WEEK 7: Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov

[Mateo Duque]

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.

[vgultyaeva]

I feel very attached to what Ivan was saying in the chapter IV about children being the victims of violence.  The fraise that “ children must pay for the crimes of their fathers” and just like Ian I can not understand the logic behind it. I have known a lot of children that have been beaten by their parents as a form of discipline but I don’t think it has ever worked.  Violence only forces people into rebellion or into themselves and especially innocent children that haven’t bitten the apple yet.  It is true how the culture of the place where you live defines your actions and tolerance to some things.

            One of my best friends when I was little had parents that thought that he needed to be punished harshly for every little thing and sometimes even without a reason. I have heard him scream many times and that made him into very unconfident and scared boy. 

Just like a story about a father brought to court for beating his child

“To our shame be it said, it is brought into court.’ The jury, convinced by him, give a favorable verdict. The public roars with delight that the torturer is acquitted.”

Just like it was okay for that father to torture his daughter because society norms, it was okay for my friend mother to torture my friend.

            Why are the mores and norms about violence are so different in different places when everyone feels pain the same?

[abe]

"Is it possible that I've suffered so that I, together with my evil deeds and sufferings, should be manure for someone's future harmony? I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion, and the murdered man rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone suddenly finds out what it was all for. All religions in the world are based on this desire, and I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I going to do with them? That is the question I cannot resolve. For the hundredth time I repeat; there are hosts of questions, but I've taken only the children, because here what I need to say is irrefutably clear. 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."

Inequality is a part of everyday life.... If there was none of it, wouldn't this world be a tad bit too perfect? Ivan, kind of like the rest of us, is having trouble coping with the fact that we are inhabitants of an unscrupulous macrocosm. The most of us have trouble dealing with iniquity; more likely than not, we've all espied wrongdoings being committed on fellow animate bodies throughout the course of our lives. More times than not, we are powerless in the quest of righting what's wrong. But I truly believe that we are all just glitches. Nothing more than flecks of multicellulared organisms undergoing examination. Billions upon billions have lived, some of whom have accomplished the "greatest of feats," in our eyes... But in the end, we all end up 6 feet under. Tell me of one who hasn't, lest he/she passed by way of the most excruciating of circumstances. No matter how "magnificent" you have come to believe of yourself, no matter what you've done. You don't take any of your worldly attributes/fulfillments with you. Nearly every being ends up a bygone. What's the most that one gets, a memorial with his name perched on top? There's absolutely nothing you can do to become an immortal. And no single piece of "technology" will aid us in that journey. Every being is "scared" of death, or at least doesn't plan on going at "this very juncture." In the end, no one really plans for death. But death has an inevitable plan for you. There must be a point, a reasoning, as to why each and every single one of us has respiratory strength at this very point and time. Don't you think?. The ability to live.. to see... to do.. this single power... how do we use it? can we control desire.. do we abstain... What do we make of it? do we use it to commit harm, or good. do we treat strangers the same way you'd want a beloved sibling to be treated. Do you treat people of different sects the same as you'd want to be treated in foreign territory? are we honest. do we harm ourselves. do we lie in the name of monetary/worldly desire...are we con artists?. are we swindlers?. do we roll the dice?.. do we engage in paraphernalia/alcohol/tobacco? do we fornicate/ engage in pre-marital sexual encounters? food for thought....the simplest of worldly indulgences are of detriment to our bodies/minds.. isn't that something? Then there are those who will mitigate and rationalize.. look for any petty argument in an attempt to justify their indulgences.... As time has passed, I have told myself it mustn't be like this. With each and every passing day, it has become increasingly harder for me to believe in the notion that we all just live and die; and nothing more. As agnostics proclaim... Anyway, to quote another being who has lived and passed, as the rest of us will.... and BY me quoting a prophet, in no way am I indicating that I've come to believe instinctively/blindly in whatever this man has said, for I have disagreed on some of his sayings. albeit, not many.. But.... this, pretty much, seems as reasonable as anything I've ever heard.

"He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand( activism, organization, movement ); and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue( by speaking out against it ), and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart( by always disliking what is evil or harmful ), and that is the least of faith"

[iriejam796]

"But little children have not eaten anything and are not yet guilty of anything" Ivan's argument is that he cannot comprehend and accept the world God created by having small innocent children suffer for their sins. He thinks adults are old enough to account for their actions and they should be the only ones punished. Ivan also had a hard time accepting the fact that we should love our neighbors, he feels that's impossible to do and there is no such thing.  He think there is only one person who can do that, and that is God. Ivan prove that it is not possible to have that kind of love, by giving different scenarios of children being tortured and killed. "There is, of course a beast hidden in every man, a beast of rage, a beast of sensual inflammability at the cries of the tormented victim, an unrestrained beast off the chain..." I think Ivan tries to tell us that because we were born and are living in sin we are capable of doing devilish act. The situation with the parent who flogged their daughter, kicked her until her entire body was full of bruises go to show us that evil thoughts does not get separated from a parent. It exist in every possible mankind, it's whether or not you chose to act upon it and make the devil take control. Even though the parent might love that child, satan have a way of showing us that he exist by acting through us. How can a mother who gave birth to her child treats it this way? 

I think Ivan's main objective is to show us that we had a choice between good and evil, but of course mankind think it was wiser to go with evil. Even though God rejected Satan's temptation so we could be free man chose to go in the opposite direction. Ivan wants to show us that the world that we are living in wasn't created by God but by man. We are the one who ate that forbidden fruit and disobey God's order therefore we cannot escape sin. According to the bible I have to agree with Ivan.

[jossianny(jossy)]

"i think that if the devil does exist, a man has therefore created him, he has created in his own image and likeness" (rebellion, 239).

 

Ivan is talking about child suffering, so that his argument would go more smoother and simpler since children are the only ones that do not deserve suffering, because they are pure and do not know from right or wrong. He brings into his argument that every man has a little devil in them and he shows that when he traps his brother into saying yes,to kill the man that killed the little boy(243). In the end it comes down to everyone forgiving each other fro the wrong doing. But that is wrong because everyone of those people have done something bad and they are not pure and if there is one person that can forgive is God. 

So as adults automatically deserve pain and suffering because we "ate from the apple". Does that mean that even though we are first a baby, then a child,when we become 8 we automatically deserve pain since we are no longer a child?

[Teresa Sanchez5901]

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



First I just want to express how much I did not like this reading. It reminds me so much of the ongoing problems we have here    ongoing   with child abuse, domestic violence and gun control and other evils in society.

So back to the reading , I feel that Ivan compares  alot of his ideas  to the bible.   Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and for that God punished them, but for innocent children they know not what they do, so therefore why should they be responsible for thier parents mistakes. Children learn from what they are taught. To be in the likeness of God, and not  little Lucifer himself. Are children no longer children after the age of seven, no i don't think so I believe that they are more receptive and older to know what right and wrong is.

[jimborat69]

Unfortunately, some people go to trauma with or without a cause. A lot of example in this novel is trauma’s that are encountered by children. Some trauma is experience because of someone wrong doing. For example, you already know that if you go to a neighborhood or a bad place you might end up getting tortured, you will still go just for fun. If they tortured you, it’s really your fault.  Anyway while I was reading this, I was thinking about the saw movies.  The torture details they have are so graphic. There got to be an evil in a person to be able to do something to another human being for a long period of time. What I am trying to say is, when you get into a fight and you are able to beat up your opponent. I will say that this is because of adrenalin or maybe on the spur of the moment. You really don’t have to rethink what you are doing and you are in a mission for that instant. However if you keep your opponent in the basement and torture him/her for a long period of time, there must be an evil inside you that makes you do this. On the other hand, the evil might be the deceiver. The deceiver makes you think that what you are doing wrong is something necessary to be done. As one of the example about the childhood of Richard, he never experienced love, compassionate and how to be treated like a human being. He never knew humanity and if he never experienced it he will never know the idea like what Hume thought us. When he grew up and put into society he is a monster and then when he went to jail and experience religion. He experience love, compassion and humanity, he changed a lot but it was too late. When action is put in motion and words are said, it is very hard to take it back. Like people say when the glass is cracked no one can fix it and the crack will be there forever. 

[asiyebodur91]

I kinda disagree with Ivan on many of his ideas. I may have misinterpreted some of his concepts however I will like to begin with " never possible to love our neighbors". I would say he hasn't had a good neighbor for such generalization. When we have no milk in the house, or not enough bread or need a piece of pepper to spice up food, my mom always turns to the neighbors and vice versa. When my brother needs to be picked up, anyone of our neighbors accommodates to pick him up. 

"if we were to love a man,the man himself should stay hidden, because as soon as he shows his face-love vanishes." Are then suppose to love the "fake" person? so then how is this real love when we are not in love with the person him.

And then he gets into children and abusive adults and children suffer because of their parents. For this "concept" is an ongoing circle, the child gets abused when little, grows up as an unhealthy mentally disrupted teenager and has a grown up becomes as abusive as parent ( not all cases, bust most often).  I agree that children do suffer for the wrongs of their parents, however those children must be-careful not to be like their parents, because if they do, then their child will suffer as well. 

Lastly, I want to discuss about Turks and Circassians "animosity" behaviors. I feel that Ivan was generalizing and always had this idea of "turks this" and "turks that" and further going on and saying that animals are being insulted by comparing humans to them. I am sure in history, and in war, especially combined with ignorance and uneducated environment, all human race have done wrong!! This shouldn't be blamed on an entire culture. I am Turkish, would I go ahead and take pleasure in doing any of the things described? most certainly not, and neither would any of the Turkish societies that i know. Did this event that Ivan is describing in the past really occurred? I do not know,  people were killing people to survive, as I said ignorance combined with a lot of things could have lead this to happen. It is a sad and tragic event, I love children, I would've done everything in my power to protect them then and still will now. Not all human are evil and bad, you cannot generalize, statistically this isnt correct.  We meed much more to generalize such an idea to a population that Ivan is just talking out of vengeance about humans. How can we compare ourselves to animals? Animals are of course pure, do not have any cruel intentions to conquer the world however they dont have the brain and mind capacity of a human. Yes, they are very intellectual but can they reason? ( Maybe monkeys and closed related species can but hey, go figure!) A human can have a evil mind and use it for evil, torture other humans and animals and have hatred in the heart and mind or a human can be nice, naive, caring and be so gentle.  I can continue disagreeing on his idea of "devil" and "God" but i think i wrote enough. Ivan needs to probably sit me down and get his message or ideas across to me because through this article , i am not impressed and ruling againts him. 

[taniki0108]

"am capable of profound suffering, but another man will never be able to know the degree of my suffering,because he is another and not me"

 

This sounded much like the conversation Weirob was having with Miller in A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality by John Perry.  You are able to say how you feel because its you and only you can truly know how you feel, someone else may assume or may have felt something similar to what yu felt but its just not he same.  Even in the case of children, you may feel like what that person is doing is wrong and you wonder why can't they see that what they are doing is wrong. It comes back to the same thing, you can't because you are not in their body and you don't have their mind so you can't comprehend what's going on in their brain. If we wish to admit it we all do find some form of pleasure in see someone suffer, if we felt that this person has done us wrong. In the long run two wrongs don't make a right, but because its part of humans nature we tend to see an eye for an eye.  As parents its very difficult for you to draw the line on whether to span their kids or not, but there is a difference between discipline and abuse.  A lot of people are grown to believe that if you punish someone you will get the most out of them, its everywhere even the law does it.  It's even in the church, the Pastor is is telling the congregation that they are being punished for their sins, so its hard for people  not to want to punish others because after all the church is  telling you that God does it, so if God does it shouldn't it be ok for me to do.

 

Is it wrong for a human to want to see another human hurt, if you felt that, that human had in someway violated them?

[staceydavidyants]

“I think the devil does not exist, and man has therefore created him, he has created him in his own nature and likeness.”

With this statement Dostoevsky comments on the nature of man itself. We say that those who are particularily evil have been possessed by the devil, and we take the devil to be the epitomy of evil itself. But yet, if we did not have any evil in the world, then man would have no need for the idea of the “devil” and “hell,” being where all of those who are evil go. Dostoevsky shows that man inherently created the devil by committing those evil acts that we see in the world. It is true that men who are most vicious and cruel and most often referred to as animals. But Dostoevsky is correct in pointing that this is unfair to call them that because of the nature of the animal. No animal commits vicious or cruel acts just for the mere fact to be cruel and harmful to other living things. Any vicious act that an tiger or lion commits that can seem cruel to us, is actually committed out of pure survival habits and instince, much different from the vicious acts that man can commit. Man does cruel things particularly with the intent to cause pain, and that even brings pleasure to the one causing it. Basically, man gets off on causing others pain, while animals only do it for mere surivival. Dostoevsky talks about the Turks who hang men their ears to suffer and only kill them in the morning, clearly getting pleasure from the suffering of the man. An animal would never do this, it is not in their instinct to purposely cause pain. It is for this reason that man created the devil himself, through the evil acts being committed. The devil only exists through those who are evil and believe that it is ok to purposely cause pain to other individuals. Evil men love harming defenseless creatures, children and animals, and it from there that the idea of the devil stems. Harming a defenseless creature simply for pure pleasure is not the act of an animal, it is the act of man.

[pclottin]

" I think 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" (Dostoevsky, Rebillion 239)

    I may have strayed from the point here but, this stood out to me because it echoes in today's society. Humans sometimes manipulate religion to serve their own needs. Whether it be for wealth, status, or justification of wrong doing. I think Dostoesky believe that we all have evil in us. Maybe the "devil" isn't in hell, maybe he's in us and the concept of "God" is in us as well and they are constantly battling for power. Also, I got the sense that Dostoesky has an notion that humans are self centered. That we ultimately answer to ourselves. As if we are our own God.

[christela sion]

this reading was very interesting. in life there is good or bad. the same with there is a God and devil. not everyone believes in good or bad but they exist.

[trinimjs]

          There are people to this day in the 21st century still do not accept God's existence like Ivan. 

He open chapter 4 by saying "I must make an admission, Ivan began. "I never could understand how it's possible to love ones neighbors." pg#236.

 Ivan in my opinion understood that he must confess what he do not know in order to gain knowledge. And he  off to a good start in his understanding. 

This is what God want of us, he want us to confess like Ivan did. 

           In 1 Corinthian 1:27A States "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise."

To love ones neighbors sound ease, but confusing to Ivan.  we need to understand who God is and accept him as he is,

and Ivan do not accept God or dese he reject him. If Ivan accept God he will know the first and greatest command from God is to Love.

Love the Lord as Christ Love the church. who is the church? you may ask, Good question you/we are the church not a building.

But to get to this junction Ivan must accept and believe in the existence of God.

 

 

[nadezhda.yakimchenko]

In chapter Ivan, in the beginning talks about the cruelty of man. " Indeed, people speak sometimes about the 'animal' cruelty of man, but that is terribly unjust and offensive to animals, no animal could ever be so cruel as a man,so artfully, so artistically cruel."

He is right, animals could never be as cruel as humans because they don't have power hungry, greedy, spoiled individuals. When we look at some of the acts that are committed not just in war but day to day on the streets we are all first to say that it is 'in humane ' but in reality that is humane as it gets. Our race is cruel and corrupted by greed and power and we will do anything to make sure we live and have our ' necessaties'. We enjoy the pain we cause to others because they show the weakness we refuse to, we will lie, cheat and steal to be at the top of our game even if it means ending someone else. That. Is the way of man and I don't not believe it will ever change.

[Joey Wu]

         Ivan has thrown in a lot of good and bad points in my opinion. While reading "Rebellion", i chuckled at the part when he said that "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...(pg 237 last 3 lines)." I now understand what Ivan is trying to tell us, even though i slightly disagree with his statement in the beginning. Reading about how humans, esp adults treat children is quite disturbing.

         Ivan tells us little stories about how children were treated. One child, age 5, was tortured by her parents in every way possible. "They beat her, flogged her, kicked her, NOT KNOWING WHY THEMSELVES, until her whole body was nothing but bruises...locked her all night in the outhouse in the freezing cold, smeared her face with her excrement and made her eat her excrement". (This also reminded me of a REAL EVENT, Junko Furuta, I STRONGLY suggest that if you have a weak stomach do not google search it, it is about a young woman being tortured for 44 days). These acts are just brutal and extremely terrible. Ivan is trying to argue that children, before the age of 8 are completely innocent, but after the age of 8, they are bad and will be bad when they reach adulthood. That is the one part i disagree with Ivan. I believe that not all adult humans are terrible like that of the 5 year old child's parents. Ivan strengthens up his argument by giving another example, or short story, and that is about the story of Richard. 

          Richard was treated like "an object", forced to work in the fields, and starved from hunger, even pigs' mash was better than what he usually ate. He wanted to eat pig's mash but was not given the permission AND if he was to eat some, he would be beaten. As a result, "He spent his whole childhood and his youth, until he grew up and, having the gathered strength  went out to steal for himself....he ended by killing some old man and robbing him, he was caught and condemned to death. (page 239-240)  The reason why i picked this out from Ivan's argument is because sometimes people, or adults do certain things because of their childhood. I honestly think that yes it is wrong for him to steal and kill but he felt that it is right for him to do so because he has suffered so much in his life and thinks that it is his turn to live the right way. Ivan, on the other hand sees this as a chain reaction and thinks that children are innocent, and adults are the ones to blame, even though Richard was innocent as a child but not as an adult. Another story is about the death of a boy who, was probably having some fun, threw a stone at a dog and hurt its paw. As a result, the owner of the dog dragged his mother out, let the boy run away for a few meters, let the dogs out, and watched as the mother watched his son get ripped into shreds. This is another terrible deed done by an adult, which Ivan is trying to tell us that we are all evil.

          "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 (page 244 mid section)?" Ivan is also saying that how can things get redeemed if terrible deeds have already happened? He is saying that things can not be undone, like, for example, a person being a victim of a rape (sorry if that was a bit too much). "Not worth it because her tears remained unredeemed. They must be redeemed, otherwise there can be no harmony. But how, how will you redeem them? Is it possible? Can they be redeemed by being avenged? But what do i care if they are avenged, what do i care if the tormentors are in hell, what can hell set right here, if these ones have already been tormented (page 245 mid section)? One final thought that i want to say is that to counter Ivan's philosophy, I would say that not all people are bad. We live and we learn. Even if we live in a bad environment or bad parenting, or even bad influence, we do not necessarily HAVE to be a terrible adults in the future. 

[tresjoli17]

“So people themselves are to blame: they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, knowing they would become unhappy – so why pity them?

Oh, with my pathetic, earthly, Euclidean mind, I know that there is suffering that none are to blame and that is all just Euclidean gibberish. Of course I know that, and of course I cannot consent to live by it! What do I care that none are to blame and I know it – I need retribution, otherwise I will destroy myself.”

Here Ivan complains that even though he is taught not to cast blame on others, (“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”), and to endure unmitigated suffering through the course of one’s life in order to gain entry into the kingdom of heaven in the afterlife, he cannot comply to do so. His main argument  in this chapter is that if we, (adults), are condemned to suffer on earth in order to get into heaven, ( due to the sins of Adam & Eve and our own respective sins), then what then should be the price of innocent children? Ivan sees no validation worthy for the suffering of still innocent children. I believe he states he needs retribution otherwise he will destroy himself, because he cannot see continued suffering without a sound reason to continue to hope.                                                                                                                                     He tries to justify his taking retribution against those that sin against him while here on earth. He claims that he does not blaspheme, (even though what he is doing is in exact accordance with what the bible dictates you should not do.) He is essentially rebelling at the idea that mankind’s suffering as a whole should equate to the price of gaining entry to heaven. He has no sympathy for the suffering of adults because they are guilty of sin.  He only argues that the suffering and tears of children is underserved and is not avenged, and it is not worth the promised harmony in life after death. He also argues that even if the children’s torturers go to hell after death, how then does hell right their wrongs against children? Ivan states he wants see to forgiveness but not at the cost of more suffering.                                              In my opinion, Ivan is very angry at the behavior of people but he seems to have good intentions. I feel as though through this character, the author is trying to convey that he would rather see men treat each other with respect and kindness all the time rather than just suffer at the hands of each other, only to be told that it is right that you suffer and you must forgive. He seems to lack faith in his religion as he does not have the patience to see God wreak vengeance against those that have wronged the innocent. I can relate to that. Christianity teaches you to be forgiving and to “turn the other cheek” but as human beings we are very flawed and extremely emotional in our personal dealings.  Even though he is fictional, I feel that Ivan has been wronged to the extent that he is unfeeling. He uses the example of the suffering of children because he wanted to appeal to Alyosha’s, (and any other reader’s) sensitivity. Only a sick minded person would agree that the torturing of innocent children should be encouraged. I also think it was interesting that even though Alyosha’s position was to defend his faith, he found himself agreeing with Ivan’s points, only bringing up the crucifixion of Christ at the end of the chapter.

[kenlyv]

"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.”


I agree with Ivan why should a child have to suffer. Children are the most innocent being when it comes to human. Majority of the time children doesn't know what they are doing. child need guidance. They are also to young to have sin. How can a child have sin, if the child not sure what is sin or know what is right from wrong. I also believe Ivan made a valid point.

[Linda Chen]

"The Grand Inquisitor"
The idea that Jesus is reborn and is doing the same miracles as he once did over 2000 years ago is an idea of it's own, but the mere fact that the Pope wants to stop him sound unbelievable. The purpose as to why he wants to stop Jesus from bring hope or teaching people of how to be good in their entirety shows that the pope has a different view of keeping the faith. People almost certainly realize at young age that were are not perfect yet the Bible teaches about a life that is judged by God for their imperfect ways. This is a very tall measure to subscribe to people. People would like to at least feel as though they are living a life righteousness that is acceptable to God. In stead the burden of knowing how much wrong we commit and will commit becomes too much to carry according to the Pope. So at the cost of getting rid of this burden and keep the congregation, is salvation, the very root of Christianity. To the Pope, it seems like a logistical way of approaching life. But I wonder what sought of life would the Pope have knowing that he wrongfully taught people the wrong doctrine. Wouldn't the blood of the innocent people be on his hands for leading people in the wrong direction? The concept of the pope reassuring people will have a burden free life if they do good is wrong because there are no accountability for any wrong doing. The moral of the story is I believe is humanism. To do good unto others and others will do good unto you is the concept the church is propagating. I do not agree with this concept of humanism, because although there are bad in th world and people in general will fail to be perfect, the Bible, Torah, and Koran must also contain reasons for for not being perfect. These book that sets the standard of living must have reasons as to why it is normal to commit sins yet be forgiven. There has to be a remedy therefore to condemn Jesus yet again for the same actions he once did 2000 years ago seems like a coincidence. It shows that the price of forgiveness must be paid over and over again for the sins of mankind and the even the most closest, religious people can make mistakes.

[m.inam.gul]

"Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them"

I think this phase shows a meaningful understanding in how it can relate to people. I suppose in sort of a religious sense, people were promised and granted paradise, instead people desired and choose freedom in turn knowing they would ultimately become unhappy. It's understandable i guess were Ivan gets his anger filled, vague impressions from. I found it interesting however breaking up into groups in class and trying to dissect weather the illustrations and the urgings were by pathos, logos or ethos. Even though i was in the pathos group i personally believe Ivan uses lots of reason, logos. He looks at history, and events that happen and examines the perspectives of man and its nature. However the examples (of the children) Ivan provides to Alyosha are threw pathos.

Question that i find interesting is that if there's no god, is then everything permitted? Meaning if there are no morals and ethics established then is everything just allowed? 

[Teresa Sanchez5901]

After we had our lecture in class just a random thought, could Ivan have been one of the one of the children he spoke about , could he have been mistreated, abused and be made an example of like the little boy who threw the rock at the dog and paid for it with his life. Was his family life dysfunctional or the relationship with his father?He kind of reminds me of Socrates in a way with his countless quotations and questions never really getting to a point.