Comparing Spinoza’s Ethics and Dostoyevsky’s Notes from the Underground :: comparison compare contrast essays

Comparing de Spinozas Ethics and Dostoyevskys Notes from the Underground Perhaps my choice of the substance may come across as a little eccentric, to understand the least. To appear quaint and whimsical, however, is not my intention, so I figured as an introduction, I would explain my choice. From so far as I toilette tell, philosophy, or the search for truth, has all too often been equated with certainty. This quality of certainty has been especially magnified in the positivist branch of philosophy. Starting with Descartes spate of a philosophy with a mathematical certainty, rationalists claimed to have grasped a sort of large portion of objectiveity, including the cosmos, God, consciousness, and whatever falls in-between. As empiricists argued, most of this knowledge was in effect assumed, a habit, as it had no representation in the real world. The rationalists notorious abstractness and their disregard for the seeming discrepancy between their proofs and the real world ha ve been the main reasons for the fearsome opposition and caricature they set about even Voltaire, though influenced to a great extent by Leibnizs philosophy, ridicules it in his masterpiece Candide in the form of ludicrously optimistic Pangloss. . Kant, especially, has swan a rather impressive dent in the hull of rationalist philosophy, branding it dogmatic metaphysics. As he pointed out, rationalist philosophy ignores the sensorial component of human perception when embarking on its ill-fated quest to divulge a metaphysics with absolute knowledge. I find this criticism the most powerful, as it points out the discrepancy between the real world and the abstract world of rationalists. Spinozas system stands on the cutting edge of rationalist thought, attempting to establish the certain, necessary and universal truths of reality and nature by cut Descartes philosophy to a set of axioms and definitions, like one would do with a geometry proof. Dostoyevsky stands on the opposite si de of the spectrum, exposing the shortcomings of reason with frightful realism. He, in my opinion, makes fabulously insightful points about this discrepancy between how things should be and how they are. When comparing the manifestos of these both thinkers, Spinozas Ethics and Dostoyevskys Notes from the Underground, one can soft see the difference in language. Spinozas language is strictly mathematical. He is not concerned with engaging the reader. His primary concern is with presenting his radical with clarity and consistency. Dostoyevskys language differs due to the difference of his intention.