Thanks for addressing this subject. I read the book many years ago. Quite an undertaking at the time. Now that I am older I would like to revisit it. Thanks for explaining it from your perspective.
This is the second time I listened to this video and again I appreciated it very much. I’m currently coming up to the grand inquisitor in the book, and I found your theory about Aloysha wanting to murder his father through his surrogate priest interesting. I always appreciate your thoughts… Keep it up.
BTW, if you like this video topic, I have some material on my Patreon page that explores this topic in a much rawer fashion. Go to www.patreon.com/Colin_for_Books to watch and read it. You have to become a supporter for access to the really juicy bits!
The Western world has yet to catch up to Dostoyevsky. I think you made a good stab at it. Alyosha doesnt ‘kill’ his father in any sense of the word, but the plans for Dostoyevsky’s next novel The Great Sinner was supposed to bring out the dark side of him.
interesting thought.@@superman1234567826 It would have been a strange turn for him, I think. Sure, Alyosha's faith was weak in the notional sense of the word, but his heart was supernaturally good.
@@ColinForBooks I think the point is that the ultimate proof of true christianity is a good heart. In other words living as a christian is a superior form of faith than believing in God as a notion.
Absolutely.@@StarcraftSwarm For myself, I would say that atm I believe in christian ethics, and can notionally accept the existence of god. The first is a far greater thing than the latter.
In the first four minutes, the speaker said nothing of value that any casual reader would not find obvious. I do not give a horse ball, that the speaker was at the beach. I quit the video at this point .
Depends on what you mean. Dostoyevsky's portrayal of atheism is an atheism that is a made up of a Christian world view in which the existence of god is denied and the "Christian" atheists then tries to conform to what the Christian world view depicts Atheists are/should be. As such for most modern Atheists it seems like a straw man version of atheism, but there are ex-christian atheists who are so invested in Christian views about how the world and atheism works that they play that part for real.
On atheism and morality, is everything permissible if there's no god? Long before there was a Xtian god there were laws, unless you're of the YEC sect and if so, well, no arguing with a block of clay. My problem with Ivan's "atheism" is it seems to cover ONLY a moral atheism, not a disbelief in ANY "divine providence." Atheism in general today as all I've interacted with stems from there being no need for god, honestly. You can question the origins of the universe however so far without objective evidence of supernatural agency, and an ever increasing understanding of how natural laws explain the heretofore inexplicable, the requirement for supernatural agency goes away. Is it still possible? Sure, if you accept the "deus absconditus" understanding since, as Ivan DOES observe, there's no evidence of any suppression of wickedness or evil beyond the actions of people who oppose it. So "is everything acceptable" fails as we are a social species, and in observing nature we know social species establish rules of interaction, as we have as humans to define certain injustices and the punishment for them. Ivan somehow fails to educate Alyosha in this principle, perhaps for being too keen on indoctrinating him into atheism rather than laying out principles for him to understand on his own.
interesting points. I've been thinking a lot about the social aspect, as you wrote, "we know social species establish rules of interaction." But cannot we make exceptions for ourselves here and there, even huge ones? I can't do it, and Raskolnikov and Dmitri couldn't.
@@ColinForBooks I gave your response some thought, and I hope it was enough to give true respect to your question. We shall see. As a species on earth, we've evolved well past every other in most objective measurements, I'd say, to evolve a quality we refer to as "consciousness." There's ample evidence other species exhibit some at least rudimentary forms of consciousness. There are primates that establish what could be considered "kingdoms" as they have been known to wage war against neighboring troupes. Even some birds are known to have self-awareness and even mourn the passing of a colleague or friend. SO then perhaps that advanced consciousness of ours means we have a higher standard by which to order our social groups and interactions. I'd personally agree with that. But presuming it comes from something beyond our ability to give it more complex thought, I would not presume. To that, I would give the extent of our "exceptions," and even that has changed over time. Ancient Greece permitted pederasty between older men and young ones in the furtherance of the broader education of young men. Less inelegant options certainly exist, and over time we've shifted our level of social acceptance to remove that particular practice from polite society, and to even make it illegal. Still it begs the question, then, from whence comes moral standards, or even law? The simplest example of "do not kill" comes from a social species that depends ON that social cooperation to succeed finding it behooves them to not kill one another. At least, not without some outstanding requirement to do so. So the measure of that requirement evolved along with us into codes of law, of acceptable behavior as a social unit, to ensure that unity. And to further ensure that unity, we as a social group established more complex rules that would support more cohesion and order IN an evolving society. So IMHO that evolutionary process created what we refer to as "morality" without the need for a Divine Providence to define it for us. Again, I do not claim this alone proves the non-existence of such Divine Providence, as long as one ascribes to the Deus Absconditus, again IMHO, of such Divine Providence who is reluctant to supply any objective proof of either his existence or even of supernatural agency for humanity to be here and get to where we find ourselves today.
@@justaguy6100 are you then forced down a path where morality = maximization of people? If morality is simply a socio-biological construct to serve our species' ends, then the rights of the individual can be superseded by those of the herd. If murder is wrong because (and only because) it is detrimental to the species, then by a similar logic so too must celibacy be. I grant that smoking is small "i" immoral because it is unhealthy, but that does not mean that society has the right to keep a person from smoking. How, then, can we account for any spiritual values, art, etc., other than by the round-about that utilitarianism grants us back to biology. I mean that, since it is healthy to be happy, then we should allow those spiritual activities (only those ones?) that measurably increase happiness/healthiness. Of course, we can distinguish between how our morality evolved historically as a product of our material and biological interests, and between how they ought to be. Our laws are such as they are because of history and biology, but should they be such as they are? I like thinking about how the morality of aliens might look. What is good per se and what is good because we are homo sapiens and not Wookies or intelligent centipedes?
@@ColinForBooks Unlimited population growth isn't in our best interest, from an ecological standpoint. The fact we can reason that and thereby limit, at least on paper, suffering from say famine, is another facet of our unique-among-species ability to reason consequences in abstract terms. We don't have to cull brutally, just see the problem and consciously curtail birth rates, which IS happening these days albeit while at the same time we're extending years alive, which presents it's own challenges. I'm wondering if the question here become, from whence comes empathy, compassion, perhaps even love. Do note, I'm not saying that these qualities of our consciousness exist solely as biological artifacts of our evolution, just that there's no objective evidence to believe otherwise. Evidence shows we're not the only species capable of exhibiting these qualities, there are videos of monkeys risking themselves to save a fallen comrade, and certainly the affection dogs exhibit can rightly be described as love in many cases including mourning the passing of a beloved owner. The point being more rudimentary versions of these emotions do show up along the evolutionary track. That said we as a species also exhibit savagery, overwhelming selfishness, some people seem even to be biologically from birth incapable of emotional connection. But I see that the same way I see autism spectrum or other birth disorders. I feel that we are, generally, imprinted with the capacity to experience and exhibit these feelings with exceptional complexity. I think that's how novels as wonderful as this can be written. That may all be beside the point. It IS interesting to ponder the morality of sentient species other than us, or how laws might better reflect some ideal of a general morality including, of course, the morality of "let that person do that who else does it bother" type of thing. Some far more imaginative minds than mine have played with the idea of alien morality, though I'm not sure it would ever be possible to even consider it without the influence of our own views and emotional intelligence. All that said, where does God fit in, then? And how did He get into our consciousness in the first place? Some would speculate, as in "The Invention of Lying," that it arose from fear of death, though certainly compounded by our more primitive grasping for understanding of the nature of our environment, with storms, earthquakes, etc. But studies HAVE shown that there seems to be an innate impulse in most people to seek that "something beyond ourselves." And among non-believers the "I don't know but neither do you really" answer is often presented when it comes to origins of life, consciousness, what initiated the universe expansion, etc. There's a sect called Possibilians that leaves open the proposition that that "something beyond ourselves" MAY BE real and began "all this" to whatever purpose and future that might come. Some non-believing physicists even propose that actual freedom of choice does not exist in any particular timeline. So I'm left often simply shaking my greying head and just enjoying my coffee, knowing that there are some things I can do, like love my children, my partner, mourn the loss of friends, ache as I grow older and attempt to do something about that, but it's highly unlikely appealing to this "something outside myself" will have much effect unless I just need the meditation. One day we all find out. And I can wait.
@@ColinForBooks just like what GK Chesterton said "One of the greatest lessons of Jesus was this, Nature is not our mother, Nature is our sister" Without a conception of the divine, we are just the dutiful children of nature, a child of material and mechanistic philosophies which ultimately eliminates the dignity of the human being.
God I love when I find a random video on an obscure topic.
I'm very happy to make you happy!
Came here from watching paradise lost
hope you liked it@@squall-n2o
Thanks for addressing this subject. I read the book many years ago. Quite an undertaking at the time. Now that I am older I would like to revisit it.
Thanks for explaining it from your perspective.
Again I appreciate the video and the concluding remarks were excellent and so true. Thank you Colin
This is the second time I listened to this video and again I appreciated it very much. I’m currently coming up to the grand inquisitor in the book, and I found your theory about Aloysha wanting to murder his father through his surrogate priest interesting. I always appreciate your thoughts… Keep it up.
BTW, if you like this video topic, I have some material on my Patreon page that explores this topic in a much rawer fashion. Go to www.patreon.com/Colin_for_Books to watch and read it. You have to become a supporter for access to the really juicy bits!
1:09 same...
fantastic video, thanks. -dr green M.D
The Western world has yet to catch up to Dostoyevsky. I think you made a good stab at it. Alyosha doesnt ‘kill’ his father in any sense of the word, but the plans for Dostoyevsky’s next novel The Great Sinner was supposed to bring out the dark side of him.
that would have been interesting.
Alyosha is my hero it would’ve crushed my soul to see him turn dark.
interesting thought.@@superman1234567826 It would have been a strange turn for him, I think. Sure, Alyosha's faith was weak in the notional sense of the word, but his heart was supernaturally good.
@@ColinForBooks I think the point is that the ultimate proof of true christianity is a good heart. In other words living as a christian is a superior form of faith than believing in God as a notion.
Absolutely.@@StarcraftSwarm For myself, I would say that atm I believe in christian ethics, and can notionally accept the existence of god. The first is a far greater thing than the latter.
I don't get why it's not referred to as a story of 4 brothers.
shhhhhhh! lol
Does belief in God matter? I address this in a new video in my new "Off the Cuff" series.
This good
Okay, this video is great, but casually praising Lolita throws up big red flags.
❤🙏
♡
In the first four minutes, the speaker said nothing of value
that any casual reader would not find obvious. I do not give a horse ball, that the speaker was at the beach. I quit the video at this point .
I would enjoy a horse ball
Modern atheism is nothing like Dostoyevsky’s atheism, is it?
intriguing. How so?
Depends on what you mean. Dostoyevsky's portrayal of atheism is an atheism that is a made up of a Christian world view in which the existence of god is denied and the "Christian" atheists then tries to conform to what the Christian world view depicts Atheists are/should be. As such for most modern Atheists it seems like a straw man version of atheism, but there are ex-christian atheists who are so invested in Christian views about how the world and atheism works that they play that part for real.
On atheism and morality, is everything permissible if there's no god? Long before there was a Xtian god there were laws, unless you're of the YEC sect and if so, well, no arguing with a block of clay.
My problem with Ivan's "atheism" is it seems to cover ONLY a moral atheism, not a disbelief in ANY "divine providence." Atheism in general today as all I've interacted with stems from there being no need for god, honestly. You can question the origins of the universe however so far without objective evidence of supernatural agency, and an ever increasing understanding of how natural laws explain the heretofore inexplicable, the requirement for supernatural agency goes away. Is it still possible? Sure, if you accept the "deus absconditus" understanding since, as Ivan DOES observe, there's no evidence of any suppression of wickedness or evil beyond the actions of people who oppose it.
So "is everything acceptable" fails as we are a social species, and in observing nature we know social species establish rules of interaction, as we have as humans to define certain injustices and the punishment for them. Ivan somehow fails to educate Alyosha in this principle, perhaps for being too keen on indoctrinating him into atheism rather than laying out principles for him to understand on his own.
interesting points. I've been thinking a lot about the social aspect, as you wrote, "we know social species establish rules of interaction." But cannot we make exceptions for ourselves here and there, even huge ones? I can't do it, and Raskolnikov and Dmitri couldn't.
@@ColinForBooks I gave your response some thought, and I hope it was enough to give true respect to your question. We shall see.
As a species on earth, we've evolved well past every other in most objective measurements, I'd say, to evolve a quality we refer to as "consciousness." There's ample evidence other species exhibit some at least rudimentary forms of consciousness. There are primates that establish what could be considered "kingdoms" as they have been known to wage war against neighboring troupes. Even some birds are known to have self-awareness and even mourn the passing of a colleague or friend.
SO then perhaps that advanced consciousness of ours means we have a higher standard by which to order our social groups and interactions. I'd personally agree with that. But presuming it comes from something beyond our ability to give it more complex thought, I would not presume. To that, I would give the extent of our "exceptions," and even that has changed over time.
Ancient Greece permitted pederasty between older men and young ones in the furtherance of the broader education of young men. Less inelegant options certainly exist, and over time we've shifted our level of social acceptance to remove that particular practice from polite society, and to even make it illegal. Still it begs the question, then, from whence comes moral standards, or even law?
The simplest example of "do not kill" comes from a social species that depends ON that social cooperation to succeed finding it behooves them to not kill one another. At least, not without some outstanding requirement to do so. So the measure of that requirement evolved along with us into codes of law, of acceptable behavior as a social unit, to ensure that unity. And to further ensure that unity, we as a social group established more complex rules that would support more cohesion and order IN an evolving society.
So IMHO that evolutionary process created what we refer to as "morality" without the need for a Divine Providence to define it for us. Again, I do not claim this alone proves the non-existence of such Divine Providence, as long as one ascribes to the Deus Absconditus, again IMHO, of such Divine Providence who is reluctant to supply any objective proof of either his existence or even of supernatural agency for humanity to be here and get to where we find ourselves today.
@@justaguy6100 are you then forced down a path where morality = maximization of people? If morality is simply a socio-biological construct to serve our species' ends, then the rights of the individual can be superseded by those of the herd. If murder is wrong because (and only because) it is detrimental to the species, then by a similar logic so too must celibacy be. I grant that smoking is small "i" immoral because it is unhealthy, but that does not mean that society has the right to keep a person from smoking.
How, then, can we account for any spiritual values, art, etc., other than by the round-about that utilitarianism grants us back to biology. I mean that, since it is healthy to be happy, then we should allow those spiritual activities (only those ones?) that measurably increase happiness/healthiness.
Of course, we can distinguish between how our morality evolved historically as a product of our material and biological interests, and between how they ought to be. Our laws are such as they are because of history and biology, but should they be such as they are?
I like thinking about how the morality of aliens might look. What is good per se and what is good because we are homo sapiens and not Wookies or intelligent centipedes?
@@ColinForBooks Unlimited population growth isn't in our best interest, from an ecological standpoint. The fact we can reason that and thereby limit, at least on paper, suffering from say famine, is another facet of our unique-among-species ability to reason consequences in abstract terms. We don't have to cull brutally, just see the problem and consciously curtail birth rates, which IS happening these days albeit while at the same time we're extending years alive, which presents it's own challenges.
I'm wondering if the question here become, from whence comes empathy, compassion, perhaps even love. Do note, I'm not saying that these qualities of our consciousness exist solely as biological artifacts of our evolution, just that there's no objective evidence to believe otherwise. Evidence shows we're not the only species capable of exhibiting these qualities, there are videos of monkeys risking themselves to save a fallen comrade, and certainly the affection dogs exhibit can rightly be described as love in many cases including mourning the passing of a beloved owner. The point being more rudimentary versions of these emotions do show up along the evolutionary track.
That said we as a species also exhibit savagery, overwhelming selfishness, some people seem even to be biologically from birth incapable of emotional connection. But I see that the same way I see autism spectrum or other birth disorders. I feel that we are, generally, imprinted with the capacity to experience and exhibit these feelings with exceptional complexity. I think that's how novels as wonderful as this can be written.
That may all be beside the point. It IS interesting to ponder the morality of sentient species other than us, or how laws might better reflect some ideal of a general morality including, of course, the morality of "let that person do that who else does it bother" type of thing. Some far more imaginative minds than mine have played with the idea of alien morality, though I'm not sure it would ever be possible to even consider it without the influence of our own views and emotional intelligence.
All that said, where does God fit in, then? And how did He get into our consciousness in the first place? Some would speculate, as in "The Invention of Lying," that it arose from fear of death, though certainly compounded by our more primitive grasping for understanding of the nature of our environment, with storms, earthquakes, etc. But studies HAVE shown that there seems to be an innate impulse in most people to seek that "something beyond ourselves." And among non-believers the "I don't know but neither do you really" answer is often presented when it comes to origins of life, consciousness, what initiated the universe expansion, etc. There's a sect called Possibilians that leaves open the proposition that that "something beyond ourselves" MAY BE real and began "all this" to whatever purpose and future that might come. Some non-believing physicists even propose that actual freedom of choice does not exist in any particular timeline.
So I'm left often simply shaking my greying head and just enjoying my coffee, knowing that there are some things I can do, like love my children, my partner, mourn the loss of friends, ache as I grow older and attempt to do something about that, but it's highly unlikely appealing to this "something outside myself" will have much effect unless I just need the meditation. One day we all find out. And I can wait.
@@ColinForBooks just like what GK Chesterton said "One of the greatest lessons of Jesus was this, Nature is not our mother, Nature is our sister" Without a conception of the divine, we are just the dutiful children of nature, a child of material and mechanistic philosophies which ultimately eliminates the dignity of the human being.
Had Dostoyevsky lived he planned to write a sequel in which Alyosha loses his faith and becomes a rebel.