Introduction:
The interplay between influential minds often gives rise to compelling theories and interpretations. One such dialogue lies in Nietzsche’s potential reading on Dostoevsky and the implications that it had on Christianity. While direct evidence of Nietzsche reading Dostoevsky’s work is scarce, the exploration of this possibility offers a captivating glimpse into a unique and novel way to approach Dostoevsky’s Myshkin.
The Question of Nietzsche’s Reading:
Before delving into the Nietzschean lens on Myshkin, it’s crucial to address the question of whether Nietzsche read “The Idiot.” While direct references to The Idiot are minimal, Walter Kaufmann’s insightful biography on Nietzsche suggested that Nietzsche’s language in describing Christ does seem to have connections with language of “The Idiot”. In fact, given Nietzsche’s appreciation for Dostoevsky’s “Notes from Underground”, there is good reason to suggest that he may have read other works by Dostoevsky. However, either way you conclude, for the rest of this article I will approach an interpretation of Myshkin from a Nietzschean lens.
Nietzsche conceived of Jesus in the image of Dostoevsky’s Idiot.
Kaufmann, Nietzsche, 341.
Nietzsche’s Christology and the Separation of Christianity and Christ:
Nietzsche’s unique perspective on Christianity involves a nuanced separation between the practice of Christianity and the figure of Christ. In “The Antichrist,” Nietzsche writes that the only true Christian died on the cross, and that every Christian since Jesus merely twisted Christ’s message of self-affirmation. This distinction becomes a crucial lens through which Nietzsche may have analysed Myshkin’s character in “The Idiot.”
Myshkin as a Christ-Like Figure:
Despite Myshkin’s unique and seemingly naive lifestyle, Nietzsche might have found in him a portrayal of someone who, like Christ, steadfastly affirmed his values. Myshkin’s unwavering commitment to his principles, irrespective of the diverse challenges he faced, echoes Nietzsche’s admiration for the affirmation of values as a manifestation of the will to power.
The Will to Power and Myshkin’s Affirmation:
Central to Nietzsche’s philosophy is the concept of the will to power—the driving force behind everyone’s action, a positive “yes” to life. Myshkin, in his Christ-like affirmation of values, aligns with Nietzsche’s notion of the will to power through his ability to hold true to his lifestyle and beliefs regardless of the surrounding he is placed in. This perspective allows Nietzsche to bridge the gap between his admiration for Christ and his criticism of certain aspects of Christianity. Myshkin, unlike Lutheran sola fide, focused less on grace and mercy, but emphasised acting in a loving way.
Divergence on Content vs. Practice:
This distinction between modern Christianity and Myshkin is best seen through a distinction between the content of one’s practice and the practice itself. While Nietzsche may disagree with certain elements of Myshkin’s message, Nietzsche values the proactive affirmation of values demonstrated by Myshkin. This distinction becomes particularly relevant in Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity’s devolution into a faith-based system, emphasizing salvation through belief rather than active, value-affirming works.
Sign up for updates
Imposing Myshkin’s Virtues onto Christ:
In exploring Nietzsche’s potential reading of Myshkin, one can speculate that Nietzsche, admiring Myshkin’s positive qualities, might have superimposed these virtues onto Christ. This speculative connection adds depth to Nietzsche’s assertion that the true Christian died on the cross—a Christian embodying the affirmative, proactive values exhibited by Myshkin.
Conclusion:
The exploration of Nietzsche’s potential engagement with Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot” opens a compelling avenue for understanding the complexities of Nietzsche’s Christology and his views on true Christianity. Whether or not Nietzsche directly encountered Myshkin’s character, the parallels drawn between Myshkin and Nietzsche’s ideals shed light on the intricate interplay between two towering figures in the realms of philosophy and literature.
For the full analysis of this topic, go check out our full breakdown on our YouTube channel: