Dostoevsky and the if there is no God points.

[underworld men]

Satre stated Dostoevsky stated that if there is no God then all things are permitted.

Nietzche stated that Dostoevsky stated that if there is no God then all including art,beauty, love are just social construct.

Camus stated that Dostoevsky stated if there is no God then there is no purpose..

Heidigger implied that Dostoevsky stated that if there is no explaination for existent then there is no God.

Can you think of any others?

[MikeK]

Freud stated that man wanted to kill his father in order to replace him - in order to become his own creator - in order to become God.

[MikeK]

Incidentally, as I forgot to mention in that post, Freud certainly thought that this applied to Dostoevsky, who felt guilt at the fact that his father was murdered and that he (Dosteovsky) secretly wished it, which is why his epilepsy developed.  [Freud's thoughts- certainly not mine]

[underworld men]

Incidentally, as I forgot to mention in that post, Freud certainly thought that this applied to Dostoevsky, who felt guilt at the fact that his father was murdered and that he (Dosteovsky) secretly wished it, which is why his epilepsy developed.  [Freud's thoughts- certainly not mine]

Yes Freud and Virginia Woolfe tried to pull a hit job on Dostoevsky. They both lost credibility over it.

It seems to me that Freud understood the old "ones relationship with ones father is a subconscious metaphor for ones relationship with God".

Puts the whole single parent thing in a different light eh?

[Worm]

They remove the father, and the new father becomes God - so they follow their own hazy ideas about God.  It's about stopping being a son of anybody, of a father, of God, anybody, and becoming your own father and king.

That's when life .... begins.



Why is everything permitted if there is no God?  I don't see the reasoning behind that.

[underworld men]

They remove the father, and the new father becomes God - so they follow their own hazy ideas about God.  It's about stopping being a son of anybody, of a father, of God, anybody, and becoming your own father and king.

That's when life .... begins.



Why is everything permitted if there is no God?  I don't see the reasoning behind that.

If there is no God, then the weak live at the expense of the strong.

Might becomes right once I stop behaving because, you do.

[hithesh]

The idea and variants: "If there is no God, then there is no purpose", is not Dostoevsky's own, but the holy fools.

I think 99% of interpretations of Dostoevsky get his views on God wrong.

Father Zosima does not believe in God, his dead brother didn't believe in him either. They believed in "happiness".  And if it's a belief in a fictional God that gives some people happiness, then we should manufacture that God for them.

Those who undoubtedly believe the existence of God, and pass this idea on, are the holy fools (refereed to in TBK). Zosima honors them, but he doesn't share their beliefs.

People interpret characters like Ivan, and Smerdyakov to be representative of the sadness of nonbelievers. Ivans assume that "without God, everything goes", and this idea in the end depresses them. Honorable atheist like Zosima, love mankind dearly, and finds joy in providing them happiness (think of Zosima's brother and mother), without the existence of God.

Real world analogy: I traveled to another country voluntarily, and fed hungry children. I don't believe in God, but I enjoyed this experience immensely. Seeing the partial light in these children's eyes, provided me happiness, and that to me was heaven.

If we don't believe in God, that does not mean that we are unhappy, and selfish. But if the idea of a life without a God is depressing for some people, then we should find a God for them.

In TBK we see arguments by some believers and atheist, that with out God how do we define virtue. But I'm sure we all know, that if one doesn't believe in God, that does not mean he's incapable of being virtuos. Doestoevsky makes a point of leaving these arguments with a few key characters, but they are not representive of his greater themes. Most interperations simplify his ideas, but Doestoevsky's scope is much grander than "this".

Zosima thought along these lines, so did Dostoevsky.

[underworld men]

The idea and variants: "If there is no God, then there is no purpose", is not Dostoevsky's own, but the holy fools.

I think 99% of interpretations of Dostoevsky get his views on God wrong.

Father Zosima does not believe in God, his dead brother didn't believe in him either. They believed in "happiness".  And if it's a belief in a fictional God that gives some people happiness, then we should manufacture that God for them.

Those who undoubtedly believe the existence of God, and pass this idea on, are the holy fools (refereed to in TBK). Zosima honors them, but he doesn't share their beliefs.

People interpret characters like Ivan, and Smerdyakov to be representative of the sadness of nonbelievers. Ivans assume that "without God, everything goes", and this idea in the end depresses them. Honorable atheist like Zosima, love mankind dearly, and finds joy in providing them happiness (think of Zosima's brother and mother), without the existence of God.

Real world analogy: I traveled to another country voluntarily, and fed hungry children. I don't believe in God, but I enjoyed this experience immensely. Seeing the partial light in these children's eyes, provided me happiness, and that to me was heaven.

If we don't believe in God, that does not mean that we are unhappy, and selfish. But if the idea of a life without a God is depressing for some people, then we should find a God for them.

In TBK we see arguments by some believers and atheist, that with out God how do we define virtue. But I'm sure we all know, that if one doesn't believe in God, that does not mean he's incapable of being virtuos. Doestoevsky makes a point of leaving these arguments with a few key characters, but they are not representive of his greater themes. Most interperations simplify his ideas, but Doestoevsky's scope is much grander than "this".

Zosima thought along these lines, so did Dostoevsky.

OK this is like another gag right? (Yes I still believe that was dillion comeon already).

This is like bait or something? Right.

Zosima was an actual person named St Ambrose from Optina.

http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/saints_optina.html

For you to speculate and make these assumptions can only mean you have an agenda. It is not only obvious to any person who reads the book that Zosima believes in god, it should be important to any fan of Dostoevsky's to read Joseph's Bio on him and glean that Zosima is an actual person who not only taught Dostoevsky but also taught Tolstoi and Solovyev.

Now if you want to start down the path of the apophatic, cool.
But then you are misrepresenting the intent of- to see god no longer objectivily (kataphatic) but subjectivily (apophatic).

Of course this would be an awesome chance to cover the limits of the mind/noes.

And hey what is wrong with you hithesh
?
Your post on Grand Inquisitor and free will was one of the best posts I have read on here!
You can do better then speculation.

[underworld men]

Also back to the question.

Can anyone think of any other
Dostoevsky's "if there is no god then......."
concepts?

[hithesh]

(This is a response I emailed to a reviewer of "TBK". The reviewer is an atheist, and though he loved the book, he was disappointed with it's religious theme. All areas in parentheses are added for this posting, as well as the area after the three dots)

"I had just read your review of "The Brother Karamazov", and I think you missed an important theme in your reading.

(I strongly believe) Father Zosima is an atheist. Ivan blatantly mentions this early in TBK*, and there are many nuanced references to this throughout the book. You should also reread chapter 2, "Of Elder Zosima's Young Brother", and note that his brother's conversion is not a result of believing in God, but providing happiness to his family in pretending to believe in God ("you pray to God as you light the icon lamp, and I pray, rejoicing at you"). Also note, that Zosima never talks about heavenly rewards, he only references earthly ones. Zosima also makes a distinction between himself and a holy fool. Zosima was a practical man, and a well reasoned atheist. Most interpretation miss this aspect of Zosima.

While most atheist share a disdain for religion, Zosima admires
"faith", because  "belief' provides happiness and a way to survive suffering.

*I don't believe in God, and I identify deeply with Zosima.

My mother has suffered a lot in her life, and she's only surviving by "faith". She needs a God, so that she won't drown in hopeless depression. And I'm willing to provide 'him' for her, even though I believe he's just make-believe.

There are so many references throughout TBK, of Zosima thinking along these lines (Even though Zosima never openly denies the existence of God, he never openly admits he exists either--nor does his brother).

(I use Zosima as a representative of the grander theme of "TBK". Zosima says that he didn't understand his brother's message for a long time. He never later,  interprets his brother's ideas with the "reader", but they are continually explored throughout the novel in his absence. Since these scenes are not openly explained, I can only speculate. Interpretation is always speculative. With a novel as mystic as "TBK", there is much to interpret.)

I will also like you to note this contrast: The Grand Inquisitor, illustrated a religious leader who doesn't believe in God, but spread "belief", for power. Zosima illustrated a religious leader who doesn't believe in God*, but spreads "belief" because he loves Mankind.

The book does take on a more religious theme in the latter portions. And you have to understand Zosima concept of "a holy fool",and the transition from Zosima to Alyosha. Alyosha plays the holy fool. He's a man who believes in God, and spreads his "belief" because he loves mankind.

When you understand TBK along these themes, you can start to see why TBK is a much more rewarding read, for nonbelievers than believers. The scope is intended for us."
...
* I was trying to find the passage where Ivan makes this accusation, and I think I'm perhaps making an error, in referencing Ivan, as the purveyor of this idea, instead of "one-of-those" monks? Any help finding this short passage, earlier in the book, will be grateful.

* We see what we want to see. and perhaps 'underworld men' I do have an "unconscious" agenda, but while reading "TBK", I noted my own feeling on religion, and I have sometimes worried that perhaps I'm adding things between the line that are not  there. I've tried hard to isolate "what I wanted to see". But as I've continued reading "TBK", I've see so many nuanced themes that continually cater to my "beliefs".

* Perhaps I'm a bit ardent, in pronouncing Zosima as a nonbeliever, on Ivan's ideas alone (note disclaimer). To be fair to Zosima, he never says openly that "there is a god", nor does he ever openly say that "there is no god". In all honesty, none of us know the answer to "this question". Perhaps it's our own agendas, that push Zosima to one "belief" over the other.
(We know that there is a power in "goodness" to change lives and the world, for the better (MLK, Gandhi), but what is more elusive is the power of God in these equations.)

The reason why I posted this message, is to explore my ideas, and if someone presents to me ideas (such as some by you), I am more than wiling to concede, if the pages add up. I am willing to continue exploring this conversation, and at the same time I am willing to put aside my "agenda", to say that I'm not in "this" to win it. I'm only hear to wander through ideas (mine and yours).

I will read your link about the "real life" Zosima, after I post this message. But I can only interpret the reading, by what is there in Dostoevsky's writing. I will lastly, like to say, that even though  "Zosima" characteristic are perhaps based on a once living person, I can only assume that Mr. Dostoevsky will use his liberty as writer to fictionalize portions of him as well--after all he does have an 'agenda'.

~Hithesh

(Perhaps I was a bit hasty in posting my ideas in this particular forum. I'm starting to feel a bit displaced. And I apologize, if I've come off as a bit intrusive to those who are here to explore a continued theme that I've disrupted--earnestness got the best of me.)

[underworld men]

Uhh OK.

I uh think that maybe a couple of things you should consider.

Maybe just to cut to the chase you should reread Zosima and the concept of Hell.

I find it difficult to believe that you "missed" it.

Also maybe you missed- the woman of little faith.

So also let me clarify- unless someone (who Zosima/Ambrose would have to do daily in order to be a priest or monk in the orthodox church) explicitly states that they believe in God then you just assume they don't?

Also you don't believe that Zosima was Ambrose.

You also don't believe that Dostoevsky stated that he did not change a word of what Ambrose taught...

This is a side from Joseph Frank. Right? I mean you are disagreeing with his work and many others.

And we won't even begin to touch the ol Diary of a Writer.

This only one angle.

But first confirm that you do or don't (there is no middle on this one) believe that Zosima is St Ambrose.

This of course is extremely critical to discern in order to continue this discussion.

[hithesh]

I added a third disclaimer, prior to reading you response, and I assume you've read what I written before I wrote this in:

"* Perhaps I'm a bit ardent, in pronouncing Zosima as a nonbeliever, on Ivan's ideas alone (note disclaimer). To be fair to Zosima, he never says openly that "there is no god", nor does he ever openly say that "there is a god". In all honesty, none of us know the answer to this question of "existence". Perhaps it's our own agendas, that push Zosima to one "belief" over the other.
(We know that there is a power in "goodness" to change lives and the world, for the better (MLK, Gandhi), but what is more elusive is the power of God in these equations.)"

( I am also hoping to explain the concept of heaven and hell, according to TBK, but that is another lengthy posting. This is the thesis statement for another time: " Heaven and Hell, are here on earth, and how Zosima's affection for the Book Of Job, explains this". I will particularly reread the passage you noted (Zosima on hell), and respond to this in particular)

I have not read about the teachings of St. Ambrose, but if you say (as fact) that Dostoevsky openly states , that St. Ambrose's teachings are verbatim with Zosima,  and St. Ambrose carries a perceptive that I haven't painted for Zosima, then I will dismiss all my prior theories.

I also want you to note this about Zosima: Zosima is accused of breaking fasts, and I think, they also say that he doesn't pray either. We see no portions in the novel, of Zosima honoring God, no references to an afterlife (perhaps I am wrong and I need to reread "Zosima on Hell"). Zosima's teaching seem too practical to be considered religious, so one has to wonder, of his own leanings? Is Ivan right? Why doesn't Dostoevsky explore Ivan's accusations? Why does he not "validate" God, instead of exploring the concept of "why" we (or some) need to believe.  

Regarding your references to particular areas of the book, I will have to look over them before I can give you a concrete response.

[nektarios]

I added a third disclaimer, prior to reading you response, and I assume you've read what I written before I wrote this in:

"* Perhaps I'm a bit ardent, in pronouncing Zosima as a nonbeliever, on Ivan's ideas alone (note disclaimer). To be fair to Zosima, he never says openly that "there is no god", nor does he ever openly say that "there is a god". In all honesty, none of us know the answer to this question of "existence". Perhaps it's our own agendas, that push Zosima to one "belief" over the other.
(We know that there is a power in "goodness" to change lives and the world, for the better (MLK, Gandhi), but what is more elusive is the power of God in these equations.)"

( I am also hoping to explain the concept of heaven and hell, according to TBK, but that is another lengthy posting. This is the thesis statement for another time: " Heaven and Hell, are here on earth, and how Zosima's affection for the Book Of Job, explains this". I will particularly reread the passage you noted (Zosima on hell), and respond to this in particular)

I have not read about the teachings of St. Ambrose, but if you say (as fact) that Dostoevsky openly states , that St. Ambrose's teachings are verbatim with Zosima,  and St. Ambrose carries a perceptive that I haven't painted for Zosima, then I will dismiss all my prior theories.

I also want you to note this about Zosima: Zosima is accused of breaking fasts, and I think, they also say that he doesn't pray either. We see no portions in the novel, of Zosima honoring God, no references to an afterlife (perhaps I am wrong and I need to reread "Zosima on Hell"). Zosima's teaching seem too practical to be considered religious, so one has to wonder, of his own leanings? Is Ivan right? Why doesn't Dostoevsky explore Ivan's accusations? Why does he not "validate" God, instead of exploring the concept of "why" we (or some) need to believe.  

Regarding your references to particular areas of the book, I will have to look over them before I can give you a concrete response.

Hithesh,

 You said very right things about Zosima,but i thing you missunderstood something.The traditional orthodox fathers of desert,they werent telling openly that God exists,so to be more close to His true,because according to St Maximus,he says,``if i say i dont believe to god i am more close to His True,than if i say that i believe,because,with my physical existence,i cant understand His true.``
The experience and the sayings of Father Zosima,is exactly the paradise on earth,and in the orthodox teachings,of course we are not sure,but according to the confessions of some Holy men,like Zosima for example,our existence,will continue,in this light and great love,if only we manage to experience that during our lives.

Take care.

[hithesh]

I have reached your accord, nektarios.

After reading some of the counter arguments to my interpretation of Zosima, I've realized that there are some parts that I do need to think over and revise.

Particularly when I accuse him of being an atheist, (Which was perhaps caused by my own Ivan-like resentment of God and Christianity). Honesty, I don't think there is enough, written in "TBK", to say that Zosima does not believe in God, but I also still believe, that there is not a strong enough case to say he does.

As of now, I meet in the middle and say he's a devote agnostic, and a painfully honorable man.

and later I will write about this.

[underworld men]

Well, one shame on brother nektarios- for not posting in my gnosis thread.

Two no father Zosima and or Ambrose was not an agnostic. This is totally silly. It makes me think that someone is trying to project onto Dostoevsky's Zosima an agenda. Zosima was an orthodox christian monk.

Nektarios knows that as a monk either the fictional Zosima and or the actual Ambrose would have to recite the Nicene Creed. And yes recite it EVERYDAY.

I quote-

"I BELIEVE in one GOD the father almighty maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. etc etc etc."

Zosima and Ambrose would not be ALLOWED to call themselves monks or stay at the monastery and deny saying the creed.

Silly.