Fyodor Dostoevsky hated intellectuals.
Is that really true? Yes. But wasn’t he an intellectual himself?
That’s one of the reasons. But first, let’s define what an intellectual
is. Let me give you an analogy. A merchant buys goods from suppliers and sell them
to a lot of people. An intellectual does pretty much the same thing. Instead of
goods, they sell ideas. So intellectuals are merchants of ideas. Here we can see
the difference between an intellectual and a philosopher. A philosopher is
more like an inventor or discoverer with original ideas while an intellectual
is more like a merchant or entrepreneur. But how do you know he hated intellectuals?
Read his novels. Most of his villains are intellectuals. Hang on a minute, Dostoevsky didn’t
have any villains. His characters are fully human, with flaws and redeeming qualities. True.
But those with the most flaws tend to be intellectuals. And men. Raskolnikov in Crime and
Punishment is idea-driven who intellectualise himself into committing murder. Ivan Karamazov is
another intellectual who questions everything. In Demons there are a bunch of intellectuals who
start a revolution. None of these intellectuals turn up good in Dostoevsky’s novels. They either
end in Siberia or go insane. You could say all his novels are autobiographical because
Mr D himself ended up in Siberia because of his intellectual activities. Let me
give you a little historical context. History
In mid-19th century, young Russian aristocrats were educated in French, German and English so
they wanted to imitate the Europeans, by adopting western ideologies such as atheism, socialism,
utilitarianism, liberalism, individualism, etc. which more or less went against the teachings of
Orthodox Christianity, which promoted community, godliness, altruism, etc. These intellectuals
wanted to liberate the serfs. At the time, most Russian people were slaves to the
land-owning elite. So these young, educated men wanted to copy the French who revolted
against their monarch a few decades before. Dostoevsky himself was educated in French, so he
was fascinated by these ideas, so much so that his involvement with one these radical intellectual
groups, The Petrashevsky Circle resulted in his arrest in 1849. Dostoevsky was just starting his
career as a novelist but now he faced a new dose of reality which shocked him. Dostoevsky stood
in front of firing squad to be executed for his radical activities. He imagined his life would
end in a few minutes. He describes this moment in his novel, the Idiot in great detail. But
this was a mock execution to scare him off. Instead he was sent to Siberia to a labour
camp. For the first time, he really understood the ordinary Russian people, the peasants, the
uneducated class, the real Russia to speak. He realised that as a Russian intellectual, he was in
a bubble in Saint-Petersburg that only saw Europe, not the real Russia. Siberia was cold, the work
was hard but the biggest shock was his fellow inmates. Quote: “I learned, moreover, to know one
suffering, which is perhaps the sharpest, the most painful that can be experienced in a house of
detention apart from laws and liberty. I mean, “force cohabitation”… There are men there, with
whom no one would consent to live. I am certain that every convict, unconsciously, perhaps,
has suffered from this.” —Fyodor Dostoevsky (The House of the Dead). Dostoevsky, an educated
intellectual, and a nobleman was thrown into the freezing cold of Siberia, into a labour camp,
full of hardened criminals and convicts from across Russia. Forget about the freezing cold,
forget about the struggle to survive in such harsh environment, his biggest challenge was
how to deal with other inmates. There were a few intellectuals or educated men, but most of
the inmates were ordinary criminals, uneducated, coarse, unmannered, rough and extremely
dangerous. Dostoevsky who had never experienced such environment was pushed into a small space
filled with the most terrible and dangerous men in Russia. He recounts his experience in his famous
book, The House of the Dead. As a keen observer, he noticed how different ordinary Russian were
compared to the intellectuals of Saint-Petersburg, which brings to the first reason
Dostoevsky disliked intellectuals. Hypocrisy
These intellectuals didn’t understand the poor and when push came to shove, they would be bundled
with the rich, not the poor. They had nothing in common with the people they were defending.
Dostoevsky noticed that the intellectuals disliked being close to the peasants, they hated their
smell, their poor language, tattered clothes, rough manners, and so on. The poor too didn’t
really saw these intellectuals as allies but enemy because they dressed and acted like the
rich elite. These intellectuals indulged in their European outlooks, smoked Cuban cigars, drunk
French wine, ate German sausage, and English breakfast, and followed European philosophers
on Twitter and the only thing they avoided was Russian food, Russian clothes, Russian way of
life and everything Russian. The only thing they had was the Russian blood running through their
veins, everything they wanted was European. And the things the Russian peasants valued the most
were shunned by these intellectuals. The Russian peasants loved their family, Orthodox religion,
sense of duty, feeling guilt and responsibility, while the intellectuals wanted none of those
things. So this led Dostoevsky to conclude that these intellectuals were not really friends
of the poor, but only pretend so. They are hypocrites. This brings me to the second
reason Dostoevsky disliked intellectuals. Responsibility
Accountability. In fiction, you love the characters who are selfless, often naive
and take their duties very seriously, often at the cost of their own happiness. Intellectuals for
the very fact that they use their intellectual, rational faculty are selfish and self-preserving.
So when something terrible happens, they point fingers at someone else. It wasn’t my fault.
It was the Tsar or the system, or my childhood. Throughout his novels, Dostoevsky pushes his
intellectual characters to take responsibility. There is a lot tantrum, outright denials, a lot of
hesitation, a lot of finger-pointing, and a lot of rationalisation, but ultimately Dostoevsky makes
his characters succumbs to the reality that they are responsible for their deeds. For Dostoevsky,
a bad idea is like a bug, a virus that attacks the nervous system so it is very difficult to get
rid of it. This is shown in Crime and Punishment, the bulk of the novel is about Raskolnikov
refusing to confess to the crime he has committed. There is so much back and forth, as he tries to
justify the act to himself and to others while dodging accountability. At the end he realises
that rationality is not enough. No matter how much he can rationalise to dodge responsibility for
his crime, he cannot escape his own conscience. While in Siberia, Dostoevsky hated all the
criminals around him. They were cruel, callous animals. They had no manners. Dostoevsky couldn’t
imagine he belonged to the same species as these criminals. As time went by, he saw more and more
of their humanity. He saw how ordinary criminals took responsibility for their crimes. Why?
Because they didn’t intellectualise their acts. They didn’t rationalise their acts. But the most
important thing he noticed was this. These men didn’t complain for how badly they were treated in
prison. They didn’t whine as much. They accepted their fate. Why? Because they knew they had
committed terrible acts. They took accountability. Not all were remorseful, but they didn’t hide
their crimes. Their honesty opened Dostoevsky’s eyes to a simple concept that he and his fellow
intellectuals lacked. Accepting the truth. This brings me to the third reason Dostoevsky
saw intellectuals as flawed humans. Honesty
They were dishonest. Not only to others, but to themselves too. How do you bend reality
to fit an idea? We use deception. Animals have evolved amazing camouflages to deceive their
enemies or prey or the opposite sex in order to look bigger, stronger, taller and more beautiful
than they really are. We humans also do that. We use make-up, fashion, expensive cars, or horses
to woo the opposite sex. The Ancient Chinese book, the Art of War by Sun Tsu is full of these
strategies in warfare which is used in business today. But how does this apply to the Russian
intellectuals? Dostoevsky’s problem wasn’t just deception, it was intellectuals’ lack of integrity
as soon as their ideas faced a stumbling blocks. Dostoevsky shows this beautifully in Crime and
Punishment. Raskolnikov develops fever after he commits the murders. Ivan Karamazov breaks
down with first trouble. In the olden days, heroes would sacrifice themselves for honour,
integrity and heroism, but the intellectuals who were the so-called defenders of the poor peasants
lacked these characteristics. After his return from Siberia in the 1860s, Dostoevsky traveled
to Europe, and after his his visit to France he said : “The Westerner speaks of fraternity
as of a great motivating force of humankind, and does not understand that it is impossible
to obtain fraternity if it does not exist in reality. . . . But in French nature, and in
Occidental nature in general, it is not present; you find there instead a principle of
individualism, a principle of isolation, of intense self-preservation, of personal
gain, of self-determination of the I, of opposing this I to all nature and the rest of
mankind as an independent, autonomous principle entirely equal and equivalent to all that
exists outside itself.” — Winter Notes. So Dostoevsky understood that these intellectuals
didn’t really live in reality. They live in their head while sitting in comfy chairs, behind a desk.
The closest an intellectual experiences a storm is a brainstorm. The closest an intellectual
experiences a war is the battle with a house spider or a mosquito. Or the biggest issue of
reality they face is spilled coffee on a desk. Ok, Dostoevsky said none of those things. But you
can understand Dostoevsky’s own experience of labour camp taught him that for the most Russian
intellectuals, reality was skewed because they lived in a safe bubble that only imagined a
futuristic utopia. He was right, the Russian intellectuals wanted a revolution so bad that
they succeeded some 40 years after Dostoevsky’s death in turning Russia into a socialist state
that lasted 70 years. These socialists believed in materialism which relies on reason, and
reason alone to determine what’s valuable. This brings me to the final reason Dostoevsky
disliked intellectuals. Reason itself. Rationality
If you have to really sum up Dostoevsky’s problem with intellectual
is rationality itself. Intellectuals are those who take rationality as god-given, the only tool
for existence. After his trip to Europe in the 1860s, including his visit to the London
Crystal Palace the marvel of modern age, when reason had triumphed, Dostoevsky wrote
"Winter Notes on Summer Impressions”. He took aim at the fact that reason wasn’t
enough. We humans need more than reason, because reason alone turns us into a selfish
robot, a self-indulgent nihilist. Dostoevsky developed this further in his novel, Notes from
Underground. The underground man is so defeated, humiliated by a society driven by reason that he
refuses to get treatment for his lung disease. He is so wounded that he likes hiding underground.
He is not rational to the point of insanity but Dostoevsky wanted to show how modern reason
pushes a massive number of men underground, in the basement, behind their computers,
or dark offices, like a bunch of robots. Conclusion
So what’s there for us today? Can we learn from Dostoevsky?
I think the biggest difference today is that we all have adopted this ideas. 150 years, this
ideas were common among the educated elite but now everyone is an intellectual. We all blame others.
We all act as hypocrites, online and offline. I think reading Dostoevsky today can help
us. How? He gives us a dose of reality. You don’t have to go to a Siberian labour
camp, but you can leave your basement and take a walk in your neighbourhood
and observe how others live. Watch construction workers. Talk to them if you
can. This will bring you close to reality. Dostoevsky also tells us to
take responsibility. Of course, today Mr Peterson has made this his mantra. But
Dostoevsky actually shows this in his novels that taking responsibility does not imprison you.
Taking accountability actually liberates you. The fear of responsibility is perhaps a worse
prison than taking accountability. It’s like the fear of an exam or interview is often
greater than the actual exam or interview. But the biggest takeaway from Dostoevsky
is that we shouldn’t be too much of a consumerist. Don’t shop too much to the
detriment of your wallet or credit card, but also don’t consume too many ideas to the
detriment of your soul and mental well-being. Clarity of mind is perhaps the greatest
and most precious thing you might have and the more you indulge yourself to new
ideas, the more muddled you might become. What do you think?
