Does Dostoyevsky see the nature of humanity as chaotic in her / his novels?
In Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky’s novels, human nature is essentially chaotic, contradictory and paradoxical. In his literary and intellectual universe, man can neither be fully explained by reason nor reduced to a fixed moral or ideological category. This complex nature constitutes the fundamental conflicts of Dostoyevsky’s novels.
- Ontological Foundations of Chaotic Human Nature
Dostoevsky’s understanding of man is a radical criticism of the rationalist, positivist and progressive human model of the Western Enlightenment. The figure of the underground man, especially in Notes from the Underground, is a symbol of this criticism. The underground man declares that man is not a being who acts solely on the basis of reason and interest; on the contrary, he is a being who can act against his own interests and even harm himself just to “prove that he is free”:
“Sometimes, just because two and two do not make four, a person wants to go against it.”
This expression shows that there is an irrational rebellion, a passion for individual autonomy, and a desire not to confine oneself to rational systems in human nature. According to Dostoyevsky, humans are beings who do not fit into systems and are even inclined to destroy systems. This situation reveals that chaos, that is, an internal chaos that conflicts with order, lies at the core of human nature.
- Political Chaos: Revolution, Nihilism, and the Collapse of Collectivism
Through the Possessed (Besy)
One of the sharpest examples of Dostoyevsky’s political philosophy is the novel The Possessed. This work strikingly reveals how Dostoyevsky perceived the revolutionary and nihilist movements that rose in 19th century Russia. The revolutionary young people in the novel (Stepan Trofimovich, Verhovensky, Pyotr, etc.) are figures who have adopted Western-origin ideologies and want to “reorganize” human nature. However, according to Dostoyevsky, such ideologies are doomed to tragic failure because they ignore the chaotic, irrational and metaphysical aspects of man.
The character of Pyotr Verhovensky wants to de-individualize the individual and adapt him to an abstract “collectivist” order. But this order is empty because it is based on a false ontological assumption about man: the assumption that man is a systematizable, predictable and absolutely directable being.
“We will replace God. And then, we will bring order.”
However, individual freedom, moral responsibility and spiritual conflict cannot find a place in this order. The result is anarchy, murder, suicide and nihilistic collapse.
- Theological Reflection of Individual Chaos: Rejection of God and Moral Emptiness
Through The Brothers Karamazov
In The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Karamazov’s rejection of God is another milestone that reveals the chaotic tendencies in human nature. Ivan claims that the moral order depends on belief in God by saying, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” This situation implies that, according to Dostoyevsky’s belief, in a world without God, man’s capacity to choose between good and evil becomes meaningless, and the ultimate result of this is chaos and moral collapse.
Ivan’s philosophical nihilism becomes a practical reality with the murder committed by Smerdyakov. The sense of moral responsibility that human nature carries with free will gains meaning with the existence of God. If God is rejected, man succumbs to his instincts, interests, and desire for power. According to Dostoyevsky, this is humanity’s political and social destruction.
- The Ontological Connection Between Chaos and Freedom
The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor
The Grand Inquisitor section deals with the relationship between human freedom and chaos on a metaphysical level. By giving man freedom, Jesus also condemned him to an infinite responsibility. The Inquisitor, on the other hand, took this freedom and promised order, obedience and security instead. According to him, people cannot cope with freedom; they suffer, fall into sin and commit crimes. When judging Jesus, he says:
“You gave man freedom, but he cannot bear this burden!”
This allegorical narrative by Dostoyevsky argues that: Man remains human to the extent that he can be free, but this freedom always carries chaotic tendencies within him. Therefore, human nature is simultaneously open to both the potential for divine freedom and demonic destructiveness.
- The Chaotic Foundation of Social Structure: Through Crime and Punishment
The murder committed by Raskolnikov is the product of the chaotic conflict between man’s desire to be a “superior individual” and moral responsibility. Raskolnikov thinks he can be a figure like Napoleon: a “superman” who has the right to shed blood. However, the remorse he experiences after the murder reveals Dostoyevsky’s fundamental thesis: no matter how much ideological and rational justifications a person produces, he carries within him an ethical chaos that cannot be suppressed.
This conflict does not only remain in the inner world of the individual; it also has a shattering effect on the justice, law and punishment mechanisms of society. While modern legal systems see people as statistics or crime machines, Dostoevsky focuses on the spiritual chaos of people. For this reason, justice is never provided solely by law in his novels; the inner reckoning of the soul creates a greater transformation than the judicial system.
