Fyodor Dostoevsky's philosophy posits that love is the fundamental, redeeming quality of humanity, and its absence or corruption leads to suffering and "hell," while its selfless, universal practice offers salvation.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
What is hell? I maintain it is the
suffering of an inability to love.
Theodor DSTVski is known as a historic
thinker on many many topics. In his
novels and articles, he discusses God,
morality, nihilism, and existentialism.
But today, I want to focus on an often
neglected part of DSTski's overall
philosophy, his ideas about love.
Because for this Russian author, love
was a subject of endless fascination.
and it crops up in almost every one of
his works. DSTVsky is adept at
displaying how love can compel us to
commit heinous self-destructive actions,
but also how it can redeem us, grant us
meaning, and ultimately even save the
world. And if that's not a reason to
keep watching, I don't know what is. Get
ready to learn how love can kill, what
passion has to do with politics, and
why, for DSTVski, love was the
fundamental redeeming quality of all
humanity. As always, bear in mind this
is just my interpretation of DSTV, and
you are totally free to disagree. Also,
there will be spoilers ahead for many of
Dosski's novels, though I will do my
best to avoid giving too much away on
major plot points. But with that out of
the way, let's begin by exploring the
darkest aspect of DSTVski's philosophy
of love. What happens to us when we are
deprived of it? One, the unloving life
is not worth living. The quote at the
start of this video comparing hell to an
inability to love comes from the elders
Osma in Dostki's Magnum Opus, The
Brothers Karamazov. According to him,
the quickest and most potent way a human
can plunge themselves into unimaginable
torment is by cutting off their ability
to love others. Deprived of this love,
they will begin to fester like an
infected wound as resentment, envy, and
hatred fills the place where affection
could have been. And nowhere is this
more evident than in the character of
the underground man. Famously, Dostki's
nolla, Notes from the Underground,
begins with the main character declaring
himself sick, spiteful, and
unattractive. And throughout his story,
he narrates the various ways he sought
to enhance the misery of other people.
He vividly describes the sick pleasure
he took in a toothache because he could
make the lives of everyone around him
that bit worse with his loud and
theatrical moans and complaints. He says
that in his position as a civil servant,
he would exercise his petty power on the
people around him in a needlessly cruel
manner. He would care nothing for the
feelings of other people and would even
go out of his way to make their lives
worse just to savor their suffering. His
entire philosophy can be summed up in
the following phrase. let the world go
to hell, but I should always have my
tea. Of course, this philosophy is
hardly a successful one, and the
underground man ends up in profound
misery as a result of it. The core of
the underground man's suffering is that
he has absolutely no fellow feeling for
other people. And it is tragically
understandable how he has become this
way. To hear him tell it, he only has
cruel and disloyal so-called friends, a
meager pension, and no reason to carry
on living. In such a situation, it is
easy to see how someone could lose their
sense of love entirely. But this lack of
love dooms him all the same. Ever eager
to present complex psychological
profiles, Dostki shows how this
aggressive spite eventually morphs into
the underground man's way of punishing
himself. Towards the end of the novella,
he begins to befriend a poor and
downtrodden prostitute named Liza. And
it seems like there might be the first
smatterings of genuine affection here.
They have a long conversation where the
underground man shocks her with his
brutal and cruel honesty, but then
briefly softens, inviting her to visit
him at his home. But when she does
appear and offers out a hand of
friendship and companionship, he
suddenly changes his tune, berating her
and insulting her until she leaves. Now
he is not just unloving out of lack of
opportunity. It has become a direct
selfharming choice. He soon regrets his
cruelty and begins to run after Liza.
But at the last moment, he decides it
was better to spread his bitter
resentments to another person. Now she
will know the truth as well, that the
world is not loving or kind, and it
never will be. The hot brand of his
insults will turn her against humanity
as well, and a new underground man will
be created. Where before there was such
promise of selflessness and redemption,
the underground man has become so deep
in his hatred of himself and the world
that he does not know how to love
anymore. It is like an atrophied muscle
he has lost control over. And here we
get potentially the saddest line in the
entire story. Liza certainly did fully
understand that I was a despicable man
and what was worse, incapable of loving
her. The underground man is so torn
apart inside with the insults and
injustices of the world and so unable to
look past the malaise of his own
self-hatred that he is permanently
deprived of love. Thus, he dwells in a
dstyky in hell, mourning the loss of
what could have made his life
worthwhile. And when Dstivki equates
lovelessness with hell, he is not
talking merely about romantic love. Some
of the happiest characters in his other
novels are contented monastics filled
with a gentle love for everyone. But it
is the all-encompassing totalizing
completeness of the underground man's
hatred that dooms him. Because it is not
just poor Liza he despises. It is all of
mankind. Every indignity or suffering
thrown at him becomes another twisted
smile he can curl in the face of the
next person he passes. He is the very
definition of a hurt person hurting
people. And he is also the starkkest
example of just how important love is in
Dsvski's overall philosophy. For some
thinkers like Plato, love is a wonderful
compliment to a good life, but is
ultimately subordinate to more important
matters like virtue and the pursuit of
truth. For others like nature,
interpersonal love is often looked down
upon with him remarking that very few
great thinkers have ever been married.
The romantic poets often depicted love
as a powerful motivating and
destabilizing force, throwing our souls
into torment and ecstasy with every
passing moment. But notes from the
underground demonstrates that for
Dostki, love is not just powerful, not
just valuable, but is an indispensable
component of a worthwhile life. Without
any love at all, no compassion for a
partner or affection for a friend or
even a loose sense of commonality with
the rest of the human race, we are
doomed to be miserable and despise
ourselves. To ask someone to live
without loving others might as well be
asking them to live without the use of
oxygen. For those of you familiar with
Buddhist philosophy, you might recognize
some parallels here with the idea of
loving kindness and the unskillful
emotions. I also want to focus on
DSTVKI's choice to say that hell is the
inability to love. He seems to agree
with Aristotle here that the greater
part of love is in the loving. It might
be heartbreaking and isolating for us to
feel that we are not loved. But to use
this as a reason to never love others is
to needlessly increase our suffering
100fold. It is the genius of dstyki to
argue that our philosophies should begin
with love rather than getting to them
further down the line. and Notes from
the Underground is perhaps the darkest
demonstration of this terrifying idea.
And as we move forward to looking at
some of the less savory ways love can
manifest, we should bear in mind that
DossiKi thinks that a rejection of love
entirely is the worst situation of all.
This is why he equates lovelessness with
hell. Abandoning our natural affection
for other people dooms us entirely. It
cannot get any worse than this. But
anyway, enough of my gloomy rantings. We
can now slowly move out of hell and
begin to explore some of the ways DSTVKI
thinks the noble emotion of love can be
morphed into something much uglier. How
it can turn into a wish to control or to
dominate or otherwise bring out the most
violent aspects of the human psyche.
Let's look at the people who talk about
love but believe only in ego. If you
want to help me make more videos like
this, then please consider subscribing
to my channel or my Patreon. The links
are in the description. Two, the love of
the egoist. In modern parliament, the
term narcissistic love has become pretty
commonplace. Various definitions abound,
but they all orbit around one key
insight. Some lovers are only out for
themselves. Knowingly or not, they
aren't truly loving for the sake of
those they love, but instead for some
selfish benefit. This might be to plug
some gap in their self-image or from
hedonistic desire or simply out of
spite. But however this manifests,
DSTVski normally envisions it ending in
disaster. And moreover, he sees this
type of love everywhere in public life.
Perhaps the most well-known example of
this type of love is in the character of
Lujin from Crime and Punishment. Ljun is
a lawyer betrothed to marry Duna, the
sister of our protagonist, Rascalikov.
Sorry, that's a lot of names to take in.
However, it quickly becomes clear that
Lujian loves Dunya purely for the
control he can exert over her. He talks
about how he has always wished to marry
a poor woman down on her luck as this
encourages her to remain constantly
grateful to him for magnanimously
agreeing to take her in just when she
was least desirable. He thinks that
women make much better wives, you see,
when they cannot survive without their
husbands. He becomes terrified when
Dunya looks like she might come into
some significant money because he does
not really want to freely love and be
loved freely in return. What he desires
most is to control his beloved.
Moreover, when he feels like he is
losing this control, he turns spiteful
and bitter, attempting to ruin
Rascalikov's reputation as a petty form
of revenge. Today, we would probably not
hesitate in calling Lusian somewhat of a
narcissist. Later, DSvski would explore
this ugly variant on love in even
greater detail in his terrifying short
story, The Meek One. Here he portrays
how a narcissistic and doineering
husband mentally tortures his own wife
until she eventually decides to end her
life. Dosski describes every inch of the
man's control. He would deprive her of
affection and have her beg it from him
piece by piece. He would attempt to
uncover dirt on her so he always had
something to hold above her head. Worst
of all, he always presented things so he
could hold the moral high ground and
look down on her from it, not letting
her forget a single one of her faults.
Again, we see how a twisted and
malformed version of love can manifest
from a spiteful and controlling person.
In this case, the egoist does not truly
care about their beloved, but instead
wants to see a glorified image of
themselves reflected back at them. They
want to prove that they are worthy of
worship and affection, superior to
everyone else around them, especially
the one they are supposed to love. Both
Lusian and this husband managed to come
across as simultaneously repulsive and
deeply pitiable. They want selfless
devotion. They want to be loved, but
they refuse to give it themselves. As a
result, rather than receiving the free
affection of another agent, they must
extract it bit by bit through numerous
avenues of coercion. I would wager we
all know people who love a little bit
like this. For DSTVI, these people are
also suffering from a certain inability
to love. Though they are not quite in
the living hell of the underground man,
they are ultimately still cut off from
true joy. And this begins a theme for
DSTVski's philosophy. The more
self-centered a love is, the less joy it
can bring, both for the lover and the
beloved. This will eventually culminate
in him praising a semi-religious
selfless love, but we'll save that for
later in the video. It is also worth
noting that at points both Lujian and
this husband express seemingly quite
deep feelings of self-loathing. This
continues the idea that Dostki expressed
in Notes from the Underground, how
self-hatred can very quickly transform
into a total lack of affection for
anyone. DSTVKI also explores how
possessiveness in love can bring out its
destructive and explosive dimensions.
For instance, in the brothers Karamazov,
much of Dmitri Karamazov's suffering is
caused by his lustfilled attachments to
a woman named Grusena. In an attempt to
win herova, he betrays almost every one
of his principles. He deceives his
fianceé, spends other people's money,
and beats his own father in a jealous
rage. Though Dimmitri's love is not
outright narcissistic or manipulative,
it is still possessive and envious. And
without spoiling too much, this leads to
pretty disastrous consequences.
Likewise, in The Idiot, we see jealousy
slowly drive the character of Ragjin
insane. And this culminates in a
horrific and violent act against a woman
who needed more than anything for
someone to be kind to her. In both
cases, it is not that these lovers set
out to use the object of their affection
egoistically. Instead, it is that their
fear and their self-image got in the
way. They may not have wanted to
control, but they definitely wanted to
possess. And DSTVski paints this drop of
selfishness transforming pure love into
something potentially violent and
terrifying. To branch out from romantic
examples, we also see DSvski criticizing
the intellectuals of his time period for
their egoistic love of the people of
Russia. Amongst the intelligencia of his
time, he saw that almost everyone would
profess this deep affection for the poor
and needy, but that this rarely extended
to actually spending time with them and
treating them as equals. Instead, much
like the narcissistic lovers in his
novels, the intellectual circles of St.
Petersburg would insist that they
already knew what the peasantry of
Russia needed and thought it was their
job to enlighten them. Very few things
seemed to make DSvki as angry as this
condescending attitude. For him, behind
all of these highulutin words, was a
fundamental lack of respect for the
traditions and way of life of the
Russian peasantry, which in many ways
Dstigki thought was superior to the
westernized academic circles of the
cities. This thought culminates in his
astonishing novel Demons, where he
skewers the members of the intelligencia
as fundamentally self-interested. He
accuses them of really just wanting to
use whatever sentiments they deemed
necessary to gain control and power and
of thinking they knew how the peasantry
should live their lives better than they
did. Here we also begin to see another
theme in DSTVKI's view on love. He not
only views it as of extreme
interpersonal significance, but it also
becomes a key part of his wider
philosophical and political views as
time goes on. The idea we see running
through all of the examples of this
section is that love can become
corrupted through a sense of superiority
and a lack of respect for the agency of
the beloved. And this makes sense given
the particulars of DSTVKI's religious
views. For him, part of what made
Christ's love for mankind so moving is
that he was fully human. He was not a
spirit standing above us, dictating
orders, but instead suffering alongside
us and delivering his message as a
god-made man. I am not Christian myself,
but I don't think you have to be to see
the beauty in this idea. Dosslevki
constantly points out how our desire for
love can mingle with our fears and
insecurities to create this noxious
mixture of condescension and control,
and that this threatens to strangle what
could have been a joyous kind of love.
This poisoning of kindness and affection
by a wish to control also forms the
backbone of much of his critiques of
other religious movements. For instance,
Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and
even some Orthodox churches. And I think
this warning is worth listening to for
our own lives. How often do we taint our
own love with some form of egoism or
selfishness? Sure, we might not be total
narcissists or believe that we are
fundamentally superior to our partner.
But how often do we think we love
someone for who they are only for it to
emerge later that we may have partly
loved them for what they could do for
us? It is a difficult question to pose,
but one well worth asking when something
as important as love is on the table.
But then this also begs the question,
how do we love in a way that is not so
egoistic? Well, DSTVski has a surprising
answer. Three, love and sacrifice. In
the 14th century, the English mystic
Julian of Norwich fell ill with a fever
and began to experience visions. A
devout Christian, she experienced
revelations about the passion Jesus felt
for humanity as he died on the cross,
sacrificing himself to save our souls.
In one of these visions, Christ tells
her, "It is endless satisfaction to me
that I ever suffered passion for thee,
and if I might suffer more, I would
suffer more." The phrasing here is
incredibly important for Julian. Christ
did not just suffer because it was
necessary. He did so as a loving and
willing act of self-sacrifice. So great
was his devotion to mankind that he was
not only able to bear suffering for us,
but was glad to do so. Just like how you
will often hear parents not just say
that they would die for their children,
but that they would do so without a hint
of regret or resentment in their hearts.
Again, I am not personally religious,
but I have had this line running through
my head for months now because it is one
of the most insightful meditations on
selfless love I have ever come across
and it also summarizes in a single
sentence what DSTVKI thinks the purest
kind of affection can amount to. A key
theme in many of DSTVski's later works
is the idea of loving through sacrifice.
This forms a very clear contrast from
the egoistic kind of love we explored in
the previous section. Whereas the
selfish lover attempts to extract from
their beloved, the sacrificial lover
intends to give themselves over to them
as if as an offering. Obviously, such a
move is fraught with danger. And despite
praising this sort of sacrificial love,
DSvski does not shy away from how it can
end horribly. Arguably, his novel The
Idiot, is all about how a kind man who
loves in a wholehearted and selfless way
is driven mad by the cruel and cowardly
behavior of other people. The titular
character, Prince Mishkin, spends much
of the novel attempting to help the
fallen woman, Nastasia Philippova, and
her troubled and reckless lover,
Rogosen. Sorry if I've completely
butchered the pronunciations there. More
than anything else, he wants them to see
their own value. Bring them out of their
cynicism and love them. He even
sacrifices his prospects with the woman
he truly wants to be with to achieve
this, and forgives Ragoen's murder
attempt on him. And yet, in the end, it
is all in vain. I won't totally spoil it
here, but suffice to say, the innocent
Prince Mishkin's attempts blow up in his
face, and he is left a broken man sent
abroad for extensive medical treatment
in an attempt to recover his psyche. He
gave all he had in acts of selfless
love. And yet, Dostki paints him as
suffering for it. The question dangling
in the air is, should he have been so
kind? Should he have been so loving? And
Dostki's answer is still unequivocally
yes. We get a glimpse of the true
radicalism of his loving philosophy
here. He implores us to love others
selflessly even as it's going horribly
wrong for us. For him, this is what it
truly means to be self-sacrificial in
our love. And let's be absolutely clear,
this is a tall order the great Russian
is asking us to perform. And it leaves
us incredibly vulnerable to exploitation
and manipulation. But as we shall see in
the next section, his demands only
become more extreme. We see a similar
kind of selfless love in the character
of Aliosha in the brothers Karamazov. He
is the most spiritual of the three
brothers and his most remarkable trait
is his complete unwillingness to judge
other people or consider them beneath
him in any way. All throughout the novel
he encounters people who have done
terrible things, pursued selfish ends,
and committed only scant acts of
kindness in their lives. And yet each
time, despite all the good he is doing
in the world, he will continually affirm
that he is not better than them.
Instead, he shows them an unrelenting
and indiscriminate kind of love. This
comes out most strongly in his meeting
with Grusanka, another of Dostki's
fallen women. Despite her poor
reputation and lowly societal position,
Aliosha will not consider himself
superior to her and indeed at points
even acts as if he is beneath her.
Confronted with genuine egalitarian
affection and understanding, Grashanka's
spirits are restored and she actually
begins to change as a person for the
better. He does the same thing for many
others over the course of the story.
Aliosha will take someone who has been
made cruel by self- judgment or the
judgment of others and he will extend a
hand to them. But this is not the
condescending wish to save that dsvki
was so critical of in the previous
section. This is instead a genuine
brotherly love that emanates from
Aliosha like an aura. This is the ideal
sort of love for DSTVski. Endless,
uncondescending and selfless. and he
admits that this is incredibly
demanding. In the same novel, The Elder
Osma, a much reggarded monastic, talks
about the difference between active love
and a kind of dreamy love. Whereas it is
easy for anyone to fantasize about grand
romantic gestures or a general affection
for mankind or to say that they love
someone from the bottom of their heart.
Active love is different and much more
difficult. Zosma admits that it is harsh
and dreadful and requires labor and
fortitude. It is the kind of love that
is willing to give and give and give
without a hint of resentment or
entitlement. I would argue we see this
kind of love in small ways everywhere.
From the grandfather who painfully
kneels on brittle bones to play with his
delighted granddaughter to the wife
standing by her husband as he's ravaged
with illness. It is in the eyes of the
dog who leaps to the defense of their
owner and in the last breath of the
soldier taking a bullet for their
friend. But to have this active love be
the guiding force of your life. To be
totally devoted to others, willing to
sacrifice anything for them and actively
loving them every second of every day.
That is the sort of love Zosma and
Dostki demand of us. And at points, he
says it is the highest virtue a person
can have. It is the cornerstone of
Dsvki's faith. And he finds its
apotheiois in the image of Christ dying
for us all. Still crying out for his
capttors to be forgiven. And all
throughout Dstyvk's novels, we see the
redeeming power of being loved like
this. In Crime and Punishment, it is the
selfless and noble love of Sonia that
helps Rascolnikov rediscover his ailing
conscience and become a better man. In
The Idiot, it is what convinces Nastasia
Philippova, if only for a moment, that
she might have worth as a person. And in
the Brothers Karamazov, Aliosha's love
consistently transforms the people
around him from can and uncaring to kind
and generous. For Dosski, this is what
makes selfless love worthwhile, even
when it leaves us vulnerable and
sometimes goes disastrously wrong. For
him, it has the power to cut through
people's insecurity and self-destruction
and make them see that they are worthy
of respect and reveal to them the kind
of person that they could be if they
truly tried. One of the wonderful things
about Doski's novels is that almost no
one is portrayed as beyond redemption.
And everyone has the potential to become
something truly good. If only they had
this treasured kind of love. No doubt
such a love is incredibly rare. But if
even a fraction of what DSTVKI says
about its transformative effects are
true, it may be well worth striving for.
But if you thought that this was a
stretch, Dostki's demands are about to
get much more extreme. Because now he
wants us to take this selfless,
sacrificial, almost sacramental love and
expand it to encompass the whole of
humanity. Four, the universal lover. In
ancient Greece, people would use the
word agape to describe the sort of
universal divine love that Christians
would later attribute to God. This was
part of a whole set of different types
of loving that included os or erotic
love and filia or brotherly love. And
dstoyvki's radical suggestion is that we
bring about a world in which there is
universal agape and filia. That is
affection and brotherly love for all. He
himself seems to recognize that this
idea is a little bit ambitious. He even
calls one of his final short stories
exploring this idea the dream of a
ridiculous man. Here he explores someone
going through a brief but intense
existential crisis who emerges on the
other side with a completely new outlook
on life. The man discovers a wish to
work tirelessly in service to a future
where we all love one another selflessly
and openly, saying that this will be the
salvation of the world. And of course,
everyone else calls him ridiculous.
There are many theological themes that
come up in dsttovski. There's the
problem of evil, the issue of morality
without God, and so much more. But one
that perhaps appears more often than any
other is the doctrine of loving your
neighbor as yourself. And this becomes
increasingly prominent in his later
writings. In the brothers Karamazov, the
elders Osma gives us perhaps the closest
approximation of dsvki's own philosophy.
He says that we should love life and
encourage all others to do the same. And
moreover that this must be the energetic
active love that we spoke about in the
previous section. We must behave like
Aliosha and seek to serve those around
us as if they were our brothers.
Essentially, Dosski wants us to emulate
the behaviors of the previous section,
but not just towards our friends or our
partners, but anyone that we come
across. and moreover to do all of this
not begrudgingly or chishly but with
endless enthusiasm and energy and even
gratitude. This also goes some way to
making sense of what Dstvki means when
he says we are not just responsible for
our own sin but also the sins of
everyone else. He is encouraging us to
treat the hardship of life like a shared
burden. And to extend empathy and
compassion towards anyone's suffering,
even if that suffering is of their own
creation, and to recognize we're doing
this not from a place of superiority,
but because it is a privilege to serve.
This also explains how dstyki can
portray characters like the underground
man with such exquisite tenderness while
still not pretending that they are not
responsible for their actions. Dossyki
is doing in a literary way what Jesus or
Aliosha do in a literal way. He is
sharing in the trials and tribulations
of his characters without removing their
agency and through his writings he
encourages us to do the same to people
suffering in our own lives. It is a
little bit like Schopenhau's idea that
we are a community of fellow sufferers.
Dossyki wants us to recognize the pain
of other people and extend our
compassion even to those who are cruel
or self-destructive. And this attitude
closely aligns with DSTVKI's wider
philosophy. In a speech delivered a year
before his death in celebration of the
poet Pushkin, Dsstvki discusses his
vision for the future of Russia and the
world. Just as Prince Mishkin or Aliosha
or Christ serve as examples to light our
way to selflessness and universal
kindness. He wanted Russia itself to
become a symbol of universal global
brotherhood saying to become a Russian
fully means only to become a brother of
all men to become if you will a
universal man. Dosstoyvki's ridiculous
dream is of a future of love between all
people where we are all a bit more like
Aliosha Mushkin and Christ where we
would take up the demands of a
totalizing active and universal love and
follow it to the ends of the earth. He
is perhaps one of the only authors in
history to take the Christian
commandment to love all people so
seriously. For DSTVski, violence and
resentment and retribution would never
get to the root of the problems we face
as a species. He thought that instead of
leading by conquest or military might, a
brighter future could be brought about
by examples of selfless people, saying,
"Our destiny is universality, one not by
the sword, but by the strength of
brotherhood and our fraternal aspiration
to reunite mankind." This again makes a
lot of sense given Dstky's religion. For
him, the most impactful person in
history was Jesus Christ. He
accomplished more than any general.
Transformed the face of much of the
world and yet did so through the power
of his message of total love. Sure, this
idea has been corrupted and used for all
sorts of nefarious ends. But DSTVski
still believes, hopes, and dreams that
we might be able to recapture it. Viewed
in this light, some of DSTVski's
characters like Zoimma, Aliosha,
Mishkin, and more can form powerful
examples for us to follow. Personally, I
find that part of the power of great
literature is that it lends a certain
dignity to ways of living. When we are
struggling to follow our own values, we
can turn to a literary character we
admire and ask what they would do, and
suddenly we don't feel so much like a
fool. I have certainly noticed this
myself. When I am struggling to be kind
or when it seems to be backfiring on me,
I quite often call to mind the humble
Aliosha or the poor and loving Prince
Mushkin. And it certainly helps soothe
my burgeoning resentment. It helps me
realize that love is not stupid or
ridiculous. It might not always go our
way, and there are plenty of kind people
that get taken advantage of, but in my
very limited experience, it remains
infinitely better than the cynical
alternative. I still have a long way to
go to live up to even a minuscule
fraction of this kind of love. But I am
eternally grateful to have these
characters to help me on my way. But
whoever we are, cynic or optimist,
religious or atheist, we can certainly
learn a lot from this extraordinary
Russian thinker. And who knows, maybe
he's right. Maybe love truly can save
the world. Because to quote the New
Testament that Dosski valued so much,
love is patient. Love is kind. It does
not envy. It does not boast. It is not
proud. It does not dishonor others. It
is not self-seeking. It is not easily
angered. It keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil, but
rejoices with the truth. It always
protects, always trusts, always hopes,
always perseveres. I have to admit I
don't know if Dstoyvki is right, but I
can say I really hope he is. And if you
want to explore more of Dossyki's
philosophy, then click here to see my
analysis of perhaps his most famous
work, Crime and Punishment. And stick
around for more on thinking to improve your
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
