Blog 10 -- 3/17/14

I will start by saying that I am by no means convinced that the alignment of desire and reason will lead to an entirely foreseeable way-of-life. While I agree that should the two paradigms ubiquitously converge man would lose all identity and freedom-of-choice, I do not foresee the entirety of humanity being subjected to this lifestyle. If anything, certain populations or even sub-populations may one day endorse such predetermined existence, but definitely not everyone. The fact that Dostoevsky's logic requires an all-or-nothing investment to hold true lends itself to never actually being fulfilled (in the sense of absolute rationalization, and thus total elimination of desire); this is true because if those guided by reason and those guided by desire were to ever coexist (which I am suggesting to be the furthest extreme to which reason reigns over man, and no more), then provided Dostoevsky's rationale for a rational world as being wholly predetermined, the tabulated lifestyle of reason would not hold up against the unpredictability of desire. In other words, so long as desire exists to introduce stochasticity into the world, the nature of man is incalculable regardless of the mathematical predictions associated with rational living.

Another theme I wish to touch upon is that of ingratitude and its relation to the text. Dostoevsky argues that we are desirous because we are ungrateful, a proposition with which I agree; however, in making the connection between desire and reason, Dostoevsky implicitly requires that we assume ungratefulness and reason are equally at odds, which I must contest. If I may: Since when can the prototypical wise-man who stole away to the mountain-top for solitary reflection not be ungrateful for the burden with which he has been endowed as sage to those afflicted by mundane matters that so often abuse his prowess (assume he is considered wise because he is rational)?

Yours Tru.ly