a look at a Dostoevsky saying...

[Peter Kropotkin]

there is an old saying that was something that Dostoevsky wrote...

"If there is no god, then everything is permitted"

(which in fact, he doesn't seem to have said)

anyway, let us take a deeper look into this saying....
if there is no god... ok, so far, so good,
then everything is permitted...
now I have a problem.... for that isn't true....
freedom and this is what Dostoevsky was talking about,
is free... by any means....we are limited by a great many things...
we are limited by science and the various laws of physics..
we cannot, cannot disobey a law of physics... we cannot fly,
we cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics..
we cannot violate the laws of gravity...
we cannot violate the laws of evolution.....

if we are born a human being, we cannot suddenly grow wings
and fly.. we cannot break any laws of evolution... we cannot grow
gills and suddenly breath underwater...if doesn't matter if there
is a god or not.. we simply cannot violate those laws..

we are also unable to practice absolute freedom... we cannot
yell fire in a theater... we cannot kill with impunity.. we cannot
attack people with a hammer.. these things are not permitted...
regardless if there is a god or not...

we cannot try to overthrow the government... we just can't do
a great many things... even if we wanted to, we aren't permitted...
god has no bearing on the laws... the idea that ''thou shall not kill''
is just an exclusive religious idea is wrong... this law makes total sense
in any kind of situation... it doesn't matter if there is a god or not...
(the idea of using self-defense to protect one in which murder might
occur, still isn't an idea that requires a god)

physically, I still can't jump ten feet nor can I practice any kind
of morality/ethics that I so wish, because there is no god...
I am still very limited in my thoughts and actions, regardless if
there is a god or not... the fact is that it doesn't matter if there
is a god or not.. I am still not permitted to be free...
I still have limits and limitations on me, no matter if there is
a god or not...

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

there is an old saying that was something that Dostoevsky wrote...

"If there is no god, then everything is permitted"

(which in fact, he doesn't seem to have said)

anyway, let us take a deeper look into this saying....
if there is no god... ok, so far, so good,
then everything is permitted...
now I have a problem.... for that isn't true....
freedom and this is what Dostoevsky was talking about,
is free... by any means....we are limited by a great many things...
we are limited by science and the various laws of physics..
we cannot, cannot disobey a law of physics... we cannot fly,
we cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics..
we cannot violate the laws of gravity...
we cannot violate the laws of evolution.....

Are you actually so literal, that you can't grasp what Dostoevsky was saying? Do you really think he was trying to say anything at all about physics? Do you actually think anybody else with half a brain working could make the mistake you're imputing there?

Did you not even see the word "permitted"? One does not use the word "permitted" in reference to gravity or thermodynamics. Do you think gravity or thermodynamcs have to give "permission" for rocks to fall or water to boil?

Beyond question, he's talking about action in the moral field of things...there can be no doubt.

Now, try, please try, to say something cogent and reasonable about that...or just don't bother. Oy vey.

[promethean75]

Keter Propotkin was building up a list of things that can't be done with or without god, bro. If you could have endured reading the entire piece, you'd have noticed that.

[Immanuel Can]

Keter Propotkin was building up a list of things that can't be done with or without god, bro. If you could have endured reading the entire piece, you'd have noticed that.

Ridiculous. You don't begin expositing a quote by trying to talk about things that the author clearly excluded from consideration by the specific words he chose. You try to understand what he was saying on its own terms, and then begin your analysis from there.

[Iwannaplato]

there is an old saying that was something that Dostoevsky wrote...

"If there is no god, then everything is permitted"

(which in fact, he doesn't seem to have said)

I believe one of his characters said it, which is different from the author asserting it. The character was not a philosopher or a moralist or some paragon either.

anyway, let us take a deeper look into this saying....
if there is no god... ok, so far, so good,
then everything is permitted...
now I have a problem.... for that isn't true....
freedom and this is what Dostoevsky was talking about,
is free... by any means....we are limited by a great many things...
we are limited by science and the various laws of physics..
we cannot, cannot disobey a law of physics... we cannot fly,
we cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics..
we cannot violate the laws of gravity...
we cannot violate the laws of evolution.....

'Permitted' has to do with social/interpersonal relations. It's not about being able to throw the Moon into the Sun or something.

Further you're treating it like a scientific proposition. At best it's an aphorism, which doesn't mean every word is taken literally. But since it's coming from the mouth of a character......

we are also unable to practice absolute freedom... we cannot
yell fire in a theater...

I think you mean we shouldn't. We certainly can.

we cannot kill with impunity.. we cannot
attack people with a hammer.. these things are not permitted...
regardless if there is a god or not...

Right, but the quote is talking about in relation to an objective morality. In relation to be damned, say. Or really, would we act morally if we could get away with not being moral, if there is no God. No afterlife. No judgment. No Hell and Heaven.

You're now going into secular laws adn the like. yes, people will still have tendencies to avoid earthly punishment, but if they can get away with stuff...

Dostoyevsky via his character was raising an issue.

we cannot try to overthrow the government... we just can't do
a great many things... even if we wanted to, we aren't permitted...
god has no bearing on the laws...

Religion has had a lot of bearing on the laws. Though of course there are chicken and egg issues.

the idea that ''thou shall not kill''
is just an exclusive religious idea is wrong... this law makes total sense
in any kind of situation... it doesn't matter if there is a god or not...
(the idea of using self-defense to protect one in which murder might
occur, still isn't an idea that requires a god)

If God exists, then there is no getting away with anything, at least in the long run and in, say, the Christian conceptions of God. This is what he's exploring.

physically, I still can't jump ten feet nor can I practice any kind
of morality/ethics that I so wish, because there is no god...
I am still very limited in my thoughts and actions,

You're not limited in your thoughts anymore. The OT focused on behavior, but Jesus extended the commandments to include internal states and attitudes. If there's no God you can certainly lust after your neighbor's wife, especially if you have a good poker face.

regardless if
there is a god or not... the fact is that it doesn't matter if there
is a god or not..

But it does make a difference. If there is the God of the Bible, it makes a great deal of difference. You have no privacy ever from the judge. In secular society you can get away with a lot, especially at the level of attitude - compassion, kindness, love and their opposites - and the level of thought. You will get caught.

And everyone is hiding something from some secular entity, if only a boss, spouse, friend, neighbor. In fact at the attitude/thought level we are all hiding A LOT. We are very free in a purely secular world in many ways. And certainly to try to get away with things even on the legal/physical end of things.

There's no getting away with stuff, no hiding stuff if there is the God of the Bible.

I am still not permitted to be free...
I still have limits and limitations on me, no matter if there is
a god or not...

Well, sure, but D did not write: if there is no God you have unlimited power and freedom.

You've interpreted that sentence very idiosyncratically.

It's certainly not the issue Dmitri was raising.

[Dubious]

When Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov that without god everything is permitted he obviously wasn't talking about the laws of nature. He clearly meant that without god, there are no moral inhibitions thus allowing him to do anything he wants or desires. In effect, there is nothing to prevent him from behaving like a monster. Of course, this too is total bullshit and doesn't make sense at any level. Being a god-believer has never made one moral or an atheist immoral. God or no god, human nature doesn't work that way.

Dostoevsky was a great storyteller and may have had many insightful things to say, but he's nowhere near as profound as generally assumed.

[Iwannaplato]

When Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov that without god everything is permitted he obviously wasn't talking about the laws of nature. He clearly meant that without god, there are no moral inhibitions thus allowing him to do anything he wants or desires. In effect, there is nothing to prevent him from behaving like a monster. Of course, this too is total bullshit and doesn't make sense at any level. Being a god-believer has never made one moral or an atheist immoral. God or no god, human nature doesn't work that way.

Dostoevsky was a great storyteller and may have had many insightful things to say, but he's nowhere near as profound as generally assumed.

He had a character say it. Dmitry. Who is hardly a paragon of anyone's idea of virtue, except perhaps a hedonist, though he's pretty cranky for a hedonist and gets in fights.

If he wanted us to believe it he would have given the lines around that to Alyosha, perhaps, or even Ivan over their brother.

[Flannel Jesus]

When Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov that without god everything is permitted he obviously wasn't talking about the laws of nature. He clearly meant that without god, there are no moral inhibitions thus allowing him to do anything he wants or desires. In effect, there is nothing to prevent him from behaving like a monster. Of course, this too is total bullshit and doesn't make sense at any level. Being a god-believer has never made one moral or an atheist immoral. God or no god, human nature doesn't work that way.

Dostoevsky was a great storyteller and may have had many insightful things to say, but he's nowhere near as profound as generally assumed.

He had a character say it. Dmitry. Who is hardly a paragon of anyone's idea of virtue, except perhaps a hedonist, though he's pretty cranky for a hedonist and gets in fights.

If he wanted us to believe it he would have given the lines around that to Alyosha, perhaps, or even Ivan over their brother.

This is a question that's worth asking: did Dostoevsky himself believe that if there's no god, anything is permissible, or are you right and he just made his character say it?

Is there any literary consensus on the answer to that question?

I could see the big D believing it himself, but it's far from certain.

[Iwannaplato]

This is a question that's worth asking: did Dostoevsky himself believe that if there's no god, anything is permissible, or are you right and he just made his character say it?

Is there any literary consensus on the answer to that question?

I could see the big D believing it himself, but it's far from certain.

Although the statement "If there is no God, everything is permitted" is widely attributed to Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (Sartre was the first to do so in his Being and Nothingness), he simply never said it.

The closest one gets to this infamous aphorism are a hand-full of apoproximations, like Dmitri's claim from his debate with Rakitin (as he reports it to Alyosha):

"'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?'"

But the very fact that this misattribution has persisted for decades demonstrates that, even if factually incorrect, it nonetheless hits a nerve in our ideological edifice. No wonder conservatives like to evoke it whenever there are scandals among the atheist-hedonist elite: from millions killed in gulags to animal sex and gay marriages, this is where we end up if we deny transcendental authority as an absolute limit to all human endeavours.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/if-ther ... d/10100616
or
https://owaprod-pub.wesleyan.edu/reg/!w ... &term=1169
and for those willing to dig deep
https://infidels.org/library/modern/and ... ostoevsky/
Though here it is also attributed to Ivan.

But in any case, it's characters in a novel.

Did Milton agree with Satan:

"Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n."

How about

American Psycho (Bret Easton Ellis)
"My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape."

Patrick Bateman

Is that what Ellis wants?

Blood Meridian (Cormac McCarthy)
"War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god."

Judge Holden

[Flannel Jesus]

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/god- ... s-thought/

I think there's some good arguments here that he did have a sense of morality like that. It wouldn't be too unusual, plenty of Christians even today think that atheists can't be moral.

I'm inclined to think, at least for now, that Dostoyevsky was that kind of thinker.

[Iwannaplato]

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/god- ... s-thought/

I think there's some good arguments here that he did have a sense of morality like that. It wouldn't be too unusual, plenty of Christians even today think that atheists can't be moral.

I'm inclined to think, at least for now, that Dostoyevsky was that kind of thinker.

He may well have been. But then using that quote the way people have is not a good way to show it. And the quote was being treated by PK as some kind of assertion by Dostoyevsky that if there is no God people are, well, God. That they can ignore natural laws and will face no consequences for crimes. So, first I'm dealing with PK's hallucinations. Then the next layer in the thread for me was someone getting that it had to do with moral issues but manages to say this...

Of course, this too is total bullshit and doesn't make sense at any level. Being a god-believer has never made one moral or an atheist immoral. God or no god, human nature doesn't work that way.

Dostoevsky was a great storyteller and may have had many insightful things to say, but he's nowhere near as profound as generally assumed.

Still assuming the quote is Dostoyevsky and then asserting that it means....

Being a god-believer has never made one moral or an atheist immoral.

which is not what the quote would mean - not that the quote matches what the character in the novel said. We are still taking it like some kind of flat literal proposition rather than a kind of saying carried through a character.

Also, I don't think it is total bullshit. I explained why in response to PK.

None of which means I think the quote is correct, period, but rather that there is something true about it I think. I dislike many parts Christian morals and ways of conveying them, and the Christian satisfaction with guilt and shame.

He says it doesn't make sense at any level. If I believe that God can read my mind and know all my actions and since Jesus has considered even thoughts as sins,
not having that over my head makes a difference.

If there is no afterlife - which the character mentions - and no God to know everything I do feel and think, then I can consider getting away with actions and certainly thoughts and attitudes as problem-free.

Will everyone do this? No.
Do atheists have no conscience? Not in my experience.

But there is a significant difference between believing to your bones that everything you do and think is noticed and can effect being burned forever in a fire or experiencing bliss forever, that changes things in a significant way for those who believe that.

It's not that it makes no sense at all or has no effects at all: PK and the other poster presented it as utterly meaningless. Dostoyevsky said something completely false according to them. I've been trying to point out that he didn't assert it directly, it's not a type of scientific proposition, and there is some truth to the effects of believing in that Christian deity and not.

Dostoyevsky was against atheism and nihilism. He may have believed something similar to what the character said or he might not have assumed that without theism people necessarily become evil. I would bet a lot he didn't think they could fly if they stopped believing in God.

I skimmed the article and it seemed like Dostoyevsky would have sympathy for that paraphrase of what his character(2?) said. But if someone can find a clear message that is a quote by D himself, then we can look at that.

[Peter Kropotkin]

there is an old saying that was something that Dostoevsky wrote...

"If there is no god, then everything is permitted"

(which in fact, he doesn't seem to have said)

anyway, let us take a deeper look into this saying....
if there is no god... ok, so far, so good,
then everything is permitted...
now I have a problem.... for that isn't true....
freedom and this is what Dostoevsky was talking about,
is free... by any means....we are limited by a great many things...
we are limited by science and the various laws of physics..
we cannot, cannot disobey a law of physics... we cannot fly,
we cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics..
we cannot violate the laws of gravity...
we cannot violate the laws of evolution.....

Are you actually so literal, that you can't grasp what Dostoevsky was saying? Do you really think he was trying to say anything at all about physics? Do you actually think anybody else with half a brain working could make the mistake you're imputing there?

Did you not even see the word "permitted"? One does not use the word "permitted" in reference to gravity or thermodynamics. Do you think gravity or thermodynamcs have to give "permission" for rocks to fall or water to boil?

Beyond question, he's talking about action in the moral field of things...there can be no doubt.

Now, try, please try, to say something cogent and reasonable about that...or just don't bother. Oy vey.

K: and you completely ignore these paragraphs.. in which I discuss
ethics/morality/laws... I mean, you are the one being dishonest by
pretending that I only wrote the one part, and pretending that I
didn't write the second part...

K: we are also unable to practice absolute freedom... we cannot
yell fire in a theater... we cannot kill with impunity.. we cannot
attack people with a hammer.. these things are not permitted...
regardless if there is a god or not...

we cannot try to overthrow the government... we just can't do
a great many things... even if we wanted to, we aren't permitted...
god has no bearing on the laws... the idea that ''thou shall not kill''
is just an exclusive religious idea is wrong... this law makes total sense
in any kind of situation... it doesn't matter if there is a god or not...
(the idea of using self-defense to protect one in which murder might
occur, still isn't an idea that requires a god)

physically, I still can't jump ten feet nor can I practice any kind
of morality/ethics that I so wish, because there is no god...
I am still very limited in my thoughts and actions, regardless if
there is a god or not... the fact is that it doesn't matter if there
is a god or not.. I am still not permitted to be free...
I still have limits and limitations on me, no matter if there is
a god or not...

K: now we have the second part on the record.. care to comment about
this... where I specifically talk about morals/ethics.... and not just
scientific matters...or are you just going to be "intellectually dishonest"...


Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

there is an old saying that was something that Dostoevsky wrote...

"If there is no god, then everything is permitted"

(which in fact, he doesn't seem to have said)

anyway, let us take a deeper look into this saying....
if there is no god... ok, so far, so good,
then everything is permitted...
now I have a problem.... for that isn't true....
freedom and this is what Dostoevsky was talking about,
is free... by any means....we are limited by a great many things...
we are limited by science and the various laws of physics..
we cannot, cannot disobey a law of physics... we cannot fly,
we cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics..
we cannot violate the laws of gravity...
we cannot violate the laws of evolution.....

Are you actually so literal, that you can't grasp what Dostoevsky was saying? Do you really think he was trying to say anything at all about physics? Do you actually think anybody else with half a brain working could make the mistake you're imputing there?

Did you not even see the word "permitted"? One does not use the word "permitted" in reference to gravity or thermodynamics. Do you think gravity or thermodynamcs have to give "permission" for rocks to fall or water to boil?

Beyond question, he's talking about action in the moral field of things...there can be no doubt.

Now, try, please try, to say something cogent and reasonable about that...or just don't bother. Oy vey.

K: and you completely ignore these paragraphs..

Yes, he didn't respond to those other paragraphs, but his point still holds. D nor his characters were not talking about suddenly being free from the laws of nature.
YOu could have agreed or disagreed with IC on that issue. But because his response had a problem, you ignored the main point he did focus on.

I responded to ideas in various paragraphs in your post.

[Immanuel Can]

K: now we have the second part on the record.. care to comment about
this... where I specifically talk about morals/ethics.... and not just
scientific matters...

No. It's just as off topic, even if in a different way.

It substitutes the idea of societies that happen, for the present, to prevent us from doing things (as a contingent matter) for the point attributed to Dostoevsky: which is that in principle, to a person or a whole society or a whole world, if there's no God then there's nothing impermissible.

You may say that "we can't overthrow the government." But the Russians did. You may say that "we can't attack people with a hammer," and yet people do, and not just with hammers but with guns, bombs... You may say "we can't kill," and yet we do, and even the state does, sometimes, as in cases of funding abortion or euthanasia or capital punishment or wars. So you're saying nothing, essentially: "can't," in those sentences must means "the present government doesn't presently allow these things to go unpunished if it detects them."

Big deal. Not relevant.

So the objections are just another red herring. They have nothing to do with the claim being made, which is that without God there is no legitimative foundation for any of these moral restrictions, whether the individual asks for them, the society does, or the whole world does.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Iwannaplato:
[/quote]He may well have been. But then using that quote the way people have is not a good way to show it. And the quote was being treated by PK as some kind of assertion by Dostoyevsky that if there is no God people are, well, God. That they can ignore natural laws and will face no consequences for crimes. So, first I'm dealing with PK's hallucinations.

K: putting words into my mouth.. at no point did I say if there were no god,
then people are god.. that wasn't said and more importantly, that isn't my point...
I have said, over and over again, I am not interested in being god,
I am interested in being human... and what does that mean...
the human path is to go from animal to animal/human to becoming
fully human.. at no point, have I ever mentioned becoming ''divine"

the next part is that I very clearly said, ''we can't hit people or murder people"
and why, because there would be punishments... (granted I didn't use
the word punishment but I didn't think I had to, it was clearly implied
in the post)

Kropotkin