I have only read Notes from the Underground, Crime and Punishment, and half of The Brothers Karamazov, which I unfortunately lost, but the oft-cited quote, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted.", can be interpreted à la the condemnation to be free that Jean-Paul Sartre later invoked, despite Fyodor Dostovesky's Orthodox Christianity. To exclusively relegate it to a domain of a theistic argument for the necessity of the divine would mean that you could not interpret Notes from the Underground as an Existentialist text and would have to consider it as satire.

The orientation of Dostoevsky's absolute rupture with his rebellious and earlier convictions, that culminated in his work Notes from the Underground, is profoundly antithetical and fundamentally antinomical: there is no affirmative narrative in the same generic sense of theistic orientations; this work mainly criticized rational egoism, nihilistic utilitarianism and also rationalism, meaning precisely the most well-known theistic thinkers, as the medieval proto-rationalist roman catholic thinkers.
He indeed wrote a cornerstone Existentialist work, despite the fact that it does not exclude its theological resolution. In fact he demonstrates men's antinomical and polyphonic nature, which turns to gain its solution posteriorly in his Major Novels. His thought, following through this, stills inseparable from its dogmatic and religious nature.

To my understanding, Notes from the Underground is an exploration of isolation and mania inspired by the revelation on the part of the underground man that individuals value their capacity for free choice above all else. He addresses the reader as his audience so as to highlight his character's alienation. The rest of society, for Dostovesky, it would seem, has become convinced of that systemization, be it either theological or technocratic, is somehow capable of transcending human agency. That the underground man often contradicts himself and is as someone who is considered to be "mad" was a way for Dostovesky to indicate as to just what was absurd of that only he had come to respect free will. It was kind of way for him to suggest that, regardless as to what psychological disorders a person would like to label his character with, it was the world, and not he, that had gone mad. Though Sartre took no decisive influence form him, Dostovesky's Ontological claim in favor of the preference for individual choice precedes that man is "condemned to be free", more or less the conclusion to Being and Nothingness. We agree, I think, upon that Notes from the Underground was an Existentialist text. What I am suggesting of The Brothers Karamazov is that that quote is kind of a double-entendre. He's suggesting that there does exist a divine order to the universe, but that our relationship to it is plagued by existential doubt. We are, therefore, beset by the perils of human agency, whether or not there is a divine. From this, I have assumed that Dostovesky has always been kind of a proto-Existentialist and, therefore, find myself to be perplexed by the supposition that we ought to exclusively interpret him within the context of Orthodox Christianity.

I only know so much about Dostovesky's life, however, and am entirely uninformed of the volumes of literary criticism that have been written of his work, and, so, perhaps there is all too much that I am just simply unaware of?

If God does not exist, everything is permitted.", can be interpreted à la the condemnation to be free that Jean-Paul Sartre later invoked, despite Fyodor Dostovesky's Orthodox Christianity. — thewonder

This quote does not actually appear in the book (Karamazov). An actual quote, close to this is - But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then, they can do what they like?

The reality is that the quote can be more properly reversed,If there is a God than anything is a permittable. You only have to see what atrocities are done in the name of God historically and today to see that throwing acid into the face of a young girl for daring to learn to read is something that readily suits a fundamentalist who thinks they are doing God's work.

Dostoevsky is not a philosopher - he is a fiction writer who uses ideas in interesting ways. I find his work somewhat laborious but The Gambler is a great study of addiction. D's own problem was chronic gambling which can be more soul destroying than alcohol or other substances.

To my understanding, there are debates upon the translation, but the quote effectively says something to that effect regardless.

Slavoj Zizek has paradoxically concluded that "If God does not exist, everything is prohibited.", as a way of explaining that, without the mediation of the Other, the Ethical prohibits every action, or something like that. I always thought that I understood and later came to realize that I didn't really understand Zizek.

Anyways, there's a way to posit that Dostovesky is wrong, as people need something like God to justify all kinds of human atrocities. There's also a way of suggesting that he is correct, as, without any ethic being able to be meaningfully invoked, it does seem as if anything can be somehow justifiable. Despite that Joseph Goebbels was Catholic and Adolf Hitler was an Anglican Protestant, thereby necessitating some form of Christianity within the Nazi Party, I would imagine that the general attitude towards Ethics within the Gestapo could generally be characterized by what both is and is mistaken for as "Nihilism" by Existentialists. Being one of the most advanced intelligence agencies in the world, they must have known that the Jews did not have some sort of clandestine sempiternal power of global politics and capital and that most of Nazi ideology was kind of just bosh. From this, I assume for them to have constructed a rather elaborate set of rationalizations and justifications for their actions, which Hannah Arendt would characterize as the "banality of evil" in her highly controversial piece on the trial of Adolf Eichmann. In some way, shape, form, or another, I expect for these justifications and rationalizations to have relied upon a certain degree of Modern cynicism. To me, it does seem to be the case that a lack of meaningful ethic does hazard a certain humanitarian catastrophe. That, of course, is entirely speculative, however.

The resolution to the above aporia put forth by some is the "noble lie", which is as entirely duplicitous, self-interested, and condescending as any intelligent, and therefore skeptical, person might expect. I am of the opinion that Sartre was right, man is "condemned to be free", and that a fundamental goal of Existentialism ought to be to figure out how to cope with what he identified as the human condition. Sartre, however, is wildly unpopular within kind of a lot of philosophical circles, usually relating to a set of rather unfortunate details of both his personal and political life, and, so, often find for it to be fairly difficult to even engage in conversations with kind of a lot of other philosophers about this.

Being said, said quote and lengthy exposition, I think, will distract from the original post and, though I think you can continue this conversation, I do think that we should respect the thread enough so as not to derail it entirely.

I haven't read The Gambler, but may some day, as gambling just kind of fascinates me.

Adolf Hitler was an Anglican Protestant, — thewonder

Citation?

Well, you have a good point when it comes to the interpretation of this basal work, indeed. We agree, I suppose, that the relation of men with the Divine is "plagued by existential doubt" from what follows from his analysis in Notes from the Underground. I'm habituated to think that it is impossible to apprehend Dostoevsky's work and thought without considering integrally all the aspects, as the biographical, philosophical and theological manners. From this, I argue that the Orthodox anthropology with both Evdokimov and Lossky is strictly valuable, for Dostoevsky has read intensively the Church Fathers throughout his life.
Saint Maximus, the Confessor — an extremely important Father for Eastern thought — wrote:

But he who knows the mystery of the Cross and the Tomb, knows also the essential principles of all things.
Finally, he who penetrates yet further and finds himself initiated into the mystery of the Resurrection, apprehends the end for which God created all things from the beginning.
Gnostic Centuries; I, 66, P.G.

Which suggests the antinomical state of men, that can only be surpassed through κένωσις (kénosis), i.e. men's polyphonic nature can only gain resolution through the Hypostatic union, considering then the individual-person distinction that can be observed in his short story Dream of a Ridiculous Man.
This plagued relationship between men and God is what it is because of the assumption of the decay of human integral state, which comes from Patristic teachings, as the Orthodox doctrine of the Fall of Man suggests the rebellion of reason against the nous can be surpassed through that purification (which kénosis also constitutes the process), finally attaining the "eye of the heart" which makes possible to see the Uncreated Energies of God. The same process can be noticed through his major work, and also is crystal clear (I return) in his short story that I already mentioned.
It was under these circumstances that I suggested that Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground gains its resolution within his theological structure.

You are correct that I am incorrect about that. I remember reading it on Wikipedia, but it could've been of another Nazi. Apparently, he was raised somewhat Catholic, but later came to attempt to unite German Christians under the Protestant Reich Church, to some internal opposition. Apparently, the Nazis later cooked up Positive Christianity, which, because of their denial of the Semitic origins of Christ and the Holy Bible, was considered apostate by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant faith. I think that it's just that the Nazis had used the writings of Martin Luther so as to bolster support for German nationalism.

Are you referring to the concluding sentences to Notes from the Underground or just simply the latter part of the text?

Neither and both.
The antinomical nature of man — exposed in the entire work — claims that resolution which I stated, that is evident in his later works, which still to return to that polyphonic and fragmentary nature of Notes from the Underground. I'm referring to Dostoevsky's Philosophy in integrality.

It is certain — I believe so that for everyone — that Dostoevsky's philosophy reaches its highest significance with his theological solution, suggested in his mature work and life. Considering this, I return: is it possible to consider dostoevskian philosophy apart from its dogmatism and theological presuppositions? — Bertoldo

Alright it's been like 10 years since I've read Dostoyevsky so bear with me here.

Yes, Dostoyevsky is a fundamentally religious thinker and while we see this in his work, I've never felt that it's right to label his ideas or views "dogmatism" - at least through his work as a writer. For instance, in The Brothers Karamazov he really makes an honest effort to flush out different views, e.g. materialism, rationalism - through different characters in an intellectually honest way. While other writers just construct weak straw men and destroy those, Dostoyevsky never does this.

I won't fault a writer for having his views, but I will fault a writer for shoving them in my face as a reader and weakly mischaracterizing opposing views to the extent where they become comical or just obviously wrong - that, to me, is propaganda and see plenty of it today in TV and movies. Dostoyevsky is never a propagandist.

To my understanding, there are debates upon the translation, but the quote effectively says something to that effect regardless. — thewonder

I don't think there are any debates on the translation as such and I think the language is important. Actually there are several quotes in the novel that hint at this formulation of a pretty conventional idea about morality. It's the common person's notion of morality - that we need (typically a Christian) God as the foundation of what is good - or we will just go about killing and harming others. Which of course is patent bullshit but still very popular, especially with Jordan B Peterson and his crowd. What makes "without God anything is permittable" a catchy 'quote' is it sounds like someone took Dostoyevsky to some smart marketing guys and turned him into a slogan. It has, to use that unfortunate expression, 'stickiness'.

I am of the opinion that Sartre was right, man is "condemned to be free", and that a fundamental goal of Existentialism ought to be to figure out how to cope with what he identified as the human condition. Sartre, however, is wildly unpopular within kind of a lot of philosophical circles, usually relating to a set of rather unfortunate details of both his personal and political life, and, so, often find for it to be fairly difficult to even engage in conversations with kind of a lot of other philosophers about this. — thewonder

There was a lot of reaction against Sartre too because he is so synonymous with pretentious, un-discipled Baby Boomers, wearing black turtlenecks, smoking Sobranie cigarettes, whilst pontificating meaninglessly about meaning. Certainly many people I knew in the 1980's-1990's would have laughed anyone out of the room for considering existentialism to be philosophy.

Dostoyevsky is never a propagandist. — BitconnectCarlos

Or if he is, he is a talented and nuanced one. Good propaganda is a lost art.

I think that I can vaguely follow of what you're saying about Dostovesky's work as a whole, being that the polyphonic nature of man can only be transcended through a mystic process particular to Orthodox Christianity and that we ought to interpret Dostovesky in this sense, but am unsure as to what you mean about the resolution to Notes from the Underground. He suggests that he has explored an unknown yet untraversed terrain before stating that he can go no further. There aforementioned process doesn't seem to be offered as a resolution.

Despite that Joseph Goebbels was Catholic and Adolf Hitler was an Anglican Protestant, thereby necessitating some form of Christianity within the Nazi Party, I would imagine that the general attitude towards Ethics within the Gestapo could generally be characterized by what both is and is mistaken for as "Nihilism" by Existentialists. — thewonder

Yep. Obviously you have already corrected the false idea that Hitler was a Prottie. It is very popular to call Nazis godless but Martin Luther's writing on Jews is sometimes said to have helped in the development of Nazi anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism would not have worked as a purely secular prejudice, without a robust tradition of Christian hatred of the Jews for being Christ killers, etc. And, of course, an unofficial Nazi motto was 'Gott Mit Uns (God is with us).

I don't think there are any debates on the translation as such and I think the language is important. — Tom Storm

By the one article I read debating the translation, I did come to that assumption. I did only read one article, though.

Certainly many people I knew in the 1980's-1990's would have laughed anyone out of the room for considering existentialism to be philosophy. — Tom Storm

Your particular prejudice against Existentialism is just the sort of thing that I'm talking about. If you read Being and Time and Being and Nothingness, it would seem that the assumption that Heidegger ought to be considered canonical to the philosophical tradition, whereas Sartre is heresy, you can only come to the conclusion that the status that Heidegger cultivated as the philosopher king of the Third Reich has somehow failed to lose its ostensive allure, aside from that the caricature that you have just given of an Existentialist is clearly that of a French person. I suspect that people in the United States consider for the French to be better than them, despite having waged a less destructive revolution, and, for whatever reason, tend to malign them because of that and I, myself, live here.

It's the common person's notion of morality - that we need (typically a Christian) God as the foundation of what is good - or we will just go about killing and harming others. — Tom Storm

While that is a fairly common Christian assumption, I think that you have failed to take into consideration that Christianity was kind of the locus of ethical meaning up until around the onset of Modernity. Perhaps Dostovesky is and perhaps he isn't, but what I am getting at is that, without Christianity, humanity failed to create an ethic with which to prevent humanitarian catastrophe. You seem to think that this is evidently false, given the history of Christianity, which I don't think is quite so obvious.

Your particular prejudice against Existentialism is just the sort of thing that I'm talking about. — thewonder

Not my prejudice - the people I am referring to. I am sympathetic to existentialism.

Oh, well, I see what you're saying, then. My mistake.

While that is a fairly common Christian assumption, I think that you have failed to take into consideration that Christianity was kind of the locus of ethical meaning up until around the onset of Modernity. — thewonder

Well aware of that.

without Christianity, humanity failed to create an ethic with which to prevent humanitarian catastrophe. You seem to think that this is evidently false, given the history of Christianity, which I don't think is quite so obvious. — thewonder

Christianity has never stopped human catastrophes that I am aware of and has sometimes lubricated them.

I don't say that Christianity is all bad, I simply say it is not wise to argue for its transcendent virtue when it is so clearly has also justified or supported or been a key ingredient in immoral activities.

Christianity has never stopped human catastrophes that I am aware of and has sometimes lubricated them. — Tom Storm

Yeah all those rotten hospital systems and universities they set up. Along with all of those dreadful charitable organisations that went around indiscriminately helping people.

Perhaps, I think that you haven't taken into consideration the implicatures of Christianity having been the locus of ethical meaning up until around the Copernican Revolution then.

There are many things to say of the death of God, but one implication of Nietzsche's declaration of that "God is dead." is that God is no longer philosophically relevant. Nietzsche's atheism, I think, went much further than most people expect for it to have. He wasn't just saying that there is no God; he was saying that it was no longer even possible for a free thinker to believe in God.

Within a political context, I would suggest that the symbolic order established by the aristocracy could, in the late Nineteenth Century, only be abandoned, something that Nietzsche, himself, in part, had failed to realize.

It wasn't just that during the Age of the Enlightenment that people make a paradigm shift away from established mystic Ontological, Metaphysical, Epistemologic, and Ethical explanations; It's that, to avert human catastrophe, they would have had to have made something like an epistemological break and create a completely other philosophical framework. The entire symbolic register was arbitrated by Christianity. What I posit is that it was a failure to cope with a lack of meaning within the world that later resulted in any number of human atrocities.

The French Revolution, for instance, culminated in the secular religion of the Cult of Supreme Being before a series of betrayals and the notable beheading of Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre's reign was a kind of transference of the symbolic register of Christianity to the early form of totalitarianism that the Committee of Public Safety effectively enforced. This article, though rather high-flown, alleges something similar of the former Soviet Union. I once was capable of finding it online without having to pay for it, but no longer can seem to do so.

As it concerns the Third Reich, by their fascination with Occultism, I think that the concept of transference can be meaningfully applied.

What I am saying is that people have to cope with the loss of the Christian symbolic register. I am not saying that Christianity has transcendent virtues. I'm saying that it is no longer possible to believe in divine order to the universe and that people must both discover and create meaning otherwise. As I interpret Jean-Paul Sartre, or even Albert Camus, I think that the sentiment is quite similar.

Yeah all those rotten hospital systems and universities they set up. Along with all of those dreadful charitable organisations that went around indiscriminately helping people. — Wayfarer

A common response. Well a couple of things. I also wrote 'I don't say Christianity is all bad'. I offer the negatives as a sober reminder that Christianity is not necessarily a good thing, as those who oppose secularism are pone to arguing.

That said, note also how much abuse and trauma was committed (and keeps being done) in the name of Christian charity. In my work with people who have addictions and various forms of post trauma, most of them have experienced abuse at the hands of a cleric or at the hands of a church operated home or orphanage. Plenty of literature available on the dangers of Christian charity.

Of course some Christian work has been quite wonderful too. But when the theists say that without God there will be blood on the streets, that presupposes no blood was spilt by churches and church run activities.

Of course some Christian work has been quite wonderful too. But when the theists say that without God there will be blood on the streets, that presupposes no blood was ever spilt by churches and church run activities. — Tom Storm

I am an atheist who has been invoking the concept of a secular religion to suggest that, well, without God, there kind of was blood on the streets. You are correct about kind of a lot of theists who say that, though.

The idea is that the decaying symbolic power of the Christian faith came to be tranferred unto totalitarianism. To oversimplify, Christianity was a mass cult. When it fell apart, other mass cults took this or that from it in the creation of new mass cults. What people ought to have realized was that they shouldn't be subject to cults whatsoever.

I'll let you respond to this if you like and then give Bertoldo back their thread.

Plenty of literature available on the dangers of Christian charity. — Tom Storm

Also true. Anyway, I will butt out of this thread as it's about Dosteovsky about whom I know almost nothing.

What I am saying is that people have to cope with the loss of the Christian symbolic register. I am not saying that Christianity has transcendent virtues. I'm saying that it is no longer possible to believe in divine order to the universe and that people must both discover and create meaning otherwise. As I interpret Jean-Paul Sartre, or even Albert Camus, I think that the sentiment is quite similar. — thewonder

I think this argument is largely accurate and quite familiar. I would simply make the point that history is cruelty, bloodshed and exploitation. It's hard to prove how the death of a metanarrative has made anything worse.

Though I have a response, I will merely say that that's fair enough and leave this conversation for another time, as I feel like I, and kind of the rest of this forum, has kind of habit of getting off-topic.

Do you think that it is possible to separate Dostoevsky's Philosophy from its very religious nature? — Bertoldo

Back to your question. I think Dostoyevsky is safely categorized as a Christian writer from the Orthodox theological tradition. As far as I know he does not do anything radical with theological ideas - unlike say Nikos Kazantzakis, writing much later. You would need to identify what you would call Dostoyevsky's philosophy before you could determine how wise it would be to separate it from its Christian origin.

I think Dostoyevsky is safely categorized as a Christian writer from the Orthodox theological tradition. — Tom Storm

We are in absolute accordance when it comes to it.
Further, his philosophy is a proto-existentialist one, and we may consider the general understanding of it, if not turns to be impossible to write (even to summarize) his philosophy here without writing a gigantic text or draining out its true meaning.

I agree. The interesting thing about a novelist as a philosopher is that you need to do some extra work to discern the thought and positions. The potential for a misread is high. When characters speak are we to assume they are the novelist's views? This is not always clear. It seems to me that novels used to convey philosophical positions are often somewhat akin to propaganda in that they are a kind of case study contrived to drive home a point about human behavior.

Indeed, I actually agree with everything. The only thing about dogmatism is that his resolution in his later works can be reduced to an Orthodox dogmatic view. He desired to write a work that would be called The Life of a Great Sinner, but after many attempts, he fragmented his writings in the works Demons and Brothers Karamázov [Crítica e Profecia: a Filosofia da Religião em Dostoiévski, L. F. Pondé] though the dynamics of a plagued man reaching repentance is recurrent, rescuing the same Orthodox anthropology. Then it is circular, one way or another it tends to the Orthodox dogmatism.