>700 pages later>Murder is... le bad??
This is actually profound when you remember he establishes earlier that Polish people are subhuman imbeciles and leftists are diseased cuckolds.
>>24725499This is unironically a profound realization and an unusual level of self-awareness for a russian.It may seem obvious or even trite to you, but it wasn't so for Dostoyevski. It is especially poignant now, because it shows a time when the russian soul was striving for something higher, when they almost joined humanity.
>>24725604Sorry, you are NOT a sigma
>>24725499And yet lots of people still didn't get the message.
>>24725508>thread about 19th century russian writer>seethes about "leftists"Kys direction-brained retard
>>24725698There were a lot of leftists in 19th century Russia and Dostoyevsky has an entire book of seething about them being evil retards thoughever.
>>24725604>anglo projections
>muh reductionismYou don't read.
>>24725499>Half of America is celebrating the political assassination of an albeit poor debater >He still holds on to his baseless assumption that murder is bad, let alone that most of society is in agreement with regards to this
>>24725749>>Half of America is celebrating X>Therefore X isn't bad
>>24725604Kek.
>>24725698That's one of the more appropriate times to discuss the portrayal of leftists in literature. Did you read the book and do you know anything about European political history?
>>24725755The OP was mocking the premise of the book, implying that it was something anyone would surely agree with, and he was proven wrong. And yes, there are no self-evident truths, one has to argue why X is bad, and that is what the book does.
>>24725789>and he was proven wrongWhere?
>>24725819where i showed that half of america doesnt agree
>>24725708And Dostoevsky as right. The demons won and they raped Russia into the dirt.
>>24725499that would explain why democrats hate him, he shames them for their bloodlust.
>>24725830How did you show that, and how would it prove that murder is not... le bad?
>>24725698Have you read any books from this period?
>>24725853so you don't know?
>>24725853I think he's arguing that murder being le bad is not self evident for a lot of people, so it warrants writing 700 pages on this topic, not that he thinks that murder is le good.
>>24725499Historically people have participated and instigated violent wars and genocides without a second thought. In contemporary society people have developed a strong bloodlust over petty political rivalries, where a man’s carotid can explode unplugging all the blood from his body like a beer barrel in front of his family and people will gawk and celebrate over it. The messaging in the novel is important and you cannot show the psychological degeneration of someone who rationalizes murder in a couple of chapters. It’s relevant and its pagecount is justified.
>>24725499Passively engage with public discourse for a couple of hours and you'll see that this is a highly controversial belief. And I'm not saying this because of recent events in Muttland.
>>24725910Clearly. And I tried to cheekily sneak in that no one really has any reason to accept a priori that anything is bad, but he's not worth arguing with
>>24725950There's no indication that half of the US is celebrating. You claim this without proof, yet if anything the firing of people doing this suggests the opposite. If you don't think murder is bad then surely you wouldn't object to being murdered?
>>24725961It doesn't have to be half, one counterexample suffices. But I wager it's close to half.>If you don't think murder is bad then surely you wouldn't object to being murdered?Reading comprehension. "A priori" is crucial there.
>>24725975
>>24725992>elaborating on hyperbole is moving goalposts>>24725950>he's not worth arguing with
>>24726008>over 150 million people didn't think it was wrong>ok I can't prove that but at least one person didn't think it was wrongYour counterargument is simply "but consider: murder is... le good?" which would have been a more interesting reply
>>24725499I would tell you that you missed the point but honestly I think Dosto fucked up the plot when he had Rodion kill the innocent shopkeeper's sister because she was a witness.The entire lead up to the murder was to make a character so despicable that killing her seemed entirely justified especially in the context of Rodion's proto-Nietzschean great man idealism where he would be exempt from common morality to bring about a better society, but then having him kill an innocent person after the "justified" murder just makes the dilemma that could've been never come about because then it makes sense for Rodion to be racked with guilt over an actual innocent death instead of someone who "deserved it".
>>24725499>Joey Mangione Raskolnivok >the Tony Robinson circle Peter's cell in Demons >Spree shooters Yevgeny's warning about Ippolit "he's going to kill all of you" Now I've even seen people do the whole "there was no robbery" and "there was no murder" thing in Tony Robinson's case. His only crime was 'trespassing on the roof' exactly like Dimitri. And it might even be true too
Hmm.. Thats whats called a challenge. Gooners and instant gratificators like you cannot understand those things. But to drink a black coffee every morning and read seven pages for 3 months straight, or red eye 10 kg of caffeine and get through it in 3 days no sleep or anything. What would Father 'Stevsky have wanted?
>>24725919>an actual good replyHave a pity (you)
>>24725499I'd say it's more like>the psychological state and intense self-loathing of someone living with massive guilt>the consequences of abandoning traditional morality and trying to "progress" past it (there's no guarantee what we "progress to" doesn't result in more senseless violence)>orphans, prostitution and poverty because it's 19th century realism>>24725508>>24725698>leftists are diseased cuckoldsThere's a character in the novel who is an actual socialist npc (he is described as being well meaning but too retarded to actually understand his ideology, so he just spouts talking points from the socialist papers) who goes on a tirade about how he wants his wife to cheat on him, and it's "only from the shame of cuckoldry that one grows horns" or something like that.
>>24725499If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.
>>24725755Americans, and by extension, most westerners, have no morals because they have no belief systems. Their beliefs are fluid and lack solidity or foundation. Most people just pick a person/entity to derive their beliefs from and follow everything they say. The measure of a society is the potential for true hypocrisy to exist. How can hypocrisy exist when one can both genuinely be pro-Islam and pro-trans rights?
>>24726933>How can hypocrisy exist when one can both genuinely be pro-Islam and pro-trans rights?The Islamic Republic of Iran would like to have a word with you
>>24726956You missed my point entirely. When you can genuinely hold two beliefs, which are diametrically opposed to each other, without self-contradiction, you have no true beliefs. If you lack any proper belief system, you lack the fundamental capacity to act against your beliefs, aka be a hypocrite.
>>24725853>Half of America is celebrating the political assassination of an albeit poor debater Anon was not trying to prove that murder is wrong. He was trying to prove that OP is wrong. According to OP, everyone knows that murder is wrong. But, less than a week ago, half of america was celebrating murder. This already contradicts OP.
>>24725499you missed the point
>>24726959Islam and trans rights aren't diametrically opposed to each other
