Dostoevsky

[Anonymous No.2516572]

Fyodor Dostoevsky, nihilist and silly christian apologist, gaze upon his ignorance and laugh.

>"If you were to destroy the belief in immortality in mankind, not only love but every living force on which the continuation of all life in the world depended, would dry up at once. "

hurp durp life derives meaning from the belief in an afterlife...and the afterlife derives its meaning from the belief in an after-afterlife, herp durp I subscribe to christianity or else all is meaningless---

>If there is no God, everything is permitted.

This is meaningless. If there is a God everything is also permitted given the fact that we make up whatever we want about god and justify our actions anyway we please using god (suicide bombers, crusades, inquistions, etc)


>It seems, in fact, as though the second half of a man's life is made up of nothing, but the habits he has accumulated during the first half.

No, just because you are one-dimensional and set in your ways doesn't mean all men are.

>The soul is healed by being with children.
pedo.

>To live without Hope is to Cease to live.

clearly never read any eastern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2516574]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.2516575]

>>2516574

its funny cuz its true

[Anonymous No.2516580]

>implying one can be a nihilist and a Christian

[Anonymous No.2516582]

you're an embarrassment to this board.

[Anonymous No.2516585]

4/10, the pedo remark was a little too obvious and lead to a severe reduction of points. You had potential, but that really killed the rage for me.

[Anonymous No.2516591]

>>2516572
What was wrong with the crusades or inquisitions OP? You understand their purpose and goal, don't you?

[Anonymous No.2516593]

>>2516580

nietzsche would argue that christianity is by definition nihilistic since they don't see meaning in life as it is

and his argument is true.

all religions are essentially nihilistic

[Anonymous No.2516595]

>>To live without Hope is to Cease to live.
>clearly never read any eastern philosophy.

Followers of Eastern Philosophy are closer to dead than living.

[Anonymous No.2516596]

>>2516593
He misunderstood Buddhism, and by his measure whether that's nihilistic is debateable. I don't know enough about Taoism as a religion to comment, but I'd imagine it's the same.

[Anonymous No.2516612]

>>2516596
No he didn't, YOU'VE misunderstood Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.2516619]

>>2516612
It is you who say I have.

[Anonymous No.2516621]

>>2516593

the people that call themselves Christians in the modern world are not living like Jesus Christ, they completely ignore damn near all of his teachings, and so technically they're not "Christians", which, ya know, Nietzsche wrote about a lot. so yeah I'd say you're right on the money: the noble concept of god IS dead, and all we have now is an echoing nihilism that follows the trends of the day and wears a cheap imitation Christian name tag.

a Christian that truly lived like Christ would not be a nihilist, though. he would be working to change the world, and the guys on top would kill him for it once again. i think this is what Nietzsche meant when he said "there was only ever one Christian, and he died on the cross". To truly emulate Jesus would be to BECOME the next "Jesus" (aside from the "son of god" thing, which frankly I don't care to debate, being non-religious myself) and take his burden, and teach the people, and then be killed because the rich would see you as a threat. No one has done this, probably because the last guy to do it got nailed to some wood and then misunderstood for 2,000 years. It's not a great gig.

[Anonymous No.2516655]

>>2516621
>he would be working to change the world

except Christ told them not to think long term because the end is near and everyone should pack their bags and forget about their material possessions

he also preached about hell and holding your religious beliefs higher than your parents and family

he also taught that its noble to fool people with stupid magic tricks while associating yourself with god

nothing good came of his vauge teachings, only war, ignorance and pestilence

in fact his character was most definitely a creation of the ruling class at the time

[Anonymous No.2516673]

>>2516655
>in fact his character was most definitely a creation of the ruling class at the time
>[citation needed]

points 1-2 ok, 3 only implied, 4 bullshit but either side can argue the other into the dirt with selective examples, 5 you obviously understand nothing of the history or culture of the Jewish or Roman world of the time

[Anonymous No.2516686]

>>2516655
It's like pre-Erasmus interpretations, except even more weird.

>he also preached about hell
Christ of all things talks about Hades.

> and holding your religious beliefs higher than your parents and family
Which isn't nihilist, not sure of your point here.

[Anonymous No.2516725]

>>2516686
>Which isn't nihilist, not sure of your point here.

it's a harmful teaching, telling gullible people to value their ideologies more than their friends and family

[Anonymous No.2516737]

>>2516725
The idea of "friends and family" is already the result of an ideology.

[Anonymous No.2516741]

>>2516737

A biologically determined ideology.

[Anonymous No.2516752]

>>2516737

yes but its real

their ideology rests in the imagination purely

[Anonymous No.2517933]

>>2516741
>>2516752
No. Concepts of friends and family are social, which is why we have some societies where polygamy is practised, or children are brought up communally, or friend would mean much the same as a family member, or not at all. And that's what's being talked about by JC, reject your mother and father, brothers and sisters for this new family.

[Anonymous No.2517958]

>>2517933
>>2517933

>Concepts of friends and family are social

The beings aren't "social constructs" the beings are real
And the bond between them is biological, animals have it too, you don't need concepts...concepts come after the fact and we use them to explain the natural bond


>And that's what's being talked about by JC, reject your mother and father, brothers and sisters for this new family.

yes and that's the sad part, he's telling people to place more value on their imaginary dogmas, over the reality of their natural bonds and relationships

instead he should've told be ppl to question the dogmas they are raised in, not elevate them even higher

how terribly ignorant,....but that's what happens when corrupt politicians create an ideology...

[Anonymous No.2517974]

Ah, you are mentioning Dostoevsky. If you clearly read his works you would realize that Dostoevsky represents a multitude of positions. Your quote

>"If you were to destroy the belief in immortality in mankind, not only love but every living force on which the continuation of all life in the world depended, would dry up at once. "
Is only one thing mentioned by Ivan Fyodorovich, but if you had read into at least the next chapter you would have found this.

>Use your head and you'll understand. His article is ridiculous and absurd. And did you hear his stupid theory just now: 'If there is no immortality of the soul, then there is no virtue, and therefore everything is permitted.'
>His whole theory is squalid. Mankind will find strength in itself to live for virtue, even without believing in the immortality of the soul! Find it in the love of liberty, equality, fraternity . . ."

In short, you have judged Dostoevsky over the opinion of one of his fictional characters, one whose opinion is disputed in the very next chapter.

[Anonymous No.2517982]

>>2517974
>In short, you have judged Dostoevsky over the opinion of one of his fictional characters, one whose opinion is disputed in the very next chapter.

That's just your interpretation though

[Anonymous No.2517989]

>>2517982
No, it's a direct quote of one of his characters disputing with another.

[Anonymous No.2517992]

>>2517989

ya but the quote reinforces my original idea anyway,

dosto presents the counter argument in a caricature manner to discredit it....

[Anonymous No.2518008]

>>2517992
Mmm, you could argue everyone in his writings are caricatures, at least in his most popular works his characters are generally representations of ideas.

Regardless, Dostoevsky does represent many views. The character of Kirilov inspired Albert Camus' ideas of Absurdism. The Grand Inquisitor was a question against Jesus that was left unanswered, a problem in Christianity that Dostoevsky couldn't answer. In the quote I just gave you, the character already outlined the foolishness of everything being permitted without immortality by pointing to "the love of liberty, equality, fraternity . . ."

There is no doubt the Dostoevsky is a Christian, a slavophile, but he gives good representation to opposing views.

His religious characters often talk about not hating and accepting the atheists.

It's the Catholics he hates with a passion, I don't believe I've ever seen a positive word for Catholics in his works.

[Anonymous No.2518015]

>>2518008

whats his beef with catholics

[Anonymous No.2518022]

>>2518015
From what I remember, his characters that speak about Catholics generally talk about how Catholicism is the religion of the devil. That they accepted the devils temptation of having a kingdom for Christ.

[Anonymous No.2518023]

>>2517958
>The beings aren't "social constructs" the beings are real
>And the bond between them is biological, animals have it too, you don't need concepts...concepts come after the fact and we use them to explain the natural bond
...the object of ideologies is necessarily "real" in some sense. It doesn't matter what ideology we talk about. Also, other animals don't call their "bonds" friendship or family, those are ideas we impose upon them.

>yes and that's the sad part, he's telling people to place more value on their imaginary dogmas,
No, it's the opposite. The rule of your elders was absolute, no questioning mother or father. Jesus specifically taught against that.

>over the reality of their natural bonds and relationships
What "reality"? Conservatard detected, go back to your nuclear family and rent boys.

[Anonymous No.2518026]

>>2518023
>what reality

Mothers care for their offspring in 99% of cases, its natural.
Humans have families, its natural.

We might build concepts around this but the concepts are irrelevant. Just like we build concepts about sex and food...we desire sex and food naturally, just like we desire relationships and family

Jesus is saying to forgo natural priorities, things that matter and take up imaginary ones instead

humans are mostly monogamous and care about their families..."nuclear family" is extra baggage...family is a fact

[Anonymous No.2518028]

>>2518023

he didn't say any of that shit

he said you can't follow him if you "love your mother and father"

he is speaking against love, love directed at your family

instead he wants you to love his cult more than you love your family....good brainwashing mentality, just what primitive ppl need, right?

[Anonymous No.2518033]

>>2518028
No, it's affirmative, not negative. You have to hate them (although what kind of hate exactly has been debated). He also says you have to love everyone (we are all neighbours), so it's more or less don't give priority to biological family.

>>2518026
It reads like the debate club in community.
>Mothers care for their offspring in 99% of cases, its natural.
Post natal depression.
>Humans have families, its natural.
It depends what you mean by family. It's not one thing.
>We might build concepts around this but the concepts are irrelevant. Just like we build concepts about sex and food...we desire sex and food naturally, just like we desire relationships and family
We don't "build" concepts around them, they are concepts.
>humans are mostly monogamous
Not even vaguely true. Oh wait, forgot rentboys and mistresses and concubines and wife swapping don't count. Then you might be right if we talk about a particular region and time.

[Anonymous No.2518174]

>>2517992
Have you read any Dosteovsky? His main message was warning against nihilism. For example, Raskolnikov's dream of what the world would be like is nihilism took hold of the land. Also, he isn't 'hurr durr preaching' like you are trying to claim, those quotes are by his fictional characters. He raises numerous arguments for and against, and is quite intellectually honest.