Why Dostoevsky Hated Napoleon

Support us on Patreon, get access to exclusive videos:
▶ / weltgeistyt
WATCH:
▶ Ancient Greece Was a Lot More Violent Than You Think. Here’s Why. • Ancient Greece Was a L...
OUR ANALYSES:
▶ Beyond Good and Evil: • NIETZSCHE Explained: B...
▶ The Antichrist: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ Genealogy of Morals: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ Twilight of the Idols: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ The Will to Power: • NIETZSCHE: Will to Pow...
▶ Daybreak: • NIETZSCHE Explained: D...
▶ The Joyful Science: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...

[@WeltgeistYT]

SUPPORT US ON PATREON: ▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT

[@Aman-me8jb]

Happy to see your detailed ,crisp and articulate videos with reference inthis decade of reels and stuff.......highly appreciable ,keep it up....we need it...😊

[@parheliaa]

There is one error here. Raskolnikov's theory/article was "invented" by him long before the events in the book. So it was created for other reasons than solely justification of his murder. While he later uses it for that, the creation of this idea was completely unrelated to his crime.

[@finndaniels9139]

I don’t think it’s long before the events, he’s only 23 in the book so just by the passage of time it can’t be that long. Anyway, I think we’re supposed to see the article as a representation of the purely intellectual side of his ‘theory’. The unemotional, academic side of his spiritual justification for what he feels. Idk though, maybe I’m wrong. I always took it as a piece of the puzzle that is raskolnikov, and obviously he explains this to Sonia and sort of admits that he was wrong. Though then goes back on that again to Dounia , but that’s also in line with rodyas character. To say they’re completely unrelated is wrong I think, they stem from the same spiritual void in his soul.

[@irrelevantcheese8623]

Well the point is that he diluted the original theory so much it included him and his crime so he could live with it

[@jeffseng6385]

This was very enjoyable and thought provoking. It’s been awhile since I read the book and it was great to reflect on it again.

[@trayanbakalbashiev5468]

If you keep making videos of such high quality, no doubt you'll soon be one of the biggest channels in this part of youtube.

[@SaturnReturns]

Wonderfully done. Thank you.

[@something-uj4eq]

What an amazing recapitulate of the pith of C&P- great job as always!

[@AAlecs]

Happy to see you making a vid about Dostoievski (also, can't wait to see the vid about Tolstoi)

[@justinsjackson]

Amazing. Great job!

[@CrispySenpai]

I would love to see a deep dive on Ivan Karamazov, compare his to Nietzsche, and look at his downfall/transformation as a character

[@annacsillatakacs5048]

Yes, that would be amazing!

[@afrosamourai400]

Both ended crazy and were stupid lol

[@RedRabbleRouser]

Great video man. Well done!

[@protagorastar1220]

Great video

[@guccimane8941]

Awesome video

[@SyIe12]

👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ great job as always!

[@gregpappas]

Thank you for this development. please continue through the development of existentialism.

[@soyingerchad7128]

Very interesting video, I liked it.

[@hector334_7]

Great video 👌👌👌

[@druuew]

great video

[@sa-elke]

I have to ask, are you Belgian? You sound extremely Flemish. Love your videos btw! Very insightful and fun to watch!

[@vadimfedenko]

hey. there's a book by Gilles Deleuze, "Nietzsche and Philosophy", it has a great content for a video. unlike other works on Nietzsche, like Heidegger's "Nietzsche", where Heidegger basically made a heidegerrian philosopher out of Nietzsche, the book by Deleuze tries to analyze Nietzsche in the nietzschean sense. and so it doesn't really require knowledge of other continental philosophy, except Nietzsche. it's a great read overall, and would be cool to see a video on it

[@animefam4019]

Amazing Job definitely worth watching, My morality as a Christian is also against Napoleon and the Exceptional men theory but I do Admire (in a curious way) Great men like Napoleon Alexander Julius and more

[@viljamtheninja]

I think you can be fascinated with such mean without actually condoning their actions or admiring their personalities.

[@clone3_7]

As much as people like to criticise him (mostly, because they misunderstand him), Machiavelli in his Art of war puts it best, some men are good and exceptional and some men are exceptional.

[@michaeltischuk7972]

fame and fortune in this world are so fleeting. Napoleon finished this life in exile and Stalin ended it face down on the floor for a few days covered in his own Urine, and that was just the beginning of an eternity of pain and humiliation.

[@satnamo]

There are very people who look into the mirror and say: That person I see is a savage monster. Instead, they make up some constructions to justify what they do.

[@robertmerdokh8514]

i hope you make a video about nietszshe and deleuze.

[@MrGromeko]

Is there going to be a video on Carlyle too?

[@Erl0sung]

Based Dostoevsky as always.

[@gabrielseth5142]

His argument for Isaac Newton reminds me of those scientists in the 20th and into the 21st centuries who DID break the law and did do terrible things in the name of greatness. Examples include: The Japanese research unit 731 who discovered new treatments for gunshot and other trauma wounds by inflicting such wounds on Chinese POW's, intentionally giving diseases such as tuberculosis to discover treatment. The Japanese scientists who in the 1980s took a victim of a nuclear disaster and kept him on life support, prolonging his suffering for scientific study. The studies performed on African Americans in the mid 20th century to observe the stages of syphilis without telling them they were infected. The American scientist who dug up the corpse of a highly irradiated man to perform an autopsy in the cemetery to remove his organs. Injecting radioactive material into terminally ill patients to further the Manhattan project. MK Ultra, a participant being Theodore Kaczynski, which also saw the abduction and attempts at mind control through various methods including drugs on at risk people's in America and Canada. The atomic soldiers, who were forced to be exposed to nuclear blasts to see the effects it would have on soldiers in various environments, of varying readiness. The list goes on. All of these things furthered science and knowledge and probably saved more lives than they took. But they weren't right and these people weren't right to do these things

[@ClearLight369]

Well, now I understand Leo Strauss and why he said that someone would be incredibly fortunate if he preferred Jane Austen to Dostoevsky. And why he wrote so much about tyranny and Xenophon's Hiero.

[@fredxu9826]

Given such a interesting contrast between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky's view on Napoleon, it's fascinating how the two are both considered "fathers of existentialism"

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

I would imagine that Kierkegaard (the grandfather of existentialism) would share similar views to Dostoevsky.

[@givepeaceachance940]

Well, it seems that ultimately Dostoyevsky is arguing against Nietzsche

[@t5396]

It’s really not fascinating at all. One thing that pretty much all existentialists have in common is that none of them want to be called existentialist. Number two, the term wasn’t even invented until long after Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, and Kierkegaard passed away. so, I don’t even think it’s really proper to include them in that movement, but also, what Nietzsche did, and suggested, was quite a bit different from Kirkegaard and the existentialists. Because he suggested an aesthetic solution to the problem of life, which is quite a different solution, compared to the other people.

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

It is better to be a builder than a warrior. Architecture is superior to warfare. The Taj Mahal, Saint Peter's Basilica, the Pantheon, Hagia Sophia, the Palace of Versailles... A true leader should leave behind a legacy carved out of stone, not out of blood.

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

Yes, but the best warriors are the ones that bring long-lasting peace for their countries in victory. Unlike Napoleon who brought non-stop war until total French defeat.

[@StrategicGenius-fw4re]

Napoleon is responsible for the Arch De Triumph's construction so he meets this criteria somewhat

[@jonathancampbell5231]

Most of those buildings were built by bloody conquerors, or on the wealth derived from wars and conquests.

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

@@StrategicGenius-fw4re And Napoleon ended in total defeat (you forgot to mention that part), at the cost of the once juggernaut French military and a generation's worth of French boys lives....No one wasted more and ended with such a pathetic defeat than Napoleon.

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

@@StrategicGenius-fw4re You forgot to mention that Napoleon ended in total military defeat part, how convenient to forget that.

[@kadaganchivinod8003]

After all the Nepoleon videos so far, without Hegel's "Nepoleon" would be like a sad ending to the story.

[@unknowninfinium4353]

Hegel himself doesnt know what he wrote, same with Marx, same with the others. Why waste time on them?

[@giorgiociaravolol1998]

"I don't like material things, only spiritual!" * bets his wife in a casino in Germany *

[@maxwellsharp2918]

"You think you're so great because you have boats?!?" To think such an "extraordinary" man like this to have this impact on one of the great thinkers of our time is portrayed in such a way. It's not a disservice to Napoleon, he's doing just fine. Just to take such a societal symbol and to bring it so base. It's just hard to explain.

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

Napoleon did not do "just fine", because Napoleon ended in total defeat, with such pathetic military results. You forgot to mention that part. Napoleon deserved to be mocked, ridiculed and exposed as the delusional thug of a loser that he was.

[@watchBAVSvideos]

Agreed. The battle scenes are good but the film misses what Napoleon really represented in history. He wasn't just invading countries: he was smashing institutions that had stood firm for centuries and led back to the Middle Ages, introducing radical new ideas and values. In some ways, he was one of the first modern popular leaders who derived his authority and legitimacy from his charismatic relationship with 'the people' instead of from tradition or religion. Scott's film barely scratched the surface of this and treated the guy's life off the battlefield like a fucking soap opera!

[@maxwellsharp2918]

​@@watchBAVSvideosLike thoughts from my head. Kindred spirits us two. Merry Christmas Raz! 🤙

[@watchBAVSvideos]

​@@maxwellsharp2918merry Christmas, my friend!

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

@@watchBAVSvideos Probably, but what European history has taught me is that all you have to do is pretend that you won when you lost, with phony monuments of triumph, even when you failed miserably #arcdetriomphe. That is what France does with Napoleon. So never mind enemy troops marching down the streets of Paris, twice. Never mind France under military occupation. Never mind a once juggernaut French military in total shambles. Never mind a generation's worth of French boys lying in mass graves. Never mind losing territory and being forced to pay massive war reparations. Never mind forced to return stolen art work. Never mind France forced to accept the Bourbon Monarchy in humiliating fashion. Never mind Napoleon dying in a remote prison in "exile".......Ignore all that, Napoleon was a triumph for France and all of Europe, if just pretend that you won when you lost #arcdetriomphe

[@kevinbeck8836]

In considering Dostoyevsky and his characters, my mind brought this line from Zarathustra to the surface "Do not will anything beyond your power: there is a bad falseness in those who will beyond their power. Especially when they will great things! For they awaken distrust in great things, these subtle false-coiners and stage-players:- -Until at last they are false towards themselves, squint-eyed, whited cankers, glossed over with strong words, parade virtues and brilliant false deeds. Take good care there, ye higher men! For nothing is more precious to me, and rarer, than honesty. Is this to-day not that of the populace? The populace however knoweth not what is great and what is small, what is straight and what is honest: it is innocently crooked, it ever lieth" How Dostoyevsky would view Nietzsche? How would he view his Higher Men?

[@jonathancampbell5231]

Pretty sure he'd view Nietzsche as a Germanic example of the type of people he keeps warning us about- a radical, atheistic elitist who admires Napoleon and thinks that he's "beyond good and evil". Maybe Nietzsche loved Dostoevsky because all of Dostoevsky's books are about Russian versions of Nietzsche, and he was just fascinated to see himself deconstructed even if he didn't agree with his conclusions.

[@kevinbeck8836]

@@jonathancampbell5231 apparently, he only read "l'Esprit Souterrain" This channel has a video about it. We dont know what Nietzsche thought of Dostoyevsky's more famous works.

[@kevinbeck8836]

"When power becometh gracious and descendeth into the visible-I call such condescension, beauty. And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest. All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good because they have crippled paws! The virtue of the pillar shalt thou strive after: more beautiful doth it ever become, and more graceful-but internally harder and more sustaining-the higher it riseth. Yea, thou sublime one, one day shalt thou also be beautiful, and hold up the mirror to thine own beauty. Then will thy soul thrill with divine desires; and there will be adoration even in thy vanity!" I think so much of Nietzsche's reasoning stems from the etymological implications of the words used (good and evil) and the cultural meaning associated with them(that good and bad were aristocratic values, replaced by good and evil which were anti-values that just inverted the old aristocratic values) that it makes his upending of words like "good" and "evil" actually make a lot of sense. I wish Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche could have read each others entire works and interacted with each other. That would be an awesome meeting of minds

[@Groove838]

​@@kevinbeck8836 In crime and punishment Raskolnikov came back eventually to God and confessed his actions Nietzsche would not approve this.

[@afrosamourai400]

Fiodor would have hated nietzsche and his barbaric so called philosophy..raskolnikov and ivan karamazov are basically nietzsche way of thinking discarded by fiodor..

[@goodfty]

Really a conqueror would have an ego? No shit Sherlok. What a great "thinker" of his time.

[@johanalejandrocazadordepin7225]

Dostoievsky hated pretty much everyone

[@Groove838]

W Dostoevsky

[@krel3358]

Based Shope enjoyer

[@kotharianlightning]

It's interesting how there's a number of contradictions in the various biblical interpretations about the nature of self vs. selflessness. The Israelites were very much an assertion of self (coming from a tribal mindset) and so their great men and women were those who accomplished heroic deeds. The New Testament has the ideal of poverty in this world with giving away all your possessions and serving others, with a glorification of martyrdom (the old Pharisaic Judaism of the time promoted moderation in material means and conduct, but viewed poverty negatively). And that's where the scorn of the present day social elites comes from in James 5, with a hint of the later political ideals expounded in Revelation. Interestingly, when you get to the political/eschatological book of the NT, Revelation, the ideal of the martyr becomes a pursuit of power in this world. Suffering is portrayed as leading to a crown in the afterlife, but also a promise of civic authority in this world. Revelation 2 is very much full of this idea where a Christian suffers tribulations only to receive ultimate power and individuality as a reward. The ones who earn that reward are even called conquerors who shepherd the nations with rods of iron and are given the Morning Star (the Morning Star God being the leader of the Sons of El, the Morning Stars, in mythos).

[@citoante]

There is no contradiction when you understand that wisdom is not black/white. It’s nuanced because it is predicated upon principles and not on definite rules. If wisdom was just dry rules, everyone would be wise.

[@Opposite271]

Interesting. Usually one can divide between a Individual morality (what is in my best interest) and a collective morality (what is in our best interest). But this seems like a morality based on the fulfillment of a Idea. But is there not something trivial about it? Without a Idea it would not be possible to have goals and to desire to archive them. There would be no interest at all. And without a desire there would be no striving for the fulfillment of a Idea. So we are back to the start. Who’s interest is important? That of the individual? That of the Collective? Or maybe both?

[@afrosamourai400]

As kant said true morality negates self interest morality and interest are opposites

[@citoante]

You defined morality as interest. You made it subjective. Completely wrong. Take the Bible and find objective morality there.

[@Opposite271]

@@citoante If we would live in a world with objective morality and this objective morality would demand of me that I produce the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest amount of people, why should I follow them? Why should I lay more importance on moral values outside my mind then for those inside my mind? Why is the objective more important then the subjective? Of curse one could simply cheat and now introduce rewards and punishments. But such a reasoning would not be based on genuine conviction and instead be based on a primitive hedonistic desire to avoid pain and pursue pleasure.

[@citoante]

@@Opposite271 well, wicked people can justify anything.

[@donaldkelly3983]

I don't want to be a rational kill joy for Dostoevsky, but maybe if Raskolnikov idealized Geothe or Shakespeare he might not have murdered old ladies. I know that defeats the purpose of the novel, but it's worth considering.

[@francisdec1615]

The woman he killed was a greedy old hag. I don't feel very sorry for her.

[@viljamtheninja]

What's your point even? You realize that Raskolnikov is a stand-in for actual people and their actual thoughts and philosophies, right? The great man theory is something that exists and that people believe in, especially in the time when it was written. The whole point of the novel is that it's arguing against the great man theory and is trying to offer a better alternative. You can't just say "idealize this instead", you have to actually understand why people hold a certain belief or a certain philosophy, and be able to argue why other beliefs or philosophies are morally and psychologically superior, for both you and the world.

[@jub7345]

??

[@ddc2957]

Well the argument makes sense - I mean congenital monarchs in the aristocracy are very known for their humility hey?

[@user-vb4ng9du6p]

A possibly more interesting subject is where Dostoevsky and Nietzsche would agree and disagree on Rational Egoism and its political and ideological implications in the 19th and 20th centuries. Chernychevsky was a Rational Egoist and much of Dostoevsky is a reaction against the doctrines of Chernychevsky and his more and less earnest adherents.

[@pinarppanrapir9489]

One contradiction in Dostoevsky thinking is not realizing you can also sacrifice your soul for the good of others. Become the sinner, so others won't have to.

[@NA-di3yy]

There is no contradiction given that the very substance of the soul is such that it cannot be destroyed for anyone else's benefit. Such behavior, by definition, would be a rationalization in hindsight and a camouflaged sophisticated form of selfishness and pride.

[@pinarppanrapir9489]

@@NA-di3yy Selflessness by sacrificing yourself is selfishness apparently

[@NA-di3yy]

​@@pinarppanrapir9489 "sacrificing yourself" is not equal to "sacrificing soul", please re-read my comment. Imagine that by definition or design soul is not something one can sacrifice for others (i assume there is a distinction between "you", "yourself" and "soul" in this context) and considering otherwise might be a form of pride, which would be -- correct, selfish.

[@michaelashby9654]

When someone makes an appeal to "mankind" or humanity you can safely assume they intend to cheat.

[@czechmeoutbabe1997]

Honestly, I think that there is a vacuum in Dostoevsky's philosophy (bold claim, I admit that I'm an amateur). He cares about the spiritual development of humanity, but doesn't for a moment consider how much the spiritual development of a person requires abundant material circumstances. It requires a level of material comfort and a certain culture that gives people time to explore and cultivate that spiritual connection. Christ not only instructed how to act spiritually and in reference to God, he also miraculously affected the material circumstances of humanity, he literally fed the hungry and healed the sick, which facilitated that faith in God. This adds an overall point that I was considering throughout the course of the video - "Why do we care about Christ's sacrifice? Why do we remember his sacrifice, and not necessarily that of so many martyrs before and after?" It is because if we are believers, we believe that Jesus was the son of God, the Messiah, and through his partly-divine status, a form of a literal God. It was a powerful, merciful decision by a strong being, for the well-being of all. I would argue that our world is profoundly less spiritual, not because of the advance of scientific thinking and modernity, but because of the crushing material forces that seek to bleed our time, attention and money. The most-Christlike figure in our age would not be someone who lives like Christ the man, but is able to create material change at a scale equal to Christ the man *and God* , which was genuinely, arguably Napoleon, but guided by principles of altruism that Napoleon certainly lacked. Edit: For anyone more interested in something like the stuff I said, the Grand Inquisitor is an excerpt of Dostoevsky that basically completely addresses my argument, found this later :)

[@johnathanhamilton5248]

Jesus wasn't the sole son of God. I forget where I watched it (might've been a video on this channel actually), but there was a video discussing Friedrich Nietzsche's "God Is Dead." He said the last Christian died on the cross. I agree, it's a fact Jesus was in the flesh. It doesn't make sense for him to claim he is the son of God. He himself understood and unveiled we are all Their children. The idea that Jesus was God in the flesh or whatever is The Church's (or whatever lama ruler) propaganda. Jesus taught that there is no separation of body and spirit. There's no paradise after; Heaven and Hell exist on Earth. I swear I watched that on this channel. It might be one of the Friedrich Nietzsche videos.

[@PanSzawu]

You"re right, good analysis

[@dominicsey3032]

This was very interesting. Thanks for sharing bro

[@Neapoleone-Buonaparte]

You're wrong, my man. The historical Jesus was a camp-follower of Dostoyevsky, and not of the Pope!

[@jonathancampbell5231]

That kind of ignores that Christ commanded people to give up their wealth and serve humanity from a position of poverty, and that those with abundant material possessions in the Gospels are frequently given as examples not to be emulated(except in rare cases when they clearly value other things more than their wealth)- "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." "Abundant material circumstances" is hardly a requirement for profound spiritual development- in the Gospels and the New Testament, they are usually presented as an obstacle. Being fed and cured of ailments is hardly "abundant" material circumstances either, and in many examples in the Bible it is their faith that allows them to be cured and not just the other way around. If you think the point of Christianity is to make everyone rich enough that they have the "time, attention and money" to spare on spiritual development, you've really missed the mark- the Gospels hold those things to be weights that hold people back from spiritual development in the first place, and poor people today are in many ways far more materially well off than even many wealthy folk back in Biblical times.

[@Neapoleone-Buonaparte]

The Heaven of Dostoyevsky is a real abstraction. The Heaven of Napoleon is Reality. The Ideal of Dostoyevsky is Slavery to an abstraction. The Ideal of Napoleon is Mastery of Reality.

[@andrewternet8370]

Hah. The problem with these videos is that Dostoevsky does not make claims. He makes narratives. And narratives connect and shape your thoughts differently than claims. Dostoevsky is not against the Napoleonic ideal. Its opposite, Marmeladov, a passionately religious drunkard who drives his family to destitution, is completely reprehensible. The best thing he did for his family was get hit by a carriage and die. By portraying this, Dostoevsky accepts the Napoleonic ideal. The issue I have with this “Ubermensch” vs “ordinary man” idea is that it’s simply too extreme a dichotomy. We are all agentic and arenic to varying degrees. There is a necessary and good tension between the two (I put it to you that one cannot exist without the other). Doesn’t mean you have to choose between being completely unique among men and their laws or an absolute zombie.

[@Neapoleone-Buonaparte]

@@andrewternet8370 you don't understand what you read. Dostoyevsky's ideal was the meth whore and the drunken and sullied Marmeladov just as much as Alyosha.

[@SC-gw8np]

If you want to master reality you have to first define what is reality. Those who can’t think abstractly can’t define reality.

[@Neapoleone-Buonaparte]

@@SC-gw8np the problem with your stupid question is precisely contained in the common schlob's fact of seeking a definition for Reality. Reality is precisely that realm where definitions don't matter and can't be established. She cannot be boxed in by definitions, which is why she can only be mastered by statesmen.

[@SC-gw8np]

@@Neapoleone-Buonaparte I didn’t ask you a question, I made a statement. You are hung up on semantics and have eschewed my point of thinking abstractly. Perhaps because you don’t have a response. Philosophers, not statesmen are the conveyors of reality. Statesmen and their cronies are too hung up on qualifying what is supposedly stupid and what is not and pursuing vanity projects.

[@shacomean]

Can you make video about how nazis misunderstood Nietzsche.

[@mnemonicpie]

Misunderstood? They didn't read him, he was glorified in mass propaganda only for being a great German. In reality, he hated the modern Germans.

[@Dorje17]

Napoleon,Saturn in Leo in tenth house,Klaus Schwab,Saturn in Aries in the tenth house! Jesuit pawns! Power at all costs!

[@user-xs2si3zu9p]

Tolstoy also was excellent at presenting at times ambiguous protagonists where its hard to know who is let's say good or bad, or more good than bad etc. For instance in "Albert" which is a ciphered short story about Albert Einstein (yes it could not have been written in 1860s) the seemingly nice bloke Delesob who takes in the genius but homeless Violinist, is quite evil really because they are trying to keep him there, almost imprison him, using virtue signalling "we want to help him" as a legitimising factor for their control freak behaviour.

[@gregpappas]

The same ideas of Napoleon could have come into being without slaughter.

[@psingh3558]

TLDR Napoleon represented the opposite of the Sklavenmoral ideals that the Orthodox Dostoyevsky held dear.

[@Over-Boy42]

Luke 14:26 "If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison-your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple." Doesn't seem like Jesus abolished the self to me.

[@bundleaxe1922]

Jesus claimed to be God. When Jesus is asked what the two greatest commandments are, they are to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And the second is to love your neighbour as yourself. Love is care and trust, love is a choice. Love is selfless. We see in these commandments, to merge our egos. If God loves us, that is, if God is selfless for us and seeks to atone with us, then God would be willing to sacrifice himself so our egos can live. So we also sacrifice ourselves, because we are already one with God and wish to glorify him. It goes like "I am not the one that lives, but Christ lives in me." Basically within the larger context of the chapter you quoted, Jesus is saying that our families, our money, even ourselves are all temporal, all of it will fade away. Only God can give us eternal life, only God is love, only through God we can inherit the Kingdom of God. This is highlighted in the Parable of the Rich Fool a few verses earlier I believe. That is at least my interpretation of it.

[@holdinmcgroin8639]

Napoopan

[@caesarpizza1338]

You’re a big guy

[@user-ef8ol7nx9u]

Toot.

[@annoyingsmuganimeavatar7229]

On the Napoleon is a criminal because he destroyed the old law system part. Napoleon didin't do that, the French revolution did. Napoleon just picked and chose which policies he liked and let them stay. I feel like this example doesn't work because this is one of the rare cases where a ruler gave a law system without destroying anything of old.

[@DyarContreras]

Which man hated himself more? Napoleon Bonaparte; or when Joaquin Phoenix had to portray him?

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

As long as Joaquin Phoenix does not die on a remote desolate island a broken and defeated man who left his country under military occupation in defeat like Napoleon I think he will be just fine.

[@sahilhossain8204]

Lore of Why Dostoevsky Hated Napoleon momentum 100

[@tenplay16]

Brothers Karamazov is great

[@majidbineshgar7156]

Modern thinkers ( post -Napoleon) seem to be divided in those who admire Napoleon vs those who hated Napoleon which very much reveals their " Weltanschaung ". ... I am pretty certain that Jordan Peterson should admire Napoleon for his alpha -Lobster traits ... I mean alpha -male traits : )) .

[@igorszopinski1822]

I seem to wonder whether its possible to achieve something great while carrying guilt. Jesus might be praised but in life he was a looser. It's only the weak, the poor and the losers that realistically turn to his ways. Thanks fopr the video. It was mentally stimulating.

[@bundleaxe1922]

Isn't that the whole point of all the gospels? That's the whole reason that Jesus was born humble, lived humble, died humble. Christianity is a religion for the weak and oppressed, why do you think it grew to overtake the empire? Nietzsche would have had an ecstacy if he saw the aristocratic Achilles reigning over all the empire's slaves at the time. There are only a few individuals that ever compass that godly consecration, and through that noble ancient path that Ares leads. But yet this Jesus still is shrined in our memory but never like Napoleon or some other dright or diadem's name conquered through oppression, hate, or noble war, unjust or just. Because defilement and success come from within, no flaunted glory will atone any bad actions. All crimes must be punished by the law- unless someone else pays for them. Injustice is more profitable than justice, offending the logos, chaos, these things ars all natural. The survival of the fittest is natural. It's always more profitable to be the prodigal son, it's always more- ig you get it. But eventually, whether the dog that is tied to the wagon decides to follow along or resist is irrelevant, the wagon will never slow to his sway.

[@samlazar1053]

He didnt hate him.He just pointed in the desteuctive nature of such people. Dostoyevsky idea of Transcendent man (what Nietzsche would later call the Ubermensch.....well does this remind u of something that happend in the 20th century? Hiter Stalin Mussolini Franco....all of them megalomaniacal and the total destruction of Europe. How can u love such people

[@johntaxpayer2523]

because it was a bad movie?

[@user-xs2si3zu9p]

yes Dostoevsky's ability to play devils advocate with all arguments, via his protagonists discussions, is the hallmark of a very self critical man. It means he robustly self interrogates his own ideas or beliefs, and is willing to debunk himself, when a logical argument falsifies said theory. So he is able to put himself into the shoes or mind of someone he may not agree with, but he will try to find the best argument they could possibly present for it.

[@Torgo1969]

Napoleon was allegedly a world-historical standard-bearer of the ideal of Meritocracy, so I feel compelled to learn more about him for this. The elements of Meritocracy here in the US are the reason why so many of us can get what we deserve in this world.

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

You are lying, because Americans care nothing for a total loser who ended in total defeat like Napoleon. The most pathetic military results, vast waste of military resources, unmitigated disasters that swallowed entire French armies whole, lost wars as enemy troops marched down the streets of Paris, France under military occupation, a once juggernaut French military in shambles, France losing territory, France forced to pay massive reparations, Napoleon dying a prisoner in a desolate island, as the Bourbon Monarchy gets shoved right up France's a......So tell me how well Napoleon's meritocracy worked, with such pathetic results for France? Because you speak as if it worked when it was a total failure.

[@francisdec1615]

"It's called the American dream because you must be asleep to believe in it." George Carlin Please, you don't really think you have meritocracy in the US? It's a myth.

[@BeethovenIsGrumpyCat]

Raskolnikov’s spiel about great men and crime sounds like a school shooter’s manifesto.

[@gabrielethier2046]

Yeah I think that was the point

[@BeethovenIsGrumpyCat]

I agree. It was.@@gabrielethier2046

[@irenehartlmayr8369]

I agree.Its a moralising lecture that is unrealistic.

[@Jannette-mw7fg]

It is not true that Ivan's ideas lay far from Dostojewsky! They lay very close! Dostojewsky showed the struggle between his mind {logic} and his heart {soul}. Do not forget his saying; "if it turns out to be the case that the truth excludes Christ, I would rather stay with Christ!" He wants it to be true, because we absolutely need Christianity... {I agree with him...}. So his feelings {longing from the soul} overrule his mind, his logic, but it is stil his logic!

[@Dunge0n]

I don't think I need to believe an underage virgin girl gave birth.

[@user-bx4px7lj4x]

Raskolnikov sounds like a woke progressive libral.

[@Groove838]

Dostoevsky was the furthest thing from being a liberal. He loathed western values and was a staunch Christian Nationalist.

[@mikkirurk1]

Dostoyevsky hated Napoleon for the same reason we hate someone like Stalin, if we have any idea who they are.

[@S3aCa1mRa1n]

Cause Napoleon was based and hated ideologues.

[@swagkachu3784]

So based he died alone exiled by his enemies on a little island

[@billykotsos4642]

Because he was Russian….

[@ksks2086]

bcs he was russian

[@TheRealValus]

Ah, but, did Christ not bring an idea into the world which inspired countless higher men to turn the other cheek, look the other way, and feed themselves to lions? I think, Nietzsche said as much.

[@AA-bn7tf]

Napoleon > Human Hive Mind

[@toilethermit4395]

Normies=coping&seething

[@zootjitsu6767]

The dude was a genius

[@andrewternet8370]

AGREE!!!! SO TRUEEEEE!!! TRUEEEE!!!! TRUEEEEE!!!!

[@timothykwoh6172]

Dostoevsky was completely right. Napoleon was a completely godless narcissist.

[@paradoxidization1844]

Dostoevsky was turned into a frolicking clown by his captors.

[@RKGrizz]

17 minutes to say that he thinks Jesus is better.

[@zootjitsu6767]

Cus he was a herd morality gambling virgin vs based world conquering napoleon chad

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

Except Napoleon ended in TOTAL defeat.

[@zootjitsu6767]

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators nothing lasts forever. Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, all faced defeat eventually but they are all still great men.

[@wantanamera]

@@zootjitsu6767then what is the point?

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

@@zootjitsu6767 Napoleon ended in TOTAL Defeat, with the most pathetic of military results. This was nothing more than a delusional tyrant who seized total power from a lost and confused country, hijacking their juggernaut military in the process and running that military into the ground in total defeat. Stop lying that France ended in conquest with Napoleon and not under military occupation and the Bourbon Monarchy shoved right back up France's a......

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

France getting the Bourbon Monarchy shoved right back up its behind in total defeat, that is certainly because of Napoleon Chad 😂 😆 Losers, what do you want me to tell you.

[@PanSzawu]

Napoleon was hated because Dostoevsky was a Russian nationalist and his views were completely coloured by his pro Russian imperalist politics. It isn't as objective given how morally corrupt the Russian Tsars have been since before Napoleon examples being Alexander the First at the time of Napoleon, and Alexander the Second at the time of Dostoevsky were both openly serial philanderers. Napoleon was a secularist emperor crowned by his own authority with a disdain for churches and superstitions, Dostoevsky was an Orthodox apologist. Napoleon was the Antithesis to everything Dostoevsky believed in yet he was ironically less morally corrupt than the Tsars. Dostoevsky is a blind hypocrite when it comes to opponents of Orthodox Russia.

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

"Napoleon was a secularist emperor crowned by his own authority with a disdain for churches and superstitions".....That is an interesting way of calling Napoleon a right-wing military dictator who cared only for himself, a ruthless egoist willing to sacrifice millions for his whims.

[@PanSzawu]

​@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators The big difference is that he was honest about it and didn't necessarily hide himself behind his authority but rather directed his own face as the authority. Since he was a dictator, as being an emperor denotes, He acted like one. He didn't have complete disregard for his men or for the people underneath his reign since he didn't imagine himself losing to Russia, which is a fair assumption given what exactly happened in the war of 1812

[@PanSzawu]

​​@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictatorsDostoyevsky defended the Tsars who had him jailed and as the only legitimate correct government simply because they were orthodox and Russian which was a lot more tolerable to a nationalist like himself as well as a spiritual dialogue. The Tsars hid behind the authority of God in moral responsibility and the institution of the Church, as is their right according to their own thought, and therefore could not be bad or be portrayed as oppressive because it runs counter to Christian belief. This is unlike Napoleon, who is very well aware of the decisions he made that were extremely selfish, but he did not hide them behind a mask of god which was the customary tradition to do. If Nietzsche knew about Dostoyevsky anymore then the small exposure he had It is obvious that he would hate him, as it is obvious that Dostoevsky is a hypocrite who cannot admit that humans by default are evil and selfish and materialistic but delusional enough to make claims about gods or god to justify their awful behavior from a morality they juxtaposed on themselves via Christianity. I used to be a fan of Dostoevsky and indeed he does have many great concepts, but he is a moral hypocrite.

[@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators]

@@PanSzawu Seizing total power and installing oneself as an authoritarian ruler, who is military-centric, warmongering and nationalist like Napoleon, sounds pretty much like a right-wing military dictator. I would call Napoleon's government fascism, even before the word even existed.

[@voxsvoxs4261]

​@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators I'm kinda confused, how can Napoleon be right wing? The left and right wings were the generalisations of pro-monarchy and pro-democracy sides in the French legislature. The guy moved in as an Emperor, neither side of the legislature in this framing would support him. If you then tried to generalise it, it'd probably be a mix since Democracy is populist, as he was, and was dictatorial, as a monarch is. I don't particularly remember him as authoritarian either, though that may be a flaw of memory.

[@EugenTemba]

Ngl, I think Dostoevsky is overrated.

[@robertmerdokh8514]

i totally agree with you , i was so surprised that nietszshe liked him.

[@kevinbeck8836]

​@robertmerdokh8514 Nietzsche only read "Notes from the Underground". Nietzsche would have a thing or two to say about C & P or The Brothers Karamazov

[@ubermensch1040]

Bruh😂😂😂

[@andrewternet8370]

@@kevinbeck8836Wrong, Nietzsche read White Nights as well.

[@kevinbeck8836]

@andrewternet8370 ah I knew I was forgetting one thank you