The first Guided Independent Reading assignments will be two chapters from Fyodor Dostoevsky's classic novel The Brothers Karamazov. All I want you to do is read them (you'll have to go over to Edmodo.com to get the text), and respond here.
It's a Russian novel, and it's long and scary (as are a lot of the names), but it's a monumental work of art. I read it when I was a senior in high school, and it blew me away. As I did with another Dostoevsky classic, Crime and Punishment, I read the last two hundred or so pages in a sitting. For The Brothers, I literally missed eating dinner (just a couple more pages), and kept reading for hours until I was done. I've never been as immersed in a book -- before or since.
In this chapter Ivan, the cynical, skeptical brother is explaining to his brother Alyosha why he must doubt. Alyosha is the youngest brother, meek and spiritual, and has become a novice in a monastery.
Dostoevsky himself was a devout Russian Orthodox Christian.
So, I guess I'll start by saying that that was really powerful and horrifying and thought provoking. I guess those go hand-in-hand sometimes.
ReplyDeleteThe stories Ivan told of the children and his questioning of the human condition and morality kinda made this an overload of things to think about.
I'm first going to address the statement "For anyone to love a man, he must be hidden, for as soon as he shows his face, love is gone."
I'm still not very certain what that means. As if to say people are unable to empathize with one another because they don't understand eachothers sufferings, ("Another can never know how much I suffer, because he is another and not I")? Or that we can only show sympathy to those we share no connection with, because we are unaware of who they are other than how they suffer?
I just didn't understand what Ivan was trying to say so someone should totally clear that up for me.
I also want to comment on Ivan's comparison of adults and children, who have not "eaten anything," and cannot make decisions based on right or wrong, as adults can. This made me stop and think.
This statement implies that an adult will know what is right from what is wrong, and have to consciously make a decision to do something that is wrong, because they have the ability to compare it to what is right.
Well that made me have to disagree because there's always differences of opinions on what's right and wrong, or skewed ideas of what's acceptable, and then the whole idea of genuinely believing something is right/wrong, although no one else agrees, making you the minority and therefore wrong to everyone around you. I don't know, thats a whole other story left out by Ivan's statement, although I don't disagree with what he is saying in general.
And then this: "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."
Well, this statement represents a really obscure idea that can never really be proved one way or the other, but it made me question if good really could exist without bad. I mean, maybe not, because I guess the idea of good and evil is a comparison.
In the end though, I wish I had more of a basis of what they were discussing and why. I'm still confused at the severity of the conversation, and why it's severe in the first place. I don't really understand who they are, (other than brothers), and why these types of philosophical discussions plague them in the first place.
I think what Ivan meant by “For anyone to love a man, he must be hidden, for as soon as he shows his face, love is gone,” was that you can love the idea of loving everyone, like we are supposed to according to the Commandments, but you can’t always love everyone once you actually meet them. When he mentioned John the Merciful and the beggar, he mentioned self-laceration. He didn’t understand how John could bare to put his mouth on the “putrid and loathsome” mouth of the beggar out of love. Ivan took it as self-laceration because he believed (in his cynical mind) that John did it out of duty, not out of love. I’m sure there are people in the world that push your buttons and I know that there are people in mine like that. Not everyone loves everyone, but people will say they do out of requirement, essentially. Ivan is pointing out with the quote you mentioned that you don’t really love everyone. You could hate a man once you meet him but just love the idea of loving him. At least that is what I took from it. I hope this clears things up.
DeleteI also believe that this statement is saying how a man can talk about loving someone or helping people but they might not actually do what they had said if someone is in front of them seeking their assistance. This could be because they're startled by the man based on his appearance or maybe they judge the man thinking he'll use any monetary donation for drugs like many probably do. For whatever reason they say they're such a nice person and they want to help people and love everyone, but when they're faced with the opportunity they may not. Basically I think it's also saying people can often talk the talk, say they want to help a man, but not walk the walk, actually help them when they're faced with the task.
DeleteThank you, Dani and Megan. You're right on the mark. It's easy to love people in the abstract, but when they're actually right there in front of you, it can be "eeeeuw" or "grrrrr". (If you know what I mean.
DeleteAs to "why this infamy is permitted", I think that aims at a bigger question, one that all religions and philosophies must take on: why do so many cruel and unjust things happen in life (especially if you postulate a Benevolent Overseer). The Thane of Fife asks in {Macbeth} "Did Heaven look on and would not take their part?" when he hears his wife and children have been massacred. Ivan would have asked the same after Newton.
This was a very "eye-opening" piece of literature. I found myself cringing at Ivan's horrific stories. I even found myself questioning whether or not Ivan was exaggerating the tragedies for more emphasis. Yet, all these stories, and his responses to them, really develops Ivan's character as one who speaks the sharp truth. He does not soften any words, thus relaying the stories with a feeling of pure hatred.
ReplyDeleteThere were quite a few quotes that stood out to me. The first was "I think if the devil doesn't exist, and man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness." I think it is interesting that Ivan mentions this. It questions the very debatable topic about the existence of higher, spiritual forces. The way I picture this is that each person has the ability to choose light or dark. I personally do not think there is an external force of the devil driving them in either direction. Yet, I think the idea of a devil can be seen more through the theory that everyone has an evil side they either push away or show. The severity of that inner evil will be shown according to that person's desire. That is what I think Ivan is trying to get across.
Ivan talks about a lot of tragedies, and his tone tends to be very questioning, but intense. Again, I'd like to bring up the religious aspect of this conversation. He repeatedly says that he believes in God and accepts God, but then he contradicts that by questioning the suffering of people and innocent children. This reminds me of the Newtown tragedy. These sorts of tragedies make people question God's existence and wonder how he could allow something this awful to occur. The bible teaches that without suffering, there would be no compassion. That quote is what came to my mind while reading this chapter. I feel like this is something Alyosha could say to Ivan in this conversation.
Lastly, I agree with Ariel. I was also a bit confused about where this chapter was coming from. It makes me wonder why Ivan is coming to his brother to speak of several horrific, torturous events. Maybe he is dealing with a personal tragedy and wants to make sense of it? He truly seems frustrated since he barely allows for Alyosha to give his own input. Yet, I really think the way Ivan portrays the stories develops him as a character. Whether or not we know what is going on in this novel, I think it was interesting that we can picture a character when only reading the fourth chapter. Ivan seems very adamant and persistent about his own opinions. He is painfully truthful, and I think that could be one of his character's flaws.
The quote about the devil not really existing and humans creating him also stood out to me. I agree with what Ivan says. Like you, I don’t believe that there is a red man with a tail, horns, and a pitchfork deep in the bowels of the earth swaying our decisions towards evil, but humans still do bad things. People tend to use the devil as a reason for doing these bad things. All of the tragedies that Ivan mentioned could be attributed to the Devil’s meddling, but they were just bad people doing awful things. People invented the Devil, essentially, to compensate for their actions. They indeed created him to be like their evil selves. Evil may be too strong of a word. I would say malevolent. Not everybody is good 100% of the time. We have bad thoughts and we do some not so great things, some worse than others (like the Turks and the Circassians). In essence, the bad actions and thoughts of people personified the Devil in our own image. As Alyosha mentioned, “Just as he did God, then,” meaning that we were created by God in his image or vice versa even, that God is the personification of our goods aspects and the Devil as our bad. I definitely agree with you on the fact that people can choose whether to choose between good and bad, but our inner monologue of our “Devil” can sway us if our thoughts can permeate into our actions.
DeleteThe quote about the devil was my favorite quote from this story. Like most of you, I don't really believe in the devil as the silly cartoon depiction with a pitchfork and horns. And I personally don't believe him to be an evil spirit in the world. Ivan uses the imagrey of the devil as a way to personify all the evil that men do. I agree with Dani in saying that people are not evil every single second of every single day, but people do carry out terrible actions on others.
DeleteBut his younger brother makes a good point that God is the personification of all the good that man is. There is always that inner conflict of choosing between good and evil, and sometime that is an extremely hard decision to make, for there really is no evil choice and no righteous choice. A lot of the times both choices are in the grey area. This whole discussion of good vs. evil really does depend on one's values and culture. When Ivan talks about the way a child was punished by being whiped with branches of a tree, Ivan and most people of today would see that as a horrible act, but back then, that type of punishment was deemed appropriate due to the their culture. On any average day, the difference between good and evil is a matter of preference.
I fully agree that through the stories Ivan shares with his brother, it is apparent Ivan is doubtful of God. Then in the end, he acknowledges that God does exist, by saying, "No, I have not forgotten Him; on the contrary..." Thus contradicting what he was just saying through all his gruesome stories. So I believe Ivan is dealing with some inner struggle, which may explain why he is so angry with the idea of bad things happening to good people. He likely believes in God, but is confused and had probably lost faith. With all the tradgeties involving innocent children or people, I'm sure a lot of people are also finding their faith being tested.
DeleteOkay, people. You've rattled my cage -- grammatically speaking. I realize that this is one that I'm going to lose in the long run, but for the time being I'm not knuckling under on this one.
Delete"Quote" is a verb. Only a verb. It's what I do when I say "Did Heaven look on and would not take their part?" I'm quoting Shakespeare.
The noun is "quotation". I know, it's three syllables instead of one, nine letters instead of five, and {everyone} does it! (I probably do it myself from time to time).
I don't care. It's still wrong.
As I was reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but thinking how cynical Ivan is. There is always another motive behind the kind actions of people. He thinks the worst of people. Even in his first story about the beggar and John the Merciful, he twisted John’s actions into personal gain or satisfaction. The thing is, I actually agree with Ivan. Call me a cynic for it, but I do believe that many people perform good deeds for personal satisfaction rather than for the right reasons, maybe not to the extreme of diving into the river to save kittens just because a pretty girl is watching, though. Think about it; if you give a dollar to a homeless person on the street, what can they really buy? Oh, good for you. You gave the man a dollar. Was it for his benefit or for yours? You can feel good about yourself for giving away a dollar. I may be a cynic, but it is definitely true for some people.
ReplyDeleteI think that Ivan’s stories were as powerful as they were due to the fact that most involved children. “Children can be loved even at close quarters, even when they are dirty, even when they are ugly.” Ivan is correct when saying this as well. Children are innocent and don’t deserve the pain that he recounts, but the adults do more than the children in Ivan’s mind. The adults have had the chance to experience evil and sin and to indulge in it. This is also true, but the mother of the serf-boy didn’t deserve to watch her son be torn apart by hounds.
The one section that truly bothered me was the part about the murderer, Richard. I sympathized with his childhood and his strife and yes he got what he deserved in the end for his crimes, but I find issue with the fact that the people of Geneva all called him brother and kissed him and “chopped his head off in a brotherly fashion, because he had found grace.” I applaud Richard for finding grace, but the people of Geneva I have issues with. How to you behead a man in a brotherly fashion? Even the whole being the happiest day of Richard’s life because he was going to the Lord for finding grace just hits a nerve. Does finding grace repent you of all sin? Ivan and I don’t think so.
No one has really delved into Alyosha’s character yet. I rather like him. Through the horror of Ivan’s stories, his faith wavers, but he keeps it. He has an inner struggle waging the entire chapter between his faith and Ivan’s argument. His faith is kept at the end, but barely. He believes in the forgiveness of the Lord. He wants Ivan to remember his faith. I respect Alyosha’s faith and his loyalty to it.
Overall, I was interested the entire time while reading it. The stories may have been gruesome and terrible, but they held my attention and made me think about my views on life back in the brothers’ time and now.
Dani, in terms to the whole "chopped off his head in brotherly fashion, because he found grace" is a bit odd and sound a little bit like a cult, there is some reason why they treated Richard this way. It shows that Richard understands his mistake that he made in murdering people and he understands that he must face the consequences of his actions. In one sense it is very idealistic and in another sense it is completey irrational and sounds like Richard was brainwashed by a religous cult(sorry if I offend anyone, just stating my opinions here).
DeleteI found it really interesting and really distrubing the way Ivan talked about children with his brother. On one hand you can clearly see that he deeply cares about children and believes that they are truely innocent of all the horrible things in the world. But on the other hand, the stories that he told of children suffering such cruel hardships really show his lack of faith in God. In a way, I sometime wonder why such horrible things happen to such innocent children who really don't deserve that kind of suffering. It is horrible to think that a child's life can be taken before they can live a fulfilling life and that is what really tortured Ivan and our whole nation after the Newtown shooting. I think it makes everyone question how we are going to do to protect our children from terrible instances like the shooting and in Ivan's case from all the suffereing administered by horrible adults.
Dani,
DeleteI couldn't agree with you more in regards to the powerfulness behind Ivan's examples of innocent children's suffering. After reading each case that Ivan presented, I paused to think. (Most) Children are purely innocent. They have not lived long enough to "eat the apple and know good and evil… and go on eating it still," like Ivan believes their parents and anscestors have done. Children can be very helpless and vulnerable.
One horrifying story Ivan shared with his brother really broke my heart. Ivan described to his brother the story of the Turks who played with a baby in its mother's arms…making it laugh and showing it affection; only to point a gun to the child's head and murder it. Murdering this poor baby, who is so innocent and unaware of the situation was so inhumanely cruel. However cruel it may be, it did support Ivan's argument about why such a god would allow such terrifying events to occurr. The contrast between the child's unknowingness and the heinous intentions of the Turks just makes this passage so powerful, and makes the readers feel remorseful for the poor child and his/her mother. Such evoking examples provided by Ivan support his side in this discussion with Alyosha while forcing Alyosha to question his faith and his decision to study as a monk with Father Zossima.
-Brianna Ricciardone
“One can love one’s neighbours in the abstract, or even at a distance, but at close quarters it’s almost impossible.” Ivan said this to his brother and I believe that Ivan loves society and people in general. However, he is cautious when he gets to know them because he sees their flaws and how evil people can truly be. He believes that children can be loved in close quarters though, because they are innocent and haven’t sinned. To connect to this to the story and my own beliefs; children are the purest people. I think the Sandy Hook Elementary School Tragedy hit very hard for people, including myself, because little children were killed. When you take away a child’s life, you are killing the most innocent person in the world.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this chapter, like Martha, I felt myself cringe at the details of which Ivan described children being killed. “I think if the devil doesn’t exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.” I find this quote very interesting because I believe Ivan thinks that the devil is based on what man has done. If man has done truly evil things, then he is just adding to (almost the characteristics) of what a devil should is. “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?” Here, Ivan is questioning the powers of mankind. Once an adult has eaten the apple (which I believe is full of sin) they know good and evil is out there. They have too much power though because they continue to eat the apple. The power of evil is too much because it brings too much sorrow in the world.
Throughout this whole chapter, Ivan questions his religion because of all the horror that has happened throughout the world, especially to children. He is very descriptive about children being ripped from a mother’s womb and even told of one child being ripped apart by hounds. His brother Alyosha tells him that He (Jesus) gave his innocent blood for all and tells Ivan to not forget about him throughout all of this.
Overall, I surprisingly enjoyed this chapter, even though the topic did come out of left field. Why was Ivan confessing to his brother in the first place about how he feels? Maybe since his brother seems to believe in God, Ivan thought that he would confess to him his thoughts about it? Ivan had a bitter and pessimistic attitude towards society this whole chapter. He only talked about how people committed heinous crimes towards children and how he questioned God’s existence. Like Martha said, I already have a picture in my mind of what Ivan looks like and how he acts. I give Dostoevsky credit for making Ivan a relatable character because I’m sure people have questioned their religion or the good of mankind before.
Anna,
DeleteI, too, wonder why Ivan feels the need to go on this rant about humanity to his brother? At one point, when Alyosha questions Ivan's intentions behind this discussion, Ivan says, "Of course, I will; that's what I've been leading up to. You are dear to me, I don't want to let you go, and I won't give you up to your Zossima." This led me to believe that Ivan came to discuss this with his brother becuase he is concerned about Alyosha's decision to be a monk and study with Zossima. I felt that this discussion was brought up because Ivan doesn't see religion the way Alyosha does, and he wants Alyosha to understand his reasoning behind his opinions of humanity. I may be totally off here… like you said, it might be to get his feelings off his chest! I'm not really sure, but I felt that he didn't want his brother to devote all of his time to religion without understanding his opinions on the matter. He used such gruesome, disturbing examples to provoke Alyosha's emotions, leaving him with no valid arguement. That's how I interpreted it!
-Brianna Ricciardone
Responding to Brianna, I think Ivan wanted to hear of these horrible experience before commiting himself to his view of religion. I think he didn't want his brother to be blinded by all the goodness in God so he misses everything that is wrong with the world and become naive. I think it was more that he wanted his brother to see the entire picture rather than him wanted to impress his opinion on his brother.
DeleteAnna and Brianna --
DeleteI know people don't like this answer, but there's an underlying truth to it: Ivan is telling Alyosha this because Dostoevsky wants to say it, he wants to examine the issue. That's also why he has created these characters, brothers with such different personalities -- who will represent the Cynic and the Innocent.
Ivan's character is truly captivating, forcing me to formulate my own opinions about his arguments and in a sense, argue back with him, seeing if I agree with what he is claiming or if I differ in views.
ReplyDeleteAlyosha seems to fuel Ivan's fire. Ivan seems to use Alyosha's responses (what little of them he has) to further emphasize his own arguments, sometimes disregarding the importance of what Alyosha is saying. Although Ivan may not have meant to be condescending, it came across when he considered his brother's inputs. Alyosha simply wanted to remind Ivan of the sacrifice of Christ for our souls, a concept that Ivan thought was merely not sufficient enough when it came to the suffering of children. I relate myself to Alyosha's character, as he remains non-aggressive toward his brother. That is how I personally approach arguments. In that way, I find Alyosha particularly intriguing and necessary for this chapter to keep Ivan's rants under control.
I found Ivan's perception of forgiveness to be one of the most fascinating arguments in the chapter. He claims that a mother should not forgive her son's torturer for the pain caused to him, even if he were to forgive, because she herself did not endure the suffering. Ivan puts value on innocent children, declaring that with the suffering of these children, the world is deemed incomprehensible. This statement is true. How would our society sustain itself without children? It makes me think that there is no greater gift than the gift of love and knowledge that not only adults give children, but children also give adults.
"Men are themselves to blame I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from the heavens, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them." I found this quote to be mainly existentialist. It describes individuals in an unfathomable world that must make something out of themselves and take ultimate responsibility for their decisions and behaviors. Ivan states that he does not understand why the world is arranged how it is, and continues to explain how someone must take responsibility for the suffering.
Well reading that was...interesting. In AP Euro, Mrs. Sterling beat into us that "you can't look backwards with modern eyes" which means that we can't look at things from the past out of context of the time it happened in. This was published in 1880, and Russia was very backwards (they didn't industrialize until WW1). Some of the tortures described were horrible, no denying that, but at the time, it was still a little bit more common than they would be today.
ReplyDeleteI found Ivan's character to be interesting, he is multifaceted and while obviously is cynical, it is deeper than just that. To his very core he seems to be convinced that evil humans do exist, plain and simple, and while when he backs up he can tolerate humanity, the individuals inside of it bother him. He is so wrapped up in the fact that children were tortured and he believes it is fundamentally wrong to harm a child, because all children are innocent. I found the passage where he compares loving God to a tortured man loving his torturer very powerful. It speaks far beyond just the comparison, because it questions far more than just that. How could we possibly forgive someone who has done us so much harm? His brother Alyosha on the other hand is rooted in his firm belief in the justice and strength of God, which seems to bother Ivan. Ivan cannot simply put his woes and anger aside and into the hands of some unseen force.
I found this chapter to be very powerful because I agree with many of the points that Ivan makes. I do believe that true harmony can never be reached because that is human nature. To be in true harmony would be to move beyond our human instincts and characteristics that are part of every person, and I don’t think that our race is capable of putting our needs and desires behind everybody else’s. There may be a few acts of true selflessness, but if everyone were to be selfless, putting everyone’s needs ahead of their own, someone will always be ahead.
ReplyDeleteI think the furthest that we can go is to forgive for ourselves. As Ivan said about the mother whose son was killed by the hounds, while she may reach a point where she forgives that man for what he did to her son, she has no right, or ability to forgive him for her son, because only he can truly do that.
One thing that I didn’t like about Ivan’s philosophy was that he disregarded adults because they were tainted by the evil and sin in the world, and therefore crimes and travesties against them counted less than those against children. But I think that in some cases, if you take that “sinful” adult out of the equation, erase him from the world, from his workplace, and his home, then you create a great evil as well. His son, his daughter, his family will be without their father and the wisdom and truth that he would have otherwise passed onto them is lost forever. So, in that way, even an adult’s death can affect future generations and bring further harm to society.
-Garret Tirrell
Garret,
DeleteAny situation in history where humans have attempted to be put into a system where they forfeited self-interest has always resulted poorly. That is the goal of communism, is to work and receive according to your needs, but it ultimately fails because the person has no incentive to work hard or achieve great things. We need self-interested goals to keep people thriving to further themselves, and while it is not the most noble of things to admit, it is true.
I do agree with your point about the loss of the father though, every action has a reaction and often they are far beyond what we expected.
Garret, your statement about forgiveness is very interesting. In a way, I completely agree with Ivan in his statement about a mother shouldn't forgive the torturer of her son. It make sense that you shouldn't forgive others for making others suffer because you didn't experience the suffering yourself. It seems that Ivan is more interested in justice by his own hand for the children and the innocence in the world than having faith in God. This type of thinking isn't common and it surprises my that Ivan's younger brother is so shocked by his brothers outrage toward God. People get tired of waiting for good to happen to them, so they go out and do what they have to do. And those actions are not always the right thing to do.
DeleteGarret,
DeleteI completely agree with you statement about human nature. In every evil there is a little good, and in every good there is a little evil. No human is perfect, and everyone holds a little bit of selfishness because it's part of human nature. A world in harmony is impossible because the world is full of humans. Humans had flaws in the past, do now, and will forever have flaws. Also, humans have learned to be selfish as a means of survival, and selfishness is always the first instinct of a human. Though some people find a way around it, it still exists, and therefore, harmony can never exist in a world of humans. I feel like these were some of the things Ivan was thinking about as he was questioning religion. It's hard for him to believe what religion is preaching when he's fully witnessing real life that is contradicting what religion is saying.
Meera Davé
A couple of thoughts here. Our first instinct usually is "what would be good for me?" But we don't rely on instinct alone. We also have Reason, which sometimes is at odds with instinct. And which can trump instinct, if we listen to it.
DeleteAnd, there are certain "instincts" -- evolutionarily advantageous behaviors -- that are altruistic; that favor the group over the individual.
For an article on the positive benefits of forgiveness, go here: http://artofmanliness.com/2010/10/10/is-forgiveness-manly/.
I found Ivan to be a captivating character. His views, which are centered on his beliefs, are so stunning and extreme that I ended feeling that he was completely wrong. His entire focus is based on the few cases of extreme bad behavior that he presents. He does not seem to listen to his brother, and his brother seems too stunned by Ivan’s outlook to argue his own points. He seems resigned to accepting Ivan’s skewed outlook based on the horrible stories of bad relationships between adults and youth.
ReplyDeleteAs others have already stated, Ivan fails to use any stories of positive relationships between adults and children. He does not consider the millions of people in caring, nurturing and loving relationships.
There was one point of the reading that seems to stick with me the most. At one point Ivan claims that like his brother, he loves children. Yet as he relates these horrific stories of children, he never mentions anything about trying to help the children. He doesn’t seem to think of assisting them so they can have better lives. He seems to take a passive stance as a bystander to an awful show that he cannot, and will not, change.
Well I opened the Word document and realized it was much more reading than I had predicted. At first, I thought it was going to be a painfully boring read and hard to follow, but that quickly changed. I was surprised how it got so deep so fast and I actually really got into it.
ReplyDeleteI don't fully understand the entire passage; there are some lines or sentences that I just don't comprehend, but that didn’t take away from the reading experience. As a whole this chapter is really moving and thought provoking. Ivan’s long and detailed accounts of human brutality, especially to children, really got me emotionally attached to this. I’m not completely sure at the moment where all this is leading. I get that he is preaching to Alyosha about forgiving and human nature and all that, but when Ivan says, “Of course, I will; that's what I've been leading up to. You are dear to me, I don't want to let you go, and I won't give you up to your Zossima." I guess I don’t really know quite what he is getting at. I know Zossima is the monk training Alyosha, but I’m just kind of confused what all the stories of brutality have to do with Alyosha and becoming a monk. Maybe it’s because I don’t know enough background of the story or all the circumstances. We are thrown into a conversation between two brothers we know little about and it’s difficult for me to pick right up on the conversation. I would be more than happy for someone to enlighten me as to where this is leading and what the significance of it all is.
"I don't fully understand the entire passage; there are some lines or sentences that I just don't comprehend, but that didn’t take away from the reading experience."
DeleteIf there are ever any in particular that are gnawing at you, put them up here, and see what others have to say.
Where it's headed. Well, to Chapter 5, I guess, where Ivan tells his "poem". The main point of that chapter is to give us insight into Ivan and his way of thinking. Ivan is just one of four Karamazov brothers [there's also the illegitimate son, Smerdyakov], and there's a father -- in this 500 page novel.
DeleteThe first thing that I noticed about this chapter was how cynical Ivan Karamazov was. He starts off by saying "I could never understand how one can love one's neighbors." Now as most everyone knows "Love thy neighbor" is clearly stated in the bible so I realized at one that this exerpt would be about religion. I was not wrong, and this was proved further on.
ReplyDeleteThe next part about Ivan that really caught my attention was his love for children and such great distaste for adults. He clearly appreciated the innocence of the youth. It really reminded me of Holden Caulfield in "Catcher in the Rye." Holden was very fascinated by the children not knowing many things about the world yet and Ivan has the same point of view. He expresses this by saying " Children havn't eaten anything, and are so far innocent." By "eating" he means "the apple that makes adults good or evil." He says that they have become like gods but in my opinion, he means with their strength. He goes on to state that men are worse than beasts because of how artistic they are and in addition, are worse than tigers because the tiger can only tear and gnaw. He views man as evil and as his brother responds, we can see that he is the only one who feels this way.
What was so captivating about this chapter and about this character is that we are provoked to make our own opinions. I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Ivan in parts of the exerpt. I agreed with him when he said that man can be cruel. I think that is true because we hear all over the news about case after case of abuse in one way or another. On the other hand, I do not believe that all of manking can be classified as cruel because, well, some people can really be nice. I found that it was written in such a way that it provokes the reader to make their own assenting or dissenting opinion about the issues that Ivan is talking about.
As I mentioned earlier, this chapter was clearly about religion. Ivan is looking at how people have "found grace" and what that means. To him it is evident that he doesn't believe people can 'find grace' after doing something very horrible. This is shown when he sarcastically says "I would have proposed to raise a subscription in his honour!" when talking about someone finding grace. When Alyosha calls Ivan rebellion, he challenges her. He doesn't believe what he is talking about is considered rebellion because he is just stating that he thinks all men should be happy and nice and not corrupt the innocence of children. I thought this excerpt was beautifully written and very thought provoking in the way that it made you take a second look at your own opinions.
Hi Kierra!
DeleteI love how you connected Ivan's beliefs about children to the viewpoints of Holden in "Catcher in the Rye"! Both characters desired to preserve children's innocence by sheltering them from the terror and absurdities in the world.
I agree with your statement that there are numerous cases of abuse due to the fact that man can be cruel. It reminded me of the upsetting image that Ivan mentions a few times of a baby beating its breast with its fist. He explains that this gesture is an inevitable reaction to torture and abuse from a parent. I found this image to be exceptionally powerful, making Ivan's argument that much more enticing.
-Hannah Fay
It's religious in that the questions that Ivan is wrestling with are those that religions deal with. And religious in that Ivan and Alyosha are living in a Christian society (although they are Russian Orthodox, not Roman Catholic).
DeleteAnd good call on Holden. It never occurred to me, but you're right -- they are both very devoted to childhood, and wary of the loss of innocence.
When I was told that we would be reading The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Mikailovich Dostoevsky, I was not sure what to expect. I saw the authors name and the word Karamazov and immediately assumed that this would be something that would be difficult to understand and simply throw around many confusing words.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say I was pleasantly surprised. I found this chapter to be intriguing. Even though many of the scenarios described were mentally traumatizing, I thought that the passage explored many thought provoking questions.
The imagery in this chapter was fantastic. The examples that Dostoevsky used certainly appealed to your emotions. I found the passage about the boy accidently hurting a man dog to be extremely powerful. I found it especially horrific that as they sent this boy to run to his death they required the mother to stand by and watch. I had the same awful feeling when they described how soldiers used to treat babies. The thought that any human would have the ability to cut open a mother, remove her baby from her, and impale the baby on their bayonet is a horrifying thought.
I enjoyed how Ivan focused all his energy on describing the children. I believe that if he attempted to describe that evil that ever man, woman, and child encounter it would have been overwhelming. The focus on the children definitely allowed him to get his point across in a more direct and emotional way.
There were two points that were addressed in this chapter that I found to be extremely thought provoking and telling. The first was on the second page when Ivan begins describing how children suffer from their father’s sins. Ivan stated “they must be punished for their fathers, who have eaten the apple; but that reasoning is of the other world and is incomprehensible for the heart of man here on earth. Part of this makes a biblical reference to Adam and Eve eating the apple and deciding the destiny of those to come. I have no problem saying that I am a religious individual, but that does not mean that I don’t question why things have happened. I wonder why it is possible that the sins of these people were then passed onto us. I believe that currently there is still the idea that children will suffer from the actions of their fathers. I am currently taking Journalism. We watch a short clip on North Korea and the work camps they still have today. A man escaped from one of these camps and was able to tell the story. The idea behind these camps is that anyone who as committed a crime would go to these camps. Then the next 3 generations after the original criminal would be required to live their entire lives there as well. The idea was that if the father or grandfather was bad then the generations to come would be bad as well. I found it interesting to see how this related to modern day. It is amazing how people are associated with things simply based on the actions of a family member.
The next line I found to be fascinating was when Ivan discusses how humans are the beasts and that “a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel.” I have often thought of this myself. Humans have an unreal capability to inflict pain on others, whether it is physical or emotional. When asked what someone’s biggest fear is it is likely that many people would answer spiders or sharks; most will not say it is other humans. However, humans can cause more pain than most people realize. Humans will not just capture an enemy; they will torture their enemy and threaten their family. I believe that humans will end up being their own destruction, whether we destroy ourselves through nuclear warfare or by ruining our environment. I believe that Ivan was accurate when he said that humans are the true beasts.
I enjoyed reading this chapter. I was impressed by how upfront the work was and how it got so deep. I think that it required you to think and evaluate your thoughts on how the world works.
Well, Ivan seems like quite the philosopher, questioning the meaning of life and what-not. He’s got several really good, and really true ideas (which is part of why I actually liked this, because I agreed with most of them). As I read it, I was highlighting certain lines that stood out to me, and the first was, “One can love one's neighbors in the abstract, or even at a distance, but at close quarters it's almost impossible.” I realized that, yes, that is actually very true. Giving money to a “helping the homeless” charity is very different than giving money to a homeless man. People love the idea of something, particularly doing something good, but they actually don’t “love” the people on the receiving end. Most people love the idea of donating to starving people in Africa, but if you ever went there and just looked at some of those people, I doubt the first inclination would be to love them. Pity, maybe, but not love. The same goes for some people in relationships. They love the idea of having a boyfriend or girlfriend but don’t actually love the person. Oh, except for children, of course, because , “children can be loved even at close quarters, even when they are dirty, even when they are ugly (I fancy, though, children never are ugly).” Although I beg to differ that children are never ugly. I’ve seen some pretty unattractive kids.
ReplyDeleteMost of the chapter seemed (to me) to be revolving around the inherent cruelty of man, and how basically human kind sucks (While also arguing against certain aspects of religion). Ivan mentioned how children are not responsible for the sins of their parents, and shouldn’t be punished (“The innocent must not suffer for another's sins, and especially such innocents!). Now, I’ve never read the Bible, but I was pretty sure something in there implied that the sins of the father become the sins of the son or something like that. I just thought that was interesting. There was another line that I really liked, “A beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it.” I totally agree with that. Animals never have the intention of hurting something or torturing something for fun. Humans are the only ones that do that, because humans are seriously sick in the head. Children and animals just sort of feel like they did something wrong when they get beaten, the line “their defenselessness that tempts the tormentor” really rang true with that as well. If you know your victim won’t or can’t fight back, it makes doing things to them all the more inviting. No consequences. Sometimes I wish animals did have the capacity to be cruel and torturous; maybe then people would think twice about beating their dogs and contributing to factory farming. Revenge of the Farm… that’d be nice.
Ivan then just goes on and talks about all sorts of terrible things that happen to children and why it sucks so much. If the author was trying to prove a point here, it certainly got through with me. I was very intrigued and had a sort of morbid curiosity about all the different torture methods. I thought they were all horrible and would never wish them on anyone, but I was still interested; If the subject matter was anything else I’m sure everyone who read it, including myself, would not have been quite as interested. I guess that just kind of proves how obsessed people are with pain and the grotesque.
Oh, and I really loved the part where Ivan said, “And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself,” because he basically said that sending good people to heaven and bad people to hell (if those places exist) isn’t good enough. The Justice has to be tangible and earthly, because there’s so much doubt and questionability regarding God’s plan, that his “plan” isn’t good enough.
On the question of sins of the father:
DeleteEzekial: 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
But wait there's more!
Exodus 34:7 - Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].
So yeah. And both are in the old testament. So take your pick.
And, as is so often the case, they're both right. We are tremendously affected by the lives our parents and ancestors have led. Good decisions or poor decisions can reverberate for years.
DeleteOn the other hand, we all have the ability to mould our our destinies.
Ivanka Voutchkov
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious from this chapter that Ivan has a very low opinion of adults. When he speaks to Alyosha he talks about how he does not believe, in the case of adults, that one can truly love his neighbor. the quote, "It's just one's neighbors, to my mind, that one can't love, though one might love those at a distance." I find this very interesting, because it seems that Dostoevsky is implying that once one gets to know a person there is always a trait that would make the person unlovable.
Alyosha, who is definitely idealistic, counters by saying that there are people who are kind and loving to all.
I happen to agree with Ivan, that people always find something in each other to dislike, or a reason to be less than loving and kind to each other.
Ivan then goes on to explain that children are far more deserving and easy to love, because they are innocent. Even so, he goes on to describe how children have suffered because of the sins of another. This is something that has happened time and time again, which Dostoevsky shows through Ivan's speech. I also agree with Ivan when he says that ,"a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel." This is a very bold and true statement that describes the horrible atrocities humans have committed against each other throughout history.
I enjoyed this chapter very much, and Dostoevsky's writing was brilliant and rang true on many accounts.
I think the best way for me to express my opinion about this piece is to do a lectio of sorts on the line:
ReplyDelete"People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts."
I found that line very thought-provoking. Ivan goes on to explain that beast can never be so cruel as a man, so “artistically” cruel. If you think about it, the way that wild animals (our beasts in this case) attack their prey does seem primitive and savage. However, as Ivan puts it, a tiger only can tear and gnaw, and it doesn’t think about torturing it’s victim. In other words, there is no malicious intent on the part of the tiger; it is simply doing what it knows how to do to survive.
I agree with Ivan's reasoning here. Throughout history, there are instances of humans killing other humans, especially defenseless ones like children, in unneccessarily brutal ways. Not only are these inhumane methods of killing people intended to torture the victim and those who are close to the victim and have to bear witness, but they also satiated the need for amusement in the individuals doing the killing. The example that Ivan uses is a baby being entertained by the pistol of a Turk soldier inches from its face. As the baby laughs, the soldier pulls the trigger and "blows out its brains" right in front of the baby's mother. This was an "artistic" way of killing the baby, and was amusing to the Turk soldiers.
I also agree with Ivan when he says that the tiger mentioned earlier would never think about think of "nailing people by the ears" even if he were physicall able to do it. Even if tigers had opposable thumbs, i'm sure most people can agree with me that it would not start to cruelly torture its prey, such as some humans torture defenseless ones. This leads me to the question: what is the mental aspect that humans have that causes them cruelly torture the defenseless that wild animals (beasts) lack?
To comment on the chapter as a whole, I enjoyed reading it because I found myself wanting to know more about Ivan's ideals as a person through the stories he would tell and how he was trying to pursuade Alyosha.
Well, as to why humans can be so cruel, I guess we also have Reason to thank for that. Cats are said to be playing with their victims, but they're just following instinct.
DeleteBut deliberate cruelty. . . is not forgivable. (Does anyone remember who said that?)
I've just started reading this, and so far I am very intrigued by Ivan's perception of children vs. adults. He speaks very highly of children and even says that he thinks they cant be ugly. He finds them innocent, and also finds it unfair that they have to suffer for their father's sins even though they weren't responsable. Ivan even goes as far as to say that children and adults are like different creatures. This surpised me because, from my knowledge, I had though in less developed countries like Russia, children were treated like small adults. It puzzled me that a Russian author would include a character that believed children were entirely different from adults.
ReplyDeleteMeera Davé
It feels quite different to be writing on this blog about one chapter, after the summer reading blog where we were reflecting on entire books. Nevertheless, this excerpt from The Brothers Karamozov was brimming with strong opinions and points to make you sit back and reflect on.
ReplyDeleteI found it difficult to pick up on what the conversation between Ivan and Alyosha was about. Jumping into the fourth chapter of the story, I feel as though I missed some valuable background information- like what brought about this impassioned exchange of opinions in the first place. In the dialogue, Ivan is dancing around his rejection of the world that God has created, mostly the fact that it is built around a foundation of suffering. He capitalizes on the suffering of children, and reminds us several times that this is only a small portion of his argument. I thought his points were incredibly interesting, especially how he used his stories to make his point and really sell his idea. But that is how it works, when you are trying to convince others of something, you use stories and facts that accent your suggestion perfectly.
A way I think Ivan was especially convincing in his idea was because of his appeal to natural human emotions. Even though it was supposedly weakening his argument, narrowed the scope of his argument to the suffering of children was quite effective. There’s just something about the death of children that really strikes a chord in you. The tales that Ivan recounts were chilling, and he was spot on when he states, “People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel.” I think that statement was interesting because usually men are quick to defend mankind. It’s often the animals, the beasts that are blamed for their irrational violence, when most of the time they are provoked by man in the first place. It’s their nature to do so. Humans however, were not made to do that in my opinion. It’s their conscious choice to perform acts of malice and contempt. It is very sad to think that, like Ivan says, children must suffer horribly for the sins of others, and that it’s “just their defenselessness that tempts the tormentor”. I thought another powerful quote was- “Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that childs prayer to God”. This makes me certain that Ivan really feels for the fate of those children. He isn’t simply making conversation about how terrible some children are treated, he is purely sorrowed and angry about the topic.
I feel like my thoughts are very scattered after reading this passage. Ivan had such strong thoughts and very valid, moving points on the suffering of children. I almost don't know what to make of them because it's a topic I've never seen discussed so deeply. Paired with his views on mankind and God, it really makes me wonder why the conversation was drawn because he is so passionately supporting an idea that is probably not very common among his family and peers.
While it's different than what we were used to over the summer, I like responding to just one chapter. It's a chance to be more specific in our responses due to the fact that we don't have to generalize an entire book like over the summer. Though to be fair, I never thought I'd be on this website again.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the chapter when it explained the characters, I had a slightly different image of Ivan's manner. I pictured him as a pessimistic sulking man who thinks everything sucks. After reading this chapter, that description may not exactly be wrong, but it's a bit too shallow of a description. Ivan is truly someone who questions the greater things in life. He is somewhat of a realistic philosopher. An example would be his beginning question, How can one love thy neighbour? Ivan seems to have lost a lot of respect for the human race as a whole, mainly the adults of humanity. He believes most people have sinned and sohld plain and simple be punished for it. He believes that the poor innocent youth of the world should not have to bear the sins of his father. These innocent kids have not yet eaten the apple like so many adults in the world, so why should they be punished? Ivan even backs up his claims with shocking and tragic horror stories of children beig tortured: thrown onto bayonettes, ripped apart by dogs, shot directly in their smiling faces, it's absolutely horrifying. And oddly enough (another hint about Ivan's character), hes bringing up all of this to his brother who is training to become a peaceful Monk. It could show that Ivan isn't afraid of challenging people, or of being in the minority opinion. Ivan truly reveals the horrors of the world, and he is very covincing in doing so.
I agree strongly agree with Brenda in her response. The title and author intimidated me at first. I expected a strongly written chapter that would e difficult to follow along with. I know you should not "judge a book by it cover," but sometimes it is hard not to. I discovered later on that the chapter was both strongly descriptive and hard put down. I went into reading expecting to be bored and wanting to rush through, but the opposite happened. Ivan had a lot of input to express during the chapter to Alyosha. Ivan is an interesting character I'd say at the very least. I found some things he said to be disturbing and upsetting, but I could see what he was coming from. Some of his points he made along the chapter I did agree with.
ReplyDeleteIvan is a man of wise words. He has a strong input on love as he stated in the beginning of the chapter. He is very doubtful on love. As he said loving ones neighbors seems impossible, but to love someone from a distance is possible. He seems uneasy about forming a tight relationship with someone whom is near to him. Ivan seems to be a man of many words, and many of which are sad and upsetting. Throughout the chapter Ivan described in detail of children being tortured, killed, and neglected because of adults. It was clear to me he showed an interst in children, but a hatred for adults. I wonder why he resents adults as much as he does? Why are children so fascinating to him? It seems that Ivan thinks adults are out to hurt or torture children.
What I found strange about Ivan is his adoration for children. I agree with Kierra's comment on how Ivan relates to Holden in "Catcher in the Rye." Ivan seems bothered by adults because they are not innocent like children. "Children while they are quite little -- up to seven, for instance -- are so remote from grown-up people they are different creatures, as it were, of a different species." Ivan shows to seperate children from adults completely. I do however agree with Ivan concerning the fact that children are very different from adults. They are inexperienced, young, innocent, and free. Children do not fuly understand the hardships of their life around them, similiar to today. I feel Ivan has such a strong interest in children because he wishes he were still one. Many days I still wish I was a child. No longer having to worry about jobs, college, grades, the economy around us, and worrying about our future. I miss the days when our parents made up our minds, and we didn't have to worry about the world surrounding us.
"I think if the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness." I agree with Ivan's quote he makes to Alyosha. In todays world men can be the devil. Ever since the Sandy Hook shooting there have been so many gun concerning stories on the news it is heart breaking. People are in charge of who they are, what they do, and who they become. There wrongs are not because the devil told them to do it, they commited evil all on their own. "Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them."
Over all I must admit this chapter to be very insightful, and strongly written. Ivan has a lot of passion towards children and their well being.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, having read this two days ago I find it still lingering with me. The disturbing images of tortured children and Ivan’s lack of faith, especially. For only one chapter of the work, a brief peak into the inner thoughts of Ivan, I found it captivating. I believe there is so much more to Ivan we have yet to find out, because after reading of the stories he shared with his brother I think he has a lot of underlying problems.
Through the chapter, I was able to pick up on Ivan’s lack of trust for others. He says, “I could never understand how one can love one’s neighbours.” Our neighbors are supposed to be our friends, people that are there for us when we need them, and inevitably a sense of caring should blossom. Another indication is when he says, “…for as soon as he shows his face, love is gone.” He means as soon as someone expresses their love for someone else, they will not be reciprocated. This only happens when one is betrayed or the love is false. When people truly love each other, I believe it should be openly expressed between the two. But he has a wall up, and does not believe love will be there after one person expresses the love to the other. Another indication is when Ivan says, “To my thinking, Christ-like love for men is a miracle impossible on earth.” While I believe Christ will love all unconditionally, I do believe there is love on earth. I know there is, I am loved and I love others. While Ivan proves a point that we are not gods, and are so not capable of “godly” love, there is still love on earth. Through his statement, I think he doesn’t feel loved. If he had strong faith, he would be able to feel that love between him and God. These statements indicate he doesn’t trust others and he doesn’t feel loved. This leads me to believe he has undergone some sort of trauma or betrayal.
I also think Ivan was shown the evil side of humans when he says, “I think if the devil doesn’t exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.” Here he basically says that humans are capable of being as evil as a devil, thus creating the devil. Another quote of Ivan, “…a beast can never be so cruel as man, so artistically cruel.” This is true, in that a beast is not capable of creating methods of slow torture, or thinking of what will inflict the most pain, ect. But humans can. I think about in war with captured prisoners, and think how I’m sure they are being tortured by those that captured them. But as for the quotes, there is a clear indication that Ivan passionately believes in the evil capabilities of humans, which I believe he has come across in his life.
I am interested to know what happened to Ivan. His stories are too gruesome, and his points too clear that he looks as adults as evil, vile, creatures, and children as the epitome of innocence. Was he tortured as a child? Was a child taken from him? A fellow sibling which is why he feels the importance to tell all of this to his brother? I am left with so many questions at the end of the chapter.
I’d also just like to say what a good brother Alyosha appears to be. He listens to all Ivan’s horrendous stories, and has responses that don’t overlook what he is saying. Also, Alyosha agrees to listen to Ivan’s poem at the end. He also brings up an important aspect in the end; God. I think he balances out Ivan in this chapter, and possibly in the whole story.
"I am left with so many questions at the end of the chapter."
DeleteRachel, I'm sure you'll want to read the rest of the book. (No summer reading this summer, so. . .)
The Karamazovs are a dysfunctional family. It's been a long time since I read it, but as I remember there's no mother. The father, I think, is an alcoholic. And then, as I said in an earlier reply, the three brothers are very different because Dostoevsky wants three distinct character types to write about.
And Alyosha is a good brother. He's delightful, he's saintly.
I think Ivan is both correct and incorrect. He is correct in that there are monsters in this world, there always have been and always will be. I think Ivan is interesting in the way he speaks in constant contradiction with himself, saying he wants harmony but does not want people to forgive. It is also odd that he seems to understand this contradiction but is unable to address it. Ivan even admits he cannot understand and does not want to. He talks about how we must suffer on earth to get our place in heaven, yet he admits he does not want retribution in heaven, but instead wants it on earth. He also realizes this longing for others suffering only prolongs the cycle. He says, “What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it? -- I must have justice, or I will destroy myself.” I disagree with him on the nature of mankind though. He believes we are here to suffer and to cause others to suffer, but he misjudges humanity in my opinion. I’m the first person to point out how evil men are, but he seems to totally forget the other side of the coin. We are capable of incredible feats of kindness as well as evil. For every Hitler, we will have a Ghandi. He instantly assumes that because men are capable of evil, they must be evil. He says of men, ”-- they've eaten the apple and know good and evil, and they have become 'like gods.' They go on eating it still. But the children haven't eaten anything, and are so far innocent.” He also believes that because children are innocent, they should not have to suffer. I agree. They should not. But neither should any man. But there is still evil, and there will still be suffering. Innocence does not make you intangible to evil; if anything it makes you a larger target. He seems to believe that simply because we understand the nature of evil we have to indulge in it. I don’t want to bring religion into the argument, but it is hard not to when he continues to refer to it. He thinks that we have eaten of the apple to become evil, but I believe (speaking in a biblical sense) if we have “eaten the apple”, it was not so we could do evil, but so we had the ability to recognize and resist evil. I also believe that Ivan does not understand the basis of Christianity. He says, “If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony…” I don’t think he understands what Christians are taught. He may be referring to the Old Testament, but the New Testament is supposed to be the solution. (Quick religious recap here) The Old Testament says that we are made to suffer for eating of the apple of Eden. We were made to wander the earth hopelessly until the coming of our savior (I.E Jesus). He seems to be stuck on the Old Testament. The New Testament says, our suffering is over and we may finally enter heaven. Ivan thinks that our purpose on the earth is to suffer for the original sin, die and go to heaven. This is not the basis of Christianity. The basis of Christianity is that we are here to alleviate the suffering of others and help the world. I believe the exact term is “On earth as it is in heaven.” Ivan seems to totally overlook this. It seems to that Ivan is actually unable to understand that men can do good. In fact, he blatantly states this at the outset of the argument. When talking of a saint who healed a beggar he remarks, “I am convinced that he did that from 'self-laceration,' from the self-laceration of falsity, for the sake of the charity imposed by duty, as a penance laid on him.” When I reread this sentence, I stopped being upset at Ivan for his bleak outlook and began to pity him. He actually believes that men cannot do something good, unless they believe it is required of them.
ReplyDelete(it cut me off for some reason, this is the rest) I do not fault Ivan for this outlook; he was living during a terrible time in a terrible country that was racked by turmoil and fear. It does anger me, though, the way he uses his opinion. He attempts to state it as fact. When I read the argument they have it seems to me that he doesn’t want his brother to actually argue or take his side into consideration, but instead it seems to me that Ivan is trying to convert him. He constantly refers to his stories as “facts” even though he gives no reference to the other side. This upsets me because, he may be cynical and I do pity him, but he has no right to attempt to make others miserable simply because he is.
DeleteI agree Zach. Ivan thinks that he know the answers to life, but he is confused. He does not know how to accept the fact that there are horrible people in this world, but there are also good people. His actions and ideas are destroying the innocence and religious teachings of his brother and he is becoming the evil he is demeaning. Ivan lived in a dark time and only saw the bad. If he saw some good acts of humanity, he might change his views.
Delete"I think Ivan is interesting in the way he speaks in constant contradiction with himself, saying he wants harmony but does not want people to forgive. It is also odd that he seems to understand this contradiction but is unable to address it. Ivan even admits he cannot understand and does not want to." There's a man who's going to have a hard time being happy.
DeleteIvan's big quandary is why there is suffering in the world, and why the innocent -- especially children -- should be subject to it.
After reading this, there are a few quotes that stood out to me.
ReplyDelete"A beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel." Before reading this, I had always thought of nature as so cruel. I would watch those nature shows on Animal planet and see little baby antelope eaten by the big ferocious lion, and I would think that was just the most horrible thing. But after reading this chapter, I realized that the lion was eating the antelope merely as a means of survival. It is not necessary for man to torture. The real evil is that man totures not out of necessity but out of pleasure, and that is significantly more evil than the lion the kills the antelope.
"That the absurd is only too necessary on earth." This quote was said by Ivan after Alyosha admitted that the man the let dogs rip apart a child should be shot. Though Alyosha is training to be a monk, and is supposed to be forgiving to all, he believed that the man should be killed, which doesnt corrolate to his religion. Ivan then responds with, " So there is a little devil sitting in your heart!" Even the most benevolent people on the earth have a little evil in them because humans are not perfect, and its human nature to want to see bad things happen to bad people.
"I don't want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him!" Ivan begins to question religion as he realizes that religion expects an individual to forgive, no matter the circumstance. Ivan can't fathom the thought of the mother forgiving the man that murdered her child in front of him, and part of me has to agree with Ivan. I was always taught to forgive and not hold a grudge, but I don't see how any person can forgive a crime that terrible. If someone were to murder a person I loved dearly, I can honestly say that I would never forgive the person that took someone I loved away from me. But does that make me a bad person? I think what I am thinking at the moment is similar to how Ivan felt.
Meera Davé
I was also very troubled by Ivan's quote about humans being artistically cruel. I think him using the word "artistically" makes it seem even more sadistic because people artistically create masterpieces and if someone viewed how they tortured someone as a masterpiece, they are a truly sick person.
DeletePhoebe, now that you mention it, "artistically" is a very intersting word choice. Artisically is usually used in a positive way to describe someone's creativity. But in this chapter, it was to descibe the creative ways of torture. "Artistically" is a word that comes with a lot of imagery, and this words gives a different image of torture, in a sick way, as an art form.
DeleteMeera Davé
Phoebe, I was thinking the same thing when reading it. "Artistically" makes it sound thought out and maybe even abstract or creative in nature. That it to say, it is different and extreme, and that it leaves an impression- horrific as it may be. I think this word choice really suits the nature of the events being described, as Ivan's point was to make us feel disgust for these torturous people- even more so than we already did just from how they hurt the children.
Delete"The real evil is that man tortures not out of necessity but out of pleasure, and that is significantly more evil than the lion the kills the antelope."
DeleteI think it most often arises from ideology, a sense of righteousness. But doubtless there are people who take pleasure from it. The pure sociopath, who tortures for the mere thrill of it, though common in movies and on tv, is rare in real life. (I'm thinking. I have no statistical data to bear me out.)
"Though Alyosha is training to be a monk, and is supposed to be forgiving to all, he believed that the man should be killed, which doesn't correlate to his religion."
I'm totally opposed to capital punishment. But there are certain cases where -- but for my philosophical opposition -- first instinct is to see that kind of just punishment. (here, though, Reason will outweigh Justice.)
Based on the title of this chapter, I did not expect it to be anything like it was. I expected an actual rebellion against a tangible power, not a man denouncing humans and renouncing God’s plan. Ivan defiantly isn’t afraid of speaking his opinions, even if they can create doubts in his brother’s mind. I think if I had to sum up Ivan’s entire message, it would boil down to humans are evil and don’t deserve forgiveness. Because of his various examples and my own beliefs, I had no trouble accepting the first part of his message. I had to think more about how Ivan could say that humans don’t deserve forgiveness and harmony and still claim to believe in God. He even goes on to almost mock “the One without sin and His blood” when his brother gives Him as the reason people deserved forgiveness. As many others have noted, Ivan says he thinks man invented the devil and his brother concludes that he also means man created God. He then goes on to say “Yours must be a fine God, if man created Him in his image and likeness” after criticizing humans, so he obviously doesn’t trust God’s plan as he also does when he says he would return the ticket to harmony because of the price the children have paid. I think Ivan is a realist to the fault of not being able to trust anyone because he knows humans are evil.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this chapter, I wondered how this conversation came up. I know we are going to read Ivan’s story in the next chapter, but if that doesn’t tell anything about Alyosha’s reaction, I wonder if he would continue to study to become a monk after Ivan opened his eyes to his view of the world. Overall, I liked how this passage was able to make me feel disgusted with the people in the stories and therefore, humans in general. Ivan is a very persuasive speaker.
And back to this blog we are again! I can say that this is indeed a bleak and ominous story and after reading one chapter, I can barely imagine what the entirety of the book must be like.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase that struck me the most of the entire 9 pages was this, “But, in the first place, children can be loved even at close quarters, even when they are dirty, even when they are ugly (I fancy, though, children never are ugly).” The comment that Ivan made about how children are able to be loved no matter who they are or what they look like connects with me. I believe that what makes children so special and forces people to not make judgment on them but to love them as they are, is their innocence. Children have yet to face the world and see it still as a fairy tale. Children almost live in their own, little dream world, a world of innocence, and are sometimes blind to the troubles around them. Maybe Ivan in a way wishes to be a child again and to join the children in their dream world, safe from his life and all that’s in it. With this statement, Ivan reminds me a little of Holden from Catcher in the Rye. Both have secret desires, even unbenognstt to themselves, to revert to their childhood and its innocence. Not only is their desire to be a child again observed but so is the compassion and parent-like sense they have towards children. They are like protectors of the children in a twisted, quite different sense.
At the same time, as bleak and ominous as this chapter is, the reference to children seemed to contradict it in a way. When I picture children, I picture lively and endearing little things, which are loved by all, for who cannot love a child. The dark nature of this chapter seemed to be quite the contrary to this picture in my head. It could just be me though.
As I continued reading, I came across this quote, “These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, too; cutting the unborn child from the mother’s womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes. Doing it before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement.” It was yet another reference to children and another of many to come about horrid acts of crime. What would make Ivan say such thing with such casualty, as if he were discussing the weather with Alyosha, is completely unknown to me. Obviously, there is much more to Ivan than the author directly says and throughout the story I hope to find out what that is. The lack of understanding about Ivan’s past could be due to the fact that we jumped into the reading at Chapter 4.
As the story goes on, one tale after another told by Ivan is about senseless and cruel actions, mostly on the adults/parents part. This leads me to believe that possibly the underlying cause of Ivan’s depressive state (as I questioned before) could be an issue within his own family? It’s just a prediction.
It cut me off ha,
Delete“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?” This last question provoked a lot of questions about my own personal beliefs, as I’m sure many others, along with Ivan’s beliefs too. Ivan is asking why would God have a perfect, normal little girl be killed if she did nothing wrong? It makes many people, including myself, question their belief in God when something like this happens. I can guarantee that after the recent shooting in Newtown, Connecticut where not 1 but 20 young children, children with hopes and dreams that will never be achieved, were mass murdered many people were thinking the same thing. Why would God allow such a thing to happen? It is a question that has arisen time and time again for centuries and is something that people will never find an answer too.
This specific question leads me to believe that Ivan may also be a lot smarter than the reader realizes. This thought provoking question is one that makes me agree with Corey, that Ivan is quite the philosopher.
Despite the darkness to the story and my desire to stop reading something like it and instead pick-up a much more cheerful book, The Brothers Karamazov is drawing me back in to read more…
Samantha Riley
"What would make Ivan say such thing with such casualty, as if he were discussing the weather with Alyosha, is completely unknown to me."
DeleteHe's assuming a cynical distance, a casualness that mirrors how he feels events such as these are treated by the world. (And isn't he right? What heartless atrocities are visited upon children everyday, yet cause not a ripple on out souls?) Make no mistake, he cares. Like Holden, he is being ripped apart by this world.
The scrutiny of adults and adulthood in general reminded me of the Le Petit Prince which I read in French last year. Rebellion criticizes adults for “eating the apple,” or committing a sin and Ivan seems like he is confused at why adults do certain things, such as forgiving someone who hurt their child when it is not their place to forgive that person. The Little Prince criticizes adults and society in their focus on money and material things. In both novels the ways of adults are not understood and they’re criticized in comparison to those of innocent children, who instead focus on the magic and wonder of life.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting when Ivan told the story of the burglar who had murdered whole families, including children, but when he was in jail he looked through the window and watched the children playing and even befriended one of them. I wondered why this happened, but then I thought this reinforced the theme of innocence in the story. Maybe the burglar saw the innocence in this child and wanted to connect with the child to try and feel this innocence. I know in my life someone told me one of my older friends might enjoy spending time with me so much because it makes her feel youthful and she can act like a kid around me and forget about her stressful life to have innocent fun. I think this is similar to the situation in the chapter because the prisoner might want to put himself in the child’s shoes to feel what it’s like to be young and innocent again and he does this in befriending the child.
I also liked the comparison between tigers and the Turks and Circassians. Ivan said, “[The Turks and Circassians] burn villages, murder, outrage women and children, they nail their prisoners by the ears to the fences, leave them so till morning, and in the morning they hang them—all sorts of things you can’t imagine. People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that’s a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel…” I thought this was an extremely powerful comparison and it really did make me see the intense torture humans can inflict, even worse than a tiger. This could be a similar comparison, in a less barbaric context, referring to the cruelty of people today, specifically teenagers in the school. I can’t believe some of the malicious acts people commit just in our school through bullying and harassment. They have the same intensity as the Turks, in my mind and really torture people.
Finally, I was confused reading the last long paragraph. Ivan said that all must suffer to achieve eternal harmony, but he doesn’t believe the children should suffer. I was wondering is he saying that children shouldn’t pay for sins until they become adults. If everyone must pay at some point why does age matter? Is he just saying that the universe should let children stay innocent and make them pay later as adults? I’d be interested in what you guys think!!
"Eating the apple" has come up several times.
DeleteOf course, it wasn't an apple at all, but the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- and after eating it Adam and Eve became "like gods", with knowledge of Good and Evil (as well as Free Will, and Mortality.
A lot of books and stories that we have read over the years have always been about the life of someone and not so much their thoughts on things. When I first started to read this chapter I soon realized it wasn’t like what we had read before. As far as I remember we have never read a book this deep and thought provoking. As I was reading I found myself questioning and thinking about a lot of things that Ivan was describing. I was trying to figure out how all the stories and facts and opinions were going to wrap up. I wasn’t quite sure what he was trying to get across to his brother Alyosha.
ReplyDeleteJust as is listed in the little short summary above the chapter I would describe Ivan as a skeptic and a doubter. In this chapter he questions why so many bad things happy to all of these poor innocent people. He especially focuses on children. I agree with him that all of these things that happen to these poor innocent children are awful. I couldn’t believe that things like happen, it’s just awful. Mothers having to watch their babies die or even that young boy that was killed for throwing a stone at a hound. It’s crazy to think that things like this have and do happen in the world.
“If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please?” This was the quotation from Ivan when he was trying to wrap together all of the ideas and stories he had just told his brother. I found this quotation very interesting. When I read this line I finally started to put together everything that Ivan was trying to say. These people had done nothing but yet had to suffer all of this. Hell isn’t going to do much since the damage had already been done and those poor people had had to die because of it. Ivan didn’t understand how a God could exist and let these kinds of things go on and forgive them.
Ivan started off his confession by stating “I could never understand how one can love one’s neighbor”. Thinking back to this quotation after reading the whole chapter I realize why he would think this. When there are so many people out there that do all these awful things so why should we open our homes and hearts to people we barely know. The person could be just like one of these awful people but yet we still do it. But without us opening our hearts and arms the world would be full of all of these awful people.
While there might not be that person in the whole world who would have the right to forgive and could forgive and the world might not be perfect with all these people suffering we can’t just not care for the world and the people in it. Everyone says “everything happens for a reason” and while these deaths may seem terrible especially to those innocent children, there is no “perfect world” therefore we must have the belief in what we have and make the best of it.
Ivan has a very negative thought of the world and while the world is the way the world is, these thoughts are very interesting to think about. Even after writing all this I still feel like there was so much more to the chapter that I didn’t comprehend or write about. I have spent hours thinking about all the things he said and these thoughts will continue to bounce around in my head.
Jackie Wolff
"When I first started to read this chapter I soon realized it wasn’t like what we had read before."
DeleteAye, we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
Ivan is a master storyteller. When his subject matter is the brutal torture of children, he is still accessible. It is surprising that his brother almost seems like he isn't listening. Of course, Alyosha is making a decision not to pay too much attention; Ivan's points are very compelling, even if they contrast with the fundamental ideas of Alyosha's beliefs.
ReplyDelete"I think if the devil doesn’t exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness."
It is the truth, and it is a line that undoubtedly resounds with every other human being that has read the book. Of course, Ivan fails to address the other side as well: If God doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own likeness and image.
It seems as though Ivan cannot comprehend that man can do good without a promise of personal benefit, without even a chance of it. Yes, a good amount of adults in the world lack empathy or compassion - but how can you lack something that isn't even there in the first place? This is the way that Ivan's philosophy is flawed.
Taylor Becchetti's having trouble getting through. (I did myself, at first). So I'm passing this along from her. Have at it!
ReplyDeleteOverall I found the chapter to be quite enlightening into both Ivan and Alyosha's thoughts. Ivan represents himself as the clear leader of the two brothers by repeatedly attempting to convince his sibling that his opinion is the correct one. I find it strange that Alyosha seems to agree with his brother even after Ivan seemed to change his stance on whether or not the beating of children was acceptable in society. Alyosha agrees first that it is just, and then that it is not, that is until Alyosha is told to speak. At that point he responds with the answer Ivan expected, but the author adds "lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale twisted smile." This statement alone shows that Alyosha has his own motives that Ivan may not be aware of, and makes me suspect that he was expecting Ivan to come to this conclusion all along. It also makes me feel that the author is trying to show that even in the good people of the world there is some speck of evil.
Shortly after that, Ivan says to his brother "You are dear to me, I don't want to let you go, and I won't give you up to your Zossima." By saying this I feel that Ivan has summed up why he had this exchange with his brother. It seems that he was hoping that by sharing the horror stories with Alyosha then his brother may reconsider becoming a monk and instead stay with him. The fact that Ivan shows hi emotional side for such a short moment makes it clear to m that he is used to staying the typical "no emotions" man, but is throwing this plea to his brother as a last ditch effort.
Well, I was very surprised by the content of this chapter. When I started reading, it definitely seemed like Ivan was cautious with the nature of mankind and humanity. However, as I kept reading, I started to think that Ivan had lost hope in mankind. The experiences he had and the stories he heard about definitely changed his view on life and humans’ actions. In a sense, Ivan has grown up quickly. He lost his innocence and adopted a darker, more realistic view on life. His brother Alyosha, on the other hand, has a more religious-based view. He sees the good in people and the hope that God will forgive wrong-doers. Sometimes, Ivan shows a deep hatred for people, such as the people that torture their children. For example, Ivan condemns the torture of a child that was disliked by her parents but questions to whether or not a God exists. If a God did exist, he would not have allowed such a thing to happen or let such evil take over. Ivan even said "I think if the devil doesn't exist, and man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness." Through the horrific stories Ivan has heard, he has started to believe that humans are inherently evil. One of the stories that led Ivan to lose hope in humanity was the story of the tragedies committed by the Turks and Circassians. Ivan heard that these groups of men committed countless crimes against women and children in Bulgaria. These crimes included throwing babies up on top of bayonets and shooting babies in the face. These crimes are unfathomable and show the worst in humanity. Ivan cannot see any good in anyone anymore and questions the world he lives in. Some people are facing the problems in our time now, more specifically the Newtown Tragedy. Our nation questioned how a person could be so evil in the slaughter of 20 children, just like how Ivan feels following the Bulgarian tragedy. I am confused and horrified by what happened in Ivan’s stories, but I cannot judge what happened because we cannot look backwards with modern eyes. What happened in Ivan’s time may have been commonplace because of Russia’s backwardness and lack of compassion. In the end, I will agree and disagree with Ivan. I agree with Ivan’s belief that people are not perfect and atrocities will happen but I disagree with Ivan’s belief that all humans are inherently evil. Whether or not there is a higher power, humans will show compassion because it is in their nature.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter of The Brothers Karamazov had a very strong theme of existentialism, similar to the movie Groundhog Day that we are currently watching. Obviously the tone of the two existentialistic stories was very different, with Groundhog Day giving a comic, lighthearted take on existentialism, and The Brothers Karamazov presenting a much dark and bleak look on existentialism.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how Ivan chose to pick out the cruelty of children specifically to explain his point to Alyosha, as a sort of facet or clarified microcosm even of human cruelty. I think he made this decision because it is easy to get lost talking about such a broad and complex idea, so focusing on just one piece helps to stay grounded and clear when explaining a view.
I agree with Ivan's opinion that horrible crimes like the ones he described are worse when done to innocent children because they can't even understand what is being done and why. I found the story about the girl and her parents especially shocking and disgusting both because they are her parents and I can't imagine how any person could do such things to any child much less their own child, as well as how the parents were with others in society. With the way I was brought up I think I've come to associate education and background with kindness and civility, as a way of humans trying to perfect themselves and society, so the fact that the parents could belong to such a society among adults and yet still do such horrible things to their own child was a complete contradiction to this and kind of turned things upside down for me, just as proof that evil can and unfortunately often does exist everywhere.
I liked how the two brothers having the discussion in the chapter seemed to represent extreme opposite viewpoints and stances on life, with Alyosha representing faith and acceptance, and Ivan representing skepticism and fact. Ivan seemed like he wanted to have faith, but simply couldn't with the facts that he had witnessed, when he said he didn't want to understand anything, just stick to the facts. Personally, I would side with Ivan's approach in the discussion. It seemed that Alyosha's faith was becoming more and more strained as he was forced to go against it with the facts Ivan was presenting, such as when Alyosha admitted that the general should be shot. I find faith to be too blind and misleading often when faced against facts. I don't denounce faith in things; I do think it is important, I just find myself incapable of it usually in a logical approach to things. I think Ivan felt the same way, as he wanted to believe in harmony but couldn't with all the horrible things he had seen.
Lastly, I found it very interesting how Ivan said that the mother of the boy the general killed had no right to forgive him for her son, even if the son forgave as well. I had always seen forgiveness as a choice, not a right, but I thought that it was very interesting the way Ivan described it, and it has made me consider the idea of forgiveness in a different light.
-Dan Gadoury
Ivan may be on his way to Existentialism, but for now he is very much living in a Christian universe, overseen by the God of the Bible. He finds that hard to reconcile with the world he sees on a day-to-day basis.
DeleteI was amazed by how much is learned about Ivan just from reading what he says. It is obvious that Ivan has a very negative view of the world. It seems as though he doesn't want to believe in there being anything good in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe events that Ivan describes were truly horrifc, but also very thought provoking. I think recounting these terrible events really helps Ivan explain his point of view and it also seemed very persuasive. Ivan questions the existence of God and his brother disagrees. Alyosha appears to be just as disgusted with the events described as I van is, but still holds a much more optimistic view of the world.
Throughout the chapter, Alyosha speaks very little, but when he does, he disagrees with his brother, even though he does agree that he would want the suffering children avenged. Alyosha later says that what he said was absurd and Ivan couters this by saying that the world is made up of absurdities. This in particular really made me think. I still feel like I don't understand eveything Ivan was trying to say, but I feel that particular line is important.
By the end of the chapter, it is clear that Ivan and Alyosha have extremely different views and as such, do not agree with eachother. Ivan sees the world as a dark and torturous place where the torturers get to go free, while Alyosha sees the world from a religious point of view in which God is good and has the power to forgive everything and everyone.
"Alyosha later says that what he said was absurd and Ivan counters this by saying that the world is made up of absurdities."
DeleteAbsurdity. That will be coming up later in the semester: {Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead}.
Caroline Morrison wants to say. . .
ReplyDelete"Well as embarrassing as it is to probably be the last person to offer comments on this piece, I have to state my case and honestly tell you that I actually finished reading this on Tuesday night. However, I let myself think on it for a few days so I could accurately shape my opinion on it before I commented. It didn't work. I'm still not too sure on where I stand with this piece, because I can agree with both of Ivan's contradicting arguments. And in a way, I think that that's why the character is the way he is. He may be cynical and negative and sometimes a little loony, but it's so easy to agree with him that you can't really dislike him as a character. I also think that the relationship between Alyosha and Ivan could probably be taken as a biblical metaphor, albeit unorthodox. I feel that these two could be compared to the innocent pre-apple Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge itself, respectively. Ivan seems to have suddenly realized where he stands in the world around him, while Alyosha is still innocent and optimistic and even wholesome. I'm not sure if the author did this on purpose, or if it's even like this in the rest of the book, but it certainly makes for an interesting dynamic in this chapter. Again, I apologize for the last minute post but as you'll find with me, I could think about something for months and still not be entirely set on how I feel on it."
It would appear that I am the last to comment, which doesn’t surprise me. I started reading this earlier in the week, and took my time digesting it. I must say that this one chapter is one of the most massive and impressive commentaries that I have ever read, and to think that it was only one chapter boggles my mind. The whole idea of human nature that Ivan presents is interesting and in many ways acurate. Horrible people do horrible things, and a lot of time they don’t even think they are doing anything wrong. That being said, a lot of people do a lot of good, and they never accept anything for it. Ivan (being decidedly glass half empty) did not mention these things in his argument. Many parts of his argument do ring true however: his very negative opinion of “love thy neighbor” for example. He says that “One can love one’s neighbor in the abstract, or even at a distance, but at close quarters its almost impossible.” This struck me as an overwhelmingly true statement for most people. Everybody is willing to say they support childhunger but ask for them to open their wallets, or worse, their schedules, and they clam up. This is not, of course, true of everybody but it does seem true for many people.
ReplyDeleteHi there, so, I finally got this thing up and working.
ReplyDeleteI found this piece of literature interesting, particularly just how cynical yet true Ivan’s take on humanity is. I found one quotation to be absolutely striking. “One can love one's neighbors in the abstract, or even at a distance, but at close quarters it's almost impossible.” Out of the many points brought up in the chapter, the child abuse, the torments and examples of needless torture, none of which I have any personal experience with, this one line registered with me because it is something I really have experienced firsthand. The others, the stories of terrible pain and suffering, are comprehendible but totally impossible to relate to my own life. Branching off of what Richter said, people are far more comfortable with unpleasant ideas when they feel they are a safe distance away from them. I feel her point about giving to a charity for helping the homeless rather than giving a homeless man money directly was spot-on. This past summer, as I was gathering donations for my mission trip in Honduras, I felt it would be reasonable to ask people I knew if they were interested in making a contribution. Many of them responded with much enthusiasm, and I ended up with plenty of toys, stickers, and supplies to bring over with me. When I returned with a camera full of pictures and a mind full of stories to tell anyone who was interested, I was rather dismayed by the lack of people close to me who wanted to spend more than four seconds of their time hearing about the experience I had just had. Ivan’s words reminded me of that. Everyone was perfectly willing to give to my organization, but that was really as far as many people wanted to go. To hear personal, firsthand accounts of the good and bad that I saw while in Honduras was too much for them. They preferred to love the idea of donating to a mission trip, but when it was over and I came back with stories of all the good their generosity had done, they didn’t have time for it. It’s a-okay to feel enthusiastic from a distance, but once it gets real it’s time for them to back off. I took loads of pictures during my trip, thinking everyone who donated would want to see where it had all gone. Wrong. They barely glanced through the photos, gave me one of those, “yeah that’s real nice” smiles, and were done. Too close of quarters, just like Ivan said, to see such poverty. On a different, broader level, this quotation made me think of how people will preach about how they just want to make a difference, but when an opportunity arises for them to stand up for something they believe in, the number of those who actually do is far smaller. Compare the number of those who witness kids getting bullied to the number of kids who stand up for that kid being bullied. If the kid is their friend, sure, maybe they’ll say something. Make it a stranger, and the chance is zero to none. Ivan's point of view was pessimistic and cynical, but I found that he did make some very true points about humanity.
Chiara Elwood says (after a long and arduous journey to get here):
ReplyDelete"I am the world's worst/ best (?) procrastinator. So, Caroline, you are not the last to comment. I found this reading to be very dark. As Ivan described the evil people in the world, I was reminded of an interview with Sonia Sotomayor on 60 minutes. In this interview, Sonia discussed how in her 17 years of serving as a U.S. district and appeals court judge, she had seen real evil and eluded to the fact that maybe some people are beyond reformation. While Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not seem to have lost all faith in humanity, Ivan has. His recounting of the atrocities towards children proved that he did not believe that a race that allowed many to be so evil was beyond help or hope. Ivan stated that he did not think anyone could atone for the sins of those people evil enough to torture children. Meanwhile, Alyosha firmly believes that Jesus Christ did in fact atone for the sins of the world. I am interested to read about Ivan's poem and learn more about the relationship of the brothers Karamazov."