Dostoevsky’s Theology: Universality of Guilt and Existentialist Thought
Ajay Chatrath
Life without Religion: A Comparison to Existentialism
Throughout his life, Fyodor Dostoevsky wrestled with the question of God’s existence, remaining unable to fully justify his religious beliefs in the presence of the seemingly overwhelming existence of evil and suffering. After publishing House of the Dead, Dostoevsky suffered extensively in both his academic and personal life, due to the deterioration of his wife’s health, the banning of his journal, and the recent increase in his epileptic fits. In the context of this turmoil, Dostoevsky began to work on Notes from the Underground, a novel which many claim to be the first existentialist work. Although existentialist thought did not fully begin to develop until the nineteenth century, Dostoevsky’s hyperconscious underground man resembles the challenges Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher, would later attribute to atheistic existentialists’ anguish in making and justifying their decisions. In that sense, the underground man’s hyperconsciousness results in mental anguish because he rejects rationality as an imperative for decision-making, similar to the atheistic existentialist’s rejection of religion.
While Sartre suggests that the atheistic existentialist is free due to his emancipation from religious obligations, the underground man claims that humans value free-will over rationality. In “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Sartre argues that Christian theists are not truly free because God envisioned their essence before their creation. However, when describing the beliefs of the atheistic existentialist, Sartre writes, “To begin with he is nothing… man shall attain existence only when he is what he projects himself to be… man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 22 – 23, 29). In other words, because human nature is not defined by God’s conception of humanity, humans are truly free to create their individual natures. Although the underground man does not describe human nature as necessarily being free of divine conception, he does suggest that human nature implies preferring free-will over rationality. For example, in part one of Notes from the Underground, the underground man challenges the notion of the “crystal palace,” a utopian ideal common in contemporary literary and philosophic thought, by writing, “Of course, it is quite impossible to guarantee… that even then people will not be bored to tears” (Notes from the Underground 283). In other words, the underground man suggests that humans would grow to dislike the crystal palace, where all ideal actions have been determined through rationality, because they would lack the opportunity to exercise their free-will. In fact, the underground man goes on to write, “Why… do all those sages assume that man must strive… after some desirable good? All man wants is an absolutely free choice, however dear that freedom may cost him” (Notes from the Underground 284). Clearly, the underground man believes that human nature involves a preference for free-will over rationality. Furthermore, the underground man suggests that human nature will eventually act on this preference to attain free-will by writing, “man will... risk his cakes and ale… he will plan destruction and chaos, he will devise all sorts of sufferings” (Notes from the Underground 288). If forced to live in the crystal palace, man will eventually risk his possessions and attempt to destroy the utopia, in order to make his own decisions (Notes from the Underground 288 - 289). The atheistic existentialist’s rejection of moral imperatives and the underground man’s rejection of rationality lead to a conception of free-will that is fundamental to understanding human nature.
Despite having free-will, atheistic existentialism and the underground man’s hyperconsciousness result in the inability to act. While theists can rely on religious doctrine to justify their decisions, Sartre argues that for the atheistic existentialist, “everything is permissible if God does not exist, and man is consequently abandoned, for he cannot find anything to rely on… We are left alone and without excuse” (Sartre 29). Because atheistic existentialists cannot use religious doctrine to make decisions, humans are forced to choose between a seemingly infinite number of sets of behaviors because “everything is permissible.” While reflecting on his own nature, the underground man writes, “the legitimate result of consciousness is to make all the actions impossible, or – to put it differently – consciousness leads to thumb-twiddling” (Notes from the Underground 276). Like Sartre, the underground man suggests that the existence of hyperconsciousness apart from a set of imperatives, such as rationality, lead to man’s inability to act. Afterwards, the underground man begins to differentiate between the “plain man” and the hyperconscious one. While discussing the former, the underground man writes, “All plain men and men of action are active only because they are dull-witted and mentally undeveloped… Owing to their arrested mental development they mistake the nearest and secondary causes for primary causes” (Notes from the Underground 276). In other words, the underground man suggests that “plain men” are able to act solely because they are unable to understand the true reasons for actions. The underground man’s description of his own hyperconsciousness resembles the choice overload faced by atheistic existentialists. In fact, the underground man writes, “For to start being active you must first of all be completely composed in mind and never be in doubt… I am constantly exercising my powers of thought and, consequently, every primary cause with me at once draws another one after itself” (Notes from the Underground 276). Like Sartre’s atheistic existentialist, the underground man’s hyperconsciousness and rejection of rationality prevents him from definitively supporting an argument to justify his actions.
Resembling atheistic existentialist thought, the underground man’s hyperconsciousness results in mental anguish. While describing the factors associated with atheistic existentialist anguish, Sartre writes, “There is not a single one of our actions that does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. Choosing to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose” (Sartre 24). In other words, Sartre suggests that one’s actions reflect that person’s beliefs, and, as a result, one’s conception of how humanity as a whole should behave. Because the atheistic existentialist is truly free, he is therefore responsible for his conception of humanity. As a result, his conception necessarily results in mental anguish because he is never able to fully justify these beliefs due to his rejection of God. Similarly, the underground man associates consciousness with mental suffering. In fact, while reflecting on his own consciousness, he writes, “I firmly believe that… any sort of consciousness is a disease… The more conscious I became of goodness and all that was ‘sublime and beautiful,’ the more deeply did I sink into the mire” (Notes from the Underground 267). Although the underground man, like the romantics, may have been able to see the “sublime and beautiful” in ideals and situations deemed to be “perfect” in the past, his hyperconsciousness later in life causes him to see flaws in everything. Furthermore, like the atheistic existentialist, his inability to justify his actions results in mental anguish. For example, while describing his life in the dark cellar, he writes, “in that intensely perceived, but to some extent uncertain, helplessness of one’s position – in all that poison of unsatisfied desires that have turned inwards” (Notes from the Underground 271). The underground man’s inability to justify his decisions and act on his desires results in a sense of helplessness and mental suffering, which he ultimately directs at himself because he feels that he is responsible for his actions.
The underground man’s hyperconsciousness also results in mental suffering due to his own self-reflection. Although “plain men,” as the underground man describes them, may easily avenge themselves after being slapped, the underground man feels guilty, even when others attack him. In fact, he writes, “However much I tried to find some excuse for what had happened [being slapped], the conclusion I’d come to would always be that it was my own fault to begin with, and what hurt most of all was that though innocent I was guilty” (Notes from the Underground 269). In other words, the underground man is never able to undoubtedly clear himself of fault, even when others seem to wrong him. Clearly, such a sense of overwhelming responsibility and guilt for all wrong-doing naturally results in mental suffering. In fact, the underground man suggests that his mental anguish does not necessarily require wrong-doing by writing, “I to make offence without rhyme or reason, deliberately; and of course I realized very well that I had taken offence at nothing, that the whole thing was just a piece of play-acting” (Notes from the Underground 275 – 276). In other words, the underground man seemed to often experience the emotions associated with mental suffering, even though he had only imagined being insulted. Finally, the underground man compares his hopeless condition to a mouse’s, which relives its suffering for its entire life. In order to do so, he writes, “our hurt, ridiculed, and beaten mouse plunges into cold, venomous, and, above all, unremitting spite. For forty years it will continuously remember its injury to the last and most shameful detail” (Notes from the Underground 271). The underground man’s hyperconsciousness results in anguish because he feels at fault even when others appear to wrong him, he imagines being insulted and taking offence, and relives his humiliation and mental agony throughout his life.
Although romantic literature was somewhat prevalent before Dostoevsky’s imprisonment, writers and critics had popularized ideas of Western rationality and ideas of socialist utopias in literature by the time Dostoevsky began writing Notes from the Underground. Dostoevsky’s underground man responds to these overarching literary themes by rejecting Western thought altogether and emphasizing the importance of free-will to human nature. Although existentialism would not develop extensively until the nineteenth century, the underground man clearly embodies the beliefs of future existentialist thought. Like Sartre’s description of atheistic existentialism in “Existentialism is a Humanism,” the underground man values free-will, even over social utopias and rationality. However, because the underground man rejects rationality, he is unable to act because he is never able to fully justify his actions. His hyperconsciousness prevents him from definitively clearing himself of fault and forgetting about the actual and imagined mental agony he experienced throughout his life. In that sense, Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground is still relevant as a literary work and existential text today, as it explores the mental anguish of a character unable to easily make decisions after his rejection of societal values.
The Universality of Guilt
The universality of guilt for the sins of mankind in general is a common theme in The Brothers Karamazov. In fact, although Smerdyakov physically killed Fyodor, Alyosha, Dmitri, and Ivan all partly feel responsible for the murder. In that sense, The Brothers Karamazov as a whole suggests that the universality of guilt, one’s intentions, and one’s words can implicate responsibility for another’s crime.
Alyosha’s guilt stems from his belief that everyone shares responsibility for each other’s crimes. While at the monastery, Alyosha embraced and absorbed Zosima’s teachings. In fact, during a discussion with Alyosha at the monastery, Zosima said, “Make yourself responsible for… all men… you are to blame for everyone” (The Brothers Karamazov 276). In other words, Zosima teaches Alyosha that in order to truly benefit others, Alyosha must recognize that he is even responsible for the crimes that he did not commit. When explaining this concept to Alyosha, Zosima says, “Only through that knowledge, our heart grows soft with… love” (The Brothers Karamazov 146). By understanding that people are responsible for each other’s sins, Zosima believes that people can truly love each other. This love can allow people to understand each other and reach an understanding that could ultimately prevent crimes, injustices, and suffering. In that sense, Alyosha seems to feel guilty for the crime because he was unable to resolve the underlying tension that ultimately led to the murder.
Dmitri believes that he is partially guilty for the crime due to his intentions, even though he did not actually kill his father. In a conversation with Alyosha several days before Smerdyakov kills Fyodor, Dmitri says, “Perhaps I shall [kill Fyodor]. I’m afraid he’ll… be so loathsome to me” (The Brothers Karamazov 336). Clearly, Dmitri recognizes that he potentially hated Fyodor enough to kill him, and that, under certain circumstances, may have actually hated him. While talking to Alyosha before the trial, Dmitri says, “I didn’t kill father, but I’ve got to go. I accept it” (The Brothers Karamazov 499). Although Smerdyakov was the actual murderer, Dmitri believes that he must serve penance to be purified of the guilt derived from his intentions. In that sense, Dmitri’s intentions implicated him as being responsible for the murder.
Ivan’s guilt stemmed from developing the ideology that drove Smerdyakov to commit the murder. While developing his philosophy, Ivan suggests if God does not exist, then true, unchallengeable moral imperatives also do not exist. By rejecting God during “Rebellion” and the writing of “The Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan rejects God, and, as a result, morality based on theology. Smerdyakov tests Ivan’s ideology by murdering Fyodor, causing Ivan to be partially responsible for Fyodor’s death. In fact, while talking to Ivan, Smerdyakov says, “You are responsible… since you… charged me to do it” (The Brothers Karamazov 527). Clearly, Smerdyakov admits that Ivan’s ideology enabled him to commit the crime. While discussing responsibility, Smerdyakov says, “You are the only real murderer…. though I did kill him” (The Brothers Karamazov 527). Although Smerdyakov admits that he was the one who physically killed Fyodor, he suggests that Ivan killed Fyodor ideologically. Ivan’s mental anguish during his third conversation with Smerdyakov, and, later, his mental collapse, suggests that Ivan believes that the development of his theories causes him to be guilty of the murder.
Although Alyosha, Dmitri, and Ivan did not kill Fyodor, they all feel guilty for Fyodor’s death. Alyosha’s belief that he has the duty to love everyone and use his understanding of others to prevent suffering causes him to feel responsible for the sins of everyone, including the murder of his father. Because Dmitri’s hatred was strong enough to motivate him to kill his father himself, Dmitri’s intention implicated him as being partially responsible for the murder. Finally, Ivan’s recognition that his ideology drove Smerdyakov’s crime leads to Ivan’s mental collapse and responsibility for the crime. In that sense, The Brothers Karamazov suggests that the university of responsibility, intent, and words can lead to shared guilt for a crime.
Communal Relationships vs. Justice in the Present
Dostoevsky explores the notion of justice in several of his works, including The Brothers Karamazov. Although Ivan, Dmitri, and Alyosha all search for justice in the present, they are unable to find it. On the other hand, unlike many other characters in the novel, Zosima is not concerned with the abstract notion of establishing a just society in the here and now. In that sense, The Brothers Karamazov suggests that forming relationships with other individuals based on love should be the focus of efforts to improve society, as opposed to the nearly impossible task of finding justice in the present.
Dmitri’s trial in The Brothers Karamazov questions the ability of legal systems to find justice without religion. Unlike many of the characters in the novel, Alyosha believes that Dmitri is innocent, immediately after Dmitri is arrested. Instead of relying on physical evidence, Alyosha is drawn to this conclusion solely through his loving relationship with his brother, in accordance with Zosima’s religious teachings. However, the court reaches the opposite conclusion. At the beginning of Dmitri’s trial in court, Kirillovich says, “Let us lay aside psychology… medicine… logic…. Let us turn only to the facts” (The Brothers Karamazov 595). In theory, the prosecutor’s fact-based approach seems theoretically sound. Nevertheless, even though the prosecutor’s evidence suggests that Dmitri is the murderer, the physical evidence did not lead the court system to the truth. On one level, the result suggests that approaching the search for justice and truth on the basis of the physical world alone can result in injustice as well. Furthermore, the trial questions the sense of superiority that individuals when convicting others. For example, although the prosecutor claims to only be analyzing the evidence, his interpretation of the evidence is biased due to his concern with his reputation and the generalizations to the entirety of Russia that he attaches to the case. Similarly, when describing the jury, the narrator states that many individuals observing the case asked, “Can such a… complex… case be submitted to… petty officials and… peasants” (The Brothers Karamazov 556). While the prosecutor does not seem to be reliable in the search for truth, neither do the peasants. Practically, the interpretation of the physical evidence, the special interests of the prosecutor, and the reliability of the jury suggest that the court system in The Brothers Karamazov cannot perfectly find justice.
Alyosha’s and Ivan’s search for justice suggests that justice cannot be found in the present. For example, when Zosima dies, Alyosha expects that Zosima’s body will be associated with miracles, as with other saints. Instead, Zosima’s body quickly begins to decay and give off an odor of corruption, which Alyosha perceives as an injustice against Zosima’s saintly life. Ultimately, Zosima’s death challenges Alyosha’s faith and causes him to grow in his beliefs. Eventually, Alyosha realizes that he does not need to depend on miracles to establish justice on earth, and, instead, embraces Zosima’s teachings. In his “Rebellion” and “Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan rejects God because of the absurd, unjust world that God created. As a result, Ivan isolates himself from the world and its suffering. Clearly, Ivan’s abstract focus on the notion of justice prevents him from interacting with and improving the physical world. However, Alyosha’s philosophy of love, based on Zosima’s teachings, causes Alyosha to focus on building relationships with Dmitri, Grushenka, Ilyusha, Kolya, and the other children, instead of focusing on the unjust suffering present in the world. Ultimately, Alyosha is able to positively impact the lives of the people he interacts with, without discussing the relatively abstract notion of justice. Although Alyosha and Ivan fail to find justice, Alyosha’s theological growth enables him to positively impact the people he meets.
Zosima taught Alyosha to build relationships with others based on love, instead of finding reasons to condemn them. While discussing responses to the sins of others, Zosima says, “At the sight of men’s sin… Always decide to use humble love” (The Brothers Karamazov 275). While legal systems often respond to crime using force, Zosima claims that force can cause dissatisfaction, hate, and, ultimately, more crime. Instead, Zosima recommends forgiving criminals, responding to crime with humble love, and learning to understand them to prevent future crimes. In his conversation with Alyosha, Zosima strongly warns against judging others in the name of justice by saying, “You cannot be a judge of anyone… If I had been righteous, perhaps there would have been no criminal” (The Brothers Karamazov 277). Because Zosima believes that all men are responsible for each other’s crimes, people cannot condemn each other since all are guilty. Alyosha also embodies Zosima’s teachings. For example, instead of philosophically debating the notion of justice depicted in Ivan’s “Grand Inquisitor,” Alyosha instead kisses Ivan in an act of compassion and acknowledgement of his suffering. Although Zosima’s philosophy ties to the notion of justice through the idea that all are guilty, Zosima does not focus on the notion of justice. Instead, Zosima and Alyosha focus on improving the lives of others, regardless of whether or not they are criminals.
The Brothers Karamazov suggests that searching for justice in the present is not the best way to improve people’s lives. Dmitri’s trial, which is supposedly a search for justice, results in an incorrect verdict, due to the biased interpretation of the physical evidence, the prosecutor’s selfish intentions, and the questionable reliability of the jury. Alyosha’s search for justice through Zosima’s sainthood fails when Zosima’s body gives off a strong odor of corruption. Similarly, Ivan’s search for justice fails to improve the people around him, as his philosophy leads him to isolate himself and reject the world. Instead, Zosima’s philosophy suggests that searching for justice is unnecessary because everyone is guilty and everyone is responsible for the crimes in society. As a result, Zosima’s teachings suggest that people should build relationships with each other and focus on improving each others’ lives, instead of condemning others for crimes for which everyone is responsible.
Faith and Compassion: Dostoevsky’s Answer to the Problem of Evil
Throughout his life, Dostoevsky wrestled with the concept of evil and suffering existing in a world that God created. As he investigated the alternative, God not existing, in the Notes from the Underground through what would later develop into existentialist thought, he found the lack of God’s existence to also be psychologically tormenting. However, while writing Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky suggests that the Christian tradition can exist in the presence of evil on Earth, even though Earthly knowledge alone cannot completely answer the questions associated with the existence of evil. The eternal beings and religious symbolism in Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov suggest that only faith in combination with compassion for other people in society, and not reliance on reason alone, can address the problem of evil and lead to genuine happiness.
As a representative of God and religious values in Crime and Punishment, Sonya saves Raskolnikov from the psychological torment he feels after he abandons religious values and murders the pawnbroker. While attempting to justify his crime, Raskolnikov argues that he is not guilty because the murder would reduce suffering. For a portion of the novel, Raskolnikov suggests that he had the right to murder the pawnbroker because, as an extraordinary man, he had the responsibility to reduce human suffering through murder. However, ultimately, Raskolnikov fails to improve the lives of Dunya and Sonya through his actions. Furthermore, Raskolnikov’s unjustifiable murder of Lizaveta suggests that he had actually increased human suffering and contributed to the problem of evil. Although for the majority of the novel Raskolnikov believes that he can escape prosecution due to his extraordinary status, his mental anguish increases as the novel progresses. Near the end of the novel, Sonya manages to save Raskolnikov from tormenting himself by trying to address the problem of evil through the creation of his own theories by showing Raskolnikov compassion instead of condemning him as a criminal, convincing him to confess his crime and serve penance, and promising to stay with him and help him through his suffering. As a symbol of Christianity, Sonya’s intervention relieves Raskolnikov’s anguish and provides him with the opportunity to enjoy the rest of his life, despite the physical suffering or prosecution he may experience as a result of the murder. In fact, while depicting Sonya’s influence on Raskolnikov, the narrator writes, “He… bowed to… and kissed that filthy earth with delight and happiness” (Crime and Punishment 525). In all likelihood, Dostoevsky’s association of Raskolnikov’s genuine happiness with a scene that resembles a religious conversion is not a coincidence. Instead, Crime and Punishment suggests that Sonya’s religious values enabled her to address the problem of evil by relieving Raskolnikov’s suffering through compassion.
Compassion and religion have the potential to rejuvenate Ivan’s mental well-being, after his Grand Inquisitor, Christ, and Devil suggest that rejecting God fails to reduce human suffering. During his conversation with Alyosha during “Rebellion,” Ivan tells Alyosha that he rejects God because he cannot accept a God who created a world with suffering. Furthermore, after Ivan’s Grand Inquisitor imprisons Christ, his Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that Christ should have ruled over and controlled human society by giving them bread and miracles, instead of forcing them to make their own decisions and rely on faith. Ultimately, by rejecting God, Ivan decides to reject religious values as well. Although Ivan appears to show signs of uncertainty in the truth of his beliefs during his discussions with Zosima and Alyosha, Ivan clearly mentally collapses when Smerdyakov uses his philosophy to hold him responsible for the death of Fyodor. As a result, Ivan’s reliance on reason apart from God caused him to isolate himself, prevented him from reducing human suffering by loving those around him, and caused him to feel mental anguish. Although Ivan appears very ill by the end of the novel, compassion and religion seem to have the potential to revive his well-being and allow him to live an enjoyable life. During Ivan’s conversation with his devil, his devil reminds Ivan of Ivan’s story about a man who rejected God by sitting outside the gates of heaven for one thousand years to protest human suffering. However, after entering heaven, the devil says that the man “cried out that those two seconds were worth walking… a quadrillion of quadrillions [kilometers]” (The Brothers Karamazov 542). In other words, the devil suggests that, after entering heaven, the man’s happiness and, perhaps, understanding of human suffering, increased unimaginably. Alyosha also recognizes Ivan’s search for happiness through God after Ivan’s collapse, by saying, “God… His truth, were gaining mastery over his heart, which still refused to submit” (The Brothers Karamazov 551). While praying, Alyosha states that religion has the power to revive Ivan, though Ivan’s reliance on reason to hate humanity could permanently destroy him. Similarly, Katerina’s compassion for Ivan may promote his transformation and recovery. Ivan’s philosophy associated with his rebellion and Grand Inquisitor cause him mental suffering, though Christ’s compassionate response to the Grand Inquisitor reflects the ability of religious values and Katerina’s compassion to save Ivan from permanent mental anguish.
The religious symbols of providence, the Word, and the sun provide the characters in the novels with hope, even in the face of evil and suffering. When Raskolnikov asks Sonya to pick between people’s lives, Sonya responds by saying, “I cannot know divine Providence… who put me to judge who is to live” (Crime and Punishment 408). Clearly, Sonya’s belief in God causes her to believe that God will address unsolvable issues, such as evil and suffering. In The Brothers Karamazov, Zosima echoes this interpretation while talking about the suffering in the book of Job by saying, “But the greatness of it lies just in the fact that it is a great mystery… the eternal truth is accomplished” (The Brothers Karamazov 252). In other words, although Zosima acknowledges that he does not fully understand the purpose of Job’s misery and human suffering in general, he believes in God’s providence and God’s purposeful control of Earthly events. Although Raskolnikov criticizes Sonya’s reliance on providence to escape poverty by having her read the story of Lazarus, Svirdrigailov miraculously provides Sonya and her family with money before his death, while, despite his will, Raskolnikov is unable to help them through his own philosophy. Similarly, in both novels, Dostoevsky symbolically uses the metaphor of the sun to reflect the hope for happiness Raskolnikov and Dmitri feel around the time of their conversions. While attempting to convince Raskolnikov to admit to his crime, Porfiry says, “Become a sun and everyone will see you” (Crime and Punishment 460). In other words, although Raskolnikov’s situation seems hopeless and miserable, Porfiry suggests that rejecting his theory and admitting to the crime provides Raskolnikov with the opportunity to truly be happy and share that happiness with others. Likewise, when Alyosha visits Dmitri after Dmitri is arrested, Dmitri says, “I see the sun… there’s a whole life in that” (The Brothers Karamazov 500). Clearly, Dmitri’s Christian-like conversion provides him with the strength to serve penance and find happiness, even though he must unjustly go to trial for a crime that he did not commit. Providence, the Bible, and the sun are symbols of hope for the characters in Dostoevsky’s novels that enable them to find satisfaction.
The philosophies of Alyosha and Zosima suggest that Earthly suffering can lead to salvation, love, and happiness. Having grown as a theologian, Alyosha recognizes that Ilyusha’s suffering united the boys by causing them to bond with each other. After burying Ilyusha, Alyosha acknowledges the importance of creating memories of experiences involving love for others by saying, “If we have only one good memory…. Even that may serve someday as our salvation” (The Brothers Karamazov 645). In other words, Alyosha suggests that reflecting on the memory of Ilyusha’s death could ultimately prevent future evil and provide the boys with mental and spiritual salvation in the future. During his teachings, Zosima echoes the importance of love that Alyosha emphasizes by saying, “Love to throw yourself on the earth… Love all men, love everything” (The Brothers Karamazov 278). Instead of abstractly considering the problem of evil, Zosima believed that by sharing the responsibility for everyone’s actions, loving others, and building relationships with others, individuals can reduce human suffering by preventing future misfortunes. Nearing his death, Zosima’s brother responds to the problem of suffering by saying, “Life is paradise, and we are all in paradise” (The Brothers Karamazov 249). Like Zosima, Zosima’s brother believed that faith in God provides one with the peace of mind to find paradise, even in the presence of evil. Alyosha’s and Zosima’s philosophies address the problem of evil through faith and love.
In The Brothers Karamazov, Zosima states that although he does not fully understand why evil exists, he has faith in God’s control and plan. Unlike Zosima, Raskolnikov and Ivan initially attempt to address the problem of evil by rejecting religious values and establishing their own philosophies, though they both ultimately are miserable and unsuccessful in reducing human suffering. In both Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, religious symbolism provides the characters in these novels with the hope of truly being happy. Zosima emphasizes the importance of love for others within the Christian faith, suggesting that love can prevent future suffering and allow one to find happiness while on Earth. Dostoevsky ends his final novel with Alyosha’s theology, which suggests that short-term, Earthly suffering enables people to grow as individuals and create memories that could serve as their salvation in the future. In that sense, Dostoevsky relies on the eternal beings in his novels and on religious symbolism to respond to the problem of evil, which had challenged him throughout his life.
Conclusion
While Dostoevsky felt unable to fully justify his beliefs during his lifetime, his arguments in Notes from the Underground, Crime and Punishment, and The Brothers Karamazov strongly reflect his beliefs in the importance of God and communal relationships. The comparison of Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground to Sartre’s “Existentialism is a Humanism” highlights the mental anguish that Dostoevsky suggests follows hyperconsciousness unrestrained by religious doctrine. In Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky suggests that community as a whole shares guilt for crimes, that the focus of Earthly life should be establishing loving relationships with others and not on pursuing justice by judging others, and that both faith and compassion are necessary to address evil and find fulfillment. In that sense, despite his uncertainty, Dostoevsky developed a powerful theology within his literary works, which begins to answer many of the philosophical questions that he struggled with during his lifetime.
Works Cited
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov: A Revised Translation. New York: W. Norton, 2010. Print.
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer, 2003. Print.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Great Short Works of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Trans. Ronald Hingley. New York: Perennial, 2004. Print.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. "Existentialism Is a Humanism." Web. 26 September 2014. <http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/307/sartre.pdf>.
Throughout his life, Fyodor Dostoevsky wrestled with the question of God’s existence, remaining unable to fully justify his religious beliefs in the presence of the seemingly overwhelming existence of evil and suffering. After publishing House of the Dead, Dostoevsky suffered extensively in both his academic and personal life, due to the deterioration of his wife’s health, the banning of his journal, and the recent increase in his epileptic fits. In the context of this turmoil, Dostoevsky began to work on Notes from the Underground, a novel which many claim to be the first existentialist work. Although existentialist thought did not fully begin to develop until the nineteenth century, Dostoevsky’s hyperconscious underground man resembles the challenges Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher, would later attribute to atheistic existentialists’ anguish in making and justifying their decisions. In that sense, the underground man’s hyperconsciousness results in mental anguish because he rejects rationality as an imperative for decision-making, similar to the atheistic existentialist’s rejection of religion.
While Sartre suggests that the atheistic existentialist is free due to his emancipation from religious obligations, the underground man claims that humans value free-will over rationality. In “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Sartre argues that Christian theists are not truly free because God envisioned their essence before their creation. However, when describing the beliefs of the atheistic existentialist, Sartre writes, “To begin with he is nothing… man shall attain existence only when he is what he projects himself to be… man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 22 – 23, 29). In other words, because human nature is not defined by God’s conception of humanity, humans are truly free to create their individual natures. Although the underground man does not describe human nature as necessarily being free of divine conception, he does suggest that human nature implies preferring free-will over rationality. For example, in part one of Notes from the Underground, the underground man challenges the notion of the “crystal palace,” a utopian ideal common in contemporary literary and philosophic thought, by writing, “Of course, it is quite impossible to guarantee… that even then people will not be bored to tears” (Notes from the Underground 283). In other words, the underground man suggests that humans would grow to dislike the crystal palace, where all ideal actions have been determined through rationality, because they would lack the opportunity to exercise their free-will. In fact, the underground man goes on to write, “Why… do all those sages assume that man must strive… after some desirable good? All man wants is an absolutely free choice, however dear that freedom may cost him” (Notes from the Underground 284). Clearly, the underground man believes that human nature involves a preference for free-will over rationality. Furthermore, the underground man suggests that human nature will eventually act on this preference to attain free-will by writing, “man will... risk his cakes and ale… he will plan destruction and chaos, he will devise all sorts of sufferings” (Notes from the Underground 288). If forced to live in the crystal palace, man will eventually risk his possessions and attempt to destroy the utopia, in order to make his own decisions (Notes from the Underground 288 - 289). The atheistic existentialist’s rejection of moral imperatives and the underground man’s rejection of rationality lead to a conception of free-will that is fundamental to understanding human nature.
Despite having free-will, atheistic existentialism and the underground man’s hyperconsciousness result in the inability to act. While theists can rely on religious doctrine to justify their decisions, Sartre argues that for the atheistic existentialist, “everything is permissible if God does not exist, and man is consequently abandoned, for he cannot find anything to rely on… We are left alone and without excuse” (Sartre 29). Because atheistic existentialists cannot use religious doctrine to make decisions, humans are forced to choose between a seemingly infinite number of sets of behaviors because “everything is permissible.” While reflecting on his own nature, the underground man writes, “the legitimate result of consciousness is to make all the actions impossible, or – to put it differently – consciousness leads to thumb-twiddling” (Notes from the Underground 276). Like Sartre, the underground man suggests that the existence of hyperconsciousness apart from a set of imperatives, such as rationality, lead to man’s inability to act. Afterwards, the underground man begins to differentiate between the “plain man” and the hyperconscious one. While discussing the former, the underground man writes, “All plain men and men of action are active only because they are dull-witted and mentally undeveloped… Owing to their arrested mental development they mistake the nearest and secondary causes for primary causes” (Notes from the Underground 276). In other words, the underground man suggests that “plain men” are able to act solely because they are unable to understand the true reasons for actions. The underground man’s description of his own hyperconsciousness resembles the choice overload faced by atheistic existentialists. In fact, the underground man writes, “For to start being active you must first of all be completely composed in mind and never be in doubt… I am constantly exercising my powers of thought and, consequently, every primary cause with me at once draws another one after itself” (Notes from the Underground 276). Like Sartre’s atheistic existentialist, the underground man’s hyperconsciousness and rejection of rationality prevents him from definitively supporting an argument to justify his actions.
Resembling atheistic existentialist thought, the underground man’s hyperconsciousness results in mental anguish. While describing the factors associated with atheistic existentialist anguish, Sartre writes, “There is not a single one of our actions that does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. Choosing to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose” (Sartre 24). In other words, Sartre suggests that one’s actions reflect that person’s beliefs, and, as a result, one’s conception of how humanity as a whole should behave. Because the atheistic existentialist is truly free, he is therefore responsible for his conception of humanity. As a result, his conception necessarily results in mental anguish because he is never able to fully justify these beliefs due to his rejection of God. Similarly, the underground man associates consciousness with mental suffering. In fact, while reflecting on his own consciousness, he writes, “I firmly believe that… any sort of consciousness is a disease… The more conscious I became of goodness and all that was ‘sublime and beautiful,’ the more deeply did I sink into the mire” (Notes from the Underground 267). Although the underground man, like the romantics, may have been able to see the “sublime and beautiful” in ideals and situations deemed to be “perfect” in the past, his hyperconsciousness later in life causes him to see flaws in everything. Furthermore, like the atheistic existentialist, his inability to justify his actions results in mental anguish. For example, while describing his life in the dark cellar, he writes, “in that intensely perceived, but to some extent uncertain, helplessness of one’s position – in all that poison of unsatisfied desires that have turned inwards” (Notes from the Underground 271). The underground man’s inability to justify his decisions and act on his desires results in a sense of helplessness and mental suffering, which he ultimately directs at himself because he feels that he is responsible for his actions.
The underground man’s hyperconsciousness also results in mental suffering due to his own self-reflection. Although “plain men,” as the underground man describes them, may easily avenge themselves after being slapped, the underground man feels guilty, even when others attack him. In fact, he writes, “However much I tried to find some excuse for what had happened [being slapped], the conclusion I’d come to would always be that it was my own fault to begin with, and what hurt most of all was that though innocent I was guilty” (Notes from the Underground 269). In other words, the underground man is never able to undoubtedly clear himself of fault, even when others seem to wrong him. Clearly, such a sense of overwhelming responsibility and guilt for all wrong-doing naturally results in mental suffering. In fact, the underground man suggests that his mental anguish does not necessarily require wrong-doing by writing, “I to make offence without rhyme or reason, deliberately; and of course I realized very well that I had taken offence at nothing, that the whole thing was just a piece of play-acting” (Notes from the Underground 275 – 276). In other words, the underground man seemed to often experience the emotions associated with mental suffering, even though he had only imagined being insulted. Finally, the underground man compares his hopeless condition to a mouse’s, which relives its suffering for its entire life. In order to do so, he writes, “our hurt, ridiculed, and beaten mouse plunges into cold, venomous, and, above all, unremitting spite. For forty years it will continuously remember its injury to the last and most shameful detail” (Notes from the Underground 271). The underground man’s hyperconsciousness results in anguish because he feels at fault even when others appear to wrong him, he imagines being insulted and taking offence, and relives his humiliation and mental agony throughout his life.
Although romantic literature was somewhat prevalent before Dostoevsky’s imprisonment, writers and critics had popularized ideas of Western rationality and ideas of socialist utopias in literature by the time Dostoevsky began writing Notes from the Underground. Dostoevsky’s underground man responds to these overarching literary themes by rejecting Western thought altogether and emphasizing the importance of free-will to human nature. Although existentialism would not develop extensively until the nineteenth century, the underground man clearly embodies the beliefs of future existentialist thought. Like Sartre’s description of atheistic existentialism in “Existentialism is a Humanism,” the underground man values free-will, even over social utopias and rationality. However, because the underground man rejects rationality, he is unable to act because he is never able to fully justify his actions. His hyperconsciousness prevents him from definitively clearing himself of fault and forgetting about the actual and imagined mental agony he experienced throughout his life. In that sense, Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground is still relevant as a literary work and existential text today, as it explores the mental anguish of a character unable to easily make decisions after his rejection of societal values.
The Universality of Guilt
The universality of guilt for the sins of mankind in general is a common theme in The Brothers Karamazov. In fact, although Smerdyakov physically killed Fyodor, Alyosha, Dmitri, and Ivan all partly feel responsible for the murder. In that sense, The Brothers Karamazov as a whole suggests that the universality of guilt, one’s intentions, and one’s words can implicate responsibility for another’s crime.
Alyosha’s guilt stems from his belief that everyone shares responsibility for each other’s crimes. While at the monastery, Alyosha embraced and absorbed Zosima’s teachings. In fact, during a discussion with Alyosha at the monastery, Zosima said, “Make yourself responsible for… all men… you are to blame for everyone” (The Brothers Karamazov 276). In other words, Zosima teaches Alyosha that in order to truly benefit others, Alyosha must recognize that he is even responsible for the crimes that he did not commit. When explaining this concept to Alyosha, Zosima says, “Only through that knowledge, our heart grows soft with… love” (The Brothers Karamazov 146). By understanding that people are responsible for each other’s sins, Zosima believes that people can truly love each other. This love can allow people to understand each other and reach an understanding that could ultimately prevent crimes, injustices, and suffering. In that sense, Alyosha seems to feel guilty for the crime because he was unable to resolve the underlying tension that ultimately led to the murder.
Dmitri believes that he is partially guilty for the crime due to his intentions, even though he did not actually kill his father. In a conversation with Alyosha several days before Smerdyakov kills Fyodor, Dmitri says, “Perhaps I shall [kill Fyodor]. I’m afraid he’ll… be so loathsome to me” (The Brothers Karamazov 336). Clearly, Dmitri recognizes that he potentially hated Fyodor enough to kill him, and that, under certain circumstances, may have actually hated him. While talking to Alyosha before the trial, Dmitri says, “I didn’t kill father, but I’ve got to go. I accept it” (The Brothers Karamazov 499). Although Smerdyakov was the actual murderer, Dmitri believes that he must serve penance to be purified of the guilt derived from his intentions. In that sense, Dmitri’s intentions implicated him as being responsible for the murder.
Ivan’s guilt stemmed from developing the ideology that drove Smerdyakov to commit the murder. While developing his philosophy, Ivan suggests if God does not exist, then true, unchallengeable moral imperatives also do not exist. By rejecting God during “Rebellion” and the writing of “The Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan rejects God, and, as a result, morality based on theology. Smerdyakov tests Ivan’s ideology by murdering Fyodor, causing Ivan to be partially responsible for Fyodor’s death. In fact, while talking to Ivan, Smerdyakov says, “You are responsible… since you… charged me to do it” (The Brothers Karamazov 527). Clearly, Smerdyakov admits that Ivan’s ideology enabled him to commit the crime. While discussing responsibility, Smerdyakov says, “You are the only real murderer…. though I did kill him” (The Brothers Karamazov 527). Although Smerdyakov admits that he was the one who physically killed Fyodor, he suggests that Ivan killed Fyodor ideologically. Ivan’s mental anguish during his third conversation with Smerdyakov, and, later, his mental collapse, suggests that Ivan believes that the development of his theories causes him to be guilty of the murder.
Although Alyosha, Dmitri, and Ivan did not kill Fyodor, they all feel guilty for Fyodor’s death. Alyosha’s belief that he has the duty to love everyone and use his understanding of others to prevent suffering causes him to feel responsible for the sins of everyone, including the murder of his father. Because Dmitri’s hatred was strong enough to motivate him to kill his father himself, Dmitri’s intention implicated him as being partially responsible for the murder. Finally, Ivan’s recognition that his ideology drove Smerdyakov’s crime leads to Ivan’s mental collapse and responsibility for the crime. In that sense, The Brothers Karamazov suggests that the university of responsibility, intent, and words can lead to shared guilt for a crime.
Communal Relationships vs. Justice in the Present
Dostoevsky explores the notion of justice in several of his works, including The Brothers Karamazov. Although Ivan, Dmitri, and Alyosha all search for justice in the present, they are unable to find it. On the other hand, unlike many other characters in the novel, Zosima is not concerned with the abstract notion of establishing a just society in the here and now. In that sense, The Brothers Karamazov suggests that forming relationships with other individuals based on love should be the focus of efforts to improve society, as opposed to the nearly impossible task of finding justice in the present.
Dmitri’s trial in The Brothers Karamazov questions the ability of legal systems to find justice without religion. Unlike many of the characters in the novel, Alyosha believes that Dmitri is innocent, immediately after Dmitri is arrested. Instead of relying on physical evidence, Alyosha is drawn to this conclusion solely through his loving relationship with his brother, in accordance with Zosima’s religious teachings. However, the court reaches the opposite conclusion. At the beginning of Dmitri’s trial in court, Kirillovich says, “Let us lay aside psychology… medicine… logic…. Let us turn only to the facts” (The Brothers Karamazov 595). In theory, the prosecutor’s fact-based approach seems theoretically sound. Nevertheless, even though the prosecutor’s evidence suggests that Dmitri is the murderer, the physical evidence did not lead the court system to the truth. On one level, the result suggests that approaching the search for justice and truth on the basis of the physical world alone can result in injustice as well. Furthermore, the trial questions the sense of superiority that individuals when convicting others. For example, although the prosecutor claims to only be analyzing the evidence, his interpretation of the evidence is biased due to his concern with his reputation and the generalizations to the entirety of Russia that he attaches to the case. Similarly, when describing the jury, the narrator states that many individuals observing the case asked, “Can such a… complex… case be submitted to… petty officials and… peasants” (The Brothers Karamazov 556). While the prosecutor does not seem to be reliable in the search for truth, neither do the peasants. Practically, the interpretation of the physical evidence, the special interests of the prosecutor, and the reliability of the jury suggest that the court system in The Brothers Karamazov cannot perfectly find justice.
Alyosha’s and Ivan’s search for justice suggests that justice cannot be found in the present. For example, when Zosima dies, Alyosha expects that Zosima’s body will be associated with miracles, as with other saints. Instead, Zosima’s body quickly begins to decay and give off an odor of corruption, which Alyosha perceives as an injustice against Zosima’s saintly life. Ultimately, Zosima’s death challenges Alyosha’s faith and causes him to grow in his beliefs. Eventually, Alyosha realizes that he does not need to depend on miracles to establish justice on earth, and, instead, embraces Zosima’s teachings. In his “Rebellion” and “Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan rejects God because of the absurd, unjust world that God created. As a result, Ivan isolates himself from the world and its suffering. Clearly, Ivan’s abstract focus on the notion of justice prevents him from interacting with and improving the physical world. However, Alyosha’s philosophy of love, based on Zosima’s teachings, causes Alyosha to focus on building relationships with Dmitri, Grushenka, Ilyusha, Kolya, and the other children, instead of focusing on the unjust suffering present in the world. Ultimately, Alyosha is able to positively impact the lives of the people he interacts with, without discussing the relatively abstract notion of justice. Although Alyosha and Ivan fail to find justice, Alyosha’s theological growth enables him to positively impact the people he meets.
Zosima taught Alyosha to build relationships with others based on love, instead of finding reasons to condemn them. While discussing responses to the sins of others, Zosima says, “At the sight of men’s sin… Always decide to use humble love” (The Brothers Karamazov 275). While legal systems often respond to crime using force, Zosima claims that force can cause dissatisfaction, hate, and, ultimately, more crime. Instead, Zosima recommends forgiving criminals, responding to crime with humble love, and learning to understand them to prevent future crimes. In his conversation with Alyosha, Zosima strongly warns against judging others in the name of justice by saying, “You cannot be a judge of anyone… If I had been righteous, perhaps there would have been no criminal” (The Brothers Karamazov 277). Because Zosima believes that all men are responsible for each other’s crimes, people cannot condemn each other since all are guilty. Alyosha also embodies Zosima’s teachings. For example, instead of philosophically debating the notion of justice depicted in Ivan’s “Grand Inquisitor,” Alyosha instead kisses Ivan in an act of compassion and acknowledgement of his suffering. Although Zosima’s philosophy ties to the notion of justice through the idea that all are guilty, Zosima does not focus on the notion of justice. Instead, Zosima and Alyosha focus on improving the lives of others, regardless of whether or not they are criminals.
The Brothers Karamazov suggests that searching for justice in the present is not the best way to improve people’s lives. Dmitri’s trial, which is supposedly a search for justice, results in an incorrect verdict, due to the biased interpretation of the physical evidence, the prosecutor’s selfish intentions, and the questionable reliability of the jury. Alyosha’s search for justice through Zosima’s sainthood fails when Zosima’s body gives off a strong odor of corruption. Similarly, Ivan’s search for justice fails to improve the people around him, as his philosophy leads him to isolate himself and reject the world. Instead, Zosima’s philosophy suggests that searching for justice is unnecessary because everyone is guilty and everyone is responsible for the crimes in society. As a result, Zosima’s teachings suggest that people should build relationships with each other and focus on improving each others’ lives, instead of condemning others for crimes for which everyone is responsible.
Faith and Compassion: Dostoevsky’s Answer to the Problem of Evil
Throughout his life, Dostoevsky wrestled with the concept of evil and suffering existing in a world that God created. As he investigated the alternative, God not existing, in the Notes from the Underground through what would later develop into existentialist thought, he found the lack of God’s existence to also be psychologically tormenting. However, while writing Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky suggests that the Christian tradition can exist in the presence of evil on Earth, even though Earthly knowledge alone cannot completely answer the questions associated with the existence of evil. The eternal beings and religious symbolism in Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov suggest that only faith in combination with compassion for other people in society, and not reliance on reason alone, can address the problem of evil and lead to genuine happiness.
As a representative of God and religious values in Crime and Punishment, Sonya saves Raskolnikov from the psychological torment he feels after he abandons religious values and murders the pawnbroker. While attempting to justify his crime, Raskolnikov argues that he is not guilty because the murder would reduce suffering. For a portion of the novel, Raskolnikov suggests that he had the right to murder the pawnbroker because, as an extraordinary man, he had the responsibility to reduce human suffering through murder. However, ultimately, Raskolnikov fails to improve the lives of Dunya and Sonya through his actions. Furthermore, Raskolnikov’s unjustifiable murder of Lizaveta suggests that he had actually increased human suffering and contributed to the problem of evil. Although for the majority of the novel Raskolnikov believes that he can escape prosecution due to his extraordinary status, his mental anguish increases as the novel progresses. Near the end of the novel, Sonya manages to save Raskolnikov from tormenting himself by trying to address the problem of evil through the creation of his own theories by showing Raskolnikov compassion instead of condemning him as a criminal, convincing him to confess his crime and serve penance, and promising to stay with him and help him through his suffering. As a symbol of Christianity, Sonya’s intervention relieves Raskolnikov’s anguish and provides him with the opportunity to enjoy the rest of his life, despite the physical suffering or prosecution he may experience as a result of the murder. In fact, while depicting Sonya’s influence on Raskolnikov, the narrator writes, “He… bowed to… and kissed that filthy earth with delight and happiness” (Crime and Punishment 525). In all likelihood, Dostoevsky’s association of Raskolnikov’s genuine happiness with a scene that resembles a religious conversion is not a coincidence. Instead, Crime and Punishment suggests that Sonya’s religious values enabled her to address the problem of evil by relieving Raskolnikov’s suffering through compassion.
Compassion and religion have the potential to rejuvenate Ivan’s mental well-being, after his Grand Inquisitor, Christ, and Devil suggest that rejecting God fails to reduce human suffering. During his conversation with Alyosha during “Rebellion,” Ivan tells Alyosha that he rejects God because he cannot accept a God who created a world with suffering. Furthermore, after Ivan’s Grand Inquisitor imprisons Christ, his Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that Christ should have ruled over and controlled human society by giving them bread and miracles, instead of forcing them to make their own decisions and rely on faith. Ultimately, by rejecting God, Ivan decides to reject religious values as well. Although Ivan appears to show signs of uncertainty in the truth of his beliefs during his discussions with Zosima and Alyosha, Ivan clearly mentally collapses when Smerdyakov uses his philosophy to hold him responsible for the death of Fyodor. As a result, Ivan’s reliance on reason apart from God caused him to isolate himself, prevented him from reducing human suffering by loving those around him, and caused him to feel mental anguish. Although Ivan appears very ill by the end of the novel, compassion and religion seem to have the potential to revive his well-being and allow him to live an enjoyable life. During Ivan’s conversation with his devil, his devil reminds Ivan of Ivan’s story about a man who rejected God by sitting outside the gates of heaven for one thousand years to protest human suffering. However, after entering heaven, the devil says that the man “cried out that those two seconds were worth walking… a quadrillion of quadrillions [kilometers]” (The Brothers Karamazov 542). In other words, the devil suggests that, after entering heaven, the man’s happiness and, perhaps, understanding of human suffering, increased unimaginably. Alyosha also recognizes Ivan’s search for happiness through God after Ivan’s collapse, by saying, “God… His truth, were gaining mastery over his heart, which still refused to submit” (The Brothers Karamazov 551). While praying, Alyosha states that religion has the power to revive Ivan, though Ivan’s reliance on reason to hate humanity could permanently destroy him. Similarly, Katerina’s compassion for Ivan may promote his transformation and recovery. Ivan’s philosophy associated with his rebellion and Grand Inquisitor cause him mental suffering, though Christ’s compassionate response to the Grand Inquisitor reflects the ability of religious values and Katerina’s compassion to save Ivan from permanent mental anguish.
The religious symbols of providence, the Word, and the sun provide the characters in the novels with hope, even in the face of evil and suffering. When Raskolnikov asks Sonya to pick between people’s lives, Sonya responds by saying, “I cannot know divine Providence… who put me to judge who is to live” (Crime and Punishment 408). Clearly, Sonya’s belief in God causes her to believe that God will address unsolvable issues, such as evil and suffering. In The Brothers Karamazov, Zosima echoes this interpretation while talking about the suffering in the book of Job by saying, “But the greatness of it lies just in the fact that it is a great mystery… the eternal truth is accomplished” (The Brothers Karamazov 252). In other words, although Zosima acknowledges that he does not fully understand the purpose of Job’s misery and human suffering in general, he believes in God’s providence and God’s purposeful control of Earthly events. Although Raskolnikov criticizes Sonya’s reliance on providence to escape poverty by having her read the story of Lazarus, Svirdrigailov miraculously provides Sonya and her family with money before his death, while, despite his will, Raskolnikov is unable to help them through his own philosophy. Similarly, in both novels, Dostoevsky symbolically uses the metaphor of the sun to reflect the hope for happiness Raskolnikov and Dmitri feel around the time of their conversions. While attempting to convince Raskolnikov to admit to his crime, Porfiry says, “Become a sun and everyone will see you” (Crime and Punishment 460). In other words, although Raskolnikov’s situation seems hopeless and miserable, Porfiry suggests that rejecting his theory and admitting to the crime provides Raskolnikov with the opportunity to truly be happy and share that happiness with others. Likewise, when Alyosha visits Dmitri after Dmitri is arrested, Dmitri says, “I see the sun… there’s a whole life in that” (The Brothers Karamazov 500). Clearly, Dmitri’s Christian-like conversion provides him with the strength to serve penance and find happiness, even though he must unjustly go to trial for a crime that he did not commit. Providence, the Bible, and the sun are symbols of hope for the characters in Dostoevsky’s novels that enable them to find satisfaction.
The philosophies of Alyosha and Zosima suggest that Earthly suffering can lead to salvation, love, and happiness. Having grown as a theologian, Alyosha recognizes that Ilyusha’s suffering united the boys by causing them to bond with each other. After burying Ilyusha, Alyosha acknowledges the importance of creating memories of experiences involving love for others by saying, “If we have only one good memory…. Even that may serve someday as our salvation” (The Brothers Karamazov 645). In other words, Alyosha suggests that reflecting on the memory of Ilyusha’s death could ultimately prevent future evil and provide the boys with mental and spiritual salvation in the future. During his teachings, Zosima echoes the importance of love that Alyosha emphasizes by saying, “Love to throw yourself on the earth… Love all men, love everything” (The Brothers Karamazov 278). Instead of abstractly considering the problem of evil, Zosima believed that by sharing the responsibility for everyone’s actions, loving others, and building relationships with others, individuals can reduce human suffering by preventing future misfortunes. Nearing his death, Zosima’s brother responds to the problem of suffering by saying, “Life is paradise, and we are all in paradise” (The Brothers Karamazov 249). Like Zosima, Zosima’s brother believed that faith in God provides one with the peace of mind to find paradise, even in the presence of evil. Alyosha’s and Zosima’s philosophies address the problem of evil through faith and love.
In The Brothers Karamazov, Zosima states that although he does not fully understand why evil exists, he has faith in God’s control and plan. Unlike Zosima, Raskolnikov and Ivan initially attempt to address the problem of evil by rejecting religious values and establishing their own philosophies, though they both ultimately are miserable and unsuccessful in reducing human suffering. In both Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, religious symbolism provides the characters in these novels with the hope of truly being happy. Zosima emphasizes the importance of love for others within the Christian faith, suggesting that love can prevent future suffering and allow one to find happiness while on Earth. Dostoevsky ends his final novel with Alyosha’s theology, which suggests that short-term, Earthly suffering enables people to grow as individuals and create memories that could serve as their salvation in the future. In that sense, Dostoevsky relies on the eternal beings in his novels and on religious symbolism to respond to the problem of evil, which had challenged him throughout his life.
Conclusion
While Dostoevsky felt unable to fully justify his beliefs during his lifetime, his arguments in Notes from the Underground, Crime and Punishment, and The Brothers Karamazov strongly reflect his beliefs in the importance of God and communal relationships. The comparison of Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground to Sartre’s “Existentialism is a Humanism” highlights the mental anguish that Dostoevsky suggests follows hyperconsciousness unrestrained by religious doctrine. In Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky suggests that community as a whole shares guilt for crimes, that the focus of Earthly life should be establishing loving relationships with others and not on pursuing justice by judging others, and that both faith and compassion are necessary to address evil and find fulfillment. In that sense, despite his uncertainty, Dostoevsky developed a powerful theology within his literary works, which begins to answer many of the philosophical questions that he struggled with during his lifetime.
Works Cited
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov: A Revised Translation. New York: W. Norton, 2010. Print.
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer, 2003. Print.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Great Short Works of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Trans. Ronald Hingley. New York: Perennial, 2004. Print.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. "Existentialism Is a Humanism." Web. 26 September 2014. <http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/307/sartre.pdf>.