The Legend of The Grand Inquisitor

[jefferiah]

This is a story within the novel The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan Karamazov, the atheist intellectual brother, tells this legend he has composed to his youngest brother Alyosha (Alexei), the young novice in an orthodox monastery. The character of Ivan I think is probably one of Dostoevsky's representations of himself---his intellectual youth before becoming a Christian. Anyhow....here is the Legend of The Grand Inquisitor:

http://www.academic.marist.edu/nork/fdfinal.htm

[cybercoma]

I'll read that when I get a chance, in the meantime could you post what your point is?

[jefferiah]

I'll read that when I get a chance, in the meantime could you post what your point is?

I don't have one. But it is quite a thought-provoking piece of literature. From a critical perspective Ivan Karamazov analyzes the temptation of Christ. His Grand Inquisitor is actually not a believer but one who instead of rejecting those temptations accepts them. It has a great deal to do with Jesus allowing freedom. One of the many themes Dostoevsky deals with in this book is the existence of suffering.

Dostoevsky was a brilliant man. He basically rejected Nietzsche's ideas through his characters and published them as examples of folly before Nietzsche did. He was well acquainted with the problems of suffering. I am sure his intellect was a cause of suffering to him.

An interesting fact is that in his youth he was sort of a rebellious socialist. He was arrested for treason for belonging to a socialist organization. (His books which predate the Russian revolution by quite a few years show the seeds of the revolution already among the people, among his characters.) He was given the death penalty for treason. He was sentenced to solitary confinement in a silent cell for months before his execution was to be carried out. On the day he was blindfolded and marched before the firing squad, the Czar (who had already had this planned) had a messenger sent to commute his sentence. It was a mock execution. Dostoevsky was sent to hard labour prison. It was hear that he ran into some of the most psychologically depraved individuals he ever met and became sort of a hobby criminal psychologist, and also here that he began to read the Bible, and form an understanding of grace.

The mock execution left a lasting impact on his life, since he already had nervous problems (he was an epileptic). And also I think it made him a firm opponent of capital punishment.

Anyways, I am not praising this piece, nor am I criticizing this piece. I do not have a point. It is an interesting snippet from the works of Dostoevsky. I don't necessarily recommend reading him...he is quite dark and gloomy and can lure you into the depths of depression at times.

He was brilliant and perhaps in some ways he wasn't. He seemed to have developed some radical ideas about the superiority of the Russian church, etc etc. He was a compulsive gambler and wrote his books while running from debtors. As Robertson Davies might say....he had a rear end too. He may have even been an anti-Semite, I am not sure. People have said so. Nonetheless, whatever he was, it is an interesting piece.

Anyhow

Edited August 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Bah, eh you know what Cybercoma...on second thought.....it aint all that important to read it anyway. You can if you like, though. But it is kind of long, and sort of a section in the middle of a book---kind of like watching Lost episode number 35. And yeah, I kind of hate when people ask me to read something.

Edited August 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

I'll read it if you're trying to make a point with it. I've read a "Coles Notes" sort of summary on it, to have an idea of where you're coming from and it sounds like an interesting read. A few atheists seem to suggest that there is a problem with the logic, in the sense that people aren't solitary, as is what is implied by the tortured atheist in the piece, but we live in societies and are social animals. The other idea that seems to be floating around is that Jesus suffering can't stop our suffering because it has added more suffering to the world.

I can't give you my opinion though, since I haven't actually read it. I can tell you though, it does sound like a good read.

Edited August 18, 2007 by cybercoma

[jefferiah]

Hmmm well I am not accepting Dostoevksy's words as gospel truth, either. But then I think the fact that atheists might point to a problem in it may be a misunderstanding of the point, or a rebuttal of a Christian's take on it. Or maybe I am wrong.

In one sense the Grand Inquisitor is convenient for Dostoevsky to use as a display...I mean since he is the writer, he gets to make the rules and you know.

But perhaps the reason this story is so important metaphysically (even if you are not Christian), is it shows an interesting perpespective on what the temptation of Jesus meant. And if you wish to perhaps draw a parallel, to two distinct sides in human philosophy. You often mention horrible things like the Inquisition. I think this story points to the fact that the Inquisitor did not resist the temptation but agreed to it. He was not serving the ideal of Jesus. And actually we are all guilty of that.

The Inquisitor was smart enough to understand the meaning of the Temptation. But he made the wrong choice.

A parallel could be made to Neitzsche and the Will To Power!! The idea is nothing brilliant on Neitzsche's part. He was simply able to cleverly represent in abstract a concept that is much much older than he is. The Will to Power is sort of what Satan proposed to Jesus. Jesus wisely rejected it.

Another parallel could be drawn to The Lord of The Rings......

The ring was evil, but powerful. The folly of the characters of Saruman and Boromir was that they could use the ring to do good. This was the temptation. Boromir was repentant, Saruman was not. You know, Satan, was not tempting Jesus to eat lots of rich food and drive a Ferrari. He appealed to his sense of compassion and proposed that if you had the power I could now give you, think of the good you could do.

So really there is no point I am making. I am not using the story as a critique of atheism or anything like that. It is more of a discussion point. But you know metaphysical discussions can get pretty tiring too. And I know you said you like my explanations in the other thread (whether you genuinely mean that or not), but in any case, I am just a plain little man and I am not really qualified to explain God to you. You know, I can't explain everything to you. I can't tell you the meaning of suffering. I can't explain every part of the Bible. I can't explain Dostoevsky aptly either. But I can tell you that my belief in God does not justify any bad actions I commit. I do bad things, but not because I feel I have a divine right to. I am human, Cybercoma.

Edited August 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

deleted----an editing mistake---i made a new post attempting to edit the one above

Edited August 18, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

And I know you said you like my explanations in the other thread (whether you genuinely mean that or not), but in any case, I am just a plain little man and I am not really qualified to explain God to you. You know, I can't explain everything to you. I can't tell you the meaning of suffering. I can't explain every part of the Bible. I can't explain Dostoevsky aptly either. But I can tell you that my belief in God does not justify any bad actions I commit. I do bad things, but not because I feel I have a divine right to. I am human, Cybercoma.

I really do like your explanations, I think they're interesting to read, whether I agree or not. The point I was trying to make in that other thread is that I think there are lots of things in the Bible that we can agree on. There are lots of really great messages in the Bible, but the horribleness of the Bible far outweighs the positive message in it.

The example of the Amalekites is an interesting one because I think we can both agree that anyone acting in the manner of Saul and committing genocide on a group of people (not only genocide but destroying all livestock too...yikes) is wrong. Put God aside in the story and look at what actually happened, it's horrifying. Imagine... all the women, children and infants being murdered too. It's sickening. Put God into the picture and say that it was a command given by him and it boggles the mind.

Can you see the story from that point? If not, I'm sure we can agree that genocide on that scale is wrong and if it were to happen today, it'd be appalling.

I think we can also agree with the beauty of passages like Proverbs 10:12 "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins."

Or Ecclesiastes 2:24 "There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour."

I'm glad you don't do horrible things in the name of God, a lot of people don't; however, there are people that feel it is acceptable to deny homosexuals the same rights as everyone else and there are people who feel it is within God's good grace to subjugate women.

I feel altruism and morality are in human beings best interest for survival, thus we show those characteristics even without belief in religion or a deity. I also don't feel as though there is enough evidence to justify belief in a divine spirit that looks over everything and started everything. I'm quite capable of living a happy, good and moral life without believing in these things that look like superstition to me.

Edited August 19, 2007 by cybercoma

[ft.niagara]

There are lots of really great messages in the Bible, but the horribleness of the Bible far outweighs the positive message in it.

I have to agree that there were many acts by the early Jews which seem to be genocide. Jericho's walls came down after an attacking Jewish army marched around them, and blew a horn. Most likely, the horn was a signal, and the walls were being breached by a small group, assisted by an insider. After the breach, nearly EVERYONE was killed, and this was God's will, because the Jews were his chosen ones. And what had the people of Jericho done, except not being Jewish?