Fyodor Dostoevsky | The Grand Inquisitor Chapter | Existentialist Philosophy & Literature 

I am Chinese.I like Fyodor Dostoevsky very mach. He is my light of my life

I take the internet for granted way too often. When, before the turn of the century, could you so easily find such a deep discussion on some of history's greatest literature in a matter of seconds? We often forget how lucky we are to be living in such times.

Well. . . just a little Thanks. I've got plans to do a few more vids on Dostoevsky -- and he is one of my favorites as well. So much intellectual richness in his works

Thanks for this! I recently read the novel and I loved it, but this is the chapter that really stays with me the most. I would really love to hear your thoughts on Ivan's conversation with the devil or the life of the elder, both very stimulating parts of the book. Thanks again!

The first novel that blew my mind- it still does. Infinitely re-readable, its treasure keeps unfolding- and this chapter is breathtaking.

Love Dostoyevsky! His work can be interpreted by such a broad selection of disciplines--psychological, philosophical, theological. So fun to read and pick him apart.

Thank you for this video. I've just finished reading BK and your lecture on the Grand Inquisitor was the best I have watched so far

One reading of the kiss which I like is that it is a symbol of irrational freedom, located in forgiveness. The whole point of Jesus is freedom, only guided by a love for others. He is trying to end the 'eye for an eye' mentality by pointing to the hardest thing a human can do, which is exercising their personal freedom. When the devil tempts Jesus in the bible in 3 ways he rejects them all out of respect for freedom, he doesn't give people (or himself) the easy way out because one can't grow spiritually in this way, "there is more to life than bread alone", jumping from the roof and becoming an idol for people when the angels catch him, etc. In the BK, despite being prodded and told he would suffer the ultimate physical harm, Jesus' exercises radical freedom by giving the grand inquisitor the opposite of what he "deserves", and so the rational principle of desert that the grand inquisitor is operating on falls apart to make way for something spiritual. Because of the kiss, even if just for a moment the Grand inquisitor seems to understand freedom and the power of love/forgiveness. It seems Ivan is responding to his own rebellion against God in the previous chapter. For Dostoevsky here there isn't necessarily a good reason for why people have to suffer, God doesn't become some ultimate altruist (although I would say that freedom is necessarily accompanied by the possibility of suffering), but by exercising one's freedom, one can end at least some suffering on earth.

It is excellent, and indeed easy enough to find -- thanks for bringing that version up.

You're very welcome. I will be revisiting the Brothers Karamazov some more later on this Fall -- but I'll also be doing a lecture (or two) on Notes from the Underground

Glad that you liked the video! The poet I had in mind was Baudelaire -- he did a lot of interesting things in his poetry, but one of the most interesting was his attempt to, through the work of art, transform ugliness (e.g. a roadkill -- or as it's usually translated "a carrion") into something beautiful

From my experience, I read Crime and Punishment first. I was very impressed, because I had already read and admired Notes from Underground. I didn't find the BK as powerful as CAP, especially in terms of narrative flow and dynamism. But this 'subplot', the Grand Inquisitor, really stood out for me - I think it even trumps the rest of the novel!

Thank you so much... I am taking this class online and your lectures have saved me!!!!!!

Well, glad you cleared that up for all of us.

Came across this by accident and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you for uploading it.

This is great! This is my favorite novel ever (even more than War & Peace)! Thanks for this lecture video. :D

You're welcome -- glad it was helpful for you

thanks so much for posting this up. currently working on bulgakov's the master and margarita and trying to learn about the grand inquisitor to draw links between bulgakov's woland and dostoevsky's GI. this helps!

Great lesson. A story within a story within a story. Almost a palimpsest, the story trying to erase the stories before it and rewrite everything.

It's been awhile, but I read this in college--very impactful. My professor was Russian, and most, if not all the names in this book have significance and meaning in Russian. This chapter is one of the greatest in all literature, or so my professor told us. It really is good, and thought-provoking.

Interesting list -- and an interesting idea to put together such a list. I'd have to think about what mind would look like

Perfect. Thanks much. I look forward to giving Baudelaire a go. I enjoy your pacing and tone, and look forward to viewing your collected lectures. On a side note, have you considered wearing a lapel mic for your recorded sessions? The audio feels a bit distant and details are dropped at times. Either way, thanks for your valuable contribution to The Interwebs!

You're welcome. Glad you liked the vid. Yes, it IS a great novel!

Hey Gregory, great lecture. Do you find any parallels in the Grand Inquisitor's discourse and Thomas Hobbe's justification of the Leviathan state (In the sense of handing over civil liberties to the state in exchange for security)? I find that the root in both arguments are very similar. Any insights on this comparison? cheers, Pablo

Thanks for your insights. It is good to have a guide when entering the world of a great writer. . . maps help. Of course the joy of unexpected discoveries is worth the hard work of setting out too. There is on RU-vid a theatrical production of The Grand Inquisitor with the great John Gielgud as the inquisitor. Posting rules do not allow including the link here but it is easy to find.

I wonder if Louis Lowry modeled her book "The Giver" as a response on what the future that would be like if the Grand Inquisitors plan went perfectly. Similarities include lack of freedom and forced ignorance to provide the people with happiness. Just as the Inquisitors would bear the weight of having freedom and would therefore not be happy, the Reciever of Memories would bear the knowledge of freedom. What this boiled down to is that there wasnt ever real happiness in these programs because without pain there is no happiness, so people became drones. I dont know if this works as well as I think it does but its just a thought

Dostoevsky sparkled this idea in my head : To be a atheist is to deny the better version of yourself!

Fantastic lecture. It had great pacing for a new audience. The Grand Inquisitor is easily my favorite passage from the Golden Age of Russian Literature and your overview informed even a weathered old sod like me. Could you remind me of the French poet you mentioned? It was around 15:00 but I didn't quite catch it (sounded like Mondelear). I'd love to dig deeper.

thank you very much for this video

So true freedom comes and can only be achieved through a form of suffering. A redemptive kind of suffering. One that requires and demands us to search for truth so that we just dont please ourselves through food and water, and through obtaining worldy things. . An this path in search of truth obviously has alot of bumps and potholes or anxieties, fears and doubts and since its not easy we thus suffer. Did i understand this? Great video

A theological reading of the grand inquisitor is quite simple. Everything the grand inquisitor said turns to dust when Christ kisses him because Christ loves him, and the grand inquisitor lets Christ walk out the door in freedom.

Mr. Gregory, first of all, excelent and insightful video! Now, i wanna share with you something i've deduced from my studies; hopefully i'll get your remark on this. Ok, on my readings and studies, i've found out some characteristcs regarding the revolutionary mentality. This idea that there's a future of eternal justice and good that can only be brought by a revolution is not by all means exclusive from Marx. In fact, i think this distortion started inside the very church (and i think The Grand Inquisitor and the conversation regarding the eclesial justice and the State, in Zozimo's chamber, is exactly about that). Well, what's the perfect world after all? Isn't it a world where the 10 commandments are followed all the time? Isn't the Apocalypse brought inside time itself (revolution)? The revolutionary mentality, starting with these church's heresies and stretching all the way down to Hitler, Mussoulini, Stalin, Gramsci, etc., as i've deduced, is founded in these aspects: a) The distortion of the perception of time. To the revolutionary, the future is certain (universal Church of Christ; classless society; the society of a pure race), and everything that has happend up until this point was to achieve this future society. Therefore, all that holds down the revolution, is bad, and all that speeds up, is good. These can vary alot throughout the revolutionary fight. Stalin was once regarded as a leader, someone to be steemed; now that Soviet society failed (hence, delaying the better world), he's considered a vile monster (which he was), someone who distorted socialism and so on. So, from this, i got the conclusion that, for them, there is no truth; there is just what speeds and slwos down the process; no good nor bad, all relative. b) The second distortion that i've found, and to me is the most interesting, is the moral distortion. Since the revolutionary talks and acts in the name of the future world of supreme justice and good, everything that must be done in order to achieve this goal, is the supreme good. Lying, cheating, killing, genocide, democide etc., are but expressions of the greater good. Crime, for them, is not crime, is the expression of eternal justice. And everything that slows down the process is the worst crime. For instance, someone who goes to church with his family, believes in christ is, for communist and nazis, a first degree criminal, for he's slowing down the future society of good and eternal justice by believing in this reactionary thing called Christianity. And when the communists and nazis kill countless people, they're performing the ultimate expression of justice, for it brings a better world. Surely, these people are the ultimate enemies of mankind by excellence; and i believe that Dostoevsky's work was written to denounce the sheer monstrosity of these people and their mentality. One last thing, professor. Have you heard about Olavo de Carvalho? He's a brazilian philosopher who has an extensive work on this subject and is a leading mind on it. Here's a video with english subtitles about his conception of the revolutionary mentality: /watch?v=mQqMrr6uo2g; it helped alot in my studies. So, in short, thanks for your time, if you read this; hope i helped in the debate.

You're welcome -- Baudelaire is a longtime favorite of mine, going back to my college days. We've looked into using a mike -- but that would entail even more work for my wife, who does all the editing and processing. You see, I shoot these with a flipcam -- one of the low-techiest types of video cameras -- no hookup for any mike with those. We've started boosting the volume a bit, though, during the editing

Yes -- and the chapter just preceding is a heavy-hitter as well

Very relevant today ❤

Dear Mr. Sadler, Thanks for this lecture. One confounding question this chapter inspires is how to alleviate social ills, say poverty. The solutions suggested by much of contemporary economics sounds like the logic of the Grand Inquisitor. It seems we have submitted ourselves to the doctrines of modern economics, which, in a way, has made the lives of millions of people "better" (based on criteria laid down by the field itself)--is there anything wrong with this? If there is, what then should we do? Your hanging question articulates what has been bothering me for some time now: "What is more right, what is more just, what is more good? To set things up so that the weak, the failures, the mass of humans, can sort of be channeled into the proper areas so that they can have... happiness? [...] Is it better to serve the happiness of the vast majority, or is something destroyed in that process? Is there something vital lost?" Do you have a sort of proposition or guess what this "something destroyed" is? Is it a sense of community? Is it solidarity among the rich and poor as neighbors, (who trust and truly care for each other) and not as benefactors and beneficiaries (who merely use each other as means to each one's ends)? Is it actual "love" that should be channeled "from person to person" and not "from person to government/institution/authorities to person," if the latter is possible at all? Is this sort of what you have been driving at? Or is your hanging question one that can be answered in countless ways? Thank you so much for taking the time to read this long comment and for being so generous to us strangers who watch your videos!

This was presented very clearly. Is the a part two or something that shows the end of the lecture?

Have you a lecture on "Notes from Underground"?

thanks for posting! please get a microphone ...its kind of hard to hear you. Loved the lecture thought. Thanks again.

Hey Gregory, thank you very much for this incredible lecture. I am a big fan of Dostoevsky but I am amount done with all his books. I would like to ask, if you could recommend an author form our time that may have a similar capacity to write so wonderful masterpieces with the powerful and hunting meanings that Dostoevsky archives. I am open to anyones recommendation (:

No, hadn't heard that story. So, no, I don't mention it. The main thrust of the lecture on Notes is to provide some context on it as a sort of prototypical Existentialist text

What we don't understand, gives rise to our freedom. We are able to escape boundaries because we realize we don't understand. Once we know something, boundaries are self-enforced and we lose that bit of freedom. So, if we knew, or thought we knew, the meaning and purpose of our existence (and everything else), how free would we be? Just my thought on the analysis at about the 27:00 minute mark.

I do. In fact, this video is part of a much larger Existentialist Philosophy and Literature playmist

Well, that's an interesting question. I would say that from the Inquisitor's point of view, no rebels can't be happy -- they're seeking something other than satisfaction of needs/desires, something better, but they're generally not going to get what they're rebelling for. Does that fit Dostoevsky's views? Tough to say, really. If the Underground Man is in some sense speaking for Dost., then one might seek happiness in being unhappy

Thank you for the lecture it helped me to understand core idea behind a poem. Tried to read in russian pretty hard though. I wanted to ask you about particular of this poem when grand inquisitor says man was a rebel; can rebels be happy?

I use a flipcam -- so a mike wouldn't help, no place to connect it. If you look at some of the later videos, you'll see we boosted the sound.

21:59 is a great line of questioning for any political hopeful

Well, we know that Nietzsche had read some of Dostoevsky's works, and was impressed -- as far as we know, he didn't read the Brothers Karamazov

Again, Mr. Sadler's home run! The two narrators have always been a problem in "The Brothers."

watch this AFTER watching the lecture on the Lord of the Rings that Greg Sadler put out recently. Thank you.

A key Chapter from one of the best Russian writers.

Yes indeed!

Good video.

Nice lecture. What do you mean when you say that the Inquisitor misunderstood love and freedom?

The kiss by Jesus at the end is a reverse of the kiss of Judas in turning Jesus in to the Romans - ( by the church in the poem. I think)

Hello, excuse me, I'm french and I really want to understand this lesson... but my english is not enough evoluated. Do you think that, a day, you will have possibility to give us subtitles on this video? It would be so great! Thank you!

when you said that love is a component of understanding, that you must love something to fully understand it, but we are unsure as to the nature of love, does this mean that we don't understand love completely so therein lies its mystery and its poetry? the poetry of existence? not sure if I'm expressing myself well here. Maybe you could elaborate on this a bit? Thanks.

You're welcome.

Please tell me what translation this is?/?/?

I think part of "learning what makes someone tick" might be related to knowing their shadow, from a Jungian perspective

Perfect

Do you have a lecture on The Demons?

Very hard to hear....(!)....I love your lectures Dr. Sadler....

Nietzsche read Brothers Karamazov and even called it "the most genius novel of all time" in his essay about fatherkills and Dostoevsky

Hi Gregory I am really enjoying your video's thank you so much for posting them. I've a couple of questions if you have time. 1 Could one say that Nietzsche lost his faith in God and Christianity in part because of suffering and personal bereavement's ? 2 Could one say that Dostoyevsky found his faith in God and Christianity in part because of suffering and personal bereavements ? just a quick context for any readers Nietzsche's father a Christian pastor died when Nietzsche was about 6 and his brother died when he was about 10 and he experienced profound grief at a very young age. The only book Dostoyevsky was allowed during his 10 year's in the gulag was a copy of the new testament which he memorized also in 1868 Sonia Dostoyevsky's daughter died at 3 months old he experienced a dramatic crisis of faith and visited a famous Russian monk for guidance in 1869 published the idiot. Thanks in advance, I would be fascinated by any thoughts you have on the matter bye Will

According to Nietzcshe," Dostoevsky was my most happy discovery, more even than that of Stendhal".

I think you must be mistaking "coherent" for something like "completely consistent"

Dostoevsky is my favorite author.Not that my screen name may gives that away or anything lol. Feel free to do more criticism on his work :0).

Sure enough.

With what?

Augustine actually provided a monastic Rule for the Augustinians

i read that impressive novel this novels contains question of justice what is justice how Jesus influenced this novelist from your perspective

Well, I suppose, you might want to read some of the monastic fathers, and decide for yourself whether that's what Christian monasticism is about. You'll find that, at least in Orthodox Christianity -- where Dostoevsky is coming from -- monastic life was, for the most part, the locus where they was enabled to take place more fully, more reliably. You're welcome to disagree with that way of seeing matters - but then you'll need to take it up with, say Dostoevsky or the monastic writers

doesnt Christ kiss the lips of his betrayer?

Yeah. . . not even sure if Plato himself thinks that's feasible. Dostoevsky? Not likely. . . .

Híc, không hiểu gì cả, tiếc chết mất. :(((

I’d like to take more of a pragmatic approach to this. Taken in the context of the story of The Brothers overall. Just like the three little bears and the porridge. Aloysha represents pure love and perhaps even naïveté. Ivan represents the pure thought and perhaps cynical approach to life. Demitri to me represents the path in between that is being reactive and emotional in the moment. Although at times quite angry and shocking. I believe that their is a fine balance between the approaches of Ivan and Aloysha. That is to say that Demitiri has the best approach to life as it is best lived not being in thought in case of Ivan or being dogmatic like Aloysha but being emotionally reactive and feeling and living like Demitri.

666 likes, currently.

Dostoyevsky is better than sex.

This guy sounds like he's talking about Donald Trump and the Gran Inquisitor!

why bother,?