What do you think?
Rate this book
All Things are Possible
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
246 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1905
45 people are currently reading
1436 people want to read
About the author
Lev Shestov
63 books223 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 - 30 of 34 reviews
April 2, 2025
In the course of his conclusive argument against the black hole of desperation - the impassable Sink Hole of postmodern Groundlessness - in his book The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus examines the groundbreaking existential thought of Lev Shestev (Camus' spelling of Shestov).
He concludes that Shestev’s writing is flawed, though initially persuasive.
I would agree. For in the end we are all forced to bear meaninglessness, though it be mitigated by our (thankfully!) flawed humanity.
Our humanity lets in the light, beyond our drawn curtain of our ultimate despair.
But while Shestev defeats our despair, he cannot prevent the light which engendered it, transmogrified by angst, from illuminating the set jawlines of the massed forces of woke, fallen humanity which surround us.
It seeks to weaken - and thus disarm - our will!
But it shall not. For a higher, gentler power than ours will defeat all evil in the end.
His love will prevail.
But religion is not for us here yet a victory. It is an ongoing struggle.
As long as time is unended.
For as I said in my own review of Sisyphus, “ours is the task eternal!”
He concludes that Shestev’s writing is flawed, though initially persuasive.
I would agree. For in the end we are all forced to bear meaninglessness, though it be mitigated by our (thankfully!) flawed humanity.
Our humanity lets in the light, beyond our drawn curtain of our ultimate despair.
But while Shestev defeats our despair, he cannot prevent the light which engendered it, transmogrified by angst, from illuminating the set jawlines of the massed forces of woke, fallen humanity which surround us.
It seeks to weaken - and thus disarm - our will!
But it shall not. For a higher, gentler power than ours will defeat all evil in the end.
His love will prevail.
But religion is not for us here yet a victory. It is an ongoing struggle.
As long as time is unended.
For as I said in my own review of Sisyphus, “ours is the task eternal!”
August 28, 2012
"When a man is young he writes because it seems to him that he has discovered a new almighty truth which he must make haste to impart to forlorn mankind. Later, becoming more modest, he begins to doubt his truths: and then he writes to convince himself. A few more years go by, and he knows he was mistaken all round, so there is no need to convince himself. Nevertheless he continues to write, because he is not fit for any other work and to be accounted a 'superfluous' man is so horrible"
Currently reading
September 4, 2020
May 13, 2019
"He who has once lost his peace of mind will never find it again."
“раз потерявший покой, никогда не обретет его вновь.”
"Each of us bears in his soul a heavy wound, and knows it, yet carries himself, must carry himself as if he were aware of nothing, while all around keep up the pretence."
“Каждый из нас носит в глубине души своей тяжелую и неизлечимую рану - и знает о ней, но держится, обязан держаться так, как будто бы он ничего о ней не знает, и все делают вид, что верят ему.”
"The habit of logical thinking kills imagination. Man is convinced that the only way to truth is through logic, and that any departure from this way leads to error and absurdity."
“Привычка к логическому мышлению убивает фантазию. Человек убеждается, что есть только один путь к истине - через логику и свернуть с него - значит идти наверняка к нелепости.”
"Moral people are the most revengeful of mankind, they employ their morality as the best and most subtle weapon of vengeance. They are not satisfied with simply despising and condemning their neighbour themselves, they want the condemnation to be universal and supreme: that is, that all men should rise as one against the condemned, and that even the offender’s own conscience shall be against him. Then only are they fully satisfied and reassured. Nothing on earth but morality could lead to such wonderful results."
“Нравственные люди - самые мстительные люди, и свою нравственность они употребляют как лучшее и наиболее утонченное
орудие мести. Они не удовлетворяются тем, что просто презирают и осуждают своих ближних, они хотят, чтоб их осуждение было всеобщим и обязательным, т.е. чтоб вместе с ними все люди восстали на осужденного ими, чтоб даже собственная совесть осужденного была на их стороне. Только тогда они чувствуют себя вполне удовлетворенными и успокаиваются. Кроме нравственности, ничего в мире не может привести к столь блестящим результатам.”
"Nietzsche and Dostoevsky seem to be typical “inverted simulators,” if one may use the expression. They imitated spiritual sanity, although they were spiritually insane. They knew their morbidity well enough, but they exhibited their disease only to that extent where freakishness passes for originality."
“Ницше и Достоевский являются типическими “обратными симулянтами”, если так можно выразиться. Они притворялись душевно здоровыми, хотя были душевно больными. Они хорошо знали, что больны, но проявляли свою болезнь лишь в той мере, в которой чудачество сходит еще за оригинальность.”
"Shy people usually receive their impressions post-dated. During those moments when an event is taking place before their eyes, they can see nothing, only later on, having evoked from their memory a fragment of what happened, they make for themselves an impression of the whole scene. And then, retrospectively arise in their soul feelings of pity, offense, surprise, so vivid, as if they were the flames of the instant moment, not rekindlings from the past. Thus shy people always think a great deal, and are always too late for their work. It is never too late for thought. Timid before others, they reach great heights of daring when alone. They are bad speakers - but often excellent writers. Their life is insignificant and tedious, they are not noticed,—until they become famous. And by the time fame comes, they do not need popular attention any more."
“Застенчивые люди обыкновенно воспринимают впечатления задним числом. В ту минуту, когда на их глазах что-либо происходит, они
ничего не замечают и только впоследствии, воспроизведши в памяти отрывок из прошлого, они дают себе отчет в том, что видели. И тогда ретроспективно в их душе возникают чувства обиды, жалости, удивления с такой живостью, как будто бы дело шло не о прошлом, а о настоящем. Поэтому застенчивые люди всегда опаздывают с делом и всегда много думают: думать никогда не поздно. Робкие при других, они доходят до большой смелости, когда остаются наедине с собой. Они плохие ораторы - но часто замечательные писатели. Их жизнь бедна и скучна, их не замечают - пока они не прославятся. Когда же приходит слава - общее внимание уже не нужно”
"When man finds in himself a certain defect, of which he can by no means rid himself, there remains but to accept the so-called failing as a natural quality. The more grave and important the defect, the more urgent is the need to ennoble it."
“Когда человек замечает в себе какой-нибудь недостаток, от которого он никакими способами не может избавиться, ему ничего больше не остается, как объявить недостаток качеством. И чем серьезнее и значительнее недостаток, тем настоятельнее сказывается потребность облагородить его.”
"The best death is really the one which is considered the worst: to die alone, in a foreign land, in a poor-house, or, as they say, like a dog under a hedge. Then at least one may spend one’s last moments honestly, without dissembling or ostentation, preparing oneself for the dreadful, or wonderful, event."
“Самая лучшая смерть - это та, которая почитается самой худшей: когда никого нет при человеке - умереть далеко на чужбине, в больнице, что называется, как собака под забором. По крайней мере в последние минуты жизни можно не лицемерить, не учить, а помолчать: приготовиться к страшному, а может быть, и к великому событию.”
“раз потерявший покой, никогда не обретет его вновь.”
"Each of us bears in his soul a heavy wound, and knows it, yet carries himself, must carry himself as if he were aware of nothing, while all around keep up the pretence."
“Каждый из нас носит в глубине души своей тяжелую и неизлечимую рану - и знает о ней, но держится, обязан держаться так, как будто бы он ничего о ней не знает, и все делают вид, что верят ему.”
"The habit of logical thinking kills imagination. Man is convinced that the only way to truth is through logic, and that any departure from this way leads to error and absurdity."
“Привычка к логическому мышлению убивает фантазию. Человек убеждается, что есть только один путь к истине - через логику и свернуть с него - значит идти наверняка к нелепости.”
"Moral people are the most revengeful of mankind, they employ their morality as the best and most subtle weapon of vengeance. They are not satisfied with simply despising and condemning their neighbour themselves, they want the condemnation to be universal and supreme: that is, that all men should rise as one against the condemned, and that even the offender’s own conscience shall be against him. Then only are they fully satisfied and reassured. Nothing on earth but morality could lead to such wonderful results."
“Нравственные люди - самые мстительные люди, и свою нравственность они употребляют как лучшее и наиболее утонченное
орудие мести. Они не удовлетворяются тем, что просто презирают и осуждают своих ближних, они хотят, чтоб их осуждение было всеобщим и обязательным, т.е. чтоб вместе с ними все люди восстали на осужденного ими, чтоб даже собственная совесть осужденного была на их стороне. Только тогда они чувствуют себя вполне удовлетворенными и успокаиваются. Кроме нравственности, ничего в мире не может привести к столь блестящим результатам.”
"Nietzsche and Dostoevsky seem to be typical “inverted simulators,” if one may use the expression. They imitated spiritual sanity, although they were spiritually insane. They knew their morbidity well enough, but they exhibited their disease only to that extent where freakishness passes for originality."
“Ницше и Достоевский являются типическими “обратными симулянтами”, если так можно выразиться. Они притворялись душевно здоровыми, хотя были душевно больными. Они хорошо знали, что больны, но проявляли свою болезнь лишь в той мере, в которой чудачество сходит еще за оригинальность.”
"Shy people usually receive their impressions post-dated. During those moments when an event is taking place before their eyes, they can see nothing, only later on, having evoked from their memory a fragment of what happened, they make for themselves an impression of the whole scene. And then, retrospectively arise in their soul feelings of pity, offense, surprise, so vivid, as if they were the flames of the instant moment, not rekindlings from the past. Thus shy people always think a great deal, and are always too late for their work. It is never too late for thought. Timid before others, they reach great heights of daring when alone. They are bad speakers - but often excellent writers. Their life is insignificant and tedious, they are not noticed,—until they become famous. And by the time fame comes, they do not need popular attention any more."
“Застенчивые люди обыкновенно воспринимают впечатления задним числом. В ту минуту, когда на их глазах что-либо происходит, они
ничего не замечают и только впоследствии, воспроизведши в памяти отрывок из прошлого, они дают себе отчет в том, что видели. И тогда ретроспективно в их душе возникают чувства обиды, жалости, удивления с такой живостью, как будто бы дело шло не о прошлом, а о настоящем. Поэтому застенчивые люди всегда опаздывают с делом и всегда много думают: думать никогда не поздно. Робкие при других, они доходят до большой смелости, когда остаются наедине с собой. Они плохие ораторы - но часто замечательные писатели. Их жизнь бедна и скучна, их не замечают - пока они не прославятся. Когда же приходит слава - общее внимание уже не нужно”
"When man finds in himself a certain defect, of which he can by no means rid himself, there remains but to accept the so-called failing as a natural quality. The more grave and important the defect, the more urgent is the need to ennoble it."
“Когда человек замечает в себе какой-нибудь недостаток, от которого он никакими способами не может избавиться, ему ничего больше не остается, как объявить недостаток качеством. И чем серьезнее и значительнее недостаток, тем настоятельнее сказывается потребность облагородить его.”
"The best death is really the one which is considered the worst: to die alone, in a foreign land, in a poor-house, or, as they say, like a dog under a hedge. Then at least one may spend one’s last moments honestly, without dissembling or ostentation, preparing oneself for the dreadful, or wonderful, event."
“Самая лучшая смерть - это та, которая почитается самой худшей: когда никого нет при человеке - умереть далеко на чужбине, в больнице, что называется, как собака под забором. По крайней мере в последние минуты жизни можно не лицемерить, не учить, а помолчать: приготовиться к страшному, а может быть, и к великому событию.”
August 11, 2018
Shestov was an erudite Russian rabbi. In this book he stresses the importance of revelation in philosophical thinking. Many people want to make a distinction between science and faith, Shestov writes the difference should be between science and revelation. Both are ways of knowing. He shows how this works in the writings of Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and others.
October 28, 2019
Probably would have been 4 stars if I knew enough of the Russian literature he discusses.
I could almost agree with what Nick below said: "a nicer, wimpier Nietzsche". But that's not necessarily a bad thing; Shestov puts some great thoughts into modest words. He happily rails against systems and seems to adopt the book's title as his sole axiom, which I am unhappily but totally on board with. He stays true to the end in not offering anything along with that, which is both satisfying in its sincerity and dissatisfying in its bleakness. Only real complaint is his depiction of science toward the end. Aaaaaand much is lost without a wider familiarity with Russian literature.
I could almost agree with what Nick below said: "a nicer, wimpier Nietzsche". But that's not necessarily a bad thing; Shestov puts some great thoughts into modest words. He happily rails against systems and seems to adopt the book's title as his sole axiom, which I am unhappily but totally on board with. He stays true to the end in not offering anything along with that, which is both satisfying in its sincerity and dissatisfying in its bleakness. Only real complaint is his depiction of science toward the end. Aaaaaand much is lost without a wider familiarity with Russian literature.
February 21, 2024
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 4, 2025
“The business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty – man who is supremely afraid of uncertainty, and who is forever hiding himself behind this or the other dogma. More briefly, the business of philosophy is not to reassure people, but to upset them.”
“The task is truly ethical: morality always was and always will be utilitarian and bullying. Its active principle is: He who is not with us, is against us.”
The first part is engaging, the second part felt like it fell a lot to hypocrisy.
Essentially, the first part is a lot about how philosophy should make you uncomfortable, and he rails against the staleness and insincerity of reason and constructed systems.
In the second part, Shestov makes himself awfully comfortable, I have to say. From challenging, even himself, he falls into ‘well, I think like this, ergo it must be true for everyone and thus lets proclaim it as axiomatically true – without saying it outright - while denouncing universal truths’, it also comes across as shallow and unrealistic (has he met any human beings ever?), not to mention that for someone who has railed against reason he suddenly goes – oh well, if you’re gonna die you’re gonna die, why get so upset? Use your reason and enjoy your sweets while you can. Yet later he will speak on the primate of will over reason.
The second part touches on the, perhaps disappointing, and repeated fact that no one is groundless and it shows.
There were some fun pearl clutching moments, like when he said something that could be interpreted as less than complimentary to Pushkin. Is that not illegal? Questioning Dostoevsky is not as unique, but Pushkin! A very brave man, Shestov.
He outweighs it I suppose by being complimentary to Pushkin too, so I guess the almost critiques could slide.
“In a word, we must believe Poushkin. A poet is, on the one hand, among the elect; on the other hand, he is one of the most insignificant of mortals. Hence we can draw a very consoling conclusion: the most insignificant of men are not altogether so worthless as we imagine.”
All in all, well worth reading and engaging with. But as Shestov wishes, do not come to agree, come to think for yourself, and wrestle with his thoughts.
“The task is truly ethical: morality always was and always will be utilitarian and bullying. Its active principle is: He who is not with us, is against us.”
The first part is engaging, the second part felt like it fell a lot to hypocrisy.
Essentially, the first part is a lot about how philosophy should make you uncomfortable, and he rails against the staleness and insincerity of reason and constructed systems.
In the second part, Shestov makes himself awfully comfortable, I have to say. From challenging, even himself, he falls into ‘well, I think like this, ergo it must be true for everyone and thus lets proclaim it as axiomatically true – without saying it outright - while denouncing universal truths’, it also comes across as shallow and unrealistic (has he met any human beings ever?), not to mention that for someone who has railed against reason he suddenly goes – oh well, if you’re gonna die you’re gonna die, why get so upset? Use your reason and enjoy your sweets while you can. Yet later he will speak on the primate of will over reason.
The second part touches on the, perhaps disappointing, and repeated fact that no one is groundless and it shows.
There were some fun pearl clutching moments, like when he said something that could be interpreted as less than complimentary to Pushkin. Is that not illegal? Questioning Dostoevsky is not as unique, but Pushkin! A very brave man, Shestov.
He outweighs it I suppose by being complimentary to Pushkin too, so I guess the almost critiques could slide.
“In a word, we must believe Poushkin. A poet is, on the one hand, among the elect; on the other hand, he is one of the most insignificant of mortals. Hence we can draw a very consoling conclusion: the most insignificant of men are not altogether so worthless as we imagine.”
All in all, well worth reading and engaging with. But as Shestov wishes, do not come to agree, come to think for yourself, and wrestle with his thoughts.
April 9, 2020
Книга может стать некоторым разочарованием для привносящего в восприятие чего-то "катастрофичного" для собственного миросозерцания от "русскоязычного ницшеанина", каким Шестов отчасти считается.
Лично для меня, работа представляется, не смотря на то, что ею вдохновлялся и Камю, чья "Чума", говорят, вошла в моду, "катастрофичной" именно в собственной устарелости (это не оскорбление, спешу уверить, но отчаяние) - становишься на позиции литературоведов, объявляющих Льва Толстого одним из наиболее неактуальных писателей современности, начинаешь понимать, "откуда ноги растут" у таких заявлений. Почему, в конце концов, не череда клонов соцреализма или орды революционных памфлетистов, взрастающих на почве социальных волнений и своевременных лишь в современности? К тому же, есть прорва поэтов, которых, судя по всему, специалисты такие даже не думают относить к литературе!
Как бы там ни было - писать об "Апофеозее" неинтересно, не психологизируя, не спекулируя, не ударяясь в откровенное словоблудие (в чём нет и толики дерзновения) - афоризмы годны лишь на раскрытие собственной истолкования, но не для анализа; потому их даже не следует подвергать таковому - так как рискуешь упустить положенную в основание "беспочвенность".
Что же касается этого самого основания, то оно повторяет ошибку любой "пустоты, стоящей По Ту Сторону" - не учитывает самое себя; не учитывает того, что сама она, беспочвенность, может служить достаточно прочным фундаментом для взглядов, направленных на переоценивание всего наличествующего, привычного, традиционного. Лев Исаакович не делает и самой малости, осторожничая и "не проживая", как говорят на курсах актёрского мастерства.
Лев Исаакович просто говорит, высказывается, реплицирует, вовремя не договаривает и вполне понимает, что не в праве быть категоричным в речи - впрочем, останется загадкой, соответствовало ли это его желанию или нежеланию быть описанным и увиденным в таком свете.
Не оставляет ощущение недооценки и некоторого стыда, при наличествующей благодарности - возможно, следует обратиться к другим работам господина Шварцмана.
Лично для меня, работа представляется, не смотря на то, что ею вдохновлялся и Камю, чья "Чума", говорят, вошла в моду, "катастрофичной" именно в собственной устарелости (это не оскорбление, спешу уверить, но отчаяние) - становишься на позиции литературоведов, объявляющих Льва Толстого одним из наиболее неактуальных писателей современности, начинаешь понимать, "откуда ноги растут" у таких заявлений. Почему, в конце концов, не череда клонов соцреализма или орды революционных памфлетистов, взрастающих на почве социальных волнений и своевременных лишь в современности? К тому же, есть прорва поэтов, которых, судя по всему, специалисты такие даже не думают относить к литературе!
Как бы там ни было - писать об "Апофеозее" неинтересно, не психологизируя, не спекулируя, не ударяясь в откровенное словоблудие (в чём нет и толики дерзновения) - афоризмы годны лишь на раскрытие собственной истолкования, но не для анализа; потому их даже не следует подвергать таковому - так как рискуешь упустить положенную в основание "беспочвенность".
Что же касается этого самого основания, то оно повторяет ошибку любой "пустоты, стоящей По Ту Сторону" - не учитывает самое себя; не учитывает того, что сама она, беспочвенность, может служить достаточно прочным фундаментом для взглядов, направленных на переоценивание всего наличествующего, привычного, традиционного. Лев Исаакович не делает и самой малости, осторожничая и "не проживая", как говорят на курсах актёрского мастерства.
Лев Исаакович просто говорит, высказывается, реплицирует, вовремя не договаривает и вполне понимает, что не в праве быть категоричным в речи - впрочем, останется загадкой, соответствовало ли это его желанию или нежеланию быть описанным и увиденным в таком свете.
Не оставляет ощущение недооценки и некоторого стыда, при наличествующей благодарности - возможно, следует обратиться к другим работам господина Шварцмана.
September 10, 2022
Shestov is such an exacting and rigorous philosopher that finishing this book took about a month for me. Unlike Nietzsche or Kant, everything is not defined a few chapters along and no “school” is introduced, just an examination of the phenomena surrounding humans. Towards the end he breezes by a few philosophical schools here and there but understands that the Big Time philosophers are not going to stop man from living illusions.
Shestov is not like Unamuno, not a thinker who throws possibility around as an antidote to determinism’s consequences. The vastness of the cosmos, the inability to either define or limit leads him to a consideration of the infinite. Unsparing realism and a definite sense of Pushkin and Russian aesthetics alchemizes into a hybrid sense of nihilism and fantasy combine.
Shestov is not like Unamuno, not a thinker who throws possibility around as an antidote to determinism’s consequences. The vastness of the cosmos, the inability to either define or limit leads him to a consideration of the infinite. Unsparing realism and a definite sense of Pushkin and Russian aesthetics alchemizes into a hybrid sense of nihilism and fantasy combine.
December 21, 2025
“The task is truly ethical: morality always was and always will be utilitarian and bullying. Its active principle is: He who is not with us, is against us.”
“…Morality, which lays down definite rules and thereby guards life for a time from any surprise, exists only by convention, and in the end collapses before the non-moral surging-up of individual human aspirations. Laws - all of them - have only a regulating value, and are neccessary only to those who want rest and security. But the first and essential condition of life is lawlessness. Laws are a refreshing sleep - lawlessness is creative activity.”
“…Morality, which lays down definite rules and thereby guards life for a time from any surprise, exists only by convention, and in the end collapses before the non-moral surging-up of individual human aspirations. Laws - all of them - have only a regulating value, and are neccessary only to those who want rest and security. But the first and essential condition of life is lawlessness. Laws are a refreshing sleep - lawlessness is creative activity.”
January 6, 2026
We should doubt so that doubt becomes a continuous creative force, inspiring the very essence of our life
January 25, 2024
"The philosophers have ever bowed the knee to success. So down they went before the newly-invented law of natural sequence, they hailed it with the title of eternal truth. But even this seemed insufficient."
"There are no all-binding, universal judgments—let us manage with non-binding, non-universal ones. Only professors will suffer for it."
"past, to peep into the future. Poushkin could cry hot tears, and he who can weep can hope. "I want to live, so that I may think and suffer," he says; and it seems as if the word "to suffer," which is so beautiful in the poem, just fell in accidentally, because there was no better rhyme in Russian for "to die."
"The habit of logical thinking kills imagination. Man is convinced that the only way to truth is through logic, and that any departure from this way leads to error and absurdity."
*"Such being the case, a man deliberately cuts the thread which binds him to hearth and home, so that he may have a legitimate excuse to his conscience for not going back. Philosophy must have nothing in common with logic; philosophy is an art which aims at breaking the logical continuity of argument and bringing man out on the shoreless sea of imagination, the fantastic tides where everything is equally possible and impossible."
"The first assumption of all metaphysics is, that by dialectic development of any concept a whole system can be evolved. Of course the initial concept, the a priori, is generally unsound, so there is no need to mention the deductions."
Funny, "It is related that a famous mathematician, after hearing a musical symphony to the end, inquired, "What does it prove?" Of course, it proves nothing, except that the mathematician had no taste for music."
"Perhaps "cowardice," that miserable, despicable, much-abused weakness of the underworld, is not such a vice after all. Perhaps it is even a virtue. Think of Dostoevsky and his heroes, think of Hamlet. If the underworld man in us were afraid of nothing, if Hamlet was naturally a gladiator, then we should have neither tragic poetry nor philosophy."
"We very often express in a categorical form a judgment of which we do not feel assured, we even lay stress on its absolute validity. We want to see what opposition it will arouse, and this can be achieved only by stating our assumption not as a tentative suggestion, which no one will consider, but as an irrefutable, all-important truth. The greater the value an assumption has for us, the more carefully do we conceal any suggestion of its improbability."
"But our writers of to-day, before they can lay their improbable assertions before the public, must inevitably try to be convinced in their own minds. Otherwise they cannot begin."
"Anton Tchekhov tells the truth neither out of love or respect for the truth, nor yet because, in the Kantian manner, a high duty bids him never to tell a lie, even to escape death. Neither has he the impulse which so often pushes young and fiery souls into rashness; that desire to stand erect, to keep the head high. On the contrary, Tchekhov always walks with a stoop, his head bent down, never fixing his eyes on the heavens, since he will read no signs there."
**"The possibilities which open out before mankind are sufficiently limited. It is impossible to see everything, impossible to know everything, impossible to rise too high above the earth, impossible to penetrate too deeply down."
**"What has been is hidden away, what will be we cannot anticipate, and we know for certain that we shall never grow wings."
**"We must watch our feet, consider each step, since the moment we are off our guard disaster is upon us. Another life is conceivable, however: life in which the word disaster does not exist, where responsibility for one's actions, even if it be not completely abolished, at least has not such a deadly and accidental weight, and where, on the other hand, there is no "regularity," but rather an infinite"
**"But if there is God, and all men are the children of God, then we should be afraid of nothing and spare nothing. And then the man who madly dissipates his own life and fortunes, and the lives and fortunes of others, is more right than the calculating philosophers who vainly seek to regulate mankind on earth."
"the best, the trick was a risky one. As a rule, wisdom goes one way, society the other. They are artificially connected. It is public orators who have trained both the philosophers and the masses to regard as worthy of attention only those considerations which have absolutely everything on their side"
"When a writer has to express an idea whose foundation he has not been able to establish, and which yet is dear to his heart, so that he earnestly wishes to secure its general acceptance, as a rule he interrupts his exposition, as if to take breath, and makes a small, or at times a serious digression, during which he proves the invalidity of this or that proposition, often without any reference to his real theme."
"His calculation is perfectly justified. The reader is afraid to attack such a skilled dialectician, and prefers to agree rather than to risk himself in argument. Not even the greatest intellects, particularly in philosophy, disdain such stratagems. The idealists, for example, before expounding their theories, turn and rend materialism. The materialists, we remember, at one time did the same with the idealists, and achieved a vast success."
"Creative activity is a continual progression from failure to failure, and the condition of the creator is usually one of uncertainty, mistrust, and shattered nerves. The more serious and original the task which a man sets himself, the more tormenting is the self-misgiving."
"A school axiom: logical scepticism refutes itself, since the denial of the possibility of positive knowledge is already an affirmation. But, in the first place, scepticism is not bound to be logical, for it has no desire whatever to gratify that dogma which raises logic to the position of law."
"Secondly, where is the philosophic theory which, if carried to its extreme, would not destroy itself? Therefore, why is more demanded from scepticism than from other systems? especially from scepticism, which honestly avows that it cannot give that which all other theories claim to give."
"In Gogol's Portrait, the artist despairs at the thought that he has sacrificed art for the sake of "life." In Ibsen's drama, When We Dead Awaken, there is also an artist, who has become world-famous, and who repents that he has sacrificed his life—to art. Now, choose—which of the two ways of repentance do you prefer?"
"Man is often quite indifferent to success whilst he has it. But once he loses his power over people, he begins to fret. And—vice versa." True
**"
If we compare our knowledge with that of the ancients, we appear very wise. But we are no nearer to solving the riddle of eternal justice than Cain was. Progress, civilisation, all the conquests of the human mind have brought us nothing new here. Like our ancestors, we stand still with fright and perplexity before ugliness, disease, misery, senility, death."
**" We are told that perhaps all that is horrible only appears horrible, that perhaps at the end of the long journey something new awaits us. Perhaps! But the modern educated man, with the wisdom of all the centuries of mankind at his command, knows no more about it than the old singer who solved universal problems at his own risk. We, the children of a moribund civilisation, we, old men from our birth, in this respect are as young as the first man."
**"Philosophers dearly love to call their utterances "truths," since in that guise they become binding upon us all. But each philosopher invents his own truths. Which means that he asks his pupils to deceive themselves in the way he shows, but that he reserves for himself the option of deceiving himself in his own way. Why? Why not allow everyone to deceive himself just as he likes?"
**"In the "ultimate questions of life" we are not a bit nearer the truth than our ancestors were. Everybody knows it, and yet so many go on talking about infinity, without any hope of ever saying anything."
"Theories of sequence and consequence, as we already know, are binding only upon disciples, whose single virtue lies in their scrupulous, logical developing of the master's idea. But masters themselves invent ideas, and, therefore, have the right to substitute one for another. The sovereign power which proclaims a law has the same power to abolish it."
"Hopelessness is the most solemn and supreme moment in life. Till that point we have been assisted—now we are left to ourselves. Previously we had to do with men and human laws—now with eternity, and with the complete absence of laws. Is it not obvious?"
"We have sufficient grounds for taking life mistrustfully: it has defrauded us so often of our cherished expectations. But we have still stronger grounds for mistrusting reason: since if life deceived us, it was only because futile reason let herself be deceived."
"But had he chanced to be brought amongst Russian peasants he would have had to change his opinion. With them thoughts about destiny and the why and wherefore of the universe and infinity and so on, would by no means be considered disinterested, particularly if the man who devoted himself to such thoughts were at the same time to announce, as becomes a philosopher, that he claimed complete freedom from physical labour. There the philosopher, were he even Plato, would be stigmatised with the disgraceful nickname, "Idle-jack." There the highest activity is interested activity, directed towards strictly practical purposes; and if the peasants could speak learnedly, they would certainly call the principle upon which their judgment is founded an a priori."
"Three-fourths of our education goes to teaching us most carefully to conceal within ourselves the changeableness of our moods and judgments. A man who cannot keep his word is the last of men: never to be trusted. Likewise, a man with no firm convictions: it is impossible to work together with him."
"The summit of human existence, say the philosophers, is spiritual serenity, aequanimitas: But in that case the animals should be our ideal, for in the matter of imperturbability they leave nothing to be desired. Look at a grazing sheep, or a cow."
**"To discard logic as an instrument, a means or aid for acquiring knowledge, would be extravagant. Why should we? For the sake of consequentialism? i.e. for logic's very self? But logic, as an aim in itself, or even as the only means to knowledge, is a different matter. Against this one must fight even if he has against him all the authorities of thought—beginning with Aristotle."
"A = A.—They say that logic does not need this postulate, and could easily develop it by deduction. I think not. On the contrary, in my opinion, logic could not exist without this premiss. Meanwhile it has a purely empirical origin. In the realm of fact, A is always more or less equal to A. But it might be otherwise. The universe might be so constituted as to admit of the most fantastic metamorphoses. That which now equals A would successively equal B and then C, and so on."
"The effort to understand people, life, the universe prevents us from getting to know them at all. Since "to know" and "to understand" are two concepts which are not only non-identical, but just the opposite of one another in meaning; in spite of their being in constant use as synonyms."
"It is a case of clearest logical consequence: man loves his neighbour, he sees that heaven is indifferent to misery, therefore he takes upon himself the rôle of Providence. Were he indifferent to the sufferings of others, he would easily become an idealist and leave his neighbours to their fate. Love and compassion kill belief, and make a man a positivist and a materialist in his philosophical outlook. If he feels the misery of others, he leaves off meditating and wants to act. Man only thinks properly when he realises he has nothing to do, his hands are tied."
"And how could we be brought to live "as we ought," when our own nature is and always will be an incalculable mystery. There is no mistake about it, nobody wants to think, I do not speak here of logical thinking. That, like any other natural function, gives man great pleasure. For this reason philosophical systems, however complicated, arouse real and permanent interest in the public provided they only require from man the logical exercise of the mind, and nothing else."
"The pike did not notice the partition, and hurled itself on its prey, with, of course, the result only of a bruised nose. The same happened many times, and always the same result. At last, seeing all its efforts ended so painfully, the pike abandoned the hunt, so that in a few days, when the partition had been removed it continued to swim about among the small fry without daring to attack them.... Does not the same happen with us? Perhaps the limits between "this world" and "the other world" are also essentially of an experimental origin, neither rooted in the nature of things, as was thought before Kant, or in the nature of our reason, as was thought after Kant."
"Perhaps indeed a partition does exist, and make vain all attempts to cross over.. But perhaps there comes a moment when the partition is removed. In our minds, however, the conviction is firmly rooted that it is impossible to pass certain limits, and painful to try: a conviction founded on experience."
"The most lasting and varied experience cannot lead to any binding and universal conclusion. Nay, all our a priori, which are so useful for a certain time, become sooner or later extremely harmful."
Funny, "And this superb principle has been arrived at perfectly by chance, unfortunately not by me, but by one of the comical characters in Tchekhov's Seagull. He mixed up two Latin proverbs, and the result was a splendid maxim which, in order to become an a priori, awaits only universal acceptance."
"Wonderful is man. Knowing nothing about it, he asserts the existence of an objective impossibility."
"And again, no matter what his precautions, a man will meet his fate sooner or later, and come into conflict with the dragon."
"Not in vain is our earth called a vale of tears and sorrow."
"God-conception—with theodicy and metaphysical theories as a result, both of which deny the possibility of a mystery. Theodicy has long ago wearied us. The mechanistic theories, which contend that there is nothing special in life, that its appearance and disappearance depend on the same laws as those of the conservation of energy and the indestructibility of matter, these look more plausible at first sight, but people do not take to them. And no theory can survive men's reluctance to believe in it."
"For instance—our day is so convinced of the absolute nonsense and uselessness of alchemy and astrology that no one dreams of verifying the conviction. We know there were many charlatans and liars amongst alchemists and astrologers. But what does this prove? In every department there are the same mediocre creatures who speculate on human credulity."
"the "mature" people are mistaken about the nothing new can happen." The fact of spiritual stagnation should not be made the ground for judging all life's possibilities from known possibilities."
"On the contrary, such stagnation should prove that however rich and multifarious the past may have been, it has not exhausted a tittle of the whole possibilities. From that which has been it is impossible to infer what will be."
**"future has every right to be anything whatsoever, like or utterly unlike the past."
**"At times one comes to the conclusion that the natural connection of phenomena, as hitherto observed, is not at all inevitable for the future, and that miracles which so far have seemed impossible, may come to seem possible, even natural, far more natural than that loathsome law of sequence, the law of the regularity of phenomena. We are bored stiff with regularity and sequence—confess it, you also, you men of science. At the mere thought that, however we may think, we can get no further than the acknowledgment of the old regularity, an invincible disgust to any kind of mental work overcomes us. To discover another law—still another—when already we have far more than we can do with!"
"Surely if there is any will-to-think left in us, it is established in the supposition that the mind cannot and must not have any bounds, any limits; and that the theory of knowledge, which is based on the history of knowledge and on a few very doubtful assumptions, is only a piece of property belonging to a certain caste, and has nothing to do with us others"
"What a mad impatience seizes us at times when we realise that we shall never fathom the great mystery! Every individual in the world must have felt at one time the mad desire to unriddle the universe."
**"sympathies—is to cease to fear any absurdities, whether rational or metaphysical, and systematically to reject all the services of reason."
"When a man has done his work, and gives himself up to looking and listening and pleasantly accepting everything, hiding nothing from himself, then he begins to "philosophise." What good are abstract formulae to him? Why should he ask himself, before he begins to think: "What can I think about, what are the limits of thought?" He will think, and those who like can do the summing up and the building of theories of knowledge"
"In practical life, particularly in the social political life to which we are doomed, convictions are a necessity. Unity is strength, and unity is possible only among people who think alike. Again, a deep conviction is in itself a strong force, far more powerful than the most logical argumentation."
"Science is useful—but she need not pretend to truth. She cannot know what truth is, she can only accumulate universal laws. Whereas there are, and always have been, non-scientific ways of searching for truth, ways which lead, if not to the innermost secrets, yet to the threshold"
"But does such a thing as ultimate truth exist? Is not the very conception of truth, the very assumption of the possibility of truth, merely an outcome of our limited experience, a fruit of limitation?"
"To out with the truth at all times, always to Until the contrary is proved, we need to think that only one assertion has or can have any objective reality: that nothing on earth is impossible."
"There are no all-binding, universal judgments—let us manage with non-binding, non-universal ones. Only professors will suffer for it."
"past, to peep into the future. Poushkin could cry hot tears, and he who can weep can hope. "I want to live, so that I may think and suffer," he says; and it seems as if the word "to suffer," which is so beautiful in the poem, just fell in accidentally, because there was no better rhyme in Russian for "to die."
"The habit of logical thinking kills imagination. Man is convinced that the only way to truth is through logic, and that any departure from this way leads to error and absurdity."
*"Such being the case, a man deliberately cuts the thread which binds him to hearth and home, so that he may have a legitimate excuse to his conscience for not going back. Philosophy must have nothing in common with logic; philosophy is an art which aims at breaking the logical continuity of argument and bringing man out on the shoreless sea of imagination, the fantastic tides where everything is equally possible and impossible."
"The first assumption of all metaphysics is, that by dialectic development of any concept a whole system can be evolved. Of course the initial concept, the a priori, is generally unsound, so there is no need to mention the deductions."
Funny, "It is related that a famous mathematician, after hearing a musical symphony to the end, inquired, "What does it prove?" Of course, it proves nothing, except that the mathematician had no taste for music."
"Perhaps "cowardice," that miserable, despicable, much-abused weakness of the underworld, is not such a vice after all. Perhaps it is even a virtue. Think of Dostoevsky and his heroes, think of Hamlet. If the underworld man in us were afraid of nothing, if Hamlet was naturally a gladiator, then we should have neither tragic poetry nor philosophy."
"We very often express in a categorical form a judgment of which we do not feel assured, we even lay stress on its absolute validity. We want to see what opposition it will arouse, and this can be achieved only by stating our assumption not as a tentative suggestion, which no one will consider, but as an irrefutable, all-important truth. The greater the value an assumption has for us, the more carefully do we conceal any suggestion of its improbability."
"But our writers of to-day, before they can lay their improbable assertions before the public, must inevitably try to be convinced in their own minds. Otherwise they cannot begin."
"Anton Tchekhov tells the truth neither out of love or respect for the truth, nor yet because, in the Kantian manner, a high duty bids him never to tell a lie, even to escape death. Neither has he the impulse which so often pushes young and fiery souls into rashness; that desire to stand erect, to keep the head high. On the contrary, Tchekhov always walks with a stoop, his head bent down, never fixing his eyes on the heavens, since he will read no signs there."
**"The possibilities which open out before mankind are sufficiently limited. It is impossible to see everything, impossible to know everything, impossible to rise too high above the earth, impossible to penetrate too deeply down."
**"What has been is hidden away, what will be we cannot anticipate, and we know for certain that we shall never grow wings."
**"We must watch our feet, consider each step, since the moment we are off our guard disaster is upon us. Another life is conceivable, however: life in which the word disaster does not exist, where responsibility for one's actions, even if it be not completely abolished, at least has not such a deadly and accidental weight, and where, on the other hand, there is no "regularity," but rather an infinite"
**"But if there is God, and all men are the children of God, then we should be afraid of nothing and spare nothing. And then the man who madly dissipates his own life and fortunes, and the lives and fortunes of others, is more right than the calculating philosophers who vainly seek to regulate mankind on earth."
"the best, the trick was a risky one. As a rule, wisdom goes one way, society the other. They are artificially connected. It is public orators who have trained both the philosophers and the masses to regard as worthy of attention only those considerations which have absolutely everything on their side"
"When a writer has to express an idea whose foundation he has not been able to establish, and which yet is dear to his heart, so that he earnestly wishes to secure its general acceptance, as a rule he interrupts his exposition, as if to take breath, and makes a small, or at times a serious digression, during which he proves the invalidity of this or that proposition, often without any reference to his real theme."
"His calculation is perfectly justified. The reader is afraid to attack such a skilled dialectician, and prefers to agree rather than to risk himself in argument. Not even the greatest intellects, particularly in philosophy, disdain such stratagems. The idealists, for example, before expounding their theories, turn and rend materialism. The materialists, we remember, at one time did the same with the idealists, and achieved a vast success."
"Creative activity is a continual progression from failure to failure, and the condition of the creator is usually one of uncertainty, mistrust, and shattered nerves. The more serious and original the task which a man sets himself, the more tormenting is the self-misgiving."
"A school axiom: logical scepticism refutes itself, since the denial of the possibility of positive knowledge is already an affirmation. But, in the first place, scepticism is not bound to be logical, for it has no desire whatever to gratify that dogma which raises logic to the position of law."
"Secondly, where is the philosophic theory which, if carried to its extreme, would not destroy itself? Therefore, why is more demanded from scepticism than from other systems? especially from scepticism, which honestly avows that it cannot give that which all other theories claim to give."
"In Gogol's Portrait, the artist despairs at the thought that he has sacrificed art for the sake of "life." In Ibsen's drama, When We Dead Awaken, there is also an artist, who has become world-famous, and who repents that he has sacrificed his life—to art. Now, choose—which of the two ways of repentance do you prefer?"
"Man is often quite indifferent to success whilst he has it. But once he loses his power over people, he begins to fret. And—vice versa." True
**"
If we compare our knowledge with that of the ancients, we appear very wise. But we are no nearer to solving the riddle of eternal justice than Cain was. Progress, civilisation, all the conquests of the human mind have brought us nothing new here. Like our ancestors, we stand still with fright and perplexity before ugliness, disease, misery, senility, death."
**" We are told that perhaps all that is horrible only appears horrible, that perhaps at the end of the long journey something new awaits us. Perhaps! But the modern educated man, with the wisdom of all the centuries of mankind at his command, knows no more about it than the old singer who solved universal problems at his own risk. We, the children of a moribund civilisation, we, old men from our birth, in this respect are as young as the first man."
**"Philosophers dearly love to call their utterances "truths," since in that guise they become binding upon us all. But each philosopher invents his own truths. Which means that he asks his pupils to deceive themselves in the way he shows, but that he reserves for himself the option of deceiving himself in his own way. Why? Why not allow everyone to deceive himself just as he likes?"
**"In the "ultimate questions of life" we are not a bit nearer the truth than our ancestors were. Everybody knows it, and yet so many go on talking about infinity, without any hope of ever saying anything."
"Theories of sequence and consequence, as we already know, are binding only upon disciples, whose single virtue lies in their scrupulous, logical developing of the master's idea. But masters themselves invent ideas, and, therefore, have the right to substitute one for another. The sovereign power which proclaims a law has the same power to abolish it."
"Hopelessness is the most solemn and supreme moment in life. Till that point we have been assisted—now we are left to ourselves. Previously we had to do with men and human laws—now with eternity, and with the complete absence of laws. Is it not obvious?"
"We have sufficient grounds for taking life mistrustfully: it has defrauded us so often of our cherished expectations. But we have still stronger grounds for mistrusting reason: since if life deceived us, it was only because futile reason let herself be deceived."
"But had he chanced to be brought amongst Russian peasants he would have had to change his opinion. With them thoughts about destiny and the why and wherefore of the universe and infinity and so on, would by no means be considered disinterested, particularly if the man who devoted himself to such thoughts were at the same time to announce, as becomes a philosopher, that he claimed complete freedom from physical labour. There the philosopher, were he even Plato, would be stigmatised with the disgraceful nickname, "Idle-jack." There the highest activity is interested activity, directed towards strictly practical purposes; and if the peasants could speak learnedly, they would certainly call the principle upon which their judgment is founded an a priori."
"Three-fourths of our education goes to teaching us most carefully to conceal within ourselves the changeableness of our moods and judgments. A man who cannot keep his word is the last of men: never to be trusted. Likewise, a man with no firm convictions: it is impossible to work together with him."
"The summit of human existence, say the philosophers, is spiritual serenity, aequanimitas: But in that case the animals should be our ideal, for in the matter of imperturbability they leave nothing to be desired. Look at a grazing sheep, or a cow."
**"To discard logic as an instrument, a means or aid for acquiring knowledge, would be extravagant. Why should we? For the sake of consequentialism? i.e. for logic's very self? But logic, as an aim in itself, or even as the only means to knowledge, is a different matter. Against this one must fight even if he has against him all the authorities of thought—beginning with Aristotle."
"A = A.—They say that logic does not need this postulate, and could easily develop it by deduction. I think not. On the contrary, in my opinion, logic could not exist without this premiss. Meanwhile it has a purely empirical origin. In the realm of fact, A is always more or less equal to A. But it might be otherwise. The universe might be so constituted as to admit of the most fantastic metamorphoses. That which now equals A would successively equal B and then C, and so on."
"The effort to understand people, life, the universe prevents us from getting to know them at all. Since "to know" and "to understand" are two concepts which are not only non-identical, but just the opposite of one another in meaning; in spite of their being in constant use as synonyms."
"It is a case of clearest logical consequence: man loves his neighbour, he sees that heaven is indifferent to misery, therefore he takes upon himself the rôle of Providence. Were he indifferent to the sufferings of others, he would easily become an idealist and leave his neighbours to their fate. Love and compassion kill belief, and make a man a positivist and a materialist in his philosophical outlook. If he feels the misery of others, he leaves off meditating and wants to act. Man only thinks properly when he realises he has nothing to do, his hands are tied."
"And how could we be brought to live "as we ought," when our own nature is and always will be an incalculable mystery. There is no mistake about it, nobody wants to think, I do not speak here of logical thinking. That, like any other natural function, gives man great pleasure. For this reason philosophical systems, however complicated, arouse real and permanent interest in the public provided they only require from man the logical exercise of the mind, and nothing else."
"The pike did not notice the partition, and hurled itself on its prey, with, of course, the result only of a bruised nose. The same happened many times, and always the same result. At last, seeing all its efforts ended so painfully, the pike abandoned the hunt, so that in a few days, when the partition had been removed it continued to swim about among the small fry without daring to attack them.... Does not the same happen with us? Perhaps the limits between "this world" and "the other world" are also essentially of an experimental origin, neither rooted in the nature of things, as was thought before Kant, or in the nature of our reason, as was thought after Kant."
"Perhaps indeed a partition does exist, and make vain all attempts to cross over.. But perhaps there comes a moment when the partition is removed. In our minds, however, the conviction is firmly rooted that it is impossible to pass certain limits, and painful to try: a conviction founded on experience."
"The most lasting and varied experience cannot lead to any binding and universal conclusion. Nay, all our a priori, which are so useful for a certain time, become sooner or later extremely harmful."
Funny, "And this superb principle has been arrived at perfectly by chance, unfortunately not by me, but by one of the comical characters in Tchekhov's Seagull. He mixed up two Latin proverbs, and the result was a splendid maxim which, in order to become an a priori, awaits only universal acceptance."
"Wonderful is man. Knowing nothing about it, he asserts the existence of an objective impossibility."
"And again, no matter what his precautions, a man will meet his fate sooner or later, and come into conflict with the dragon."
"Not in vain is our earth called a vale of tears and sorrow."
"God-conception—with theodicy and metaphysical theories as a result, both of which deny the possibility of a mystery. Theodicy has long ago wearied us. The mechanistic theories, which contend that there is nothing special in life, that its appearance and disappearance depend on the same laws as those of the conservation of energy and the indestructibility of matter, these look more plausible at first sight, but people do not take to them. And no theory can survive men's reluctance to believe in it."
"For instance—our day is so convinced of the absolute nonsense and uselessness of alchemy and astrology that no one dreams of verifying the conviction. We know there were many charlatans and liars amongst alchemists and astrologers. But what does this prove? In every department there are the same mediocre creatures who speculate on human credulity."
"the "mature" people are mistaken about the nothing new can happen." The fact of spiritual stagnation should not be made the ground for judging all life's possibilities from known possibilities."
"On the contrary, such stagnation should prove that however rich and multifarious the past may have been, it has not exhausted a tittle of the whole possibilities. From that which has been it is impossible to infer what will be."
**"future has every right to be anything whatsoever, like or utterly unlike the past."
**"At times one comes to the conclusion that the natural connection of phenomena, as hitherto observed, is not at all inevitable for the future, and that miracles which so far have seemed impossible, may come to seem possible, even natural, far more natural than that loathsome law of sequence, the law of the regularity of phenomena. We are bored stiff with regularity and sequence—confess it, you also, you men of science. At the mere thought that, however we may think, we can get no further than the acknowledgment of the old regularity, an invincible disgust to any kind of mental work overcomes us. To discover another law—still another—when already we have far more than we can do with!"
"Surely if there is any will-to-think left in us, it is established in the supposition that the mind cannot and must not have any bounds, any limits; and that the theory of knowledge, which is based on the history of knowledge and on a few very doubtful assumptions, is only a piece of property belonging to a certain caste, and has nothing to do with us others"
"What a mad impatience seizes us at times when we realise that we shall never fathom the great mystery! Every individual in the world must have felt at one time the mad desire to unriddle the universe."
**"sympathies—is to cease to fear any absurdities, whether rational or metaphysical, and systematically to reject all the services of reason."
"When a man has done his work, and gives himself up to looking and listening and pleasantly accepting everything, hiding nothing from himself, then he begins to "philosophise." What good are abstract formulae to him? Why should he ask himself, before he begins to think: "What can I think about, what are the limits of thought?" He will think, and those who like can do the summing up and the building of theories of knowledge"
"In practical life, particularly in the social political life to which we are doomed, convictions are a necessity. Unity is strength, and unity is possible only among people who think alike. Again, a deep conviction is in itself a strong force, far more powerful than the most logical argumentation."
"Science is useful—but she need not pretend to truth. She cannot know what truth is, she can only accumulate universal laws. Whereas there are, and always have been, non-scientific ways of searching for truth, ways which lead, if not to the innermost secrets, yet to the threshold"
"But does such a thing as ultimate truth exist? Is not the very conception of truth, the very assumption of the possibility of truth, merely an outcome of our limited experience, a fruit of limitation?"
"To out with the truth at all times, always to Until the contrary is proved, we need to think that only one assertion has or can have any objective reality: that nothing on earth is impossible."
August 3, 2017
"He who is tired of the valleys, loves climbing, and is not afraid to look down a precipice, and, most of all, has nothing left in life but the 'metaphysical craving,' he will certainly climb to the summits without asking what awaits him there. He does not fear, he longs for giddiness. But he will hardly call people after him: he doesn't want just anybody for a companion. In such a case companions are not wanted at all, much less those tender-footed ones who are used to every convenience, roads, street lamps, guide-posts, careful maps which mark every change in the road ahead. They will not help, only hinder. They will prove superfluous, heavy ballast, which may not be thrown overboard. Fuss over them, console them, promise them! Who would be bothered? Is it not better to go one's way alone, and not only to refrain from enticing others to follow, but frighten them off as much as possible, exaggerate every danger and difficulty? In order that conscience may not prick too hard—we who love high altitudes love a quiet conscience—let us find a justification for their inactivity. Let us tell them they are the best, the worthiest of people, really the salt of the earth. Let us pay them every possible mark of respect. But since they are subject to giddiness, they had better stay down. The upper Alpine ways, as any guide will tell you, are nur für Schwindelfreie."
"Every creation is created out of the Void. At the best, the maker finds himself confronted with a formless, meaningless, usually obstinate and stiff matter, which yields reluctantly to form. And he does not know how to begin. Every time a new thought is engendered, so often must that new thought, which for the moment seems so brilliant and fascinating, be thrown aside as worthless. Creative activity is a continual progression from failure to failure, and the condition of the creator is usually one of uncertainty, mistrust, and shattered nerves. The more serious and original the task which a man sets himself, the more tormenting is the self-misgiving. For this reason even men of genius cannot keep up the creative activity to the last. As soon as they have acquired their technique, they begin to repeat themselves, well aware that the public willingly endures the monotony of a favourite, even finds virtue in it. Every connoisseur of art is satisfied if he recognises in a new work the accepted "manner" of the artist. Few realise that the acquiring of a manner is the beginning of the end. Artists realise well enough, and would be glad to be rid of their manner, which seems to them a hackneyed affair. But this requires too great a strain on their powers, new torments, doubts, new groping. He who has once been through the creative raptures is not easily tempted to try again. He prefers to turn out work according to the pattern he has evolved, calmly and securely, assured of his results. Fortunately no one except himself knows that he is not any longer a creator. What a lot of secrets there are in the world, and how easy it is to keep one's secret safe from indiscreet glances!"
"Every creation is created out of the Void. At the best, the maker finds himself confronted with a formless, meaningless, usually obstinate and stiff matter, which yields reluctantly to form. And he does not know how to begin. Every time a new thought is engendered, so often must that new thought, which for the moment seems so brilliant and fascinating, be thrown aside as worthless. Creative activity is a continual progression from failure to failure, and the condition of the creator is usually one of uncertainty, mistrust, and shattered nerves. The more serious and original the task which a man sets himself, the more tormenting is the self-misgiving. For this reason even men of genius cannot keep up the creative activity to the last. As soon as they have acquired their technique, they begin to repeat themselves, well aware that the public willingly endures the monotony of a favourite, even finds virtue in it. Every connoisseur of art is satisfied if he recognises in a new work the accepted "manner" of the artist. Few realise that the acquiring of a manner is the beginning of the end. Artists realise well enough, and would be glad to be rid of their manner, which seems to them a hackneyed affair. But this requires too great a strain on their powers, new torments, doubts, new groping. He who has once been through the creative raptures is not easily tempted to try again. He prefers to turn out work according to the pattern he has evolved, calmly and securely, assured of his results. Fortunately no one except himself knows that he is not any longer a creator. What a lot of secrets there are in the world, and how easy it is to keep one's secret safe from indiscreet glances!"
August 18, 2011
Взгляд со стороны на мысли, которые я очень давно гоняю по кругу. Со стороны и с высоты. У него получается шагнуть в тот зыбучий песок размышлений, в котором я раз за разом тону, и удерживаться на самом-самом постоянно осыпающемся краю, сохраняя отстраненность и иронию. Хороший урок.
Но эта книга, кажется, уже одной ногой в двадцатом веке, в постмодернизме, в "тексте". Слова мертвеют, цепенеют, охлаждаются.
Но эта книга, кажется, уже одной ногой в двадцатом веке, в постмодернизме, в "тексте". Слова мертвеют, цепенеют, охлаждаются.
August 13, 2015
Pretty shallow and uninteresting. Of course I read it in translation because I don't know Russian, so maybe the original would rate higher.
October 19, 2019
Nur für Schwindelfreie
March 7, 2024
Апофеоз беспочвенности (Лев Шестов, 1905)
Формат
Киндл, 210 страниц.
Предисловие и 2 части. Внутри каждой части множество мелких главок.
Содержание
Размышления в виде рваных записок на самые разные тематики: от влияния отрыжки на жизнь человека и оды Сомнениям до самых основ гносеологии.
Впечатление
Читается легко, порою даже воздушно. Первый философский текст в экзистенциальном настроении, который так со мной совпал.
Интересна форма - мелкие частички текста, множество записок, как мысли-черепки одного большого мысленного сосуда. Так уже было у Паскаля и будет еще у многих экзист-умников.
Очень нравится что преимущественно разбирается Русский материал. Летов берет что-то из Пушкина, Чехова, Салтыкова-Щедрина, Толстого etc и размывает по косточкам или просто балуется.
Основная тематика размышлений: “не-все-так-однозначно, сомневайся во всем и вообще панкуй почаще”.
Привожу примеры яркий мыслей, в основном в моем пересказе.
“Убеждения можно менять как перчатки. Прочность убеждения стоит сохранять только в отношениях с людьми, ведь должны же они понимать когда на вас расчитывать. Потому лучший принцип: уважение к порядку извне и внутренний хаос. Если жить с внутренним хаосом сложно, то можно создавать и порядок внутри себя, но помнить что это слабость.”
“Закон - успокаивающий сон, беззаконие - творческая деятельность.”
“Сострадание и любовь к людям является препятствием для метафизического полета. Взгляд приковывается к земле, соответственно материалисты как правило являются добрыми людьми.”
“Думать (по-настоящему думать) человек начинает только тогда, когда он понимает что Делать он уже ничего не может (ограничен в действиях). Оттого очень часто настоящая Мысль начинается с отчаяния.”
Формат
Киндл, 210 страниц.
Предисловие и 2 части. Внутри каждой части множество мелких главок.
Содержание
Размышления в виде рваных записок на самые разные тематики: от влияния отрыжки на жизнь человека и оды Сомнениям до самых основ гносеологии.
Впечатление
Читается легко, порою даже воздушно. Первый философский текст в экзистенциальном настроении, который так со мной совпал.
Интересна форма - мелкие частички текста, множество записок, как мысли-черепки одного большого мысленного сосуда. Так уже было у Паскаля и будет еще у многих экзист-умников.
Очень нравится что преимущественно разбирается Русский материал. Летов берет что-то из Пушкина, Чехова, Салтыкова-Щедрина, Толстого etc и размывает по косточкам или просто балуется.
Основная тематика размышлений: “не-все-так-однозначно, сомневайся во всем и вообще панкуй почаще”.
Привожу примеры яркий мыслей, в основном в моем пересказе.
“Убеждения можно менять как перчатки. Прочность убеждения стоит сохранять только в отношениях с людьми, ведь должны же они понимать когда на вас расчитывать. Потому лучший принцип: уважение к порядку извне и внутренний хаос. Если жить с внутренним хаосом сложно, то можно создавать и порядок внутри себя, но помнить что это слабость.”
“Закон - успокаивающий сон, беззаконие - творческая деятельность.”
“Сострадание и любовь к людям является препятствием для метафизического полета. Взгляд приковывается к земле, соответственно материалисты как правило являются добрыми людьми.”
“Думать (по-настоящему думать) человек начинает только тогда, когда он понимает что Делать он уже ничего не может (ограничен в действиях). Оттого очень часто настоящая Мысль начинается с отчаяния.”
May 22, 2019
Started unimpressively, became more interesting as it went on, and then finished weakly. Shestov’s main point in this work seemed to be “you just never know” and while that’s true, I regard it as specious in our modern age where we implicitly accept the aggregated experience of science and other people. Obviously influenced by Nietzsche in his aphoristic style, Shestov’s disjointed insights were sometimes pallid and mundane compared to his predecessor’s, but I did enjoy his reflections on the greats of Russian literature: both of their works and their personalities. Sometimes too, Shestov hit a vein of inspired material, but it was poetic rather than philosophical in that there was no rigour to it. It was interesting that D.H. Lawrence wrote the introduction.
Read
January 25, 2026Foi estimulante conhecer o pensamento de Shestov. Este livro é composto por aforismos ao estilo de Nietzsche, o que muito me agradou, já que sou um grande entusiasta da escrita aforística. Shestov tece duras críticas ao pensamento racionalista ocidental; para o pensador, a vida é essencialmente irracional, caótica e absurda. Sendo assim, o autor não nos oferece respostas, mas nos faz confrontar com o abismo.
"A tarefa da filosofia é ensinar o homem a viver na incerteza - o homem que tem medo supremo da incerteza e que está sempre se escondendo atrás deste ou daquele dogma. Mais resumidamente, o negócio da filosofia não é tranquilizar as pessoas, mas perturbá-las."
"A tarefa da filosofia é ensinar o homem a viver na incerteza - o homem que tem medo supremo da incerteza e que está sempre se escondendo atrás deste ou daquele dogma. Mais resumidamente, o negócio da filosofia não é tranquilizar as pessoas, mas perturbá-las."
February 27, 2020
Lev Shestov has single handedly created a highly intuitive text; rich with description and admiration. His philosophy of despair trend continues forward here, forcing the reader to contemplate a vast multitude of his hypocritical and contrast teachings. Never once have I been challenged reading philosophy, but this man has instilled in a me a new level of investigation that truly is without merit.
In other words: READ. THIS. BOOK.
In other words: READ. THIS. BOOK.
July 27, 2024
"Orice om inteligent va râde din toată inima de punctele de vedere 'cărturărești'. Dar cărțile vin de la înțelepți. Și într-adevăr ele pot fi deseori extrem de interesante - dar tocmai în măsura în care nu conțin reguli generale. Vai de cel căruia îi trece prin minte să-și rânduiască viața potrivit lui Schopenhauer, Hegel, Schiller, Tolstoi sau Dostoevski. Aceștia pot și chiar trebuie să fie citiți, dar de trăit, trebuie trăit cu propria ta minte."
February 16, 2026
لف شستوف نوشته است: «در "پرترهٔ" گوگول، هنرمند از فکر اینکه هنر را قربانیِ "زندگی" کرده مأیوس است. در نمایشِ وقتی ما مردگان سر برداریمِ ایبسن نیز هنرمندی هست که به شهرت جهانی رسیده و نادم است از اینکه زندگیاش را قربانی "هنر" کرده. حال انتخاب کن: کدامیک از این دو راهِ توبه را ترجیح میدهی؟»
سلام آقای شستوف، من انتخابم را کردهام، بهناچار. توبه با توبه چه تفاوتی دارد مگر؟
سلام آقای شستوف، من انتخابم را کردهام، بهناچار. توبه با توبه چه تفاوتی دارد مگر؟
October 15, 2018
3.5 stars
July 8, 2019
Perhaps better liked by philosophers. A collection of random unrelated thoughts. Was not what I expected. Did not work for me.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 25, 2022
I was expecting him to be more like Cioran, but he was more tame, which was disappointing. Went on about the differences between Tolstoy and Turgenev.
November 15, 2023
"A belch interrupts the loftiest meditation. You may draw a conclusion if you like: if you don't like, you needn't."
February 26, 2024
I honestly read this because Kraven the Hunter was reading it in an issue of The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl and I was genuinely curious what on earth the Russian philosophy he was reading could be about. I read it and while I didn't get lots of it because unlike Kraven the Hunter I am DUM, I did enjoy the very few parts I understood about his philosophies of fate and our experiences in mortality. 4 stars.
July 22, 2016
Hard to write a review of this. It reads sort of like a nicer, wimpier Nietzsche. I also feel like I would have gotten more out of this if I had a familiarity with Dostoyevsky. If this philosopher has a "system" I couldn't detect it in these aphorisms. The only real consistent theme I was able to detect was an antagonism towards consistency or solidity or highly structured modes of thinking. He seems to flirt with both despair and the transcending of that despair, but it isn't clear to me how the overly abstracted view of life is to be transcended, or why rationalism and excessive abstraction are necessarily concomitant. Perhaps it is to be overcome by faith? If so thats a disappointing conclusion. And besides his view of faith is different from the common definition, so I'm not sure what that would mean. It hints at certain methods of searching for truth without empirical science, but what exactly does it suggest? Alchemy? Numerology? Meditation? Drugs? Prayer? That is the problem with this kind of wishy washy philosophy. It is actually possible to do philosophy in a non systematic way while still expressing yourself clearly. Nevertheless, if I ignore for a moment the precise meaning which the author intended, I am able to enjoy this as a sort of poetry into which I fill in the inferential leaps or vague spots in the text with my own answers. There is a sense of youthful exuberance and and forward moving rhetoric here which is somehow nice to read, almost like a political radical's oratory yet on the subject of philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews