Author: fangorn_isim
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky is perhaps the most profound work of the entire Victorian era. While ostensibly a murder mystery novel, Dostoevsky’s masterpiece is actually an expertly-crafted treatise on the human condition. One of the primary themes in the book is man’s inability to create meaning by his own means. This concept is addressed early in the book, with socialism being used as an example of man’s attempt to create meaning.
“…for socialism is not only the labor question or the question of the so-called fourth estate, but first of all the question of atheism, the question of the modern embodiment of atheism, the question of the tower of Babel built precisely without God, not to go from earth to heaven but to bring heaven down to earth.”
Not only is the idea of man trying (and failing) to create his own sense of meaning and “bring heaven down to earth” put forth in the previous passage, but it is implicit throughout the book. One of the best examples of this is the character and conduct of Fyodor Karamazov, who seeks fulfillment through sensuality, and even the suffering of others. Fyodor is a raging alcoholic, a deceitful and manipulative businessperson, and a terrible father. His destructive tendencies lead to his eventual demise at the hands of his illegitimate son, Smerdyakov. Another important thing about Fyodor’s character is how he is used in the book to display the falseness of a false dichotomy. Fyodor exemplifies both the “conservative” impulse of fiscal responsibility and the “liberal” ideal of libertine sexuality. Fyodor is a talented (and dishonest) businessman, and lives in about as much comfort as 1860’s Russia could afford. He also has a seemingly unquenchable sexual appetite, and conforms to practically no standard of sexual morality. With the character of Grushenka, he is given an opportunity to pursue both impulses at the same time, and, while being consumed in the pursuit of his appetites, looses both money, and his outlet of sexual indulgence. In short, Fyodor Karamazov is a case study of the ultimate failure of both the “liberal” and “conservative” social ideals.
Fyodor’s four children, the brothers for which the book is named, must grapple with the same dilemma- is meaning found in drawing nearer to God, or is the human experience perfectible by our own means? The eldest son, Dmitri, starts off much like his father. Dmitri too is a sensualist, spending most of his inheritance money on alcohol and women and frequently engaging in bar fights. Dmitri becomes embattled with his father over an inheritance dispute, and the two also fight to win the favor of Grushenka, a beautiful yet shrewd businesswoman all too eager to manipulate the both of them. Eventually, these tensions between father and son reach a fever pitch, leading Dmitri to go on a drunken rampage that ultimately gets him framed for the murder of his father. It is not until he is sentenced to life in prison that he finds repentance, and casts off his shackles of baseness and sensuality.
The middle son, Ivan, is a self-proclaimed intellectual who seeks meaning in the world of academia in and around Moscow. Ivan is both a socialist and an atheist, whose ambitions are more or less summed up by the aforementioned quote concerning socialism. Despite his supposed concern for the world, the limitations of Ivan’s ideology make it impossible for him to care for others outside of the realm of the abstract. While speaking with his brother, he admits “I never could understand how it’s possible to love one’s neighbors. In my opinion, it is precisely one’s neighbors that one cannot possibly love.” Ivan’s obsession with his political ideology actually undermines the principles he claims to uphold. He wants to use his ideology to the end of improving the world at large, but he has idolized it to the point where he is unable to love those around him. Ivan’s atheism is rooted in his belief that a good God would not allow suffering in the world. He is repulsed by the notion of a God that respects man’s free will, specifically the freedom to choose evil, and the ‘Unredeemed suffering’ that results from said choices. “She has no right to forgive the suffering of her child who was torn to pieces, she dare not forgive the tormentor, even if the child himself were to forgive him! And if that’s so if they dare not forgive, then where is the harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who could and would have the right to forgive? I don’t want harmony, for the love of mankind I don’t want it. I want to remain with unrequited suffering. I’d rather remain with my unrequited suffering and my unquenched indignation, even if I am wrong. Besides, they have put too high a price on harmony; we can’t afford we can’t afford to pay so much for admission. And therefore I hasten to return my ticket.” Because Ivan’s atheism is predicated on a hatred of evil, it does not last long. This is because if there is evil, there must be such a thing as good, and that notion of good must come from somewhere external to humanity, as it transcends evolutionist principles and utility. Ivan’s internal crisis eventually manifests itself in physical sickness, which climaxes with Ivan receiving a visit from the devil,-who he sees as himself. It is implied in the novel that Ivan abandoned his vain attempt to find meaning through atheism and socialism.
The youngest of the three brothers is Alyosha. Alyosha is distinct from the rest of his family largely because he realizes the fight he is in and sees clearly the war being waged for his soul. Because of this, and also being aware of the baser impulses which hide within him, (He is a Karamazov, after all.) Alyosha thrusts himself into monastic life. Alyosha’s condition also gives us a good look at a reality that is often dismissed by our relativist culture; Sincerity alone is not enough. Other young men around him had largely the same zeal and sincerity he did, but it did them no good, as it was oriented in the wrong direction.”Alyosha simply chose the opposite path from all others, but with the same thirst for an immediate deed. As soon as he reflected seriously and was struck by the conviction and that God and immortality exist, he naturally said at once to himself: “I want to live for immortality, and I reject any halfway compromise.” In Just the same way, if he had decided that immortality and God do not exist,he would immediately have joined the atheists and socialists.” While on the surface Alyosha’s faith seems to grant him little freedom, as in desiring to serve all men he essentially functions as an errand boy for the other characters in the book, Alyosha’s philosophy of being accountable for all men, (something he learned from his elder Zosima), along with his unwavering love for others, actually turns out to be the most livable and fulfilling worldview presented in the entire book. As such Alyosha is the only brother who, at the end of the novel, is not imprisoned, either behind iron bars like Dmitri or within himself, like Ivan. Alyosha is a great model of simplicity; he strives to live a life of obedience instead of attaching himself to any man-made ideology, and in the end, is the only Karamazov brother not subservient to some false master or God.
The fourth brother, Smerdyakov, is different from the other three. If it is the case that Alyosha built his house upon a rock, and Ivan and Dmitri built upon sand, Smerdyakov simply refuses to build a house altogether. Smerdyakov is the perfect nihilist. That is, he has successfully abandoned the pursuit of meaning. Because of this, his entire existence is little more than misery. Smerdyakov, angry at the conditions of his life which he perceives as being caused entirely by his father, Fyodor Karamazov, decides to murder him in cold blood. He also expertly frames his brother Dmitri and finally commits suicide, but not before ensuring that Dmitriti will be wrongly convicted. As his last act, Smerdyakov ensured that others would share in his misery.
In today’s world, thinking people are surrounded and besought by temptation. We are offered countless alternatives to living according to God’s commandments, many of which appeal to either our intellect or our flesh. Whether it be the socialist desire to build a Utopia, the conservative impulse to pursue material affluence, or the simple “open sexuality” of the modern age,people seem to look for meaning virtually anywhere but its true source. All of the aforementioned ideologies, despite having varying degrees of destructiveness, are ultimately hollow and can lead us only into darkness. The Brothers Karamazov gives us a clear glance at our own condition, what is at stake, and how we must respond.