My paper should be titled something like: “Why Dostoevsky is neither an existentialist nor a relativist” or “Why The Brothers Karamazov is totally an Orthodox book”.
At this point, you should probably think to yourself, ‘Oh drat, I haven’t read the Karamazovian masterpiece- Off to the bookstore!’ Or at the very least, ‘Oh drat, I can’t read this post. I don’t want to spoil the book for myself.’ Yes, that means there are spoilers. However to be quite fair, I probably won’t explain them very well and if you’ve read the book you might not think I’m giving anything away. (More excuses? There’s a reason I’ve only been putting up pictures of churches thus far.) Just to be on the safe side, READ IT.
Why The Brothers Karamazov is Totally an Orthodox Book
A few reasons:
1. Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov
Oh Ivan. This is the guy everyone in my class loves. And why not? They relate to him the best. The reasonable and calm atheist intellectual is a poster boy for any secularly-minded intelligent college student. Dostoevsky knows this, and he’s used Ivan to prove a point. I might also title this reason…
1. “Everything is permitted”
"It is not freedom when we say to people that everything is permitted. That is slavery." -Elder Paisios
The idea that everything, and anything, is permitted is dependent on the idea that there is no absolute good, which is where Ivan Karamazov finds himself because he does not believe in God. If there is no God,, and with Him no absolute morality, then nothing matters and everything is permitted. This belief has lead Ivan to invent the Grand Inquisitor, so he can explain the existence of a moral system. The moral system would be kept in place by a number of inquisitors who controlled the idea of what is good through the power of religion (it’s even better that Ivan had to look for an example in Catholic Spain). There is a need for the control of the Grand Inquisitor, he thinks, precisely because there is no good. Without some discipline, the masses might, quite literally, do anything.
Ivan begins to run up against his philosophy, however, after the death of his father. If everything is permitted, why should he feel guilty at having left for Moscow? Why should he feel guilty for anything, even at being directly responsible for his father Fyodor’s death? There is absolutely no reason to. This terrifies Ivan, who thrives on his reason, but has developed a guilty conscience.
When everything is permitted, then truth and good are relative exactly because they do not exist as absolutes. Therefore, Ivan can not continue to live as simply doing what seems right to him. That is to say, existentialism and relativism are very much the same. Life has no meaning, make your own! There is no good, do whatever!
If it is the case not that “everything is permitted”, but that there is a true right and wrong, the natural conclusion is to look for that absolute morality. To look to God.
Alexei Karamazov sees the situation clearly when he declares, “God will win!”, and the scenarios for Ivan become clear. “ ‘He will either rise to the light of truth, or…perish in hatred, taking revenge on himself and everyone for having served something he does not believe in.’ ” (p. 655, Pevear and Volokhonsky Translation).
I think Ivan will rise to the light of truth.
Well, what does happen?! We’re never told, right? He’s just sick with some sort of brain fever and we never find out what he thinks later!
It reminds me of Book VI, Chapter 2 when we hear about another devout atheist affected by illness. Markel went from spitefully telling his mother during Lent, “It’s all nonsense, there isn’t any God,” to becoming such a figure of love and joy in his family’s life that his brother Zinovy (later Elder Zosima) directly credits him with influencing his journey to monasticism.
I think Ivan will go through such a change as well, because Dostoevsky keeps dropping hints that Ivan wants to believe but has trouble and especially because the last time Ivan is seen in the book, he does something noble and virtuous although he receives no benefit from it and he even expects to come to harm from it. Why would he do that when he has no reason? He doesn’t need to do anything. It’s a huge change for Ivan to be comfortable enough to realize that inconsistency and still act on it anyway.
That goes right into…
2. [Fill in the Blank] does not prove faith
There are a bunch of examples of this throughout the book. Best ones are found in the ‘Odor of Corruption’ chapter.
This point was and has been pretty hard for me to understand. If there is absolutely no argument that can instill faith, well, then what is the point of arguing, what is the point of fulfilled prophecies, what is the point of miracles?
“In the realist, faith is not born from miracles, but miracles from faith. Once the realist comes to believe, then, precisely because of his realism, he must also allow for miracles. The Apostle Thomas declared that he would not believe until he saw, and when he saw, he said: ‘My Lord and my God!’ Was it the miracle that made him believe? Most likely not, but he believed first and foremost because he wished to believe, and maybe already fully believed in his secret heart even as he was saying: ‘I will not believe until I see.’” (p. 26)
If Thomas had truly doubted, would he have ever believed?
I don’t think so.
The fact that miracles are born from faith is good because it is sincere.
I’ve fallen for the trap of expecting faith to be provable before. What did that do? It caused me to lose faith in everything. I would beg God to send me a sign, any sign, telling me what to do, proving his existence to me so I wouldn’t despair.
That isn’t faith.
A love needing reasons is not love and neither is a faith needing reasons faith. Unconditional faith is just as necessary as unconditional love and they kind of go hand in hand.
Dostoevsky does make a difficult distinction, however, between one who believes because of a proof or miracle and one who accepts a proof or miracle because he believes. They can appear to be the same, as with St Thomas.
If Thomas had truly doubted, would he have ever believed?
No.
Or, yes. But if so, he would have believed in anything.
Those who believe because of proofs will either never believe in anything or they will believe anything and everything. If I only believe in Christ because of miracles then I will either turn to disbelief when I do not see them or I will soak up the teachings of any false Messiah who comes along as long as he can put on a good show.
So I do not believe because of reasons. I believe because God has given me something unconditional and unqualified which I am completely incapable of coming up with on my own. Only an author writing with a belief in God would understand.
According to Dostoevsky, the realist knows this.
3. Alyosha, the Realist
We are told that Alyosha is a realist.
This surprised me when I read it. Alyosha certainly SEEMS to be an idealist. And it’s true, from that previous explanation about what realism in The Brothers Karamazov is, this realism is not like realism as we normally understand it.
This reminds me of a way that I’ve heard icons described: so real they seem fake. Icons are written in a style that does not seem true to life. Don’t the Renaissance church paintings look more ‘realistic’? More three dimensional? The truth is that what is revealed in icons is more real than our reality! Icons are like the incarnation- God in the form of a man, heaven in the form of wood and paint. They are meant to help us become images of Christ.
Alyosha Karamazov is an icon of Christ. Having read The Brothers Karamazov, it is quite plain, especially for the Orthodox. Alyosha, like Christ, is called an “early lover of mankind” immediately after he is introduced in the novel.
Throughout the novel, this man proves to be kind-hearted and genuine. He is humble and does not hate or judge, but accepts everything, “without the least condemnation, though often with deep sadness” (p. 19). When other characters confide in him, and nearly every character does, he listens understandingly. Over and over again he shocks both characters and readers when he says he is “just the same” and has the same sins.
Alyosha is so good at heart that some might think him a poorly written character, just as an icon might seem to be not skillfully painted. Dostoevsky’s “From the Author” admits as much, and he declares that Alyosha is the hero of his story, though many will not understand it. He declares that Alexei Fyodorovich “is by no means a great man”.
It is true, he is not great. That fact is what makes him all the more great. We are called to be like Christ in our lives, and most of us will not be great. Not rich, famous, powerful, or exciting. That is not what we are called to be. We are not all called to be missionaries, or monks, or rich philanthropists. Even if we are, what good can we do in Africa, in a monastery, donating large sums to charities, if we can not live as sources of love in the lives of those normally around us? If we can not be a good neighbor to our family members, colleagues, classmates, what good can we do in more exciting venues? A boring, ordinary life lived with Christ is far better than any exciting one lived without.
Alyosha is an amazing character because he is not great, he is so real he seems constructed, he is so genuine you could not imagine him lying, but so kind and pure that you struggle to believe him when he admits any wrongdoing.
This character is the crowning reason that I could never believe that Dostoevsky is an existentialist and the crowning reason that The Brothers Karamazov is absolutely an Orthodox book.
