What's the meaning of life? Why is there pain and suffering? How do you balance justice and love? These "accursed questions" have haunted humanity for centuries. Fyodor Dostoevsky sought to answer these questions through his characters' lives. His answers are prophetic for our time.
In this episode, I sit down with Northwestern University professor of Russian literature Gary Saul Morson. We discuss what Dostoevsky reveals about developing intellectual honesty, how to deal with suffering and brokenness, as well as his arguments for and against God.
His latest book, Wonder Confronts Certainty: Russian Writers on the Timeless Questions and Why Their Answers Matter, sets the stage for this interview sets the stage for this interview.
Topics:
- The "Accursed Questions" of Russian Literature
- Dostoevsky's Intellectual Honesty with Faith
- Battle-Testing Worldviews through Fiction
- The Dangers of Abstracting Individuals
- Notes from Underground: Human Freedom vs Determinism
- The Core of Ethics: Human Surprisingness
- "What books have had an impact on you?"
- "What advice do you have for teenagers?
Bio:
Gary Saul Morson is Lawrence B. Dumas Professor of the Arts and Humanities and Professor of Russian Literature at Northwestern University. His 21 authored or edited volumes and 300 shorter publications have examined major Russian writers, the philosophy of time, the role of quotations in culture, great aphorisms, and the ultimate questions about life taken seriously in Russian literature. His classes on Russian writers in translation have enrolled over 500 students, and he is the recipient of numerous teaching and research awards. Morson writes regularly for numerous national publications, including The New York Review of Books, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, First Things, Mosaic, and several others. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1995
Prof. Morson on the best Dostoevsky translations:
“The best translations of Dostoevsky are by Constance Garnett or revisions of Garnett. For Notes from Underground, use Garnett revised by Ralph Matlaw; for The Brothers Karamazov, Garnett revised by Susan McReynolds; and for The Possessed (Demons)be sure to use the Modern Library version of the Garnett translation with appendixes containing versions of a chapter he was not allowed to publish.”
Socials -
Lessons from Interesting People substack: https://taylorbledsoe.substack.com/
Website: https://www.aimingforthemoon.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aiming4moon/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Aiming4Moon
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, welcome Professor Morrison to the
interview.
Thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Oh, I'm delighted to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
So we were talking a little bit off air.
But you wrote a fascinatingbook called Wonder Confront
Certainty about all thedifferent Russian authors
answering life's big, bigphilosophical questions.
But categorizing them asphilosophical questions makes
you assume that they're not alsolife questions as well.
(00:26):
So, to start off, could youdiscuss what some of those
questions are?
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Sure, I'll just say that in Russian literature,
people are always addressinglife questions which are
philosophical questions Likewell, does life have a meaning
or is it just random incidents?
Is, if you don't accept God orthe supernatural, is there any
(00:57):
basis for morality or is it justall relative?
And if so, how do you deal withthat fact?
You know, has everything beendetermined from you know, the
beginning of time, or are therereally alternatives?
It does not just seem that way,but there really are, either by
chance or choice, or both.
What is the right way to live,what's the moral way to live and
(01:23):
what's the meaningful way tolive?
What's the moral?
way to live and what's themeaningful way to live?
All these questions areconstantly on the minds of
Russian authors.
They call them the accursedquestions.
Accursed because you keepasking them but they never have
a final answer.
But that doesn't mean you don'tlearn anything by asking.
You may not get a final answer,but you deepen your
(01:46):
understanding of the questionand that's what Russiansky you
see this a lot in.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Brothers Karamazov and of course, ivan famously has
his speech during the chapteron the rebellion and they talk
about just the most terriblesuffering, specifically about
children, and he has one of themost pointed arguments against
God.
Essentially he accuses God ofbasically allowing all the
suffering, and it's interestingthat a Christian author like
(02:29):
Dostoevsky has that pointed of aresponse and then the way he
addresses it later on.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Well, you've got exactly.
You're asking exactly the rightquestion.
I mean, and this is how he sawit.
Okay, think of it this way Ifyou are a prizefighter, you
don't get any credit for beatingup a kindergartner.
(02:57):
I tell my students, right, ifthey want to, they can take
either side in a question, I ask, but they'll be judged on the
strength of the arguments on theother side that they're
opposing.
That is to be intellectuallyhonest.
You don't answer the dumbestarguments on the other side, but
the strongest, right.
So Dostoevsky thought okay, ifhe is really going to establish
(03:20):
faith, it can't be by attackingstraw men.
It has to be.
He has to confront thestrongest arguments on the other
side, and if your opponentshaven't made them, you make them
for him, which is what he'sdoing here.
So he was proud he was makingmuch stronger arguments against
(03:43):
God than the atheists of histime did or any time.
And he did it precisely becausehe was making much stronger
arguments against God than theatheists of his time did or any
time.
And he did it precisely becausehe was intellectually honest
and he wanted to contend withthe strongest arguments against
faith.
Only that's.
That's the only way you couldestablish it.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
One of the other really interesting things about
that to me was, without spoilingthe book and that's kind of
something throughout thisinterview we won't spoil any of
the books because we're tryingto convince you to read all of
them.
That's a big kind of subtlepush from me as an interviewer
here.
But one of the interestingparts about that conversation is
(04:18):
Alyosha, who he's speaking tohis brother is a devout Eastern
Orthodox monk and he doesn't.
Oh, he's not a monk, oh, he'snot a to his brother is a devout
Eastern Orthodox monk.
Oh, he's not a monk.
Oh, he's not a monk, he'sliving in a monastery.
Good to know.
Yes, he's not a monk.
Yes, thank you.
He's not even a novice.
He just happens to be living inthe monastery for the time
(04:40):
being.
That is an interesting point,because I misinterpreted that.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Yeah, could you discuss a little bit more of
that?
Just as a minor segue.
Well, he's so much taken byfather zosima that he moves into
the monastery to be with him.
But he's not, you know, and he,he might want to become a monk,
but father zosima tells him notto, tells him don't go out into
the world, right, and if youwant to come back at some other
time, maybe you do that, butfirst you have to know life.
So he's not.
He's not actually a monk.
Maybe someday he might be, buthe's devout enough to be living
(05:11):
near Father Simu, who's reallyhis mentor.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Yeah, that's fascinating because I knew that
passage later on but I hadassumed that he was a monk, at
least in that first bit.
But yeah, that's a really good,that's more context on that
entire story, that wholeconversation between Alyos bit,
but yeah, that's, that's areally good, that's more context
on that entire story going.
That, that whole conversationbetween Alyosha and Ivan.
Alyosha he doesn't have asphilosophical of a rebuttal.
If he has even a rebuttal, atleast in the philosophical sense
(05:36):
, directly to Ivan.
And it seemed to me that therest of the narrative, the rest
of the storyline, is almost ananswer to Ivan.
It's not an intellectualresponse but it is the
experience of life in whathappens to Ivan is his rebuttal.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yes, I think you're right.
Do you remember early in thebook when they're all in Father
Seymour's cell in part one andDmitri hasn't shown up?
So he goes out to greet thepeople who are waiting for him?
One of them is MadameHorslakova, who you know is the
mother of Lise, who lovesAljosha, and she demands that
(06:17):
Father Zimut tell her, give herproof that there is immortality
or a meaning to life, or beyondjust the material world.
And he says well, there's noproving it.
He says there's nophilosophical that will prove
(06:40):
that life has a meaning.
But you can become convinced ofit, that life has a meaning, but
you can become convinced of it.
How do you become convinced ofit?
By living the right sort oflife, a life of what he calls
active love.
Right, and then you will sensethe meaning if you live it.
But you won't be able toformulate it in such a way that
(07:09):
will convince someone with anargument, because they would
have to live it too.
So, yes, it's.
You know what happens to Ivan.
That becomes part of theargument.
You know the different ways inwhich people live.
That that becomes, you know, agood part, and you know just in
the story itself.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Yeah, it almost seemed like a reductio ad
absurdum argument, like he'sreducing it to absurdity in the
sense that he takes Dostoevsky,takes worldviews and he battle,
tests them.
He says, okay, well, we couldhave a philosophical
conversation about this.
We can say, we can argue withpremises, we can argue with our
little syllogisms, with Platoand everyone, but really what
really matters with yourworldview is can it survive when
(07:52):
you're put through differentthings, when different things
happen?
Can your worldview survive?
And because he is such apsychologically rich author, he
can really test the worldviews.
And it seems like, rather thanthe philosophical rebuttal,
really test the worldviews.
And it seems like, rather thanthe philosophical rebuttal, what
happens to the way peoplerespond in these circumstances
(08:13):
is the proof for or againsttheir worldview.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Yeah, battle, testing an idea is a good idea, in fact
.
That's, by the way, generallythe way in which philosophical
novels generally work.
They have a hero or heroine whobelieves in a philosophical
idea, and then the novel traceswhat happens, what are the
consequences of that belief.
(08:35):
That's not just Dostoevsky, youknow.
The Russians love philosophicalnovels, but there are great
English philosophical novels too.
They all work in that way.
Ideas are abstractions, butrealist novels give you the
nitty-gritty of daily life,which is much more complex than
(08:57):
any abstraction.
And next to that, next to realexperience, any abstraction
seems kind of thin.
And that's how they test right.
You know other literary genres,you know, think the
abstractions are better thaneveryday life, and they wouldn't
do it that way.
(09:17):
But realist novels, all youknow, believe in reality and
daily life as being too complexfor any theory.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
I recently wrote a piece on my sub stack that I've
talked about on the podcastbefore.
It was titled the Dangers ofAbstracting Individuals in a
Divided Society and it was baseda lot on Brothers Karamazov as
well, as I guess I had beenreading Demons, one of
Dostoevsky's other works, andthis idea of especially in a
(09:49):
modern sense, social media.
For example, it's really easy tokind of make two-dimensionality
, to make people two-dimensional, and it's very easy to reduce
them to their hashtags and totheir likes and to their tweets
and stuff like that them totheir hashtags and to their
likes and to their tweets andstuff like that and you're
missing.
When you respond in a way likeyou respond in an emotional way
(10:10):
to that, you're missing.
There's so much more complexitythere and Dostoevsky talks
about being possessed by ideasand there's, of course,
abstracting individuals.
He was abstract and thereforecruel in Crime and Punishment.
It's a fascinating concept whenyou because he himself was a
rebel and he eventually turnedfrom being a rebel and not
(10:32):
became an anti-rebel by anymeans, but just warned about the
implications of that and wasquite almost in some ways he
seems pretty prophetic in a lotof the way Russian culture went.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
How do you see him as prophetic?
I do too.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Well, from my understanding of history now I'm
not a Russian historian by anymeans, but you see quickly, like
the starvation of Russian, yousee throughout kind of human
history.
When you have great utopianideas you can justify terrible
things.
It's because you're not it'snot the present circumstance,
it's the future circumstance,and that's where terrible things
(11:07):
happen.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Yeah, if you think you're in possession of the
ultimate truth about how toreorganize society and save
people, then well, if you'regoing to save all people and
make them all happy, anybloodshed is worth it.
And so you commit any bloodshed, right?
Because you have too much faithin the theories.
Exactly, and that's whathappened in Russian history, of
(11:30):
course, with the revolution.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Yeah, and throughout Dostoevsky's writing you see
this theme of people.
Well, one of the titles, thetranslated titles, the possessed
Now it's been debated whetherit should be translated as
Demons or something with thecharacters themselves Demons is
accurate.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
I will tell you something as somebody who writes
a lot for columns in the WallStreet Journal.
When these things come out, theauthor never chooses the title.
The title is always whateverthe editor of the journal thinks
.
You know the newspaper thinksis going to attract readers.
(12:10):
I don't know what my titles aregoing to be until I see them.
I suggest something but youknow, nine times out of ten they
don't take it, and so you know.
I guess the publisher ofConstance Garnett's translation
decided that it would sellbetter as the Possessed right,
(12:31):
which is the reverse, becauseyou know, the demons are the
possessors.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Very different meaning.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
yeah, Right, demons is accurate, but it's been known
as the Possessed because thathappens to be in spite of you
know that title, the besttranslation of it to be in spite
of you know that title the besttranslation of it.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
It's a fascinating book because you see what
happens when people get carriedaway with.
Nihilism is a big part and thereason.
I think this applies to moderncultures.
I think a lot, a lot of peoplein my generation, Gen Z, we have
this outlook.
We've grown up in a culturethat's very polarized and truth
itself has been questioned a lot, as we've grown upone of
(13:11):
mistrust throughout all of ourinstitutions and even between
people in our society.
Who do you?
Who's really has your interest?
(13:32):
Are they trying to get yourmoney, your votes?
Like what's really happening?
And there's an undercurrent ofmistrust which oftentimes leads
to nihilism or this obsessionwith a utopia future that can,
as we've talked about, instigatevery radical shifts.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Yeah, I mean, you know, I don't know.
You may have heard of thenovelist Solzhenitsyn, from the
Soviet well, you know, who wroteabout the gulags and all this.
And he has one remarkablesentence about this, what he
learned from all his experience,which was that it would be so
easy if the reason there wasevil in the world was that
(14:14):
there's a group of evil peopleout there, your political
opponents always, and all you dois eliminate them.
Right, but it's never that way.
But it's never that way becauseand this is his famous line the
line between good and evil doesnot pass between groups, but
right through every human heart,including your own.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
And you're never more likely to commit evil than when
you think you're all good andthe other guy's all right.
It's a big theme throughout,again Dostoevsky, like the
paradox, I think, of theunderground man from Notes from
Underground.
He's just constantly at warwithin himself, he's retreated
from society and a big part ofit is just his inner turmoil
where he's just.
It's fascinating.
Could you talk about thatcharacter Because I feel like
(15:06):
you see him, not as dramatic asyou do in Notes from Underground
, but you see bits and pieces ofthat character throughout other
works of his.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Well, yeah, I mean, what's most famous about Notes
from Underground is just thefirst part, although you don't
understand it.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
I'm a sick man, I'm a wicked man.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
See, I know you read the wrong translation.
It's not wicked, it's spiteful.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Interesting Okay, okay.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
I know which translation you read, and it's,
you know, the only one that doesit that way Fascinating.
The key concept of the book isspite, by which he means doing
something not for your ownadvantage, but simply just to do
it without any reason.
That's what he calls spite.
If you translate that as wicked, you've missed the point.
(15:53):
Yeah, you have, you've totallymissed it.
That's why those translatorsare always the last ones to read
.
Read any other translation orask me for a list.
I'll give you a list of thebest.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Towards the end.
Remind me and I will get a list, because that is one of my
questions.
Email me.
I have it all written down.
Excellent, we'll post it.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
I mean the first part is all about what is he's
arguing against the worldviewthat lots of people still have,
namely that if you know all thescientific laws of nature since
they are all deterministic andhuman beings are nothing but
collections of molecules and soforth then you may think you're
(16:38):
making choices.
But actually it's all beendetermined by the laws of nature
from all the.
Therefore there is no choice,just the illusion of it.
He is trying to argue that thatis wrong, and the theory that
was dominant in his day, whichis still taught in economics
departments, is everyone alwaysacts for their own advantage, as
(17:01):
they best perceive it, whichmeans if you know what people
perceive the best advantage of,you, can predict infallibly what
they'll do, because there's nofree choice.
So he's going to, which meansif you know what people perceive
the best advantage of you, canpredict infallibly what they'll
do, because there's no freechoice.
So he tries to show that he isjust going to act not that way.
He's going to act spitefully,as he calls it, not according to
(17:21):
his own, just to prove that heis free, that he is free.
There's not a piano key or or anorgan, as he says, and that
section, I can tell you has beenso incredibly influential in
modern thought.
I remember many years ago I hada graduate student who came to
(17:47):
my department from Princeton andyou know she got her PhD and
been working for Microsoft eversince.
She's a wonderful student andthe first week she was there she
said I hope you're not going tomake me read notes from
undergrad again, because atPrinceton I read it in seven
(18:10):
different courses Philosophy,psychology you know, that's
enough.
That's how influential it was,you know.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Yeah, I find that book fascinating because I find
artificial intelligencefascinating.
Actually, this episode willcome out around the end of a
bunch of artificial intelligenceepisodes and that whole thing
about.
I mean, this is the translationI read, so let's see.
The whole thing about a tableof logarithms Like you can't
predict man's Right, that's true.
(18:40):
Okay, great, you can't predictman's actions through a table of
logarithms.
I just immediately thought ofalgorithms, and not like in the
very actual sense, not even inan analogy.
We have algorithms that attemptto predict what people like and
what people will do?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Oh, I didn't think about that.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
There's social media and artificial intelligence, and
this is where I thinkDostoevsky and artificial
intelligence intersect.
Because man doesn't want to bepredicted, like Dimitri's famous
response, is chemistry,chemistry, everything's
chemistry, and it's thisrebellion of the human spirit,
almost.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Yes, that's right and that's what you know.
That's the core of Dostoevsky.
That is his first principle ofethics is always treat another
person as capable of surprise,because otherwise you're
treating them as a pure materialobject if you can predict
(19:33):
perfectly what they're doing andyou're dehumanizing them.
So people well, I know whatyou're going to do I've looked
at your fMRI.
To do that is to treat a personas nothing but an object and
that makes ethics impossible.
One philosopher talking aboutDostoevsky has called this
(19:56):
characteristic surprisingness.
People are made up of surprise.
If they don't havesurprisingness, they're not
people.
That's where ethics begins,with surprisingness.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Yeah, and to have a computer, for example, an
artificial intelligence model,be surprising to you.
You have to have actually mysister's currently programming a
chatbot actually, and we'vebeen experimenting with this.
In order for it to seem random,you have to have already
responses and laws in place.
That it's not actually random.
(20:26):
It only gives the appearance ofrandomness, which is completely
unlike a human.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Right, that's right and you could.
Giving the appearance ofrandomness, of course, just
invites you to say okay, what'sthe anecdote to demons and the
underground?
Speaker 1 (20:41):
man seems to be Alyosha, and that seems to be
(21:02):
Dostoevsky's response.
We have this abstraction, wehave this kind of inner paradox,
the rebellion of the humanspirit against the tables of
logarithms.
But how can we do that and notgo into genus?
I go off in like another routewith abstractions.
The response seems to bealliotian.
Um zosima, how would like,could you talk about those
(21:23):
characters?
Speaker 2 (21:25):
I mean as a response to abstractions or I, that was
my interpretation.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Now maybe it's an um an incorrect interpretation.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Oh, I mean abstractions will always fall
short, right?
You know somebody thinks theyhave an ironclad theory about
how people behave.
You can write a computerprogram for it, but people are
always more complex than thatand if they weren't, you know,
(21:53):
there'd be no ethics or nomeaning to things I mean.
So you begin with the idea thatin abstract ideas the way we
look at them is they're sort oflike.
When they're done right, theygeneralize from experience,
(22:19):
they're kind of mnemonic devicesfor a whole set of experiences.
They're a starting point forwhere to start thinking, but
they don't determine things,right.
I mean, you know, sometimes theonly way you can perceive
what's really going on in thesituation is to begin with the
abstractions and then see wherethey don't work, and that's
where the human choices arebeing made, that's where
(22:40):
something new or creative ishappening.
So it's not as if abstractionsare of no use.
It's that you have to use themin the right way, not thinking
that they're going to eliminateanything surprising from the
human being.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
In some ways it seems like this kind of obsession
with abstractions.
It's almost thinking aboutPlato in the cave how, the more
abstract and the more formulaicyou get in the sense of the
realm of the forms.
It almost seems to be a veryextreme version of that kind of
an idea that, okay, well, theforms are the essences of things
(23:20):
and rather than the real worldas we see it, being projections
of the forms or the forms kindof embodied.
What we didn't say is well,there must be like a direct
because that we all have theperfect essence of things in a
world beyond us.
There must also be like apattern always to the way we all
act.
A world beyond us there mustalso be like a pattern always to
the way we all act.
Not that there aren't patternsto the way we act, but it's not.
(23:40):
I think we're making a lot ofcorrelation versus causation
mistakes.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Yes, I mean there are patterns, but they don't
explain everything Exactly.
Yeah, there are certainlypatterns to the way I behave.
I mean, you could probablypredict that tomorrow I will not
go surfing, because I never gosurfing.
(24:09):
Right, I live in Chicago.
Where am I going to go surfing?
You know, there's a pattern.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Of course, that doesn't explain everything that
I'm going to do, right, hey,you're not a piano key, though,
so maybe next morning you'llwake up and go to California and
start surfing.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Or maybe I'll even try on Lake Michigan.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Exactly Now.
That would be a story.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Yeah, that would be a story.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
So, as our time is kind of running out, I want to
switch to the last two questions, and I'm really interested in
this case as a kind of aprofessor of literature and of
great works.
What books have had an impacton you?
Speaker 2 (24:53):
It's so hard to, you know, single them out.
It's so hard to single them out, but for me the books that are
meant to most are the greatRussian novels, particularly
Tolstoy's novels, war and Peaceand Anna Karenina, and
Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazovand Crime and Punishment, also
(25:14):
the ones that just enormously,you know enormously affected me.
And then I guess you can sayone English novel, middlemarch
by George Eliot.
You know that is as wise a youknow piece of literature as I
know.
So I would say, you know, thoseare the works that have meant
(25:39):
the most to me and I keep comingback to them over and over
again.
I've taught many times and everytime I teach one of them I see
something I didn't see before.
And you know that isn't true.
Unless the work is very good, awork that you can exhaust in
(25:59):
one or two readings, you mightas well just read somebody's
thematic essay about it, that'sall it's saying, right?
And that, by the way, if aliterature teacher doesn't show
you why, you have to actuallyread the book, not just some
paraphrase of its message, andthey haven't taught the
(26:20):
literature or they've taught badliterature.
So those are what I keep comingback to Every year.
I teach Anna Karenina andBrothers Karamazov.
And every year I see somethingI didn't see before.
That's what makes it stillexciting.
You know I finished in June my50th year of university teaching
(26:46):
Congratulations.
And you know I still love doingit because I see something more
.
And you know I have reallybright and creative students.
You know people like you.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Thanks it's.
It seems to be a theme withgreat literature.
The more life experience youget, the more you're able to
reflect on the great literatureand see the different aspects,
like for me, things aboutgrowing up, going into a world,
like worldview things,developing a worldview, that
stuff in Dostoevsky and in greatliterature.
That really impacts me becausethat's kind of where I am in my
life.
I'm kind of developing myperspective of the world.
(27:19):
But then as you get older yousee different things in it.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
There are different things in literature that stand
out.
Yeah, and you know you're goingto make the ideal college
students, providing you go tothe right college, because
you're never going to get achance, you know, in life when
you're able to spend all yourtime asking, or most of your
time asking, these questions,but you know college students
who spend all their time, youknow, just accumulating things
(27:53):
for their you know resume whenthey're looking for a job and
never actually ask thesequestions.
They're missing the collegeexperience.
Right, you can, of course, dosome of that, you have to but
this is the time when you canreally, you know, ask those
questions that you like to ask.
Right, and you know that's whatI think literature is for.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Yeah, what advice do you have for teenagers?
What advice?
Speaker 2 (28:16):
do you have for teenagers?
You know, take college oreducation seriously.
Really ask those questionsabout.
You, know what makes lifemeaningful?
If you don't ask them now, ifyou don't get into the habit of
asking them now, you won't askthem later.
(28:38):
And then don't think the worldis so simple.
Whenever you're sure that youhave the whole truth or all
goodness on your side and theother side is all wrong, that
means you haven't exercised yourimagination enough to imagine
(29:00):
how that person is looking atyou.
Empathy, both emotional andintellectual, is the path to
wisdom.
Anybody can see the world fromtheir own point of view.
It takes wisdom to say, okay,let me bracket that for a minute
and imagine how the otherperson is looking at me.
And that's what also greatliterature helps you do, because
(29:23):
you start identifying withpeople unlike yourself and that
becomes training for doing thatin the rest of life.
But that's the most you know.
Your experience is alwayspartial.
So unless you can sort of addon the experience of others by
empathizing with differentpoints of view, you're going to
be much narrower and make manymore moral mistakes than you
(29:45):
would otherwise.
So that's the advice.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
It's fascinating because people at first often
hear that advice and theysometimes misinterpret it and
categorize it as naive, likewell, you just don't really
fully understand my perspective.
And usually the next line ishow dumb their perspective is.
And then I have more of theanswers.
And one of the really coolthings about Russian literature
(30:14):
is they don't shy out, theydon't make anything sunshine and
roses.
They're pretty intense abouthow bleak the darkness, the cold
, the starvation and just theterrible things of the world can
be.
So these are the people who aregiving this perspective and
this wisdom.
It's not this almost naive,overly romantic view.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Yeah, and you understand that once you think
you've got all the truth, thenthere's no reason to have a
democracy or freedom, just setup a dictatorship with your guys
in charge, and that's what thecommunists or the Nazis did.
And when people think they'rethat sure, they create horror,
(30:57):
absolute horror.
Nothing causes more evil thanthe idea that you can abolish it
forever yourself, because ifyou're evil, I'm thinking you've
got all the goodness in this.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
And, tied with that, that you can predict every
single thing about someone too.
Those two ideas seem to beincredibly destructive.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Yes, and they go together.
They do Well.
Thank you so much, ProfessorMorrison, for coming on the show
.
I've really enjoyed ourconversation.
We had so many differentaspects of Russian literature.
Yes, and you know, I reallywish you the best.
You can tell me where you windup going to school.
Thank you, Okay.
Well, welcome Professor Morrison to the
interview.
Thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Oh, I'm delighted to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
So we were talking a little bit off air.
But you wrote a fascinatingbook called Wonder Confront
Certainty about all thedifferent Russian authors
answering life's big, bigphilosophical questions.
But categorizing them asphilosophical questions makes
you assume that they're not alsolife questions as well.
(00:26):
So, to start off, could youdiscuss what some of those
questions are?
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Sure, I'll just say that in Russian literature,
people are always addressinglife questions which are
philosophical questions Likewell, does life have a meaning
or is it just random incidents?
Is, if you don't accept God orthe supernatural, is there any
(00:57):
basis for morality or is it justall relative?
And if so, how do you deal withthat fact?
You know, has everything beendetermined from you know, the
beginning of time, or are therereally alternatives?
It does not just seem that way,but there really are, either by
chance or choice, or both.
What is the right way to live,what's the moral way to live and
(01:23):
what's the meaningful way tolive?
What's the moral?
way to live and what's themeaningful way to live?
All these questions areconstantly on the minds of
Russian authors.
They call them the accursedquestions.
Accursed because you keepasking them but they never have
a final answer.
But that doesn't mean you don'tlearn anything by asking.
You may not get a final answer,but you deepen your
(01:46):
understanding of the questionand that's what Russiansky you
see this a lot in.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Brothers Karamazov and of course, ivan famously has
his speech during the chapteron the rebellion and they talk
about just the most terriblesuffering, specifically about
children, and he has one of themost pointed arguments against
God.
Essentially he accuses God ofbasically allowing all the
suffering, and it's interestingthat a Christian author like
(02:29):
Dostoevsky has that pointed of aresponse and then the way he
addresses it later on.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Well, you've got exactly.
You're asking exactly the rightquestion.
I mean, and this is how he sawit.
Okay, think of it this way Ifyou are a prizefighter, you
don't get any credit for beatingup a kindergartner.
(02:57):
I tell my students, right, ifthey want to, they can take
either side in a question, I ask, but they'll be judged on the
strength of the arguments on theother side that they're
opposing.
That is to be intellectuallyhonest.
You don't answer the dumbestarguments on the other side, but
the strongest, right.
So Dostoevsky thought okay, ifhe is really going to establish
(03:20):
faith, it can't be by attackingstraw men.
It has to be.
He has to confront thestrongest arguments on the other
side, and if your opponentshaven't made them, you make them
for him, which is what he'sdoing here.
So he was proud he was makingmuch stronger arguments against
(03:43):
God than the atheists of histime did or any time.
And he did it precisely becausehe was making much stronger
arguments against God than theatheists of his time did or any
time.
And he did it precisely becausehe was intellectually honest
and he wanted to contend withthe strongest arguments against
faith.
Only that's.
That's the only way you couldestablish it.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
One of the other really interesting things about
that to me was, without spoilingthe book and that's kind of
something throughout thisinterview we won't spoil any of
the books because we're tryingto convince you to read all of
them.
That's a big kind of subtlepush from me as an interviewer
here.
But one of the interestingparts about that conversation is
(04:18):
Alyosha, who he's speaking tohis brother is a devout Eastern
Orthodox monk and he doesn't.
Oh, he's not a monk, oh, he'snot a to his brother is a devout
Eastern Orthodox monk.
Oh, he's not a monk.
Oh, he's not a monk, he'sliving in a monastery.
Good to know.
Yes, he's not a monk.
Yes, thank you.
He's not even a novice.
He just happens to be living inthe monastery for the time
(04:40):
being.
That is an interesting point,because I misinterpreted that.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Yeah, could you discuss a little bit more of
that?
Just as a minor segue.
Well, he's so much taken byfather zosima that he moves into
the monastery to be with him.
But he's not, you know, and he,he might want to become a monk,
but father zosima tells him notto, tells him don't go out into
the world, right, and if youwant to come back at some other
time, maybe you do that, butfirst you have to know life.
So he's not.
He's not actually a monk.
Maybe someday he might be, buthe's devout enough to be living
(05:11):
near Father Simu, who's reallyhis mentor.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Yeah, that's fascinating because I knew that
passage later on but I hadassumed that he was a monk, at
least in that first bit.
But yeah, that's a really good,that's more context on that
entire story, that wholeconversation between Alyos bit,
but yeah, that's, that's areally good, that's more context
on that entire story going.
That, that whole conversationbetween Alyosha and Ivan.
Alyosha he doesn't have asphilosophical of a rebuttal.
If he has even a rebuttal, atleast in the philosophical sense
(05:36):
, directly to Ivan.
And it seemed to me that therest of the narrative, the rest
of the storyline, is almost ananswer to Ivan.
It's not an intellectualresponse but it is the
experience of life in whathappens to Ivan is his rebuttal.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yes, I think you're right.
Do you remember early in thebook when they're all in Father
Seymour's cell in part one andDmitri hasn't shown up?
So he goes out to greet thepeople who are waiting for him?
One of them is MadameHorslakova, who you know is the
mother of Lise, who lovesAljosha, and she demands that
(06:17):
Father Zimut tell her, give herproof that there is immortality
or a meaning to life, or beyondjust the material world.
And he says well, there's noproving it.
He says there's nophilosophical that will prove
(06:40):
that life has a meaning.
But you can become convinced ofit, that life has a meaning, but
you can become convinced of it.
How do you become convinced ofit?
By living the right sort oflife, a life of what he calls
active love.
Right, and then you will sensethe meaning if you live it.
But you won't be able toformulate it in such a way that
(07:09):
will convince someone with anargument, because they would
have to live it too.
So, yes, it's.
You know what happens to Ivan.
That becomes part of theargument.
You know the different ways inwhich people live.
That that becomes, you know, agood part, and you know just in
the story itself.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Yeah, it almost seemed like a reductio ad
absurdum argument, like he'sreducing it to absurdity in the
sense that he takes Dostoevsky,takes worldviews and he battle,
tests them.
He says, okay, well, we couldhave a philosophical
conversation about this.
We can say, we can argue withpremises, we can argue with our
little syllogisms, with Platoand everyone, but really what
really matters with yourworldview is can it survive when
(07:52):
you're put through differentthings, when different things
happen?
Can your worldview survive?
And because he is such apsychologically rich author, he
can really test the worldviews.
And it seems like, rather thanthe philosophical rebuttal,
really test the worldviews.
And it seems like, rather thanthe philosophical rebuttal, what
happens to the way peoplerespond in these circumstances
(08:13):
is the proof for or againsttheir worldview.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Yeah, battle, testing an idea is a good idea, in fact
.
That's, by the way, generallythe way in which philosophical
novels generally work.
They have a hero or heroine whobelieves in a philosophical
idea, and then the novel traceswhat happens, what are the
consequences of that belief.
(08:35):
That's not just Dostoevsky, youknow.
The Russians love philosophicalnovels, but there are great
English philosophical novels too.
They all work in that way.
Ideas are abstractions, butrealist novels give you the
nitty-gritty of daily life,which is much more complex than
(08:57):
any abstraction.
And next to that, next to realexperience, any abstraction
seems kind of thin.
And that's how they test right.
You know other literary genres,you know, think the
abstractions are better thaneveryday life, and they wouldn't
do it that way.
(09:17):
But realist novels, all youknow, believe in reality and
daily life as being too complexfor any theory.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
I recently wrote a piece on my sub stack that I've
talked about on the podcastbefore.
It was titled the Dangers ofAbstracting Individuals in a
Divided Society and it was baseda lot on Brothers Karamazov as
well, as I guess I had beenreading Demons, one of
Dostoevsky's other works, andthis idea of especially in a
(09:49):
modern sense, social media.
For example, it's really easy tokind of make two-dimensionality
, to make people two-dimensional, and it's very easy to reduce
them to their hashtags and totheir likes and to their tweets
and stuff like that them totheir hashtags and to their
likes and to their tweets andstuff like that and you're
missing.
When you respond in a way likeyou respond in an emotional way
(10:10):
to that, you're missing.
There's so much more complexitythere and Dostoevsky talks
about being possessed by ideasand there's, of course,
abstracting individuals.
He was abstract and thereforecruel in Crime and Punishment.
It's a fascinating concept whenyou because he himself was a
rebel and he eventually turnedfrom being a rebel and not
(10:32):
became an anti-rebel by anymeans, but just warned about the
implications of that and wasquite almost in some ways he
seems pretty prophetic in a lotof the way Russian culture went.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
How do you see him as prophetic?
I do too.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Well, from my understanding of history now I'm
not a Russian historian by anymeans, but you see quickly, like
the starvation of Russian, yousee throughout kind of human
history.
When you have great utopianideas you can justify terrible
things.
It's because you're not it'snot the present circumstance,
it's the future circumstance,and that's where terrible things
(11:07):
happen.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Yeah, if you think you're in possession of the
ultimate truth about how toreorganize society and save
people, then well, if you'regoing to save all people and
make them all happy, anybloodshed is worth it.
And so you commit any bloodshed, right?
Because you have too much faithin the theories.
Exactly, and that's whathappened in Russian history, of
(11:30):
course, with the revolution.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Yeah, and throughout Dostoevsky's writing you see
this theme of people.
Well, one of the titles, thetranslated titles, the possessed
Now it's been debated whetherit should be translated as
Demons or something with thecharacters themselves Demons is
accurate.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
I will tell you something as somebody who writes
a lot for columns in the WallStreet Journal.
When these things come out, theauthor never chooses the title.
The title is always whateverthe editor of the journal thinks
.
You know the newspaper thinksis going to attract readers.
(12:10):
I don't know what my titles aregoing to be until I see them.
I suggest something but youknow, nine times out of ten they
don't take it, and so you know.
I guess the publisher ofConstance Garnett's translation
decided that it would sellbetter as the Possessed right,
(12:31):
which is the reverse, becauseyou know, the demons are the
possessors.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Very different meaning.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
yeah, Right, demons is accurate, but it's been known
as the Possessed because thathappens to be in spite of you
know that title, the besttranslation of it to be in spite
of you know that title the besttranslation of it.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
It's a fascinating book because you see what
happens when people get carriedaway with.
Nihilism is a big part and thereason.
I think this applies to moderncultures.
I think a lot, a lot of peoplein my generation, Gen Z, we have
this outlook.
We've grown up in a culturethat's very polarized and truth
itself has been questioned a lot, as we've grown upone of
(13:11):
mistrust throughout all of ourinstitutions and even between
people in our society.
Who do you?
Who's really has your interest?
(13:32):
Are they trying to get yourmoney, your votes?
Like what's really happening?
And there's an undercurrent ofmistrust which oftentimes leads
to nihilism or this obsessionwith a utopia future that can,
as we've talked about, instigatevery radical shifts.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Yeah, I mean, you know, I don't know.
You may have heard of thenovelist Solzhenitsyn, from the
Soviet well, you know, who wroteabout the gulags and all this.
And he has one remarkablesentence about this, what he
learned from all his experience,which was that it would be so
easy if the reason there wasevil in the world was that
(14:14):
there's a group of evil peopleout there, your political
opponents always, and all you dois eliminate them.
Right, but it's never that way.
But it's never that way becauseand this is his famous line the
line between good and evil doesnot pass between groups, but
right through every human heart,including your own.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
And you're never more likely to commit evil than when
you think you're all good andthe other guy's all right.
It's a big theme throughout,again Dostoevsky, like the
paradox, I think, of theunderground man from Notes from
Underground.
He's just constantly at warwithin himself, he's retreated
from society and a big part ofit is just his inner turmoil
where he's just.
It's fascinating.
Could you talk about thatcharacter Because I feel like
(15:06):
you see him, not as dramatic asyou do in Notes from Underground
, but you see bits and pieces ofthat character throughout other
works of his.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Well, yeah, I mean, what's most famous about Notes
from Underground is just thefirst part, although you don't
understand it.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
I'm a sick man, I'm a wicked man.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
See, I know you read the wrong translation.
It's not wicked, it's spiteful.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Interesting Okay, okay.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
I know which translation you read, and it's,
you know, the only one that doesit that way Fascinating.
The key concept of the book isspite, by which he means doing
something not for your ownadvantage, but simply just to do
it without any reason.
That's what he calls spite.
If you translate that as wicked, you've missed the point.
(15:53):
Yeah, you have, you've totallymissed it.
That's why those translatorsare always the last ones to read
.
Read any other translation orask me for a list.
I'll give you a list of thebest.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Towards the end.
Remind me and I will get a list, because that is one of my
questions.
Email me.
I have it all written down.
Excellent, we'll post it.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
I mean the first part is all about what is he's
arguing against the worldviewthat lots of people still have,
namely that if you know all thescientific laws of nature since
they are all deterministic andhuman beings are nothing but
collections of molecules and soforth then you may think you're
(16:38):
making choices.
But actually it's all beendetermined by the laws of nature
from all the.
Therefore there is no choice,just the illusion of it.
He is trying to argue that thatis wrong, and the theory that
was dominant in his day, whichis still taught in economics
departments, is everyone alwaysacts for their own advantage, as
(17:01):
they best perceive it, whichmeans if you know what people
perceive the best advantage of,you, can predict infallibly what
they'll do, because there's nofree choice.
So he's going to, which meansif you know what people perceive
the best advantage of you, canpredict infallibly what they'll
do, because there's no freechoice.
So he tries to show that he isjust going to act not that way.
He's going to act spitefully,as he calls it, not according to
(17:21):
his own, just to prove that heis free, that he is free.
There's not a piano key or or anorgan, as he says, and that
section, I can tell you has beenso incredibly influential in
modern thought.
I remember many years ago I hada graduate student who came to
(17:47):
my department from Princeton andyou know she got her PhD and
been working for Microsoft eversince.
She's a wonderful student andthe first week she was there she
said I hope you're not going tomake me read notes from
undergrad again, because atPrinceton I read it in seven
(18:10):
different courses Philosophy,psychology you know, that's
enough.
That's how influential it was,you know.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Yeah, I find that book fascinating because I find
artificial intelligencefascinating.
Actually, this episode willcome out around the end of a
bunch of artificial intelligenceepisodes and that whole thing
about.
I mean, this is the translationI read, so let's see.
The whole thing about a tableof logarithms Like you can't
predict man's Right, that's true.
(18:40):
Okay, great, you can't predictman's actions through a table of
logarithms.
I just immediately thought ofalgorithms, and not like in the
very actual sense, not even inan analogy.
We have algorithms that attemptto predict what people like and
what people will do?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Oh, I didn't think about that.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
There's social media and artificial intelligence, and
this is where I thinkDostoevsky and artificial
intelligence intersect.
Because man doesn't want to bepredicted, like Dimitri's famous
response, is chemistry,chemistry, everything's
chemistry, and it's thisrebellion of the human spirit,
almost.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Yes, that's right and that's what you know.
That's the core of Dostoevsky.
That is his first principle ofethics is always treat another
person as capable of surprise,because otherwise you're
treating them as a pure materialobject if you can predict
(19:33):
perfectly what they're doing andyou're dehumanizing them.
So people well, I know whatyou're going to do I've looked
at your fMRI.
To do that is to treat a personas nothing but an object and
that makes ethics impossible.
One philosopher talking aboutDostoevsky has called this
(19:56):
characteristic surprisingness.
People are made up of surprise.
If they don't havesurprisingness, they're not
people.
That's where ethics begins,with surprisingness.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Yeah, and to have a computer, for example, an
artificial intelligence model,be surprising to you.
You have to have actually mysister's currently programming a
chatbot actually, and we'vebeen experimenting with this.
In order for it to seem random,you have to have already
responses and laws in place.
That it's not actually random.
(20:26):
It only gives the appearance ofrandomness, which is completely
unlike a human.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Right, that's right and you could.
Giving the appearance ofrandomness, of course, just
invites you to say okay, what'sthe anecdote to demons and the
underground?
Speaker 1 (20:41):
man seems to be Alyosha, and that seems to be
(21:02):
Dostoevsky's response.
We have this abstraction, wehave this kind of inner paradox,
the rebellion of the humanspirit against the tables of
logarithms.
But how can we do that and notgo into genus?
I go off in like another routewith abstractions.
The response seems to bealliotian.
Um zosima, how would like,could you talk about those
(21:23):
characters?
Speaker 2 (21:25):
I mean as a response to abstractions or I, that was
my interpretation.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Now maybe it's an um an incorrect interpretation.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Oh, I mean abstractions will always fall
short, right?
You know somebody thinks theyhave an ironclad theory about
how people behave.
You can write a computerprogram for it, but people are
always more complex than thatand if they weren't, you know,
(21:53):
there'd be no ethics or nomeaning to things I mean.
So you begin with the idea thatin abstract ideas the way we
look at them is they're sort oflike.
When they're done right, theygeneralize from experience,
(22:19):
they're kind of mnemonic devicesfor a whole set of experiences.
They're a starting point forwhere to start thinking, but
they don't determine things,right.
I mean, you know, sometimes theonly way you can perceive
what's really going on in thesituation is to begin with the
abstractions and then see wherethey don't work, and that's
where the human choices arebeing made, that's where
(22:40):
something new or creative ishappening.
So it's not as if abstractionsare of no use.
It's that you have to use themin the right way, not thinking
that they're going to eliminateanything surprising from the
human being.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
In some ways it seems like this kind of obsession
with abstractions.
It's almost thinking aboutPlato in the cave how, the more
abstract and the more formulaicyou get in the sense of the
realm of the forms.
It almost seems to be a veryextreme version of that kind of
an idea that, okay, well, theforms are the essences of things
(23:20):
and rather than the real worldas we see it, being projections
of the forms or the forms kindof embodied.
What we didn't say is well,there must be like a direct
because that we all have theperfect essence of things in a
world beyond us.
There must also be like apattern always to the way we all
act.
A world beyond us there mustalso be like a pattern always to
the way we all act.
Not that there aren't patternsto the way we act, but it's not.
(23:40):
I think we're making a lot ofcorrelation versus causation
mistakes.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Yes, I mean there are patterns, but they don't
explain everything Exactly.
Yeah, there are certainlypatterns to the way I behave.
I mean, you could probablypredict that tomorrow I will not
go surfing, because I never gosurfing.
(24:09):
Right, I live in Chicago.
Where am I going to go surfing?
You know, there's a pattern.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Of course, that doesn't explain everything that
I'm going to do, right, hey,you're not a piano key, though,
so maybe next morning you'llwake up and go to California and
start surfing.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Or maybe I'll even try on Lake Michigan.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Exactly Now.
That would be a story.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Yeah, that would be a story.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
So, as our time is kind of running out, I want to
switch to the last two questions, and I'm really interested in
this case as a kind of aprofessor of literature and of
great works.
What books have had an impacton you?
Speaker 2 (24:53):
It's so hard to, you know, single them out.
It's so hard to single them out, but for me the books that are
meant to most are the greatRussian novels, particularly
Tolstoy's novels, war and Peaceand Anna Karenina, and
Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazovand Crime and Punishment, also
(25:14):
the ones that just enormously,you know enormously affected me.
And then I guess you can sayone English novel, middlemarch
by George Eliot.
You know that is as wise a youknow piece of literature as I
know.
So I would say, you know, thoseare the works that have meant
(25:39):
the most to me and I keep comingback to them over and over
again.
I've taught many times and everytime I teach one of them I see
something I didn't see before.
And you know that isn't true.
Unless the work is very good, awork that you can exhaust in
(25:59):
one or two readings, you mightas well just read somebody's
thematic essay about it, that'sall it's saying, right?
And that, by the way, if aliterature teacher doesn't show
you why, you have to actuallyread the book, not just some
paraphrase of its message, andthey haven't taught the
(26:20):
literature or they've taught badliterature.
So those are what I keep comingback to Every year.
I teach Anna Karenina andBrothers Karamazov.
And every year I see somethingI didn't see before.
That's what makes it stillexciting.
You know I finished in June my50th year of university teaching
(26:46):
Congratulations.
And you know I still love doingit because I see something more
.
And you know I have reallybright and creative students.
You know people like you.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Thanks it's.
It seems to be a theme withgreat literature.
The more life experience youget, the more you're able to
reflect on the great literatureand see the different aspects,
like for me, things aboutgrowing up, going into a world,
like worldview things,developing a worldview, that
stuff in Dostoevsky and in greatliterature.
That really impacts me becausethat's kind of where I am in my
life.
I'm kind of developing myperspective of the world.
(27:19):
But then as you get older yousee different things in it.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
There are different things in literature that stand
out.
Yeah, and you know you're goingto make the ideal college
students, providing you go tothe right college, because
you're never going to get achance, you know, in life when
you're able to spend all yourtime asking, or most of your
time asking, these questions,but you know college students
who spend all their time, youknow, just accumulating things
(27:53):
for their you know resume whenthey're looking for a job and
never actually ask thesequestions.
They're missing the collegeexperience.
Right, you can, of course, dosome of that, you have to but
this is the time when you canreally, you know, ask those
questions that you like to ask.
Right, and you know that's whatI think literature is for.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Yeah, what advice do you have for teenagers?
What advice?
Speaker 2 (28:16):
do you have for teenagers?
You know, take college oreducation seriously.
Really ask those questionsabout.
You, know what makes lifemeaningful?
If you don't ask them now, ifyou don't get into the habit of
asking them now, you won't askthem later.
(28:38):
And then don't think the worldis so simple.
Whenever you're sure that youhave the whole truth or all
goodness on your side and theother side is all wrong, that
means you haven't exercised yourimagination enough to imagine
(29:00):
how that person is looking atyou.
Empathy, both emotional andintellectual, is the path to
wisdom.
Anybody can see the world fromtheir own point of view.
It takes wisdom to say, okay,let me bracket that for a minute
and imagine how the otherperson is looking at me.
And that's what also greatliterature helps you do, because
(29:23):
you start identifying withpeople unlike yourself and that
becomes training for doing thatin the rest of life.
But that's the most you know.
Your experience is alwayspartial.
So unless you can sort of addon the experience of others by
empathizing with differentpoints of view, you're going to
be much narrower and make manymore moral mistakes than you
(29:45):
would otherwise.
So that's the advice.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
It's fascinating because people at first often
hear that advice and theysometimes misinterpret it and
categorize it as naive, likewell, you just don't really
fully understand my perspective.
And usually the next line ishow dumb their perspective is.
And then I have more of theanswers.
And one of the really coolthings about Russian literature
(30:14):
is they don't shy out, theydon't make anything sunshine and
roses.
They're pretty intense abouthow bleak the darkness, the cold
, the starvation and just theterrible things of the world can
be.
So these are the people who aregiving this perspective and
this wisdom.
It's not this almost naive,overly romantic view.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Yeah, and you understand that once you think
you've got all the truth, thenthere's no reason to have a
democracy or freedom, just setup a dictatorship with your guys
in charge, and that's what thecommunists or the Nazis did.
And when people think they'rethat sure, they create horror,
(30:57):
absolute horror.
Nothing causes more evil thanthe idea that you can abolish it
forever yourself, because ifyou're evil, I'm thinking you've
got all the goodness in this.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
And, tied with that, that you can predict every
single thing about someone too.
Those two ideas seem to beincredibly destructive.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Yes, and they go together.
They do Well.
Thank you so much, ProfessorMorrison, for coming on the show
.
I've really enjoyed ourconversation.
We had so many differentaspects of Russian literature.
Yes, and you know, I reallywish you the best.
You can tell me where you windup going to school.
Thank you, Okay.
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!