Blog 9

This blog entry will seek to reflect on the passage from page 73 to 74 in The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky in tandem with Alexander Dugin’s discussion on “The Catastrophe of Platonism” in Martin Heidegger: The Philosophy of Another Being. On page 74 of The Brothers Karamazov, Dmitri enters and quickly falls silent to allow discourse between the elder and Ivan Fyodorovich – the middle child – because of the ongoing debate regarding the mortality of the soul. Ivan asserts that “There is no virtue if there is no immortality” (Dostoevsky 74) in defense of the conviction that without mortality, virtue wouldn’t exist because individuals would simply be. This argument is interesting in that it questions the nature of human beings and their ability to act with virtue regardless of the circumstances of existential life. To be, is simple, but it suggests an act of human nature where behavior is pertinent. Being virtuous is admirable, but not desirable without some eternal reward or earthly punishment. This further develops the idea that individuals will act alone – and selfishly – if not for their beliefs. That is, belief in God, the cosmos, sin, or death. If there is no repercussion for morally poor behavior, then there is no incentive for good morals. 

With that, Dugin brings up the story of Adam and Eve in The Garden of Eden on pages 104 and 105 of Martin Heidegger. In response to the notion that “the end is near,” Dugin presents the case that even Adam and Eve – the closest, newest beings of God’s earthly paradise – are tempted by selfish desires. They are drawn in by the serpent, or the devil himself, to eat the forbidden apple. In that moment – the beginning – the end (banishment) is brought to the forefront. Dugin states that the peak of tension among spiritual forces allows the opportunity for the first great end. Furthermore, Dugin says that “[Heidegger] valued and admired [this end], because it was, indeed, something great.” (Dugin 105) This points us to the previous argument of self-acting individuals, and even more divinely, Adam and Eve who choose to exhibit poor moral behavior. Even though they are aware of their innate beginnings, they are unaware of the repercussion, or endings to come. Their ending is being cast into what Dugin calls “the abyss” away from God’s divine paradise. This proves Ivan’s point. His conviction is true in that individuals, especially without knowledge of punishment, will behave against the word of wisdom. Those words being, don’t eat from the tree. In this moment, we have the first end and the first teaching of God and connection between Dugin and Dostoevsky: virtue is directly tied to immortality. A virtuous soul is one that can thrive in its immortal state after its departure from earthly existence. An immoral soul will be as it were, unconscious to the fruits of immortality. However, the difficulty in all of this is the acknowledgement of the possibility of mortality. Furthermore raising the question: how can we accept our soul’s immortality, and if we can’t, why do we choose to accept mortality? This question applies to ancient and contemporary audiences, involves our cosmic relationship with existential life, and intrigues God-fearing and Godless men.