Often, authors develop a central idea in a novel by presenting it repeatedly in different forms throughout the work. The novel The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a perfect example of this technique. Specifically, in the course of his work, Dostoyevsky speculates on the nature of submission in relation to major issues such as interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships, freedom, and even happiness. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayThe theme of the submission is presented at the beginning of the text. The father, Fyodor Pavlovich, accompanied by his two eldest sons and some members of the extended family, visits the monastery where the third son, Alyosha, studies. The monastery is characterized by its institution of elders: wise monks who are almost considered saints. The elder Zosima is the one responsible for teaching Alyosha the principles of the monastery and religion. The ancients, and specifically Zosima, introduce the idea of ​​submission in relation to personal freedom. In describing the elders, the narrator states that an elder “is one who takes your soul, your will into his soul and into his will. Having chosen an elder, you renounce your will and give it to him in complete obedience and with complete renunciation of yourself” (Dostoevsky 27). Thus, it is clear that men like Alyosha are expected to place all their will and be in the hands of a trusted elder. However, this was not an action that was forced upon him; the narrator rather describes how the one who “dedicates himself to this ordeal” does so voluntarily; he “does it voluntarily in the hope that after the long ordeal he will achieve self-conquest, self-mastery to such a degree that he will finally, through lifelong obedience, achieve perfect freedom, that is to say, freedom of himself.” » (27-28). In this way, Alyosha and other young people hope to “avoid the fate of those who live their whole lives without finding themselves” (28). This seemingly paradoxical process allows individuals to achieve “perfect freedom” because they are able to find themselves through interactions with other individuals and society. They achieve self-mastery by gaining an understanding of others and their relationships with them. This chapter declares that complete obedience - however "testing" it may be - is the way to achieve this higher state of existence. The faith that thousands of followers have in the elders, in addition to the trust that young men like Alyosha must have in them, helps to present the elder institution and its customs as highly respectable and trustworthy. However, the discussion is not without a slight caveat. After having explained the institution, the narrator adds: It is perhaps also true that this proven and already thousand-year-old instrument for the moral regeneration of man from slavery to freedom and moral perfection can be transformed into a double-edged sword. , which can lead a person not to humility and ultimate self-control, but on the contrary to the most satanic pride, that is, to fetters and not to freedom. (29) This represents a stylistic element present in almost every major thematic idea in the novel. Rather than providing a concrete answer to big philosophical or moral questions, Dostoyevsky creates rounded contemplations that encourage the reader to examine both sides of an issue before jumping to conclusions. In this case, Dostoyevsky's narrator bluntly reminds the reader that the announced pedagogical practice of the ancients always has the capacityto become destructive rather than productive. He seems to imply that there is almost never a simple solution to an important problem, especially when it comes to concepts such as morality and man's existence on earth. Dostoyevsky even goes so far as to suggest that ancient saints might arouse “satanic pride.” An interaction Zosima has with a lady landowner, Madame Khokhlakov, indirectly provides insight into how elders seek to achieve freedom and self-control through their relationships with others. The woman is anguished by her lack of faith in the afterlife and her inability to perform altruistic acts without expecting gratitude in return. She says: “I work to get paid and I demand my salary immediately, which means praise and love back for my love. Otherwise, I can't love anyone! (57) Zosime relates his difficult situation to that of a doctor with whom he spoke one day and who said: "the more I love humanity in general, the less I love people in particular, it is that is, individually, as separate people,” because “as soon as someone is there, near me, their personality oppresses my self-esteem and restricts my freedom” (57). This inverse proportion suggests that it is not possible to love individuals and humanity equally. However, Zosima himself seems to contradict this idea, since he appears to be devoted and loved by both individuals (like Alyosha) and society at large. Additionally, it is interesting to note that freedom and self-esteem are inhibited by the presence of other individuals, exactly the opposite of the elders' goal described previously. Zosima's solution to Madame Khokhlakov's dilemma is the practice of "active love," which he describes as "work and perseverance and, for some people, perhaps, a whole science" (58). Zosima gives instructions to the lady: Try to love your neighbors actively and tirelessly. The more you succeed in loving, the more you will be convinced of the existence of God and the immortality of your soul. And if you achieve complete altruism in love of your neighbor, then you will undoubtedly believe and will even undoubtedly be able to enter into your soul. This has been tested. That's for sure. (56) It was previously described that meaningful relationships (such as selfless love) enable one to find oneself and achieve perfect freedom. In this case, the same relationships provide security and faith in God and immortality, suggesting that the two are interconnected. Zosima's claims that this has "been tested" and "is certain" help the reader recall the earlier presence of Zosima's method: self-mastery through self-denial and submission. However, rather than telling the woman to join the monastery, Zosimus seems to imply that complete submission to a higher power is possible outside the institution. As described previously, altruism and selflessness allow for greater self-realization and self-control. In fact, during Zosima's conversation with the woman, he refers to her need for revenge when interacting with others; she realizes that she really expected praise from him and exclaims: “You brought me back to myself, you surprised me and explained it! (58) Thus, although the theme of submission is present in both the elders' discussion and Zosima's meeting with Madame Khokhlakov, the nature and premises of submission vary slightly. An interpersonal situation later in the text presents the theme of submission in another, slightly different form. . A young woman named Katerina Ivanovna is torn between marrying Fyodor's eldest son, Dmitri, and being with his brother, Ivan.Alyosha, known for his intrinsic ability to immediately perceive the inner workings of other characters, has insight into Katerina's situation. The narrator states that he "felt, by a sort of instinct, that a person like Katerina Ivanovna should reign and that she could only reign over a man like Dmitri, but in no case over a man like Ivan." (186-187). the reason is that Dmitri "could ultimately submit to her 'for his own happiness'... but not Ivan, Ivan could not submit to her, and such submission would not bring him happiness" (187.) While Previously submission was discussed in reference to the attainment of freedom, in Katerina's case submission is considered in relation to the happiness of individuals. As the novel develops, it becomes evident that Ivan continually suffers from inner philosophical conflicts regarding morality, immortality, faith, and humanity. He could not submit to Katerina because he is constantly in a state of doubt, skepticism and distrust; even if he tried to submit to Katerina, he would be unhappy because he would never be fully loving and secure with her. On the other hand, Dmitri is presented as a character who, although often carried away by his passions, has a strong inclination towards morality, faith and love. He could theoretically submit to Katerina because he knows how to achieve happiness with individuals and humanity. Katerina's situation thus links submission to happiness and the question of doubt versus faith, a major conflict that resonates throughout the work. Interestingly, Katerina herself offers completely different views on her relationships with Dmitri and Ivan - yet another example of Dostoevsky presenting the reader with several divergent perspectives on a conflict. Unlike Alyosha's speculations, Katerina's comments are less easy to interpret because she often contradicts herself and seems less self-confident and insightful than Alyosha. At the beginning of the text, Dmitri tells Alyosha how Katerina wrote him a love letter asking him to be his bride, in which she says: “Do not be afraid, I will not hinder you in any way, I will be your furniture, the carpet on which you walk… I want to love you eternally, I want to save you from yourself” (116). In this letter alone, Katerina seems to contradict herself. She initially appears submissive, ready to give herself entirely to Dmitri, even to the point of being nothing more than the “carpet” on which he walks. However, in the end she says that she wants to save Dmitri from himself, a proactive statement that necessarily puts Dmitri in a submissive position rather than Katerina. Later, Katerina herself speaks with Alyosha and tells him that she wants to remain faithful to Dmitri; she said: “And let him see throughout his life that all my life I will be faithful to him and to the word that I once gave, despite the fact that he was unfaithful and that he betrayed” (189). In the same conversation, Katerina also exclaims, “as if frantically”: “I will insist that he finally knows me and that he tells me everything without being ashamed… I will be his god, to whom he will pray… I I will simply become… the instrument, the mechanism of his happiness” (189). So, although it seems that Katerina wants to be faithful to Dmitri - which she also associates with submission to him - she intends to take control of Dmitri in order to direct how he achieves happiness and escapes from his troubles . In other words, she wants Dmitri to submit fully to her, placing him in a position of power much like that of the elders. In fact, the precise word "instrument" is used in reference to both the method the elder uses to achieve freedom and Katerina's desire to control Dmitri (29, 189). Compared toAlyosha's respected and trusted outsider's perspective makes Katerina's contradictory and emotional commentary on her situation seem less sincere and less credible. Dostoevsky most likely uses the incongruence between points of view as a subtle way to help develop the conflict between being faithful and loving, like Alyosha, or being plagued by distrust and doubt, like Katerina. Ivan's character development and a passage he recites called the Grand Inquisitor offers some of the richest commentary on the fundamental conflicts addressed in the novel, including submission versus freedom and happiness. Before the passage, Ivan discusses his inability to reconcile human suffering, particularly that of children, and how, because of this, he is unable to submit to the religious principles that others respect and rely on . In this conversation, he mentions that “it is still possible to love one's neighbor abstractly, and even sometimes from a distance, but almost never up close” (237). This statement recalls the inverse proportion mentioned above by Zosima on the inability to love both individuals and humanity. Ivan even states that “if we want to love a man, the man himself must remain hidden, because as soon as he shows his face, love disappears” (237). Ivan believes that while one may have abstract faith in humanity, it is rare to find an individual that one can truly love because there are so many bad qualities in them - people sin and cause harm. suffering. In the prose that follows about the Grand Inquisitor, Ivan reveals many of his own intellectual conjectures about religion and the existence of God. The Grand Inquisitor is a cardinal who played an important role during the Inquisition, a period when thousands of people were declared heretics and burned. death. In the passage from Ivan, the Grand Inquisitor meets Christ in a prison cell and monologues to him about the purpose and beliefs of those who govern the Church. His criticism of Christ is based on Christ's rejection of the three temptations, which he considers to be the symbol of "all that man seeks on earth, namely: someone to bow down to, someone who takes charge of his conscience and a means of uniting all men.” finally into a common, concordant and incontestable anthill” (257). By rejecting temptations - bread, the possibility of a miracle and power - Christ allowed men to retain their freedom, in the form of free will and the ability to decide for themselves who to follow and what to follow. is bad or good. For example, the Grand Inquisitor describes what he thought Christ meant by rejecting the bread: “You did not want to deprive man of liberty and you rejected the offer. What kind of freedom is this, you thought, if obedience can be bought with loaves of bread? ?" (252). The concept of "purchased" obedience is entirely juxtaposed with the obedience described above, where young men willingly submit fully to elders. Although the passage seems intended to criticize Christ, it aligns often Christ on the monastery teachings that have been presented thus far, supporting his message and intentions. The theory behind the rule of the Grand Inquisitor is that people prefer to have a defined source to obey and gain a sense of morality. , rather than being burdened by free will, he ironically asks Christ: “Is this how human nature was created: to reject the miracle, and in these terrible moments of life, the moments of the most questions. terrible, essential and tormenting of the soul, to stick only to the free decision of the heart (255)..