My comment on Kelsey Parrish's

The opening scene was the worst for me too, there was something so stale and desensitized about it all. I think it would have even been preferable to have them celebrating or something, then it would have at least showed that they felt something even if it is happiness. I find that it is evident alot today that funerals are a kind of bother to th poeple involved. They seem to get and and get out like a school fair, or something they have to attend; like its a duty. Its sad, really.

Every Man Dies Alone

Throughout most of Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich I had been quite impartial to Ilyich's suffering. However, it really hit me on page 1443 when Ivan kind of went into a panic attack, its like he realized for the first time that he was going do die a painful and lonely death.

"When I am not, what will there be? There will be nothing. Then where shall I be when I am no more? Can this be dying? No, I dont want to!...Whats the use? It makes no difference...Death....And none of them know it or wish to know it, and they have no pity for me...Its all the same to them, but they will die too!..I first, and they later, but it will be the same for them."

Ivan knows that at some point they will die too, but he is alone in the fact that it is he who is dying now and "In truth she did not understand". Thats the sad part. Is that the other people really cannot just understand what he's going through.

This passage reminded me of a book I had read before, called Every Man Dies Alone. Its about a Nazi during World War two who comes to this realization, much like Ivan did, around his death that he had lived his life all wrong, and that he will die alone. It was rather a depressing book haha.

Sorry for such the late post, last night for some reason it would not register that the age had loaded on the blog webiste and kept on reloading and realoading. It was driving me crazy so I just turned it off

I'm a little bit confused.

well after a conversation I was a part of, I started to wonder for myself just what mr. tolstoy thinks. After going back over the information, as well as looking at other sources, this is what I've come to:

Tolstoy derives most of his religious beliefs from the sermon on the mount, and takes special consideration to turning the other cheek. He goes so far as to try not to cause conflict, and to avoid it at any cost. What I don't understand is that he believes in these strict guidelines on staying absitnent and not getting married, but how does that line up with his life? He messed around with on of the serfs and she bore his son before he was even married.. and when he is married it is all about this sexual drive and they are emotionally detatched.. I am having trouble putting all of this together...

p.s. I commented on Nicks post

Self-centered Worldview

Today in Freshman Seminar we had a discussion about worldview. One of the ideas was that the most prominent worldview a long time ago was that God was elevated above us, but has, over time, changed to a point where there is only humans. God is non-existent and all people have to worry about is themselves according to most people’s worldview today. Apparently things were pretty close to the same in Leo Tolstoy’s day.

In The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Tolstoy shows people’s true sides from the very beginning. The very first thing that happens is that Peter Ivanovich walks in and states that Ivan Ilyich is dead. Immediately after, we see that all people are concerned with is themselves. We are told that all Ivan’s “colleagues” only thought about being promoted. Not too far after this, people start asking how much stuff Ivan had and stating that at least he died and not them.

All of these things point to an idea that we are the only important thing in life. Christians, however, need to be totally different from this. We should be focused on making God the most important thing.

P.S. I posted on “Unrealistic Materialist People” by His Beloved...

Surprise!

I'm sure all of you recall the last question asked in class on Tuesday. If you don't, let me refresh your memory.

"If they don't resist it, is it still considered rape?"

I never got my answer, whether from Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Olsen or from the rest of the class, so I'm going to do what any other professional would do in this situation: give my opinion.

I feel like it would still be considered rape, as she didn't want it and the husband definitely didn't want it for her. The rapist would still be in the wrong for doing things that he shouldn't have without consent, but how exactly do you prosecute that? I mean, the case is pretty weak as in the example he just walked in and started having sex with her, but still. If she, or her husband, never fought back or protested, how was the rapist supposed to know that she didn't want it? Also, wouldn't her husband be at fault for standing idly by and not intervening on his wife's behalf? She was given to him, by her father in marriage, to be protected and loved. I'm not sure about you, but I don't see much protecting going on. As we discussed in philosophy today, if you see a person in need and you don't intervene, you can sometimes even be held as an accomplice to the crime committed. While I don't necessarily agree that the rapist "didn't know that she didn't want it", I do believe that the husband would be at fault in this situation.

Yes, pacifism is cool as long as no one gets hurt. When your wife is being raped by another man, break the vow. God will understand. I promise.


This message has been brought to you by Sonic: The most recommended trans-fats for the student on the go. (by Benjamin Folse)

So, what did we learn today kids? It's not rape if you yell "Surprise"? Product placement is ALWAYS acceptable? Pacifism is uncool? All good answers. Tune in next week when... Oh, god.. there's a next week? Kill me now.

P.S. I commented on Lane's post entitled: "Pigs or Poems..."

P.P.S. I just like adding PS's

Mr. Fydor Dostoevsky

      So I must start off with saying that typing with manicured nails is a challenge! So excuse me if some words do not make sense. I'm learning, haha.

      I did not read the right assignment for this week, but I did read some of Dostoevsky's writings. (Sadly I did not get to finish all those either) Those which are posted under handouts on my UM.  I liked that he writes from first person view point.  I enjoyed his how he writes about self-consciousness.   How knows he is doing one thing, is aware of it, but cannot seem to stop himself. How he knows he is prideful and only enjoyed his position of power because he could make other people miserable with that power.

     "Now, then, what can a decent man talk about with the greatest pleasure? Answer: about himself", This was my favorite line. It served me as a reminder that all men are equally interested in themselves, and that all mankind is self-centered.  God let me have a "lightbulb" moment, and I remembered that with Christ our purpose is to glorify Him. So I was reminded not to talk about myself with the greatest of pleasures, but of God. 

"The World Is Too Much with Us"

Reading "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" reminded me of Wordsworth's "The World Is Too Much with Us". Wordsworth writes
The world is too much with us; late and soon
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
Granted I believe he is saying how man is out of tune with nature, but the reason for man being out of tune is because of his pursuit of the things of this world. Materialism and the love of things has been with us since the beginning of time. In the Bible, Jesus talks about the rich young ruler who loved his possessions to much to give them away and follow his Creator. I like "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" because it showed the consequences that come with the pursuit of possessions. The in which Tolstoy writes the story, with what I consider to be a bit of a sarcastic undertone, is both fascinating and entertaining. Unfortunately for us, rather than seeing materialism as a problem and it being changed, the closer we get to the end of the world, the more prevalent I think it will be.

COMMENT ON RACHEL'S

I feel like I am a little opposite form you. I tend to think the worse in people. If I see a man look at me on the street I put my hand on my trusty pepper spray. If I see a person walking on the streets I lock my doors, regardless of their race or gender. Perhaps this comes from being raised by a single mother. However, I wouldn't consider myself having a personal vendetta on humanity like the Underground m

One Man's Death is Another Man's Treasure

The whole opening to Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Illyich" is just sickening. Ivan's supposed "friends" are only there because they have to be. None of them care that a man is dead. They only think about the possibility of a promotion at work now that Ivan is out of the way. They want to reap in the benefits of his death. It is like they just want to show up, hear what they have won in the will, and leave in time for lunch. There is no compassion. Even Ivan's wife is contemplating what she can get from the government. You would have thought that she had planned for him to fall off the stool just to get the life insurance. People are completely selfish and greedy. Most of us do not even care who we step on to gain our own fortunes. It is a sad reality, but it is becoming more common everyday.

P.S. I commented on Kaylie's "..." post.

Nothing is New Under the Sun

An Ecstatic Discourse from The Essential Kierkegaard reminded me a lot of our beloved Ecclesiastes. Kierkegaard very much so embodies the idea of the meaningless of life which is a constant theme, as we know, in Ecclesiastes. However, one major difference is that it seems that he has no hope. He seems to exist in a state of grayness because everything black and white will only lead you to regret and disappointment. In my opinion, his lack of hope comes from his rejection of the New Testament. His rejection of the New Testament is perhaps a representation of the actions Christian's during that day participated in. He feels that the people of Shakespeare acted on their passions which was the only way to live.

In addition, I really enjoyed Mr. K. Many of his comments were things that I have thought of myself. Not only where they humorous but they were written in a brilliant and concise way. There are different aspects of satire in his writings and he definitely be considered a realist.

Unrealistic Materialist People :(

Reading Ivan's death makes one see how really stupid people can be... im sorry is that not supposed to be said in a blog? Ivan's "friends" are materialistic men who want nothing than things for themselves. Ivan's death showed the materialism that people of his time were concerned with. How much power can they get? How much money or position can one have? Materialism shows how inhumane people can be. This kind of fires me up. Is that bad?

p.s i commented on Callie's post

Most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible

This probably the best line I've read in this class all semester. That doesn't say much because I probably haven't read as much as I should have to be honest (really sorry; don't hate me please). But still, this sticks out to me. When I saw this the first time I went back and analyzed it a little more and thought, "Hmmmm he could be on to something here."

Simple- an absence of complexity

Ordinary- lacking defining actions

Terrible- terrible

I can see how simple and ordinary go hand in hand, but terrible? To me that gets put in to convey the shallow-ity (I think I made that up) of Ivan's life. Ivan led a life dictated to him by the social standards of others. He acted nice and politically correct and made friends with the right people, he even married a woman out of a sense of propriety. All these things he thought would give him a happy, good life. But in the end he sees how futile all his past actions in life were. He sees that happiness (what he had searched for his whole life) was actually pushed farther away by his actions instead of bringing it closer to him. We as people (for the most part) strive to obtain happiness, morality, and honor in our lives. It's weird though, because most of which we strive for is defined by man. The fact that it's set by man means that the standard can and with time will probably change. So we strive for approval in the eyes of our peers and those around us, even though we say that we don't. We do this by attempting to attain traits and habits that are up to man's standards. Is this a bad thing? Well, by obtaining what people set for you to obtain, you become ordinary, and depending on what you acquired life may become more simple; which means you have a terrible life. I'm not advocating we are all terrible people, but according to romanticism and stuff, shouldn't we just be trying to fulfill our passions instead of becoming socially acceptable? Not saying that we don't. Just saying lol. Probably didn't get my point across in a way people could understand it, but oh wells.

Pigs or Poems...

I never thought that I would have to decide between the two. I mean both sides have pros and cons to them. For example: Pigs are bacon but at the same time pigs and pig sties smell horrible. Poetry: amazing poets like Poe and Keats not so amazing poets like country song writers. (Yes songs are poems.) We need to look at what a poet is before me make our decision though. According to Kierkegaard, "A poet is an unhappy person who conceals profound anguish in his heart but his lips are so formed that as sighs and cries pass over them they sound like beautiful music." That sounds absolutely horrible. Who would want to be a person who gives people join through there own pain? That's a little like a masochist to me. Then people wish him to sing again soon. That would require that he receive more pain and more heartache. No one in their right mind would want to have a life like that. At the same time though would some of our most famous poets really be considered poets according to Kierkegaard? If pain and suffering are required to exist in the life of a poet and their writings tell of such Frost, Seuss, Wordsworth, Emerson, and Longfellow would have to look back at some of their works. All of those poets have poems that don't involve pain or suffering so are they not poets now? Kierkegaard says he'd rather be a swineherd where he is understood by the swine instead of being a poet understood by no one. With the stipulations that poetry has to be about pain and suffering, I think I'll take the mud and slop with Kierkegaard.

I commented on Sam's Post

...

What I really took out of The Death of Ivan Ilyich was the emphasis on material things and on how truly selfish and vain these people are. Ivan hanging up a curtain is essentially what causes his horrific death. This idea is twisted but it’s also comedic in a sense, I’m not sure exactly how to feel about it. If Ivan hadn’t hung that curtain and gotten so hurt he never would have discovered truth so his death isn’t necessarily tragic in that sense. But that’s just a side note I don’t care to expound on. The characters in this story are so focused on status and the vanities that they become numb to anything that doesn’t revolve around them- these people lack humanity. They can’t sympathize with this man who was supposed to be a father, a friend, and a husband. He is suffering and their only emotions are centered on themselves. That’s a sad reality to live in. But it is realistic. People can be so vain and self-involved that it destroys our humanity, it stifles the good of humankind. Gerasim and Ivan’s son were like a tiny flicker of hope. Without them the whole story is a tragedy, even with Ivan’s discovery of truth. I liked that in them there was humanity, compassion, and selflessness.

commented on Callie Georges post.

I Want It Myyyyyyyy Waaaaaaaay

I love Kierkegaard's statement about real enjoyment:

Real enjoyment comes not in what one enjoys but in the idea. If I had in my service a submissive jinni (aka genie) who, when I asked for a glass of water, would bring me the world's most expensive wines, deliciously blended, in a goblet, I would dismiss him until he learned that the enjoyment consists not in what I enjoy, but in getting my own way.

Let me start off with admitting that, if anyone in the world is guilty of this, it is me. I HAVE to be right all the time. If it doesn't happen like I said it, It won't happen at all. One more time just for emphasis: I HAVE TO HAVE IT MY OWN WAY.

That being said, I was actually convicted by that particular bit of Kierkegaard's ramblings. Here we have a genie who, when one asks for something as simple as a glass of water, brings the finest wines in the world to him. The genie is then dismissed because he did not bring what the person wanted.

This is almost like our walk with God. Sometimes we ask for something we think is good for us, then instead He gives us something greater. Unfortunately, we're human, and we are upset with God because we do not get what we want. We then proceed to ignore His will for us because it didn't happen like we wanted it.

Coincidence that I was thinking about this today and then read Kierkegaard? I think not.

~Cody Martin

P.S. Commented on Tori Burger's Keeping Up With the Ivanoviches

Keeping Up With The Ivanoviches

"It is as if I had been going downhill while I thought I was going up. And that is really what it was. I was going up in public opinion, but to the same extent life was ebbing away from me. And now it is all done and there is only death... But how could this be, when I did everything properly."

So many times in life we compare ourselves to others and try to fit in with our peers. Yes, even you who think you're individualists. You try to be original because you observed someone else who was, and you admired them. Sorry, you're not exempt. But anyway, our society is obsessed with climbing social ladders and although we don't have distinct class separation like some countries, no one can deny that there is evidence of de facto segregation between classes, and those put in the limelight, with everyone wishing they were at least one rung higher. Unfortunately for Ivan Ilyich, he didn't realize how meaningless these material pursuits were until he was on his death bed, and could only watch as his friends and family continued down this path towards his same fate. Living "properly" by the world's standard doesn't not ensure true happiness in life.    

I Really Am a Realist, Really.

I am struggling with my identity. Half of me is a Romanticist and half of me belongs to Realism. I just love Wordworth, Keats and the rest! I just love the romantic’s poetry, but I will say, Tolstoy’s intriguing writing won my heart. I read Tolstoy’s writing and relate, and think of times in my life and in the lives of my friends. I feel like he just hits the spot on one of the hardest things to figure out—life. Tolstoy is able to discuss the real, the mundane, and the messy things in life without it seeming like a diary entry or the latest reader’s digest. He is able to get to the very substance of life that makes up each and every day of a lifetime. He ties in topics like marriage, family life, death and sorrow. These he ties in seamlessly, creating an evocative story that is somehow all cohesive.

I feel like my blog is sounding like a book review on the back cover. Sorry. Let me continue and make my point clearer.

He is able to say things that many people go through but can’t express. For example, one of my favorite excerpts shows how Ilyich was tormented by the feeling of being misunderstood. Tolstoy captured this sorrow of being misunderstood as he described the state of Ivan Ilyich, “ …and Ivan Ilyich was left all alone with the consciousness that his life was poisoned and was poisoning the lives of others, and that this poison did not weaken but penetrated more and more deeply into his being” (1441). Everyone has felt this way before or will feel this way at some point. It's terrible. Tolstoy points out that even though we all go through similar instances in life, walking through our average day, somehow we seem to run parallel to others, never taking the time to connect and give sympathy.

Finally Tolstoy brings Gerasim into the picture and brings hope and a little light to the story. Gerasim is the one who in humility takes Ilyich’s hand and walks with him through the valley of the shadow of death. Tolstoy wrote a work that both looked at reality and highlighted truly beautiful things in mankind. He showcased both the good and bad without making it seem overly gooshy or ridiculously dramatic.

I suppose I am realist also. I am won over.

P.S. I commented on Megan's Post

A Series of Habitual Events

So, our discussion in class yesterday, about the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic’s crossing themselves, I got to thinking. My mother was raised Roman Catholic, and my father was raised Southern Baptist, when they were coming up with a blessing to say at dinner each night, they decided to do as the Catholics do. Meaning, every night, before and after we say the blessing, we cross ourselves, Roman Catholic style. This is such a habit for me, that when they were telling Hunter to reach the opposite way as he portrayed Peter Ivanovich, I couldn’t even figure out how to cross myself Eastern Orthodox style.

This has led me to think about why we do things. Some things are habit, like me crossing myself after I pray, if not before. Some things we have to think about, like Ivanovich as he entered the room where Ivan’s dead body lay. He had to think about what seemed to fit the situation and think about each movement he made. Yet at the same time, each movement was a habitual movement. We humans are creatures of habit, and while we may have to think about what we do sometimes, normally we do things the same way.

For example, every time I walk to the cafeteria, I go the same route. I always cross the street in the same place. I always walk the same path to my classes. It’s inevitable, if we do something often enough, our bodies will eventually just follow that path, whether we think about what we’re doing or not.

So why did Ivanovich have to think so hard about what seemed right for the situation he was in? Perhaps it’s because he’d never been in that situation before. But I think it’s probably more along the lines of his attitude and his heart. His heart was not into expressing his condolences, so he had to figure out what “habit” he should perform.

On another note, I’ve been intrigued with Tolstoy since 2003 when his book Ana Karenina was mentioned in one of my all-time favorite series of books, The Series of Unfortunate Events book 10: The Slippery Slope by Lemony Snicket. Now, the only thing that is mentioned about Ana Karenina is the central theme. But I always liked the name of the book, and it always made me want to read it. This is the reason why Ana Karenina is on my reading list and my Kindle for PC, waiting for the day I have the free time to read it.

Another side note about A Series of Unfortunate Events, Lemony Snicket alludes to many different famous movies, books, poems, and writers, including Voltaire. This series has always been one of my favorites.

On a completely unrelated side note, I love writing Kierkegaard and saying it, and I love writing and saying Schleiermacher too! I’m just sayin’…

Until next week, and a Kierkegaard blog post, which I’m very excited for,

~Meghan

PS. I commented on Susan’s post “Kierkegaard’s advice”

Suffering into....

I love it when Ivan Ilyich finally gets to that point, where he simply asks himself, “What do I want?” It is at this moment, the height of his suffering, that Ivan’s perception begins to change for the first time. It is ironic, because throughout his whole life, Ivan was seeking after pleasant things – things that he thought would surely change his world forever. But it wasn’t until all these things were gone, that he actually began to have a real, permanent change within himself. Ivan Ilyich’s whole perception, his entire worldview began to change – “all that had seemed joys now melted before his sight and turned into something trivial and often nasty.” This is the idea of Socrates’ Cave; this is the idea explored through Aeshylus’ Orestes; this is the theme behind Romantic thought – gaining truth through the rawness of human experience; and now, it is the realization reached in Tolstoy’s Death of Ivan Ilyvich. Suffering into truth… this is at the heart of human experience.

I commented on Jamie's "Mild Lunch Time Rant"

Tolstoy

The Death of Ivan Ilyich reminded me of a lot lessons we learn today. "He was hindered from getting into it by his conviction that his life had been a good one. That very justification of his life held him fast and prevented his moving forward, and it caused him most torment of all...it was revealed to him that though his life had not been what it should have been..." Although we focus on material and social possessions, that is not what really matters in life. Instead of striving for more and more, we should be satisfied with what we have. Relationships with family and friends should matter more than gaining a higher job position.

Kierkegaard's Advice

First of all, the readings we've had this week have definitely been my favorite so far! I thoroughly enjoyed The Death of Ivan Ilyich, and like the reading in The Essential Kierkegaard even more! Some of the stuff is hilarious, and then other sections make me want to through the book across my room and scream "What are you thinking!?"

Right away in the first passage the section about poets literally made me laugh out loud! Then, what he says about marriage and friendship left me dumbfounded. I was always told growing up that it's important to have friends, but here comes Kierkegaard to set everyone straight! One of my favorite passages so far is one page 40: "Most people rush after pleasure so fast that they rush right past it." This means a lot to me because I always find myself wishing for the next stage in my life or even the next fun event so that I miss opportunities to enjoy myself that the time I am in. During high school I couldn't wait to get to college, so I didn't try very hard to spend time with friends.

At the end of the first reading I also love the whole section about purity and the importance for women to guard their purity so that they don't become "weak and lose the substance of her being," as Kierkegaard puts it. Kierkegaard believes that a pure woman is something to be desired, but one who is lose is better off being a man.

I can't wait to read the rest of this week's Kierkegaard readings because everything he has to say is so interesting and applicable to my life!

-Susan

p.s. I commented on Sam Oliver's Greed

No Title...

So far I've only read the first grouping of sections in "Either/Or part 1" and a part of the next section, and I simply can't go on reading. I have to stop and write out my thoughts. Of course I will finish my reading, but after this. In this bit, the author is expressing views that are consistent with many of the ideals of realism. Realism focuses on the ordinary day-to-day existence of men and women, and the author bashes these. An example being, "Most people complain that the world is so prosaic that things do not go in life as in the novel, where opportunity is always so favorable. I complain that i life it is not as in the novel, where one has a hardhearted fathers and nisses and trolls to battle, and enchanted princesses to free. What are all such adversaries together compared with the pale, bloodless, tenacious-of-life nocturnal forms with which I battle and to which I myself give life and existence." Life is instead dull and mundane. There are a few people who can see beauty in life, but they are few and far between. And, they are often stifled by the daily existence of others. "We gathered one by one, a few admirers of those melodies--a postman with his mailbag, a little boy, a maidservant, a couple of dock workers. The elegant carriages rolled noisily by; the carts and wagons drowned out the melodies, which emerged fragmentarily for a moment. You two unfortunate artists, do you know that those strains hide in themselves the glories of the world?" There is so much more that I would like to put down, but I will limit myself to one more short quote. "But to work for a living certainly cannot be the meaning of life, since it is indeed a contradiction that the continual production of the conditions is supposed to be the answer to the question of the meaning of that which is conditional upon their production." This sentence is a very complex way of saying that working is not the answer to life. I agree with this. Life often times become such a mundane thing. There is no meaning to it, and it is impossible to draw meaning into it by yourself. This is where God comes in. He gives my life meaning and purpose. When I live for His glory, life is full of colors and emotions, but when I don't then it is dull and gray. Time drags by and I'm bored. I realize now that where this was meant to be a stream of all I wanted to say, it is instead a scattering of a few fragments, but I hoped something came across to those of you who read this. Please feel free to comment! Now, I simply must go to the theatre work call...!

P.S. I posted on "Mild Lunch Time Rant" by Jamie Kilpatrick

Greed

I hate how after finding out Ivan Ilych's died most of the people's first thoughts had something to do with greed. His "friend's" first thoughts were about who would get Ivan's job. His wife's fist thoughts were about how she could milk the government for money. His daughter was upset because his death interfered with her wedding plans. At first I wanna look down on these people and say "What the crap!? How can you feel like that? The guy just died!", but then I remember I am human just like them and I realize that I am capable of doing the same thing. However much I don't want to admit it.

P.S. I commented on Will's post "It Is He who Is dead, not I"

It Is He Who Is Dead, Not I

This sums up much of the pioneering dream. America and Russia both are on the fringes of European society, always carving new ways. This, however, comes at a cost. This complacency Peter Ivanovich discovers in everyone is a disease that dulls the blade of growth. In both capitalism and communism, this complacency can be found. With communism, the citizen is paid the same amount regardless of the amount or quality of work. Complacency is fed when the worker realizes that his work is satisfactory enough to be paid, and ceases to grow for the employer. In a similar fashion, when a capitalist giant reaches near immortality financially, in a case where citizens are dependent upon a service or product, the capitalist can become full of himself and considers himself satisfactory enough in the current state. "It is he who is dead, not I," can clearly be applied in both cases; it reflects the attitude of, "well it's tough for him, but I'm still getting paid." In both cases, growth is ceased because the complacent party is content with his or her current position.

A fun side note, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, and Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin were all co-advocates of Communism in Russia.

I commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's "Mild Lunch Time Rant"

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

ForEV-ER, forEV-ER, forEV-ER, forEV-ER, etc.

"I believe I can see the future 'cause I repeat the same routine.
I used to think I had a purpose, but then again, that might have been a dream."
-Nine Inch Nails, Every Day is Exactly the Same

Ivan Ilyich's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible. Poor Ivan lived like an empiricist to the extreme, abstaining from true extrememes in happiness, detestment, and the like, instead choosing simply to do what is comfortable, easy, and affordable. The world of Ivan Ilyich is like a bastardized version of the American Dream where everything is exactly the way he wants and feels safe in, and he has enough money and wealth to live securely and splurge as he sees fit. I say bastardized, though, because he eschews real excellence in himself and his relationships for just living comfortably. It's like you hear so many people say, "man, if I just had this or that, and could have this going on, man, I'd just be coastin'" or "if I just lived in the mountains/on an island life would be so simple and so cozy. Yeah, Ivan knows how they feel. He created his own life and lived his own way by his own rules, and by disconnected from life he could say he overcame it. Not really, for he never had one to begin with.

Death came to Ivan so quickly and so efficiently, he didn't know what to think. He had never tried to be anything better than normal and never tried to reach better heights, and when he did, it was decorating his own home or advancing in his position at work to please other people. It's like he was afraid to fall or be hurt, so he just numbed himself to everything and thought it was the good life. In this way he achieved his own personal heaven, where everyday was exactly the same. Essentially, he went to work, treated his wife and children nicely, and played cards with his friends because he knew he would win. He could say he was living well, but everything he did was without love. It's only natural that when death came knocking at his door he turned from apathy to hatred because he knew nothing else.

But back to the idea I mentioned of a bastardized heaven, I say that because we all kind of want the idea of Heaven in our lives. By heaven, of course, I mean endless peace, comfort, and joy. What a lot of people fail to remember, however, is that heaven is more than just a place of peace. It is the dwelling place of Holy God, whose power and majesty exceed the kingdom itself and makes that peace that we all so desperately cherish. Without Love, Heaven is just another pretty place. Likewise, Ivan did not have any love in his life or anything truly happy-he just had system and structure. He thought his life was a perfect heaven, but as he soon discovered, it was all just a hellish lie and his final moments were nothing but torment, reflecting the emptiness and meaninglessness of his self-sustained life. In conclusion and to sum things up, he created his dream, he lived his dream, but because he did not invest his love in something other than himself, he ultimately was just as meaningless as a dream.

So, now that I've cheered you up, please feel free to comment as you please. Thanks for reading! BTW, I commented on Sam Oliver's post Greed.

You're right about greed, it's a point that a lot of people miss out on. We all know that we can become as complacent as Ivan but we often forget about the greed of his coworkers. It all just comes down to selfishness and looking out for number one-there is no love in this poem. If there was, Ivan might've lived better and his friends might have actually cared about him, but no.

Mild Lunch Time Rant

Obviously, I know this thought probably only comes because I’m a girl, but I couldn’t help but notice that the way Ivan’s wife is described in the second chapter is almost ridiculous. It seems as if everything negative in their relationship is her fault, when in reality, relationship problems are rarely, if ever, the fault of just one individual. “His wife, without any reason... began to be jealous without any cause, expected him to devote his whole attention to her, and found fault with everything and made coarse and ill- mannered scenes.” Without any reason? She was pregnant! And what does he do to attempt to restore the problems? He invites his friends over to play cards! Of course she’s angry. Poor man, having to stay home with his wife instead of getting to go have fun. How dare that woman insist her husband to spend time with her!

P.S. The title comes from the fact that I skipped lunch to write this blog so I wouldn't have to do it later.

I Commented on Joy's "True no matter what God or gods one serves".

Life

"Ivan Ilych's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible."

Ivan's life was so normal that it lacked the excitement of being spontaneous. He simply did what he thought would look good to other people and didn't pay much attention to what he really wanted or believed. He does say that his marriage gave him personal satisfaction, but he also says that " it was considered the right thing by the most highly placed of his associates." He bases his decisions on what other people think when he should decide for himself who he wants to be in life.

I think this can also relate to the Christian life. Sure, we can live a "good," comfortable life, but when we get to the end and look back on our time here, what have we really done with the time we have been given? We aren't here to please other people and to fit into what they want us to be. We are here to stand out and to be what God has made us to be, which is the salt and light of the world.

PS- commented on "time swings on"

True no matter what God or gods one serves

“Every man has within his own reminiscences certain things he doesn’t reveal to anyone, except, perhaps, to his friends. There are also some that he won’t reveal even to his friends, only to himself perhaps, and even then, in secret. Finally, there are some which a man is afraid to reveal even to himself.”
You know, this is a section from the reading that kind of really grabbed my attention. How many times have we felt just like this, that we can not reveal something even to our closest friends? What causes us to feel this way. There are a number of things - guilt, shame, humiliation, etc. The devil feeds lies to us that make us uncomfortable to expose things from our past or even our present for fear that others, especially our friends, will no longer accept us. Dostoevsky is all over the place and concise all at once… But this section is a very true one, no matter what God or gods one serves. It is a struggle for both believers and none believers alike. I believe in Jesus Christ. He desires to set us free from all things past and present and to wash over it with His blood.