I just told my parents that I've finally finished The Brothers Karamazov and this pops out in my feed. Thanks UA-cam for always listening to my conversations
Reading Brothers Karamazov right now and the book is unputdownable. Very well written and the author shows the complexity of the characters and their several layers of depth with ease.
I just finished it! I was sort of prolonging the read by delaying it as i didn't want it to end. Btw do you understand what was the deal between Katerina Ivanovna and Smerdyakov?? Ivan was to ask him that but he forgets and then there's no mention of it in the novel as far as I remember.
Its incredible how in every JBP video he says things so simply which I have been trying to articulate to myself - "its not what you believe as if its a set of facts but how you conduct yourself in the world." I imagine many of his viewers in their quarter-life crisis feel the same. You can learn as much as you want and feel like you can rationalise things better than most other people around you, but that means fuck all if you aren't doing things and producing. You won't be any happier either.
I’m 21, right now I’m trying to learn how to rationalize things and make correct decisions but I fear there’s a very real chance that in this process I could paralyze myself from choosing any path at all, just so that I can feel alleviated of the consequences I would face if I were to choose bad one.
Read Tolatoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich". Another masterpiece by Russians. No need to prepare for it morally. Its just a small novel that you can finish in a few hours. I swear you will like it
I noticed the same thing .. after reading Nietzsche and Dostoevsky for the first time... Quite amazing .. Even the occurrence of someone beating a horse.. I read Nietzsche had a nervous breakdown near the end of his sanity.. The breakdown occurred when he saw a man mercilessly beating a horse .. he went to the horse put his arm around the neck hugging him and crying.. then I read in Dostoevsky a dream that the main character in Crime and Punishment has.. he dreams he is with his father as a child.. and these people are making fun while a man beats his horse.. it is a nightmare .. in a nightmare for the child
Karamazov has a story Ivan Tells about an evil man beating a nag/ horse before he tells his grand inquisitor story. Interesting indeed. I thought of nietzche going mad during that section.
@@jacobhelgeson3038 nietzsche realized that dostevsky was right, that without the conception of the divine, everything is permitted and he broke because he couldn't live up to his own athiestic ideals.
Also greatly parallels Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov, when Nietzsche’s philosophy fails him, he goes insane, just like Ivan, in Nietzsche’s worldview, the beating of the horse shouldn’t be seen as something “bad” or “horrible” but at the same time it troubles him greatly. In Ivan’s worldview, the death of his father shouldn’t make him feel any guilt, but it does. Ivan and Nietzsche realised that they were living a contradiction (their worldviews and their actions) which resulted in both of them going insane
agree 100% that part was very difficult to read, something about it was almost spiritually painful for me but it was one of the most profound things ive come across
Finished the Brothers Karamazov recently. Fantastic book! Some of the most profound and moving monologues I've ever read. I read Crime and Punishment some time before that. Mind blowing!! He makes you feel like you are the main character.
Edit: hi, this comment still gets a bit of traction but frankly it's been a long time. I've changed my mind on a lot of the things I said in the original comment and frankly... I just don't remember the video, my comment, or the book itself to really go debating anyone anymore haha. It was an interesting discussion and I'm glad I made the comment, but tbh Dostoevsky doesn't mean as much to me anymore, and my opinion of Jordan Peterson is nowhere near as high as it was when I first made this comment :) This will be a long comment. I really like Jordan Peterson, but I found his description of the Brothers Karamazov to be very misleading. I am going to give three innacuracies of his (just under half of the comment) and then describe the plot and themes myself. Before I begin I'd like to say that I have been getting replies to this comment for years. It is far from a perfect comment and there were plenty of times when I miscommunicated. I found this comment so hard to word because I was mostly disagreeing with how Peterson flavoured certain parts of the book. It felt like he added his own personal spin that wasnt inted by the author. That being said, most of what he said was technically correct, so I found it hard to express my problems with a lot of his claims. Firstly, Ivan isn't a soldier, this doesn't really matter in the scheme of things, but I think it's important to bring up as he seems to be confusing two of the main characters, that being Ivan and Dmitri. Secondly he puts far too much emphasis on Alyoshas and Ivan's relationship. He claims that Ivan is "constantly attacking" Alyosha's beliefs, but this simply isn't true. It's clear that he is thinking of two chapters called "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor" when he says this. The problem is that Ivan's "attacks" are nowhere near constant and are only seen in these chapters. This was my main problem with his portrayl, the word "constant". It implies that this is the plot when it really isn't, as I will show in my last four paragraphs. Another important details is that Ivan isn't attacking Alyosha , he is trying to communicate his spiritual pain to him. He does criticise the viewpoint that people like Alyosha have, but it's not done maliciously or to "knock him off of his pedestal" as Peterson puts it. Again, I'm wondering if he's confusing Ivan with another character (in this case it would be a socialist type called Rakitin). The conversation that Ivan and Alyosha have, was really about how Ivan can't believe in God. Ivan even says that if God existed, Ivan would "give back his ticket to heaven" because he couldn't accept the suffering of the world, no matter what "Divine Plan" there was to explain it. Ivan claims to be an atheist and claims to believe that there is no such thing as morality and one is able to do anything. I have only read two of Dostoevsky's books, but atheism leading to sin, seems to be a frequent theme. As Peterson frequently points out, Dostoevsky almost exactly predicted the Communist society before it was invented. Moving back to my point, it is clear that he does not really believe this and he spends the novel torturing himself over this conflict within himself, especially when he sees another person who truly believes what Ivan claimed to. Peterson was very correct when he said that Dostoevsky personifies differing philosiphies and ideas, using his characters. I believe that Peterson has confused these elements of the story because he is thinking of the themes of the book as a whole. Becuase of this he has combined the characters and plot points that form these themes over time. He has read 100s of books, there's no reason to expect him to remember them all perfectly. Now I will describe the plot of the book in my own words. The first half of the book is about a family conflict, between two characters: Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov (A hedonistic father who abandoned his children) and Dmitri Fyodorovitch Karamazov (Fyodor's extremely passionate son, who is an honorable man, but a complete scoundrel. I don't know how to properly describe him, so i will use two quotes from the book. Dmitri holds the ideals of the Madonna and the ideals of Sodom at the same time. He describes his mind as the battlefield of God and Satan. He is honorable, intelligent and compassionate but also revels in depravity. The paradoxs within Dmitri, Ivan and Fyodor are all key to the story and described as part of the "Karamazov" way of life. The conflict between the two is over the inheritence Fyodor owes Dmitri and more importantly, over a beautiful woman called Grushenka, who is twisted, spiteful and depraved, but only for the pain she has suffered in the past. The second half of the book is hard to talk about without spoilers. That being said, this "spoiler" was in the first sentance of the blurb of my copy of the book. If you don't want to hear it, don't read this paragraph. *************************Spoilers***********************. Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov is murdered and Dmitri is accused of the crime. The second half of the book consists of the events on the night of the crime as well as the investigation that follows. Now that I am done describing the plot, I have to emphasise that the book is really about the personalites and philosophies of the characters. The plot merely serves as a medium to explore that. The book also has themes of belief and morality, but not to the extent that Peterson described. I don't know how to end this. Sorry if this was overly long or had unnecesary information. I finished the book today and writing this helped me sift through my thoughts. I really like Jordan Peterson and think that he's extremely intelligent and wise. I believe that this clip was taken from his Biblical series, a series that still blows me away every time I think about it. It is one of the most insightful things that I have ever heard.
Yes true and on the contrary , Ivan himself wants the ecclesiastical court to take over the rule of the state . He doesn't believe in God but he wants religion .
@@ToddySays You're completely right. I don't have much more to say about it. Could you tell me more about Alyosha's almost being "corrupted"? I know that you're referring to the night after Father Zossima's body rots, when he visits Grushenka with rakitin and drinks beer etc. I'm really confused about that whole night. Was that supposed to be him wavering in his faith in God or goodness or something? I usually think of it like the narrator, it's almost like Alyoshas heart is too pure and he loved Zossima too much. There's a quote in the book about "irrationality because of love being better than rationality". That's a really bad misquote but what I'm trying to say is that Alyosha's response to the corpse rotting made him endearing and pure hearted in my eyes. With all that being said, I am really confused about that whole night and what it really meant for Alyosha. I believe it ended with him kissing the earth and helping Grushenka to forgive herself. I really feel like I'm missing something though. Could you tell me what you think happened? I was also confused about Lise's (Alyoshas bethroted, I forget the name) 180 towards relishing pain and suffering. Could you tell me what you made of that? Did you think it made sense? Sorry for taking so long to reply, I always thought that I was shadowbanned or something on youtube, especially for the comments that I curse in. It turns out that during some update, notifications for likes and comments were turned off. I used to write a lot of comments so who knows how many people I have never responded too
It is interesting how you see this exact sentiment of "just doing" "go for it" "being a good person is just a habit" in 'lower' social circles, almost as if they're trying to put their fingers on precisely this without fully expanding on it.
I have been deeply impressed by Dostoyevsky's works since my youth, 25 yrs back. He is so rarely read that I had to keep all my appreciation to myself. Very rarely got to discuss it with friends. I came across Jordon Peterson's references to Dostoyevsky's work, couple of months back, and that was a huge HI FIVE moment. At last, someone giving the writer his due appreciation. It lead me to hearing Peterson's views on other matters, and it was a relief to hear what he has to say, most of the time. Over the years, by observing the activities on university campuses and the media, I had come to the conclusion that sanity can only be found by retreating deep within ones self, and that no meaningful conversation is possible with the outside world...I have experienced the genuine problems of being a woman, and care for the redressal of the prejudices and oppressions that exist in my country, but I do not see the trenchant tyranny of the left as any sincere solution to anything. I have even heard Noam Chaomsky conclude that the left phenomenon is self serving.
It is disheartening to acknowledge the ignorance of Dostoyevsky and other dead white Christian males. The ignorant BLM lobby seeks to destroy the very pedestals on which our civilization rests. Oh that’s right, let’s burn it all down and start again a la 1789. Whose head first yours mine or Sanders’ ?
The origin of Dostoyevsky's infamous God quote. "But what will become of men then? *Without God* and immortal life? *All things are lawful then,* they can do what they like?" Addressing Alyosha Karamazov, Mitya (Dmitri) Karamazov quotes himself saying this when retelling an earlier conversation with Rakitin, a journalist who dislikes God but won't preach it in his reviews. The idea comes from Ivan Karamazov.
Ivan wasn’t necessarily more intelligent than aloysha just more educated. Aloysha was half educated but chose to quit his education to follow the monastic path which he later gives up from his favorite priests recommendation. Aloysha was astonishing good at reading people
I have never enjoyed reading. I have never read a single book cover to cover. But I decided to listen to Dr. Peterson's "12 Rules for Life" and after hearing him discussing Dostoyevsky I decided to listen to "Crime and Punishment". This book is next on my list.
This part reminds me of: "You must make it your habit to speak and act like people who are going to be judged by the law of liberty ....What good does it do, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not prove it with actions? This kind of faith cannot save him, can it? .... Faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead." - James 2.
I just finished Crime and Punishment and started The Brothers Karamazov a couple of days ago. Really incredible books. It’s a shame so much of society is missing out on Dostoevsky.
Ive just started the Brothers Karamazov and the mocking tones in writing, the tongue-in-cheek descriptions of character come across much like Galileo as deeply funny. Why has no one mentioned how funny Dostoevsky writes.
Dostoyevsky said he was frightened by what will happen if this course everywhere simultaneously…death of morality compassion/humanism and free will.That why he became a reborn Christian Nieatsche read Dostoyevsky extensivly and came to many of the same conclusions…But one thing…Dostoyevsky said the idea of the Superman,,,ubermensch is seductive but self destructive
I started The Brother Karamazov’s year ago and till now I’m trying not to finish that book . It’s something really deep that makes me feel that what I am and I don’t want it to be over so I didn’t finish it yet . 🏹
The part of The Brothers Karamazov that really gripped me, was Ivan's feverish meeting with The Devil. The Devil only repeated the things Ivan had said that he now regretted most, and the things he was most embarrassed about. Of course, this could all be a figment of his fevered imagination - but as an atheist, what would be the difference? With no ultimate good or evil, Ivan is his own critic. It's magnificently written.
I, for some reason didn't quite enjoy it. Maybe because of many references I don't understand. But I do really feel for him. His struggle with himself is really relatable.
@@sufjan4877 I must admit, there were references I didn't understand either. The quick pace at which they came, though, I took as a sign of his tortured mind racing.
@@paulo1ftw Did you understand what was the deal between Katerina Ivanovna and Smerdyakov? Ivan was supposed to ask about it to him but then he forgets and then there's no mention about it in the novel as far as I can remember.
Ivan is also shown not to be the smart arse that he thinks he is; his "everything is permissable" rationale inspires his bastard half brother (though it does not say he is expressly, the author strongly implies) to murder his/their father. Ivan was speaking corporately about the state replacing Christian morality with an ends justifies the means sort of ethical approach at some point in the future which Smerdyakov uses as justification to murder Papa Karamazov to advance his own station in life. The weight on his conscience greatly contributes to his illness; so much so that his evidence to the court shortly after is rejected. When considering the disastrous effects of the Russian revolution a few decades later it is amazing how incredibly perceptive Dostoyevsky seems to have been in seeing it all coming though when considering Ivan's rationale from the corporate angle.
Brothers Karamazov is truly in some Ways one of the best Books I have ever read. But some parts are just sooo dull but then an incredibly insightful and funny comment about pancakes appears And makes it all Worth my while. The first half of the book is by far the finest piece of writing I have read aside from the Bible Texts.
Swathes of the Bible is also dull reading, like the whole spiel about who begot who. Paragraphs of who produced who. And who is to be circumsized etc 🤔 Is an abridged Bible such a thing
"The Brothers K " undoubdetly remains the greatest book in the history of literature. And the greatest tribute paid to that author was no less than the great Herman Hesse who made a remarkable statement - " That a single man could write a book like Brothers K was itself a miracle. " And another miracle was that Nietzsche having read Dostoyevsky's incomparable "Notes from Underground " and that blood chilling book " Noted fronm Dead House." After reading " Notes from Underground " Nietzsche wrote to Peter Gast that he had found his brother and the only psychologist from whom he had to learn many things. It was one of my happiest moment of life when I found out that the great Philosopher had read the greatest writer and a great thinker. It would had been a great Trajedy if Nietzsche had not read Dostoyevsky But the Trajedy remains that the great German could not read two other great works of the Great Russian namely " The Possessed " and "Brothers K"
Funny thing is how similar to some degree were Ivan and Nietzsche, atleast with their criticism about God, and they both ended up going crazy and seeing devil
I never understood why ppl thought that Nietzsche was mad. All his stuff made sense to me. Imo he predicted Hitler, but I ain't working with a full deck me-self, so take that with a grain of salt
Most people misquote Nietzsche's famous quip from Zarathustra . God is dead. In reality Zarathustra is addressing the society saying: God is dead. YOU killed him"
It sounds like Dostoevsky believed in steel-manning an argument. I do, too. For those that don't know, its sort of the opposite of a strawman argument. A steelman argument is when you build up the other person's argument to be the best it can be (because you understand it at least as well as they do, maybe more) then still be able to say why it's a bad/flawed idea. In some cases you might change your own mind a little during the time that you're trying to understand their argument for the sake of steelmanning it. This is a good thing.
I don’t think Nietzsche said that each and every individual is to create new values but for the philosophers of the future to practice the highest form of art: the legislation of values.
En relación a los " Hermanos Karamazov " Einstein : El libro más maravilloso que he tenido en mis manos . Osho : Es para mi , más importante que la Biblia , es la mejor novela que se ha escrito en la historia.....desde Sudamérica , gracias...🌈🌴
Alyosha gives the best possible response to Ivan's theodicy tangent, I believe in the chapter Rebellion. He says that the one judge has borne the sins of men. This is foolishness to Ivan, foolishness to those who are perishing, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18. Peterson is right that Alyosha's intellect can't meet up to Ivan's. But this response, though simple and seemingly foolish, is the very triumph of the hero of the story. His master, whom he respected so much (Zosima) dies, and his flesh decays. Then a sophomoric boy, just shy of teenage years, who resembles a twelve-year-old Ivan, comes to recognize the promise of the one who saw no decay.
Post Script. "Karamazov" is not a Russian surname. Another useful insight into the genius of Dostoevsky here is to note his brilliant employment of nominative determinism to allude to the porous nature of identity. "Kara" is Turkic for "black" or "dark". The correct Russian name would be "Chernimazov" (and the text insinuates this, several chapters in.) So the family here is one that has transitioned from "being" Asian or Asiatic to "becoming" European (like the Yusupov dynasty.)
I'm surprised he said Nietzsche was "psychologically wrong". Nietzsche's point about people creating values for themselves is solely left up to those who have the strength to do it. He understood that in nature there are more weaker types than stronger types. The Antichrist and Thus Spake Zarathustra speaks on that in ambiguous and telling ways. Even in The Gay Science, when he's speaking of Richard Wagner, his former idol and direct influence, he heralded Wagner's disposition in philosophical thinking has justified, to the extent that his influence doesn't leave outside of his music into a political construct. In small words, people need something to believe in because nihilism isn't something most can independently overcome. The death of god is a "triumphant proclamation" but also a fatalism to the psyche in its initial stage. But more devastating than that is the prolonging of cowardice before a daring truth that can be dealt with when the signs first show themselves. Once again, I'm surprised Peterson misjudged the fundamental importance of Nietzsche's proclamation there.
The trouble is, and this is what Dostoevsky gets at, that everyone who looks into Nietzschian ideas concludes that they - the person doing the looking - are of the "stronger type". Crime & Punishment is all about one such getting knocked down to size.
@@dnmclnnn no we can't, we can attributed greater value or emphasis on a set of virtues or a singular virtue but our values are inherent to us as humans, something about the moral intuition of our species, it is a mystery. Even a child who was raised by wolves, would still share his food to a starving pup.
@@kwazooplayingguardsman5615 I can't tell what you are trying to say with any certainty. Assuming you mean to say that some aspects of human morality are innate, I'm not sure how moral intuitions are incompatible with the capacity for revaluation of some values.
I have a different perspective on the Brothers Karamazov. For me, Dmitri is the hero of the story, much more compelling than the other two. He fulfills the Christian promise of repentance and redemption. He realizes the devastation he has wrought in his own life and others and accepts his punishment in reparation, thus finding redemption and, I believe, salvation. Ivan and Alyosha don't really change their perspective roles in life, but do so seem to realize in the end that Dmitri has the better part and are content to await his return from exile. A great Christian parable.
I've been reading Brothers Karamazov, and I've just discovered Jordon Peterson. Go me! Personally, I thought Alyosha was pretty smart, at least his judgement is good. Ivan might be brainier, but the question why does God allow evil things to happen, and the observation that high ranking churchmen can be evil, cynical and corrupt, well you don't really need a massive brain for that to occur to you. Ivan does illustrate his points well.
All three brothers are part of an allegory. They are the three parts of dead Fyodor, in three corresponding states of unhappy fragmentation. Crude as Fyodor was he was happy before he died, as possibly the only person in the novel. That is a message from the author to reveal the allegory. As a writer you don't make only one character happy like this for no reason. He is the synthesis of humanity, and his sons, and a representation of the fullness of God. All his sons were on the other hand miserable and dysfunctional. Moralism, intellectualism or boorishness are the same is the theme; without God to give it balance we are lost either way. FD was simultaneously criticizing unfettered humans for their vile nature, selfishness and greed (Dmitri), intellectuals for their amorality and cultural vandalism (Ivan) and religious people after the Death of God for their impracticality and timidity (Alexei). They try to be good, but without God it is futile. He also shows the good sides of each, but he never makes any of them happy. That is also a message. I have read Karamazov now at least ten times, but it doesn't really click until you get down to the allegorical level. I even managed to convert the translator of the Norwegian version of the book to this allegorical interpretation once while drunk. He had read it even more times than I, but still hadn't quite figured it out until my drunken Dostojevskij ramble.
I love the foil relationship between Smerdekov and Ivan. It’s like a sniveling, yet clever incel who thinks he’s Richard Dawkins vs actual Richard Dawkins. Interesting food for thought
Chris U. He’s just got this overwhelming nihilistic streak, but he still thinks that he’s the intellectual superior of everyone around him. It kinda festers into this sort of spiteful desire to see everything burn. Plus, there’s the scene (if I’m remembering it right) where Ivan comes up on Smerdekov while he’s trying to woo a girl over with some big, melodramatic performance. It’s like he had to go about it in this sort of snobbish way so that she would perceive him as this refined intellectual.
@@calebwarren5841 in a way smerdyakov was likely the most receptive, intelligent, manipulative character in the whole book, though. He certainly understood Ivan's thinking and was able to utilize his philosophy in a warped disturbing kind of way. Smerdyakov was very adept at lying, at being aware of his surroundings and keeping a cool head as well. While some of the success of the murdering of his father is down to luck, a good deal of it is down to the fact he just knew when to act and how to do it perfectly to avoid suspicion. Practically every move he makes in regards to the murder and his actions afterwards are incredibly calculated and precise and he knows this. Even his suicide comes at the exact worst time and his suicide note somehow manages to taunt Ivan, exclaim his supposed guilt and remorse to the unwitting public, and further point the finger at dmitri all at the same time. All with just a single line. He knew full well he was a sniveling runt and people viewed him that way, and he used that when he saw fit. Certainly the level of physical strength and looks of dmitri and towering intellect and worldliness of Ivan were lost on him, but he was exceptionally intelligent. If he had decided not to kill himself he could've easily manipulated his way into some other crime and become a terrifyingly effective criminal of some kind. Dude was a flat out sociopath.
Has it occurred to anyone how similar Alyosha and Ivan are to Spongebob and Squidward? Squidward is often very ethically questionable in the name of his cynicism, and even frequently goes mad, literally mad, at trying to uncover what drives Spongebob’s instinctual lightness, goodness and faith.
Basically, not just really deep shit. It’s burdenous. I’m reading Thus Spake Zarathustra and it’s great, really great, but overwhelming. The guy had no balance in his heart. Poetry is lighter, but I’d like to hear your recommendations.
Hey Mommas: The audio book is free on youtube. The only way I could possibly get my Dostoevsky in is during laundry, driving to grocery mart and making dinner. I was riveted throughout. Unlike Frankenstein. That book was dreadful.
Does anyone who has read The Brothers Karamazov have any insight regarding the realization Elder Zosima, his older brother, and Dimitri have about how "everyone is really responsible to all men for all men and for everything"? (Constance Garnett translation). Dr. Peterson talks about personal responsibility a lot, especially in relating Alexander Solzhenitsyn's great epiphany in the gulags when he realized he was responsible for his situation in life. But Dosteovsky seems to be going beyond personal responsibility for one's own issues to personal responsibility for others' issues as well. Is this more radical form of personal responsibility different from what Dr. Peterson recommends? And how is it different from what social justice types recommend in people being guilty for things they have not done?
The only ones I have ever heard taking people as "guilty for things they have not done" are racists and certain Christians. If you have such a shallow understanding of "social justice types", I don't know how you can ever expect to understand Dostoevsky or Solzhenitsyn.
it infact its the opposite, in my mind, what dostevsky is saying is that to love is to forgive trespasses and to endure trespasses, Its kinda like when you see someone who is a homosexual, you don't condone the behavior but you treat them as a person who has failed which is very normal, since we all fail, and you can apply this mentality to all kinds of things, like greedy people, or hedonistic people, slutty people, etc. its a very insular sense of responsibility that one should hold onto good behaviors but accept the suffering that comes from seeing people who are not living up to it and to be charitable enough to accept those who are failing to live up to said behaviors, because how can a person change if you don't give them a chance? Another thing that I think he is trying to say is that christian principle should be taught to everyone not just the poor, but the rich as well. Basically, what he is saying is that the rich and the poor have obligations to one another and that is to care for and be charitable to one another. The poor has the responsibility to be charitable and caring to the rich, often they are, often for the wrong reasons. Some rich people are charitable and caring to the poor, often also for the wrong reasons. What is important is that both sides are caring and charitable to one another and that charity and care is done under the understandings that both sides have obligations to one another, not that being nice or caring or charitable can advance your own position.
Nietzsche said that man is a rope stretched over an abyss, along which humanity must pass. Humanity left the solid earth (killed God) and stepped on the rope, the opposite shore is a superman. Dostoevsky has God on both sides, the first god is outside, the second is inside.
Don't worry, Peterson's narrative evolves around relatively partial (and underdeveloped) matter in the book (it doesn't really substantially deal with this Alyosha-Ivan antagonism, at least in my perception). But surely read the book!
I am touched by your enthusiasm for Dostoevsky but i found him too wayward and dilatory and repetitive in The Brothers Karamazov...that took some sheen off this great genius
@Antoine The great Nothingness means absence in culture nothing more. Values could be created from information. We created human culture from information. That is a centre of materialisitc and separate consciousness. Only Gods could create smth from nothingness if you believe in Gods.
@Antoine The great that is a good quote. So everything is transformed. Information transformed our brains and vice versa. Values not existed before humans so they are not so old.
Ivan cannot bear the results of promoting his philosophy of meaninglessness. Until he sees how it gets his evil father murdered he cannot see that Alyosha’s ethic of love is the only worthy path.
Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and the Brothers Karamazov walk into a bar. Jordan Peterson the bartender asks: "gentlemen what can I get you?". Nietzsche: "we are looking for a guy called GOD. We hear this is the bar where GOD likes to come and listen to some jazz music?"
I am sorry but I disagree with Jordan Peterson that Alyosha didn't have the intellect. Ivan was better at using words to express his ideas. But Alyosha had the kind of insight into personalities and the kind of foresight and sudden bursts of realisation that Ivan never had. Alyosha saw right through people, and knew exactly what to say to whom. Alyosha is an absolute empath and has a greater understanding of things and a greater capacity to appreciate circumstances than Ivan. Alyosha was the only one who was certain from the beginning who the murderer was. He was also the only one who realised how Ivan internally blamed himself for the death of his father, realised it to such an extent that was incomprehensible for Ivan and unhinged him. Alyosha's instincts are impeccable. Yes Ivan had intellect, but so did Alyosha which was more uncanny and piercing in some cases. Profound personality. Elder Zosima knew this, which is why he sent Alyosha out into the world. This is why Zosima predicted that even though Alyosha will face many hardships and grief in life, he will be happy. He will be happy because his understanding transcends the things Ivan can grasp. And no, it is not only because he believed in God, it also comes from his wisdom and intellect. Wisdom which in my opinion is superior to Ivan's. Elder Zosima and Alyosha are my two favourite characters in the book.
I am at the trial in the Brothers Karamazov. Regarding the premise that people can't come up with their own values on the spot, I agree. Within that premise, again Peterson appears to be smuggling God in. It is not necessary that people come up with their values on the spot, through thousands of years of history we have refined our values apropos to our particular cultures. "God" us unnecessary. He seems to imply that there is some psychological or "spiritual" lack in that that presents as a negative. I find myself looking at this position psychoanalytically and wondering what is driving the neurosis for this idealistic requirement.(?) Who is Peterson's 'Big Other'? It seems to me Peterson should reread 'Totem and Taboo' by Sigmund Freud.
No real Philosopher will consider Nietzsche a "philosopher", (as Jesús G. Maestro said): "Nietzsche wrote literature not philosophy, he's not even a sophist, the problem is hat the vulge, started to considered Nietzsche a philosopher because everyone can understand him.
Dostoevsky and Nietzshe is not a parallel, but totally excluding each other views on life. Dostoevsky calling himself as a Christian religious man and Nietzshe is critic that position. Dostoevsky is fighting though life to help people in hospitals, books and etc. And Nietzshe can’t live half of his life without support of women and friends. Well yeah and Germany lost a war to Russia. This soooo fucking different position in life as it ever can. Yeah Jordan Peterson have some very positive views on situation but also there is so big mistakes which people don’t see usually.
"Well yeah and Germany lost a war to Russia" I chuckled at how random and completely unconnected to your point (if we can call it that) this remark was
Puzzled and dumbstruck, you try to find a beginning to yourself. You ask, “But where did I come from?”, only to realize that that which is Unlimited cannot have a beginning or an end. You are too conscious to be fooled into believing in any beginnings or ends. As you grasp at any part of yourself and try to trace its origin through a chain of linear causation back into the past, it fails. Your consciousness has transcended the notion of linear causation. You realize all past is but a figment of your imagination. Every part of you stands on its own and also reaches infinitely far back into the imaginary past via an endless chain of imaginary causes that never terminates but circles back around in a cosmic strange loop. All beginnings and ends are imaginary, self-imposed limitations held within an Unlimited Mind. A Mind with no beginning or end. A Mind that has existed for Eternity. You are God, and God is both uncaused, self-caused, and infinitely caused. God is that which caused itself into being. God is that which created itself.
His ideas influenced and corrupted Smerdyakov. He is very much like Stavrogin in "The Possessed": "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"
@@NA-di3yy "His ideas influenced and corrupted Smerdyakov" - I'm not sure if that's a strong statement to conclude Ivan's villainousness. From the very start as Smerdyakov's character is described, we do get a glimpse of resentment he had in him against everyone. I think he interpreted Ivan's ideas wrongly and used them as an excuse to justify what he did; which is awfully lame. I quite can't grasp your reference as i haven't read "The Possessed". I'm reading Notes from underground. Have you read it?
@@sufjan4877 yes, i have, FMD is my favourite author. "Smerdyakov interpreted Ivan's ideas wrongly", well that's what people usually do with the ideas. The question is, could there be any other interpretation (or implementation) at all? Ivan, although seemingly daring intellectually, was in fact too much rooted in the traditional moral framework to go loose and break bad himself. He remained a sissy theoretician, so to say. But Smerdyakov as an outcast did not have this restraining factor and was able not only to absorb the idea but to actually implement it. The moment of truth is their last meeting, you might want to re-read it. Now compare the responsibility of a silent miserable derelict and a sounding refined intellectual able to capture and lead the compliant masses. The plot pattern of indoctrination is spread out the whole FMD oeuvre btw.
@@NA-di3yy He's my favourite too. Although, i wouldn't say i have read enough. "well that's what people usually do with the ideas." - Does that give enough grounds to villainize the one with the ideas? When does a casual interaction or discussion become indoctrination? As far as their interactions go, it's only their last meet where we find them talking one on one. That plot construction is just pure genius. I remember how while i was reading that chapter, i could sense that something was overriding me as a reader and yes, i did go back to that chapter after Smerdyakov confesses his crime to Ivan. “He remained a sissy theoretician, so to say.”- Agreed, just like most of us. “But Smerdyakov as an outcast did not have this restraining factor and was able not only to absorb the idea but to actually implement it.” - But are we sure what the idea is? Why can’t one consider a scenario where that silent miserable derelict was indeed seething with hatred and had it in himself, the gumption to kill somebody? “Now compare the responsibility of a silent miserable derelict and a sounding refined intellectual..” - That’s tough to say because of aforementioned reasons. Also, do you think Ivan really knew how he was “influencing” him and that he anticipated such repercussions?
@@sufjan4877 part of him definitely knew it, and not completely unconscious part (his departure to Chermashnya is more of a cahoot than Pilate's hand washing) and it is only because of lack of integrity i mentioned above that he can admit it to himself only in the aftermath.
Nietzsche was later influenced by purana, Vedas and bhagwat geeta... Definitely he later on changed his pessimistic views about life, religion etc. In the 18th to 20th century Vedas and bhagwat geeta were the most popular book. Try them too. I hate all the western philosophers who glorified crimes too like marquis de Sade... Infact all the nihilistic philosophers... And Nietzsche's critic of Christianity is so appropriate. Christianity and all the abhramic religions are criminal religions. Yes god is dead by seeing what Christians did in his name... I guess Nietzsche was talking more specifically about Christianity and when he got idea of dharma from Hinduism.. his views changed..
His pronunciations are so cringe. If you are going to not only read the book, but also give LECTURES on it, the least you can do is pronounce the characters' names correctly lol
theres a problem whit humans creating their own values'' - this is about that information you getting told the great writers [ as you now smart enough to read yourself]
I just told my parents that I've finally finished The Brothers Karamazov and this pops out in my feed. Thanks UA-cam for always listening to my conversations
I am listening to it now lol
Nice right!
Google got yer back... 🥶😇
Lol, best!!
@Brett Rowen thanks! Checking it right now, it does seem interesting :)
One of the best books ever
Reading Brothers Karamazov right now and the book is unputdownable. Very well written and the author shows the complexity of the characters and their several layers of depth with ease.
Raideruber22 Perez David McDuff , Penguin Classics series
Sarthak Mishra "Unputdownable" AHAHAHA! 😂😂😂 Nice!
I just finished it! I was sort of prolonging the read by delaying it as i didn't want it to end.
Btw do you understand what was the deal between Katerina Ivanovna and Smerdyakov?? Ivan was to ask him that but he forgets and then there's no mention of it in the novel as far as I remember.
i fucking hate "unputdownable"
I have long, long thought that it is the greatest novel ever written.
Its incredible how in every JBP video he says things so simply which I have been trying to articulate to myself - "its not what you believe as if its a set of facts but how you conduct yourself in the world." I imagine many of his viewers in their quarter-life crisis feel the same. You can learn as much as you want and feel like you can rationalise things better than most other people around you, but that means fuck all if you aren't doing things and producing. You won't be any happier either.
Yeah I'm 24, almost past that. Thinking too much and not doing is a recipe for disaster.
Nike.
I’m 21, right now I’m trying to learn how to rationalize things and make correct decisions but I fear there’s a very real chance that in this process I could paralyze myself from choosing any path at all, just so that I can feel alleviated of the consequences I would face if I were to choose bad one.
I finished reading The Brothers Karamazov today, and wow what an incredible book. Glad I saw it on Dr. Peterson’s list
Read Tolatoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich". Another masterpiece by Russians. No need to prepare for it morally. Its just a small novel that you can finish in a few hours. I swear you will like it
@@EricArpach I will look into it, thank you!
@@Ricky-es9vg Go for it brother
you should defenitly read crime and punishment too if you havent already
I noticed the same thing .. after reading Nietzsche and Dostoevsky for the first time... Quite amazing .. Even the occurrence of someone beating a horse.. I read Nietzsche had a nervous breakdown near the end of his sanity.. The breakdown occurred when he saw a man mercilessly beating a horse .. he went to the horse put his arm around the neck hugging him and crying.. then I read in Dostoevsky a dream that the main character in Crime and Punishment has.. he dreams he is with his father as a child.. and these people are making fun while a man beats his horse.. it is a nightmare .. in a nightmare for the child
perhaps he wasnt crazy
Karamazov has a story Ivan Tells about an evil man beating a nag/ horse before he tells his grand inquisitor story. Interesting indeed. I thought of nietzche going mad during that section.
@@jacobhelgeson3038 nietzsche realized that dostevsky was right, that without the conception of the divine, everything is permitted and he broke because he couldn't live up to his own athiestic ideals.
Also greatly parallels Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov, when Nietzsche’s philosophy fails him, he goes insane, just like Ivan, in Nietzsche’s worldview, the beating of the horse shouldn’t be seen as something “bad” or “horrible” but at the same time it troubles him greatly. In Ivan’s worldview, the death of his father shouldn’t make him feel any guilt, but it does. Ivan and Nietzsche realised that they were living a contradiction (their worldviews and their actions) which resulted in both of them going insane
Also, the passage with Ivan confronting satan during his psychosis is probably my favorite thing that I’ve ever read
agree 100% that part was very difficult to read, something about it was almost spiritually painful for me but it was one of the most profound things ive come across
the devil had mf' rheumatism!
The best passage after “the great inquisitor “
You to !
Mine too!!
Finished the Brothers Karamazov recently. Fantastic book! Some of the most profound and moving monologues I've ever read. I read Crime and Punishment some time before that. Mind blowing!! He makes you feel like you are the main character.
Thank you for popularizing Dostoevsky's work in English
I think Dostoevsky was popular well before Jordan Peterson came along
@Chris U. everybody knows Dostoevsky here, or is at least familiar with his name or name if books
@@titanicswimteam9833 its so pleasant to hear! We also read a lot of classical USA literature
He didn’t, Dostoevsky is probably the most famous Russian author ever.
@@godisdeadandwememedhim4174 Tolstoy is a fair bit more popular
Edit: hi, this comment still gets a bit of traction but frankly it's been a long time. I've changed my mind on a lot of the things I said in the original comment and frankly... I just don't remember the video, my comment, or the book itself to really go debating anyone anymore haha.
It was an interesting discussion and I'm glad I made the comment, but tbh Dostoevsky doesn't mean as much to me anymore, and my opinion of Jordan Peterson is nowhere near as high as it was when I first made this comment :)
This will be a long comment. I really like Jordan Peterson, but I found his description of the Brothers Karamazov to be very misleading. I am going to give three innacuracies of his (just under half of the comment) and then describe the plot and themes myself. Before I begin I'd like to say that I have been getting replies to this comment for years. It is far from a perfect comment and there were plenty of times when I miscommunicated. I found this comment so hard to word because I was mostly disagreeing with how Peterson flavoured certain parts of the book. It felt like he added his own personal spin that wasnt inted by the author. That being said, most of what he said was technically correct, so I found it hard to express my problems with a lot of his claims.
Firstly, Ivan isn't a soldier, this doesn't really matter in the scheme of things, but I think it's important to bring up as he seems to be confusing two of the main characters, that being Ivan and Dmitri.
Secondly he puts far too much emphasis on Alyoshas and Ivan's relationship. He claims that Ivan is "constantly attacking" Alyosha's beliefs, but this simply isn't true. It's clear that he is thinking of two chapters called "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor" when he says this. The problem is that Ivan's "attacks" are nowhere near constant and are only seen in these chapters. This was my main problem with his portrayl, the word "constant". It implies that this is the plot when it really isn't, as I will show in my last four paragraphs.
Another important details is that Ivan isn't attacking Alyosha , he is trying to communicate his spiritual pain to him. He does criticise the viewpoint that people like Alyosha have, but it's not done maliciously or to "knock him off of his pedestal" as Peterson puts it. Again, I'm wondering if he's confusing Ivan with another character (in this case it would be a socialist type called Rakitin). The conversation that Ivan and Alyosha have, was really about how Ivan can't believe in God. Ivan even says that if God existed, Ivan would "give back his ticket to heaven" because he couldn't accept the suffering of the world, no matter what "Divine Plan" there was to explain it. Ivan claims to be an atheist and claims to believe that there is no such thing as morality and one is able to do anything.
I have only read two of Dostoevsky's books, but atheism leading to sin, seems to be a frequent theme. As Peterson frequently points out, Dostoevsky almost exactly predicted the Communist society before it was invented.
Moving back to my point, it is clear that he does not really believe this and he spends the novel torturing himself over this conflict within himself, especially when he sees another person who truly believes what Ivan claimed to. Peterson was very correct when he said that Dostoevsky personifies differing philosiphies and ideas, using his characters.
I believe that Peterson has confused these elements of the story because he is thinking of the themes of the book as a whole. Becuase of this he has combined the characters and plot points that form these themes over time. He has read 100s of books, there's no reason to expect him to remember them all perfectly.
Now I will describe the plot of the book in my own words. The first half of the book is about a family conflict, between two characters: Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov (A hedonistic father who abandoned his children) and Dmitri Fyodorovitch Karamazov (Fyodor's extremely passionate son, who is an honorable man, but a complete scoundrel. I don't know how to properly describe him, so i will use two quotes from the book. Dmitri holds the ideals of the Madonna and the ideals of Sodom at the same time. He describes his mind as the battlefield of God and Satan. He is honorable, intelligent and compassionate but also revels in depravity. The paradoxs within Dmitri, Ivan and Fyodor are all key to the story and described as part of the "Karamazov" way of life.
The conflict between the two is over the inheritence Fyodor owes Dmitri and more importantly, over a beautiful woman called Grushenka, who is twisted, spiteful and depraved, but only for the pain she has suffered in the past.
The second half of the book is hard to talk about without spoilers. That being said, this "spoiler" was in the first sentance of the blurb of my copy of the book. If you don't want to hear it, don't read this paragraph. *************************Spoilers***********************. Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov is murdered and Dmitri is accused of the crime. The second half of the book consists of the events on the night of the crime as well as the investigation that follows.
Now that I am done describing the plot, I have to emphasise that the book is really about the personalites and philosophies of the characters. The plot merely serves as a medium to explore that. The book also has themes of belief and morality, but not to the extent that Peterson described.
I don't know how to end this. Sorry if this was overly long or had unnecesary information. I finished the book today and writing this helped me sift through my thoughts. I really like Jordan Peterson and think that he's extremely intelligent and wise. I believe that this clip was taken from his Biblical series, a series that still blows me away every time I think about it. It is one of the most insightful things that I have ever heard.
i like this introduction to the book, ill definetly read it now
Well done, having read the book twice i love your summary of it
Yes true and on the contrary , Ivan himself wants the ecclesiastical court to take over the rule of the state . He doesn't believe in God but he wants religion .
This video is very misleading if someone wants the context of the book ! He only talks about 2-3 chapters and also I kinda think , it's overboiled .
@@ToddySays You're completely right. I don't have much more to say about it.
Could you tell me more about Alyosha's almost being "corrupted"? I know that you're referring to the night after Father Zossima's body rots, when he visits Grushenka with rakitin and drinks beer etc. I'm really confused about that whole night. Was that supposed to be him wavering in his faith in God or goodness or something? I usually think of it like the narrator, it's almost like Alyoshas heart is too pure and he loved Zossima too much. There's a quote in the book about "irrationality because of love being better than rationality". That's a really bad misquote but what I'm trying to say is that Alyosha's response to the corpse rotting made him endearing and pure hearted in my eyes.
With all that being said, I am really confused about that whole night and what it really meant for Alyosha. I believe it ended with him kissing the earth and helping Grushenka to forgive herself. I really feel like I'm missing something though. Could you tell me what you think happened?
I was also confused about Lise's (Alyoshas bethroted, I forget the name) 180 towards relishing pain and suffering. Could you tell me what you made of that? Did you think it made sense?
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I always thought that I was shadowbanned or something on youtube, especially for the comments that I curse in. It turns out that during some update, notifications for likes and comments were turned off. I used to write a lot of comments so who knows how many people I have never responded too
It is interesting how you see this exact sentiment of "just doing" "go for it" "being a good person is just a habit" in 'lower' social circles, almost as if they're trying to put their fingers on precisely this without fully expanding on it.
Best novel ever written and Peterson does a good job in this lecture segment of explaining its relevancy, at least in a brief summary kind of way.
03:05 "It's not what you believe as if it is a set of facts, but how you conduct yourself in the world."
I have been deeply impressed by Dostoyevsky's works since my youth, 25 yrs back. He is so rarely read that I had to keep all my appreciation to myself. Very rarely got to discuss it with friends. I came across Jordon Peterson's references to Dostoyevsky's work, couple of months back, and that was a huge HI FIVE moment. At last, someone giving the writer his due appreciation. It lead me to hearing Peterson's views on other matters, and it was a relief to hear what he has to say, most of the time. Over the years, by observing the activities on university campuses and the media, I had come to the conclusion that sanity can only be found by retreating deep within ones self, and that no meaningful conversation is possible with the outside world...I have experienced the genuine problems of being a woman, and care for the redressal of the prejudices and oppressions that exist in my country, but I do not see the trenchant tyranny of the left as any sincere solution to anything. I have even heard Noam Chaomsky conclude that the left phenomenon is self serving.
It is disheartening to acknowledge the ignorance of Dostoyevsky and other dead white Christian males. The ignorant BLM lobby seeks to destroy the very pedestals on which our civilization rests. Oh that’s right, let’s burn it all down and start again a la 1789. Whose head first yours mine or Sanders’ ?
I feel you
The origin of Dostoyevsky's infamous God quote.
"But what will become of men then? *Without God* and immortal life? *All things are lawful then,* they can do what they like?"
Addressing Alyosha Karamazov, Mitya (Dmitri) Karamazov quotes himself saying this when retelling an earlier conversation with Rakitin, a journalist who dislikes God but won't preach it in his reviews. The idea comes from Ivan Karamazov.
Ivan was words, Alyosha was action
Ivan was action too, just not the best action.
Ivan wasn’t necessarily more intelligent than aloysha just more educated. Aloysha was half educated but chose to quit his education to follow the monastic path which he later gives up from his favorite priests recommendation. Aloysha was astonishing good at reading people
I have never enjoyed reading. I have never read a single book cover to cover. But I decided to listen to Dr. Peterson's "12 Rules for Life" and after hearing him discussing Dostoyevsky I decided to listen to "Crime and Punishment". This book is next on my list.
This part reminds me of:
"You must make it your habit to speak and act like people who are going to be judged by the law of liberty ....What good does it do, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not prove it with actions? This kind of faith cannot save him, can it? .... Faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead." - James 2.
This review is very inquisitive. ❤️
I just finished Crime and Punishment and started The Brothers Karamazov a couple of days ago. Really incredible books. It’s a shame so much of society is missing out on Dostoevsky.
Ive just started the Brothers Karamazov and the mocking tones in writing, the tongue-in-cheek descriptions of character come across much like Galileo as deeply funny. Why has no one mentioned how funny Dostoevsky writes.
The bast way you can look on book is simply:
Ivan- nihilism
Dimitry- materialism
Alyosha- beliver, cristian
Life: Fight
Dostoyevsky said he was frightened by what will happen if this course everywhere simultaneously…death of morality compassion/humanism and free will.That why he became a reborn Christian
Nieatsche read Dostoyevsky extensivly and came to many of the same conclusions…But one thing…Dostoyevsky said the idea of the Superman,,,ubermensch is seductive but self destructive
I started The Brother Karamazov’s year ago and till now I’m trying not to finish that book . It’s something really deep that makes me feel that what I am and I don’t want it to be over so I didn’t finish it yet . 🏹
You can re-read it
The part of The Brothers Karamazov that really gripped me, was Ivan's feverish meeting with The Devil. The Devil only repeated the things Ivan had said that he now regretted most, and the things he was most embarrassed about. Of course, this could all be a figment of his fevered imagination - but as an atheist, what would be the difference? With no ultimate good or evil, Ivan is his own critic. It's magnificently written.
I, for some reason didn't quite enjoy it. Maybe because of many references I don't understand. But I do really feel for him. His struggle with himself is really relatable.
@@sufjan4877 I must admit, there were references I didn't understand either. The quick pace at which they came, though, I took as a sign of his tortured mind racing.
@@paulo1ftw Did you understand what was the deal between Katerina Ivanovna and Smerdyakov? Ivan was supposed to ask about it to him but then he forgets and then there's no mention about it in the novel as far as I can remember.
@@sufjan4877 Hmm, I don't. In fact, I had also forgotten about that until you reminded me
Ivan is also shown not to be the smart arse that he thinks he is; his "everything is permissable" rationale inspires his bastard half brother (though it does not say he is expressly, the author strongly implies) to murder his/their father.
Ivan was speaking corporately about the state replacing Christian morality with an ends justifies the means sort of ethical approach at some point in the future which Smerdyakov uses as justification to murder Papa Karamazov to advance his own station in life. The weight on his conscience greatly contributes to his illness; so much so that his evidence to the court shortly after is rejected.
When considering the disastrous effects of the Russian revolution a few decades later it is amazing how incredibly perceptive Dostoyevsky seems to have been in seeing it all coming though when considering Ivan's rationale from the corporate angle.
Brothers Karamazov is truly in some
Ways one of the best Books I have ever read. But some parts are just sooo dull but then an incredibly insightful and funny comment about pancakes appears And makes it all Worth my while. The first half of the book is by far the finest piece of writing I have read aside from the Bible Texts.
Swathes of the Bible is also dull reading, like the whole spiel about who begot who. Paragraphs of who produced who. And who is to be circumsized etc
🤔 Is an abridged Bible such a thing
Yes! I always said it could have been three hundred pages shorter and nothing would have been lost.
and the axe as a satellite of the earth? such subtle humor as Parkinson's
Valeu!
"The Brothers K " undoubdetly remains the greatest book in the history of literature.
And the greatest tribute paid to that author was no less than the great Herman Hesse who made a remarkable statement - " That a single man could write a book like Brothers K was itself a miracle. "
And another miracle was that Nietzsche having read Dostoyevsky's incomparable "Notes from Underground " and that blood chilling book " Noted fronm Dead House."
After reading " Notes from Underground " Nietzsche wrote to Peter Gast that he had found his brother and the only psychologist from whom he had to learn many things.
It was one of my happiest moment of life when I found out that the great Philosopher had read the greatest writer and a great thinker.
It would had been a great Trajedy if Nietzsche had not read Dostoyevsky
But the Trajedy remains that the great German could not read two other great works of the Great Russian namely " The Possessed " and "Brothers K"
Funny thing is how similar to some degree were Ivan and Nietzsche, atleast with their criticism about God, and they both ended up going crazy and seeing devil
True
I never understood why ppl thought that Nietzsche was mad. All his stuff made sense to me. Imo he predicted Hitler, but I ain't working with a full deck me-self, so take that with a grain of salt
What they thought was the devil*
You misunderstood their words.
It's one of the best books ever written.
An excellent exposition
Just started the book tonight
A brilliant book.
Jordan. Sign me up for that Dostoevsky class you are going to have in January. I'm all in!!!!!!!
Most people misquote Nietzsche's famous quip from Zarathustra . God is dead. In reality Zarathustra is addressing the society saying: God is dead. YOU killed him"
It sounds like Dostoevsky believed in steel-manning an argument. I do, too.
For those that don't know, its sort of the opposite of a strawman argument. A steelman argument is when you build up the other person's argument to be the best it can be (because you understand it at least as well as they do, maybe more) then still be able to say why it's a bad/flawed idea. In some cases you might change your own mind a little during the time that you're trying to understand their argument for the sake of steelmanning it. This is a good thing.
Thesis. Anti-thesis. Synthesis.
What is the classical song playing at the end?
It’s called “Minimalism”
I don’t think Nietzsche said that each and every individual is to create new values but for the philosophers of the future to practice the highest form of art: the legislation of values.
The Brothers Karamazov seems to focus also on how simplified the human heart is....
Alyosha is actually is a diminutive form of the name Alexei (Alex) for those who have trouble with Alyosha pronunciation)
No , Alex , is Alexander or Sasha. Aleksei doesn’t have a diminutive form.
They don’t have much Alexeis so I think if someone meet Alexei they’d call him Alex as well as Alexander. So you can call Alex both of them.
Alexei would be Alexis(originally Alexios from greek)
En relación a los " Hermanos Karamazov "
Einstein : El libro más maravilloso que he tenido en mis manos .
Osho : Es para mi , más importante que la Biblia , es la mejor novela que se ha escrito en la historia.....desde Sudamérica , gracias...🌈🌴
Alyosha gives the best possible response to Ivan's theodicy tangent, I believe in the chapter Rebellion. He says that the one judge has borne the sins of men. This is foolishness to Ivan, foolishness to those who are perishing, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18. Peterson is right that Alyosha's intellect can't meet up to Ivan's. But this response, though simple and seemingly foolish, is the very triumph of the hero of the story. His master, whom he respected so much (Zosima) dies, and his flesh decays. Then a sophomoric boy, just shy of teenage years, who resembles a twelve-year-old Ivan, comes to recognize the promise of the one who saw no decay.
Post Script. "Karamazov" is not a Russian surname.
Another useful insight into the genius of Dostoevsky here is to note his brilliant employment of nominative determinism to allude to the porous nature of identity.
"Kara" is Turkic for "black" or "dark". The correct Russian name would be "Chernimazov" (and the text insinuates this, several chapters in.)
So the family here is one that has transitioned from "being" Asian or Asiatic to "becoming" European (like the Yusupov dynasty.)
Благодарю за русские субтитры)
I'm surprised he said Nietzsche was "psychologically wrong". Nietzsche's point about people creating values for themselves is solely left up to those who have the strength to do it. He understood that in nature there are more weaker types than stronger types. The Antichrist and Thus Spake Zarathustra speaks on that in ambiguous and telling ways. Even in The Gay Science, when he's speaking of Richard Wagner, his former idol and direct influence, he heralded Wagner's disposition in philosophical thinking has justified, to the extent that his influence doesn't leave outside of his music into a political construct. In small words, people need something to believe in because nihilism isn't something most can independently overcome. The death of god is a "triumphant proclamation" but also a fatalism to the psyche in its initial stage. But more devastating than that is the prolonging of cowardice before a daring truth that can be dealt with when the signs first show themselves. Once again, I'm surprised Peterson misjudged the fundamental importance of Nietzsche's proclamation there.
he is psychologically wrong because we cant create our own values according to jung.
@@maureenbraza7379 I assure you we can
The trouble is, and this is what Dostoevsky gets at, that everyone who looks into Nietzschian ideas concludes that they - the person doing the looking - are of the "stronger type". Crime & Punishment is all about one such getting knocked down to size.
@@dnmclnnn no we can't, we can attributed greater value or emphasis on a set of virtues or a singular virtue but our values are inherent to us as humans, something about the moral intuition of our species, it is a mystery. Even a child who was raised by wolves, would still share his food to a starving pup.
@@kwazooplayingguardsman5615 I can't tell what you are trying to say with any certainty. Assuming you mean to say that some aspects of human morality are innate, I'm not sure how moral intuitions are incompatible with the capacity for revaluation of some values.
I have a different perspective on the Brothers Karamazov. For me, Dmitri is the hero of the story, much more compelling than the other two. He fulfills the Christian promise of repentance and redemption. He realizes the devastation he has wrought in his own life and others and accepts his punishment in reparation, thus finding redemption and, I believe, salvation. Ivan and Alyosha don't really change their perspective roles in life, but do so seem to realize in the end that Dmitri has the better part and are content to await his return from exile. A great Christian parable.
As a person with a devastating intellect, I find this helpful 😅
I've been reading Brothers Karamazov, and I've just discovered Jordon Peterson. Go me!
Personally, I thought Alyosha was pretty smart, at least his judgement is good. Ivan might be brainier, but the question why does God allow evil things to happen, and the observation that high ranking churchmen can be evil, cynical and corrupt, well you don't really need a massive brain for that to occur to you. Ivan does illustrate his points well.
All three brothers are part of an allegory. They are the three parts of dead Fyodor, in three corresponding states of unhappy fragmentation. Crude as Fyodor was he was happy before he died, as possibly the only person in the novel. That is a message from the author to reveal the allegory. As a writer you don't make only one character happy like this for no reason. He is the synthesis of humanity, and his sons, and a representation of the fullness of God.
All his sons were on the other hand miserable and dysfunctional. Moralism, intellectualism or boorishness are the same is the theme; without God to give it balance we are lost either way. FD was simultaneously criticizing unfettered humans for their vile nature, selfishness and greed (Dmitri), intellectuals for their amorality and cultural vandalism (Ivan) and religious people after the Death of God for their impracticality and timidity (Alexei). They try to be good, but without God it is futile. He also shows the good sides of each, but he never makes any of them happy. That is also a message.
I have read Karamazov now at least ten times, but it doesn't really click until you get down to the allegorical level. I even managed to convert the translator of the Norwegian version of the book to this allegorical interpretation once while drunk. He had read it even more times than I, but still hadn't quite figured it out until my drunken Dostojevskij ramble.
what is the name of the song at the end?
I love the foil relationship between Smerdekov and Ivan. It’s like a sniveling, yet clever incel who thinks he’s Richard Dawkins vs actual Richard Dawkins. Interesting food for thought
Chris U. He’s just got this overwhelming nihilistic streak, but he still thinks that he’s the intellectual superior of everyone around him. It kinda festers into this sort of spiteful desire to see everything burn. Plus, there’s the scene (if I’m remembering it right) where Ivan comes up on Smerdekov while he’s trying to woo a girl over with some big, melodramatic performance. It’s like he had to go about it in this sort of snobbish way so that she would perceive him as this refined intellectual.
@@calebwarren5841 in a way smerdyakov was likely the most receptive, intelligent, manipulative character in the whole book, though. He certainly understood Ivan's thinking and was able to utilize his philosophy in a warped disturbing kind of way. Smerdyakov was very adept at lying, at being aware of his surroundings and keeping a cool head as well. While some of the success of the murdering of his father is down to luck, a good deal of it is down to the fact he just knew when to act and how to do it perfectly to avoid suspicion.
Practically every move he makes in regards to the murder and his actions afterwards are incredibly calculated and precise and he knows this. Even his suicide comes at the exact worst time and his suicide note somehow manages to taunt Ivan, exclaim his supposed guilt and remorse to the unwitting public, and further point the finger at dmitri all at the same time. All with just a single line. He knew full well he was a sniveling runt and people viewed him that way, and he used that when he saw fit.
Certainly the level of physical strength and looks of dmitri and towering intellect and worldliness of Ivan were lost on him, but he was exceptionally intelligent. If he had decided not to kill himself he could've easily manipulated his way into some other crime and become a terrifyingly effective criminal of some kind. Dude was a flat out sociopath.
Anyone that can tell me the name of the song at the end? I think Peterson mentioned it somewhere, but I can't remember where.
eugkra33 it's called Jupiter something I think
It's not Jupiter it turns out. On his Q&A he says that Jupiter is the intro music.
"jupiter" is mozart's symphony no.41
Очень интересно слушать мнение людей с другой страны с другим мышление
Has it occurred to anyone how similar
Alyosha and Ivan are to Spongebob and Squidward? Squidward is often very ethically questionable in the name of his cynicism, and even frequently goes mad, literally mad, at trying to uncover what drives Spongebob’s instinctual lightness, goodness and faith.
@Nancy Pelosi I don’t watch cartoons, and I am reading more already.
@Nancy Pelosi What would you recommend for someone that’s trying to widen his palette to, not just existential non-fiction?
Basically, not just really deep shit. It’s burdenous. I’m reading Thus Spake Zarathustra and it’s great, really great, but overwhelming. The guy had no balance in his heart. Poetry is lighter, but I’d like to hear your recommendations.
@Nancy Pelosi You champ. Write more. This is a speech.
@Nancy Pelosi Where did you get my age?!
Ive been listening to notes from the underground latley and its really interesting. Thats all.
Hey Mommas: The audio book is free on youtube. The only way I could possibly get my Dostoevsky in is during laundry, driving to grocery mart and making dinner. I was riveted throughout. Unlike Frankenstein. That book was dreadful.
Does anyone who has read The Brothers Karamazov have any insight regarding the realization Elder Zosima, his older brother, and Dimitri have about how "everyone is really responsible to all men for all men and for everything"? (Constance Garnett translation). Dr. Peterson talks about personal responsibility a lot, especially in relating Alexander Solzhenitsyn's great epiphany in the gulags when he realized he was responsible for his situation in life. But Dosteovsky seems to be going beyond personal responsibility for one's own issues to personal responsibility for others' issues as well. Is this more radical form of personal responsibility different from what Dr. Peterson recommends? And how is it different from what social justice types recommend in people being guilty for things they have not done?
The only ones I have ever heard taking people as "guilty for things they have not done" are racists and certain Christians. If you have such a shallow understanding of "social justice types", I don't know how you can ever expect to understand Dostoevsky or Solzhenitsyn.
it infact its the opposite, in my mind, what dostevsky is saying is that to love is to forgive trespasses and to endure trespasses, Its kinda like when you see someone who is a homosexual, you don't condone the behavior but you treat them as a person who has failed which is very normal, since we all fail, and you can apply this mentality to all kinds of things, like greedy people, or hedonistic people, slutty people, etc. its a very insular sense of responsibility that one should hold onto good behaviors but accept the suffering that comes from seeing people who are not living up to it and to be charitable enough to accept those who are failing to live up to said behaviors, because how can a person change if you don't give them a chance?
Another thing that I think he is trying to say is that christian principle should be taught to everyone not just the poor, but the rich as well. Basically, what he is saying is that the rich and the poor have obligations to one another and that is to care for and be charitable to one another. The poor has the responsibility to be charitable and caring to the rich, often they are, often for the wrong reasons. Some rich people are charitable and caring to the poor, often also for the wrong reasons. What is important is that both sides are caring and charitable to one another and that charity and care is done under the understandings that both sides have obligations to one another, not that being nice or caring or charitable can advance your own position.
what is the theme song?
Nietzsche said that man is a rope stretched over an abyss, along which humanity must pass.
Humanity left the solid earth (killed God) and stepped on the rope, the opposite shore is a superman.
Dostoevsky has God on both sides, the first god is outside, the second is inside.
What’s your favorite Dostoevsky book?
The Brothers Karamazov
The demons!
The Idiot
Either The Brothers Karamazov or The House of the Dead, both really great
Crime & Punishment no doubt
Dimitri- he rocks , no one can lie as he can
I want to watch this video but I feel it will spoil the books...
Don't worry, Peterson's narrative evolves around relatively partial (and underdeveloped) matter in the book (it doesn't really substantially deal with this Alyosha-Ivan antagonism, at least in my perception). But surely read the book!
I am touched by your enthusiasm for Dostoevsky but i found him too wayward and dilatory and repetitive in The Brothers Karamazov...that took some sheen off this great genius
People are not capable of creating their own values? What? Then what are religions if not systems of (moral) values?
@Antoine The great some people do
@Antoine The great imagination
@Antoine The great Nothingness means absence in culture nothing more. Values could be created from information. We created human culture from information. That is a centre of materialisitc and separate consciousness. Only Gods could create smth from nothingness if you believe in Gods.
@Antoine The great that is a good quote. So everything is transformed. Information transformed our brains and vice versa. Values not existed before humans so they are not so old.
He means we can't decide certain aspects of who we are as people and we can't just create aspects of our selves that aren't there.
Ivan cannot bear the results of promoting his philosophy of meaninglessness. Until he sees how it gets his evil father murdered he cannot see that Alyosha’s ethic of love is the only worthy path.
Please suggest me some good research topic from TBK if anyone has read it and analysed it
Me encanta Dostoievski 😍
Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and the Brothers Karamazov walk into a bar. Jordan Peterson the bartender asks: "gentlemen what can I get you?". Nietzsche: "we are looking for a guy called GOD. We hear this is the bar where GOD likes to come and listen to some jazz music?"
The class world become an instant hit is Dr added Tarkovsky' s films Nostalgia or Andrei Rublev.
great lecture, russian subtitles are horrible
I am sorry but I disagree with Jordan Peterson that Alyosha didn't have the intellect. Ivan was better at using words to express his ideas. But Alyosha had the kind of insight into personalities and the kind of foresight and sudden bursts of realisation that Ivan never had. Alyosha saw right through people, and knew exactly what to say to whom. Alyosha is an absolute empath and has a greater understanding of things and a greater capacity to appreciate circumstances than Ivan. Alyosha was the only one who was certain from the beginning who the murderer was. He was also the only one who realised how Ivan internally blamed himself for the death of his father, realised it to such an extent that was incomprehensible for Ivan and unhinged him. Alyosha's instincts are impeccable. Yes Ivan had intellect, but so did Alyosha which was more uncanny and piercing in some cases. Profound personality. Elder Zosima knew this, which is why he sent Alyosha out into the world. This is why Zosima predicted that even though Alyosha will face many hardships and grief in life, he will be happy. He will be happy because his understanding transcends the things Ivan can grasp. And no, it is not only because he believed in God, it also comes from his wisdom and intellect. Wisdom which in my opinion is superior to Ivan's. Elder Zosima and Alyosha are my two favourite characters in the book.
I am at the trial in the Brothers Karamazov. Regarding the premise that people can't come up with their own values on the spot, I agree. Within that premise, again Peterson appears to be smuggling God in. It is not necessary that people come up with their values on the spot, through thousands of years of history we have refined our values apropos to our particular cultures. "God" us unnecessary. He seems to imply that there is some psychological or "spiritual" lack in that that presents as a negative. I find myself looking at this position psychoanalytically and wondering what is driving the neurosis for this idealistic requirement.(?) Who is Peterson's 'Big Other'? It seems to me Peterson should reread 'Totem and Taboo' by Sigmund Freud.
Jordan, there are people here talking about a "quarter-life crisis". What the hell is going on and when is something going to stop it? Serious.
As a scientist he certainly projects his own bias. wow.
Most scientist do, ESPECIALLY in sciences such as psychology or anthropology.
This is Like Naruto's Talk no Jutsu.
Chaos
No real Philosopher will consider Nietzsche a "philosopher", (as Jesús G. Maestro said): "Nietzsche wrote literature not philosophy, he's not even a sophist, the problem is hat the vulge, started to considered Nietzsche a philosopher because everyone can understand him.
Dostoevsky and Nietzshe is not a parallel, but totally excluding each other views on life. Dostoevsky calling himself as a Christian religious man and Nietzshe is critic that position. Dostoevsky is fighting though life to help people in hospitals, books and etc. And Nietzshe can’t live half of his life without support of women and friends. Well yeah and Germany lost a war to Russia. This soooo fucking different position in life as it ever can. Yeah Jordan Peterson have some very positive views on situation but also there is so big mistakes which people don’t see usually.
"Well yeah and Germany lost a war to Russia"
I chuckled at how random and completely unconnected to your point (if we can call it that) this remark was
Is this FD for dummies? The man doesn't really say anything does he now?
Puzzled and dumbstruck, you try to find a beginning to yourself. You ask, “But where did I come from?”, only to realize that that which is Unlimited cannot have a beginning or an end. You are too conscious to be fooled into believing in any beginnings or ends. As you grasp at any part of yourself and try to trace its origin through a chain of linear causation back into the past, it fails. Your consciousness has transcended the notion of linear causation. You realize all past is but a figment of your imagination. Every part of you stands on its own and also reaches infinitely far back into the imaginary past via an endless chain of imaginary causes that never terminates but circles back around in a cosmic strange loop. All beginnings and ends are imaginary, self-imposed limitations held within an Unlimited Mind. A Mind with no beginning or end. A Mind that has existed for Eternity. You are God, and God is both uncaused, self-caused, and infinitely caused. God is that which caused itself into being. God is that which created itself.
How is Ivan even "close" to a villian? I find him as endearing or perhaps more so as Alyosha. He is NOT in any sense a villian.
His ideas influenced and corrupted Smerdyakov. He is very much like Stavrogin in "The Possessed": "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"
@@NA-di3yy "His ideas influenced and corrupted Smerdyakov" - I'm not sure if that's a strong statement to conclude Ivan's villainousness. From the very start as Smerdyakov's character is described, we do get a glimpse of resentment he had in him against everyone. I think he interpreted Ivan's ideas wrongly and used them as an excuse to justify what he did; which is awfully lame.
I quite can't grasp your reference as i haven't read "The Possessed". I'm reading Notes from underground. Have you read it?
@@sufjan4877 yes, i have, FMD is my favourite author. "Smerdyakov interpreted Ivan's ideas wrongly", well that's what people usually do with the ideas. The question is, could there be any other interpretation (or implementation) at all? Ivan, although seemingly daring intellectually, was in fact too much rooted in the traditional moral framework to go loose and break bad himself. He remained a sissy theoretician, so to say. But Smerdyakov as an outcast did not have this restraining factor and was able not only to absorb the idea but to actually implement it. The moment of truth is their last meeting, you might want to re-read it. Now compare the responsibility of a silent miserable derelict and a sounding refined intellectual able to capture and lead the compliant masses. The plot pattern of indoctrination is spread out the whole FMD oeuvre btw.
@@NA-di3yy He's my favourite too. Although, i wouldn't say i have read enough.
"well that's what people usually do with the ideas." - Does that give enough grounds to villainize the one with the ideas? When does a casual interaction or discussion become indoctrination? As far as their interactions go, it's only their last meet where we find them talking one on one. That plot construction is just pure genius. I remember how while i was reading that chapter, i could sense that something was overriding me as a reader and yes, i did go back to that chapter after Smerdyakov confesses his crime to Ivan.
“He remained a sissy theoretician, so to say.”- Agreed, just like most of us.
“But Smerdyakov as an outcast did not have this restraining factor and was able not only to absorb the idea but to actually implement it.” - But are we sure what the idea is? Why can’t one consider a scenario where that silent miserable derelict was indeed seething with hatred and had it in himself, the gumption to kill somebody?
“Now compare the responsibility of a silent miserable derelict and a sounding refined intellectual..” - That’s tough to say because of aforementioned reasons. Also, do you think Ivan really knew how he was “influencing” him and that he anticipated such repercussions?
@@sufjan4877 part of him definitely knew it, and not completely unconscious part (his departure to Chermashnya is more of a cahoot than Pilate's hand washing) and it is only because of lack of integrity i mentioned above that he can admit it to himself only in the aftermath.
✝️✝️✝️☁️📚
Ivan is a grave.
The art of saying alot and nothing at the same time.
ua-cam.com/video/9ALsrTXFEnM/v-deo.html k
ору, Алешка - монашеский новичок
But man made god
I would think such an educated know it all like Peterson would learn to pronounce “Karamazov?”
nietzche>>>>>>>>>fyodor god is dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nietzsche was later influenced by purana, Vedas and bhagwat geeta... Definitely he later on changed his pessimistic views about life, religion etc. In the 18th to 20th century Vedas and bhagwat geeta were the most popular book. Try them too. I hate all the western philosophers who glorified crimes too like marquis de Sade... Infact all the nihilistic philosophers... And Nietzsche's critic of Christianity is so appropriate. Christianity and all the abhramic religions are criminal religions. Yes god is dead by seeing what Christians did in his name... I guess Nietzsche was talking more specifically about Christianity and when he got idea of dharma from Hinduism.. his views changed..
How wrong Jordan Peterson can be about Nietzsche. His understanding of Nietzsche is very narrow and in some way just opposite.
His pronunciations are so cringe. If you are going to not only read the book, but also give LECTURES on it, the least you can do is pronounce the characters' names correctly lol
Who are you ??? you are so wrong!!!
theres a problem whit humans creating their own values'' - this is about that information you getting told the great writers [ as you now smart enough to read yourself]
@thiernoxo 11.02.22