2. Prompt: Throughout the novel Raskolnikov spins a web in which he is himself trapped. He even says that he "turned spiteful . . . Then I hid in my corner like a spider." But of all the characters, Porfiry is the one who seems most "spiderlike". Nevertheless, he also has keen insight into Raskolnikov. When he finally confronts Raskolnikov in part six, chapter 2, he tells him: "Do you know how I regard you? I regard you as one of those men who could have their guts cut out, and would stand and look at his torturers with a smile -- provided he's found faith, or God"
Discuss what he means by this. Notice that he does not say "faith in God", but "faith, or God" (part 6, ch. 2, 3 pages from the end of the chapter, 460 in P/V).
33 comments:
I define faith as an undoubting knowledge of something despite not having any visual, tangible, or audible proof. In my own life, my faith is in many things. These various things range from the lowly raitonal thinking humans, all the way up to the most glorious, God.
I think faith can be a word not only used in the context of religion or dieties. When you are married, you are faithful to your spouse. We all have faith that this economic situation will soon come to an end.
If you trace further back in the conversation, Porfiry uses the word "faith" in reference to Raskolnikov. He states that Raskolnikov should "not put too much faith in words". This clearly is a reference to the theories that seem to be running wild at the time.
Porfiry is quite obviously a follower of God and his doctrine. Raskolnikov on the other hand is a follower of word and thought. Perhaps what Porfiry meant was that Raskolnikov would smile at his torturers so long as he had that one thing he believed in with his whole heart. So long as we have something we believe in very deeply in our souls, we will see death only as a passing of our time here on earth. Some may belive we go to heaven, whilst others may believe we will serve a new purpose as nourishment for the earth. Either way, when you die with faith, you die with a purpose.
Without faith in anything at all, is there really any true point to our existence? I think not. Raskolnikov believes in his theories and in love(Sonia). Though Porfiry's torture is merely hypothetical, it reveals the inner-workings of his mind. He cares for Raskolnikov, and merely wants him to find that something to believe in.
Ultimately, if one possesses a deeply rooted belief in something, our purpose on earth is eternal. With some sort of faith, one will always beleive they have served the world by living. Why should we not die showing our pearly whites?
In response to Jonathan, I believe doubting everything is part of the self-analysis that is necessary to live in faith. One must doubt everything piled onto one's existence and analyze, hopefully with external lessons, what philosophies and beliefs one puts faith in. Dostoevsky magnifies this necessary self-analysis in many of his works.
Raskolnikov, after leaving university, ceases to analyze his being. He holds onto his "Theory" like a corrupt mega-church "minister" holds onto his money. To many extents, that theory oppresses his individuality and consumes his very existence. He no longer doubts his theory but puts unquestionable faith in it. And that is his folly.
It's quite a paradox, that, in order for Raskolnikov to have faith in life, he must doubt the thing he put up as God and idol to his mind and very existence.
One must take into account the fact that during the course of the novel Raskolnikov loses faith in life. This loss of faith in life is directly correlated to his complete faith in "Napoleon". It's almost like a math equation, in that, as faith in the "theory" goes up, faith in life(that is, the endeavor to live as a complete and honest human being) goes down, and, as according to Porfiry, "faith, or God" can lead to his resumption of LIFE and balancing of the equation.
Porfiry's penitential approach to a person he knows committed the crime is a lesson to societies everywhere. For if societies condemn all men for losing faith in life then how will they ever be taught to have faith in life ever again?
Life is not so black or white, God or no-God. Life is life, and one must analyze ones life in order to be as human as possible; for what is humanity but nature's analyzer and perceiver of all things i.e. the infinite universe?
Furthermore: One could have faith in challenging all absolutes, or maybe faith in Socrates' statement:
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
Deja vu.
I believe faith has to be absolutely un-analyzed. Why is it that the most common adjective paired with 'faith' is 'blind'? There's a difference between faith and trust or acceptance or enlightenment. All of those terms can be used with religion (as can faith), but I think faith transcends humans' reasoning powers. It's something you have, you can question it, you can lose it, but you never explain it. I don't have faith in a God, but I have faith that people are inherently good and that the world will continue to move. You don't need to self-analyze to realize your faith.
I think Raskolnikov lost faith in some aspect, but it almost seems he's suffering a crippling depression and starvation and sickness that twisted his mind. It feels like he's obsessing over his theory, not because he has a pure faith in it, but because he's struggling to breath and latches onto the one thing that gives him some soothing.
This might be out on a limb, so sorry in advance:
When Porfiry states that Raskolnikov wouldn't mind torture provided that he's found faith or God, it seems he's saying that Raskolnikov is an idealistic man. As long as he's found something to cling to (as in his theory) what happens to his physical body doesn't matter. This is supported by almost the entire story when Raskolnikov doesn't notice his horrible surroundings or his starving body. When he says "faith, or God" it's also like if Raskol can find a way to reason the situation, he'll be fine. If he found God, and God forgave him, Raskolnikov could reason that the torture won't be so bad. Same situation with the faith.
I agree with Jonathan, faith does not only apply to religion; it is deeply connected to an unshakable belief in something intangible or without perceptible proof. But when I think of faith, I also think of loyalty and trust. If you do not have loyalty and trust with your belief, then your faith it weak. I think that when Portfiry says, “I regard you as one of those men who could have their guts cut out, and would stand and look at his torturers with a smile -- provided he's found faith, or God," he was telling Rodya that he could accomplish anything and endure his hardships if he contained the attributes of loyalty, trust, and had something he could cling to. But as we see in the novel, Rodya is not a loyal and trusting person, which causes him to stumble and struggle in his life. Even though his philosophy of crime and punishment is twisted, if he had a firm faith in his philosophy, stood firm, and trusted his reasoning, he would had been more like Napoleon and probably would gotten away with the murder(which would have been bad). What Rodya lacked was a firm foundation to stand on.
Like Jonathan and Natalie said, if Rodya had deep faith in something, whether it be love, God, his crime theories, etc, he would have had purpose and something to hold on to when times were hard. But since he has no deep faith in his corrupt theory, he struggles to find some purpose and strength, but can't find it until he meets Sonia, who introduces him to real faith. Because of his faith in her love, he starts to become a new man towards the end of the novel.
I think Jonathan pretty much said exactly what I was thinking. I don't think that Porfiry associates faith with God because he says, "faith, or God." It's interesting that he says OR. Faith can be associated with religion, but it is also defined as "complete confidence in a person or plan." Because he chose to separate the two, I got the impression that he felt that believing in God was the easy way out and faith was the more reasonable, logical answer.
But at the same time, it doesn't seem like that part really matters as much as what he is saying about Rodya. I think that he sees Rodya as a man who has the ability to be so confident in something - whatever it may be - that external circumstances and events don't faze him..
This makes me think of stories I have heard about missionaries who sacrificed their lives for their beliefs without shame. It's also the same as devoting your life to anything, whether it is religion or a career or a hobby. You make a big sacrifice by sticking to one thing and living for it, whatever it may be. Having faith in anything gives you something to fall back on, something to justify your actions and purpose.
In response to what Natalie said in her last paragraph, isn't that what life is? A search to find something to "cling" to that is usually beyond our physical existence? Some people see it that way.. I don't really want to start arguing the point of life..... haha. I hope I'm actually answering the prompt.
In response to what Natalie said--about faith being blind. I mean those two words have been so commonly said together because it makes sense. Faith is solely believing in everything without any tangible proof. It is blind. You might have faith in something but you might not know why. Some people have faith in God but its trying to believe in something without seeing it. Natalie said something about "it can't be explained". But I think faith can be explained.
I hate to bring religion into it but its the only way I can explain it. So many people believe in God and its usually because someone has told you your entire life (i.e. sunday school) or some amazing experience that you attribute to a higher power. But just as easily as you can have faith that moves the mountains-you can lose your faith in something.
Personally-a friend of mine has just told me that he doesnt believe in God anymore. For this past year-he has been struggling but he's continued to put faith in God in that things will turn around. He gave up that faith because he didnt have any tangible evidence and he wouldnt believe in something that allows so much suffering in our lives. But i feel like thats such a big aspect--people experience high and lows and faith is tested. i know im talking about religious faith but it has the same connotation.
I thought it was interesting how he said faith OR God but both things are so closely related (in my mind). Its because ive grown up around christianity but to me, without faith, God is nothing.
And right after that comment-he says "well find one and you'll live". Does he mean find faith or God? Regardless of what you find- you'll live?
I like Michelle Suh's personal example. It's interesting to me that based on this passage many have said that faith and God are two things in one (or at least something close to one). In this passage, "I regard you as one of those men who could have their guts cut out, and would stand and look at his torturers with a smile -- provided he's found faith, or God", I think that Dostoevsky differentiating between two different levels, I just can't put my finger on the right words here.
Going off from what Michelle's story, someone can not have faith in God but have faith that God (or whatever something beyond supernatural) can change things. Porfiry refers to GOD because that's his foundation, he's found himself through it and it's imprinted on his identity. I think God, to Porfiry, is something beyond faith, his "cling" to God is unshakable and unmovable; you can never lose it. Faith, on the other had, is shaky. You hear so many times that people lose faith in God. And it doesn't even have to be God, it could be something or someone. You see Raskolnikov lose his "superman" faith by him being overcome with guilt. And in the end you see him subdued by things he avoided in the beginning.
I don't know, I might be over thinking... =/
I think what Porfiry means that Raskolnikov is not weak. He can endure whatever is thrown at him as long as he has faith in something. I agree with Natalie and Jonathan that faith is necessary for humans to live, and it's a belief that can't always be explained but that we have anyway (the privilege of being irrational).
I don't think Porfiry is a strongly religious man, at least not from the way he talks to Raskolnikov. Porfiry recognizes that God/religion is just one type of faith that humans have that help them through life's tribulations. For Raskolnikov, his faith was his theory. However, Porfiry realizes that Raskolnikov no longer believes in the validity of the theory. He tells Raskolnikov earlier in that passage "you have lost faith." Because Raskolnikov can't reconcile the ideas of his theory with his own actions based off of his theory, he loses faith in life. Porfiry is telling him that though he was "ashamed" that his theory was not "original," it doesn't mean that Raskolnikov's purpose in life is useless.
Throughout the story, Raskolnikov has this dual personality: he believes in one thing, but also recognizes the folly of his own beliefs. Porfiry knows that if Raskolnikov can find faith in something that isn't contradictory like his theory was, then he'd probably be able to continue living his life.
I think it's interesting that Porfiry has a regard for Raskolnikov and doesn't think of him as a common criminal. He sees the "psychology" behind Raskolnikov's actions. Porfiry tells him that although he has lost faith he is "not hopelessly base. By no means so base!" (Same passage as the prompt) Raskolnikov is not like the others who expound a silly theory, deceiving themselves and others. Instead, he takes his theory to its furthest limit (murder) and then realizes his theory doesn't hold. He doesn't just "argue the justice of it" without actually testing his theory (Part 1, Chpt 6, 3 pages in). That's why Porfiry says "at least you didn't deceive yourself for long...you went straight to the furthest point at one bound." But now, Raskolnikov needs something new to believe in and Porfiry tries to convince him that surrender would give him a new start. I agree with Porfiry about this because (Sorry, I'm going to be a little absolute): without balancing the score of justice, nobody (with a conscience) can move on remorseless.
I think God is just a part of faith. Different religions worship different Gods, but all those worships can be considered “faith”. The sentence after the “faith or a god”, made me thought of what Marmeladov said, “and everyone needs a somewhere, a place he can go. There comes a time, you see, inevitably there comes a time you have to have a somewhere you can go.” (P1Ch2) Porfiry tells Raskolnikov, “Well, find one and you’ll live.” The “God” is Raskolnikov’s theory about the right to commit a crime; it is the place that Raskolnikov thought that he could run to since he feels that he has nowhere to go. And “faith” is Raskolnikov’s desire to escape his current life; it is this idea of “everyone needs a somewhere, a place he can go.” Porfiry confronted Raskolnikov that he does not believe in his own theory anymore, therefore this “God” that he has created failed him. But with the strong “faith”, hoping to escape and transgress, Raskolnikov can create a new theory (a new “God”).
For better or for worse, I have to disagree somewhat with Erik. While I agree that is a natural human tendency to doubt and question, at a certain point, in order for a person to live a truly faithful life, they must accept certain things as they are and not question them. That is not to say that we should merely accept what leaders or even prophets say without our own personal consideration (aka a cult) but that faith does involve...having faith!
When Porfiry says "faith, or God" I believe his is distinguishing between faith in God and faith in people. Like Natalie was saying, you don't have to be religious to believe that people are inherently good. By the end of the novel Raskolnikov has found both, mainly through Sonia.
There are many ways we use the word faith and Depending on how we use it, the meaning changes slightly. There are varying degrees of faith, it can be reasoned or blind. I think the "faith" Porfiry is talking about is a strong belief in something. This "faith" Raskolnikov has, is his theory of a superhuman. I think his faith is a blind faith until he tests out his theory and starts to experience guilt, which goes against his theory of the superhuman. Porfiry seems to sense that Raskolnikov is losing faith in his theory and makes fun of raskolnikov when he says, "provided he's found faith, or God".He is basically saying that only if he still had the blind faith, he would be able to "look at his torturers with a smile". I think Porfiry is able to say what he says because he has read Raskolnikov's article on crime.
I think religion and faith can symbolize one another, but can be individual concepts depending on how it is used. Unlike Porfiry, Raskolnikov has faith in his theories and himself. However, Porfiry's faith in God is much more stable than Raskolnikov's desperate attempt to depend on something. Raskolnikov is blinded by his theories and is unable to find faith in any other part of his life.
Porfiry also tells Raskolnikov why he likes him and advises Raskolnikov to learn to love life, not to scorn the possibilities that it brings. However, he advises Raskolnikov to suffer "because suffering is a great thing," and he believes that his faith will help him get through suffering and cleanse his soul.
I believe everyone of has faith, but we choose different ways of examining and using it in our own lives. Faith helps to push us through the difficult parts in our lives and Raskolnikov is an example of not grasping this concept. He has faith, but he is unwilling to seek for something that is more "powerful" than his own self.
Just to add more on faith, I think it tends to go with ignorance hand in hand, but they are not the same thing. I think one needs faith to sustain a belief when there is no proof of ones belief. Ignorance is when one lets his or her faith stagnate by rejecting ideas or things that may contradict their belief.
It is harder to question everything, but, at the same time, the only way to live to one's fullest potential as a human being.
The only way the human race has progressed has been through its infinite self-analysis, its infinite number of realizations that any pause or Absolute acceptance of any thing leads to a state of "Dark Ages", with lack of a better expression.
Take math for example, one goes as far as possible to prove that 2+2=4. If one is an analyzer of all things, one will not just allow the empty expression 2+2=4 to settle in one's mind. One seeks to justify the theory, so one seeks others' justifications for the theory and can only truly accept it having gone through the same series of struggles as the initial proclaimer of 2+2=4 did. But even after one "proves" 2+2=4, it can be refuted by the notion of infinitely small particles(atoms and so on) comprising every single object that one uses as the subject of 2objects + 2objects = 4objects. Thus, one can never truly put faith in 2+2=4 regardless of how much faith one puts in it because it's really 200000+300000=500000...
Faith and religion can work in the same way. In many religions, one has faith in something larger than one's self. One seeks external justifications for this ultimate unknown, for instance: The Bible, Koran, Torah. But, if one stops at the Bible, Koran, Torah and accepts them as the dictator of purpose, of "2+2=4", without analyzing it further and seeking more and more opinions of the Ultimate Unknown, then one fails to be a human being. For the bible did not pop out of thin air; nothing pops out of thin air. "2+2=4" is not even true, in the infinite sense.
Raskolnikov's "theory" was his Bible. He did not question his own ego - his own Absolutism - and so he failed as a human being.
Raskolnikov could put faith into analyzing everything, and only then would he realize how flawed he is. At the same time, he could put faith into something much more humane, God, and come to the same conclusion, albeit an easier way to do so. He doesn't like doing anything easily though.
I think he means when life is in serious turmoil, not just physical turmoil like being tortured, but the worst of the life when your 'guts are cut out', when you are literally gutted of all the things that you stand on; the faith that there is an end to the hard time, that there is a God, the limit that you can take the pain. When hard times occur, when you have nothing inside of you to keep you as you are, people tend to crumble. They lose faith that they will recover, that it will be over, and that it will be alright.
But I think what Porfiry is trying to say is that Raskolnikov is the kind of person, the very rare kind of person, when there is nothing to stand on, and you have absolutely no reason to stand on anything, he will find the strength to stand up. He will find a light at the end of the tunnel when there is no real reason to think it is there.
I believe that the problem with faith is that, in order for one to be as faithful as possible, one cannot question faith. One cannot doubt the validity of a statement proclaimed by God. Hence one cannot explore the unknown. I also believe that one should question everything surrounding themself. One should suffer the pain of discovering for themself what is Natural and what is unnatural. One should not proclaim there are things that can never be known. For all things can be known. It's just an infinite unknown, but and infinite amount of questions has an infinite number of answers.
The way I see it is faith in general is that it means being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. One can certainly have faith without it being religious at all. "It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness". Simply, faith in general is not mutually exclusive to faith in God, or a Higher Power.
Faith in God, to me, touches more on spirituality. It is like... I don't know, like waking up in a morning in winter, realizing sometime in the night you wrapped yourself with blankets. The thought that it feels like fall without thinking in words enters your mind. You look outside and the world looks fresh, new; broken in a way that only wakening thoughts could feel. Spirituality is taking all these things, and thinking, without words, that this is beautiful and there's no other place I would rather be right now than waking up in my bed, taking just the totality of a second and spending it looking out your window to the mountains.
And I don't know why I am still writing. Ha.
Amen
I really like some of the discussion on here so far. I will attempt to offer something useful.
Faith and God, in my mind, are entirely different entities. God is a supernatural power that people believe in, while faith is simply "trusting or believing in something." While faith does encompass religion, and thus God, it also covers much more. Someone could have faith in their career, or in some hobby. In this case, they do not have "faith in God," but they have faith nonetheless.
I liked Erik's observation of faith being used previously to refer to Raskolnikov's trust in some of the more abstract theories of the time. In this sense, the faith is not in a God or supernatural power, but rather in a work or thought process.
Also, I wanted to comment on Natalie's analysis of Porfiry's feelings toward Raskolnikov. I agree with it. Anything that happens to people, we aim to figure out why. It's just human nature; we are all rational individuals. If Raskolnikov reasons out why something is happening to him, he may not realize all that is changing in his surrounding. Likewise, if he had put this reasoning/faith into God, the same result may have occurred. Thus, faith and God can be synonymous, but not always. I see faith as being far more general and all-encompassing.
Faith or god. Rather an noncommital statement at first sight. However I think I understand what Porfiry means by that statement. Erik makes an interesting point that Raskolnikov holds onto his theory seemingly for dear life. And that in itself, the willingness and necessity to have a theory to be happy, justifies what Profiry says.
Raskolnikov needs a theory, it is beyond a matter of wanting for him, it consumes him, and he has blind faith in it. If you have faith in something you are not only devoted to it but you are also ready to believe that it holds something for you, often as a savior. Many people believe in god to get to heaven, for salvation (definition of a savior) Raskolnikov's theory saves him from doubt, or atleast justifies his actions. It is the same way many of us have faith that the same people will do the blog first and better and then we get into the habit of agreeing with them and further developing their ideas, there is nothing wrong with faith but it comes with the expectation of some benefit at some point. Raskolnikov has his blind faith, and due to this he probably would indeed be at peace
regardless of what happened as long as he had faith or god.
I agree with Diya in that Profiry does not regard Raskolnikov as a weak man. No matter how he dies, he dies with purpose because he has faith. Whether it be faith in ideas, or faith in God (both of which I believe he has), there is purpose and a sense of satisfaction in dying with your beliefs.
Of course I agree with everyone in that faith is not merely religious. It's a devout belief in something that gives us hope and something to believe in. However, in response to Erik's 3rd post (I think it was his third...) I would have to say, why is there a need to analyze? Isn't the purpose of having faith accepting it for what it is? Sure, you can analyze to a certain extent, but when you over-analyze, you don't have faith in that thing anymore... rather you have faith in what you have made that thing to be. You have faith in something to provide an explanation for the unknown. Thus, I believe that having faith in something makes you human, not "seeking more and more opinions for the ultimate unknown."
I believe that faith is something that you have a strong feelings towards and that you believe in. I also think it means to believe in something regardless if it's a fact or just an opinion. Although it has a religious connotation, it doesn't always have to be dealing with religion, rather it can just be another word hope. I think that when he said "provides faith, of God," I think he meant faith as in something that he believes in to the fullest and something that he will go by and back up. Like it was mentioned earlier, when he says "I regard you as one of those men who could have their guts cut out, and wouls stand and look at his torturers with a smile," I think that smile means that he is happy that he did what he did because he believed in it and has faith in it. Die doing something you believe in with a smile rather than die in vain because of something you did that you didn't have faith in.
Erik; You propose that we all question every single thing we are ever told in your third post; I can assume nothing else after you question two fundamental principles of math. That might be a nice idea if humans had infinite time to ponder, but alas, we don't. To question everything you learned means you'd still be wondering why you call your father "papa" and your mother "mama" even on your deathbed. Why do we call them "papa" and "mama"? No one knows. Is it especially important? No, no it's not. In order for anything to get done in a lifetime, there are plenty of things one needs to take for granted. So what should and shouldn't you just accept? I'm not really sure. But I am sure that you need not question that which math requires to be true.
Like others have said, faith is a word that has a different meaning dependent on the way someone uses it. It's interesting that he says, "faith, or God." It is very clear that Porfiry does not believe that faith can only be found in God. Unlike Natalie, I believe that faith and trust are the same thing, or at the very least they go hand in hand. Trusting someone is putting your faith in them. Therefore, although they don't have, "faith in God," they do faith.
Hengxin; I like your idea that the "faith" Raskolnikov could find is another theory. At first I was going to refute it, but then I realized I agree with it. All Raskolnikov really needs to redeem himself is believe in a more human theory, perhaps that "men are not really scoundrels" (1.III). Raskolnikov could put his faith in a theory that has faith that humanity is essentially good. Still, I find it ironic that which damned him could save him.
So many different view points. Interesting conversations, here.
I agree with Eric about the definition of faith.
No doubt is faith a word used outside of religion. Faith is everything. I think it's extremely important to analyze things one is told. Extremely to search for proof, however, when it goes too far, it goes too far. I believe to remain sane, there has to be some blind faith in things, such as universal things, like 2+2=4. But hey! If trusting in life isn't naturally your thing, question and analyze everything. Go ahead. I don't think it will get one any further than most others. Most. If it does, tell me how, please!
"While I agree that is a natural human tendency to doubt and question, at a certain point, in order for a person to live a truly faithful life, they must accept certain things as they are and not question them." Agreed, James. Agreed.
"It feels like he's obsessing over his theory, not because he has a pure faith in it, but because he's struggling to breath and latches onto the one thing that gives him some soothing."
I agree with this, Natalie. Raskolnikov's theory brings him to ideas that he acts on. Without pure faith in his theory, though, he becomes confused and "hid[es] in his corner like a spider."
"Raskolnikov is not like the others who expound a silly theory, deceiving themselves and others. Instead, he takes his theory to its furthest limit (murder) and then realizes his theory doesn't hold. He doesn't just "argue the justice of it" without actually testing his theory (Part 1, Chpt 6, 3 pages in). That's why Porfiry says "at least you didn't deceive yourself for long...you went straight to the furthest point at one bound." But now, Raskolnikov needs something new to believe in and Porfiry tries to convince him that surrender would give him a new start."
I really like how you pointed this out, Diya, because simply arguing a theory doesn't say much about it in the eyes of those listening, only to the believer does it make complete sense. When a theory is tested, that is when all truths come out. So faith, here, doesn't do much for a believer in a theory.Raskolnikov finds, as Diya said, that his theory failed him.
Connor: In regard to "mama" and "papa" I could go into some heavy linguistics sub-discussion, but I'll resist. Haha, I don't think Noam Chomsky belongs in this blog prompt.
I will begin with the question: When does a person or a group of individuals learn, improve or become more human?
Look at the birth of a child. A child, usually, comes out of the womb screaming and wailing. Wailing for what? It must be in pain of some kind. A newborn baby screams because that is the only way for it to absorb oxygen. Life, at the first moment, is pain and suffering, but then the infant, perhaps innately, learns to put faith in its lungs. By pushing through the pain and unknown, by analyzing the new utility that is the lung, the infant learns to live.
History, as well, shows us a society will not improve until it is confronted by an individual or group of individuals that reveal the flaw in the way it functions;(sometimes society ignores those individuals and does not realize its flaws until wars, depressions and death strike...).
Slavery was not challenged as an institution in America until certain individuals who, having analyzed the "Rights of Man", contrasted the way their society functions with regard to those "Rights of Man". They realized black individuals were not superior to white individuals, but, for some reason, plantation owners thought so.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that only in times of crisis, or self-analysis, do we truly improve ourselves. Only with crisis and self-analysis did Raskolnikov improve himself.
And, if there is any purpose in life other than to improve ourselves, I cannot wait to analyze it.
To have faith in God implies that there is a belief of some external being watching out for you while faith itself is a belief in pretty much anything. Faith is purely unique to the individual, therefore, faith and truth are the same.
We all incorporate faith into our lives. Some people believe God to be a main contributor to their lives while others claim themselves to be the creators of their success. I think Porfiry phrases it "faith, or God" because some people find strength through God while others, like Raskolnikov, find strength from within their own character.
Through much of the book Raskolnikov struggles with his own self confidence and lacks a set of structured values of which he stands by. Part of the message seems to be to have your own set of core values and stand by them.
The word faith is often heard in the context of the phrase "leap of faith", as by its very definition, it requires risk. As James so wisely said, at a certain point one must leave some things unanswered in order to retain sanity. I am of the beleif that one must avoid any kind of extremes, finding the propper balance in between any form of binary opposition. For example, one would not be happy in constant speculation, but one would also not be happy thickheadedly and blindly bumping their way through life. The latter is just clumsy, and both are disrespectful of the gift of life itself.
I see faith and God both as tools that serve different functions. Faith assists one in battling everyday troubles on this earth and in this lifetime, whereas God helps one conquer a deeply rooted fear of death. To me, with either comittment to believe (in faith of some sort, or God), what one believes in specifically is extremely unimportant in contrast to what one reaps from having this belief. Both brands of this "blind leap" enable one to roll with the blows so to speak. Life is an animation of moments, and one has won the Game, if they can bear and even enjoy moment to moment existence with the assistance of faith. It gives one the strength to “stand and look at his torturers with a smile". One becomes invincible, boundless, and untouchable, all of which is lusciously appealing to me. My rational mind just becomes stuck on the paradox of faith itself even though I realize the benefits. I'm a skeptic, blessed and cursed.
Sorry if that didn't make sense. This is WAY WAY past my usual bedtime. I think I'm delerious.
I agree with everyone who has said that faith is something that has been heavily connected to religion, yet it can hold a secular meaning to it. One can have faith without believing in God. I think faith gives people something that they can depend on, and without it there would be no real purpose in living, as Jonathan pointed out. Faith is so powerful because it's something that people hold onto so tightly, yet they can't see it nor touch it. It's an intuition that we just trust, and that's the only way it works.
I agree with Diya when she says that Porfiry is emphasizing Raskolnikov's strength through this quote. Raskolnikov, as people have mentioned, does not have seem to have faith in anything nor does he have God in his life. Therefore, one would think of him as a weak character with no purpose in his life. However, I do see enough strength in him to stand up for his beliefs. He murdered a pawnbroker, and justifies it in his mind as something that is beneficial to society.
Even though Raskolnikov lacks faith in society and the world, he still believes in his own theories which give him purpose. He lives his life according to his words, which are like facts and truth to him.
I agree with everyone that has said that faith is not only constricted to religion. I like how Niloy mentioned how people can have faith in many different everyday things such as your career, people, etc.
I know that some people mentioned earlier that in order to have faith in something, you somewhat have to blindly follow or accept a belief. I think faith is an important aspect in a person’s life because it serves as a form of comfort. However, I think people should be willing to accept that there is a possibility that what they have faith in could be incorrect. People should have an open mind about any belief and not get stuck on just one idea. I think human beings are given the ability to think, question, and analyze things. Therefore we should use that ability in every aspect of life.
There are different types of faith one can have. Many of you have stated that faith involves the need to “accept” and “trust” what is seemingly unproven. The definition of faith, straight from the dictionary reads:
“Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.”
The last part is interesting. If we had logical proof, would we still need and rely so heavily upon mere faith? If there was--like we discussed previously in class--an absolute truth that defined the many abstract things found in life, there would be no need to pour so much of our hearts, souls, and minds into something otherwise unexplainable. Sort of what Natalie was saying: “Faith must be totally un-analyzed.” Sometimes if things/beliefs are over analyzed, the power they shed diminishes.
I think Porfiry suggests that Rodya could withstand absolute torture, provided that he has found God, or just something to believe in -- anything… He finds this belief, a strong conviction that gives him something to live for, towards the end of the novel. Rodya begins to place a great deal of faith in the love he shares with Sonya, who is already a very spiritually faithful being.
It’s also interesting how Dostoevsky compares Raskolnikov to a spider; Sonya is also compared to an animal, a canary. A spider and a bird are very different creatures, and provide a somewhat interesting contrast.
I agree with Jonathan. I don't actually think that Porfiry puts God and faith in the same category. It's like how we talked in class about how words have multiple denotations. Even though faith is usually associated with religion and God, it also means complete trust or confidence in someone or something. And by saying "faith, or God.", Porfiry is clearly expressing which form of faith he is using.
Also, something that Michelle said kind of interested me. Right after "faith, or God." he says "well find one and you'll live". After I read it, I stopped and thought for a while. It was odd because I never really thought about it, but even though it's 2 choices, it's really the same choice. Either way, you're picking something to live for. I think that we as human beings, have to have a kind of goal, or a higher being to live for. If we don't have a goal/ purpose, then there really isn't a point in life. We just live and die. This kind of life would be like writing a paper with no topic. It would just be a paper full of useless garbage.
Post a Comment