u/Hour_Figure_9342

..

Dmitri considered himself guilty. He believed that everyone in his country was guilty in some way, and that's why he wanted to suffer and go through this process of atonement. This is also why he was having such an intense internal moral conflict when Ivan proposed the escape plan.

But I keep wondering: wouldn't it have been better if Dmitri had thought about doing something to improve whatever he could in his country, rather than simply punishing himself?

If he truly believed that everyone was responsible for the suffering around them, then shouldn't that responsibility have led him toward action rather than self-punishment? Maybe taking responsibility doesn't necessarily mean accepting suffering; perhaps it can also mean trying to change whatever is within your power to change.

I don't understand anything !

Who are my enemies?

Law ? The state ? Myself? That woman who refused to hand me the book in the library?

I'm going to drink some tea and do nothing. The best thing I can do is nothing

Well, I love Sylvia Plath' s poems especially " Lady Lazarus" and I wanna read her novel,but I'm not quite sure I will like it and honestly I don't know why,so take my hand and tell me something good about this work so I can pick up the book and read it.

I read White nights at the very beginning and then I read crime and punishment. Now, I'm about to finish Brothers Karamazov and I want to keep going with Dostoevsky,so which book should I pick after finishing the Brothers Karamazov?

​

I have just finished the first six parts of The Brothers Karamazov, and I found myself thinking particularly about two ideas: the teachings of Elder Zosima, and the argument of the Grand Inquisitor. I also found an interesting connection between these ideas and the concept of social consciousness developed by the Iranian intellectual Ali Shariati.

Shariati argues that human beings need what he calls social consciousness: an awareness of their responsibility toward the fate of their society, rather than living entirely for themselves. For him, the individual should not exist merely as an isolated self. There must also be some higher ideal toward which human beings can strive. Knowledge and science alone are not enough; there must be a spiritual dimension and an ideal capable of giving human life direction.

This immediately reminded me of Elder Zosima.

Zosima seems to believe that modern human beings have lost something spiritual. They continually create new desires and then become slaves to those desires. The individual becomes almost mechanical: he creates a desire, pursues it, satisfies it, and then creates another one. In this sense, material prosperity can increase while happiness decreases.

Zosima also criticizes a society that glorifies individualism while weakening cooperation and human unity. And here I see a connection with Shariati's idea of social consciousness. The loss of social consciousness is not merely the loss of a political awareness; it can also become the loss of something profoundly human. A person who lives only for his own desires gradually loses his relationship with other human beings and, perhaps, with his own higher nature.

This also made me think of Gustave Le Bon, who argued, in roughly this sense, that when masses become politically passive and surrender their collective will, the state can gradually occupy the space that the people themselves abandoned. A society that no longer governs itself creates the possibility for authority to become something higher than society itself.

This reminds me of Abdel-Rahman al-Kawakibi, the Syrian thinker and author of The Characteristics of Despotism. Despotism can benefit from an isolated and politically passive population because individuals who are concerned only with their private lives are much easier to control than people who possess a strong collective consciousness.

I can even see a possible connection with modern Egypt, although this is only my own interpretation. In The Predicament of the World and Religion in Egypt, the Egyptian economist and intellectual Gamal Hamdan?—no, rather Galal Amin—discusses the social and economic transformations that took place in Egypt, particularly after the economic changes of the 1970s. One consequence, in my reading, was an increasing emphasis on material aspirations, accompanied by tensions involving spirituality and attitudes toward cultural heritage.

And then we arrive at the Grand Inquisitor.

The Grand Inquisitor tells Christ, essentially, that human beings do not truly want freedom; they want security, bread, certainty, and someone to take the burden of freedom away from them. This is one of the most disturbing ideas in the novel.

But my question is: How did the Grand Inquisitor arrive at this conclusion?

I think he built his argument on what humanity is, rather than on what humanity ought to become.

That distinction seems crucial.

The Grand Inquisitor observes human beings as they currently exist—their weakness, their fear, their desire for security, their inability to carry the burden of freedom—and then concludes that humanity therefore needs submission.

But Shariati might answer differently.

He might say that human beings need freedom precisely because they possess the possibility of developing social consciousness and rising above their immediate desires. If a human being retains this consciousness, he does not necessarily need to become a slave in order to receive bread. Social solidarity can provide bread while simultaneously allowing the individual to preserve his dignity and develop what we might call the higher possibilities of human nature.

So I see a fundamental disagreement here:

The Grand Inquisitor asks: What is humanity actually like?

Shariati, and perhaps Zosima in a different spiritual language, ask: What can humanity become?

The Grand Inquisitor sees the human being and concludes that freedom is too heavy a burden.

But perhaps the problem is that he mistakes human weakness for human destiny.

Perhaps humanity does not need to be liberated from freedom because it is incapable of bearing it. Perhaps it needs to become the kind of humanity that can bear it.

And this is where I find the Grand Inquisitor's argument both terrifying and incomplete.

He may understand humanity extremely well as it is.

But understanding what human beings are is not necessarily the same thing as understanding what human beings should become.

I have been struggling with porn since I was a little child. I have been trying to quit since I was 12 ,( now I'm 20). I feel less than nothing, not even an animal. I have always wanted to be intellectually sharp,gain knowledge, and be a well educated person. I'm living in a house which is hell. I got no parents. By the time passing I started hating girls despite Knowing that they had nothing to do with me. I used to get bullied at school and I have always closed my mouth. I have seen my mother cheating on my dad when I was four ( I have seen her and her lover in sex positions). Now, I don't know. I have always been an outcast. I tried to take my own life four years ago and I failed. I'm standing now, it's like standing upon nothing between two different worlds. I know nothing. I cannot do anything. I just wanted to vent because I should make a decision.

Guys, it's my day ten without porn but I have been masterbating with my fantasy . Is it the same thing?

The Dreamer is in great isolation that makes him create a fantasy world where he can make up for his loneliness and the lack of empathy. He is disgusted with his existence. He also envies those who live without a fantasy world, those who have a real world where they are not alone. He wanted love, but his desire for love made him an easy person to be used. For him, he had to go through an experience where he would realize the reality of the world, knowing that he was living in a delusion of love. He doesn't love her; he just wants to live normally. He helped her, deep down hoping that her man would never come back. He might not have been used by her. I think Dostoevsky was warning us not to follow anyone who gives us empathy blindly because they might use us, that we should not fall in love simply because we need to, and that we must face reality if that is what it demands. Maybe by doing so, we can accept our fate or change it, but in the right way.

Nastenka was willing to gain her freedom, so she was looking for someone to get her out of her grandmother's trap. She might not have loved either man. She used the Dreamer to reach her goal. For her, he was just someone who made her feel that she had value, someone who reminded her that she was a valuable girl, especially in front of her lover, whom I'm not even sure she truly loved. The Dreamer, for her, was a friend—a friend who could be used because of his desire for love, a friend whom God must have sent to help her, as she said. When her lover did not come for three nights, she cried, saying that he was guilty of breaking her heart. At the same time, she was breaking another man's heart, as if Dostoevsky is telling us that love can be a source of torment, that just as we love someone for no reason, we might be punished for something we have not done, just as someone may love us. In her letter, she said that her heart had returned to the man who had always owned it.

In the end, the Dreamer looks at everything as if it is ugly. In fact, everything was normal and real, and that is why he saw it as ugly, because reality was ugly for him. Delusions were his drug. Once she left him, he saw everything as real as it truly was. Dostoevsky warns us not to dive into delusions, not to see ourselves as angels, and to live our lives with all their grief and joy, even if they contain only sorrow. I think the solution is the woman who serves the Dreamer because she is real.

My question is: What if we are looking for something that doesn't exist? Should we live in reality and accept it even if it is ugly? Should we dream only while we are asleep? Why should one person have everything while another has nothing? She was happy with him because he gave her hope that her lover might come back.

The Dreamer is in great isolation that makes him create a fantasy world where he can make up for his loneliness and the lack of empathy. He is disgusted with his existence. He also envies those who live without a fantasy world, those who have a real world where they are not alone. He wanted love, but his desire for love made him an easy person to be used. For him, he had to go through an experience where he would realize the reality of the world, knowing that he was living in a delusion of love. He doesn't love her; he just wants to live normally. He helped her, deep down hoping that her man would never come back. He might not have been used by her. I think Dostoevsky was warning us not to follow anyone who gives us empathy blindly because they might use us, that we should not fall in love simply because we need to, and that we must face reality if that is what it demands. Maybe by doing so, we can accept our fate or change it, but in the right way.

Nastenka was willing to gain her freedom, so she was looking for someone to get her out of her grandmother's trap. She might not have loved either man. She used the Dreamer to reach her goal. For her, he was just someone who made her feel that she had value, someone who reminded her that she was a valuable girl, especially in front of her lover, whom I'm not even sure she truly loved. The Dreamer, for her, was a friend—a friend who could be used because of his desire for love, a friend whom God must have sent to help her, as she said. When her lover did not come for three nights, she cried, saying that he was guilty of breaking her heart. At the same time, she was breaking another man's heart, as if Dostoevsky is telling us that love can be a source of torment, that just as we love someone for no reason, we might be punished for something we have not done, just as someone may love us. In her letter, she said that her heart had returned to the man who had always owned it.

In the end, the Dreamer looks at everything as if it is ugly. In fact, everything was normal and real, and that is why he saw it as ugly, because reality was ugly for him. Delusions were his drug. Once she left him, he saw everything as real as it truly was. Dostoevsky warns us not to dive into delusions, not to see ourselves as angels, and to live our lives with all their grief and joy, even if they contain only sorrow. I think the solution is the woman who serves the Dreamer because she is real.

My question is: What if we are looking for something that doesn't exist? Should we live in reality and accept it even if it is ugly? Should we dream only while we are asleep? Why should one person have everything while another has nothing? She was happy with him because he gave her hope that her lover might come back.

.

I want to make English stronger than my native language I know it's crazy but just tell me what to do everyday and how long it will take? I want to like natives.

I have been addicted to pornography for almost seven years now. I want to live and do many things. I'm trying to find a meaning in life. I have sexual trauma,so I have a problem with sex overall. I cannot stop. I want to stop. I cannot do anything while being addicted to porn. It just prevents me from doing anything. I feel guilty every time I watch porn or masterbate. Life has so many things I want to live maybe I'll find a meaning but this addiction just screws up everything.

For me it is the death of Katerina Marmeladova.

I'm struggling with finding a meaning,but there is always this idea that attracts me. The idea of helping my society. I cannot take a move into this path because of my thoughts. I think all my efforts are in vain,so I keep imagining myself helping people just in my head. I have helped some homeless people in real life but I do want to help people more like teaching children foreign languages, teaching them how to think critically, etc. I really want to take action. I really want to help my society. What to do ? I want to get out of my head and start acting in real life. I want to stop having fake dopamine.

I hate being alive like I don't want to eat nor to drink, why? Simply because I don't .People are just nothing they are like puzzles. I never wanted to live, I always wanted to commit suicide. People cannot imagine someone commiting suiciude just because they simply don't want to live. There is a Quote I love " He took his own life just because he was bored and he wanted to try something new ". Why does everyone consider death as something awful ? I always asked myself that question especially after the death of my grandpa. Everyone was crying, I was not . They told me that I don't care and I should not be with them just because I was not crying. Why would I cry? What is going to happen after that ? Nothing! My problem is looking at everything and considering everything as not worthy but I should do things, things I don't want to do but I should do. I'm just waiting for my death. I hope I can make that day come earlier.

Guys I'm not depressed it's just what I think about life so that no one thinks I'm venting.

How to make sure that I have understood it?