Enjoy these type of videos? Please give it a like Support this channel: www.patreon.com/eternalised RU-vid Member Perks: ru-vid.com/show-UCqos1tl0RntucGGtPXNxkkAjoin Donate a Coffee: ko-fi.com/eternalised PayPal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/eternalisedofficial Official Merch: eternalised.creator-spring.com
I love the way Nietzsche appreciated and acknowledged Dostoevsky in his book .. his mind was open to colleagues views.. today we all need to do this .. we grow more
it is only fair to acknowledge someone who influenced you and you admired they were not competing whit eachother. they just wrote what they tought Is coming
Quite the contrary - they pointed out more or less the same problems and then had different approaches to said problem. One to aim for the russian orthodox church because of man's limitation, and the other to aim to overcome himself because of said limitation
Irony: "Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love." Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
after 3 months+ of following you, i wished to let u know i have been positively putting your videos every day without fail to draw, think and before sleeping. i am so grateful for all the work you put into these, your voice and tone without overwhelming bgm. really makes it a pleasant experience. thank you, sincerely.
What do you think is the significance of the character of Razumakhin, Raskolnikov's friend? He was my favorite character and I feel like Dostoevsky painted him in a positive light.
Great question. I believe that he was the voice of reason trying to figure out Raskolnikov's indeciphrable character, his only true friend throughout the novel. Raskolnikov greatly respected Razumikhin, albeit he was a complicated character. He distances himself from those he loved, as he was petrified on how they'd have reacted to his murderer confession. Dostoevsky seems to point out that it is better to confess and be locked up in prison than to not confess and keep trying to live a "normal" life, Raskolnikov goes completely mad, delirious, there's nothing more that preoccupied him than thinking what he'd done and why (he killed a part of himself with the murder). ** ** *SPOILER ALERT* ** ** Nevertheless, he did trust him enough to allow him to marry his sister when he decided to confess and be sent to Siberia, along with Sonya (whom he ultimately loved and shared a meaningful relationship).
Additional fact: “Razum” in Razumikhin also means “reason” or “mind” in Russian. I in general agree with the above statement, with Razumikhin being the voice of reason. In fact I think there’re a lot of “reasonable” type of characters in literature or movie’s “duo”, with one being the irrational and passionate, the other being the normal and easy to relate to. Hence why we may find Raskolnikov entertaining, it’s actually Razumikhin who let us relax and have a break. I only watched the BBC’s adaptation, but the same thing may somewhat be applied to Sherlock Holmes and Watson. Holmes represents the highly intellectual that will always seek a higher purpose, and Watson is there to hold him back, to make sure he won’t throw away his humanity. In a sense, creating a reasonable character is like having a safety rope for the writer to explore the “abyss” of ideology.
This was brilliant I love your comparison of these two!! I kept think of Ivan Karamazov as well when you are talking about the atheist materialism of Raskolnikov. I found Ivan much more unsettling because he doesn't crumble in the same way as Raskolnikov. Also did not know that Dostoevsky affirmed illusion and would follow Christ over truth. Where did you read about this? I've only ever read his novels but I loved this take and comparison of the two very fruitful and given me a lot of food for thought
Thanks a lot! You're totally right on Ivan as well, that could be for another video analysing the brothers Karamazov, I can't remember the exact source, but I must have read it on one of these: Lavrin, J. (1969). A Note on Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. The Russian Review, 28(2), 160-170. Evlampiev (2002) Dostoevsky and Nietzsche: Toward a New Metaphysics of Man, Russian Studies in Philosophy, 41:3, 7-32 Jackson, R. (1982). Nietzsche and Dostoevsky: Counterpoint. The Comparatist, 6, 24-34. Glad you liked it. Cheers! :)
@@Eternalised yeah that'd be an interesting vid thanks for the sources I might have a poke around and learn a little more about the good man
2 года назад
The video is not so brilliant, it has a pre-point of view. So it's propaganda or proselitism. A video made to show that Nietzsche is better than Dostoyevski.
“If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth." Source: Letter To Mme. N. D. Fonvisin (1854), as published in Letters of Fyodor Michailovitch Dostoevsky to his Family and Friends (1914), translated by Ethel Golburn Mayne, Letter XXI, p. 71
@@Eternalised Si eso he notado, y nosotros apreciamos que agregues los subtitulos, que por cierto para mí es ganancia doble, porque son temáticas que me gustan y de paso me ayuda para practicar el inglés, gracias👌🏼
I think you've missed a point. Raskolnikov's view changes also because of Sonya's love for him. I think the solution of Dostoevsky to suffering not only God and genuine faith in Him but also universal love and beauty.
Great comparison, but than again people are so unique that you can't compare them although it is fun to do so and also you can find something for yourself and your journey while doing so.
@@Eternalised Yes absolutely I am a lot more familiar with Dostoevsky than Niche so it wouldn't hurt to read more of his works if truth been told. In any case you done an excellent job on this video when did you started your channel?
@@InspirationFromThePast That's nice. Thanks for the compliment! I actually started my channel in November 2019 but was related to finance and personal improvement, I did it until May 2020, then I did a 360 and turned to philosophy, which I find more fulfilling.
@@Eternalised I see I was wondering how you managed to gain so many subscribers in such a short amount of time obviously your content itself is very good, but you clearly have a lot more experience and you most likely had some carry over from your previous channel. If you have any advice for me I would greatly appreciate it as well
@@InspirationFromThePast Sure! Anything to help my fellow philosophy content creators. I'd say once I passed the 1k subscriber mark, I reached 2k relatively quickly, apart from making evergreen and quality or useful content, I did a lot of SEO and especially Facebook (groups) and posting in subreddits.
I've been listening to the works of Dostoevsky on RU-vid while driving. So far, over several months, I've completed Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Brothers Karamazov, and Notes From the Underground. Any recommendations for what to read or listen to next?
That's awesome. Demons is his other big masterpiece apart from the ones you have read. You could also read his shorter novels: The Gambler and The House of the Dead, which are excellent as well.
8:06 Not the rejection of illusion, but the creation of a new one, the eternal return, the superman, these are also illusions, but based on man, a mere creature which is also, finite, the truth is never reached, but created, in that sense, there's is no real truth and there never was.
If he was still alive, I would love to know Dostoevsky's perspective on where he would think Raskolnikov would fit according to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). It is obvious to anyone familiar with the DSM-5 that Raskolnikov shows all the traits of a malignant narcissist even before committing any murders. Thus, the fact that he killed those two women in cold blood should not be a shock. On the contrary, the shock should come in finding out that anyone who is malignantly narcissistic would feel any guilt after committing murder in the first place. This is were Fyodor Dostoevsky goes wrong. People give Fyodor to much credit and assume that he was simply conducting a physiological exercise because they have respect for his body of work. However, unlike other people, the only thing I have ever put on a pedestal is cold hard truth. Like Fyodor, many people capable of feeling empathy have this misconception that those who commit atrocities would feel guilt, remorse, and regret after doing so. Empathy is key. Empathy is more important than people realize. Empathy is one of the mankind's greatest super powers. It is one of the reasons why we can live in a civilized society without outright barbarism. Unfortunately too many people take empathy for granted and they assume that this trait is a given for everyone. It seems that it is almost impossible for many normal people to understand that the presences of empathy makes it nearly impossible to commit murder, while the absence of empathy makes killing someone a cake walk. This is why it is almost impossible for people like Fyodor to fathom that another human being could kill two women without feeling psychological turmoil. Fyodor knows that he would feel remorse and guilt after doing something so reprehensible. And those feeling are why people like Fyodor would never do something like that unless they have bottled up anger issues which caused them to do it in a UN-premeditated fit of rage. What Fyodor did not count on is that not everyone feels like he does, not everyone feels empathy. This is why in the real world the people who lack empathy are the ones most likely to murder others due to imagined slights or feelings of entitlement. The same lack of empathy that allowed them to murder someone is the same lack of empathy that prevents them from feeling bad about it. This is why Kalashnikov (A malignant narcissist/Sociopath) is a lot like an impossible figure. At first glance impossible figures seem like they could exist in real life, however, when you examine them closer you realize that they are actually optical illusions that could never exist in reality.
I agree with you too. When I read it I kept thinking raskolnikov is a big time narcissist and there is psychopathy there too. In fact both of these personality disorders fall under the same category of antisocial personality disorders. But then it switches a bit and he makes him feel guilt and remorse. And the at the end it switches and I had the sense that he didn’t really feel that guilty. It’s been a while since I read it but i remember thinking the ending had a bit of contradiction. Need to read it again
''If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth", So brilliant it's breathtaking. That's why it's no use arguing with religious people.
@@Anonymous-gf1ho Yup! I share your views, to always be open to challenge your beliefs. I have heard of C.S. Lewis (didn't know he was the creator of Narnia!) and G.K. Chesterton as two great Christian thinkers. I like your take on faith being something to wrestle with continuously, that sounds very Kierkegaardian! In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard discusses that the notion of faith is so far cheapened that what is talked about is not properly called faith at all. He criticised Christendom, represented by the Danish Established Church. Thanks for your kind words, I'll be sure to keep publishing as long as I can :)
I don't think you understood the point of what he was saying. In Dostoevsky's thought if Christianity is false the only real alternative is Nihilism. If there is no God and life is meaningless, it ultimately wouldn't matter whether you followed the truth or not so there's no reason not to be a Christian since that at least provides hope and meaning instead of leading to self destruction. The paradox of Nihilism is that you're essentially saying the lack of any truth is the truth, if there is no ultimate meaning to anything then that statement itself is meaningless and can be ignored. Christianity is the only worldview that makes following the truth meaningful.
“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference-so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity…” “It is good to think that in Heaven all troubles will be over, that war and carnage will be no more, that all injustice, cruelty and wrong shall be no more; but incomparably better is it for a man to gird on the whole armour of truth and righteousness, and wage war with these evils, and banish them from the Earth -- and thus have the will of God done on Earth as done in Heaven.” Frederick Douglass
The key to understanding this novel is in the name Roskolnikov - 16th century Russia had undergone a massive reformation in its religious/spiritual sector. А raskol had happened - a split. As a consequence of which thousands of old-believer monks burnt themselves as a form of protest. The influence of the Roman church had become inevitable, and Russia had made the choice to allow the soul-destroying deformations of western ideologies to penetrate its very being. This was a conscious decision, mind you, the wisdom keepers, the so-called volhvs (who to this day govern the dream of Rus) had weighed out all the possible scenarios, confined with the stars, and understood that this was a necessary step. This novel asks a rhetorical question of how the new generation that followed is handling the modern-day reality, will the main hero be able to defeat the English pawnbroker, who naturally, represents the western ideology. The difference between the western ideology and that of Russia is - to have vs to be.
I find the chararization of faith as illusion extremely patronizing. It is perhaps the greatest crime in contemporary philosophy and also the philosophy of the last 200 years. This idea that faith is at best, insincere. A pretty lie that the faithful tell themselves for comfort. No regard for Aristotle or Aquinas.
From the damp, foggy valley the masses gaze up at these two mountain peaks, specatacular in the glancing sun, distant as gods. “What supreme, clear air up there!” the huddled miseries wheeze to one another, “How these two gigantics inspire us!” But what is that inspiration, finally, but a reminder of the masses own wretched state? Not a one of them ever sets foot on either mountain, let alone aspires to the heights. The slavishness of their upward craning necks becomes the very degradation of worship their idols so disparaged in the course of their own ascent. The insights of Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky are well beyond the intellectual reach of their average enthusiast, and serve only the purpose of being yet another occasion for internalized “resentiment”...
In which way is Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov similar to Nietzsche’s Übermensch? I do not think Nietzsche would justify Raskolnikov’s doings (even if Raskolnikov consider himself as ‘higher man’), bearing in mind he (Nietzsche) criticizes murderers in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (The Pale Criminal), calling themselves ‘poor souls’ and ‘a mass of diseases’.
@@user-oq2xw9vt1h Thanks! They are similar in that they want to transgress the moral rules and set their own values (Nietzsche's immoralism and Raskolnikov's transgression of moral values). Nietzsche would surely condone murder in the utilitarian sense as he wasn't fond of that philosophy. It's interesting to see the parallels in which Raskolnikov sees himself as a superman, comparing himself to Napoleon. Nietzsche considered Napoleon as a figure to strive for the Ubermensch as well. This is after all, just a coincidental similarity - as they are in stark contrast in their thoughts - Nietzsche's atheism and Dostoevsky's Christian orthodoxy. But Nietzsche did admire Dostoevsky for his brilliant psychological insights.
I love Nietzsche but I disagree with his answer to the solution of the tragedy of life, in his book Ecco homo he articulated two contradictory ideas, the first ideas is “The only excuse for God is that he doesn't exist.” this clearly mean that nietzsche hated the existence. The second ideas is when he supported the Greek concept Amor fati (love of one’s fate). You can’t love your fate and hate existence at the same time, this why Dostoevsky is more realistic, he understood the only solution is to love everything which means to love god.
2 года назад
Dostoyevski is love, faith and reason. Nietzsche is weakness, resentment and egolatry.
"It is bias to think that the art of war is just for killing people. It is not to kill people, it is to kill evil. It is a stratagem to give life to many people by killing the evil of one person." "Conquering evil, not the opponent, is the essence of swordsmanship." ― Yagyū Munenori “Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.” ― Sun Tzu “Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING. I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers. I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore. I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive. I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeks he his own down-going. I love him who labors and invents, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeks he his own down-going. I love him who loves his virtue: for virtue is the will to down-going, and an arrow of longing. I love him who reserves no share of spirit for himself, but wants to be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus walks he as spirit over the bridge. I love him who makes his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or live no more. I love him who desires not too many virtues. One virtue is more of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one's destiny to cling to. I love him whose soul is lavish, who wants no thanks and does not give back: for he always bestows, and desires not to keep for himself. I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favor, and who then asks: "Am I a dishonest player?"--for he is willing to succumb. I love him who scatters golden words in advance of his deeds, and always does more than he promises: for he seeks his own down-going. I love him who justifies the future ones, and redeems the past ones: for he is willing to succumb through the present ones. I love him who chastens his God, because he loves his God: for he must succumb through the wrath of his God. I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goes he willingly over the bridge. I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgets himself, and all things that are in him: thus all things become his down-going. I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causes his down-going. I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud that lowers over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and succumb as heralds. Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the SUPERMAN.--” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
I couldn’t help but make the comparison between raskolnikov and nietzsche’s ubermensch. I ruminated a lot about whether Raskolnikov was a proper candidate but I was thinking Sonya was the real ubermensch. I’d argue her means were the most Nobel and the ends was well justified. Her profound loyalty to her family to the means of selling herself. Also her compassionate nature after raskolikov told her of the crimes. She was more concerned w his state of mind. Finally her unfaltering devotion for religion despite abject poverty and unfavorable family settings/experience.
Well here….nietsche took the idea from Dostoyevsky in the first place Why do Germans hate nietsche? A) he was polish from decent b) he gets blamed for what happened to Germany
Concerning Dostoevsky (and, maybe, 'Crime And Punishment', in particular), there has always been much ado about his willingness to represent "the enemy's argument" to the greatest affect, but how warranted is this, now-characteristic-of-the-author claim, really? I suggest that, if Dostoevsky had sincerely wanted to play devil's advocate, and steelman his opposition's case, then, he would not have conveniently placed a second, kinder old lady, in the stairwell, at the scene of the crime. Rather, Raskolnikov would have accomplished his "uber-deed", - perhaps, even, in such a way as to throw off the detectives, so that no one but his own conscience pursued him, for many years; as he utilized the funds to become a philanthropic luminary, exactly as he had conceived. This guilty wound, he would have accepted, and endured, all the while trying to atone for it, by engaging in more, generous acts, only made possible thereby. What would be the culmination, then, do you suppose? And where are the existentialists of the future; who will write that one for us; where, the overmen, who write in blood?
@@YourHeartIsTheKey if he exists. Either way the diffrence between objective reality and god is that objective reality doesnt allow me to do certian things, such as levitate. While gods «objectivity» only punishes me after the fact. So in one sense reality is more objective then god no matter if he exists or not. As for my comment; it was refrencing the obvious fact that religious people say whatever they do is premieres by their god, such as islamists or christians doing terrible things, while having god on their side. All other religious people say «they werent true to gods morality, they werent true belivers» which is the no true Scotsman fallacy. The last piece of the puzzle is this; none of them have acess to gods morality, in fact when people defend gods design they often do it by invoking a diffrent morality then Their own. Such as you killing a child by destroying a house is seen as immoral. While god doing the same with an earthquake requires as explenation, rather then simply be seen as immoral. So all these taken together, including nietzches remark that Christians (and other religions) simply want to «Get back» at the strong but being too weak in this world, so they pray for another world where they Get paradise, and the sinners Get eternal damnation. I see no case for objective morality, from any angle. Especially not from the religious. Gods objective morality, as well as Jesus seems to be less impressive then the common jainist priest. And religions theory of morals is less impressive then Kants. So in conclusion ; meh
@@YourHeartIsTheKeyif God exist morality still wouldn't be objective since he could decide whatever is moral weather that be he say to murder is permitted or not to murder is permitted
God is, by definition, Moral Perfection. His morally perfect nature would be the objective grounding for morality. Thus, any decision He would make would be morally perfect.
@@YourHeartIsTheKey you can of course define him to be morally perfect in your mind (as you can define anything). But If you want to use that perfection in some way your bound by your own interpretation. Thats why some Christians supported slavery for example, or why muslims are able to kill for their god. Its only the philosophers god whos morally perfect because they define it so, but Even they have no access to what that entsils. Some are vegan, some are utalitarians, and some think abortion is right. Good luck trying to figurer out what that would entail. Its akin to children defining their heroes to be the strongest, but still bickering about which one is truely the strongest
A quick question: I'm reading crime and punishment, and I'm in the middle of the second book. I'm familiar with a lot of Nietzsche's concepts as well... But this video would have some spoilers about the book ? Thanks for your work. Your channel is amazing and deserves a lot of respect.
So weird that Hitler took Nietzsches view of ubermensch and ignored and burned Russian books like crime and punishment. Stems from the question if we can truly evolve. Can we actually trasnecend good and evil and be in enlightened peace. It’s a mixture of non dualistic Buddhism and Hinduism and Christian dualistic messianic light and darkness.
I had an epiphany read beyond good and evil. He talks about how calling some one out when they are disrespectful in a covert way. The way he put it and shows how being the one in the right with the morels and truth is a fool and should find another way to get to those peoples well not really just saying your a bigger idiot and no more right than the one behaving in a disrespectful way. Deep and wow. Ok so lol I need to be intent on gaining respect from those type not further disrespecting someone already intimidated and fearful of me
The extraordinary man is a criminal but he has a right. What’s Dostoyevsky called the extraordinary man(Soviet transcendent man) Nietsche called the ubermensh (Nazi ubermensh).Or the Chinese call the new man.Or new Chinese man.New Asian man. The two most spectacular new man were….well.,..Stalin and Hitler. what Dostoyevsky wrote in literature and psychology Nieatsche turned into philosophy and the results were a thermonuclear Bomb in Europe.Especially Russia and Germany.Prophets,And they are regarded as Prophets
Nietchze misunderstood, where Dostoevsky didn't. The distance between birth and death itself is illusion, time, life, reality; it's all processed differently by each person's brain. An ubermensch is some idealistic image of what a lack of illusion means. Dostoevsky wrote crime and punishment showing that just because one person defeats one illusion, they cannot defeat the others. Raskolnikov is plagued with nightmares because those are the closest to direct consequences from his victims. He's plagued with starvation because he's disgusted by his own actions, the ego. He begins sympathizing and risking his life for strangers, severe guilt. He involves himself with law enforcement, proving his subconscious recognition that he committed a severe crime. Raskolnikov's ability to live happily with wife at the end of the novel is the ultimate statement. Raskolnikov suffered so much because the illusion of law and punishment outranked the reality of it. After seven years he can become normal, despite still having committed two murders and having to live with it. Raskolnikov only counteracts the concept of an ubermensch by presenting an effective one, then subjecting him to the ideals of the concept. Nietzsche sucks.
"Carefully planned murder" In which ol' Rasky: - Uses a murder weapon he picked up along the way - ends up killing a witness he never intended to - Almost gets caught by some clients of his victim, only escaping when one, and then the other 'conveniently' goes to get help - Exit strategy involves chancing upon an empty room he can hide in at just the right time - flees the crime scene with material evidence upon his person, including blood, and items that tie him explicitly to the crime, with not predetermined plan to stash these safely That was about as "Carefully planned' as my last drunken stupor. No wonder this edgy boi straw atheist got caught after his first armed robbery. There's that old apocryphal 'Psychopath test', where, if it occurs to you to solve a problem by murdering someone so you can attend their funeral, you are a psycho, or at least able to think like one. IN that limited sense, Dostoyevsky can think like a psychopath. 'Wanna redistribute a wicked old lady's ill-gotten wealth? Murder her then!' But every moment either side of the murder, before and after it, Raskolnikov is nothing like the kind of psycho who would axe-murder an old woman in a casual, almost slapdash fashion. The supposed 'brilliant psychological insights' and 'steelmanning' of the author actually fly in the face of pretty much the entirety of modern forensic psychology. His 'philosophical insights' are not much better. Nothing in this novel has anything to do with Atheism, or Utilitarianism, despite what Jordan Peterson or the RU-vid hivemind keep insisting. I WOULD say I do not understand why this novel is so popular, Had I never before seen lazy, reductive, Christian apologia that is equal parts deluded and insulting to the human spirit.
2 года назад
Dostoyevski faith is not illusion, you are illusion.
