A bridge over troubled waters: The role of philosophy and humanities in driving innovation and change

Sometimes, people give me a perplexed expression when I mention my philosophy degree from university while working on one of the country’s largest intranets – as if they don’t fully understand the connection between the two.

In a world that centers around technology and natural science, however, we must acknowledge the significance of philosophy and humanities in innovation and change. Scientific and systemic progress is significant, but we must not forget the unique perspectives and insights that philosophy, art, and literature bring.

Philosophy helps us question beliefs, develops critical thinking, and encourages us to explore unknown territories. This mental flexibility opens the door to creativity and innovative solutions when faced with challenges. Why not ask Rawls, de Beauvoir, or Kant if your plans will be fair? And why not inquire of Schopenhauer, Camus, or Kierkegaard if your plan can alleviate the burden of existence and make life a little simpler?

Art and literature provide insight into multifaceted human experiences, teaching us empathy, resilience, and adaptability. Literature delves into complex ideas and emotions, helping us understand the complexities of society while broadening our perspective on problem-solving. Art breaks through linguistic and cultural barriers, creating shared communication and collaboration. Why not ask Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky about the profound depths and irresistible heights of a group of individuals? And why not ask Woolf or Arendt about the consequences of bias and inequality?

By embracing interdisciplinary collaboration and utilizing insights from philosophy, art, and literature, we can overcome traditional constraints and achieve our full potential together. In this way, we create a brighter, more innovative future that builds on both natural science, technology, and humanities.

The Essence of Humanity: A Philosophical Discussion with Schopenhauer, Camus, Dante, and Byron

Join Schopenhauer, Camus, Dante, and Byron in a thought-provoking discussion that delves deep into the heart of human existence. From the pain of the Will to the rebellion against the Absurd, from the divine aspiration to the beauty of passion, the essence of humanity is explored in all its complexity and nuance.

Schopenhauer: Good evening, gentlemen. I propose we discuss the essence of humanity, that is, what it means to be human. My suggestion is that the human essence is defined by the Will — that all-encompassing force that drives us, not only toward survival but also toward desire and suffering.

Camus: Suffering, yes, but also absurdity, Schopenhauer. Our essence is not defined solely by the Will, but also by our struggle to find meaning in an indifferent universe. We are creatures trapped between our longing for significance and the cold, unyielding silence of the world.

Dante: But Albert, and Arthur, you both seem to forget the capacity of humans to embody virtue and reason. Our essence, I believe, lies in our capacity for love, for justice, for truth. We are not just creatures of desire or absurdity, but beings capable of discerning the divine order and contributing to it through our actions.

Byron: Dante, while I admire your optimism, I’m inclined to side more with Camus and Schopenhauer. I see human essence as a tumultuous sea of passion, creativity, and desire, often leading us into folly and ruin. Yet, in this struggle and despair, there lies beauty and romanticism.

Schopenhauer: Byron, your perspective speaks to my understanding of the Will, yet it lacks the pessimistic undertone I uphold. The Will, in its relentless pursuit of desire, only leads to a cycle of pain and disappointment. We are fundamentally beings of suffering.

Camus: I cannot fully agree, Arthur. While suffering is a part of human existence, so too is the fight against it. Our essence, I posit, is found not in surrendering to suffering or the absurdity of existence, but in rebelling against them. It’s in this rebellion that we affirm our humanity.

Dante: But Albert, isn’t that rebellion itself a manifestation of love, of justice, of truth? Are we not, then, saying the same thing from different perspectives? Our essence is not just in suffering or rebellion but in our aspiration for the divine.

Byron: Indeed, Dante. We are creatures of passion and longing. Whether we strive towards the divine, rebel against suffering, or are swept along by the chaotic sea of life, it is this fervor, this intensity of living, that defines us.

Schopenhauer: So, we agree that the essence of humanity lies in our striving — whether it be towards suffering, rebellion, the divine, or passion.

Camus: Indeed, we do, Arthur. The essence of humanity is a constant struggle. It is a paradoxical dance between the Will and the Absurd, between despair and rebellion, between passion and ruin.

Dante: And thus, we find unity in our perspectives. We are beings of struggle, but also of aspiration. We are, as humans, a testament to the divine comedy of existence.

Byron: Well said, Dante. It seems our discourse has reached a shared understanding. We are as complex and multifaceted as the lives we lead — beings of desire, absurdity, rebellion, passion, and divine aspiration. Such is the essence of humanity.

AI and the Russian Soul: A Philosophical Conversation with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Pushkin, and Bulgakov

Scene: A cozy café in St. Petersburg. Five authors have gathered to discuss the implications of technological advancements on the Russian soul.

Tolstoy: “Artificial intelligence confronts us with a philosophical and spiritual challenge. Can a true understanding of human existence be achieved when devoid of our spiritual essence?”

Dostoevsky: “I agree with Leo. If we reduce humanity to mere numbers and statistics, we risk disregarding the human experience, which is defined by suffering and our search for meaning in life.”

Chekhov: “But what about access to technological advancements? If we aren’t careful, progress could leave some people behind. We must ensure equitable access to the benefits of technology.”

Pushkin: “I agree with Anton. But I also see the potential for AI to connect people across cultures and languages, creating a more unified world.”

Bulgakov: “Yes, but we must be careful. AI could also amplify existing inequalities and infringe upon individual freedoms.”

Tolstoy: “I agree with Mikhail. We mustn’t forget that we humans are responsible for imbuing machines with purpose and significance.”

Dostoevsky: “Indeed, Leo. As we confront the question of what it means to be human, we must safeguard our free will against becoming slaves to the machine.”

Chekhov: “But remember that AI is not the end-all solution to our problems. We must always strive to cultivate empathy and compassion in our lives.”

Pushkin: “I see where you’re coming from, Anton. However, I believe having the right intentions when approaching AI can help us build a more just and equitable world.”

Bulgakov: “We must use caution and responsibility as we develop this powerful technology. Let’s ensure AI doesn’t become an instrument of oppression or existing inequalities.”

The conversation was a testament to the enduring spirit of Russian thought and its deep contemplation of the ever-changing world.

My movies on the Brothers Karamazov are ready. Summary and analysis of the epigraph, all 12 books, and the epilogue.

It is with great joy I tell you that my series of videos when I describe and analyze all the books in the Brothers Karamazov is ready. For more than two hours I do my best to really understand this masterpiece. This is a great result for me but also marks the start of something new. Now I can take on any challenge regarding this book. Hurrah for the Karamazovs!

Here is the first, with the rest in the right-hand menu (just click Watch on YouTube):

Going Up or Going Down? Exploring the Shadow Self of Dmitry Karamazov and Arthur Fleck in Joker

The concept of the shadow, coined by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, refers to the unconscious aspect of our personality that we reject or suppress because it conflicts with our conscious self-image. But when we fail to integrate our shadow, it can manifest in destructive and unpredictable ways, as we see in both the Brothers Karamazov and the movie Joker where the character Arthur Fleck is fighting his demons in today’s America.

Dmitry’s journey is one of turmoil, passion, and ultimately, self-destruction. Like the Joker, Dmitry struggles with his shadow self, unable to fully confront and integrate it. He is torn between his desire for love and his impulses toward violence and revenge. His actions are driven by his inner turmoil, leading to destructive consequences.

Similarly, in the Joker, we see a character who is also grappling with his shadow self, unable to reconcile his inner demons with the expectations of society. Both Dmitry and the Joker are portrayed as outsiders, struggling to find their place in a world that rejects them.

However, unlike the Joker, Dmitry has moments of redemption and growth. Through his love for Gruschenka and his interactions with his brothers, Dmitry begins to confront his shadow and take steps toward integrating it. He acknowledges his faults and weaknesses and strives toward self-improvement.

In contrast, the Joker’s journey is one of complete descent into darkness, with no hope for redemption. While both characters struggle with their shadows, Dmitry is able to find moments of growth and redemption, while the Joker is consumed by his own inner demons. In Dante’s allegory, Dmitry is ascending towards Heaven after having been in Hell and Purgatory, while Joker is still working his way down the levels of Hell.

Overall, the Brothers Karamazov and the Joker both offer powerful explorations of the human psyche and the struggle to confront and integrate the shadow self. Through the characters of Dmitry and the Joker, we can see the destructive consequences of ignoring the shadow and the potential for growth and redemption when we confront it.

Finding Meaning in Suffering: The Book of Job and The Brothers Karamazov

The Book of Job has been a source of wisdom and insight for generations. The story of Job, a righteous man who undergoes a series of trials that test his faith, has inspired countless writers and thinkers to reflect on the nature of God, suffering, and humanity. One such writer was Fyodor Dostoevsky, whose novel The Brothers Karamazov explores these same themes in its own way. There are three key passages from the Book of Job that are particularly relevant to the novel.

The first, Job 1:1-22, introduces us to Job and his trials:

“And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?’ Then Satan answered the Lord and said, ‘Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.'”

Job 1:8.10

Job is a man who is blameless and upright, who fears God and turns away from evil. Yet, God allows Satan to test him by taking away his possessions, his children, and his health. Despite his suffering, Job refuses to curse God and instead remains faithful. In The Brothers Karamazov, we see similar challenges faced by several characters. For instance, Ivan, the intellectual and skeptic, struggles to reconcile his belief in God with the existence of evil in the world. He argues that the suffering of innocent children is evidence that God does not exist, or if He does, He is not just. Ivan’s struggle echoes Job’s, as both men question the justice of God.

The second passage, Job 38:1-11, is a reminder of the limits of human understanding in the face of God’s vastness and complexity.

“Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.'”

Job 38:1-4

In this passage, God speaks to Job from a whirlwind and reminds him of the limits of his own knowledge. God asks Job a series of rhetorical questions that reveal the wonders of creation and the complexity of the natural world. This same theme is echoed in The Brothers Karamazov, as characters such as Father Zosima and Ivan confront their own limitations and question the nature of God’s justice. Father Zosima, a wise and compassionate monk, acknowledges that he does not understand everything and that there are mysteries beyond human comprehension. Ivan, on the other hand, struggles with the concept of divine justice given how the world works. These characters, like Job, are forced to confront their own limitations and the vastness of God’s mystery.

The third and most powerful passage, Job 42:1-6, is Job’s humble acknowledgment of his own limitations and repentance for questioning God’s ways.

“Then Job answered the Lord and said: ‘I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.'”

Job 42:1-6

In this passage, Job repents his earlier questioning of God’s justice and acknowledges that his understanding was limited. He says, “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.” This act of humility and submission is a powerful reminder of the importance of faith, even in the midst of suffering and confusion. It is this same faith that sustains the characters in The Brothers Karamazov, even as they face some of the most profound questions of the human experience. For example, Alyosha, the youngest and most devout of the Karamazov brothers, forgives his brother Dmitri for a crime he did not commit. This act of forgiveness is an expression of Alyosha’s faith in God’s mercy and love. Similarly, Ivan, after suffering a mental breakdown, seeks forgiveness and redemption.

Taken together, these passages offer a rich and complex framework for understanding both the Book of Job and The Brothers Karamazov. They remind the readers of the importance of faith, humility, and trust in God, even in the midst of the most difficult circumstances. They also offer a powerful critique of the limits of human understanding and the importance of acknowledging our own limitations. For anyone grappling with the challenges of faith and suffering, these passages offer a source of wisdom and insight that is as relevant today as it was thousands of years ago.

Furthermore, The Brothers Karamazov is a rich and complex exploration of the human experience, and the parallels with the Book of Job offer a deeper understanding of the novel. Just as Job questions the justice of God, the characters in the novel question the nature of love, justice, and redemption. For example, Dmitri, the eldest of the Karamazov brothers, struggles with his own passions and desires, and ultimately seeks redemption through his love for Grushenka. Similarly, Ivan’s struggle with the concept of divine justice reflects the larger theme of justice and injustice in the novel, particularly in the trial of Dmitri for the murder of his father.

In conclusion, the parallels between the Book of Job and The Brothers Karamazov offer a deeper understanding of both works. The themes of faith, suffering, and humility that are present in both works remind us of the importance of acknowledging our own limitations and trusting in God, even in the midst of the most difficult circumstances. The novel, like the ancient text, offers a powerful critique of the limits of human understanding and the importance of acknowledging the mysteries of the world around us. Ultimately, both works offer a profound exploration of the human experience and a reminder of the importance of compassion, forgiveness, and redemption.

The Tripartite Self in The Brothers Karamazov: Freudian Insights on the id, ego, and superego

The Brothers Karamazov is a complex and thought-provoking novel that delves into the depths of human psychology, ethics, and spirituality. One of the most intriguing aspects of the novel is how the three main characters – Ivan, Dmitry, and Alyosha – represent different facets of the human psyche. For example, Freud’s concepts of the id, ego, and superego can be applied to these characters.

First, let’s define these terms. According to Freud, the id represents our most primitive and instinctual desires, such as hunger, thirst, and sexual impulses. The ego is the rational, logical part of the psyche that tries to balance these desires with the demands of reality. Finally, the superego represents our internalized moral values and societal norms.

Dmitry Karamazov can be viewed as the id in the story. He is impulsive, passionate, and driven by his desires, particularly his desire for Grushenka. His actions throughout the novel, including his violent outbursts and impulsive decision-making, reflect the unchecked desires of the id. Mitya often refers to this as the Karamazov way of living – the insect that lives in all of us.

On the other hand, Ivan Karamazov can be seen as representing the ego in the novel. He is the most rational and logical of the three brothers and is often seen grappling with ethical and philosophical questions. His famous “Grand Inquisitor” chapter illustrates this perfectly, as he presents a logical argument against the idea of a benevolent God. Ivan’s struggle to reconcile his intellect with his emotions is a central theme of the novel.

Alyosha Karamazov can be seen as representing the superego in the novel. He is deeply moral, compassionate, and guided by his faith. Alyosha is often seen as a mediator between Ivan and Dmitry, attempting to balance their conflicting desires and beliefs. But for Alyosha, while he is often seen as embodying the superego, it’s worth noting that his character is more complex than a simple moral authority. He is deeply compassionate and empathetic and often seeks to understand and forgive those who have committed wrongs. This suggests that his role in the novel is not simply to act as a judge or arbiter of morality, but to embody a more holistic approach to ethics that takes into account the complexities of human behavior and motivation.

We should also note that the id is big among the Karamazov family. Apart from the passionate Dmitry, we can also see Smerdyakov and Fyodor Karamazov as representing different aspects of the id. Fyodor Karamazov is driven purely by his base instincts and desires, indulging in his vices without any regard for the consequences or morality. Smerdyakov, on the other hand, is more calculated and manipulative in his actions, using his intelligence and cunning to achieve his own ends. But behind this intellectual veil lies primitive instincts that will have an effect on all the others in the book.

Of course, it is worth noting that Freud’s theory of the id, ego, and superego is not a perfect fit for the characters of The Brothers Karamazov, as it is a complex and multifaceted novel that defies easy categorization. However, viewing the characters through this lens can provide insight into their motivations and actions throughout the story. By viewing the characters in The Brothers Karamazov as Dmitry embodying the passionate id, Ivan representing the logical ego, and Alyosha exemplifying the moral superego it might be easier to remember their main urges in life.

Revelations from ‘The Brothers Karamazov’: Smerdyakov was christened as ‘Paul’

And Martha brought up the boy. They christened him Paul and registered his patronymic as Fyodorovich as a matter of course, without asking anyone’s permission. Fyodor Karamazov did not object to this; in fact, he found it rather amusing. And later he called him Smerdyakov—the Reeking One—from his mother’s nickname—Lizaveta Smerdyashchaya, Reeking Lizaveta.

Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov” features a complex and multi-layered character named Smerdyakov. Meanwhile, what few seem to have noticed is that he is baptized to ‘Paul’ (‘Pavel’ in Russian), creating a strong link to the Bible. This deliberate choice of name provides insight into the deeper themes and messages that Dostoevsky wished to convey through this character, particularly in relation to the biblical figure of Paul.

The biblical figure of Paul, formerly known as Saul, underwent a profound conversion that transformed him from a fierce oppressor of Christians to one of their most ardent supporters. Through his letters, we see Paul grappling with the morality of his actions and the consequences of his beliefs, as well as the struggle to reconcile his faith with the reality of a world often at odds with his beliefs. This theme of conversion is mirrored in Smerdyakov’s character, who, like Paul, undergoes a transformation of his own.

However, while Paul’s conversion was a spiritual awakening that brought him closer to God and morality, Smerdyakov’s transformation is a descent into evil. In the novel, Smerdyakov adopts a nihilistic philosophy from Ivan, which leads him to reject the Christian gospel and commit a heinous act of violence. This contrast between Paul and Smerdyakov highlights the duality of human nature and the destructive potential of beliefs that reject morality and meaning in the world.

Furthermore, the naming of Smerdyakov as Paul underscores the importance of belief in shaping individual identity and the direction of one’s life. Through Paul’s conversion, he becomes a new person, filled with the grace and love of God, while Smerdyakov’s embrace of nihilism leads him down a path of evil and destruction. This comparison serves to emphasize the idea that beliefs have the power to shape our lives and actions, and challenges readers to consider the impact of their own beliefs on their lives.

In conclusion, the link between Paul and Smerdyakov in “The Brothers Karamazov” is a complex meditation on the nature of belief and the human capacity for both good and evil. The naming of Smerdyakov as Paul is a deliberate reference to the biblical figure of Paul, and a commentary on the themes of conversion, sin, and morality that are central to both the Bible and Dostoevsky’s work. Through the characters of Paul and Smerdyakov, we can see the impact of beliefs on our lives and the world around us, and be reminded of the importance of considering the impact of our beliefs on our own lives.

Confronting existential anxiety: Insights from Dostoyevsky, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard

Existential anxiety is a common experience for many individuals today. We all get it one day. It is the feeling of being overwhelmed by the inherent meaninglessness of existence, the fear of death, and the futility of our actions. It’s a feeling that can be incredibly difficult to deal with, but it can also be a valuable opportunity for growth and self-discovery.

Many philosophers and authors have explored this theme and offered insights on how to deal with this type of anxiety. Dostoyevsky, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard, all have written about how to overcome this inner turmoil. Their works provide us with valuable tips on how to deal with existential anxiety in today’s world.

One of the key insights from these philosophers is the importance of confronting our own responsibility. Yes, just face it right on, damn it. Dostoyevsky suggests that true redemption can only be found by facing up to our own guilt and seeking forgiveness. This means that we should take responsibility for our actions and accept the consequences of them. In doing so, we can find a sense of purpose and meaning in our lives.

Sartre argues that the human condition is characterized by a constant state of anxiety. He suggests that this anxiety can be overcome by embracing our freedom and taking ownership of our actions. By accepting our freedom, we can take control of our lives and find a sense of purpose.

Camus presents the idea of the “absurd” as a fundamental aspect of human existence. He argues that the only way to overcome the anxiety and despair that comes with recognizing the absurdity of life is to embrace it and find meaning in the struggle itself. This means that we should accept that life is not always going to make sense and that it’s okay to not have all the answers.

Nietzsche suggests that by embracing the idea of eternal recurrence, individuals can overcome the fear of death and the futility of existence. By accepting that our lives will recur again and again, we can find solace in the knowledge that our actions will have significance in the long run. This means that we should focus on the present and make the most of the time we have.

Finally, Kierkegaard argues that the best way to deal with existential anxiety is to fully embrace one’s own individuality and accept the responsibilities that come with it. He suggests that by fully embracing our own existence, we can overcome the anxiety that comes from failing to do so. This means that we should embrace our unique selves and live authentically.

In conclusion, dealing with existential anxiety can be a challenging task, but by taking inspiration from these philosophers, we can learn to confront our own responsibility, embrace our freedom, accept the inherent meaninglessness of existence, embrace the idea of eternal recurrence, and fully embrace our own existence and responsibilities. By doing so, we can find a sense of purpose and meaning in our lives and overcome feelings of anxiety and despair.

The Karamazovs on Stage: A Study in Goffman’s Dramaturgical Perspective

Individuals are engaged in a constant process of positioning themselves in relation to one another.

Erving Goffman, “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life”.

Erving Goffman’s work on the presentation of self in everyday life can provide valuable insights into the characters of Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. In his book, “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,” Goffman argues that individuals are constantly performing in order to present a certain image of themselves to others and that these performances are heavily influenced by the social context and the expectations of the audience.

When examining the characters of the Brothers Karamazov, we can see how Goffman’s theories apply to their actions and interactions. For example, the character of Dmitry Karamazov is constantly performing in order to present himself as a romantic and passionate man, even going so far as to seduce and abandon a woman, only to later try to win her back with grand gestures. In this way, Dmitry’s actions can be seen as an attempt to present a certain image of himself to others and to gain their approval and admiration.

Similarly, Ivan Karamazov presents himself as a rational and intellectual man, but his internal conflicts and struggles with faith reveal that this self-presentation is not entirely authentic. Ivan’s rejection of God and his idea of the Grand Inquisitor can be seen as an attempt to present a certain image of himself as a free-thinker and nonconformist, while his moral struggles with the concept of evil ultimately reveal that this self-presentation is a facade.

Alyosha Karamazov also presents himself as a religious and compassionate person, but his initial struggles with faith and temptation reveal that this self-presentation is not entirely authentic either. Despite this, it is through small acts of kindness, such as the onion given by Grushenka, that Alyosha’s true self is revealed, and his inner turmoil is resolved.

Goffman’s theory can also be applied to the character of Fyodor Karamazov, the father of the Karamazov brothers. Fyodor presents himself as a wealthy and successful businessman, but his moral decay and lack of true connections with his sons reveal the emptiness of this self-presentation.

Through the characters of the Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky illustrates the ways in which individuals use self-presentation to navigate their societal roles and relationships. By understanding Goffman’s theory, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complex inner lives of the Karamazov brothers and the societal pressures that shape them.

I am of course only scratching the surface here. It is more of a reminder that the big thinkers in sociology still can be relevant.