Dostoevsky vs Nietzsche | Kathleen Higgins, Oliver Ready, Janne Teller

Kathleen Higgins, Oliver Ready and Janne Teller thrash out the philosophical differences between two literary giants.
Who gives us a better understanding of human nature, Doestoevsky or Nietzsche?
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/dostoevsky-vs-ni...
Dostoevsky and Nietzsche both regarded the creeping nihilism and meaninglessness of their time as a fundamental threat to humanity. While both were critical of modernity and rationalism, their solutions were radically opposed. Dostoevsky looked towards transcendence for an answer and found, in love and compassion, 'the chief law of human existence'. While Nietzsche declared God dead and found meaning in human nature and the assertion of human creativity.
Is Dostoevsky, as some have argued, a denial of all that is human and an acceptance of authority and oppression, or is it Nietzsche who is most dangerous in his endorsement of human desire and the will to power? Can meaning only be found outside of ourselves, in the love of others and in God's love for us? Or should we follow Nietzsche and see human will and desire as the means to create meaning?
#dostoevsky #nietzsche #humannature
Kathleen Higgins is a leading continental philosopher at the University of Texas, Austin. Her research interests are broad and include the philosophy of aesthetics, emotions and music.
Oliver Ready is a celebrated translator and literary scholar. His translation of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment has received critical acclaim.
Janne Teller is a critically acclaimed writer whose novels include Odin's Island, and Come, an existential novel about ethics in art and modern life.
Niki Seth-Smith hosts.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
00:00 Introduction
02:16 Kathleen Higgins pitch
04:25 Oliver Ready pitch
07:26 Janne Teller pitch
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Who gives us a better understanding of human nature, Dostoevsky or Nietzsche? Leave your thoughts in the comments. To watch the full debate, head to iai.tv/video/dostoevsky-vs-nietzsche?KZbin&

[@dennistucker1153]

Good discussion. Love the subject matter.

[@III-vg4dp]

The fact that different individuals find meaning differently from within and one's self or with others proves the nature of the question and ourselves, and by extension that there is no overall correct answer that then does not include and allow for the dynamics of both concepts. Just as philosophy is proof that no exclusive perspective is without weakness and is conditional to the intent of use and subjective desired outcome. Philosophies are tools to be chosen for particular contexts and preferences or needs, but it is the understanding of what exists and is shared between things both outside and within ourselves which are the more solid inherent facts where everything by extension of interrelated mechanics of parts is flexible and or subjective.

[@brennancarter7721]

Fascinating

[@grumpy9478]

the question is addressed in many contexts over human existence. in the time of N & D, it was identified succinctly by Darwin; self preservation / species preservation. scientists seek facts via evidence... artists & thinkers generate cases. (for me) our present Age of Relativity indicates both are true & operational.

[@TimCCambridge]

👍👍Always aiming at the target, the archer becomes locked into the role. This tension has been placed upon us, always seeking targets is the root of our existential conflict. Nature is satisfied with being a causeless cause, IMO.

[@petervandenengel1208]

Nihilism cannot be compared with compassion. They are opposites. I believe the difference between the two descriptions of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, is either having empathy for something considered holy or consisting of an infinite value (let it be) or to believe something needs to be done while it is not there (get involved). Engaged in what. Both can be compassionate/ but when they are inverted, both become futile. It fully depends on what probability distribution in reality asks for what.

[@arono9304]

"“Dostoevsky, I value him (…) as the most valuable psychological material I know” - Nietzsche, letter to Georg Brandes, Turin, 20 November 1888 “Dostoevsky, the only psychologist, by the way, from whom I had something to learn: he is one of the finest strokes of luck in my life” - Nietzsche, _Twilight of the Idols_ §45 “How liberating is Dostoevsky!” - Nietzsche, _The Will to Power_ §821. “I only know one psychologist who has lived in the world where Christianity is possible, where a Christ can arise at any moment… That is Dostoevsky” - Nietzsche, NF ‘87-’89, 15[9].

[@michaeljacobs5342]

Is it possible to know love without compassion?

[@arono9304]

@@michaeljacobs5342 Likely not

[@westerling8436]

way to misquote

[@arono9304]

@@westerling8436 Expand? Why is this a misquote?

[@jonathancunningham4159]

Is it Dostoevsky vs Nietzsche or Dostoevsky vs Nietzsche vs Teller?

[@hd-xc2lz]

Yes, you have a point.

[@Lee-bv6iv]

Interesting discussion. The assertion that atheism is a type of belief, though? How? I don't believe there is no god. Rather, I see no evidence that there is a god.

[@arono9304]

Graham Oppy (atheist philosopher) is good on this: "I don't think that there is there are any successful arguments on either side; for God or against God" (from his conversation with Alex O'Connor: "Atheism Requires Justification Too | Graham Oppy")

[@thstroyur]

And what exactly counts as "evidence", here? If God is Spirit, and spirit is nonphysical - how is one supposed to "point" at God? Do we put He under the microscope, how?

[@arono9304]

@@thstroyur Yeah, you can't find empirical evidence for that which you've excluded in your analysis in the first place. Hence I emphasised the need for supplementation with logical argument.

[@Lee-bv6iv]

@arono9304 Absolutely. I don't see any successful arguments for or against God. I see that materialism and empiricism help us to make predictions, observe, and collect data on things. This gives us understanding, to the best of our physical ability, of the universe we exist in. Anything outside of that is unobservable. It could be anything, absolutely anything and nothing.

[@grumpy9478]

my conclusion has been that it really doesn't matter whether God exists or not... universal existence would not differ in either case. @@Lee-bv6iv

[@abedokbaldet6418]

Dostoevsky is my hero