I just finished reading Demons by Dostoyevsky.
Why the hell did Dostoyevsky waste such an enormous amount of time describing Stepan Trofimovich and Varvara Petrovna (arguably the least interesting characters in the book) when we got so many more interesting characters?
What did you think of the book IQfy?
Those two are important because they represent the generation that spawned the demons (read left wing extremists), not by being evil or radical themselves, but simply by being open to ideas which then mutate and escalate. They also have a love relationship I found to be quite moving.
Overall I think this book is a masterpiece. It has an immense density of meaning, perhaps even too much going on, but I found everything it does exceedingly effective and impactful (minus the first hundred or so pages). It's also extremely relevant today and has aged almost disturbingly well, both regarding the history of Russia to follow and the modern West right now.
>Those two are important because they represent the generation that spawned the demons (read left wing extremists), not by being evil or radical themselves, but simply by being open to ideas which then mutate and escalate.
Exactly.
As an example
https://www.campusreform.org/article/ivy-league-president-participates-ferguson-die-in-offends-campus-police/6145
One interesting thing was the description of some wealthy but not very smart lady who supported "whatever sounded more modern" without any kind of introspection, which also seems to be how most of our elite seems to think.
"OK, what is the most modern thing there is? Let's see... Non-monogamy and polyamory... Yeah, this seems super modern, let's support that"
Without any kind of reflection.
Reading a 19th century Russian novel as an allegory for modern-day American politics is extremely moronic behavior, but is exactly what I would expect from the /misc/gays who have infested this board.
Stepan Trofimovich and Varvara Petrovna are heavy-handed parodies of a specific type of Russian intellectual in the mid-1800s. To a reader in 1871, it would have been hilarious, but the satire is dated now. The second half of the novel is far more interesting.
>I am so much smarter than you /misc/chuds
>Let me regurgitate what Wikipedia says
I’ve always had a feeling Demons is especially liked by this board for reasons. The situation in Russia then isn’t even similar to the situation in the US now. There were more splinter political parties and in group fighting
>the satire is dated now
not even remotely
Demons will probably always be applicable to politics in modernity. Not just to movements of the left, but also movements of the right. Ernst Junger compared the Nazis to Dostoevsky's ogres...
>Ernst Junger compared the Nazis to Dostoevsky's ogres.
Dangerously based
>Dostoevsky's ogres
His what? Which characters?
Either you didn't read the book or you don't know how the the modern West is.
Searching for deeper patterns in human history across time and culture is what intelligent readers always do. Thinking that 19th century Russia has nothing to do with other places and times is embarrassing. We dive into great art to find connections that we can draw from, not to separate ourselves from it.
Archetypes exist and history repeats itself, my friend.
>the satire is dated now
how could you possibly thing to post something like this about the nvel that contans that hilarious bit where with the group of 5 meeting devolving into arguments with the proto-feminist college student
>Reading a 19th century Russian novel as an allegory for modern-day American politics is extremely moronic behavior, but is exactly what I would expect from the /misc/gays who have infested this board.
History isn't a straight line anon, it's a circle.
Stepan T is quite literally Rousseau. He is a father of communism, and vile marxists are his bastard children
I fricking love Rousseau though even as a far right guy
this
what you're saying seems to me like denying that we can learn anything from Dostoyevsky in politically historical regards. The political and social movements of the young generations which Dostoy saw, and were a part of himself, were the direct precursors to the Russian revolution, the cold war and thus the modern world. Dostoys direct intentions with the book are ambigous and always are aside from when he jerks of the church, but Varvara and Stepan should, like fpbp said, be viewed as well-intentioned fools and unwittingly causing radicalization among the stupid and politically engaged narodniks. The mayors wife in the latter half of the book is a prime example of how such radicalization can manifest, proliferate and spiral out of control. Please don't dismiss the political and moreso the human lessons this book offers. And for your own sake get /misc/ out of your head.
>Stepan Trofimovich and Varvara Petrovna (arguably the least interesting characters in the book)
Filtered hard lmao
I firmly believe that the character of Stepan Trofimovich is supposed to be a parody of Jean-Jacques Roussea
Not annoying enough for that
I still can't believe stavrogin kissed a little girl on the lips
Twenty-something (and even older) dudes married 13, 14, 15-year-old girls all the time before the twentieth century. It pops up constantly in literature from that period.
In 1871, Democrats in Delaware passed a law that lowered the age of consent to seven.
He didn't just kiss her, he murdered her.
No he didn't. She hanged herself out of shame and fear.
He didn't just kiss her, he raped her you idiot.
>Why the hell did Dostoyevsky waste such an enormous amount of time describing Stepan Trofimovich and Varvara Petrovna
because the story was meant to be generational.
Stepan Trofimovich and Varvara Petrovna ----> stovrogin and pytor
this generational aspect has really important thematic significance
One of my favourite books of all time.
So many great characters, Stavrogin of course, but also Lebyadkin, Maria, Kirillov - all well fleshed out and capable of being protagonists in their own stories.
And so many great scenes that are still relevant today, like the Shigalov debate, Kirillov's spiritual musings, Stavrogin at Tikhon's explaining his distaste for being 'lukewarm', preferring to be outcast as evil than seen as something laughable, definitely a relatable sentiment.
I do understand the arguments for all the Stepan exposition, that said do think it throws off the flow of the story before it's even begun. I don't think the book would've lost anything if some of those details were more interspersed throughout the story. I mean the only gripe I really have with it is that it makes it harder to recommend to friends, who sometimes aren't predisposed to giving it a chance and slugging through it.
Still one of the best I've ever read regardless.
I am a chud and I didn’t see this as an anti-communist book at all really. Stavrogin was flip-flopping between ideologies and he clearly had no true loyalty to communism. Pyotr was also pretty much just a power hungry edgelord. The confession chapter made me cry thoughever
proto-communism was the opposite of modern leftism. the nihilists wanted property to go private from the authority of the crown. it wasn't until socialism that the idea shaped into the government owning the property.
>I am a chud and I didn’t see this as an anti-communist book at all really
You are a moron, why would you even think it was supposed to be that?
cause that's what people said about it
because the point of the book is how trying to pass your ideology down your children while being a bad parent despite your good intentions will most likely end up in a shitshow. the book was prophetic with how commies lined up their own parents to be shot.
Why does everybody talk about how Dostoevsky predicted the Bolsheviks with the young radicals (which is true) but nobody ever talks about how Shatov, the guy who did not believe in God but still thought the Church and patriotism were useful, was the first Fascist (or at least the first Charles Maurras?)
a lot of dostoevskys writing comes off to me as "fascism as it should have been", ie a sort of nationalist 3rd positionist stance but with a focus on christian thought rather than fascism's Black person-tier tenancy toward self destructive violence and right wing nihilism and Nietzschean egotism
a commie would say that
>Shatov, the guy who did not believe in God but still thought the Church and patriotism were useful, was the first Fascist
I must've missed that myself. Any particular pages/chapters?
When he is talking with Strivgorin (I'll be damned if I ever spell that name correctly) he says he doesn't really believe in God, or Strivgorin claims Shatov doesn't really believe in God and Shatov does not dent it, something like that, and Shatov says nevertheless that the church and patriotism are important for russia, a la Maurras
>la Maurras
I feel like you may have recommended me (proto) fascist authors a month or two ago
Stop arguing with each other you gay morons.. love each other...
This book holds alot of memories for me. At the time I read it I was smoking a ton of crack and when I ran out I would read this book to keep my mind off the comedown. But seriously what was Stavrogins problem? I feel like he had a bazarov type nihilism or he was just really bored with life.
>smoking crack
>reading Dostoyevsky
>posting about it on IQfy
telling me you're israeli without telling me you're israeli
If 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.
Took your time with this one mate, you’re losing your step.
I found Notes From Underground very relatable. What do I do next?
nice copypasta
>What do I do next?
In Search of Lost Time, so you know how to marry a prostitute with some dignity
I like Dosto but this is honestly pretty fair criticism
Thank you. Came up with it all by myself.
I think his criticism is absolutely devastating to Dosto. If you read Dosto's novels, they are chock full of a grotesque macabre fascination with suffering and shame, with murder and sex and the subsequent groveling misery of those who find themselves in such situations. This type of tripe is 100% on the level of a typical harlequin romance novel, but because it's some old Russian who added Christian Orthodox themes as an accent to the sadomasochism, IQfy eats it up. It's perverse.
ywnbaw
Dosto is essentially sadomasochistic, he loves dwelling on characters who revel in how depraved they are, but who also prostrate themselves in the just punishment or humiliation of their depravity. Again, sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes imply the exact situation he adored, all the violence and sexual intrigue he desired so much, but with the approval of his super ego since they ritualistically degrade themselves in a kind of spiritual fetishistic pleasure in confessing, being punished, and then being "redeemed". It's lurid and partakes of a sick kind of gratification in self flagellation.
Say what you will but Dostoyevksy is universally considered a more important writer than Nabokov, who only wrote one book of any consequence, something of which Nabokov himself was all too aware.
Nabokov is the Noel Gallagher of writers: only wrote one thing most people care about and is more known for the "cheeky" opinions he gives on other writers
Dostoevsky is obviously better.
But come on, Oasis has more than one song.
Don't Look Back in Anger and Wonderwall are classics.
Dosto is a situation of "the emperor has no clothes". His novels are massively overrated, his characters laughably melodramatic, his dialogue grotesquely unrealistic, his plots tortured and contrived, his messages trite. Any critical reading of his works would find so many catastrophic flaws as to annihilate any positives that might be scrounged up from underneath all the rank excrement.
absolute shit bait
How does Dosto purport to redeem the darker aspects of humanity? Is it to integrate them? To accept that they are rightful parts of the human experience and to work with them to self actualize; to transcend and include? No. His worldview firmly states that they must be brought before a higher power, judged as sinful, and repressed forever. This enterprise is utterly futile, since its objective is to destroy what is human, to snuff out the very spark that is humanity. Thus the cycle of indulgence (the inescapable humanity) and self flagellation (the divine judgement that such things are sinful and abhorrent). There is nothing profound, nothing transcendent here, just shallow fetishistic pleasure taking of the lowest tier followed by the harshest condemnation and repentance. Both sides of this coin forever restrict the other to its worst form, forever traps the victim of this ideology to a lifetime of misery and self hatred. It's vile in the extreme.
Translation: I want to buttfrick a troony, but Christian tradition calls that a no-no and suggests I strive for better things. "But I WANT it!" whimpers the modern brat, an stamps his/her/xir/xer/its foot. Transcendence involves repentance, just as making one choice precludes all others. And yes, as Dostoyevsky realized, that's not always easy. But if you don't try, you end up like Stavrogin, raping a child and eventually hanging yourself. What, traditional Christianity condemns such 'self-realization'? Good.
Your cult is life denying and death worshiping. You desperately project depravity onto those just seeking a more fruitful life. You literally embody the dark, deeply bitter, deeply repressed type of person I was criticizing. Well done.
I'm not OP. Are you really sure that being a pervert who goes after transvestites is a fruitful life? This just seems wrong to me.
I don't know man, for one it seems like a laughable straw man. I picture that anon as a small screaming child who's parents have denied them anything from the ice cream truck and has to stand, balling, coping, and seething as the other children enjoy their ice cream cones. "Ice cream is bad for you! It will make you fat! It'll give you brain freeze!" the small child whines, all the while deeply wishing they could indulge, but instead forced to live a sterile life, deprived of the pleasures of life. It's actually the essence of tragedy, to go through life denying yourself truly rewarding experiences all in the name of a sterile pack of lies and repression.
Transvestites aren't my cup of tea, but since this is an anonymous basket weaving forum, I'll divulge that my personal weakness is oral sex. When my girl goes down on me it imbues life with such a depth of profound pleasure and meaning that it almost defies explanation. For myself, there is something so moving about the act of selfless love by a woman to focus on my own pleasure with, arguably, an even more intimate part of her body than her vegana. She has total manual control of every part of pleasure she gives me, she subordinates herself to me, gratifies me, and finally the ultimate act of submission to me, swallows the product of my orgasm. it really is simply one of the best things in life. So, in closing, YES, I would only call a life fruitful if the person freely pursues such exceptionally satisfying experiences. If your life is devoid of such things, as I stated before, I view you as tragic and give you my pity.
You are the cringiest poster on IQfy.
You add nothing to the conversation, while plenty of posters wish to engage with me. Seethe harder.
You overrate yourself too much. And your bragging attempts show you are just too immature, such as your claims that your father was a space marine or whatever in that other thread.
I love when people dunk on themselves. I have no idea who you're referring to about a space marine, but that anon obviously got deeply into your head lol
Your way of writing and your idiotic arguments are quite distinctive, anon.
My dad writes policy for a non-profit, I have no idea what anon you were talking to, but he seems to have deeply rattled you
>>You desperately project depravity onto those just seeking a more fruitful life
homosexuals like yourself want to stick your dick into someone's butthole and get it covered in shit and blood, thus amplifying your chances of getting (and spreading) any number of communicalble diseases while cutting out the option of sexual reproduction. This you call 'life enhancing.' I call it embracing death.
>>. You literally embody the dark, deeply bitter, deeply repressed type of person I was criticizing.
Thank you for the gratuitous personal insults, Dr. Freud. Unfortunately personal insults are not an argument, nor is your mystical gifts in mind reading. I am stating, flatly, that medical statistics state, flatly, indulge in your brand of rather revolting homosexual practices have skyrocketing rates of every communicable disease from AIDS on down, as well as higher rates of mental illness and suicide, and a lower life span, nor to say passing on these blessings to others whom they infect, both literally and intellectually. You are the one who is worshipping death, and spreading it, In short: kys. That's the road you're taking. And when you do finally take it, it will be 'Well done.'
Congrats, you're projecting depravity exactly as I mentioned before. Notice how you begin with very graphic and disgusting descriptions (voicing your own aversion to specific acts) but then, almost as though you realize this carries no weight whatsoever, you have to make an appeal to STDs and lack of children, as if this suddenly validates your condemnation. Plenty of straight people sleep around and spread STDs. Plenty of sterile or barren people have tons of sex despite no chance of offspring. Oral sex is one of the most universal sexual acts and it permits of no offspring. None of your points even stick, you just want to be outraged at acts you find icky, or, perhaps more insidious, that you secretly wish for but are so repressed you must exaggerate your false hatred for them. Either way, you are in a sad, sorry state and you have my pity.
>Oral sex is one of the most universal sexual acts
Not really universal.
To the point that there has been an increase in throat cancer since oral sex had been normalized in the West due to porn...
Bro, primitive tribes in the middle of nowhere engage in oral sex. Hell, other species of primate engage in oral sex. It's a universal phenomenon in the sense that, in any given population, it will have a certain share of the sexual acts being engaged in. While I've heard throat cancer is increasing, it seems patently absurd to lay that on oral sex considering the vast changes in diet and the array of different chemicals now ingested or inhaled in modern society. How on earth could you reasonably isolate oral sexual activity from other possible causes? Also, people tend to be somewhat cagey about admitting their sexual proclivities, especially prior to the public normalization of sex in the West, so I think it'd be difficult to actually gauge the increase in oral sex. I think it's fair to say that trashy women have always been willing to give head, the difference today is that all women are trashy. But then again, maybe that isn't unique to modern day.
One thing that annoys me is how some people believe sexual behavior in other societies are similar to those of the modern West.
Oral sex is not an universal. For example , I remember reading about an African tribe where the men were puzzled when Europeans mentioned about ejaculating outside the vegana. For them, this was a completely absurd behavior.
>How on earth could you reasonably isolate oral sexual activity from other possible causes?
Statistics
You don't know how statistics work.
>You don't know how statistics work
I very much do. The evidence is quite strong that oral sex increases throat cancer risk.
I ask again, how do you account for the million possible confounding variables?
Scientists have something called a "regression", where they compare how two or more variables are related.
With this kind of statistical tool (and taking some precautions) we can get some important data.
That does not work when there are this many variables, and, in fact, you don't even know how many variables there could be. We know many things cause cancer. We know that modern people are exposed to a whole array of things not previously common. What strength is the correlation of oral sex to an increase of throat cancer? What level of certainty can you attain? Are there other factors associated with an inclination to oral sex which also correlate to an increase of throat cancer? You want to pretend that it is easy to arrive at answers to these questions but it categorically is not.
Scientists routinely work with harder subjects. Not trying to be snarky, but in this time, trust the science.
Let's think of an example with hypothetical numbers.
If people who haven't done oral sex had an incidence of X% of cancer (while controlling for smoking, etc)
Those with 2 partners had 2x. Those with 5 partners 4x. And those with 10+ partners 8x.
Quite clearly there is a pretty good correlation. Considering they also know the mechanism on how oral sex could lead to cancer, you can trust the ability of scientists.
People with 5 partners are likely to also be more likely to go to clubs or to drink or to smoke or any number of habits which may contribute to throat cancer. Hell, there may even be some gene which inclines a person to promiscuity which also increase the risk of throat cancer, and it's actually people who will get throat cancer who are more likely to engage in oral sex, and the easing of social norms have increased this behavior. Also, as I alluded to earlier, you would need to rely on self reports of people confirming they engaged in oral sex, which provides yet another filter through which the data passes. Are people likely to lie about oral sex? Are the people willing to answer surveys about sex also more likely than the base line to engage in oral sex or, independently, to be at risk of throat cancer to begin with? No offense, but in such a fraught topic as this THERE IS NO WAY I would ever "trust the science" unless the data was rigorously laid out step by step, and even then I would question the collection methods.
You are grasping at straws because you don't want to believe that oral sex increases the risk of getting cancer.
When we are talking about that kind of large effect, with proper controls and with the mechanism, it is really an easy case.
This is one of the easiest, most simple cases out there.
Exactly what is the effect size then, since you claim it is so large?
People with six or more oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop throat cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.
Do the number of sex partners matter or the frequency of oral sex? In that one stat you have massive ambiguity. And again, I will not trust someone to be rigorous enough to have accounted for all the variables that make up the differences between the type of person who answers "I have oral sex with six or more partners" and the type of person to answer "I do not have oral sex", without the data to back it up. There are just too many manifest differences in the likely lifestyle of those two types of people to boil it down to one activity. Also, what exactly is the mechanism of action supposed to cause the cancer? Is semen carcinogenic? Or is it vag lubrication? Again, way too many variables to expect anyone to accept a simple stat like that and have it mean anything.
I think it needs repeating it
>People with six or more oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop throat cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.
That's a fairly large effect. Much more so considering they know the mechanism.
You are just denying reality by claiming there is no relationship between oral sex and cancer.
Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying that if you have multiple sexual partners you are more likely to contract an STD? Groundbreaking stuff right there! The point at hand is this: if you and your partner never engage in oral sex, or engage in it all the time WITH EACH OTHER ONLY, does it change the odds of cancer? I already stated earlier that promiscuity is linked to manifest consequences, but to assume oral sex AUTOMATICALLY means promiscuous oral sex is a dishonest sleight of hand. What you are saying is "oral sex with lots of different people increases the chance of an STD which causes throat cancer" which is categorically different from saying "oral sex causes throat cancer".
Depositing HPV virus in your throat doesn't increase your chances of throat cancer?
Do all genitals have HPV?
The question was: is an increase in the practice of oral sex related to an increase in the cases of throat cancer? And the answer is: yes, according to evidence.
Would you disagree with this?
You make an error in the way you phrase it. You may not say "more oral sex automatically means more throat cancer", you may only say "among large populations of people, those who engage in more oral sex have higher rates of throat cancer". As we have already explored, if the mechanism is an STD, then having oral sex with someone infected with that STD is the real problem, not the act itself. This is like saying inhaling smoke causes cancer, but since you must inhale the smoke, inhaling in general causes cancer. Inhaling smoke does, and having sex with someone infected with an STD does.
That's a good point
The discussion is: did an increase in the prevalence of oral sex lead to more throat cancer? And the answer is: yes, it did.
Just as an increase in the prevalence of anal sex between men will lead to an increase in AIDS.
What a flawed argument.
More partners = more chance of sti which are the cause of cancer not the number of partners. This is different from smoking which has a direct chemical/biological impact on tissue and the smoker.
Do you think ice-cream sales cause hurricanes?
It is not a flawed argument. You just won't accept oral sex has led to problems.
More people having oral sex means the virus is spread more often. Increase in the spread of the virus means increase in the disease.
Would you say the Monkeypox epidemic in 2022-2023 was not related to homosexual sex acts?
You are making an error in phrasing again. If two monogamous people have more oral sex with each other, it makes no difference. You need to place the emphasis on having oral sex WITH MORE PARTNERS since that is where the increase in the risk comes from. By trying to tie it to the act alone, you are being dishonest.
That's not true though. You could have sex with somebody with an STI and not get throat cancer. It's only if you have ORAL sex with them. So yes, more oral sex as a practice leads to more throat cancer in the population. You could have the same incidence of STIs in the population and if nobody had oral sex, there would be no throat cancer.
This is, again, dishonest. HPV can cause cervical cancer, anal cancer, etc. so to be completely honest you have to that, for women, giving oral sex lowers their risk for certain cancers while increasing it for throat cancer. I know, you are just dead set on representing the facts as dishonestly as possible but I won't let you. Again, the only conclusion to draw from these statistics is that the more partners you have for any type of sex, the higher your chances for cancers caused by STDs.
I'm not the anon you are answering.
You are too shameless to say others are dishonest, considering how you are acting in this thread.
You denied the link between oral sex and throat cancer, no matter how large the effect. No matter how large and clear the evidence was, you denied it.
Then, when told the mechanism, you are claiming that since HPV is the direct cause of cancer, you now claim that this doesn't mean oral sex is involved. Even if oral sex is how HPV is being sent to the throat of the women (and gay men).
Face it, an increase in oral sex in society has led to more people being infected in the throat with HPV and this has led to more throat cancer. The Ancient Romans were right that this is a repulsive act.
Increased partners is what leads to more people getting infected. It's like saying the more you eat the more likely you are to get food poisoning. It doesn't mean you stop eating it just means you should protect yourself from contaminated food.
>Also, what exactly is the mechanism of action supposed to cause the cancer? Is semen carcinogenic?
Have you never heard of HPV?
>and repressed forever. This enterprise is utterly futile, since its objective is to destroy what is human, to snuff out the very spark that is humanity.
Where do you get that from? That is almost the complete opposite of what I gather from his major works. He says, rather, that the darker aspects of human nature must be addressed and dealt with rather than the two extremes of fully ignoring them until they destroy you or fully embracing them until they destroy you. Instead, you must address them, confront them, process them, deal with them, suffer for them, then grow from them.
>Not murdering people on a whim is denying humanity
What an unfortunate attitude.
kek, I literally say TRANSCEND AND INCLUDE and you have the such a low IQ that you automatically think this means "just keep doing the same behavior unchanged". Wow. The idiocy of the IQfy posterbase never ceases to amaze me.
Since Dosto is Russian I assume his worldview is informed by Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, Evil is seen as a privation of the Good. The Good here refers to the Natural Law or the Order as God created it. The problem you may be having is that you've lumped a lot of human tendencies into the 'dark' given the fact that you somehow think that a women giving fellatio and you enjoying her submission is 'dark'. it's not. It's natural and in accordance with God. A wife must submit to her husband and your joy is her joy and so on. The butt-fricking of the troony on the other hand is not natural and so represents an inversion of God's law so should be rightfully condemned. It's the same with all the sins. They represent an unnatural tendency of man. Murders are done in bouts of rage or in delusion of avarice and so he who commits them can be construed as poessesed. The point is Man knows the Good and the Law but his place after the Fall has rendered him weak and prone to sin.
The issue is that if you do not believe in a Natural Law or a that sin is a transgression that goes beyond local and psychological circumstances then you will easily fall prey to the Demons who seek to invert God's created Order. It is then that you begin to see man's faults as the source of his pleasures and so on.
My girl is not my wife, we are not married but living together. By Orthodox standards we would be "living in sin". Also, if you believe that Demons are real, you are schizophrenic. Also also, in what way do you ascertain what is "God's created Order"? If you mean what occurs in nature, you will have to concede that homosexuality, rape, and cannibalism exists, and thus qualifies as being part of the Natural Order or Natural Law. It seems to me that this is merely a smoke screen to call what you find acceptable endorsed by God and what you find objectionable to be objectionable to God. State your criteria.
I'm not using 'nature' the same way as you when I say Natural Law. By Natural Law I mean a revealed order of things that culminated in the figure of Christ as God who became Man. This order is apprehended in a set of moral teachings that are designed to be in accordance with the different relationships we see in the world which begin at man/women/child and go from there. Just because things exist in nature doesn't mean they are in accordance with Natural Law more often than not they are privations.
As for the atrocities you've mentioned, just like my murder example, the people who engage in these activities are construed as possessed and to take this further, possessed, namely by the 'spirit' to invert this order because the revelation of Christianity (the same thing as Natural Law) is the 'shield' which has exposed their unnatural quality. This precisely is the Demons that I mentioned. How they operate in the world is hard to say but everywhere you look in places that claim to be revolutionary, liberating, chaotic, etc, you'll stumble upon an explicit inversion of Christianity. This is because to further their Promethean cause they need to break the bond created by Christianity which tied man to Natural Law.
>revealed
>apprehended in a set of moral teachings
So all subject to interpretation? In other words, zero actual basis and it can be debated equally from multiple sides? Sounds exactly like I said earlier, a smokescreen to add pretend weight to your personal opinion.
you starting from a presupposition that morality is relative, while I'm not. I'm starting from the presupposition that God exists and has laid out a law that has consequences when people transgress. You can attempt to explain away these as you did the homosexuality in the other anon's post but you miss the complexity.
Even if you don't take into consideration the health effects of gay sex (long term), the fact that there is no consequence to sex leads to more and more risky (STD prone) sex. This is naturally limited in heterosexual sex because even with modern contraception there is still a chance for pregnancy and because in general, the natural imbalance of power between men and women leads to less initial willingness to sex. If you've ever been around the gays, You notice how quickly and how easily they have sex. it's almost unthinkable in heterosexual relationships no matter the level of corruption.
I can do this with all the sins but the issue is that you'll just assume it's my preference when its not. In the same way, the world is governed by physical laws, it is also governed by moral laws.
There is no distinction between physical laws and moral laws. Gay sex is not "a sin" because God says so, you tacitly admit this when you appeal you actual consequences in the form of physical manifestations of undesirable things (mainly STDs). If moral laws were separate from physical laws, it would be immoral of itself, not reliant on a negative physical manifestation to make it wrong. For the sake of example, among all the gays which exist, I'm sure at least some of them remain monogamous from the start of their relationship until death. In their specific instance, have they sinned because they were gay even though they experienced none of the actual consequences you have pointed to? This is my point, I'm not interested in a moral law if it is abstracted to acts that you or your imaginary friend have deemed "icky", I'm interested in the actual tangible issues inherent in certain behaviors which should guide us and our collective society towards better modes of existing.
This is solved by changing behaviors towards monogamy rather than promiscuity. I would argue that individual freedom is something that should not be trespassed lightly, and therefore if a person is a homosexual, they should be allowed to pursue that as they wish. Where society comes into play is to be more accepting for exclusive pairs rather than constantly changing to multiple sexual partners.
To summarize, I view a fixation on trying to ban specific sex behaviors as a projection of the person in question, as are appeals to abstract "moral laws" which are totally divorced from manifest physical realities and consequences.
the reason 'revelation' as a word is used so often is because these prohibitions were apprehended before the knowledge of their full consequences. Again, you miss the complexity. If homosexuals can be more promiscuous and choose to be, they can be to an extent that exceeds the natural bounds. They are a symptom of a deeper inversion regarding as you noted our behaviors toward monogamy since they resemble the pinnacle of promiscuity.
And yes, moral laws are separate because, unlike physical laws, they are not merely descriptive but have an element of direction(oughtness, telos) that would be impossible to describe in physical terms. Describing just the consequences would not give me the ought but they still show some reasoning behind the existence of their being such a law prohibiting the acts.
You should never take a moral law on faith. That is a recipe for being deceived. You should always demand a thorough and comprehensible manifest reason for a moral directive. God would not have invested us with reason if it was to be overruled by fiat.
There is a scale of inclination to promiscuity which exists among homosexuals and heterosexuals. There can be devoted monogamous gays and rampant loose straights. Thus, the behavior to be condemned is promiscuity, not orientation by the mere fact that it increases the odds of promiscuity. Not only that, but you would have to build the case that a person who feels homosexual actually becomes more monogamous and healthy if they repress themselves into a sexual situation they are not suited to. I assume I need not expand on why this could certainly lead to a new set of problems.
I object to the phrasing of "exceeds the natural bonds". The fact that birth control is easily accessible now means that any pairing now has the option to "exceed the natural bonds". It is a meaningless phrase, and if you mean "optimal level for maximum well being", this is a matter to be considered in the context of what constitutes a healthy sexual situation, and since sexual inclinations vary, the level for any individual will vary.
Now, if you wish to speak on a society wide basis, we must examine WHY there are more people embracing promiscuity in recent decades. At this level of analysis, it is useless to blame individuals, for, presumable, had these individuals been born 50 years earlier, the societal context would have set them up statistically to have been much healthier. Therefore, we must examine what overarching influences across society are causing this phenomenon.
In this regard, I think most reasonable people would agree it is the breakdown of the family and the shocking drop off of healthy adult male figures for many youngsters in modern society. Why are families so unstable now? This is an area for reasoned inquiry, and I would submit that it is a combination of economic, social, and political factors centering on the mass inclusion of women in the work force. This depressed the value of labor and cleaved the sexes apart: no longer could the man go to work and support a household, and no longer would the modern woman consent to be the submissive stay-at-home mom of past generations.
The results have been catastrophic. The solution will certainly be very complex and slow to change this state of affairs, if it can be fixed at all. But no amount of Moral Fiat will suffice in this moment, we must marshal our most potent tool to address this issue, and apply reason and civil discourse on the best path forward.
>You should never take a moral law on faith.
I'm not the one you are arguing with and I didn't read the rest of your post.
But if you do have some kind of divine revelation you very much DO HAVE to take moral law on faith. With no questions asked.
Then you are schizophrenic. If a voice tells you to do something, you absolutely should question whether is it reasonable to follow it, whether it will bring about a good outcome or if it will bring about harm. And, how about this, the basic question as to whether you are simply under a misapprehension of what you believe was "revealed" to you. Just as an aside, this is one reason the accusation of "slave morality" is level at people like this, if you unthinkingly obey any moral directive, you are literally subhuman. God did not invest you with reason in order that it be overruled by fiat.
By divine revelation, I don't mean hearing voices in your head. According to Christian doctrine, Public revelation ended with the death of John the Apostle.
There is something called private revelation, but this is not what I'm talking about.
But if you do have divine revelation, you should follow it without even thinking. We are just ignorant humans. We can't compare with the divine.
>But you will be a slave to....
Yes.
If you are faced with the question "am I under a misapprehension or has God himself instructed me personally about the nature of reality?" Any sane person will know which side to land on. If you land on the other side, you are not sane.
I'm not one of the 12 Apostles. I won't get a Public revelation.
What do you mean by "private revelation"? Also, "am I under a misapprehension or has God himself instructed this other person about the nature of reality for me to take their word for?" is no better. But some people just want to be suckers I guess.
Private revelation is
>Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.
The issue being discussed here is not if you believe or not in divine revelation, but what you should do if you believe it.
And if you believe it, you follow it. Anything else is illogical.
The whole point is whether it is reasonable to believe it or not. If you fall under the sway of a delusion, it may appear perfectly logical to follow the delusion. However, if you believe a divine being has contacted you and is directing you to a course of action, the logical step would be to assess your mental health and examine whether you are mistaken in your interpretation of the phenomenon.
It is not really what is being discussed.
What is being discussed is: given you believe a divine revelation (and I'm not saying YOU received the revelation, but that the Apostles did and you believe them), how should you act?
And the answer is: you should follow it.
Again, suppose you hold a divine revelation to be true. Anything but following it is illogical.
If you believe your bed is the toilet, it's logical to shit the bed.
You're making a tautology. "If you believe something is true, you should act like you believe it to be true". It's meaningless. The fact is that if you suddenly believe your bed has turned into a toilet, you should hesitate before automatically believing it.
At rock bottom, if you experience a phenomenon like what you describe, it's more logical to assume an error in your ability to apprehend events rather than that a divine deity has granted you revealed knowledge. It's embarrassing that I need to spell this out to you.
The divine revelation I'm arguing for is the one received by the Apostles.
Suppose you believe the divine revelation the Apostles received is true. Would you agree that following it is the right course of action?
You make the assumption that it comes to you unaltered, and that it actually does originate from the divine. There is simply no way to justify these beliefs in the face of the tangible reality of the falibility of man and his capacities, not to mention the real possibility of malicious intentions of man which could explain the whole thing to begin with.
You are essentially asking "is it not the right course of action for a Hindu to believe in Vishnu? Is it not the right course of action for a Muslim to believe in Allah and Muhammad?" These are nonsensical statements, and the reality of multiple faiths goes to show that faith alone is definitely and absolutely leading more people into error than into the correct path, and that's even being generous and allowing for the possibility that any of them actually is the right path. The real correct action is to be skeptical of them all, to acknowledge they all make the same type of claim and all exact the same type of belief from their followers and all shun physical evidence in the same way. There is simply no rehabilitating this mode of belief if you have any interest in what is actually true.
#
You did not answer the question.
My question is very simple. Suppose someone believes in divine revelation.
Given someone believes in divine revelation, would you agree that following it is the correct course of action?
>Given someone believes in divine revelation, would you agree that following it is the correct course of action?
Philip K. Dick is a case in point. He believed in the reality of VALIS, but at the same time realized he might be affected by mental issues or drugs. So the correct answer is th take divine revelation as one true fact in the context of other true facts. If I experience God telling me to rape a child (a fact, as far as my direct experience goes), but Christ in the New Testament tells me not to offend little children lest worse than a millstone be placed around my neck, which instruction do I follow? The latter, I hope, but the proper response of the faithful is not robotic execution of a revelation but thoughtful interpretation. A revelation is not simply a command.
I'm talking about Public Divine Revelation as written in the Bible and taught by the Magisterium of the Church.
The divine revelation of the Apostles, which ended being transmitted when John the Apostle died in about 100AD.
Given you believe in that divine revelation (this is set in stone), wouldn't it make sense to follow it without any questions?
(As an aside: the Church has a process in the case someone believes he/she got a private revelation. It is a very careful process and it involves Bishops, psychologists, doctors and the Vatican itself, where specialists will among other things study if the message is in accordance with Church teaching.)
You're answering your own question, albeit not very clearly. You're saying that someone should indeed follow divine revelation, but not blindly: it needs to be processed by "Bishops, psychologists, doctors and the Vatican itself, where specialists will among other things study if the message is in accordance with Church teaching." In short, revelation in the light of rational examination and consensus. You shouldn't JUST hear a voice in your head and run out with an Uzi. It may be schizophrenia, or Satan doing a good voice impression.
I'm talking about Public Divine Revelation as written in the Bible and taught by the Magisterium of the Church.
The divine revelation of the Apostles, which ended being transmitted when John the Apostle died in about 100AD.
Well, you see that too is an interpretation. The Mormons, for instance, explicitly say divine revelation did not end with the Apostles, began again with Joseph Smith, and continues in the Presidents of the Mormon Church. I needn't even discuss divine revelation as experienced by evangelicals, or expressed. perhaps, in noncanonical Gospels and writings. I take it you dismiss all that. Which is fine, if it makes you happy. Others disagree.But even if you willingly restrict yourself to the Magisterium, etc, you concede that following private revelation is a matter of following it after it's been approved by Vatican specialists. In effect, then, you are equating divine revelation with specialist judgment of that pronouncement rather than with a voice in your head. I think that's wise.
Please, just answer the question.
If you believe a public divine revelation received by the Apostles is real, doesn't it make sense to follow it?
Your question is a tautology. "If you believe you must act in a certain way, should you act in that way?" The fact that you set up the question with the criteria that a person is already convinced, and then ask if he should act in accordance with his conviction is silliness. If a person believes in divine revelation, they are delusional and should seek mental help.
I will take that as a Yes.
So, a Christian should follow Christian morality.
A Christian should drop the toxic belief in a cult of human sacrifice and cannibalism which worships death and denies life.
bro forgets to take his meds for one day and thinks God is revealing himself and telling him not to have butt sex with strangers. wild.
>natural bounds
I already explained that even with modern contraception, there is still a difference in promiscuity given that heterosexual relations have a natural asymmetry that isn't present in homosexuals thus having some mitigating effect on the extent of promiscuity.
As for the rest, you're just starting to sound like some materialist coping with the problems you see around you and unable to see how moral corruption stands as the source. All this can be explained by people turning from God to pursue their own interests divorced from God. Women entered the workforce because of a movment was started 150 years ago that claimed women should be treated as 'equals' in every sphere of world. Is this Natural? Have you met women that exhibit qualities that make them fit to lead a country? It's not hard to look back into history and see the occult ties each one of these founders had and how this influenced their direction. They hated God's order and so sought to invert it. So now here we are.
Again, I will reiterate, claiming you know what "God's law" is does not advance the case for anything. Your only effectual argument is to reference manifestations of ills in the physical world and draw backwards to infer what moral rules ought to be enforced as to avert the unwanted consequence. There is literally no reason to claim God endorses these laws unless you want to be dishonest or lazy. If they are worthy of themselves, reason will prove so, if reason cannot prove them, they are almost certainly unworthy.
Furthermore, liberty is the primary fountain from which prosperity flows, thus you should be extremely cautious when seeking to place limitations on it, even in the sphere of women where it is easy to assume this is the right course of action.
If you want to live in a authoritarian theocratic autocracy where your liberties can be curtailed if enough people are convinced "God" decrees it, be my guest, there are plenty of shithole countries which fit the bill on that account. Meanwhile, I'll stick with the flawed but infinitely superior model of secular individual freedom tempered with reasonable regard to the liberty of others.
Dostevesky: Principally, Stavrogin is defined by his inability to devote himself to wholehearted belief; in society, revolution, family, God, and especially his own person and actions. One of his few pleasures is attracting high-society's expostulations by being a provocateur who annihilates others' assumptions of his good character. His ultimate act of nihilism, however, begins to fray at a soul he had believed to be forever black and insensate.
Nabokov: So Humbert is a pedo, but he's also erudite and glib! Pretty transgressive, eh?
>Dosto: So, uh, he's like an edgy teen who pretends life is meaningless but then... uhh, feels bad so... um, then he wants meaning
Groundbreaking!
The juxtaposition of Nabokov and Dostoyevsky is apt. Humbert has sex with a child, but tells the reader (to justify it to himself?) that she initiated it. No moral anguish, no repentance, no redemption, no shame, no agony. None of the things that amoralists on this thread condemn Dostoyevsky for. And Humber just keeps going on fricking her for the rest of the book. But he describes it in such wonderfully crafted sentences! It's a masterpiece. Stavrogin molests a child once, and hangs himself. Ugh, what sentimentality. Which book has more interestingly convoluted descriptions and sentences? Nabokov, obviously. Which presentation has more human reality, more depth? You decide.
>No moral anguish, no repentance, no redemption, no shame, no agony.
humbert does regret his actions. if you have your copy handy pick it up and read the last page again. also read the first page to remind yourself that humbert does in fact kill himself. that said, i do agree that dosto is vastly superior to nabokov. the stunt he pulls in pnin with the nutcracker reminded me quite a bit of krilov tricking a fan of his into reaching for a bit of paper he oretends to drop, a self processed genius deriding someone for admiring him.
not him but it seems like he's expressing a jungian perspective which i can agree with. dosto never discusses (to my memory) any healthy and constructive way to give vent to our antisocial urges, like a violent man becoming a boxer. you don't have to murder to express the urge within you to murder.
>krilov
sorry, karmazinov
>not him but it seems like he's expressing a jungian perspective which i can agree with. dosto never discusses (to my memory) any healthy and constructive way to give vent to our antisocial urges, like a violent man becoming a boxer. you don't have to murder to express the urge within you to murder.
I'm not a fan of Jung personally, but you've correctly assessed my criticism. If you prefer Jungian terminology, the integration of the shadow is the type of thing I am referring to. Total repression and shame is toxic and not a long term solution, these urges must be managed, maintained, integrated, and expressed in acceptable ways. Dosto seems to rely on mere confession and repentance as the final solution to these problems, as if by choice or catharsis these aspects of humanity can be washed away (washed away by spilling Jesus all over the place, no less).
>> humbert does regret his actions. if you have your copy handy pick it up and read the last page again.
Ekh. Humbert is an unreliable narrator. His positively galactic self-centeredness would naturally get him to say, "oh, I'm so sorry..." at precisely the point where he kills himself and spares himself the work and embarrassment of making amends. And he dies not because of guilt over e-girlta but because he's killed Quilty and is facing arrest and public exposure. 300 pages of screwing e-girlta following by one page of such bogus repentance is Dostoyevsky on steroids.
>> dosto never discusses (to my memory) any healthy and constructive way to give vent to our antisocial urges, like a violent man becoming a boxer. you don't have to murder to express the urge within you to murder.
One could argue that by writing a novel in which the characters indulge in tendencies Dostoyevsky himself may have had is precisely that kind of transmutation.
simply undergoing the transmutation yourself counts for naught. he never puts it into his work and we can infer that he never realized he underwent it. as for humbert, you may be right that he doesn't truely regret his actions (though i favor the interpretation that he is genuinely repentant AND exaggerating his repentance in order to look good) but even so, in your interpretation it isn't as if nabokov is trying to make humbert's actions look palateble to the reader. simply put, he's not gallant, he's goofus.
>homosexuals like yourself want to stick your dick into someone's butthole and get it covered in shit and blood, thus amplifying your chances of getting (and spreading) any number of communicalble diseases while cutting out the option of sexual reproduction.
>personal insults are not an argument, nor is your mystical gifts in mind reading.
there is no point in engaging with people with this little self awareness.
what is it you dislike about jung when you so strongly agree with his idea of integrating one's shadow?
Jung had a domineering hatred for what he called "the spirit of the day" by which he meant an attempt to root theories in actual physical manifestations (such as the secretion of glands or the electrical activity of the brain). He preferred mysticism, which I view as a massive error since it seems to just be an excuse to avoid being rigorous and self critical. I love the work of Freud, but he is at his worst when he indulges in a similar kind of reverence for the mystical power of his own theories, but at least he had the sense to pretend as though they were rooted in physical mechanisms. In regard to Jung, things like the collective unconscious function well enough when you consider them the manifestation of shared inclinations rooted in the genes, but if you veer into the mystical realm, as if people have a psychic connection to each other, in my opinion, you have lost the plot.
>Nabokov was sexually abused by his dentist uncle
Like you were there to catch it on smartphone.
>simply undergoing the transmutation yourself counts for naught.
Try it sometime and see.
>> he never puts it into his work
The guy is writing a novel, not a Scientology self-help manual. Since when does a novelist have to write a ten-step pop quiz advice column to get IQfyapproval.
>>and we can infer that he never realized he underwent it.
Yeah, he never realized he went from a death penalty and Siberian imprisonmnent and being a socialist revolutionary to being Russia's number one conservative
is no point in engaging with people with this little self awareness.
There is always a point in engaging with and _argument_, even if, alas, it is sometimes embedded in personal invective, the med into which nearly all IQfy posters sometimes are tempted to step. I regret my own over-self-indulgence in that practice, but not the arguments from which they sometimes distract.
>Humbert is an unreliable narrator.
So did he kill that Haze woman or not? It's kidn of fishy that she just conveniently drops out of the picture so he can get what he wants.
not him but he must have killed her. things just go too smoothly for him.
It’s a book of cathartic book. Nabokov was sexually abused by his dentist uncle
*it’s a cathartic book
Seemingly profound, but actually rather shallow criticism. Pathos is a reality, as isi farce, sin, and even Jesus, who, whatever secular moderns like yourself think of is historical reality, constituted a genuine spiritual option that structured European culture and imagination from Constantine to Hume. Great literature can and has been forged from these themes, and I (and most critics) would certainly place Karamazov in that category. I agree that Crime and P is overrated, but then A Raw Youth is underrated. The fact remains that Dostoyevsky's worst is on a whole other thar than, say, Nicholson Baker's or David Foster Wallace's best. Dostoyevsky lives because he is dealing with material that is radioactive with meaning, work in which content eclipses style. What he is trying to direct your attention to is stronger than whether he directs it with sentimental journalese. If you prefer artsy wankery then go read Ronald Firbank.
Here's a redpill, kid: These characters are only interesting because they aren't described in detail. If they would be described in detail, they wouldn't be interesting.
I didn't really enjoy it, most of the characters annoyed me, and it annoyed me that no one else in the book was getting frustrated by them. Maybe that was the point, but I lost empathy with the characters and have thus forgotten most of the book.
>no Macduff translation for Demons
A shame - I'm really enjoying his Brothers Karamazov translation on my re-read of that book right now
Still need to read Demons. Not even sure what's keeping me from it at this point
Im gonna be real with you; reading this book made me despise leftists even more than I already did, but it also a made me aware of the hypocrisy of my disdain for them, as I myself at the time was more or less a full on right wing nihilist who was prepared to justify or hand wave away some pretty nasty things, and I saw myself in this book as much as i saw the people i hated. this had quite a profound effect on me and suffice it to say i dont post edgy things alongside pictures of Hitler anymore, among other things
The greatest novel of all time.
They are the best characters of the book. Stepan Trofimovich deserved an entire novel himself.
I read in the foreword to crime and punishment that dostoevsky had the book written and then the publisher asked for like 10 more chapters so he just padded the book to make the publisher happy. Reading the brothers karamazov now and it's so obvious when he's just filling pages for the sake of pages vs when he's telling the story he intended. It's probably the same case for demons. His works suffer from the commercial demands he had to meet when writing.
Go back to China
First post really nailed it, but I just want to say that I loved Stepan's character. He reminds me of myself, the worst of me basically, and I believe >23244467 is accurate. I've actually as a result started reading Rousseau,starting with his discourse on inequality and now on to Confessions which I'm absolutely loving