The Classics discussion

Is Myshkin right or what?

<< Spoilers included >>

In the "Introduction" by WJ Leatherbarrow in my borrowed copy of "The Idiot", it was mentioned that art embodied for Dostoevsky that ideal beauty which sustained man through the difficulties of an imperfect existence, afford glimpses of a harmony and perfection that normally eluded him. This aspect of Dostoevsky's aesthetic convictions is summed up in The Idiot in the assertion, attributed to Myshkin, that 'the world will be saved by beauty' and the theme of the redeeming power of beauty is central to the novel's philosophical design.

When I finished reading The Idiot, my initial thinking is that beauty, i.e. Nastasya and Aglaya, certainly has not saved the world and not saved themselves. Then I read the Introduction and I think that apart from the beauty and aesthetic value of art which does make us happier, what could save the world is our ability to treasure innocence and beauty. At the beginning Myshkin had believed that men are all kind and compassionate, i.e. possessing inner beauty, but his sensitivity and compassion has been ridiculed by many around him when he was in Russia. Nastasya's beauty had the power to affect many men around her, but she lacked kindness and sensitivity. The world can suffer if beauty is being mocked at, or misused, instead of being valued.

Myshkin did consider Nastasya beautiful. What striked him most seem to be her eyes ? But I am not sure how or why he thinks Nastasya's beauty could save the world, and did he want to save her so she could save the world, or did he do it to save another man ? Does anyone consider Myshkin to have a part in bringing Nastasya to her outcome at the end ?