Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov: Best novel of the 19th century | Sean Kelly and Lex Fridman

There’s this book about a doomed whaling voyage I’ve heard is pretty good…

My favourite courses at uni were the Russian Literature courses; they spoke to teenagers those Russians.

Awesome discussion!

Karamatzov? Sart?

I didn't know who Lex was, so I looked him up. It turns out he's a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist, teacher.

I always loved the way Dostoyevsky explored certain moral questions

Dostoyevsky, similarly like Jordan Peterson wasn’t certain about the whole notion of God; and this is why he developed all these different characters in his Brothers Karamazov whom had such different opposing views. I also get a sense that he wrote the book more for himself than for the reader, albeit he didn’t hesitate to share his ideas to the reader and the world

Great analysis. Balance of ying and Yang. Ontology if existenlism and essentialism. Hegels idea of controlling the river from both ends

“Not everything is permitted.”
Powerful and challenging. Just as relevant today as it ever has and forever will be.

It is beyond my imagination of how Dostoyevsky ... Camus ... Jordan B Peterson ... all of the inquisitors and philosophers grope for the meaning of life so desperately and in such a moaning and groaning way ...... yet ... yet ... they don't take the Bible seriously! They read it ... if they actually read it ... as if it was only written by men. This book is beautiful and explains the meaning of life ... is immensely deep and profound literature ... epic literature! ... written in the most poetic way ... by the same intelligent mind that created matter and energy molding them into the the universe and all there in ... creating man and woman out of dust or the small elemental particles of the earth/ground. God tells us how we got here ... what happened to cause pain and suffering ... how he is solving it ... he gives us a complete historical record of relevant events. He tells what our future is going to be.
You all are missing it ... you are going to miss the most wonderful opportunity ... and the meaning of life ... if you don't read the Bible yourself. Quit asking your priest what it says ... and read it ... if you want life. Or keep asking each other and miss the whole thing.

everyone has different taste. if there is a best novel, which there isnt, but if there is war and peace is probably the greatest novel ever written in my opinion. in terms of dostoyevsky i prefer the idiot and crime and punishment to brothers. i might even like demons more to be honest. but anyway, he was one of the greats. 19th century Russian literature is probably my favorite.

Can someone enlighten me with the ending of Brothers Karamazov? I’ve finished reading it last night and it’s one of the best novel I’ve read but I’m not really satisfied with the ending. Still can’t get over it like there’s no closure.

Best novel of 19th century is probably Moby Dick.

😀😀😁😁😍😍👍👍Shop it now.

I recently went back to my old copy of Brothers Karamazov to add the passages I underlined to my list of book quotes. I wanted to immediately start rereading it again. I had to crack a smile at the description of the book as a "murder mystery" as the work is so much more complex that it can't be so easily categorized (especially not as a piece of genre fiction). I recently reread the Grand Inquisitor section as I wanted to go back and refamiliarize myself with the novel. I am smart enough to know my intellectual limitations, and although I understand that Alyosha is the hero of the novel, I find it difficult to simplify Dostoevsky's message other than he seemed to be pushing back against the growing "Godless" movement of the period with Alyosha being the Jesus-like character serving as a rejection of Ivan's cynicism as it is revealed in his Grand Inquisitor story that states that the price of the iron fist of the Church and the bread they provide can be one's personal freedoms (at least that is what I got from the Inquisitor's dialogue to Jesus and some of the things Ivan stated).

Christ is at the center of Dostoievsky's work. To try to interpret them without pointing to Christ, doesn't make any sense. Dostoievsky couldn't be MORE CLEAR about this issue.

" Just a single man, Fyodor Dostoevsky, is enough to defeat all the creative novelists of the world. If one has to decide on 10 great novels in all the languages of the world, one will have to choose at least 3 novels of Dostoevsky in those 10. Dostoevsky’s insight into human beings and their problems is greater than your so-called psychoanalysts, and there are moments where he reaches the heights of great mystics. His book BROTHERS KARAMAZOV is so great in its insights that no BIBLE or KORAN or GITA comes close."

Love it!

The Sartre vs Dostoyevsky arguments are profound!!! This is an astringent to memorize and meditate on.

Where can I get more of this guy's take on Dostoyevsky?

Sarte sucks

I don't agree with this guest's reduction of Dostoevsky's idea of God. I've read 5 of his novels and I've never come to the conclusion that Doestoevsky strictly sees salvation in the "here and now" on Earth - and no further.

Dusty-evsky

catch all the legendary and remaining pokemon.

Then Sartre is the modern equivalent of Ivan since that quote about everything being permitted is his words. And by all means don't just read about the Grand Inquisitor, since that requires at least Book 4 Lacerations and especially Book 6 The Russian Monk to be understood. As Zosima says, all is connected.

Sean Kelly: "What is the Brothers Karamazov about?... It's a murder mystery". At that point I switched to another channel.

Fun tidbit: supposedly Dostoyevsky intended for Brothers Karamazov to be a trilogy, but he died before he could write the next book.

Dostoyevsky, despite his rationalist leanings, was still greatly concerned with the subject of typically Russian deep spirituality. Tolstoy struggled with the same.

As a Russian I can see yes, but Dostoevsky was too hard writer for understanding, lil 18 year old American student buys Tolstoy or Dostoevskys novels and then when he has read, he thinks “daaamn my brain was burned like cheese for taco”

everything is good with Karamazov, except the The Inquisitor, anyone agrees?

Wow. I finished Brother's Karamazov today. Simply incredible! It's worth the investment of time (and increased power of my reading glasses).

In my opinion

Turgenevs: Fathers and Sons
Tolstoys: War and Peace
Dostoevskys : Crime and Punishment

All great works from the 1860s.

This is hands down the most apt summary of Brothers Karamazov. I applaud your insight, and thank you for having given me these words to share with others!

He's being biased and always picking Dostoevsky cuz he's Russian himself

I feel like this guy missed a lot of the depth in karamazov, but I may be just misunderstanding him. I didn't think the main points were about the murder and committing such an act, how to deal with the guilt, salvation(this one might be more relevant though). I thought the murder was more of an extreme, moral event, which was used to explore deeper aspects of the individual characters psychology. I always though the comparison between the brothers(and their worldviews and approaches to life), showing the benefits and pitfalls of each - and of course showing what Dostoevsky views as the "right" approach in Alyosha

This interpretation is partially wrong lol, as the metaphysical aspect of it and the afterlife is the ENORMOUS and primary justification in Dostoyevsky’s eyes. A character who is clearly wrong and written in as a foil in Dostoyevsky’s eyes says who cares about that lol. Dostoyevsky’s work is overwhelmingly Christian because he was a very devout Orthodox Christian and those were the axiomatic presuppositions upon which he built his worldview. God is real and therefore everything is NOT permissible. This what you get when a modern atheist existentialist who doesn’t understand premodern metaphysics and philosophy tries to interpret the work.

Is it supposed to be dostoevskiev? That's what sounds like lex was saying at the beginning

In English we don't say the brothers Marx or the brothers Wright but why do we insist on using non idiomatic Brothers Karasmarov,?

Couldnt agree more.

Sean Kelly has no idea of the Christian God or Christianity.

perhaps everything is permitted if you're a psychopath

Camus can do, but Sartre is smartre.

Why are schools teaching the Shakespeare crap and not this?!

Dostoevsky (1821-81)

Dostoyevsky was a man of many compulsions, and his storylines center on spiritual warfare. In order to understand Dostoyevsky, one must understand something about Russian Orthodox piety, a thing alien to Latin theology and Evangelical theology. And that is the figure of the holy fool.

With its apophatic strain, orthodox theology eschews the rational apologetic and theodicean programme of philosophical theology. Instead, orthodox theology is more existential and hagiographic. In Dostoyevsky, characters such as Tihon and Zossima fill this function. And a special case of its hagiographic orientation is the figure of the holy fool. In Dostoyevsky, characters such as Myshkin and Alyosha discharge this role.

Dostoyevsky has no intellectual answer to the problem of evil, but he has an existential answer in the exemplary lives of the saints—with special reference to the tradition of the holy fool. By definition, the holy fool is in some ways a moral naïf, yet his simplicity is a hidden strength, for his innocence is not owing to ignorance of evil. Both saint and sinner experience sin, but with a difference. A man who resists evil has felt the blade of temptation cut more deeply than the man who surrenders without a fight. The saint is a battle-hardened warrior.

What is more, good understands evil—but evil can never grasp the good. And there is even an ironic sense in which evil lacks the necessary detachment to understand its own moral character, for evil is too inebriated by the passion of the moment to be objective; whereas the good, by retaining a wary distance, enjoys a more sober perspective. In this respect, Bernanos and Dostoyevsky share a common philosophy.

What are we to make of Dostoyevsky’s treatment? In its favor, most devout believers are holy fools. They are not intellectuals. They are quite incapable of defending their faith by reasoned argument. For many of them, their version of a theistic proof takes the form of a person, not a proposition—of the living witness and wordless testimony of a godly mother or grandmother, pious father, grandfather, pastor or priest. Their theodicy is a breathing, flesh-and-blood believer. They take heart in the great cloud of pilgrims who have gone before. To his credit, then, Dostoyevsky strikes a note which is often missing in Christian literature—a note that reverberates in many hearts.

Having said that, there are a number of weaknesses in this lopsided emphasis. Left to itself, there is a viciously circular quality to this appeal. To the question, "Why believe?" he points to the example of other believers. But that begs the question. The question is not, "Why do you believe?" but, "Why should anyone believe?" Mere belief is not self-certifying. The moon is not made of green cheese just because a majority might think so.

It must be admitted, though, that there is something about the extremes of good and evil which resist reductive explanations. For both of them exceed any outward provocation. A saint is a living sacrament—an outer sign of an inner grace, whereas a human fiend is an anti-sacrament—an outer sign of an evil incubus.

There is, however, something deeply deficient about ceding the high ground of reason to the devil’s party while reserving a citadel of faith for ourselves. To begin with, this disregards the Dionysian streak of evil. Depravity, in its advanced stages, is radically irrational.

In addition, reason is not the privileged providence of philosophers. A philosopher is a man who never outgrew the questions of a child. Dostoyevsky, himself, was a high-powered intellectual. And he must resort to reason in making a case for fideism.

Steve Hays, "A twice-told tale"

As Sean Kelly describes it in this video clip, The Brothers Karamazov is the novel form of the moral argument for theism as well as the related argument from conscience. In addition, given Dostoyevsky's Christian beliefs, the novel doesn't give a rational propositional argument in response to the problem of evil and suffering, but instead gives a response to the problem of evil in a person. Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:2: "You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all."

"If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted" is the dumbest statement in history. God may not exist, but consequences do. And if you think you can do whatever you want and not pay a price - you're an imbecile.

As and atheist and a Brothers Karamazov fan, I must say the reasoning in this conversation is pretty flawed.

Moralizing is not the best way to read books and interpret the art.

the after life matters..alot!

If I am allowed to express my personal opinion: Dostoevsky is one of the most overestimated writers of all time. Really D.? What can one say about Alyosha's theological discussions with a 13 year old boy? What can one think about the ending of Brothers Karamazov, where Alyosha together with some pre-adolescent children (!) are all together cheerfully happy as they celebrate... the coming of the Last Judgement Day!... Seriously? Is this suppose to be good literature? Even a believer reader should have enormous problems with such a literary, such an artistic solution, which is not.

In Dostoevsky we find always the following concept: All "good" guys get to be rewarded and all "bad" guys either commit suicide or go to prison or get crazy. Ivan Karamazov, the one that could have saved Dmitri's – his brother's – life, gets crazy one day before the court! And why? Because he is the "atheist" of the novel! Is there anything more p r e d i c t a b l e in whole literature? Do we want our literature to be predictable in that silly way? How can a healthy human mind accept this forced and totally disgusting solution? And this novel is considered from many, many, many "serious" people that read (do they actually read?) serious literature as "the best novel ever written". H o l y cow!

After having read Dostoevsky's works again and again I have come to this conclusion: He is the most horrible, boring and kitsch author out there. Not even his language has anything to offer! And although I don't agree with every single critical opinion Nabokov expressed for a number of authors, I totally agree with his opinion on Dostoevsky. There are so many writers out there that are... writers! D. is at least mediocre.

And please, for all of you reading this comment and thinking that I am crazy: Read D. anew; don't let yourself repeating "what the world is saying". Shape your own opinion.

For me the plot is already spoiled by the intro in my version of the novel. It sound like a predictable case of parental conflict syndrome (PCS). Crime and Punishment is a great novel though. I read that many years ago. The works of Solzhenitsyn are also very good. People should learn to solve the simple problems rather than attempting the Everest issues.