How can one man be so brilliant?

This, desu

Was he on the spectrum?

>"Fyodor Mikhailovich often told me that before the onset of an attack there were minutes in which he was in rapture. “For several moments,” he said, “I would experience such joy as would be inconceivable in ordinary life – such joy that no one else could have any notion of. I would feel the most complete harmony in myself and in the whole world and this feeling was so strong and sweet that for a few seconds of such bliss I would give ten or more years of my life, even my whole life perhaps.”

thanks for sharing

Because he knew what it was like to kill a man.

>memeyevsky

Because he wanted to believe in God and Russian Orthodoxy so bad, that he invented clever arguments to trick himself into believing.

Trick unintelligent people into thinking you are intelligent.

Dostoevsky was able to challenge himself and in the process created what are arguably the best arguments for atheism and nihilism ever made despite himself being a believer. The stronger argument though is the narrative he presents which show the result of living such a life.

And to be a vershok from death himself

>Trick unintelligent people into thinking you are intelligent.

Well meme'd.

he didnt spontaneously adapt to a world in decay, so when his consciousness was already formed, he retried this adaptation, which showed him the violence this decayed world makes to a human being when he has to adapt to it.

Did Dosto really kill a man or was it Tolstoy? I remember it was one of the great Russians who did it.

>it's another Veeky Forums is contrarian episode

Dosto is kinda like Nietzsche. Misunderstood by most at first. Only through closer examination you can see his true brilliance. This especially goes for people who read one Dosto book and claim him to be the greatest.

Has anyone actually read Дocтoéвcкий or are you just reading Pevear, Volokhonsky, McDuff, Myers et al.?

ugh

>and in the process created what are arguably the best arguments for atheism and nihilism ever made despite himself being a believer.
No.
>The stronger argument though is the narrative he presents which show the result of living such a life.
Are you almost a literal fucking mongoloid? Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov has a mental breakdown, imagines talking with Satan etc.
Consider getting off this board.

it's pretty mainstream to believe in Dostoevsky's brilliance

Are you retarded? It's amazing someone can miss the point this badly

>a cheap sensationalistic millennialist
>brilliant

Pick one

Not the other user.

The argument of evil is one of, if not the best, arguments for atheism. The grand inquisitors is probably the best fictional account of this problem.

Also, Dostoevsky has pretty much all of his nihilist/atheist characters break down, showing what that kind of lifestyle does to a man's soul. Redemption from this can be through Christ.

Yet a different user here
To your first point: yes it absolutely is; what you seem to be missing is that what follows in the book is a much stronger counter-argument
To your second point: you are arguing with an user with whom you are in agreement

The Grand Inquisitor story is far from a strong argument for atheism and nihilism, same goes with the discussion in the second book (about the state and how criminals should be punished), and basically any other philosophical discussion in the book.

Tolstoy. He fought in war and would challenge people to duels to kill them in his youth

Kek. I meant as in the people replying to the thread who were saying he is overrated.
I do rate him as one of the greatest.

is that will menaker of chap trap house

If it's taken with the chapter before and the zosima chapters it is.

>r*ssian "literature"