-in the name of Allah-

Reply to "I think Dostoevsky was right in claiming that..."

I think that Dostoevsky was wrong in claiming that ‘consciousness is a disease’. Without consciousness, there would be absolutely no impetus to do anything according to any definition of right or wrong. The sole exception to this generalization may exist within those individuals who act or live simply because something is thought to be right, but not necessarily ‘felt’ to be right. If something is done simply because it is thought to be right, and this train of thought is not associated or preceded by corresponding emotion, then it can be said with fair certainty that the individual does not ‘believe’ in what he or she does, but rather follows it out of habit or custom or procedure. It is this type of individual, however, that constitutes the majority of mankind today. Take, for example, the majority of the Christian population in America. Most of them, upon being asked, will say that they have not analyzed their beliefs in terms of correctness to a degree that would afford them certainty, but yet they ‘believe’ in what they are following, thinking that it is something worthy of being followed. Can this legitimately constitute the association of emotion to thought, if no effort has made to verify what is believed is in fact the truth? In light of this point, I will clarify two things: first, what constitutes the process of verification of a belief, and second, the general consensus of Christian theology in regards to how its followers are indoctrinated. To verify a belief, one must go beyond what is given to them by others, and conduct an internal query to determine just exactly what it is that they are following & believing in, and then one must agree with the findings or else that belief cannot be held justifiably. The second point of clarification ties in to the first, in that we can observe how the majority of Christian followers came to adopt this passivity of belief: that is how it was taught to them by the ministers, preachers, reverends, cardinals, bishops, missionaries, and just about anyone else who can be thought of as propagating and teaching the Christian faith. Christians are taught not to question what they believe and that what is being learned is ‘right’ without any proof- this is partially why contemporary society has become so cynical and wary as regards to using the term ‘faith; it has seen the effects of Christian propagation and clearly it uses that as evidence of why all religion aught to be either confined to the ‘home’ or eliminated from society all together. It has become the hallmark of ‘organized’ religion today to either reach a point zealotry with its following, or the opposite end of the spectrum- assimilate to the mood of the time in which they live. I should apologize for this digression, back to the main point.
There exist no grounds on which consciousness can be thought of as harmful, save those who would simply rather follow than learn, rather wish than believe, and rather sigh than grunt. The experiences of Dostoevsky’s main character in “Crime and Punishment”, Rashkolnikov, are the result of his surroundings and the temperament of his soul. I will examine both instances, as well why and how they contribute to his degraded position. Rashkolnikov lives as a poor man who has attended university sporadically, while for the moment finding himself far removed from education at the time he considers the deed of murder. He is supported by his mother, who receives a fairly meager yearly pension, but still manages to give a significant portion of it to her dear son, who happens to be the oldest of her children. He makes little effort to actually ever improve his situation, choosing to spend his time in fervent thought about one apparent trifle after another. His apartment is destitute, of all the people ever to see him, only one he considers even remotely a friend, his days are spent listening and speaking to others of difficulty and trial and choices and fate and how things at any given time may or may not be (solely) in its hands. Of those known as introverted and isolationist, Rashkolnikov is a pro at it. He walks aimlessly everyday without ever bothering to notice who is around and which way is he going. For such a man, whose state and apparent acquiescence to its baseness serve only as detractors, it is impossible to even have a solid foundation of character upon which it can be said that his statements should be of any worth. Granted, there are many times when Rashkolnikov is profoundly philosophical, but his thought is a barrier in and of itself: his action is directly hampered by his inability to reconcile thought into action. If he cannot act, of what use is his thinking? But of course, there is one use, and a ‘perverted’ one at that: after all his battles with consciousness, after all his moments of perhaps deserved tepidity, he goes and acts upon that which aroused his consciousness to such fury in the first place. Which fool could do such an act, after he knows it is wrong, after he knows that any justifications that he has are tempered by baser desires of possessing the wealth of another through murder and theft? Alas, this is condition of so many alive today. The value of money has exceeded sense itself. What purpose is money if it is had and spent without sense, without thought accompanying emotion to preclusion of any or every action? However, this is tangential commentary. Rashkolnikov’s main difficulties are more with the act itself rather than his own deluded justifications for it, which center around the fact that his victim is one despised and harmful to others (i.e. a loan shark). The further idiocy of the entire predicament is compounded by the initial portion of the following statement, taken from the back cover: “Is it not just, he reasons, for a man of genius to transgress moral law- if it will ultimately benefit humanity?” He assumes that he is a man of genius, having implicitly defined it as the ability to deal with abstract thought outside the physical realm. He then uses two paradoxical words: ‘transgress’ and ‘benefit’. It is inherently impossible for something to simultaneously be a transgression and a benefit, that is- if moral law in fact applies to humanity. It may be thought that Rashkolnikov does not view moral law as eternally relevant to humanity, and so he would be able to resolve the paradox. However, there would be no moral law, for that matter there would be no judicial entity, no enforcement of rule, and in effect, no design or semblance of society in the world today were it not for the sometimes overt presence of moral law in the general governance of any nation. On the most simplistic level, people govern people, and if this cannot be agreed to, the alternative is anarchy. Assuming that is an unacceptable alternative, laws are necessary. The origination of these is arguably divine, but that is outside the scope of this writing. However, the very concept of a law, which is to maintain a state of relative order and calm, is by definition tied in to moral law, which is the same thing, except for a prior association with morality- defined in terms of ‘right and wrong’ and ‘should and should not’. A superficial observation would lead one to immediately conclude that morality and law must or aught to be associated with one another. To bring into existence a state of order and calm, it makes ‘sense’ that laws are in accordance with a general set of principles, such as justice and peace. It would be possible to state that the validity of this entire argument in support of consciousness rests solely on whether or not moral law can be linked intrinsically to humanity. If humanity needs or utilizes moral law in any of its affairs of existence, then humanity and moral law are inextricably together. In this course of existence, tribes, nations, federations, empires, states, superpowers, have all existed on a level of society and societal organization. Humanity, specifically human beings, exists most often in the company of other human beings. This implies a need for organization, the requirements of which include law and morality. One more point should be clarified, that is how morality applies to organization. Whether a group of people explicitly mention it, or implicitly exhibit it, the underlying rationale behind organization is order, which can only be brought about once a state of mutual agreement in regards to safety and security is reached. The purpose of morality is to act as a guide, as a means of achieving benefit. Clearly, safety and security are beneficial to humanity, and so morality becomes associated with organization, which is symbolized in the presence of laws; thus, moral law and humanity become inseparable and consciousness becomes the core of human existence.

How's that for a wall of text? >_<

Enjoy :)