and Monks.

Worldly People are slaves to pleasure, and because of that, they lose their freedom,

meanwhile Monks give up the pursuit of pleasure, and because of that, they keep their freedom.

And if that's true, then why?

That's what I wanna explore in this essay.

Let's start with the idea of freedom.

What does it mean, in our case, to have freedom?

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do with your body.

It's the ability to act how you want.

It's the ability to serve any idea you want.

And Dostoevsky makes an important point about freedom in his novel: if you can't endure

suffering, then you aren't free.

You're a slave to whatever will protect you from suffering.

And why is that the case?

Let's take a closer look at The Worldly Person to find out.

The Worldly Person believes that freedom lies in pleasure and comfort.

So they spend their life acquiring things such as money, status, cars, clothes, romantic

partners, good foods, vacations, and so on.

They spend their life creating palaces of comfort.

But what happens when they're deprived of their comforts?

What happens when they lose their money, their status, and their fancy foods?

They start to suffer, and since they have no idea how to suffer, they'll serve any

idea that offers them an escape from their suffering.

They'll serve anyone who promises them comfort and pleasure again.

So The Worldly Person isn't free, because they can't endure suffering, and because

they can't endure suffering, they'll be a slave to anything that offers them an escape

from it.

But how does that compare to the Monk?

The Monk believes that freedom lies in our ability to withstand discomfort.

So they spend their life mastering discomfort and overcoming the need for pleasure.

They create mental castles that allow them to overcome any amount of discomfort, and

what happens when they lose their comforts?

Their money, status, and fancy foods?

Nothing, because they're not attached to those things.

They're still able to overcome suffering and serve their idea, mission, or purpose,

and because of that, the Monk is truly free.

But what allows the Monk to endure suffering?

Obviously, this is the question everyone wants the answer to: how do I endure my suffering?

You can only endure suffering when you believe it has value.

In his book /Man's Search for Meaning/, Viktor Frankl wrote, “[in] some way, suffering

ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning”.

Only when you believe there's a reason for suffering, a meaning behind it, a light at

the end of the tunnel, will you be able to endure it.

But you're probably thinking, /what's the meaning behind the suffering of an innocent

child?/ And the only answer is, “I don't know.”

Is there a meaning?

This is a question we've been grappling with for thousands of years, and I think it's

pretty clear that we'll never be able to have proof that there is or isn't a meaning

to suffering.

Is there a reason for the suffering of an innocent child?

I can't prove to you that there is, but I also can't prove to you that there isn't.

So to me, that means it's a personal choice that you have to make.

You have to choose whether or not to have faith.

If you have faith that there's a reason and meaning for suffering, you'll be able

to endure it, even if you don't know exactly what that reason is, and by being able to

endure suffering, you will not be a slave to pleasure and comfort, an by not being a

slave to pleasure and comfort, you'll retain your freedom, and by retaining your freedom,

you'll be able to serve any idea you want, rather than the idea someone else wants you

to serve.

But if you believe suffering has no meaning, it makes no sense to endure it, and it makes

perfect sense to escape from it through pleasure and comfort, but if you escape from it, when

tragedy eventually strikes, when you lose the pleasure and comfort you built for yourself,

you'll end up surrendering your freedom to the first person who can offer you pleasure

and comfort, and why wouldn't you, if suffering has no meaning?

So let me end by asking you this question: if there ever came a time where we needed

someone to fight for a better world, someone to stand up to the tyrant who has money, power,

and force at their disposal, who would you want on your side: The Worldly Person or The

Monk?

Who could resist the trappings of money, power, pleasure, and comfort that the tyrant provides?

Who would be more likely to be his slave and serve his mission in exchange for his good

favours?

And if you want to make a better life for yourself, which personality would you rather

be: The Worldly Person or The Monk?

So that concludes my exploration of Dostoevsky's teaching in /The Brothers Karamazov/.

As always, this is just my opinion and understanding of Dostoevsky's teaching, not advice.

Feel free to use this information however you like, and if you have a different take

on the his words, I'd love to hear your perspective in the comments.

If you liked the video, please consider liking the video.

And if you're looking for another video to watch after this one, I recommend watching

my video “Dostoevsky - Never Lie to Yourself”.

I'll put a link to it in the description below and in the top right of the screen right

now.