What do you think?
Rate this book
داستایوفسکی و نیچه: فلسفۀ تراژدی
اما امروزه همهٔ انسان‌های کوچک ترحم را فضیلت می‌نامند: آنها برای بداقبالی بزرگ، زشتی بزرگ، ناکامی بزرگ، احترامی قائل نیستند! این واپسین سخن فلسفهٔ تراژدی است؛ نه برای انتقال همهٔ هراس‌های زندگی به قلمرو چیزدرخود، بیرون از مرزهای احکام ترکیبیِ پیشینی، بلکه برای احترام به آنها! آیا پوزیتیویسم یا ایده‌آلیسم می‌توانند از این رهگذر پاسخی به «زشتی» بدهند؟ وقتی نیکلای گوگول دست‌نویس‌های جلد دوم نفوس مرده را سوزاند مجنونش خواندند؛ وگرنه محال بود ایده‌آل‌ها را نجات داد. اما گوگول وقتی دست‌نویس قیمتی‌اش را سوزاند بیشتر حق داشت تا وقتی که آن را نوشت. این چیزی است که ایده‌آلیست‌ها هرگز در برابرش مدارا نخواهند کرد؛ آنها به «آثار گوگول» نیاز دارند، ولی کاری به خودِ گوگول، به «بداقبالی بزرگ، زشتی بزرگ و ناکامی بزرگ» او ندارند. پس بگذار قلمروی فلسفه را تا ابد ترک گویند!
272 pages, Hardcover
First published December 31, 1900
About the author
Lev Shestov
56 books228 followersLev Isaakovich Shestov (Russian: Лев Исаа́кович Шесто́в), born Yehuda Leyb Schwarzmann (Russian: Иегуда Лейб Шварцман), variously known as Leon Shestov, Léon Chestov, Leo Shestov.
A Ukrainian/Russian existentialist philosopher. Born in Kiev (Russian Empire). He emigrated to France in 1921, fleeing from the aftermath of the October Revolution. He lived in Paris until his death.
A Ukrainian/Russian existentialist philosopher. Born in Kiev (Russian Empire). He emigrated to France in 1921, fleeing from the aftermath of the October Revolution. He lived in Paris until his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 5, 2023
What characteristics should an action or behavior have so that we can call it ‘good’?
Is it a ’good" will?
Can we call every reflection of the will ‘goodness’?
Should kindness be behavioral? Is it essential? Or should it be verbal?
Is goodness relative?
If it is relative, what is the relativity of evil?
In this case, can we claim that what is good is moral?
Is good actually evil?
It is Chestov who has made readings of Tolstoy and Nietzche on the key question of the problem that humanity that has passed through these stages of thought has come and blocked.
In Tolstoy, kindness is equal to sociality. He lived within the framework of the opinion that everything that is for the benefit of society is good (although a person is not happy), and he created his novels within this framework. And accordingly, the fateful separation of the characters who are good and the characters who are bad in his novels is striking. While Tolstoy sees goodness as a value that rises from pain in a social sense, and based on the characters in the novel, he separates the good and bad individually according to the tragedies they experience in the novel. Thus, he reflects the projections of real life into his novel. This is exactly one of the things that makes Tolstoy so valuable. This analysis of Chestov actually brings the issue to the ‘tragedy’. Similarly, his relationship with Nietzsche arises not through goodness, but through tragedy. Because if there is no tragedy there, the meaning of goodness turns into a big question mark.
Tolstoy adopted a socialist-realistic approach to goodness. Because the crisis of existence he was experiencing, his search for meaning, led him to devote himself to this after reading Jesus' sermon on the mount. Goodness, again, is born out of pain in Tolstoy, but this is a goodness that can be described as limited. Because this socialism stems from a religious reflex, in a philosophical sense, it compresses and leaves a person in what is stated as good in religion and what is stated as bad. His conflict with Nietzsche also began here.
In Nietzsche, on the other hand, this was handled with an approach that reaches from subjectivity to objectivity, as it is more subjective. And Nietzsche began by separating goodness from morality. Nietzsche's idea of this anti-morality allows him to ask crucial questions about what good and evil are, and predicts that good and evil should be experienced beyond, abandoning religions that limit man to good and evil, and morality that is held equivalent to them. However, in the tragic sense, Nietzsche, like Tolstoy, does not classify good and evil in tragedy, he establishes tragedy, lives it. Perhaps the reason for Tolstoy's search for meaning also lay here ... although he separated from Tolstoy at this point, tragedy is also social in Nietzsche. Are are so similar and resolution.
In this short book, Chestov discussed Tolstoy with his novels and his life, his works, thoughts and again Nietzsche with his life in the finest details, in the concept of ‘goodness’ and described their similarities and differences. Is there a philosophy of literature? He was dying.
Is it a ’good" will?
Can we call every reflection of the will ‘goodness’?
Should kindness be behavioral? Is it essential? Or should it be verbal?
Is goodness relative?
If it is relative, what is the relativity of evil?
In this case, can we claim that what is good is moral?
Is good actually evil?
It is Chestov who has made readings of Tolstoy and Nietzche on the key question of the problem that humanity that has passed through these stages of thought has come and blocked.
In Tolstoy, kindness is equal to sociality. He lived within the framework of the opinion that everything that is for the benefit of society is good (although a person is not happy), and he created his novels within this framework. And accordingly, the fateful separation of the characters who are good and the characters who are bad in his novels is striking. While Tolstoy sees goodness as a value that rises from pain in a social sense, and based on the characters in the novel, he separates the good and bad individually according to the tragedies they experience in the novel. Thus, he reflects the projections of real life into his novel. This is exactly one of the things that makes Tolstoy so valuable. This analysis of Chestov actually brings the issue to the ‘tragedy’. Similarly, his relationship with Nietzsche arises not through goodness, but through tragedy. Because if there is no tragedy there, the meaning of goodness turns into a big question mark.
Tolstoy adopted a socialist-realistic approach to goodness. Because the crisis of existence he was experiencing, his search for meaning, led him to devote himself to this after reading Jesus' sermon on the mount. Goodness, again, is born out of pain in Tolstoy, but this is a goodness that can be described as limited. Because this socialism stems from a religious reflex, in a philosophical sense, it compresses and leaves a person in what is stated as good in religion and what is stated as bad. His conflict with Nietzsche also began here.
In Nietzsche, on the other hand, this was handled with an approach that reaches from subjectivity to objectivity, as it is more subjective. And Nietzsche began by separating goodness from morality. Nietzsche's idea of this anti-morality allows him to ask crucial questions about what good and evil are, and predicts that good and evil should be experienced beyond, abandoning religions that limit man to good and evil, and morality that is held equivalent to them. However, in the tragic sense, Nietzsche, like Tolstoy, does not classify good and evil in tragedy, he establishes tragedy, lives it. Perhaps the reason for Tolstoy's search for meaning also lay here ... although he separated from Tolstoy at this point, tragedy is also social in Nietzsche. Are are so similar and resolution.
In this short book, Chestov discussed Tolstoy with his novels and his life, his works, thoughts and again Nietzsche with his life in the finest details, in the concept of ‘goodness’ and described their similarities and differences. Is there a philosophy of literature? He was dying.
November 10, 2024
این کتاب به نام «داستایفسکی و نیچه» از انتشارات نگاه به فارسی ترجمه شده. نویسنده از تقابل میان دو فیلسوف بزرگ برای تحلیل رنج و تراژدی انسانی بهره می‌گیره. شستوف در بخش اول کتاب، از منظر داستایفسکی شروع می‌کنه و به تحلیل تحول فکری این نویسنده‌ی بزرگ می‌پردازه و نشون می‌ده که داستایفسکی پس از دوران محکومیت و تبعیدش، از ایده‌آلیسم فاصله گرفت. تجربه‌های دردناک و مشقت‌بارش باعث شد تا باور کنه که رنج و تراژدی بشری دیگه نمی‌تونه با آرمان‌گرایی فلسفی و اخلاقی توجیه بشه. به همین دلیله که شخصیت‌های آثارش، از راسکلنیکوف تا کارامازوف‌ها، در جهانی تراژیک و تاریک زندگی می‌کنند. شستوف استدلال می‌کنه که داستایفسکی این واقعیت تلخ رو به خوبی درک کرده بود که دیگه نمی‌تونه رنج و محنت انسانی رو به سادگی به ایده‌های والای اخلاقی پیوند بزنه.
پرسشی که شستوف مطرح می‌کنه دقیقا همین‌جاست: اگر آرمان‌گرایی دیگه توانایی تفسیر رنج انسان رو نداره، پس زندگی تراژیک شخصیتی مثل راسکلنیکوف چطوری توجیه میشه؟ اینجاست که نیچه و فلسفه‌‌ی درخشانش وارد صحنه می‌شن. نیچه با مفهوم «عشق به سرنوشت» و پذیرش ضرورت رنج، رویکردی کاملاً متفاوت به مسئله‌ی تراژدی بشری ارائه می‌ده. نیچه انسان رو دعوت می‌کنه که نه تنها از رنج فراری نباشه، بلکه دعوت می‌کنه به پذیرفتن و حتی عشق ورزیدن بهش، و به طور خلاصه اون کلام معروف زرتشت نیچه که میگه «سعادت، نگاشتنِ خواستِ هزاره‌هاست، نگاشتنی بر مفرغ، بر سخت‌تر از مفرغ، بر اصیل‌تر از مفرغ؛ تنها اصیل‌ترینان یکپارچه سخت‌اند.»
نکته آخر اینکه قبل خوندن این کتاب، آثار اصلی داستایفسکی رو مطالعه کنید.
پرسشی که شستوف مطرح می‌کنه دقیقا همین‌جاست: اگر آرمان‌گرایی دیگه توانایی تفسیر رنج انسان رو نداره، پس زندگی تراژیک شخصیتی مثل راسکلنیکوف چطوری توجیه میشه؟ اینجاست که نیچه و فلسفه‌‌ی درخشانش وارد صحنه می‌شن. نیچه با مفهوم «عشق به سرنوشت» و پذیرش ضرورت رنج، رویکردی کاملاً متفاوت به مسئله‌ی تراژدی بشری ارائه می‌ده. نیچه انسان رو دعوت می‌کنه که نه تنها از رنج فراری نباشه، بلکه دعوت می‌کنه به پذیرفتن و حتی عشق ورزیدن بهش، و به طور خلاصه اون کلام معروف زرتشت نیچه که میگه «سعادت، نگاشتنِ خواستِ هزاره‌هاست، نگاشتنی بر مفرغ، بر سخت‌تر از مفرغ، بر اصیل‌تر از مفرغ؛ تنها اصیل‌ترینان یکپارچه سخت‌اند.»
نکته آخر اینکه قبل خوندن این کتاب، آثار اصلی داستایفسکی رو مطالعه کنید.
October 5, 2025
When we read Lev Shestov, we meet a thinker standing at an edge, staring into the abyss and refusing to turn away.
In Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche, Shestov studies these writers as wanderers through the same landscape of terror, faith, and the failure of reason. His work feels less like a critique and more like a confession. It becomes a mirror in which idealism trembles before what it cannot name.
Lev Shestov, the Philosopher of the Impossible:
Shestov’s thought begins in rebellion. He resists systems that claim to explain everything, and he mistrusts the arrogance of reason that tries to smooth out the rough edges of pain. For him, the deepest fault of philosophy is its attempt to make peace with tragedy.
To read the complete review:
https://medium.com/@samir.satam/the-p...
In Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche, Shestov studies these writers as wanderers through the same landscape of terror, faith, and the failure of reason. His work feels less like a critique and more like a confession. It becomes a mirror in which idealism trembles before what it cannot name.
Lev Shestov, the Philosopher of the Impossible:
Shestov’s thought begins in rebellion. He resists systems that claim to explain everything, and he mistrusts the arrogance of reason that tries to smooth out the rough edges of pain. For him, the deepest fault of philosophy is its attempt to make peace with tragedy.
To read the complete review:
https://medium.com/@samir.satam/the-p...
June 22, 2020
.
هر ایده‌آلیست در سراسر زندگی خویش می‌ترسد به هیولایی که بالای سرش می‌چرخد نگاه کند، و این هیولا سرانجام او را می‌کشد. تجربه‌های نیچه تنها در آستانه پیری به سراغ تورگنیف آمدند. اصلی‌ترین فعالیت ادبی تورگنیف صرفا تبیین ایده‌الیسم بود که در طول سال‌های متمادی با موفقیت از او در برابر وحشت و نفرت «حشره» محافظت کرده بود.
هر ایده‌آلیست در سراسر زندگی خویش می‌ترسد به هیولایی که بالای سرش می‌چرخد نگاه کند، و این هیولا سرانجام او را می‌کشد. تجربه‌های نیچه تنها در آستانه پیری به سراغ تورگنیف آمدند. اصلی‌ترین فعالیت ادبی تورگنیف صرفا تبیین ایده‌الیسم بود که در طول سال‌های متمادی با موفقیت از او در برابر وحشت و نفرت «حشره» محافظت کرده بود.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews