In the chapter titled Rebellion (or his book title), Feodor Dostoevski’s character, Ivan Karamazov, demonstrates that his angry and resentful attitude is the by-product of his very choosing. The fundamental principal of our own humanity is God’s acknowledgment of our expression of free will. Found between the boundaries of man’s ownership of worldly acts and thoughts, which can lead him to an eternity of joy or damnation, is that critical choice of what attitude we will wrap ourselves in for our finite time here. The extreme, and perhaps somewhat all too common, result of this human choice between simple joy and compounding suffering is presented in Ivan. As highlighted in Genesis account of Gods’ pure joy and pleasure of man, and His authoritative command for man’s dominion over all of His creations, it is impossible to imagine our Creator desiring our willing choice for suffering.
God’s divine plan for man starts and ends upon love. God provides overflowing and unconditional love so we can grasp the extent of His love for the purpose of developing our own love of self. The evolvement of our personal faith instills in us the divine sense of worth and desire, we some how come to “know” originates from our Creator. Ivan has neither grasped nor developed this love, let alone experienced this instilment. Genesis states God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (KJV Gen 5:26). In the shared likeness of God Himself, we must assume we all have the full capacity to experience and share God’s innate love and joy. God’s sending of His son in order to redeem us, His children, is the ultimate act of both heavenly and earthly love. Through His written word and through His son, God explicitly teaches us that love and joy are the nature of His being. Man, in God’s likeness, must actively counter this nature in order to derive an attitude of suffering, through the denial of natural joy and love. Ivan is a clear example of this suffering activism, as he clearly stands against most issues rather than necessarily in agreement or support of any higher principal. In Feodor Dostoevski’s book The Brothers Karamazov, this excerpted chapter is appropriately titled “Rebellion”. Rebellion is defined as the willful resistance or defiance of an established principal or authority. In our definition of activism, Ivan’s rebellion would be considered the most aggressive and destructive form of activism.
Ivan’s philosophy revolves around the idea that free will, the choice to choose the good or the bad, is too much to bear. The bulk of his philosophy is formed for the reader in his epic tale entitled “The Grand Inquisitor.” It talks about free will, and how unfair it was for Christ to give it to humanity. He argues that humanity on the whole cannot sustain itself because they again and again choose the bad. The Grand Inquisitor oppose...
The book 1984 by George Orwell is about a dystopian society called Oceania. Big Brother is the unseen leader of this society. Telescreens monitor every move of the Outer Party. The party consists of the Inner Party and the Outer Party. The Inner Party is the highest class in society, followed by the Outer Party. The lowest class is the Proles. The Proles are not monitored because the Inner Party considers them ignorant and does not consider them as a potential threat. People are monitored in order to eliminate thoughtcrime (any unorthodox thought). The new language of Oceania is Newspeak. The Party is trying to simplify language to limit thought. The Party also rewrites historical events in order to keep the past in line with Big Brother’s agenda. The main character, Winston, works on rewriting history. Winston and Julia (his lover) are against the government and join an underground revolution. Eventually, they are caught and are brought to the Ministry of Love (an organization that punishes crime by torture and brainwashing). They are separated and tortured. Winston is tortured by a man named O’Brien. Winston is tortured physically when he is beaten and starved. Winston is tortured mentally when he is brainwashed into believing what Big Brother believes. After being faced with his greatest fear, Winston submits to O’Brien and gives up his revolutionary ideals. In the end of the book, Winston confesses his love of Big Brother. Two of the main themes in 1984 are the destruction of language and the power of language. In 1984, Orwell uses Newspeak and the death of language to show that one’s thoughts are directly controlled by the language they use and he who controls the language controls the future.
“There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”(1) This quote encompasses the intention that George Orwell had in mind when contriving 1984; he intended to caution society about the menace of a totalitarian dystopian world, in which there is no freedom, citizens are being indoctrinated, and how the ever existing lure to power will perpetually manipulate politics. In part one of this essay I will first discuss the themes of 1984 then I will consider Orwell’s objectives in writing the novel.
The novel shows how the government attempts to control the minds and bodies of it citizens, such as Winston Smith who does not subscribe to their beliefs, through a variety of methods. The first obvious example arises with the large posters with the caption of "Big Brother is Watching You" (page 5). These are the first pieces of evidence that the government is watching over its people. Shortly afterwards we learn of the "Thought Police", who "snoop in on conversations, always watching your every move, controlling the minds and thoughts of the people." (page 6). To the corrupted government, physical control is not good enough, however. The only way to completely eliminate physical opposition is to first eliminate any mental opposition. The government is trying to control our minds, as it says "thought crime does not entail death; thought crime is death." (page 27). Later in the novel the government tries even more drastic methods of control. Big Brother’s predictions in the Times are changed. The government is lying about production figures (pages 35-37). Even later in the novel, Syme’s name was left out on the Chess Committee list. He then essentially vanishes as though he had never truly existed (page 122). Though the methods and activities of the government seem rather extreme in Orwell’s novel, they may not be entirely too false. "Nineteen Eighty-Four is to the disorders of the twentieth century what Leviathan was to those of the seventeenth." (Crick, 1980). In the novel, Winston Smith talks about the people not being human. He says that "the only thing that can keep you human is to not allow the government to get inside you." (page 137). The corruption is not the only issue which Orwell presents, both directly and indirectly. He warns that absolute power in the hands of any government can lead to the deprival of basic freedoms and liberties for the people.
Dictionary.com defines a tragic hero as a great or virtuous character in a dramatic tragedy who is destined for downfall (“Tragic Hero”). Aristotle defined a tragic hero as a literary character who makes a judgment error that inevitably leads to his own destruction (“English IV Class Discussion”, 2016). A tragic hero must be physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death; intelligent so he may learn from his mistakes; have a weakness, usually it is pride; and be faced with a very serious decision that he must make (“Tragic hero as defined by Aristotle”). Achilles, Hector, Beowulf, and Hamlet all exhibit these characteristics and, as a result, can be seen as prime examples of tragic heroes.
Yet, even by the end of the novel, Ivan's internal conflict is not resolved. When we see him last it is with 'acute fever and unconscious'(871). We cannot help but have pity for someone whose depths of conscience drove him to insanity and perhaps even to his death-bed. Indeed, it is these very ideas that lead me to assert that the critics whom I mentioned at the beginning of this essay were wrong: our sympathy for the character of Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov does not make Dostoyevsky's great work a 'diabolodicy', but rather supports its intended role as a theodicy. In identifying with Ivan so strongly we are led through the 'crucible of doubt' along with him and, while he apparently succumbs to his intellectual pride, we see this and are pushed in the direction of accepting God, or, at the very least, His necessity.
In the novel 1984, George Orwell predicts the world’s future, when human rights, such as freedom of speech, do not exist anymore. Everyone has to obey the government. The government controls its citizens’ lives. No one speaks up against the government yet because they do not even have a chance to make up a thought about it. The government dominates the citizens’ thoughts by using technologies and the thought polices to make sure no one will have any thoughts, that is against the government. George Orwell wrote:“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows,” (Orwell.2.7.69) the government tries to control Winston knowledge and change it to fit into the purpose of the Party. To Winston, O’Brien said: “Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.” (Orwell.3.2.205). As a citizen, no one get to look at or tal...
Ivan’s non-acceptance of faith stems from the innocent suffering of children. There is in him an intense conflict between his desire for “rational” retributive justice, on the one hand, and the sublimity of universal forgiveness, on the other. The intensity of Ivan’s conflict between his desire for “rational” retributive justice, on the one hand, and the sublimity of universal forgiveness, on the other, is revealed by Dostoevsky’s underlining. Nonetheless, Ivan is unyielding in his refusal, which culminates in his famous declaration: “And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I must give it back as soon as possible. . . . It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him my ticket.”
Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky was among those philosophical thinkers who grappled with the task of explaining why evil exists in a world created by a perfect god. Despite the powerful influence of Christianity in his early childhood and throughout his life, Dostoevsky encountered difficulties in answering this question, which he described, “Nature, the soul, God, love – all this is understood by the heart, not by the mind” (Gibson 1973, 9). Nevertheless, Dostoevsky not only felt obligated to discover a solution to the problem, but also “responsible to his fellow believers for its success or failure” (Gibson 1973, 169). This quest for a solution to the problem of theodicy ultimately led Dostoevsky to write The Brothers Karamazov, a novel that attempts to explain the need for evil in the world. In posing his solution to this problem, Dostoevsky explains the necessity of suffering for the realization of human redemption, as well as the role of Christ’s atoneme...
The people in this book live in fear because of Big Brother, this person that they have never seen, but are told about. They also fear the Secret Police, an organization that anyone around them could be apart of. The government in the book can say anything they want to and it is believed. On page sixty-nine, it says “In the end the party would announce that two plus two equaled five, and you would have to believe it”. The government (Big Brother) has a huge impact on the citizens of Oceania, not to mention the overpowering control he has over his people. Through my annotations I have noticed that this situation in this book greatly resembles Nazi Germany, under the reign of Adolf Hitler, in 1932. Both leaders manipulated their people by greatly enforcing propaganda, strict rules, and, extreme brainwashing of their people. Overall I believe that the purpose of George Orwell’s writing was to show people to the effect the government had on them. I also believe that he did it in a perfect way due to the fact that he portrayed in way that related to our world
Orwell was able to effectively convey his message to the audience by using a setting that was different from ours today. This setting is different because it is a society that is completely ran by the government and the people have no free will. In using a setting similar to this, Orwell is able to convey his message by showing the routines of the the people in this society. An example of how Orwell showing their daily routines he discusses Winston being awoken by a female voice yelling “Tirty to Forty group” (Orwell 31). This was the workout that everyone has to do in the mornings and telescreens are watching the individuals to assure that they are doing their morning workout properly. This example shows how the setting of this novel unfamiliar
Good vs. Evil. The theme every book, movie or story deals with at least once. We even deal with it in our real world. The issue becomes even greater when the evil matches the good, like Sherlock and Moriarty or Guy and Bruno. The combination of the protagonist and the antagonist creates a crisis which can only be solved if both parties cease to exist or one part gives in their role. We see this in both “Sherlock” BBC series and in the movie “Strangers on a Train” where both sets of doubles demonstrate the need of the other member for existence.
The conflict between good and evil is universal to the human condition. It is a theme common to both history and literature. In 1866 Joseph Roux wrote, “Evil often triumphs, but never conquers”. In “Mercy Among the Children” by David Richards, the Henderson family suffers many injustices, and is exposed to “evil” in many forms. Roux’s statement can be analyzed through the examination of the characters, including the Henderson’s themselves and those who most deeply affect them.
The free will defense of the presence of moral evil is that it is logically possible that God could have created a world with creatures that always did the right (good) thing, never harmed anyone or anything and did no wrong. But, these creatures are not free to do as they will, existing like robots. It is far better to have a world of creatures that are significantly free, that generally perform more good acts than evil acts. Although this is superior to not having free will, God cannot make creatures only do good, nor can God stop creatures from doing evil. So, when humans use free will to perform evil, it is an act done free of God’s will and goodness. This is the source of moral evil, the overt decision (use of free will) to commit sin
Ivan doesn't necessarily accept God, but rather the world that was created. He cannot accept the fact that there can be such immense suffering in this world. The amount of injustice that goes on in this world is unacceptable to Ivan. The lack of intervention by God is what infuriates him. The question that Ivan considers, is what's the ideal world; world of justice or a homogeneous one? In an immaculate world of justice, a person such as the general in the story would pay for his atrocious crime. If we all must suffer to pay for eternal harmony, what have children to do with it? He questions the position we have in the future