the brothers karamazov the grand inquisitor

[joyash22]

Who's in charge? Is Gd or Jesus in charge of our day to day lives? Or is man in charge and there is no heavenly greater being watching over us? And does man have the right to kill in the name of Gd? And do we have the capacity to forgive? Should we have to?
I have a lot of questions but I wasn't so happy with the answers. This piece was disturbing for me. Man is capable of extreme evil. For centuries religious persecutions were justified by evil men.In our lifetime we had the holocaust. We have Darfour. We have men deciding other mens fate. Is that what Gd wants from us?
In this story it seems that people are craving overt miracles to be able to have a more solid belief in Gd. But if Gd descends and shows himself than man won't have freedom of choice. Is that the price we have to pay, since Gd wont reveal himself then man is free to act upon his evil inclinations.After the evil is done are we required to forgive our tormenter? will Gd forgive him since he is the all merciful one?
This piece for me reminded me of a movie I once saw called The Quarrel. Two holocaust survivors meet afterward one believes in Gd and the other does not. The part that stayed with me was the statement how can you not believe in Gd? When you see what man is capable of you have to try and believe in a higher being because if this is all there is then there is no hope.
I thought it was interesting in The Inquisitor when Ivan says you think we were following you? We've been following the devil all this time
This piece brought up issues that philosophers have been grappling with forever. My questions are: Where does morality start and belief in Gd come in? Can man be trusted to act on his own?

[Mateo Duque]

Joy thank you again for creating the post.

Class,

This week we are reading excerpt from one of my favorite novels, Fyodor Dostoveksy's Brothers Karamazov. We reading the chapter called "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor." in class, we will focus on reviewing for the midterm. However, try to start the reading and at least look at the first one, "Rebellion." This is going to be a different than some of the others reading we had for class. This is a novel and, thus, literature, but Dostoevsky is often called a novelist of ideas. Your job is to pull the philosophy out of the story. What is Ivan's argument? What is he saying, what is his thesis? What are the points he uses to support his main idea? Do agree or disagree and why? Can you come up with objections, or counters to Ivan's philosophy?

-Mateo Duque.

[Juliet Harper]

Even thought we are in charge of our daily life, and choose to do what we please, some of us have to have a heart. In the beginning of the scenario be draw this pictures of people treating other. We don't realize or treat others the way we suppose to treat them that they are also human like our self. Do we have some little feeling for people that our emotion is not even being there for a child. Why do kids have to pay for our mistakes on earth when them themselves don't understand the first the logic behind all this. It is not fair! For I myself was once a child and is paying for the mistake of others. Is it ok to say it is the cycle of life and all of us have to pay but pay little attention on who much we have to pay. We don't think of that that is why we treat people the way we do. 

 Yes, we treat people with little regard or respect and it all started in the BC ages. When we drag him to Calvary and he dried on the cross for us. Where no one helped to safe him why?

What a great time to read this and reflex on the doing of man in this time of lent.  Can we do as he this and forget our tormentors, many may try but alot fail. The bible also say" forgive and forget" but yet in today's life we are acting like animals. When are we going to stop all this? it may be to late.   

[rebecca.s]

In these chapters, Ivan is telling us more or less that God's creation is faulty and that it is God's fault. In Rebellion, he begins by talking about how it is impossible for him to love man close up, while he can still love a hypothetical mankind from a distance. He then lists several examples of horrible things mankind has done, namely to children, whom he believes to be sinless creatures of perfect innocence. He uses these stories to illustrate that to love a God who allows his creations to behave thusly is wrong. Basically, he is saying that humanity is flawed and that since we are made in the image of God, he is flawed too and doesn't deserve our devotion. In The Grand Inquisitor, Ivan is further breaking down this theory by saying that Jesus having given us free will was a flawed decision on God's part. He says that security is better than free will and that humanity would be better if that aspect were taken away. 

On a fundamental aspect, I don't agree with Ivan. Primarily on his belief that humankind is impossible to love, particularly close up, and also that children are sinless creatures. On the contrary, I think that children are selfish creatures without the capacity for empathy, but also resilient enough to not hold a grudge. What I mean by this is that although I think that children are incapable of committing evil (as adults are), they are also incapable of committing true good. Contrarily, adults are capable of loads of evil, as Ivan described, but also of true goodness. Selflessness is not something children are really capable of. However, I think these capabilities or lack thereof demonstrate a lack of free will in a similar sense that Ivan desires in The Grand Inquisitor. If a person is not capable of committing good nor evil, and requires only security, is that not what Ivan sets up as the ideal society? 

[pesantezkevin]

I agree with the idea that if we come to love a man the man himself should stay hidden because as soon as he shows his face love vanishes.  This is the case because for example when someone on the street comes to ask for help or for money in order to get themselves something decent to eat most people say no. This may be the case because of his appearance or smell.  Another example would be if someone didn’t do us a favor at one point most people including me when asked to do something for the same person would probably say no almost on instinct.   People love to say we should give to charity, and help the community but when presented with the idea appearance does matter.  Helping someone out in the street may be seen as a form of charity but most people will deny it.  That is almost the case when the text goes on to say that we should love someone but from a distance.  This is because people appear to be people who love to give but will not probably not acknowledge someone else when they are in need.  This is atleast how i interpret the idea of loving someone without showing their face. 

[carroyo600]

In rebellion I believe that Ivan is discussing the torture that humans inflict upon each other and the evil that lurks inside of them. Ivan states "The question is whether this comes from bad qualities in people, or is it inherent in their nature." I do not believe that it is natural for one to be a tormentor nor could it be classified as any kind of quality. When one gets pleasure out of watching another be tortured and is suffering it is just Immoral.

[AYGUL KULA]

Dostoevsky's “Rebellion”

After reading the “Rebellion” I feel lucky to live in this century.

Back in the time, I guess there was no ethical and moral obligation. Even religion rules could not prevent cruelties. If these people believe in God, how can they be so evil? I don’t think any religion allows torture on human and animal…

“He hunted him down before his mother’s eyes and the dogs …” Just because a boy hurt the dog’s paw, does he deserve to die?  What kind of human being can kill a child like an animal? I can’t even imagine this little boy and his mother's feelings, the amount of fear, panic… just an eight year old, innocent, poor little boy.

[elena.pronoza]

The Brothers Karamazov "Rebellion" by Dostoevsky

"Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It's quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering. Why do they get thrown on the pile, to manure someone's future harmony with themselves?"

I always was impressed by Dostoevsky's ability to touch hearts of people by his straightforward words. In Rebellion he talks about price for the harmony. Are we ready to pay for it by the tears of our children? What does that harmony present if we are paying that much?! Even now when we haven't seen this harmony yet. I don't see in this text direct blaming to God, more likely it is a call to all people to stop and think how far we are going in selfishness. He chooses kids as an example, as means that can soften hearts of people and make us think about ways we live the lives. It is a rebellion in his heart but he doesn't want to call it this way. He wants changes of the system, a system that is constituted in such a wrong way that we are buying harmony by incommensurate price. I believe each of us can change this system and that's why we living our lives. We shouldn't be heroes of Dostoevsky's stories who torture kids or commit crimes. World is not perfect but the best way to change it is to start from that exact point of "thinking for yourself". Saying it's too late or that people are bad or children are spoiled is not a constructive way to the future. That's my understanding of this part of 4th Chapter. 

[Elvira Toporova]

“Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It’s quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering.”(p.244)
 Ivan makes this argument to Alyosha in Chapter 4, as part of his rejection of the idea of a loving God. Ivan believes it is impossible to have faith in a benevolent deity who makes children suffer unjustly. Ivan can, to a certain extent, see the logic in the suffering of adults: adults must suffer to pay for their sins, “to buy eternal harmony with their suffering.” But children, he explains, are too young to have sinned, and are often made to suffer the most excruciating torments by a God who supposedly loves them. From this condition, Ivan reasons that if God exists, he does not really love mankind, but rather occupies the position of a torturer who should be defied and rejected rather than worshiped and loved.

[monise_71]

This novel address the conflict between religious faith and doubt. I think  Ivan is arguing that it is not reasonable to believe in God, if he really exist.

When he is observing a suffering child and the general misery of mankind on earth.  He cannot understand how a God who is "loving" could allow so much sufferance and misery. Ivan picture God as a torturer and think that God is not just since he allows injustice, suffering and misery. Ivan position is that; either  God exist and he's a torturer or God just does not exist. I don't really agree  with Ivan's position, and my question is aren't we self-destructive? we are capable causing so much pain, injustice and suffering to ourselves and to others.  

[Ellie]

“Can you understand that…meek tears for ‘dear God’ to protect her—can you understand such nonsense”

“The whole world of knowledge is not worth the tears of that little child”

Dostoevsky’s “the rebellion” has made me more acutely aware of something that I already know, Humanity is cruel. People are cruel. There are some people who get some sort of sadist like enjoyment from physically torturing those who have done no wrong to them. These are the people who bring shame to the human race and bring insult to others by calling themselves people.

And although I can agree that this kind of cruelty is horrible, I find it equally cruel to torture individuals, especially children, by other means. Namely, emotional and psychological torture. Giving people false hope by leading them to believe in some sort of faith that has a God or godlike savior who will save them from their struggles and pain is just as cruel regardless of the fact that there is no physical pain involved (like hanging people by nails in their ears, lashes, beatings, cold blooded murder etc…).

I will even go so far as to say that it’s even more cruel then the physical abuse because the physical abuse affects ones body whereas the emotional/psychological/false hope affects one’s soul/mind. Based on the other works of philosophy we have been reading until now, and my own opinion (to which I am entitled to) the soul/mind is more important than the body because the body is just the casing of the essence of who one truly is, which is their mind/soul.

I am even more disturbed by the fact that it is taken as normal for a child to be crying out to a god who is likely not going to be saving them from any sort of predicament that they are stuck in. Not only does Dostoevsky make it to be as acceptable, he also just nonchalantly brushes over it as if it is an ok and rather glorified part of life instead of addressing it for the true cruelty that it is.  Giving people false hope and dependency on some sort of “savior” is harmful, destructive, and cruel. And I agree, the whole world of knowledge is not worth the tears of that child. It’s extremely cruel to use the knowledge that is in the world against these defenseless children. It would be much better if people would stop giving false hope and would instead, use that knowledge to help the children fend for themselves and give them hope/strength from a place that is actually real and beneficial.

**I know this is likely not the analysis of the reading that was expected after being assigned this reading, however, I was extremely disturbed by the underlying connotations throughout the piece that it was all I could focus on.

[gregorydny]

Once you die thats it theres no afterlife so mans belief and fascination with religion is pointless. He's a calculated, cynical person that deals in hard solid verifiable. IF God existed he wouldnt alllow man to go throught extreme pain and suffering especially not children. Since horrible things happen to mankind God cant really exist. There is no countering a person that deals in hard facts. They'll just use the facts against you like Socrates did to Agathon.

[pesantezkevin]

Something that stood out to me while I was reading “The Rebellion” was when they spoke about the topic of adults.  The adults ate the forbidden fruit; they choose the path they wanted.  They know the difference between good and evil and yet after knowing all of that they still go on to eat the forbidden fruit and it is their children who are punished.   They then go one to explain the Turks and how they slaughter children if almost seen as a sport to them.  They purposely make the baby laugh as they point a pistol to their face and then they pull the trigger with no looking back.  This rooting from the idea of the devil, temptation, and the forbidden fruit that was eaten.  My question is how can this endless cycle of punishment finally end, or does it simply keep going on with no conclusion. 

[Elvira Toporova]

“Decide yourself who was right: you or the one who questioned you then? Recall the first question; its meaning, though not literally, was this: ‘You want to go into the world, and you are going empty-handed, with some promise of freedom, which they in their simplicity and innate lawlessness cannot even comprehend, which they dread and fear—for nothing has ever been more insufferable for man and for human society than freedom! But do you see these stones in this bare, scorching desert? Turn them into bread and mankind will run after you like sheep, grateful and obedient, though eternally trembling lest you withdraw your hand and your loaves cease for them.’”(ch.5,p.252)

The inquisitor is referring to the story of the temptations that Satan offered Christ, and that Christ rejected. The Inquisitor says that when Satan tempted Christ to make bread from the stones, Christ should have done so, and should have brought the bread back to the people so that they would follow him in order to win the security of being fed. Christ’s response—that man does not live by bread, but by the word of God—gives men the freedom to choose whether to follow Christ or not, without buying faith with security. Most people, he says, are too weak to tolerate the burden of free will. As a result, he says that “the one who questioned you then,” meaning Satan, was right, and Christ was wrong. Ivan believes that mankind is not competent to handle the awesome burden of free will, and should have been given a leader to obey instead.

[Soon M. Seo]

"I think that if the devil does not exist, and man has therefore created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness."
"As well as God, then."
Human being is the subject. To be more specific and exact, every individual is the subject of his/her thoughts, actions, and decisions of oneself. Likewise Descartes says, I exist because I think for sure. I am not talking about existence of God because there is no way I can prove or know. However, it does not matter if God created men or men created God. Sometimes men need God and devil for themselves and they need to believe in. God tends to be a common and absolute good who men pursue together. I think that is a great roll that makes society easy to be controlled. Also belief of God's existence efficiently applies to the political strategies. It is even better that we cannot see or touch God and devil because they look more mysterious and powerful by being vague. Men might have invented the concepts, God and devil, to haunt others' and themselves' mind. Once certain concepts capture men's minds, its impact and power are enormous since men acts by their belief and thoughts. When a man worships God or maybe a devil, he actually worships his invention or himself.

[yuliyazhivotenko]

In the Grand Inquisitor, the Inquisitor believes human freedom is what causes evil. He says he tries to limit violence and absurdity by taking away freedom by using 1) miracle 2) mystery and 3) authority. When Satan presented the 3 temptations to Christ and Christ rejected them, that is where he went wrong because by rejecting these 3 temptations, that is where human beings have free will. The Grand Inquisitor believes that Christ should have taken power and take away freedom because the extremes/outcomes are crazy. As the Inquisitor continues to criticize Christ on all his wrong doings, Christ listens quietly. In the end Christ expresses his love and understanding to the Inquisitor by a kiss.