Nietzsche and Dostoevsky
脠ve Boucher
It is a cold December evening in Switzerland. On a mountain stands a common hiking spot many Swiss citizens enjoy. In the cafe there is a small platform constructed as a means for talents to perform their latest works. Musicians, poets, and writers were all celebrated by applause and cheering. All except for one who had quite controversial thoughts. That, however, does stop him from performing. He steps on the stage and clears his throat. 鈥淢y brothers, I present to you today an aphorism from my upcoming work.鈥� He tilts his glasses to the point of his nose and clenches his fist. With great power he says, 鈥淲hat, is man merely a mistake of god鈥檚? Or god merely a mistake of man鈥檚?鈥� (Nietzsche 467). In the deafening silence of the crowd, a man starts applauding. He is bushy-bearded and wears an exceedingly large coat. He walks to the stage, still applauding and says, 鈥淭hat is quite an interesting statement, bold even. May I buy you a drink?鈥澛� The two men sit at a table and remain quiet.
鈥淚鈥檒l start; my name is Fyodor Dostoevsky. I’m quite interested in understanding your aphorism, care to explain such a statement? Uh, well of course start with your name haha!鈥�
鈥淢y name is Friedrich Nietzsche. The point of my aphorism is quite simple. If god is perfect, then how could something so perfect create something as flawed as men? And if men created god, then how could they ever accept perfection? The relationship doesn鈥檛 work.鈥� Dostoevsky frowns at the explanation. He sits up straight.
鈥淪o you think there鈥檚 a problem in the system?鈥� Nietzsche laughs.
鈥淣o, I think it is the system that is flawed. Let me explain it to you, 鈥楥hristianity is the practice of nihilism [that] persuades men to nothingness of course, one does not say 鈥渘othingness鈥� but 鈥渂eyond鈥� or 鈥済od.鈥� 鈥� Nihilism and Christianism: It rhymes but it doesn鈥檛 only rhyme. (the Antichrist). Dostoevsky, now fully engaged and ready for what seems to be 鈥渢he debate of a lifetime鈥� says,
鈥淵ou鈥檙e looking at this all wrong; I think rather than comparing Christianity to nihilism, one must fight nihilism with Christianity. 鈥楾he main question, that very question with which I have consciously and unconsciously tormented myself all through my life, is the existence of god.鈥� (Reminiscence 396).聽 However, I was exiled for clandestine political activity. I was exiled for ten years, ten years my friend. It was an extremely difficult time. However, I came across inmates who kept their spark of spirit, they said it was due to their religious belief and admittance of guilt. It was there that I found Christ, it brought me tranquility. In the hardest moment of my life I realised that, 鈥榠f god did not exist, everything would be permitted.鈥欌��
鈥淚 disagree.鈥� Nietzsche says boldly. 鈥溾�楪od is dead and we have killed him.鈥� (Nietzsche 95). My father died when I was 5; he was a Protestant. A man of god. Why would god allow his own servant to die? One who delivered his words and honoured him? He kills a man of honour but lets the criminal live? That makes no sense. Now, don鈥檛 think I’m belittling you for the crimes you have committed, on the contrary I admire that part of you.鈥�
鈥淲hy do you admire the most shameful part of my life?鈥� Dostoevsky asks. 鈥淎h! Let me tell you about the pale criminal.鈥�
鈥淐hristian morality blocks individuals from having complete and utter freedom. This demoralises the criminal; the masses make him anemic. The criminal, however, is a subterranean genius. Crime is an act of pure authenticity.鈥�
鈥淚 understand what you鈥檙e telling me but the pale criminal experiencing guilt is due to his experience of himself being fallen and corrupt. He needs God’s grace. It will serve to illuminate the immortality of a man’s soul. That is the one sovereign idea. 鈥楪od’s purpose is not to condemn you; he wishes to remove your sins and to keep you away from them.鈥� (John 3:17). I do agree that 鈥榓ll man wants is an absolute free choice鈥� (Dostoevsky 284) as 鈥榤an has always and everywhere – whoever he may be – preferred to do as he chose, and not in the least as his reason or advantage dictated鈥︹�� (Dostoevsky 283).
鈥淒on鈥檛 you see my brother! There should be no limitations for men. A man can鈥檛 overcome if he has borders and rules. 鈥楳an is something that shall be overcome.鈥� That is the principle of the overman. He is one that is above the regular man. He has continuously evolved. If god is dead then they must now find meaning in themselves. It is a difficult process but those who live dangerously can attain it! You can鈥檛 follow the shepherd to overcome!鈥� Dostoevsky shakes his head in disapproval.
鈥淚t can鈥檛 be; you can鈥檛 achieve the sovereign idea if you don鈥檛 believe in god. 鈥榃ithout a sovereign idea, neither man or nation can exist. And there is but one sovereign idea: namely the idea of the immortality of the human soul.鈥� (Against Nihilism). That is why men shall always thirst for goodness
鈥淵ou say man shall acquire goodness, well I say they shall acquire greatness! That can only be acquired through the will to power! The quest for happiness, of course. Life and happiness are linked, one is unattainable if the other doesn鈥檛 exist. Suffering is a necessary part of the process as it is the only alternative to pleasure. One must taste the bad to cherish the good.鈥�
鈥淚 agree that we must suffer as everybody will or has suffered; it is what we all have in common. It is the vindication of our existence. We must suffer to learn. 鈥榃hich is better: cheap happiness or exalted suffering?鈥� (NFU Dostoevsky 376). Suffering can be reconciled with the sovereign idea. How could one truly reach happiness without immortality?鈥�
鈥淵ou clearly haven鈥檛 heard of the eternal recurrence; it is the idea that everything is going to repeat itself without change. Not better, not worse. It鈥檚 the circular coming and going. It is determined by fate. Amor Fati my brother, Amor Fati. No one is responsible for it, they must only live to their fullest extent. To die without regret. In the eternal recurrence, good and evil merge and it is now about being and becoming! 鈥楨verything dies, everything blossoms again, eternally runs the year of being鈥� (Nietzsche 329). This sounds more appealing than the linear trap you suggest, my friend.鈥� Dostoevsky chuckles at the first persuasive thoughts he鈥檚 heard in a long time.
鈥淵ou put up a good fight, but whether you are right or wrong I still prefer to believe in god. I must let you go as I owe money to a pawnbroker near here. Thank you for giving me the first argument worth listening to. My next book will be inspired by you.鈥�
鈥淚 appreciated our conversation with my brother but nothing will change my mind. I surely would greatly appreciate being part of your next book. Bonsoir mon fr猫re.鈥�
鈥淏辞苍蝉辞颈谤.鈥�
Dostoevsky went on to write The Brothers Karamazov in honour of the memorable conversation he had that night. He took Nietzsche as inspiration for the character Ivan Karamazov. Nietzsche had read every book written by Dostoevsky but unfortunately never made it to read The Brothers Karamazov.
