The Vagueness of Human Thought: The Coast of Utopia, Voyage Act II

Are all philosophical doctrines true even if they are contradictory, or is there only one sole correct belief people must adhere to? Michael Bakunin, Nicholas Stankevich, and all the other young thinkers in the play The Coast of Utopia spent their entire existence searching for the proper ideology that was followed universally, ultimately arriving no place. “What you think is reality is nothing but the shadow thrown by the firelight on the wall of the cave.” (p. 66). At first, these individuals proclaimed reality to be inexistent. It was just a mere illusion of the mind, or the flames, that reflect their firelight, or way of thinking, on the wall of the cave, in this case the world itself. The product is a shadow or a false reality created by us. Like a shadow, it is vague, intangible, and inexistent.

This philosophy eventually gave way to that proclaimed by Fichte. “How do I know the world exists? I know it when a seagull shits on my head. The world achieves existence where I meet it. The Self is everything, it’s the only thing. At last a philosophy that makes sense!” (p. 90). Bakunin, Stankevich, and all the others abandoned their previous ideology, which at that time they fervently adhered to, and replaced it with Fichte’s beliefs. These completely contradicted the former philosophy in the sense that the world existed in a subjective sense. For example, a perfume’s essence may be to sweet for one person and to subtle for another one. Although their perspectives on the same matter may be different, the perfume is a reality for both individuals. The experiences one goes through present a clash of the exterior world with the privacy of the human mind. The footprint or mark of the human mind upon the world creates the Self, a tangible, factual, and physical reality. Most important is the contradictory attitudes the philosophers adopt about their previous way of thought, at first believed to be the only truth and later viewed as a senseless and absurd dogma that did not make sense.

Previously declared as the only “philosophy that makes sense,” Fichte’s doctrines eventually gave way to Hegel’s.
“Belinsky: So, the objective world is not an illusion after all?
Stankevich: No
Belinsky: The laundry, the blacksmith, everything that Fichte said was just the shapes left by the impress of my mind… is real?
Stankevich: Yes. Everything rational is real, and everything real is rational.” (p. 103).
A strict and objective universe in which reality was the same for everybody almost instantly replaced the subjective view of the world, where every individual had a different reality according to what their senses perceived. Different personalities and tastes did not affect what was real; thus, individuality was undermined and instead replaced with a stringent, unbendable view of the universe. The young philosophers contradicted their ideals once again. They did not merely abandon their previous points of view, but went so far as to proclaim them erroneous. “Fichte? You must read Hegel. Hegel is the man! Fichte tried to argue the subjective world out of existence. No wonder I was going wrong!” (p. 100).

Such disorder and change of ideals was bound to confuse everybody on what was the definite doctrine followed by the universe and reality itself. Even though the permanent change in ideals was meant to be an intricate search for the truth, it ended up undermining the entire concept of philosophy. No theory was correct because they would eventually succumb to the pattern discussed above and be replaced by a newer and fresher philosophy that appealed more to society. “Then what is the shadow on the wall of the cave? That’s philosophy.” (p. 104). The flames are not the human mind, but rather the universe itself. It is projected on our lives, or the wall of the cave, producing a shadow. The shadow, philosophy, is all the doubts, thoughts, and conceptual representations our individual minds have constructed. Like a shadow, they are the reflections of the exterior world upon our intellects; consequently, they are merely a reaction to external events, not the ultimate truth itself. They are simply a vague manifestation of out thoughts. The world does not follow a definite philosophy, but rather separate philosophies follow the different aspects of the universe and society.

Also significant is the meaning of the title to the overall development of the text. Political corruption and underdevelopment characterized the Russian government of the nineteenth century. Like in 1984, the authorities attempted to suppress any type of protest or revolt. “We have renounced our right to be the gaolers in a population of prisoners. There’s no air, no movement. Words become deeds. Thoughts are deeds. They’re punished more severely than ordinary crimes.” (p. 64). However, unlike 1984, the government failed to manipulate society and establish their own ideals among the people. The word “coast” in the title is relevant to this issue in the sense that the coast, or shore of a utopia, signifies only a vague intromission of the Romanov dynasty in the lives of the Russian people. The efforts to create a utopia stand on the sidelines of society. The standards for creating a perfect country had not yet implemented in Russia, but instead were on the border of this civilization, on the verge to break the barrier of the unhappiness and stubbornness of active political protesters like the ones introduced throughout the book. These, as the title of the section indicates, had embarked on a voyage to remedy society’s evils and oust the stalemate that, like in 1984, was believed to satisfy an ignorant mass of people who lived inside a fabricated utopia that still hadn’t managed to drown the whole of Russia.