Is there any truth to the theory tha Dostoevsky's Crime and punishment is the rejection (or even a criticism) of the...

Is there any truth to the theory tha Dostoevsky's Crime and punishment is the rejection (or even a criticism) of the idea of the Superman?

Clearly it is
It's funny that Nietzsche was such a fan of his

I’d say Nietzsche’s philosophy is compatible to the temperament of the individual and varies from person to person. More of a criticism of Stirner.

But didn't it pretty much say Napoleon was able to be one?

It's a rejection of the idea that you can be a moral superman

>Superman
Overman, you fucking dumbfucks

It can be translated as either.

Let's just not translate it then yeah

Yes and Overman is more correct.

Have you read the book? It couldn’t be much more obvious

The Dostoyevsky/Christianity thread died out while I was typing out this long ass quote. Sorry it isn't directly related, but now that I typed it up, I need to put it somewhere. Feel free to disregard: Here's a great quote from one of his letters: 'I can tell you about myself that I am a child of this century, a child of and disbelief, I have always been and will always be (that I know), until they close the lid of my coffin. What terrible torment this thirst to believe had cost me and is still costing meand the stronger it becomes in my soul, the stronger are the arguments against it. ... I formed within myself a symbol of faith in which all is clear and sacred for me. This symbol is ... to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more profound, more sympathetic, more reasonable, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ ... more than that- if someone succeeded in proving to me that Christ was outside the truth, and if, indeed, the truth was outside Christ, I would sooner remain with Christ than with the Truth'. He riffs on this idea of 'if it IS made up' a lot. I'm pretty positive he (along with every writer that actually researches Christianity) knows the whole thing was made up, but that greater truths are contained in the Christian myth that must be preserved for the sake of humanity's continued existence and development. He also recognizes the personal gains that are achieved through the 'Christian' faith in Christ (although when he describes this faith here, the likeness to Plato's all-encompassing idea of 'the good' is quite strong (christianity is Platonism for the masses, that is how it started and why it works)

Nietzsche likely only read Notes From Underground and found its /r9k/ premise relatable

Dosto has a track record of BTFOing Neetshit. See Stavrogin in Demons.

I hear this meme about Dostoevskj doing le ebin btfo of Nietzsche often here, but are we sure Dostoevskj actually read him? I think he was referring to the russian atheists/nihilists of his time.

No it fucking can't because English has the connotation of Superman the superhero now.

Uebermensch translates only into Overman, supra being a translation of 'greater' or 'over' does not mean that the translation works into English now.

The Uebermensch does not have superpowers, this is why it can no longer be translated to Superman.

It is unlikely that Dostoyevsky read any Nietzsche. Nietzsche's major works were all written after Dostoyevsky died.

Well that's not my fucking fault, is it?

You don't have to know Nietzsche to refute his philosophy.

It's your fucking fault for being a stupid monoglot who doesn't understand how translations work.

Before Superman and superheroes, one could translate Uebermensch to Superman. Now that Superman has its own meaning, Uebermensch can only be translated to Overman without obfuscating.

supra (super) translates to ueber (over)
Superman does not mean the same as Overman
Uebermensch does not translate to Superman
Dostoevski didn't refute anything.

Yes, but have you thought about how I do not give a fuck? I'm not the one translating, and if someone else translates it as Superman, I won't connote that with a superhero, because I'm not that ignorant.

Even if my hometown is officially the Home of Superman...

>shits on others for being monolingual plebs and is a total grammar nazi
>consistently misspells übermensch as u"""""e"""""bermensch.

If you're going to be a total dick, it's a good move to make sure you're not vulnerable to your own critique.

BUCKO.

The average reader who goes in blind with only the prerequisite readings will connotate, which will lead them to misunderstand what Nietzsche very specifically worded as 'der Uebermensch'.
I don't feel like switching between ENG and DE keyboards when I'm writing in English, if you're being serious.
I'm not a monoglot, I can speak (not read) French and can somewhat read (not speak) German.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that I, personally, do not care.

>gets called on being a faggot
>tries to defend self
>fails to realize that ü is u on an english keyboard, not ue
>Hue hue hue isn't hü hü hü

:^)

u is not ü u fgt
ue is

Nietzsche loved guys who could disagree with him well

This clearly
I hate everyone who calls it "superman", it makes it sound like it caters to children when it reality it is quite the opposite - the stepping stone towards the red pill and nazism

>Uebermensch is wrong, but Übermensch is okay even though they are the same thing
Wut

He's autistic and thinks using ue for ü is equivalent to translating über to super.

>more correct translation
back to Word and Object with ye

>mispells

I don't know if you know German, but you can unorthodoxically spell the umlaut u as ue you raging faggot