"By the questions alone, simply by the miracle of their appearance, one can see that one is dealing with a mind not human and transient but eternal and absolute." - Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov
1. Re superstition-fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
2. Re Inquisition - recent scholarship reduced the number of executions (the Church unsurprisingly kept meticulous records) and contextualized the numbers given the times. Many thousands of Catholics were executed in England and Ireland for being Catholics. Etc.
You say Dostoevsky failed to predict the Bolshevik Revolution. Have you read Demons, by any chance? If you consider that book a failure to address the social and intellectual currents that led to the revolution, what do you make of it?
I’m actually reading it now and will post about it in the future! I think you make a good point and it’s true that Dostoevsky correctly identified (and understood) the ideology that precipitated the Revolution, but I would argue he believed, much like Tolstoy, that Russia possessed a unique moral character. Dostoevsky wrote elsewhere (I’ll post about this) that he believed Russia would save the world from Western modernism and that the Russian peasants would lead this effort.
I don’t know if I am really getting the whole thing. Probably not! I’ll go and think about it more but comment anyway.
One mystery (not in the sense of how it is used in this post) is how people can be told the truth, and yet not live by it. If everyone were to live by the Gospels, then each person would reach out to alleviate the suffering of others whenever they were faced with it. Suffering might still occur but would never be the kind of torment we see now where people are harmed by one another, cast off by others, alone. Nobody would suffer alone.
We don’t do this. We are always free do to it, but we choose not to. Does someone have to try and make us do it? And what means could they use? What if we could always be FORCED to do it? What means could be permissible to force us? Would this be acceptable?
Maybe you could read this as another rejection of utilitarian thinking, which happens elsewhere also? If the idea of suffering is to make us good, he doesn’t want it. If one child’s suffering were the price for paradise, he doesn’t want it. If everything is a test, it’s a travesty.
The question is more general than something like Marxism. Yes, Marxism tries to see if there is a system wherein we could make humans good, and remove the sorts of temptations like greed and the lust for power that cause them to do harm to each other. But it probably tried this because it’s just an open question humans always face—why are we letting each other suffer? What is the point of it? Why do we continually perpetuate injustice?
We’re always going to be asking this, and trying to find a way to stop it. It’s rational to do so. As long as we have to live on this Earth, we will be trying to figure out ways to alleviate our own suffering and that of others.
We’ll also be causing our own suffering and that of others. Mostly, we will be pursuing pointless and useless goals while we do these awful things. It’s impossible for any compassionate and rational person to observe this and not try to think of a way to prevent it.
I suppose there’s a harder question for freedom if we ask what humans want. Would people trade their freedom for control that gave them harmony and met their needs? If so, do they freely choose freedom?
There’s always the question of why we don’t choose what is right. Why don’t we choose it? Why do we choose what is bad rather than what is good? It’s the hardest question of all. Socrates though that we mistake what is bad for what is good—-and that if we knew what is good, we would always choose it. We think what is bad is good, and choose it for that reason. This makes it all less mysterious because we are prone to ignorance.
I think Aquinas agrees with him? I am rusty on this. But I think Aquinas believes that if the will is rational appetite, it wills what is good by its very nature.
I really don’t know what this means about the Catholic Church. As I said, I suspect I am not understanding all of this.
I enjoyed this post greatly, and thought you drew some interesting points from Ivan's poem. I was, however, surprised when you glossed over some massive statements at the end of your post. Specially regarding the nature of the Catholic Church: "the Church is the institution founded by Jesus Christ, and it has endured against all earthly odds for more than two thousand years. The Church represents the fullness of Christian truth." I think that's a statement worth unpacking in another post - and I'd read it.
I’m not Catholic, but recently read The Brothers. And found it wonderful. But I am inclined to take issue with your observation that The Inquisitor critiques Marxism. I rather thought he presented Ivan with a materialist perspective. Especially, in the light that he is himself a demon conjured in Ivan’s guilt ridden imagination. Ivan is mad, at this point, don’t you think?
What this means for Dostoyevsky’s argument with himself, about the real basis of human moral conduct, is that our minds reside in a dialectic between our love and our hate. We can be torn apart by our contrary natures, driven mad by the tensions we contain.
In short, his thesis is not about Catholicism and the existence of god but about the nature of our too human experience.
The Inquisition itself didn't execute anyone: those condemned were handed over to the secular authorities for sentence to be carried out. Not that there was any room for the state to exercise its own judgement - it was heresy to refuse to carry out the sentence imposed by the Inquisition - but the Church had no power of capital punishment.
Interesting post … I am personally grappling with evidence that Pope Francis and Joe Biden secretly conspired with known cartel criminals to subvert America’s immigration laws …. dark evil in the Deep Vatican and the Deep State
1. Re superstition-fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
2. Re Inquisition - recent scholarship reduced the number of executions (the Church unsurprisingly kept meticulous records) and contextualized the numbers given the times. Many thousands of Catholics were executed in England and Ireland for being Catholics. Etc.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/were-50-million-people-really-killed-in-the-inquisition?amp
You say Dostoevsky failed to predict the Bolshevik Revolution. Have you read Demons, by any chance? If you consider that book a failure to address the social and intellectual currents that led to the revolution, what do you make of it?
I’m actually reading it now and will post about it in the future! I think you make a good point and it’s true that Dostoevsky correctly identified (and understood) the ideology that precipitated the Revolution, but I would argue he believed, much like Tolstoy, that Russia possessed a unique moral character. Dostoevsky wrote elsewhere (I’ll post about this) that he believed Russia would save the world from Western modernism and that the Russian peasants would lead this effort.
I don’t know if I am really getting the whole thing. Probably not! I’ll go and think about it more but comment anyway.
One mystery (not in the sense of how it is used in this post) is how people can be told the truth, and yet not live by it. If everyone were to live by the Gospels, then each person would reach out to alleviate the suffering of others whenever they were faced with it. Suffering might still occur but would never be the kind of torment we see now where people are harmed by one another, cast off by others, alone. Nobody would suffer alone.
We don’t do this. We are always free do to it, but we choose not to. Does someone have to try and make us do it? And what means could they use? What if we could always be FORCED to do it? What means could be permissible to force us? Would this be acceptable?
Maybe you could read this as another rejection of utilitarian thinking, which happens elsewhere also? If the idea of suffering is to make us good, he doesn’t want it. If one child’s suffering were the price for paradise, he doesn’t want it. If everything is a test, it’s a travesty.
The question is more general than something like Marxism. Yes, Marxism tries to see if there is a system wherein we could make humans good, and remove the sorts of temptations like greed and the lust for power that cause them to do harm to each other. But it probably tried this because it’s just an open question humans always face—why are we letting each other suffer? What is the point of it? Why do we continually perpetuate injustice?
We’re always going to be asking this, and trying to find a way to stop it. It’s rational to do so. As long as we have to live on this Earth, we will be trying to figure out ways to alleviate our own suffering and that of others.
We’ll also be causing our own suffering and that of others. Mostly, we will be pursuing pointless and useless goals while we do these awful things. It’s impossible for any compassionate and rational person to observe this and not try to think of a way to prevent it.
I suppose there’s a harder question for freedom if we ask what humans want. Would people trade their freedom for control that gave them harmony and met their needs? If so, do they freely choose freedom?
There’s always the question of why we don’t choose what is right. Why don’t we choose it? Why do we choose what is bad rather than what is good? It’s the hardest question of all. Socrates though that we mistake what is bad for what is good—-and that if we knew what is good, we would always choose it. We think what is bad is good, and choose it for that reason. This makes it all less mysterious because we are prone to ignorance.
I think Aquinas agrees with him? I am rusty on this. But I think Aquinas believes that if the will is rational appetite, it wills what is good by its very nature.
I really don’t know what this means about the Catholic Church. As I said, I suspect I am not understanding all of this.
I enjoyed this post greatly, and thought you drew some interesting points from Ivan's poem. I was, however, surprised when you glossed over some massive statements at the end of your post. Specially regarding the nature of the Catholic Church: "the Church is the institution founded by Jesus Christ, and it has endured against all earthly odds for more than two thousand years. The Church represents the fullness of Christian truth." I think that's a statement worth unpacking in another post - and I'd read it.
Agreed, that’s my next task. We’ll see if I’m equal too it! Thanks for your comment!
I’m not Catholic, but recently read The Brothers. And found it wonderful. But I am inclined to take issue with your observation that The Inquisitor critiques Marxism. I rather thought he presented Ivan with a materialist perspective. Especially, in the light that he is himself a demon conjured in Ivan’s guilt ridden imagination. Ivan is mad, at this point, don’t you think?
What this means for Dostoyevsky’s argument with himself, about the real basis of human moral conduct, is that our minds reside in a dialectic between our love and our hate. We can be torn apart by our contrary natures, driven mad by the tensions we contain.
In short, his thesis is not about Catholicism and the existence of god but about the nature of our too human experience.
Thank you for your comment, very interesting thoughts! I’ll think more on this.
Very interesting take on The Brothers, I’m downloading Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor right now as you have peaked my curiosity
The Inquisition itself didn't execute anyone: those condemned were handed over to the secular authorities for sentence to be carried out. Not that there was any room for the state to exercise its own judgement - it was heresy to refuse to carry out the sentence imposed by the Inquisition - but the Church had no power of capital punishment.
That only makes it more unsavoury and Machiavellian on the churches part.
Interesting post … I am personally grappling with evidence that Pope Francis and Joe Biden secretly conspired with known cartel criminals to subvert America’s immigration laws …. dark evil in the Deep Vatican and the Deep State
Book coming out, stay tuned
Whoa, that’s a fascinating rabbit hole to fall into, give a holler if you need help in getting back out, I’ve gotta rope🤣😍