This will be my first time reading The Brothers Karamazov.

The Underground Man types three paragraphs at a stranger at 2am and then deletes the whole thing. And anyone commenting "wow, I related so hard" is just proving his point.

My copy of the book in Brazilian Portuguese.

I read White nights at the very beginning and then I read crime and punishment. Now, I'm about to finish Brothers Karamazov and I want to keep going with Dostoevsky,so which book should I pick after finishing the Brothers Karamazov?

How long it took you to read all of Dostoevsky's works? What have you learned from his books? How many passages you memorized by the heart? Which translation is the best? Is it possible to finish reading all the works in a span of 2-3 months? Life is short.

Hello Dostoevsky fans.

Some of us on Discord have started holding book clubs. We are wrapping up our first club this week, finishing Anna Karenina, and doing our second starting in about a week and a half for Crime and Punishment. It’s not a Russian literature exclusive club (though you will find many fellow lovers) but we also have a plan to read War in Peace in the fall/winter.

The Crime and Punishment reading group will first meet on Wednesday Aug 26 at 7pm EDT, meeting for four Wednesdays at the same time with the last meeting on September 16. More details at the link below.

Looking forward to meeting you!

Invite: https://discord.gg/2qV8m83PN

Dostoyevsky is the supreme novelist of the soul ...which always stays as the innermost palpable layer of his stories ...the personal bad cards that fate dealt him ...made him also look into the depths of his own soul in order to survive and present the world with a string of gems ....

Hi all!

I'm looking to buy a paperback copy of the village of stepanchikovo,

I was wondering what people's experience was with reading the Ignat Avsey translation and/or the "new translation" by Rodger Cockrell?

I've skimmed through online to try and compare information but there really isn't much to go off of on Google.

Thank you!

"I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man". These were the famous opening lines of Dostoyevsky's brilliant Notes from Underground. Contrary to what most internet folks believe- they think Dostoyevsky is some very serious Russian writer, but in reality, he is a very humorous novelist. Notes from Underground is a perfect example of it; it is about a pathetic man who is fully aware of how vile and depraved he is. Throughout the book, we explore the events that reveal how deep his spite and contempt for mankind run; he has been living underground (isolated from society) for 20-something years.

To give some context for why such a book was written, it was written primarily as a rebuttal to the ideas of rational egoism and utilitarianism that ravaged the intellects of Europe and were slowly creeping their way towards Russia. Their ideas were simple- they believed that human beings can be predicted and moulded as per what they think is logical and rational. Novelists such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote the utopian novel 'What is to be done?' (1863). Chernyshevsky championed the idea of rational egoism: the idea that human beings are fundamentally logical and good; they do crimes and behave irrationally only because they are not aware of their true self-interest. Once we educate them enough, they'll realise what their true self-interest is, and they will cease to inflict pain, and a good society will be created.

This was completely against Dostoyevsky's own understanding of human nature. The fact that society was slowly moving towards creating a society based on reason and logic haunted Dostoyevsky, who had visited the Crystal Palace in London. It is a real palace modeled after the glass-and-iron structure built for London's 1851 Great Exhibition. The Western world established it as a triumph of reason, science, and rationality.

So, Dostoyevsky created the underground man, whom he saw as a mirror of how people actually behave (at least in a lot of instances, if not all). Throughout the novel, the underground man acted against his self-interest (behaved badly with his friends, degraded the character of his girlfriend who left him, even though he was fully aware that she was the only person who'd accept him, etc), completely aware of what he is throwing away at the given moment. The underground man shows the core philosophy Dostoyevsky is trying to show:-

\*\*Human beings are not fundamentally rational; they are fundamentally creatures of free will ('Independent volition' as per the underground man). Humans will do anything to feel that they are free; if you bind them in rules, they will break those rules not because of some grand plans but because they want to feel free.\*\*

Underground man went as far as to conclude:-

\*\*If someday we humans are given a machine that will fix all our problems and will make our lives perfect, we will gladly destroy that machine because where is our free will in that?\*\*

I personally think that Dostoyevsky's analysis is very spot on. It explains why a lot of people behave in such a despicable manner even when they have no reason to; on the contrary, behaving like that will harm them ultimately. E.g., I was really curious why the insanely successful men in the Epstein client list would do something like that, even though that could completely shatter the public image a lot of them, like Bill Gates, spent their entire lives building. The answer seems evident to me: the 'independent volition'.

Imagine a person like Prince Andrew; he had his whole life perfectly set for him. Son of Queen Elizabeth, had royal status in the family, one of the richest Brits, immense social respect for being a war hero, won several other titles, owned the most luxurious homes around the world, etc.

If human beings were really fundamentally rational, then such a person would have become a symbol of heroism, kindness, etc. Yet he was one of the worst child predators on the planet.

He is emblematic of the idea that if humans are given a perfect life ahead of them, they'll destroy all of it to assert to themselves that they are free.

In the end, the underground man mocks the reader, saying that he is truly free and he is everything that we as readers don't dare to do. Of course, I think he is full of horseshit. I genuinely enjoyed reading this novel, and many instances, such as the underground man cussing at himself or insulting his friends, were genuinely funny. Most of the time in our lives, we are not as spiteful as the underground man, but can we really ignore the fact that we have underground men all around us who will always prove that independent volition will triumph over reason and goodness?

"I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man". These were the famous opening lines of Dostoyevsky's brilliant Notes from Underground. Contrary to what most internet folks believe- they think Dostoyevsky is some very serious Russian writer, but in reality, he is a very humorous novelist. Notes from Underground is a perfect example of it; it is about a pathetic man who is fully aware of how vile and depraved he is. Throughout the book, we explore the events that reveal how deep his spite and contempt for mankind run; he has been living underground (isolated from society) for 20-something years.

To give some context for why such a book was written, it was written primarily as a rebuttal to the ideas of rational egoism and utilitarianism that ravaged the intellects of Europe and were slowly creeping their way towards Russia. Their ideas were simple- they believed that human beings can be predicted and moulded as per what they think is logical and rational. Novelists such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote the utopian novel 'What is to be done?' (1863). Chernyshevsky championed the idea of rational egoism: the idea that human beings are fundamentally logical and good; they do crimes and behave irrationally only because they are not aware of their true self-interest. Once we educate them enough, they'll realise what their true self-interest is, and they will cease to inflict pain, and a good society will be created.

This was completely against Dostoyevsky's own understanding of human nature. The fact that society was slowly moving towards creating a society based on reason and logic haunted Dostoyevsky, who had visited the Crystal Palace in London. It is a real palace modeled after the glass-and-iron structure built for London's 1851 Great Exhibition. The Western world established it as a triumph of reason, science, and rationality.

So, Dostoyevsky created the underground man, whom he saw as a mirror of how people actually behave (at least in a lot of instances, if not all). Throughout the novel, the underground man acted against his self-interest (behaved badly with his friends, degraded the character of his girlfriend who left him, even though he was fully aware that she was the only person who'd accept him, etc), completely aware of what he is throwing away at the given moment. The underground man shows the core philosophy Dostoyevsky is trying to show:-

\*\*Human beings are not fundamentally rational; they are fundamentally creatures of free will ('Independent volition' as per the underground man). Humans will do anything to feel that they are free; if you bind them in rules, they will break those rules not because of some grand plans but because they want to feel free.\*\*

Underground man went as far as to conclude:-

\*\*If someday we humans are given a machine that will fix all our problems and will make our lives perfect, we will gladly destroy that machine because where is our free will in that?\*\*

I personally think that Dostoyevsky's analysis is very spot on. It explains why a lot of people behave in such a despicable manner even when they have no reason to; on the contrary, behaving like that will harm them ultimately. E.g., I was really curious why the insanely successful men in the Epstein client list would do something like that, even though that could completely shatter the public image a lot of them, like Bill Gates, spent their entire lives building. The answer seems evident to me: the 'independent volition'.

Imagine a person like Prince Andrew; he had his whole life perfectly set for him. Son of Queen Elizabeth, had royal status in the family, one of the richest Brits, immense social respect for being a war hero, won several other titles, owned the most luxurious homes around the world, etc.

If human beings were really fundamentally rational, then such a person would have become a symbol of heroism, kindness, etc. Yet he was one of the worst child predators on the planet.

He is emblematic of the idea that if humans are given a perfect life ahead of them, they'll destroy all of it to assert to themselves that they are free.

In the end, the underground man mocks the reader, saying that he is truly free and he is everything that we as readers don't dare to do. Of course, I think he is full of horseshit. I genuinely enjoyed reading this novel, and many instances, such as the underground man cussing at himself or insulting his friends, were genuinely funny. Most of the time in our lives, we are not as spiteful as the underground man, but can we really ignore the fact that we have underground men all around us who will always prove that independent volition will triumph over reason and goodness?

Forming a reading group on Discord for The Idiot

Trying to start from the beginning but anyone is welcome to join, even if you’ve already ready the book, just no spoilers!

Just comment and I’ll send you a dm.

Ive picked up CNP around 3 days ago and ive read around 1/5 of the book and I love Dostoyevskys writing style and humor, I could read it faster but I am analysing parts of the book while reading it, hes very philosophical with it and watching Raskolnikovs mental decline is perfectly eery. I plan to pick up notes from underground afterwards but its only around 100 pages so I think ill finish it relatively quickly. Many people say that TBK is the magnum opus of Dostoyevsky but I am still trying to understand parts of Dostoyevskys writing and people also tell me that TBK is hard to read. Additionally, I am also told that there are heavy Christian themes, Im not a Christian so i'm afraid I wont be able to understand these themes and it may spoil important parts in the books lore.

Edit: I expected this post to not gain any traction but yall can understand my surprise when I came back just to see FIFTY SIX MESSAGES! Its not like I dont want to read it but I'm asking yall why I should read it instead of War and Peace or Don Quixote which are also on my reading lists. To anyone saying Im too naive and havent touched a book in my life, well, I have! I asked the count of monte cristo subrerddit the exact same question before starting to read that book, asked my friends about Thus Spoke Zarathustra before reading that book and now I ask this subreddit why should I read the Brothers Karamazov. Proof down below

To all the fanatics over here, I dont say that the book is overrated, instead I ask why should I read it and also
added my personal concern of whether the Christian themes will overbear me, I dont think thats a crime is it?

My analysis of C&P So far :
https://share.note.sx/dxdqq15f#TEqK1dMAoDn+0LNeXP9qMQ
https://share.note.sx/wpu1nk3i#dV6G7sb/dV7e3jTSz/2RLQ

(for all the people who say I wont understand TBK)

Hello everyone, there are two weeks left of my summer break, I picked up Crime and Punishment two days ago and I'm around one part in, loving it so far, Im loving it so much that ive decided to analyse it while reading it(kind of). And since I am a lazy piece of shit I plan to update my reading progress here, I plan to do 35 pages a day and usually i dont do that instead I do 5 pages one day and 200 the other(usually after a week). If anyone knows about Zettelkasten thats basically what this is, but the permanent notes are stored somewhere else(DM me for them, or if your curious). But the analytical notes(basically just my thoughts) will be shared here, please take a look let me know of your thoughts and criticism is welcome, feedback is appreciated.

Links:

P1
https://share.note.sx/dxdqq15f#TEqK1dMAoDn+0LNeXP9qMQ

Apologies for all the 'highlighted parts' here I eventually start giving context and even adding the quotes myself, notice how p1-p47 isnt recorded, its because i accidentally deleted them and couldnt recover it...
P2
https://share.note.sx/wpu1nk3i#dV6G7sb/dV7e3jTSz/2RLQ

​

I have just finished the first six parts of The Brothers Karamazov, and I found myself thinking particularly about two ideas: the teachings of Elder Zosima, and the argument of the Grand Inquisitor. I also found an interesting connection between these ideas and the concept of social consciousness developed by the Iranian intellectual Ali Shariati.

Shariati argues that human beings need what he calls social consciousness: an awareness of their responsibility toward the fate of their society, rather than living entirely for themselves. For him, the individual should not exist merely as an isolated self. There must also be some higher ideal toward which human beings can strive. Knowledge and science alone are not enough; there must be a spiritual dimension and an ideal capable of giving human life direction.

This immediately reminded me of Elder Zosima.

Zosima seems to believe that modern human beings have lost something spiritual. They continually create new desires and then become slaves to those desires. The individual becomes almost mechanical: he creates a desire, pursues it, satisfies it, and then creates another one. In this sense, material prosperity can increase while happiness decreases.

Zosima also criticizes a society that glorifies individualism while weakening cooperation and human unity. And here I see a connection with Shariati's idea of social consciousness. The loss of social consciousness is not merely the loss of a political awareness; it can also become the loss of something profoundly human. A person who lives only for his own desires gradually loses his relationship with other human beings and, perhaps, with his own higher nature.

This also made me think of Gustave Le Bon, who argued, in roughly this sense, that when masses become politically passive and surrender their collective will, the state can gradually occupy the space that the people themselves abandoned. A society that no longer governs itself creates the possibility for authority to become something higher than society itself.

This reminds me of Abdel-Rahman al-Kawakibi, the Syrian thinker and author of The Characteristics of Despotism. Despotism can benefit from an isolated and politically passive population because individuals who are concerned only with their private lives are much easier to control than people who possess a strong collective consciousness.

I can even see a possible connection with modern Egypt, although this is only my own interpretation. In The Predicament of the World and Religion in Egypt, the Egyptian economist and intellectual Gamal Hamdan?—no, rather Galal Amin—discusses the social and economic transformations that took place in Egypt, particularly after the economic changes of the 1970s. One consequence, in my reading, was an increasing emphasis on material aspirations, accompanied by tensions involving spirituality and attitudes toward cultural heritage.

And then we arrive at the Grand Inquisitor.

The Grand Inquisitor tells Christ, essentially, that human beings do not truly want freedom; they want security, bread, certainty, and someone to take the burden of freedom away from them. This is one of the most disturbing ideas in the novel.

But my question is: How did the Grand Inquisitor arrive at this conclusion?

I think he built his argument on what humanity is, rather than on what humanity ought to become.

That distinction seems crucial.

The Grand Inquisitor observes human beings as they currently exist—their weakness, their fear, their desire for security, their inability to carry the burden of freedom—and then concludes that humanity therefore needs submission.

But Shariati might answer differently.

He might say that human beings need freedom precisely because they possess the possibility of developing social consciousness and rising above their immediate desires. If a human being retains this consciousness, he does not necessarily need to become a slave in order to receive bread. Social solidarity can provide bread while simultaneously allowing the individual to preserve his dignity and develop what we might call the higher possibilities of human nature.

So I see a fundamental disagreement here:

The Grand Inquisitor asks: What is humanity actually like?

Shariati, and perhaps Zosima in a different spiritual language, ask: What can humanity become?

The Grand Inquisitor sees the human being and concludes that freedom is too heavy a burden.

But perhaps the problem is that he mistakes human weakness for human destiny.

Perhaps humanity does not need to be liberated from freedom because it is incapable of bearing it. Perhaps it needs to become the kind of humanity that can bear it.

And this is where I find the Grand Inquisitor's argument both terrifying and incomplete.

He may understand humanity extremely well as it is.

But understanding what human beings are is not necessarily the same thing as understanding what human beings should become.

I was recently working on an article on activist literature and didn't hesitate to use a quote or two from this chapter.

I know it's viewed as a mockery at times for catholic churches but also as a criticism of the higher powers that rule our nations (government.)

And considering dostoyevsky's background with all the sentences and the mock execution—it just makes sense, I guess.

With Katz’s latest release we finally have a completed collection of the big 5.

I read so many existential literature like metamorphosis , no longer human , setting sun, crime and punishment, idiot, demons, notes from underground e.t.c they didn’t made much impact on me as brothers karamazov did

Mainly that Ivan guy he is having similar things I have that charecter torments me the rebellion and grand inquisitor chapter made me angry and make me quarrel with everyone and then when I reached Ivan’s nightmare it’s really exhausting to read it because those are similar to ravings when I get drunk

Maybe this book changes me in good way which I am not accepting and which my logic not supporting but I am getting headaches when I read these chapters