Reading Dosteovesky amidst nature is whole another feeling.

Thinking of getting some short-story collections and other minor novels not related to the big five.

I can recommend this highly. It's a fascinating account of his time in prison with his characteristic examinations of personality and psychology. And it's not depressing at all.

Hi! I have read of couple of Dostoevsky pieces and loved them. i was wondering if anyone has read both Kafka and Dostoevsky? are the authors similar at all in themes and whatnot? i wanted to see what is the excitement around kafka since I haven’t dived into his works, and if so what book should i start with?

I have seen this particular post a lot of times and this one has a huge amount of likes. Reading Dostoevsky's work never made me feel like he had a superiority complex, what do u think could be the reason for such a huge mass of people agreeing with this post.

Started reading this book recently, it's quite easy to understand but I was wondering when the book gets more interesting because the first parts are just monks and stuff but anyways the book has very good flow [I'm a new reader so this is the first time I hv ac sticked to just one book and not quit]

Hello fellow Dostoevsky fans . I have a question , I just finished part 4 and wonder who is the unknown man really ? I feel as if it’s the first time I read about him , the man who talked to the investigator and was behind the door listening and actually was the “ surprise “ the investigator had for Raskolnikov before Nikolai entered the room … Thanks and have all a good day with I hope plenty of reading .

cfr. title (are my premises and/or conclusion wrong or is it a bit more complicated than that ? Please let me know)

Currently on chapter 4 and I find it somehow easier to understand than C+P. Without spoilers, does TKB get more complicated to understand as it progresses?

I'm working on a class project for C&P, and I need some help finding objects that represent Pyotr Luzhin. I have to pick 8-10 objects that could be associated with him in some way—things that capture his personality, motives, and relationships with other characters. Got any suggestions?

In Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, the character of Elder Zosima plays a pivotal role in representing a particular strain of Christian mysticism and ascetic philosophy. While Elder Zosima’s teachings offer moral guidance and spiritual depth, there are several aspects of his philosophy that invite critique. Specifically, his emphasis on absolute selflessness, the rejection of worldly concerns, and the idealization of asceticism can be viewed as problematic. This essay argues against the philosophy of the Elder by challenging its idealism, its potential to dehumanize, and its detachment from the complexities of real human experience.

1. Idealization of Selflessness and the Rejection of Human Nature

One of the central tenets of Elder Zosima's philosophy is the idea of unconditional selflessness. Zosima teaches that true salvation lies in transcending the ego and embracing a complete self-abnegation, where the individual’s desires, thoughts, and actions are solely directed toward the service of others. While this ideal may seem morally noble on the surface, it overlooks a fundamental aspect of human nature: the need for self-preservation and personal growth. Human beings are not purely altruistic creatures, and the suppression of individual desires can lead to psychological and emotional harm. Zosima’s philosophy demands an impossible purity of heart that negates the complexity of human identity.

In practice, this radical selflessness can be seen as a form of repression. It asks individuals to ignore their own needs, desires, and inner conflicts in favor of an idealized, externally imposed morality. The resulting dissonance between the individual's authentic self and the idealized version of the saintly self can lead to a sense of alienation or self-loathing. Dostoevsky’s portrayal of the character Ivan Karamazov, who fiercely challenges the notion of a just and benevolent God, suggests that such a philosophy may be alien to human experience. The demand to transcend one’s own humanity in pursuit of a higher spiritual goal may ultimately lead to despair, as it denies individuals the opportunity to reconcile their spiritual ideals with their earthly existence.

2. Asceticism as a Dehumanizing Practice

Another core aspect of Elder Zosima’s philosophy is the endorsement of asceticism—the practice of denying oneself the pleasures and comforts of the material world in order to achieve spiritual purity. Zosima advocates for the abandonment of earthly pleasures and urges his followers to live in a way that is detached from material concerns. While asceticism can have its merits in terms of fostering discipline and spiritual focus, its extreme version, as proposed by Zosima, risks alienating individuals from their natural instincts and basic human needs.

By emphasizing detachment from the body and the material world, Zosima’s philosophy neglects the importance of physical well-being, emotional connection, and the joy that can be found in the pleasures of life. The ascetic ideal is rooted in a dualistic worldview that separates the body from the spirit, framing the former as a source of temptation and impurity. However, this dualism does not account for the integral connection between body and soul. Human beings experience the world through their senses and emotions, and denying these aspects of existence can lead to a disjointed, fragmented experience of life. Furthermore, Zosima’s asceticism ignores the potential for spiritual growth that can come from engaging with the material world in a balanced and thoughtful manner. Rejecting the world in its entirety may deprive individuals of the opportunity to find meaning and grace within the ordinary aspects of life.

3. Detachment from the Real Struggles of Human Life

Perhaps the most significant flaw of Zosima’s philosophy is its detachment from the real, often painful, struggles of human life. Zosima speaks of a world where spiritual purity can be attained through selflessness and asceticism, yet this vision seems divorced from the complexities of human suffering. Characters like Alyosha Karamazov, who initially seeks guidance from the Elder, are portrayed as deeply influenced by Zosima’s idealized worldview. However, as the story progresses, it becomes evident that these teachings cannot fully address the moral and existential dilemmas that the Karamazov brothers face, particularly in relation to their father’s corruption, their own personal failings, and the troubling question of the existence of evil.

For example, Zosima’s philosophy fails to provide a satisfactory response to the problem of evil, which is a central theme of The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan Karamazov’s argument against the existence of a benevolent God hinges on the cruelty and suffering of innocent children. Zosima’s response to this existential question is, at best, evasive, and at worst, naive. His ideal of unconditional love and forgiveness—while beautiful in theory—does not adequately engage with the harsh realities of human life, such as injustice, betrayal, and suffering. Zosima's teachings, when viewed through the lens of Ivan’s challenge, seem inadequate to address the moral and metaphysical problems that confront the individual in a world marked by pain and inequality.

4. The Danger of Over-Spiritualizing Human Experience

Finally, the Elder’s philosophy risks over-spiritualizing human experience, creating a rift between the spiritual and the material, the ideal and the real. Zosima's insistence on the sanctity of self-denial and ascetic practices can obscure the richness of human experience and reduce life to a series of moral tests and spiritual exercises. By promoting an unearthly ideal of perfection, Zosima undermines the potential for individuals to find divinity in the imperfections of daily life. In contrast to his detached philosophy, Dostoevsky’s work often champions a more integrated view of human existence, one that embraces the messiness of life—complete with its doubts, desires, and contradictions—as a path to deeper understanding and spiritual growth.

This is particularly evident in the character of Dmitri Karamazov, whose passions, struggles, and eventual moral awakening illustrate that true spiritual development comes not from the rejection of the self, but from a process of reckoning with the self. Dmitri’s path to redemption is grounded in his grappling with his own flaws and failings, rather than in a flight from them. In this sense, Dostoevsky’s vision of spirituality is far more human-centered and nuanced than the ascetic ideal espoused by Elder Zosima.

Conclusion

While Elder Zosima’s philosophy in The Brothers Karamazov offers an idealized vision of Christian virtue, it is ultimately flawed in its unrealistic demands for selflessness, its over-reliance on asceticism, its detachment from the struggles of human life, and its over-spiritualization of existence. By ignoring the complexities of human nature and the real challenges that individuals face, Zosima’s teachings risk reducing spirituality to a set of unattainable ideals, alienating individuals from their true selves. Dostoevsky, through his multifaceted portrayal of the Karamazov brothers, suggests that a more authentic spirituality arises from the acceptance of human imperfections and the struggle to reconcile the spiritual with the earthly.

About 70 pages left of C&P and pretty solid but I unfortunately have not been gripped like so most people in this sub. I started this book, and am hoping to continue with Dostoyevsky, to become a better reader. However, due to my current experience with cp, I feel like I’m not ready to continue. Things like the extraordinary man, the brutal scene with the horse, and ruzamhakin as a great friend all stuck out to me but that was mostly it. Are there some other Russian authors I should consider to sort of warmup to dosto? I just don’t want to precede and lose out on the beauty that I may otherwise find if I was a stronger reader. Maybe trudging through and continuing to grapple with his work is the best route? Any suggestions are welcome and I would be curious to see if any of you all have had similar feelings at some point in your reading journeys.

I have read Crime & Punishment. Now I’m reading the “The Brothers Karamazov” but doing 2 chapters a day and doing annotations and expanding thoughts onto a side journal is all just so much.

Can someone tell me it’s okay to just read Dostoevsky or TBK like a normal book. Some day 3 chapters, some day 7, some day 10 pages. There will be parts I catch, parts I miss, and parts that completely went unaware. And that it’s okay.

I feel guilty and feel like a lesser person for not reading TBK with the desire of deep analysis. I keep expecting that with this method I’ll open a 3rd eye and my life will suddenly click and change for the better.

Sometimes the “big” books in literature does this to me. Tell me it’s okay.

Edit: Thank you all for your comments, suggestions, encouragements and criticisms. Just got home from work and had a great time reading through them. Moving forward I will be reading TBK like a normal person would!

I chalk it up to the lack of continuity and taking a few extended breaks reading it, but I feel like I missed a LOT in this book. Like, almost everything. I also found 90% of everything in parts two and three to be utterly snoozeworthy.

I do plan on reading it again to see what I get out of it this time, but after loving C&P, TBK, and UM the first time through each, it's weird feeling so disconnected from the book and feeling like so much is going over my head.

I recently read this book and it's terrific 💯 I just wanted to tell this to someone who can understand this.

Thanks for reading folks 🖤

Im around 60%-ish of the way done with TBK, and I really want to share that I love how heartfelt and thought-provoking of a book Dostoyevsky created 🥺

I often hear that his works are quite depressing, but I feel like it’s the contrary because he shows that the majority of humans aren’t inherently evil, just that they may steer the wrong direction in their morals. And such a decision is very much influenced by one’s environment, circumstances, etc. Dostoyevsky portrays most prominently through Alyosha and the elder guy, but also in the gradual changes in outlook and realization from Mitya, that it’s always essential to maintain compassion for everyone regardless, because within everyone it is possible for change- and obviously not everyone everyone, but enough people to the point where you should have hope for others rather than mistrust.

Even in C&P with Rodya, the fact he could break out of his stupor of delirium and ultimately set off to a path of possible goodness makes me want to believe in the fundamental good possible for any individual. And right now I’m in the part where Mitya had that dream which I think it’s a significant turning point, or rather a reveal of his true noble colors, that loving humankind and just simply having compassion for others can do so much for both you and other people.

Overall, I think Dostoyevsky wanted to show that you can very much find love in the sorrows of this world- as Zossima said, a quote that really stuck out to me, “Indeed, precious memories may remain even of a bad home, if only the heart knows how to find what is precious.”

Very cool book !

I should mention that I read the book a long time ago but I always felt that everyone hated that character, whereas he always evoked more pity than anything else for me.

He was born from rape, never treated like a true son by either Fyodor or the servants (I'm still traumatised by the episode where he’s beaten with the Bible). Throughout the book, he’s called a bastard, an idiot, the ‘son of the stinking one.’ No one ever had a kind word for him, not even Ivan, not even the saint Alyosha.

What Smerdy did is not justifiable, but it’s totally understandable (and I think no one really mourns the old man's death). I mean, you simply can’t treat a person that way and expect them not to turn into a monster. That’s what you get.

Stavrogin and Svidrigailov are far more perverse than him

There are numerous books Dostoevsky has written that just doesn’t get much attention at all. Though the “big five” has been monikered as such, and rightfully so, due to the gravity of prose and ideas present in those books— it can’t be ignored that, because of the focus on those 5, many of his other works go unnoticed.

Do you guys and guylettes think, perhaps due to marketing and the like, that the so called “big five” subtracts and subverts attention away from Dostoevsky’s other works?

I’m curious as to how others may think about this seeing how many, if not most, people who know of Dostoevsky know of him through because of his 5 most popular books.

What are your thoughts about Father Zossima's dead body stinks but Illusha's not?

Does anybody here sometimes think Dostoevsky's entire philosphy is a knee-jerk reaction to the modernization of european societies at the time including the one he is part of in Russia, thereby losing himself in either exaggerations or black and white portrayals of morality and meaning ?

Dostoevsky surely had interesting insights into the human mind. But in the end he was just that : A human. Full of bias and cognitive dissonance, just like all of us.

D. was an orthodox christian. Although I'm convinced he struggled with his faith just like all of us. There is no way a smart guy like him never would have reflected on the non-sensical aspects of his religion.

I remember the Grand Inquisitor saying something in his monologue that struck me. I think it was something along the lines of "Believing or God (or even in Jesus) is necessary for society but when a person dies, they will find nothing beyond the grave. But as long as they're alive, they need to believe it in hope of "heavenly bread".

I'm not really sure what Dostoevsky means when he writes about "heavenly bread" but let me tell you something : If heavenly bread is supposed to motivate me or anyone else, then a) good luck and b) get the f out of here.

I've talked to guys who went through severe struggles and you know what helped them turn it around and live a dignified life ? Resources. Money and relationships (romantic and platonic). A meaningful job. Not "heavenly bread". No belief in a "higher power". Nothing helped other than the installment of "earthly bread". It is this earthly bread that makes it able for you to live a healthy life and heal your traumas- all of which is documented through studies. Nutrition, exercise, affection, relaxation, relationships. The Grand Inquisitor was right.

I'm also convinced that it is indeed possible to be moral without having faith in god or the afterlife. His conclusions in Crime and Punishment don't hold up. I've seen so many wonderful people who didn't believe in God and who were never nihilistic or doleful. Whether someone is nihilistic, vengeful or cheerful seems in my observation always be linked to childhood trauma or the lack of it. Morality is not an invention. It is human nature.

?

I’m a mood and seasonal reader. Is White Nights a good story to read in the winter?? Does it have a cold weather feel? Some say yes but I read that it takes place in summer.

Started reading Demons/Devils by Dostoyevsky and I wanted a playlist to read to. This allows me to feel the gravity of his scenes and various dialogue in Dostoyevsky’s work. It adds atmosphere when I’m reading. I thought I’d share in case anyone has the same appeal.

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1f5oyLf27VQc6lHfWkCFDR?si=oek7d53NS-WPX1GynBFylQ

Edit: Yes, the playlist will grow. I try to find songs that are a perfect fit.

Please help me to create a definite list of all the notable works Dostoevsky read in his life. If you know of any, let me know in the comments. Also mention if you recall where Dostoevsky mentioned this author or book.

This is off the top of my head.

Russian literature

Gogol

• The Nose
• The Overcoat
  • Mentioned in: Poor Folk
• Dead Souls
  • Mentioned in: The Brothers Karamazov (?)

Goncharov

• Oblomov

Lermontov

Nekrasov

Pushkin

• His poetry (any notable poems?)
  • The Hapless Night
    • Mentioned in: The Idiot
• The Queen of Spades

Tolstoy

• Childhood / Boyhood / Youth
  • Mentioned in: Humiliated and Insulted
• Anna Karenina
• War and Peace

Turgenev

• Fathers and Sons
  • Greatly inspired Demons, The Adolescent, The Brothers Karamazov

Zhukovsky

Russian history books?

.

.

English literature

Dickens

• Which specific books?

Radcliffe

• When Dostoevsky was 8 years old (see Joseph Frank)

Shakespeare

• Which specific plays?

.

.

French literature

Balzac

Flaubert

• Madame Bovary
  • Mentioned in: The Idiot

Honoré de Balzac

• Dostoevsky translated Eugénie Grandet

Hugo

• Cromwell
• Hernani

George Sand

Molière

Voltaire

.

.

Spanish literature

Cervantes

• Don Quixote
  • Mentioned in: The Idiot

.

.

German literature

Schiller

• The Robbers

Goethe

• Faust
  • Influenced: The Brothers Karamazov (Dmitri's nightmare)

.

.

American literature

Poe

• See Dostoevsky's essay on Edgard Allen Poe.

.

.

Religious works

The Bible

• Everywhere
• Notably Job (Brothers Karamazov), the Gospel of Luke (Demons) and Revelation (The Idiot).

Church Fathers

• Especially?

The Quran (?)

Other Islamic works? He referred to Islamic legends.

.

.

Greek & Roman philosophy and literature

Aesop

• Aesop's Fables

Plato?

Greek plays?

Stoics?

Greek philosophy and mythology mentioned often in the Brothers Karamazov especially: Notably the myth of Demeter and Diogenes's antics.

I’ve decided to reread C&P since getting the Katz translation (way more readable than the Garnett I had before) and am loving it! C&P was my first Dosto read years ago, so I had a really tough time understanding much, even in a way that I completely neglected Razumikhin the first go around. But this time, I’ve been able to see how great of a friend he is, steadfast in his enthusiasm and compassion for those he engages with.

I think my favorite line to sum up his great character is, “Once somehow, about two months ago, they were about to meet on the street, but Raskolnikov turned away and even crossed over to the other side of the street so he wouldn’t be noticed. But Razumikhin, even though he did notice, passed him by, not wishing to disturb his friend.”

Razumikhin is not only a friend I’d want, but the friend I aspire to be.

Seriously, big thank you to Katz for providing such a wonderful translation! He’s made this second read through much more engaging than my first!

Let me know what you all think of our boy Razumikhin!

What books did Dostoevsky like? As I understand, he liked Pushkin. Also Dickens. What other writers and what books did he like?