WEEK 10: Dostoevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" and J.S. Mill "On Liberty" Chapter 1 and 2

[Mateo Duque]

This week we are finishing up the excerpt on Dostoevsky--"The Grand Inquisitor", which has taken much longer than I anticipated. We are then moving on to J.S. Mill's "On Liberty," excerpts from chapters 1 and 2.You don't have to try to make connections between Dostoevsky and Mill. However, I think that the Grand Inquisitor's discussion of freedom in humans leads us nicely into Mill's, somewhat related, topic of social or political liberty. Be very careful with Mill. Mill is not talking about individual freedoms and liberties as, for example, enumerated in the United States' Bill of Rights. Instead, Mill asking about what liberty the government should have in meddling with and interfering with its citizens. This is a topic that always seems bring up a lot of debate because I think it is an issue we are dealing with even now.

[stephane1]

First of all, the Grand inquisitor is on of the longest if not the longest thing i have ever read in my life, i did not enjoy the reading but i have my reasons, i was raised a christian and went to church every Sunday until i was seventeen, once i turned eighteen i stopped going to church because i did not enjoy the environment of a church. I felt like i was in a church reading the inquisitor, i' not criticizing any religious person who might have enjoyed the passage but it was a night mare for me, i had to wake myself up many times reading this thing and what the hell is "AUTO DA FE"? i did not get it.

[dahlia4808]

The reading on Libertyby John Mill, is very different from other reading. I was confused at first but ound it very interesting. Mills views on political powers and ethics. Mill want individuals to have liberty , which I get as freedom. I disagree and somewhat agree with mills on this issue. Mill states that once we a apart of a social setting it will be very difficult to provide us with that liberty. if we have the freedom to do what we want to without restrains then the world would be upside down .We all need some social control. Without control crime would be up and people will have a lack of self control.We all want freedom but we need some kind of control to.

[Ellie]

Like Stephane said, the Grand Inquisitor by Dostoevsky was by far the most annoying and bothersome thing I have ever read. It was very preachy sounding (I don’t know, maybe I’m just being partial to it because it was all, god this, god that, god, god, god…..Even the sparknotes and google summary that I tried to read to get a better understanding was all Christ this , Christ that, Christ the savior, Christ, Christ and Christ again).

And now I’m utterly confused as to what’s actually going on.

Did god come down? Or was it the lord, madonna, angels, saints, the devil? Jesus Christ maybe? Are they all the same thing? What in the world did Jesus do that so many people think he’s their savior???? (Sorry for sounding all dumb and stupid, but in the religion I grew up with, Jesus Christ was unmentionable because he was bad, so I’m really really confused.)

So honestly, I pretty much haven’t the slightest notion as to what the heck I read.

And this>>>“If it is you, then raise my child!” was the most crazy sounding and ludicrous statement of the whole thing.

To make such ultimatum type tests with this god/lord/savior whatever that you supposedly believe in, shows a complete lack of faith. Isn’t faith something that isn’t strictly based on proofs? Why would you need this supposed god to complete a test of resurrecting the dead then? Is that what the basis of your faith is dependant on? Whether this savior of yours is able to bring the dead back to life??? If he really was all that powerful and savior like then why should he have to prove himself to you to win your faith. That’s just demeaning (for this god).

So again, I just don’t get it. How can one claim that they have faith, when the only way they believe is if there is proof? Faith is (definition from the dictionary, not from me); a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof (as in, NOT contingent upon proofs). So that (test above) is clear sign of one not having faith. Therefore, it’s extremely hypocritical to preach about faith and religion, all while going on to give this god (or whatever it’s called) a test to prove his power when you supposedly have absolute faith in it. Which you obviously don’t, as you proved by contradicting faith and testing god.

[nadiahamidi7]

Chapter 2: Liberty of thought and discussion

Mill's arguments in chapter 2 are so rich and developed that I find it extremely difficult to focus on just one! Alas, I will try and unpack the beginning arguments of the chapter. 

When speaking about the opinions of mankind, Mill proposes, "if an opinion were a personal possession of no value except to the person who has it..." (11). And then I froze and reread it a few more times--isn't that exactly what an opinion is?! However, he goes on to say when these "opinions" apply to the masses of people, then it is deemed "right" (in terms of how society functions). For example, when the president makes a speech, he usually ends it off with a phrase like, "God Bless America and good night" or "God Speed." Because 92% of Americans believe in God, it only makes sense to address the nation as that to appeal to the majority of the country. Unfortunately, even if only a few are of the opposing view, they suffer. Mill calls this "silencing." He says, "But the special wrongness of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing no one individual, but the human race, posterity as well as the present generation, those who dissent from the opinion as well as those who hold it" (11). *Throughout the history of mankind, there is always a group of the oppressed or silenced. Historically it started off with women, but eventually grew to people of color, financially struggling, etc. Because these particular demographics do not hold societal power, their voices are often muted out and ignored despite how needy they may be. 

Throughout the chapter, I find it very evident that Mill is against authoritative figures. He has a cynical outlook on those who hold power and uses his piece as a call to the average human (us) to wake up and smell the coffee! 

Mill states that everyone, regardless of status or view is fallible and therefore must "take precautions against their own fallibility" (11). I couldn't agree more! And of course, this applies to monarchs or the government who Mill believes state their opinions with "complete confidence" (11) erroneously. Because of Mill's cynical outlook of authoritative figures throughout his piece, I kind of think of him as a modern day "conspiracy theorist" or maybe even a "hippie." Not that there's anything wrong with either, but I find his views to negatively depict the government/people in power. Since Mill is huge on freedom of speech, I would love to see what he would think about our society today. While present-day America is a lot more "free" than 1800s England, we still have a lot of room to grow!

I do have some questions for Mill, though. While I completely see where Mill is coming from in terms of what qualifies an opinion to be more legitimate than others, if they are not, then what are? I know that sounds confusing so I'll try and clear that up--what I mean is, "If the government's opinions are not more valid than anyone else's because they too are fallible humans, then whose opinion should we follow?" There cannot be a functioning society without some standard to abide by!

*Shakespeare loves to have the women in his plays silenced and therefore suffering! In both his tragedies and comedies, there are always female characters who cannot express themselves and often commit suicide! In Julius Caesar, Portia, Brutus' wife, is silenced throughout the play because Brutus refuses to seek her advice for the serious pickle he puts himself in! As a result she kills herself by swallowing hot coals. Her death it utmost gruesome and painful, but especially symbolic--she's ridding herself of the thing that did not aid her in this life! (her mouth/throat). Another interesting fact, Caesar's wife, Calpurnia, had an extremely detailed vision of his death and when she told her husband, he ignored her resulting in both of their deaths. Even though her dream was the exact events that were to unfold, Caesar deemed her judgment unworthy because she was a woman. Moral of the story: Listen to women! (Just kidding, but no, really!)

[t.rivera511]

I read half of The Grand Inquisitor one day and the other half another day so I'm confused but i think i got it linked up.

It was indeed very long, i wish the rebellion was longer, honestly. But The Grand Inquisitor had its moments.

I found this part "...stretches forth his finger and orders the guard to take him. And such is his power, so tamed, submissive, and tremblingly obedient to his will are the people, that the crowd immediately parts before the guard, and they, amidst the deathly silence that has suddenly fallen, lay their hands on him and lead him away." very...odd? Annoying? Upsetting, perhaps...but, why would these people, the crowd who was in such awe to see this Savior come and raise this child from her coffin, let the Grand Inquisitor take him away? Does this man not only save you from your sins or whatever, but does he not have power to destroy this Grand Inquisitor? He did just raise a girl from her coffin, no? What else can he possibly do! They can't possibly know, so why would these people let him take him away? What if he can protect that crowd from the this Grand Inquisitor and they wont have to live in fear of him? Much less why would the Grand Inquisitor expect the Savior to be compliant? I find it all odd.

"Man was made a rebel; can rebels be happy?" I think rebels can try to be happy but really aren't. They rebel because they believe in a truth that others are ignorant to, no? And they will struggle to maintain the fact that they believe in this truth. So they need to keep from falling into the ignorant bliss which everyone else is drowning in. How can they be happy if they are constantly thinking of this? Or maybe all that i said makes no sense and is irrelevant. That could be a great possibility. Who is ever happy? My Spanish teacher recently told me that the happiest are those who cant remember,  They aren't able to remember anything that can be possibly upsetting. So they live in happiness because they don't know what else to live in. I believe you have to be innocent to be truly happy. Growing up, you can only be happy for so long. Itll get replaced, sooner or later, by a different emotion.  

Just my thoughts.

[t.rivera511]

J.S.Mill "On Liberty" Chapter 1 & 2

This was a rather difficult but good read. I actually didn't get to finish it, I'm still reading and re-reading sections of it. Mill has a lot to say that makes sense but needs to be re-read to really catch the meaning and it gets me thinking a lot. I have a stack of post-its with quotes from this reading and i have a comment on each one but what i want to say (that's probably nonsense, i honeslt feel like i understand it wrong or something) is that, why do we have to depend on the authorities to protect us? Why is it that its always needed? I get that we want something to abide by and all but are we seriously messed up that we absolutely need laws and law enforcers to keep us from anarchy? Can all regulation be removed and can we be able to be civil all the same? Can we pay in kind, trade with one another, help one another out if the need of help arises and so on? 

"The 'people' who exercise the power aren't always the ones over whom it is exercised, and the 'self government' spoken of is the government not of each by himself but of each by all the rest. The will of the people in practice means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; that is, the majority or those who get themselves to be accepted as the majority." How many people are truly active in he government of today?  I feel that there are very few who actually participate. I feel that the true majority doesn't care and wish to be simply left alone. And wouldn't care to participate unless that is interrupted. A cobra wouldnt strike unless its provoked to do so. 

 

[rbrutusjr]

J.S. Mill "On Liberty" Chapter 1 and 2

I was actually very interested in this reading for several reasons. One of which of which is because i feel like many of the issues we are still going through today. One of them is when Mill was talking about how in people don't rule themselves but rather people with power exercise over those without power. I found this to be true because in the United States, individuals with money tend to be more powerful or hold more weight in society. The saying that "money talks" can be applied to this. Also, I feel like Mill is saying that a majority may consciously try to oppress the minority. Another topic that I felt still exists today is public opinion. My interpretation of this is that the power of public opinion can limit the independence of an individual. However, I do think that public opinion is losing some of it power. For example, it seems to be that there is an increase in single parents or people having children before marriage.Fifty years ago, this would have been looked down upon and women would have felt embarrassed. However, today it seems more acceptable or tolerated more. Another is the issue of homosexuals. Today gays are more open when fifty years age, it was virtually unheard of for gays to be out in the open. So while I agree with Mill, I think public opinion might be losing its power.  

[rbrutusjr]

J.S Mill "On Liberty" Chapter 1 and 2

In Chapter 2, Mill talks about freedom of thought and opinion. Mill is trying to show how different opinions is good for society. I think Mill is brings up some important points. I agree with Mill when he basically that not all opinions or thoughts are true but that they might be true. My interpretation is that he means that all opinions should be listened to and discussed to see what can be taken from it. In the chapter, he says that the only way for people to know that they are wrong is to be proven wrong by discussions. I also think that public opinion very much ties into it because people who are afraid to voice their opinion might not speak up thus causing them to stay quiet. In public intolerance, Mill brings up some examples like Jesus and Socrates and talk about how they were punished for radical ideas and values. I really do agree with Mill especially in his arguments in Chapter 2.

[jay]

This was a very hard reading to understand, what i did understand is that he is talking about kids and don't care much about adult. children is innocent and don't know what they are doing then are guidance but adults who have a twisted mind and are influential badly. I did not understand much in this story only that they are brothers that are totally different from each other.

[yuliyazhivotenko]

The Grand Inquisitor is mostly about humanities and freedom. Yet the Inquisitor argues against freedom because humanity cannot handle the freedom Christ has offered. The Inquisitor believes evil is caused through freedom. The perspective of freedom is very different between, Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor" to Mill's, "On Liberty". In fact, Mill argues for the freedom of the people, and believes the government should not be allowed to interfere unless it deals with those who cause harm to others. The government should never interfere in personal beliefs, in the taste or pursuit of individuals or the freedom to unite. I agree with Mill, because for centuries, the government abuses their power. They take advantage of people's rights. Long ago, it was kings and queens taking too much control, now it is the president and other executive officers. The government should always at all times respect the amendments rights.

[krystalgonzalez.28]

Reading Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor was long and boring.  I was confused with what Dostoevsky was trying to tell me as a reader.  From what I understood Christ had returned to Earth but had to prove that he was Christ.  He was arrested by the Grand Inquisitor for going against the rules of the church which powerful at the time.  The whole time the devil tempted Christ to perform miracles to prove to people that he was Christ but Christ chose not to. Christ stayed silent as the devil spoke, eventually he gave up.  I'm still confused on what this is suppose to represent. At the end of this chapter the Grand Inquisitor gives Christ a kiss that is to set him free, but what is that suppose to represent? Power, freedom, religion?  I tried reading some other post to help and everyone seems to be as confused as I am.