X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-Path: <mbm@pacscl.uarc.upenn.edu>
Posted-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 19:42:05 EDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.literary
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:42:05 EDT
From:         MM <mbm@PACSCL.UARC.UPENN.EDU>
Subject:      Levin once more
Comments: To: literary@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Tim, you are still holding on to what strikes me as an untenable idea--that
Levin should be able to come to his religious beliefs by an intellectual
process, that this is the better way. Just because Ivan states one of the
problems of faith in an intense way (and the problem of the existence of
evil was not one invented by the intellect of Dostoyevsky), does not mean
that this is a paradd
paradigm of seeking that ought to be followed.
	Second, it is faulty to assume that because Levin is not an intel-
lectual, Tolstoy must not be! All of Tolstoy's work is evidence of a novelistic
ability, and a mind, that was well capable of portraying intellectual
characters, if that had been his goal or desire.
	Einstein was very deliberate too, and slow, and not nearly as good
at making fast arithmetical calculations as most of his colleagues.  He
thought, some say, in a slow and ponderous way. A description of his thought
processes over time might very well have revealed him to be a real slow-poke.
	One tends to be very deliberate, and go over simple things, when
re-thinking conventional wisdom--one of your quoted passages shows him doing
just that. One never appears smart in a flashy way when they are trying to
see what is closest to them in a new perspective. Intelligence is always
flashier, too, when it is dissociated from feeling.
	Too many thoughts mixed in here. Two main points, to reiterate:
(1) For some reason, Tim, you are still suggesting by your phrasing that
Levin should have based his religious decision on more intellectual, less
intuitive grounds--an idea that pretty much lost its validity around the
time that people were arguing over how many angels could fit on the head
of a pin. Dostoyevsky's characters are often hyper-aware that intellect
and faith can be at odds.
(2)Even if you want to call this a limitation in Levin, it is a big and
unwarranted leap to ascribe the same limitation to Tolstoy! Does _Madame
Bovary_ prove that Flaubert was a silly bourgeois woman?
What do you think, Tim, about your insistence that religious belief should
be founded on an intellectual process?  What intellectual process? Do you
recognize the biases you disply toward the intuitive?
	If we phrase the issue differently, and ask which author has
provided the most intense portrait of a religious struggle, then of course
it is Dostoyevsky. But even there, isn't there a question in Ivan of pride
of intellect? Didn't Dostyoevsky see the danger of pride in intellect?
I thought this was one of the themes of the book. Was Father Zossima an
intellectual? Was he not a good man? Was _he_ a fool like Levin?
Tim, there hasn'
t been much complaining about the issue going on too long. This seems to be
a patient list, so until we get chased off, don't worry about whether anyone
thinks you get the last word, just reply if you are so inclined, or don't
if you're not. Time to go pick up the pizza. Michael B.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU