I really enjoyed your interpretation of this chapter. I'm halfway through the novel now, but i wasn't patient enough to wait to finish the book to hear what other people's interpretation is. It's such an amazing parable, with way too much to grasp in one pass over. I'll keep watching your videos as i go along w/ the rest of the novel. Thanks!
Interesting take. I think we may have had dissimilar translations. I read the boy wounded the dog on purpose. I didn't get the idea, any of the text, that Ivan's illness was that related to his disproportion to his moral problem. It seemed more chemical, of legitimate insanity. I find it odd you didn't focus more on the Grand Inquisitor (your actual title). Also, from what I read, the Cardinal spoke only of spiritual freedom, not freewill.
An excellent example of why it's always far better to read the actual literary text first hand than risk listening to this sort of inaccurate, primary school rehash.
An excellent example of why it's always far better to read the actual literary text first hand than risk listening to this sort of inaccurate, primary school rehash.
An excellent example of why it's always far better to read the actual literary text first hand than risk listening to this sort of inaccurate, primary school rehash.
@WeAreJustDreamingNow Hi. Can you please give examples as opposed to simple accusation? If you are interested in having more of a conversation, check out Rene Girard's book on Dostoevsky "Resurrection from the Underground". Thanks.
I can't make out that last part, "Will the brothers learn to imitate the forgiveness of Christ, or will they imitate the hated and cruelty of the _____?"
just read this section...do you all think part of the author's intention is to illustrate our permanent misery due to ambiguity of life and the elements of freedom that GOD gave us? So, in essence, we are always looking for our own slavery type relationship, to feel like someone or something can give us meaning---even if it means that we are being adversely affected...any thoughts?
I think this theme deserves much longer and wider interpretation. Some very important aspects were left off and it lacks deepness it absolutely deserves. I gave 5 stars for effort, but I would like to see a more comprehensive and better prepared analysis.
Nice discussion. Only wonder how sure Dostoyevsky is that the "cure" is a "proper God relationship." It seems that the author leaves the answer or cure to suffering to be open to interpretation or without and answer at all possibly. Thanks for posting.
@iamivantoo He is not sure at all about the solution to the paradox he formulates in the first part. Actually, as dark as what is covered here sounds, this book was Dostoyevsky's most optimistic book, and his most most difficult to write. In "crime and punishment" and "the idiot", he covers this and other questions more profoundly and even attempts to answer some of them, making them some of his best work (in my opinion)...
But I do agree with you. Here he leaves the question open, or almost...
I really enjoyed your interpretation of this chapter. I'm halfway through the novel now, but i wasn't patient enough to wait to finish the book to hear what other people's interpretation is. It's such an amazing parable, with way too much to grasp in one pass over. I'll keep watching your videos as i go along w/ the rest of the novel. Thanks!
adrainn 9 months ago
Interesting take. I think we may have had dissimilar translations. I read the boy wounded the dog on purpose. I didn't get the idea, any of the text, that Ivan's illness was that related to his disproportion to his moral problem. It seemed more chemical, of legitimate insanity. I find it odd you didn't focus more on the Grand Inquisitor (your actual title). Also, from what I read, the Cardinal spoke only of spiritual freedom, not freewill.
Spingo2699 9 months ago
I love this! I'm going to look for more of your analyses.
Cait711 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An excellent example of why it's always far better to read the actual literary text first hand than risk listening to this sort of inaccurate, primary school rehash.
WeAreJustDreamingNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An excellent example of why it's always far better to read the actual literary text first hand than risk listening to this sort of inaccurate, primary school rehash.
WeAreJustDreamingNow 1 year ago
An excellent example of why it's always far better to read the actual literary text first hand than risk listening to this sort of inaccurate, primary school rehash.
WeAreJustDreamingNow 1 year ago
@WeAreJustDreamingNow Hi. Can you please give examples as opposed to simple accusation? If you are interested in having more of a conversation, check out Rene Girard's book on Dostoevsky "Resurrection from the Underground". Thanks.
raventelevision 1 year ago
@WeAreJustDreamingNow Please, tell as all what do you think about Brothers Karamazov. Do you have any interpretation?
ulitseful 1 year ago
I can't make out that last part, "Will the brothers learn to imitate the forgiveness of Christ, or will they imitate the hated and cruelty of the _____?"
colegegrad 2 years ago
Do you have a Ph.D in literature or something?
joeboi85 2 years ago
just read this section...do you all think part of the author's intention is to illustrate our permanent misery due to ambiguity of life and the elements of freedom that GOD gave us? So, in essence, we are always looking for our own slavery type relationship, to feel like someone or something can give us meaning---even if it means that we are being adversely affected...any thoughts?
juancfile 2 years ago
I think this theme deserves much longer and wider interpretation. Some very important aspects were left off and it lacks deepness it absolutely deserves. I gave 5 stars for effort, but I would like to see a more comprehensive and better prepared analysis.
MarkoKraguljac 2 years ago
Nice discussion. Only wonder how sure Dostoyevsky is that the "cure" is a "proper God relationship." It seems that the author leaves the answer or cure to suffering to be open to interpretation or without and answer at all possibly. Thanks for posting.
iamivantoo 2 years ago
@iamivantoo He is not sure at all about the solution to the paradox he formulates in the first part. Actually, as dark as what is covered here sounds, this book was Dostoyevsky's most optimistic book, and his most most difficult to write. In "crime and punishment" and "the idiot", he covers this and other questions more profoundly and even attempts to answer some of them, making them some of his best work (in my opinion)...
But I do agree with you. Here he leaves the question open, or almost...
larryboy1995 1 year ago
thank you for your videos, these are a great resourse to use while reading the book!
bielenka 2 years ago 4
bolshoi spacibo!
tolstoy1 2 years ago