1 doubt... In notes from under he puts freedom and individuality as our "most advantageous advantage". In brothers Karamazov, the grand inquisitor said, as i understood, that giving people freedom was Jesus biggest mistake, because we would trade that for something that would put our minds at ease. Ivan, the one who thinks for himself, ends up almost dying from his conscience, while alyocha, the religious one, ends up doing fine. Did I get It all mixed up or is he not making a point against freedom?
I agree. But i guess my question was: looking at the struggles that both Ivan and the underground man went through, is freedom something that we really ought to seek or is it almost like a burden for those who are way to conscious to be part of the herd
I would start to approach this from Kierkegaard's perspective. As person of christian faith you have to be willing to burn your bible and leave your congregation to find your faith as free as possible, Just as Abraham did with Isaac (to kill most precious thing he had). There is idea that you forsake your most held convictions to find if they do find their way back to you, you could say that you get rid of your conscious bondage to some particular issue and see if your soul brings it back. I'd say that some love-hate relations are manifestation of this, you constantly have to fight and separate to see if you still return back together. I like the thinking of Depth Psychology that you get rid of you ego's hang-ups to see if the Unconscious/Self/Psyche/Fate/God returns those back to your… Not that you have to be engage it constant battle to see if it sticks time after time again. But you don't do it's sceptically, which Kierkegaard saw to lead into madness. And Ivan was sceptic first and foremost: it was stated in early in the book that he's famous essay could be taken as theist and atheist depending of reader, it didnt' have clear stance. Ivan remained in the border with his hand's crossed, so to speak. Alyocha took everything with seriousness what got into his way, i think that is the key factor in their difference. Also For Dostoevsky reason and learning was big problem. Ivan was just that, intelligent and prone for reasoning. Alyocha was not, he was plain and simple and would take things as they came to him. So to pursue freedom with intelligence and reason is problematic. I dont' know what Dostoeyvksy did think of Martin Luther's idea of freedom of will. For Luther we as humans are totally perverse. Everything we try to do ourselves turns into shit: when we try to find God thru reason we find nothing (thus people like Aristotle and Aquinas enabled rise of atheism, sort of). All we can do is to hope that God shows us the path, which brings in the real freedom from God after forsaking false freedom of our human ego. Lev Shestov critics Dostevsky's loathing of Protestantism as too superficial (protestantism = to protest), and he clearly saw similarities between Dostoevksy and Luther when it comes to issues of freedom. There is freedom and Freedom.
By the same token, if the “whim” was a choice to follow reason rather than a choice to ignore reason, wouldn’t that satisfy the criterion - i.e., I am asserting my individuality by choosing to act rationally?
@@GregoryBSadler The final sentences of Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals"? "...man will wish Nothingness rather than not wish at all." trans. by Horace Samuel
@@rogerevans9666 So what? Is your main thing here just to quote short passages from other authors as comments? Anything to say about the actual text under discussion?
Love your videos. I wanted to let you know that you've become a household name amongst my University's philosophy and religion department. So on behalf of appreciation for your work, keep it up Dr. Sadler.
@@PS3isawesome34 I've been through that area, when I used to teach at FSU, and would drive back home to my family in Indiana. Tell your department for me that if they ever want to bring me down for a talk or workshop, I do travel for those
Gregory B. Sadler Ah small world! I’ll run the idea by the head of the department and a couple of the professors tomorrow. It’d be very cool if something could be set up. Is there a more preferable way to contact you than the TH-cam comment section? lol.
Always a pleasure to have you in my ear.
Thanks!
1 doubt... In notes from under he puts freedom and individuality as our "most advantageous advantage". In brothers Karamazov, the grand inquisitor said, as i understood, that giving people freedom was Jesus biggest mistake, because we would trade that for something that would put our minds at ease. Ivan, the one who thinks for himself, ends up almost dying from his conscience, while alyocha, the religious one, ends up doing fine. Did I get It all mixed up or is he not making a point against freedom?
Probably the first option hahaha cause i dont even understand what i wrote
There are ways to be religious and live out freedom
I agree. But i guess my question was: looking at the struggles that both Ivan and the underground man went through, is freedom something that we really ought to seek or is it almost like a burden for those who are way to conscious to be part of the herd
@@FatMamba69 Both
I would start to approach this from Kierkegaard's perspective. As person of christian faith you have to be willing to burn your bible and leave your congregation to find your faith as free as possible, Just as Abraham did with Isaac (to kill most precious thing he had). There is idea that you forsake your most held convictions to find if they do find their way back to you, you could say that you get rid of your conscious bondage to some particular issue and see if your soul brings it back. I'd say that some love-hate relations are manifestation of this, you constantly have to fight and separate to see if you still return back together. I like the thinking of Depth Psychology that you get rid of you ego's hang-ups to see if the Unconscious/Self/Psyche/Fate/God returns those back to your… Not that you have to be engage it constant battle to see if it sticks time after time again.
But you don't do it's sceptically, which Kierkegaard saw to lead into madness. And Ivan was sceptic first and foremost: it was stated in early in the book that he's famous essay could be taken as theist and atheist depending of reader, it didnt' have clear stance. Ivan remained in the border with his hand's crossed, so to speak. Alyocha took everything with seriousness what got into his way, i think that is the key factor in their difference.
Also For Dostoevsky reason and learning was big problem. Ivan was just that, intelligent and prone for reasoning. Alyocha was not, he was plain and simple and would take things as they came to him.
So to pursue freedom with intelligence and reason is problematic. I dont' know what Dostoeyvksy did think of Martin Luther's idea of freedom of will. For Luther we as humans are totally perverse. Everything we try to do ourselves turns into shit: when we try to find God thru reason we find nothing (thus people like Aristotle and Aquinas enabled rise of atheism, sort of). All we can do is to hope that God shows us the path, which brings in the real freedom from God after forsaking false freedom of our human ego.
Lev Shestov critics Dostevsky's loathing of Protestantism as too superficial (protestantism = to protest), and he clearly saw similarities between Dostoevksy and Luther when it comes to issues of freedom.
There is freedom and Freedom.
By the same token, if the “whim” was a choice to follow reason rather than a choice to ignore reason, wouldn’t that satisfy the criterion - i.e., I am asserting my individuality by choosing to act rationally?
Sure, sometimes
Not sure this applies: Emerson, Self-Reliance: "I would write on the lintels of the door-post: "Whim."
Sure, or Poe's The Imp of the Perverse. Plenty of other authors who discuss the idea
@@GregoryBSadler The final sentences of Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals"? "...man will wish Nothingness rather than not wish at all." trans. by Horace Samuel
@@rogerevans9666 So what? Is your main thing here just to quote short passages from other authors as comments?
Anything to say about the actual text under discussion?
Very good. Is he critiquing positivisme?
He’s criticizing (not “critiquing”) a number of different views in this work
@@GregoryBSadler What is the difference?
@@GregoryBSadler Between criticizing and critiquing, I mean. I understand somewhat.
@@therealreport2778 Look up the term "critique" and its meaning in philosophy.
I was going to watch a few more videos; but... Nah I’m off to take pop sum hard-core drugs n get proper lit innit.. 👍
Well, I guess that's your most advantageous advantage. . .
Love your videos. I wanted to let you know that you've become a household name amongst my University's philosophy and religion department. So on behalf of appreciation for your work, keep it up Dr. Sadler.
Well, that is very nice - what university is it?
Gregory B. Sadler High Point University
@@PS3isawesome34 I've been through that area, when I used to teach at FSU, and would drive back home to my family in Indiana.
Tell your department for me that if they ever want to bring me down for a talk or workshop, I do travel for those
Gregory B. Sadler Ah small world! I’ll run the idea by the head of the department and a couple of the professors tomorrow. It’d be very cool if something could be set up. Is there a more preferable way to contact you than the TH-cam comment section? lol.
@@PS3isawesome34 sure, my email is: greg at reasonio dot com
👍
Fuck yeah man. Point on. Thank you for this.
You're welcome!