So how did dostoyevski answer the arguments brought forward by Ivan in "The Grand Inquisitor" bit ?
So how did dostoyevski answer the arguments brought forward by Ivan in "The Grand Inquisitor" bit ?
Juan Martin
Other urls found in this thread:
Chase Evans
just be(lieve) yourself
Gabriel Howard
Is it even disagreeing with Dosto's own views?
Easton Flores
First, summarize the grand inquisitor’s arguments
Michael Walker
Indirectly, and in the exact same way God had addressed Job. Ivan contradicts himself, as he says that "if man is mortal all is permitted" and essentially views morality as wholly subjective, yet he judges Christ's decision upon a certain standard which presupposes objective morality, yet if he defines morality as subjective the entire argument falls apart. When Job asked God for the reasoning behind his suffering, all He had said was essentially "Are YOU me(God)?", of course not, there fore you have no standard by which to judge my actions for objective morality can only exist if there is a God. The overall thesis is that atheists take up a position of faith against God when giving their usual objection on the problem of evil as do Christians when they trust in God despite their suffering. Watch this if you want to learn more I guess:
Caleb Gray
>dostoyevski
Ethan Richardson
Is this the most overrated book in the history of literature? Just a bunch of one dimensional characters that represent obvious opposing viewpoints blabbering on for hundreds just so Dostoevsky can say muh morals. He was better off just writing a manifesto of how he feels instead of wasting our time with this garbage.
>good things happen to the brother that does good things
>bad things happen to the brothers that do bad things
Wow bravo Dostoevsky. So insightful.
Also who else here:
>Skips over the monk chapters
Feels good man,
William Russell
>dostoyevski
this, transliterated into cyrilic, is correct, pseud
Justin Morris
Wtf? Alyosha had a bunch of bad things happen to him. His father was murdered, his brother was sent to Siberia, his other brother became mentally ill. His beloved teacher died who told him to leave the monastery. He had his patience and virtue tested many times by his base acquaintance from the monastery as well as his own brother's lovers. Dude was walking around on eggshells getting tested in every corner.
Also the monk chapter is important because it showed the rise of his character and how that one person made monumental impacts on so many people, despite his squalid origins.
Dmitri was replenished by his guilt in the trial. His life is brand new
Josiah Davis
whats your favorite book, be insincere for "irony" if you are a coward
Parker Edwards
I dont read books I read Novels, grow up kid
Noah Diaz
yeah zossima’s divine call chapters were very moving to me. i like all the parts where there were insights on concrete human situations, it’s like a manifold of paraboles
William Sanders
didn't they break dmitri out of prison ?
Mason Robinson
It's implied they will do it
Hudson Torres
I think people very frequently broke out of the prisons they sent them to in Siberia, like it was a bit of a meme. I forget where I read this but I will try to remember
Xavier Lee
No, it's basically him unleashing his autism on the Catholic Church
Brayden Martin
>Dostoievskij
Anthony Reed
>i did not actually read the book
Tyler Johnson
i only read homegrown american literature. Moby Dick's is all one needs to read
Dylan Lewis
Every single major character is dynamic as fuck, in thought and in deed. How bad can you be at reading?
Sebastian Adams
obvious bait
Joseph Clark
Learn to appreciate life for its small blessings. While there is a lot of suffering in the world, it's worth living because there is love and unity, and the fact that many individuals with different ideologies can come together despite their differences. And that intellectualism alone is basically a pessimistic ideology that only concentrates on the bad things, and don't realize that there exists some pure creatures, kids, for example, that, while they do suffer for no reason, and they are not worth sacrificing for the sake for living, they still bring that purity and beauty of the simple life, and not the complex one. Basically, Dostovesky is just like heart vs. mind.
The Grand Inquisitor basically goes on a rant on how - it's not the standard "God makes suffer; therefore there is no God" - it's more like "Why did He put us here at all, if creatures as pure and innocent as children, are permitted to suffer for the sake of the existence free will?" It's not that God doesn't exist. It's more like "Free will is not worth this suffering. It is better if we didn't have free will at all then allow all of these innocents to suffer in consequence." This is the central argument for the book. Why did God allow us to suffer? Why didn't He let us choose whether we wanted to live a life of suffering or not? Ivan recognizes that God did allow this, but he is, again, rebelling against Him, which is why Alyosha got defensive. In fact, it would be better for Alyosha if Ivan just said that he doesn't believe in God. But that's not his argument. It's more like "I don't what You're doing, my Lord." That's on par with the devil because the devil believes in God, but he just rebelled against Him.
The entire rest of the book is building up this argument, and refuting it. They're not kidding when they call it "literary essays." It's brilliant how Dostovesky can argue so well for both sides, even though this book is more emotional than Crime and Punishment, which is a lot more rational and impersonal.
Not saying I agree with this theme, but that's the whole point of the book. If you idiots didn't skip the parts with the monk, it would be pretty obvious. There is a heavy emphasis on children, the injustice associated with them, and their remarkable purity and heart. And that's what Alyosha represents.
Btw, I'm not even Christian.