A question I was left with following the conclusion of our discussion on “The Grand Inquisitor” concerns that of the relationship between man’s freedom and his freedom of conscience (specifically with respect to good and evil). At first glance, I see how the latter may be considered a subsidiary of the former, and how freedom of conscience and man’s freedom (as a whole) may influence each other. My initial assumption was freedom of conscience was simply a supporting argument for the overarching theme of man’s freedom. Why, then, would Dostoevsky—despite being only a single line—make such a profound distinction between the two ideas, as seen on page 54 of Solomon’s Existentialism? The Grand Inquisitor asserts, “Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, and would rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance” (54). Prior to this statement, the cardinal speaking seems to suggest that it is the earthly bread, a symbol of worship, which gives man reason to live. This is to say that bread alone, a gift worthy of unrequited worship, cannot sustain man. The cardinal continues by introducing the related, but entirely independent, concept of freedom of conscience. The distinction between the two ideas becomes evident in light of man’s willingness to renounce Him when faced with free choice, as discussed on page 55. If, then, man is willing to dismiss earthly bread in the absence of an object to follow, and humanity is also willing to deny His image and truth when confronted with free choice (regarding good and evil), is he (man) openly willing to serve the anti-Christ provided earthly bread is bestowed upon the masses and the distinctions between good and evil (presumably presented as the latter [evil] and deviations from it considering the nature of the anti-Christ) are made accessible? (Both of which, in reflecting on Satan’s authority and abilities in the Bible, seem for him/her a feasible operation).
Yours Tru.ly
First off, very insightful look into Dostoyevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor”. I can sense a sincere struggle with the course content and I will do my best giving some feedback. I love talking about the afterlife and the consciousness associated with it. Well, to answer your last question, I would say that yeah, Satan is a good candidate for worship. In the Christian sense, God is seen as the right choice, but both Satan and God give humans the sense of everlasting life. The main idea here goes back to Dostoyevsky’s idea on Monday’s topic of the Undgerground Man. Man has the freedom and free will to chose between a ideal perfect choice and a completely wrong choice.
ReplyDeleteGod gives rules that most people should follow while Satan is basically the first Underground Man saying break away and do whatever. He acted just like Dostoyevsky’s idea that people can say screw the Utopia I want my free will, and I want to be able to chose. Satan was God’s number one archangel before his fall from heaven. I believe he is still God’s number one; Satan was the one who introduced the concept of sin/ free will, and he doesn’t get the recognition for what he provided to the world. And Dostoyevsky encourages the Satan attitude by just going with what you desire.
Sean Spiewak