Demons - Part 3 by Fyodor Dostoevsky || In-Depth Book Summary, Analysis (Devils or The Possessed)

[@jesselee1287]

안녕하세요 선플 달기 챌린지를 하고 있는 중학생입니다. 도스토옙스키의 ‘악령’이 저의 최애 소설입니다. 그래서 이렇게 본 소설을 분석하고 의견 나누는 영상을 되게 재밌게 봤습니다. 앞으로도 좋은 영상 많이 올려주세요. 감사합니다.

[@joeyfajardo8738]

Just finished it. The most philosophically exhilarating reading experience I've had thus far.

[@ChristyLuisDostoevskyinSpace]

Man, these are hyping me up so much to finish Demons finally!! 😂 You guys are awesome! Thank you for doing these deep dives!! 🤗

[@TheCodeXCantina]

I hope you do some day. It’s such an amazing story!

[@attention5638]

Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hobbes, Camus, Freud and Jung--that seems to be the average amount of philosophers/psychologists to bring up when discussing Dostoevsky haha But for real, that whole section where you bring in Camus is fantastic! 😮This whole series has been amazing, thank you! And yes! Notes from Underground! That probably makes my tope five in all of fiction.

[@TheCodeXCantina]

Thanks for the kind words, Pae! I know we can’t get to the level you do with some of the philosophical insights but I’m glad our flavor is still engaging to listen to!

[@Jannette-mw7fg]

Love your discussions about 'Demons'! I think Dostojewsky shows in Demons that demons exist between people. It is not in only one man, but between different men and between ideas. People influence each other, and the ideas form and reform and get bigger {or smaller} and change. And we are all responsabel for the forming of these demons. Stavrogin is the {anti}hero of this book because he is in the minds of all the people that play a part. At Tychon is the most beautiful chapter ever written in my opinion...I think Stavrogin felt remorse after he had the dream of the painting, because it was pure beauty and that made him realize how ugly his crime was...but he could not live up to that beauty, he did not understand that being humbled is also beautiful...

[@prat7431]

First of thanks for a really good discussion of the book. I enjoyed the entire series. I’ve been really fascinated by the character of Kirillov. There is this quote of his - “Then there will be a new life, a new man; everything will be new... then they will divide history into two parts: from the gorilla to the annihilation of God, and from the annihilation of God to… to the transformation of the earth, and of man physically, and the world will be transformed and things will be transformed…” This reminded me of something I read in Homo Deus written by Yuval Noah Harrari that having pushed God to the sidelines over the last two hundred years, in the twenty first century humanity will seek immortality, eternal bliss and divinity, upgrade humans to Gods - from Homo Sapiens to Homo Deus. There may be other ways to interpret what Dostoevsky meant to express through Kirilov here. But I see a great similarity between these two ideas written 150 years apart.

[@TheCodeXCantina]

Thanks for sharing. It’s always great to hear different reactions

[@userbaraahusenrf]

I am an English literature student and I really started to like my major more and more because of your videos ❤

[@TheCodeXCantina]

Thanks for sharing this. It is really the best feedback we can get!

[@maznsalih]

Thank you so much with out you I would have a lot of struggle reading and understanding this masterpiece

[@TheCodeXCantina]

Awesome. Glad it could help

[@therijulsharma]

Such a wonderful series of videos! So glad I found you guys

[@emmettforrestel1071]

Awesome

[@karenwykes9991]

I'm ready The Idiot for my Classics book club when I stumbled across your channel. Very Fun. What's your next read?

[@TheCodeXCantina]

Very fun! We enjoyed that one last winter! Up next for our big reads is Ulysses this summer

[@martinihenry9792]

Can you guys do a review of the Adoloscent/Raw Youth please

[@landonhamm4601]

Just finished this book, great videos!

[@vencheangheng405]

Thank you so much for ur work.

[@michaelparent7748]

I greatly enjoyed this conversation. I love the idea of the Devil as Trickster and wrapping this in with the title of the book. Another thought for me. Diablos, in Greek, is to divide or throw apart. So Diablo or the devil is always seen as the one who divides. What does this mean for the fivesome and Pyotr? What are they throwing apart and dividing? Society? Government? Themselves? Consider Nikolai's internal struggle and division through this lens as well. Best!

[@TheCodeXCantina]

That’s great. Thanks for sharing

[@aaronlechtenberger6759]

I hadn't read "At Tikhon's" when I wrote my earlier comment. I no longer agree with it. If Stavrogin were given more limits, I think he would just push them further. It is almost like he wants a limit to push, and so saying "no" towards his being would not change anything about him, because it plays into his desires. Come to think of it, maybe he kills himself because there are no more limits to push. But no, I can't even understand why he doesn't publish his letter after his trist with Liza. What changed in him, why doesn't he publish the letter? I think it has something to do with how he no longer has anything to reveal about himself after his crime, no terrible affront to give to people because they already think the worst of him by that point. It frustrates me that he possesses this magnetism towards people that puts them in awe of him. I don't know how people live life when they can do no wrong. But why does he evade the authorities? Why hide his crimes by not speaking about them? I can't be right because he knows his limits, that he has done wrong, and ducks under them. But perhaps he wants to find the limits of his heart, and what is real in it, what it will allow. I find it weird that he claims he never forsook himself in "At Tikhon's", in order to grow I feel like we do have to forsake ourselves so that we can become someone new. No character ever bore the Mark of Cain as much as Stavrogin. If ever there was a man whom God had to mark lest salvation be lost to him, it is Stavrogin. Fr. Pavel Florensky in "Ikonostasis" described Stavrogin as the perfect embodiment of someone whose face had become a "mask", which does not (and perhaps cannot) reveal anything of the inner Man (that is, the image of God). It was the face of someone so bound up in lies that their face could not reveal truth (as far as I understood it). I still don't know why he said this about Stavrogin, but perhaps it was because Stavrogin was pure will, and he seemed to live in a reality where if he willed something to be, he could make it so. I'm still not satisfied with my explanations though, I don't think Dostoyevsky wanted people to "nail down" his characters. Whatever else is the case about Dostoyevsky, I feel like I have nothing to say to him, he has already been everywhere I have been.

[@aaronlechtenberger6759]

Stavrogin is a man to whom no one ever says "No" and follows through with it. He doesn't know his limits, and seems to never have them enforced on him. Paradoxically killing himself is the first limit he seems to encounter. Whether or not he is evil is besides the point because the difference between them holds no meaning to him, it can't hold meaning to him if no one says no to him. I think that might be why he likes Shatov in spite of Shatov slapping him in that manner. I guess I want to know if other people view it differently. (edit) I'm not sure how much weight my theory holds because Liza also distinctly says "No" to him.

[@lutfilloahmedov5069]

he tried to save the world with beauty, but forgot to save himself...😢 ("Idiot" by Dostoevsky impressions)