Brothers Karamazov, The 2010/11: Week 1 - Part I, Books One and Two

[MadgeUK]

Kate wrote: "Changing that to a contract-based system implies that one has a voice and must agree to the contract, so the submission is voluntary and not unquestioning.
.."

Well put Kate, and that implies democracy, whereas Dosteovsky believed in autocracy and the Divine Right of Kings represented by the Tsar. The Russian Orthodox Church became a government department called The Holy Synod in the early 18C, run by the Chief Procurator, an official appointed by the Tsar. It also became closely associated with the Jewish Pogroms that took place during the last part of the 19th century. The church was therefore seen by those seeking reform (like Tolstoy) as a reactionary institution condoning serfdom and against religious freedom. It was antithetic to the ideas of liberty and equality being expressed in the West, which Dostoevsky encountered in Europe. It is significant that he (ironically) describes Musov, another not-very-nice atheist, 'as a man of enlightened ideas and of European culture, who had been in the capitals and abroad' and who 'regarded it as his duty as a citizen and a man of culture to open an attack upon the "clericals." ' (Chapter 2.)

[[deleted user]]

THOSE, Madge, are great links! I'm going to have to help myself to some of Kate's coffee and read through a bit. Thank you so much.

[John]

Patrice wrote: "I read that book. But wouldn't you say that it goes back to Socrates? In the Crito isn't that how he explains his decision to accept execution rather than flee Athens? The laws gave him everythi..."

I should have been more clear, Patrice. Contractarianism only became important, as far as political theory is concerned, around the time of Hobbes.

[MadgeUK]

Not to be confused with Kantian contractualism which D expounds in Notes from the Underground.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/con...

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Great info. BTW, my translation is also Constance Garnett."

If it's not too late for anything, I would heartily recommend Pevear and Volokhonsky's translationm which is prize-winn..."

Well, John, I'm now reading the P&V translation, and yes, it's wonderful.

Unfortunately I'm reading it because I can't FIND where my Constance G translation....must have been really tired when I laid it aside....AND most of my notes and thoughts are inscribed in THAT book.

But yes, the P&V, very, very nice.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote, Adelle wrote: "I am interested in what you consider the "most important word as the very first word."..."

I have a different take on this matter now.

The "first words" are "The Brothers Karamozov" so they're going to be, I would think, what Dos. wishes me to focus on.

And, apparently, I haven't always been a careful reader. I hadn't paid much attention to the Book titles. (Book 1: A Nice Little Family. Rather tongue-in-cheek? What is Dos. preparing us for?)

And Chapter 1. Although the first word (I always find first words, first sentences of importance)---although the opening is "Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov," the chapter title is "Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov."

So I've come to think that Dos. is stressing that in the story of the Brothers, the primary influence was the family ('the nice little family') and that the primary influence in the family was Fyodor.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "
Actually, even today, haven't you noticed a kind of intellectual snobbery towards people of faith? "

Yes. Which is ironic, since literacy was largely kept alive by the church for many, many centuries. And it takes more than a modicum of chutzpah to contend that people like T.S. Eliot, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, are not intellectual.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "As for submission, I've struggled a lot with the concept but I'm beginning to understand a bit, i think. For instance, a mother who resists submitting to a child's needs makes no one happy."

Doesn't that depend on what a child's needs are? And isn't that, beyond the very basic adequate food, clean water, sleep, quite subjective? Certainly some children consider a ipod a need. I don't, but I do consider access to music a need. Also, of course, books, but I know loving parents who have no books in their houses. Are they not happy or not good parents?

But I'm getting away from BK. Was Zosima submitting to the needs of others, or having others submit to his needs? I find myself a bit conflicted over his relationship with some others.

[Everyman]

MadgeUK wrote: "I agree Patrice but that does not say that we must be religious, or be Christians, to do this. This is just the Ethic of Repricocity, The Golden Rule, which existed in many societies long before Christianity. "

Yes, it certainly pre-existed Christianity.

But did it pre-exist religion? That's another question entirely. I'm not aware of any atheist philosophy which developed before the first religions, and therefore can't say whether the principle was developed before or without religion, or whether it was developed in the context of religion and later adapted by the non-religious because it made sense to them.

[John]

Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "
Actually, even today, haven't you noticed a kind of intellectual snobbery towards people of faith? "

Yes. Which is ironic, since literacy was largely kept alive by the church for..."

The Christianity of Lewis, Chesterton, and Lewis isn't really what passes for mainline Protestant Christianity today. Nor is the Medieval Scholasticism that "kept literacy alive." The reason why they get noses turned up at them isn't because they believe in God. It's because they (not all, but it's hardly a small minority) ignorantly make claims about the Earth being 6,000 years old, about global warming being a hoax, and Darwin being pseudoscience.

And, while I more than tip my hat to Lewis' brilliance as a medievalist, most people know him as one of the more important Christian apologists of the twentieth century. And if the best Christian apologetics can be found in "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters," it's a small wonder why Christianity had - and is going to continue to have - the problems it does.

[John]

Everyman wrote: "I'm not aware of any atheist philosophy which developed before the first religions..."

How could you base a system of beliefs on the idea that God(s) don't exist, before the idea that God(s) exist? Atheism, at least its philosophical strands, is almost wholly modern.

[[deleted user]]

Patrice wrote: "As for global warming, surely you must have heard that the East Anglia people were changing the data"

That is really a distortion. Using modeling techniques to enhance or bring out data from noise is a common scientific practice. It generally isn't considered "changing the data", nor am I aware of any evidence that they were doing that, other than claims on the internet following the release of the emails. There certainly seems to be some less than professional behavior that went on, but look at anyone's collected interpersonal emails and you'll find the same kind of pettiness. There are no serious climate scientists that I am aware of who deny global warming. There are some legitimately skeptical ones who doubt the extent of the anthropogenic effects.

However there is a huge difference between legitimate skepticism and outright denialism which is what John is pointing to.

Similarly, to call Darwin wrong is to ignore the whole point of what he did. He developed a hypothesis which explained his observations and changed the whole course of science. His explanation of how natural selection worked doesn't match modern understanding of how genes are selected for, but he got the framework and the basic ideas close enough to right. Hypotheses are meant to be tested, challenged and changed if necessary. Science requires this process. A fundamental interpretation of the Bible discourages it.

[Everyman]

The global warming controversy is certainly one that raises disagreements, but since they have nothing to do with BK, perhaps they should go to a separate thread, or even since Chris took down the politics thread (for good reasons) to another group entirely?

[John]

Patrice, the fact that one – or even a few dozen – microbiologists buck the scientific trend in their eschewing of Darwinian evolution doesn’t mean that it’s automatically wrong. When someone once famously made a list of “100 scientists who refuted global warming,” a clever rebutter presented him with a list of “100 scientists named Steve who agreed with the idea of global warming.” Scientists will never be at a 100% consensus when it comes to any important fact or detail of the world. Without getting into this too much, we base scientific understanding and reasoning on broad agreement among a community of scientists. And even if Shapiro were right, that wouldn’t mean that fundamentalists were any more right than they were previously, since their reason for being correct was unsound. Einstein’s theory of general relativity would have been hokum had he just said that “God put it there.” He explained it using the language of science and mathematics, and *that’s* what made it right.

Surely you’re just playing the role of advocatus diaboli when you bring up East Anglia. I appreciate your skepticism, but anything – even skepticism toward valid science – can turn into the “faith-like conviction” that you mentioned. You’re right when you mention that scientists have changed their estimation of the age of the Earth a handful of times. But what I’m talking about are fundamentalists – who have no background in science, no formal scientific training, and no knowhow of scientific procedure or methodology – mindlessly claim that the Earth is 6,000 (or 10,000, or whatever) years old. Science is a story of learning more and more, and no scientist in their right mind would ever claim that we will ever be able to claim that we know the “ultimate story of the universe.” And if fundamentalists were willing to own the same humility, there would be no problem with it. But the case is that they’re quite satisfied with their general ignorance, and fairly certainly that they’re correct. Problems arise not when science and religion exist in the same problem, but when they try to answer questions that are not within their respective purviews. When religious people want to pursue theology with the Bible, that’s fine, and it should be encouraged. When religious people try to date the Earth using the Old Testament, a la Bishop Ussher, this needs to be called out for what it really is: namely, not science at all.

As far as Sam Harris is concerned, the utterly ridiculous and outrageous things I’ve heard him say about Islam and Christianity make me sincerely doubt anything else that he writes about that I have less knowledge about (like neuroscience, which he has a Ph.D. in). And yes, there’s quite a lot that’s true in the Bible; if that weren’t the case, I don’t think Christianity would have been as successful as it has been. That doesn’t, however, mean that it contains all KINDS of truth – especially the modern ones which weren’t even anticipated in the centuries in which the Bible was written (like modern science).

[MadgeUK]

Everyman wrote: "And it takes more than a modicum of chutzpah to contend that people like T.S. Eliot, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, are not intellectual.
..."

I wasn't aware that Eliot, Chesterton or Lewis were held in disregard today? Lewis in particular, has recently had very successful films made of his Narnia books. They may be out of fashion but that happens to many authors, whether they are religious or not.

[MadgeUK]

Everyman wrote: " I'm not aware of any atheist philosophy which developed before the first religions, and..."

Surely there had to be atheism before there were organised religions? Conversion to or acceptance of a philosophy means that there were non-adherents in the first place. Even if we accept that people were always 'hard wired' to believe in gods this does not mean that early hunter-gatherers, for instance, with their emphasis on survival, formalised religious belief. They could have been like me, born into families where no religion was practised and therefore atheist despite the hard-wiring.

Which is ironic, since literacy was largely kept alive by the church for..."

I wouldn't entirely give credit to literacy being kept alive by the church considering that they also did a lot of suppress it amongst ordinary people. It was not until Henry VII, James I and various other reformers enabled the Bible to be published and distributed in English, against the wishes of the Church, that literacy really 'took off'. Helped, of course, by the invention of the printing press. Literacy was confined to a very small number of people until that time - mainly monks and the wealthy.

[MadgeUK]

Adelle wrote: So I've come to think that Dos. is stressing that in the story of the Brothers, the primary influence was the family ('the nice little family') and that the primary influence in the family was Fyodor.

To get back to TBK:). I think that Dos. intended the K. family, and all of its woes, to be a metaphor for Holy Russia. He thought that the behaviour of the Tsar and the increasing disrespect of the Russian people towards him and towards God, was bringing about the downfall of Russia. He argues in TBK that only when a father shows devotion to his children is he blameless. If he does not show devotion then his children have the right to ask (of Fyodor, Tsar and God) 'Father, why should I love you?'

[John]

"Consensus is irrelevant in science"? I don't mind continuing this in another thread, but I'd really like to hear you defend that more thoroughly, especially considering that almost every scientist that I know would disagree.

[MadgeUK]

Patrice wrote: In science, as in life, consensus is irrelevant.

!! Well Patrice, I am pleased there is a consensus in science & engineering that my computer and telephone work, that an aeroplane will stay up in the sky, that my car will brake when I put my foot down, that anaesthetics will work when I have an operation, that the moon was where scientists and astrologers thought it was when Neil Armstrong went there, that sailors will not sail off the edge of the world and a million and one scientific FACTS by which our lives are governed every day! If I doubted many of these proven everyday facts I would not stir out of my house! Doubts remain, certainly, but in the meanwhile we have to trust in certain proven scientific facts in ordetr to live our lives, especially modern lives rooted in technology. The characters in TBK are not doubting that the wheels will stay on their carriages, that the arches in their huge churches will bear the weight of the roofs, that a spark will light their fires because they too have learned to take for granted certain scientific facts whilst still pondering on the meaning of the universe etc and other matters not yet proven, like the existence of God, devils or angels etc.

[MadgeUK]

LOL. It certainly seems so to me, even though I don't believe in the supernatural! I never did grasp the concept of airwaves or wireless and cyber space is quite beyond me, literally and figuratively! :D.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: The reason why they get noses turned up at them isn't because they believe in God. It's because they (not all, but it's hardly a small minority) ignorantly make claims about the Earth being 6,000 years old, about global warming being a hoax, and Darwin being pseudoscience.

.."\

I may simply know the wrong atheists, but the atheists in my life disparge Christians for their belief in God. Period. The age of the earth/the question of global warming (which I can only view as a footnote if the topic at hand is spirituality or the state of one's soul), I think, are not questions that are overly important to most atheists I know. The atheists I know---and I can only speak regarding the ones I know---only seem to care about those two issues as a tool to "prove" that there is no God. To prove that Atheism is true.

I'm only speaking here of my own experiences. Yours, of course, might differ. Just saying.

[Everyman]

John wrote: ""Consensus is irrelevant in science"? I don't mind continuing this in another thread, but I'd really like to hear you defend that more thoroughly, especially considering that almost every scientis..."

I'm not sure I would agree that consensus is irrelevant, but I would agree that consensus provides no assurance of truth. There are uncountable numbers of instances where well established scientific consensus was flat wrong. Just ask Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, not to mention the scientific consensus in the 1960s and 1970s that humankind was in peril because we were heading into another ice age.

[[deleted user]]

MadgeUK wrote: 289 "To get back to TBK:). I think that Dos. intended the K. family, and all of its woes, to be a metaphor for Holy Russia. He thought that the behaviour of the Tsar and the increasing disrespect of the Russian people towards him and towards God, was bringing about the downfall of Russia. He argues in TBK that only when a father shows devotion to his children is he blameless. If he does not show devotion then his children have the right to ask (of Fyodor, Tsar and God) 'Father, why should I love you?'


Wonderful perspective. Excellent. I'll try to keep that in mind as I read further.

[John]

It's not the case that consensus is relevant, like I claimed, I should have been more careful. It's the case that it's pretty much impossible, depending on how you define the word "consensus." If you're talking about 100% agreement, I'm not sure there's anything that they all agree on. But that doesn't mean that there's been enough debate within the scientific community to establish its putative truth (at least until a better explanation comes along later). When you have a community of 10,000 scientists that agree on X and one chimes in with not-X, that doesn't invalidate the the explanatory power of theory, testing, and methodology behind X, where X is anything from Big Bang Theory to Darwinian evolution, et alii.

[[deleted user]]

Patrice wrote: "I think this is very relevant to BK. The consensus of who killed Fyodor has nothing to do with the truth of who killed Fyodor. Truth is not conventional wisdom. Forty million Frenchmen can be wr..."

Great post.

In regards to science: The facts exist regardless of what the scientific consensus is. The earth does revolve around the sun. The earth is round. Madge's computer---mine, too---works because the factual information that went into the design and manufacture insured---well, maybe insured isn't the right term....sometimes my computer doesn't work....oh, yeah...user error. the facts that went into the design are why my computer works. Not a number of scientists agree with one another, This should work.

But even more than the science-aspect, I love how you brought it to the BK. Yes! The gossip doesn't alter the facts. The stories of this one or that one won't alter the facts. Consensus, in TBK won't alter the facts. But the gossip, stories, beliefs.... they affect everyone's perception....of what happened....of who is a good man....of who is a "bad' man....

Nice.

(Are you sure 40 million French men can be wrong? They have such charming accents.)

[MadgeUK]

Everyman wrote: "There are uncountable numbers of instances where well established scientific consensus was flat wrong..."

There are also uncountable numbers of instances where well established scientific consensus was right and the advance of scientific technology and our reliance on its findings has shown that there were more 'rights' than 'wrongs'. As ever, the lack of success gets more publicity than success.

[John]

Adelle wrote: "John wrote: The reason why they get noses turned up at them isn't because they believe in God. It's because they (not all, but it's hardly a small minority) ignorantly make claims about the Earth ..."

Adelle, any atheists that you know that are attempting to "prove" there is no God aren't intellectually serious atheists. Any attempt to prove atheism (that is, the claim that there is no God) is to try to prove a concept whose metaphysical nature they attack when the believer in a transcendental God makes the same claim. All atheistic attacks against religion - at least all the ones I've heard - revolve around the inability of natural, physical beings (humans) to make judgments of the supernatural, metaphysical world (God's). But this is precisely what the atheist does in flatly denying that God exists.

The furthest anyone can go, without making metaphysical assumptions, is agnosticism.

[MadgeUK]

Yes, I like Patrice's 'gossipy' perspective on TBK too: The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on:/ nor all thy Piety nor Wit/Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,/
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.'

(Do you mean that 40 million Americans can be wrong because they don't have such charming accents?:O:O)

[[deleted user]]

MadgeUK wrote: As ever, the lack of success gets more publicity than success.




Ah, but that's because it only takes 1 instance of a "wrong" to disprove a theory. In TBK, for example...in any murder... I think I'm going back to the text, there might be hundreds of facts, yes, actual facts, that might suggest that Unnamed Suspect killed Fyodor. There might be enough of such facts to bring the populace to a consensus...even a well founded consensus....that Unnamed Suspect killed Fyodor. However, that does not mean that Unnamed Suspect DID kill Fyodor. And it would take only 1 eyewitness....or one videotape of the actual event ... to PROVE that Unnamed Suspect was not the killer.


(I'm only on page, like, 160 or something. Nobody's even dead yet. Well, except for Fyodor's two wives.)

[MadgeUK]

John wrote: The furthest anyone can go, without making metaphysical assumptions, is agnosticism.
..."

Pretty well everyone I know and regularly mix with is an atheist. None of them bother to try and disprove the existence of God, they are just content in having no belief in God and the supernatural themselves. So far as they are concerned if Christians (or Muslims or Jews) wish to convince them that a God exists or that the world is 6000 years old, or that the account of Genesis is true then the onus of proof is upon them. Just as in the world of science at the moment the onus of proof is upon scientists like Stephen Hawking to prove how the world began - big bang theory or something else.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote:Adelle, any atheists that you know that are attempting to "prove" there is no God aren't intellectually serious atheists "

But, John, are we comparing "intellectually serious atheists" to "intellectually serious Christians," or are we simply comparing "atheists" to "Christians"?

If we're only looking at "intellectually serious atheists," then I'm not going to consider "foundamentalist Christians."

But back to the text. Doesn't Ivan say that civilization only exists because of the church or because of religion? I know he does, but I haven't the page number handy.

As Ivan appears to be portrayed as an atheist, what does that remark say about Ivan?


Mmm, speaking of Ivan, did you notice that Ivan and Smerdykov are both 24? Dostoevsky could so easily have made them a year or two apart in age. I wonder what that means.

[John]

We're comparing serious atheists with serious Christians, considering I wouldn't imagine that fundamentalists usually consider things like God's metaphysical nature and whether it is amenable to proof or not.

[[deleted user]]

MadgeUK Do you mean that 40 million Americans can be wrong because they don't have such charming accents?:O:

Do we? I've never thought so. Mmmm. Back to perspective. BTW, I find British accents quite charming as well. LOVE a Scottish accent.

Wrong? Oh, 40 million Americans are wrong all the time. Every 4 years, in any case. 40 million always vote for Candidate 1. And 40 million always vote wrong. LOL.

[MadgeUK]

Adelle wrote: "Ah, but that's because it only takes 1 instance of a "wrong" to disprove a theory... "

John's post 299 refers!:).

In TBK we have to read to the end of the book to find if there was any Truth at all!

[[deleted user]]

Oh, yes!

[[deleted user]]

Some of the comments seem to be diverging off topic onto a more generalized discussion of faith and religion. That tends to become contentious. Please keep any religious discussions closely tied to BK and let's try to avoid bogging down in metaphysical arguments.

[[deleted user]]

Well, yes, thank you for your gentle prodding. I speak only for myself here...yes, we might have wandered a bit off the main BK path...but only a bit....and religious discussion is such an intregral part of BK....really.

I didn't feel particularly contentious. My apologies if I was. Frankly, I didn't take anyone else as overly contentious. But we have people with such divergent pov of this.

Isn't that what is a stake here? If we only go through the book discussing the points that aren't important to us.....then what are we getting out of the discussion? We end up, or so it seems to me, with nothing but the ability to recite the facts of who Fyodor's sons were and what the characters were like.

But Dostoevsky, I'm pretty sure---conjecture---didn't write the book so we could read about Fyodor and Ivan. The importance of the book to him....and what he would have felt----conjecture---to we readers....were precisely the faith and religion questions.


However, if bringing those aspects into the online discussion makes others uncomfortable, I would be willing....reluctantly....to alter the way I am discussing this book.

Just saying, that for myself, I don't have a problem with people strongly disagreeing here with ideas. Even if I can't properly back up my pov, I have no problem with others strongly disagreeing with my pov.


As long as no one is saying, Hey, you are an idiot for how you think.... And I don't think I've been seeing that.

Just my thoughts.

[[deleted user]]

Yeah, like Alyosha we are. Remember when he restrained Dmitri? We can collectively be Alyosha. We can --- if everyone is ok with it ---- let the conversation flow....but we won't kill one another or let our collective Dmitri kill anyone either.

[MadgeUK]

Adelle wrote: 'Doesn't Ivan say that civilization only exists because of the church or because of religion? ...As Ivan appears to be portrayed as an atheist, what does that remark say about Ivan?'

It could just say that it was what he was taught at school or by the church. Most schools in Russia then were run by the monastic orders and children were taught all kinds of myths alongside facts. But even dyed-in- the-wool atheists like me will admit to the church having done some good things:D:D.

According to the historian Michael Wood in In Search of the First Civilisations 'The first condition of civilisation is food. Cities and large populations cannot exist without the ability to feed people. So the domestication and cultivation of certain staple cereals and grains was the first step towards large scale settled societies. The development of agriculture, not religion, was what made this possible for the first time in human history. In the eighth millennium BC Neolithic agricultural communities created small towns such as Jericho in the Jordan valley, which had stone defences enclosing about 11 acres...Nothing is known of the social or political organisation of such settlements but religion may have become an important element in their rise...A shrine in a building dating from the eighth millennium BC contained winged half-human figures strikingly recalling the angels and genies of later Near Eastern religious imagery...At a new discovery at Ain Ghazal in Jordan near life-sized human images have been uncovered dating from 7000BC - the oldest statues in the world....with black-ringed eyes which were to be characteristic of Mesopotamian cults right down to the Graeco-Roman age and even into the early Christian era.'

[[deleted user]]

Ah, perhaps Kate here WAS being our collective Alyosha and restraining us before we got out of hand.

[MadgeUK]

Adelle wrote But Dostoevsky, I'm pretty sure---conjecture---didn't write the book so we could read about Fyodor and Ivan. The importance of the book to him....and what he would have felt----conjecture---to we readers....were precisely the faith and religion questions.

Just saying, that for myself, I don't have a problem with people strongly disagreeing here with ideas. Even if I can't properly back up my pov, I have no problem with others strongly disagreeing with my pov.

We can --- if everyone is ok with it ---- let the conversation flow....but we won't kill one another or let our collective Dmitri kill anyone either.


Thanks Kate Aloysha and well put Adelle. So far so good:D.

[John]

Adelle wrote: "Well, yes, thank you for your gentle prodding. I speak only for myself here...yes, we might have wandered a bit off the main BK path...but only a bit....and religious discussion is such an intre..."

I'll add one more non-Karamazov comment, because I feel it's appropriate. I think Patrice and Adelle have been nothing less than kind, cordial, and honest in what what they had to say. Again, please let me know if you'd like to continue the conversations in another thread ... just let me know if someone starts one.

[[deleted user]]

I think everyone has been respectful and the comments have been honest and thoughtful, so compliments to all of you! I'm not trying to put a lid on the discussion, but religion is one of those fascinating subjects where people have a hard time remaining objective. Or remaining on the sidelines (my own bête noir). I am not going to start a topic thread on religion/metaphysics (sorry John). Some of us remember what happened to the political thread here and I think that even with the best will in the world, such things become unmanageable.

I will offer a suggestion for those who, like John, wish to continue the discussion. It is really easy to form a private GR group (or even a secret one!) and limit membership to invitees only. If one of you wants to moderate such a group and invite others to join, it will take you less than 15 minutes to figure out how to set that up. :)

[[deleted user]]

Right back at you, John.

Madge, Kate, Patrice, etc.

Well....I think we can play "nice" but I don't think we can play at all if we don't discuss all aspects of the book. And personally, I've no interest in going to a separate thread...because I'm not here to discuss religion; I'm here to discuss religion as an aspect of TBK.

[[deleted user]]

Adelle wrote: "Right back at you, John.

Madge, Kate, Patrice, etc.

Well....I think we can play "nice" but I don't think we can play at all if we don't discuss all aspects of the book. And personally..."

We can discuss all aspects of the book Adelle, including religion. But the question of whether atheism itself is a metaphysical statement of belief is the kind of issue I'm talking about. It's fascinating and debatable but not really pertinent to BK. Those kinds of topics interest a lot of people and I was offering an alternative for those who want to pursue them.

[[deleted user]]

Excellent. Because I was thinking on the drive home, What contempt Dostoevsky would have for us if we wanted to play it safe and only discuss topics gently. Thinking, Isn't one of Doestoevsky points (via Peter M.) the dangers of living our lives by playing it safe. I was even going to start drinking shots of Vodka as I read further chapters....just to feel more Russian....and I don't drink straight Vodka! I drink whatever Peter M drinks. LOL. Maybe a nice, acceptable, very diluted White Russian.

OK., will start reading next section this weekend.

Good evening, all.

[[deleted user]]

Adelle wrote: "Excellent. Because I was thinking on the drive home, What contempt Dostoevsky would have for us if we wanted to play it safe and only discuss topics gently. Thinking, Isn't one of Doestoevsky p..."

LOL. Dostoevsky's possible contempt fails to move me. OTOH, causing you to drink straight shots of Vodka would be much more heart wrenching.

[[deleted user]]

Yeah, 'cuz I can't handle straight shots of vodka!

I'd be having opinions all over the place.

(Like you don't now, asked Kate.)

Mmmm. Well, anyway, Also, my vodka isn't even very good. I just use to swish my teeth sometimes.

On behalf of me and me liver, thanks for saving me from a life I would come to regret..."Maybe not today...Maybe not tomorrow....But soon...and for the rest of my life" (Nod to Bogart.)


lol

[MadgeUK]

"Adelle wrote: "Well....I think we can play "nice" but I don't think we can play at all if we don't discuss all aspects of the book. And..."

I agree Adelle. Although I agree with the point Kate makes about the dangers of politicising our arguments, I feel that I must point out in Book Five, The Grand Inquisitor, these arguments about atheism are writ large and D is leading up to Pro and Contra arguments up until then and exploits them afterwards. His raison d'etre was to put philosophical arguments against atheism because he feared it was taking over Russia through Western Enlightenment. Those of us who are atheists will necessarily find ourselves aligning ourselves with Ivan and other atheist arguments in the book, those who are religious will find themselves aligning with Aloysha and other believers. It is an inevitable outcome of reading this book and most of Dostoevaky. It is also what he intended and what happened during his lifetime. If we cannot analyse his intellectual, philosophical arguments in this Forum then there was little point in reading the book together, except to discuss it as a murder mystery.

I think what we need to do is to link our arguments to the book whenever we make a point about religion or atheism and not go off on philosophical tangents. As Adelle has posted, 'we have wandered a bit off the main BK path...but only a bit..'. Let us try to stick more closely to the path of righteousness and let Kate flagellate us again if we do not:D.

I think that everyone has been thoughtful, kind, cordial, and honest in what what they have had to say but, to use a metaphor, I think we need to keep the Samovar on and not open the Vodka! (One way of 'russifying' yourself, other than drinking vodka Adelle, is to go to Youtube and search out some Russian Orthodox church music or listen to a great Russian opera like Boris Gudonov:). Laurel may have some other ideas.)

[Kathy]

Sorry, I'm just joining in because I'm catching up... I've only read the first two books, but I'm depressed about the huge quantity of religious debate in this thread.

So far, I'm reading this book as a social satire and the fact is that (as far as Russia is concerned) the church and the liberal dilletantes are both coming off pretty badly. Doesn't the whole thing about the Elder concern us because it's a personality cult? Doesn't what the Superior is having for lunch make us laugh about the hypocrisy of the church? Aren't we outraged that the property of the landowners is described in terms of the number of 'souls' (i.e. serfs or slaves) that they own? Aren't we scandalised by the callousness with which the upper classes treat their children? Aren't we enraged by the way that women are so badly treated that they descend into mental illness? Isn't Dostoevsky portraying a society where religion is reduced to 'shrieking', marriage is reduced to a master/servant relationship and serious political change is treated as merely an overseas sport for the entertainment of the upper classes? Or am I reading a different book?