Carlos Sanchez
B. Murphy
PHI3882
31 Mar. 2015

The Brothers Karamazov

Upon reading Dostoevsky´s book, you come to realize that there are several actions in motion, which are connected through one way or another to philosophy. Dostoevsky portrayed a truly great masterpiece when writing this book, as his intention of writing a book that blended philosophy, mystery, and religious topics was indeed accomplished. The Brothers Karamazov depicts not only these topics, but also the Russian society at that time. While reading this book I realized that several of the philosophical topics present could be simply the author´s themes, or in other words, the author´s message to the readers. Upon beginning it you can realize that there will be a clash of philosophical topics, the majority of which are portrayed through the characters present in this story. After concluding with the required reading, I began to comprehend that several topics here are still present in modern day society. The conflict between faith and doubt is a topic, which currently rages several debates between us humans. While some of us have faith, be it in religion or personal subjects, others have doubts regarding topics that involve faith. Therefore, upon finalizing The Brothers Karamazov I can state that this book has several philosophical topics, which are depicted throughout the complete book. Even though there are a broad variety of philosophical topics in this book, they will be arranged the order of importance, according to which topics I believe have more explanation and material to cover. The ones with fewer material and of less importance will be placed at the beginning, while the ones with more material and importance will follow the previous ones. Since most topics are found throughout the whole book, they will not be arranged in chronological order. The first philosophical topic found in The Brothers Karamazov deals with philosophical questions asked within the characters throughout the book. Alyosha´s loving faith has him doubt his religion occasionally, even though he still firmly believes in it. Alyosha begins to have several questions after a speech given to him by Zosima. In Zosima´s view, the ability of love comes from the ability of recognizing the truth. If a person cannot belief in himself then he will grow full of doubts, therefore creating doubts about others. Having doubts will lead to this person questioning himself and others, thus losing the ability to recognize lies from truth. Once you question others and you are doubtful, then you would lose respect for them, so you would stop loving them (Sparknotes3). Alyosha starts questioning whether his brothers and father were in some way wicked due to their own doubts. He also questions his religion because there isn´t any specific guideline in it that provides you with the capacity of creating a difference between truth and lies. One could argue that The Bible provides you with a set of rules but Alyosha realizes that they are merely guidelines and they can´t help you distinguish truth from lie. Besides Alyosha, Ivan has his own set of questions. Ivan questions whether the soul is immortal at all. As a formal atheist, Ivan ponders upon several questions, which he knows cannot be answered. Questioning the soul´s immortality leads him to believe that there is no real need for morality, so people might as well live to simply satisfy their own greedy needs (Sparknotes3). Even though philosophical questions within the characters appear throughout the book, I believe that they are more intended for self-though upon them, rather than being a strong philosophical theme. Another topic that deals with philosophy is found within an argument held between Ivan and Zosima. The whole argument starts with Ivan and some monks, debating whether ecclesiastical courts should handle judicial processes. Ivan believes that the Church should indeed handle these processes because if the responsible ones commit a crime then they would be acting against God, rather than against a country and Ivan knows that people fear the concept of acting against God. Zosima agrees to this, but to a certain extent. He suggests that the real punishment against crime is found in one´s conscience (Sparknotes2). He states that the Church knows that consciousness is what haunts a man after committing a crime; therefore this is why they do not handle judicial processes. Three specific subjects differ Ivan´s argument from the one of Zosima. First, Ivan believes that society as a whole can change through ecclesiastical courts, while Zosima believes that personal consciousness is the leading factor towards a change. Secondly, both see religion in a different perspective. While Ivan argues that religion can serve simply as a force to prevent evil, Zosima counter argues that religion is a force and system that suggests ways in which the individual can do well. The third and last subject is found in Ivan and Zosima´s different level of sincerity. Even though Ivan argues in favor of ecclesiastical courts, he has contradictory beliefs because he does not believe in God. He knows that having these courts could lead to an ecclesiastical society; something that he would not personally like due to his own beliefs. Contrary to him, Zosima´s strong faith makes him doubtless regarding his position on the Church and religion. Even though Ivan has an interesting argument, Zosima´s is stronger because he has no doubt as to what he is stating, unlike Ivan (Sparknotes2). The philosophical conflict between faith and doubt is strongly represented through Ivan and Zosima´s argument. Another philosophical topic found in Dostoevsky´s work is found in the philosophy of religion present through several parts of this book. As we know already, both Alyosha and Zosima are highly religious. Both are devoted Christians and they both share a genuine love for human nature and its capacity to achieve goodness. Ivan, as we already know, is an atheist who believes that the Church should control the courts. Ivan has a strong thought moment where he analyzed God´s roll. He questions the existence of a god because the current world has starving children and suffering. He gets to the conclusion that there is no god or that if there could be a god, then he would be a tyrant god that allows the commitment of several crimes. He wraps up his inner argument by stating that humans are alone in the universe and if there is no god or a tyrant god then his father´s behavior could be acceptable. Ivan´s despair follows up with him throughout the complete novel.
Afterwards, we get to know about the story between Satan and Christ. An honorary example of philosophy of religion is shown here as the devil´s three temptations towards Christ are mentioned. This example serves to illustrate free will. Just as Christ did everything with a free will, we humans have the right to do so. Having free will shows us that it is necessary and it also aids in helping us to understand Alyosha and Zosima´s philosophy (Sparknotes2). Furthermore on Zosima, we learned that several characters thought that when he died, some sort of miracle had to happen. On the contrary, when he was being buried he released a stench, which in those times represented that he may not have been a complete saint. Additionally, Dostoevsky implies that without miracles, people are questioning whether they should have faith or rather doubts. Dostoevsky´s use of religion is present basically throughout the whole book with all the questioning occurring around whether faith is worth it. Getting closer to the end we have yet another philosophical topic, which is represented through Dmitri´s guilt and his respective trial. Initially, Dostoevsky leads us to believe that Dmitri is in fact, Fyodor Pavlovich´s murderer. Further on we learn that he is not the actual killer. However, the court still beliefs in his guilt so a trial against him commences. The question of whether he is guilty or not represents whether if humans are good willed or actually sinful. Dostoevsky portrays his trial symbolically as his trial is no more than the trial that the human spirit must endure. According to an educational website, “Dostoevsky [drew] our attention to a peculiar psychological phenomenon: the desire of a guilty man to confess his guilt (Sparknotes). Through this Dostoevsky brings us back to an already familiar concept that we studied before, which is that of your own consciousness. The real killer had an uneasy and troubled conscious, leading to his suicide, while Dmitri also shares a guilty consciousness, but he´s guilty due to other “crimes”. As we read about the trial, information about past crimes committed by Dmitri were exposed. We learn that he cheated on Katerina and he wanted to leave her for Grushenka, he also lied on several occasions, and he hurt (physically) a man that was spying on him. Within the topic of Dmitri´s trial we learn that Smerdyakov, the real killer, decided to kill Fyodor due to several philosophic talks, which he held with Ivan. He was sort of inspired by Ivan in a way. Ivan argued that in life, one´s own decisions affected oneself and no one more. In this case, he realized that his decision of speaking against his father only caused his death. Besides this, Ivan had recently received the visit of the devil and this along with his words towards Smerdyakov made him realize how a world without God really is. Without God or anybody else in his side, he got to know that religion is in fact important and he realized the mistakes that he did. Unfortunately towards the end of the novel, Ivan slowly begins to go crazy. With the use of Dmitri´s trial, the author made us realize several philosophic ideas. The last topic, which speaks about philosophy, is represented with Dostoevsky´s use of the characters and their contrasting ideas. Initially, Fyodor Pavlovich is introduced and his philosophy of living is somewhat vague. He is always in the search of pleasure rather than in maintaining a responsible attitude. He is constantly drunk, participating in orgies, and he mistreats others, such as his two wives and his children. Unlike him we have his three sons. First of all Ivan is as we know, a bright mind but who does not believe in God, but rather than in scientific facts. Just as unlike as the previous two we have Dmitri. He is somewhat compulsive as he acts without really knowing about the consequences but he is not as vague as his father. He is a little like his father since he is sometimes reckless and he has an urge for sensuality, but he has a sense of morality, unlike him. Even more different than the rest, we have Alyosha. Alyosha is a firm believer and he has a natural love for humankind. Alyosha and Ivan share a strong contrast since Alyosha is the character that represents faith, while Ivan is the one who represents doubt. Alyosha also shares a strong contrast with his father as Alyosha is moral and religious and Fyodor is a pleasure-seeking maniac. Dostoevsky could have used them to portray the most basic contrasts of all: good and evil. Further on, we have Zosima who is similar to Alyosha but we can consider him Alyosha´s spiritual leader. He has a strong faith in God and he constantly gives advice to those who need it. Besides the main characters, there are others that serve to display philosophical topics. Smerdyakov´s birth for instance, demonstrates his father´s actions resulting in an unwanted child who was twisted and who had epilepsy. Smerdyakov also shares a contrast with Ivan. Whenever they speak Ivan has two feelings at the time. Ivan feels somewhat satisfied with Smerdyakov getting to know about his own philosophies. At the same time he has a repulsive attitude towards him because he has unmoral traits. Ivan also feels guilty because he is teaching Smerdyakov that whatever he does, won´t affect others, causing Ivan to fear for what he may do.
The character of Katerina is also introduced to us and she acts as someone who is unsure of her feelings, she is possibly an unsecure person. Alyosha believes that her relationship with Ivan is based on real feelings between them, but they don´t really know how to act on these feelings. We have once again, the topic of doubt present, only that on a different perspective, which is love. Alyosha´s future wife, Lise, is also introduced and Dostoevsky makes her appear as a character that sells us the image of a conflict going throughout the whole novel: despair represented by Ivan and love exemplified by Alyosha (Sparknotes3). Lise has strong inner conflicts and she occasionally questions authority, such as her mother, bringing her to engage in mental trouble. She has her own complicated philosophy. Her indecision between having Alyosha return her the letter or letting him keep it depicts her as a person with clashing opinions. The author´s use of his characters in order to portray individual and contrasting philosophies is clearly represented through his use of the character´s actions and what they speak of.
In order to achieve a proper conclusion I must state what I consider to be a personal opinion that directly speaks what Dostoevsky wants the reader to realize. Upon finishing this novel, I believe that he wants us to realize that goodness, faith, and love are the factors that he supports. When Dmitri eventually yields to his “committed crime” Dostoevsky makes us realize that faith and optimism should be essential in our human lives. Personally speaking, I was amazed at the novel´s correlation with philosophy as almost each character and section played an important role regarding what the author wanted us to know. Dostoevsky´s The Brothers Karamazov is an excellent novel, which represents several philosophical topics and ultimately the continuous struggle between faith and doubt.

Works Cited
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1997. Print. "The Brothers Karamazov." SparkNotes. SparkNotes. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. "The Brothers Karamazov."Themes, Motifs & Symbols”, SparkNotes. SparkNotes. Web. 30 Mar. 20152 "The Brothers Karamazov."Summary & Analysis”, SparkNotes. SparkNotes. Web. 30 Mar. 20153