Existentialism seems illogical — SteveMinjares

Well, that's probably the main thing within your point: existentialist philosophy actually denies logical necessity and the Kantian-Hegelian domination in philosophy, for these have reduced Life to pure systematisations and inquiries concerning reason and necessity.
Shestov praises possibility against the sterility of pure rationality; Heidegger criticises the course of Western philosophy for its preference for the ontic research, made possible by the oblivion of Being due to the inflation of reason; Kierkegaard suggests returning to the absolute relation between the subject and the Absolute in the face of the reduction of men to mere rational immanent categories...
The thing is that Existentialism literally already opposes itself to the mastery of reason within Life from the very beginning.

Certainly. I agree with almost everything.
The only thing is that he should, in fact, be considered a philosopher. Of course he surpasses philosophy when gives a kind of definition to his work, reaching purely theological foundations and justifications, although Philosophy must not be discarded, as Philosophy must not ought to be problem-solving, but to demonstrate inconsistencies on rational inquiries and logical abstractions, being this way, after all Dostoevsky manifests the importance of Theology.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hello, mate! Good to see recommendations, thank you so much.
I'll leave some works here, just to make sure that someday you can learn at least something on Fascism.
Il Diario della Volontà (1927) | La Trasformazione dello Stato (1927) | La Trasformazione dello Stato II (1930) | Civiltà Fascista, Civiltà dello Spirito (1937) | La Dottrina del Fascismo (1932).
If it will be of any help, just get in touch, I can dedicate some of my time to give you lectures both on the Italian language and on Fascism.
Best regards!

You can still see echoes of some of Schmitt's thoughts, particularly the emphasis on friend/enemy distinction, in later neoconservative thinkers like Strauss. — BitconnectCarlos

I will certainly try to go deeper in his works. Personally, what I consider to know of Schmitt's philosophy is kinda precarious. By the way, thank you for giving answers tracing his philosophy!
Also, the relation that I have with Italian history is kinda deep, lol; I'm a descendant of Italians, and I'm fluent with the Italian, besides the fact that I studied Fascism for several years...

But there is nothing in the Syndicalist point of view to resist the celebration of national identity which made joining with the Nazis so easy. — Valentinus

Mussolini lost all the Italian history by doing this, personally speaking. He wrote in Ceneri e Braci on Il Popolo d'Italia about the Italian heroism, and cited Enrico Toti, Rismondi, Decio Raggi... I am pretty sure that these Italian heroes died for a genuine Italian thought, for the true unity of our Nation, and Mussolini's subservience to the German culture and way of thinking destroyed what he himself defended for several years. The point is that Italy radically changed in order to accept the German requirements.

Lmao, Marinetti was kinda crazy, certainly, mate. Did you know that even in the PNF (Partito Nazionale Fascista) he was not taken seriously?

I'll certainly send you a message, then you can present me some works, I would appreciate it! Integralism seems quite interesting.

I got your point, and I'm not defending the fascist philosophical foundation, I'm just exposing it in order to make some specific things clear. There are contents on the concept of "individual" to the fascists, also there are many contents relative to socialism, and if you want some, just get in touch, mate!

You probably know Italo Balbo. He composed the Quadrumvirato fascista, and after a while he became the leader of African colonies; he were the first one to - publicly - repudiate the publication of the Manifesto della Razza in Italy: "[...] l’unico gerarca che si pronunciò contro la “Dichiarazione sulla razza, approvata da Gran consiglio del fascismo il 6 ottobre 1938 e pubblicata sul “Foglio d’ordine” del Partito nazionale fascista il 26 ottobre 1938, fu Italo Balbo." [Reference]

Hello. Germans had a profound sense of race as being inseparable of the concept of Volk, that is "The people", as well as "Nation" and "Race". Italian people do not have the same relation when it comes to their language, since there is an abysmal gap between Popolo and Razza in practice. Furthermore, German fascism was born with the concept of race as inseparable of Volk, the Italian Fascism never knew any kind of racialist thought, specially because Mussolini was very close to Corridoni, Battisti and other important irredentistas, race was not minimally important, since il popolo (the people) were synthesized in the State as an integral unity, that is surely beyond the Germam approach: it was even absurd to the Germans, as in 1939 the Manifesto della Razza (a racist manifest) had to be published by the Italians (forcibly), in order to establish the alliance between them. By the way, this is just one point, but it is decisively and fundamentally problematic for the relation between these currents.

Integralists from Brazil or Portugal? By the way, it is cool to know that you've read these fascist works.

I don't think I have sufficient writing skills in order to develop some kind of summary or anything like this. But anyways, as it is not clear what exactly I should demonstrate or simply explain, maybe it would be great to determine how Fascism can not be comprehended with the right-left wings distinction, since one of the basic foundations of Fascism is based on the negation of the classical liberal thought that comprises a bourgeois and utilitarian point of view of society, and also repudiate the second political theory, i.e., socialism, because of its materialistic and ever-conflicting nature when it comes to society's organization. Fascism embraces a third political theory [PALMIERI, M., 1936. Filosofia del Fascismo], which stands for il irredentismo (an example) of Mussolini, with Filippo Corridoni (a syndicalist and radical socialist who died on WWI), Cesare Battisti, Fabio Filzi, Enrico Toti, and so forth. This third political theory also repudiates the immanentizing nature of both precedent political theories, furthermore, Fascism is an alternative that excludes both precedent political theories:

Liberalism denied the State in the interest of the particular individual; Fascism reasserts the State as the true reality of the individual. — B. Mussolini

Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history to the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in a single economic and moral reality in the State. — B. Mussolini

Also, the following work presents some key-concepts concerning these political theories, it may be very useful: La trasformazione dello Stato (1927).

I read "Political Theology" some time ago, but I believe that Schmitt did not synthesize the very foundations of Italian Fascism, and I think it is clear that German fascism was pretty different.

I tend to believe that if we wanna discuss Plato's philosophy, would be truly good to know at least some of his works. So, yep. Also, I do not want to make any specific point concerning the foundations of Fascism, but the relation that people have with it, as it is an example the question "Do I need to?".

Understandable. So, summarizing, you did not read anything that I mentioned. :smile:

Oh, come on, why would I waste my time with this?

I know what fascism is, it is basically whatever I don't like is fascist. Capitalism is fascist, racism is fascist, sexism is fascist, disagreeing with me is definitely fascist. — Judaka

This is unironically what I hear every time someone tries to define what Fascism is without really reading anything at all. I mean, come on, it is not that hard to read 2 or 3 books of fascist authors in order to understand what Fascism is.

His reaction to the crisis of faith it seems was experienced by so many among Europe's intellectuals in the 19th century was to have recourse to greater faith. — Ciceronianus the White

Indeed, I can cite innumerable intellectuals who fit this description...

This year I read 45 books. It is not the best quantity, but anyways, it is sufficiently good.
The last one was an essay of Ivan Kireevsky, an orthodox philosopher, of the Slavophile movement.
On the Necessity and Possibility of New Principles in Philosophy - I. Kireevsky.

By the way, I'm currently reading Phaedrus.

I believe the man was a psychological genius, but is largely ignored as such. — Metaphysician Undercover

Definitely. And it is sad how other Russian existentialists really approximated to Dostoevsky's works were miserably ignored, like Berdyaev and Shestov, who are - in my opinion - geniuses.

Dostoevsky's philosophy is sensational, I had contact with some of his books. Also, your text is perfect! — Adriel

Indeed, he's really dense.
And many thanks for the compliment!

The orthodox christian tradition embraces (at least partially) this view.

Saint Dionysius, for example, states that we can't try to limit God with concepts as "Being", and that God may be non-being or even beyond-being, simply because there are limitations concerning human reason. As it follows, posterior orthodox philosophers add that, as Kireevsky did, for aiming to know God in some way, it's necessary to reach integrality (a very common term to slavophile philosophy), that is:

[...] Therefore, believing thought is best characterized by its attempt to gather all the separate parts of the soul into one force, to search out that inner heart of being where reason and will, feeling and conscience, the beautiful and the true, the wonderful and the desired, the just and the merciful, and all the capacity of mind converge into one living unity, and in this way the essential human personality is restored in its primordial indivisibility.

Fragments, I. Kireevsky, 1857.

The orthodox approach, conserved by its mystical nature, rejects all the latin medieval philosophy, that empowers reason. The rationalistic view of scholastics is pretty known in the western philosophical tradition (which, by the way, is repudiated by orthodoxy), and, as many orthodox philosophers states: rationalism wasn't born with Descartes and the modernity, but with scholasticism.