Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: download (3).jpg (9KB, 300x168px) Image search:
[Google]
9KB, 300x168px
After reading Notes from Underground, Nietzsche praised Dostoevsky as a psychologist. But Dostoevsky is really not a psychologist, at least not how Nietzsche understands it. Dostoevsky doesn't have any theory of human nature or psychology, as Nietzsche and psychology does. Dostoevsky in fact is strongly opposed to such theories, and Notes from Underground is almost an anti theory, but Nietzsche notices some similarities to his theory and gives praise. He forgets that even the anti theory of the work, is in fact a reflection of the psychology of the narrator, and this is where Dostoevsky focuses: humans as persons, the psychology of mystery and uniqueness and free will, rather than the psychology of nature. For Dostoevsky, our nature is also mystical: it is the image of God; that in fact is not mere nature, it is supernatural, it is sublime and beautiful, beyond psychology. All steps toward this image we take as a Church, but all steps away we take as schismatics.
Psalm 54 (53 in Orthodox Bibles): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_K-J9VPAu2Y
>>
Dunno about Nietzsche but when I say that someone is a good psychologist I mean that they have a good intuitive understanding of human nature, not that they have scientific interest in studying it.
Otherwise I would have to say that Freud is a good psychologist and that would be wrong.
>>
>>2997604
That is the point, Dostoevsky completely rejects the idea of human nature except our being Christ's image. His psychology is about individual nature, personal freedom, lack of any general scheme governing human behavior
>>
>>2997619
That doesn't change the fact that he has a good intuitive understanding of human nature.
>>
>>2997623
It really does, since Dostoevsky is anti-humanist in the extreme, combating man as a replacement of God
>>
Human nature does not exist.
Nietzsche did what he wanted, which includes intentional and unintentional misinterpretation to suit his will. If you don't understand or like this, you ought to stop reading Nietzsche.
>>
>>2997660
Nietzsche lies a lot, yes.
>>
>>2997664
>lie
Letzter Mensch thinking, right here.
>>
File: mbp-13-poshlost.jpg (21KB, 360x360px) Image search:
[Google]
21KB, 360x360px
>>2997667
Because I'm not a relativist?
>>
>>2997671
Neither was Nietzsche.
>>
>>2997675
Then he he served *the* truth, not simply "his" truth?
>>
>>2997680
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
>>
>>2997688
Intentional misrepresentation is mendacity unless you're a relativist
>>
>>2997642
It only does if you assume that I accept the views you ascribe to Dostoevsky as true which I don't.
>>
>>2997642
It's humanists that assume that free will is absolute and independent and that people possess complete freedom. According to humanists people can out of their free will choose to become as God or submit to their human nature and remain animals. So humanists reject human nature as something lowly and exalt free will as Godly and completely independent from human nature.
How is, in your view, Dostoevsky's philosophy an antithesis to that?
>>
>>2997728
It's wrong but good?
>>
>>2997776
Because it exalts humanity to God through pride and individualism, rather than instills renorse and sorrow on him as an individual, but exalts him as a Church. For Dostoevsky this concept of the "man-God" (an inversion of "the God-man", a term for Christ) is pure evil. He gives it much nuance though, each character "possessed" by this notion, is driven by his own particular psychology and reasons. Satan himself (or at least an hallucination of him) is shown to recognize it.
>>
>>2998078
I don't think Renaissance humanism is individualistic. Rather it fails to acknowledge any conflict between Human and God. It holds that there is an absolute source of Good and Bad(God) and that humans can freely know it at any time through their own choosing. Essentially it's a rose-colored optimism with some rather grim implications.
Nietzsche rejects that optimism(and its grim implications) by dispensing with the idea of Good and Bad (God) whatsoever. To his ironic self-awareness though he remains a sentimentalist.
His "possessed" character are closer to this mentality of Nietzsche but those characters are not portrayed as evil.
What is evil indeed is the idea of Humanism that would easily condemn anyone who doesn't share its optimism.
But what has any of this to do with "the psychology of mystery and uniqueness and free will" and "our mystical nature: sublime, beautiful, beyond psychology". This kind of mystical bullshit really makes me psychically sick. It's no better than the optimism of Humanists.
Humanism equates free-will with consciousness and then assumes that the source of our actions and emotions is logical reasoning. Accepting that this is wrong doesn't mean accepting that those are beyond our understanding.
Don't you see how refusing to understand the world around you can only make things worse?
I've seen enough exalters of the sublimity of human soul that would dismiss anyone they perceive as less spiritual than them as less valuable as a human being. Where is the image of God in that?
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2