Mishkin

Tfw I just realized that the prince Mishkin was actually a nihilist, as Kolia said. He tried to love everyone but this is impossible for a human being because in order to love everyone you have to understand every point of view and when you do that you start thinking that everything is excusable and that everything could be true. That is nihilistic in its more pure meaning, and that explains why even if he tried to be a good person he ended up making everyone more miserable including himself.

More and more I am thinking that Nietzches was right and the aristocrat man needs to think there are good things and bad things, love the first ones and hate the other ones.

What other Dostoievsky's characters are nihilists?

Fuck it, I'm going to be honest here. I can't stand reading Dostoevesky. Call me a pleb, call me whatever the fuck you want, I simply can't stomach his books. I've read several of his books. Including The Idiot. When it comes to The Idiot, I did enjoyed the Don Quixote bits, but none of that can stop the blaring issues I have with this writer. ALL of the woman characters sound like fast talking, bumbling fools, with flabbergasted expressions and short reasonings.

At first I thought, "this has to be a mistake, maybe I'm mis-reading these female characters, they can't all be this poorly crafted." But nope, I decided to listen to several audio books to compare the woman characters with the readers, and sure enough, they all sounded the same in the audio readings.

As far as the deep, philosophical, or religious significance of Dostoevsky's work, I still feel it falls flat in comparison to other Russian Authors (or other authors authors in general).

Mishkin was interesting, but absolutely unbelievable at times. Some people compare him to a Christ like character, and to that I ask, "Did we even read the same book?"

Alyosha Karamazov is a similar character from his later book, The Brothers Karamazov. A probably more well refined version of Mishkin in many ways. It's true, TBK is his best work, but even that is still filled with the unbelievable annoying woman characters brought in with a wannabe Christ like figure and a philosophical antagonist of some kind.

People can say I'm a fuckin fool for not liking Dostoevsky's work, but whatever, I've actually sat down and read through several of his entire books left feeling no more or less having read it.

I think he is a meme author, and gets far more attention than he should.

Recommend me some authors or books from the "other Russian Authors (or orher authors authors in in general)".
But to pick up your argument, to a certain point I agree that Dosto characters are often unbelievable and constructed in some daydreaming, whimsical sense, but I attribute it to the combination of factors: 1) there may be some truth and accuracy in such portrayals from strictly historical point of view, 2) it gets the point across, and 3) it's madly readable. I don't think Dostoevsky paints completely realistic characters, rather combines attitudes and philosophies into characters that could (and occasionally have in the past) become realistic under certain circumstances. As for the women, I don't know, haven't lived in the 19th-century Russia, but those don't seem too far off, from the mannerism of nobility to the craziness of the impoverished, malnourished, or poisoned by asbestos folk. These people often lived in conditions worse than urban animals of today, and there's no lack of lunatics today neither.

I think they were referring to the fact that Dosto's male characters are complex even if they seem a little like unreal crystallizations of ideas. His women are just flat

who you calin an idiot mf

I didn't think aglaya or nastasya filippovna were flat

I think Dosto's characters were not as flat as you may think.
There's a chapter in the book (towards the end I think) where Mishkin founds a Flaubert's Madame Boabary. This is very revealing because Dosto's is acknowledging a relation of identity between Madame Bobary and Aglaya and the other love of the Prince. They are similar because 200 hundred years ago women were actually oppressed as we can see in many events in the book, (the unfair dishonor of Catalina, the imprisonment the women in the generals family lives) and for this reason I have came with idea that the high class women in that era were all neurotic and suffered several other mental illness and maybe that's because you think the female characters are unbelievable, because women nowadays are so different that you cannot come to imagine people like that. I live in a third world country, for example, and I can see that my grandmother has similar characteristics to the women in this books so I can kind of relate to Dosto's female characters.

are you a woman?

That's very interesting. Is apprehension towards having convictions the same as being without convictions if they lead to the same result? I think you're right that Myshkin suffers the consequences of nihilism, but I don't think he himself is a nihilist. Rather, he's just... an idiot.

I don't think Neitzche's aristocrat is the right conclusion here, Dostoevsky clearly still thinks a christian good is worth pursuing judging from his other works. Myshkin's problem was that he allowed his self-consciousness and empathy to overtake him. He was humble in a far too stifling and self-destructive manner. Compare him to more active and whole good personalities like Father Zosima, Alyosha, or Christ himself.

I think the fault is in everyone else. They couldn't accept the prince's empathy and forgiveness and always suspected some ulterior motive.
I think it shows how far gone 19th century society was from the Christian ideal; to the point where a "Christ-like" character can't even survive.
Myshkin was like a Quixote but instead of chivalry he was overcome with forgiveness and empathy in a time when they were no longer relevant. Like Quixote you can see him as a crazy fool or an idealistic hero.

Yeah I would agree with it being on other people. I can't say for certain that it was an exclusively 18th century thing though. Obviously there is the connection to russian society but I think on a deeper level it's a message on virtually all people in all times. It's like how i think the deeper message of Don Quixote is universal, as the imaginative against reality - Myshkin, being the extreme of virtue as a society renders virtue to be, like Quixote, lacks the concession of practical 'realness' in character for the virtuous life to be sustainable. Ultimately it was Dosto saying a person on the extreme of forgiveness and humbleness, while virtuous, is not reconcilable with the world, and a character like Alyosha or Zosima is a better example - people having perhaps the same level of inwardness and virtue as Myshkin but not allowing it to stifle outward action.

I'm on page 114, will try and finish this weekend.

Myshkin just seem like an innocent autist at this point, and I believe Dusty wrote it to condemn society for not having a place for Myshkin. But the truth is that he's a weak manchild with no marketable skills. Why does he deserve sympathy?

>no marketable skills
Dostoevsky wasn't a scum utilitarian

Looks like you haven't read The Insulted and Humiliated.
The sluts and harlots from The Idiot are pretty common stereotypes in Dostoevsky (Nastasya being quite similar to the one in The Gambler).

>(Nastasya being quite similar to the one in The Gambler).
what? no, Nastasya was defiled, sold to a guy that used her as a sex toy, which was tolerated by society, but then shunned and scoffed at when she tried to regain society

but Polina was pure

Degas was not an idiot.

>with no marketable skills.
Consider suicide

He's popular with lost young dudes who seek to validate vague and uninformed spiritual feels (born out of being a wayward loser) with something they perceive carries weight. (19th century Russian literature in this case) This is why dosty is the brainlet's favourite author.

Tbh I don’t think Dostoevsky would say that true love consists in understanding the viewpoint of others. The most fundamental love for him is indelibly tied to self-sacrifice and absolute selflessness, even to that which the individual doesn’t understand. Take Sonya in C&P, for example. She seeks to understand Raskolnikov’s reasoning and justification for his actions, but that knowledge isn’t a condition for her love of him — rather, her seeking it is a result of her love for him. Love comes first, understanding after (and even then, understanding so that one might love more).

Granted, it might be a particular character trait of Myshkin that he mixes up the order of the two in thinking that he has to understand someone in order to love them. But on the whole, Dostoevsky doesn’t think love necessitates rational inquiry; instead, it takes place on a different plane of the human spirit. In fact, most of his female characters (at least the positive ones) tend to understand this better than the male ones do. Individuals like Raskolnikov, the Underground protagonist, etc. actually suffer largely because they seek conscious understanding as a prerequisite for love, which in Dostoecsky’s mind only engenders further isolation and agony until they can get past their overburdening intellect.

What I mean is that we're expected to pity and support Myshkin, but he doesn't offer anything to anybody. He is physically weak, socially aspergic, economically useless and so on. Essentially a 'man-child' as we understand it today.

No author who stays that popular for 140 years can be a meme. No one likes you Nabokov. If you don't get it that's fine just don't deny how important Dostoevsky is. Nastasya Filipovna is very complicated and even true to my experience, again you don't have to agree, but I think Dostoyevsky nails what some people are really like. Also Alyosha isn't like Myshkin at all...

lol k who is your favorite author?

He offers genuine love, friendship and forgiveness

Henry Miller

>Henry Miller
nice, been meaning to read him where should I start? and to respond to your original point I can't speak to the average person's experience of Dostoevsky and its existential weight on the subject etc. but as someone who studies Russian culture/history his work is immensely interesting and important, you can't really have a full understanding of post-19th century Russian intelligentsia culture without having read him (esp. his non-fictional works like his diary entries from Europe)

Tropic of Cancer

bullshit. People are still talking about Johann Strauss and that guy is a buffoon.

What books did he write?

To a certain extent I see your point, but you should admit Strauss isn't half as influential as Dostoyevsky.