Dostoevsky and the complete man

This is a paper I wrote for my Great books class. Pardon if some of the ideas are redundant from previous posts, as I drew a good bit from them. I owe alot of the expansion of ideas for this paper to Juliet San Nicolas, though these words are my own, and the one place I did quote her is noted. :-)

In the study of rhetoric, there are three things you can appeal to; Logos, which is logic, Ethos, which is ethics or morality, and Pathos, which is the appeal to the emotions. These make up the entire human being, and thus Rhetoricians of old said to appeal to the whole man. I was reading Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov and I noticed that each of the three brothers correspond to the three appeals of rhetoric. We begin the book meeting Ivan, who is a rationalist, Dimitri, who is a sensualist, and Alyosha a monk, who is a moralist. Dostoevsky speaks to the whole man, not just the intellect, like a technical manual, or to the emotions, like a soap opera, but to the mind, heart, and soul of the reader. Making that connection brought to mind a verse in Matthew 22:37, when the Pharisees asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment. Jesus responded, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ “ We are commanded to love God with the whole of our being. Man was perfectly designed to be with God. His soul was molded by God, and in turn, God fits the mold perfectly, because he created it. God appeals to all aspects of a man; Heart, Soul, and Mind, and it is precisely that complete self with which we should love God.

No workable idea is complete without all three being answered for. “Cultures have risen and fallen based on their failure to emphasize all three characteristics of man; Rome degraded into sensuality, The Enlightenment suppressed emotion, Romantics relied overmuch on it.”(J.S. Nicolas) Atheism is built in the mind, and is formed on pure, cold reason, and mind you, on its suppositions it is very logical, but it has no answer for morality, and emotions are a just a hiccup in nature. Atheism does not appeal to the whole man. Ascetic Gnosticism denied the emotional characteristic of Man, and said he should be ruled by Ethos mainly, and Logos along side. Libertine Gnosticism denied morality and ethics, in favor of emotions. Gnosticism does not appeal to the complete man. The only thing that appeals to the whole man completely and perfectly is God. "The greatest commandment is this; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind." God is the great orator.

Seeing Man as three parts makes the trinity easily understandable (as far as we can understand it.) For some reason, the idea of three in one is hard to think about if you don't understand man. Like Jesus said to Nicodemus, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" It's easier to understand the concept of a skyscraper, if you see a picture of a skyscraper; it’s easier to understand God, if we look at the image of God. But to confuse the two-to take the image for God-is a grave error in deed

Beauty is a reflection of God. What we perceive as beautiful is such because God has left his hand print on everything he's made. Good art is not only technically brilliant, but it inspires emotion, an also moves your soul. Think about the music you love. All the musical theory is excellent (Logos), it makes you feel a particular emotion (Pathos), and it gives you inspiration, and you admire it with your soul. (Ethos) You love a musical piece when all three things happen. Joy is when all three aspects of our being are fulfilled. That's why beauty is joyful, and why joy is beautiful. A Christian feels constant joy because God completes our whole being!


I learned a lot about myself, while reading Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky transports you out of yourself, and only then you can you look back and see yourself, and be transformed for the better. The situations and episodes are unlike most anything that I’ve experienced, but he presents them in a way most like everything. He creates a reality quite real. The conflicts between the characters ring familiar the conflict inside us. His characters are so like us that we think alongside them, and we feel we think for them, and above all, we learn from them. A part of me left me when I finished the book, because it affected the whole of me. I was almost sad to leave a world so real. I think I may go visit again sometime. :-)