kirillov vs shatov (demons by dostoevsky)

in fyodor dostoevskys demons the ideologies of shatov and kirillov represent two tragic and desperate philosophies by the void. while both characters attempt to construct a framework for meaning, their logics ultimately collapse into the very nihilism they seek to escape (or at least shatov).

1. shatov

shatovs philosophy is built upon the usage of god as a necessary tool for the survival of a nation. he argues that a nation cannot adapt or maintain its morals without a deity and for shatov god is the fuel that prevents a nation from falling into chaos. however shatov is essentially an ex nihilist who has brainwashed himself into belief. what do i mean? when pressed on whether he truly believes in god he falters and so revealing that he only believes in the concept of a god who makes nations great. his logic is a trap because he observes that nations fall without god and concludes god must exist BUT his prayer is directed towards achieving a utopian outcome rather than towards the divine itself. see? by praying for a result rather than for faith, his own argument renders god as false leading him back to the nihilism he abandoned (however he doesnt realise so).

2. kirillov

conversely kirillov represents a form of self deifying nihilism that views the world as already perfect. where shatov thinks humanity must strive towards a utopia through religious devotion kirillov asserts that everything is already in a state of perfection simply because it exists. he lives in a state of total detachment, praying for everything not out of religious conviction but out of a i dare say perverse sense that the world as it is in its chaotic and amoral reality is already a utopia. while shatov desperately tries to build morality through divine necessity kirillov recognises that good and evil are merely philosophical inventions. he rejects the need for morality entirely seeing no objective reason why actions like killing are bad.

3. conclusion

ultimately both logics are fragile. shatovs view that a nation must deify itself to succeed fails because it relies on the utility of god rather than truth. if god is merely a tool for national stability, then god is not real and the facade of belief eventually crumbles opening the gates to nihilism, the one thing he fears, once again. similarly kirillovs logic shatters because it refuses to acknowledge the reality of human suffering and the inevitable collapse of nations without a unifying force. both characters are spinning in circles because they are attempting to escape the same vacuum. 

ps: as they debate, the true nihilist stavrogin sits in his room detached and indifferent while these men exhaust themselves trying to solve a puzzle that has no solution. none of their logics hold firm because they are all trying to manufacture a truth in a messy world.