Jordan Peterson's Brilliant Breakdown on DOSTOYEVSKY "Notes From Underground"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Jordan Peterson breaks down and explains the novella Notes from Underground, written by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of the most significant writers in the history of literature. Born in Moscow in 1821, he was a Russian novelist, philosopher, and journalist, and is best known for his penetrating explorations of the human psyche in his novels.
One of his most famous works is "Notes from Underground," a novella published in 1864. The novel is a first-person account of an unnamed narrator who is living in St. Petersburg and is often referred to as the Underground Man. The Underground Man is a former government official who has become disillusioned with society and has withdrawn into himself.
The novel is divided into two parts. In the first part, the Underground Man discusses his philosophy of life and his belief that human beings are not rational creatures, but are instead driven by irrational impulses. He is critical of the idea of progress and believes that human beings are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. He also discusses his own sense of isolation and his inability to connect with other people.
In the second part of the novel, the Underground Man relates a series of incidents from his past that illustrate his ideas about human nature. These incidents include an encounter with a prostitute and a confrontation with a former schoolmate.
"Notes from Underground" is a complex and thought-provoking work that explores the human condition in a profound and insightful way. Dostoevsky's portrayal of the Underground Man is both sympathetic and critical, and his analysis of the human psyche is both compelling and unsettling.
The novel has been interpreted in many different ways, with some critics seeing it as a critique of Western rationalism and others seeing it as a reflection of Dostoevsky's own personal philosophy. Regardless of how one interprets the novel, there is no denying its power and its enduring significance as a work of literature.
Original lecture: • 2017 Personality 11: E...
Fair Use Disclaimer
Copyright disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
"Rationality fails in its analysis of something as complex and terrible as history." ~Fyodor Dostoyevsky
That's poignant, actually. I think the same theme could also be said of the confidence of climate projections.
@@FergusScotchmanHere, here...
what does this sentence mean?
No, it does not. This very critique is the result of the rational mind decrying the irrationality of human beings.
@@claudiamanta1943interesting point. But it probably fails to _really_ analyze it. Also, it can’t predict it by following a series of steps - I think that’s the main point.
Compared to early neolithic humans, modern humans already have everything, yet we are probably no happier than early neolithic humans.
No ! Todays humans have lost all the humanly qualities due to technology .
probably no happier. no. certainly more unhappy.
@@feignedexistence I'm not so certain. Ignorance is bliss. If you don't know what you don't have you don't miss it. Absolutely life was rougher, but I don't think that challenge necessarily translates to unhappiness.
@@tjwoosta children in the modern world are killing themselves. child suicide, a concept that didn’t exist even 400 years ago. need i say more ?
I would say we as humans have chosen convenience over fulfilment
Also an interesting book that deals with a topic of a man who lives as hedonistically as possible but without actual purpose is Oblomov, from Goncarov. I was really enjoying reading it, hopefully others will too
Great reflection on narcissism.
Narcissism can become an ideology too, here the victorious narcissists like the suffering and anarchy around them, they do not want change because it would deprive him of his narcissism, ask more of him.
He knows the wellness or rational his narcissism provides him has costs, he is willing to pay the non human cost.
True. The book was like a dagger in the heart for me, I saw a lot of myself in the underground man, I guess I'd picked up some of that from my mother.
Made me very conscious of and adjust my behaviour, I'm confident I'll never get lost in the haze of the pathological again.
It was a solid kick in the teeth and I'm bloody grateful for it.
Very insightful comments.
Dostojewski and Jordan Peterson made me realise the darkness within us is the same darkness, the same weakness that is found in characters like the Bureaucrat in this novel or maybe worse characters.
It just has not unfold that much because of socialization, general wealth and lack of pressure. But it is there and we all have to be very careful to think we would never be capable of this or that.
My favorite novel from Fyodor Dostoevsky is "the dream of a ridiculous man" which despite what some think is an amazing journey inside a sad mind seaking the redemption. I learnt Russian reading this text when I was a young boy. Please take a look at this tale - and I guess that you will be able to understand why we can say that Dostoevsky is one of the most great writer whom God gave the illumination.
Я смешной человек. Они меня называют теперь сумасшедшим. Это было бы повышение в чине, если б я всё еще не оставался для них таким же смешным, как и прежде. Но теперь уж я не сержусь, теперь они все мне милы, и даже когда они смеются надо мной - и тогда чем-то даже особенно милы. Я бы сам смеялся с ними, - не то что над собой, а их любя, если б мне не было так грустно, на них глядя. Грустно потому, что они не знают истины, а я знаю истину. Ох как тяжело одному знать истину! Но они этого не поймут. Нет, не поймут.
Salutations de France ++
Often, I see people argue that the major difference between Dostoevsky and Tolstoy is that Dostoevsky is more psychological, while Tolstoy is more sociological. While to some degree, this interpretation has some merit, it grossly simplifies the complexity of the two thinkers.
Both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy share psychological and sociological elements within their works. The only work that Dostoevsky wrote that was solely psychological was "Notes from the Underground Man." The rest of his works have an even mix of sociology and psychology.
Most of Dostoevsky's works have a political undertone, and politics in nature is sociological. In political philosophy, you are looking at social/societal relationships.
Tolstoy, on the other hand, is explicitly political. This is why he is often interpreted as being sociological. But then you take a look at his work, "the Death of Ivan Ilyich," which is purely psychological and existential.
Tolstoy, like Dostoevsky, is a complex mixture of existentialism, psychology, sociology, and political philosophy. To oversimplify them in such a way misrepresents them and spreads this false perception to newcomers of their works.
Also, if you guys are interested in getting into more of the philosophy side of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, then check out Lev Shestov's great double book "The Good in the Teaching of Tolstoy and Nietzsche: Philosophy and Preaching," and "Dostoevsky and Nietzsche: The Philosophy of Tragedy."
I wonder if Peterson has read much of Tolstoy. Calling him more of a sociologist indicates he probably read War and Peace, but Anna Karenina though dealing with a lot of sociological issues is particularly focused on the psychological aspects. Same for Resurrection to name but two of his novels.
I do agree Dostoyevsky went way more into the psyche of his characters and nowhere near as deep on the sociological aspects as Tolstoy did.
I was just searching for this title, and ugh, Peterson came up. Usually, I scroll past with an eye roll. This time the irony was just too much for me to pass by.
I don't always agree with Peterson, but his reverence of Dostoyevsky and interpretations of his books are 🔥
The answer is simple. It’s in Ecclesiastes (chapter 1, verse 6) where it’s been for more than 2000 years. “… the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.” It’s a fundamental property of life. The Buddhists call it dukkha. It has always been that way, it will always be that way, and most people will never be bright enough or inquisitive enough or sensitive enough or moral enough to deal with the issue in the only way possible. Buddha outlined a way; Christianity outlined a way; and both are far better than anything modern philosophers have invented. Paul wrote, “… I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” But people seem less and less willing to follow Paul’s example, I suppose because it’s just too hard for their lazy asses to do. People don’t get it - or aren’t willing to get it, least of all the damned activists and the equally damned politicians, psychologists, school shooters, and (not to be exclusionary) other fools. I am glad to be close to the time when I am so tired of life that I’m unable to live it any longer. This is all getting really, really old.
Thank you. Not the last word, but close.
Good man, Michael. Good words. True. Valid and clear. Fair play ….
For me, the moral of the book is that humans need to embrace their irrational and emotional side in order to find true happiness and fulfillment in life.
Exactly, I don't like the take of Peterson
I just love mr Jordan ❤️
Finally something I can agree with JP about: great literature.😮
That’s interesting because many of his views are aligned with the Dostoyevskian ideas he is presenting in this lecture. He sees the complexity in a situation where others see simple dichotomies.
excellent investigative questioning from the detective
ily jordan, God bless you
"Merely providing economic security would be sufficient" My family unfortunately shares this kind of idealogy. No wonder why conflicts are so common and nurturing the emotional and psychological aspects is so underwhelming
Bravo. ❤
If You Enjoy the Video, then check out Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment".
LINK --> ruclips.net/video/Up1zMM0P3Uw/видео.html
THANKS FOR WATCHING! APPRECIATE YOU GUYS c:
As someone who read Dostoyevski and is from Eastern Europe I will point that Peterson has one thing wrong He believes that true freedom is in embracing irrationality and rejecting the rational thinking which in Russia at that time you are born, you serve and you die. What he's asking is are you doing the things that you want to do, are you doing the things that you believe in or the things that society enforced you to think and feel you will be successful ?
Goodness is timeless said the Christian poet Auden.
so for the people who aren't high brow, this is basically that Garbage song, "I'm only happy when it rains"
Dostoyevsky is great. But you also had a lecture that 'Socialism is bad'. But we have not yet try that system properly. Take a Cuba for instance. Why there is a 50 or more years embargo, Are the Americans capitalist afraid that socialism would work? There are no Russian missiles anymore . In American there is socialism for rich and capitalism for poor. and that is the fact. Maybe you should have a debate with professor Richard Wolff . I think the debate would be fascinating I sincerely mean it.
@@user-dt8cn9gw9w you don't know what you talking about. I am saying socialism as system was not tried to its full capacity. Why is there still embargo on Cuba. What are we afraid of, that Socialism might work .
@@MsMM303Да, он сработает, более того, он единственное спасение для человечества, в ситуации когда природные ресурсы истощаются. Иначе нас ждёт людоедский строй.
This shit made me feel like the underground man
IMHO, "Kill Jesus: The Shocking Return of the Chosen One" is the greatest novel.
For novices.......Plato is KING
Dostoyevsky leaves no one a place to hide .
So true. It’s like he’s gonna take your soul out of your body and put its deepest darkest secrets in front of you. The ones you try to hide and ruin away from.
It took me 4 months to read Crime and Punishment, I mean REALLY read it.
It was the best book I've ever read.
I think it might be my favourite novel too. It's certainly up there. The last third of Crime and punishment is so unbelievably intense that it seriously affected my daily mood and peace of mind in the span I read it. Dostoyevsky is often unpleasant, but I still find him very rewarding and worth reading.
Did you read it properly? Why did Raskolnikov turned himself in? Irwin Weil in his lecture on Big D. gave a wrong answer, so don't worry much.
@@mikkirurk1wasn’t it because he loved Sonya and he knew it just wasn’t worth living with her shame?
@@wt455didn’t he acknowledge/realized his love for Sonya during exile? I think he confessed purely for his guilt, of which at first he did not establish a firm moral belief, causing him to do evil.
I really enjoyed it too. I always recommended that and Blood Meridian
I think these old lectures of Jordan’s are some of his best videos.
Notes from the underground made me realise how much of a bad person I am and how I was going to become if I continued my ways
You're not a bad person. By realising the issue, you're already unlikely to stray into the pathologic.
We all have a little narcissist in us and it's both terrifying and illuminating when we realise it.
@@radioactivepotato2068 Im 21 so I’m still hopeful for the future, I think God helps even the most miserable people if they take the first step
@@user-zv7yb4yp9g Exactly! Most 21 year olds think they are bad people. I sure did too. But 20 years later you realize you are not "bad", you are just learning your way in this world. Listen to wise people but also don't believe anybody blindly - think for yourself (the hardest thing to do when someone presents a nicely packaged idea). If nothing else realize one thing - THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS
What sort of miserable person wants to be happy all the time.
@thomasjeffersunno
I am one of the Russian Classical Literature addict. I read Russian. Russian is my first language. I feel sorry for my English speaking counterparts: they read the interpreters, not Dostoevsky. His language is so nuanced and multi faced. You can do the conclusion briefs and digests… And I would argue about the nuances. But from the bottom of my heart- thank you for attempting to understand the Russian Universe by the name of Dostoevsky
Interesting. Have you tried reading Charles Dickens? I feel like his writing would be impossible to properly translate from English.
@@ethanclark4116 Thank you. English is my second language therefore I am reading the English speaking authors with respect. One will say- I am not reading but studying. I am blessed to understand the power and beauty of the English language: the clear sound of the author’s thought in my head, the beauty of the direct understanding of the language without translating.. Unfortunately it doesn’t work when I speak or write…
Я согласен абсолютно. Мой второй язык русский но не очень хорошо. Я в этом время читаю по Чехова и мне очень нравится, читать с родным языком автора что то было записано давно себе чувство как будто ты возвращаешься к такому времени и месте
@@ethanclark4116 Спасибо большое! Русская литература - это для меня Вселенная. У меня по ночам играют аудио книги. Это мои колыбельные. Попробуйте- рекомендую. А чтобы не платить за аудиокниги- много на RUclips можно найти бесплатно.
Удачи вам.
PS Я от всей души желаю вам полюбить Гоголевские Мертвые Души. Это шедевр: язык, образы, юмор, сатира…
С богом! С праздником светлой Пасхи!
@@annadontsova2495 спасибо за рекомендацию! Я скоро буду вычитать её.
С богом
One of my favourite books that continue to influence me. It is actually really funny at times and it made me chuckle and laugh while reading it. The main character is so unbelivably hopeless and petty that he gets into theese cringy hilarious situations. And yet... Funny as it is, the book is also actually quite frightening at the same time. It gave me a view of what my life could look like if I didn't start seriously working on myself. Dostoyevsky can see right through people like me, and it can actually be quite emberrassing.
Reading Dostoyevsky always disturbed me, like hitting a raw nerve, I never finished one of his books. Solgenitzens Gulag, no problem.
@@nikbo40 why is that do you think? I have not read The gulag archipelago, but as far as I understand it describes far more atrocious actions that actually happened.
@@glennmathisen2537 Interesting remark. Planned on reading Gulag archipelago. Where did you get the info that actions described didn't actually happen this way?
@@TheArendt1
Notes from underground = Fiction
Gulag archipelago = Non fiction
I think my comment was pretty clear about that
@@TheArendt1from Putin
I took an existentialism class in college, and I remember that Dostoevsky's writings were powerful and brilliant. Like he was really getting into the fundamentals of consciousness and perception.
One of the most uncomfortable books that I´ve ever read. The character´s mind is so twisted, bizarre, pathetic and cruel that it gives you an almost unbearable feeling of awkardness and uncomfortability. Despite of all of this, I deeply recommend It. There´re not many books that tells the story of these kind of human beings, and considering that these people really exist, it´s mandatory to read them.
Very good point. They DO exist.
This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all.
Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
Ecclesiastes 9:3
The underground man lives in most if not all people.
The Underground Man represents the human condition
the discomfort comes from being able to relate to him on some level. I think everyone can relate on some level. Everyone has the potential to be an underground man, even if they are not an underground man.
“Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over compensations for misery. And of course stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand.” ~ Aldous Huxley, 'Brave New World'
Dostoevsky was correct. Sanity is the projection of all your psychological responsibility onto society, everyone else socializes you (even schizophrenics until their psychosis begins). Insanity is the opposite, a recollection of infinite responsibility onto your fragile mind, collapsing it. Individuation, personality development, creativity, and authentic expression are the means for sane adults (25+ years old) to reach higher levels of autonomy. Failure to leave the crowd means you will never know your true self.
Schizophrenics are the litmus test for society's wellbeing; they're the most psychologically responsible and the spiritual guides of humanity yet also the most misunderstood, shunned, feared, and oppressed. And society, all of us, pay for its sins being monopolized by one value (greed > all other values combined i.e. courts, military, pharma all sold out), spiritually sick masses, and minds breaking more by the day. Wokes have to pick up the slack (of course not consciously) becoming faux-crazy to amplify and incentivize the mainstream to adapt or die. The woke culture is being used as an ant mill and smokescreen to keep the public distracted by the uber wealthy. The billionaire cabal network driving the top end of the socio-economic hierarchy is dominated by dark triad psychopathologies (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism), or those w/o it are forced (via game theory) to adapt similar methods or be pushed out. Ironically enough, they don't technically have control (despite Machiavellians valuing control above all). None of the individuals can alter, stop, or slow the game without the aid of the others, and since they are all the absolute pinnacle of competitive, untrustworthy, psychopathological schemers they remain in a deadlock. They consciously value control more than anything and believe they have it, but truly it's an unconscious projection of their own (the people have the power, you're just decentralized and unfocused, schizanthroposic).
Referring back to sanity vs. insanity, the fate of the dominant species on the planet is infinitely, infinitely, infinitely more responsibility than one sane mind can handle, they can't even handle responsibility for their own mind, much less 8 billion. All of humanity is technically schizanthroposic or collectively insane (i.e. Man vs Woman, Black vs White, Politics, Religion, tribalism etc.). We never have had a common purpose, intent, leader and never will until overcoming insanity, at least partially. Schizophrenia is like all psychopathologies, it's an evolutionary adaptation with tradeoffs (minimize the weakness, maximize the strength and they become powerful cognitive upgrades). One of schizophrenia's pro's is it's a long-term solution to the problem of psychological responsibility .
One person can not take responsibility of the species until they've taken full responsibility of themself, their unconscious will NEVER allow it (your body alone is trillions of cells). Consciousness is freewill btw, so having infinite freewill and infinite responsibility of the species with nearly zero understanding of any of it or its consequences (chaos theory) while existing in a physical, deterministic universe would be so irreconcilably stupid that "mother nature" could never allow. In this case "mother nature" is your own unconscious mind. Quintillions or more lifeforms and cells across billions of years have struggled, adapted, and died all so one power-hungry loon could nuke it all? Not on your life. Sure, there’s power struggles but realize that ethics and all it’s values are creations of evolution, we just steal and relabel and use them more abstractly (animals can be greedy, brutal, cruel etc.). Your own unconscious mind doesn't trust you to the degree you either don't take psychological responsibility or socially integrate (and will absolutely punish you accordingly). Mother nature is no fool, and she has most of you convinced you have far more control than you do. Your body is in the fully deterministic universe, your mind is a compatibilist projection (determinism and freewill, unconscious mind is more deterministic the farther down you go and vice versa) and your consciousness is freewill, a projection of a projection.
Many of the psychoanalytically minded greats like Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Jung all had intricate knowledge and/or experience of schizophrenia and madness. Coincidence? Psychosis is the unconscious mind initiating universal psychoanalysis of itself, the beginning of infinite understanding, and a whole fuckin' multiverse of white noise. The cure for schizophrenia is conscious psychosynthesis. Consciously create, unconsciously destroy. Repeat x ♾ And since insanity is a recollection of your responsibility the more you conquer your own insanity the more powerful your psychosynthesis skills and powers become (it’s not superpowers, just the ability to create unconscious minds that create unconscious minds, machine learning is closest facsimile. And you still have to be accurate to the universe or the entire system collapses, and you're lost in the sauce of madness again. or just get yourself killed irl with delusional beliefs.)
I conquered insanity by taking infinite responsibility and putting it on my consciousness alone. Insanity tested me, and I "played that piano key" until my unconscious begged me to stop. It wasn't an elegant solution, but give me a break honey, a fella's gonna find things out the hard way the first time. I’m still a work in progress, aren’t we all... but my goal is to eventually play *_the one song; the universe._*
I know that was long-winded, dense, and not terribly helpful for most of you on a short-term conscious, individualistic level. But consider this, all these ideas presented are scientifically backed from a credibility standpoint. And it's all cohesive thanks to psycosynthesis (took years of research to align and fine-tune). And from my PoV all of these survive insanity itself, which tells me they are universal truths. Consciously it's probably mind-boggling ?!? (feedback would be lovely, but I get the feeling people are unconsciously repulsed by me for a variety of reasons), but over the medium to long-term this is *the* map of the universe your unconscious can use to orient itself. Obviously most people know most this stuff, but even one piece out of place technically has infinite consequences a sane mind can't predict, chaos theory and such, so you orient yourself to society/sanity.
Dostoevsky is sometimes more powerful than reality. His novels are like a vortex They suck you in.
It took me a few attempts to read NFU.
Every time I got into it I was so overwhelmed by the thoughts and feelings of the underground man.
It was as if someone had held a mirror up to me, with all of my imperfections and bad traits on display. Everything I hated about myself, but didn't necessarily realise, laid bare, beautifully and intricately stitched into enthralling, raw, brutal literature.
It's an extraordinary book.
What a beautiful and honest man you are! Respect 🙏
I felt the same way. Now, when such thoughts and states of mind try to creep in I try to remind myself of the end the Underground Man met and of his unfortunate, but, nonetheless repulsive character which I don't want to embody. He served me as a warning of what might become of me if I didn't face my inner weaknesses.
It really shook me to my core the first time I got through it. I felt a similar way after finishing Kafka's The Trial, but I was much younger then and the impact was for different reasons. I was a grown adult when I read NFU, and to this day it has impacted me as much as anything I've ever read. Genius...
@@huatian1552that's a really good point. I feel like the modern generations have become too reliant on learning just from successful people, instead of harvesting lessons of what NOT to do from those who fail. And since so many more fail than succeed, it's probably best to identify weaknesses to be corrected first and avoid those patterns that so regularly show up amongst those such as the Underground man. A bit of material success yes, but otherwise a complete failure as a man. Be warned all that enter that path...
@randylahey8207 thank you, professor Hegel taught me so :)
I agree also about the Trial from Kafka which, for now, is his only book I read, since I'm a law student.
A book which reminded me of Notes from The Underground, in the same line of thought as before, is Osamu Dazai's tragic No Longer Human
I read Crime and Punishment and the Idiot in high school. I've been reading between the lines ever since.
You should try brothers karamazov
As much as I love Nabokov and his playful lyricism, I just can't abide his blithe dismissal of Dostoyevsky. Like the Underground Man I used to be bitter, insecure and angry at the world, and always striving to prove to other people that I wasn't just a piano key like them. Dostoyevsky plunges straight into the inner depths of my soul, scours it and then always manages to find something that I did not even know was there.
Notes from the underground is My favorite book of all time.
Petersons university lectures are great. Although the kids are so terrified to ask a question. His debates though are word salad and just terrible
Good observations by Peterson. The Brothers Karamazov is Dostoyevsky's signature masterpiece, hands down. The long monologue in that book about the existence of God is a brilliant examination on the nature of the soul and faith. However, in my opinion, the greatest novel ever written is Les Miserable by Victor Hugo. Aside from just being a great, epic story, it goes into magnificent detail in the examination of French society at the times portrayed and takes the reader on a long journey to both the utter depths of human depravity as well as the divine heights of the angelic potential of the human soul.
Michael Granger- What do you think is the great American Novel written or even the Top 5 or 10 Great American Novels written?
@@HoldenNY22 Not sure if it's the greatest but definitely in the top 5, Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. The timeline of the story l is non-linear, i.e. the plot jumps, so you have been forewarned to pay attention while reading this great novel.
Boring shite imo. Archaic writing style. Extremely irritating.
@@HoldenNY22If I could recommend a few possible contenders. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, The Secret History by Donna Tartt, and Sophie's Choice by William Styron. All wonderful reads.
The Brothers Karamazov is my favorite book by far, and I've been reading voraciously since age 3. It seems we can find everyone we know in one of the brothers....
Brilliant lecture...such passion for the subject.. thank you
Wasn't familiar with this book before. Have now ordered it. Thanks for posting.
Gosh ............so much speed, so high a pitch... I need to breath, I need to think ....hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Decided to read this in Russian. Starting from zero. Don’t even know the alphabet. Kato Lomb method all day.
This was first piece of Dostoevsky work I read
4:00 - The 'Utopian' idea is back with us, with a vengeance...! WEF, UN, NATO, WHO, etc.
I prefer Bulgakov but Dostoevsky is great too. Camus is solid as well
Jordan Peterson makes the same mistake over and over. There's a simple Way.
I remember reading this book and in a moment clarity i realised that had very similar traits as the underground man. It scared the shit outta me and really dont know what to do now. I am kinda stuck in a messianic narcissism but at the same time a part of me wants to see the system collaps. And i feel good for admitting it. How do oneself really change?
I don't think it's a rhetorical question you ask. The thing is you do.. change.. all the time. And if you are conscious of it and want to direct this process, no matter how feeble your attempts are, you will change into a path you want to go.
You change by doing good to the surroundings. Like all in life you do love or its evil. Very easy.
Help animals, give them shelter, freedom, good food, cook them food, not just buy it, take them to vet. Feed birds. Plant trees. Have a young people as parent friends, we have such possibilits in my country. Help people dying by sitting at their beds. Help elderly persons. Help in a soup kitchen. Meditate a lot so you know what your purpose is. Some people are souleless as the have no consciousness, but then you can try to mitigate what you do bad to others. We are many people on different awareness levels.
Read "The Sermon on the Mount." It's all there.
Sounds interesting...Who wrote that?@@dirtycelinefrenchman
Self Sabotage
Had Freud (1907) read Darwin (1859), we would have been spared 120 years of psychoanalysis confabulation
Freud read Schopenhauer, and restated into scientificy sounding obfuscations. Freuds primary goal was Fame. Freuds lack of self-awareness is more ironic than anything. Freud writes on Ego and takes credit for ideas he merely rephrased. Physician,Heal thyself
I am always astounded that it took so long for man to draw the conclusions of Darwin. The results of evolution seem utterly obvious and ubiquitous. How could it take society 5000 years to notice evolution? Humans were selectivly breading dogs for 30,000 years and farm animals for 5000 years. It seems like someone would have looked at the selective breeding of a couple of generations of dogs and then postulated that the environment likely had similar influence on all organisms.
@@nealanthony3482 it is called insight.
Time for me to reread Dostoevsky!
He is a criminally underrated author who remains very relevant to our times. If you are new to his work, you will find the prose over lengthy and difficult, but stick with it, the rewards are immense. The Grand Inquisitor rant is a tour de force that can be read as a standalone piece.
No.He is absolutely not underated.
Maybe in America..not here in Europe and the world
Let me put it this way.
Dostoevsky Nietsche = prophets of a new religion
I agree, Grand Inquisitor is probably the most though provoking piece I have ever read or heard.
@Alex Sveles
Why do people just call everything "under-rated", on every single youtube clip one looks at? It's completely idiotic.
Dostoevsky is widely - universally - regarded in the top 10 or so writers/novelists ever. Many would say THE greatest.
"Under-rated", my arse.
@@alexsveles343 What are you smoking?
I'm currently beavering -- floundering is more like it -- my way through Demons primarily thanks to Dr. Peterson's reference to it in his lectures. It's a fascinating if mostly non-nonsensical read for me -- made much worse by the Russian tendency to call the same character by several different names -- but I really can't put it down. There's been a couple absolutely hilarious in their absurdity scenes but mostly each chapter is like reading a surrealist nightmare. But the experiment continues... slowly.
Watching this video actually opened several doors for me though. I would not have 'gotten' those points without having read some Dostoyevsky first, so it was a real chicken and egg situation. But several of Peterson's comments about his writing really struck a chord. So there's hope.
I have Crime and Punishment on deck, and now will be adding Notes From Underground shortly.
Crime and Punishment is one of the best books I've ever read - Raskolnikov, the main protagonist is flawed in many respects but maybe not quite to the extent of the guy in NFU
I tried reading Notes form Underground some time ago, but probably many years ago. I had a hard time getting through it. I will try to read it again soon alogn with Crime and Punishment and other Dostoyevsky books.
Test yourself with the Brothers K. I find it nearly unreadable.
I read Notes from the Underground when I was 19 at college and I recommended it to everyone I knew back then. They all loved it.
Dostoyevsky was truly genius man.
Facts checkmate
I found Crime And Punishment to be repetitive and tedious!
Jordan "Dostoevsky proves the existience of god" Peterson. What a clown.
Makes me think of the Universe 25 project where all the mice given a perfect environment died.
There are a a multitude of ways people can be divided, one is are you a Dostoevsky guy or a Tolstoy guy - both writers ✍️ from you know where (it’s a system RUclips commentators would only want to admire from afar). One writer takes on a fellow who killed this powerless elderly woman and seeks redemption, and is used today by Russia as a symbol for their imperial “splendor.” Today, Fyodor would surely take on the plight of the school 🏫 shooter and Peterson would worship at that alter (he has a thing for those incels after all). Peterson is a Dostoevsky man through and through - and Jordan’s speeches and interviews are complete with Putin and Dugin adulation. Dostoevsky is surely one of the Giants, but Tolstoy wrote about a much more complex historical event - the invasion of 1812 - and created some to the truly great characters in literature whose names you might actually remember - I would say Pierre and Andrei (just try to recall the protagonist in Crime & Punishment, or the inspector). I would attribute this to Tolstoy’s dedication to Scripture and rejection of His Government as well of their branch of Orthodoxy. Don’t neglect Dostoevsky but better to he a Tolstoy man, it’s quite the test of character.
There are too many great books to claim one as the greatest. But perhaps no author created so many, so characterized as did Doestoyevsky.
His life was interesting, as he was a very flawed man. We can also find politics and religion in his works. He became very much an anti-leftist. And his
defense of Christianity has become legendary in literature.
So, which of his several masterpieces is best ?
Read them and decide for yourself. It will be a journey you'll thoroghly "enjoy".
If you love Dostoyevski’s work don’t ever read Nabokov’s treatises on them because it will ruin your experience. Nabokov points out the many weaknesses in a lot of Dostoyevski’s works. That’s from a purely literary point of view, though.
Nabokov was absolutely rejective towards psychoanalysis so that explains a lot of why he wasn’t ver appreciative of Dostoyevski’s work.
Jesus, Yaweh, holy spirt (my god and trinity) Doestoyesky, CS Lewis, Tolkien my literature gods. So deep and beautiful. Such awesome christian authors. I have had everything I ever needed at times and been completely miserable, this is such truth.
Dostoyevskiy was a polemesist and second rate author. Too moralistic to be art.
The only psychologist that Nietzsche had anything to learn from was Dostoevsky.
Even if science proved God didn't exist, God would still believe in me. I know my redeemer lives. So perhaps we need to step back and look at the big picture of Nietzsche. There may be hope yet.
I was reading of Twilight of the Idols on Thursday, January 19th, 2023. And as I read through I got a strange deja vu of that scene of Galactus from Fantastic Four #262 back around 1984. Back then, it blew my mind when each alien race saw Galactus as a reflection of their own alien race. I am not sure if Nietzsche's work was an inspiration. But if it was intended, I understood it now around 40 years later at the age of 53.
I think the doctor made a mistake when he said Nietzsche at the very end.. instead of Dostoevsky. There is a fantastic reader of notes from the underground on RUclips.. check it out.. The man sounds so cantankerous that you think he was created for this role.
I read an article that suggested, "To be a great leader, you need the right mindset."
That might be true ... but then who is going to qualify as a judge concerning whether another person's mindset is "right?"
Again Peterson's trite pretentiousness just bubbles through. Though he sums up Dostoyevsky people can read the book on their own, it would be a wasted education that just reads from cliffnotes, worse still does not offer a critic. In the time since Dostoyevsky we have seen Utopias and materialism implemented in some nations. The USSR was NOT one of them. Rather look at nations like Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark and Finland. These nations currently offer their members security and prosperity unimaginable to any European of Dostoyevsky's day. Do we see mass hysteria and criminality coming out of this life as 'fat cows?' Finland ranks 121 out of 142 nations in crime levels and that may be too high as probably a higher percentage of crimes are reported there. It is low with Austria and Switzerland. I will admit there is some reason to suppose that suicide rates go up with HDI but the relationship is not so strong that it has been established without question and suicide seems to have cultural factors: for example suicide is much higher in India then China. As for drug usage and abuse their seems to be NO relationship between HDI and drug abuse despite popular opinion that rich nations make people's lives meaningless. So as brilliant as Dostoyevsky is there is also every reason to suppose, even assume, he either ''over made' his case or was wrong. Prosperity does not seem to make people spiteful and destructive: in fact there is reason to suppose that people actually get more happy as their states become more rational and as they are better provided for. Its sad that a professor would just rant on about how great a novel is without even directling his studies to question the core assumptions in the light of history the author could not have. THIS IS NOT EDUCATION, its indoctrination pure and simple. Just because its right wing indoctrination rather than WOKE indoctrination does not make it any better.
HDI = Human Development Index.
Dostoyevsky is indeed one of the greats. But he's also a panslavist and anti-democracy. He would have been a Putin supporter. Dostoyevsky is essentially a fascist. Religion. Traditional family values. The agrarian society. The Russian (agrarian) Motherland--narodnost--and the farmer are sacred to them.
Notes From Underground is a panslavistic novel and a rejection of the European values, or the Russian "Europeists."
And that is why I preffer Pasternack . Being Jewish he could not be Pan Slavic
@@spmoran4703 The thing is that people don't know what they read. I don't mean they are stupid. It is often hard to understand politics in different cultures. What I know now I didn't know when I read Crime & Punishment. Would it change my reading experience? I don't mean I wouldn't enjoy it, but would I notice things that I didn't do then?
Don't jump into Dostoevsky's five big novels right away, start with The Gambler
What I take from this is that it's blatantly honest. I remember being like that in front of my therapist and he busted up laughing. "Why did you laugh??".
--"Because it's the most honest you've ever been with me."
Until I began reading Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn & Nietzsche, I never realised what an ignorant bastard I truly was.
"What if dissatisfaction is a part of what satisfies you? "
Soo trueee
This is my favorite book. It’s life changing for your soul.
Why soul changing? So are you a better person now?
@@kaberigomes2117 it might sound pretentious but when I first read it I genuinely became a more self-aware person, I can't claim it would do that for everyone though.
I read it as 22yr old law student and it destroyed me to a level the effects of which I would hence recommend nobody to read this book it's scary.
"I agree that two times two makes four is an excellent thing; but if we are dispensing praise, then two times two makes five is sometimes a most charming little thing as well.” I want to get this tattooed on my forehead
This particular moment has stuck with me.
Karamazov kardeşler'le yeraltından notlar arasında gidip geliyorum. Düşünce bombardımanı, felsefe olarak yerlatından notlar. Karamazov da bir roman olarak çok iyi. Sonra Cinler romanı gelir bence. Yazdıgı herşey güzel bence. Neyse.
Under His Political Beliefs from Wikipedia it says of Dostoevsky-
''In his incomplete article "Socialism and Christianity", Dostoevsky claimed that civilisation ("the second stage in human history") had become degraded, and that it was moving towards liberalism and losing its faith in God. He asserted that the traditional concept of Christianity should be recovered. He thought that contemporary western Europe had "rejected the single formula for their salvation that came from God and was proclaimed through revelation, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself', and replaced it with practical conclusions such as, 'Chacun pour soi et Dieu pour tous' [Every man for himself and God for all], or "scientific" slogans like 'the struggle for survival.'"[126] He considered this crisis to be the consequence of the collision between communal and individual interests, brought about by a decline in religious and moral principles."
I agree!
I read it in college, I agree with Dr Peterson
Lmfao this is peak pseudo intellectualism
It wouldn't be sufficient and so we would reach higher than we are now and constantly. The problem with this is that Peterson has taken. This idea that we are never satisfied to mean we should stop trying to solve our societal problems. In fact that maybe we should even be grateful to those who rob us of our wages so that we might be so luck to be deprived and depraved. I prefer solving problems like Sisyphus, never being satisfied but at least staying in motion, unlike what JP seems to suggest.
I think Dostoyevsky was brilliant and insightful, but one needs to also keep in mind that he was incessantly tormented and ill. He suffered the majority of his life and his observations and brilliance come out of that suffering. This is not to say that he is not wrong in saying that humans need pursuit and struggle to achieve fulfillment, but it is to suggest that perhaps out of his depths of depression he may not have seen any benefit in the pursuit of improving the lot of humanity as a whole. I feel that Peterson compounds an additional mistake onto Dostoyevsky's analysis. He seems to preoccupy himself with financial/economic security as a picture of a utopia, as if there are not endless other competitive and meaningful struggles that we have the capacity to undertake. In fact we know that humans do find pursuits. Scientists race to be the first to discover and publish a novel concept, artists and musicians are inspired by each other's works and try to outdo them, chefs try to make the better version of Coq au Vin or Paella. He is correct, utopia is impossible, but one might say that the pursuit of one is in itself a pursuit that gives humanity a purpose.
I would be willing to bet he’s never read it. He learned about Dostoyevsky in his undergrad humanities class and keeps regurgitating the same tired shit over and over and over and over.
Gr8 tip thanks. Being a native russian speaker has only few perks and being able to read great literature without it being translated (which is NEVER good) is one of them I guess
Why is it never good?
I do not think that such a statement comes close to reality.
Im fluent in 4 languages. Believe me, translating any book is only dond out of necessity and changes the text on many different levels. Same as the lacking at least some cultural knowledge makes any book more shallow
"What makes people think that merely providing economic security would be sufficient." It is not sufficient. But it is a place to start, no? And perhaps not such a bad one? I don't see that economic economic insecurity is a magnificent road to human excellence.
Hyperborea...MYTHICAL utopian GIANTS....according to the Greeks. Who live somewhere in the north and are friends whit the Greeks
If you know anything about the book you'll know that indeed notes from underground is not about the 1880s and that Jordan Peterson is and mainly only speaks on crime and punishment. So everyone taking about notes either didn't actually read it, didn't actually listen to him, or have very poor memories
This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all.
Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
Ecclesiastes 9:3
Hi to all of you nice people here. I like to compare people comments on different videos and subjects on youtube and i must admit,to read people comments here is a holiday for my soul and brain. Honesty, curiosity, debates without angry words,no hate, no humiliation of each other and the language and gramma is just lovely things to see and read. But so it goes when people make comments on Jordan Patterson lecture. It is kind of different level compare to comments on Kim Kardashian videos or some war and politics video 😉. I love you people ❤️🙏 and i love you Mr Jordan ❤️🙏
History appears irrational because people have left characters like this in power. Abolish government and eventually rationality will prevail.
That's imbecilic. Apparently you have no understanding of human nature OR you are a naive child. Must be nice.
I've only read notes from the underground once** (definitely need to read it another 3-4 times to really grasp it, especially the first part of the book) but the part where he tells the women her impending downfall is fucking intense, really blew me away.
Completely ridiculous outlook on life somehow makes Dostoyevsky great.
How? No explanation is offered.
How about a system in which people get the cakes and desserts they earn?
Such a system never crosses D's mind.
what subject is he teaching here? i cant imagine this lecture will help his students in an exam. maybe for a Dostoyevsky/psychology dissertation. ok, let's say its not for the exam -- its for life. well there's a forum for that. but the classroom isnt it. maybe he should have held after school discussions for life.
Finally, something I can agree on with Mr. Peterson. Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" moved me greatly. The story of Raskolnikov and his conscience is mesmerizing. I have read the book over and over again. It is not only a classic; it is also a real page turner. I have read all D's books inclding "Notes From The Underground". Dostoyevsky was a psychologist years before the word ever existed. "Notes From The Underground" is all about the Imp of the Perverse (Poe). The hero of the story knows right and wrong and he deliberately does wrong just to exercise his freedom of choice. He does not want to do what people expect of him. It is too constraining. He chooses the wrong path just so he can say "A-Ha" to the world. Dostoyevsky was a grim and dark writer. I do not believe that any writer before or since has understood the human mind quite like D.
Grim and dark? Popular misconception. Try to reread Dostoevsky. Kafka is dark and grim. Dostoevsky never leaves you without hope for human soul, no matter how sinful it is
Chillax bro. That is my point of view. No one else's. Cheers!@@Ivorybird09
Fellas, try Pelevin. Modern russian writer. Best you can choose - Schapaev and void (or Pustota).
Close to the end he said that that’s Nietzsche‘s point when it was actually Dostoyevsky’s point.
Any time I can spot an error in such a perfect genius I have an overwhelming sensation that maybe I’m not as dim in comparison as I think I am.
Peterson is implying that the words of the Underground man are the words of Dostoevsky himself, and not a character. He is implying that the beliefs of the underground man are to be applied to all members of every society. He is implying that his perversion exists in us all.
In a way, this is true, everyone can relate to the underground man in their own way, but to take his words as encompassing all of society implies that he is CORRECT in all of his reasoning. We have to find what to disagree with in the words of the underground man, he is not a disciple.
I’m interested in discussing this!
This novel is about the atheistic literature of his time. Dostoyevsky brings to life the atheistic ideal of Nitse decays before Nitse was born. He is a brilliant individual, totally honest with him self going into the depths of evil motives of human and finding some basic solid truth to them. But bringing life to this persons makes a huge discovery!
How could this alive person be? He is miserable. He is to be pitied. He is not strong . He is dying slowly in his little hole with his own poison.
This is the only though that outperforms any other element of truth of his self-awareness