exclaims that the fat organ has no one to believe. tolstoy had an organ, which, of course, he had an organ that believed. i think, like the same rousseau, at whom tolstoy somehow laughed all his life. he is home. he was worn, probably, everything that is here yes, for 15 years. anyway, and uh, he believed too. eh, finally russian. e. well, there was a problem here, and the problem lies in the fact that, it seems to me, both tolstoy and dostoevsky quite obviously polemicized in their time with the ideas of the enlightenment, but in different ways, eh, polynesed in different ways in essence, because in the end, uh rousseau, he is part of the enlightenment and not, so to speak, e is such a piece, so to speak, that contradicts them. so here's the problem. e. in the fact that

this is dostoevsky's polemic - you mentioned it, uh, christ-likely, uh, there can be no impersonal truth. that's why i'll check, because if uh, it's true, without uh, said in person. she is a lie, yes, she is a lie, in fact , which gives itself out as a sorcerer, and therefore, o christ, the real truth, that is, uh, that's the point, but how is tolstoy after all? to me it seems, uh, tolstoy still has this moral, specifically, ethical uh, to say e hmm aspect in uh, the gospel. yes, so to speak, he is , in many respects, self-sufficient. well , this is the problem, because religion is not reduced to morality. uh, they are not reduced to morality, but how would lev nikolayevich try to explain through this morality, uh, you need to go to god through, well, yes. well, now, i even tell students all the time that this is what i want to be completely famous. it is not good about religion,

because religion is not about what i want to be about that i want to be immortal tatyana. here, i would generally say that this is dostoevsky's statement. in what sense is it much closer to tolstoy's reasoning than uh, it might seem. but in what sense, in what aspect? i think that when dostoevsky speaks, he is not disingenuous in the sense that, in fact, the true christ is here. and this is some kind of flawed and abstract truth. he's quite serious he's considering. this is what the apostle paul is talking about. yes, if hmm , if christ has not risen, he has it will be several times, yes, and in demons. yes, let's go. yes, he said you will be with me in paradise, but they went and did not find them. yes, they are not god's paradise. that is, if christ has not risen, then we are more unfortunate than all men, says the apostle paul a. dostoevsky speaks in this situation. even if christ is not resurrected. the weight is

so beautiful. i love him so much that i 'd rather want to stay with him than any kind of truth that is , not resurrected, that's what it follows that he is a permit? well, because it is about the truth. yes, either or here is the truth that is proclaimed. yes, what christianity proclaims, or the truth is the laws of nature, which are very close to each other. i think that this is such a reduction that allows you to show this infinite love for christ. that is, even if yes, here the apostle says, if we are the most unfortunate of all, and he says, yes, if not, then i don’t care with him and i am happy to think about it. you to me it seems that this is your interpretation. it was quite obvious that we had time to make out. but, uh, i'm sure that here

it's this very act of love, that is, he says, i stay with you in any situation. so to say, truth was or was not right, here, but he does not love tolstoy. because tolstoy dostoevsky is getting closer to him. well, i mean, so to speak, the plane in which dostoevsky deliberately descends , so to speak , cut off. spirit. here he loves christ, he he he he he and rousseau also loves. that's about the same love. this is what you love about, because he is christ, he competes with christ tolstoy, and he is modern with everyone. well, that is, the higher, so to speak, the point in humanity, the more he competes with her. that's it in the end. i think that this feeling of the gospel from what and other things does it actually

consist of? well, he came. i am a tolstoy teacher of life. why do you even need someone else amazing in this sense on sunday, where real uh, is the liturgy real fake? the real finale, when people 's reduced pieces of the gospel about them appear, and now he really is on the path of resurrection, otherwise it was not entirely satisfactory for tolstoy, although this is a late one, of course. tolstoy, this can also be done here, but at the same time, tolstoy after all, i even remember i have already spoken about this more than once, but tolstoy poses such questions, but without an answer, which are our church and how could we, as a community of christians, cannot exist. that is, you can brush it aside, so to speak, and then we are not, well, that is, we will cease to be christians. that 's about the questions of being a person on earth

, polls of equality, and the question of their attitude to money, and and in general, the acquisition. yes, these are all questions that, well, they are quite easily solved at a different level, but for dostoevsky they were practically non-existent. but at the level at which tolstoy should put them, they are necessary for resolving it , it would be too easy to resolve all these questions and get around them. so to speak, going immediately into the realm of the spirit, where it really everyone is equal and ignore then inequality. and then this is the feeling, yes, which a person creates when he thinks that due to the fact that the other will feel bad, he can be good. we won't decide anything here. yes, we won't go any further. unfortunately, it seems to me that these questions are correct so to say, uh, really. right.

he constantly puts, e, he not only raises questions, but unfortunately, a simple one is often a person, and his answers, unfortunately, because he answers poorly, because his answers, er, they give very strongly to the spirits of his time and, like when i read, when i'm sick, uh, war and peace. uh, i'm recovering somehow. but when i read his journalism and here is such a saw, because when we get to the saw with this one, it's someone else who came. well, i wrote. well, that's all, after all, well, when when you read, for example, uh, about art or even xper, which is no good or that we must of course learn from peasant children to write, they are not with us, uh, that's all- after all. it's uh, i still love nikolaevich, but the recommendations are very reminiscent of the spirits. e, jean zhek now look at the competition. hey, that's

also an interesting thing. uh, their relationship to each other. yes, an amazing uh thing, which in our time is badly behaving, probably, it seems to me that contemporaries of that level can imagine, so to speak , they have never met fame and knowledge about each other in their lives. yes, as far as i understand. once they were together in a room where vladimir sergeevich solovyov was giving a lecture. and moreover, there was fear, yes , who knew both, but it seems like tolstoy said i don’t want to meet anyone, i won’t, and fyodor mikhailovich didn’t recognize lev nikolaevich, what, too, somehow now? yes, and then, uh, hmm, i tried to say, as i was only if i knew that he was there, yes, and then also very much. that's how they treated each other, because dostoevsky tolstoy is dying, he says. i now realized that closer to this

person i was not. after all, they perceived each other's literature as very critical dostoevsky, which anyone reads, well, how is alexandra andreevna and the fat countess gave him a letter to dostoevsky, and he reads and screams letters. yes, he reads and speaks, it’s not that, but it’s true, it’s not literature. they are like literature, but she herself was very, as it were, worried. they say that i was ashamed to give, and such children's here. from the point of view of christian children's writing, in such a thinker, as it gets, that is, uh, they just absolutely always were at different levels, really they really are. i think it was very difficult for them to speak. i think that it was not very easy to speak of the soviet in general, but it remains, for those who will get up right tomorrow. i don't know, i didn't say. of course i have, even more so. i would say an existential non-meeting.

this, of course, pushkin and seraphim of sarov, uh, which is for another program , yes, but here, but here, after all, i would think that, uh, hmm lev nikolaevich was quite self-sufficient, i don’t know about dostoevsky, but lev nikolaevich uh, hmm , some kind of jealousy, after all. i think, in any case, it was two teachers who taught different things. i was not aware of myself already, as by the time of being in the same room. they were fully aware of themselves already in this capacity in this roles, of course, we are very sorry that they did not meet. although god knows that it was. if good. yes, maybe, i think that it is, most likely, like this, the lord has arranged. and that's because, uh, really. as if they had nothing to talk about when they met. but this is tolstoy's confession that there was no person closer than he does not believe

in something like that here. well, since the competition is over. he left and this is, well, generously noble beautiful. here he remembers correctly, he says, rereading it. uh, almost a note from the house of the dead is called, so i found something to re-read after the release of the karamazov brothers, in general, after this grandiose one in general. well. at some point, he also read, he read that he re-read, he took the book. yes, and so to speak , i began to re-read that notes from the dead house. here, well, that is, uh, it’s still some kind of pho- like something something is not the tone at that moment either did or or intention to do it intentionally wrote, at least a visit to optin by both impressions right in the opposite is known to say it to uh well, yeah, and uh, but that's still quite a central point. e for and yet fat

somehow all the time to strive there, anyway , even after everything after the excommunication. yes, but he also strives, as it were, yes. so i wasn't invited. what is it, yes, uh, no matter how they rendered me? yes, i can’t, how to enter myself , how to show, you understand, in order to meet you had to come up. it is from the point of view of the student, not the student. well, this first step is further there, then it was already possible in the end to start and teach. yes, but this one the first step had to be taken. and it was absolutely impossible for a long time with us, i know what else i want. and what else i want to talk about, here, returning, uh, to your first case to the end. well, in the beginning, which sounded like the dostoevsky region of the spirit. but tolstoy is a region of the soul. yes, that's exactly it. it is clear in such a trichotomous, so to speak, personality structure, spirit soul of the body, yes, christian, and i can’t forget how one

very respected and very subtly, feeling art woman told me why she couldn’t reread dostoevsky she said, he looks at this in me, what i 'm afraid to look at in myself, and it's hard and unpleasant for me, and i, in general, therefore do without fyodor mikhailovich well, there, at best, the village of stepanchikov. here are its inhabitants. well , isn't this the innocence of the spirit, you won't get into the spirit , is it an illusion that you can evaporate, so to speak? eh, without going through the body here the soul successively. yes, that is, you will not rise. you will have too much. that's what you don't want to look into something, what of you . that's why it doesn't go anywhere and doesn't go away. yes? here is the same. yes, here's the confession what is she really meant for? she is an informal thing, yes, that, like, she approached the priest there and called something and

they let you in for communion. that is, it is such a formality to say on the way to communion here. in principle, confession - this is work with what you want to change in yourself, but it hurts. it always hurts, and they say about dostoevsky, even his cruel talent hurts me. he makes me look into something in myself that i don't want to look into. in the meantime, i did not cover everything at all for columns of their souls. i do not go to the spirit. don't they look at tolstoy? these are exactly what i wanted to say about this, that both tolstoy and any uh, i think a great writer changes something in us, otherwise there is no great writer at all. maybe it's really in dostoevsky this i would say, e happens more brutally and more intensely, so to speak, eh, but the problem is whether i'm ready

for it or not, uh, that's the problem. in this case, it's not so much in themselves. texts, and how much e is in me and e, here you just don’t need to confuse, e, again rationalistic, uh, some such journalistic statements. e, and. uh, real uh, well, fiction, after all, both tolstoy and dostoevsky long before freud, uh, substantiated and hmm described the role without consciousness. that is precisely the unconscious specifically written about by the ancient monks. this is a long dignity for one and a half thousand years. yes, after all, we are now talking about ready or not. we it's a big question man doesn't change through consciousness a and dostoevsky again. yes, very often they say a lot can be known, without consciously, in fact, only when you

know something, unconsciously here only then it is truly and of the authorities, therefore, he has such a retreat strategy of udostoevsky, in contrast. tolstoy who will say everything many times and repeat just in case, if suddenly something, but still tolstoy writes after the word to chekhov and writes that for some reason the story is such as darlings, because it is just so beautiful that it was written unconsciously . uh, tolstoy is just tolstoy, but he himself acts, otherwise that's it, but uh, that's why they love tolstoy, those for whom it is too cruel to drag dostoevsky yes, because tolstoy poses questions like this, yes, that, illuminating the soul on another plane. he is, as it were, from this plane, yes, that is, his hero is experiencing doubts. and you understand that, mmm, you, as it were, can walk this path with them and this is, as it were, a normal human life. and when you suddenly look at it from the point of another being higher, firstly,

you can see more. secondly, it is seen from a different perspective. that is, tolstoy shows this here, how your human, and dostoevsky shows it as yours, preventing you from being a man. and it's a completely different perspective. i formulate these perspectives a little differently than tatyana uh, but for me, of course, it is tolstoy's uh that uh. well, i would say, if we say that they are someone else , they are still within the framework of christian culture, this is still on the one hand. christmas tolstoy from here. e from here the kingdom of god on earth its permanent these that we can the kingdom of god on earth and the other - it's still, uh, easter, and both are absolutely necessary for russian culture. eh, even though i set up a vyshelnik , as it were, you know, but, nevertheless , both are necessary in order for russian culture to fully reveal itself, but you know what i

want. which persons finish? and you are asked to answer these questions. what works of one and the other would you definitely recommend in two cases? the first case, a is a foreigner. here a foreigner wants to read one work. well, let's take a hypothetical situation tolstoy's work gets one work, and the second is already close to our life. this is an attempt to resolve the dispute early or read in such and such a class. yes, that is, a foreigner and a student must read one work of each. well, as they say, we have lady fift. so, to a foreigner , i would advise anna karenina to take romance. yes, and as for our schoolchildren, i’m afraid you won’t meet the minute, yes, because everything is much more complicated here. but really. i think that, uh, if this is not done, and by the reading that we have, for

who puts marks and checks a single text. that is, how many mugs did someone have and in what dress? yes, how old is the old woman, percentage? that's it, then it's good reading for high school students. it's very good the same. uh, well, uh, in principle, a crime is a punishment already, that is, which is really a classic part of the school curriculum. uh, it just has to be read very well, very well taught. well, in part, i agree, but not quite uh for a foreigner the brothers karamazov uh, at least part if not will master everything e, a and e, war and peace, too, at least part of it is not anna karenina, even though she is a foreigner. let it pass. let them read. uh, at least uh, the description of napoleon and kutuzov may be better understood by russia, but for a schoolchild it is the

same. well, here i am, although i came up with the ending, and you took it and destroyed it. just thought we 'll be cams. and i'll tell you. honestly, i'm a foreigner. i'm just taking the course. e reference to the russian culture of identity and you understand that you will not master anything. i generally have a short course of 8 years of lectures there, so i ask read the boy in christ well, how can it not only be to get closer to dostoevsky, that's everything, well, such is the story. thank you very much. today we gathered our thoughts about tolstoy and dostoevsky tatyana kosatkina ivanovich and saulovya. vladimir left yes see you again.