Skip to main content

Love and Hell


Russian Dostoevsky and French Jean-Paul Sartre are both great writers. The latter is more of a philosopher than a novelist, I’d say. Both have left indelible marks in the world of literature. But both have diametrically opposite attitudes towards human society. Sartre apparently hated people (except beautiful women). Hell is other people, he said. Dostoevsky, on the other hand, upheld love as the greatest virtue. Hell, for Dostoevsky, is the suffering caused by a person’s inability to love. 

Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre thought of love as conflict. People in love try to control each other, he said. Lovers get trapped in vicious circles of sadomasochistic power games which are meant primarily for keeping the other from leaving you. Love is vulnerable precisely because the other person is free to leave you. Love cannot be forcibly extracted from anyone. But many people do just that: extract it. That’s why love becomes power games.

Dostoevsky would look upon Sartre with commiseration. But he was dead a quarter of a century before Sartre was born. Sartre was a man of the brain while Dostoevsky was a man of the heart. Sartre cerebrated, Dostoevsky celebrated life. I have found myself caught between the two. No wonder, I describe my blog as Cerebrate and Celebrate. [See the header.]

I want the personal freedom that Sartre offers to each one of us. I don’t like human societies much. I stay away. I stay aloof. Except in the classrooms where I teach. I have experienced hells while I tried to be a close part of human societies. I have nodded my head ferociously a million times in agreement with Sartre’s statement about hell being other people. 

Dostoevsky

Yet, Dostoevsky appeals more to me. What is life without love? If you choose to love, you choose to suffer too. Dostoevsky knew that. One of his unforgettable characters, Raskolnikov of Crime and Punishment, put his brain above his heart and thought he would be a superior human being because of that. But he failed miserably in being even a human being, let alone a superior one. He was counselled by another character (who was driven to prostitution by poverty) to accept his crime, his guilt, his sin, and acknowledge his responsibility for all of mankind’s morality. You are responsible not only for your personal morality but that of the entire species. Your redemption lies in your ability to love others.

Of late, I often experience a strange urge to kneel down with my forehead on the earth and say ‘I am sorry.’ Sorry for not taking the responsibility for the evils of my species. I feel drawn to Dostoevsky now just as I felt drawn to Sartre earlier. I long to redeem myself.

PS. Written for Indispire Edition 440: Sartre said hell was other people. Dostoyevsky thought hell was the suffering caused by one's inability to love. Who are you more inclined towards? #Hell

Comments

  1. I often think of Sartre's quote 'Hell is other people' because I feel it's quite true. But I don't agree with the rest of it...that love is all about power games. I don't think power has a role to play in love. As for Dostoevsky's idea that love is a virtue, I'm not sure about that. But yes, I would agree that love brings misery all right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I often look back at my own experience while judging this sort of theories. There is a certain degree of manipulation in relationships, I'd say. It's not for power perhaps but out of one's insecurity feelings...

      Love is a virtue for me. A tough one too.

      Delete
  2. Both are not mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hari OM
    ...which demonstrates that we have all aspects to us and we may have to go through each phase to appreciate the other. The important lesson, ultimately, is to accept and grow, to expand ourselves as human beings. Love only brings misery if we assign a sense of ownership to it - which is then not love at all, but possession. That is Sartre's stance. Dostoesvsky, though, takes a rather more egalitarian and, perhaps, universal view of things. YAM xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dostoevsky was a greater human being, I think, of the two. And a superior novelist too. So perhaps he stands taller.

      Delete
  4. A well chosen theme. Social influence do have a strong hold in everyone of our lives mostly unknowingly. But, that doesn't stop us to live our lives in cages all cut out from other beings. We need to learn how to balance between the two.
    No doubt, I always favor love because much of our evils within us can be nullified if we hold the staff of love. Love in fact gives us freedom to do anything and take responsibility of what we do. On the other hand there is something called manipulation used in name of love..this is toxic. We should be able to identify this and leave. A worthy thoughtful post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love is an experiment until one gets to know its depths. Power games happen because most people take a long while to learn its essential lessons. Some never learn too.

      Delete
  5. I have two of Dostoevsky books on my good-read list, White Nights, and the Gambler.
    Coffee is on, and stay safe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think Sartre's view is born out of a weird laziness: You don't want to deal with the realities of people and so you choose to opt out. But its like a cat chasing its tail; Unless you lean in and try, it will never work out. On the other hand, loving anything in this world is the path to a better you. The "suffering" is like little mounds of obstacles: challenges to our ego, conditioning and desires. They are speedbreakers on the road. When we realise the depth of love, we realise, love is in fact freedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's almost a mystical view. Yes, Sartre probably wouldn't wish undertake the trouble of enduring mediocre mortals merely because he didn't know how to love them.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...

India in Modi-Trap

That’s like harnessing a telescope to a Vedic chant and expecting the stars to spin closer. Illustration by Gemini AI A friend forwarded a WhatsApp message written by K Sahadevan, Malayalam writer and social activist. The central theme is a concern for science education and research in India. The writer bemoans the fact that in India science is in a prison conjured up by Narendra Modi. The message shocked me. I hadn’t been aware of many things mentioned therein. Modi is making use of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s Centre for Study and Research in Indology for his nefarious purposes projected as efforts to “preserve and promote classical Indian knowledge systems [IKS]” which include Sanskrit, Ayurveda, Jyotisha (astrology), literature, philosophy, and ancient sciences and technology. The objective is to integrate science with spirituality and cultural values. That’s like harnessing a telescope to a Vedic chant and expecting the stars to spin closer. The IKS curricula have made umpteen r...

Joys of Onam and a reflection

Suppose that the whole universe were to be saved and made perfect and happy forever on just one condition: one single soul must suffer, alone, eternally. Would this be acceptable? Philosopher William James asked that in his 1891 book, The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life . Please think about it once again and answer the question for yourself. You, as well as others, are going to live a life without a tinge of sorrow. Joyful existence. Life in Paradise. The only condition is that one person will take up all the sorrows of the universe on him-/herself and suffer – alone, eternally. What do you say? James’s answer is a firm no . “Not even a god would be justified in setting up such a scheme,” James asserted, knowing too well how the Bible justified a positive answer to his question. “It is expedient that one man should die for the people, so that the nation can be saved” [John 11:50]. Jesus was that one man in the Biblical vision of redemption. I was reading a Malayalam period...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...