Dostoyevsky and the Nature of Evil

I do not see the use of condemning the views of a man that lived so long ago. Did your Great Grandparents hate Gay People. My Lord such evil.
This is an exception to the rule. Had he simply grown up with antisemitic views, we could quite easily shrug it off as "It was simply the culture. Most Russians felt the same." BUT HE DIDN'T. He was an ADVOCATE for the Jewish people. IOW he rose above his culture, and saw through its weaknesses. And that is what makes his change so puzzling, and why he really does need to be discussed.

However, if it's not your bag of tricks, if it bores you or whatever, it's not like you have to participate.
 
It is possible that both were happening at the same time. Maybe he was an advocate for Jewish people and eventually the Russian state forced him [as a prominent writer] to say what they demanded he say. It’s possible that he attacked the UK Prime Minister becsuse he was the Prime Minister [not because of ethnicity] and the Russian state required it of him as a “journalist” rather than it being his own state.

There is no way to know the truth because he is dead but we do know how Russia is as a communist state and perhaps that is in fact the conflict you are seeing between his early and late stages of life.

We don’t know that he was in fact an INFJ because the model wasn’t yet developed so any context related to such a construct can’t truly be developed and applied to the INFJ us.

Creating a control group of one [Dostoyevsky] doesn’t seem like a control group but instead feels like isolating a dead man to discredit Russian culture during a time when Israel and Russia are in a proxy war via Iran. A control group ususlly requires a group rather than a single person.

To be clear, I despise war to the highest level and any attempt to influence others based on such a present state is an attack on the people as a culture rather than the government that instigates such a war. Consider that when initiating an attack on a writer and dead artist of his time that is completely unrelated to the present day.

Perhaps he is what he was and should be accepted, for better or worse, as simply a man dealing with the hardship of circumstance rather than some unknown outside perception. To lay down such a claim requires more hard evidence and without it there is no discussion.

This is not a defense of D but instead an empathetic viewpoint of every artist that has had to balance between creating a life and surviving the chaotic circumstance swirling around them. It sad but true.
 
The Historian Community has always condemned the use of modern standards to judge past events. Don't know what else to say. I agree with them.
 
Back
Top