ITT: Post essential reading for robots Notes from Underground

File: Crime-and-Punishment.jpg (32KB, 306x475px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 306x475px

Just finished this about a week ago and it's the best thing I've ever fucking read in my entire life, hands down.

Raskolnikov is a true robot.

File: 7415847.jpg (26KB, 311x475px)

26KB, 311x475px

>>35338847
>ITT: Post essential reading for robots

File: 38501.jpg (43KB, 316x475px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 316x475px

>>35338847
this is an extremely original comment about a book

File: confused.jpg (62KB, 455x550px)

62KB, 455x550px

>>35338847
Tfw i tried reading this but couldnt understand it

>>35339025
How much do you read?
If you don't read much, try The Stranger. Its pretty easy and still quite good.

>>35338899
read it in ap lit, epitome of robot life.

File: claud (1).png (505KB, 640x430px)

505KB, 640x430px

this one is good for robots.

File: 1488181447476.gif (1MB, 578x350px)

1MB, 578x350px

if you haven't already, try Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. a real classic

>>35338899
>Raskolnikov is a true robot.

Raskolnikov is an idealistic Chad.

>>35339608
Stoic philosophy is really interesting.

>>35339632
>idealistic Chad

Maybe you should actually read the book.

File: The_Butcher_Boy_(McCabe_novel).jpg (27KB, 250x396px)

27KB, 250x396px

Literally NORMIES GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEE: the book.

>>35339653
I did read it. It seems you just do not understand his character.

>>35338899
I listened to a really good audiobook of this read by Anthony Heald, who played Fred Chilton in Silence of the Lambs.

File: book-cover-auster-new-york.jpg (40KB, 292x475px)

40KB, 292x475px

The New York Trilogy, from Paul Auster.

The only book I've read that got that "insane" vibe to it.

File: 1448853529445.png (17KB, 633x772px)

17KB, 633x772px

i cant read
brainfog makes it too difficult to focus on anything for an extended period of time
could you please give me a summary of this book and explain why its robot-tier instead of just claiming
>LMAAOOO IF YOU HAVENT READ DIS THEN YOU ARENT A REEL ROBOT XDDDD

File: img_4557.jpg (2MB, 3000x4000px)

2MB, 3000x4000px

great stuff /r9k/

>>35339665
Explain to me how Raskolnikov is in anyway related to a Chad. Also there is absolutely NOTHING idealistic about him and his beliefs.

His own dialogue to others and himself throughout the novel explains this perfectly.

File: catcher-in-the-rye-2.jpg (371KB, 1089x1600px)

371KB, 1089x1600px

CitR is top-tier

File: hermit.gif (38KB, 225x534px)

38KB, 225x534px

>>35339727
you could try audiobooks
the key to reading is have a good imagination that way you can visualize the characters, the environment and their stories.

also these books are robot tier because they have one or more characters who suffer the same issues that many of us.

is relatable.

>>35339727
>brainfog
what kind of shitty pseudoscience are you ranting about?

raskolnikov is neither a robot nor a chad.

the double is also a robot classic.

>>35339836
>Explain to me how Raskolnikov is in anyway related to a Chad.

He is described as extremely beautiful. There is a random girl who comments on this telling him he is very beautiful.

>Also there is absolutely NOTHING idealistic about him and his beliefs.

Raskolnikov is modelled on Schiller's ideal. He is the embodiment of intellectual idealism. Dostoevsky wanted to highlight the pitfalls of this ideal. You see Svidrigailov mention this many times.

>>35338899
This book taught me not to wish ill on others. It's still one of my favourites.

File: stoner.jpg (171KB, 400x650px)

171KB, 400x650px

Even though William Stoner was a normie, the book makes you content with being average.

>>35340386
>He is described as extremely beautiful. There is a random girl who comments on this telling him he is very beautiful.

You're a fucking retard.

>Raskolnikov is modelled on Schiller's ideal. He is the embodiment of intellectual idealism.
>Chad

Good job not proving your original statement. The actions and thought-process of Raskolnikov proves he's the very opposite of an idealist.

>>35340549
>The actions and thought-process of Raskolnikov proves he's the very opposite of an idealist.

You clearly do not understand the philosophy of Dostoevsky, or the context he wrote his works in. Come back when you have gained a little erudation.

>>35340610
>You clearly do not understand the philosophy of Dostoevsky

I understand his philosophy just fine, you're just incorrect in your assumption Raskolnikov is a true idealist. He has a Nietzschean Ubermensch complex

If he was born forty years after his time he would have been bolsheviki. So explain to me what's idealist about being a nihilist retard?

>>35339608
This.

You have it on audiobook. I listen to it while working out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXcmkSqAqTI

>>35340386
...do you know what a chad is?

>>35339727
Just try meditating. Go innawoods and just stare at a tree, it will be gone within 15 minutes.

>>35340738
Nietzsche hadn't developed his philosophy when this book was written. Raskolnikov could only commit the murder because he had convinced himself that the old lady was a utterly loathesome. By all accounts she was a very nasty lady. An ubermench wouldn't have needed any justification.

There are many instances in the book where Raskolnikov's disgust of other is highlighted. He is disgusted, because they are not in accordance with the ideal of schonheit/beauty that he holds at his core.

Most importantly, Svidrigalov picks up on this, and flat out calls Raskolnikov an idealist, and this is knowing that he commited the murders.

File: 1487907256637.jpg (59KB, 480x480px)

59KB, 480x480px

>>35340760

read this one if you liked meditations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysm_5cpNS2U

>>35340864
Any attractive man is a Chad. The point that I am emphasizing is that Raskolnikov never dealt with rejection on the basis of his appearance.

>>35340967
>rejection on the basis of his appearance.
That's not all that makes a robot

>>35340880
>Raskolnikov could only commit the murder because he had convinced himself that the old lady was a utterly loathesome

Did you miss the part where Rodion considers himself the Nietzschean equivalent to an Ubermensch? Did you miss the part where it's explained he believes himself to be the same Ilk as Napoleon: a man who disregards and flies above the laws of man and God and effectively does what he thinks needs to be done: and clearly whatever Raskolnikov thinks needs to be done actually needs to be executed.

He didn't kill her because she was evil, he killed her as a test to see if he was capable of becoming the man he wrote about and thought himself capable of doing. Seems like you forgot the part where he also murdered her sister directly afterwards and barely even touches upon it for the remainder of the book.

>There are many instances in the book where Raskolnikov's disgust of other is highlighted

This doesn't make someone an idealist, do you even know what an idealist is? Again, try and explain to me how nihilism and idealism are in any way compatible.

>Most importantly, Svidrigalov picks up on this, and flat out calls Raskolnikov an idealist, and this is knowing that he commited the murders.

This has nothing to do with your claim that Raskolnikov is an idealistic Chad. What he's really doing is making the point that Raskolnikov is subject to his internal emotions and values.

>>35340967
This doesn't make a person a Chad.

File: images.jpg (27KB, 307x480px)

27KB, 307x480px

most of Yukio Mishima's writings meddle with this kind of issues, if one doesn't have the attention span to read him I would recommend the movie biography by Schrader, that is also a masterpiece (with an amazing soundtrack)
pic related is an essential reading

nice thread btw

File: 41Y1mqYJ58L._SX307_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (21KB, 309x499px)

21KB, 309x499px

This swedish book from 1905 is pretty robot. Don't know how known it is abroad. Main character is a lonely beta orbiter who doesn't understand/is afraid of sex

>>35341062
>Did you miss the part where Rodion considers himself the Nietzschean equivalent to an Ubermensch?

Again, Nietzsche hadn't developed his philosophy and Dostoevsky never wrote in response in Nietzsche, he most likely never heard of him.

Raskolnikov comparing himself to Napoleon is supposed show the ultimate consequence of intellectual idealism, according Dostoevsky. It begins by raising yourself above others to be in accordance with the ideal, and then you begin to loathe others for not being able to do the same.

> Seems like you forgot the part where he also murdered her sister directly afterwards and barely even touches upon it for the remainder of the book.

The murder of her sister was done when Raskolnikov was in deep affection upon commiting the first murder. At this point he was simply acting on instinct. He doesn't feel guilt, because he has distanced himself from other people through his idealism. He even begins to loathe himself for this reason.

>Again, try and explain to me how nihilism and idealism are in any way compatible.

The point Dostoevsky is making is that idealism ends in nihilism.

>This has nothing to do with your claim that Raskolnikov is an idealistic Chad.

Yes, it does. He literally calls him an idealist and compares him with Schiller.

>What he's really doing is making the point that Raskolnikov is subject to his internal emotions and values.

Nihilism is a lack of values.

>>35341088
A Chad doesn't have to be a superficial, empty-headed fratbro.

>>35341226
>Again, Nietzsche hadn't developed his philosophy and Dostoevsky never wrote in response in Nietzsche, he most likely never heard of him.

How fucking retarded are you? I'm not saying Dostoevsky based anything on a man who wasn't even well known at the time. Neizaches works like Dostoevsky's was based on the political and socio-economic plights of the 1800s.

>The murder of her sister was done when Raskolnikov was in deep affection upon commiting the first murder. At this point he was simply acting on instinct. He doesn't feel guilt, because he has distanced himself from other people through his idealism. He even begins to loathe himself for this reason.
>idealism

You keep using that word, yet I don't think you really know what it means.

>The point Dostoevsky is making is that idealism ends in nihilism.

Yeah, no shit. Explain to me how Raskolnikov is an idealist because you haven't done so yet.

>Yes, it does. He literally calls him an idealist and compares him with Schiller.

This has NOTHING to do with you claiming him to be an idealist.

>Nihilism is a lack of values.

Thanks for the reminder.

>>35341362
do you enjoy changing the definitions of already widely agreed upon terms?

>>35341462
>You keep using that word, yet I don't think you really know what it means.

I understand that idealist in everyday language means a selfless charicature, but Dostoevsky didn't write characters like that.

Raskolnikov is an idealist in the sense that he is driven by his ideal.

>Yeah, no shit. Explain to me how Raskolnikov is an idealist because you haven't done so yet.

I have shown you multiple examples that highlight this feature of his character.

>This has NOTHING to do with you claiming him to be an idealist.

It is fundamental to my claim.

>Thanks for the reminder.

The point is that Raskolnikov hadn't become a true nihilist, he was still transitioning from his idealism. Svidrigalov is supposed to represent what he could become like. This is why Svidrigalov takes such an interest in him.

>>35341524
>Chad
>widely agreed upon term

There are routinely discussions on what exactly is a Chad.

So is Nabokov too /tv/ for this board? You know what I'm talking about.

>>35341660
Humbert Humbert is a Chad.

>>35341591
>Raskolnikov is an idealist in the sense that he is driven by his ideal.

Remember when I said you don't know what it means? You don't know what it means. Everyone on this entire planet has internal ideals, that doesn't make a person an idealist.

>I have shown you multiple examples that highlight this feature of his character.

Actually no you have not.

>It is fundamental to my claim.

And your claim is absolute bullshit since you're incapable of grasping the concept of idealism.

>The point is that Raskolnikov hadn't become a true nihilist

You can't be a nihilist and an idealist at the same time.

>>35341685
What the fuck? He might be superficially charming and not bad looking but he is no chad. Aside from the obvious, he's extremely anxious and wrings his hands all the time. He lacks confidence. He's like a rodent in his ways.

File: 1486701484589.jpg (109KB, 540x960px)

109KB, 540x960px

>>35341692
>The point is that Raskolnikov hadn't become a true nihilist, he was still transitioning from his idealism.
just like how the USSR wasn't true socialism?

>>35340456
I read that. It was kind of boring, but it was depressing and I related so I plowed through it.

How about Sartre? The Nausea, for example. In fairness he has sex though so maybe not. The Killer Inside Me was cool.

>>35341100
Seconding Mishima. Haven't read Confessions of a Mask yet, but Temple of the Golden Pavilion has a really r9k-tier protagonist.

>>35338899
I've Notes from Underground, Crime & Punishment, and the Brother Karamazov. Dostoevsky is the shit.

File: schopenhaueressaysandaphorisms.jpg (327KB, 649x1000px)

327KB, 649x1000px

I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet. Probably one of the greatest books I've read. Also, The Stranger is essential.

>>35341776
That's what I love about the book, the fact that it's boring and nothing really special ever happens to William. It makes me him relatable and realistic, since the reality is that most of the population will never have or do anything interesting.

>>35341791
>Temple of the Golden Pavilion
I'm reading this right now and loving it.

>>35341906
>Boring man has boring life, nothing special happens
What's the hook here? Being boring isn't enough of a reason to want to read about someone boring. Were that the case I probably wouldn't bother reading a book.

>>35341692
>Remember when I said you don't know what it means?

I remember explaining to you why are wrong in my previous post.

>Everyone on this entire planet has internal ideals, that doesn't make a person an idealist.

This may be a bit too deep for you, but most of the characters in the novel are very crude in comparison to Raskolnikov. They do not follow any internal ideals.
Raskolnikov is apart, because he has a very strongly refined aestethic ideal(hence the comparison to Schiller).

>And your claim is absolute bullshit since you're incapable of grasping the concept of idealism.

Dostoevsky is literally too deep for you.

>You can't be a nihilist and an idealist at the same time.

This is exactly why I said you do not get it. The passionately idealistic character, who ultimtely succumbs to nihilism, is a reoccuring theme in Dostoevsky novel's.

Examples of this are; Ivan Karamazov from the Brother's Karamazov, Andrei Petrovich Versilov from the raw youth, Nikolai Stavrogin from The Possesed. They are often contrasted with charaters who are truly nihilistic.

>>35341734
>just like how the USSR wasn't true socialism?

No, you doofus. Being truly nihilistic means fully corrupted. For instance, Svidrigalov.

File: On Women.jpg (41KB, 720x960px)

41KB, 720x960px

>nobody posted the robot manifesto

File: 1485733004585.jpg (40KB, 402x650px)

40KB, 402x650px

>>35338847
(Original shit)
(Original shit2)
2+ shit = Original

>>35338847
The only thing I love about being Russian.

File: michel_houellebecq_gq_2014_511x.jpg (141KB, 511x683px)

141KB, 511x683px

Anything by this guy

>>35341955
>I remember explaining to you why are wrong in my previous post.

No you didn't.

>This may be a bit too deep for you, but most of the characters in the novel are very crude in comparison to Raskolnikov. They do not follow any internal ideals
>but most of the characters in the novel are very crude in comparison to Raskolnikov. They do not follow any internal ideals
>They do not follow any internal ideals

Yup, that's it right there. That's the last drop. You literally cannot be a person without your own ideals, so that right there tells me that not only do YOU not understand Dostoevsky, you don't even understand human beings.

>This is exactly why I said you do not get it. The passionately idealistic character, who ultimtely succumbs to nihilism, is a reoccuring theme in Dostoevsky novel's.

The point I'm making is we don't ever see an idealistic Raskolnikov. Ever. He is a nihilist from day one. They're incompatible, and the fact you can't grasp this leads me to believe you're either retarded or are purposely being retarded. Either way you can fuck off.

His ideals (again, having ideals doesn't make someone a idealist) judging from his speaking and his published article make the claim that people are allowed to go beyond the pale if it means the actions being done are for the betterment of man. There is nothing idealistic in the way of thinking you're allowed to murder a person on the basis of them being a human louse.

He doesn't even commit the murder(s) because he wants to better society, he doesn't them to prove to himself that he is the Uber man. He's regularly shown a total disgust for most of society and even the woman he loves.

>>35338847

>No Kafka

Are you guys fucking serious?!

>>35342179
>You cannot be a person without your own ideals

You do not understand the context of the book. This is a world where starvation is commonplace. Only a small percentage of the population had any time to persue intellectualism. The schism between aristocrat(to which Dostoevsky belonging) and common people is also a major theme. All of Dostoevsky's major character's more or less belong to the upper class / aristocracy. In order to be an idealist, you must first be conscious of your ideal. This excludes the majority of russians at the time. Dostoevsky recognized a different (religious) strength in the common people. One that was completely lacking among the aristocracy. Since they lacked this religious quality, they succumbed to nihilism.

>we don't ever see an idealistic Raskolnikov.

Yes we do. On several occasions infact.

>He is a nihilist from day one.

No. Svidrigalov is a nihilist, Raskolnikov is on the path to becoming one.

>There is nothing idealistic in the way of thinking you're allowed to murder a person on the basis of them being a human louse.

This is the meat of the matter. What is highlighted is the schism between the expressed ideals and the person expressing them. Raskolnikov tries to justify the murder(by saying the world would be better off without her), but in reality he was just angry at the way she treated him.

>he doesn't them to prove to himself that he is the Uber man.

Here you are mistaken. The murder is done out of personal resentment. All the talk is just talk.

The point is that the lofty intellectual ideals can not rule people the same way true religious faith can. In the end the ideals become subject to the personal will of one's who hold them. Raskolnikov bended his ideals so that they would justify his actions.

At some point he would have bend them so far that they ceased to exist, which is the case with Svidrigalov. He is saved by the encounter with the young prostitute girl who holds true religious faith.

File: a confederacy of dun.jpg (33KB, 318x463px)

33KB, 318x463px

this is PEE PEE POO POO in literary form

>>35342531
>You do not understand the context of the book. This is a world where starvation is commonplace. Only a small percentage of the population had any time to persue intellectualism. The schism between aristocrat(to which Dostoevsky belonging) and common people is also a major theme.

I do understand the context of this book and already explained it.

>All of Dostoevsky's major character's more or less belong to the upper class / aristocracy.

Not Crime and Punishment.

>No. Svidrigalov is a nihilist, Raskolnikov is on the path to becoming one.

There is no "path" for becoming a Nihilist if you're an idealist. It's a lightswitch, you're either on Nihilism or Idealism. There is no duality between the two, as they're completely incompatible. If someone is taking handfuls from each side they're not one or the other, they're extremely confused: which Raskolnikov is clearly confused.

>This is the meat of the matter. What is highlighted is the schism between the expressed ideals and the person expressing them. Raskolnikov tries to justify the murder(by saying the world would be better off without her), but in reality he was just angry at the way she treated him.

Absolutely not. There is nothing in the novel or any studies on the book that indicate he did it out of the way he treated her.

File: file.png (50KB, 609x219px)

50KB, 609x219px

>>35342531

Only reinforces the fact he's still circling around his idea that was presented in his article: that there are men who exist on the planet that do what society would deem a horrible act necessary if they perceived to to be for the betterment of mankind. He doesn't do it to make himself feel better about his ill-treatment from her, he doesn't do it for monetary gain, he does it solely to prove his own belief to himself.

>Here you are mistaken. The murder is done out of personal resentment. All the talk is just talk.

This is wrong and I've already explained why.

>>35342818
>There is no "path" for becoming a Nihilist if you're an idealist. It's a lightswitch,

It is a gradual transition.

>If someone is taking handfuls from each side they're not one or the other

It isn't two sides. It is exactly the intellectual idealism that leads Raskolnikov towards nihilism.

>Absolutely not. There is nothing in the novel or any studies on the book that indicate he did it out of the way he treated her.

You need to read more of Dostoevsky's novels then.

>Only reinforces the fact he's still circling around his idea that was presented in his article: that there are men who exist on the planet that do what society would deem a horrible act necessary if they perceived to to be for the betterment of mankind.

He begins to entertain these ideas exactly because of his personal situation. He hates his lot in life.

>he does it solely to prove his own belief to himself.

He wanted to kill her. He resented her. The way he talks about how worthless she is and all that jazz about the superior man who is like Napoleon or Muhammed, that is all similar to how a kid tries to muster up courage before pulling up some daring prank.

Dostoevsky is trying to show that the western enlightenment ideals are unable to rule human nature. They lack the fundamental quality that the religion of the common people have.

>This is wrong and I've already explained why.

You haven't explained why, you simply said it wasn't so. I on the other hand say you need to read more Dostoevsky, because the central idea of Dostoevsky isn't that apparent in Crime and Punishment. It only really become visible in this novel when you have familiarized yourself him with his works in their entirety.

>>35343195
>You need to read more of Dostoevsky's novels then.

Piss off, we're talking about this specific novel.

>He wanted to kill her. He resented her. The way he talks about how worthless she is and all that jazz about the superior man who is like Napoleon or Muhammed, that is all similar to how a kid tries to muster up courage before pulling up some daring prank.

Dude, this is just wrong.

> I on the other hand say you need to read more Dostoevsky, because the central idea of Dostoevsky isn't that apparent in Crime and Punishment. It only really become visible in this novel when you have familiarized yourself him with his works in their entirety.

Again, we're talking about this specific novel you weaseling little fuck.

>>35343244
>Piss off, we're talking about this specific novel.

As I previously stated, you lack the erudation to understand it.

>Dude, this is just wrong.

No.

>Again, we're talking about this specific novel you weaseling little fuck.

Let me add to my comment. Not only do you lack the erudation, you lack the depth of spirit to even begin to understand it.

>>35338899
I read this in AP lit but completely forgot what it was about

can someone give me a quick rundown?

File: 1436111211437.jpg (29KB, 665x662px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 665x662px

>mfw some normie claims 2 + 2 = 4 near me

REEEEEEEEEE

>>35343512
>As I previously stated, you lack the erudation to understand it.

Nah, this is your weasley statement to make yourself feel more secure in your argument. You haven't even provided evidence as to why Raskolnikov did it out of spite rather than his own obvious and stated reasons.

By the way, it's not very nice to claim someone needs erudition if you can't even spell the word and have been riddling your arguments with spelling errors.

>Let me add to my comment. Not only do you lack the erudation, you lack the depth of spirit to even begin to understand it.

See? Here we go again. You've provided no evidence to support your new claims, even while not supporting your claim of Raskolnikov being an "idealistic Chad."

File: young-hitler-i-knew.jpg (408KB, 1186x1816px)

408KB, 1186x1816px

This book about Hitler's youth.

>>35343556
Young man murders woman because he believes himself to be above the laws of men and gods only for find himself to be the complete opposite of a man above such laws, displaying his paranoid and incompatible thoughts and beliefs by running around St. Petersburg in a state hypochondriac agony.

>>35343566
The evidence is too subtle for you to see. Dostoevsky doesn't outright state "my characters did this for this and that reason". You need psychological insight to uncover why. A person like yourself, simply takes every thing at face value.

>By the way, it's not very nice to claim someone needs erudition if you can't even spell the word and have been riddling your arguments with spelling errors.

English is not my first language. Atleast I have made arguments. You have simply displayed your plebeian nature.

>See? Here we go again. You've provided no evidence to support your new claims, even while not supporting your claim of Raskolnikov being an "idealistic Chad."

That was a comment regarding the bitter and disagreeable manner in which you have conducted this conversation. Frankly speaking you are far too immature to understand what Dostoevsky tries to say.

>>35343686
>The evidence is too subtle for you to see.

And here we go again. The classic "you just don't get it bro" argument.

>You need psychological insight to uncover why.

Oh geez, another attempt.

>A person like yourself, simply takes every thing at face value.

Third time's the charm, eh?

>You have simply displayed your plebeian nature.

Fourth?

>Frankly speaking you are far too immature to understand what Dostoevsky tries to say.

Five times. Five times in one post again: without even properly explaining your position or displaying and valid criticisms against mine.

>>35338847
>>35338928
>>35339870
>>35340456
>>35342680
these and pic related are all good robot books. granted, most of them have some normie tendencies, but just ignore those parts

>>35343736
>And here we go again. The classic "you just don't get it bro" argument.

Well you do not get it. How can you hope to understand the deeper themes of a book without understanding the mind of the author?

> without even properly explaining your position or displaying and valid criticisms against mine.

I explain my position quite detailed in my previous posts. You have simply paraphrased the plot in broad terms, while stating that I was incorrect, as one could if they read the wikipedia article.

>>35338923
What is that book en englas

>>35343801
>Well you do not get it.

This is what we call a "non-argument."

Basically what people like you do is saying the opposition is far too intellectually void in order for them to understand the argument you're failing to provide.

>How can you hope to understand the deeper themes of a book without understanding the mind of the author?

I've said three times now I do understand the mind of the author and the time he was living in.

>I explain my position quite detailed in my previous posts.

No, you just stated them (which you accused me of doing.) Why don't you take your time now to explain why Raskolnikov did the murders because he was "treated unfairly."

>inb4 no, too pleb, won't understand, too stupid, I'm too smart for you

>>35339909
It isn't pseudoscience retard
It's just a loose of the ability to focus after mausturbating and getting instant gratification for too long. Like self induced ADHD

>>35343850
I am saying it response to you claiming I am wrong.

>I do understand the mind of the author and the time he was living in.

Sure you do. By reading just a single of his works.

>Why don't you take your time now to explain why Raskolnikov did the murders because he was "treated unfairly."

Raskolnikov does not have the character of someone who acts to prove an intellectual argument while detached from it emotionally.

There is a character like this in Dostoevsky's works. He is called Kirilov and is feautered in The Possesed.

It is also only after she rejects his plea for help that he starts plotting her murder. He had known of her already for a while.

>>35343976
>Sure you do. By reading just a single of his works.

Again, we're talking about a SINGLE book.

>Raskolnikov does not have the character of someone who acts to prove an intellectual argument while detached from it emotionally.

Except for the paragraph I posted>>35342880 which he is clearly toiling with the idea he presented in his article. You just made another claim without backing it up. Now the question becomes "WHY does he not have the character?"

>There is a character like this in Dostoevsky's works. He is called Kirilov and is feautered in The Possesed.

>It is also only after she rejects his plea for help that he starts plotting her murder. He had known of her already for a while.

Again asshole, we're talking about a singular character from a particular single book.

File: 1484165811480.jpg (220KB, 848x480px)

220KB, 848x480px

>>35342680
Top tier, book I wonder if Toole would have liked r9k.

Also, No Longer Human (Dazai) is a good one for bots.

>>35344098
>Again, we're talking about a SINGLE book.

Yes, but the theme spans most of his works.

>Except for the paragraph

It is a paragraph of him talking to himself. It is not a paragraph of honest self-reflection, it is him trying to build up courage.

>Again asshole, we're talking about a singular character from a particular single book.

We are not talking about what you can read off any basic wikipedia article. We are talking about the deeper themes of the book. Specifically the psychological mechanisms of an archtype present in most of Dostoevsky's novels.

You guys know that book is about Lenin, right? Identifying with it makes you a communist.

Read some Murakami if you want some /comf/ Dance Dance Dance is pretty comfy when it isn't nuts.

>>35344195
>Yes, but the theme spans most of his works.

And so what? You're making the claim you need to read other books Raskolnikov isn't even a character in, in order to fully understand the character: which is the most ridiculous and retarded thing I've ever heard.

>It is a paragraph of him talking to himself. It is not a paragraph of honest self-reflection, it is him trying to build up courage.

It's a paragraph of him clearly going over and IDEA. Gee, wonder what that idea is. Probably has nothing to do with the central theme of Raskolnikov's ideas: can I do it? Can I be the uberman?

>We are not talking about what you can read off any basic wikipedia article

You can reword this as much as you want, it doesn't make any more sense than the first 10 times you posted it.

>We are talking about the deeper themes of the book. Specifically the psychological mechanisms of an archtype present in most of Dostoevsky's novels.

And like I said again, to understand a character you only need to read the books the character is contained in. Should I be reading A Song of Ice and Fire to get a better understanding of Aragorn?

>>35341982
lad, I did. It is a part of >>35341877

>>35344298
I am saying it helps to understand Dostoevsky. Considering that we are ultimately speaking of a fictional character that he made.

>Probably has nothing to do with the central theme of Raskolnikov's ideas: can I do it? Can I be the uberman?

You are taking things at face value. Raskolnikov crumbles after the murder exactly because the uberman talk lacked any real substance.

This is just a minor example of subtlety that went over your head.

>And like I said again, to understand a character you only need to read the books the character is contained in. Should I be reading A Song of Ice and Fire to get a better understanding of Aragorn?

There are degrees of understanding. Only the author fully understands his character. We readers interpret them, and often color them in our own light, but the greater your familiarity with the author, the greater the similarity between your interpretation and the vision of the author.

A song of fire and ice is much closer to your level, now that you do bring it up.

File: 200.gif (1MB, 300x200px)

1MB, 300x200px

>>35344219
>Trying to politicize a thread about books

>>35344401
Helps to understand the author, but understanding the author and understanding the main character of a single book are two completely different things.

>You are taking things at face value. Raskolnikov crumbles after the murder exactly because the uberman talk lacked any real substance.

It didn't lack substance, what lacked substance was himself. He wasn't the uberman he thought and tested himself to be. The idea is that he considered himself capable of becoming an uberman. Just because someone can't become their own concepts doesn't mean the concepts don't exist or doesn't mean they weren't trying to achieve that conceptualization.

You again, and I've said this probably close to a dozen times have YET to explain why Raskolnikov murdered her because he didn't like her. If they were the case the entire novel would be shitting all over the point Dovosesky was making in regards to the new wave of Russian nihilism and materialistic way of thinking that ultimately lead to 100 million dead in the century that followed.

>This is just a minor example of subtlety that went over your head.

See? You're snarky unexplaining attitude gets you absolutely nowhere except higher and higher on your imaginary horse on your imaginary high high up mountaintop.

>There are degrees of understanding. Only the author fully understands his character. We readers interpret them, and often color them in our own light, but the greater your familiarity with the author, the greater the similarity between your interpretation and the vision of the author.

>A song of fire and ice is much closer to your level, now that you do bring it up.

Specifically brought that up just to see if you'd yet again leave another snarky "I'm better than you" remark, which you did. Congratulations. This entire exchange has been you writing out "You don't get it, I'm too smart to deal with you."

File: 28282177._UY2554_SS2554_.jpg (429KB, 2554x2554px)

429KB, 2554x2554px

also My Twisted World

>>35344401
Just in case you didn't understand: he killed her to prove his own concept AND to rid from the world what he believe a human louse which is a pragmatic way of thinking, both ideas go hand in hand with another as Ubermen are allowed to do things (murder) for the betterment of humanity (riding human lice.)

You've yet to prove why he killed her out of spite. Go ahead, now is your chance. Just do it. Come on, you're sooooooo intellectually superior to me it should be relatively easy for you considering how retarded I am.

Why did he kill her out of spite? Answer the question.

>>35344526
>understanding the author and understanding the main character of a single book are two completely different things.

No, not two completely different things. It is two related things.

>It didn't lack substance, what lacked substance was himself

No, it did lack substance. Of course you can imagine an uberman character who fulfills the idea, but what does it look like in reality? That is a theme in the book.
Raskolnikov was infatuated with the idea, but when confronted with the reality of the situation, he realized that the idea was one-sided. It is the person he told himelf he was. In reality he was nothing but a petty murderer.

Dostoevsky never wrote completely soulless conquerers, like the one Raskilnikov imagines Napoelon and Muhammed to have been, people who acted from some abstract notion of common good according to themselves. From this we can infer that these imaginings where fundamentally unrealistic according to Dostoevsky.

>doesn't mean they weren't trying to achieve that conceptualization.

So he just happened to pick a victim he bore deep personal resentment against? One he starts blaming for his own situation, when she refuses to help him. This also coincides with when he started plotting the murder.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Raskolnikovs ideas started to radicalize once his situation did. They only get to the point the do because he isolated himself.

Once again it is shown that his nature is what rules his ideas, and not the other way around.

>lead to 100 million dead in the century that followed.

Not at all. The communists killed people out of resentment and envy. In general that is. Not because of some 'materialistic' thinking. This is a sterile concept.

A much better look at this issue is in the Possesed, which is about radical socialists. It has all the charactertistics in seperate characters. The point is really hammered home here that the opinions of the characters is mostly the result of their circumstances.

>>35344607
How does one 'prove" someone wrong about an interpretation of a fictional character?

I have shown you some of the hints given and laid out the reasoning needed to make the connections.

If you choose to be obstinate then that is your own business. My impression of you is that of a pseudo-intellectual and I am sure you do not like me either, so let us end this exchange here.
Goodnight.

>>35344954
>I have shown you some of the hints given and laid out the reasoning needed to make the connections.

No you haven't. What you've done more than anything is repeat over and over how much I'm incapable of understanding the argument you've been refusing to provide.

File: 1479535509232.png (300KB, 409x409px)

300KB, 409x409px

>>35344107
>read No Longer Human expecting a novel about the difficulties of relating to others and social interaction
>get the journal of an alcoholic normie

death of a salesman is a very good book

>>35338847
Hell yeah anon r9k book club is back! Looks like that last thread restarted the trend. Glad to see it. Keep it up. Although previously stated, the stranger and notes from the underground are probably the best starting points.

What books you guys would recommend for the purpose of food for thought/culture enrichment?

I really haven't read anything worth a damn, the last one I read was 1984.

>>35344864
>Not at all. The communists killed people out of resentment and envy. In general that is. Not because of some 'materialistic' thinking. This is a sterile concept.

This part was perhaps a little poorly phrased. The 'materialistic' thinking you mention is a lack of the religious quality. It is not the materialistic ideas that motivated the communists, but that the lack of the religious aspect caused the communists to act in accordance to their petty natures.

Someone like Schiller had a deep intellectual idealism, but he wasn't truly religious. He was a man of the englightenment era. Now you wouldn't call Schiller a radical socialist, but Dostoevsky draws the comparison between the two in the character of Raskolnikov.

>>35344107
Are you me? Those were my two favorite books for a long time.

>>35345279
You do know what type of materialism I'm talking about right?

>>35345336
I assume it is the one Dostoevsky fixates on. The 'rational' deconstruction of tradtional values. Ultimately these ideas do not inspire, they only tear down.

>>35345406
Who gives a fuck about killing the kulaks when they're just a bunch of meaningless atoms arranged in such a way to be a detriment to the utopia you want to create? It's not like you can control it or go to hell or anything.

File: heh.jpg (55KB, 640x640px)

55KB, 640x640px

>>35345606
dehumanization sure adds to the argument and shows a great deal of your virtuosity

I'd read but every time I try to do so I end up feeling that I'd rather shoot myself than read another sentence

>>35345123
Besides having sex with prostitutes and later a few regular roasties he ain't that much of a normie. Mentally speaking, he was pretty fucked up. cyborg tier perhaps

File: dream_of_a_ridiculous_man_dosto.jpg (297KB, 984x720px)

297KB, 984x720px

Probably one of the greatest short stories of all time. Dostoevsky truly was /our-writer/ even more than a hundred years ago. It's extraordinary, but also saddening and comforting to think that robot life has existed for far longer than I've been alive.

>>35345647
And you took that seriously huh? Right.

When you say things like
>Not at all. The communists killed people out of resentment and envy. In general that is. Not because of some 'materialistic' thinking. This is a sterile concept.

it's a little disheartening to read, but what you have to understand is the Communists weren't the riled up workers the real Communists sent to do their bidding, they were suckers along for the ride that got caught up in ideology, were poor or like you said, envious. You're not doing yourself a very great service by not taking into account the stated goals of Communist leaders in which they explain why they're doing it what they're doing, instead you attribute everything to emotions thinking idea and emotions exist separately from one another with no interaction.

File: wew.png (247KB, 1484x880px)

247KB, 1484x880px

>>35345833
I'm not the anon that you're debating with