The opening scene on the train traveling through the fog and describing how cold the Prince was due to his inadequate clothing exactly prefigures how inadequately prepared he was for the harsh cold society of Petersburg he was heading into.
I agree with you entirely on the introduction. The best intro to a book ever... There is nothing you have to read before reading "The Idiot" but before you read "The Insulted and Humiliated" you must read "Poor Folk" to understand who is your protagonist. If you wish to understand how a human could write "The Idiot" you must read "The Insulted and Humiliated" and / or "Dostoevsky in Love: An Intimate Life" by Alex Christofi. FAVORITE AUTHORS 1st) Fyodor Dostoevsky 1) “The Insulted and Humiliated” by Fyodor Dostoevsky 4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 19) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 65) "My Uncle's Dream" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 80) "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 113) "Poor Folk" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 130) "The Gentle Spirit" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 141) "The Gambler" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 149) "White Nights" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 173) "Netochka Nezvanova" (nameless nobody) by Fyodor Dostoevsky 2nd) Leo Tolstoy 3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy 9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy 16) “Childhood, Boyhood” by Leo Tolstoy 62) "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy 91) "A Confession" by Leo Tolstoy 3rd) Ivan Turgenev 5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev 11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev 23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev 41) "Torrents of Spring" by Ivan Turgenev 64) "First Love" by Ivan Turgenev 101) "Acia" by Ivan Turgenev 107) "The Watch" by Ivan Turgenev 132) "Rudin" by Ivan Turgenev 141) "On the Eve" by Ivan Turgenev 152) "Home of the Gentry" by Ivan Turgenev 172) "Clara Militch" by Ivan Turgenev 177) "The Inn" by Ivan Turgenev 4th) James A. Michener 12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener 13) "Poland" by James A. Michener 36) "Caribbean" by James A. Michener 37) "Hawaii" by James A. Michener 197) “Mexico” by James A. Michener 5th) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 44) "In the First Circle" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 78) "The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
13:30 I don't think it was the epilepsy or Nastasya's death alone that caused him to go insane. I see the epileptic fits as a metaphor for the spiritual violations that Myshkin goes through: A consequence of carrying the weight of the world's sins. If you were to live like Jesus, you would die like him too. Myshkin and Rogozhin exchanging crosses was my favourite scene. Rogozhin carries the weight of his own sins: a gold cross. Weighed down by materialism he sinks into hell. Myshkin carries a lighter physical burden: a tin cross. Myshkin's sins are non-existent, what he carries is everyone else's sins, A spiritual burden. Rogozhin sees the sinless man and believes his burden is lighter and he wants to exchange them.
Beautiful said, but I think Rogozjin only carried the materialist burden as a inheritance of his father, he himself did not care about the money, he was obsessed by Nastasja! In a way you could see that as the original sin, the sin of the father weighed down on the son?
i’m an atheist through and through and yet i found myself relating to Prince more than any character i’ve had the pleasure of reading about. I never once was upset at him for his love and compassion, i’ve always thought that compassion is truly the essence of humanity. why are we here if not to love one another? what more is there on this earth that can provide such simple and lovely pleasure as that. And so i fell in love, truly, with the prince. he seems to be all of my failings and the parts of myself i cherish in one. He is the example of who i strive to be every day of my life. i want to always forgive, and to always love and be simple. I wish that all i said and all my actions came off as very simple and sincere just as he does. The prince makes me so excited to go out and be kind to people. this book is my favorite ive ever read. because i feel it truly encapsulates the way i’ve always viewed the way we should treat each other, and, despite it’s sad ending it is one of the most hopeful books i’ve ever read. I feel slightly embarrassed for having written so much, but i just finished the book and i feel very passionately about it at the moment.
"You end up yelling at him and calling him and idiot" Well, I must be an idiot myself because I identified with him a lot and therefore I had to laugh. It was quite a liberating book for me and it proves that even Dostoevsky has a sense of humour. And I am certain that Myshkin was a masochist: His caregiver was too harsh on him when he was a child and Myshkin couldn't live up to his caregivers expectation due to his illness. Myshkin grew up to be overly self-critical. He is often drawn to (or doesn't avoid as a healthy person would) people who treat him badly and he almost anxiously apologises their behaviour and always thinks of ways to explain it (in this he is also very empathetic and his explanations are often spot on, actually) or blames himself instead of them. These behaviours make sense from a perspective of a (disabled) child who is trying to form a bond with an abusive caregiver
I read it like it was his autobiography. It made more sense for me - imagine how sensitive, and high an emotional intelligent (empathy) Dostoevsky had to have had to have a great understanding of people. Now, if he is the Prince, then imagine the emotional trauma he would have faced each time he gave his heart... and the sort of inner conflict, and pain he had experienced. He is talking about all the people who he met in his life, and how he learned to unconditionally love... even when they did ... Because of Dostoevsky's high level of empathy, he was able to be close to the Christian idol, so each time he his heart broke, each time he was unable to find true connections, friendship... he felt a little bit like an Idiot. So, really the ending signals a start of a crisis, a crisis of his faith.
I was going through a lot of explanations once I finished the book, and your's is pretty thorough. Great job please start uploading again would love to get good book recommendations
It is always a huge mistake to read any crib, primer, review. abstract, treatise or anything else before reading the novel; Otherwise, you end up running down a thousand rabbit holes of biographical fallacy. A work of art as great as The Idiot must first of all be taken on its own terms so as not to ruin it as a profound work of art ...
There is nothing you have to read before reading "The Idiot" but before you read "The Insulted and Humiliated" you must read "Poor Folk" to understand who is your protagonist. If you wish to understand how a human could write "The Idiot" you must read "The Insulted and Humiliated" and / or "Dostoevsky in Love: An Intimate Life" by Alex Christofi. FAVORITE AUTHORS 1st) Fyodor Dostoevsky 1) “The Insulted and Humiliated” by Fyodor Dostoevsky 4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 20) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 65) "My Uncle's Dream" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 80) "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 113) "Poor Folk" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 130) "The Gentle Spirit" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 141) "The Gambler" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 149) "White Nights" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 173) "Netochka Nezvanova" (nameless nobody) by Fyodor Dostoevsky 2nd) Leo Tolstoy 3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy 9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy 17) “Childhood, Boyhood” by Leo Tolstoy 62) "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy 91) "A Confession" by Leo Tolstoy 3rd) Ivan Turgenev 5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev 11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev 23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev 41) "Torrents of Spring" by Ivan Turgenev 64) "First Love" by Ivan Turgenev 101) "Acia" by Ivan Turgenev 107) "The Watch" by Ivan Turgenev 132) "Rudin" by Ivan Turgenev 141) "On the Eve" by Ivan Turgenev 152) "Home of the Gentry" by Ivan Turgenev 172) "Clara Militch" by Ivan Turgenev 177) "The Inn" by Ivan Turgenev 4th) James A. Michener 12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener 13) "Poland" by James A. Michener 36) "Caribbean" by James A. Michener 37) "Hawaii" by James A. Michener 197) “Mexico” by James A. Michener 5th) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 44) "In the First Circle" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 78) "The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
@@emilchristensen146, I think you figured it out. You also wanted information for this list. MY FAVORITE 32 BOOKS 0) "The Holy Bible: King James Version" copyright 1967 1) "The Insulted and Humiliated" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 2) "Verbal Behavior" by Dr. B. F. Skinner 3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy 4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev 6) Myth Adventures - series by Robert Asprin 7) The Chronicles of Narnia - series by C. S. Lewis 8) "Vilette" by Charlotte Brontë 9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy 10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev 12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener 13) "Poland" by James A. Michener 14) "Roots" by Alex Haley 15) The Silmarillion - The Hobbit, or there and back again - The Lord of the Rings - Middle Earth stories by J. R. R. Tolkien 16) “Even If This Love Disappears Tonight” by Misaki Ichijo 17) "Childhood, Boyhood" by Leo Tolstoy 18) Foundation Series - Isaac Asimov 19) "Eugene Onegin" by Alexander Pushkin 20) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 21) "Paris 1919: six months that changed the world" by Margaret MacMillian 22) "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" by Anne Brontë 23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev 24) "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen 25) The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn - by Mark Twain 26) Old Mother West Wind series - children's wildlife series by Thornton Burgess 27) "Microbe Hunters" by Paul de Kruif 28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 29) "Teacher Man" by Frank McCourt 30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 31) "Kon Tiki" by Thor Heyerdahl
Cool video! But were you really disgusted by Myshkin consoling Rogozhin after the murder? I felt nothing but pity for the both of them... and I do believe that Myshkin would have acted differently had Rogozhin killed Aglaya instead. You see, by the time of her death, Myshkin loved Nastasja like you love a child, not like you love a woman. That's what Jewgeni Pawlowitch ponders about: How can the prince love both Aglaya and Nastasja? Perhaps a different kind of love? Anyhow, prince Myshkin saw that Rogozhin had killed what Rogozhin most dearly loved in the world, out of jealousy, out of pain... how horrible! And what I find most horrible is that we can empathize with Rogozhin, we can see that jealousy and rejection have made us hurt those we love most in our own lives, or that we at leasted wanted to do so. And then comes Myshkin with his infinite understanding of the pain that Rogozhin experienced, and he consoles him... No, I did not find that repulsive. Because this is not stupid, this is loving. What repulsed me was how Myshkin pushed away Aglaya out of love and stupidity, how he did not recognize the seriousness of how much she loved him and how much she wanted him to come with her. That I found awful.
You should read The Master and Margarita by Michael Bulgakov one of the few books I have read from cover to cover, as a confused and lost teenager and even being that way for the most part of my twenties I was helped a lot by Dostoevsky and Bulgakov. Contrary to what many people say about Bulgakov's book being about Soviet era Russia and the corruption within its establiments all I see in the book is Bulgakov's transition from being an atheist to finally becoming a believer. I am a Muslim by the way
It's not Natasha, its Nastasya - the difference is huge. Anastasia (Nastasya is Russian form of the word, made a personal name) in Greek means resurrection, so the Christlikeness doesn't end with the prince. Great job, nevertheless!
I just finished reading The Idiot and before I had read only White Nights by Dostoevsky. I wish I had come across ur video sooner just for the tips u gave at the beginning. The book was a bit much to keep track but surely a masterpiece. And thank u for putting it all together, great summery indeed :)
what I wonder is: was Aglaya really that innocent? I mean sometimes she was like Nastasia trying to provoke all the males they saw. she provoked and tested the prince many times, even made fun of him! I feel like the way the prince attracted her was by reverse psychology or by making her jealous of Nastasia. what Dostoevsky was trying to say was that women motivations are complex!
14:45 Perhaps Aldous Huxley's classic "The Doors of Perception" might change your mind on the idea of chemically induced mystical experiences. The book looks at your argument from the opposite perspective. The fact that these mystical experiences are so hard/impossible to describe in words makes us aware of our limited, semantic and time based consciousness.
I think that it is not the best introduction to Dostoevsky: best to read Crime and Punishment and the Brothers Karamazov (for example) before the Idiot. The plot can appear haphazard (it is) and somewhat disorganised. I actually see it more as a series of bright set pieces rather than a truly consistent work. Yet there are some very powerful scenes in it. I think that it's probably the best novel in which you can see both the weaknesses and the greatness of Dostoevsky as both writer and thinker. And I must also add that it is not the most obvious ideas in Dostoevsky which interest me, but moments of 'gusto' (as William Hazlitt understood the term).
@@ilqar887 read Crime and Punishment first, the major novels and then the shorter works (they vary in quality: Dostoevsky can sometimes be a little slapdash).
@@kresimirvunic5589 I can't believe that dostoyevski can can suck even though some novels can be better than other I have read crime and punishment and notes from underground
Before re-reading "the Idiot," I am reading as many critiques as possible. I appreciate your argument. BTW Akira Kurosawa made a 6--hour movie based upon the novel, starring Toshiro Mifune and Setsuko Hara. Unfortunately, he staged it in post-WW2 Japan, so naturally, the adaptation attempt failed. However, their acting was superb....I find D's novels very funny (shows so much human silliness.)
Just finished it and browsing for explanations and analyses of the book, and yours is by far the best. keep up the good work and looking forward to new content from you in the future. subbed.
Hey just found you from the suggested videos. I loved this and I agree so much about your comments on dawkins. I really hate his shallow attempts. He has spent no time really wanting to learn anything outside his field though. He said as much to cosmic skeptic when Alex called him on this same idea. For all these reasons i love Dostoevsky's abilities and well roundedness!
I think Dostoyevsky said " ideas like children are meant to be seen and not heard"', and his entire authorship is an example of this, I would like someone to touch on oh his work were very hegalian in nature. You know, open to other ideas and in good faith, seeing them to there ends, proving his arguement art tight. He left no doubt, he once said he being a believer could make the best case of how God is not, which is this book I believe. I admire the intensity of Russian though perhaps, Russian thinkers thought this ther only recourse, you know because the hell that was the Soviet Union. Anyway they where geniuses and unlike the riches of the world their brilliance do not fade, because it's was their character.
Just finished it after a long hiatus from Ippolit's self-eulogy, I was hooked the first half of the book, and then suddenly it wanted you to care about something entirely different which was very difficult. To me, I read the self-eulogy as one of Dostoevsky's personal ramblings, where he himself did not necessarily know what he wrote as I didn't feel the connection between it and the rest of the story. Although I would highly recommend the book, I would advise to skip that part and possibly afterwards go back an read it.
" Just a single man, Fyodor Dostoevsky, is enough to defeat all the creative novelists of the world. If one has to decide on 10 great novels in all the languages of the world, one will have to choose at least 3 novels of Dostoevsky in those 10. Dostoevsky’s insight into human beings and their problems is greater than your so-called psychoanalysts, and there are moments where he reaches the heights of great mystics. His book BROTHERS KARAMAZOV is so great in its insights that no BIBLE or KORAN or GITA comes close. In another masterpiece of Dostoevsky, THE IDIOT, the main character is called ‘idiot’ by the people because they can’t understand his simplicity, his humbleness, his purity, his trust, his love. You can cheat him, you can deceive him, and he will still trust you. He is really one of the most beautiful characters ever created by any novelist. The idiot is a sage. The novel could just as well have been called THE SAGE. Dostoevsky’s idiot is not an idiot; he is one of the sanest men amongst an insane humanity. If you can become the idiot of Fyodor Dostoevsky, it is perfectly beautiful. It is better than being cunning priest or politician. Humbleness has such a blessing. Simplicity has such benediction."
Thanks for the great explanation! I'm glad I came across this video soon after finishing the book. I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting or catastrophizing, but Holbein's painting somehow foreshadowed Myshkin's tragic end. Hippolyte once said, 'If this great Teacher of theirs could have seen Himself after the Crucifixion, how could He have consented to mount the Cross and die as He did?' In a way, if Myshkin were to know how his love could lead to such an end as depicted in the book, would he still have chosen to be the person that he is? His unconditional love ultimately brings about his own ruin and destruction, not to mention the people around him. Anyway, much appreciate the video, thank you!
I really enjoyed the first part of the book but as you said it definitely got kinda boring and hard to pay attention to bit I seriously loved the concept of this book as you've explained Prince myshkin was definitely one of my favourites main characters
You are not far from the kingdom of heaven! "Without god everything is permitted." ~ D "Beauty will save the world"~ D "Atheism is so last Decade!" ~ MM SJ Both Bowie & Iggy Pop made an album titled The Idiot, because there is something so special about it. See how its portrayed in Russian before you judge...
The genius of Dostoevsky is his religious archetypes can be explained rationally (Myshkin is basically crucified but is also falling ill) A religious experience as mental damage (brain damage). Bipolar - manic episode think they are jesus Good question - what would the modern equivalent of the characters be?
Love the breakdown overall. Disagree with the personal tangent. The disease is involuntary and leads to progressice deterioration. Psychedelic substances, ones which your beloved Jordan Peterson also took, manage to confront you with your own demons. This can reveal insight after hellish or heavenly revelation in controlled, chosen time and place, unlike the disease. JP also talks about the permanent changes after a trip and how these helped a group of cancer patients facing their reality of death. This means it is not a singular experience of hedonistic bliss, it is a personal potentially life changing lesson.
Good analysis, and I think the book is well understood. My one criticism of this though, is I think it's overstated how much Dostoyevsky is making an argument against living by Christian teaching (forgiveness, etc). Surely the impracticality of it is there, Myshkin and other's lives fall apart by the end of the book, but 2 counterpoints. 1. Myshkin is undeniably presented as a beautiful person. Despite how pragmatically bad so much turns out, I think it's undeniable that Dostoyevsky is presenting Myshkin as a shining light example of what we should be. Even characters who are exasperated at him, mostly acknowledge him as the most wonderful, insightful, unique person they've met. This would include Aglaia, Nastasya, Ippolit, Madam Epanchin, Pavlishev's son, Kolya, Rogozhin, and really most every prominent character. Some of them, at least, become better people because of contact with the Prince (Pavlishev's son, Ippolit). And about those that don't... 2. The story is at least as much about the ugliness, pettiness, and egoism of society which has failed to be Christlike. Every character Myshkin interacts with much, except probably Rogozhin (who represents more unredeemed passion), is a study in egoism and a second hander. They are all guided by their image and what other's think of them, rather than a passion for people and life. Ippolit is a great example of this, he is eventually mainly concerned with dyeing in a way that leaves an impression. Myshkin cuts to the heart of this with the answer to one of his questions, "Pass by us, and forgive us our happiness" essentially prescribing for him to end his life with humility. You can say contact with Myshkin has disastrous effects on others because of the pragmatic problems of living Christian values. But it is at least as much about how hard Christlikeness contrasts and crashes against sin-ridden people.
makes sense to me. Maybe he had Myshkin get chewed up and spat out, not to discourage people from attempting to live Christian lives, but instead, because he did the math and figured the first time a Christ-like being visited us, he was crucified, so something similar would happen the second time around.
Thanks for the informative discussion. I didn't listen to it entirely because i just started reading the book and I didn't want to spoil it. I will listen to it later for sure. I just want to make one comment about the delusion of god. Coincidentally and surprisingly, I just finished reading this book. I have to disagree with what you said about Dawkins's arguments being shallow. He discusses many aspects of religion and science in this book, namely, evolution, creationism, morality, etc. I found most of his arguments deep and rational. I get your point about how you want to compare his approach with Dostoevsky's. But I think it would be an unfair judgment to label Dawkins's arguments as shallow.
This is a really good analysis video man. Thanks I do need a little advice though. Everything you mentioned in the video apart from the facts about Dostoevsky's life himself, like him writing this book to undress his belief in christianity and by extension, Prince Myshkin being a christ like figure in the book, everything apart from this I think I thought as well. What I'm trying to say is I often try to review a book or a movie but find myself incapable of articulating more than a few sentences. Since you're quite good at this, I want to ask, is this something you get better at with practice or if you've had practice? Like is there a part of your brain looking for symbolism and parallels without you thinking about it? Or does this just come naturally? Like you can either do it or you can't. I got that prince myshkin was this pure ideal that ended up being distorted by the world . And I got that the twists and turns were due to the characters being complex and making natural choices. But I wouldn't have been able to make a near 30 minute video about it like this with just a few of these thoughts. (not that I'm doing it for videos, just for my own sake)
As I'm watching another video I realise, all these observations, I had as well. It's just bringing them back at the end that I seem to be bad at. Maybe I should note down stuff as I go along. Is this something you do as well?
@@wren4077 Thanks man. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I definitely think it can be honed with practice. I do write notes as I read. It usually is just jumbled bullet points that I spend months trying to organize in a logical flowing progression (My biggest regret for this video is that it's still too unorganized and jumbled). Usually I sit and re-read my notes multiple times. Comedian Dave Attell once said the way he writes jokes was by recording himself doing his routine and listening to it, and re-listening to it, adding jokes that would pop-up in his mind. For me it was very tedious, and it got to a point where I decided I should just call it done, or I'd never release it. But I've wanted the tone of the videos to be familial, and so I try to speak with a casual tone, and apply the book to personal relatable anecdotes. Also, I have to admit that wikipedia, Jordan Peterson, and Cliffnotes made points that I had missed which tied the whole theme of the book together, so sitting on it and not releasing it until i had done a little more research definitely helped me.👍
@@humanexperient5096 Thanks. I'm gonna try and make notes of everything the movieor book makes me think about it. I mostly consume movies, or used to until a few weeks ago when I started reading again, ANd it didn't make sense to keep notes, even if theyre in my head, while watching the movie. Cause it sorts of takes you out of it. So I always wondered how all these big youtubers like Chris Stuckmann do it. But i suppose its easier for books. And practice will make me better. Thanks for the respone again.
@@humanexperient5096, there is nothing you have to read before reading "The Idiot" but before you read "The Insulted and Humiliated" you must read "Poor Folk" to understand who is your protagonist. If you wish to understand how a human could write "The Idiot" you must read "The Insulted and Humiliated" and / or "Dostoevsky in Love: An Intimate Life" by Alex Christofi. FAVORITE AUTHORS 1st) Fyodor Dostoevsky 1) “The Insulted and Humiliated” by Fyodor Dostoevsky 4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 19) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 65) "My Uncle's Dream" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 80) "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 113) "Poor Folk" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 130) "The Gentle Spirit" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 141) "The Gambler" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 149) "White Nights" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 173) "Netochka Nezvanova" (nameless nobody) by Fyodor Dostoevsky 2nd) Leo Tolstoy 3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy 9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy 16) “Childhood, Boyhood” by Leo Tolstoy 62) "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy 91) "A Confession" by Leo Tolstoy 3rd) Ivan Turgenev 5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev 11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev 23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev 41) "Torrents of Spring" by Ivan Turgenev 64) "First Love" by Ivan Turgenev 101) "Acia" by Ivan Turgenev 107) "The Watch" by Ivan Turgenev 132) "Rudin" by Ivan Turgenev 141) "On the Eve" by Ivan Turgenev 152) "Home of the Gentry" by Ivan Turgenev 172) "Clara Militch" by Ivan Turgenev 177) "The Inn" by Ivan Turgenev 4th) James A. Michener 12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener 13) "Poland" by James A. Michener 36) "Caribbean" by James A. Michener 37) "Hawaii" by James A. Michener 197) “Mexico” by James A. Michener 5th) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 44) "In the First Circle" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 78) "The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Although this is just a coincidence, I want to leave it here. I also admire Dostoevsky, as well as Peterson. Just funny that you mentioned the 1976 film Network. I was recently thinking about what movie I could call my favorite and this picture was the first thing that came to mind. Just funny. Speaking of realism. Dostoevsky's ideas, I believe, would be too cramped in the canons of the realistic novel. Therefore, he often goes beyond the bounds of plausibility, but only where it is necessary to convey a thought, an idea. Thank you for your thoughts. Subscribed!
Your comment about Korean movies made me laugh! I am well aquainted with Korean dramas, though I prefer the comedic ones with stereotypical Korean tropes and avoid the tragic ones, sterotypically over the top. They are disturbing.
Loved this, thank you. Gotta read it again, last time was 40 yrs ago (I'm 70🤣) I hate haaaate to disclose how much i identify with the title character, with the big differeence i am middle class not aristocracy. I'm not epileptic, but have a mind/brain condition (borderline? CPTSD? mild schizoid? pseudo quasi autistic?) I'm brainy, but utterly lack common sense street smarts. Authored appallingly awkward incidents, shoulda been struck by⚡️numerous times. The narrator is sadly naive re family members forgiving. Dostoevsky has a keen grip on the nature of split personality. Especially Raskolnikov. Astonishingly in The Double. Likewise Myshkin's insane simp-pathy for Rogozhin at the end
I stopped before the spoilers 12:23 because I'm only on chapter 4. Thank you for the review will finish it when I finish the book. I am enjoying the book but have seen alot of reviews where people didn't even finish it. They disliked it that much. Do you know if the book Brothers Karamazov is religious? I try to stay away from Christian books does it mention the Christian God alot (j bird)?
I just finished the Brother's Karamazov on audio form and it took a grueling 40 hrs but it's a masterpiece! Even Einstein says it's a supreme achievement of world literature. Dostoyevsky normally explores morality from the lens of his faith but plays devil's advocate in the book. Hope you don't get turned off by it being a "Christian" book because you might miss out on this masterpiece
@@aerobicsalmon415 I will try to read it. I'm doing crime and punishment then brothers Karamazov. If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for everyone.
Hmmmm Dawkins loves a number of Christian traditions though, wouldn't say he hates Christians so much as their beliefs... and you said Christians are trained to answer all the things he brought up from childhood, but even having been a missionary kid I found his book one of the most useful resources to help me get over it all.
At like four minutes you were saying how disgusted Myshkin’s forgiveness made you and I was thinking… 😅 speak for yourself hahaha. I definitely never felt angry at Myshkin or disgusted or would want him to change.
The narrator has obviously not experienced the super natural , I understand if you have not seen or experienced phenomena . At the end of the day it's your choice if you believe or not .
Archetypes and stereotypes are two completely different things. And why don’t you critique this book yourself instead of parroting Jordan Petersons personal interpretation ?
Hey I have a question. I just started reading the book and I got stuck on rogozhins past. Is he the dark man? Please help me, the book is good but a little confusing
The dark man on the train is Rogojin. He's antithetical to the prince. One is dark-haired, the other blonde. One is satan and brings eternal death, and the other is the groom (Jesus), who will bring salvation. We are Nastasia Philipovna, and we have to pick between the two. Are you talking about another dark man? In what chapter is he mentioned? Also what translation?
Nietzsche loved Dostoevsky so there may be hope yet. Nietzsche’s unbelief may have contributed to his nervous breakdown. And his lack of faith may have resulted in no support when he brilliantly pulled away the illusions of all philosophy. Unlike Nietzsche, I would be led by the Spirit to say it is time to, “Let our souls magnify the Lord” -- and realize there are no borders, especially when we blow into the sails of another's boat. We don’t believe in God. God believes in us. As we are divinized, God literally indwells our soul and believes on our behalf by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
great summary but you shouldnt talk about psychedelics if you havent done them. it comes across as very condescending. psychedelics have shown me truths about myself and broken down my ego. nothing about brain damage, that is a very outdated perspective that is quickly becoming seen as just plain false.. Psychedelics rewire the brains neural connection and increase neuroplasticity, allowing for new connections to be made without severing any old ones. if anything they make you smarter when used responsibly.. But you might say "oh but people can fry their brain if they take too much" and to that i say, maybe if you take 100x the regular dosage, but compare that with alcohol where taking 15 shots could be fatal under the right circumstances.. Tangent over. please consider doing research and modifying your perspective
Had the exact opposite experience with psychedelics had a paranoid break from reality... So just because you had a certain experience doesn't mean that's the truth about pschadelics. It comes off as very condescending.
There is nothing you have to read before reading "The Idiot" but before you read "The Insulted and Humiliated" you must read "Poor Folk" to understand who is your protagonist. If you wish to understand how a human could write "The Idiot" you must read "The Insulted and Humiliated" and / or "Dostoevsky in Love: An Intimate Life" by Alex Christofi. FAVORITE AUTHORS 1st) Fyodor Dostoevsky 1) “The Insulted and Humiliated” by Fyodor Dostoevsky 4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 19) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 65) "My Uncle's Dream" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 80) "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 113) "Poor Folk" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 130) "The Gentle Spirit" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 141) "The Gambler" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 149) "White Nights" by Fyodor Dostoevsky 173) "Netochka Nezvanova" (nameless nobody) by Fyodor Dostoevsky 2nd) Leo Tolstoy 3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy 9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy 16) “Childhood, Boyhood” by Leo Tolstoy 62) "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy 91) "A Confession" by Leo Tolstoy 3rd) Ivan Turgenev 5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev 11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev 23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev 41) "Torrents of Spring" by Ivan Turgenev 64) "First Love" by Ivan Turgenev 101) "Acia" by Ivan Turgenev 107) "The Watch" by Ivan Turgenev 132) "Rudin" by Ivan Turgenev 141) "On the Eve" by Ivan Turgenev 152) "Home of the Gentry" by Ivan Turgenev 172) "Clara Militch" by Ivan Turgenev 177) "The Inn" by Ivan Turgenev 4th) James A. Michener 12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener 13) "Poland" by James A. Michener 36) "Caribbean" by James A. Michener 37) "Hawaii" by James A. Michener 197) “Mexico” by James A. Michener 5th) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 44) "In the First Circle" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 78) "The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Really nice recap of the book. I just have a question. Whenever you say the era in which the setting of the book was at. I keep hearing 1960s Russia. I'm quite sure it was during the 1860s. Or maybe I'm just deaf?
great video, sadly I never finished this book. Even though I somewhat appreciate his style of writing, but the drawn out meetings and seemingly random dialogues was too much for me :/
Try reading the Pevear and Volokonsky translation, particularly the introduction which goes into depth about the aim and prose of the novel. Makes it more appreciable I think!
Agree with you that this great novel was boring in some parts and also that the characters give such long, long speeches. Same thing with The Brothers Karamazov, Dmitri's speeches especially.
Great observations. I believe your are one of those people who think they are an atheist and do not see or ignore all of the characteristics built into them that prove they act like ther is a god.
Cracks me up. Even the poor and impoverished, even those without any education at all but were literate understood this book. Yet, so called educated modernity can't grasps a simple book. Smfh
@@humanexperient5096 see what I mean. A book doesn't become a classic because no one read it. The majority of the population was what so many call poor and illiterate; yet, they sure were capable of purchasing, reading and comprehending these works.
@@nikokapanen82 Basically a ton of people freak out at the mention of his name because he makes very harsh criticisms of politically correct culture that has gone too far. He said these things, and then news sources started reporting on him as if he were some authoritarian psychopath when it's very far from the truth, and furthermore the reaction just proved him right. Also you can't even read The Idiot and really understand it without being critical of these concepts yourself. The criticisms that Dostoyevsky makes in the book (and most of his other books to be honest) are in line with these with people losing meaning, becoming nihilist/atheist, and becoming overinvested in political ideologies. To take it a step further, Dostoyevsky was, in retrospect, 100% correct, and many of his criticism are a dark foreshadowing of what happened in Russia and its territories during the 20th century. I'd hate for Jordan Peterson to be right, and there's a good chance he will be if people don't take sentiments like his seriously.
💯 this is so, so bad. The fact that he was surprised that he predicted a trite Paulo Coehlo ending is both hilarious and telling, he’s truly out of his depths.
Nice review - thank you. However @ 14:52 - Are you a molecular biologist, chemist or a neuroscientist? I work in research on many of these compounds at a University. Have you ever looked at any peer reviewed academic research on this (there are lots now that restrictions were lifted in the early 2000s to allow scientist to research them)? Clearly you haven't to make any of these wild assertions. Please keep your opinions to yourself - you are book dweeb and people come here for your excellent book reviews - not your opinion on molecular compounds and their effects on our consciousness. Religions were sprouted from many of these compounds - they are far from a "trick".
You had me right up until you made assumptions about psychedelic drugs that made you sound, quite frankly, idiotic. I can clearly articulate many of the profound experiences I have had on psychedelics, and I have never had "brain damage" during those experiences. You should stick to the facts and discussion of the material at hand. Leave your prejudice and uninformed opinions out of your videos. It would make them better.
A lot of people agree with you, and I'll admit I'm totally ignorant about that world. I know it's casting pearls before swine, but can you articulate some of the profound experiences you've had on psychedelics? My guess is if you've had an epiphany that is metaphysical in nature, it will only make sense to you. I also think you could have had these experiences sober.
constantly referencing Jordan Peterson makes you seem a bit idiotic a reactionary psychology lecturer is not a particularly useful barometer of anything, let alone Russian literature
Who is one allowed to reference without seeming idiotic? Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and Dostoevsky's books are explorations of psychology... seems like an appropriate reference to me.
Like him or not Peterson knows his Russian literature. Penguin Books even invited him to write the foreword to The Gulag Archipelago: 50th Anniversary.
The opening scene on the train traveling through the fog and describing how cold the Prince was due to his inadequate clothing exactly prefigures how inadequately prepared he was for the harsh cold society of Petersburg he was heading into.
damn never looked at it that way..very symbolic
That's great explanation point, like that!
He did not have the tools needed to deal with the situation.
I agree with you entirely on the introduction. The best intro to a book ever...
There is nothing you have to read before reading "The Idiot" but before you read "The Insulted and Humiliated" you must read "Poor Folk" to understand who is your protagonist. If you wish to understand how a human could write "The Idiot" you must read "The Insulted and Humiliated" and / or "Dostoevsky in Love: An Intimate Life" by Alex Christofi.
FAVORITE AUTHORS
1st) Fyodor Dostoevsky
1) “The Insulted and Humiliated” by Fyodor Dostoevsky
4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
19) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
65) "My Uncle's Dream" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
80) "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
113) "Poor Folk" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
130) "The Gentle Spirit" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
141) "The Gambler" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
149) "White Nights" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
173) "Netochka Nezvanova" (nameless nobody) by Fyodor Dostoevsky
2nd) Leo Tolstoy
3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy
9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy
16) “Childhood, Boyhood” by Leo Tolstoy
62) "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy
91) "A Confession" by Leo Tolstoy
3rd) Ivan Turgenev
5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev
11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev
23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev
41) "Torrents of Spring" by Ivan Turgenev
64) "First Love" by Ivan Turgenev
101) "Acia" by Ivan Turgenev
107) "The Watch" by Ivan Turgenev
132) "Rudin" by Ivan Turgenev
141) "On the Eve" by Ivan Turgenev
152) "Home of the Gentry" by Ivan Turgenev
172) "Clara Militch" by Ivan Turgenev
177) "The Inn" by Ivan Turgenev
4th) James A. Michener
12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener
13) "Poland" by James A. Michener
36) "Caribbean" by James A. Michener
37) "Hawaii" by James A. Michener
197) “Mexico” by James A. Michener
5th) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
44) "In the First Circle" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
78) "The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
😮 nice catch, that beginning chapter immediately grabbed me
13:30 I don't think it was the epilepsy or Nastasya's death alone that caused him to go insane. I see the epileptic fits as a metaphor for the spiritual violations that Myshkin goes through: A consequence of carrying the weight of the world's sins. If you were to live like Jesus, you would die like him too.
Myshkin and Rogozhin exchanging crosses was my favourite scene. Rogozhin carries the weight of his own sins: a gold cross. Weighed down by materialism he sinks into hell. Myshkin carries a lighter physical burden: a tin cross. Myshkin's sins are non-existent, what he carries is everyone else's sins, A spiritual burden. Rogozhin sees the sinless man and believes his burden is lighter and he wants to exchange them.
Beautiful said, but I think Rogozjin only carried the materialist burden as a inheritance of his father, he himself did not care about the money, he was obsessed by Nastasja! In a way you could see that as the original sin, the sin of the father weighed down on the son?
Fyodor Dostoevsky and Victor Hugo had, in my opinion, a better understanding of the human condition than any two writers that ever lived.
i’m an atheist through and through and yet i found myself relating to Prince more than any character i’ve had the pleasure of reading about. I never once was upset at him for his love and compassion, i’ve always thought that compassion is truly the essence of humanity.
why are we here if not to love one another? what more is there on this earth that can provide such simple and lovely pleasure as that. And so i fell in love, truly, with the prince. he seems to be all of my failings and the parts of myself i cherish in one.
He is the example of who i strive to be every day of my life. i want to always forgive, and to always love and be simple. I wish that all i said and all my actions came off as very simple and sincere just as he does. The prince makes me so excited to go out and be kind to people.
this book is my favorite ive ever read. because i feel it truly encapsulates the way i’ve always viewed the way we should treat each other, and, despite it’s sad ending it is one of the most hopeful books i’ve ever read. I feel slightly embarrassed for having written so much, but i just finished the book and i feel very passionately about it at the moment.
"You end up yelling at him and calling him and idiot" Well, I must be an idiot myself because I identified with him a lot and therefore I had to laugh. It was quite a liberating book for me and it proves that even Dostoevsky has a sense of humour. And I am certain that Myshkin was a masochist: His caregiver was too harsh on him when he was a child and Myshkin couldn't live up to his caregivers expectation due to his illness. Myshkin grew up to be overly self-critical. He is often drawn to (or doesn't avoid as a healthy person would) people who treat him badly and he almost anxiously apologises their behaviour and always thinks of ways to explain it (in this he is also very empathetic and his explanations are often spot on, actually) or blames himself instead of them. These behaviours make sense from a perspective of a (disabled) child who is trying to form a bond with an abusive caregiver
I read it like it was his autobiography. It made more sense for me - imagine how sensitive, and high an emotional intelligent (empathy) Dostoevsky had to have had to have a great understanding of people. Now, if he is the Prince, then imagine the emotional trauma he would have faced each time he gave his heart... and the sort of inner conflict, and pain he had experienced. He is talking about all the people who he met in his life, and how he learned to unconditionally love... even when they did ...
Because of Dostoevsky's high level of empathy, he was able to be close to the Christian idol, so each time he his heart broke, each time he was unable to find true connections, friendship... he felt a little bit like an Idiot. So, really the ending signals a start of a crisis, a crisis of his faith.
I was going through a lot of explanations once I finished the book, and your's is pretty thorough. Great job please start uploading again would love to get good book recommendations
It is always a huge mistake to read any crib, primer, review. abstract, treatise or anything else before reading the novel; Otherwise, you end up running down a thousand rabbit holes of biographical fallacy. A work of art as great as The Idiot must first of all be taken on its own terms so as not to ruin it as a profound work of art ...
You are overestimating me.
There is nothing you have to read before reading "The Idiot" but before you read "The Insulted and Humiliated" you must read "Poor Folk" to understand who is your protagonist. If you wish to understand how a human could write "The Idiot" you must read "The Insulted and Humiliated" and / or "Dostoevsky in Love: An Intimate Life" by Alex Christofi.
FAVORITE AUTHORS
1st) Fyodor Dostoevsky
1) “The Insulted and Humiliated” by Fyodor Dostoevsky
4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
20) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
65) "My Uncle's Dream" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
80) "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
113) "Poor Folk" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
130) "The Gentle Spirit" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
141) "The Gambler" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
149) "White Nights" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
173) "Netochka Nezvanova" (nameless nobody) by Fyodor Dostoevsky
2nd) Leo Tolstoy
3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy
9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy
17) “Childhood, Boyhood” by Leo Tolstoy
62) "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy
91) "A Confession" by Leo Tolstoy
3rd) Ivan Turgenev
5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev
11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev
23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev
41) "Torrents of Spring" by Ivan Turgenev
64) "First Love" by Ivan Turgenev
101) "Acia" by Ivan Turgenev
107) "The Watch" by Ivan Turgenev
132) "Rudin" by Ivan Turgenev
141) "On the Eve" by Ivan Turgenev
152) "Home of the Gentry" by Ivan Turgenev
172) "Clara Militch" by Ivan Turgenev
177) "The Inn" by Ivan Turgenev
4th) James A. Michener
12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener
13) "Poland" by James A. Michener
36) "Caribbean" by James A. Michener
37) "Hawaii" by James A. Michener
197) “Mexico” by James A. Michener
5th) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
44) "In the First Circle" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
78) "The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Can i Ask, what are the numbers before each Novel? Are they your listing, and if so, what is number 2 and 4?@@ReligionOfSacrifice
@@emilchristensen146, I think you figured it out. You also wanted information for this list.
MY FAVORITE 32 BOOKS
0) "The Holy Bible: King James Version" copyright 1967
1) "The Insulted and Humiliated" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
2) "Verbal Behavior" by Dr. B. F. Skinner
3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy
4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev
6) Myth Adventures - series by Robert Asprin
7) The Chronicles of Narnia - series by C. S. Lewis
8) "Vilette" by Charlotte Brontë
9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy
10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev
12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener
13) "Poland" by James A. Michener
14) "Roots" by Alex Haley
15) The Silmarillion - The Hobbit, or there and back again - The Lord of the Rings - Middle Earth stories by J. R. R. Tolkien
16) “Even If This Love Disappears Tonight” by Misaki Ichijo
17) "Childhood, Boyhood" by Leo Tolstoy
18) Foundation Series - Isaac Asimov
19) "Eugene Onegin" by Alexander Pushkin
20) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
21) "Paris 1919: six months that changed the world" by Margaret MacMillian
22) "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" by Anne Brontë
23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev
24) "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen
25) The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn - by Mark Twain
26) Old Mother West Wind series - children's wildlife series by Thornton Burgess
27) "Microbe Hunters" by Paul de Kruif
28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
29) "Teacher Man" by Frank McCourt
30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
31) "Kon Tiki" by Thor Heyerdahl
Cool video! But were you really disgusted by Myshkin consoling Rogozhin after the murder? I felt nothing but pity for the both of them... and I do believe that Myshkin would have acted differently had Rogozhin killed Aglaya instead. You see, by the time of her death, Myshkin loved Nastasja like you love a child, not like you love a woman. That's what Jewgeni Pawlowitch ponders about: How can the prince love both Aglaya and Nastasja? Perhaps a different kind of love? Anyhow, prince Myshkin saw that Rogozhin had killed what Rogozhin most dearly loved in the world, out of jealousy, out of pain... how horrible! And what I find most horrible is that we can empathize with Rogozhin, we can see that jealousy and rejection have made us hurt those we love most in our own lives, or that we at leasted wanted to do so. And then comes Myshkin with his infinite understanding of the pain that Rogozhin experienced, and he consoles him... No, I did not find that repulsive. Because this is not stupid, this is loving. What repulsed me was how Myshkin pushed away Aglaya out of love and stupidity, how he did not recognize the seriousness of how much she loved him and how much she wanted him to come with her. That I found awful.
You should read The Master and Margarita by Michael Bulgakov one of the few books I have read from cover to cover, as a confused and lost teenager and even being that way for the most part of my twenties I was helped a lot by Dostoevsky and Bulgakov. Contrary to what many people say about Bulgakov's book being about Soviet era Russia and the corruption within its establiments all I see in the book is Bulgakov's transition from being an atheist to finally becoming a believer. I am a Muslim by the way
It's not Natasha, its Nastasya - the difference is huge. Anastasia (Nastasya is Russian form of the word, made a personal name) in Greek means resurrection, so the Christlikeness doesn't end with the prince. Great job, nevertheless!
Thank you! I💙languages. It's been a while, but isn't Natasha the familiar nickname for Natalya, which means, umm, Natalie
@@carlorizzo827 You're welcome. If so, Natalia probably comes from Anatoly, 'east' in greek.
I just finished reading The Idiot and before I had read only White Nights by Dostoevsky. I wish I had come across ur video sooner just for the tips u gave at the beginning. The book was a bit much to keep track but surely a masterpiece. And thank u for putting it all together, great summery indeed :)
what I wonder is: was Aglaya really that innocent? I mean sometimes she was like Nastasia trying to provoke all the males they saw. she provoked and tested the prince many times, even made fun of him! I feel like the way the prince attracted her was by reverse psychology or by making her jealous of Nastasia. what Dostoevsky was trying to say was that women motivations are complex!
I like the way you critique Dawkins' arguments...
Great summary bro!🤜🤛
Thank you for the display of amazing photografs of people from that period.
14:45 Perhaps Aldous Huxley's classic "The Doors of Perception" might change your mind on the idea of chemically induced mystical experiences. The book looks at your argument from the opposite perspective. The fact that these mystical experiences are so hard/impossible to describe in words makes us aware of our limited, semantic and time based consciousness.
This was amazing! Thanks for the great discussion. Keep up the videos man!
I think that it is not the best introduction to Dostoevsky: best to read Crime and Punishment and the Brothers Karamazov (for example) before the Idiot. The plot can appear haphazard (it is) and somewhat disorganised. I actually see it more as a series of bright set pieces rather than a truly consistent work. Yet there are some very powerful scenes in it.
I think that it's probably the best novel in which you can see both the weaknesses and the greatness of Dostoevsky as both writer and thinker. And I must also add that it is not the most obvious ideas in Dostoevsky which interest me, but moments of 'gusto' (as William Hazlitt understood the term).
Should I start karamazovs or read he's shorter novels
@@ilqar887 read Crime and Punishment first, the major novels and then the shorter works (they vary in quality: Dostoevsky can sometimes be a little slapdash).
I'm Croat so I read Croatian translations.
@@kresimirvunic5589 I can't believe that dostoyevski can can suck even though some novels can be better than other I have read crime and punishment and notes from underground
@@ilqar887 I mean that sometimes the artistry is lacking.
Before re-reading "the Idiot," I am reading as many critiques as possible. I appreciate your argument. BTW Akira Kurosawa made a 6--hour movie based upon the novel, starring Toshiro Mifune and Setsuko Hara. Unfortunately, he staged it in post-WW2 Japan, so naturally, the adaptation attempt failed. However, their acting was superb....I find D's novels very funny (shows so much human silliness.)
Just finished it and browsing for explanations and analyses of the book, and yours is by far the best.
keep up the good work and looking forward to new content from you in the future.
subbed.
Hey just found you from the suggested videos. I loved this and I agree so much about your comments on dawkins. I really hate his shallow attempts. He has spent no time really wanting to learn anything outside his field though. He said as much to cosmic skeptic when Alex called him on this same idea. For all these reasons i love Dostoevsky's abilities and well roundedness!
I think Dostoyevsky said " ideas like children are meant to be seen and not heard"', and his entire authorship is an example of this, I would like someone to touch on oh his work were very hegalian in nature. You know, open to other ideas and in good faith, seeing them to there ends, proving his arguement art tight. He left no doubt, he once said he being a believer could make the best case of how God is not, which is this book I believe. I admire the intensity of Russian though perhaps, Russian thinkers thought this ther only recourse, you know because the hell that was the Soviet Union. Anyway they where geniuses and unlike the riches of the world their brilliance do not fade, because it's was their character.
Just finished it after a long hiatus from Ippolit's self-eulogy, I was hooked the first half of the book, and then suddenly it wanted you to care about something entirely different which was very difficult. To me, I read the self-eulogy as one of Dostoevsky's personal ramblings, where he himself did not necessarily know what he wrote as I didn't feel the connection between it and the rest of the story.
Although I would highly recommend the book, I would advise to skip that part and possibly afterwards go back an read it.
I read Dawkins 15 years ago and was convinced by atheism. It didn’t stick. I read Dostoyevsky 5 years ago and became an Orthodox Christian.
If you haven’t read the Quran, You’re missing out.
" Just a single man, Fyodor Dostoevsky, is enough to defeat all the creative novelists of the world. If one has to decide on 10 great novels in all the languages of the world, one will have to choose at least 3 novels of Dostoevsky in those 10. Dostoevsky’s insight into human beings and their problems is greater than your so-called psychoanalysts, and there are moments where he reaches the heights of great mystics. His book BROTHERS KARAMAZOV is so great in its insights that no BIBLE or KORAN or GITA comes close.
In another masterpiece of Dostoevsky, THE IDIOT, the main character is called ‘idiot’ by the people because they can’t understand his simplicity, his humbleness, his purity, his trust, his love. You can cheat him, you can deceive him, and he will still trust you. He is really one of the most beautiful characters ever created by any novelist. The idiot is a sage. The novel could just as well have been called THE SAGE. Dostoevsky’s idiot is not an idiot; he is one of the sanest men amongst an insane humanity. If you can become the idiot of Fyodor Dostoevsky, it is perfectly beautiful. It is better than being cunning priest or politician. Humbleness has such a blessing. Simplicity has such benediction."
i loved ur random thoughts at the end! so relatable 😭
Thoroughly enjoyed your commentary even if I didn't completely agree with every single point made. Wonderful job.
This is my favorite discussion about the book so far, good job.
Thank you for this informative talk on Dostoyevsky.
Excellent video!
“Prince Myshkin being a simp” 😂
Great photos. Wonder what some of the people are selling
Thanks for the great explanation! I'm glad I came across this video soon after finishing the book. I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting or catastrophizing, but Holbein's painting somehow foreshadowed Myshkin's tragic end. Hippolyte once said, 'If this great Teacher of theirs could have seen Himself after the Crucifixion, how could He have consented to mount the Cross and die as He did?' In a way, if Myshkin were to know how his love could lead to such an end as depicted in the book, would he still have chosen to be the person that he is? His unconditional love ultimately brings about his own ruin and destruction, not to mention the people around him. Anyway, much appreciate the video, thank you!
I really enjoyed the first part of the book but as you said it definitely got kinda boring and hard to pay attention to bit I seriously loved the concept of this book as you've explained Prince myshkin was definitely one of my favourites main characters
You are not far from the kingdom of heaven! "Without god everything is permitted." ~ D "Beauty will save the world"~ D "Atheism is so last Decade!" ~ MM SJ
Both Bowie & Iggy Pop made an album titled The Idiot, because there is something so special about it.
See how its portrayed in Russian before you judge...
ruclips.net/video/tl7Vq6U08Ng/видео.htmlsi=qRoiWvFywdPEHcMG
She is a Femme Fatale!
The genius of Dostoevsky is his religious archetypes can be explained rationally (Myshkin is basically crucified but is also falling ill)
A religious experience as mental damage (brain damage). Bipolar - manic episode think they are jesus
Good question - what would the modern equivalent of the characters be?
Love the breakdown overall. Disagree with the personal tangent. The disease is involuntary and leads to progressice deterioration. Psychedelic substances, ones which your beloved Jordan Peterson also took, manage to confront you with your own demons. This can reveal insight after hellish or heavenly revelation in controlled, chosen time and place, unlike the disease. JP also talks about the permanent changes after a trip and how these helped a group of cancer patients facing their reality of death. This means it is not a singular experience of hedonistic bliss, it is a personal potentially life changing lesson.
the prince didnt want nastasya philpovna when he sat with aglya at the green bench 20:30
Great video, my favorite of all I've watched about this book
Good analysis, and I think the book is well understood. My one criticism of this though, is I think it's overstated how much Dostoyevsky is making an argument against living by Christian teaching (forgiveness, etc). Surely the impracticality of it is there, Myshkin and other's lives fall apart by the end of the book, but 2 counterpoints.
1. Myshkin is undeniably presented as a beautiful person. Despite how pragmatically bad so much turns out, I think it's undeniable that Dostoyevsky is presenting Myshkin as a shining light example of what we should be. Even characters who are exasperated at him, mostly acknowledge him as the most wonderful, insightful, unique person they've met. This would include Aglaia, Nastasya, Ippolit, Madam Epanchin, Pavlishev's son, Kolya, Rogozhin, and really most every prominent character. Some of them, at least, become better people because of contact with the Prince (Pavlishev's son, Ippolit). And about those that don't...
2. The story is at least as much about the ugliness, pettiness, and egoism of society which has failed to be Christlike. Every character Myshkin interacts with much, except probably Rogozhin (who represents more unredeemed passion), is a study in egoism and a second hander. They are all guided by their image and what other's think of them, rather than a passion for people and life. Ippolit is a great example of this, he is eventually mainly concerned with dyeing in a way that leaves an impression. Myshkin cuts to the heart of this with the answer to one of his questions, "Pass by us, and forgive us our happiness" essentially prescribing for him to end his life with humility. You can say contact with Myshkin has disastrous effects on others because of the pragmatic problems of living Christian values. But it is at least as much about how hard Christlikeness contrasts and crashes against sin-ridden people.
makes sense to me. Maybe he had Myshkin get chewed up and spat out, not to discourage people from attempting to live Christian lives, but instead, because he did the math and figured the first time a Christ-like being visited us, he was crucified, so something similar would happen the second time around.
Thanks for the informative discussion. I didn't listen to it entirely because i just started reading the book and I didn't want to spoil it. I will listen to it later for sure. I just want to make one comment about the delusion of god. Coincidentally and surprisingly, I just finished reading this book. I have to disagree with what you said about Dawkins's arguments being shallow. He discusses many aspects of religion and science in this book, namely, evolution, creationism, morality, etc. I found most of his arguments deep and rational. I get your point about how you want to compare his approach with Dostoevsky's. But I think it would be an unfair judgment to label Dawkins's arguments as shallow.
Omg i totally disagree ! Is Myshkin disgusting and repulsing ,god this is absolutely wrong ,like i loved him throughout
Just finished reading the book, thanks for this beautiful analysis
This is a really good analysis video man. Thanks
I do need a little advice though.
Everything you mentioned in the video apart from the facts about Dostoevsky's life himself, like him writing this book to undress his belief in christianity and by extension, Prince Myshkin being a christ like figure in the book, everything apart from this I think I thought as well.
What I'm trying to say is I often try to review a book or a movie but find myself incapable of articulating more than a few sentences. Since you're quite good at this, I want to ask, is this something you get better at with practice or if you've had practice? Like is there a part of your brain looking for symbolism and parallels without you thinking about it?
Or does this just come naturally? Like you can either do it or you can't.
I got that prince myshkin was this pure ideal that ended up being distorted by the world . And I got that the twists and turns were due to the characters being complex and making natural choices. But I wouldn't have been able to make a near 30 minute video about it like this with just a few of these thoughts. (not that I'm doing it for videos, just for my own sake)
As I'm watching another video I realise, all these observations, I had as well. It's just bringing them back at the end that I seem to be bad at. Maybe I should note down stuff as I go along.
Is this something you do as well?
@@wren4077 Thanks man. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I definitely think it can be honed with practice. I do write notes as I read. It usually is just jumbled bullet points that I spend months trying to organize in a logical flowing progression (My biggest regret for this video is that it's still too unorganized and jumbled). Usually I sit and re-read my notes multiple times. Comedian Dave Attell once said the way he writes jokes was by recording himself doing his routine and listening to it, and re-listening to it, adding jokes that would pop-up in his mind. For me it was very tedious, and it got to a point where I decided I should just call it done, or I'd never release it. But I've wanted the tone of the videos to be familial, and so I try to speak with a casual tone, and apply the book to personal relatable anecdotes. Also, I have to admit that wikipedia, Jordan Peterson, and Cliffnotes made points that I had missed which tied the whole theme of the book together, so sitting on it and not releasing it until i had done a little more research definitely helped me.👍
@@humanexperient5096 Thanks. I'm gonna try and make notes of everything the movieor book makes me think about it. I mostly consume movies, or used to until a few weeks ago when I started reading again, ANd it didn't make sense to keep notes, even if theyre in my head, while watching the movie. Cause it sorts of takes you out of it. So I always wondered how all these big youtubers like Chris Stuckmann do it.
But i suppose its easier for books. And practice will make me better.
Thanks for the respone again.
@@humanexperient5096, there is nothing you have to read before reading "The Idiot" but before you read "The Insulted and Humiliated" you must read "Poor Folk" to understand who is your protagonist. If you wish to understand how a human could write "The Idiot" you must read "The Insulted and Humiliated" and / or "Dostoevsky in Love: An Intimate Life" by Alex Christofi.
FAVORITE AUTHORS
1st) Fyodor Dostoevsky
1) “The Insulted and Humiliated” by Fyodor Dostoevsky
4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
19) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
65) "My Uncle's Dream" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
80) "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
113) "Poor Folk" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
130) "The Gentle Spirit" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
141) "The Gambler" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
149) "White Nights" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
173) "Netochka Nezvanova" (nameless nobody) by Fyodor Dostoevsky
2nd) Leo Tolstoy
3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy
9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy
16) “Childhood, Boyhood” by Leo Tolstoy
62) "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy
91) "A Confession" by Leo Tolstoy
3rd) Ivan Turgenev
5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev
11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev
23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev
41) "Torrents of Spring" by Ivan Turgenev
64) "First Love" by Ivan Turgenev
101) "Acia" by Ivan Turgenev
107) "The Watch" by Ivan Turgenev
132) "Rudin" by Ivan Turgenev
141) "On the Eve" by Ivan Turgenev
152) "Home of the Gentry" by Ivan Turgenev
172) "Clara Militch" by Ivan Turgenev
177) "The Inn" by Ivan Turgenev
4th) James A. Michener
12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener
13) "Poland" by James A. Michener
36) "Caribbean" by James A. Michener
37) "Hawaii" by James A. Michener
197) “Mexico” by James A. Michener
5th) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
44) "In the First Circle" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
78) "The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Although this is just a coincidence, I want to leave it here. I also admire Dostoevsky, as well as Peterson. Just funny that you mentioned the 1976 film Network. I was recently thinking about what movie I could call my favorite and this picture was the first thing that came to mind. Just funny. Speaking of realism. Dostoevsky's ideas, I believe, would be too cramped in the canons of the realistic novel. Therefore, he often goes beyond the bounds of plausibility, but only where it is necessary to convey a thought, an idea. Thank you for your thoughts. Subscribed!
Human Experient I appreciate your efforts concerning this book; thanks.
Great modern day examples to help reader make sense of The Idiot!
Oh boy I loved this book!
Loved your analogy on Dostoevsky's, The Idiot. Thank you!
Your comment about Korean movies made me laugh! I am well aquainted with Korean dramas, though I prefer the comedic ones with stereotypical Korean tropes and avoid the tragic ones, sterotypically over the top. They are disturbing.
Loved this, thank you. Gotta read it again, last time was 40 yrs ago (I'm 70🤣) I hate haaaate to disclose how much i identify with the title character, with the big differeence i am middle class not aristocracy. I'm not epileptic, but have a mind/brain condition (borderline? CPTSD? mild schizoid? pseudo quasi autistic?) I'm brainy, but utterly lack common sense street smarts. Authored appallingly awkward incidents, shoulda been struck by⚡️numerous times. The narrator is sadly naive re family members forgiving. Dostoevsky has a keen grip on the nature of split personality. Especially Raskolnikov. Astonishingly in The Double. Likewise Myshkin's insane simp-pathy for Rogozhin at the end
The prince is Rogozhin, in a 'Fight Club' kind of way.
I stopped before the spoilers 12:23 because I'm only on chapter 4. Thank you for the review will finish it when I finish the book. I am enjoying the book but have seen alot of reviews where people didn't even finish it. They disliked it that much.
Do you know if the book Brothers Karamazov is religious? I try to stay away from Christian books does it mention the Christian God alot (j bird)?
I just finished the Brother's Karamazov on audio form and it took a grueling 40 hrs but it's a masterpiece! Even Einstein says it's a supreme achievement of world literature. Dostoyevsky normally explores morality from the lens of his faith but plays devil's advocate in the book. Hope you don't get turned off by it being a "Christian" book because you might miss out on this masterpiece
@@aerobicsalmon415 I will try to read it. I'm doing crime and punishment then brothers Karamazov. If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for everyone.
Hmmmm Dawkins loves a number of Christian traditions though, wouldn't say he hates Christians so much as their beliefs... and you said Christians are trained to answer all the things he brought up from childhood, but even having been a missionary kid I found his book one of the most useful resources to help me get over it all.
At like four minutes you were saying how disgusted Myshkin’s forgiveness made you and I was thinking… 😅 speak for yourself hahaha. I definitely never felt angry at Myshkin or disgusted or would want him to change.
Big tip:
listen to it in audible. Constantine Gregory did a magnificent job!
The narrator has obviously not experienced the super natural , I understand if you have not seen or experienced phenomena . At the end of the day it's your choice if you believe or not .
Hi, where did you find those photographs?
William Carrick and John Macgregor, taken around the 1860's in St. Petersburg
Great video. Gave me a lot to think about and a new perspective to think about
Archetypes and stereotypes are two completely different things.
And why don’t you critique this book yourself instead of parroting
Jordan Petersons personal interpretation ?
He did both...
Hey I have a question. I just started reading the book and I got stuck on rogozhins past. Is he the dark man? Please help me, the book is good but a little confusing
The dark man on the train is Rogojin. He's antithetical to the prince. One is dark-haired, the other blonde. One is satan and brings eternal death, and the other is the groom (Jesus), who will bring salvation. We are Nastasia Philipovna, and we have to pick between the two. Are you talking about another dark man? In what chapter is he mentioned? Also what translation?
well done thank you
You read Dostoevsky and you still an atheist!?
May God guide you to the righteous way.
Nietzsche loved Dostoevsky so there may be hope yet. Nietzsche’s unbelief may have contributed to his nervous breakdown. And his lack of faith may have resulted in no support when he brilliantly pulled away the illusions of all philosophy. Unlike Nietzsche, I would be led by the Spirit to say it is time to, “Let our souls magnify the Lord” -- and realize there are no borders, especially when we blow into the sails of another's boat.
We don’t believe in God. God believes in us. As we are divinized, God literally indwells our soul and believes on our behalf by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
Thanks good job
great summary but you shouldnt talk about psychedelics if you havent done them. it comes across as very condescending.
psychedelics have shown me truths about myself and broken down my ego. nothing about brain damage, that is a very outdated perspective that is quickly becoming seen as just plain false..
Psychedelics rewire the brains neural connection and increase neuroplasticity, allowing for new connections to be made without severing any old ones. if anything they make you smarter when used responsibly..
But you might say "oh but people can fry their brain if they take too much" and to that i say, maybe if you take 100x the regular dosage, but compare that with alcohol where taking 15 shots could be fatal under the right circumstances..
Tangent over. please consider doing research and modifying your perspective
Had the exact opposite experience with psychedelics had a paranoid break from reality...
So just because you had a certain experience doesn't mean that's the truth about pschadelics. It comes off as very condescending.
Yea, I started reading Dostoyevsky because of Peterson too XD
There is nothing you have to read before reading "The Idiot" but before you read "The Insulted and Humiliated" you must read "Poor Folk" to understand who is your protagonist. If you wish to understand how a human could write "The Idiot" you must read "The Insulted and Humiliated" and / or "Dostoevsky in Love: An Intimate Life" by Alex Christofi.
FAVORITE AUTHORS
1st) Fyodor Dostoevsky
1) “The Insulted and Humiliated” by Fyodor Dostoevsky
4) "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
19) "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
30) "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
65) "My Uncle's Dream" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
80) "The Heavenly Christmas Tree" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
113) "Poor Folk" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
130) "The Gentle Spirit" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
141) "The Gambler" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
149) "White Nights" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
173) "Netochka Nezvanova" (nameless nobody) by Fyodor Dostoevsky
2nd) Leo Tolstoy
3) "Resurrection" by Leo Tolstoy
9) "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy
16) “Childhood, Boyhood” by Leo Tolstoy
62) "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy
91) "A Confession" by Leo Tolstoy
3rd) Ivan Turgenev
5) "Fathers and Sons" by Ivan Turgenev
11) "Smoke" by Ivan Turgenev
23) "Virgin Soil" by Ivan Turgenev
41) "Torrents of Spring" by Ivan Turgenev
64) "First Love" by Ivan Turgenev
101) "Acia" by Ivan Turgenev
107) "The Watch" by Ivan Turgenev
132) "Rudin" by Ivan Turgenev
141) "On the Eve" by Ivan Turgenev
152) "Home of the Gentry" by Ivan Turgenev
172) "Clara Militch" by Ivan Turgenev
177) "The Inn" by Ivan Turgenev
4th) James A. Michener
12) "Chesapeake" by James A. Michener
13) "Poland" by James A. Michener
36) "Caribbean" by James A. Michener
37) "Hawaii" by James A. Michener
197) “Mexico” by James A. Michener
5th) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
10) "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
28) "Cancer Ward" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
44) "In the First Circle" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
78) "The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Really nice recap of the book. I just have a question. Whenever you say the era in which the setting of the book was at. I keep hearing 1960s Russia. I'm quite sure it was during the 1860s. Or maybe I'm just deaf?
you are correct. I meant to say 1860s. I wish i could change it
@@humanexperient5096 it's all good bro 👍
Thank you but I’m specifically trying to avoid Jordan Peterson’s opinions, maybe after I have read more…
Fantastic picture portraits and no music!
It's a good idea to go into it blind. Going into it with foreknowledge is huge spoilers.
Dostoyewski and nietsche should be studied religionsly/philosophically.
They ate called prophets for a good reason
great video, sadly I never finished this book. Even though I somewhat appreciate his style of writing, but the drawn out meetings and seemingly random dialogues was too much for me :/
Try reading the Pevear and Volokonsky translation, particularly the introduction which goes into depth about the aim and prose of the novel. Makes it more appreciable I think!
@@enoughnonsenseplease3780 true I love this translation
I'll listen to this after I read the book I don't want spoiler alerts
thank you too :)
hahaha
Man you are just great.
Agree with you that this great novel was boring in some parts and also that the characters give such long, long speeches. Same thing with The Brothers Karamazov, Dmitri's speeches especially.
Great observations. I believe your are one of those people who think they are an atheist and do not see or ignore all of the characteristics built into them that prove they act like ther is a god.
Lmao why does one of the covers just have a portrait of Franz Liszt?
lol
I think the people in this novel would make ME demented so the spoilers are a great help let me tell you.
Mannnn not a soliloquy fan? Personally I think those are make or break for most novels and are the most captivating defining moments!
Cracks me up. Even the poor and impoverished, even those without any education at all but were literate understood this book. Yet, so called educated modernity can't grasps a simple book. Smfh
interesting. can you explain it for us?
@@humanexperient5096 see what I mean.
A book doesn't become a classic because no one read it. The majority of the population was what so many call poor and illiterate; yet, they sure were capable of purchasing, reading and comprehending these works.
Your really good at this
The truth is we are all idiots .
Personally, I kind of think you may have missed it.
W
You lost me at Jordan Peterson
Yeah, I really wish his name wasn't brought up. Ruined the whole analysis for me and made me question this person's judgment, and character.
@@nefelibata656
What's wrong with Jordan Peterson?
Nothing, these people are not forgiving.
@@nikokapanen82 Basically a ton of people freak out at the mention of his name because he makes very harsh criticisms of politically correct culture that has gone too far. He said these things, and then news sources started reporting on him as if he were some authoritarian psychopath when it's very far from the truth, and furthermore the reaction just proved him right. Also you can't even read The Idiot and really understand it without being critical of these concepts yourself. The criticisms that Dostoyevsky makes in the book (and most of his other books to be honest) are in line with these with people losing meaning, becoming nihilist/atheist, and becoming overinvested in political ideologies. To take it a step further, Dostoyevsky was, in retrospect, 100% correct, and many of his criticism are a dark foreshadowing of what happened in Russia and its territories during the 20th century. I'd hate for Jordan Peterson to be right, and there's a good chance he will be if people don't take sentiments like his seriously.
When a right wing dude explains Dostoevsky this was bound to happen.
💯 this is so, so bad. The fact that he was surprised that he predicted a trite Paulo Coehlo ending is both hilarious and telling, he’s truly out of his depths.
she’d be alt lmao
Nice review - thank you. However @ 14:52 - Are you a molecular biologist, chemist or a neuroscientist? I work in research on many of these compounds at a University. Have you ever looked at any peer reviewed academic research on this (there are lots now that restrictions were lifted in the early 2000s to allow scientist to research them)? Clearly you haven't to make any of these wild assertions. Please keep your opinions to yourself - you are book dweeb and people come here for your excellent book reviews - not your opinion on molecular compounds and their effects on our consciousness. Religions were sprouted from many of these compounds - they are far from a "trick".
well, the fact you called them "excellent book reviews" in the middle of a dissenting reply holds a lot more meaning
Have not read this book🇨🇦😁
You had me right up until you made assumptions about psychedelic drugs that made you sound, quite frankly, idiotic. I can clearly articulate many of the profound experiences I have had on psychedelics, and I have never had "brain damage" during those experiences. You should stick to the facts and discussion of the material at hand. Leave your prejudice and uninformed opinions out of your videos. It would make them better.
A lot of people agree with you, and I'll admit I'm totally ignorant about that world. I know it's casting pearls before swine, but can you articulate some of the profound experiences you've had on psychedelics? My guess is if you've had an epiphany that is metaphysical in nature, it will only make sense to you. I also think you could have had these experiences sober.
no
This book is just fyodor's anime harem fantasy. 🤡
constantly referencing Jordan Peterson makes you seem a bit idiotic
a reactionary psychology lecturer is not a particularly useful barometer of anything, let alone Russian literature
Who is one allowed to reference without seeming idiotic? Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and Dostoevsky's books are explorations of psychology... seems like an appropriate reference to me.
Like him or not Peterson knows his Russian literature. Penguin Books even invited him to write the foreword to The Gulag Archipelago: 50th Anniversary.
Not a wise statement ….what right has Peterson ?…!!! He is one of the most qualified academics to comment on this work…
Sorry an idiotic statement
Boo.