After reading chapters 5 and 6 of book 11 from The Brothers Karamazov, it is clear to say that Smerdyakov embodies Heidegger’s principle of the Complexity of Bezug. This opinion has been formed by the actions and inner dialogue of Ivan, paired with the attitudes towards Smerdyakov and how he has been mentioned in trial for the murder of the Karamazov men’s father. The Complexity of Bezug, which is described by Dugin as “the fact that thoughts about the Being of beings must take us away from beings, which is almost obvious”(Dugin, 53), is taken from the metalanguage of Seiendheit. The basic meaning of this is that beings, which are actual, tangible beings, must be in touch with actually “being” a being, which means that they must acknowledge, perceive, and identify with the actual being in order to conclude that they are the being. There are countless mets-ways to perceive beings and the act of being, but Smerdyakov seems to use Seiendheit in a different fashion than does Ivan against him. As Smerdyakov lay weak, mumbling and in pain in a hospital bed, Ivan still has suspicions of him being the murderer to his father and accuses him of faking his seizure(Dostoyevsky, 1280). Though he agrees not to mention this suspicion in court, Ivan perceives Smerdyakov as a liar as a means to protect himself. Smerdyakov himself uses Seiendhet to acknowledge and perceive his “being” as a being of truth, poor health, and innocence. He told Ivan the truth about what happened in the cellar, expressed these statements to the prosecutor, and was examined by doctors who were able to confirm his seizure and treat him(Dostoyevsky, 1279). The glaring differences between the two men and the commonality of the presence of the Complexity of Bezug further show how Dostoyevsky pits characters against each other not only for dramatic effect, but also for plot advancement and complex character tropes. This can also lead the reader to question which character they choose to believe in Ivan and Smerdyakov’s conversation.