Wanna start with a 1984 like quote:
n  

'He suggests a system of spying. Every member of the society spies on the others, and it's his duty to inform against them. Every one belongs to all and all to every one. All are slaves and equal in their slavery. In extreme cases he advocates slander and murder, but the great thing about it is equality. To begin with, the level of education, science, and talents is lowered. A high level of education and science is only possible for great intellects, and they are not wanted. The great intellects have always seized the power and been despots. Great intellects cannot help being despots and they've always done more harm than good. They will be banished or put to death. Cicero will have his tongue cut out, Copernicus will have his eyes put out, Shakespeare will be stoned that's Shigalovism. Slaves are bound to be equal. There has never been either freedom or equality without despotism, but in the herd there is bound to be equality, and that's Shigalovism!'

n

This novel kind of takes Dostoyevskism to a new extreme – you know what I mean; slow beginnings, lots of extremely emotional characters and long scenes. For example there is this one scene in which we have eleven characters in a single room (I counted) and each one of had a role to play in the scene in about fifty odd pages.

You might think after reading like first two hundred pages that nothing is ever going to happen but that would be wrong; by the end of novel you will have dealt with a gun-duel, murders (in plural), suicides (three of them), natural death, adultery, secret marriage, unrequited loves (plural), arson, child-birth scene (it was beautiful), family reunion, riots, dancing-balls-gone-wrong etc. you name it, Dostoveskyen circus has it all.

n  Narrator and biographyn

The narrator is a very unimportant character in the story. He is a close friend of Stepan (a widower) – and comes out as a great observer of people, people are easily trusting their secrets in him but do not seem to think of him as a person of consequence.

He begins by telling us that he is writing Stepan’s biography but soon limits himself to later’s last few days; and often talks about things that has no relation with Stephen or things he can’t possibly know. For example, how can he know what do a husband and wife talk about in their bedroom!

Stepan, about whom the novel is supposed to be, is an easily excitable intellect –who despite being respected by people of his time doesn’t seem to have achieved anything of consequence and has an annoying habit of using French phrases. Although he shows some great insight into politics of his time, he never goes anywhere with it.

He is, in fact, kept by a rich widow Varvara, a woman of strong character, with whom he has a strange sort of relationship. She keeps him in her house maintaining a platonic relationship, refuses angrily his offer to marry her, reads letters he wrote her daily (sometimes twice a day) with out ever replying, often throws him out only to go looking for him later and even sets a match between him and a young servant – and yet when he is on his deathbed, reproaches him vaguely for wasting twenty years. One of many love stories in this novel.

n  Socialism and Nihilismn

The 'demons' in title refer to new ideas that seems to be making Russia sick.

Stepan’s son Pyotr is a Nihilist and anarchist and is a cunning and very annoying person. He kind of reminds you of Cassius in Shakespeare’s ‘Julies Ceaser’. He is also that kind of guy who can quickly get on to your nerves. He pretends to be a socialist but that is only a way to manipulate people of his organization for personal objects.

FD’s view on socialism seems to be same as Stavrogin (Varvara's son) - 'It’s a great idea but its exponents are not always great men.' (think Stalin)

Pyotr is the exponent here and his followers seem to know nothing about it; are so removed from politics that they can’t hold a voting by show of hand. 'They are fascinated, not by realism, but by the emotional ideal side of socialism, by the religious note in it, so to say, by the poetry of it … second-hand, of course.'

Pyotr’s strategy of binding people to his leadership by making them commit a crime for himself (‘the cause’) seems to be quite widely used one among politicians.

FD also divined another great observation - 'The convictions and the man are two very different things.' Have you ever wondered how some of really good people seems to be asking to be punched on their noses whenever they start talking about some particular socio-political subject?

n  Shigalevismn

A social system suggested by one of character - Shigalevism (see opening quote) wants ninety percent of population to be slave of remaining ten percent. Shigalev is not only suggesting it but he actually argues that is form all systems end up being like and that it is the only system that can survive. Quite a way to look at modern economies - whether capitalist or socialist given income inequialities in all of them.

n   Censored Chaptern

Stavrogin’s character might remain a mystery to you till the very end – partly because one chapter which contained key to his character was censored. It has been translated by Woolf ever since along with Dostoevsky's notes on an unwritten novel as Stavrogin's Confession & the Plan of the Life of a Great Sinner. A PDF of same can be download here.

It is for second time, in my reading, that FD hinted/ talked about Lolita-like sexuality in young girls. The other time was in 'Crime and Punishment' but that time it was only a dream.

"I've killed the God."

n  On Suciden

FD have a great distaste of extreme rationalism and it shows – whether it is in musings of underground man; tragedy of Rashkilonov or that of Ivan Karamazov; this time it shows in character of Kirillov who has got this idea in his head that there is no God and that thus we can all become God, all we have to do is … kill ourselves. I won’t go into details of his reasoning but here are some of things he says:

“If there is no God, then I’m God.”

“God has tormented me all my life.”

“Everyone who wants the supreme freedom must dare to kill himself.”

Karmazinov

K is Dostoyevsky's parody of his contemporary Ivan Turgenev, author of another novel examining the 'nihilist' generation, 'Fathers and Sons'. FD too uses allegorical relationship of fathers and sons in Stepan (liberal idealist) and Pyotr (Nihilist)

n  Confusionn

Stavgrin tries to take advantage of Matryosha (an eleven year old); Cheats with Marie on her husband and marries Marya (a sort of holy fool, my favorite) – all three different and that’s not including Darya and Lisa, who have a crush on him. Want more? Lisa had a crush on Nikolai (stavgrin) but was instead engaged to Nikolaevich. Marie's husband Shatov who has a habit of changing his ideas by walking out insultingly on people when he feels used or called for compromise on his dignity; is not same as Shiagalov. Also, although he punches Stavgrin it is not because later had an affair with his wife Marie but rather because he made Marya pregnant. Talk about confusion!

Some quotes:

'Poetry is nonsense and justifies what would be considered imprudence in prose.'

'A woman would deceive the all-seeing eye itself. Le bon Dieu knew what He was in for when He was creating woman, but I'm sure that she meddled in it herself and forced Him to create her such as she is.'

'How can we expect a cultured man not to commit a murder, if he is in need of money.'

بار اولی که شیاطین رو خوندم بیست سالم بود و فکر نمیکنم به اندازه ی الان چیزی ازش دستگیرم شده باشه ، هرچند الان هم اونقدری که لایق این اثر فاخره در چنته ندارم و تا جایی که ذهن محدودم اجازه فهم اثار داستایوسکی رو میده سعی میکنم مثل همیشه بفهمم چه اتفاقی افتاده : داستان شیاطین شرح وقایعی در یکی از شهرهای روسیه ست و جنبه ی سیاسی-اجتماعی- عرفانی داره. قهرمان داستان دون ژوانی روسی به نام نیکلای ستاوروگین است که همه ی وقایع حول محور او اتفاق می افتند و حتی وقتی خودش نقشی در آن ها نداره باز هم ذکر و اشاره ای از او هست.
کنستانتین ماچولسکی توی نقدش بر شیاطین میگه همه ی زن ها ومردهایی که دور و بر ستاوروگین هستند نمودی از یکی از شخصیت های خود او هستند. او که بی هیچ امیدی به علت گناهانی که در گذشته به علت ملال مرتکب شده به دنبال نجات دادن خودش از دست وجدان خودشه وارد داستان میشه و برای بخشیدن خودش دست به کارهایی میزنه که خودشو مجازات کنه تا با این مجازات بتونه به این حرف خودش :«من میخواهم خودم را ببخشم . این مهم ترین هدف من است.» برسه. ستاوروگین «فکر میکنه» که به خدا اعتقاد نداره ( ولی میشه گفت بین دو لبه ی اعتقاد و بی اعتقادی راه میره ) ولی به شیطان اعتقاد داره و اونو گاهی به صورت های مختلف در خلوت خودش میبینه و حتی یک بار هم به تیخون اسقف سابق میگه :«آیا بدون اعتقاد به خدا می توان به شیطان اعتقاد داشت؟» .. تلاش های ستاورگین برای بخشیدن خودش در اقدامات همون شخصیت های دیگه ی داستان که نمودی از خود اون بودن نمایان میشه مثل شاتوف ، شیگالیوف و کیریلف. ولی در آخر این انسان خود خدا پندار ( چون میگفت خوبی و بدی رو از هم تشخیص نمیده و بلکه خیر و شری وجود نداره و همه چیز ازاده ) زیر فسادهای روحی خودش ( چون همه ی کارها و تلاش هایی که در جهت نجات و بخشیدن خودش کرده با نیت غرور و خوستایی و غره شدن به قدرت خودش بود ) له میشه. و ادم هایی که دورو برش بودن هم به شیوه های گوناگون تلف میشن.

Τα 5 αστερια ειναι πολυ λιγα για να περιγραψουν τους συγκλονιστικης δυναμης και απαραμιλλου βαθους Δαιμονισμενους του αγαπημενου μου Ντοστογιεφσκι.Εχοντας επηρεαστει απο την πρωτη πολυκροτη πολιτικη δικη που συγκλονισε την κοινωνια της Ρωσιας στα μεσα του 19ου αιωνα,πλαθει ενα ποικιλομορφο μωσαικο πληρως αντιπροσωπευτικο των ανθρωπων της(και οχι της τοτε μονο εποχης).Ως φοντο λειτουργει η πολιτικη αναστατωση και η αφυπνιση καποιων μεριδων της κοινωνιας που αναζητουν την αλλαγη διακρινομενοι σε σλαβοφιλους και δυτικιστες.Οι χαρακτηρες συνθετοι γεματη αδυναμιες,παθη,επιθυμιες,ονειρα,αναγκη να κατανοησουν τον κοσμο που τους περιβαλλει,να τον αλλαξουν,να τον καταστρεψουν να τον χτισουν απο την αρχη.Μεσα σε ολα ομως διακρινεται ο ιδιος ο τυρρανισμενος συγγραφεας ο οποιος παλευει με τους δαιμονες του και το παρελθον,ριχνει τα βελη κατα παντων βιωνωντας πικρια και εντονη απογοητευση.Τους χρακτηρες που πλαθει αλλους θα τους μισησεις αλλους θα τους λυπηθεις αλλους θα τους αγαπησεις(ή και ολα αυτα μαζι καθως ξεδιπλωνεται ο καθε χαρακτηρας),ομως πανω απο ολα θα τους καταλαβεις γιατι στην ουσια μας ειμαστε ολοι ιδιοι.Ειμαστε ολοι ανθρωποι το ιδιο φθαρτοι και αθανατοι μαζι.

Στα συν η πολυ προσεγμενη εκδοση απο τον Ινδικτο που περιλαμαβανει περα απο βιογραφικα στοιχεια,σημειωσεις οπου αντιλαμβανομαστε τον συστηματικο τροπο με τον οποιο δουλευε τα εργα του ο Ντοστογιεφσκι,και συμπληρωματικο κεφαλαιο για ενα απο τους πιο ενδιαφεροντες και συνθετους χαρκτηρες που επλασε ποτε, τον Νικολαι Σταβρογκιν(ξεκαθαρα οτι πιο συγκλονιστικο εχω διαβασει)

This is perhaps the most difficult, grim, violent and tragic work by Dostoevsky that I have read so far (and I read an awful lot of Dostoevsky in my life). Despite Demons being a harrowing read at times, I was impressed with this novel in a number of ways. I can sum it up in five points.

Firstly, it is the kind of book that makes you think, abundant in moral arguments, logical paradoxes and verbal fights. Secondly, the plot is very engaging and runs smoothly. Thirdly, the psychological study of its characters is extremely well done. Fourthly, the philosophical aspect of the book is quite engaging. Finally, the social, ideological and political satire is brilliant.

NOT AN EASY READ- A DISTURBED AND VIOLENT NOVEL THAT WAS BASED ON REAL LIFE EVENTS

That all being said, this was not an easy read. I needed to do some research and reading to be able to understand many of its political and ideological references. I'm still not sure I understand them all, but I think I managed to get a good grasp on things. Not that you need to dive into Russian history of the 19th century to be able to read this book, but it helps if you are familiar with political climate of the time. Some aspects of this novel cannot be fully understand without knowing at least basic facts about the revolutions and ideologies of the time, such as the arrival of nihilism, atheism and socialism.

When I say that this novel is tragic, I mean it. This book is filled with violence, abuse, madness and unrest, both physical and verbal. There are quite graphic descriptions of suicides and murders. What is more, there is a lot of physical, psychological and verbal abuse and violence. One chapter (originally censored) focuses on an abuse of a child and it is absolutely sickening to read. The presence of murders and suicides definitely makes it a dark read. There's a definite note of tragedy to Demons, at times so pronounced it made me think of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The blood is dripping from the pages of this novel, but it is never violence for violence's sake. There's a reason for all of it. Demons is in some ways an allegory and a warming against a violent revolution. In his youth, Dostoevsky was a rebel. In his older and perhaps wiser years, Dostoevsky realized the danger that lies in violent revolutions and ideologies. Quite possibly, Demons is a book that Dostoevsky wrote to warn of the dangers of violent revolutionary movements and the sociopaths that are drown to the violence and power present in these movements. The violence in this novel is out there in the open, but it reflects reality. Indeed, this novel was based on real life events and murders. Dostoevsky, like much of the Russian public of the time, followed these public trials for political murders. The writer then went on to write this novel and infused it with his own signature style- a philosophical study of its characters. That is how this unique novel came to be- a a book that is wonderfully philosophical and satirically political at the same time.

WHY DEMONS IS (FOR ME PERSONALLY ) THE MOST TRAGIC OF ALL DOSTOEVSKY'S NOVELS?
If Demons can be compared to a tragedy, it is still very much a novel. If you can imagine a tragedy taking the form of a philosophical novel set in nineteenth century Russia and written by Dostoevsky, then you can imagine this novel. Reflecting a turbulent era in European history, Demons is one of the darkest and grimmest novels I have ever read. Even if there is a bit of humour in it, it mostly takes the form of irony, cynicism and satire. There are almost no positive personalities in this novel. Those characters that could be described as positive (or at least well meaning) are often mentally ill or passive and unable to help neither themselves nor others. Demons is, in this sense, different from other Dostoevsky's novels. Crime and Punishment has its dark and pessimistic moments and so does the novel Brother Karamazov, but this novel tops them both in terms of tragedy. The Idiot is quite tragic in many ways and distinctly cruel towards some of its characters but still there is hope in it. In contrast, Demons shows no mercy to any of its characters. This novel tops all of Dostoevsky's works with its grimness, pessimism and tragedy. I think it's no spoiler to say that Dostoevsky's novels don't end up with- they lived happily every after. You do expect certain pessimism, realism and naturalism from any writer belonging to literary movement known as realism. Nevertheless, some of Dostoevsky's work are filled with hope and some of his characters find redemption. Not so much in this one. Demons is a deeply depressive and tragic work. For most (if not all characters), there is no redemption and no consolation.

IS DEMONS STILL A RELEVANT BOOK?

There are many philosophical passages in this novel and political questions that remain relevant. Moreover, spirituality is one of central topics in this book. Dostoevsky admitted of being tormented by the question whether God exists and so are many of his characters. They often feel conflict between their beliefs and feelings. I think it is something we can all relate to. In many ways, Demons remains a relevant work. This novel is an intelligent and inspired piece of writing that has proved to be uncannily true in this predictions. You might even go so far as call Demons prophetic. It certainly predicted the violent revolutions and the rise of socialism in Russia. Certainly, this is a book that has a lot to offer to its reader.




You can read my full review by following the link bellow:
https://modaodaradosti.blogspot.com/2...

تراژیک‌ترین اثری که از داستایفسکی خوندم

[3.5]

A forza di leggere regolarmente i libri di Dostoevskij mi risultano chiari i suoi schemi narrativi: dialoghi infervorati tra personaggi testardi e drammatici, scambi che sono frutto di scandali o che porteranno a scandali in un futuro prossimo; qualche scemo del villaggio, qualche mente depravata e qualche mendicante (che sia di fama, di successo politico e/o professionale, di soldi); ambientazione tetra e cupa che si percepisce nei luoghi, ma anche nei protagonisti stessi, nei loro comportamenti, nei loro tormenti, nella loro psicologia; una prosa densa, prolissa, eccessiva.
Ci sono poi romanzi più religiosi di altri, più sociali di altri, più politici di altri, e I demoni è un romanzo decisamente politico.
Ci sono state delle parti che mi sono piaciute molto, che hanno catturato la mia attenzione e che l’hanno anche mantenuta per un bel pezzo, ma ci sono anche state molte parti, oserei dire la maggior parte, che mi non mi hanno presa, che mi hanno annoiata, anche un po’ esasperata.
Il punto è che di base Dostoevskij tratta tematiche interessanti. Ne I demoni, al di là di politica e rivoluzione e religione, possiamo leggere di nichilismo, pensiero (e non solo) suicida, assassinii, violenze, insomma, il lato peggiore dell’essere umano, quell’aspetto che mi intriga sempre molto. Il mio problema è proprio nel modo in cui ne parla, anzi, nella quantità di parole usate per parlarne. Davvero troppe per me.
Un po’ come i personaggi: qui al contrario di altri suoi libri non mi ha creato problemi il numero di personaggi, non ho – stranamente – fatto confusione tra un nome e l’altro, ma il problema è che li trovo tutti così esagerati, esasperati (ed esasperanti), così drammatici da sembrare, in alcuni punti più che in altri, irrealistici.
Però c’è da dire che questo è stato forse il suo romanzo che più mi ha sconvolta per la morte di alcuni. Pensavo che non si arrivasse, in alcuni casi, al suicidio e sono stata fregata; speravo che, in alcuni casi, non si arrivasse all’omicidio e sono stata fregata; speravo che, in un caso particolare, si ottenesse giustizia e invece niente, le persone peggiori la scampano pure nei libri di fiction, altra fregatura.
Insomma, non posso dire che I demoni non mi abbia sorpresa in alcuni punti, ma resta tutto troppo per me, per quelli che sono i miei gusti. Con le opere di Dostoevskij mi sento comunque di poter dire che non è lui, sono io.

all dostoevsky's usual tricks are here, the dense & documentary-like prose, dialogue heavy scenes leading up to a huge scandal, idiots villains & beggars, keen psychological insight, but goddamn did i find this a chore to read. the characters felt too much as stand-ins for (albeit, insightful and interesting) ideas and the plotting was laborious and repetitive. remarkable, tho, how the man laid the breadcrumbs to twentieth century totalitarianism and the assorted madmen associated with it. but, yeah, definitely found this to be the least of the man's 'major' works.

١ اين كتاب تقريبا هشت سال قبل از برادران كارامازوف نوشته شده و كاش كاش كاش كسي بهم ميگفت كه بايد اين رو قبل از برادران كارامازوف خوند، ايدوئولوژي ها و مسائلي كه مطرح ميشه يك مقدمه ي بي نظير براي برادران كارامازوفه، پيشنهاد من اينه كه اين كتاب رو قبل از اون بخونيد اينجوري بخش هايي از كتاب به خصوص قسمت هاي مذهبي كتاب برادارن كارامازوف كه ممكنه كمي گنگ به نظر بياد رمزگشايي ميشه
٢ دو تم اصلي كتاب مسئله ي وجود خير مطلق و عدم وجود خير مطلق (ايمان و كفر اما نه به اون معناي سطحي كه ما ميدونيم)و خودكشيه
٣ شخصيت هاي كتاب بي نظيرن ، كتاب پر از شخصيت و داستان هاي به ظاهر پراكنده س كه با يك ستون فقرات خيلي محكم و قوي بهم وصل شدن نميتونيد شخصيت اول كتاب رو پيدا كنيد چون كه اصلا وجود آدم ها اهميت نداره و شخصيت اصلي و جن زده ي اصلي كتاب روسيه است كه آدم هايي كه چرك و عفوناتش رو وارد جسمشون كردن براي بقاش بايد قرباني بشن و در دريا غرق بشن تا روسيه ي تزكيه شده سر تعظيم در برابر خير مطلق فرو بياره و دوباره زنده بشه( نقل به مضمون از كتاب)(كتاب با اين عبارت از انجيل شروع ميشه : و در آن نزديكي گله ي بزرگ خوكي بود كه در كوهستان ميچريد و اجنه ها از عيسي خواهش كردند كه بديشان اجازت دهد تا در جسم خوك ها داخل شوند و او به آن ها اجازت داد ، آن ها از جسم آن مرد بيرون آمدند و در خوك ها داخل شدند . گله به جست و خيز درآمد و به درياچه پريد و غرق شد...پس مردم بيرون آمدند تا ماجرا را ببينند و نزد عيسي رسيدند و مردي را كه اجانين از جسمش بيرون آمده بودند مشاهده كردند كه لباس به تن نموده و عاقل گشته و در زير پاي عيسي نشسته است)
٤ نكته ي جالب اينه كه يك فصل از كتاب در زمان انتشارش به دست ويراستار كتاب ميخاييل كاتكف سانسور شد ، داستايوسكي خيلي تلاش كرد كه اين فصل رو ( در محضر تيخون) حفظ كنه اما موفق نشد ولي بعد از مرگش و در چاپ هاي جديد اين فصل ضميمه ي كتاب شد، اين فصل درباره ي ديدار استاوروگين با كشيشي به نام تيخونه و اعترافش به تجاوز به دختربچه اي و اينكه با خونسردي شاهد خودكشي اون دختر بوده و ادامه ي ماجرا و داستايوسكي حق داشت كه اين فصل براي تشريح شخصيت نيكلاي استاوروگين به شدت لازمه و اين فصل عجب مقدمه ي بي نظيريه براي صحنه ي اول ملاقات خانواده ي كارامازوف با پدر زوسيما و تيخوف چقدر شبيه جووني هاي پدر زوسيما در برادران كارامازوفه
٥ اگر راجع به ايدئولوژي هاي مذهبي و سياسي كه در كتاب مطرح ميشه هم بنويسم ديگه خيلي طولاني ميشه پس اونا رو ميذارم به عهده ي دوستان و در ادامه بخش هايي از كتاب رو ميارم:

- يك خدانشناس و زنديق، خواه شما بپسنديد و خواه نه ، روي پله ي ماقبل آخريست كه به ايمان كامل منتهي ميگردد( از اين پله بالا ميرود يا نه مسئله ديگريست) حال آنكه آدم بي قيد و بي تفاوت و سهل انگار هيچ ايماني ندارد جز يك ترس بيمورد و ناپسند و اين امر هم به ندرت اتفاق ميفتد...

-انسان بدبخت است چون نميداند كه خوشبخت است ، تنها به اين علت و بس اساس مطلب همين است ، همين كه كسي به اين نكته پي برد بيدرنگ خوشبخت خواهد شد ... همه چيز خير و صلاح است اين نكته را بر حسب تصادف فهميدم
( جاي ديگه اي هم اين مطلب مياد كه انسان علاوه بر خوشبختي براي خوشبخت بودن به همان اندازه به حضور بدبختي نيازمند است ، نقل به مضمون)

-شما بچه ها رو دوست داريد؟
كيريلوف( شخصيتي كه قصد خودكشي دارد) خونسرد جواب داد:
آنها را دوست دارم
پس زندگي را دوست داريد

٦ من ترجمه ي دكتر علي اصغر خبره زاده رو خوندم ،ترجمه ميتونست بهتر باشه

Second read 2025 to better understand stuff. it helped.


A daring book, intellectually a feast. What can I say, it was a mind-blowing experience, I could easily start the book all over again to look up for missed meanings.
A few quotes:

Nu e nevoie de instructie, cultura; destul cu stiinta! Si fara stiinta va fi material suficient pentru o mie de ani, insa trebuie oranduita supunerea...cum apare familia sau dragostea, apare indata si dorinta de proprietate. Vom ucide aceasta dorinta: vom slobozi betia, intriga, denuntul...orice geniu il vom inabusi inca in fasa, vom reduce totul la un numitor comun, egalitate deplina...Dar va fi nevoie si de convulsii; de asta vom avea grija noi, guvernantii. Sclavii trebuie sa aiba guvernanti. Ascultare deplina, depersonalizare deplina, dar o data la treizeci de ani Sigaliov dezlantuie si o convulsie, si lumea incepe brusc sa se devoreze reciproc...

Chiar de la inceputul convietuirii lor, sotii Virghinski convenira o data pentru totdeauna ca e o prostie sa chemi oaspeti la onomastici, cand in realitate nu exista nici un motiv de bucurie

-Iti sunt unchi doar, te-am purtat in brate cand erai inca un prunc
-Nu ma intereseaza ce ai purtat dumneata si cand ai purtat. Nu te-am rugat sa ma porti si prin urmare ... asta iti facea o placere personala

Daca-ti vei respecta tatal si parintii, vei trai ani multi pe pamant si te vei bucura de bogatie. E in Decalog. Daca Dumnezeu a gasit necesar sa ofere in schimbul iubirii familiale o recompensa, inseamna ca Dumnezeul vostru este imoral.

Daca Dumnezeu exista, atunci totul e in voia lui, si din aceasta vointa eu nu pot iesi. Daca nu exista, inseamna ca totul este in vointa mea, si eu sunt dator sa-i afirm vointa suprema absolut libera ... A omori pe altcineva ar fi punctul inferior extrem al vointei mele absolut libere ... eu tind spre punctul extrem superior si ma voi omori pe mine insumi

Omul n-a facut altceva decat sa isi nascoceasca un Dumnezeu, pentru a putea trai fara sa se ucida.

Ateul desavarsit ocupa penultima treapta care precede credintei desavarsite (ca va face sau nu acest ultim pas, asta este o alta chestiune); indiferentul, dimpotriva, nu are nici o credinta, ci numai o teama rea din cand in cand si daca este un om sensibil

Eu cred ca omul trebuie sa inceteze de a mai naste. Ce rost are sa aduci pe lume copii, ce rost are evolutia, daca scopul este atins.

After reading this book I think it is easier and more efficient to change a government through anarchy and subversive actions than through mass demonstrations of the herd against something. I have to read more on this stuff.

بهتر از داستایوسکی داریم مگه اصن؟

"In the morning, of course, you’re distracted, and your faith seems to wane again, and in general I’ve noticed that faith always does wane somewhat during the day."

If any book would take half a year from me, it would be this one.

۶
در بیماری خواب دید که مقدر شده همه دنیا دچار چنان طاعون وحشتناک ناشناخته ای شوند که از اعماق آسیا به طرف اروپا پیش می رود. مقدر شده که همه هلاک شوند به جز تعدادی خاص، تعدادی بسیار قلیل. یک گونه جدید از کرم تریشین پیدا شود، موجود میکروسکوپی که انگل بدن انسان است. ولی این موجود شعور و اراده دارد. افرادی که بدان مبتلا می شوند فورا شبیه آدمهای جن زده عقل شان را از دست می دهند. اما همان آنها خودشان را عاقل تر و محکم تر گمان می کنند. آنها هیچگاه از قوه قضاوت، نتیجه گیری های علمی، یا اعتقادات اخلاقی و مذهبی خود تا این حد مطمئن نبوده اند