The deeper, primary Dostoevsky is one of the most important and dangerous figures in the entire history of human thought, one of the most daring and destructive phenomena in the highest realms of spiritual exploration” (Мирский 2006, 293). Mirsky did not say that Dostoevsky had significant theoretical innovation or practical significance, but rather deemed him as “the most dangerous figure”, representing creative attempts that were simultaneously “the most destructive”. This indicates that reading Dostoevsky can not only provide enlightenment but also expose one to the most destructive risks. Once we are aware of these risks, we should be mentally prepared for them. Furthermore, since it is an adventure, risks are inevitable, unless one retreats to the haven of autonomous rationality and universal moral norms. If one is unwilling or unable to retreat, then one must face the adventure. This is an individual choice that Dostoevsky cannot make for us.

Thus, we arrive at the fourth characteristic of tragic philosophy.

3.4 There Are No Definitive Answers in the Philosophy of Tragedy

The conflict between the individual and the universal, and the tragedy of the individual in the face of universal norms, remains unresolved. Furthermore, tragic philosophy does not provide any clear-cut answers.

Some might argue that this form of philosophy seems to be filled with darkness, cruelty, and tragedy, devoid of any philosophical substance. This perspective is understandable, as it assumes that only positive teachings and hopeful prospects qualify as philosophy. Such teachings are indeed prominent in the form of moral philosophy. Many scholars have defended Dostoevsky’s brighter aspects, which is valid. However, this should not overshadow the more thought-provoking tragic philosophy that Dostoevsky explores, which fundamentally embodies intellectual exploration. Philosophy, by definition, is the perpetual pursuit of questions. If all questions were answered and resolved, philosophy would cease to exist.

According to Shestov’s interpretation, Dostoevsky does not provide answers to his readers; instead, he seeks answers through his novels. Shestov observes:

There is no more erroneous opinion prevalent among the Russian public than the idea that writers exist for their readers. On the contrary, readers exist for writers. Dostoevsky and Nietzsche did not speak to spread their beliefs and enlighten people. They themselves were seeking light; they did not trust that what they saw as light was indeed light and not some deceptive illusion. They regarded their readers as witnesses, seeking from them the right to think and hope in their own way. (Shestov 2005, 197)

In essence, for the fundamental issues of personal existence raised by tragic philosophy, does Dostoevsky provide an answer? The answer is both yes and no. As moral philosophy, in his teachings, there is an answer: The spiritual resurrection of individuality, moving towards faith in God through active love, is one such answer. Consequently, many have labelled Dostoevsky as a Christian or Orthodox writer. If a reader finds ultimate answers and spiritual solace in this, they are fortunate. However, in the realm of tragic philosophy, Dostoevsky does not offer a definitive answer. Shestov coined the concept of tragic philosophy from Dostoevsky’s ideas, yet Shestov himself provides no answers either. Where, then, can answers be found? In every reader and listener. If a reader or listener one day resonates with the dilemmas faced by Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov, and begins to explore the tension between returning to universal moral laws and pursuing a higher personal faith, this intellectual activity itself is a form of answer.

This perspective emphasizes that Dostoevsky’s tragic philosophy is not about offering clear solutions but about prompting continuous exploration and reflection. It invites readers to engage deeply with the existential and moral questions posed, recognizing that the journey of questioning and seeking is itself a significant part of human experience. Thus, tragic philosophy remains an open-ended, dynamic process, challenging individuals to confront and grapple with profound issues without expecting straightforward resolutions.