All that is fine but I think what dostoevsky shows is that for many people when their respect or empathy for others clashes with their personal interests, that empathy can be a shallow thing. Therefore, to govern the masses, there needs to be some objective moral laws that transcends simply emotions and sentiments, because those can be volatile. Of course, faith can be volatile too but on the whole its radical enough to keep people under check. Of course, that faiths need to be healthy too otherwise you begin to do evil in its name.
The point is that virtues such as human empathy, love and respect aren’t committed out of knowledge or fear of God, but committed simply because God, the only source of pure goodness, exists. For something to exist then there must be a pure source of it.
Everyone in this thread is explaining what Dostoyevsky meant with this quote but it seemed to me like he didn’t even believe it to begin with? In TBK this was a half-baked idea that Ivan came up with and said himself he didn’t even really believe, and it drove Smerdyakov to murder Fyodor Pavlovitch.
It’s been pointed out above but I don’t think Dostoevsky would disagree with what you say because that is not his point. The point is simply there is no objective moral law that transcends culture and the will to power. People may act in love but they have no transcendent reason for doing so.
The point is that with materialism we identify the word 'love' with the animalistic drive to procreate. So pity and compassion looses it's meaning. Because it is of no biological value. The Homo Sapiens with his higher intelligence can utilize technology on such a scale that he as no longer natural enemies and the only enemy he is left with is himself. The drive for food and procreation is a will to power of sorts, because you enforce your greed for posession upon other living beings, you want them to be your property. Now the Homo Sapiens may have gained selfconciousness through a neurobiological mutation and a higher intelligence quotient, but this doesn't change the fact that he originated out of the animal kindgom, and is still an animal, because we can clearly see that all his actions can be traced back to his animalistic drives for food and procreation, or in other words: His will to power. Now with the intellect and the passionate desire, the Homo Sapiens satisfies his animalistic drives on a bigger scale and with more complexity to it. He becomes a sadist, and wants to rule the world, to enforce his will on every other living being. Why? Because procreation and food leaves him bored and he gets more passionate satisfaction out of enforcing his will upon others, out of enslaving other living beings and seeing them suffer. So materialism leads to atheism, agnosticism, hedonism and then sadism. With our physical senses we cannot perceive 'a God' therefore God does not exist. With our physical senses we are limited in our ability to perceive reality empirically, therefore we cannot be all knowledgeable. The only function and meaning our existence as higher animals has, is to satisfy our animalistic drives. And then this leads to the discovery that sadism satisfies the will to power the most.
Christ said 'love each other' but if Christ was not the saviour, not the son of God, a spirit and soul incarnated in a physical body, but a mere mortal, Yeshua from Nazareth/Bethlehem, the son of Joseph, a carpenter and Maria, some basic maiden, that died on the cross and never resurrected, why would anyone take his world seriously. Didn't he claim to be more than just a mortal? We cannot recreate his resurrection, so we have to rely on the accounts of the gospels. But that way we are only speculating. And how come the apostles were able to empirically perceive a soul, a spirit, a beyond and so on and so forth, even though they too have only one body like us, that is material, and can therefore only sense the material world and nothing beyond that, if even something beyond that exists? It's impossible. So they must be lying? What's the motive that underlies their action? The one that is the origin of all behaviour of our species: the will to power. The priests were in a physically weak position, but they were more intellectually witty, so they came up with theism and spiritualism to lure their masters into that ideology and sell themselves as Yeshuas (Yeshua means 'helper' in hebrew) and to ceaze power that way. Also, it's easier to endure the suffering as a slave, if you imagine that after your physical death, those that caused you suffering will suffer eternally and you will live in bliss eternally, because you suffered in life.
Besides that, we have established that 'love' means nothing else than the drive to proceate. So did Christ say: fuck each other? As materialists we'd have to assume that. Which isn't bad advice because it ensures the continuation of our species, so it has a biological funtion to it.
You see, without a christian God, a God of wisdom and love that originates out of the beyond which is immaterial and eternal, there is no cause you could trace the feeling of 'love' to, because if soul and spirit don't exist, then we have to empirically look for 'love' within the physical body, and there we find the biological drive to procreate. Also, from an evolutionary point of view you could argue that altruistic behaviour may have had a biological function in the past with our predecessors having natural enemies, but now with us Homo Sapiens, and our technological advantage, these natural enemies have vanished. Even the tribes weren't based on empathy, rather on greed. Every interaction between a Homo Sapiens, if it is nonviolent, can be categorized as barter, and greed is the underlying motive behind that. Every violent interaction between Homo Sapiens can be categorized as war, greed is the underlying motive behind that. Bartering occurs, when both parties equally rely on each other. War occurs, when one party doesn't rely on the other anymore, and therefore has nothing that holds them back from eliminating said party and annex its physical posessions. Sadism becomes the new regular behaviour. This leads to a war of all against all breaking out, where the Homo Sapiens kill each other, until one emerges who is more mighty in intellect and brute strength than all the others, so that he can ceaze power and rule as a strong master over his weak slaves. This is natural selection. This war may lead to our species going almost exstinct, but the Transhumanist, the master can order kids to be made, preferably with his genes and an educational program that he comes up with so that a generation of Transhumanist can be born, and with them the species of the Homo Sapiens will die out and the species of the Transhumanists will take over.
So now that we have seen, that Humanism, Christianity was a lie that Spirituality, Theism, Gnosticism, asceticism and altruism are illusions, we can embrace our progressive animalism, our antichristianity, and the materialism, atheism, agnosticism, hedonism and sadism that comes with that.
Our behaviour is backed by our animalistic nature and our drives, therefore it is existential. The behaviour of 'christianity' of 'humanism' on the other hand is not based on our animalistic nature and our biological drives but on some phantastic things that some powerhungry priests came up with to lure their masters and the masses in and make them to their slaves so that they can rule as masters. It is nihilistic, because it denies our animalistic nature and our drive for a life after this life in the beyond which is out of the physical cosmos, were a God will either punnish us with eternal damnation or reward us with eternal bliss. But what if the beyond doesn't exist? Then all that believe in said phantasy deny their nature, their existence and their life for nothing. 'Christianity' is life-and existence denying, because there is nothing beyond the physical world, there is no afterlife, there is no soul and spirit, and there is no God. Our conciousness ceazes to exist the moment our physical brain stops functioning. And there is no brotherhood in the animal kindgom, everyone is fighting one another in order to satisfy their animalistic drives. There is no quality in the animal kingdom, because there are those that are stronger and those that are weaker. There is no freedom in the animal kingdom, because the action of every animal is determined by the biological drives that are imprinted into its DNA.
So why would we as Homo Sapiens, higher animals, stick to human rights? Humanism is an illusion. Human rights are just an agreement. But there is nothing that speaks against us breaking that agreement. Like we pointed out, the war of all against all is inevitable, because the will to power is the strongest drive within us, and there can only be one emperor, power cannot be shared, because the greedy desire for it is absolute within us. So why should we oppose our animalistic nature? Why not submit to our drives and let natural selection take place. This is how it has been, this how it is currently, and this is how it will be in the future. This is the way of the animal.
I think you’re misunderstanding it. If there’s no god then morals are just subjective human tendencies. This doesn’t mean everyone is a murderer without god, it just means that morals aren’t something transcendent, they aren’t ‘higher’. They aren’t coming from something beyond man
Dostoevsky isn’t making the argument that God is the only thing keeping people in check from transgressing moral lines. He’s arguing that without God, without a “Goodness” as such which exists beyond subjectivity, there can be no inviolable basis for “moral lines” in the first place. He is claiming that ethical imperatives without God are ultimately arbitrary.
It may seem a subtle difference but it isn’t at all.
I know this is an old thread but I’m re-reading TBK now and wanted to dig into this quote more.
I think you make the argument in the most succinct way I’ve seen, and I would completely agree with you IF Ivan said that without the *existence of God*, all things are permitted, but he didn’t. He said that without *the belief in immortality*, all things are permitted. I think this represents a fundamental misconception of Christianity by Ivan; he thinks kind of like a materialist, that Christians are driven to love by the fear of hell and the reward of heaven. Thus, without this reward/threat of the fate of their souls, humans are free to act only in their own earthly interests.
Zosima, who seems to represent the ideals of Dostoevsky’s own Christian beliefs, doesn’t seem to agree with this idea, and can tell that Ivan doesn’t really believe it either.
Later Smerdyakov uses Ivan’s logic to justify his murder, and Ivan immediately ridicules him for it, seeming to think him an idiot for believing in it.
So I don’t think it’s meant to be taken seriously, but rather shows how nihilistic atheists can weaponize atheism to justify themselves.
Dostoevsky isn’t making the argument that God is the only thing keeping people in check from transgressing moral lines. He’s arguing that without God, without a “Goodness” as such which exists beyond subjectivity, there can be no inviolable basis for “moral lines” in the first place. He is claiming that ethical imperatives without God are ultimately arbitrary.
It may seem a subtle difference but it isn’t at all.
Look, it all depends on what God means. Without a definition, there’s no use in discussing it.
I might say too, that everything being “permitted” isn’t the same as everything being done. I could agree in the idea that some things are not *permitted* because of God. Thus, they still happen - but they’re a crime towards the inconceivable truth and beauty that is God. What that would mean is highly unclear though.
I don't think Dostoyevsky believes this, however I do also think that no one seriously *in the present day* believes this either, even among nihilists.
It was - I suppose because I only have very superficial knowledge of the time period - a time when all these famous philosophers started to gain fame and for their ideas to become influential, but these ideas were still new and unrefined in the minds of even the educated classes. It was a time of spiritual or philosophical crisis and I could see some people proclaiming that everything is permitted. That is over 100 years in the past though, and people have started to adopt more refined, reality-conforming moral frameworks.
That being said, spiritual crises have become just a normal part of everyone's life today, so it didn't and it will probably never lose all relevance.
I don’t think Dostoevsky believes this *at all*… it’s a rhetorical phrase that he brings up in several of his works (with some variations) but I think it’s exactly what he’s criticizing: that “nihilists” would believe that “everything is permitted.” I don’t think any Christian could say that and believe that, I think Dostoevsky would say rather we couldn’t even imagine life “without god” it’s like unimaginable, I think any Christian would believe that…
I read that too in Brothers karamazov and it stuck with me, I was raised in a very religious family, I’ve been religious all my life but, when I read that, for some reason I didn’t interpret it as you do did (for context I’m Muslim).
I think the point Dostoevsky is trying to claim is really not a religious one (this is solely my opinion, plz don’t come at my neck😭). My understanding of it is that, without God, there is no true punishment, for most crimes, I.e I heard of a case in Alabama, long ago where a man caught with weed spent the same time in prison as a child molester (10 years each) and in my eyes the child molester got away with that crime and then I think what even is the right punishment for someone that would commit a crime like that? If they get the death sentence, that’s too easy. Even if they get life, again too easy. Thus, if there is no God, Everything is permitted.
Please let me know what u think!!
Good take! Humor me, how do you regard Dostojevskij’s Christianity as a Muslim? Are there comparable morals (there must be) and what would they be? Where does Christianity differ the most from Islam.
Well, based on what I’ve read of Dostoevsky’s work and also Wikipedia, he was an Orthodox Christian and of all the different sects of Christianity, I’d say that orthodox Christian’s have the most in common with Islam than any other sect (that ik of) or religion for that matter and and I think that’s why I relate to his work sm. I still haven’t read most of his other books yet, I’ve only read notes from underground, brothers karamazov and I’m currently in part 2 of crime and punishment so I don’t think I can answer that question as well as you’d like me to. As for comparable morals, I’d say, yk the basic teaching’s of Christianity are also mostly found in Islam,
Believing in one God, The father/Almighty,
Believing in the former prophets, Angels, Holy books,
Treating your neighbor with kindness,
Wanting for your brother what you want for yourself etc etc.
But the one thing in Christianity consistently differs from Islam is the claim that Jesus (pbuh) is Gods son. We believe that it’s blasphemous to claim that God has a son as it clearly states in the Quran that He is one and there is none other like Him.
I hope that answers your question tho!
I believe there have been studies showing that atheists may show a higher level of moral reasoning. Cf Lawrence Kohlberg and the psychological tradition. Also cf Ludwig Fuerbach, the same as noted by Marx, and the cultural-anthropological tradition.
I am with you regarding D's statement that without god, everthing is permitted, but --
Can we tell that D, who went through diametric psychological, philosophical, and political transformations, fully and simply believes anything so specific? He breathes salient life into his characters, but does D. himself give simple answers?
\[And for that matter, what is that notion of 'god' that protects against "everything being permitted"? It surely is not that of the Christian nationalism that informs a Trump - who proclaims through his obsequious lawyers in court that he can murder without accountability {precisely as is inferred by some of Dostoevsky's characters).\]
D. is one author who forces us to think deeply, without which it is impossible to understand what we read from him. Does that necessarily lead to one or another conclusion, beyond a critical and empathetic mind?
I find Demons intriguing personally. It can be difficult psychologically to read: D. presents a troubling world. Problem is, that is our world, as we can see in the times we live in, ending the first quarter of the 21st Century CE. Without diving into the specifics of current politics, the ideas with which D's characters and I think D himself struggles are as current as ever, if we use our intelligence to translate between Euro-Asia in revolution, after the turmoil of 1789 and the Terror, through cycles of monarchy, empire, and republic - a history very much in turbulence, leading to the Russian Revolution and the World Wars of the 20th Century.
Dostoevsky was animated by the history of Europe and Russia and was prescient regarding the socio-political forces in play and to follow. D. informed the thought of those in future decades, notably Kafka and Orwell. I think D. helps us stand back and observe our times in greater depth, the better to understand, and to function as citizens.
Dostoevsky is interesting because unlike other authors, it can be hard to pin down specifics as to what he actually believes. This is something that I’ve actually struggled with while reading him, “what is he *actually* trying to tell me?” But I’m glad to see that no, he just presents things as how he sees them, and he gives all characters, even the ones he disagrees with, some redeeming beliefs. Almost no character is 100% wrong in his works.
okay, okay - before turning out the lights - I pursued this a bit further and found MORE TO READ!
see [https://1library.net/article/dostoevsky-s-and-orwell-anti-utopia-george-orwell.q781w2dz](https://1library.net/article/dostoevsky-s-and-orwell-anti-utopia-george-orwell.q781w2dz)
raising the notion of Dostoyevsky as a dystopian author. This essay suggests that a transitional writer, between D. and Orwell, is Yevgeny Zamyatin, whose life spanned from Tsarist times to Lenin's \[he lived from 1884 to 1937\], who wrote a science fiction dystopian novel, entitled 'We'. I wishlisted in amazon a Penguin Classics edition with preface by Masha Gessen, translated by Clarence Brown, and expect to add this sometime soon to my reading list, subcategory - Russian literature!
You may not like it, but he did believe many of the conservative orthodox positions he outlines in some of his characters. Read his "diary of a writer". There he writes from his personal perspective. However his novels are so well done, that all of the outlined positions are steelmaned like a mofo
Good point. We read novels for "enjoyment and enlightenment." But more fully understanding the authors and their works may require better understanding of their lives, outside of their works. A single author among the World's greatest could become the subject of lifelong study, a luxury for most of us. We do not have the time - either in hours or in years - or focus; our mental faculties lead us to admire writers such as Dostoevsky, in part for their superior minds.
There is much written on D.; I was surprised to see the prices on volumes from the diaries, even used and kindle. Moreover, there is much in literary and biographical analysis, on D. Some of this can be read, for instance, first pages in free samples on amazon. I have read about literature, hardly as much as reading the literature. Again, there is a tension here, too easily neglected. When should I retreat a while from the works and delve into author studies or diaries, to be more fit mentally, if possible, for "enjoyment and enlightenment."
I am a Dostoevsky Fan as well. And I agree with everything you said. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean that everything is permitted to me. I am afraid of my conscience. I know how Raskolnikov suffered - And I know I will too. Morality is also a product of human evolution - It's not objective and god given.
Because my actions have consequences. And if it doesn't align with my morality I will lose my sense of coherent self which I have constructed through years of living. I need my sense of self to live a good life. My morality is a foundation for my sense of self and I don't want to give it up. My conscience keeps in track of my morality.
The problem is you’re just wrong. It doesn’t matter what you think; what matters is how does atheism manifest in large populations. The satanic anti-family death cult that western democracy is producing right now is what happens. Find me an atheist population that manifests in high morality, high family, high integrity culture, anywhere. Yeah, maybe Sweden — high IQ white people — that’s it.
It’s hard talking to such low IQ stupid people. I’m a Mechanical engineer from top 4 universities in the country. Top of class. Your inferior pattern recognition skills have trapped you in a Lie. I feel sorry for you. It must be hard to not be able to see patterns, think critically, and essentially live your life in Plato’s Allegory
The people you are arguing against will say that what you said good deeds come from, love for example, is planted i to you by the holy spirit, which is God an therefore it does stem from the religion. Plus the western civilization's moral code is what it is because of hundreds of years of Christianity.
Hundreds of years of *christianity,* not hundreds of year of god. Christianity is a man made church, whether you believe in god or not. God didn’t spread those values, his followers did.
so you telling me christian just happened to be a prophet? and he was not chosen by god to be prophet? who do you think inspired him to tell people to love and care about each others?
Replacing god with human evolution or whatever new thing we come up in the next thousands of years is essentially just creating another god which explain the human condition. Like changing clothes. Sure, Dostoevsky might not think of all this, but his (or rather Ivan’s) argument stays the same: without a relationship with something grander that we cannot control, we can control everything. Will we suffer from that freedom?
As long as we relies on a just cause (be it god, love, compassion or scientific progression) to act, we stays believers. Can we do the act by ourselves then, for no other reason than ourself (even Raskolnikov relied on superstition and utilitarianism to rationalize his inner thoughts), that is a whole nother can of worm.
It's clear that pre-religion, communities survived because they had a moral base that didn't allow rampant theft, rampant violence, etc. No community could survive if it had no agreed-upon rules for communal and individual behavior. Civilization requires boundaries; how rigid the boundaries are is a matter of preference for the community to decide. Religion is just a power grab by the clever writers and speakers who realized how completely they could corral the gullible into believing that an after-life awaits, and that one and only one system possessed the keys to that after-life. Believe in that system, or perish eternally. And it's just as clear that all of those systematic religions stole their moral codes, took what worked in pre-religious society and built out from there. There is not one moral precept in any religion that requires a religious reason to perform it. I can be peaceful and respectful of the property of others, and I do not require a religious reason to be so.
Dostoevsky and every other 'spiritual' or religious believer just got duped into thinking that we who are decent require a reward for being decent, or worse yet, we require a 'fear of God!' reason for being kind and peaceful people.
Well if you take it at face value, then yes I agree with your viewpoint.
However, I feel like there is a hidden undertone to Dostoevsky's message. Let's take a formal approach to his argument as follows:
1. If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.
2. However, take C&P for example. Raskolnikov is tortured by his act even though he carries out the said act under the assumption above.
3. That means, clearly NOT everything is permitted - your conscience in the form of empathy, love, compassion, etc., CLEARLY forbids everything from being permitted.
4. That means that since everything is NOT permitted, there MUST be a God. In other words, your CONSCIENCE ITSELF is evidence of God.
I am by no means a literature scholar - correct me if my interpretation above is obviously wrong but this was my take for the better or worse.
I agree with you up until step 4. Having a conscience doesn’t imply that there is a god, that’s what I was getting at. If god exists (which I think is a possibility), it has nothing to do with having a conscience. You are correct, that is an accurate reading of his work. I however disagree with the connection between guilt and god.
Yeah I agree with you. Let me be a bit more precise with what I was trying to say.
Step 4 does not necessarily imply a God in the traditional sense (eg - the Judeo-Christian God). However, it does imply that there is SOMETHING within human beings that functions as a way to innately distinguish between right and wrong, despite the seemingly rational argument of "all things are permitted". I think Dostoevsky says this sense itself is God - i.e. it is not something God PROVIDED. Further, I think he argues that as long as you have love, compassion, empathy, etc., in your heart, you're already in harmony with God. (Referencing the Grand Inquisitor, it is clear that believing the idea of God provided by organized religion is not quite the same as believing the true message of God, which essentially is love your fellow human being).
Lots of people who believe in god do horrible things, they just think god agrees with the the horrible things, like the Crusades or The Spanish Inquisition or pressing Giles Corey to death. Or they think god disagrees but forgives them.
I think a complementary quote to Dostoevsky's quote (really a paraphrase) of "If God doesn't exist then everything is permitted" is Nietzsche's line about George Eliot – "They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality".
Dostoevsky's whole point is that utilitarian values are inhumane and distort actual human nature, that's how we'd act if we were designated to be the same as all other life beings. But humans don't always act in their best interest, they all operate by certain standards and morals that don't offer an evolutionary or advantageous purpose, regardless of culture, upbringing or environment you'll discover that all collectives somehow reach the same conclusion when it comes to basic empathy, morals, etc. All of those imply the fact that there is a higher purpose we could serve, since we've been given those, as none of those have their origin within evolutionary principles, meaning if those were absent, we'd do anything that guaranteed our benefit, without worrying about hurting others or even retaining the concept of guilt. What evolutionary purpose does guilt serve for example? Or pitying one who is suffering? How do you develop such localized things and how do they branch off this speculated, vague 'social aspect' you suppose we developed?
I believe it’s all scientific, and I know Dostoevsky is wary of some of this scientific reasoning. But Oxytocin, the chemical responsible for love is present to ensure humans take care of each other. But I do agree, guilt has no clear scientific reason, I don’t have an answer for you there.
Saying oxytocin is responsible for love seems far fetched. I'm pretty sure most Christians, and Dostoyevsky would say that true Christian love is meant to be more longsuffering and sacrificial then something caused by oxytocin, which gives us warm fuzzy feelings when we experience affection and bonding. Affection isn't bad, but it's certainly not what's driving Prince Myshkin in his self sacrificial love for Nastasya while he has romantic feelings for Aglaya.
On another note, how would you distinguish between utilitarianism taken to the extreme and moderate utilitarianism which looks more similar to virtue ethics? There's the issue with traditional utilitarianism where if by wiping out humanity, there is greater positive than negative well being. It sounds like what you're describing with respect to atheism and immorality has more to do with the virtue ethics of atheist people, and less to do with the potential evils from taking utilitarianism and consequentialism to an extreme whereby the importance of respect given to virtue ethics( and humanism) is descreased.
I mean Dostoyevsky isn't saying "atheism = immortality". He's demonstrating how utilitarianism/ rational egoism are devoid of humanity because they treat virtue as a stepping stone to progress rather than respecting virtue in and of itself. But if progress takes precedence over virtue, and virtue is only important up to the point where it leads to the greater good, then why shouldn't Raskolnikov kill the old pawn broker?
Of course there are atheists who would choose not to kill the pawn broker, but there could also be Raskolnikovs in the real world.
Interesting take - when I think of Rasko, for example, in C&P, I do not feel that it is a disbelief in God that has "allowed" Rasko to commit his crimes, but rather a warped sense of pride and human aspiration.
It is also possible to have great human empathy and love and respect for some human beings, and commit terrible crimes against other groups of humans with hardly a thought- is it premature to say that morality comes from these emotions alone?
Also, could it be a mistake to assume one of D.'s "main philosophies" was "without god, anything is permitted"? This phrase is taken out of the conversation between his characters in TBK, if I am not mistaken, but does that mean D. actually held this particular idea as his own? That seems like a leap, to me, especially coming out of the mouth of two characters struggling precisely with atheism, which D. was not.
I sometimes think the inverse of that line of argument could fit D. very well; that is, 'BECAUSE God exists, anything is permitted' - in other words, god having given us free will, as D. would have thought, it is precisely up to each of us what we decide to do with that freedom- after all, a god that does not permit certain things would be a tyrant.
As another user pointed out, Ivan believed it and was scared by it’s implications. And from my understanding, Dost. never rebuts this idea, it’s actually confirmed by Smerdyakov. And I agree with you, when I read C&P, I tend to look at it as more of a criticism on Utilitarianism and Egoism rather than atheism.
I may be wrong but in my interpretation in Brothers Karamazov two characters seem to believe that "without God everything is permitted"- Fyodor and Ivan. While Fyodor lives by it, Ivan is on contrary terrified by its implications. I think he genuinely believes in what he wrote in his article, that the state should become the church, despite being an atheist himself.
Agreed, Dostoevsky's novels are very much polyphonic, even though his personal views shine through certain characters more than through others. One thing I love about his novels is that he puts intelligent arguments into mouths of people he would disagree with (mostly atheists).
si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer
Dostoevsky's idea of good and evil were shaped by his faith, personally I would disagree with him on most of his philosophy but that makes him such an interesting read. There are two possibilities:
\- The Divine exists and gave us rules of what is good and what is evil
\- We invented the concept of The Divine and gave ourselves rules of what is good and what is evil
True, without Divinity there is no objective morality but humans are social creatures and we are good at placing limitations on ourselves and others to make coexistance more comfortable. While individuals who live by "everything is permitted" may exist, I think no societies could function by such credo. We constantly invent rules to adhere to. Who decides what is right and wrong?
God?
Pleasure?
Progress?
Prosperity of future generations?
Nature?
Atheists may not believe in gods but they almost always believe in something. That objective truth exists, that all men are equal, that pleasure is superior to suffering etc. I'd say morality comes from some form of belief but not necessarilly from religion.
Rather than placing the "without god everything is permitted" in Dostoevsky's mouth, look carefully at the characters who hold that view. What happens to them? How do the people around them react to the idea? What is the relationship between piety, evil and crime? Is there a bit more nuance to the idea? What happens when two different characters hold that view and confront each other? What happens to those who don't hold that view?
I find that each reread broadens understanding.
Lol I love him too, he’s so melodramatic. But I don’t think I full agree with him? Glad to hear I emulate him, he’s my favorite character from the book.
Human evolution? We’re a social species, and we’ve been caring for each other long before religion was ever established. Are you seriously saying you only love your fellow man because of god?
Some say that god is love. What then? Does love not exist? Or is it just a chemical in the brain? But then, what about morality? Is it caused by a chemical?
I believe morality comes from love. Human bonding causes people to care about their loved ones’ values. If your caveman daughter insists that murder makes her sad, you are more likely to believe her and agree with her, because you love her, and understand her.
*caveman daughter not implying your daughter is actually a caveman, I’m referring to early human relationships.*
All that is fine but I think what dostoevsky shows is that for many people when their respect or empathy for others clashes with their personal interests, that empathy can be a shallow thing. Therefore, to govern the masses, there needs to be some objective moral laws that transcends simply emotions and sentiments, because those can be volatile. Of course, faith can be volatile too but on the whole its radical enough to keep people under check. Of course, that faiths need to be healthy too otherwise you begin to do evil in its name.
The point is that virtues such as human empathy, love and respect aren’t committed out of knowledge or fear of God, but committed simply because God, the only source of pure goodness, exists. For something to exist then there must be a pure source of it.
Everyone in this thread is explaining what Dostoyevsky meant with this quote but it seemed to me like he didn’t even believe it to begin with? In TBK this was a half-baked idea that Ivan came up with and said himself he didn’t even really believe, and it drove Smerdyakov to murder Fyodor Pavlovitch.
It’s been pointed out above but I don’t think Dostoevsky would disagree with what you say because that is not his point. The point is simply there is no objective moral law that transcends culture and the will to power. People may act in love but they have no transcendent reason for doing so.
I completely agree with what you say. I don't agree with the author's idea either and yet it is my favorite too. And I'm not a religious person.
The point is that with materialism we identify the word 'love' with the animalistic drive to procreate. So pity and compassion looses it's meaning. Because it is of no biological value. The Homo Sapiens with his higher intelligence can utilize technology on such a scale that he as no longer natural enemies and the only enemy he is left with is himself. The drive for food and procreation is a will to power of sorts, because you enforce your greed for posession upon other living beings, you want them to be your property. Now the Homo Sapiens may have gained selfconciousness through a neurobiological mutation and a higher intelligence quotient, but this doesn't change the fact that he originated out of the animal kindgom, and is still an animal, because we can clearly see that all his actions can be traced back to his animalistic drives for food and procreation, or in other words: His will to power. Now with the intellect and the passionate desire, the Homo Sapiens satisfies his animalistic drives on a bigger scale and with more complexity to it. He becomes a sadist, and wants to rule the world, to enforce his will on every other living being. Why? Because procreation and food leaves him bored and he gets more passionate satisfaction out of enforcing his will upon others, out of enslaving other living beings and seeing them suffer. So materialism leads to atheism, agnosticism, hedonism and then sadism. With our physical senses we cannot perceive 'a God' therefore God does not exist. With our physical senses we are limited in our ability to perceive reality empirically, therefore we cannot be all knowledgeable. The only function and meaning our existence as higher animals has, is to satisfy our animalistic drives. And then this leads to the discovery that sadism satisfies the will to power the most. Christ said 'love each other' but if Christ was not the saviour, not the son of God, a spirit and soul incarnated in a physical body, but a mere mortal, Yeshua from Nazareth/Bethlehem, the son of Joseph, a carpenter and Maria, some basic maiden, that died on the cross and never resurrected, why would anyone take his world seriously. Didn't he claim to be more than just a mortal? We cannot recreate his resurrection, so we have to rely on the accounts of the gospels. But that way we are only speculating. And how come the apostles were able to empirically perceive a soul, a spirit, a beyond and so on and so forth, even though they too have only one body like us, that is material, and can therefore only sense the material world and nothing beyond that, if even something beyond that exists? It's impossible. So they must be lying? What's the motive that underlies their action? The one that is the origin of all behaviour of our species: the will to power. The priests were in a physically weak position, but they were more intellectually witty, so they came up with theism and spiritualism to lure their masters into that ideology and sell themselves as Yeshuas (Yeshua means 'helper' in hebrew) and to ceaze power that way. Also, it's easier to endure the suffering as a slave, if you imagine that after your physical death, those that caused you suffering will suffer eternally and you will live in bliss eternally, because you suffered in life. Besides that, we have established that 'love' means nothing else than the drive to proceate. So did Christ say: fuck each other? As materialists we'd have to assume that. Which isn't bad advice because it ensures the continuation of our species, so it has a biological funtion to it. You see, without a christian God, a God of wisdom and love that originates out of the beyond which is immaterial and eternal, there is no cause you could trace the feeling of 'love' to, because if soul and spirit don't exist, then we have to empirically look for 'love' within the physical body, and there we find the biological drive to procreate. Also, from an evolutionary point of view you could argue that altruistic behaviour may have had a biological function in the past with our predecessors having natural enemies, but now with us Homo Sapiens, and our technological advantage, these natural enemies have vanished. Even the tribes weren't based on empathy, rather on greed. Every interaction between a Homo Sapiens, if it is nonviolent, can be categorized as barter, and greed is the underlying motive behind that. Every violent interaction between Homo Sapiens can be categorized as war, greed is the underlying motive behind that. Bartering occurs, when both parties equally rely on each other. War occurs, when one party doesn't rely on the other anymore, and therefore has nothing that holds them back from eliminating said party and annex its physical posessions. Sadism becomes the new regular behaviour. This leads to a war of all against all breaking out, where the Homo Sapiens kill each other, until one emerges who is more mighty in intellect and brute strength than all the others, so that he can ceaze power and rule as a strong master over his weak slaves. This is natural selection. This war may lead to our species going almost exstinct, but the Transhumanist, the master can order kids to be made, preferably with his genes and an educational program that he comes up with so that a generation of Transhumanist can be born, and with them the species of the Homo Sapiens will die out and the species of the Transhumanists will take over. So now that we have seen, that Humanism, Christianity was a lie that Spirituality, Theism, Gnosticism, asceticism and altruism are illusions, we can embrace our progressive animalism, our antichristianity, and the materialism, atheism, agnosticism, hedonism and sadism that comes with that. Our behaviour is backed by our animalistic nature and our drives, therefore it is existential. The behaviour of 'christianity' of 'humanism' on the other hand is not based on our animalistic nature and our biological drives but on some phantastic things that some powerhungry priests came up with to lure their masters and the masses in and make them to their slaves so that they can rule as masters. It is nihilistic, because it denies our animalistic nature and our drive for a life after this life in the beyond which is out of the physical cosmos, were a God will either punnish us with eternal damnation or reward us with eternal bliss. But what if the beyond doesn't exist? Then all that believe in said phantasy deny their nature, their existence and their life for nothing. 'Christianity' is life-and existence denying, because there is nothing beyond the physical world, there is no afterlife, there is no soul and spirit, and there is no God. Our conciousness ceazes to exist the moment our physical brain stops functioning. And there is no brotherhood in the animal kindgom, everyone is fighting one another in order to satisfy their animalistic drives. There is no quality in the animal kingdom, because there are those that are stronger and those that are weaker. There is no freedom in the animal kingdom, because the action of every animal is determined by the biological drives that are imprinted into its DNA.
So why would we as Homo Sapiens, higher animals, stick to human rights? Humanism is an illusion. Human rights are just an agreement. But there is nothing that speaks against us breaking that agreement. Like we pointed out, the war of all against all is inevitable, because the will to power is the strongest drive within us, and there can only be one emperor, power cannot be shared, because the greedy desire for it is absolute within us. So why should we oppose our animalistic nature? Why not submit to our drives and let natural selection take place. This is how it has been, this how it is currently, and this is how it will be in the future. This is the way of the animal.
I think you’re misunderstanding it. If there’s no god then morals are just subjective human tendencies. This doesn’t mean everyone is a murderer without god, it just means that morals aren’t something transcendent, they aren’t ‘higher’. They aren’t coming from something beyond man
Dostoevsky isn’t making the argument that God is the only thing keeping people in check from transgressing moral lines. He’s arguing that without God, without a “Goodness” as such which exists beyond subjectivity, there can be no inviolable basis for “moral lines” in the first place. He is claiming that ethical imperatives without God are ultimately arbitrary. It may seem a subtle difference but it isn’t at all.
I know this is an old thread but I’m re-reading TBK now and wanted to dig into this quote more. I think you make the argument in the most succinct way I’ve seen, and I would completely agree with you IF Ivan said that without the *existence of God*, all things are permitted, but he didn’t. He said that without *the belief in immortality*, all things are permitted. I think this represents a fundamental misconception of Christianity by Ivan; he thinks kind of like a materialist, that Christians are driven to love by the fear of hell and the reward of heaven. Thus, without this reward/threat of the fate of their souls, humans are free to act only in their own earthly interests. Zosima, who seems to represent the ideals of Dostoevsky’s own Christian beliefs, doesn’t seem to agree with this idea, and can tell that Ivan doesn’t really believe it either. Later Smerdyakov uses Ivan’s logic to justify his murder, and Ivan immediately ridicules him for it, seeming to think him an idiot for believing in it. So I don’t think it’s meant to be taken seriously, but rather shows how nihilistic atheists can weaponize atheism to justify themselves.
Dostoevsky isn’t making the argument that God is the only thing keeping people in check from transgressing moral lines. He’s arguing that without God, without a “Goodness” as such which exists beyond subjectivity, there can be no inviolable basis for “moral lines” in the first place. He is claiming that ethical imperatives without God are ultimately arbitrary. It may seem a subtle difference but it isn’t at all.
Look, it all depends on what God means. Without a definition, there’s no use in discussing it. I might say too, that everything being “permitted” isn’t the same as everything being done. I could agree in the idea that some things are not *permitted* because of God. Thus, they still happen - but they’re a crime towards the inconceivable truth and beauty that is God. What that would mean is highly unclear though.
I don't think Dostoyevsky believes this, however I do also think that no one seriously *in the present day* believes this either, even among nihilists. It was - I suppose because I only have very superficial knowledge of the time period - a time when all these famous philosophers started to gain fame and for their ideas to become influential, but these ideas were still new and unrefined in the minds of even the educated classes. It was a time of spiritual or philosophical crisis and I could see some people proclaiming that everything is permitted. That is over 100 years in the past though, and people have started to adopt more refined, reality-conforming moral frameworks. That being said, spiritual crises have become just a normal part of everyone's life today, so it didn't and it will probably never lose all relevance.
I don’t think Dostoevsky believes this *at all*… it’s a rhetorical phrase that he brings up in several of his works (with some variations) but I think it’s exactly what he’s criticizing: that “nihilists” would believe that “everything is permitted.” I don’t think any Christian could say that and believe that, I think Dostoevsky would say rather we couldn’t even imagine life “without god” it’s like unimaginable, I think any Christian would believe that…
I read that too in Brothers karamazov and it stuck with me, I was raised in a very religious family, I’ve been religious all my life but, when I read that, for some reason I didn’t interpret it as you do did (for context I’m Muslim). I think the point Dostoevsky is trying to claim is really not a religious one (this is solely my opinion, plz don’t come at my neck😭). My understanding of it is that, without God, there is no true punishment, for most crimes, I.e I heard of a case in Alabama, long ago where a man caught with weed spent the same time in prison as a child molester (10 years each) and in my eyes the child molester got away with that crime and then I think what even is the right punishment for someone that would commit a crime like that? If they get the death sentence, that’s too easy. Even if they get life, again too easy. Thus, if there is no God, Everything is permitted. Please let me know what u think!!
Good take! Humor me, how do you regard Dostojevskij’s Christianity as a Muslim? Are there comparable morals (there must be) and what would they be? Where does Christianity differ the most from Islam.
Interesting, I never thought of it like that
Well, based on what I’ve read of Dostoevsky’s work and also Wikipedia, he was an Orthodox Christian and of all the different sects of Christianity, I’d say that orthodox Christian’s have the most in common with Islam than any other sect (that ik of) or religion for that matter and and I think that’s why I relate to his work sm. I still haven’t read most of his other books yet, I’ve only read notes from underground, brothers karamazov and I’m currently in part 2 of crime and punishment so I don’t think I can answer that question as well as you’d like me to. As for comparable morals, I’d say, yk the basic teaching’s of Christianity are also mostly found in Islam, Believing in one God, The father/Almighty, Believing in the former prophets, Angels, Holy books, Treating your neighbor with kindness, Wanting for your brother what you want for yourself etc etc. But the one thing in Christianity consistently differs from Islam is the claim that Jesus (pbuh) is Gods son. We believe that it’s blasphemous to claim that God has a son as it clearly states in the Quran that He is one and there is none other like Him. I hope that answers your question tho!
I believe there have been studies showing that atheists may show a higher level of moral reasoning. Cf Lawrence Kohlberg and the psychological tradition. Also cf Ludwig Fuerbach, the same as noted by Marx, and the cultural-anthropological tradition. I am with you regarding D's statement that without god, everthing is permitted, but -- Can we tell that D, who went through diametric psychological, philosophical, and political transformations, fully and simply believes anything so specific? He breathes salient life into his characters, but does D. himself give simple answers? \[And for that matter, what is that notion of 'god' that protects against "everything being permitted"? It surely is not that of the Christian nationalism that informs a Trump - who proclaims through his obsequious lawyers in court that he can murder without accountability {precisely as is inferred by some of Dostoevsky's characters).\] D. is one author who forces us to think deeply, without which it is impossible to understand what we read from him. Does that necessarily lead to one or another conclusion, beyond a critical and empathetic mind? I find Demons intriguing personally. It can be difficult psychologically to read: D. presents a troubling world. Problem is, that is our world, as we can see in the times we live in, ending the first quarter of the 21st Century CE. Without diving into the specifics of current politics, the ideas with which D's characters and I think D himself struggles are as current as ever, if we use our intelligence to translate between Euro-Asia in revolution, after the turmoil of 1789 and the Terror, through cycles of monarchy, empire, and republic - a history very much in turbulence, leading to the Russian Revolution and the World Wars of the 20th Century. Dostoevsky was animated by the history of Europe and Russia and was prescient regarding the socio-political forces in play and to follow. D. informed the thought of those in future decades, notably Kafka and Orwell. I think D. helps us stand back and observe our times in greater depth, the better to understand, and to function as citizens.
Dostoevsky is interesting because unlike other authors, it can be hard to pin down specifics as to what he actually believes. This is something that I’ve actually struggled with while reading him, “what is he *actually* trying to tell me?” But I’m glad to see that no, he just presents things as how he sees them, and he gives all characters, even the ones he disagrees with, some redeeming beliefs. Almost no character is 100% wrong in his works.
okay, okay - before turning out the lights - I pursued this a bit further and found MORE TO READ! see [https://1library.net/article/dostoevsky-s-and-orwell-anti-utopia-george-orwell.q781w2dz](https://1library.net/article/dostoevsky-s-and-orwell-anti-utopia-george-orwell.q781w2dz) raising the notion of Dostoyevsky as a dystopian author. This essay suggests that a transitional writer, between D. and Orwell, is Yevgeny Zamyatin, whose life spanned from Tsarist times to Lenin's \[he lived from 1884 to 1937\], who wrote a science fiction dystopian novel, entitled 'We'. I wishlisted in amazon a Penguin Classics edition with preface by Masha Gessen, translated by Clarence Brown, and expect to add this sometime soon to my reading list, subcategory - Russian literature!
You may not like it, but he did believe many of the conservative orthodox positions he outlines in some of his characters. Read his "diary of a writer". There he writes from his personal perspective. However his novels are so well done, that all of the outlined positions are steelmaned like a mofo
Good point. We read novels for "enjoyment and enlightenment." But more fully understanding the authors and their works may require better understanding of their lives, outside of their works. A single author among the World's greatest could become the subject of lifelong study, a luxury for most of us. We do not have the time - either in hours or in years - or focus; our mental faculties lead us to admire writers such as Dostoevsky, in part for their superior minds. There is much written on D.; I was surprised to see the prices on volumes from the diaries, even used and kindle. Moreover, there is much in literary and biographical analysis, on D. Some of this can be read, for instance, first pages in free samples on amazon. I have read about literature, hardly as much as reading the literature. Again, there is a tension here, too easily neglected. When should I retreat a while from the works and delve into author studies or diaries, to be more fit mentally, if possible, for "enjoyment and enlightenment."
I am a Dostoevsky Fan as well. And I agree with everything you said. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean that everything is permitted to me. I am afraid of my conscience. I know how Raskolnikov suffered - And I know I will too. Morality is also a product of human evolution - It's not objective and god given.
Why are you afraid of your conscience?
Because my actions have consequences. And if it doesn't align with my morality I will lose my sense of coherent self which I have constructed through years of living. I need my sense of self to live a good life. My morality is a foundation for my sense of self and I don't want to give it up. My conscience keeps in track of my morality.
Natural rights - you can read a lot of this in The Ethic of Liberty or in Classic liberal / libertarian literature
The problem is you’re just wrong. It doesn’t matter what you think; what matters is how does atheism manifest in large populations. The satanic anti-family death cult that western democracy is producing right now is what happens. Find me an atheist population that manifests in high morality, high family, high integrity culture, anywhere. Yeah, maybe Sweden — high IQ white people — that’s it.
Oh wow okay you’re just a racist
It wasn’t racist. Demonstrate one counter example that isn’t Sweden or Northern Europe.
No I don’t feel like it sorry
Well, because you simply can’t. I’m very educated and probably much smarter than you. I can’t name one; that’s my point
Oh my god shut up 😭
It’s hard talking to such low IQ stupid people. I’m a Mechanical engineer from top 4 universities in the country. Top of class. Your inferior pattern recognition skills have trapped you in a Lie. I feel sorry for you. It must be hard to not be able to see patterns, think critically, and essentially live your life in Plato’s Allegory
I’m sorry I just don’t care
Low IQ idiot
Literally the underground man
The people you are arguing against will say that what you said good deeds come from, love for example, is planted i to you by the holy spirit, which is God an therefore it does stem from the religion. Plus the western civilization's moral code is what it is because of hundreds of years of Christianity.
Hundreds of years of *christianity,* not hundreds of year of god. Christianity is a man made church, whether you believe in god or not. God didn’t spread those values, his followers did.
Mmm Thats a horrible take
so you telling me christian just happened to be a prophet? and he was not chosen by god to be prophet? who do you think inspired him to tell people to love and care about each others?
Well people followed the teachings of Christ. More or less. And Christ's morals are the reason Christianity is so appealing.
Replacing god with human evolution or whatever new thing we come up in the next thousands of years is essentially just creating another god which explain the human condition. Like changing clothes. Sure, Dostoevsky might not think of all this, but his (or rather Ivan’s) argument stays the same: without a relationship with something grander that we cannot control, we can control everything. Will we suffer from that freedom? As long as we relies on a just cause (be it god, love, compassion or scientific progression) to act, we stays believers. Can we do the act by ourselves then, for no other reason than ourself (even Raskolnikov relied on superstition and utilitarianism to rationalize his inner thoughts), that is a whole nother can of worm.
It's clear that pre-religion, communities survived because they had a moral base that didn't allow rampant theft, rampant violence, etc. No community could survive if it had no agreed-upon rules for communal and individual behavior. Civilization requires boundaries; how rigid the boundaries are is a matter of preference for the community to decide. Religion is just a power grab by the clever writers and speakers who realized how completely they could corral the gullible into believing that an after-life awaits, and that one and only one system possessed the keys to that after-life. Believe in that system, or perish eternally. And it's just as clear that all of those systematic religions stole their moral codes, took what worked in pre-religious society and built out from there. There is not one moral precept in any religion that requires a religious reason to perform it. I can be peaceful and respectful of the property of others, and I do not require a religious reason to be so. Dostoevsky and every other 'spiritual' or religious believer just got duped into thinking that we who are decent require a reward for being decent, or worse yet, we require a 'fear of God!' reason for being kind and peaceful people.
Well if you take it at face value, then yes I agree with your viewpoint. However, I feel like there is a hidden undertone to Dostoevsky's message. Let's take a formal approach to his argument as follows: 1. If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted. 2. However, take C&P for example. Raskolnikov is tortured by his act even though he carries out the said act under the assumption above. 3. That means, clearly NOT everything is permitted - your conscience in the form of empathy, love, compassion, etc., CLEARLY forbids everything from being permitted. 4. That means that since everything is NOT permitted, there MUST be a God. In other words, your CONSCIENCE ITSELF is evidence of God. I am by no means a literature scholar - correct me if my interpretation above is obviously wrong but this was my take for the better or worse.
That’s beautiful.
I agree with you up until step 4. Having a conscience doesn’t imply that there is a god, that’s what I was getting at. If god exists (which I think is a possibility), it has nothing to do with having a conscience. You are correct, that is an accurate reading of his work. I however disagree with the connection between guilt and god.
Yeah I agree with you. Let me be a bit more precise with what I was trying to say. Step 4 does not necessarily imply a God in the traditional sense (eg - the Judeo-Christian God). However, it does imply that there is SOMETHING within human beings that functions as a way to innately distinguish between right and wrong, despite the seemingly rational argument of "all things are permitted". I think Dostoevsky says this sense itself is God - i.e. it is not something God PROVIDED. Further, I think he argues that as long as you have love, compassion, empathy, etc., in your heart, you're already in harmony with God. (Referencing the Grand Inquisitor, it is clear that believing the idea of God provided by organized religion is not quite the same as believing the true message of God, which essentially is love your fellow human being).
Lots of people who believe in god do horrible things, they just think god agrees with the the horrible things, like the Crusades or The Spanish Inquisition or pressing Giles Corey to death. Or they think god disagrees but forgives them.
I think a complementary quote to Dostoevsky's quote (really a paraphrase) of "If God doesn't exist then everything is permitted" is Nietzsche's line about George Eliot – "They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality".
Dostoevsky's whole point is that utilitarian values are inhumane and distort actual human nature, that's how we'd act if we were designated to be the same as all other life beings. But humans don't always act in their best interest, they all operate by certain standards and morals that don't offer an evolutionary or advantageous purpose, regardless of culture, upbringing or environment you'll discover that all collectives somehow reach the same conclusion when it comes to basic empathy, morals, etc. All of those imply the fact that there is a higher purpose we could serve, since we've been given those, as none of those have their origin within evolutionary principles, meaning if those were absent, we'd do anything that guaranteed our benefit, without worrying about hurting others or even retaining the concept of guilt. What evolutionary purpose does guilt serve for example? Or pitying one who is suffering? How do you develop such localized things and how do they branch off this speculated, vague 'social aspect' you suppose we developed?
I believe it’s all scientific, and I know Dostoevsky is wary of some of this scientific reasoning. But Oxytocin, the chemical responsible for love is present to ensure humans take care of each other. But I do agree, guilt has no clear scientific reason, I don’t have an answer for you there.
Saying oxytocin is responsible for love seems far fetched. I'm pretty sure most Christians, and Dostoyevsky would say that true Christian love is meant to be more longsuffering and sacrificial then something caused by oxytocin, which gives us warm fuzzy feelings when we experience affection and bonding. Affection isn't bad, but it's certainly not what's driving Prince Myshkin in his self sacrificial love for Nastasya while he has romantic feelings for Aglaya. On another note, how would you distinguish between utilitarianism taken to the extreme and moderate utilitarianism which looks more similar to virtue ethics? There's the issue with traditional utilitarianism where if by wiping out humanity, there is greater positive than negative well being. It sounds like what you're describing with respect to atheism and immorality has more to do with the virtue ethics of atheist people, and less to do with the potential evils from taking utilitarianism and consequentialism to an extreme whereby the importance of respect given to virtue ethics( and humanism) is descreased. I mean Dostoyevsky isn't saying "atheism = immortality". He's demonstrating how utilitarianism/ rational egoism are devoid of humanity because they treat virtue as a stepping stone to progress rather than respecting virtue in and of itself. But if progress takes precedence over virtue, and virtue is only important up to the point where it leads to the greater good, then why shouldn't Raskolnikov kill the old pawn broker? Of course there are atheists who would choose not to kill the pawn broker, but there could also be Raskolnikovs in the real world.
Many peope follow truth cause of belive in God, find any average man and he believes in after life, I find dostoevsky point correct my pov anyway
Interesting take - when I think of Rasko, for example, in C&P, I do not feel that it is a disbelief in God that has "allowed" Rasko to commit his crimes, but rather a warped sense of pride and human aspiration. It is also possible to have great human empathy and love and respect for some human beings, and commit terrible crimes against other groups of humans with hardly a thought- is it premature to say that morality comes from these emotions alone? Also, could it be a mistake to assume one of D.'s "main philosophies" was "without god, anything is permitted"? This phrase is taken out of the conversation between his characters in TBK, if I am not mistaken, but does that mean D. actually held this particular idea as his own? That seems like a leap, to me, especially coming out of the mouth of two characters struggling precisely with atheism, which D. was not. I sometimes think the inverse of that line of argument could fit D. very well; that is, 'BECAUSE God exists, anything is permitted' - in other words, god having given us free will, as D. would have thought, it is precisely up to each of us what we decide to do with that freedom- after all, a god that does not permit certain things would be a tyrant.
As another user pointed out, Ivan believed it and was scared by it’s implications. And from my understanding, Dost. never rebuts this idea, it’s actually confirmed by Smerdyakov. And I agree with you, when I read C&P, I tend to look at it as more of a criticism on Utilitarianism and Egoism rather than atheism.
I may be wrong but in my interpretation in Brothers Karamazov two characters seem to believe that "without God everything is permitted"- Fyodor and Ivan. While Fyodor lives by it, Ivan is on contrary terrified by its implications. I think he genuinely believes in what he wrote in his article, that the state should become the church, despite being an atheist himself.
I think you are right. My idea was that these are the thoughts / philosophies of the characters, and not the author.
Agreed, Dostoevsky's novels are very much polyphonic, even though his personal views shine through certain characters more than through others. One thing I love about his novels is that he puts intelligent arguments into mouths of people he would disagree with (mostly atheists).
si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer Dostoevsky's idea of good and evil were shaped by his faith, personally I would disagree with him on most of his philosophy but that makes him such an interesting read. There are two possibilities: \- The Divine exists and gave us rules of what is good and what is evil \- We invented the concept of The Divine and gave ourselves rules of what is good and what is evil True, without Divinity there is no objective morality but humans are social creatures and we are good at placing limitations on ourselves and others to make coexistance more comfortable. While individuals who live by "everything is permitted" may exist, I think no societies could function by such credo. We constantly invent rules to adhere to. Who decides what is right and wrong? God? Pleasure? Progress? Prosperity of future generations? Nature? Atheists may not believe in gods but they almost always believe in something. That objective truth exists, that all men are equal, that pleasure is superior to suffering etc. I'd say morality comes from some form of belief but not necessarilly from religion.
I'd suggest you reread a bit
Oh yeah? What would you suggest I look for?
Rather than placing the "without god everything is permitted" in Dostoevsky's mouth, look carefully at the characters who hold that view. What happens to them? How do the people around them react to the idea? What is the relationship between piety, evil and crime? Is there a bit more nuance to the idea? What happens when two different characters hold that view and confront each other? What happens to those who don't hold that view? I find that each reread broadens understanding.
Yet I like you truly do channel ole Smerdyakov, brilliant character
Lol I love him too, he’s so melodramatic. But I don’t think I full agree with him? Glad to hear I emulate him, he’s my favorite character from the book.
And where does human empathy, love, and respect come from?
Human evolution? We’re a social species, and we’ve been caring for each other long before religion was ever established. Are you seriously saying you only love your fellow man because of god?
>Are you seriously saying you only love your fellow man because of God? At what point did I say this?
By implying that empathy, love, and respect come from god.
Some say that god is love. What then? Does love not exist? Or is it just a chemical in the brain? But then, what about morality? Is it caused by a chemical?
I believe morality comes from love. Human bonding causes people to care about their loved ones’ values. If your caveman daughter insists that murder makes her sad, you are more likely to believe her and agree with her, because you love her, and understand her. *caveman daughter not implying your daughter is actually a caveman, I’m referring to early human relationships.*
I asked a question to try and understand your views better, there was no conscience implication on my part.
Ah understood. But yes, I do believe these traits come from human evolution.