The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky | Book Discourse

[@hpebackwards]

Your channel is a gem man.

[@donsan6404]

truly

[@randallkrekelberg4346]

Hey man, great review. I am actually reading it at the moment and really loving it. Being an agnostic myself, I was at first very skeptical about making the commitment a book such as this needs and also regarding the religious content therein. What I have come to find though is that, although Dostoevsky and I differ in beliefs and views, I have a great respect for him as a person and am in awe of what this book accomplishes. He presents everyone, regardless of what category they may fall into, in an equal and realistic way. There is no preference of a particular side of thought or belief which allows anyone reading it to connect to it in a personal way and take from it what they will. The reason that I love this book though comes from Dostoevsky's ability to make me see and understand things from a completely different perspective. Thanks for reviewing this. Have subscribed :)

[@charliewest1221]

Thank you, TBP. Throughly enjoyable and enlightening. Your style of presentation enhances your discourse: clear, logical and unambiguous ... and, above all, your humility comes through like a brilliant ray of sunshine.

[@helveticaneptune537]

Literature should function as an engine to explore the human condition

[@erfanhoseinifar7282]

And dostoyevsky's novels exactly do that.

[@zoe.h.nelson04]

I love his work because of how he creates equally strong characters representing his views and also his opponents' views, and then just lets them fight it out in an organic and unbiased way.

[@theblackponderer]

Typical Dostoyevsky 😎

[@GS-lp2up]

Thank you for the wonderful review. I am reading the book right now and it is truly incredible...keep them coming!

[@sasdfsad1738]

Dostoevsky is by far my favourite author. He understands what we are. Which brother do you like the most?

[@sasdfsad1738]

Also is Spring Waltz playing in the background?

[@theblackponderer]

That would be Ivan.

[@theblackponderer]

The background music is Gymnopédie No.1 by Erik Satie.

[@rchetype7029]

The Black Ponderer His struggle is certainly the most relevant of the three brothers.

[@Nibelungenherr1876]

@@rchetype7029 There are four brothers. My favorites are Ivan and Smerdyakov.

[@MrPROJECTSyNc]

This is the first book that made me question my own spirituality and actually feel a sense of God

[@timothycatlin3973]

This was a good review. Dostoevsky is probably my favorite author. The conversation between Alyosha and Ivan that you focus on was a conversation that always sticks with me the most after reading it. I also really like Camus' breakdown of it in The Rebel at the beginning of his chapter The Rejection of Salvation.

[@tehrealjono]

Thanks for inspiring me to read this book! I just finished it. Took me 3 months but I did it. I really enjoyed it. Keep up the good work.

[@fahmisamsuri7072]

Double Cheeseburger me too. 3 damned months well worth it.

[@lunguan4963]

I have been saving this video until I finished bros K, which I did today after reading it for a few months. Amazing experience. It definetly challenged the way I consumed books, the longest book I've ever read by far, I would read with big breaks, sometimes restarting chapters, sometimes reading several back to back in sessions. It felt very rewarding getting used to the old fashioned ways of speaking, the complex conversations and social dynamics, and the various names/nicknames used for characters. I liked how you broke down some of the religious existentialist schools of thinking that certain characters can represent. I think my favourite character was Alyosha if I had to pick. His inner monologue was fascinating to me because even though I am not a religious person, I could empathise with his thoughts so clearly. Christianity doesn't get a squeaky clean depiction, but where christian faith seems to uplift the characters, for example Alyosha's 'therapist' style non-judgement of the cruel natures of others (such as Ivan and Kolya Krasotkin). His non-judgement is not the same as non-action, he leads a lot of other people into making better choices and having more optimism, just by his sheer will and unchanging kindness. I found his speech at the end of the book surprisingly emotional. This aspect of the book I found very impressive. Also throughout Dostoeyevsky paints a very clear picture of peoples inner thoughts, I liked the simple details such as Ivan being irritated by Smerdyakov's impression that the two are friends "it is always good to talk to a clever man". The emotional swings of Dimitry where strangely relateable, and although he is on most accounts a very unethical and destructive character, I found him funny, understandable and charming given his circumstances. There is so much to say about this story I don't feel like I have fully articulated how I felt. I liked your descriuption of the book as a soap opera, it definetly felt this way, and is probably the reason I was able to read it over such a long period of time without feeling like I was losing momentum, or track of the plot. The focus shifts between characters, across places and times so often that the narrative allows itself to recap, and the reader to reflect without it feeling forced. I havent read any other Dostoeyevsky works yet, so it is hard to say for me what his existential/religious/ethical opinions are. However I would say he seems very critical, in a constructive way, about religion, I liked the events after the death of Alyosha's mentor, the structure of the monastery proved to be toxic as all the followers soon denouce their admiration for Elder Zosima in their desire to maybe take power or compete over who is more pious. Have you ever re-read this book? Or have any new thoughts on it? Obviously I'm almost ten years late to this comments section haha. Thank you for the video it gave me a lot to think about.

[@theblackponderer]

@@lunguan4963 Definitely important to remember that novels like these were first published piecewise. Sections would be released periodically in reading magazines for people to consume like TV shows. Which is why when put together these books are so long. Reading it over a long period of time was the original way people read this kind of fiction. So that's cool you stuck with it. I heard the story was actually supposed to keep going after Alyosha's speech at the end. It was building up for the next story arc. I have reread The Grand Inquisitor part but haven't gained any additional insights.

[@MrDinger60]

Thank you for shining light on the greatest book ever written.

[@23ONEILL1]

I really liked your analysis here. Thanks for your work on it.

[@danielwarner3642]

Great commentary! You’ve found a new subscriber my friend.

[@maleem4421]

I love how you explain this book! Thanks for posting!!

[@ezza88ster]

Thank you. I have been struggling with these issues. Your exposition of the themes was masterly in itself and helps me contemplate that there may indeed be ground to stand upon after all...Thanks again.

[@theblackponderer]

Thanks for watching!

[@nconrad4504]

Thank you for your thoughts! Your videos are great, motivating me to read more and educate myself.

[@Гпник-д3ч]

You did great analysis. Without giving any spoilers you have given a pretty good idea if what this is abort. Piqued listeners interest, man I just love it. Great job dude.

[@Sarahac8]

Thank you for this! I finished reading TBK last month and I can't stop thinking about it.

[@misshopeful19]

My son is an agnostic but, he admits that this is one of his favorite novels.

[@WarinPartita6]

Big​ thanks​ for​ sharing​ your​ insights.

[@zakotabence5]

Like that subtle touch of satie in the background!

[@lst_sul2118]

Hey, man... Your channel is a bliss for people..your videos is so valuable... I hope that you continue to do your works.. 😇

[@armenpoghosyan4998]

Im reading it right now, kinda stuck a little but I'm gonna push through

[@sufidanish9458]

read it through man, it is worth it.

[@armenpoghosyan4998]

@@sufidanish9458 Done

[@sufidanish9458]

@@armenpoghosyan4998 what do you think?

[@fjorinasimoni9832]

You are like a story teller! I really admire u so much💖💖💖💖💖💖 & hugs from🇦🇱Albania

[@ASAPJermz]

Great review man, I really enjoy your channel.

[@lucybrown4200]

St. Augustine says that God allows suffering for two reasons: 1. To prove our perfections 2. To correct our imperfections This world (city of man) is not our permanent home. Our true home is heaven (city of God).

[@keithhoffman5351]

You make the critical point that so many people fail to see. People lean on their own understanding of the fallen earth thinking they can create their own paradise when our world isn't designed for it.

[@gfroissard1]

very good, good explanation of the tought brought bythis book. thanks.

[@totafea8]

Ordered the book on Amazo.n i cant wait to read it.

[@helveticaneptune537]

I would also recommend reading Kafka and camus

[@theblackponderer]

Check out my video on Camus' "The Stranger" at your leisure, kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3i1hp1qnsqSgdE

[@hopek7033]

@@theblackponderer Oh yes, Kafka would be great.

[@pablohb4]

Hey man great video, thanks for making this.

[@theblackponderer]

Thanks for watching!

[@FunnyAnnette]

I am glad that you liked Dostoevsky. Have you ever read Tolstoy? It is strange, but usually in Russia people, who loves Dostoevsky, can not read Tolstoy. And vice versa: fans of Tolstoy did not like Dostoevsky`s style.

[@theblackponderer]

+FunnyAnnette I've read an abridged version of "War and Peace" before. I plan on reading the unabridged version eventually. I have Russian friends who hate Dostoevsky and Tolstoy because they were forced to read them in school.

[@FunnyAnnette]

+The Black Ponderer It will be interesting to know your opinion about "War and Peace" ) Yes, there is a problem. When a person is compel to read a book, he begins to hate it. I had not understood "Eugene Onegin" at my school, but now it's one of my favorite books of Pushkin.

[@hughjarms4510]

can you explain why people would like one other and not the other and vice versa . is it because they have conflicting life philosophy . or conflicting writing styles . I have many books from both authors and would like to start reading some soon . any input would be appreciated .

[@theblackponderer]

hugh jarms I depends on the individual's personal preferences. It could be any number of different reasons. Writing style is a strong factor for many people as well as a book's tone or mood. Certain people prefer different kinds of themes over others. Certain readers like certain character types while others prefer other kinds of characters. Many different factors come into play when it comes to varied taste.

[@67Parsifal]

+FunnyAnnette Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky were politically opposed, with totally contrasting 'senses of life'. This may be why their readerships tend to be so partisan.

[@lewis23000]

Sir, I am greatful for your video. Your lack of pretentiousness is refreshing, especially regarding such an in depth tome as this.

[@caityc1837]

Thank you so much for such an extensive and we'll articulated review. Will definitely have to check this dostoyevsky out.

[@derekgreen7319]

This is a fantastic book

[@chadwinters4285]

Good day to you sir. I have been planning for a long time to delve into novels that are not of murder/spy/espionage genre. Somehow I decided the first book I am going to read is The Brothers Karamazov. I'm actually reading the book right now but I'm not enjoying the book as I think I should. The reason for this is because I prefer to understand almost everything I read and this doesn't seem to be the case for this Book. I see so many sentences that confuse me. For example, "Of course, nothing prevents a mystic or a fanatic from having red cheeks." What is confusing me is I have no idea what sort of information I should gather from this sentence. I also get confused by the author's matter-of-fact way of saying that such-and-such character is not a fanatic as in "First, I want to make it clear that young Alyosha was in no sense a fanatic." The problem is why is the author assuming that the reader will think of Alyosha as a fanatic and a fanatic in what ? Another aspect is the length of sentences. Most sentences have so many commas that you can easily get lost. Paragraphs seem to have so many ideas that you feel the author is rambling. This is my first foray into reading classics. I don't really know if its a fault on my part for not enjoying the book the same way as others have. When you're reading such books, do you understand everything or do you just continue reading when a sentence doesn't make sense ? Also, do you have any tips that can help in reading such books ?

[@theblackponderer]

+Chad Winters "The Brothers Karamazov" is definitely not a book for everyone and I can easily see people not liking it. The author certainly rambles quite often and characters can be unrealistically self-righteous, just to name a few issues. So first of all if you don't find yourself liking the book that's totally fine. Just because it's a classic doesn't mean you should like the book, and not liking a classic doesn't make you any less of a reader. The main reason why the book is drawn out so is because it was first released in parts, periodically in magazines. It was basically akin to a TV show with long drawn out episodes. Most of the books I read, there are parts I don't understand when first reading. I actually enjoy reading things I don't understand. That might not be something you're into though. I find that if I keep reading, eventually I will begin to understand the meaning. In this way, the rambling of the author is good because the author tends to repeat him or herself over and over again in different ways, using different characters and different scenes. So if you don't understand something, often times the concept will be repeated several times later in different ways and you will eventually catch the meaning. I find a lot of classics are like this. The reader is awarded for being patient, sticking with the story despite initial confusion. I enjoy not understanding what the author is saying and then going through the discovery of eventually knowing while reading the book. If that's something you're not into then it's all good. Perhaps this book isn't for you.

[@chadwinters4285]

+The Black Ponderer The question now is, 'How can one enjoy a book when he's glossing over sentences?'. The issue with me is that I'm an engineer by education which means that for so long my mind has been trained on physics/mathematics based books where every word counts. Hence, it becomes frustratingly difficult to keep going when you have no idea what a sentence is telling you. Allow me to confess that I'm not really that familiar with major philosophical ideas. For example, "Once a realist becomes a believer, however, his very realism will make him accept the existence of miracles." sounds to me like a paradox. Is it a paradox ? Does this book have some requisites before one can truly understand it ?

[@theblackponderer]

+Chad Winters I'm actually a computer scientist by education so I can relate to being only comfortable with understanding every specific detail. I've only picked up philosophy as a hobby with little formal education, mostly self taught just out of interest. The quote you share I think implies that if you realistically think about the world you will come to understand that it is impossible to understand everything. There are things that happen in life which are beyond what we can comprehend. It is, in fact, impossible to understand every little detail, for "every word to count" in the book of life. Occurrences in life that happen which are beyond our understanding are seemingly miracles. Accepting miracles is the realistic view that we cannot understand everything. This is one of philosophy's great lessons.

[@chadwinters4285]

+The Black Ponderer I think I share the same love you have for philosophy, only that I'm still an uncultivated seedling. They say 'The Critique of Pure Reason' is one of the more difficult books to read, and from your youtube reviews, I can see that you've already read that. I hope that one day I'll reach a stage where I'm comfortable reading any book. If isn't too much asking on my part, would you mind suggesting a couple of books that are intended in giving someone some of the basic concepts and terminologies in Philosophy? I think that will help my comprehension greatly. Thank You.

[@theblackponderer]

Chad Winters For beginners in philosophy, I'd recommend Plato's dialogues Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo which together are about the final days of Socrates' life. You can usually find them together collected in one book called "The Last Days of Socrates," "The Trial and Death of Socrates" or something like that. This collection is a short read, fairly straight forward, and covers fundamental western philosophical themes that many great philosophers throughout time build off of. It will give you a solid philosophical foundation as you read later philosophical works. For eastern philosophy I recommend Tao Te Ching. This is another short read and it covers the fundamental concepts of Taoism which you can see throughout much of eastern philosophy.

[@alannolan3514]

Thank you. I'm about to start the journey!

[@xclampazzo]

Thanks, I really enjoyed this

[@jaskirangoraya3282]

Hey The lesson one should not judge another for we are metaphysically dealing with the same reality touched me..❤️

[@skirtingtheedge6687]

Just finished this book and am still digesting it. I will definitely need to reread it. I benefited from listening to Jordan Peterson prior to reading it so I was primed for the father-son dynamic prevalent in the book. This includes the relationship that each of the three sons have with Fyodor Karamazov, Smerdyakov's relationshuo and Fydor as well Ilyusha and the responsibility he feels towards the Captain. Dostoevsky even references Jonah and the Whale which is about the responsibility of the son to his father. I am not a Christian but loved all of the Christian symbolism in the book. I felt that Zosima represented God in a way and when he died it paved the way for the murder. I am sure I only picked up on 10% of the book and will definitely need to reread it. Thanks for your insights.

[@skirtingtheedge6687]

Other religious iconography was Grigory's (Fydor's servant) first son being born with six fingers as had Goliath (as in David and Goliath (also as in Hannibal Lecter in the books)). Very deep stuff.

[@ryder4553]

Geez when you mentioned Jonah and the Whale I'm finally beginning to understand why Ivan went mad in the end.

[@owenhughes7792]

Thank you for this great review. This book is certainly my favorite book and converted me to a Christian. Ivan has a purely rational denial of God's world, and it's such a pungent argument. Children suffer, and do not yet know good from evil and therefore do not deserve sorrow. I cannot even start to articulate an argument against that (and neither can Alyosha) but by Alyosha kissing him he shows the Christian ideal. Suffering is real and Ivan's denial of God, good, and evil leads Ivan to the devil (You could say, Nietzsche's denial of good and evil also led him to the devil). On the other hand, Alyosha's acts end up creating a future for the children (his speech by the stone). Even if we can't be certain of God's existence, acting like Alyosha is the best thing we can do to actually reduce suffering in the world. Is anything more real, more truthful, and good than that? I thank you for the video again, and I enjoy the opportunity to express my thoughts on this book

[@theblackponderer]

Thanks for watching! To Ivan's argument I would reference the reality of free will. God has given us free will, which is an incredibly powerful gift. The choices we make can have extremely significant consequences. All of the causes of suffering that Ivan referenced were caused by someone's choice. Our choices are very important because they can cause the innocent to suffer. Indeed, when Jesus walked the world as man, communicating his status as the son of God, it was the choices of those in power that lead to his suffering and death. Our free will can even cause God to suffer. As Christians it is important to understand the power of free will which God has given us. We need to truly understand the weight of our choices. We don't live in a toy world, and God didn't create us to be pets or toys. God created us as truly autonomous beings with the ability to decide how we want to live. It is through this free choice that love can exist. Without free will there is no love, but free will allows for the ability to cause others to suffer, even those who are innocent.

[@owenhughes7792]

@@theblackponderer Thank you very much for your response, I appreciate you taking the time to write that out. That's a very good argument and I think you're absolutely correct. I truly appreciate your insight. Have a good day!

[@cifer8070]

This is the greatest book I have ever read

[@bhattkris]

Great review. Done with style.

[@JR-hc6ur]

Each of the 4 brothers are facets of any individual person. Dostoevsky wrote them as characters, (with their own background and understanding), instead of caricatures, which most writers have done when trying to do the same thing... I cannot think of a book that tries to do what this one does on an equal level, let alone better...

[@fjorinasimoni9832]

I' m Christian and don't judge anyone, i suffer from social anxiety understand perfectly the pain that other people have💖💖💖💖

[@ilqar887]

Crime and punishment or Karamazov which one is better?

[@theblackponderer]

I like Karamazov better, but that's just me.

[@ilqar887]

@@theblackponderer I wanna read it but first I have to decide if I can read it .the history line just doesn't grasp me as much

[@justbecause9219]

How does it compare with his Crime and Punishment?

[@theblackponderer]

In my opinion they are equally good.

[@binatheis]

many thanks for the subtitles. Greetings from Colombia.

[@zofiar4753]

I finished it today. An incredible book in my opinion.

[@militaryandemergencyservic3286]

it was supposed to only be the first part of a 2 part book (as the narrator says in the intro)

[@d-tudda-tudda]

I’m pretty sure some of the articles Ivan shares w Alyosha we’re actually taken from real Russian news articles of the time. The one about the boy and the dogs for example, I think the actual article is cited in the endnotes of the book, so Dostoyevsky himself might have been bringing his own doubts and troubles to bear through the character of Ivan.

[@theblackponderer]

Yeah, that's a good point. And sadly, there are events that happen in the world that are even more horrifying than those articles mentioned. So it really makes one consider how does such suffering exist where there is a loving God?

[@mskux19]

What other books are you set on analysing or that you are currently interested in? I bought this book last week oddly enough. Have yet to start it though.

[@theblackponderer]

Cool. "The Brothers Karamazov" is deeply saturated in philosophy, but it can be a bit long-winded. If you ever get to reading it I'd be interested to know what you think. The next book I plan to analyze is "The Book of the City of Ladies" which many critics consider to be one of the earliest texts on feminism. After that I plan to analyze the philosophy behind my favorite novel, "The Catcher in the Rye".

[@mskux19]

The Black Ponderer Looking forward to those indeed! I hope to start soon after work. Appreciate what you do immensely, keep it up.

[@agentsmith9851]

You should do MuMu by Dostoyevsky, it's a great read and a short book. Very deep and interesting story. Gerasim, the mute is a deep character that represents the landworkers in Imperial Russia.

[@francissemazzi1530]

Have read notes of the underground

[@luyolomify]

Can you do a review Karl Marx's Capital just the first volume since you like long dense philosophical books please?

[@theblackponderer]

Claude Mackay All three volumes of Capital as well as the Communist Manifesto are definitely in my queue of books to review on this channel.

[@luyolomify]

Great! I'm so looking forward to that day.

[@chadwinters4285]

@TheBlackPonderer, I received the Penguin edition of this book today. I have to say it reads way differently from the Oxford edition which I've been reading. The Oxford edition is much more terse and definitely employs an older style of writing (or is that the British way). I have also noticed whole sentences inserted in dialogs in the Penguin version that are completely absent in the Oxford version. I think the Penguin might be the easier to read for the average reader as it reads like most books written nowadays. Also, may I add that the Oxford version has some very obscure words like epee, cuckolded, wench etc and so you'll occasionally need to look a word up.

[@theblackponderer]

+Chad Winters Tis why I'm a Penguin Classics Edition fan :-)

[@theblackponderer]

Chad Winters Hmm? What do you mean? I like Penguin Classics because they are tailored for the layman rather than the professional expert, so they are more accessible.

[@chadwinters4285]

+The Black Ponderer What I meant is, you sometimes learn a lot through the process of self exploration and not through spoon feeding. I have often found out that the things that remain forever in my head are the things I was unable to get my head around in the first time. For instance, I used to struggle so much in understanding aspects in engineering drawing like sectioning, perspectives . . . One day, it all clicked. Then I started studying multivariable calculus and found it far easier than all those who having a good time in engineering drawing. I'm not reading this book for recreational purposes. That's why I'm being a little bit punctilious.

[@theblackponderer]

+Chad Winters I see. I admittedly read philosophy books for recreation as a hobby. And because of the nature of philosophy, I improve my critical thinking skills as an added bonus. Personally, I think philosophers can sometimes be over complicated with their language which can result in unnecessary difficulty in understanding. This in turn can lead to some of the intellectual elitism you can find in the philosophy field where some think if you can't understand the language then you don't deserve to understand the concepts. I think if philosophers where a bit more straight forward and precise in their language, this wouldn't be so much of an issue. So I'm a fan of editions that are able to make the language more accessible but still retain the core meaning of the concepts.

[@ilqar887]

I never got to learn what is the plot of this book

[@theblackponderer]

Yeah, on this channel we talk about philosophical themes, not so much plot. Check out a BookTuber for plot analysis.

[@iheartponiesmore]

Great stuff brother

[@helenaemmarasmussen1073]

Great video 👍🏻

[@kackljas]

This book broke my brain.

[@blackmetalmagick1]

11:36 What you're referring to is Deism. Agnosticism is one who thinks it cannot be proved whether there is a God or not, and is essentially indifferent to it.

[@theblackponderer]

I'm not sure that agnosticism essentially implies indifference to the existence of God. Check out my video that includes a deep philosophical analysis of agnosticism, at your leisure: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h6iuqYyfbKqSfJY

[@blackmetalmagick1]

Just simply put 'Agnosticism' in Google and it will show you that it means that the existence of God 'is not provable'

[@blackmetalmagick1]

You have misconstrued it with 'Deism' my friend.

[@theblackponderer]

Sometimes Google ain't the most reliable of sources. I'm not dismissing your viewpoint, I'm just saying some agnostics might disagree with your definition.

[@blackmetalmagick1]

www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism

[@ChrisPR88]

Reading this now.

[@noquarterdesign]

Great commentary on an excellent book!

[@abhishekjoseph4198]

This is really good!

[@frankfeldman6657]

I enjoyed this very, very much. You're very bright and very articulate. Have you read Nietzsche re all this? Not to mention the Marquis de Sade? (not the sex stuff, the philosophical interludes)

[@theblackponderer]

Thanks! Yes, I have read both Nietzsche and Marquis de Sade (the sex stuff and the philosophical interludes :-P).

[@frankfeldman6657]

Just one other thing. Not a criticism, really, just an observation. I think you're a deep fellow, and you deserve better background music than that overplayed Satie muzak Gymnopedie. Use deep music for deep thoughts. Just an opinion. Feel free to ignore!

[@theblackponderer]

Yeah, the elevator music is part of my lo-fi, laid back, leisurely style. It's part of my attempt to communicate that I'm just a normal dude that enjoys reading big, beefy, complex books and that any layman can make sense and apply complicated topics if they make the effort. You don't need snazzy music, high definition cameras, a suit/tie, a graduate degree or whatever. Philosophy is for anybody that's interested.

[@frankfeldman6657]

Wasn't suggest snazzy music by a long shot. Just better music-Bach, Schubert, Bruckner, SOMETHING. Anyway, keep up the good work, you're very bright and quite appealing.

[@rogersyversen3633]

why do people refuse to acknowledge that existence is meaningless? there is no being overseeing or not overseeing our lives, this is a projection of ourselves into the universe. offcourse I cant know this to be true, neither can I know if free will exists, but thats okay. some day we may know, and this is what makes life into life. change; from not knowing to knowing, from philosopher to religious, from religious to atheist, from order to disorder and back, etc.; is the only fundamental. time would not exist without this oscillation.

[@medwatt]

Hello. I like your videos. Just wanted to ask you how long did it take you to read this book given that the book has a lot of philosophical content ?

[@theblackponderer]

+medwatt Thanks. It took about a month.

[@medwatt]

Wow ! I currently have the Oxford translation by Ignat Avsey. I've read that the Penguin version by David McDuff is very lively. Have you tried the other translations ?

[@theblackponderer]

+medwatt I read an abridged version several years ago but I don't remember which edition it was. I'm actually a Penguin Classic Edition fan.

[@medwatt]

I can see that ! Its a shame though that your channel isn't getting the views it deserves. Anyway, keep up the good work !

[@theblackponderer]

+medwatt Thank you kindly. I don't make videos for view count, to be honest with you. I just throw my videos out into the ether and if people like to partake in them it's cool and if not that's cool too.

[@happyseal9546]

Could you please do an additional discourse on this book - but this time focus on two other areas, 1) Father Zosima, i. his personal life story, ii. the philosophy of his deceased brother ii. the sermon's we receive as a collected works through Aloysha's narriative. 2) Ivan's delusions, i.e. his interactions with the devil - explain them to me, the viewer. This book is such a masterpiece I cannot stop going over it. I am a Muslim not a Christian, but the philosophies of the two religions overlap in abundance. I don't think Dostoevsky liked Islam much (from what I understood in 'The Idiot' and 'Crime and Punishment'). But funny thing is, I studied Islam under a Muslim scholar, who was like Father Zosima manifest in real life, a person Dostoevsky created as a paragon of a priest... I think that is why the character of Father Zosima really pulled at my heartstrings. Please do heed to my request kind sir...

[@theblackponderer]

Well, I'm not going to make another video on this text if that's what you're asking. I'll tell you what though, why don't you share your thoughts on Father Zosima's personal life and sermons as well as Ivan's dellusions? And then we can have a discourse from that starting point.

[@hughjarms4510]

do more reviews please.you do great at it.

[@SSArcher11]

Impressive. I think this was the book that propelled Arthur Miller.

[@goodman5396]

Hey my philosophy friend. You know, I am almost fascinated.... Everyone always talk about Brothers K., but never talk about "Idiot". If we talk about Christian existentialism, I think Idiot is really a masterpiece? Can you make review of Idiot. It almost puzzles me why no one mentions Idiot. I think I like it more than Karamazovs.

[@theblackponderer]

+Good man Yes, I do plan on making a video about "The Idiot" eventually. However, I think when people talk about Dostoyevsky, they mostly talk about "Crime and Punishment", his most popular work.

[@charliewest1221]

There are actually remarkable ways in which themes in both these novels converge: Prince Muiskin's critique of Catholicism, the problem of epilepsy (that brilliant description in "The Idiot" just before Muiskin is about to experience an attack), the lure of money, the parallels between the two sets of lovers, the similarities betweem Hypplyte and the earlier depiction of Kolysa ...)

[@St3v3z]

I don't think Ivan accepted there is a God at all, I just think he didn't want to focus on that part of the argument because hes aware its a pointless thing to debate, as neither side has any proof. But he can argue against the idea of a benevolent, intervening God based on the horrendous suffering inflicted on the sentient beings that same God is said to have created. If there is a God, our Creator, and he cares about us and has a specific purpose and love for each and every one of us, why did the child in Ivans' story cry and plead all night for help, while it was locked in a shed in winter, but no help came, leaving the terrified child to freeze to death? Is it not evil to answer that story with "All is as God wills it"?

[@theblackponderer]

Well, Dostoevsky was a Christian. It is likely that the characters in the story represent Dostoevsky's own wrestling with his faith. In this way Ivan represents an aspect of Dostoevsky's spirituality. Like Dostoevsky, Ivan is also coming to terms with the extreme suffering in the world and the existence of a loving God. Dostoevsky is displaying the challenge of this reconciliation through Ivan. So Ivan may represent Dostoevsky's difficulty in coming to terms with the Christian reality.

[@St3v3z]

@@theblackponderer I'm sure Ivan is indeed a representation of Dostoevskys' struggles with the idea of a loving God, but I believe he deliberately poses Ivans' difficult questions from the viewpoint of the opposite of Alyosha (a devote believer) - a disbeliever, an atheist. Ivan can't believe in a benevolent God because of the evidence that shows itself in the world, whereas Alyosha sees that same suffering, but instead of trying to define it or use it as a clever argument for or against anything, he lets his faith in God flow through him to become a positive influence on the world instead of what happens to Ivan, where he is crushed by (what he sees as) the weight of a dark, Godless pit of pain and suffering. I think Dostoevsky was trying to show that whether God is real or not, Religious faith can be a lifelong anchor for people to rely on in times of crises.

[@theblackponderer]

@@St3v3z Yeah, that's a valid and deep interpretation. One can certainly see it that way. To me, Ivan represents the conflict that all Christians inevitably face: The Problem of Pain. Many Christians respond in the way Alyosha does by giving oneself up completely to faith without rationality, a supreme trust in God's love in the face of extreme suffering. Other Christians turn to theology and apologetics, like me, and are able to rationalize suffering through the reality of free will and autonomy. Then there are those who cannot reconcile God's love with Earthly suffering and ultimately reject Christianity as illogical.

[@nathangale7702]

@@theblackponderer Have you seen the movie Shadowlands? It's about C.S. Lewis' response to the problem of pain. It starts with his highly rational and (in my opinion) convincing philosophical approach to the problem...basically the idea that pain is part of the process that shapes and perfects us. But as the movie progresses, his experience of pain gets excruciatingly intimate, and he really struggles. I like this movie a lot because I'm tempted to rationalize God's actions (or inactions), but in the end, rationality comes short for a believer. I think the strongest faith comes from a healthy dose of apologetics and rationale so you can have a conversation with doubters, but it has to be grounded in a foundation of the irrational, absolute faith that Alyosha and Kierkegaard espouse.

[@theblackponderer]

​@@nathangale7702 I haven't seen that movie. I agree that faith is a belief in irrationality or more specifically, a belief that much of the true nature of reality is beyond human comprehension and will therefore always be irrational to us. In terms of suffering I have come to the belief that pain is a requirement of free will, or in other words free will necessitates suffering. Free will is required for love to exist and God is love so therefore suffering exist. There cannot be love without free will and in turn without suffering. Asking for love without suffering is like asking for a triangle with four sides. A four sided shape is a square not a triangle, likewise, free will without suffering is not free will but something else. Choice without consequence is not free will. For love to exist, there needs to be the option not to love, and to not love is to suffer and cause suffering. Love is a serious mode of existence with dire consequences.

[@peterdavis8439]

Nice work man

[@claudegray2759]

Since when does agnosticism mean deism?

[@theblackponderer]

Claude Gray, Deism can be a form of agnosticism.

[@claudegray2759]

You described agnosticism as if it were deism in this video. The belief in an impersonal God, versus the uncertainty of the existence of a God, are not the same thing.

[@theblackponderer]

Agnosticism can be the belief in an impersonal God or the uncertainty of the existence of a God. There are several forms of agnosticism.

[@claudegray2759]

It works if you were to relate the concept of an exclusively Christian God. But of course, this is a very arbitrary, not the standard definition. Obviously, the characters in the novel are not saying they believe in god's at all, of any kind. You seem to even interpret Ivan as believing in a god but refusing to worship him. It seems rather bizarre to render it that way. Atheists do not secretly believe in God but choose to hate him. The arguments these characters are giving is directed toward the Christian's own conscience. They are asking him why, first, one would choose to believe in, and second, why one would choose to worship, a deity by any logic.

[@theblackponderer]

All of the characters in this text believe in a Christian God, I would argue even Ivan. Ivan explicitly says in the text his acceptance of the existence of a Christian God but a rejection to have anything to do with said God. I read that quote in the video. The Brothers Karamazov is Dostoyevsky's psychological analysis of the challenges of faith that Christians inevitably encounter. Ivan is the typical case of a Christian who develops dissolution with God after taking into consider all the suffering that exist in the world. He becomes resentful of the very idea of a Christian God because he cannot rationalize intellectually both an all loving, all powerful God with the suffering of the world. This is why faith is required in Christianity because at a certain point you can no longer rationalize Christianity intellectually. Faith is the suspension of intellectualism. People like Ivan who desire to rationalize everything intellectually struggle with faith, and in turn struggle with Christianity. This was what Dostoyevsky was trying to show.

[@donaldreed2351]

Ivan reminds me of Job, in his questioning of God.

[@Kurtlane]

An excellent review. Only, what you describe as a Christian view and Christian struggle is a religious view and struggle. I've seen people of all sorts of religions go through it. (But yes, in the case of the Brothers Karamazov it is Christian.) Also, what you describe as agnosticism is really deism. Agnostics do not know whether God exists, and do not believe anyone else knows it, or that it can be known at all.

[@theblackponderer]

There are different versions of agnosticism. One version is what you describe. Another version of agnosticism is a kind of deism. There is a kind sometimes referred to as apathetic agnosticism which is the view that deity cannot be proved or disproved by any amount of debate and even if a deity does exist it seems the deity does not care for humans so why should humans care for the deity. This kind of agnosticism is seen in certain kinds of Buddhism, for example, in which the goal is to obtain enlightenment through undesire of matters that concern even that of deities. This kind of agnosticism is also seen in versions of Hinduism where it is believed that even gods are illusory and the ultimate reality is that everything is simply one being.

[@blackmetalmagick1]

4:32 Freddy Neechee

[@thwifi8855]

Great video, but the news stories used in the chapter “Rebellion” actually did happen in real life and Fyodor put them in the novel on purpose

[@theblackponderer]

I see. And the purpose of Dostoyevsky including those news stories was to give substance to Ivan's point, I assume. The point, which is the question of how can God allow the extreme suffering of the innocent if He is a loving god.

[@RaysDad]

Sounds like an interesting novel but I'm still not sure I'll read it anytime soon. A thousand pages is a lot! Last month I read Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground, a short and very perceptive character study. He's obviously a writer like no other. On the topic of God allowing bad things to happen........I suggest the 1961 novel Solaris by Stanislaw Lem for another slant. In this science fiction an alien life form (that is actually the entire ocean of a planet) appears to be trying to interact with individual humans by creating replicas of their lost loved ones. But the replicas are not fully human, and their attempts to form relationships with humans creates frustration and misery for all. Through this story Lem questions if God's creation of imperfect humans is similar to the ocean alien's creation of replicas. Does the God who made us and is so different from us understand us very well?

[@theblackponderer]

So I'm guessing the movie, Solaris, with George Clooney and Viola Davis is based on this book.

[@RaysDad]

The Hollywood movie Solaris is an adaptation of Lem's novel. There is also a Russian movie version that is actually closer to the book. Frankly, Hollywood omitted most of the philosophy, and even some of the interesting science fiction elements, in order to focus on the steamy romance between Clooney and the replica of his deceased wife. I was sooo disappointed!

[@theblackponderer]

Reminds me of the movie "Starship Troopers" which is another adaptation of a highly philosophical science fiction novel where the philosophy was stripped away for the film. The new live action "Ghost in the Shell" movie is another example of an adaption with the original philosophical source material dumbed way down.

[@RaysDad]

A friend who saw"Starship Troopers" with me had already read the book, and he was disappointed that the film was dummied down. I thought the film had some good things to say about perpetual war as a tool for structuring society, though of course the emphasis was on action and violence. I just googled "Ghost in the Shell." It looks like an interesting remake of a Japanese sci-fi multi-media series, and I'll put it on my list of shows to watch.

[@theblackponderer]

The original "Ghost in the Shell" animated film that came out in the 90's has some incredibly deep philosophical segments about the role of technology. The classic argument is that technology is making people less human but that film argues that the more advanced our technology is the more human we can potentially become. There is actually little action/violence in the original "Starship Troopers" novel. The novel mostly consists of debates between the main character and his military academy professor about political philosophy.

[@blac.business4375]

Hi! Thank you this is being so helpful to me, I have a presentation on Thursday on the character of Ivan and the paper Camus wrote on him. My question is, if Agnosticism means there is a God but uncaring and inattentive towards God's creations, then how is it any different from Deism?

[@theblackponderer]

Hello! There isn't just one type of Agnosticism, rather there are several kinds. Deism is a kind of Agnosticism. There are also versions of Agnosticism that are not Deism, such as indifference toward divine belief or conditional unbelief of the divine.

[@blac.business4375]

@@theblackponderer Thanks. I really appreciate the time you put for answering your audience :) Also, you might've read this, but if you like Ivan so much, Albert Camus analyzes his character on another level in a paper named Rejection of Salvation, if you're still into him 4 years later! :D

[@theblackponderer]

Cool. I'll certainly be producing more videos on Camus.

[@kencabinson9720]

Have you ever read George Jackson Prison letters? Deep..

[@theblackponderer]

Ken Cabinson Nope

[@savezelda]

I'm a Latter day Saint. In our view we lived with God before we ever came here. This life is sometimes a hell. But how can you comprehend heaven if you've never been outside it? A fire is only warm once you've been in the cold.

[@nathangale7702]

I think we LDS share a lot philosophically with Eastern Orthodox, that's part of the reason I love this book so much!

[@feerasse9931]

Hi, A few of my friend's and I have either read or are currently reading the Brothers Karamazov. It is an interesting novel, and helps to frame Christian philosophy in a more clear light. Your characterization of the book as a Christian existentialist piece was also very useful in helping me understand the context of the novel. I felt that some of the conversations and debates within the book were not meant for me (a non-christian) and were meant for people with faith or even Dostoevsky's contemporaries. I did find some of the other parts more interesting and relevant to my life, especially Ivan's character arc. I would like to go into it further, and discuss each character but I was wondering if you would ever consider reading a book called The Bleeding of the Stone by Ibrahim Al Koni. Here's a video I found really interesting discussing some of the themes and subject matter that are found in his novels: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gWnWfpWBhpJ7e6c I only ask because I really like your perspective and that you may find it interesting since he approaches Abrahamic narratives from a north-african lens.

[@anthonydegregorio2788]

So, we created God to explain the world, the universe, which is based upon three dimensional Euclidean geometry. So, at its core, It's our Euclidean based three dimensional brain trying to explain what we are. Outside of us, outside the universe we understand, there must be a God who created it. God fills in the gaps of our understanding of our being. We only have our brain to understand itself. It is not possible, therefore we create a God who understands all. Yes?

[@theblackponderer]

Anthony That's certainly a way to look at it. I personally don't see it that way, however.

[@SomeoneElse-]

"Alyosha's like wow you made me really sad!" LOL If it is as Ivan says and that God is the 4th dimension our three dimensional mind can't comprehend, then God is the russian language for you. Just kidding :) I like how very often after I read a book and look up a review of it you come up.

[@theblackponderer]

Ivan confronted Alyosha with the "problem of pain." ✝️

[@lameshahale2990]

PERFECT!!!

[@Manfred-nj8vz]

One of the most overestimated writers of all time. Really? What can one say about Aliosa's theological discussions with a 13 year old boy? What can one think about the ending of Brothers Karamazov, where Aliosa together with some pre-adolescent children (!) are happy and celebrate the coming of Last Judgement Day!... Seriously? Is this suppose to be good literature? In Dostoevsky there is always the following concept: All "good" guys get to be rewarded and all "bad" guys either commit suicide or go to prison or get crazy. Ivan Karamazov, the one that could have saved Dmitri's, his brother's, life, gets crazy one day before the court! And why? Because he is the "atheist" of the novel! Excuse me, but is there anything more p r e d i c t a b l e in whole literature? Do you want your literature to be predictable in that silly way? How can a healthy human mind accept this forced and totally disgusting solution? This is the most horrible, boring and kitsch author out there. Not even his language has anything to offer! Please, read him anew; don't let yourself repeating "what the world is saying". Fortunately, there are at last some critical voices on Dostoevsky on YT. One can find them.

[@theblackponderer]

@@Manfred-nj8vz I respectfully disagree.