Nihilism in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons has several characters that hold strong views of the world. For example, Pavel believes that Russia needs structure from such things as institution, religion, and class hierarchy. On the other hand, Madame Odintzov views the world as simple so long as she keeps it systematic and free from interference.
This commentary will focus on perhaps the most interesting and complex character in Fathers and Sons: Bazarov.
Vladimir Nabakov writes that "Turgenev takes his creature [B] out of a self-imposed pattern and places him in the normal world of chance." By examining Bazarov I will attempt to make sense of this statement. Using nihilism as a starting point I am going look at Bazarov’s views and
…show more content…
"Everyone ought to educate himself" (105).
Since the indoctrination of established society begins with education, a nihilist should view education from behind the barrel of a shotgun.
Logic is of no use Bazarov,
"You don’t need logic, I suppose, to put a piece of bread in your mouth" (123).
The nihilist agenda, that is, the need for the destruction of structure is beyond logic and is as necessary as eating or breathing. In addition Bazarov believes that what is preached by politicians and so-called leaders is itself without logic.
"Aristocraticism, liberalism, progress, principles – think of it, what a lot of foreign words ... and useless words!" (123).
It is easy for Bazarov to give no credence and thus negate the things which government deems important in society. He sees irrelevance in much of what is said and done by leaders and Bazarov believes that real issues are being avoided.
"We saw that our clever men, our so-called progressives and reformers never accomplished anything, that we were concerning ourselves with a lot of nonsense, discussing art, unconscious creative work, parliamentarianism, the bar, and the devil knows what, while all the time the real question was getting daily bread to eat ... when our industrial enterprises come to grief solely for want of honest man at the top" (126).
Bazarov’s nihilistic nature is a product of the corruption he sees in the nation. Bazarov could choose to live his life and pretend not
The first person who ever challenged Bazarov's views was Madame Odintsova. She believed in a type of "order" in her life, whereas the concept of "order" is in direct violation to the nihilist's way of thinking. Bazarov begun to sway in the presence of this grand lady. He later came to realize very soon that he would never have his way with her and at the same time, he didn’t have the strength to leave her. He found himself in a situation similar to the one he ridiculed Pavel for being in, having a woman influence him when it violated his own direct beliefs. Thus, a man who had previously ridiculed emotion and love, made an impassioned declaration of love. After that, he realized that he made a fool of himself, and could not return to his past life within the limits of his nihilistic philosophy. Bazarov never abandoned his earlier views, but they became quite somewhat modified toward the end of the novel. His response to Fenichka and to his own parents indicated a slight change in his character and emotion. Furthermore, when he was dying, his romantic last desire to see Madame Odintsova suggests the degree to which he has finally strayed away from the concepts of pure
Debauchery, dueling, infidelity, orgies, and even monastery life are all used to help Fyodor Dostoevesky define his characters in The Brothers Karamazov. At the beginning of the novel, the reader becomes filled with contempt for a few members of the Karamazov family, yet filled with admiration for others. The legitimate members of the Karamasov family each represent a separate aspect of human character, which is applicable to society. In some ways the characters resemble separate factions and cliques of society that most often argue, but together can be productive. This is shown not by direct implication, but rather the reader discovers the fact on their own by becoming infuriated
Through the striking change in the narrator’s lifestyle and state of mind, Dostoyevsky demonstrates how one’s life is purposeless without hope. This is similar to the idea that hope is the belief in the ability to achieve one’s desires because the
That Rodya is convinced by this line of reasoning to the point of action suggests that he also is devoid of the deontological ethics that are associated with the traditional, Orthodox Russia. Rodya’s willingness to commit this heinous crime which ultimately destroys not only Alyona, but also Rodya himself and the innocent Lizaveta suggests that Dostoevsky's novel is a critique of the nihilistic utilitarianism of Rodya.
In the novel, Fathers and Children, draws most prolific aspects in the center of literature field especially concerning the phenomenon of “superfluous man” as presented by the author Ivan Turgenev. The main character in the book, Bazarov, brings a new philosophy known as nihilism into the community, which conflicts with the beliefs, tradition, and interest of the Russian society in the nineteenth century. Bazarov is well versed in philosophical arguments that all go against the social status quo, and aspires to dedicate himself to the study of biology. Moreover, he sadly infuriates Pavel with his philosophy of nihilism. Bazarov is starting a duel by telling Pavel his beliefs meaning nothing and faith is useless. In response, Pavel defends the Russian traditions of religious belief, faith, and superior morals. Pavel states “It holds tradition sacred; it 's a patriarchal people and can 't live without faith... ” (Turgenev, 40). At this point, the argument begins from the debate of
As Raskolnikov’s internal struggle becomes evident, Dostoevsky uses Raskolnikov’s disoriented state to illustrate nihilism’s ineffectiveness as a catalyst for social change. Raskolnikov’s radical philosophy is initially used as justification of his murder, a gambit to escape St. Petersburg’s poverty crisis. By labeling the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna as a “louse” and being largely apathetic towards any emotional or social repercussions, it is suggested that her death is for the greater good of not only Raskolnikov, but the whole of society; this lack of emotional substance in his logic brands him as a cold-blooded utilitarianist. However, it is a different story after the murder, where even Raskolnikov begins to doubt the legitimacy of his own argument. He realizes that his adrenaline rush prevents him from stealing much of the pawnbroker’s money, and with what he does manage to salvage, it is hidden away, nullifying any constructive benefit he had hoped to provide. Additionally, the murder of the pawnbroker’s innocent sister Lizaveta, whom prior to the even Raskolnikov feels
The novel Brothers Karamazov represents parricide, and how did direct and indirect circumstances lead to the murder of Fyodor Pavlovich. Then again, the book develops from a crime novel into a deep understanding of the human psyche and soul. To breach through this life topic, Dostoevsky had to show morality and the immorality of that Russian era. In The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky writes many pages on his ideal thoughts of love, hate, slavophilism and liberalism.
From declaring he wanted to become a Napoleon to wishing for financial independence to murdering for his own sake, he rattles off various motives, showing his obsessive rationalization (394-397). By presenting his conflicting intentions, Dostoevsky exhibits the chaos within Raskolnikov’s mind.
Analysis 1: The Brother's Karamazov 1. What is the purpose, audience, and context of the text? Fyodor Dostoevsky is renowned as one of the world's greatest novelists, being born in Moscow, Russia in 1821. Dostoevsky’s early view of the world was shaped by his experience of social injustice.
This proposes that an individual is allowed to impose his own values on society. However, Raskolnikov's actions imply that he still operates out of a slave mentality. He eats his soup "in a mechanical sort of way" (1, 6, p.86), and in the murder of the landlady he "almost mechanically struck her" (1, 6, p.96). The crime seals Raskolnikov's isolation, which is necessary for an extraordinary man to set himself apart from the rest and defeat his slave impulses; he tells his mother and sister, "I want to be alone. Better forget me altogether" (4, 3, p.328). However, even the self-sufficient Svidrigaylov demonstrates a human requirement for the company of others, indicating his own lavishness: "And I shall be your slave‹for the rest of my life" (6, 5, p.506). Further examples refute Raskolnikov's theory. He wonders "if man isn't really a beast‹man in generalŠthe whole human raceŠthen all the rest is just prejudice, just imagined fears" (1, 2, p.44). Raskolnikov's, or any single man's, inability to rise out of the morass of bourgeois complacency is pointed out by a bar patron, who asks "Would you kill the old woman yourself?ŠIf you are not ready to do it yourself, it's not a question of justice at all" (1, 6, p.86). The Raskolnikov does eventually kill her by himself, the important idea presented here is that no single person has the strength or will to combat bourgeois morality by himself; rather, there
Bazarov is an interesting character is because it is made known that he is a Nihilist. Nihilism according to definition means a few things, “total rejection of established laws and institutions.” or, “An extreme form of skepticism; the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.” (Dictionary.com) The first example Bazarov shows of his Nihilism is his interactions with a young boy over a frog. The young boy is fascinated by this frog but Bazarov wants it purely to cut open for research purposes. The boy tries to explain to Bazarov that the frog is just a frog but Bazarov does not agree. He believes there is more to learn by cutting open a frog.
We all have at least encountered a person who is in fact intelligent, proud, and handsome, but because of their overly esteems of themselves, they begin to doubt anyone credibility, begin to think that they are superior than everyone to the point where they end up separating themselves from the world around them. And it often costs them the lost of their talents. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s book ‘Crime and Punishment’, where he portrayed Raskolnikov as a man who thinks too high of himself and too little of everyone else. Moreover, his deep-seated aversion and disconnection of everyone around him, leads to his intentionally murdering the pawnbroker Ivanovna, and her half- sister, who happens to be in the way. To cover after his crime, Raskolnikov ended up spending his life misleading and deceiving everyone who is suspicious of him. And when he no longer can, he looked to be redeemed and where he arrived to confess. It is certain that Raskolnikov’s process of moral degeneration and redemption is the result of his lack of caring and sensibility for his personal relations and social relations which the Ethics of Care argues that as human beings, the relations of care that we cultivate or fail to cultivate with family members, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, and so on, are vital to our moral life.
When it comes to the violent victimization of children, children should have the right to be protected from victimization. Although the media focus on the victimization of children, children are increasingly becoming victims of violent crimes and neglect. Humphrey & Schmalleger stated, "About 1 in 10 homicide victims in the United States is 18 years of age or younger, about one third are females, and 47% are black" (Humphrey and Schmalleger, 2012, p. 89). One sociocultural change that would reduce the violent victimization of children is preventing any physical, sexual, and any other abuse of children that would require an extremely wide range approach to cease any level of sociocultural. I truly believe that any family structure could prevent
The great existential thinker Thomas Negal’s essay “The Absurd” addresses the presence of absurdity in our lives. Negal believes that absurdity is a necessary condition of human existence, and that it can be found within nearly every aspect of our lives. I would like to contest that the absurdity that Negal describes is one of the primary antagonists of Leo Tolsoty’s War and Peace. Each of the main characters of Tolsoy’s magnum opus faces this absurdity, and deals with it by changing their perspective; which is exactly how Negal suggests one should. Negal’s changing of perspective is a complicated one, but at its core it’s one of changing the scale with which we measure things by. This changing of scale is a deeper theme that runs within the text and one that must be used to truly read the novel, as it is used by Tolstoy and his characters. I would like to first focus on what exactly this absurdity is and what Negals changing of perspective by scale is. Then I’ll take a look at how this change can be found within the lives of the main characters, primarily Pierre Bezukhov. And finally I will describe how this change in perspective is being used by Tolstoy on many different levels and how we can perform this ourselves to effectively interpret any text, especially Tolstoy’s as it is riddled with it.
In the novel, “Fathers and Sons”, the character Bazarov is known to be a self-confident, and intelligent doctor who’s known to leave a few great impressions behind when interacting with his fellow characters large and small, like Fenichka and the lower-classman people. However, as nice as he may seem, I do not believe that the story intends Bazarov to be the protagonist, but rather the antagonist. His belief of nihilism, the rejection of all religious and moral principles, is one of the reasons why he is shown as an antagonist. Following that, is how he rudely carries out his own opinions to others, but then later on, turns out to be a hypocritic of his own teachings ; making him very displeasing to the audience to read. So although some may argue that Bazarov is a hero, because of lighter traits, I would have to disagree because of his belief of nihilism, how he carries it out to people and later turning himself into a hypocritic, making the novel play against Bazarov rather than for him.