WEEK 8: Dostoevsky and Catch-up

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

We have the midterm for WEEK 8, but since we meet for 2.5 hours and the midterm will only take half of the class, we will continue our discussion of Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov for the first half. Do you have to post? No. However, this is the half-way mark and if you feel like you need more posts then try to post this week. Remember, I take the top 10 posts and you can post a maximum of 2 times per week.

-Mateo Duque.

[Duvall Ledbetter]

 "If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children got to do with it, tell me, please? It's beyond comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony." (Rebellion 245).

 I find it difficult for anyone to disagree with Ivan. Although he may seem like he lacks self control, he brings up strong points to argue his case. We as human beings become attached to children very quickly whether they are family members or just strangers. They live in a world where they are vulnerable to evil acts committed by people they don't know and even their parents. What Ivan is trying to say is that why should children have to bear the brunt of beatings and harmful punishments in a world where God is suppose to be forgiving? If God is a loving being, then why would he allow the most innocent creatures to perish in the most despicable ways? I believe these are the questions that a lot of people ask including myself. Ivan doesn't necessarily question the existence of God but he has doubts about whether he is loving or not. I don't care how religious a person is there is always questions to be asked concerning children dying across the world. Aren't we as adults suppose to groom children into people we can be proud of? How are they going to grow if we don't allow them to? 

Ivan seems to be very passionate about children's rights. I wonder if he suffered any type of abuse as a child. Is that why he questions the world we live in? 

         

[Ji Yeon Park]

I think that the chapter of Rebellion relates to the first story in the book of Genesis in the Bible.

"They ate the apple, and knew good and evil, and became 'as gods.'" (Chapter 4 Rebellion, page 237) How is it possible to gain knowledge from consuming a fruit? There are some people think that the 'apple' is what we could consider puberty and the engagement in sexual intercourse. Although some unfortunate events may occur, most children would not be exposed to such acts. And if they have, documentaries state that these children often would display violent behavior with ill intent. Could these forms of violence be what Ivan meant when speaking of grown-ups as disgusting? Is he trying to imply that once we 'know' we become evil? Assuming that Ivan is a grown-up himself, in reality, is the one whom he despises, his own self?

It sounds like this is a 'Rebellion' against the creator, 'God'. Ivan siding with the children's rights, yet not even allowing an exception for the 'grown-ups'. This chapter sounds very biased. One might disagree and say that even infants have committed a crime by giving pain to his/her own mother during childbirth. How can we determine the borderline of justice?

[christela sion]

i think the chapter rebellion has opened up alot of  non believers eyes. yes children are innocent,yes we get attached to them quickly but why do some people hurt them. this is part of life am not saying its okay to make kids or anyone suffer. if the world was perfect there would be nothing for human beings to believe in. yes even the religious people ask God why are people dying and why are children getting hurt by people they love and trust. this goes back to how you are raised. when you are born you dont know if your gonna be successful or a bum in the street. i feel that we are all born innocent and as we grow up what we see and what we are teach in this world is what shape us to become the loving person we are or the crazy people some intend to become. 

I also think that Ivan was abused when he was younger. he also shows that he doesn't have closure with what ever is bothering him on the inside.

[lrwilen4]

"Beggars, especially noble beggars, should never show themselves in the street; they should as for alms through newspaper. It's still possible to love one's neighbor abstractly, and even occasionally from a distance, but hardly ever up close."  this statement made by Dostoevsky makes me mad, where is his heart???!!!! you never !ever! love and care about someone because of their appearance! the reason you love another person is because of there inner characteristics, personality, values, ideas, and accomplishments. you do NOT care about someone because they look a certain way. you must build your love and consideration for others on a solid foundation with reason. also, you do not judge others based on their appearance you never know why someone is poor or disgusting looking. it is not the poor persons fault that they are poor, therefore you must look below the appearance and love and except people for who they are.
i truly wonder what influenced Ivan to think in such a shallow negative way!

[m.inam.gul]

"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!"

 I absolutely love this quote from the Grand Inquisitor mainly because of how much i agree with it. I too often ponder the effects of freedom and what free will really is. To me personally freedom is just losing all hope, that is when a person can be in a true state of freedom. Anyway back to the blog post, while reading the Grand Inquisitor i quickly noticed the religious significance. Though the parable might be intended for biblical understanding, but i believe me being a muslim, i could relate to it more. It was very interesting how Ivan's narration of the story of christ in relation to free will is similar to some parts of the quran. Ivan's story entails of how christ returns to earth and is informed by the grand inquisitor that ever since the church took over it has taken away free will and free choice from people, thus performing to the work of satan, but for the good of mankind. Because the church believes that by christ not falling into the three temptation set by the devil we have free will which is devastating and a burden on mankind. And in the quran there's a similar story; after jesus ascended to heaven the church along with other corrupt people gave in to the devil and changed the true message of jesus and have made additions to the one original bible. In turn taking away peoples free will without there permission!

My question is does the fact that Ivan finds christ guilty of sins against mankind show a difference between his religious beliefs and his belief of the church?? It seems this way but i am not sure, sort of confused.    

[tayo.ojudun]

"..I will not speak of grown-ups because, apart from the fact that they are disgusting and do not deserve love, they also have retribution: they ate the apple, and knew good and evil, and became 'as god'. And they still go on eating it. But little children have not eaten anything and are not yet guilty of anything. (bottom 237)

Adam and Eve just a child could've be deceived were and were just as naive as a child. They were also punished like a child, they might as well be counted as children. I don't believe there is a great distinction between children and adults honestly speaking, well besides experience and even that is subjective. Some adults continue doing that same thing over and over again as a child would.  But then I have to ask myself what makes someone a 'grown up/ adult'. It can't be simply because they pay bills and consider themselves responsible. If that's the criteria then what about those getting government assistance with rent and food? That is a handful of people are they not 'adults' ? You cannot just claim that adults know the difference between good and evil, because they are considered to be adults based on their age. People especially in today's society are less mature at 18 than ever before. In addition, what of the mentally disabled? You have to know and comprehend what you consider to be an adult before you prosecute someone. 

…" It is impossible that a blameless one should suffer for another, and such a blameless one!" 

If a person never grows up from an experience they have faced or any life event, they will always be a child. And for some reason when reading this line, I can't help but to think of Christ. He was basically a child on earth, haven't ever eaten the fruit and yet taking the fault for any actions that came from the fault of the adults who had eaten from the tree. But then there is another part to this where Christianity claims those who have eaten from the tree and not accepted Christ or repented  will be subjected to hell which, in essences makes them 'adults' for the fact that they are forced to take responsibility for their actions. In the end a child who never took the step into adulthood will suffer regardless. I believe that the idea of being an 'adult' is a dangerous thing. Just because your 18th or 21st birthday happened doesn't make you anymore of an 'adult'. 

I recall going to Nigeria and seeing children that were about eight taking care of their three year old sibling while their mother was doing hair. Some may say that's child endangerment or the parent being irresponsible, but the eight year old seemed to be enjoying taking care of her little sister. In general most of the children I came in contact with in Nigeria seemed to be more responsible and well behaved than most of the children I have encountered in America. Perhaps they are forced to be that way because of their environment and maybe there are lacking America's so-called idea of a child enjoying their childhood, but to each his own. I highly doubt that little girl will look back on her life and think wow I hate my mom for having me babysit my three year old sister instead of letting me play with my friends outside. She would be more grateful and appreciate her mother for going out and making money to put food on the table.

[gulyabigela]

Rebellion raises a lot of important questions about the fairness of the world in a whole and the role of God in it. I guess, a lot of people in different times, whether they experienced the unfairness or saw it from the side, sometimes think as Ivan that all these religions don't make any sense, and even if God exists, there is no point of such misery a lot of innocent people experience every day. Especially this question raises when we see children suffering, where we almost feel their pain. At this moment some of us begin to doubt of the existence of kind and merciful God. We think if we can't stand children's pain and suffer just from seeing it, how God can watch it all this time? Ivan in his so-called rebellion asks this question and gives very sad and vivid examples of cruelty towards children. I believe  a lot of people while reading it also start to think why it is how it is.
I think the main point of Ivan's rebellion is not in the questioning of the God, but refusal to accept one of the main dogmas of Christianity, which states that in one day there will be the harmony and all people will raise, and "murdered man rise up and embrace the murderer" (page 244).  He insists that tears of suffered children have to be redeemed, and it is unfair towards mother of killed son to simply forgive his murderer, that it is just not right.  Honestly, it is very hard not to agree with him.
I guess these type of questions make us think about religion and God, not simply believe in every postulate written in Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. However, it is interesting that Dostoevsky, who in reality was very religious man, came up with such questions.

[nadezhda.yakimchenko]

Towards the end end of chapter four I am caught on one particular line......" But you did not want to deprive man of freedom and rejected the offer, for what sort of freedom is it, if obeisance is bought with loaves of bread..".

This line caught my eye because it holds true in many senses. What is freedom if it is bought? Today we ask a similar question but in a different form. Do we really have freedom if we give up some of our rights? To keep freedom alive must we sacrifice some of it ? I believe so because nothing in this life...even freedom...can be free. We always sacrifice something to gain something else.

[racquelallwood1987]

Chapter four the Rebellion was an interesting chapter where Ivan discusses that he doesn't reject that God does exist but he has to question him and the world that he has created.   Ivan say's "If we're come to love a man, the man himself should stay hidden, because as soon as he shows his face-love vanishes."  This means that if a person does not love a suffering person face then therefore he feels no pity or mercy for the individual.  Hence explaining that when it comes to the individual person love tend to disappear.  Why does this occur?  I truly feel the same way as Ivan  in terms of the fact  I too is in question of why God has created the world the way it is? and how come the individuals that we come to love have to stay hidden because as soon as you get use to them it seems that you no longer pity them or suffer with them.  

Not everyone suffers in the same way therefore and not everyone relates to each other therefore why did God create such differences between individuals?

[christela sion]

I agree with you. In the world we are live in freedom does not really exist. In America they say freedom of speech but when you express yourself its a problem and they want to take you to court. you have to be willing to lose something to gain something.

[Linda Chen]

It is very difficult to disagree with Ivan in the notion that innocent children have no cause to suffer in the hands of "evil" people. The idea that if God is forgiving and loving, then how can God  allow children to be abuse? Since the Bible does say that God is love and merciful, it does not mean that humans are love and merciful, instead, humans have the right to choose between right and wrong. Adults have a right to chose good or bad regardless of whether they were abused as a child. For example, the child who was neglected and suffer a great deal of punishments for stealing due to hunger, as an adult, he killed a man. His hunger does not justify his action of killing, Just as he learned to survive, he must have known that working would give him the money he needs to buy food. For this man, he realized that his actions are wrong and was not justified in his doing, therefore he gained the courage to accept the death penalty. As for innocent babies being killed, there were no accountability with the law to regard their actions as wrong. If there were accountability, these evil actions might not have been performed. The Bible has an ethical code that must be followed, therefore blaming God for abused children is not saying that God does not love children, its saying that in the process of free will, humans have the freedom to chose evil or good. These crimes of killing, beating, and neglecting children obviously  shows that people chose to do evil. But they also do not know that God is also a revengeful God and wrathful God. It is through life's lessens such as this, laws were made to combat evil doers.

 

 

[Linda Chen]

"They beat her, flogged her, kicked her, not knowing why themselves," Rebellion

 

People need to know why they did their action, in this case it would be difficult to blame God when the people doing the action does not have knowledge of what is acceptable by God or what God's ethics entailed. If God was to blame for humans' evil, then their action would continue without any accountability, but because of they have a right to chose evil or good, humans are to blame. God still loves all humans.

[Givan]

In chapter on Rebellion Ivan is attacking the existence of God and his character.  In an attempt to justify his argument, Ivan uses the most vulnerable of individuals; Children. Ivan is questioning if there really is a God. He questions that if God epitomizes “everything that is good”, why is he allowing these children to undergo such malicious treatment in this world? I must say I definitely agree with Ivan’s argument, and I have, on numerous occasions asked myself the exact question. I have questioned the existence of God.  Every day we hear stories of children who undergo such cruelty in this world. For instance a new born who is innocent  and hasn’t had the adequate time to be tainted with sin. Why do they suffer if there is a god that is so gracious and peaceful? This is indeed very mind-boggling. Maybe that’s why there are so many atheists out there today, because they fail to fathom why “God” who personifies “everything that’s good” still allows so much hatred and cruelty in the world today. I think an atheist believes that if he/she was to accept a world that’s so cruel and a God that is good simultaneously would be naive and can also be viewed as contradicting themselves.  With this being said for an individual like me, who is iffy on the whole issue of the existence of God I will naively attempt to come up with a logical explanation for the cruelty and unjustly things, which transpire every day. Could it be that children are suffering due to the sins of their ancestors and although Ivan categorized children as being “innocent”, we all heard stories of children who have committed horrifying crimes, so are they really innocent as Ivan thought, or are sinners like everyone else and are paying for their misdeeds right now?

[jimborat69]

Will it be unfair to say that our future rests on fate? We can argue that we make our future like for example we go to school to have a better future but do we really make our future? Sometimes I believe that somehow or somewhere our future is already written. We just unconsciously follow it. Again, it is unfair for me to say those children that goes through hardship is really their destiny. Wouldn’t you agree that we say that he/she was born to become a teacher, doctor and etc. Like sometimes we say he is a born leader. Some children are born in rich family and served with silver platter but some children are born poor and since birth needs to struggle. The worst is born being abused inhumanely. I do believe some people are born heroes to save those lifes.

[Blanca]

Ivan questions the existence of god in this reading. But then again, I believe that everyone questions his existences for many different reasons.

This one quote captured my interest on page 239:
" 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."
The way that Ivan views his thoughts of God is very interesting in the way that he brings up the Devil & his existence as well. If the devil doesn't exist, then humans have created him to be evil and wicked. The same thing goes for God who we have grown to believe is pure & "good". He questions the existence of God by using the most innocent individuals on earth, children. Why do children suffer when they don't commit any bad deeds? And if they do, they have no idea or understand the wrong they are doing because they are just children, innocent little creatures. Ivan questions if God is really out there & if he is, then why does he make children suffer. Is he therefore not the "good" that we imagined him to be? Have we really created him in our own image & likeness the way that Ivan explains? I have always questioned these things myself.

[vgultyaeva]

" vague and undefined promise of freedom, which men, dull and unruly as they are by nature, are unable so much as to understand"
"never was there anything more unbearable to the human race than personal freedom!"
"where is there freedom of choice where men are bribed with bread?"
"Feed us first and then command us to be virtuous!"
This quotes show how  Dostoevskiy is criticizing people fighting for their freedoms and than just giving it away with their complete faith in God or just unwillingness to cary such responsibility. Freedom is such a big deal in religion and in life. In religion  freedom of choice is given to people by God but they so eager to give it away to their governments, churches and to anyone who is welling to take that burden of responsibility of their shoulders. Ivan make a point that the Davil and people following him ( as great inquisitor) have more freedom than God and people that following him do not. People of religion is so concerned with their appearances and what other people's opinions of them are, that it became the main influence on their decision making.
Ivan is very skeptical about human nature and sees more negative in people than positive and Alyosha is more prone to see goodness in people and that relationship is almost like the Davil and the God relationship.
To actually be free is to not be restrained by anything and do not worry about the consequence and religious believes are based on the actions and consequences of those actions which means that one should constantly control and analyze his actions.

[kenlyv]

Ivan said " 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 worshipped and loved".

Could this be true, could god really don't love mankind and do god rather occupies the position of torturer who should be defied and rejected rather than worshipped and love ???? This can't be true I have to disagree with Ivan on this one . God is always forgiving. God never what to see his own children(human) suffering. I disagree with Ivan on this one.