The Grand Inquisitor | Dostoyevsky
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ค. 2024
- This presentation gives a summary and an analysis of the arguments presented by the Grand Inquisitor against Christ stating that Christ was in the wrong and it was actually Satan who was in the right and, due to Christ's flaws, the function of the Church is to correct the mistakes of Christ. This is perhaps the most famous passage from The Brothers Karamazov, a renowned philosophical novel written by Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
![500 บาท สุ่มกินสตรีทฟู้ดริมทะเล หาดจอมเทียนพัทยา 8K [HDR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aZLagyZyQE4/mqdefault.jpg)
How do you summarize a chapter that whole books have been written about in eight minutes and thirty nine seconds? Listen to this video. Don’t know how you did it but the summary is perfect. I’ve read this book many times and I’ve read five different translations. I’ve listened to podcasts and read books about the book and about the author. I can tell you that this video is the most concise but fulfilling summary of perhaps the greatest and most famous chapter in literary history.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it and am glad to hear it helped :)
This takes a lot of skill. It's the art of being concise whilst retaining essence and meaning.
@@charliewest1221 circumlocution
@@kddk8584 what’s your favourite translation?
@@Callum_04 I have two that i re read, David magarshak and David mcduff. Mcduff is penguin classics
Thank you. I am left speechless after listening to your dissections of the grand inquisitor chapter. Though more than 100 years later since this novel was written, I can still feel the titanic battle in Dostoyevsky's head while he wrote this book.
I remember my initial read of this chapter, everything seemed like such a garbled mess, but this video breaks it down perfectly. Now every line, its like "ooooh that is what is meant here".
Lol yes 😅
Same
Same!
Concise and succinct summary! Beautiful.
Also when Ivan laid out the story to Alyosha, he said that it was meant to be a poem. Imagine if that poem had actually been written.
I just finished this section of the book , it was arduous to say the least but now with your video I got a framework to work with . I’m happy to say that I understand it more thoroughly now .
Ahhhh, so THAT'S what the chapter was all about... I got a headache whilst reading it, it all seemed like a tangled mess, but the way you explain it helped a lot! Thanks!
Thank you, Sir. I've listened to teachers, lecturers, academics, intellectuals (many on TH-cam) waffling on and on, getting entangled in fancy theoretical footwork and digressions without shedding any light on the "Grand Inquisitor". Yours is the first that clears the dense thicket and prepares the ground for a clear understanding of this fascinating part of the novel. I am now able to revisit the "GI" with a new sense of confidence. Thank you, once again!
Thank you! I really appreciate it and am glad to hear it helped :)
except it is missing the context. Ivan, the cold rationalist, goes crazy after his fathers murder and is in part to blame for the act. This entire chapter set up the way in which his father dies. Because of ivans lack of unconditional love, he refuses to help resolve a dire situation and leaves. The day he leaves, his brother supposedly kills his father. Even though we know that his Dimitry did not kill his dad, but actual his atheist half brother did. Furthermore, because of ivan lack of love, he brought the destruction not only on his father, but also on his brother.
@@bornfree8073: Thank you, "born free". Best wishes.
Totally agree with you Charlie West.
@@tottiemitchell6737
Go well, Tottie.
This is a spectacular summary and brief analysis of the chapter. Thank you for this thorough work!
My goodness you’ve done a fabulous job here. Congratulations- a brilliant summary.
Very insightful and simply expressed. Thank you 👍
This was an excellent overview, thank you!
this was extremely helpful, amazing summary and analysis, thank you!
Great video. Very helpful and with great clarity of thought - useful when trying to digest this grand book!
Excellent summary!
Excellent and succinct, thank you!
Great video, keep up the good work, just read this chapter the other day and wanted to watch a video for confirmation on what I was comprehending. Very well said and organized.
Great video! Watched some of your prior content to help study for a class last semester, and this one was very helpful today too! Keep it up 👍
Thanks! Glad the videos could help :)
Nice work. Loved your summary.
Thanks you for the extremely useful video. I’m shocked u don’t have more subs since the content is so quality. Keep up the good work!
Thanks! Really appreciate it :)
Excellent summary! Dostoevsky was a genius and this is well echoed in this novel
Great analysis! You did well
I was reading TBK and was stuck on this chapter. I was foreign to the biblical stories and you have made it bearable for me this chapter.
Same!!
I really like your analysis, great work!
Thank you so much for the video! My Russian Lit Professor recommended this video for our class, so you did great !
thu trang nguyen vu Ah that’s great to hear! I’m glad the video helped :)
Where are you studying Russian literature? Just curious.
Nice! I had a hard time getting through this chapter. Love the book though.
perfect summary, i just read it and found this video, i’m amazed how you summarized everything
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed the summary :)
I’ve only just read this novel but it is already my favorite. I am immediately going to read it again. I appreciate your video as it has helped me gather my thoughts about this story so I can share it with others.
There is a brilliant 10-hour analysis of the book on TH-cam from prof. Hubert Dreyfus if you’re interested
Semyon Lomasov yes. Thank you!
Thank you!
You speak so eloquently which made it so easy to follow through your video. Thank you!
Brilliant - thank you
Just got two 100s for my coursework on this piece, thanks mate ❤
A fantastic summary. Thank you. I hope you don't mind if I link to this in some future content.
These videos are awesome man.
Thanks, I appreciate it!
As Dostoyevsky had written: "Not even the whole human race could think those 3 questions..."
Which three questions?
Tom Seinfeld the three temptations
Wonderful video 👌
Great video!
Thanks .
Incredible summary! You say so much with so little.
Really good
Thanks 💜
Good video.
Good video, good summary. Thank you and I’m subbed
Samuel Nelson Thanks! I appreciate it :)
Feeling Philosophical I want to humbly suggest two possible video ideas. First, You maybe should post something relating to Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy. Second, you maybe should post a video about the philosophical and maybe theological results of Jesus’s sermon on the mount. Both are interesting philosophical topics that I think are valuable in it of itself and also my grow your channel by diversifying your material. Anyway, I’ll likely watch most if not all of your videos cataloged and look forward to what you post in the future.
Samuel Nelson Thanks for the suggestions :) I’ll definitely consider them
Its so useful
good!
Wow!!
5 pages in The Grand Inquisitor, I realised that I needed help. And I came to the right place. LOL
I like it.
Dostoyevsky wrote a letter saying that the whole book is the answer to both Christ and the Grand Inquisitor. He doesn’t think that either of them is right
@feelingphilosophical
My question... Ivan uses the arguments of the grand inquisitor to justify his own atheism (right?), and yet in his own poem - through his sign of unconditional love and forgiveness, Jesus seems to get the final say...
This is what I still don’t understand
Namaskar
🌻
wow
If I'm not wrong, The Grand Inquisitor is a dramatic form of Ivan's idea, that is God is evil because he lets children suffer?
So what point is Ivan making here? Is he on the side of the grand inquisitor?
Great summary man! Had a hard time following the chapter
Thanks, glad it helped :)
I find the character of Smeryakov the most interesting.
@Nathaniel Marcuson Smeryakov is very smart, perhaps smarter than all of them Karamasov. He could read the mind of Ivan. He knows what Ivan was thinking, he knows the worldview of Ivan and perhaps he shares that worldview. Ivan feels naked in front of Smeryakov. That's why Ivan both loves and hates him. He is executing what Ivan is thinking and planning. They couldn't even answer a simple, innocent question from him: if God created the sun on the forth day when did He get the light on the first day? There is genius behind this seemingly insignificant question.
@@nathanielmarcuson1858it’s pretty easy to understand why he killed his dad for raping his mother
"Reason it out for yourself, Grigory Vasileyovich."
You got the last sentence wrong... It is the Grand Inquisitor advocating Altruism. It is Christ himself advocating individual freedom. These are polar opposites.
The law of threes
ما قصرت يالحشم
📖📿
His 4 suns;)
Struggle to believe
Just finished this section. But I wish you gave a spoiler warning my guy.
He actually didn’t even mention the spoiler. The real spoiler is that the Grand Inquisitor leaves the jail cell open for Christ after he leaves.
What happens to Christ is he arrested put to death or win freedom
If I understand it correctly. The inquisitor leaves and leaves the door open so Christ may escape the exicution
@@Dartagnan4012I found it rather puzzling he didn’t mention this. He covered the rest of it so well and then fumbled the ending.
So then ... Jesus did a 'Dark Knight'. Twice. He "died a hero AND lived long enough to see himself become the villain".
but didnt jesus turn water to wine, wasnt that miracle enough?
He didn't do it to wow the people, all through the new testament, he didn't want to wow them.
I believe it's more that he didn't want them to only follow him bcos of his miracles but rather to live a Christ like life, if he only moved them 2ru miracles.
@@williamsezenwa9542 and that was his mistake according to Ivan, people are too weak to believe something they didn't see. Jesus misjudged human nature, isn't that what Ivan is saying?
haha star wars
bottom text
That's the dualistic nature of mankind. Let's say animals are wholly devoted to their materialistic needs and God, Jesus and the angels are utterly devoid of such needs, because of their nature. Mankind is however right in the middle. As we're children of God, made in his image we have the potential of achieving glory like his, even if partially, but at the same time we inhabit bodies that are mortal and frail and can easly be overcome buy lots of things, and because we inhabit those bodies we're prone to also chase the materialistic.
The thing is though when using critical thinking how can the superstitious books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John be genuine new testament christian books when the authorship is anonymous so we don't know if people in authority wrote these books, surely that's a red flag in itself. Also the fact these books were written after the early church movement around 60 AD, as these books were written 80s AD or after it is said by the archaeologists and historians. The only valid book of the new testament from what I can see is the epistle of Peter, due to authorship, timing and authority.
The book of Mark was written around 65 CE. The oldest book in the New Testament is 1 Thessalonians, dated around 49 CE. However, certain texts within Paul's letters, like the description of the last supper in 1 Corinthians 10 or the Christ hymn in Philippians 2 might be even older.
Next to that: the gospel books you mention _are_ genuine Christian books because Christians from the very beginning accepted them as such. This was not because of the authorship, which was indeed attributed later on, but because of their contents. Pseudepigraphy was a well-known phenomenon in antiquity, it is actually only since the Renaissance that original authorship has become a thing. Not knowing the authorship of the gospel is therefore not so much of a "red flag" as you imply.
Calling the gospels superstitious is looking at them with a 21st century look, instead of understanding them in their own context. Besides, the very reason the gospels were written is because of the supernatural elements. It is not like people 2000 years ago had not figured out that people do not suddenly heal, let alone raise from the dead. These were anomalies, which is why the stories were written down and gained such attention. Of course, it is possible that the stories became exaggerated when time went on. However, from the very beginning of Christianity, there was a very real notion of Jesus being raised from the dead. Feel free to disagree with that notion, but do not call it un-Christian.
@@caroljung1310 The thing is though is that the book of Mark has anonymous authorship, it doesn't state at the start that Mark is the author so that book isn't genuine. It's true though that Paul's texts are the oldest, however he was never in authority as he wasn't one of the 12 disciples. Though Paul might have been genuine for the christian people as the second epistle of Peter mentions trusting Paul and praising his good work.
@@alexwoodrow260 my point was that the author of Mark doesn't matter that much, what matters for considering the gospel attributed to Mark as authoritative for Christian teaching is that Christians very soon started to treat the document as such. The same applies to Paul. He has authority because the Christians treated him as having authority: even "heretical" movements within early Christianity, such as the Gnostics and the Marcionists, did their best to prove that Paul's writings were on their side of the debate. This means that very early on, Paul's authority was acknowledged by the Christian movement. Of course, this does not mean that it was not contested, but since Paul is such a huge factor in the shaping and spreading of Christianity, it makes little sense to speak of Christianity without taking Paul's texts into account. That would a little bit like trying to figure out who Socrates was without using Plato.
Of course, whether or not the contents of "Mark" or any other Christian text, are historically true is another matter.
(By the way: 2 Peter is most likely not written by Peter, because of the huge differences in writing style and linguistic background compared with 1 Peter. Like I said, pseudepigraphy was a common practice, so the authorship did not really matter that much to the early Christians, caring about authenticity is a pretty modern notion.)
Is it better to be fed on earth and suffer in death, or is it better to hunger on earth and be satisfied in death? Without suffering there is no virtue. And remember our world was not made for suffering but it was added by us. Dostoevsky didn't ask the question here and he didn't account for the afterlife in his critiques.
The grand inquisitor is mistaken. Jesus did not need Satan to provide or offer those things to Him. Jesus could do it himself:
1. He fed 5000 with bread and fish. He feeds us with the eucharist.
2. Miracles - the feeding of the 5000, walking on water, healing the sick, raising Lazarus from the dead, his Resurrection.
3. regarding power - Matthew 28:18-20 "18 So he came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me. 19 So go and make followers of all people in the world. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach them to obey everything that I have told you to do. You can be sure that I will be with you always. I will continue with you until the end of time.”"
my personal opinion is that Jesus' 40 day test in the desert was to show us we do not , should not fall into the devil's temptations, but instead only have faith in Him, our Father, Jesus and the holy spirty for all our needs.
The thing is, he doesn't do the miracles to boast, jumping in the sight of everyone proves absolutely that they should believe in him. If you think about God always hated showoffs (Moses). The miracles he performs were out of necessity not boasting.
Also like you said he fed 5000 with bread and fish, what about the other 5000 who were not present. Remember the actions of the Israelites when God gave them Mana. To me it's more of a point that man must learn to have faith and not succumb to desire.
And all authority belongs to him but he is not Christ the usurper, he didn't want to abolish the systems of mankind. If Christ had chosen the option, then it would be a case of state controlled religion, which is what the church goes on to become, the alternative for some was death.
Now imagine man with all three, he doesn't feel hunger or sadness however it is not his choice it is machination of a higher power which he cannot resist as they control everything. Does man want that?
@@williamsezenwa9542but Christ’s first miracle at cana was turning water to wine for a wedding feast. Arguably very frivolous, boastful, and unnecessary
Now wait , there is a flaw in the russian's writing , Based on the scriptures christ refuses to do a miracles for satan but he does do many miracles for the people . So christ didnt leave mankind to wonder in doubt.
And the cardinal in his story would have known that. If christ had done any if the 3 miracles mentioned he would have been acting on a dare from satan, and this would have not given us the 3 lessons learned from the refusals. The cardinal knew this
being a man of the cloth. In my opinion the rest of the cardinals rantings were warranted.
k🦍
First things first, who is this Grand Inquisitor to say what position Jesus has within mankind's future? One must stop to think about what our lord's most selfless act on Earth was. The guy literally took the punishment for murder, theft, malice, everything from our day to day negative thoughts to Hitler and Stalin's atrocities upon himself. One could say that Hitler in another world, as punishment in hell, be flayed alive and tortured to death by Stalin for eternity Jesus bore that eternity of suffering for infinite humans not yet born.
Very nice. Patricide comment was a massive spoiler for !!! 🫣