How we cite our quotes: (Part.Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #4
[Myshkin] remembered that during his epileptic fits, or rather immediately preceding them, he had always experienced a moment or two when his whole heart, and mind, and body seemed to wake up to vigour and light; when he became filled with joy and hope, and all his anxieties seemed to be swept away for ever; these moments were but presentiments, as it were, of the one final second (it was never more than a second) in which the fit came upon him. That second, of course, was inexpressible. When his attack was over, and the prince reflected on his symptoms, he used to say to himself: "These moments, short as they are, when I feel such extreme consciousness of myself, and consequently more of life than at other times, are due only to the disease—to the sudden rupture of normal conditions. Therefore they are not really a higher kind of life, but a lower." This reasoning, however, seemed to end in a paradox, and lead to the further consideration:—"What matter though it be only disease, an abnormal tension of the brain, if when I recall and analyze the moment, it seems to have been one of harmony and beauty in the highest degree—an instant of deepest sensation, overflowing with unbounded joy and rapture, ecstatic devotion, and completest life?" (2.5.11-13)
This is kind of a reverse of the Holbein painting argument about the conflict between nature and the physical body on one side, and faith and spirituality on the other. Here, either the moments of universal truth that Myshkin experiences are a symptom of his disease and thus are worthless, or the fact that he experiences this level of connection, however it might happen, is a confirmation of some kind of higher principle.
Quote #5
"Do you believe that in this affair of Burdovsky you have right on your side? Do you admit that Pavlichev overwhelmed you with benefits, and perhaps saved your life? If you admit it (which we take for granted), do you intend, now that you are a millionaire, and do you not think it in conformity with justice, to indemnify Burdovsky? Yes or no? If it is yes, or, in other words, if you possess what you call honour and conscience, and we more justly call common-sense, then accede to our demand, and the matter is at an end. Give us satisfaction, without entreaties or thanks from us; do not expect thanks from us, for what you do will be done not for our sake, but for the sake of justice. If you refuse to satisfy us, that is, if your answer is no, we will go away at once, and there will be an end of the matter. But we will tell you to your face before the present company that you are a man of vulgar and undeveloped mind; we will openly deny you the right to speak in future of your honour and conscience, for you have not paid the fair price of such a right." (2.8.45)
Ippolit's strategy is to completely reverse the situation—to make the unreasonable sound reasonable. Would this kind of argument actually work on any of the novel's other characters? (Myshkin responds positively to pretty much any request for help so these kind of verbal shenanigans are moot with him.)
Quote #6
"Well, prince, to do you justice, you certainly know how to make the most of your—let us call it infirmity, for the sake of politeness; you have set about offering your money and friendship in such a way that no self-respecting man could possibly accept them. This is either all too innocent or all too clever—you ought to know better than anyone which." (2.9.28)
Wow, now that right there is almost a Jedi mind trick! (This is Lebedev's nephew Dokrorenko speaking, by the way.)