He confuses the characters in the novels, but his understanding of them and his analysis is brilliant. You can substitute landlord with pawnbroker, no big deal. He probably read the novels long time ago and what he remembers is his understanding of the novels, not names of characters and details; it’s a very common thing specially if you read a lot. But as someone who read both novels more than once and admire them, Peterson’s analysts adds so much to my understanding of them and Dostoevsky’s thinking.
He doesn't confuse them in another video. This is chubby peterson, probably bit fogged up brain. And its not like dostoyewski made it easy with the names for westerners
Peterson clearly know's that Raskolnikov kills the pawnbroker and not his landlord if you see his other videos on the subject. It was clearly a slip of the tongue. The meaning remains the same. Great book and great analysis of it.
I do believe Peterson probably read most of Dostoevsky's works, but one cannot deny the many mistakes he made during the lecture to which we are referring; too many mistakes not to correct, but certainly no offence to Dr. Peterson. If it was a different author, I may have ignored it ... but I can't stand by silently when it comes to Dostoevsky - I've spent thousands of hours both reading his works and trying to understand, in my opinion, the greatest author of all time. Sincerely.
God damn it Jordan Peterson. Another mistake? I didn't know it was ever supposed to be pawnbroker not landlord. He gets these details really wrong. He's also really bad with names, one time he said CK Louis instead of Bill Burr, and another time he called Foreman as Frazier.
He does, clearly he has read him a lot, but he’s misconstruing the most basic facts of the book which for someone who is so into it as he is, I don’t get it. He keeps calling the old woman his “landlord” and she’s not. His landlord and the pawn broker are two very very different characters.
I just finished Crime and Punishment by Dostojevsky because it was a highly suggested reading from Dr. Peterson and I think it is my favourite book of all, next reading is the Brother Karamasov
I feel it's important to point out that Jordan is incorrect in one statement he made here. Dostoevsky considered himself, and was, a Russian Orthodox Christian. As explained in private letters that he sent to his close friends aswell as his personal writings/journals, his goal in having such strong atheist characters in a number of his novels was to prove his contention that he and any other real Christian should have the ability to make the atheistic argument better than even any atheist could. Aside from that and the landlady/pawnbroker mix up, what Jordan said here is very true and he is absolutely correct in his compliments of Dostoevskys genius.
Good point, and I agree Dr. Peterson places Dostoevsky in High regard - nothing but respect for the man. The best representation of Dostoevsky's struggles of faith, vanity, impulsive behavior, etc., can be found in the Karamazov brothers; they are all a part of him and his thinking. Dmitri: Dostoevsky's gambling addiction, etc. 2) Ivan: Dostoevsky's genius and vanity in that respect, etc. 3) ALYOSHA: Dostoevsky's piety and lifelong anguish in keeping with the doctrine of Christ, etc. AND FINALLY, Smerdyakov: Dostoevsky's fascination with murder, as well as the outcome of his own father's murder (what Mikhail and himself believed), and their feelings of guilt for having not been able to prevent it. __From all accounts, it seems he was murdered, but there is no proof on record, and I suppose it was the "unknowing" that wouldn't let Dostoevsky put his mind at ease__. Nevertheless, read EVERYTHING Dostoevsky ever wrote, and you will feel the honor of us who want his works to simply be understood and spoken of correctly. Best wishes and trust me, no hard feelings. Sincerely. P.S. welcome to the club.
Think he needs to reread Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov doesn't kill his landlady, he kills a money lender. Also Ivan wan't a soldier in The Karamazov Brothers, Dmitri was the soldier.
was just about to post this. He is mixing her and the pawn lady up. He was supposed to marry his landlady's daughter but she died, I can't remember what from.
Allow me to preface: I greatly admire Jordan Peterson, and I've been watching his lectures long before his new-found celebrity. With that said, I'm confused as to why Dr. Peterson makes so many mistakes when speaking about Dostoevsky's life, and worse, Dostoevsky's novels. While it may mean little to someone who casually reads Dostoevsky, for those of us who have vigorously studied Dostoevsky, hearing Dr. Peterson's repeated mistakes can be unnerving, to say the least. *For example* , Dostoevsky's involvement with the Petrashevsky Circle was not at all violent. In fact, Dostoevsky looked upon the circle as a harmless bourgeois group, which they were, and only fell into trouble when someone read aloud a letter from (I believe) Bakhunin, and were informed upon from an infiltrator. Put simply, Petrashevsky Circle was completely harmless. *Another example* , Dostoevsky was not fired upon with blanks, nor was he even among the first group of prisoners to be shot (Petrashevsky was in the first group), so for anyone who has read the biographies written by Scanlon, Mochulsky, and/or Frank's Five-Volume work, it's very difficult to understand where Dr. Peterson heard this false account (I've never come across it) and could/should easily find the accurate account among Dostoevsky's personal notebooks and correspondence. BUT, let's say Peterson may only have read the novels and so he hasn't researched Dostoevsky the man ... no big deal, right? HOWEVER, if Peterson has only read the novels, how can he make such blatant, obvious mistakes: Rasakolnikov kills an old women money-lender and her abused, innocent, female relation - NOT his lanlord, who has NO slave-niece; Dunya's fiancee, Pyotr Luzhin, is not "a rich guy," and Raskolnikov NEVER contemplates becoming a Lawyer under Luzhin's charity; Raskolnikov does NOT consider himself an "Atheist" and is offered more than bread from the caretaker (Cabbage soup, tea, etc.); Peterson confuses the sensual, good-looking soldier, Dmitri Karamazov with his half-brother, Ivan Karamazov (pronounced Ker-uh-mats-off) in Dostoevsky's masterpiece _The Brothers Karamazov_ .... Again, I greatly admire Peterson, and I suppose his mistakes can be forgiven. *BUT* his mistakes are still false, and it's hard to understand how he acquired these fabrications. Ultimately, if Dr. Peterson gets more people interested in Dostoevsky, and/or Turgenev, Tolstoy, Gorky, Gogol, Pushkin, Chekhov ... if Peterson shows even just a handful of people the starting line toward the greats of Russian/Eastern European Literature, I happily forgive his mistakes. *If Interested* : one must read Joseph Frank's Five-Volume Biography of Dostoevsky. Take care, all.
I had never heard of Dostoevsky until Peterson mentioned him, and I have now taken a great interest in tracking down his work as a gateway into Russian Literature
I was at first very surprised that Peterson made a mistake on C&P between Roskolnikov murdering his landlady when he actually killed the pawn broker although the landlady was a trigger point subplot to the murder. As he quotes C&P so often in his lectures I love the fact he made this mistake as it rings so true to his comments about the petty criticisms being made about the genius of Jung. Don't criticize him for this as it is meaningless to the brilliance of what he is deconstructing for us. These examples go to the core of the story of Noah being drunk and caught naked by his youngest son. The exposure and vulnerability of Noah having sailed his Arch and cargo to save the world...for goodness sake show some compassion and cut the man some slack...don't disrespect him for a minor misdemeanor. His Biblical Series lectures are so BRILLIANT. A catholic for over 60 years and I've never understood these stories to the depth that has been unpacked by the sensational, mind expanding Professor...I love him! The silly mix match of the landlady and the pawn broker is inconsequential - proves he's human.
I agree, and must point out: Most criticisms of his mistakes (which were a bit too many) were met with constructive criticism .... My point was simply that I couldn't understand how any Dostoevsky reader could make that many mistakes, which, again, were many, especially concerning some of the most important plot points, characters, etc. I hold no animosity toward Dr. Peterson, and write-it-off as simply himself having a lot on his mind during this period.
I often love what Peterson has to say and he often gives Crime and Punishment as an example for various things. But for someone who considers this book as one of the best ever written he keeps making mistakes that I don't understand: he kills the pawnbroker not landlady (there are some landladies too), the pawnbroker's niece is not a niece, it's a sister and by the way, he kills that sister too and never really thinks much about that in the book (so much for the good guy trying to do good, he's upset for killing the pawnbroker because his theory doesn't seem to work all that well, but he doesn't give a shit or is in denial about murdering the other woman, which is a part of Raskolnikov's character that JP never seems to mention).
I realised that, while reading the book. That Raskolnikov omitted almost every time the Sister Lizaveta from his monologue about the killing. (That intrigued me so i taught about it) And i think that pretty much like you said, his in denial. Lizaveta being (in every way) innocent, contradict his view of himself , which is : not being a simple (lowlife) murder , being a Napoleon who has done it for a greater purpose. Her innocence contradict his view of not being Evil/Bad. (Even if obviously , later in the history he accept it more) I don't know if he omits her consciously or not , but that's interesting .
@@kennykennykenny2236 Actually, Raskolnikov does not believe the Napoleonic superman to need a greater purpose in killing others. This is what he said to Porfiry, but in an internal monologue following that conversation he admits to himself that the "men of bronze" can commit heinous acts purely because they are great men and that his desire to explain that he was doing everything for a good purpose may be indicative that he is not one of these men of Bronze. In fact his moral overthinking of the matter is a constant cause of torment for him because a superman who paves his own path and ignores traditional morality should not care for moral arguments. He says the same thing in his confession to Sonya.
@justbecause he reminds me of myself during my last two years of college, when I’d abandoned most of the beliefs my parents taught me but had yet to find new beliefs. I felt like a shattered piece of glass, thinking I could never be put back together.
Dostoevsky was influenced by a wide variety of philosophers and authors including Pushkin, Gogol, Augustine, Shakespeare, Dickens, Balzac, Lermontov, Hugo, Poe, Plato, Cervantes, Herzen, Kant, Belinsky, Hegel, Schiller, Solovyov, Bakunin, Sand, Hoffmann, and Mickiewicz. His writings were widely read both within and beyond his native Russia and influenced an equally great number of later writers including Russians like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Anton Chekhov as well as philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre. His books have been translated into more than 170 languages.
It's kind of hard to incentivise somebody to read a book that's almost 550 pages long. On top of that, crime and punishment is not a detective-book. This book gives an insight how a man should deal with a certain repression :- you know, the one you feel at your throat when you see a societal error but you, yourself are a participant. So, in a class where counter dialogues are anticipated from the students it doesn't matter of those simple errors.
First of all; Dostoevsky wasn't an atheist, quite the contrary, he was a believer, who questioned his own beliefs in almost every novel he wrote. Also, nothing in Crime and Punishment is Nietzscheian, as Peterson claims; Dostoevsky was a precursor to Nietzsche. If anything - these ideas could be called Dostoevskyian, since Nietzsche himself, named Dostoevsky as one of the main influences on his work, notably the novel Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky.
He was talking about being an atheist in reference to the character of Raskolnikov, not Dostoevsky himself you moron, no need to go off on a tangent. If you aren't a Peterson fan why come here? I'd much rather listen to someone like Peterson's comments on Nietzsche and Dostoevsky than some pseudo intellectual like you in the comments....
I really did try to listen to this because I love Dostoyevsky and I am reading "The Brothers Karamazov" right now, my favorite book is "The Idiot", it is a masterpiece. Peterson however, every single time I have heard him begins to complain about debate strategy, he is so whiny and makes himself into such a victim while victimizing others. Honestly he is either projecting everything or he is insanely self absorbed. Not to mention he made several mistakes that seem to be only semantics up front, but derail his whole point that he is making. As usual, he is chopping things up to make them fit his own narrative. If I can take one small positive out of this whole thing it is that at least he might be getting people to read Dostoyevsky who I consider one of the best writers ever.
Jay. I enjoyed your comment. Way back in the fifties I read The Possessed twice. (not required reading). Both times I was depressed for several days. I had no notion of what it was about but for some reason I was drawn to read it. Now that I know so much more about what was going on in Russia (mostly thanks to Henry Makow and his web site). I understand why I got depressed. Maybe I'll even try the other books you mentioned.
You are inferring malice behind some assumed political goal he has and you are using what you admitted were semantics as minuscule evidence. You are literally cherry picking to try and justify your own views on peterson
@Jay Decro I came to the same conclusion: if it at least gets others to read Dostoevsky, great, etc. etc. But, I also couldn't comprehend so many mistakes, and even questioned whether Dr. Peterson had ever read any of Dostoevsky's novels, or simply opted for SparkNotes, only to confuse all the works and the most well-known events regarding said works. However, he did have a-lot-on-his-plate at the time, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for your comments on the subject. P.S. You're the only person I've ever come across who thinks "The Idiot" is a "masterpiece." Don't take offence to that ... we all have our own opinion, and I respect yours and all other Dostoevsky scholars. Personally, I go with "The Brothers Karamazov." Hope to hear back from you.
@@treid100182 he literally wrote the forward to the recent release of gulag archipelago. Again you are looking at a single lecture from q few years ago were he is speaking off the cuff about q very large array of subject matter to his students. I would ask that you create courses, do research, teach a course for 20 years and then never make any mistakes during multi hour lectures for the entirety of it .
Currently reading “Demons.” I was intrigued by an argument made by the character Shatov, apparently D’s mouthpiece for Slavophil values. Shatov beliefs that eliminating state religion leads to internationalism, not nationalism. He says that each country needs its own version of God, a God who is symbiotically attached to the fatherland. When the country begins to see God as universal, it is supposed to become less nationalistic
Russian pronounce the ‘o’ as ‘a’ when it is not stressed so: Dastayevsky, also the a is more of an ‘u’ as in ‘umbrella’ and not ‘a’ as in ‘car’. So: Dustuyevsky
This is fascinating, but one implicit message is disconcerting, as always with Dr P it concerns religion. Lack of religion causes nationalism ('or you just wander around aimlessly'). NO THATS JUST WRONG. Many follow neither of these erroneous 'belief systems' and are moral, responsible and full of purpose.
Peterson may be the most popular professor in the world right now. He has his own UA-cam channel and has appeared on a number of extremely popular podcasts-including The Joe Rogan Experience and the H3H3 Podcast, both of which are available on UA-cam in their entirety. Peterson is an extremely controversial figure, and many call him far right although he is mostly an anti authoritarian centrist who is highly educated and hyper intelligent/reasonable.
What is better, to have a perfectly controlled world but without free will to do anything or to have sense of not controlled world and absolute free will? That what God-Creator is all about, the free will. If there is interference from God that will be infringement of free will and also will mean that if God have to interfere there is imperfection in the creation. But God is absolute, therefore God is perfect in every possible way and all that God is created is also perfect. Only human being with given free will doing this or that may not be perfect because humans are learning from experience and mistakes.
not a correct premise that demise of religion automatically results in a spike in nationalism. that is spurious logic at best. peterson can very disingenuous when trying to bolster his assertions.
Although, I don’t know if “disingenuous” is the word I would choose, because I think of _disingenuous_ as intentionally trying to deceive/having immoral motives … And I don’t think that’s the kind of person he is. I think he means well, and that he has blind spots on some things; Especially with religion … But, I agree with what you’re saying. Any time someone says “There was a study…” it sounds like definitive proof of something, but in reality, you can find studies supporting any claim you can think of. That’s why meta-analyses are much more reliable. You’re supposed to base your conclusions on the totality of studies, not just one. Not to mention the fact that he’s referencing a correlation study, not a causal study. I really wish he would ditch his arguments on religion because I do like him. I agree with a lot of things he says, and I think he’s insanely intelligent, but any time he talks about religion, it’s like he becomes dumb.
I loisten to Dostoevski because Peterson thinks he is among the best of thinkers in history. I wish Dostoevsky was able to present the case for God as well as he could for atheism. Peterson also cannot quite present the case for God, except to say "you need a bloody belief structure'' or there will be hell to pay if we abandon these stories". So the case for God is pragmatic (we need God) and not empirical (not true).
There are some great cases made. Besides the classics (distilled in W.L. Craig), check out Proff. Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame or Richard Swinburne at Oxford , for example.
The craven envy of socialists and the spiritual failure of their belief structure. Or that's Peterson's point, anyway, I'm sure. I love Dostoyevsky, but I'm a Marxist-Leninist myself. Just read _Crime and Punishment_ and watch two minutes of Peterson talking about socialists or communists.
I'm surprised that Jordan Peterson can SAY" DOSTOEVSKY" but i'm not surprised that he is impressed by what Dostoevsky has to to say. Jordan Peterson is greatly impressed by anyone who is inteligent no matter what they have to say , mostly because he IS NOT inteligent.
@@aidanhealy2063 I didn't say Jordan Peterson wasn't inteligent, where did i say Jordan Peterson isn't inteligent ? He's impressed by anyone who is . Of course any time i say something that seems negative i get something negative in return , which doesn't bother me . What bothers me is in my 70 years i gave and gave and gave and helped and helped and helped , and got sht for it.
Peterson should get off those antidepressants and get himself on old-fashioned desiccated thyroid hormone. I suspect if anyone confronted him publicly about what Dostoevsky said about the Jews in Russia he'd wish he hadn't gotten out of bed that day.
CodedToast I like many of Peterson's ideas and lectures etc....but the speed at which he runs from the JQ rivals that of the 40 times at the NFL combine. It's very hard to ignore
Just watched the video you mentioned (holodomor-peterson) He completely glitched! i liked how the crowd laughed but the questioner said" remember rule 9,assume someone knows something you dont"....that was brilliant! And then petersons last stance "i just cant do it"... Voltaire ,did he not state -" to learn who rules over you...simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise " end quote... You saw it just there....when Peterson is muted,stunted and states "I just cant do it"...he either knows but cant openly say or knows in a way that he;s fine with it and he is the anti thesis to the thesis to bring in the dialectic .... Pike stated i believe...."we will give them their heroes" aka controlled opposition.. I sense you know what i know & that we are on the same tracks... Narrow is the road..its a beautiful thing when another confirms whats hidden....it is such a breath of fresh air....
Ps ...yes,i shall research what you mentioned....I know Ukraine was the bread basket of eastern Europe yet famine?....man made of course...! Trotsky stated “You are Starving? This is not famine yet, when your woman start eating their children then you may come and say we are starving”. Wickedness and a depraved individual....turns out he had millions££$$$$ and yes dollars...American backing.... Ended up dying from a blow from an ice axe....not sure if that was fitting enough for his crimes but he's in the hands of God....and thats a fearful thing indeed Im on holodomor.com as we speak... Keep the good fight my friend...life is short and to fall for the lies is a tragic waste of a life.....and awful trade off!.....ones soul for mammon & gain... " these foes are Vampires and have lived off the blood of man for far too long.., time the light of exposure be shone on them while we have the light.
He confuses the characters in the novels, but his understanding of them and his analysis is brilliant. You can substitute landlord with pawnbroker, no big deal. He probably read the novels long time ago and what he remembers is his understanding of the novels, not names of characters and details; it’s a very common thing specially if you read a lot. But as someone who read both novels more than once and admire them, Peterson’s analysts adds so much to my understanding of them and Dostoevsky’s thinking.
He doesn't confuse them in another video.
This is chubby peterson, probably bit fogged up brain. And its not like dostoyewski made it easy with the names for westerners
@@TheInsaiyan yeah true. have watched the other video
Peterson clearly know's that Raskolnikov kills the pawnbroker and not his landlord if you see his other videos on the subject. It was clearly a slip of the tongue. The meaning remains the same. Great book and great analysis of it.
I do believe Peterson probably read most of Dostoevsky's works, but one cannot deny the many mistakes he made during the lecture to which we are referring; too many mistakes not to correct, but certainly no offence to Dr. Peterson. If it was a different author, I may have ignored it ... but I can't stand by silently when it comes to Dostoevsky - I've spent thousands of hours both reading his works and trying to understand, in my opinion, the greatest author of all time.
Sincerely.
God damn it Jordan Peterson. Another mistake? I didn't know it was ever supposed to be pawnbroker not landlord. He gets these details really wrong. He's also really bad with names, one time he said CK Louis instead of Bill Burr, and another time he called Foreman as Frazier.
I can tell this guy really likes talking about Dostoevsky.
me too))))
You should see him talking about Jung
He should read Honore de Balzac
He does, clearly he has read him a lot, but he’s misconstruing the most basic facts of the book which for someone who is so into it as he is, I don’t get it. He keeps calling the old woman his “landlord” and she’s not. His landlord and the pawn broker are two very very different characters.
Dostoyevsky ideas went deep in his life .
Thank you for popularizing Dostoevsky's work in English.
Russian
Next, you should thank him for popularizing the Bible.
@@melvinsujo8565 2 and a half years that took you, well done
I love how he relates the account to the students own lives
I just finished Crime and Punishment by Dostojevsky because it was a highly suggested reading from Dr. Peterson and I think it is my favourite book of all, next reading is the Brother Karamasov
One of the best professors.
Dostojewski is in literature like Bach in musik. Unreachable!
"All cowardice masquerades as morality"
I feel it's important to point out that Jordan is incorrect in one statement he made here. Dostoevsky considered himself, and was, a Russian Orthodox Christian. As explained in private letters that he sent to his close friends aswell as his personal writings/journals, his goal in having such strong atheist characters in a number of his novels was to prove his contention that he and any other real Christian should have the ability to make the atheistic argument better than even any atheist could. Aside from that and the landlady/pawnbroker mix up, what Jordan said here is very true and he is absolutely correct in his compliments of Dostoevskys genius.
Good point, and I agree Dr. Peterson places Dostoevsky in High regard - nothing but respect for the man. The best representation of Dostoevsky's struggles of faith, vanity, impulsive behavior, etc., can be found in the Karamazov brothers; they are all a part of him and his thinking. Dmitri: Dostoevsky's gambling addiction, etc. 2) Ivan: Dostoevsky's genius and vanity in that respect, etc. 3) ALYOSHA: Dostoevsky's piety and lifelong anguish in keeping with the doctrine of Christ, etc. AND FINALLY, Smerdyakov: Dostoevsky's fascination with murder, as well as the outcome of his own father's murder (what Mikhail and himself believed), and their feelings of guilt for having not been able to prevent it. __From all accounts, it seems he was murdered, but there is no proof on record, and I suppose it was the "unknowing" that wouldn't let Dostoevsky put his mind at ease__.
Nevertheless, read EVERYTHING Dostoevsky ever wrote, and you will feel the honor of us who want his works to simply be understood and spoken of correctly. Best wishes and trust me, no hard feelings. Sincerely.
P.S. welcome to the club.
Think he needs to reread Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov doesn't kill his landlady, he kills a money lender. Also Ivan wan't a soldier in The Karamazov Brothers, Dmitri was the soldier.
was just about to post this. He is mixing her and the pawn lady up. He was supposed to marry his landlady's daughter but she died, I can't remember what from.
Wasn’t the daughter bludgeoned to death also?
It's a small detail, the meaning is still the same.
With all the names in Dostoevsky's works, It's to be expected.
Yeah, Peterson is stupid... how could he not remember that? Meh Heh Heh (evil laugh)
Everyday I like to sniff Crime and Punishment when I come near it. Makes me feel ok
Same
What?
Allow me to preface: I greatly admire Jordan Peterson, and I've been watching his lectures long before his new-found celebrity. With that said, I'm confused as to why Dr. Peterson makes so many mistakes when speaking about Dostoevsky's life, and worse, Dostoevsky's novels. While it may mean little to someone who casually reads Dostoevsky, for those of us who have vigorously studied Dostoevsky, hearing Dr. Peterson's repeated mistakes can be unnerving, to say the least.
*For example* , Dostoevsky's involvement with the Petrashevsky Circle was not at all violent. In fact, Dostoevsky looked upon the circle as a harmless bourgeois group, which they were, and only fell into trouble when someone read aloud a letter from (I believe) Bakhunin, and were informed upon from an infiltrator. Put simply, Petrashevsky Circle was completely harmless.
*Another example* , Dostoevsky was not fired upon with blanks, nor was he even among the first group of prisoners to be shot (Petrashevsky was in the first group), so for anyone who has read the biographies written by Scanlon, Mochulsky, and/or Frank's Five-Volume work, it's very difficult to understand where Dr. Peterson heard this false account (I've never come across it) and could/should easily find the accurate account among Dostoevsky's personal notebooks and correspondence. BUT, let's say Peterson may only have read the novels and so he hasn't researched Dostoevsky the man ... no big deal, right?
HOWEVER, if Peterson has only read the novels, how can he make such blatant, obvious mistakes: Rasakolnikov kills an old women money-lender and her abused, innocent, female relation - NOT his lanlord, who has NO slave-niece; Dunya's fiancee, Pyotr Luzhin, is not "a rich guy," and Raskolnikov NEVER contemplates becoming a Lawyer under Luzhin's charity; Raskolnikov does NOT consider himself an "Atheist" and is offered more than bread from the caretaker (Cabbage soup, tea, etc.); Peterson confuses the sensual, good-looking soldier, Dmitri Karamazov with his half-brother, Ivan Karamazov (pronounced Ker-uh-mats-off) in Dostoevsky's masterpiece _The Brothers Karamazov_ .... Again, I greatly admire Peterson, and I suppose his mistakes can be forgiven. *BUT* his mistakes are still false, and it's hard to understand how he acquired these fabrications.
Ultimately, if Dr. Peterson gets more people interested in Dostoevsky, and/or Turgenev, Tolstoy, Gorky, Gogol, Pushkin, Chekhov ... if Peterson shows even just a handful of people the starting line toward the greats of Russian/Eastern European Literature, I happily forgive his mistakes.
*If Interested* : one must read Joseph Frank's Five-Volume Biography of Dostoevsky. Take care, all.
He sure hasn't read what Dostoevsky said about Jews!
I had never heard of Dostoevsky until Peterson mentioned him, and I have now taken a great interest in tracking down his work as a gateway into Russian Literature
Abe Froman quite a gateway!
Imagine how wrong he is about everything else he talks about.
Maybe Peterson's obvious _and childlike_ mistakes about Dostoevsky should give you a little insight, hmmm?
I wish i had something to be passionate about on this level
start to read Dostojevski.
You have a million things, just do one of them
Diary of a writer was also a great book by Dostoyevsky 🙂
I like his casual attempt of jokes
The insight of this man is astonishing
Im reading notes from the underground in constance's translation rn
Isn't it called Notes From Underground, rather than Notes From The Underground?
@@hughtierneytierney3585 depends on the translation
I was at first very surprised that Peterson made a mistake on C&P between Roskolnikov murdering his landlady when he actually killed the pawn broker although the landlady was a trigger point subplot to the murder. As he quotes C&P so often in his lectures I love the fact he made this mistake as it rings so true to his comments about the petty criticisms being made about the genius of Jung. Don't criticize him for this as it is meaningless to the brilliance of what he is deconstructing for us. These examples go to the core of the story of Noah being drunk and caught naked by his youngest son. The exposure and vulnerability of Noah having sailed his Arch and cargo to save the world...for goodness sake show some compassion and cut the man some slack...don't disrespect him for a minor misdemeanor. His Biblical Series lectures are so BRILLIANT. A catholic for over 60 years and I've never understood these stories to the depth that has been unpacked by the sensational, mind expanding Professor...I love him! The silly mix match of the landlady and the pawn broker is inconsequential - proves he's human.
Tosca Hero - I was also taken aback about that mistake.
I agree, and must point out: Most criticisms of his mistakes (which were a bit too many) were met with constructive criticism .... My point was simply that I couldn't understand how any Dostoevsky reader could make that many mistakes, which, again, were many, especially concerning some of the most important plot points, characters, etc. I hold no animosity toward Dr. Peterson, and write-it-off as simply himself having a lot on his mind during this period.
I often love what Peterson has to say and he often gives Crime and Punishment as an example for various things. But for someone who considers this book as one of the best ever written he keeps making mistakes that I don't understand: he kills the pawnbroker not landlady (there are some landladies too), the pawnbroker's niece is not a niece, it's a sister and by the way, he kills that sister too and never really thinks much about that in the book (so much for the good guy trying to do good, he's upset for killing the pawnbroker because his theory doesn't seem to work all that well, but he doesn't give a shit or is in denial about murdering the other woman, which is a part of Raskolnikov's character that JP never seems to mention).
I realised that, while reading the book. That Raskolnikov omitted almost every time the Sister Lizaveta from his monologue about the killing.
(That intrigued me so i taught about it) And i think that pretty much like you said, his in denial.
Lizaveta being (in every way) innocent, contradict his view of himself , which is : not being a simple (lowlife) murder , being a Napoleon who has done it for a greater purpose.
Her innocence contradict his view of not being Evil/Bad.
(Even if obviously , later in the history he accept it more)
I don't know if he omits her consciously or not , but that's interesting .
He told the story again another time and recalled the story correctly in another video where he didn't mix up the landlady and pawnbroker
@@kennykennykenny2236 Actually, Raskolnikov does not believe the Napoleonic superman to need a greater purpose in killing others. This is what he said to Porfiry, but in an internal monologue following that conversation he admits to himself that the "men of bronze" can commit heinous acts purely because they are great men and that his desire to explain that he was doing everything for a good purpose may be indicative that he is not one of these men of Bronze. In fact his moral overthinking of the matter is a constant cause of torment for him because a superman who paves his own path and ignores traditional morality should not care for moral arguments. He says the same thing in his confession to Sonya.
that was good watching
This is a good talk - where is the rest?
Did you ever find it?
Thank you
Although I am a female, Raskolnikov resonated with me.
@justbecause he reminds me of myself during my last two years of college, when I’d abandoned most of the beliefs my parents taught me but had yet to find new beliefs. I felt like a shattered piece of glass, thinking I could never be put back together.
Can someone share the link to the full lecture
the only problem is that Raskolnikov in the novel does not kill the landlady by the money lending lady.
Where is part 2 of this presentation 😊
Is there any video of him talking about epilepsy and spirituality? He says here that he'll "get to it later"! Haha
He tells this story of the girl freezing to death in a few other lectures iirc. Anyone know which ones?
Dostoevsky was influenced by a wide variety of philosophers and authors including Pushkin, Gogol, Augustine, Shakespeare, Dickens, Balzac, Lermontov, Hugo, Poe, Plato, Cervantes, Herzen, Kant, Belinsky, Hegel, Schiller, Solovyov, Bakunin, Sand, Hoffmann, and Mickiewicz.
His writings were widely read both within and beyond his native Russia and influenced an equally great number of later writers including Russians like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Anton Chekhov as well as philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre.
His books have been translated into more than 170 languages.
I like how he compares Nikolai Stavrogin from Demons to Prince Harry in Henry iv.
which lecture is this from
It's kind of hard to incentivise somebody to read a book that's almost 550 pages long. On top of that, crime and punishment is not a detective-book. This book gives an insight how a man should deal with a certain repression :- you know, the one you feel at your throat when you see a societal error but you, yourself are a participant.
So, in a class where counter dialogues are anticipated from the students it doesn't matter of those simple errors.
He got confused, the evil lady is a pawnbroker, not his landlady.
First of all; Dostoevsky wasn't an atheist, quite the contrary, he was a believer, who questioned his own beliefs in almost every novel he wrote. Also, nothing in Crime and Punishment is Nietzscheian, as Peterson claims; Dostoevsky was a precursor to Nietzsche. If anything - these ideas could be called Dostoevskyian, since Nietzsche himself, named Dostoevsky as one of the main influences on his work, notably the novel Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky.
He was talking about being an atheist in reference to the character of Raskolnikov, not Dostoevsky himself you moron, no need to go off on a tangent. If you aren't a Peterson fan why come here? I'd much rather listen to someone like Peterson's comments on Nietzsche and Dostoevsky than some pseudo intellectual like you in the comments....
Jesse Lingard Fans Moron? Why am I a moron? And I actually like Peterson, a lot. That's why I'm here.
Because misinterpreting a character in the book for the author is a little moronic...
hammertapping raskolnikov is a fictional charachter invented by Dostoevsky.
hammertapping you lost the argument when you called me a moron.
Where can I find the full lecture? Anyone got the links
ua-cam.com/video/bjnvtRgpg6g/v-deo.html
He is wrong about the plot, it's not the land lady that Raskolnikov murders, it's a sort of pawn broker that resides near by.
he never said he murders the landlady. He merely says that he wanted to murder the landlady which raskolnikov does consider
The woman raskolnikov kill is not his landlady. She is a very rich but miserly pawn broker
I really did try to listen to this because I love Dostoyevsky and I am reading "The Brothers Karamazov" right now, my favorite book is "The Idiot", it is a masterpiece. Peterson however, every single time I have heard him begins to complain about debate strategy, he is so whiny and makes himself into such a victim while victimizing others. Honestly he is either projecting everything or he is insanely self absorbed.
Not to mention he made several mistakes that seem to be only semantics up front, but derail his whole point that he is making. As usual, he is chopping things up to make them fit his own narrative. If I can take one small positive out of this whole thing it is that at least he might be getting people to read Dostoyevsky who I consider one of the best writers ever.
Jay. I enjoyed your comment. Way back in the fifties I read The Possessed twice. (not required reading). Both times I was depressed for several days. I had no notion of what it was about but for some reason I was drawn to read it. Now that I know so much more about what was going on in Russia (mostly thanks to Henry Makow and his web site). I understand why I got depressed. Maybe I'll even try the other books you mentioned.
Idiot is my favorite book too
You are inferring malice behind some assumed political goal he has and you are using what you admitted were semantics as minuscule evidence.
You are literally cherry picking to try and justify your own views on peterson
@Jay Decro I came to the same conclusion: if it at least gets others to read Dostoevsky, great, etc. etc. But, I also couldn't comprehend so many mistakes, and even questioned whether Dr. Peterson had ever read any of Dostoevsky's novels, or simply opted for SparkNotes, only to confuse all the works and the most well-known events regarding said works. However, he did have a-lot-on-his-plate at the time, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for your comments on the subject.
P.S. You're the only person I've ever come across who thinks "The Idiot" is a "masterpiece." Don't take offence to that ... we all have our own opinion, and I respect yours and all other Dostoevsky scholars. Personally, I go with "The Brothers Karamazov." Hope to hear back from you.
@@treid100182 he literally wrote the forward to the recent release of gulag archipelago.
Again you are looking at a single lecture from q few years ago were he is speaking off the cuff about q very large array of subject matter to his students.
I would ask that you create courses, do research, teach a course for 20 years and then never make any mistakes during multi hour lectures for the entirety of it .
Peterson keeps confusing the pawnbroker with the landlady
he's intelligent, but it is weird he is switching between different topics in this video which is not actually a good way to deliver i guess.
OK this is really cool and interesting to listen to but I can't get over the fact he sounds (mildly) like Kermit the frog
I never put together the connection between Quebec nationalism and the discarding of religion
Currently reading “Demons.” I was intrigued by an argument made by the character Shatov, apparently D’s mouthpiece for Slavophil values. Shatov beliefs that eliminating state religion leads to internationalism, not nationalism. He says that each country needs its own version of God, a God who is symbiotically attached to the fatherland. When the country begins to see God as universal, it is supposed to become less nationalistic
Wait have I been pronouncing his name wrong? Is it Dos-TOY-evsky or Dos-TEE-evsky?
Russian pronounce the ‘o’ as ‘a’ when it is not stressed so: Dastayevsky, also the a is more of an ‘u’ as in ‘umbrella’ and not ‘a’ as in ‘car’. So: Dustuyevsky
D O S T O J E V S K I .
This is fascinating, but one implicit message is disconcerting, as always with Dr P it concerns religion.
Lack of religion causes nationalism ('or you just wander around aimlessly'). NO THATS JUST WRONG.
Many follow neither of these erroneous 'belief systems' and are moral, responsible and full of purpose.
Xerox Re yes but you live in a culture that values it in their systems.
Whhhoo the fuck is this guy and where can I find more videos of him
Peterson may be the most popular professor in the world right now. He has his own UA-cam channel and has appeared on a number of extremely popular podcasts-including The Joe Rogan Experience and the H3H3 Podcast, both of which are available on UA-cam in their entirety. Peterson is an extremely controversial figure, and many call him far right although he is mostly an anti authoritarian centrist who is highly educated and hyper intelligent/reasonable.
What is better, to have a perfectly controlled world but without free will to do anything or to have sense of not controlled world and absolute free will? That what God-Creator is all about, the free will. If there is interference from God that will be infringement of free will and also will mean that if God have to interfere there is imperfection in the creation. But God is absolute, therefore God is perfect in every possible way and all that God is created is also perfect. Only human being with given free will doing this or that may not be perfect because humans are learning from experience and mistakes.
not a correct premise that demise of religion automatically results in a spike in nationalism. that is spurious logic at best. peterson can very disingenuous when trying to bolster his assertions.
Although, I don’t know if “disingenuous” is the word I would choose, because I think of _disingenuous_ as intentionally trying to deceive/having immoral motives … And I don’t think that’s the kind of person he is. I think he means well, and that he has blind spots on some things; Especially with religion …
But, I agree with what you’re saying.
Any time someone says “There was a study…” it sounds like definitive proof of something, but in reality, you can find studies supporting any claim you can think of. That’s why meta-analyses are much more reliable. You’re supposed to base your conclusions on the totality of studies, not just one.
Not to mention the fact that he’s referencing a correlation study, not a causal study.
I really wish he would ditch his arguments on religion because I do like him. I agree with a lot of things he says, and I think he’s insanely intelligent, but any time he talks about religion, it’s like he becomes dumb.
Russia did get a new "messiah", a "son of Africa" or all places :)
somebody says hm behind the camera .man who the f#ck cares anyways
he fucked up some of the plot details.
@Nancy Pelosi did you come up with that all by yourself?
I loisten to Dostoevski because Peterson thinks he is among the best of thinkers in history. I wish Dostoevsky was able to present the case for God as well as he could for atheism. Peterson also cannot quite present the case for God, except to say "you need a bloody belief structure'' or there will be hell to pay if we abandon these stories". So the case for God is pragmatic (we need God) and not empirical (not true).
There are some great cases made. Besides the classics (distilled in W.L. Craig), check out Proff. Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame or Richard Swinburne at Oxford , for example.
Rodiòn is not 21, he is 23.
Where’s the rest? And what did Dostoevsky and nietzche predict? Stalin?
The craven envy of socialists and the spiritual failure of their belief structure. Or that's Peterson's point, anyway, I'm sure. I love Dostoyevsky, but I'm a Marxist-Leninist myself. Just read _Crime and Punishment_ and watch two minutes of Peterson talking about socialists or communists.
I'm not sure there are any other people in the room. I think Dr Peterson is ranting to himself.
lol that's a very funny image isn't it
I'm surprised that Jordan Peterson can SAY" DOSTOEVSKY" but i'm not surprised that he is impressed by what Dostoevsky has to to say. Jordan Peterson is greatly impressed by anyone who is inteligent no matter what they have to say , mostly because he IS NOT inteligent.
Ironic that you should call Jordan Peterson unintelligent whilst spelling intelligent wrong
@@aidanhealy2063 I didn't say Jordan Peterson wasn't inteligent, where did i say Jordan Peterson isn't inteligent ? He's impressed by anyone who is . Of course any time i say something that seems negative i get something negative in return , which doesn't bother me . What bothers me is in my 70 years i gave and gave and gave and helped and helped and helped , and got sht for it.
@@danielpeppiatt9463 you said that he isn't intelligent at the end of your comment
dozteeyevskee
The Russian language is not so hard to lean, by the way. You don't need all that fancy grammar to use and understand it
Absurd
Peterson should get off those antidepressants and get himself on old-fashioned desiccated thyroid hormone. I suspect if anyone confronted him publicly about what Dostoevsky said about the Jews in Russia he'd wish he hadn't gotten out of bed that day.
Funny how Peterson doesnt mention Dostoevsky's writings on the Jews
CodedToast I like many of Peterson's ideas and lectures etc....but the speed at which he runs from the JQ rivals that of the 40 times at the NFL combine. It's very hard to ignore
Im paying very astute attention....hence his occlusion of the jewish question and their part in the bolshevik rise.....Read Alexander solzhenitsyn
Just watched the video you mentioned (holodomor-peterson)
He completely glitched!
i liked how the crowd laughed but the questioner said" remember rule 9,assume someone knows something you dont"....that was brilliant!
And then petersons last stance "i just cant do it"...
Voltaire ,did he not state -" to learn who rules over you...simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise " end quote...
You saw it just there....when Peterson is muted,stunted and states "I just cant do it"...he either knows but cant openly say or knows in a way that he;s fine with it and he is the anti thesis to the thesis to bring in the dialectic ....
Pike stated i believe...."we will give them their heroes" aka controlled opposition.. I sense you know what i know & that we are on the same tracks...
Narrow is the road..its a beautiful thing when another confirms whats hidden....it is such a breath of fresh air....
Ps ...yes,i shall research what you mentioned....I know Ukraine was the bread basket of eastern Europe yet famine?....man made of course...!
Trotsky stated “You are Starving? This is not famine yet, when your woman start eating their children then you may come and say we are starving”.
Wickedness and a depraved individual....turns out he had millions££$$$$ and yes dollars...American backing....
Ended up dying from a blow from an ice axe....not sure if that was fitting enough for his crimes but he's in the hands of God....and thats a fearful thing indeed
Im on holodomor.com as we speak...
Keep the good fight my friend...life is short and to fall for the lies is a tragic waste of a life.....and awful trade off!.....ones soul for mammon & gain...
" these foes are Vampires and have lived off the blood of man for far too long.., time the light of exposure be shone on them while we have the light.
Swindlers Piss What does Spencer have to do with Free speech or the JQ? Id say thats quite the cop out!!
U cant really read Dostoevsky if u dont know russian and u dont know ortodoxal christianity cause its full with symbolism
NOT TRUTH.Just read.Stop with excuses except maybe youre just dumm.
Peterson's sense of time and history is so fucked up.
blah blah blah