reading masochism

Disclaimer I wrote this in 2 days (Part 3 is a continuation) in order to express my most haunting thoughts regarding the human nature, religion, morality and misanthropism. The narrator is called Ivan Vadimovich Nekrasov. The first part of the book is just a philosophical monologue whilst the second and the third are a chain of unfortunate events from Ivan's life inspired by mine. Enjoy! PART 1- Began writing 24/07/26 - Finished 25/07/26 PART 2- Began writing 25/07/26 - Finished 25/07/26 PART 3 - Began writing 28/07/26 -Finished 03/08/26 ! More updates will come for PART 1, mainly regarding the religious side of it ! Part 3 semi-spoiler: this part will probably come with the most interpretations. Just dm me on Discord (username in blog bio) if you'd like to share your interpreation PART 1 This is going to be horrible. Eh! Yes! It's going to make me look like a hypocrite. Maybe I am a hypocrite! But want to know what? Do you know why I find your existence so nauseating? It’s...

aglaya is by nature sly and haughty, but if we look at it from a better angle, she actually has a point. the prince is a christlike figure with infinite kindness and forgiveness. as the title of the novel suggests, he is taken for an idiot because his kindness and forgiveness have a huge weakness: naivety. such figures are very rare, so everybody suspects he is lying and is not as genuine as he seems. however, aglaya decides to catch the prince in a trap by constantly changing her moods and saying mean things to him. her cat and mouse game lasts longer than she expected, and she is deeply moved by the prince’s purity. gradually, her bewilderment transforms into love, and she eventually stops being cruel, though unfortunately, it is too late by the end of the book. ​her mother is worried that she will fall in love with the prince and she constantly warns him that he is not going to marry her daughter. it is a big question why she hates this idea in the beginning, but no one really belie...

ippolit is a young man trapped on the tragic border between life and death as he slowly wastes away from consumption (tuberculosis). he speaks at excessive length and writes a massive document because he is driven by a desperate and lingering need to be remembered before his existence ends. this long explanation has the purpose of a final protest against his fate and a way to make his voice heard in a world that is preparing to move on without him. his nihilistic worldview is a direct reaction to his physical suffering and a sense of profound betrayal by the universe. he feels that god has let him down so he uses this text to argue that existence itself is cruel, irrational and unworthy of his submission. his desire for suicide is not merely an escape from pain but an act of defiance and revenge against the almighty. he refuses to let god or nature dictate the exact moment or manner of his passing, so he attempts to take control of his death to prove his own free will. for ippolit, the...

ippolit is a character standing on the borderline between life and death because he is dying of tuberculosis. he talks a lot because he has a desperate need to be remembered. when he writes his massive wall of text to argue for his nihilistic worldview it is because he feels that god has let him down now that he is facing his end. unlike kirillov who has a positive view on suicide as a way to remove all fear and prove that if there is no god then he is god himself ippolit approaches suicide as a matter of revenge. ippolit does not want to let god kill him so he attempts suicide himself to test his own free will. his point is not about overcoming the fear of pain or the fear of god but is instead about exercising his free will and taking revenge on the almighty. after his attempt fails because his guns primer does not go off he does not try to kill himself again. it is possible this is due to fear or simply because he did not feel like it at that moment. however he definitely still poss...

human beings have always looked at the world and asked why we want to know where we came from why we are here, and what happens when we die. for thousands of years religion has provided answers to these questions. it offers comfort, community and a sense of purpose. however when we look at religion not through the lens of comfort but through the lens of logic, science and the way the universe actually functions, we run into fundamental problems. to say religion is an impossible concept is to say that the core claims of religion contradict the basic rules that govern our reality. here is an exploration of why, when we break it down into simple, logical steps, the concept of religion falls apart. now lets jump to the topic. 1. the problem of definition and contradiction the first major issue is that there is not just one religion. there are thousands. every single one of them claims to be the truth. if religion a says the sun is a god, and religion b says the world was created by a turtl...

in fyodor dostoevskys demons the ideologies of shatov and kirillov represent two tragic and desperate philosophies by the void. while both characters attempt to construct a framework for meaning, their logics ultimately collapse into the very nihilism they seek to escape (or at least shatov). 1. shatov shatovs philosophy is built upon the usage of god as a necessary tool for the survival of a nation. he argues that a nation cannot adapt or maintain its morals without a deity and for shatov god is the fuel that prevents a nation from falling into chaos. however shatov is essentially an ex nihilist who has brainwashed himself into belief. what do i mean? when pressed on whether he truly believes in god he falters and so revealing that he only believes in the concept of a god who makes nations great. his logic is a trap because he observes that nations fall without god and concludes god must exist BUT his prayer is directed towards achieving a utopian outcome rather than towards the divin...