I too was very influenced and impacted by this book. Problem of pain is a theme as well as the intellectual dismissal of morality. fr dr Thomas Daly oblate of desales dissertation arguing his interpretation of the book of job. He argues job demonstrates that trauma leads to contemplation and a transcendent experience with divinity that ushers in wisdom about the divine order behind trauma and pain. also fr dr iannuzzi contributes the luisian doctrine of original sin as human absence of ordering the world by waging divine authority resulting in Disorder and trauma- chapter 2 of his dissertation. Less to the point but helpful is Thomas more dialogue of comfort against tribulation demonstrating value in psychologically suffering about the value of… suffering- dr James of divine Will era - fiat!
So im 2 years late but Fuck it Ill give my 2 cents. Warning: This is going to be a LONG response to a tl;dr will be provided. Its important to note when discussing the brothers karamazov that when writing it, Doestoevsky seperated Ivan and Alyoshas chapters, with Alyoshas taking many months to write. They were difficult, and he rewrote them dozens of times until he finally got what he wanted. With Ivan however, the chapters were written in days. He poured every doubt and disbelief he had into Ivans character and he wrote it all in a frenzy. Ivan was far easier to write than Alyosha, because the fcat is that Ivan is logically sound. He makes a far more believable argument than Alyosha. You naturally find yourself if not agreeing with him then at least understanding him. But this is where Doestoevsky distinguishes what makes Ivan right or wrong. You see, Dostoevsky was a Christian. He disagrees with Ivan. But how can he if he makes such a compelling case for him and not much argument against him? Fittingly and Ironically, the answer is found in Ivans own writing: The Grand Inquisitor. The poem tells of the second coming of Christ and his confrontation with an inquisitor who renounces Christ for making grave mistakes. In the parable of the 3 temptations, Jesus rejects the devils offer to give mankind food, warmth and peace in exchange for their free will. The inquisitor accuses christ of forsaking mankind and allowing a world where children are born into torture and suffer until their deaths in exchange for an idea that some people can decide for themselves what to do. The argument makes sense, and when asked for a response christ doesnt attempt to justify or excuse his choice with logic or reason. Instead, he simply kisses the inquisitor on the cheek. An act of love over an act of reason. Thus leads us back to Ivan. Ivan is a very intelligent man, he van analyse the world and people around him and dance circles around them. He sees through almost every character and always has some upper hand. However, hes also deeply unhappy. Unhappy because the world had posed a serious problem to him. Ivan wants happiness for all and yet constantly sees that this isnt the case. The world doesnt reward good and evil. Logic shows that the tradtional view of christianity is wrong and that there is no consequence to being good or bad, and this troubles him. A key part of Ivans character is that he is a kind person. He wants justice beyond anything else, and would reject a utopia on earth if it meant the suffering of even 1 innocent, and he wants others to see what he sees. He wants others to understand that evil exists in the world unchallenged and that praying to dear kind God isnt helping. He tells this to Smerdyakov, a meek but bitter man who resents the world and claims to him that everything is permitted. Unfortunately for Ivan, this is how Dostoevsky disputes Ivan and his reasoning. Smerdyakov hears Ivans proposal and executes upon it. Unlike Ivan, Smerdyakov does not value human life. He murders a man who may very well be his own father and frames his innocent brother and only sees the gain it has for himself, not the brutality or inhumanity of it. While Dmitris trial commences and it seems more and more likley that he'll be sent to Siberia, Smerdyakov confesses to Ivan in a rage that he murdered Fyodor and that Ivans very ideas pushed him to do it. Here Ivan gets his in the face with how his actions have led to this point. By encouraging others to embrace reason and logic over a belief of good and evil, Ivan had enabled a man like Smerdyakov to give into his worst desires and destroy 2 lives for gain. Ivan takes a stand agaisnt Smerdyakov and plans to use the proof Smerdyakov gave as evidence against him, and in retaliation Smerdyakov kills himself, just to spite Ivan. With Smerdyakov dead, saving Dmitri has become near impossible. If Ivan had continued to listen to reason, he wouldve given up. But he didnt. He showed up at court, told his tale, gave his evidence and was laughed off, called mad and dragged out of the court. But to the bitter end, no matter what personal degradation or humiliation he endured he was determined to do the right thing. Here, Ivan is sort of baptised. Not literally, but in the spirit of Christianity he is rejecting the common reason in favour of doing good and defending an innocent man. And even though Ivan fails and Dmitri is convicted, Ivan doesnt give up. For once he uses his brilliance to help someone, and devises an escape plan to save Dmitri by intercepting the train and bribing all necesary officials. Ivan is my favourite charcter in all of fiction and literature and this is just scratching the surfact of him, but its the basic argument. Dostoevsky believed in goodness over reason and shows why, Ivan was a man of reason and lived a fairly miserable life, even though he proved that he was a good man in his heart. Smerdyakov beliveed in nothing but reason and it destroyed him. Only Alyosha, who believed in Goodness above all else was happy and spends the whole book supporting other people and making their lives better. Its no coincidence that Alyosha helps the very same people Ivan claims to wish to help. Does God exist, and why does he permit innoecnts suffering? The answer will change nothing. The world is a dark and horrific place at times, and the onky way we can really combat this is to just do our best for each other. To show up for a friend when things get rough or to make a stranger laugh when they need it. The little bits of goodness that get us through life. Living purely for rationality will only lead to pain. tl;dr Ivan misses the point of his own question. God when thought of from a purely rational viewpoint has many contradictory aspects, but the story shows that only seeing the logic and reason behind something is taking away its humanity and its influence on us and our lives. Christianity isnt about the reasoning of goodness, but goodness in and of itself (at least the type of christiantiy that should be practiced.)
@@hdcbpxsytahdcbpxFunnily enough I actually had a far better draft of this made, then it got deleted as soon as I was finished because I misclicked my mouse lmao. But thanks for the feedback anyway, it’s nice to know someone read it all the way through
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
What a great book
I too was very influenced and impacted by this book. Problem of pain is a theme as well as the intellectual dismissal of morality. fr dr Thomas Daly oblate of desales dissertation arguing his interpretation of the book of job. He argues job demonstrates that trauma leads to contemplation and a transcendent experience with divinity that ushers in wisdom about the divine order behind trauma and pain. also fr dr iannuzzi contributes the luisian doctrine of original sin as human absence of ordering the world by waging divine authority resulting in Disorder and trauma- chapter 2 of his dissertation. Less to the point but helpful is Thomas more dialogue of comfort against tribulation demonstrating value in psychologically suffering about the value of… suffering- dr James of divine Will era - fiat!
Dostoevsky answers it through the same novel. He was a Christian.
So im 2 years late but Fuck it Ill give my 2 cents. Warning: This is going to be a LONG response to a tl;dr will be provided.
Its important to note when discussing the brothers karamazov that when writing it, Doestoevsky seperated Ivan and Alyoshas chapters, with Alyoshas taking many months to write. They were difficult, and he rewrote them dozens of times until he finally got what he wanted. With Ivan however, the chapters were written in days. He poured every doubt and disbelief he had into Ivans character and he wrote it all in a frenzy. Ivan was far easier to write than Alyosha, because the fcat is that Ivan is logically sound. He makes a far more believable argument than Alyosha. You naturally find yourself if not agreeing with him then at least understanding him. But this is where Doestoevsky distinguishes what makes Ivan right or wrong. You see, Dostoevsky was a Christian. He disagrees with Ivan. But how can he if he makes such a compelling case for him and not much argument against him? Fittingly and Ironically, the answer is found in Ivans own writing: The Grand Inquisitor. The poem tells of the second coming of Christ and his confrontation with an inquisitor who renounces Christ for making grave mistakes. In the parable of the 3 temptations, Jesus rejects the devils offer to give mankind food, warmth and peace in exchange for their free will. The inquisitor accuses christ of forsaking mankind and allowing a world where children are born into torture and suffer until their deaths in exchange for an idea that some people can decide for themselves what to do. The argument makes sense, and when asked for a response christ doesnt attempt to justify or excuse his choice with logic or reason. Instead, he simply kisses the inquisitor on the cheek. An act of love over an act of reason. Thus leads us back to Ivan.
Ivan is a very intelligent man, he van analyse the world and people around him and dance circles around them. He sees through almost every character and always has some upper hand. However, hes also deeply unhappy. Unhappy because the world had posed a serious problem to him. Ivan wants happiness for all and yet constantly sees that this isnt the case. The world doesnt reward good and evil. Logic shows that the tradtional view of christianity is wrong and that there is no consequence to being good or bad, and this troubles him. A key part of Ivans character is that he is a kind person. He wants justice beyond anything else, and would reject a utopia on earth if it meant the suffering of even 1 innocent, and he wants others to see what he sees. He wants others to understand that evil exists in the world unchallenged and that praying to dear kind God isnt helping. He tells this to Smerdyakov, a meek but bitter man who resents the world and claims to him that everything is permitted. Unfortunately for Ivan, this is how Dostoevsky disputes Ivan and his reasoning.
Smerdyakov hears Ivans proposal and executes upon it. Unlike Ivan, Smerdyakov does not value human life. He murders a man who may very well be his own father and frames his innocent brother and only sees the gain it has for himself, not the brutality or inhumanity of it. While Dmitris trial commences and it seems more and more likley that he'll be sent to Siberia, Smerdyakov confesses to Ivan in a rage that he murdered Fyodor and that Ivans very ideas pushed him to do it. Here Ivan gets his in the face with how his actions have led to this point. By encouraging others to embrace reason and logic over a belief of good and evil, Ivan had enabled a man like Smerdyakov to give into his worst desires and destroy 2 lives for gain. Ivan takes a stand agaisnt Smerdyakov and plans to use the proof Smerdyakov gave as evidence against him, and in retaliation Smerdyakov kills himself, just to spite Ivan. With Smerdyakov dead, saving Dmitri has become near impossible. If Ivan had continued to listen to reason, he wouldve given up. But he didnt.
He showed up at court, told his tale, gave his evidence and was laughed off, called mad and dragged out of the court. But to the bitter end, no matter what personal degradation or humiliation he endured he was determined to do the right thing. Here, Ivan is sort of baptised. Not literally, but in the spirit of Christianity he is rejecting the common reason in favour of doing good and defending an innocent man. And even though Ivan fails and Dmitri is convicted, Ivan doesnt give up. For once he uses his brilliance to help someone, and devises an escape plan to save Dmitri by intercepting the train and bribing all necesary officials. Ivan is my favourite charcter in all of fiction and literature and this is just scratching the surfact of him, but its the basic argument. Dostoevsky believed in goodness over reason and shows why, Ivan was a man of reason and lived a fairly miserable life, even though he proved that he was a good man in his heart. Smerdyakov beliveed in nothing but reason and it destroyed him. Only Alyosha, who believed in Goodness above all else was happy and spends the whole book supporting other people and making their lives better. Its no coincidence that Alyosha helps the very same people Ivan claims to wish to help.
Does God exist, and why does he permit innoecnts suffering? The answer will change nothing. The world is a dark and horrific place at times, and the onky way we can really combat this is to just do our best for each other. To show up for a friend when things get rough or to make a stranger laugh when they need it. The little bits of goodness that get us through life. Living purely for rationality will only lead to pain.
tl;dr Ivan misses the point of his own question. God when thought of from a purely rational viewpoint has many contradictory aspects, but the story shows that only seeing the logic and reason behind something is taking away its humanity and its influence on us and our lives. Christianity isnt about the reasoning of goodness, but goodness in and of itself (at least the type of christiantiy that should be practiced.)
thoroughly enjoyed reading this, thanks
@@hdcbpxsytahdcbpxFunnily enough I actually had a far better draft of this made, then it got deleted as soon as I was finished because I misclicked my mouse lmao. But thanks for the feedback anyway, it’s nice to know someone read it all the way through