Hot Take

[Anonymous No.18448150]

Dostoeveski was a hack who was completely spooked by religion. His writing style is excessively flowery and a chore to get through, and the philosophical insights he makes are shallow, pedantic, and tainted by his unwavering belief in "God." I should've just read Nietzche instead; I can't believe I wasted time on this clown.

[Anonymous No.18448158]

He actually btfo'd nietzsche's ubermensch but ok faggot

[Anonymous No.18448161]

>getting filtered by Fyodor Dostoevsky

[Anonymous No.18448188]

>>18448158
>no proof
>>18448161
Who said I was filtered? If you actually understood Fyodor, you'd understand that his takes are philosophically shallow and reactionary. imagine falling for the religion spook because of a mock execution, pathetic.

[Anonymous No.18448200]

>>18448150
behead those who insult fedya

[Anonymous No.18448201]

>>18448150
If you haven’t read him in Russian, you can’t take about his prose or writing style.

[Anonymous No.18448209]

>>18448188
>unironically using "reactionary"
ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.18448217]

>>18448150
>Hot Take

[Anonymous No.18448220]

>>18448209
>OP praises Nietzsche
>"Hmmm must be a tranny"
Why?

[Anonymous No.18448229]

>>18448220
His terminology outs him and it's evident where he's coming from.

[Anonymous No.18448246]

>>18448201
Doesn't change the fact that the essence of his writing is shit.
>>18448220
He's an idiot from /pol/, ignore him.

[Anonymous No.18448254]

>>18448246
>Doesn't change the fact that the essence of his writing is shit.
Filtered

[Anonymous No.18448281]

>>18448254
great post

[Anonymous No.18448290]

>>18448150
>are shallow, pedantic

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

[Anonymous No.18448294]

>>18448150
>pseud faggot dismissing one of the greatest minds in literature without supporting his arguments with any substance

[Anonymous No.18448299]

>>18448281
for a great thread

[Anonymous No.18448306]

>>18448290
I was hoping someone would catch that lol
>>18448294
>greatest minds in literature
provide substance supporting this argument

[Anonymous No.18448313]

>>18448150
gayest thing ive ever read

[Anonymous No.18448323]

>>18448150
Nietzsche called him the only psychologist from whom he had anything to learn

[Anonymous No.18448328]

>>18448306
if you will not put any thought in the OP why should we
go get educated or get off this board, pseud

[Anonymous No.18448338]

>>18448150
>Hot take
>spooked
>By religion
>Chore
>Tainted by his unwavering belief in god
>This clown

[Anonymous No.18448351]

>>18448188
I find your criticism of Dostoyevsky shallow and pedantic.
>>18448220
>Why?
because many such cases

[Anonymous No.18448366]

>>18448328
The onus of proof is on you all to prove the Dostoevesky is worth reading. If it was the other way around, then we'd have to assume that everyone is a great literary mind until proven otherwise. Lrn2logic

[Anonymous No.18448386]

this thread made me kill myself

[Anonymous No.18448401]

>>18448386
according to Doesty, you'd go to "hell" for that

[Anonymous No.18448412]

>>18448366
Dostoevesky is canon, bro. The matter is for you to prove why he isn't canon and why he shouldn't be read.

[Anonymous No.18448418]

>>18448386
That Jesoos looks like a junky after the high faded.

[Anonymous No.18448437]

>>18448366
You're an idiot who doesn't understand the burden of proof.
You have made the claim that Dostoevsky's philosophy is shallow and pedantic. That is just as loaded of a claim as saying his philosophy is brilliant. You have a burden of proof right now.

[Anonymous No.18448438]

>>18448401
good

[Anonymous No.18448451]

>>18448150
>shallow, pedantic

[Anonymous No.18448462]

>>18448437
>>18448412
I already provided a prima facie case of why he sucks. As of right now, it has gone unrefuted. I'll patiently await your rebuttal :^)

[Anonymous No.18448470]

i found his writing to be the opposite of flowery

[Anonymous No.18448475]

>>18448462
Ok this is bait

[Anonymous No.18448488]

>>18448462
>I already provided a prima facie case
No you didn't. If you did you would have provided an excerpt or told us one of his philosophies and why they are "shallow and pedantic"

[Anonymous No.18448493]

>>18448246
>Doesn't change the fact that the essence of his writing is shit.
Once again, you have no way of knowing that

[Anonymous No.18448520]

>>18448488
I'll rephrase for your brainlet mind: All of D's philosophical takes are just reactionary and shallow thoughts based on Christianity spooks.

[Anonymous No.18448541]

>>18448520
And yet you have not provided a single idea of his to demonstrate that fact.
Am I really being called a brainlet by someone who doesn't understand the burden of proof or what "a prima facie" means?

[Anonymous No.18448548]

>>18448541
Show me one take of his that isn't tinged by reactionary christendom

[Anonymous No.18448556]

>>18448150
You must be 18+ to post here

[Anonymous No.18448560]

>>18448548
YOU are making the claims here. YOU have the burden of proof.

[Anonymous No.18448573]

>spooks
No quicker way for a materialistic NPC to expose themselves

[Anonymous No.18448582]

>>18448188
Literally crime and punishment btfo'd ubermensch. Nietzsche himself even said the only psychologist he could learn from was dostoevsky

[Anonymous No.18448594]

>>18448560
No I don't. Google "prima facie" please.

>>18448573
spooked

>>18448582
>crime and punishment btfo'd ubermensch
how?
>Nietzsche himself even said the only psychologist he could learn from was dostoevsky
so? N. was referring to D's insights about Siberian criminals. N.'s and D.'s philosophies were completely diametrical.

[Anonymous No.18448615]

Stop feeding the troll.

[Anonymous No.18448664]

>>18448594
>No I don't. Google "prima facie" please.
You need to proved evidence first you absolute dumb fuck. An excerpt, a quote, anything. That's what's required for something to be a prima facie

[Anonymous No.18448675]

>>18448664
From Merriam's:
>sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved

My claim is prima facie because it establishes the fact that D. is a hack fraud :^)

[Anonymous No.18448685]

>>18448675
The information you provided is barely enough for an opinion let alone a fact. Try again.

[Anonymous No.18448699]

>>18448685
if you can't show me evidence, then that's ok, just say so

[Anonymous No.18448710]

>>18448675
>>18448462
>>18448366
>doesn't understand the burden of proof
>doesn't understand what prima facie means
>doesn't understand what counts as sufficient to establish a fact

The is the guy who thinks he can talk about philosophy online

[Anonymous No.18448716]

>>18448710
you are unironically being shallow and pedantic, anon. it's quite unbecoming...

[Anonymous No.18448718]

>>18448150
Reddit atheists striking again

[Anonymous No.18448766]

>>18448150

I have a policy to immediately disregard anyone who uses the term "spook". You have not made me reconsider this policy.

[Anonymous No.18448852]

>>18448594
I'm sorry. You must be a very lonely man.

[Anonymous No.18449103]

>>18448462
>prima facie
>burden of proof
Wow anon you really got all the buzz words down. Impressive.

[Anonymous No.18449106]

>>18448594
>Me saying Dostoy is shit is prima facie evidence that Dostoy is shit
This is the kind of brainlet Dostoyevsky filters

[Anonymous No.18449111]

>>18448548
Reactionary Christianity is based. Every great author in history was reactionary.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18449205]

>>18449111
What a ridiculous quote.
Those who look forward, plan for the future, understand we’re not going to see the past ever again.

[Anonymous No.18449346]

>>18449205
Hello, you...
:3

[Anonymous No.18449471]

>>18448150
Alright Nabokov, time for bed

[Anonymous No.18449526]

>>18449205
To build upwards you need to look down to what you're building upon

[Anonymous No.18449568]

>>18449471
I have insomnia

[Anonymous No.18449582]

>>18448150
Very cold take actually. It’s mostly correct though.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18449596]

>>18449526
The reality of it all is quite plain.
We have the legacy of the past to build now for the promise of the future.
Chinsterton is only trying to be pithy when promoting the backwardness of his favorite parts of the past.
I like a really farther out past than his traditionalism, but I have no illusions or even desire that we can get back to it.

[Anonymous No.18449611]

>>18448150
>Hot Take
Fuck off back to Twitter you filtered tranny

[Anonymous No.18449625]

>>18449596
There is no future for the current world order. The current strain of globalist liberalism can only survive so long as it manages to provide cheap goods to all in a transactional way that allows people to avoid real interactions with other people. It is extremely fragile. People are not bound by abstract ideals like a common commitment to liberalism, they're bound by blood, community, faith. When competition sets in, when people can't simply go to the local Walmart and have every material desire satiated with a single visit then the real ties that bind people will once again rise to the fore and liberalism will crumble as people preference their ingroups. No-one will give bread to a fellow supporter of liberalism over their illiberal child, that's a simple fact and in that fact liberalism is inevitably doomed when the artificial supply lines of cheap consumer goods from production to consumer are cut and it becomes a matter of picking and choosing who gets what.

Chesterton is right. People will be forced to look back purely because there's nothing to see ahead so long as people live in a dream world of liberalism that tries to create a common bond of humanity through abstract idealism.

[Anonymous No.18449628]

Jesus fuck this board intensely loves Dosto

[Anonymous No.18449636]

>>18449568
lol

[Anonymous No.18449646]

>>18449628
most people on the board have only read him and Tolstoy or Pynchon if you're lucky

[Anonymous No.18449679]

[Anonymous No.18449687]

>>18448150
>Dosto
>flowery prose
Holy shit, you are retarded

[Anonymous No.18449694]

>>18449628
Because he was right about everything and that fact makes soulless modern bugmen seethe

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18449756]

>>18449625
He’s not. Hiding in the arms of the church is like trying to bring old free market capitalism back.
We can make a better future only with what we know from the past and present. Not mimicking favorite eras of the past because you got warm feelings from a book about it.

[Anonymous No.18449838]

>>18449756
youre literally a leftist who simultaneously has yet to provide a single remedy to the glaring problems plaguing your leftist political ideals. you've gone straight past "thinking about the future or the past" and are currently disconnected from reality completely. you're literally on the same level as boomer cuckservatives who dickride billionaires completely disconnected from the reality of what they are actually doing

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18449886]

>>18449838
>has yet to provide a single remedy to the glaring problems
Baseless accusation

[Anonymous No.18449903]

>>18449886
you've lost tonnes of debates here, butters. when you get cornered the debate regarding this topic it ends with you saying "tee hee it just works because it does!" and have never actually layed out anything concrete, then you go on living in complete ignorance as if nothing happened
we've all seen what goes on in that little mind of yours a dozen times

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18449917]

[Anonymous No.18449936]

>>18449917
aah yes since you know more than any leftist who lived before you, why dont you lay out something concrete then butters? how do you organize your glorious revolution and possible civil war, seize power, completely rebuild society from the ground up and eliminate counter revolutionaries, all without any sort of administrative oversight while maintaining industry and the distribution of critical goods, ending in a classless stateless society with no economic/power structures that would inevitably lead to new class divisions?

[Anonymous No.18449942]

>>18449936
>>18449917
oh yea and i forgot, add "and actually maintain your independence"

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18449996]

>>18449936
>aah yes since you know more than any leftist who lived before you,
Sarcasm
>why dont you lay out something concrete then butters?
I have done this before and in an on topic thread. I gather you’re not really interested in anything but ragging on me and don’t really want to hear about the majority of the world’s population getting fed up with elitism and bureaucracy and won’t miss globo-trade-tionalism and all the other abhorrent liberal scammers when they’re used for fertilizer.
I mean how many of you would rather see this soft fascism of the corporate state go full fascist and start some super popular race wars (which are happening now, but only softly. A progressive kind of fascism). No, you don’t want solutions. You don’t care. Save me your troll posts

[Anonymous No.18450015]

>>18448150
>dostoevsky.jpg
Why does Freddie Engels look so down? He was a jolly chap.

[Anonymous No.18450023]

>>18449205
This is pure ignorance. The past resurfaces with greater regularity than novelty is generated. The rate of resurgence is decidedly larger than the rate of innovation.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18450035]

>>18450023
>resurgence
HAHA

[Anonymous No.18450038]

>>18449996
>I have done this before
no you haven't. this is objectively untrue you are well aware of it

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18450063]

>>18450038
>R-r-really? I must have missed it
>C-c-could you repeat it pwease?

Not presently

[Anonymous No.18450083]

>>18450063
thats another lost debate because you cant provide anything concrete and you know it, i look forward to next time. you're way too transparent and predictable butters

[Anonymous No.18450117]

>>18449996
oh wait, being off topic is the problem?

ok, in dostoyevskys demons he virtually predicted the fate of every leftist revolution with complete accuracy decades ahead of time. since you are here criticizing dostoyevsky why dont you be critical of him by answering the questions here >>18449936 thus proving that all his fears regarding growing leftist movements were not necessarily true, and that he was thius a backwards hack and you are thinning of the future while he is not. hell, you dont even have to prove they are outright false, just that they are not always going to be true

[Anonymous No.18450128]

>>18450035
Even trivialities as inconsequential as fashion follows the law of greater resurgence than innovation. The prime mover of the natural world is mimicry. This is writ large in the process of learning which is nothing but the pursuit of mimicry. There are quite simply too few avenues containing any real value outside the well worn and often forgotten paths of the past. Even now the zeitgeist's tip towards socialism and even communism in the west is but a repetition, a resurgence of communism in eastern europe. It is championed by the exact same players in the exact same roles making the exact same noise and is doomed to progress in the exact same fashion. By the time communism uproots and overtakes socialism all the intelligent true believers will start rebuking their own creation. Just as their brethren did a century ago. And these cheerful allies of their own gravediggers, these better and intelligent people will be marked as enemies of the state. Marked as threats to order. All paths of social upheaval end in the iron fist of order. It is an inevitability of a group of a certain size. The only possible exception is a limitation of size, but a small group size is crushed by a larger ordered body. Do you not comprehend the futility of your paradise? How can you possibly delude yourself that the future can escape the cycles of the past THIS time when all the signs of resurgence are nakedly in your face? Delusional ignorance.

[Anonymous No.18450135]

>>18448150
Greatest YA novelist of all time, a brilliant dramatist and sentimentalist. But maybe you're already too old to get it.

[Anonymous No.18450147]

>>18448541
All of his ideas are just "feels over reals" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18450216]

>>18449628
only because they’re told that they ’should’

[Anonymous No.18450220]

>>18450216
personally i love him because i enjoyed a few of his books

[Anonymous No.18450228]

>>18450220
sucks for you i guess

[Anonymous No.18450242]

>>18450228
its actually pretty great desu

[Anonymous No.18450617]

>>18449679
>Serbia
what is Siberia, anon?

[Anonymous No.18450948]

Get some pussy you dont have to pay for

[Anonymous No.18451070]

>>18448150
From a Nietzsche fan, you're a dumbass, and the reason why Nietzsche is considered someone who plebs read.

[Anonymous No.18451105]

>>18450035
You are not the real Butterfly. Give up if you can't work the facade

[Anonymous No.18451121]

>>18448520
You will never even vaguely understand art, youre a disgusting politicbrain

[Anonymous No.18451250]

>>18448150
>His writing style is excessively flowery
Is it really? Maybe I read a bad translation but I thought his writing are concise and focuses more on the ideas rather than prose.

[Anonymous No.18451287]

>>18449111
No, you fat cunt. It's the theologians like you who strip down every mystical element and turn the religion into bugman bullshit. Theologians killed religion and science was the final nail in the coffin.

[Anonymous No.18451319]

>>18449111
>>18451287
Also why did he write books on Christianity? When libraries are filled with theology. He should have shut the fuck up and applied this logic on his self by just reading old material. Ironically he was in the same group which he critiqued. A new age man moving ahead with history by writing new interpretations while complaining about other new age men for moving ahead with history.

[Anonymous No.18451547]

>>18449628
Third Commandmend bro...
Imagine going to hell because you can't figure out any other way to lend gravity to your mundane statement but using the Lords name in vain

[Anonymous No.18451839]

>>18449679
I get it, this is a pasta, but it's still retarded, Fjodor would never call anyone "a fucking pleb", he LOVED the Russian people, that's the whole point of his works.

[Anonymous No.18451861]

I like Dostoevsky, but sometimes it can be a bit dramatic with people looking at each other "with pure hatred" here and there

[Anonymous No.18451882]

>>18448150
>>18448188
>>18448462
>>18449205
>>18449596
>>18449756
>>18449886
>>18449917
>>18449996
>>18450035
>>18450063
Vill du ha en flaska bepis?
Det är för pseud och larpers

[Anonymous No.18451914]

>>18448150
Ironically, he predicted and preemptively BTFO'd types with that mindset in The Adolescent and The Posssessed.

[Anonymous No.18451989]

>>18448462
>prima facie
do you even know what that means, anon?

[Anonymous No.18452017]

>>18448150
>gets that Dostoevsky is a hack
>doesn't get that Nietzsche is also a hack

[Anonymous No.18452134]

Joyce’s project was ultimately a despicable failure because its dependent on an optimism towards modernity unjustifiable, and this optimistic stance which sets him apart from his contemporaries makes him their inferior. He’s only elevated above them because triumphant, modern institutions see him as their cheerleader.

[Anonymous No.18453106]

Nietzsche was a hack who was completely spooked by religion. His writing style is excessively flowery and a chore to get through, and the philosophical insights he makes are shallow, pedantic, and tainted by his unwavering belief in "Power." I should've just read Dostoevsky instead; I can't believe I wasted time on this clown.

[Anonymous No.18453261]

>>18448150
>His writing style is excessively flowery
Dostoevsky's prose is as to the point as you can get without actually just straight up telling about shit happening powerpoint presentation-style. Read the fucking book before posting.

[Anonymous No.18454899]

>>18448150
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.18454964]

Lmao imagine reading crime and punishment and thus spake zarathustra, then not seeing any textual conversation between them.
This nigga dostoevsky btfo'd ubermensch so hard nietzsche had to go insane from cope.

[Anonymous No.18456704]

>>18448150
Guy Pearce looks just like this nerd.

[Anonymous No.18456746]

>>18451882
Based Swedbro

[Anonymous No.18456803]

>>18453261
This is on point, and flowery is always the adjective chosen by people who don't actually like novels in response to the author's having the temerity to describe anything at all. Dosto's writing lacks ornamentation, it's one of his many weaknesses.

[Anonymous No.18456804]

[Anonymous No.18456805]

>>18448188
>reactionary
how is that automatically a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.18456872]

>>18456805
have sex

[Anonymous No.18458332]

>>18448150
He overuses the adverb suddenly. I checked the Russian text so it is not a translation quirk.

[Anonymous No.18458348]

>>18456803
>>18453261
The correct description of his style is 'rambling, conversational'. Definitely not flowery but it can be longwinded

[Anonymous No.18458882]

Dostoevsky is the definition of bluepill.