What do you conceive to be the story’s central purpose? How has it fully achieved that purpose?
The story’s central purpose is to examine religious faith and religious doubt truthfully and thoughtfully. I believe it has more than sufficiently met this purpose. It treats the timeless theme in a subtle, creative, and effective manner, by using its characters as symbols. It offers a very rich and complex interpretation of the theme.
I believe that the story hopes to convince the reader to choose faith and live a good life. For me, the story has not convinced me to believe in God, but it has enabled me to better understand why some choose faith. It has helped me appreciate their earnestness even if I don’t agree with their ideas. I’ve taken what I agree with from Zossima’s lessons, and I’ve been inspired to try to be a better person.
I believe the story also aims to restore faith in humanity. I think it has met this goal. Through Dmitri’s innocence (everyone believes that he is guilty of murdering his father, but he is innocent), through Ivan’s hypothetical recovery (Katerina takes him in after his performance at the trial and the hopeful ending of the book suggests that he will eventually come to terms with religion and morality), through Alyosha’s sustained goodness and faith (although his faith is tested numerous times, it is ultimately unwavering), I believe Dostoevsky shows that he believes humanity is fundamentally good and that it has the potential to be “saved”. What I love about Dostoevsky is that he sees humanity with great clarity, understands the many complexities of human nature (our desperation, our shortcomings, our passions) and loves all of it unconditionally. I think it is very inspiring that he has retained his faith in humanity through many personal struggles (such as his confinement in prison), and through living in such an oppressive and depressing time. I shared his faith in humanity before the novel, but now my faith has been renewed and strengthened.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Reflection 5
Does the story make use of symbols? If so, do the symbols carry or merely reinforce the meaning of the story?
One symbol from the story is the “breath of corruption” that plagues Zossima’s body after he passes. The monks and the townspeople anticipated a miracle after Zossima’s death because they all believed that he would be a saint. In saint lore, when a saint dies, his body emits a pleasant odour to symbolize to good that he has done in his life. However, Zossima’s body emits an unusually putrid smell. The unbelievers rejoiced that this was proof against religion, and even some believers rejoiced “for men love the downfall and disgrace of the righteous” (173). This affects Alyosha deeply. As Dostoevsky in his narrator role points out this event “forms a crisis and turning-point in his spiritual development, giving a shock to his intellect, which finally strengthened it for the rest of his life and gave it a definite aim” (172). He is greatly horrified and saddened by the turn of events. He is confused at first, but after hearing the deceased Zossima’s voice comfort him, his faith is strengthened. “The mystery of earth was one with the mystery of the stars … /Alyosha stood, gazed, and suddenly threw himself down on the earth. He did not know why he embraced it. He could not have told why he longed so irresistibly to kiss it, to kiss it all. But he kissed it weeping, sobbing, and watering it with his tears, and vowed passionately to love it, to love it for ever and ever. “Water the earth with the tears of your joy and love those tears,” echoed in his soul. / What was he weeping over? / Oh! In his rapture he was weeping even over those stars, which were shining to him from the abyss of space, and “he was not ashamed of that ecstasy.” There seemed to be threads from all those innumerable worlds of God, linking his soul to them, and it was trembling all over “in contact with other worlds>” He longed to forgive everyone and for everything, and to beg forgiveness. Oh, not for himself, but for all men, for all and for everything. “And others are praying for me too,” echoed again in his soul. But with every instant he felt clearly and as it were, tangibly, that something firm and unshakable as that vault of heaven had entered into his soul. It was as though some idea had seized the sovereignty of his mind- and it was for all his life and for ever and ever. He had fallen on the earth a weak boy, but he rose up a resolute champion, and he knew and felt it suddenly at the very moment of his ecstasy. And never, never, all his life long, could Alyosha forget that minute. /”Someone visited my soul in that hour,” he used to say afterwards, with implicit faith in his words.” (191). This incident is a symbol of how the religious are often disappointed in their anticipation of miracles to affirm their faith, and how the absence of miracles is often used by the non-religious as a point of ridicule. It shows how faith is very hard to sustain, how even the most religiously devote experience doubt, how miracles are often internal and how faith is very personal. I admire the sincerity of Alyosha’s belief, even as I think his beliefs delusional. This use of symbolism enriches the novel by introducing insights about religion in a subtle but effective way.
One symbol from the story is the “breath of corruption” that plagues Zossima’s body after he passes. The monks and the townspeople anticipated a miracle after Zossima’s death because they all believed that he would be a saint. In saint lore, when a saint dies, his body emits a pleasant odour to symbolize to good that he has done in his life. However, Zossima’s body emits an unusually putrid smell. The unbelievers rejoiced that this was proof against religion, and even some believers rejoiced “for men love the downfall and disgrace of the righteous” (173). This affects Alyosha deeply. As Dostoevsky in his narrator role points out this event “forms a crisis and turning-point in his spiritual development, giving a shock to his intellect, which finally strengthened it for the rest of his life and gave it a definite aim” (172). He is greatly horrified and saddened by the turn of events. He is confused at first, but after hearing the deceased Zossima’s voice comfort him, his faith is strengthened. “The mystery of earth was one with the mystery of the stars … /Alyosha stood, gazed, and suddenly threw himself down on the earth. He did not know why he embraced it. He could not have told why he longed so irresistibly to kiss it, to kiss it all. But he kissed it weeping, sobbing, and watering it with his tears, and vowed passionately to love it, to love it for ever and ever. “Water the earth with the tears of your joy and love those tears,” echoed in his soul. / What was he weeping over? / Oh! In his rapture he was weeping even over those stars, which were shining to him from the abyss of space, and “he was not ashamed of that ecstasy.” There seemed to be threads from all those innumerable worlds of God, linking his soul to them, and it was trembling all over “in contact with other worlds>” He longed to forgive everyone and for everything, and to beg forgiveness. Oh, not for himself, but for all men, for all and for everything. “And others are praying for me too,” echoed again in his soul. But with every instant he felt clearly and as it were, tangibly, that something firm and unshakable as that vault of heaven had entered into his soul. It was as though some idea had seized the sovereignty of his mind- and it was for all his life and for ever and ever. He had fallen on the earth a weak boy, but he rose up a resolute champion, and he knew and felt it suddenly at the very moment of his ecstasy. And never, never, all his life long, could Alyosha forget that minute. /”Someone visited my soul in that hour,” he used to say afterwards, with implicit faith in his words.” (191). This incident is a symbol of how the religious are often disappointed in their anticipation of miracles to affirm their faith, and how the absence of miracles is often used by the non-religious as a point of ridicule. It shows how faith is very hard to sustain, how even the most religiously devote experience doubt, how miracles are often internal and how faith is very personal. I admire the sincerity of Alyosha’s belief, even as I think his beliefs delusional. This use of symbolism enriches the novel by introducing insights about religion in a subtle but effective way.
Reflection 4
Who is the protagonist of the story? What are the conflicts? Are they physical, intellectual, moral, or emotional? Is the main conflict between sharply differentiated good and evil, or is it more subtle and complex?
Although Dostoevsky calls Alyosha the “hero of [his] story” (p 172), I see Ivan as the protagonist of the philosophical conflict. The struggle between religious faith and doubt is seen in Ivan’s inner turmoil. He believes in God but he struggles with and fails to reconcile the idea of a loving god with all the needless suffering of innocent children, and so rejects God: “This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, they thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn’t ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child’s groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can’t even understand what’s done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child’s prayer to “dear, kind God!” (123)… I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidian mind of man, that in the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, of all the blood they’ve shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened with men- but though all that may come to pass, I don’t accept it. I won’t accept it” (121). By rejecting God, he rejects immortality, and in his mind, by extension, he also rejects morality (as “good” and “bad” would be irrelevant on this earth and this life if there was no promise of pleasure or pain in the eternal afterlife). (I find this extension flawed. I myself am proof that one does not have to believe in God or immorality to have morals. This leads to the essential question that I alluded to at the end of the last reflection: is there an undeniable religious influence on morality, or is religion merely one interpretation of morality?). This rejection of morality plagues him as he does have morals. He sees that his father’s debauchery is wrong and feels disgusted that his thinking would logically regard his father’s sins as irrelevant. This is the most important conflict for Ivan. This intellectual, moral, and emotional conflict crescendos and eventually manifests itself in his physical illness after he learns that Smerdyakov was able to kill his father using his reasoning.
The main conflict is between a subtle and complex good and evil. Dostoevsky thinks religious belief is better than religious doubt, yet he does not decry doubt indiscriminately. He offers a serious and nuanced exploration of religious doubt in the character of Ivan. Yet his ultimate rejection of doubt is based on an error in logic. He assumes that morality cannot exist without the idea of God and immortality. I disagree, as everyone else on earth who is not a devout Christian is proof that people can have morals without believing in a Christian God.
Although Dostoevsky calls Alyosha the “hero of [his] story” (p 172), I see Ivan as the protagonist of the philosophical conflict. The struggle between religious faith and doubt is seen in Ivan’s inner turmoil. He believes in God but he struggles with and fails to reconcile the idea of a loving god with all the needless suffering of innocent children, and so rejects God: “This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, they thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn’t ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child’s groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can’t even understand what’s done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child’s prayer to “dear, kind God!” (123)… I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidian mind of man, that in the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, of all the blood they’ve shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened with men- but though all that may come to pass, I don’t accept it. I won’t accept it” (121). By rejecting God, he rejects immortality, and in his mind, by extension, he also rejects morality (as “good” and “bad” would be irrelevant on this earth and this life if there was no promise of pleasure or pain in the eternal afterlife). (I find this extension flawed. I myself am proof that one does not have to believe in God or immorality to have morals. This leads to the essential question that I alluded to at the end of the last reflection: is there an undeniable religious influence on morality, or is religion merely one interpretation of morality?). This rejection of morality plagues him as he does have morals. He sees that his father’s debauchery is wrong and feels disgusted that his thinking would logically regard his father’s sins as irrelevant. This is the most important conflict for Ivan. This intellectual, moral, and emotional conflict crescendos and eventually manifests itself in his physical illness after he learns that Smerdyakov was able to kill his father using his reasoning.
The main conflict is between a subtle and complex good and evil. Dostoevsky thinks religious belief is better than religious doubt, yet he does not decry doubt indiscriminately. He offers a serious and nuanced exploration of religious doubt in the character of Ivan. Yet his ultimate rejection of doubt is based on an error in logic. He assumes that morality cannot exist without the idea of God and immortality. I disagree, as everyone else on earth who is not a devout Christian is proof that people can have morals without believing in a Christian God.
Reflection 3
Does the theme reinforce or oppose popular notions of life? Does it furnish a new insight or refresh or deepen an old one?
The stance that Dostoevsky takes, one that favours religious belief, opposes popular notions of life from his contemporary Russia and from our modern world. “The isolation that prevails everywhere, above all in our age- it has not fully developed, it has not reached its limit yet. For everyone strives to keep his individuality as apart as possible, wishes to secure the greatest possible fullness of life for himself; but meantime all his efforts result not in attaining fullness of life but self-destruction, for instead of self-realisation he ends by arriving at complete solitude. All mankind in our age have split up into units, they all keep apart, each in his own groove; each one holds aloof, hides himself and hides what he has, from the rest, and he ends by being repelled by others and repelling them. He heaps up riches by himself and thinks, ‘How strong I am now and how secure,’ and in his madness he does not understand that the more he heaps up, the more he sinks into self-destructive impotence. For he is accustomed to rely upon himself alone and to cut himself off from the whole; he has trained himself not to believe in the help of others, in men and in humanity, and only trembles for fear he should lose his money and the privileges that he has won for himself. Everywhere in these days men have, in their mockery, ceased to understand that the true security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in isolated individual effort. But this terrible individualism must inevitably have an end, and all will suddenly understand how unnaturally they are separated from one another. It will be the spirit of the time, and people will marvel that they have sat so long in darkness without seeing the light. And then the sign of the Son of Man will be seen in the heavens …. But, until then, we must keep the banner flying. Sometimes even if he has to do it alone, and his conduct seems to be crazy, a man must set an example, and so draw men’s souls out of their solitude, and spur them to some act of brotherly love, that the great idea may not die.” (158-159). This monologue from a man who has examined himself and turned to religious faith after murdering in a fit of passion, is a rejection of his own world and our world today. It is very uncanny how Dostoevsky in this section saw into the future. For our own time is one of extreme isolation. Our capitalist society pits us against one another and our consumerist society values material goods over spiritual wellbeing. The sentiment that Dostoevsky expresses may have been common to Russian intellectuals and foreshadowed their rejection of capitalism and their love of the purest sentiments of communism.
The religious way of life that Zossima preaches are the antithesis of the shallow and miserable life described in the above excerpt. Through Zossima, Dostoevsky preaches humility, equality, fraternity (as in reflection 2’s excerpt). He teaches us to love unconditionally “Brothers, have no fear of men’s sin. Love a man even in his sin, for that is the semblance of Divine Love and is the highest love on earth. Love all God’s creation, the whole and every grain of sand in it. Love every leaf, every ray of God’s light. Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day” (167). He teaches us to judge no one, that we all sin and share responsibility for sin: “Remember particularly that you cannot be a judge of anyone. For no one can judge a criminal until he recognizes that he is just such a criminal as the man standing before him, and that he perhaps is more than all men to blame for that crime. When he understands that, he will be able to be a judge. …If you can take upon yourself the crime of the criminal your heart is judging, take it at once, suffer for him yourself, and let go without reproach. And even if the law itself makes you his judge, act in the same spirit so far as possible, for he will go away and condemn himself more bitterly than you have done. If, after your kiss, he goes away untouched, mocking at you, do not let that be a stumbling-block to you. It shows his time has not yet come, but it will come in due course. And if it come not, no matter; if not he then another in his place will understand and suffer, and judge and condemn himself, and the truth will be fulfilled. Believe that, believe it without doubt; for in that leis all the hope and faith of the saints” (168). He connects altruism and faith. (However, he says that if some people slip through the cracks, we should find comfort that some greater truth will be fulfilled that is greater than each man. This is an example of a point where I disagree with his teachings: I think we should care more about each person than an abstract idea.) He teaches that we must do all these things perpetually and not seek external affirmations but be satisfied with the knowledge that we are doing good (167). These interpretations of the Christian faith are not new, yet they are new to me. They have greatly humbled me and I feel the beauty and goodness of these teachings. I guess my initial rejection of religion was based on “incorrect” interpretations of religion. Religion itself is neither good nor bad, but just how you use it. ...At the same time, I must ask why do people need religion to remind them about this? I think Zossima's teachings are the basic tenents of being a good, kind, decent human being; these values are not exclusively Christian...
The stance that Dostoevsky takes, one that favours religious belief, opposes popular notions of life from his contemporary Russia and from our modern world. “The isolation that prevails everywhere, above all in our age- it has not fully developed, it has not reached its limit yet. For everyone strives to keep his individuality as apart as possible, wishes to secure the greatest possible fullness of life for himself; but meantime all his efforts result not in attaining fullness of life but self-destruction, for instead of self-realisation he ends by arriving at complete solitude. All mankind in our age have split up into units, they all keep apart, each in his own groove; each one holds aloof, hides himself and hides what he has, from the rest, and he ends by being repelled by others and repelling them. He heaps up riches by himself and thinks, ‘How strong I am now and how secure,’ and in his madness he does not understand that the more he heaps up, the more he sinks into self-destructive impotence. For he is accustomed to rely upon himself alone and to cut himself off from the whole; he has trained himself not to believe in the help of others, in men and in humanity, and only trembles for fear he should lose his money and the privileges that he has won for himself. Everywhere in these days men have, in their mockery, ceased to understand that the true security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in isolated individual effort. But this terrible individualism must inevitably have an end, and all will suddenly understand how unnaturally they are separated from one another. It will be the spirit of the time, and people will marvel that they have sat so long in darkness without seeing the light. And then the sign of the Son of Man will be seen in the heavens …. But, until then, we must keep the banner flying. Sometimes even if he has to do it alone, and his conduct seems to be crazy, a man must set an example, and so draw men’s souls out of their solitude, and spur them to some act of brotherly love, that the great idea may not die.” (158-159). This monologue from a man who has examined himself and turned to religious faith after murdering in a fit of passion, is a rejection of his own world and our world today. It is very uncanny how Dostoevsky in this section saw into the future. For our own time is one of extreme isolation. Our capitalist society pits us against one another and our consumerist society values material goods over spiritual wellbeing. The sentiment that Dostoevsky expresses may have been common to Russian intellectuals and foreshadowed their rejection of capitalism and their love of the purest sentiments of communism.
The religious way of life that Zossima preaches are the antithesis of the shallow and miserable life described in the above excerpt. Through Zossima, Dostoevsky preaches humility, equality, fraternity (as in reflection 2’s excerpt). He teaches us to love unconditionally “Brothers, have no fear of men’s sin. Love a man even in his sin, for that is the semblance of Divine Love and is the highest love on earth. Love all God’s creation, the whole and every grain of sand in it. Love every leaf, every ray of God’s light. Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day” (167). He teaches us to judge no one, that we all sin and share responsibility for sin: “Remember particularly that you cannot be a judge of anyone. For no one can judge a criminal until he recognizes that he is just such a criminal as the man standing before him, and that he perhaps is more than all men to blame for that crime. When he understands that, he will be able to be a judge. …If you can take upon yourself the crime of the criminal your heart is judging, take it at once, suffer for him yourself, and let go without reproach. And even if the law itself makes you his judge, act in the same spirit so far as possible, for he will go away and condemn himself more bitterly than you have done. If, after your kiss, he goes away untouched, mocking at you, do not let that be a stumbling-block to you. It shows his time has not yet come, but it will come in due course. And if it come not, no matter; if not he then another in his place will understand and suffer, and judge and condemn himself, and the truth will be fulfilled. Believe that, believe it without doubt; for in that leis all the hope and faith of the saints” (168). He connects altruism and faith. (However, he says that if some people slip through the cracks, we should find comfort that some greater truth will be fulfilled that is greater than each man. This is an example of a point where I disagree with his teachings: I think we should care more about each person than an abstract idea.) He teaches that we must do all these things perpetually and not seek external affirmations but be satisfied with the knowledge that we are doing good (167). These interpretations of the Christian faith are not new, yet they are new to me. They have greatly humbled me and I feel the beauty and goodness of these teachings. I guess my initial rejection of religion was based on “incorrect” interpretations of religion. Religion itself is neither good nor bad, but just how you use it. ...At the same time, I must ask why do people need religion to remind them about this? I think Zossima's teachings are the basic tenents of being a good, kind, decent human being; these values are not exclusively Christian...
Reflection 2
What contribution to the story is made by its setting? Is there particular setting essential, or could the story have happened elsewhere?
The setting (19th century Russia: an economically, politically and socially backward time) shapes the characters of the characters: they all capture the Russian spirit: one that bears great oppression and suffering, in despair succumbs to vice, but in the end has an inexhaustible faith in humanity’s goodness. The moving story in A Laceration in the Cottage on pages 100-108 is one example of this spirit. It’s depiction of one Russian peasant’s desperate struggle to maintain his dignity in the face of abject poverty shows how deeply and compassionately Dostoevsky understood the Russian people. The setting also greatly influences the novel’s philosophical conclusions. Because the conditions at the time were so oppressive, and there was hardly anything substantial that any one person could do to affect positive change, they had to believe and find comfort in something. “I don’t deny that there is sin in the peasants too. And the fire of corruption is spreading visibly, hourly, working from above downwards. The spirit of isolation is coming upon the people too. Money-lenders and devourers of the commune are rising up. Already the merchant grows more and more eager for rank, and strives to show himself cultured though he has not a trace of culture, and to this end meanly despises his old traditions, and is even ashamed of the faith of his fathers. He visits princes, though he is only a peasant corrupted. The peasants are rotting in drunkenness and cannot shake off the habit. And what cruelty to their wives, to their children even! All from drunkenness! I’ve seen in the factories children of nine years old, frail, rickety, bent and already depraved. The stuffy workshop, the din of machinery, work all day long, the vile language and the drink, the drink- is that what a little child’s heart needs? He needs sunshine, childish play, good examples all about him, and at least a little love. There must be no more of this, monks, no more torturing of children, ruse up and preach that, make haste, make haste! /But God will save Russia, for though the peasants are corrupted and cannot renounced their filthy sin, yet they know it is cursed by God and that they do wrong in sinning. So that our people still believe in righteousness, have faith in God and weep tears of devotion. /It is different with the upper classes. They following science, want to base justice on reason alone, but not with Christ, as before, and they have already proclaimed that there is no crime, that there is no sin. And that’s consistent, for if you have no God what is the meaning of crime? In Europe the people are already rising up against the rich with violence, and the leaders of the people are everywhere leading them to bloodshed, and teaching them that their wrath is righteous. But their “wrath is accursed, for it is cruel.” But god will save Russia as He has saved her many times. Salvation will come from the people, from their faith and their meekness. /Fathers and teachers, watch over the people’s faith and this will not be a dream. I’ve been struck all my life in our great people by their dignity, their true and seemly dignity. I’ve seen it myself, I can testify to it, I’ve seen it and marvelled at it, I’ve seen it in spite of the degraded sins and poverty-stricken appearance of our peasantry. They are not servile and even after two centuries of serfdom they are free in manner and bearing, yet without insolence , and not revengeful and not envious. “You are rich and noble, you are clever and talented, well, be so, God bless you. I respect you, but I know that I too am a man. By the very fact that I respect you without envy I prove my dignity as a man.” /In truth if they don’t say this (for they don’t know how to say this yet), that is how they act. I have seen it myself, I have known it myself, and, would you believe it, the poorer our Russian peasant is, the more noticeable is that serene goodness, for the rich among them are the most part corrupted already, and much of that is due to our carelessness and indifference. But God will save His people, for Russia is great in her humility. I dream of seeing, and seem to see clearly already, our future. It will come to pass that even the most corrupt of our rich will end by being ashamed of his riches before the poor, and the poor, seeing his humility, will understand and give way before him, will respond joyfully and kindly to his honourable shame. Believe me that it will end in that; things are moving to that. Equality is to be found only in the spiritual dignity of man, and that will only be understood among us. If we were brothers, there would be fraternity, but before that they will never agree about the division of wealth. We preserve the image of Christ, and it will shine forth like a precious diamond to the whole world. So may it be, so may it be!” (165-166). This is the beautiful dream of someone who loves his people very deeply but because of the conditions of Russia at the time, cannot do anything to help and thus is compelled to turn to a divine force.
The setting (19th century Russia: an economically, politically and socially backward time) shapes the characters of the characters: they all capture the Russian spirit: one that bears great oppression and suffering, in despair succumbs to vice, but in the end has an inexhaustible faith in humanity’s goodness. The moving story in A Laceration in the Cottage on pages 100-108 is one example of this spirit. It’s depiction of one Russian peasant’s desperate struggle to maintain his dignity in the face of abject poverty shows how deeply and compassionately Dostoevsky understood the Russian people. The setting also greatly influences the novel’s philosophical conclusions. Because the conditions at the time were so oppressive, and there was hardly anything substantial that any one person could do to affect positive change, they had to believe and find comfort in something. “I don’t deny that there is sin in the peasants too. And the fire of corruption is spreading visibly, hourly, working from above downwards. The spirit of isolation is coming upon the people too. Money-lenders and devourers of the commune are rising up. Already the merchant grows more and more eager for rank, and strives to show himself cultured though he has not a trace of culture, and to this end meanly despises his old traditions, and is even ashamed of the faith of his fathers. He visits princes, though he is only a peasant corrupted. The peasants are rotting in drunkenness and cannot shake off the habit. And what cruelty to their wives, to their children even! All from drunkenness! I’ve seen in the factories children of nine years old, frail, rickety, bent and already depraved. The stuffy workshop, the din of machinery, work all day long, the vile language and the drink, the drink- is that what a little child’s heart needs? He needs sunshine, childish play, good examples all about him, and at least a little love. There must be no more of this, monks, no more torturing of children, ruse up and preach that, make haste, make haste! /But God will save Russia, for though the peasants are corrupted and cannot renounced their filthy sin, yet they know it is cursed by God and that they do wrong in sinning. So that our people still believe in righteousness, have faith in God and weep tears of devotion. /It is different with the upper classes. They following science, want to base justice on reason alone, but not with Christ, as before, and they have already proclaimed that there is no crime, that there is no sin. And that’s consistent, for if you have no God what is the meaning of crime? In Europe the people are already rising up against the rich with violence, and the leaders of the people are everywhere leading them to bloodshed, and teaching them that their wrath is righteous. But their “wrath is accursed, for it is cruel.” But god will save Russia as He has saved her many times. Salvation will come from the people, from their faith and their meekness. /Fathers and teachers, watch over the people’s faith and this will not be a dream. I’ve been struck all my life in our great people by their dignity, their true and seemly dignity. I’ve seen it myself, I can testify to it, I’ve seen it and marvelled at it, I’ve seen it in spite of the degraded sins and poverty-stricken appearance of our peasantry. They are not servile and even after two centuries of serfdom they are free in manner and bearing, yet without insolence , and not revengeful and not envious. “You are rich and noble, you are clever and talented, well, be so, God bless you. I respect you, but I know that I too am a man. By the very fact that I respect you without envy I prove my dignity as a man.” /In truth if they don’t say this (for they don’t know how to say this yet), that is how they act. I have seen it myself, I have known it myself, and, would you believe it, the poorer our Russian peasant is, the more noticeable is that serene goodness, for the rich among them are the most part corrupted already, and much of that is due to our carelessness and indifference. But God will save His people, for Russia is great in her humility. I dream of seeing, and seem to see clearly already, our future. It will come to pass that even the most corrupt of our rich will end by being ashamed of his riches before the poor, and the poor, seeing his humility, will understand and give way before him, will respond joyfully and kindly to his honourable shame. Believe me that it will end in that; things are moving to that. Equality is to be found only in the spiritual dignity of man, and that will only be understood among us. If we were brothers, there would be fraternity, but before that they will never agree about the division of wealth. We preserve the image of Christ, and it will shine forth like a precious diamond to the whole world. So may it be, so may it be!” (165-166). This is the beautiful dream of someone who loves his people very deeply but because of the conditions of Russia at the time, cannot do anything to help and thus is compelled to turn to a divine force.
Reflection 1
Does the story have a theme? What is it? Is it implicit or explicit? Is it universal? Does it make you see things in a new or different way?
The story’s main theme is the struggle between religious faith and doubt. The theme is implicitly explored through the characters: each character represents one position or one aspect of one position in the religion debate. Alyosha represents religious faith and a loving, good, peaceful, productive existence. For example, near the beginning of the book Alyosha is described as thus: “He seemed throughout his life to put implicit trust in people: yet no one ever looked on him as a simpleton or naïve person. There was something about him which made on feel at once (and it was so all his life afterwards) that he did not care to be a judge of others- that he would never take it upon himself to criticise and would never condemn anyone for anything. He seemed, indeed, to accept everything without the least condemnation though often grieving bitterly: and this was so such that no one could surprise or frighten him even in his earliest youth. Coming at twenty to his father’s house, which was a very sink of filthy debaucher, he, chaste and pure as he was, simply withdrew in silence when to look on was unbearable, but without the slightest sign of contempt or condemnation. His father, who had once been in a dependent position, and so was sensitive and ready to take offence, met him at first with distrust and sullenness. “He does not say such,” he used to say, “and thinks the more.” But soon, within a fortnight indeed, he took to embracing him and kissing him terribly often, with drunken tears, with sottish sentimentality, yet he evidently felt a real and deep affection for him, such as he had never been capable of feeling for anyone before” (7). Ivan represents religious doubt and an isolated, tormented, unproductive existence. Their interactions with their world and their personal development throughout the story represent the conflict between the two opposing stances and ways of life. The theme is explored explicitly through conversations between characters about religion and the absence of religion. The chapters The Brothers Make Friends to The Grand Inquisitor (117-137) is an example of such a conversation between Ivan and Alyosha. Both sides are explored with depth and insight. For example, Ivan seems cold and indifferent at first blush. Yet, when he talks with Alyosha during The Brothers Make Friends (117-121), Ivan reveals that he rejects god because he cannot reconcile the idea of a loving god with the suffering of innocent children on earth. His confessions show that despite his doubt, he truly loves humanity.
It is a universal theme. Religion has been with humanity since the earliest days. Different religions have affected and continue to affect people from across the globe. Although this book deals specifically with Christianity in 19th century Russia, some of its points about faith and doubt can be projected to religion in general.
I’ve never been religious. I wasn’t raised to believe and practise a specific religion, as my parents grew up in Communist China. However, my parents are not atheists or agnostics; they are completely apathetic to religion. My own contact with religion has been very superficial: when I was in grade 5 or 6 I went to church a few times with my friend who was mildly religious (meaning she had been indoctrinated from birth and her faith was less a conscious choice and more of just an accepted and at that point still unquestioned part of her everyday life). I was remarkably unimpressed by my experience: I knew instinctively that the people and the stories that the preacher talked about were not plausible. I didn’t feel particularly uplifted by the hymns, nor did I feel that my life had been missing something until I heard of Jesus. I thought that it was a bit contrived that these people preached so sincerely to be good and forgiving and loving when what they preached was completely incongruous with the lives that we all lead outside the church. I thought it was bizarre that they prayed to someone. I tried hard to concentrate and hear a voice and feel god when the congregation prayed, but I felt nothing. Yet I didn’t feel that I was a bad person or that I didn’t try to be good without all the superfluous stories. I was unimpressed and unaffected by my experience at church. Later, in high school, I learned about religion and its role in inciting war, dividing and ostracizing people, and serving as a justification for imperialism and colonialism. I came to have a very negative understanding of religion, but knew it only as an important cause of such strife. Then, I read Dawkin’s God Delusion, through which I indirectly learned more about religion, although granted, his take on religion was extremely biased. At that point, I considered myself an atheist and anti-religious. However, since then, I’ve listened to and talked with devoted Christians and a Buddhist and a Muslim. These conversations have helped tone down my haughtiness towards religion and I’m in the process of reconsidering religion. I’m less concerned about whether God exists (I’ve come to the conclusion that it is impossible to satisfactorily prove his existence or his non-existence), and more interested in how people can believe in God (regardless of whether he exists or not) and how it affects them and how it affects society. The Brothers Karamazov has continued to help tone down my irreverent attitude towards religion. I still don’t believe in the existence of God, but the book has made me want to understand how people can believe in the existence of God. The book ultimately says that religious faith is the better choice, that religious faith will help us learn to refrain from judging others, to love unconditionally, to find peace of mind through abstaining from sensual pleasures, to truly connect with God and our fellow human beings (this is most explicit during Alyosha’s compilation of Zossima’s teachings in book VI The Russian Monk). I think these are beautiful lessons, and ones that I agree with and try to live by. Yet, I have a hard time convincing myself that religious belief is a necessary pre-requisite to live this way.
The story’s main theme is the struggle between religious faith and doubt. The theme is implicitly explored through the characters: each character represents one position or one aspect of one position in the religion debate. Alyosha represents religious faith and a loving, good, peaceful, productive existence. For example, near the beginning of the book Alyosha is described as thus: “He seemed throughout his life to put implicit trust in people: yet no one ever looked on him as a simpleton or naïve person. There was something about him which made on feel at once (and it was so all his life afterwards) that he did not care to be a judge of others- that he would never take it upon himself to criticise and would never condemn anyone for anything. He seemed, indeed, to accept everything without the least condemnation though often grieving bitterly: and this was so such that no one could surprise or frighten him even in his earliest youth. Coming at twenty to his father’s house, which was a very sink of filthy debaucher, he, chaste and pure as he was, simply withdrew in silence when to look on was unbearable, but without the slightest sign of contempt or condemnation. His father, who had once been in a dependent position, and so was sensitive and ready to take offence, met him at first with distrust and sullenness. “He does not say such,” he used to say, “and thinks the more.” But soon, within a fortnight indeed, he took to embracing him and kissing him terribly often, with drunken tears, with sottish sentimentality, yet he evidently felt a real and deep affection for him, such as he had never been capable of feeling for anyone before” (7). Ivan represents religious doubt and an isolated, tormented, unproductive existence. Their interactions with their world and their personal development throughout the story represent the conflict between the two opposing stances and ways of life. The theme is explored explicitly through conversations between characters about religion and the absence of religion. The chapters The Brothers Make Friends to The Grand Inquisitor (117-137) is an example of such a conversation between Ivan and Alyosha. Both sides are explored with depth and insight. For example, Ivan seems cold and indifferent at first blush. Yet, when he talks with Alyosha during The Brothers Make Friends (117-121), Ivan reveals that he rejects god because he cannot reconcile the idea of a loving god with the suffering of innocent children on earth. His confessions show that despite his doubt, he truly loves humanity.
It is a universal theme. Religion has been with humanity since the earliest days. Different religions have affected and continue to affect people from across the globe. Although this book deals specifically with Christianity in 19th century Russia, some of its points about faith and doubt can be projected to religion in general.
I’ve never been religious. I wasn’t raised to believe and practise a specific religion, as my parents grew up in Communist China. However, my parents are not atheists or agnostics; they are completely apathetic to religion. My own contact with religion has been very superficial: when I was in grade 5 or 6 I went to church a few times with my friend who was mildly religious (meaning she had been indoctrinated from birth and her faith was less a conscious choice and more of just an accepted and at that point still unquestioned part of her everyday life). I was remarkably unimpressed by my experience: I knew instinctively that the people and the stories that the preacher talked about were not plausible. I didn’t feel particularly uplifted by the hymns, nor did I feel that my life had been missing something until I heard of Jesus. I thought that it was a bit contrived that these people preached so sincerely to be good and forgiving and loving when what they preached was completely incongruous with the lives that we all lead outside the church. I thought it was bizarre that they prayed to someone. I tried hard to concentrate and hear a voice and feel god when the congregation prayed, but I felt nothing. Yet I didn’t feel that I was a bad person or that I didn’t try to be good without all the superfluous stories. I was unimpressed and unaffected by my experience at church. Later, in high school, I learned about religion and its role in inciting war, dividing and ostracizing people, and serving as a justification for imperialism and colonialism. I came to have a very negative understanding of religion, but knew it only as an important cause of such strife. Then, I read Dawkin’s God Delusion, through which I indirectly learned more about religion, although granted, his take on religion was extremely biased. At that point, I considered myself an atheist and anti-religious. However, since then, I’ve listened to and talked with devoted Christians and a Buddhist and a Muslim. These conversations have helped tone down my haughtiness towards religion and I’m in the process of reconsidering religion. I’m less concerned about whether God exists (I’ve come to the conclusion that it is impossible to satisfactorily prove his existence or his non-existence), and more interested in how people can believe in God (regardless of whether he exists or not) and how it affects them and how it affects society. The Brothers Karamazov has continued to help tone down my irreverent attitude towards religion. I still don’t believe in the existence of God, but the book has made me want to understand how people can believe in the existence of God. The book ultimately says that religious faith is the better choice, that religious faith will help us learn to refrain from judging others, to love unconditionally, to find peace of mind through abstaining from sensual pleasures, to truly connect with God and our fellow human beings (this is most explicit during Alyosha’s compilation of Zossima’s teachings in book VI The Russian Monk). I think these are beautiful lessons, and ones that I agree with and try to live by. Yet, I have a hard time convincing myself that religious belief is a necessary pre-requisite to live this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
