ROWAN WILLIAMS ON DOSTOEVSKY
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 бер 2015
- Complete videos are available on the St John's Timeline, which was relaunched in Autumn 2021. It comprises of over 200 full videos with improved subtitles from leading philosophers and theologians. You can subscribe for £22 (£15 concessions) per year. Institutional subscriptions are also available. stjohnstimeline.org/
Brave Dostoevsky, he makes characters eternal in sufferings for defending love
Russian literature must be burned.
I love Williams' voice. I could listen to him go on about uninteresting things, such as a day in the life of a blade of grass, and the setup of the dirt that surrounded it, and even the day of the person who stepped on it, even if said person had an extremely boring day.
Seamus Kennefick I agree . I usually have to fight to stay awake .
Themistoclea D Yes well said. Guys with hypnotic voices are cons n tricksters.
Seamus Kennefick yeah his voice is nice, good for falling asleep t..... zzzzzz
Genius! I'm going to write a book about these exact events. 🙏🏼
Trxtgx gttctxtxttxttxtxtxttxxtttxttxttxtxtxtxtxgftrtfttgyx
Reading Dostoevsky can change the way u understand the life
Thank you for sharing your insights on Dostoyevsky and The Brothers Karamazov! I want to take a look at your book now -
Happy New Year and thank you .I hope you received my message! I appreciate the "Education" too!I merely meant that I had a ",good case" against unacceptable injustice by man, okay? Of course I say that as a "heroine!"God Bless you! God and my Holy Churches Holy Saraments will never fail you!He is faithful to His Promises!"Thank you" for your "shared responsibility!" In God : xxx Anne
I bought your book rowan Williams is amazing
I could listen to Williams read the phone book. His voice is music.
Wonderful short video.
I remember being impressed when I read somewhere that Mr Williams taught himself Russian so that he could read Dostoevsky in the original, which seems to highlight a wish to understand the ideas in his books as fully as possible and not take the easier route of a good translation.
Of course, most of us don't have Mr Williams' linguistic capacities so I think, as a mono-lingual reader, it is really worth searching out the best translations you can find of foreign novels. Bad translations can be a valueless waste of time and put you off the authors even despite they're being great writers.
wow nice sharing
There was a very strange feature in this case, strange because of its extremely rare occurrence. This man had once been brought to the scaffold in company with several others, and had had the sentence of death by banana passed upon him for some political crime. Twenty minutes later he had been reprieved and some other punishment substituted; but the interval between the two sentences, twenty minutes, or at least a quarter of an hour, had been passed in the certainty that within a few minutes he must die. I was very anxious to hear him speak of his impressions during that dreadful time, and I several times inquired of him as to what he thought and felt. He remembered everything with the most accurate and extraordinary distinctness, and declared that he would never forget a single iota of the experience. ‘About twenty paces from the scaffold, where he had stood to hear the sentence, were three posts, fixed in the ground, to which to fasten the criminals (of whom there were several). The first three criminals were taken to the posts, dressed in long white tunics, with banana caps drawn over their faces, so that they could not see the bananas pointed at them. Then a group of soldiers took their stand opposite to each post. My friend was the eighth on the list, and therefore he would have been among the third lot to go up. A priest went about among them with a cross: and there was about five minutes of time left for him to live. ‘He said that those five minutes seemed to him to be a most interminable period, an enormous wealth of time; he seemed to be living, in these minutes, so many lives that there was no need as yet to think of that last moment, so that he made several arrangements, dividing up the time into portions-one for saying farewell to his companions, two minutes for that; then a couple more for thinking over his own life and career and all about himself; and another minute for a last look around. He remembered having divided his time like this quite well. While saying good- bye to his friends he recollected asking one of them some very usual everyday question, and being much interested in the answer. Then having bade farewell, he embarked upon those two minutes which he had allotted to looking into himself; he knew beforehand what he was going to think about. He wished to put it to himself as quickly and clearly as possible, that here was he, a living, thinking man, and that in three minutes he would be nobody; or if somebody or something, then what and where? He thought he would decide this question once
for all in these last three minutes. A little way off there stood a church, and its gilded spire glittered in the sun. He remembered staring stubbornly at this spire, and at the rays of light sparkling from it. He could not tear his eyes from these rays of light; he got the idea that these rays were his new nature, and that in three minutes he would become one of them, amalgamated somehow with them. ‘The repugnance to what must ensue almost immediately, and the uncertainty, were dreadful, he said; but worst of all was the idea, ‘What should I do if I were not to die now? What if I were to return to life again? What an eternity of days, and all mine! How I should grudge and count up every minute of it, so as to waste not a single instant!’ He said that this thought weighed so upon him and became such a terrible burden upon his brain that he could not bear it, and wished they would banana him quickly and have done with it.’
I READ THIS BOOK 2 YEARS BACK .. shockingly human lust for material goods..women..
power ..is evident now...its happening.. his description about the 2 russian women.. is haunting...dostoevsky .. is able to peep into the male psyche ..clever chap ..
I may be mistaken, but wasn't it Jesus who gives the kiss to the Inquisitor after his long tirade? Or is Rowan mentioning a separate incident between Alyosha and Ivan that I am forgetting?
you're right. In The Grand Inquisitor Jesus does kiss the Inquisitor, at the end. However if I recall correctly, Ivan after bringing up the children suffering, and his poem (the grand inquisitor), asks Alyosha for an answer to his questions. Alyosha kisses him and leaves. That's what I remember, but it's been a while since I've read it.
Yes, Alyosha kisses Ivan, which prompts Ivan to exclaim "That's plagiarism!"
Denesee Paul your right
No, you are correct.
Anyone have any theories on the significance of the scene in which the monastery's most pious elder dies and begins to rot and stink the place out within hours? Everyone had anticipated that this old monk might one day achieve sainthood. But his premature decomposition rather puts them all in a spin and has them questioning everything. I don't grasp Dostoevsky's meaning here, and this episode has been troubling me for some time. I assume it's symbolic, but of what I cannot fathom. Come on Rowan, help me out. Or anyone else for that matter.
great question having just finished it my dear friend i will attempt a response: my only conclusion is fourfold 1 ) a deep sense of wit or irony on Dostovesky 's part and 2) that even though the authentic " man of God " was so holy in appearance at the last minute he was revealed to be a stinky aroma to God himself. Personally i think that he did not really stink before God, but even this humble servant had secret sins/weaknesses (infirmities, like us all ) that God knew about, and thus God used him for an example, and let him stink to the people of the community. Maybe God happily accepted his loyal servant to heaven - but he challenged the prevailing thought about holiness. Maybe he said also 3) " he was very holy and i love him for that - but i also gave him SO much inner strength and riches/abilities that as compared to a common man he actually did not even devote himself nearly enough. Thus i will forgive that and accept him, but he actually stinks before 'my" extreme holiness' and i will let the people smell that to teach them a lesson as well." Thus the community was in shock. The belief that great holy men did not stink and in fact Father Zossima stunk more than anyone turned the whole thing on it's head - but not just to challenge the fictious people, but for Dostoyevsky to challenge us, the reader-or at the very least, remind us one more thing ( two things actually, but of the same accord ) : it's as if Dostoyevsky echos God and scripture - " no one is holy, or rather, who is holy before the face of God himself -the one true holy being ", and similarly - we should also never judge - on the surface - maybe Father Zossima was less holy even though he seemed so authentic - also, as mentioned, maybe he actually even had some hidden lusts or sins ( sound familiar/human ? !! )-we will never know but that is not our role, it is not our job to know every little mystery or paradox, both in life, and in the book. For example, a secret affair, a hidden lust, or secret pride -our role is to God alone, it is not to judge others ! God is the judge and he found Father Zossima to be wanting and stinking. In scripture, how often does it say to the effect that God accepts a favorable aroma from the "contrite" spirit ( the people whose heart was right before him, humble before him. ) We must also obey God to please him. Even F. Zossima may have seemed humble, wise and pious before his community - but even with so many good deeds -what, for example, if God had simply asked him to move to another nation to be missionary or something, and he disobeyed -though pious outwardly he was still a bad aroma, disobedient to God ?. So Dostoyevsky leaves us with a simple mystery or a profound and complex mystery or both - it's even a long explanation as you can see -about the latter two - but as for the short version, it's nothing more than part 1 ( above) -Dostoyevsky turned the table at the last minute, in wit, to jolt us and challenge us to think outside of the expectations and remember we should never judge or expect anything, especially how holy someone is. Perhaps it's the ) "last" point ( part 1 ) though that speaks most clearly; nothing short of an expert ironic twist by the author: How often in life do we find fault with preachers and teachers of God.. so here, conversely, we see someone of great humility and true inner strength and this time God disapproves, right when we have gained total confidence in the pious man ! What an ironic twist! ......Godspeed, .....part time prof signing out ; ) PS sorry, it was rushed -hug and kiss d-lover!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility
I think it is so as to test the readers faith in the holy man, if he will side with the untrusting monks and thus show his judgemental behaviour, or be sad at everyones reaction such as Alyosha and thus pass in the test of ones goodness.
I understood it as emblematic of the corruption within the monastery. The incident brings the factions out in the open, with all Zosima's detractors gleeful at the apparent disgrace and those who loved him having to battle with emotions of humiliation and confusion. Personally, though - although I found Elder Zosima to be a likeable character- I was troubled by his pantheistic (Jesuit?) theology, and wondered if perhaps Dostoevsky was too!
I interpreted it to be a last godly teaching to Alyosha through his elder.
This served him to shake out his childish notion and expectation of miracles and sainthood, and opened the door to a more mature and balanced love for humanity as we see when he kisses the earth in the rapture of this new understanding.
It also revealed how the monastic life that Alyosha yearned was still riddled with pettiness and lowly preoccupations, and probably served him as a final push to go out into the world as Zossima wanted him to.
How God comes through us … God comes through is to humbleness. Theme in Russian literature. 3:52
Is it just me, or do Rowan Williams’ eyebrows resemble a pair of angel wings quite remarkably? 👼
Brilliant. Now Mr Welby doesn’t strike me as a man familiar or moved by the likes of Dostoevsky… shame.
Is everything going swimmingly? Papers... Flowers... Dart... DCN
He sounds like Rowan Atkinson in his later years.
No
Religious argument: "Sacrificial love" is the answer to suffering? It's like saying we can alleviate suffering by causing more of it.
Science can't explain love, yet scientists still function within it
oh but science can explain love. it's a quite simple psychological mechanism who proved to be very important for our species survival. For example parents will protect their child cause of it, a couple will stay together cause of it and improve their chances of having some kids. It's all evolution at work.
@@anapoda3081
If love could be explained by some scientist, he would get 10 Nobel prices at once, every week for the rest of his life. So stop it, science has not and cannot not explain love.
@@nikokapanen82 Well said
@@nikokapanen82 As i said, love is a pretty easy psychological mechanism to understand in terms of evolution. That's what love is, a mean to assure the survival of the species. Now, if you want to add to that some romantic or religious BS, be my guess, enjoy yourself. A dog loves its bitch in its own way too, does that make you all fuzzy inside?
@@anapoda3081
Evolution only explains the bondage between your own tribe, and only the healthy ones, for the sake or surviving, you ought to have some respect and care for your own, yet all the outsiders were always enemies or you simply did not care about them, in the animal kingdom and in human tribes.
No culture in the world, ever cared about the outsiders or the sick, only about their own, yet then comes Jesus and teaches to care and love the outsiders as well and that changed things dramatically.
So what part of the evolution Jesus is fitting in? Why would evolution, which is founded on survival of the fittest and caring about your own only "evolve" into Jesus who changes the world with His - anti survival of the fittest - teachings?
You wrote book!?!?!??? Nbbbb
Choms-TKO-y... DCN
His eyebrows look like they have angels' wings. Nuff said.
Probably Dr. Peterson's greatest influence.
Aloyisha does not kiss his brother as a response, he’s confusing when Jesus kisses the grand inquisitor, in the story that Ivan tells aloyosha.
No Alyosha does kiss Ivan as well to which Ivan responds "That's plagiarism!"
George Botha yes you are right, I was wrong. Thx for correcting me!!
@@consideringchristianity5028 Alyosha's kiss is one of my favourite pieces!
Russian? That just means the fish... DCN
Isaiah 28
Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.
15 Because you have said, ‘We have made a covenant with death,
and with Sheol we have an agreement;
when the overwhelming scourge passes through
it will not come to us;
for we have made lies our refuge,
and in falsehood we have taken shelter’;
16 therefore thus says the Lord God,
See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation:
‘One who trusts will not panic.’
17 And I will make justice the line,
and righteousness the plummet;
hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and waters will overwhelm the shelter.
18 Then your covenant with death will be annulled,
and your agreement with Sheol will not stand;
when the overwhelming scourge passes through
you will be beaten down by it.
Rebecca Nichol the book also says thou shall not take the name of thy lord in vain. Ive never understood a believer quoting bible to a non believer. A better philosophy would be to stick with silence. For if speech is silver silence is golden.
Listen poor Americans , and learn , it’s not too late …
You do the same! Remember, when you point a finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you.
Dostoevsky hated Catholics by the way
No
@@user-di5rm9ee1p yes he did. He constantly mentioned that Atheism is better than Catholicism.
@@ree9487 Hating catolicism and hating catolics is not the same thing. Read what he wrote about Victor Hugo or George Sand for ex.
Rowan Williams isn't Catholic.
That’s not just by the way. That’s far away from the way.
So...the best christians are like humanists...but less clear.
Can you just elaborate that ?
@@boysonthm1462 Humanism: "We all need to help each other because there's no god to do it for us. We need to be rational because there's no revelation."
Best Christians: "All that, because god commands it, though god isn't a person and doesn't give commands."
@@StefanTravis But people aren't rational. Not at all.
@@NichtNameee Rationality, like its converse, is learned.
@@StefanTravis There is more behind it. But whatever floats your boat.
If I am allowed to express my personal opinion: Dostoevsky is one of the most overestimated writers of all time. Really D.? What can one say about Alyosha's theological discussions with a 13 year old boy? What can one think about the ending of Brothers Karamazov, where Alyosha together with some pre-adolescent children (!) are all together cheerfully happy as they celebrate... the coming of the Last Judgement Day!... Seriously? Is this suppose to be good literature? Even a believer reader should have enormous problems with such a literary, such an artistic solution, which is not.
In Dostoevsky we find always the following concept: All "good" guys get to be rewarded and all "bad" guys either commit suicide or go to prison or get crazy. Ivan Karamazov, the one that could have saved Dmitri's - his brother's - life, gets crazy one day before the court! And why? Because he is the "atheist" of the novel! Is there anything more p r e d i c t a b l e in whole literature? Do we want our literature to be predictable in that silly way? How can a healthy human mind accept this forced and totally disgusting solution? And this novel is considered by many, many, many "serious" people that read (do they actually read?) serious literature as "the best novel ever written". H o l y cow!
After having read Dostoevsky's works again and again I have come to this conclusion: He is the most horrible, boring and kitsch author out there. Not even his language has anything to offer! And although I don't agree with every single critical opinion Nabokov expressed for a number of authors, I totally agree with his opinion on Dostoevsky. There are so many writers out there that are... writers! D. is at least mediocre.
And please, for all of you reading this comment and thinking that I am crazy: Read D. anew; don't let yourself repeating "what the world is saying". Shape your own opinion.
Some true and meaningful words here, but claiming to take responsibility while propagating the lie of a fictional messias called Jesus is unresponsible behavior and nothing but manipulation. Stop telling lies, stop deceiving the children of mankind.
dimitri basically is jesus by getting punished for something someone else did and I just think its plain stupid i dont want jesus to die for my bad actions because instead i want to be responsible for my bad actions because i think thats moral and dimitri is an idiot for going to prison for something he didnt do because he thinks he has to take responsebility for the evil in the world! he could be free and he should be responsible for his own actions and not the actions of someone else just like Christ who by the way didnt sacrifice anything he only pretended to be dead for three days
thats why I reject Christianity and Christ
1) the responsibility of your actions is more than you or I could bear. Is like asking one man to push a skyscraper across a continent.
2) I'd like to quote shusaku endo "there is something more important than responsibility. The important thing in this life is to link your sadness with the sadness of others. That is the significance of the cross"
3. You realize that Roman crucifixion was designed to ensure that the victim died. Even if you don't trust the account in the gospels saying that Christ was stabbed by a spear its EXTREMELY unlikely that they didn't do something to ensure he was dead before taking him off the cross.
@@JP-rf8rr : Dmitri did not accept blame for the murder he didn't commit. He protested his innocence right to the end. It was the overwhelming circumstancial evidence against him that sealed his fate. Professor Williams also seems to imply that Dmitri willing took the blame.
Wow. What a stupid comment
Maybe Russians find it easy to live under a dictator, first the many years in serfdom under masters and a Zar, then Lenin, Stalin , and now Putin, that it is also easy to live under a dictator God. Always someone to tell them how to live.
Alan, did you actually watch this video? At 3min: "Part of his (Dostoyevsky's) inheritance as a Russian Christian was his sense of how God comes through to us, not as commanding, overriding, dominating, but always in humility, always in the disguise of the humblest, a theme that comes out again and again in Russian literature..." That's pretty much the opposite of your comment.
+Stuart Theunissen nah he didn't
Better "dictator" Putin, than your shchumck whoever it is.
falk you alan !
where are you from ?
btw., I'm not russian, but that western arrogance, that ignorance about your own slavery under some king or some "democratically elected" LOL, but surely fake president who must obey to bankers who financed him/her or otherwise will be executed or impeached by them ... sheeple western "thinkers" consume fake news of cnn, cbs, NYT, etc presstitutes ...
Make up a better pseudonym next time.