Can someone please explain the appeal of dostoyevesky? I've

>>8914051
Because he appeals to certain philosophical notions of behavior, motivations and such. I've never met a person who was super deeply impressed by Dostoevsky who actually understood people*. His fans are always people who don't understand people at all, but are obsessed with creating models that "explain behavior".

Really they like this aspect of him, this pseudo-profound analysis of the human condition, that's full of errors of causation, that attracts people to him. More advanced thinkers see right through his bullshit perspective and move on to more important things.

*in particular, fedora Christians like Constantine are attracted to his views

>>8914078
Only on 4chan would you find a post like this.

>>8914078
>only autistic systematizing model-creators like dostoevsky's depictions of humanity
>BEEP BORT. DOSTOEVSKY'S CHARACTERS ARE FULL OF ERRORS OF CAUSATION. DOES NOT COMPUTE

you are projecting

File: is this pleb serious.jpg (57KB, 576x436px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 576x436px

>>8914078
>being this contrarian
>Give ZERO (0) examples
>being this wrong about Dosto

Wanna know how I can tell you've never read him? Kek, the autism from your post is incredible. Not a single professor would dismiss Dosto and call his perspective bullshit. I really hope this post is bait.

>>8914078
every author that you idolize idolized Dostoyevsky.
that's under the assumption that you're not a total pleb.

>>8914329
>Cervantes idolized Dostoevsky

>>8914269
>>8914274
>>8914304
>>8914329
>samefag

>>8914078
It's time to stop posting

>>8914078
This exactly. Dostoyevsky's characters don't feel human at all, they're neurotic and damaged. He puts neurotic and damaged people in fantastically unrealistic and stressful situations and wrings them for every possible amount of melodrama. Interesting, yes, but it says nothing about humanity.

>>8914078
Interesting. I totally agree with you. I was struggling through Brothers K and I started googling it to find what I was supposed to be getting out of it. All of the people praising it would talk about how Dosty was SO GREAT at analyzing people and their behavior and showing different parts of the spectrum of humanity.

However, I have not been able to find anything particularly insightful or different about these characters and the way that they're written.

>>8914491
what books do you like?

>>8914472
>Dostoyevsky's characters don't feel human at all, they're neurotic and damaged.
Probably because Dostoevsky was neurotic and damaged.

>>8914472
>Dostoyevsky's characters don't feel human at all, they're neurotic and damaged
How does that make them inhuman

>>8914496
Bad ones

>>8914579
fag

I was genuinely curious since I love Dostoevsky and wonder what kinda books someone who doesn't like him would read.

Didnt Neitzsche call Dostoyevsky the greatest psychologist he ever learned anything from? Ive only read Crime and Punishment and I felt that Raskoinikolv felt surprisingly real to me. I related a lot to his though lt processes when he was in the midst of commiting the act, its the same feeling and thoughts I experience when I do something bad that i try to rationalize and betray my emotions

>>8914590
>though lt
Thought*

The psychological motivations of the characters are very realistic, the reason his dialouge sounds akward is because the characters speak much more philosophically than people do in real life, on top of the fact its translated from Russian.

Try a different translation OP

File: the-idiot-fyodor-dostoevsky-book-cover.jpg (65KB, 510x680px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 510x680px

>>8914078
You're not fully wrong here. I find all the women in his books to be loud, bombastic, immature, and unabashed. I'm not sure if he is trying to lay down a form of criticism on Russian Aristocratic society by creating such unbelievable characters, or I'm being presentist by trying to draw a line to 19th century behavior with 21 century behavior. I'm simply not sure.

Either way, his characters are often long winded and robust; filled with hidden agendas. I may not be fully a fan, but I certainly do appreciate the few books I have read of his.

Perhaps people in this thread will be so kind as to explain in more detail Dostoevsky's purpose, style, and themes for us laymen. I would appreciate it very much.

>>8914496
>>8914586

>>8914579
I'm not this guy ^ So he's the fag. Not me.

I like Moby Dick, Lolita, the stories of Raymond Carver, Confessions of a Mask, Hawaii by James Michener, James Clavell's Asia saga, Ask the Dust by John Fante, the Conan stories by Robert E. Howard, Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry, From Hell by Alan Moore, among many others. Those were just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

>>8914590
He called Dostoevsky the only psychologist he ever learned from

>>8914078
>Really they like this aspect of him, this pseudo-profound analysis of the human condition, that's full of errors of causation

Examples?

>>8914496
>>8914586

im him:
>>8914648

also, what do you like about Dostoevsky, if you don't mind me asking?

>>8914078
>post quickly begins blathering about people the poster doesn't like
Typical.

>>8914653
Smerdyakov murdering his father because Ivan said God don't real is a prime example. There is literally not a single person alive who only didn't murder because they believed in God.

Tolstoy is better.

>>8914685
Hi Constantine.

>>8914843
The Death of Ivan Ilyich is much better than anything Dostoevsky ever wrote.

>>8914840
>There is literally not a single person alive who only didn't murder because they believed in God.
What a grand assumption. You'd be surprised how consumed people become by their ideas.

>>8914843
Thats not saying much since Tolstoy is one of the single greatest writers to ever grace our Earth and is literally a gift to humanity. Dostoyevsky is still an amazing author

>>8914859
Still, it's implausible and stupid, and perpetuates the retarded "Christianity is necessary for morals" myth.

File: steiner-tolstoy-or-dostoevsky.jpg (83KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 427x640px

I am in the midst of reading this delightful book.

Both Tolstoy and Dos were great artists, in their differing ways (which Steiner explores beautifully) and it is foolish to dismiss either one.

>>8914876
>perpetuates the retarded "Christianity is necessary for morals" myth.
No it doesnt. In Dostoyevskys place and time, Christianity really was the foundation of morals and with the introduction of atheism, people really were commiting acts like in C&P. Even though its insane today in western civilization to think that the absence of god permits murder, that was really happening in Russia at the time.

>>8914882
>that was really happening in Russia at the time.
Not the person you just replied to, but... REALLY?
Can you give me some kind of source on this. I'm a fan of history of ideas, and this kind of thing plays right into my wheel house.

File: 20170101_193039-1.jpg (164KB, 1739x528px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1739x528px

>>8914885
This is from the footnotes of the newest edition of C&P. Crime rates among the lower and UPPER CLASS were shooting up at the time. Dostoyevsky blamed the ideas of the youth for these crimes.

I personally dont believe atheism was the direct cause of said crimes, but I believe the shock that atheism had on the culture caused certained individuals to radicalize (such as Raskoinikolv)

>>8914051
>reading Dostoyevsky as Existential Literature

He has cool courtroom scenes where people scream at each other as well as cool murder plots. What other reason should you read him for?

In seriousness though, the power comes more from the way the dialogues mesh together rather than their content. An example would be how Ivan's Grand Inquisitor Speech is immediately contrasted with Father Zossima's, and then after Zossima dies, the whole deal regarding his corpse's stench causes him to be made fun of. P&V talked about the polyphony of voices in their Introduction to Karamazov. No voice is exactly given full stature. Even Alyosha, who is usually seen as the 'voice of reason' - Dostoyevsky had planned it so that he would become the greatest terrorist in the later volumes that he never wrote.

Furthermore, even if the dialogue itself is purposely bombastic, the personality types at their core are well made. Pavlovich Karamazov, for example, decides to 'play the fool' to the furthest extent even though he knows that he's just making a joke of himself. That kind of personality type, you see everywhere in the world. People who give themselves up to self-deprecation and decide to go all the way. Dostoyevsky was just making his dialogue more entertaining by taking it to such a manic extent.

But that's why I like reading him. Dostoyevsky is fun. It's that simple. If you want hyper-realism, try reading the short stories of Irwin Shaw.

>>8914078
/thread

>>8914453
>picks an author that predates Dostoyevsky by 200 years

>>8914867
Are you brazilian?

>>8914902
That's a very interesting footnote. However, I am still wonder if any historian has done quantitative research on this topic; The rise of crime during this period and if it correlates with any "idea", "economics", or "event" in particular.

Would be very interesting.

File: 1481135578946.png (602KB, 716x955px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 716x955px

>>8914078
>>8914051

>>8914667
Sorry for late reply was watching Inherent Vice. I study philosophy (and film, heh) so seeing characters juggle back and fourth with questions of ideology all while watching how they handle situations is right up my alley. From the first chapter of C&P I was hooked. I'm really excited to read Brothers K soon but gotta get that readers comprehension up first.

I'll probably read Blood Meridian soon truthfully. I am new to /lit/ and have not read much before about a month ago (save for the schoolwork and occasional philosophy) any words of advice beforehand?

File: bloom.jpg (330KB, 1600x1050px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1600x1050px

>>8914840
Holy shit, this reductionism. I know the "pleb" thing is overplayed on here but if that's all you got out of it (assuming you actually read BK), I am inclined to call you one.

Just because you don't take the time to think about what you're reading, rather than simply analyzing at a surface level, doesn't mean everyone else is wrong, you contrarian faggot. Like there are youtube videos (free uni lectures) that are 30 mins long that can explain this shit (and most of the underlying themes within the whole novel), yet you can't be bothered so you come onto /lit/ and shitpost.

Your criticisms of Dosto are equivalent to atheist arguments of "sky man xD and muh contradictions".

>>8914840
Take note that /lit/ darling David Foster Wallace empathized the most with Smerdyakov. He wrote it in his Joseph Frank essay.

>>8915202
>Like there are youtube videos (free uni lectures) that are 30 mins long that can explain this shit

not him, but link please?

The appeal of Dostoevsky for me is the drama and psychological insights he puts into his books. The characters speak for themselves and you're exposed to a myriad views that are all realistic enough to make you believe that there was, and maybe is, someone out there that's in such a frenzied state; there is someone like Ivan, obsessed with existential questions and harried by his inability to find concrete answers and embrace faith; there is someone like Raskolnikov who wanted to test himself and his idea to the point of being willing to murder someone and following through, and his subsequent fear and trembling at, ostensibly, being caught, but more importantly being wrong about an idea he so cherishes.
Much of his work is dealing with people clinging to a single idea like this and Dostoevsky pulls that belief to its limit to show us what is at the very core of our being when we act in a way that overrides our normal temperance.
The drama of his works is just incredible, and I think Crime and Punishment is the most exemplary of all his corpus in this regard. His novels, and especially Crime and Punishment, have a certain rhythm to them that captures you and doesn't let you go, and forces you to give yourself up to it. Schiller wrote that the tragic poet's goal is to rob us of our emotional freedom, and to direct all our spiritual and intellectual powers in one direction, and Dostoevsky achieves this.

>>8915225
This. I think that his character's dialogue is unrealistic but it is all to show the depth of the character underneath that is very profound and emphasize that it is the passions of a man that drive him, not reason

>>8915221
>asking some guy on 4chan instead of using google
The absolute state of /lit/

>>8915236
searching "brothers karamazov lecture" on youtube gives me tons, but i am asking so i could see what anon would recommend.

>>8915230
I haven't considered that the dialogues are unrealistic. I actually think they're pretty realistic when you consider that many of the dialogues involve one person who's highly passionate, like Myshkin, Raskolnikov, and Ivan. I can't really imagine dialogues with any of these people being normal in the way two perfectly healthy people would be normal. What do you think?

>>8915252
>I can't really imagine dialogues with any of these people being normal in the way two perfectly healthy people would be normal.
That is true. I should have said the characters are so passionate that it seems unrealistic but in reality, all men have the such passions that drive him. I cannot say I have met a Myshkin-like person in my life but I see elements of the character in myself and others. Thats why I think critics deride his characters, they exemplify the passions of mankind that are covered of with well-mannered logic and reasoning. Sorry if this is weird, I have been drinking.

>>8915272
true.

not everyone is a boring normie. some people are like dosto characters, some are not. people who claim dosto's characters are unrealistic are very closeminded, as in my opinion, they're incredibly human.

>>8914078
Or maybe he wrote fictional stories in fictional situations you fucking turbosperg.

>he cant talk about an author/book/thing without making projections which put IMAX to shame

Jesus christ the autism in this thread is weapons-grade.

>>8915168
>any words of advice beforehand?

it's not as difficult as some people make it out to be. since i'd already read The Road, I was sort of used to McCarthy's writing style and creative punctuating. I would say just pretend you're sitting by a campfire, listening to an old man telling a story. Don't try to overanalyze anything, don't get frustrated if something seems confusing, or if it's hard to tell who's talking, or if there's too much spanish. Just kind of let it wash over you and listen to the words and let yourself be immersed in the story.

at the end of the day it's just a western.

>>8914970
Why you say that?

>>8915299
#triggered

>>8915202
I would possibly post a longer reply if 99% of the reactions on here weren't mass impotent rage

>>8914078

You are entitled to your opinion but holy crap is this a dumb opinion.

> His fans are always people who don't understand people at all, but are obsessed with creating models that "explain behavior".

You treat Dosto like he's some kind of Pavlovian/Freudian who's always focused on causation. Seriously, In all the Dosto novels I've read this has never crossed my mind. Dosto (especially in later years) was a fundamentally religious person and it makes a lot more sense to analyze him along those lines.

> Really they like this aspect of him, this pseudo-profound analysis of the human condition

Ignoring the "pseudo-profound" part of this, yes a lot of people empathize with his characters and what they say about the human condition. I do too, and I think Dosto has written some of the most compelling characters I've read. Father Zossima's love of Christ and man is powerful. Raskolnikov's struggle with guilt and his feelings of anger are powerful. A lot of characters are fundamentally broken people who you see sow seeds of destruction in their own lives, just like real people.

Besides, that's not the only reason to like Dosto. He has clear, informative prose that can paint amazing scenes (think "The Grand Inquisitor"). Often his plots are compelling in and of themselves--who killed father K? Will Raskolnikov get a way with it, etc? He is a good writer even ignoring his deep characterization.

> More advanced thinkers see right through his bullshit

Please point me to these "more advanced thinkers," as I would love to hear what examples they provide for this thesis and what alternative, superior authors they champion.

>>8916456
>You treat Dosto like he's some kind of Pavlovian/Freudian who's always focused on causation. Seriously, In all the Dosto novels I've read this has never crossed my mind. Dosto (especially in later years) was a fundamentally religious person and it makes a lot more sense to analyze him along those lines.
You just implicitly contradicted yourself.

Dostoevky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity — all this is difficult to admire.

>>8916456
>Often his plots are compelling in and of themselves--who killed father K?
If you didn't see it was Smerdyakov coming from ten miles away, then you're fucking retarded.

>>8916952
This, monotone is a great way to describe it. I read TBK, and it was insanely long and weepy for how monotone it was. It was worth the read, but it was not worth gushing over. I see why he's worth reading but he doesn't transcend, unlike the seeming opinion of half of his fans.

>>8914964
That's exactly my point. Claiming my favorite authors idolize him is stupid.

>>8915281
Or maybe you're just autismo and believe weird things about yourself and thus Dostoevsky's fucking weird-ass characters appeal to your sensibilities.

Absorbing as Crime and Punishment is, it cannot be absolved of tendentiousness, which is Dostoevsky's invariable flaw. He is a partisan, whose fierce perspective is always explicit in what he writes. His design upon us is to raise us, like Lazarus, from our own nihilism and skepticism, and then convert us to Orthodoxy. Writers as eminent as Chekhov and Nabokov have been unable to abide him; to them he was scarcely an artist, but a shrill would-be prophet. I myself, with each rereading, find Crime and Punishment an ordeal, dreadfully powerful but somewhat pernicious, almost as though it were Macbeth composed by Macbeth himself.
-Harold Bloom

And he's exactly right. Dostoevsky could write a good character but when you really get down to it, it's just Christian propagandizing.

>>8914918
>Alyosha going terrorist
Holy shit what, gimme a source

>>8914918
>Pavlovich Karamazov, for example, decides to 'play the fool' to the furthest extent even though he knows that he's just making a joke of himself. That kind of personality type, you see everywhere in the world. People who give themselves up to self-deprecation and decide to go all the way
Are you really claiming the father was a buffoon as some sort of response to existential angst? That he's choosing to act that way? Fuck free will, most class clown types I know feel absolutely impelled to be the way they are, it's no real "choice"

File: 1383614981717.png (23KB, 571x546px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 571x546px

>>8914918
>Dostoyevsky is fun.
You're joking, right? His novels are tediously long and are filled with nothing but gloomy weeping, huge passion and sadness. He's the exact opposite of a "fun read".

>>8917150
I've never felt bored reading Brothers K at all.

>>8917182
"Not bored" and "fun" are different emotions.

>>8917126

anon pulled it out of his asshole

>>8914051
Because he's good at depicting the process of thinking.

>>8914078
Whats an example of a writer that does understand people?

>inb4 Tolstoy

Are all of Dostoevsky's books just temper tantrums about morality relativism?

>>8917234
Me desu

>>8914885
The plot of demons was based on a true murder of someone Dostoevsky knew.

>>8917150
>implying Dostoevsky ISN'T fun
>implying some of his over the top, neurotic characters aren't some of the best and well written
/reddit/ is that way>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Maybe you should read some genre shite, perhaps maybe some sci-fi? Seems more of your taste, pleb.

>>8915380
Because apart from this brazilian poster I have never seen someone express that much respect for Tolstoy, what is wrong, since for me your post is 100% correct. There is a guy from brazil who ussualy says Tolstoy is the greatest writer of all time, together with Shakespeare, and I thought you might be him.

>>8914078

You're a talentless fucking hack who obviously wants special snowflake status. Leave /lit/ and never come back.

>>8917249
No you dumb fuck. Theyre about what motivates humans and what happens when we betray our emotions for some stupid ideological concept.

>>8914472

>It says nothing of humanity

Wrong. He portrays the type of person who has been rattled by life and experienced suffering. It is not unrealistic at all. I would say anyone who has read his books and experienced suffering in their own lives can resonate with his characters. He obviously will not appeal to the sheltered middle-upper middle class kids who have never had their feelings stretched to the boundaries of human emotion but the high number of people who have can certainly relate to the bitter, depressed, angry characters in his novels. Please never post again.

>>8914840
I think you might be wrong about why Smerdyakov did the things he did.
He hated Dimitri, was afraid of him. This plan of his was to blame Dimitri for it and tried to put some of the blame on the other brother.
When he (the other brother) said he would tell the truth, he (Smerdyakov) killed himself.

>>8917050
>it's just Christian propagandizing.
No its really not. I know people with all different view points and beliefs (none of them christian) who all love dostoyevsky. What he writes about is basically universal, because hes really writing about psychology, not god

>>8917293
It was based on nechayev not someone who Dostoyevsky personally knew. He was politically motivated. So atheism didn't make him murder

>>8917536
You do realize that the characters in his novel dont simply commit crimes "cause atheism" right? They have ulterior motovations and use their atheism to rationalize these motivations. Its pretty basic, a 5th grader could understand it. Its sad i even have to explain it

>------sky bridge
>------y street
>------sky river
What did he mean by this?

>>8917544
That's what I just said you cretin

>>8917529

Probably best post in the thread

>>8917555
Oh, I mistook you for one of these mongoloids who are claiming that Dostoyevskys books were christian propaganda about how if you become atheist you just start murdering people. Dostoyevsky is much smarter and more subtle than that. He recgonized atheism as a convient excuse for bad people or damaged people to carry out their vile acts

>>8917565

Of course but we all know atheism is stupid as shit, just like Christianity. The best option is really agnosticism, perhaps followed by deism. Atheism is too closely associated with anti theism nowadays and quite frankly I can't stand them. Just look at this shit, look at it, it's fucking embarrassing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13puH63HxmQ

>>8917499
Oh, so they're about what motivates Dostoevsky to write ideological Orthodox propaganda?

>>8917249
Yes.

>>8917321
Reddit fucking loves Dostoevsky, he's as pleb tier as they are.

>>8917493
>triggered

>>8917529
The Christian mindset has infected and still has a grip on western society.

>>8917565
>all this reductionism

Chill your autism and stop acting like such a retard because someone doesn't like what you like.

>>8917605
>Oh, so they're about what motivates Dostoevsky to write ideological Orthodox propaganda?
Please give some examples of how what he writes is "propaganda"

>>8917613
Ok? And?

>>8917619
Wow great argument. You really dismantled all of my points and proved how wrong I am. How convincing

>>8917613
Explain. The super orthodox/ ideological christians are the shrinking minority in America. Gay marriage is legal, god isnt taught in public schools, you dont have to say god in the pledge. What more do you want?

>>8917659
Forgot to add, abortion is legal, as well as birth control

>>8917659
>>8917665
Most people still believe in things like free will, we love assigning guilt, our justice system is inspired by such Christian concepts.

>>8917635
>Please give some examples of how what he writes is "propaganda"
Alyosha is literally the hero of TBK, literally every atheist/nonpracticing character is a fuckup

>>8917705
This may be the dumbest fucking thing Ive read today. Whether or not free will is an illusion is irrelevant to the justice system

>>8917635
Chill your autism Constantine.

>>8917719
No, it's not.

>>8917737
Yes it is. Serial killers still have to be seperated from the rest of society regardless of "free will". By the same logic, its the same lack of free will that made society lock up the killer that made the killer kill in the first place. The concept of free will is pure philisophical novelty, completely devoid of having any weight in the way we live our lives

>>8917757
Ahistorical and wrong. Free will is very much intrinsically linked to how our justice system developed, and served then and now as a justification for why we are justified in punishing criminals.

>>8917833
So you believe in not puninishing criminals because it would be wrong? Youre walking into a hornets nest of paradoxes

>>8917833
Please explain to me how whether or not a metaphysical concept such as free will would affect how prosecute criminals. Dont simply say "cause history!", explain the logic behind it

>>8917718
>Dostoevsky is propaganda

Get the fuck off my board.

>>8917705
>>8917705
>>8917705
Anon, have you tried reading a book? You might like them!

>>8914051
I'm none too grand a fan of him personally, but I can understand why people would. I think ultimately, his work was more relevant in his era, and while he does pose some interesting ideology, nothing he has written should be considered as an ultimate answer or unfalsifiable truth, as with all works of literature.

>>8914078
how fucking dare you go against the hive mind you freak

>>8917607
>this passes as trolling now

I don't care if you love or hate Dostoyevsky, but for fuck's sake, be at least a little creative if you're going to troll the entire thread

>>8914051
He's a typical hoity-toity writer that mistakes word count and thesaurus abuse for good writing. Respected for his complications by people that think being complicated is an essential component of "good" literature.

>>8917321
I can tell that you're a pleb who's new to reading.

Dosto is as reddit as they come; stop trying to fit in.

This thread has genuienly convinced me to never come back to /lit/. Good riddance faggots

>>8917887
No, I'm for punishing criminals. Geez, everyone on 4chan always makes shit up when they argue because you're too busy being mad to think clearly.

>>8917900
>The error of free will. Today we no longer have any tolerance for the idea of "free will": we see it only too clearly for what it really is — the foulest of all theological fictions, intended to make mankind "responsible" in a religious sense — that is, dependent upon priests. Here I simply analyze the psychological assumptions behind any attempt at "making responsible." Whenever responsibility is assigned, it is usually so that judgment and punishment may follow. Becoming has been deprived of its innocence when any acting-the-way-you-did is traced back to will, to motives, to responsible choices: the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially to justify punishment through the pretext of assigning guilt. All primitive psychology, the psychology of will, arises from the fact that its interpreters, the priests at the head of ancient communities, wanted to create for themselves the right to punish — or wanted to create this right for their God. Men were considered "free" only so that they might be considered guilty — could be judged and punished: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying within the consciousness (and thus the most fundamental psychological deception was made the principle of psychology itself). Today, we immoralists have embarked on a counter movement and are trying with all our strength to take the concepts of guilt and punishment out of the world — to cleanse psychology, history, nature, and social institutions and sanctions of these ideas. And there is in our eyes no more radical opposition than that of the theologians, who continue to infect the innocence of becoming by means of the concepts of a "moral world-order," "guilt," and "punishment." Christianity is religion for the executioner.

>>8914078
Where were you when anon ended dosties reign of power?

>>8917943
I'm not trolling.

>>8917988
But you just implied free will is the justification for punishing criminals, so why else would be allowed to punish criminals besides free will? I mean, i disagree completely with the notion that free will is the justification for punishing criminals, but I'm trying to find some sort of consistency in your stance

>>8918010
read >>8917994

>>8914078
dostoyplebsky BTFO holy shit

>>8917994
>>8917994
>Free Will doesn't exist

Prove it faggot.

>>8918023
>I STILL BELIEVE IN PUNISHMING CRIMINALS!
>posts Neitzsche quote condeming concepts of guilt and punishment
So which is it?

>>8918034
Do you not know Nietzschean philosophy at all? We created free will to make it feel okay to us to punish criminals, we have a metaphysical justification for it. Nietzsche would say just punish the criminals and experience it in it's full savageness.

>>8914078
Jesus anon, Toasty has a family, think of his children before you roast him

>>8917994
>Neitzsche said it so its true!
Lol, so much misinformation in this quote. Guilt and punishments arent simply for the rulers to "keep control", they exist as the only ways for a society to function. A society that doesnt believe in punishing criminals will fall to anarchy because they can not enforce their laws, and so their laws basically dont exist. It undermines human nature to act as though there is no free will and one can not live walking around as though he has no control over himself. Whether or not free will exists is irrelevant, afterall Neitzsche is the one who questioned how much value truth really has

>>8918065
Your first implication is a joke, surely I advanced it because I agree with his stance, not because I just accept Nietzsche.

>Guilt and punishments arent simply for the rulers to "keep control", they exist as the only ways for a society to function.
Punishments yes, but not guilt. Societies can function without guilt. You took my shit? I smack you and take it back. You're not "guilty", that entire thing is a metaphysical construct.

>Whether or not free will exists is irrelevant, afterall Neitzsche is the one who questioned how much value truth really has
Except it clearly doesn't as stated by enlightenment philosophers

>>8918043
So then punishment would remain exactly the same, we would just accept more responsibility for it? (Though Im not sure how someone can hold responsibility without free will). Doesnt this undermine the entire argument leading up to this point about how the western justice system needs to be reworked because it relies on the concept of free will? If we are going to punish criminals either way, then why does it matter?

>>8918071
>Societies can function without guilt. You took my shit? I smack you and take it back. You're not "guilty", that entire thing is a metaphysical construct.
Youre just describing anarchy. If youre an anarchist then thats fine, but I believe you are a fool

>>8918078
No, responsibility is a fiction. You don't need the metaphysics to exhibit master morality. I'm not advocating for a change in system, because I'm not sophisticated enough to propose such a revolution. But one is possible.

In the end, the point is this guilt/responsibility concept has developed side-by-side with the Christian moral system, and in particular, our justice system is predicated on these fictions. I'm not arguing whether we should have it or shouldn't, I'm just saying the Christian ideal is still supremely influential in society, in fact liberalism is just a Christian offshoot in many ways. In other words, today's atheists share more in common with today's Christians in perspective and metaphysics than they do with ancient Greeks 2800 years ago.

>>8918078
Guilt is a social "construct" you dolt. If you did the crime youre guilty of it. Were not talking about heaven or hell here, were talking about the structure of a civilization

>>8918087
I'm not really an anything, because I don't really advocate for any political system. We're talking about the historical influence of Christianity on western metaphysics.

>>8918106
Woops. This is meant to reply to >>8918071

>>8918105
Well im sure you must be a different anon than the one who sparked this argument >>8917613

>>8914491
>However, I have not been able to find anything particularly insightful or different about these characters and the way that they're written.

Cause he was the first and you are a pleb.

>>8918123
No, same person.

>>8918106
>>8918113
"Guilt" bears more metaphysical weight than "you are the person who did the sequence of events that caused this thing to happen". Courts establish guilt as a judgment of character. YOU are guilty, as you acted on your own free will.

Our criminal court system today operates on this assumption.

>>8918147
You do realize you're allowed to enjoy and appreciate Dostoevsky, and not everyone has to agree with you, right? You're being an ass.

>>8918149
>Our criminal court system today operates on this assumption.
So essentialy you believe our court system should still dish out punishments but without the character judgement? Ok fine. But you still are ignoring the fact that guilt is an EMOTION, its part of the human condition, you can elimenate it from the justice system, but individuals will always feel guilty and assign guilt to eachother, no matter how "guilt free" of a society you build. People will always judge eachother

>>8918175
>But you still are ignoring the fact that guilt is an EMOTION, its part of the human condition, you can elimenate it from the justice system, but individuals will always feel guilty and assign guilt to eachother, no matter how "guilt free" of a society you build. People will always judge eachother
Yes, people experience bad conscience. There is no pure "master" who feels no remorse. This is okay.

>>8918181
Well it sounds like we are mostly in agreement. I just dont think chrisitanity is as poiseness today as I think you do. I think christianity has been responsible for some good in the world.

>>8917959

Good call, honestly.

>>8918198
"Some good" is ambiguous, what do you mean by that?

>>8918212
Im really like Carl Jung. I think alot of religious stories in general represent psychological archtypes and teach us universals about being human. I think some people are genuienly too pathetic to have any sort of ethical or moral foundation without religion.

>>8914078
>More advanced thinkers see right through his bullshit perspective and move on to more important things.

Robert Musil admired him.

>>8918065
>Guilt and punishments arent simply for the rulers to "keep control"
> A society that doesnt believe in punishing criminals will fall to anarchy because they can not enforce their laws
Don't you see how these are essentially contradictory statements, and how your second assertion kinda reinforces the argument of the anon you're arguing with?

just finished TBK lads; perhaps the best ending i've experienced in literature.

>All these plebs signalling their familiarity with the great man by calling him "Dosto"
>Not knowing his contemporaries referred to him as "Mah boy Fyo-Fyo"
I'll be hiding out on the last board remaining for true intellectuals, /wsg. Don't tell reddit.

>>8917607
>Reddit fucking loves Dostoevsky, he's as pleb tier as they are.
KEK
How would you know?
Back to /reddit/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>8918956
I wrote a short story on pleb culture. You actually starred in it!

>>8914902
>>8914882
Daily reminder that Dostoevskij:

1. Was casino addict (he multiple times lost all his money in cards)
2. Was antisemite and Russian nationalist, supported pogroms
3. Unironically believed that suffering can heal (yes, he believed in this retarded Christian idea)

>>8920496
He was only wrong about gambling, then. Everyone has his vices.

>>8914078
>Everyone except people who think like me misunderstand human behaviour.

This man is grossly overrated in my eyes. Same with Tolstoy. Read both of their work twice (different translations each time) and all I got out of it was two weeks spent on bad literature.

I am having Crime and punishment as a school book report and it's so slow and boring. I can't imagine this much boredom through 500+ pages.
I can't motivate myself to read beyond page 6.
Is there any appealing parts in this book or should I just read the summary online?

>>8920623
C&P is fucking piece of shit until the last third when it gets going

>>8914472
Read White Nights and tell me you don't know anyone like Nástenka

>>8914051
I've only read two of his works: The Gambler and White Nights.

The first half of The Gambler wasn't very interesting for me, but then, a fuckin' amazing character appears, and the history gets fuckin' good. In the end, what I love about this is how Dostoievski talks about "If you want to win the bet, you have to put your life in it".

White Nights is a lovely history that made me cry over and over. I personally can relate to the main character and the way he express himself, and also I know a lot of girls like Nástenka. It´s a simple but great history about a man falling in love with his friend, and the friend trying to be fair with him.

>>8918106
Guilt isn't a social construct. A human being feels guilt only when he thinks he did something wrong, that's to say, when he thinks he ceased to be the perfect human being he thinks he is. So, guilt is proportional to the vanity hosted in the person.

>>8920638
Same with The Idiot.

>>8914840
>There is literally not a single person alive who only didn't murder because they believed in God.
That's not the point. Dosto has this way of portraying weak minds damaged by wrong interpretations of philosophies in the wrong time. Such is the case with Smerdyakov and Kolya.
But Smerdyakov it's a coward, the biggest of cowards so he can't face God and the consequences of murder, he has been indoctrinated heavily by his father in the Christian ways, and he follows them by fear, just as many people.
But then this guy, this smart and serene guy he comes to admire tells him that God doesn't exist, that everything is permitted. This changes his mind drastically and does the previously unthinkable just as he gets the chance.