Newsgroups: bit.listserv.literary
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:51:07 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      The Character of Levin.

>> In the end, Levin only decides to believe in God since,
>> well, that's what he's been taught, and lots of people
>> do believe.

>I recall his reasoning as somewhat more rigorous than *that*,
>something of the order of, in the midst of a black struggle
>against the forces of meaninglessness in the universe, a
>decision to accept the order of an Almighty simply because
>he has the capacity to ask that question.  I think, therefore
>I am, might be closer to his line than what I see in the
>article I'm responding to.

  Well, in response to your criticism in your other post,
I have gone back to the text.

  To quote from the final two chapters, Levin's revelation:

    'Yes, as I looked at the sky I thought that the
  vault I see is not a delusion, but then there was
  something I did not think out, something I have
  hid from myself,' he thought.  'But whatever it was,
  it cannot have been a refutation.  I need only think
  it over, and all will become clear.'
    Just as he was entering the nursery he remembered
  what it was he had hidden from himself.  It was that
  if the principle proof of the existence of a Deity
  is His revelation of what is good, why is that
  revelation confined to the Christian Church alone?
  What relation to that revelation have the Buddhist
  and the Mahomedan faiths, which also teach to do
  good?
    It seemed to him that he had a reply to that question;
  but he had no time to express it to himself before he
  entered the nursery.
    ....
    'Well, what is perplexing me?' Levin asked himself,
  feeling in advance that the solution of his doubts,
  though as yet unknown to him, was already in his soul.
    'Yes, the one evident, indubitable manifestation of
  the Deity is the law of goodness disclosed to men by
  revelation, which I feel within myself....'
    'To me personally, to my heart, has been indubitably
  revealed a knowledge unattainable by reasoning, and I
  obstinately wish to express that knowledge by reason
  and in words'
    '...so would my conclusions be idle and uncertain
  were they not founded on that understanding of goodness
  which was and will be the same always and for everyone,
  and which has been revealed to me by Christianity and
  can always be verified in my soul.  The question of other
  creeds and their relation to the Deity I have not the right
  or possibility of deciding.'
   ....
   'My reason will still not understand why I pray, but I
  shall still pray, and my life, my whole life, independently
  of anything that may happen to me, is every moment of it
  no longer meaningless as it was before, but has an unques-
  tionable meaning of goodness with which I have the power
  to invest it.'

  [from the Norton Critical Edition]

  What we find here is not any sort of analysis or thought.
What we find here is some unfounded conviction that God must
exist, supported by ... that same conviction.  The answers
he finds "in his heart."  Despite his declared desire to
"express that [so-called] knowledge by reason and in words,"
he never succeeds.  His entire argument is "I recognize good
when I see it, thus there must be a God."  When he allows
himself one critical look at this statement, he concludes
"The question of other creeds and their relation to the Deity
I have not the right or possibility of deciding."  An intellectual
cop-out if ever one has existed.  Essentially, his argument has
boiled down to a recognition that he has certain cultural values
which allow him to confer the property of good to certain actions,
and for no obvious reason, he asserts that this is proof of God.
Really, what he is saying is that he knows in his heart there is
a God (why? how?) and since he knows this, there must indeed be
a God.  Not an entirely convincing argument.  (What exactly is
this "law of goodness?")

  But more than just this argument, the real issue is Levin's
ponderous mode of thought.  It is more than evident throughout
this little exchange.  From one assertion to the next he runs
long pauses, hiding things from himself, being sure there is
an answer but being unable to provide it, ignoring the question
if he can't answer it.  This is not a thoughtful or reasoned
moment of reflection.

  Levin goes through similar difficult times whenever there is
any sort of argument.  I've flipped through the book this morning
trying to find an example I recall of Levin and others discussing
the war, and while I've been unable to find that, I have found
other examples.  While involved in his local government (Part VI,
Ch. 30) Levin reveals himself incapable of grasping politics.

    'Who then? Nevedovsky?' asked Levin, feeling that he had
  put his foot in it somehow."
    ....
    And he related how a peasant stole some flour from a miller,
  and how when the miller spoke to him about it the peasant sued
  him for libel.  All this was untimely and foolish, and Levin
  himself was conscious of it even while he spoke.
    ....
    'Oh, I understand nothing about it!  It is all trifling,' said
  Levin, gloomily.
    'There, you say it's all trifling, but when you begin on it you
  make a mess of everything.'
    ....
    At first he was surprised and wanted to understand what it meant;
  then, coming to the conclusion that he could not understand it, he
  grew bored.

  Take as another example the discussion about profit and capitalism
that Levin engages in with Veslovsky and Oblonsky.  Those two gentleman
sport with him rhetorically, and Levin, the big bull, keeps spinning
around, trying to answer the picadors.  (Part VI, Ch. 11)  Compare the
ease with which Veslovsky and Oblonsky argue, with the obvious difficulty
that Levin has.

  Or, if you'd rather, the clumsy and oafish way Levin behaves during
his wedding.

    For a long time, Levin could not be made to understand what he
  had to do, and they were a long while trying to set him right.
  Just as they were going to give it up because he would either
  use the wrong hand or else take her by the wrong one, he at last
  understood that with his right hand, without changing his position,
  he must take her by the right hadnd.

  We aren't talking rocket scientist material, here, folks.  And it
is not merely a matter of the other gentlemen being more urbane than
our ox.

  A few more quotes and I'll close.  From Part VIII Ch 8:

    From that moment, without thinking about it and though he
  continued living as he had done heretofore, Levin never ceased
  to feel afraid of his ignorance.
    Moreover, he was vaguely conscious that what he had called
  his convictions were really ignorance and, more than that, were
  a state of mind which rendered knowledge of what he needed
  impossible.

    (Ch 9) These thoughts oppressed and tormented him, now more
  and now less strongly, but never left him.  He read and thought,
  and the more he read and thought the further he felt from his
  goal.

  While these comments come amid a new exploration of religion
for Levin, they are all too characteristic of his intellectual
capacity.  He wants to think, he wants to be intellectual, but
he has an extraordinary difficult time of it.  And, to make
matters worse, being only poorly able to think critically about
what he hears.  This is why he is so easily confused and lead
astray by what he reads, or by those who engage in a little
rhetorical sparring with him.

  I'm sure I could draw upon more examples, but I admit to
being less familiar with this work than with Dostoevsky's.
I think, though, the text quite clearly supports my description
of Levin.

                                 -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU