The Brothers Karamazov

[Anonymous No.22788912]

I stand by it, Ivan did nothing wrong!

[Anonymous No.22788915]

Though I give it to Dostoyevsky, dementia is the most fitting punishment to someone so used to relying on his senses and logic.

[Anonymous No.22788974]

>>22788912
I was literally Alyosha when I read it 6 years ago but I’m pretty much Ivan by now.

[Anonymous No.22788995]

>>22788974
I think in the end we all become Ivan. The world is a harsh evil place and there's no place for blind belief or unbridled emotion.

[Anonymous No.22789101]

Ivan did everything wrong and got what he fucking deserved for it

[Anonymous No.22789104]

>>22789101
Why do you think so, anon? He lived a rich life with a woman who loves him and got to enjoy using his spare time to mock the less able and discuss the highest arts and thinking of the time. He got a pretty sweet deal.

[Anonymous No.22789164]

Why did he get sick with fever? Was that herpes? And why was Smerdyakov also sick? Somehow that made me think they were gay lovers

[Anonymous No.22789243]

Ivan was so cool. He was the real deal, meanwhile Smerdyakov is the average anon.

[Anonymous No.22789255]

>>22788995
It’s also beautiful but when you age you get so used to it that you cant appreciate that aspect anymore you just see it through a utilitarian lense :(

[Anonymous No.22789259]

>>22789243
Smerdyakov is miles more intelligent than the average anon

[Anonymous No.22789277]

>>22788995
What’s crazy about this book is it reflects my family almost perfectly.

[Anonymous No.22789291]

What was your favorite chapter, anon? Most say The Grand Inquisitor but to me it was "Ivan's nightmare, The Devil", Imagine not being attacked by might or facts, but rather by doubts like a solipsist and having all your musings turned inside out. I also like to imagine what a philosophical chat with the devil would be like.
>>22789255
I mean it can be appreciated on the level in which it can be useful to you.
>>22789259
>Smerdyakov is miles more intelligent than the average anon
I refuse to think so, but I admit some boards make me wish to stab my eyes out.

[Anonymous No.22789297]

>>22789259
Smerdyakov is more than the average Anon. He has all the worst Anon negative qualities but amplified.

[Anonymous No.22789309]

>>22789297
Minus the intelligence. He was quite manipulative, to even out logic Ivan, yet most anons here are asspergers or lack social skills to achieve that.

[Anonymous No.22789356]

How can I become as cool as Ivan Karamazov?

[Anonymous No.22789371]

>>22789291
>to me it was "Ivan's nightmare, The Devil",
Agree
Btw, that was his father

[Anonymous No.22789381]

>>22789371
Fascinating, I thought it was Ivan himself as a representation of how he sees himself in his mind.

[Anonymous No.22789476]

Who is the biggest nihilist, Ivan Karamazov or Patrick Bateman?

[Anonymous No.22789511]

>>22789476
Patrick had the most fun for sure

[Anonymous No.22789577]

Did Ivan ever get to have sex?

[Anonymous No.22789627]

>>22789476
>>22789511
Patrick is vapid with no thought of his own. He's basically a woman

[Anonymous No.22789698]

What do you think of Fyodor Pavlovich?

[Anonymous No.22789768]

>>22789698
He lived a good life

[Anonymous No.22789810]

>>22789291
I like the part where Fyodor Pavlovich and the lads are by the fire, and he asks them each straight up if they believe in God. The moment where Ivan clearly states "No", and Alyosha "Yes" was a pivotal moment in my mind.

Also I skipped the Grand Inquisitor chapter altogether because I smelled Orthodox seething about the Catholic Church

[Anonymous No.22789812]

>>22789810
With every chapter my respect for Ivan grew more and more.

[Anonymous No.22789824]

>>22789309
Smerdyakov was a bit of a sperg as well If I remember right. He couldn’t understand anything abstract, Fyodor gave him access to his books but Smerdy wasn’t interested in reading them because they were fiction. He’s an interesting character because he’s kind of a repulsive little character but it’s understandable when you realise he was a born loser just like many anons.

[Anonymous No.22789832]

>>22789698
A pathetic shithead who psychologically sublimated his hatred for himself and others by acting like a Buffon on purpose and abusing his family. His purpose as a character was to illustrate Zosima’s point and shoe how everyone was responsible for his death including himself.

[Anonymous No.22789835]

>>22789768
He in fact did not live a good life.

[Anonymous No.22789837]

>>22789824
I find Fyodor Pavlovich and Smerdyakov the most anon like. I wouldn't be fazed if they were anons who posted here daily if they lived in the modern era.
On the other hand Ivan thinks too highly of himself, he almost feels like a plebbitor.
>>22789835
>He in fact did not live a good life.
Why do you think so, anon?

[Anonymous No.22789864]

If the rule Ivan followed, brought him to this, of what use was the rule?

[Anonymous No.22789878]

>>22788974
>>22788995
In my early 20s, I was Dmitri. In my late 20s, I was Alyosha. Now, I'm Ivan. Demons haunt me.

[Anonymous No.22789881]

>>22789864
Who gives a shit about utility, Haircut. Another one of your abstractions distorting your view.

[Anonymous No.22789913]

>>22789878
Oh how people change. I also interpreted Dostoevsky's writing as the Id, Ego and Superego

[Anonymous No.22789923]

>>22788912
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.

[Anonymous No.22789958]

>>22789923
Lets see what you consider good writing, what books are your favorites, genius?

[Anonymous No.22789986]

>>22789958
1. The God Delusion
2. God is Not Great
3. Infidel
4. On the Nature of the Universe
5. The Golden Bough
6. The End of Faith
7. The Future of an Illusion
8. The Problems of Philosophy
9. God and the State
10. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
11. Utilitarianism
12. The Age of Reason
13. The Doors of Perception
14. On Liberty
15. The Selfish Gene
16. The Art of Living (Epictetus)
17. Meditations (Marcus Aurelius)
18. Why I am Not a Christian
19. The Nicomachean Ethics
20. The Trial and Death of Socrates

[Anonymous No.22790129]

>>22789986
Pretty lame desu

[Anonymous No.22790141]

>>22789291
The Zosima death chapter/book

[Anonymous No.22790142]

>>22789986

Ultimate neckbeard detected

You really think this is the height of knowledge?

Someome who spends time excusing his belief, rather than dismantling it?

The only books worth reading are those which you enjoy, yes; but you enjoy the frrling of being right, which is not only ridiculous but the evolutionary trait of the fanatic.

How are you any different from Islamic scribes who go look for hadiths to support their idiocy?

By showing you pity, do I do more than adapt to the social queue of this board?

I don't know. If you were here, physically, perhaps I'd tell you of the adventurous exploits of my life, ehoch are a million times better than books, and give you perhaps a couple of examples of books that, while failing to grasp the real adventure, incite you to live your own.

But, alas! We are in an internet board and feeling adgy yet pasing for cringy is all one is meant to do here. There is definetly no way for us to help each other.

I have tead all the books on your list, and if I'm honest, most were read before I started living. They are not enough for life. They will lead you nowhere.

Reading is just a training we subject our mind to; but if such helps not your tongue, and your travrls, and tour relations, and your impact on others - of what good is your mind? An excuse if an excuse.

There is more in Blake than in the Doors of perception, and there is more in Empedocles than in any of your stoics.

No one will ever call you to run a country. Abandon the illusion of having could a'been a king. You'll find that the reality of a peasant, if he be a lover, is greater than the dream of a monarch.

It's as if you read A Confederacy of Dunces and decided Ignatius is a hero. You're missing the point.

And btw, funny that you'd base your personality against Chrisnianity and the 'uncovering' of myths as archetypal rather than real, given that Socrates spoke what his God told him, and sacrificed himself for his ideal of truth and egalitarian love against the fanaticism of the mixture of religious zeal and law enforcement that eventually had him elegantly executed.

Go and find that which you're missing, kid. There's no laureate reeds waiting for you here.

[Anonymous No.22790159]

>>22789986

[Anonymous No.22790185]

>>22790142
If you think Socrates' Daemon is God, the word "God" has no meaning. Even Hitchens referenced Socrates Daemon as the thing that motivates himself. Most people refer to this as a conscience, or moral convictions. If you feel the need to connect this to a specific divine entity, it appears as though your criticism of me is mere projection. You can only see the matter through your own lens and lack the imagination and the humility to recognize that there are other ways of seeing things. Stick with it anon, you may have an epiphany yet

[Anonymous No.22790231]

>>22790185
What do you even mean with that?

[Anonymous No.22790262]

>>22790231
I mean exactly what I said. The word "God" is pointless. It can mean essentially anything, everything, or nothing.

[Anonymous No.22790278]

>>22790262
I'm not who you're replying to, but any word can mean anything. Language is inherently dynamic, and every word is said quite literally 'in a manner of speaking'. When I use the word God, I do so in the Roman Catholic sense, with all of the implications that carries. If I say 'God is great', a Muslim will agree enthusiastically, and in political conversation (especially recently) I sometimes say things like that intentionally to create rapport, using more general terms like God instead of Jesus Christ explicitly, though of course both mean the same to me.

[Anonymous No.22790308]

>>22790278
Yes, however there is a class of "weasel words" which have such liquid and fluid definitions so that they can denote a concept people are willing to die for while also meaning a concept so vague as to be literally meaningless. This is why the word is actually goes beyond useless and harms discourse by obscuring meaning. Does not the Roman Catholic definition include some such work around about how God is by definition indefinable? What word could be worse than one which simultaneously means a thing and the negation of that thing? Meaning and also meaningless? Exact and also vague?

[Anonymous No.22790347]

>>22790308
I would say that there are no 'weasel words' but certain terms that people can use in weasel ways. When one engages in philosophy, the words 'time', or the verb 'to be' become such 'weasel terms' and depending on the instance a flawed understanding of being or time, perhaps as a result of weaselry, could cause a difficult situation. The word God is meaningless to someone who does not understand what the person means by saying it, but the general implications are creator, or first principle, immovable mover. That's all words are, visuals or sounds that imply meaning, and sometimes need to be elaborated on.

[Anonymous No.22790375]

>>22790141
Seconding this, nothing in literature moved me as much as this chapter, especially the story about his brother and the duel when he was younger

[Anonymous No.22790401]

>>22790347
I think we both agree and disagree. The word "word" does not need any elaboration. We both know exactly what we refer to by the word "word". We don't need to elaborate, we just need basic familiarity with the English language to know it with 100% certainty. It is definite and unambiguous. Words like "God" are black holes, as you reference, they don't just need elaborating on, they demand it before the smallest piece of the conversation can have any meaning whatsoever. As I referenced earlier, such a word as "God" creates such a massive road block to the conversation as to derail it. I will now continue onto the next problem with the word, it carries more baggage than any over word ever devised. One might rigorously define it in a certain way, but once entered into conversation it will inevitably take on the colloquial meaning, and I suspect it's often implicitly designed to by-pass rigorous definition and smuggle in very different connotations than those presented as the definition by the user.

[Anonymous No.22790451]

>>22790401
Is our understanding of the word 'word' 100%? Some people say 'word' as an expression of agreement, this is termed slang but really it's just a general understanding. If I say 'word' to a Japanese exchange student, he will understandably reply 'which one?'. When the Apostle John says 'The Word' he is referring to Christ, both his Person and the literal Word of God that He brings. I don't present these things to nitpick but to argue that all words, even those that to our mind couldn't possibly mean anything but what they 'are', can be made to mean any number of things depending on context, and if they are misused in a sinister way, it is the fault of the speaker and not the word itself, nor is the fault necessarily with the 'thing in itself' that is communicated by the word. When Christianity was brought to Japan, the Western understanding of God had to be reconciled with the Japanese one. The closest approximation in their language was 'Kami', but this approximation was nowhere near sufficient to teach Catholic doctrine, so the word had to be elaborated on, it's meaning slowly and deliberately explained through comparison, so that both parties could 'come to terms'. I agree that the word God is one of the most difficult in the English language, but not so much more difficult than the word 'time' as to merit being labelled meaningless.

[Anonymous No.22790471]

>>22790451
Sounds like a lot of mental gymnastics and semantic masturbation. Up to that point in our back and forth, we both used the word "word" referring to the "word" "God" as a word. It facilitated a conversation without the smallest hint that we may be using the word "word" differently, and you only decided to be pedantic about the word "word" and it's other uses which were absolutely not pertinent in the usage in this conversation when I used it to contrast the word "God" with the word "word" to demonstrate the ease of understanding of one and the immense opaqueness of the other.

[Anonymous No.22790485]

>>22790471
No masturbation from me today, the ease of understanding or opaqueness of a word are entirely subjective and context dependent, that is what I was trying to demonstrate by taking a seemingly objective term like 'word' and stretching it to mean all sorts of things. Many authors do this as a kind of technical exercise, and I honestly find it masturbatory too.

[Anonymous No.22790513]

I'm gonna hop on the only semi-decent Dosto thread on /lit/ atm to mention something I was thinking about after lately regarding The Idiot- the monologue about railways by Lebedev felt very prescient to the idea of instantaneous communication that comes from the age of social media.

>the question is whether or not the "wellsprings of life" have not weakened with the increase..."
>"Of railroads?" cried Kolya
>"Not of railway communication, my young but passionate adolescent, but of that whole tendency, of which railways may serve as an image, so to speak, an artistic expression. Hurrying, clanging, banging, and speeding, they say, for the happiness of mankind! 'It's getting much too noisy and industrial in mankind, there is too little spiritual peace', complains a secluded thinker. 'Yes, but the banging of carts delivering bread for hungry mankind may be better than spiritual peace', triumphantly replies another, a widely traveled thinker, and walks off vaingloriously.
>I, the vile Lebedev, do not believe in the carts that deliver bread to mankind! For carts that deliver bread to all mankind, without any moral foundations for their action, may quite cold-bloodedly exclude a considerable part of mankind from enjoying what they deliver, as has already happened..."

This was one of the few scenes in The Idiot that stuck out to me - on the whole it was far from my favorite Dosto book, but still speckled with something special.

[Anonymous No.22790626]

>>22790513
He just has a special style of telling things.

[Anonymous No.22790809]

>>22790141
Aliosha's conflict on that one was unexpected.

[Anonymous No.22790952]

>>22790809
What did you think of Aleksei?

[Anonymous No.22791038]

>>22789837
Fyodor Pavolich lived a life without honour or virtue. He was cruel and caused suffering in everyone who depended on him. He was an idiot who spent his entire life wrapped up in temporary sense pleasures and resentments. He was partially responsible for his own death in the pursuit of acquiring Grushenka in the most base way possible and alienated all of his sons so that they all wanted him dead except maybe Alexei. From a materialistic view you could say he live a good life in that he was wealthy and could afford to live in luxury while people like the Snegiryovs lived in poverty. But consider that when Ilyusha or Zosima were dying they were surrounded by friends and family and had a certain peace of heart. Nobody really loved Fyodor and in any moral or religious understanding of the world he botched his life.

[Anonymous No.22791046]

>>22790401

O really? The linguistic baggage of language and our understanding of the nature of God obscures our ability to understand?

[Anonymous No.22791062]

>>22790952

Alyosha is a bodhisattva. Our world needs people like him in real life that can step beyond the mind with a powerful heart of compassion and kind for the beauty of the world. All three of the Karamazov brothers united make a whole person.

[Anonymous No.22791193]

Smerdyakov did nothing wrong actually.

[Anonymous No.22791199]

>>22788974
>>22788995
You become Ivan and then inevitably descend towards Fyodor Pavlovich. Such is the way of things. I've seen it in my own father.

The only way to win is to stay Alyosha so that you might become Zosima instead.

[Anonymous No.22791214]

>>22791199
I am the reverse I was Ivan/Smerdyakov but am moving towards Alyosha as I get older.

[Anonymous No.22791620]

>>22791199
That's so based. But I don't want to stink

[Anonymous No.22791924]

>>22791038
>But consider that when Ilyusha or Zosima were dying they were surrounded by friends and family and had a certain peace of heart. Nobody really loved Fyodor and in any moral or religious understanding of the world he botched his life.
And yet everyone turned on Zosima upon his death while he lived a life of deprivation.
Captcha: KKK WKK

[Anonymous No.22791975]

>>22791046
>our understanding of the nature of God
Huge sections of religion hold the conviction that it's impossible to understand the nature of God

[Anonymous No.22792016]

Kitabı okurken alyoşa olduğumu saniyordum ama kitabı bitirdigimde Ivan olduğumu farkettim

[Anonymous No.22792191]

>>22791975
I can see it, just like madness it may escape the abilities of humans.

[Anonymous No.22792233]

>>22791924
Not everyone only the corrupt and weak of spirit. Plus it’s not really about the external circumstances I was just using it as an illustration. I have more in mind the stoic ideals of nobility of life goodness as its own reward.

[Anonymous No.22792235]

>>22791975
Perhaps we need a direct non theoretical and non linguistic understanding of the sacred.

[Anonymous No.22792382]

>>22792233
But what if my goals in life are only to eat, drink and fuck myself to an early grave?

[Anonymous No.22792586]

>>22792382
Then you're out of luck

[Anonymous No.22792643]

>>22792382
Then you have abdicated a significant portion of what it means to be a human being in my opinion. It’s perfectly reasonable if you have certain beliefs about the world to chase pleasure at the expense of everything. If you believe that the only thing that exist is materialism and that virtues are just cooked up by resentment then go for it. However I believe it won’t bring lasting satisfaction it will just fuel dukkha and wast your precious human life.

[Anonymous No.22792794]

>>22792643
>However I believe it won’t bring lasting satisfaction it will just fuel dukkha and wast your precious human life.
That's what I wonder, I'd like to meet someone who lived like that and see if it really brought them happiness or not. Why are we even here? I like that Dostoyevsky seems to question that in The Brothers Karamazov

[Anonymous No.22792826]

>>22789291
I always liked the scene when Rakitin takes Alyosha to see Grushenka and instead of getting seduced he brings out the kindness in her and she tells Rakitin to fuck off. Her personality reminds me a lot of a close friend I had growing up.

[Anonymous No.22792845]

>>22792826
Can someone really grow to be as pure as Aliosha? I read that Dostoyevsky planned a sequel where he would explore the dark side of Aleksei's philosophy, a shame he died before. I also wanted to know more of Ivan's thinking and his relationship with Katerina. I really loved them as equals.

[Anonymous No.22792945]

Who did you prefer anon, Katerina Ivanova or Grushenka?

[Anonymous No.22792946]

>>22792794
I have never heard of anyone who lived a life of pleasure seeking at the expense of all else who had a joyful existence. It seems impossible in my mind that you could ever satisfy your desires so fully that you would be fulfilled. It seems to be a thing where the more you indulge the more you crave. Definitely people sour grape and bitch about people that enjoy pleasures that they can’t acquire but I think traditional morality is correct about the emptiness of hedonism. Pleasure I don’t think is bad and I don’t think people should try to torture themselves mindlessly with asceticism but the cultivation of higher goods outweigh sense pleasure.

[Anonymous No.22792973]

>>22792945
They’re both dangerous women.

Katerina is overwhelmingly prideful and vengeful. She never loved Dimitri but was willing to torture him and herself to get even with him. She does have redeeming qualities like generosity and culture but I am not sure how valuable money is to her.

Grushenka is a self-loathing, insecure, and capricious women. She’s had a good heart and can be kind but if you cross her she would destroy you. She has suffered a lot more than Katerina and ultimately would probably be more loyal and loving that Katrina so I choose her.

[Anonymous No.22792979]

>>22792973
I on the contrary, don't like Grushenka's "peasant" behavior and self destructiveness. I would enjoy Katerina as an elegant lover but she may get on my nerves. Luckily in that time it was okay to "smack some sense" into your woman so she would behave.
I love how she plays off of Ivan's intellectualism and supports him even with his masterplan so she shows to be somewhat dependable on big stuff and seems to be able to figure things that escape Ivan when he's weak. Also her self sacrifice to keep Ivan alive shows she'd be a great wife.

[Anonymous No.22793015]

>>22792979
She’s one of the most dangerous types of Slav women. She wound constantly be trying to shit test you and play minds games. Maybe she would mellow out with age though. I will say in her favour she is very smart and elegant.

I like Grushenka is a ride or die chick. If she truly loves you she will be with you till the ends of the earth. She is a simple peasant woman without education or sophistication but she’s resourceful and clever. Will Katerina had a a good family and inherited a fortune Grushenka had no one and nothing to fight for everything. She also has a compassionate heart underneath everything.

[Anonymous No.22793029]

>>22793015
True, its the mind games that get on my nerves. I guess she'd be most useful if that knack for manipulation and challenges is directed towards your direct goals. I think great stuff can be achieved.

[Anonymous No.22793078]

>>22793015
I guess Grushenka also gives the best sex of the two

[Anonymous No.22793249]

>>22793078
Wrong actually in real life she would be inferior in sex to Katerina actually.

Grushenka is “experienced” and a passionate but submissive lover definitely not bad.

Women like Katerina would be a dominant and adventurous wild monster in the bedroom. Definitely she would be interested in some crazy stuff as long as nobody found out about it. She would use it as another way to control you however so be aware of this.

However I still pick Grushenka

[Anonymous No.22793301]

>>22790513
it is utterly mind boggling how consistently on point and predictive his works are. just goes to show you how deep the roots "modern" social ailments run

another bit from the idiot was the "progressive" criminal defense of the murderer who "perfectly naturally" killed 6 people, and as myshkin put it, the criminal who cant even acknowledge his wrongdoing, who believes he was entitled to commit obvious heinous crimes under the progressive mindset

[Anonymous No.22793482]

>>22793249
>Grushenka is “experienced” and a passionate but submissive lover definitely not bad.
>Women like Katerina would be a dominant and adventurous wild monster in the bedroom. Definitely she would be interested in some crazy stuff as long as nobody found out about it. She would use it as another way to control you however so be aware of this.

[Anonymous No.22793487]

>>22793482
Imagine how good she'd be at it.

[Anonymous No.22793558]

Do you think Katia is smarter than Ivan? What about Smerdyakov?

[Anonymous No.22793657]

>>22793558
Smerdyakov is simply pathetic. Not relatable at all

[Anonymous No.22793701]

I wish I could be half as cool as Ivan

[Anonymous No.22793853]

>>22793657
Pretty similar to the average anon

[Anonymous No.22793917]

>>22788912
Good book but it could do with more sex

[Anonymous No.22794009]

How can one become like Alexei?

[Anonymous No.22794109]

>>22794009
have faith
read your bible
read the idiot too and study prince myshkin

[Anonymous No.22794295]

>>22789291
Mine is the last scene, where Alyosha gives his speech to the schoolboys after the funeral. To me, it sums up the entire point of the novel.

[Anonymous No.22794303]

I think the meaning Dostoyevsky wanted to leave us is that women will destroy your life. Both Katya and Grushenka ruined their lover's life and all due to their capricious nature.

[Anonymous No.22794307]

>>22794303
That's definitely part of it, but it's also nothing new. Read Genesis.

[Anonymous No.22794331]

>>22789291
Rebellion. Cana of Galilee.

[Anonymous No.22794638]

>>22794303
Funny and true for many men. However, the real point I thought was a sort of existentialist, proto-Heidegger, mystic type message. The idea of the struggles of modern intellectual being in the world and human hubris and weakness which can only be solved through “active love” of the world and responsibility of everyone for everyone. The need for Christlike men like Alyosha to exist as a type of Saint fighting a hopeless lost cause and to struggle against evildoers without hate. The idea that we should cry “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing!” That in the struggle to purify our own souls we should adopted the perspective of Christ. To see others and the world the way God seems them. To struggle against ourselves without hope of reward, to live poetically or beautifully in other words. To not try to understand the world or hate the world solely by rational methods like Ivan. Because ultimately man can not save himself from himself with his intellect but In spiritual struggle and love we will all be redeemed.

Or maybe I am talking a lot of nonsense but that’s what I took out of it coming from a more Buddhist 21st century American perspective.

[Anonymous No.22794965]

>used to be Ivan
>now closer to Alyosha
strange

[Anonymous No.22794991]

>>22789923
new pasta dropped?