Can we talk about the particularly Orthodox themes in Dostoe

>>7528239
That's an interesting perspective. I don't see how you can talk about Dostoyevsky without talking about Christianity, it's one of his biggest themes. He's one of my favorite writers by the way

>>7528302
Do you know if Nietzsche read anything by him besides Notes from Underground? Since it instilled in Nietzsche such a respect, I would think if Nietzsche read any of his other works, he would have at least put effort into rebutting them, since they challenge ideas identical to Nietzsche's.

>>7528331
I mean I would assume he had read more of his stuff but I don't know. The nihilism in crime and punishment seems like it could have been an influence on him. It seems like a lot of people who like dostoyevsky conveniently skip over his Christianity. Maybe he was rebutting him, just not directly because he respected Dostoyevsky as a writer

>>7528417
But it seems like Dostoevsky just reiterates the perspectives Dostoevsky already did. Nietzsche has a different style than Raskolnikov, for instance, but the "extraordinary man", as expressed, is identical to Nietzsche's idea of the ubermensch.

>>7528431
To be honest I've only read a little bit of Nietzsche, but I would have thought at some point he would address the other side of the argument. If he doesn't though than that is kind of odd. Thats part of the reason I love Dostoyevsky because he can write from both perspectives so convincingly.

>>7528540
I don't know if Nietzsche realized there was a rebuttal to him, but yeah, it's hard to beat Dostoevsky when it comes to convincing arguments and perspectives from opposing angles.

Dosty also wrote one of the greatest critiques of Christianity with The Grand Inquisitor

>>7528650
Probably my favorite piece of writing by him.

>>7528650
Most properly read on conjunction with the prior conversation in the monastery, of course. And, in fact, it is not a conventional critique of Christianity, since it is a critique of God's propriety, but at the same time it is advocating the Church being given governmental authority (which Dostoevsky is against).

>>7528703
Yeah I don't specifically remember that conversation but I remember that it didn't feel forced at all and fit naturally in the book. Of course it does stand out a bit but I think that was meant to be to show that there was a real depth to Ivan's soul and inner turmoil. Each chapter and character of that complements each other so well

>>7528844
Wow I wrote that terribly, I meant to say the grand inquisitor fit into the book naturally, and each chapter and character in the book complement each other well

>>7528844
The Grand Inquisitor was a defense of Satan, sort of (since it is about how Christ failed humanity by not accepting the Third Temptation Satan offered). Ivan very much a stand-in for the Devil until he has his horrific realization about the murder, and then comes face to face with the actual Devil (in the form of an hallucination). It gives us an idea of Dostoevsky's conception of the Devil seeing himself as the good guy, in a way quite different from Milton's portrayal of Lucifer. When the Devil confronts Ivan, their actual distinction is manifest: the Devil wanted to repent and bow down to Christ, and was even "tempted" to, but did and does not; whereas Ivan still has the opportunity to repent.

>>7528239
Yesterday in a thread identical to this one I asked you for some recommendations on some Orthodox texts, which you helpfully provided. Unfortunately, I hadn't written them down yet and that old thread appears to be deleted/isn't in the archive.

Would you happen to remember what they were? Thanks.

>>7528650
its a critique of catholicism desu

>>7528239
How is Porfiry Satan though he didnt seem to be trying to tempt or lead anyone to ruin

>>7529018
Anything by Dostoevsky

The Orthodoxy Church, by Timothy Ware

The Orthodox Way, by Kallistos Ware (same author, but with his new monastic name)

The Way of the Pilgrim (a spiritual novel about an itinerant Christian seeking to learn the secret of constant prayer, it was found in a monastery, it's highly regarded both within and without the Orthodox Church).

The Philokalia

The Desert Fathers

A Commentary on Divine Liturgy.

>>7529052
It's not really, it's a response to the critique of Catholicism from the conversation in the monastery. It's an argument that the Catholic Church is justified in taking worldly power, because it actually wants to fix the world.

>>7529112
Satan can be conceived of multiple ways. Porfiry is Satan fulfilling his role as the prosecutor, how Jews generally conceive of him.

>>7529135
Great! Thanks again.

>>7529147
>Satan can be conceived of multiple ways. Porfiry is Satan fulfilling his role as the prosecutor, how Jews generally conceive of him.

Why did he use the Jewish conception of Satan and why such an obscure interpretation?

>>7529178
Here is the Orthodox Church
http://www.intratext.com/x/eng0804.htm

And on this site you can find the Philokalia, the Desert Fathers, and the Way of the Pilgrim (it's currently down, but it should be back up soon)
desertfathersDOTwebsDOTcom

Almost all the other works are available on libgen.

>>7529182
The Jewish conception of Satan isn't contradictory with the Orthodox one, it's part of it. The interpretation is not obscure at all in Orthodox Christianity.

If you want to see how it all fits together with the Christian conception of Satan, see Ivan's hallucination in The Brothers Karamazov.

>>7529190
Do you think its a better interpretation than Satan as the tempter? Also why was Dostoevsky so resentful of the West?

>>7529183
Ah, cool. I was just starting to search for downloads.

>>7529215
"Tempt" and "test" (can be used in a sense to "make a trial of") are the same word in the Bible, in both Greek and Hebrew.

Dostoevsky didn't like the West because he thought all the cancerous ideas (nihilism, rationalism, atheistic socialism--Dostoevsky himself being a Christian socialist--etc.) were all pouring into Russia from the West. He saw the USSR coming, and he held the West, ultimately the Catholic Church (which he saw atheistic communism as well as Protestantism inevitable products of), to be responsible.

You must remember that Dostoevsky spent a lot of time with socialists in the West, being a socialism himself, but was deeply disturbed by their Bentham bent, and eventually decided that he simply could not jive with atheist socialists, and so would only hang out with the Christian ones. He did not like capitalism, he did not like liberalism, he did not like atheism, he did not like anything the West stood for.

>>7529215
>Do you think its a better interpretation
And as for this, the idea of the interpretations being separate or different is purely Western. The Orthodox Church's conception of Satan doesn't have to do with one or the other, we don't think in dichotomies (that's why we like Kierkegaard's stressing paradox instead of dialectic). That's why heaven and hell are the same thing Orthodox Christianity, we never dichotomized them.

>>7529248
>Dostoevsky didn't like the West because he thought all the cancerous ideas (nihilism, rationalism, atheistic socialism--Dostoevsky himself being a Christian socialist--etc.) were all pouring into Russia from the West. He saw the USSR coming, and he held the West, ultimately the Catholic Church (which he saw atheistic communism as well as Protestantism inevitable products of), to be responsible.

Do you think this resentment was valid or justified?

Would it be fair to say that Dostoevsky is to the Catholic Church and the West what Tolstoy is to the Orthodox Church?

>>7529280
No, because I think the Catholic Church acknowledges a lot of what Dostoevsky says to be true. Theology and Social Theory, in fact, a work anti-modernist Catholics tend to like, shows how all this stuff came out of tweaks in Catholic theology during the Late Middle Ages.

>>7529294
No to which part?

>>7529299
No to pretty much every part except for the idea that they succumbed to Satan's Third Temptation.

>>7529307
So why wasnt his resentment justified then?

>>7529312
Well from Dostoevsky's perspective, it all stems from succumbing to that Temptation with the Donation of Pepin, so if you don't see that as a fall to the Third Temptation, then you would have a different perspective.

Obviously, Latin theology started to diverge a lot sooner from orthodox theology (Justin Martyr was a forerunner of it, and Turtullian was considered the "Father of Latin Christianity") than that, but it was the fall to Satan's Third Temptation, that Dostoevsky sees as the West ultimately bowing to Satan's theology. In a way, he's not wrong. If the Latin Church did not accept that Donation, it would never have been obligated to accept the filioque down the road (which it certainly didn't want to initially, that is why the Pope had the Nicene Creed engraved on gold tablets without it, to make a statement that this creed could not be amended to include the filoque), for instance, and they certainly wouldn't have been so bold as to push the Donation of Constantine.

>>7529334
>If the Latin Church did not accept that Donation
That is, the Donation of Pepin

>>7528239
I don't know that much about the Orthodox church, but I have read Crime and Punishment and I believe that the fundamental thing which he is arguing with that novel is the view that there is something wrong with acting completely rationally. We are not completely rational creatures, and treat us as such is to deny our humanity.
Raskolnikov is attempting to act completely rationally, and in the process is denying the part of himself that makes him human. Dostoevsky criticism of the communist and the nihilists is the complete denial of that aspect of humanity. The idea that morality is ingrained in us, that by being human we have a fundamental sense of what is right and wrong, that is part of it. This innateness of morality is part of his religious belief. Finding god is as much more of an internal struggle, it is opening yourself up to the love of another person and of god. To him the denial of this inner moral compass is the denial of god.
Sonya is the Christ like figure of the story

>>7529352
I think that's more what Notes from Underground is about. Crime and Punishment, although it is also jabbing a secular ideology, is concerned with the idea of the "great man" who is justified by his greatness to transcend society's values.

>>7529365
Don't those two sort of complement each other? Isn't the great man pretty much what the UG-man (and Rodya) thinks he should be?

>>7529365
>I think that's more what Notes from Underground is about. Crime and Punishment, although it is also jabbing a secular ideology, is concerned with the idea of the "great man" who is justified by his greatness to transcend society's values.

I agree with you in that is what C&P is about. What I was trying to describe is his counter argument to that belief system. I think that the counter argument to that idea is about the innateness of moral sense. I read somewhere that raskolnikov means/comes from the root of schism so what he really is trying to do is divide himself. He is trying to forgo his humanity and behave strictly rational. There is a passage when he talks to about how the man who killed the old women was acting strictly in his self-interests. It is the same idea.

>>7529385
UG has absolutely no desire or interest, let alone delusions, about being the great man.

They can complement each other, but in Raskolnikov's case, it is more Nietzschean. That is why his friend (who has a conscience Dostoevsky would approve of) is called Razumikhin, meaning "reasoner". Reason is not antagonistic here as much as you would think, it's not about utilitarianisism--Raskolnikov uses some of that when justifying it to himself, but as the first conversation with Profiry demonstrates, it is about Raskolnikov thinking of himself as a Mohammed or Napoleon, here to smash all the values of the old order and impose his own,he's not of the masses, he doesn't want to dedicate his life to laying a brick for socialism, as he puts it. He is an extraordinary man by nature, it is something innate and special, he is a superman who is not beholden to the morality of man, but whose job it create new values for man to follow.

>>7529404
Raskolinov does mean "schismatic", with a masculine suffix, the English equivalent would be something like "Schismatico". Raskolnikov's schism ties in a lot with Ivan's idea, in The Brothers Karamazov, as to why the Church should punish criminals instead of the state.

Raskonikov still believes in God, Christ, and the Gospel, but he has separated and created his own Church by establishing a brand new set of values. The experience of being cut off from his fellow Christians is very explicit throughout the book. Raskolnikov is a Christian, but he is no longer an Orthodox Christian, he is a schismatic.

>>7529485
>UG has absolutely no desire or interest, let alone delusions, about being the great man.
But isn't that what he thinks that he should be? Wouldn't he prefer to be even a worm rather than what he is, and what he is rather than one of the common folk?

>>7530007
He'd prefer to have some kind of identity, any kind of identity. He *can't* be common, because he's much, much too thoughtful, he overthinks everything. Being common isn't his problem. His problem is lack of identity.

>>7528239
Not related to the topic, but thanks OP for the chant.
Can't stop listening to it.

btw, do you know if the Orthodox church has some sort of website linking where it is present? Or, how it is structured?

While I was searching, I learned that there are some divisions (Antioch, Serb, Greek, so on).

Is there some sort of unit as the Catholic church in which a few churchs obey the pope AND have some special rites that differentiate them from the Catholic Romans.
Or these divisions are more like the protestant and are different? (sometimes profoundly distinct).

Also, why is Tolstoi literature considered anti-orthodox or, even, why he is not well seem as Dostoievsky?
Tolstoi later works have a lot of christian values in them.

>>7530026
Here's another one you might like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc

There are two main Orthodox Churches: Oriental (Coptic, Ethiopian, etc.) and Eastern (Greek, Russian, etc.) We have been separated 1,600 years over Christ's nature and now we are getting back together and agree it is just semantics. We are on the same page, and will be one Church within ten years, we both fully acknowledge each other as Orthodox.

The Church structure is all bishops are equal in power, some just have more honor. It's all one Church. There is no central authority. If a bishop is naughty, the rest of the Church deals with him. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, for instance, recently sold Church property to Israel. The Church defrocked him and placed him under house arrest.

There is a "Western Rite" in the Orthodox Church, but it's closer to Medieval Latin Rite than contemporary Catholic rite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p6J-bQekuk

Dostoevsky loved the Church, Tolstoy hated it and was ultimately excommunicated. Tolstoy adhered to reincarnation and didn't think baptism of communion were important. What got him excommunicated was that he openly poured invective on the Church as an institution and didn't like the idea of bishops or priests and said the whole thing was evil.

>>7530165
So, is basically the same doctrine with maybe some particularities regarding cerimony/chants/so on.

And, what about Shenouda III, Tawadros II and other coptes pope?
Aren't they powerful than other bishops?

>>7530188
It's all the same doctrine. They have variations in artistic style, but both also forbid dimension icons.

Some of the chants are also identical. Remember the song in the OP?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUrnzwLAf3Y

>Aren't they powerful than other bishops?
They have more prestige and a few functions are left to them, such as calling councils together (bishops can refuse to attend, and if enough do, the council does not take place). Otherwise, no.

>>7530363
Yeah, I was expecting this.

Thanks OP!

File: Martyrs-Libya-Saints.png (2MB, 750x1063px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1063px

>>7530373
No problem.

>Coptic icon

>>7528331
he almost certainly makes a reference to "the idiot" in his book "the antichrist"

Tolstoy - too intelligent to debase the argument

Dostoevsky - hamfisted in presenting a dilettante fence sitting position due to his complex urges for financial and political power he could never satisfy morally with the effective ethos of good and the common man

Nietzsche - infantile moral degradation in total regression of those who came before him

One was the forefather of modern liberalism.

One was effectively an amoral piece of shit capitalist.

One was a hollow man.


Presented in the same order.

Nietzsche has nothing to teach us in a modern neoliberal world. He's effectively the furry movement of his day and age, and with a historical lens held up to his work completely reactionary and devoid of any cultural spiritual or social message.

Dostoevsky wrote what is effectively dated communist propaganda. Unhappy people, capitalist forces wildly out of control, bourgeoisie supreme oppression. We read Dostoevsky now in US Presidential debates, just straw man and empty issues with garish aging caricatures. Someone like Kafka would have laughed at the western democracy that has developed in modern times, someone like Dostoevsky would've championed it as the ultimate expression of human ideology. People want to be lead by their moral inferiors, a dirty secret that nobody talks about is that we want dirty politicians. That type of nonsense rhetoric.


Tolstoy teaches us that good people do bad things and bad people are capable of good. The only objective lesson a rich and fullfilled human life can teach us.


I have a bias because I read them in the order most educated people do D>T>N. What is lacking in D is found in T and N is like someone is trying to face fuck you.

>>7532128
Worst post of the day

>>7532128
...what?

>>7532128
Kafka was probably more influenced by Dostoevsky than any other writer.

File: impressive.gif (2MB, 350x255px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x255px

>>7532128
>Tolstoy teaches us that good people do bad things and bad people are capable of good. The only objective lesson a rich and fullfilled human life can teach us.

File: 1447797549468.gif (2MB, 352x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x217px

>>7532128
Dostoevsky went to prison for being a socialist agitator. The worst that ever happened to Tolstoy was being excommunicated.

>>7532128
>Dostoevsky wrote what is effectively dated communist propaganda
Can you elaborate? I don't see his work that way, but I would like to understand why you do

Constantine - do you know of any writings either directly or tangentially related to Orthodoxy on aesthetics? I don't mean as pertaining to the question of the use of Icons, but, rather, writings by or regarding philosophy, literature, and art that either addresses aesthetics directly as an Orthodox commentary on the subject (perhaps an Orthodox philosopher or theologian), or comes from a general body of knowledge produced by a culture largely shaped by Orthodoxy.

I'm also interested in where artistic and philosophical thought coming from a Russian Orthodox perspective connects at all with (German) Romantic and Idealist ideas (since there was a very strong Russian Romantic moment obviously somewhat influenced by Romantic strains coming from Germany and Austrian expressions. I'm curious how that interplay might have been partly informed by Orthodoxy in Russia.

>>7534007
Dostoevsky was a socialist and was in the movement to abolish serfdom (before it actually was abolished) and wrote against capitalism. He was also very opposed to atheistic socialism, though.

>>7534083
All Orthodox aesthetics must be understood in terms iconography. Icons are representations of Truth (idolatry is taking an icon for the truth itself as opposed to a description or representation, as how some Protestants take the Bible). The family, for instance, is an icon of the Trinity, as it is unity in diversity, there is a Father as the head of the household, but at the same time he is equal to his wife.

If you want to understand Orthodox aesthetics, you have to read about the Orthodox philosophy of iconography. An icon's (we're talking beyond Church art here) aesthetic value is predicated upon how well it conveys the Truth it is designed to convey; that includes not distorting this Truth (which things like metaphor do not, necessarily), OR *posting* for the Truth (that is why there is no dimension in Orthodox art, because otherwise it might be confused with the real thing on a subconscious level while you are venerating, and even unconscious idolatry is a no-no).

What is ugly from an Orthodox perspective is the nihilist impulse, the will to nothing. Nothing exists without God actively sustaining it, so obviously sin doesn't *technically* exist (hence why Satan is the father of all lies), but nihilism still makes an effort to destroy icons of Truth. This can be actual icons of the Church, as with Puritanism or ISIS, or it can be icons like the family and society, as with the Russian Nihilist movement. Nihilism is a loathing of icons, the only thing nihilism will accept is idols (in Max Stirner's case, the idol is the ego), and wrecks all icons because they indicate a truth higher than the idol.

>>7534161
Thanks, that gives me a lot to chew on.

And as for my Romantic question, I can see where that aligns with Romanticism: an attempt at expression of truth... allusive aesthetics that mean to translate across spiritual nature and its various self-similar patterns and materializations throughout creation, while at the same time having an inbuilt recognition of such expressions' limitations before the sublime and ineffable. And I can see where Romanticism would exceed and defy it: through Romanticism's darker tendencies, subjection to the passions, fascination with and occasional embrace of death and decline, somewhat over-emphasis on the visionary genius (as radiating 'lamp' of truth that is at risk of believing itself and its art as *being* that truth - but I would agree with the Romantic in recognizing the spiritual source of creative gifts and inspiration ultimately). As for the Romantic 'dark' view of humanity, aesthetics of decline... I still find this to be very Christian in its recognition of human imperfection... as opposed to a more utopian progressive view and aesthetics of people being inherently good (in this reality) and their systems as perfectible. Which is why I broached the subject of Orthodoxy, aesthetics, and Romanticism... I think that, as an aesthetics that acknowledges spiritual nature informing reality but also human imperfection, Romanticsm, in a loose and updated sense, is more truthful and Christian-compatible.

Interested to read up more on the philosophy of iconography.

>>7534571
That is why John Milbank, an Anglican who is very fond of Orthodox aesthetics, considers himself a Romanticist.

>>7534161
the ikon idol dichotomy is a little confusing. what you're saying is that stirner's ego is an idol because he actually thinks it's real, whereas the idea of family is an ikon because it's "not real" but somehow a representation of a higher reality? could you elaborate?

File: crima+punishment.jpg (65KB, 333x512px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 333x512px

>>7528239
What's your view on Sonia? She's the prostitute who hands Raskolnikov a crucifix while he's held captive in a labour camp in Siberia.

File: dost.jpg (58KB, 309x324px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 309x324px

>>7528331
From what I've read, I understand that Nietzsche's idea of the Uebermensch was based on Raskolnikov. He kind of represented the exceptional man in as much that he singlehandedly wanted to better the world by doing something that others daren't do.

^

File: aa795.jpg (124KB, 1880x193px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1880x193px

>>7536804
Being a representation, or a reflection, of a Truth does not mean something is unreal. Only sin is unreal. The family is a lens, so to speak, for viewing the Truth. Sin has corrupted the material with lie, so it is very deceiving to look at it directly as Truth itself; on the other hand, all material is real and loved by God (it wouldn't exit otherwise, God's love is required to sustain everything's existence), but it has a bunch of makeup smeared all over it (only it doesn't, the material is not corrupt, because sin is a lie, but our perception of the material is, properly speaking). So in order to correct our understanding, we use lenses, icons. They don't make our vision 20/20, but they improve it (sometimes a lens is best used with another lens: the Bible is an icon, but as the Way of the Pilgrim puts it, it is like a sun that will either blind us or make us feel hurt us without the lens the Philokalia). Now heresy is what is trickier, because heresy is a distortion of the Truth instead of an outright lie, either an exaggeration or a diminishing. Gnosticism, for instance, teaches that our reality is encrusted with deception, but it is a distortion of the Truth in that it presents the material itself as the lie, when in fact everything we find repulsive about the material is what is the lie, so Gnosticism, by twisting the Truth, supports the lie Satan propagates.

cont

>>7538354


Now the ego (by the term here I meant it how Stirner uses it, the "Enzige", not Freud) is an icon of multiple of Truth. We are first and foremost an icon of God, being made in His Image. But the ego is also an icon of spirit and our corporeal (without the spirit, the corpreal is the carnal, that is why the OT is so carnal on its own, but fulfilled by the Spirit of Christ it ceases to be so--an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is the carnal moral law, but the corporeal moral law is the Golden Rule, both as expressed in the Gospels and the inverses expressed in the Didache). So the Enzige as we understand it, is best understood as an icon for God and for our incorporated selves...and to fully understand it, we sometimes neither further icons to view through, such as the family, the community, and society (but neither should any of these things be idols--they sometimes were in Christ's time, for instance, and he came to destroy them in that sense). But when you abstract the Enzige from being a representation corporeal selves, and as a representation of God, and from the lenses, the other icons, we view it through, it becomes purely carnal. And that carnal Enzige was an idol to Stirner, since he asserted the spirit was subordinate property, rather than part of the substance: "But, if the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost, then the Man too, who is not recognized as my quality but as the proper I, is nothing but a spook, a thought, a concept." The bodily, without being properly fulfilled by the Spirit, is the fleshly.

>>7537247
Sonya embodies conscience and agape, the basis for man's free will. Thus Sonya is Raskolnikvo's freedom, and she illustrates how the highest freedom is being free from sin, as opposed to the mere freedom of freedom from chains. As the Bible said, to be a slave legally is no shame, your master is no better than you are, and in God's view you are not his slave; but to be a slave to sin is terrible, the one is legally a slave but free of sin, is a freer man than one who is legally free but a slave to sin.

>>7537272
Wasn't Raskolnikov compelled to commit the murder under the influence of some external force?
Nietzsche's übermensch makes his own morality and behaves accordingly, so there's an internal force guiding him.

File: 1451811295283.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>7538417
>Wasn't Raskolnikov compelled to commit the murder under the influence of some external force?
Have you read the book?

>>7538461
It's obvious that the devil made him do it and only the grace of the Orthodox Church can help him.

File: 1402426048742.jpg (54KB, 340x425px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 340x425px

>>7538494
Porfiry made him do it?