Dostoevsky and Spiritual Freedom
- Pierce Kozlowski
- Oct 31, 2021
- 7 min read
Updated: Aug 6, 2022
By Pierce K. Kozlowski
In Dostoevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor” chapter of The Karamazov Brothers, Ivan Karamozav tells a tale about a Spanish Inquisitor who opposes the teachings of Christ, and tries to justify using the power of the church to create a world with less suffering. To carry out this vision, the Inquisitor has to curb the spiritual freedom of those who oppose the church by trying to silence or kill them, even if that person is Jesus Christ. Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881)—a famous Russian author and essayist—highlights two philosophies central to his belief: First, you cannot twist the teachings of Christ in the pursuit of utopia; and second, you cannot curb the spiritual freedoms of an individual in the name of a religious institution.
The Beauty of Christ
In the story, Ivan Karamazov’s views are antithetical to Dostoevsky’s. Ivan hints at being an atheist, and insinuates as much mid-dialogue in The Brothers Karamazov, asking, “So, you don’t believe in God either?” (“Ivan”). Dostoevsky, however, was a fervent Christian for most of his life, and he underwent a notable transformation in his faith after a four-year prison sentence at a Siberian labor camp (Roazen). Furthermore, Dostoevsky held high fidelity to his faith--Jesus Christ in particular--and between 1868-1871, he devoutly wrote in a letter, “if someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth, and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth” (Dostoevsky).
It can be argued that Dostoevsky’s sentiment is paradoxical because our personal convictions are designed to reflect the truth. However, Dostoevsky admits that he would hold steadfast to Christ, even if it were conclusively proven that the truth excluded Christ. Even in the New Testament, John the Apostle quotes Jesus Christ proclaiming to be “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jesus). So, why would Dostoevsky suggest that Christ could ever be separate from the truth? Furthermore, if Christ and the truth were proven to be separate, why would Dostoevsky elect Christ?
Brian Zahnd -- author of Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God -- took on those two questions, and reached Dostoevsky’s same conclusion. Zahnk argued from the case of beauty, and posited that “beauty is a reliable guide to life. To choose the beautiful is a consistently wise choice.” Furthermore, Zahnd also believed that Christ was the most beautiful, so he therefore reasoned that life was not worth living if Christ’s beauty were false: “I do not want to live in a world where the beauty of Christ is untrue” (Zahnd). In the book The Idiot, Dostoevsky sought to write about the perfect Christian through the character Lev Myshkin, and it is through Myshkin that Dostoevsky spoke his most true and personal Christian convictions. One of those convictions was, “beauty will save the world” (Myshkin). If Dostoevsky believed that Christ was the most beautiful like Zahnd, and that beauty will indeed save the world, then maybe that is what influenced Dostoevsky’s choice to elect Christ; even if it were discovered that Christ and the truth were provably separate.
Christ Gave Humanity Freedom
In “The Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan’s conflict with God allows Dostoevsky to not only challenge his own convictions on Christ, but to show how a supposedly perfect sounding theory--one proposed by Ivan--can be flawed in practice. In the New Testament, Satan presents Jesus with three temptations, and Jesus refuses Satan on each one (Matthew the Apostle). In Ivan’s tale, the Inquisitor relitigates all three instances of the temptations and grills Jesus for not using the opportunities Satan gives him to prevent humanity from bearing unnecessary suffering. Dostoevsky seems to believe that Jesus forced humanity to carry the burden of spiritual freedom when he refused Satan’s temptations, and naturally, spiritual freedom was a central virtue and necessary hardship to Dostoevsky’s belief. The Inquisitor, who thinks that humanity cannot shoulder this hardship, is an enemy of this idea, and argues:
"‘Freedom, free thought and science, will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves,’ the Inquisitor says. ‘Others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet’" (The Grand Inquisitor).
The point of the Grand Inquisitor was for Ivan to craft a social ethic that rebutted Aylosha’s religious beliefs. It’s widely argued by interpreters of the poem that “The Grand inquisitor” reflects Ivan’s approval and Dostoevsky’s disapproval of using institutional power to curb personal liberties for a supposed greater good. Spencer Baum from Medium publishing writes, “The Grand Inquisitor is Ivan’s rationalization, and Dostoevsky’s condemnation, of any institution that would take away an individual’s spiritual freedom in order to create a world with less suffering” (Baum). Dostoevsky reveals two interesting ideas. First, he believed that the harrowing burden of spiritual freedom was one everyone must undergo, and a burden that was designed by God to be taken on by humanity. Second, Dostoevsky believed that the fulfillment of less worldly suffering occurred not through social institutions, trickling down the benefits collectively; but rather it happened individually, in the heart of each person.
Dostoevsky’s personal philosophy favoring the struggle of spiritual freedom, and all hardship in general, is closely in line with the greatly celebrated Christian writer Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy (1828-1910)—commonly regarded as one of the greatest writers of all time and the author of War and Peace—believed that life was inherently imbued with adversity, and that overcoming those adversities gave true happiness. Tolstoy writes, “The idea...that life is a vale of tears, is just as false as the idea shared by the great majority, the idea...that life is a place of entertainment. Life is a place of service, and in that service one has to suffer a great deal that is hard to bear, but more often to experience a great deal of joy...” (Tolstoy). Tolstoy’s case from adversity embodies the sentiment of Christ’s teaching mentioned earlier, which is that you must endure hardship, especially through the resistance of temptation. Jesus commanded this of his followers in order to show them how to live in a Godly manner. Tolstoy, who was a devout Christian too, went a step further, and argued that living in hardship and being more Christ-like would bring joy. Historically, this was not an uncommon attitude amongst Christians; and Dostoevsky, being a passionate Christian himself, was likely of the same opinion as Tolstoy, and thought the true alleviation of suffering came by first enduring it. This is a sharp contrast to Ivan’s character, who believed in alleviating certain spiritual freedoms in order to bring about immediate joy and or relief to his fellow man.
The Right to Suffer for Christ is Inviolable
Ivan saw the suffering of people, specifically children, and lamented over the evilness of the world. He used that very point of suffering children to disprove God, arguing that a loving God would not allow such injustice and wickedness:
"Can you understand why a little creature, who can’t even understand what’s done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted?" (Ivan).
To alleviate the burdens created by certain freedoms, Ivan—through the grand inquisitor—suggests using a higher institution to govern people in certain beliefs. For the inquisitor, that was using the church’s power to kill enemies of the church, and rejecting the teachings of Christ to delegitimize and remove spiritual freedom, all of which was done to foster contentment and order. However, using institutions to invade rights for the sake of comfort and order was a radical idea during the 19th century (Troyan), and this segues into Dostoevsky’s personal philosophy against institutions, which speaks to a broader truth. Radicalists in the 19th century saw the problems of society, and in wanting to bring less unjust suffering, they sought to rebuild the world anew through the dissolving of old monarchies and rebuilding of new social structures. Dostoevsky, being a former radical, understood the pure intentions that underpinned radicalist ideas; however, he also understood the dangers of radicalism, and thus warned against them in his writings. Irina Kuznetsova from The German Quarterly elaborates on this:
“Dostoevsky's Demons invokes the theme of the demonic to reflect on such broad topics as Russian politics and national character, temptation, and spiritual renewal. Dostoevsky first conceived Demons as an anti-nihilistic pamphlet-novel aimed as an attack on the rapidly spreading radicalism and terrorism in Russia of the 1860s.” (Kuznetsova)
Ivan shares parallels between the values of 19th century Russian radicalists; and through the Inquisitor, Ivan acknowledges the burden of spiritual freedom, and believes that it is a burden to be alleviated, either by the state or otherwise.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dostoevsky suggests that putting social structures before individual virtue is problematic, and he would argue it should be established what everyone in a society lives for, before institutions decide how and what people live by. Any reformer placing worldly comforts before spiritual freedom or overriding that right is the Grand Inquisitor from Ivan’s tale; in other words, they are the interrogator of Christ. As established by the story, Dostoevsky believed that spiritual freedom was humanity’s greatest burden, and because that burden of freedom was enabled by Christ and designed by God, it’s therefore a necessary part of life. Any effort to remove that freedom—even out of compassion for the subsequent burden it may create—is not only incorrect, but in direct disobedience to God. That is why Dostoevsky believed religious institutions had no right to trump personal liberty, even in the name of a greater good; because spiritual freedom is endowed by God, and therefore the right to that freedom is sacrosanct.
References
1. Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Black Garnett. “The Grand Inquisitor.” The Brothers
Karamazov, J.M. Dent, London, 1927.
2. Roazen, Paul, et al. “Dostoevsky in Exile.” VQR Online, 1985. 21 Oct. 2021
3. Dostoevsky, Fyodor. “A Quote from Complete Letters, 1868-1871.” Goodreads, Goodreads, 1868-1871. 31 Oct. 2021.
4. The Apostle, John. “Bible Gateway Passage: John 14:6 - New Living Translation.” Bible
5. Zahrn, Brian. “Would You Choose Christ over the Truth?” Brian Zahnd, Word of Life Church, 8 Mar. 2016, brianzahnd.com/2014/11/choose-christ-truth/
6. Gray, Simon, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The Idiot. , 1971. Print.
7. The Apostle, Matthew. “Bible Gateway Passage: Matthew 4:1-11 - New International Version.” Bible Gateway, 31 Oct. 2021.
8. Baum, Spencer. “The Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov.” Medium, Medium, 16 Nov. 2017,
9. “Tolstoy, His Son Lyof, and the Son of Lyof.” Reminiscences of Tolstoy, by Il'ia L'ovovich
Tolstoi, Good Press, 1914, pp. 324.
10. Troyan, N. “The Philosophical Opinions of the Petrashevsky Circle.” Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, vol. 6, no. 3, [International Phenomenological Society, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Wiley], 1946, pp. 363–80, https://doi.org/10.2307/2102692.
11. Kuznetsova, Irina. “The possessed: the demonic and demonized East and West in Thomas Mann's Der Zauberberg and Dostoevsky's Demons.” The German Quarterly (Vol. 85, Issue 3). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2012. 31 Oct. 2021
留言