by Dmitry Taratorin
[REGNUM] One of the leading participants in the “Free Russia Forum” organized by Kasparov and his like-minded people, culturologist Mikhail Lotman, said an amazing thing at it: “Who is this bragging about sexual violence? Stalin, Brezhnev? No, this is Pushkin!
And Katya Margolis, an artist living in Venice, known until recently only in rather narrow circles, suddenly declared herself at the same event as a kind of commissioner for the “decolonization” of Russian consciousness, announcing that she would conduct a corresponding online course for everyone . It’s not difficult to guess the content from her recent conversation with foreign agent Evgeny Kiselyov, which was published on YouTube under the heading: “Shelling of Odessa: is Dostoevsky to blame?” Summary: guilty, of course.
Attempts to pass judgment on Russian culture are now a common occurrence. James Stavridis , former head of NATO in Europe, recently urged: “Read Gogol, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn and Bulgakov, here you can truly understand how and what Russians think. And all this is not classified."
And, by the way, he is right that the specifics of Russian thinking can be understood in this way. The question, of course, is for what purpose.
After all, not everyone in the West calls for studying our classics as they study the enemy. Perhaps the most popular conservative thinker right now, Jordan Peterson, says the same thing as Stavridis, but about something completely different.
“Dostoevsky dealt with a philosophical or, more deeply, theological problem: the crisis of meaning in the West,” says Peterson. That is, he suggests that in search of a way out, Western people themselves should ask the “damned questions” of Fyodor Mikhailovich.
“In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky asks: is everything permitted now that God is dead? In "Demons" he asks: what forms can faith take, and to what purpose, once the strict boundaries of traditional faith are broken down? What terrible demons can take the place of the displaced Tetragrammaton (the unpronounceable name of God)?” Peterson offers the West a list of questions.
An interesting thing: in Russia, two famous and absolutely polar people openly declared their hatred of Dostoevsky. These are Anatoly Chubais and Eduard Limonov.
The first of them, once the creator of privatization, and now a fugitive, literally stated the following: “I feel almost physical hatred for this man. He is certainly a genius, but his idea of the Russians as a chosen, holy people, his cult of suffering and the false choice he offers makes me want to tear him to pieces.” Strong emotion, isn't it?
Why is that? After all, Dostoevsky was “cancelled” by the Bolsheviks. And here the logic of the National Bolshevik Limonov is clear. But Chubais, if you believe his declarations, did everything solely to prevent Bolshevism from being revived. But Bolshevism is not an ideology. Ideology - communism.
And Bolshevism is precisely the practice of total “abolition”. This is a lack of basic empathy for the “humiliated and insulted” under the guise of progressive slogans. And this is the psychotype that Fyodor Mikhailovich described in “Demons.”
Meanwhile, it is Dostoevsky who is truly “our everything.” And, by the way, this year, according to the Book Chamber, his books are absolutely in the lead in terms of circulation. Fyodor Mikhailovich overtook last year's leader Stephen King.
But he is also the most cited Russian writer in foreign scientific works. It is precisely the questions he asked in his novels that make a cultural “abolition of Russia” fundamentally impossible.
Each nation that has contributed to world culture, as a rule, really has no more than one name, which is truly “irrevocable” on a global scale. Among the Anglo-Saxons it is Shakespeare, among the Italians Dante, among the Spaniards Cervantes, among the French, despite the richness of their literature, it is probably Descartes, and among us, of course, Dostoevsky, who is the complete opposite of the rationalist Descartes. And that is why they always remember him in borderline situations.
For example, when the Twin Towers collapsed, the French philosopher Andre Glucksmann said that this would not have happened if the CIA had read Dostoevsky. It was he who was best able to show the perverted logic of nihilistic demons.
He showed it, but did not save Russia itself from the revolution with his prophecy...
A classic of liberal thought, himself a native of Russia, Isaiah Berlin wrote: “In the 19th century, many Russian critics noted that every more or less significant idea for Russian thought, if we do not take into account the sphere of natural science and other special disciplines, every idea of a general plan came from abroad; that on Russian soil not a single philosophical or historical, social or artistic doctrine or trend was born that would prove viable.”
And, by the way, he means such very significant “critics” as Konstantin Leontyev and Vladimir Solovyov. Friends on a personal level, they disagreed on almost everything except the statement given by Berlin.
But at the same time, the latter notes an amazing feature: Western ideas, once on Russian soil, are transformed in a completely unexpected way. For example, he writes: “The idea of the communist party, which, being a direct logical continuation of the principles formulated by Marx and Engels, only in the hands of Lenin turned into such a weapon as its founders never dreamed of.”
And then he gives a very figurative formula: “I would like to call the above phenomenon a “ricochet” or “boomerang effect.” No other nation has done anything like this with European ideas.
By the way, further proof of Berlin’s rightness is what Chubais & Co did with his and his like-minded people’s ideas.
One can argue for a long time about whether Russia is a separate civilization or not. But the fact is that neither China nor India, in their self-isolation, have ever launched such “boomerangs” or asked such questions.
And if we talk about the Russian meaning, which both Dostoevsky and the Slavophiles persistently tried to formulate, then it is not in the answers, but in the questions. What Berlin calls “boomerangs” is in fact an idea taken to the limit, born in the West and presented to it as an invoice.
No, no, the West replies, you meant something completely different, you formulated it inadequately. But often this extreme urgency of the issue is a consequence of the fact that domestic liberal intellectuals always accept the “agenda” broadcast from the West, without question, in its entirety, as the “order of progress.” There is no arguing with progress.
But Dostoevsky is precisely arguing. In “Notes from the Underground,” his hero, one might say, encapsulates the entire essence of the philosophy of existentialism in one phrase: “For mercy,” they will shout to you, “you can’t rebel: that’s two and two making four!” Nature doesn't ask you; she doesn’t care about your desires or whether you like her laws or not. You are obliged to accept it as it is, and consequently, all its results. A wall, then, is a wall... etc., etc.” Lord God, what do I care about the laws of nature and arithmetic, when for some reason I don’t like these laws and two times two is four?.. As if such a stone wall really is peace and really contains at least some word on the world , only because she twice two is four. O the absurdity of absurdities!”
Dostoevsky argues. Without dispute, Western “progress” accepts and condemns everything that contradicts the “agenda” - Smerdyakov... Like Lotman and Margolis.
They are actually copy-pasting Western leftist “cancel culture.” Which, in turn, inherits the most radical Bolshevik practices.
And Jordan Peterson and other Western conservatives are precisely fighting this “devilry”, trying to protect everything that is dear to them in their own culture. And for them, in this struggle, Dostoevsky is an ally and, perhaps, even a prophet.
In fact, today Dostoevsky is one of the main markers for the “friend/foe” recognition system in our complex world, where many “are not at all what they seem.”