What do you think?
Rate this book
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche: The Good in the Teaching of Tolstoy and Nietzsche: Philosophy and Preaching, & Dostoevsky and Nietzsche: The Philosophy of Tragedy
In the essays brought together in this volume Shestov presents a profound and original analysis of the thought of three of the most brilliant literary figures of nineteenth-century Europe—Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche—all of whom had a decisive influence on the development of his own philosophy.
According to Shestov, the greatness of these writers consists in their deep probing into the question of the meaning of life and the problems of human suffering, evil, and death. That all three of them at times abandoned their probing and lapsed into the banality of preaching does not diminish their stature but shows only that there are limits to man’s capacity for looking unflichingly at reality.
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche are united, in Shestov’s view, by their common insight into the essential tragedy of human life—a tragedy which no increase in scientific knowledge and no degree of political and social reform can significantly mitigate but which can ultimately be redeemed only by faith in the omnipotent God proclaimed by the Bible.
In all three of his subjects Shestov sees a rebellion against the tyranny of idealist systems of philosophy, as well as a recognition that the supposedly universal and necessary laws discovered by science and the moral principles for which autonomous ethics claims eternal validity do not liberate man but rather crush and destroy him. This rebellion and this recognition are often suppressed by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche, byt they break forth again and again with overwhelming power.
In this provocative discussion of the novels and stories of the two celebrated Russian writers and of the essays and aphorisms of the solitary German philosopher whose genius was finally extinguished by insanity, Shestov finds ideas and insights that other critics have overlooked or the important of which they have not adequately understood. The value of his achievement has been widely recognized. Prince Mirsky, for example, does not hesitate to say in his authorative history of Russian literature that, as far as Dostoevsky is concerned, Shestov is undoubtedly his greatest commentator.
The reader will find in these remarkable studies of the men who exercised the strongest intellectual influence on the young Shestov the beginnings of the Russian philosopher’s own lifelong polemic against idealism, scientism, and conventional morality, as well as the first gropings of the quest for faith in the Biblical God that was to become the leitmotif of all his thinking and writing in the last decades of his life.
According to Shestov, the greatness of these writers consists in their deep probing into the question of the meaning of life and the problems of human suffering, evil, and death. That all three of them at times abandoned their probing and lapsed into the banality of preaching does not diminish their stature but shows only that there are limits to man’s capacity for looking unflichingly at reality.
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche are united, in Shestov’s view, by their common insight into the essential tragedy of human life—a tragedy which no increase in scientific knowledge and no degree of political and social reform can significantly mitigate but which can ultimately be redeemed only by faith in the omnipotent God proclaimed by the Bible.
In all three of his subjects Shestov sees a rebellion against the tyranny of idealist systems of philosophy, as well as a recognition that the supposedly universal and necessary laws discovered by science and the moral principles for which autonomous ethics claims eternal validity do not liberate man but rather crush and destroy him. This rebellion and this recognition are often suppressed by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche, byt they break forth again and again with overwhelming power.
In this provocative discussion of the novels and stories of the two celebrated Russian writers and of the essays and aphorisms of the solitary German philosopher whose genius was finally extinguished by insanity, Shestov finds ideas and insights that other critics have overlooked or the important of which they have not adequately understood. The value of his achievement has been widely recognized. Prince Mirsky, for example, does not hesitate to say in his authorative history of Russian literature that, as far as Dostoevsky is concerned, Shestov is undoubtedly his greatest commentator.
The reader will find in these remarkable studies of the men who exercised the strongest intellectual influence on the young Shestov the beginnings of the Russian philosopher’s own lifelong polemic against idealism, scientism, and conventional morality, as well as the first gropings of the quest for faith in the Biblical God that was to become the leitmotif of all his thinking and writing in the last decades of his life.
354 pages, Hardcover
First published December 31, 1900
8 people are currently reading
836 people want to read
About the author
Lev Shestov
75 books221 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 6, 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