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

Labels:

Comments

  1. Aishwariya LaxmiJune 3, 2023 at 3:42 PM

    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. Tomichan MatheikalJune 3, 2023 at 5:34 PM

      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. magiceyeJune 3, 2023 at 5:02 PM

    Both are not mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yamini MacLeanJune 3, 2023 at 5:39 PM

    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. Tomichan MatheikalJune 3, 2023 at 6:24 PM

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

      Delete
  4. WaterJune 4, 2023 at 6:28 AM

    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. Tomichan MatheikalJune 4, 2023 at 6:44 AM

      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. CareenaJune 13, 2023 at 11:28 AM

    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. Tomichan MatheikalJune 13, 2023 at 1:55 PM

      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
37 comments
Read more

Yesterday

With students of Carmel Margaret, are you grieving / Over Goldengrove unleaving…? It was one of my first days in the eleventh class of Carmel Public School in Kerala, the last school of my teaching career. One girl, whose name was not Margaret, was in the class looking extremely melancholy. I had noticed her for a few days. I didn’t know how to put the matter over to her. I had already told the students that a smiling face was a rule in the English class. Since Margaret didn’t comply, I chose to drag Hopkins in. I replaced the name of Margaret with the girl’s actual name, however, when I quoted the lines. Margaret is a little girl in the Hopkins poem. Looking at autumn’s falling leaves, Margaret is saddened by the fact of life’s inevitable degeneration. The leaves have to turn yellow and eventually fall. And decay. The poet tells her that she has no choice but accept certain inevitabilities of life. Sorrow is our legacy, Margaret , I said to Margaret’s alter ego in my class. Let
34 comments
Read more

X the variable

X is the most versatile and hence a very precious entity in mathematics. Whenever there is an unknown quantity whose value has to be discovered, the mathematician begins with: Let the unknown quantity be x . This A2Z series presented a few personalities who played certain prominent roles in my life. They are not the only ones who touched my life, however. There are so many others, especially relatives, who left indelible marks on my psyche in many ways. I chose not to bring relatives into this series. Dealing with relatives is one of the most difficult jobs for me. I have failed in that task time and again. Miserably sometimes. When I think of relatives, O V Vijayan’s parable leaps to my mind. Father and little son are on a walk. “Be careful lest you fall,” father warns the boy. “What will happen if I fall?” The boy asks. The father’s answer is: “Relatives will laugh.” One of the harsh truths I have noticed as a teacher is that it is nearly impossible to teach your relatives – nephews
16 comments
Read more

Zorba’s Wisdom

Zorba is the protagonist of Nikos Kazantzakis’s novel Zorba the Greek . I fell in love with Zorba the very first time I read the novel. That must have been in my late 20s. I read the novel again after many years. And again a few years ago. I loved listening to Zorba play his santuri . I danced with him on the Cretan beaches. I loved the devil inside Zorba. I called that devil Tomichan. Zorba tells us the story of a monk who lived on Mount Athos. Father Lavrentio. This monk believed that a devil named Hodja resided in him making him do all wrong things. Hodja wants to eat meet on Good Friday, Hodja wants to sleep with a woman, Hodja wants to kill the Abbot… The monk put the blame for all his evil thoughts and deeds on Hodja. “I’ve a kind of devil inside me, too, boss, and I call him Zorba!” Zorba says. I met my devil in Zorba. And I learnt to call it Tomichan. I was as passionate as Zorba was. I enjoyed life exuberantly. As much as I was allowed to, at least. The plain truth is
19 comments
Read more

Everything is Politics

Politics begins to contaminate everything like an epidemic when ideology dies. Death of ideology is the most glaring fault line on the rock of present Indian democracy. Before the present regime took charge of the country, political parties were driven by certain underlying ideologies though corruption was on the rise from Indira Gandhi’s time onwards. Mahatma Gandhi’s ideology was rooted in nonviolence. Nothing could shake the Mahatma’s faith in that ideal. Nehru was a staunch secularist who longed to make India a nation of rational people who will reap the abundant benefits proffered by science and technology. Even the violent left parties had the ideal of socialism to guide them. The most heartless political theory of globalisation was driven by the ideology of wealth-creation for all. When there is no ideology whatever, politics of the foulest kind begins to corrode the very soul of the nation. And that is precisely what is happening to present India. Everything is politics
8 comments
Read more