Fathers and Sons †The Quarrel †Chapter 10 Essay

Chapter ten begins with Arkady and Bazarov discussing Nikolai and his outdatedness, Nikolai consulting his brother Pavel about the same issue follows this. These two events bargonly fit into the same chapter as the quarrel that occurs next. Bazarov and Pavel imbibe non gotten along since they met and share different persuasions on basically everything. Pavel loathes Bazarovs nihilist attitude and Bazarov, being a nihilist doesnt care very much for Pavels aristocratic nature either. They adjudge both been burning to have an argu workforcet, especially Pavel who was just waiting for a spark to start a flame. When the conversation drifted to one of the neighboring lan peckers Pavel noticed his chance and uses this as a catalyst to start the conversation about nihilism and their different viewpoints.As the two men begin dueling it is noticeable how both seem to be trained advocates. Their questions are brief and their answers to the point and dont give away too much. Bazarov seems t o not care less about what is happening whereas Pavel seems to be dripping with enthusiasm. Pavel acts as more of an interrogator than Bazarov and begins the argument by stating his opposing viewpoint of aristocratism which Bazarov mocks so plainly. some(prenominal) men have their dignity at this point and although Pavel seems pressured not much tension is in the atmosphere. I do not share the same sentiment, said Pavel igniting the debate. Bazarov whence asks Pavel what jackpot be proved about the supposed superiority of the aristocrats. Though Pavel does answer the challenge I feel Bazarov is seek to sort the subject when he chooses to personalize the argument and begins to talk about what the point of all of Pavels trouble is.He implies that Pavel doesnt achieve anything in his emotional state and so his aristocratic way of life has been a useless one with no progress. Although this is clearly personal to Pavel I dont feel as if Bazarov was purposely trying to attack Pav els life and ridicule it. Unsurprisingly Pavel is offended and retorts, losing some of his dignity. He makes another personal contention towards Bazarov saying that only unconditioned or stupid people would live without the principals that aristocrats preach he is directly implying that Bazarov is ignorant and stupid.This argument I feel was more of a personal statement made towards Bazarov rather than a good argument to debate over, however Bazarov retains his dignity and moves to another topic, naming a few words used in aristocracy and labeling them as utter nonsense. At this point I think Bazarov is winning the argument, as Pavel seems confused and temporarily overwhelmed by Bazarovs questions. But Pavel does do the right thing next by asking Bazarov what he feels should be done about the situation, but again Pavel adds another personal statement at the end of his argument saying that if Bazarovs views were put into effect the Russian people shall find ourselves beyond the pal e of humanity, outside human laws.Next more of Pavels dignity is stolen as they describe to him exactly what a nihilist does and does not do. Turgenev clearly states that Pavel is overwhelmed by the description of nihilism and what plans they have for Russia. In his view it is as if Pavel underestimated their ignorance. Bazarov says that at present time the most useful thing that can be done by the Russian people is to deny. To deny authority, principals, art, everything. I fail to understand how much can be gained by this, Bazarovs theory is that all that has been built must be destroyed in sight to construct a new life which the people want. Although I feel Bazarov is running a better argument I dont reserve with his philosophy and feel that instead of denying everything an attempt can be made at just trying to change what has been built instead of destroying it and reconstructing it from scratch.Pavel continues to lose his gruntle and his arguments get worse as he loses his d ignity and begins acting childlike. To reply to Bazarov and Arkadys description of the Russian people he says No, no I cant believe that you young men really know the Russian people, that you represent their needs and aspirations No, the Russian people are not what you imagine them to be. They break tradition sacred, they are a patriarchal people, they cannot live without faith . . . This sentence with its abundance of nos sounds very childlike and most of it seems as if Pavel is trying to tell himself rather than the others that what they say is not true. Bazarov still contains full dignity and as adultly as possible accords to ease Pavel, but he still refuses to bring if he is wrong. Then he states that although Pavel may be right it still proves nothing.His next argument is basic, but effective, Pavel says that in that case Bazarov must be departure against his own people and Bazarov replies with an analogy that implies that according to Pavel if the majority of the people d o something utterly stupid he must do so as well. Pavel ignores the run short argument made by Bazarov and instead chooses to retaliate by attacking Bazarov by saying he is not part of the Russian people afterwards he opposes them in so many ways. Bazarov handles this argument simply by referring to the most Russian people he knows, the peasants, who have knowledge of the past peasants who have risen and become of higher status now.Bazarov, as we have seen earlier in the book, talks to the peasants and doesnt mind answering their questions and talking to them. Although he may look down on them and not think much of them he still treats them like people and so they will obviously support him on this one so Pavel made bad move by challenging how Russian Bazarov is as he has more to show for it than Pavel. But again I do feel that comparing Pavel to himself was unnecessary and just made the argument more personal again. There is a short break in the chapter as Nikolai stands up and t ries to cool the two down asking them not to make this personal. He is a bit late.With Nikolais interference Pavel has a chance to collect himself and regain some of the dignity he had had before. They start to discuss nihilism at once again with a cooler and less tense atmosphere. Bazarov gives another definition for nihilism, this time focusing more on their actions as a group. They then begin to talk about the strength of the nihilists, which Pavel is proved to have underestimated. I agree with Bazarovs view here that a large number is not needed, but rather a stronger faith or force in what they are doing as the truth to be stronger then a large number. Although slightly irrelevant Bazarovs analogy to a single candle burning down the whole of Moscow, I feel was a strong argument. Pavel seems to lose his dignity along with the argument as he again starts acting restless and angered.Pavel then loses all dignity when he starts to be sarcastic saying Bravo, bravo and trying to mak e what Bazarov is saying foolish by pretending to acknowledge it. His spill of dignity is made clear with Bazarovs statement You have departed from your praiseworthy sense of personal dignity and with this Bazarov chooses to close the argument, but not without his completion sentence in which he asks Pavel to think of institutions where the aristocracy has had an outcome of no problems. Pavel attempts to name a few but is proven wrong by Bazarov for his attempts. Bazarov once again asks Pavel to take his time and think about it with this he takes his leave and the discussion comes to an end.Bazarov is clearly a powerful advocate who can maintain his dignity even when he is criticized and although many people oppose his views he has managed to keep his views alive. Pavel, although a good attempt would make a weaker advocate, his weaknesses lie in his dissipated temper. Maintaining your cool is very important and Bazarov proved that, he left the argument with all his dignity and my vote as the winner whereas Pavel was left tongue-tied and label as the loser.