Summary and Comments on Seiro Sato's translation of Kudryavtsev's "Revolution or God - Dostoevsky's Worldview -" - If you want to know the Soviet image of Dostoevsky, this is the book for you!
Kudryavtsev's "Revolution or God: Dostoevsky's Worldview" was translated by Seiro Sato, a Russian literature scholar who has become a familiar face on our blog.
In his commentary at the end of the book, Mr. Seiro Sato states the following about the book
This book is a translation of Yury Grigorievich Kudryavtsev's Revolution or God (Dostoevsky's Worldview) (бунт или религия О мировоззренин ф.М.достоевского. According to what I have heard, this book has already attracted attention among Soviet scholars, and I think the reason for this is that it summarizes the various theories of Dostoevsky, accurately criticizes them, focuses on the "liberation of individuality," and emphasizes the contemporary significance of Dostoevsky's work. The reason for this is that the author has summarized the various theories of Dostoevsky, accurately criticized them, and emphasized the contemporary significance of Dostoevsky by focusing on the "liberation of individuality.
Shinchosha, Kudryavtsev, translated by Seiro Sato, Revolution or God: Dostoevsky's World View, p. 226
The main feature of the book is the organization and criticism of other Dostoevsky theories by Soviet scholars.
Rather than presenting his own theory up front, the book proceeds in the form of a series of criticisms of other Dostoevsky theories. This criticism reveals an image of Dostoevsky that is in line with Soviet ideology. This book shows how Dostoevsky is being Sovietized.
What is interesting is that the book criticizes not only Dostoevsky's theory outside of the Soviet Union, but also Dostoevsky's theory within the Soviet Union. First, he carefully organizes the domestic Dostoevsky theory, pointing out its ideological bias and errors, and then he goes on to criticize the famous exiled Dostoevsky scholar Berdyaev'sDostoevsky's Worldview."will be thoroughly criticized.
To summarize his criticisms roughly, "Berdyaev does not see the real society. He lacks the perspective that the social system and capitalist ideology that causes poverty is to blame. Human evil is caused by the social environment. So his argument, which does not look at the material world, is erroneous." He states. And he concludes, "Between the two regimes of our time, Dostoevsky is with us as a fighter against the exploitation of man by man *P224".
From this area, the atmosphere is explicitly Soviet.
And he goes on to say
Dostoevsky is...Evil Spirits."Although they deny the revolutionaries by the "demonic" revolutionaries, they are only denying the "demonic" revolutionaries. They are egoistic and not true socialists. That is why Dostoevsky repudiated them in "Evil Spirits". Dostoevsky does not deny the true revolution, he 'is with us as the enemy of "demonicism" in the revolutionary movement *P225.'"
This is the theory that he preaches. Finally, Dostoevsky is assimilating with Soviet ideology.
And at the end of the day, we get into the argument that Dostoevsky is an unbeliever.
After all, from the Soviet point of view, religion is taboo. Religion is described as something completely insignificant.
He has been a great admirer of Dostoevsky's works, especially theCrime and Punishment."andThe Moron., ,The Brothers KaramazovHe points out that religion has never actually helped those who suffer in terms of life, citing the example of "The
According to him, everything is a deception because religious salvation does not bring material salvation in the real world. And time has proven this. Religion now has no power in the Soviet Union, he says. (*In fact, the Soviet Union suppressed religion so severely that the church had completely lost its power. (*In fact, the Soviet Union has severely suppressed religion, and the church has completely lost its power.)
Praying to God does not change reality. God did not shower bread and gold on those who were suffering from poverty. That is why religion is insignificant.
Dostoevsky depicted it in his novel. I state that Dostoevsky wrote that because he was an unbeliever.
Did Dostoevsky really believe in the teachings of Christ? Did he really believe that the religion was to pray for instant material abundance?
I think a lot of things, but it was clear from reading his argument that the Soviet Union saw religion that way, or was trying to see it that way.
He also said of Dostoevsky's letters and other writings, "Dostoevsky lied in every aspect of his life because he was afraid of censorship by the government authorities. So we should not trust what he wrote in his letters or what he did on a daily basis," he says. And then, in light of this, he states, "In fact, this is what Dostoevsky thought. This is no longer anything.
It may be problematic to speak of the Soviet Union as a large group, but it was very interesting to get some sense of how mainstream theories are formed in this way.
Finally, Mr. Seiro Sato, who translated this work, makes a very interesting point in his commentary at the end of the book. It is a bit long, but I think it is an important point, so I will quote from it.
The history of Dostoevsky's mind begins with his encounter with God and ends with his efforts not to lose sight of it.
"The main issue raised in every part of (the future romance) - the issue I have struggled with all my life, consciously and unconsciously - is the question of the existence of God. (The one that will appear) is the protagonist throughout my life - that is, the atheist, the believing man, the fanatic, the schismatic, the splinter, and again the atheist."
This is what he told Mikov before writing "The Brothers Karamazov," and it can be said that all of Dostoevsky's ideas and works are variations on the question of "God's existence. All of Dostoevsky's theories are sharply divided according to whether or not he believed in God.
If he really believed in God, says the book's author, Kudryavtsev, he would not have repeatedly and persistently introduced an atheist - and an extremely convincing one at that.
As one might surmise, Dostoevsky was oscillating between "God" and "Godlessness," between "immortality" and "death," and between "faith" and "unbelief. In other words, while always wishing to be in "faith," he must have been troubled by his own tendency toward "disbelief.
His sixty-year spiritual history begins with a Bible story told by his mother, who was sickly and extremely nervous. The Bible has not left him since then until his deathbed.
I used to read the Book of Job. It was the one that brought me to morbid rapture. I would stop reading and walk around the room for an hour almost weeping. ...... That book was one of the first books to move me in my life. I was just a little boy then! he told his wife Anna in 1875. The image of Job the Sufferer was etched into his young mind and never left. Love your affliction! is a famous saying of Job's, which is not unrelated to his life. In contrast to Tolstoy, who was ethical and rational and had nothing to do with the idea of redemption, Dostoevsky's works are based on the idea of "purification through suffering" in the manner of Job. It is enough to recall the traits of Sonya, who follows Raskolnikov, Mitka Karamazov, who takes on a sin he did not commit, and Grushenka, who follows them.
As Grossman's biography of Dostoevsky states, his tragic mother, who bore eight children and died of lung disease while her husband suspected her of chastity, his fatal father, who was strangled to death by peasants because of his womanhood, his endless poverty - all the painful and sad experiences and dark times of his life drove him into anguish. All the painful and sad experiences and dark times of his life drove him into suffering, made suffering a daily phenomenon, and made it impossible for him to live without loving suffering.
Shinchosha, Kudryavtsev, translated by Seiro Sato, Revolution or God: Dostoevsky's World View, p. 226-227.
Dostoevsky's faith, as Sato describes it, is not the same as the idea that "if you pray, you will become materially rich. It is precisely because Dostoevsky could not help but seek faith deeply and profoundly that he was able to see the root of his disbelief by sincerely seeking it and diving into his own inner self.
Religion = Belief," but is it possible for a person to have pure 100% belief 24 hours a day for the rest of his or her life?
We want to believe, but we can't fully believe, but we can't help but seek. I believe that this is where faith comes from. Shinran and Luther both had their starting point of faith here.
It is only through rigorous thought and consideration that we can see the root of disbelief. It is actually not true that those who believe do not doubt.
After the above quote, Sato then spends another 14 pages explaining the itinerary of Dostoevsky's life and thought.
Why Mr. Sato had to do so is very interesting. From there, I am also curious as to why Mr. Sato translated this book.
This is something that only you can know, but I am sure that it is meaningful to you.
This book is written by Seiro Sato, whom we introduced in the previous issue.The Viewer and the Seeker: Turgenev and Dostoevsky.It was a terrific book along with I highly recommend reading the two books as a set. I think it will deepen the meaning of this book.
It is very easy to understand how Dostoevsky became Sovietized during the Soviet era. And you can also learn how the theory that Dostoevsky was a non-believer came about. This was very interesting to me as I wanted to learn about Dostoevsky and Christianity. It was so interesting that it made me fall asleep much later at night. I couldn't possibly cut off the book in the middle of reading it. That's how great this book is.
I devoured this book. I recommend it highly.
The above is "Revolution or God: Dostoevsky's Worldview," translated by Seiro Sato and published by Kudryavtsev, a book that will help you understand the Soviet-style image of Dostoevsky.
Next Article.
Click here to read the previous article.
Related Articles
