That first scene in the train; the straight-forward, earnest, naivety - how can i learn to act like that?

Indians are mostly without special revelation. The only cultural group that may be said to already have salvation to any significant extent are the coptics.

The Prince is just a bitch. That's all. He's the perfect example of the pussified male.
Nothing more, nothing less. Once you realize it's basically just a book about a turbo-beta, the book becomes less interesting.

You're no better than the feminists you hate so much who analyze everything from their set ideological perspective.

t. Nietzschwit

I think that makes is significantly more interesting.

>how can i learn to act like that?
I wouldn't recommend you to trespass into that territory but let me tell you that acting like Myshkin/Christ in this day and age is met with distrust and hostility.

He's autistic dude.

How is he wrong? Our "beta" is nothing more than the "superfluous person" envisioned by Turgenev.

So, you did not understand the book then.

Visit
>>/r9k/

What the fuck is the point of you retards reading classics if you don't fucking understand them for fuck sake. He is supposed to be a stand in for Jesus, the whole point of the book is that people don't appreciate somebody who is actually good and pure.

>implying art has only a single meaning explicitly defined by the artist

No shit, Sherlock. But why would we ought to consider Myshkin good? All he did was make matters worse. His lack of "manliness" was as bad as the hyper-manliness of Rogozhin.

>book is called the idiot
>uses a portrait of degas as it's cover

what did they mean by this?

Vaccines

lol'd

Btw I don't trust vaccines.

Did Jordan Peterson talk about this book?

Is there a reason to give a fuck what that hoser has to say on the matter?

I like to listen the reflexions of an educated(psychologist) person as him

I am so sick of hearing about that man. Let it go.

Why do you hate him? wtf?

you are an idiot

Acting like Myshkin/Christ is met with distrust and hostility in any age, user.

still no great suggestions here

Yes, he only happened to talk about a famous and well-regarded book by one the most well-known and highly-regarded authors since the 18th century; mentioned a major work by a writer so influential and important that he's placed in history textbooks when considering the cultural achievements of the period. Yes, the only reason this book is important is that Professor Jordan Peterson happened to mention it.

You really must not understand the book

I'd say you're a little misguided in what you've said, but this kind of questioning is a sentiment I share. It's important for us to consider why Myshkin is good, and what that can serve us in life.

He exposes the corruption and pettiness of high society. He doesn't cause the problems, he just lets them be voiced
And also he doesn't kill anyone, y'know

Be born and raised Catholic. Have some knowledge of psychology. Understand the call to action that is Imitatio Dei. Be humble and thankful for what you have.

>learn
>naivety

He's the exact personification of the "superfluous person" by Turgenev. If he is the CORRECT form of person why did he not lead them by becoming the example? The Idiot is a failed attempt by Dosto to make Is and Ought clash. Of what good is "goodness" if it led to the death of Filippovna, to the psychological death of Aglaya and to the torment of many others? Can good be good if it creates badness? I don't believe so. I don't agree with those who claim Myshkin is "Jesus" or an approximation to the form of correctness. In the end, Myshkin was as bad as everyone else, or maybe even worse. He destabilized the natural order of things and led to the tragedy that we read. He was weak, fragile, incompetent, flamboyant, sick, stupid, indecisive, and a complete idiot. Just another middle class fool who lives in an idealized world: a superfluous person. To say that Myshkin embodies Ought or "goodness" is something I don't understand.

>failed attempt by Dosto to make Is and Ought clash
Why failed?
>To say that Myshkin embodies Ought or "goodness" is something I don't understand.
To want to help other people is an Ought. What about that is hard to understand?
That Myshkin's desire to do Good failed because he was an idiot doesn't mean that the desire to do Good in itself is not Good.

>Why failed?
Did you even read the book? It failed in every possible way. I hope you're not posturing and wasting my time, but I'll answer you either way. It failed because the plot followed the natural order of things, thus it was display of how and what is Is, and not of what and how Is can become Ought. Where did Ought and Is clashed? Maybe you can tell this board, how they clashed because I sincerely can not find in that book a single valid universal and objective moral command or any command or argument for that matter that led to good. The ending of the book ended in a tragedy. If you think the death of a troubled woman, the psychological death of a bourgeois woman, the psychological death of Myshkin, the sickening display of envy and distrust perpetuated by Myshkin in the Aglaya vs. Filippvona respects the form of goodness, then we have nothing more to talk about. Myshkin was nothing more than your average SJW jacking off to the feeling of helping the most "oppressed", the neediest, the weakest people he could think of. He didn't love anyone, but himself. He loved the idea of having someone in trouble to care of, and when that person no longer has any type of problems his interest vanishes - this is shown when he and Filippvona lived together. I cannot stress this enough: he led everyone on with his faux-christian attitude. Being Jesus isn't having a limp wrist, it's about virtue; Myshkin did not have virtue.

>To want to help other people is an Ought. What about that is hard to understand?
>To want to help other people is an Ought.
This is an Is and not Ought. Maybe it's not hard to you to understand this, because I don't understand the most basic concepts required for the conversation. Is the fact of me wanting to help Dr. Petrov destroy the world an Ought? Is the fact of me helping my friend commit suicide an Ought?
Is isn't an Ought just because sometimes it produces situations that are in accord with our needs or feelings. Can prima facie helping be good if later on it more or less creates a situation distasteful to many - e.g. telling my father that I'll carry all the furniture into the garage, and he goes home, and chugs sodas all day which leads to the fact of him having a stroke-?

>That Myshkin's desire to do Good failed because he was an idiot doesn't mean that the desire to do Good in itself is not Good.
"Just because my idea of ought failed this doesn't not meant that it wasn't an ought". lol, this is basic school tier thinking.
>I'm a good person. I try to help people even if in the end I complete fuck everything even more xDDDDD :PPP

All the negative things you attribute to myshkin were already in place before his arrival (save for perhaps some of the elements of aglaya's situation). He was primarily an observer, and the book simply shows the reader what the petty world of upper middle class Russia was like to someone with less cynical motives

>how they clashed because I sincerely can not find in that book a single valid universal and objective moral command or any command or argument for that matter that led to good
Why should a clash lead to anything good?
It's true that OUGHT represents reasoning and that IS represents perception but you have to understand that rational reasoning is simply a reflection of reality. That it can engender anything of itself is a misconception. Why would you demand from someone something that is impossible?
Don't you see how this sort of self-righteous attitude of yours only leads you to dismiss other people instead of helping them?

>I try to help people even if in the end I complete fuck everything even more
The only way to know something is to perceive it and the only way to know that something is Good or Bad is to perceive it as Good or Bad.
The clash is that Myshkin himself felt guilt over his own weakness. If he truly cared only about himself he woudn't have felt that way. He never thought of himself as Good, he understood that his own uselessness has caused pain to other people. This is moral reasoning.

Reasoning can help us model reality better and thus respond to it better but it can't make that reality something it is not and it can't teach us something we have no way of knowing.
Understanding that the way you do something is wrong doesn't teach you the right way to do it.

You seem to have issues. Are you some sort of self-hating millenial in denial?

>All the negative things you attribute to myshkin were already in place before his arrival (save for perhaps some of the elements of aglaya's situation).
I agree to some extent.

>He was primarily an observer, and the book simply shows the reader what the petty world of upper middle class Russia was like to someone with less cynical motives
I disagree. He was not primarily and observer for he in many occasions intervened to completely fuck up the whole scenario - take as an example the situation where Filippovna and Aglaya fight over our dear friend. The reason I agreed with the previous quote is solely due to the fact that the "Myshkin element" multiplied the already decadent Russian elite demerits through the involvement of all his acquaintances in that big mess that was his life - e.g. the family that most helped him, the Epanchyn family, suffered the most through their involvement with Myshkin's delusions of good by fucking their daughter up with giving her hopes and destroying them on and on (this is literally a crime in many western countries; something akin to psychological abuse). And more examples could be given, but it is reasonable to say that my position is the most plausible. I never said the Russian upper middle class filled with piety, nor' was it my intention. I don't know why you brought this to this discussion since we were debating something else. Anyhow, my position stands: Myshkin's lack of virtue destabilized even more the situation lived by the characters,

The first point leads directly to the second. The 'natural order' is terrible and has led to all these terrible tensions in the society, and myshkin (as observer) gives the reader a lens through which these underlying tensions are clear. Nastasya's personality is fundamentally self-destructive, and that is what leads to her death (and the majority of her actions)

>Why should a clash lead to anything good?
Where did I say that? I read and re-read the whole paragraph I wrote and I still don't find the connection you're trying to make. The clash's purpose it to fuse Is and Ought to make a bridge from one to the other, thus proving that Is ought to be X or Y. If you can't prove that, you failed. Exactly, what Dostoevskij's failed to do: a reasonable connection.

>It's true that OUGHT represents reasoning and that IS represents perception but you have to understand that rational reasoning is simply a reflection of reality.
No, it is not "true".Ought is moral truth/correctness and IS represents truth as a whole. To say that something like perception excludes reasoning or that pure perception even exists is impossible.

>Why would you demand from someone something that is impossible?
I'm not demanding anything. I'm pointing out that his objective failed. If you make a claim and I say that your claim is wrong: am I demanding anything from you?

>Don't you see how this sort of self-righteous attitude of yours only leads you to dismiss other people instead of helping them?
>self-righteous
I don't work with right or wrong, but with plausibility; I'm not here to help or to be your teacher or even to be your father figure. I'm here to put in practice the knowledge I've acquired. If you want help you're in the wrong place. Sincerely, try reddit.

>The only way to know something is to perceive it and the only way to know that something is Good or Bad is to perceive it as Good or Bad.
By objective-subjectivity one can say that most of us would agree that rape is bad by being manifestly agreed upon. And if you really want to take the pre-Socratic stance on morality than you already lost this fight, since if truth/moral truth is always a matter of opinion than there are no possible Oughts to be comprehended by us humans, thus not only Dostoevskij's objective failed but it was impossible from the start and he committed himself to an useless endeavor.

>The clash is that Myshkin himself felt guilt over his own weakness. If he truly cared only about himself he wouldn't have felt that way.
>truly
By your logic all I need to say is: if he *truly* felt guilt he would've worked hard to become strong rather than being a weak piece of shit who tries to force his pious way of living onto others.

>He never thought of himself as Good, he understood that his own uselessness has caused pain to other people.
He was created with that intent. Let's not try to play dumb here, ok? This was mentioned several times and I doubt you don't know this. He didn't thought himself as Good to assure the illusion of a pure heart.

>Reasoning can help us model reality better and thus respond to it better but it can't make that reality something it is not and it can't teach us something we have no way of knowing.Understanding that the way you do something is wrong doesn't teach you the right way to do it.
This literally made me yawn.

Stoicism

>Roman Catholicism is, in my opinion, worse than Atheism itself. Yes—that is my opinion. Atheism only preaches a negation, but Romanism goes further; it preaches a disfigured, distorted Christ—it preaches Anti-Christ […]. This is my own personal conviction, and it has long distressed me. The Roman Catholic believes that the Church on earth cannot stand without universal temporal Power. He cries 'non possumus!' In my opinion the Roman Catholic religion is not a faith at all, but simply a continuation of the Roman Empire, and everything is subordinated to this idea—beginning with faith. The Pope has seized territories and an earthly throne, and has held them with the sword. And so the thing has gone on, only that to the sword they have added lying, intrigue, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, swindling;—they have played fast and loose with the most sacred and sincere feelings of men;—they have exchanged everything—everything for money, for base earthly POWER! And is this not the teaching of Anti-Christ? How could the upshot of all this be other than Atheism? […] we must resist, and quickly, quickly! We must let our Christ shine forth upon the Western nations, our Christ whom we have preserved intact, and whom they have never known.

I'll try a different approach, so those who haven't read the book can understand us. Let's imagine John, an American teen, starts dating this mental cutie who enjoys cutting herself, killing dogs, create fires and/or any type of unreasonable activity. Now, John, lives in a hyper-consumerist society, his mom is depressed, his dad is an workaholic, his sister is an instagram and so and so forth. John's situation [without any contact with the cutie] seems pretty shitty, right? Yeah, but John wants to be a nice guy and help this girl out. So he starts dating the cutie and thus helping her. Inevitably, his inner personal sphere gets even shittier since his parents do not approve of such relationship: they say she's toxic. But, our John, wants to do good. He wants to really help out this girl so he continues to try to help her out. One day, Kit-kat, John's family dog is killed by the cutie. John's family is now at an utter mess because Kit-kat made their lives less miserable. His mom is crying, his dad resorts to drink even more, his sister hates him even more, but no. HE WANTS TO HELP HER OUT.

This is basically the Idiot. A fucked up society, by today's standards, gets even more fucked by an ideological narcissist, who lived 26 years in a mental hospital, with no life experience whatsoever tries to teach successful citizens how they should live their lives.

Now back to answering in a stricto sensu fashion: just because X is bad it doesn't mean that an act that makes it involuntarily worse than it already was isn't bad too.

I've read the book twice. Most of the bad things you pin on myshkin were inevitable; his interference changed little in the outcome of the plot.

i think the prince is a genuinely unspooked person

there are concepts outside of the unique individual that motivate people directly - these are the most evident spooks. but often, when people outwardly accept that they are acting out of being spooked, they are actually covering up for some other underlying motivation - one that they might not be aware of themselves - the spooks of their ego (in a lacanian sense, not in terms of stirner's 'unique.') maybe someone was abused by an uncle. they repress this memory. each weekend their family visits him. the ego, unbeknownst to the unique, might create a spook, like caring about homeless people, so that they can volunteer on the days of the visits and so not have to see their uncle. outwardly, this person is spooked by altruism, but pointing that out will not help them. they might agree that altruism is a spook, but they will find something else to avoid confronting the spook repressed in the ego, maybe one of shame or guilt. the prince has none of it. the world is his property, and to many spooked people this can seem a bit autistic. but learned autism is as different from congenital autism as a buddhist monk is from an actual child.

then there are spooks

>I've read the book twice.
I reckon you're trying to legitimize your argument since you yourself acknowledge you have no arguments besides the implausible "they were going to be miserable either way"?

>Most of the bad things you pin on myshkin were inevitable; his interference changed little in the outcome of the plot.
You're repeating yourself over and over. How about you start backing what you say with something more than "I've read the book twice"? To say that Myshkin did not have an effect on the outcome of plot make him utterly useless and redundant. To say that Aglaya and Nastassja would have fought for Myshkin even if wasn't there, that Hippolite would've humiliated himself to prove a point to Myshkin either way without him being there and etc is just ridiculous. The entire plot revolves around Myshkin doing his faux-righteous shit the entire book. Yet, you have the audacity of telling that he did little to nothing to Aglaya? Or to Hippolite? Or even to Prince S.? You might as well just go read the book one more time since you don't seem very informed about it.

>I reckon you're trying to legitimize your argument since you yourself acknowledge you have no arguments besides the implausible "they were going to be miserable either way"?
More that I was trying to prevent another cringy 'explainer' from you.
>You're repeating yourself over and over.
Because you aren't actually responding to my point
>To say that Myshkin did not have an effect on the outcome of plot make him utterly useless and redundant
Or that his purpose is that of an observer, not an active participant in most of the plot
> To say that Aglaya and Nastassja would have fought for Myshkin even if wasn't there
That's not what I'm saying. They wouldn't have fought over him obviously, but they very easily could have fought over someone else.
>that Hippolite would've humiliated himself to prove a point to Myshkin either way without him being there
Hippolite clearly had a bone to pick and would have made a grand gesture without myshkin. You clearly fundamentally misunderstand his character.

>Where did I say that?
>I cannot find in that book a single valid universal and objective moral command that led to good

>This literally made me yawn.
I am not trying to entertain you.

>He was created with that intent.
He was created with the intent to think of himself as good?

>if he truly felt guilt he would've worked hard to become strong rather than being a weak piece of shit
>I'm not demanding anything.
Yes, you are demanding something right here and that something is not possible.
>I don't work with right or wrong
You believe that there are "valid universal and objective moral commands" and condemn other people for not conforming to your perceptions of them. How would you call this?

>Ought is moral truth/correctness and IS represents truth as a whole
Moral reasoning is only "true" to the extent it is based on intuitive perception.
>pure perception is impossible
I have no idea what you think "pure" perception even is. Is a jellyfish incapable of perception or is it capable of moral reasoning?
>since if truth/moral truth is always a matter of opinion than there are no possible Oughts
I have no idea what you think "ought" even is. This is a circular argument in which you dismiss moral subjectivity on the basis that according to your personal definition morality is objective. In the first place why are you even equating objective/subjective with true/untrue?
>not only Dostoevsky's objective failed but it was impossible from the start
I have no idea what you think his "objective" even is.
>The clash's purpose it to fuse Is and Ought to make a bridge from one to the other
A clash is a clash. A bridge is a bridge.
See. Again you've made your own definition of what Dostoevsky's objective is and your own definition of what this objective entails and according to those definition he is wrong. So what?

You want other people to play your game by your rules and you act butthurt when they don't.

>just because X is bad it doesn't mean that an act that makes it involuntarily worse than it already was isn't bad too.
Correct.
But in the same way if X is good it doesn't mean that just because Y made X's outcome involuntarily worse X is not good anymore.