The Brothers Karamazov

It is disparaging, however, that as the true novelist of ideas and Christian love, Dostoevsky could harbor such ill will towards the Jews. Does this not discredit everything he has written? This paper will address Dostoevsky's anti-Semitism through an examination of Isay Fomitch Bumstein in The House of the Dead, the Messianic idea in The Devils, and 'the little demon' in The Brothers Karamazov.

Director Boaz Yakin created film “Remember the Titans”. This film was set placed in Alexandria, Virginia in 1971. At this time T.C. Williams high school was the first school having black race and white race together and neither race were happy about it. This film talks about how they overcome the racism and how each individual person on the team become one as team. And analysis of “remember the titans” shows people can overcome challenges by hard work, determination and perseverance.

Night and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich express the potential horrors of humanity’s immense capacity for extreme cruelty. Both took place in mid-twentieth century Europe and exposed the hardships of life in forced-labor camps: Wiesel’s in various concentration camps, Solzhenitsyn’s in Gulags. It is important for human populations to be aware of these tragedies so as to not commit the same atrocities again; therefore, this essay will explore each with regards to shared or different themes included and the messages presented. Both of these books are important due to their influential and informative nature regarding the horrors of their respective historical times. Night by Elie Wiesel and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr

Viktor E. Frankl, an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist who also had survived the Holocaust, writes “When we are no longer able to change a situation – we are challenged to change ourselves” (BrainyQuote). Frankl survived genocide against his own people and still chose to have a positive outlook on it because he understands that if he did not, he would continually live an unhappy, upset life. Like Frankl, Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, the main character in One Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, contains a similar outlook to that of Frankl. The novel takes place during Soviet Russia in a gulag in Siberia, or otherwise known as a labor work camp. The whole book is about only one day that Shukhov lives; from 5 in the morning to 10 at night and all that happens in between. In this labor camp, not only are the weather conditions very cold, making it difficult to work in such circumstances, but also the workers are punished and harshly treated if they do not obey the guards. When placed in this environment, it is easy to be discouraged and miserable, but instead of facing the negatives of his situation, Shukhov remains affirmative in his thoughts – which are most important in order to survive not only physically, but also mentally. This stoicism portrayed in the narrative can also be found in Epictetus’s work, The Handbook. In this text, Epictetus discusses how he believes people can live a happy life, despite the hard conditions they are put through

One of the central questions of the book The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, is the question of suffering, or rather, why suffer? Many characters in the book encounter suffering, in some form or another, and the way they deal with it is telling of their character, personality, and worldview. The book focuses on three sons of a certain Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov, namely, Mitya, Ivan, and Alyosha, all of whom have sufferings to meet with, mostly in connection with the trail of Mitya, who is accused of murdering their father. However, very few of the characters in the book could be said to face suffering in an edifying manner.

In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Rakitin responds to a central question throughout the novel, “What is permitted?” when he proudly states to Dmitry that “An intelligent man can do anything he likes as long as he’s clever enough to get away with it” (788). While Rakitin has found his answer to this question, multiple characters in the novel are still stuck on that question. Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky seems to separate these characters into two groups: the characters like Dmitry who wonder if all actions are permitted and the characters like Ivan who wonder if all thoughts are permitted. These groups seem completely separate until Book 10 when a boy named Koyla Krasotkin comes onto the scene who seems to be in both groups at once as he tests for himself exactly what thoughts and actions are permitted. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky uses Book 10 and Kolya to introduce the idea that the “free thinkers” and the “free doers” are one in the same in that they are wondering who will punish those who go beyond “what is permitted” and by extension sets up an argument between moral and legal punishment throughout the rest of the novel.

In today’s society, women have an equal amount of rights compared to men. Women can work wherever they chose, vote for whomever they may choose, and pick a lifestyle of their own desire. This type of society has never been forever, meaning men were inferior to women at one point in time. The novel of The Sisters Brothers portrays this type of society, and we see many examples that the novel is presented in this type of society. The Sisters Brothers is a western-inspired story of 2 brothers and depicts many scenes where women are focused upon, and show many qualities and roles they play in their current society. Whereas one woman may play the role of a prostitute, others may obtain the role of a servant, shopkeeper or family caregiver. Within each role women play, many challenges appear, and different circumstances create different outcomes. Many of the women in the western community may have not had a choice in their current profession, meaning many of the prostitutes were forced upon this job, and the servants as well potentially did not have much of a choosing for their work style. This novel portrays men to be inferior to women, and women were not seen on the streets, but the background only. As the men would travel, and collect the money for survival, it would be the women who stay at home, or the women keeping the men content with their travels.

Dostoevsky did not specifically express belief nor disbelief in God. According to Philosophy in Russia, “Dostoevsky has been represented as a firm believer in God, whereas in a letter he said plainly that the existence of God was the principal question or problem which had tormented him throughout his life” (Copleston 163). Dostoevsky’s hesitant viewpoint also became present in his novel through his characters. For example, he characterized Raskolnikov with a similar unestablished faith, claiming on page 271 that “Perhaps God does not exist.” Raskolnikov struggles internally with guilt and shame that he questions his own beliefs. He speaks with Sonya shortly later, and confesses his belief to her that ‘Lord, I believe that thou art the Son of God, which should come into the world.” (Dostoevsky 276). Raskolnikov begins to have a change of heart about his faith once he is able to confess to another person and trust Sonya. Dostoevsky also incorporated his ideas of philosophy with the ideas of theology. He believed that people should be allowed to choose their religious preferences and faith. On the other hand, Dunya was presented as very devoted to a specific belief in God. She trusted God and used her faith as a form of reassurance when she stated “It was God himself who sent that man to us, although he comes straight from some drinking bout. I am sure we can rely on him” (Dostoevsky 172). Although she knows Raskolnikov is unreliable and irresponsible, she uses God as her source of certainty. Dostoevsky gives his characters the freedom to establish their own outlooks while expressing his belief in existentialism. Some of his characters are heavily devoted, while others are erratic with their position, reflecting Dostoevsky's beliefs in character

speaks of nonbelievers as though they are innocent children who don’t know how to fend for themselves or make the right decisions; they don’t know good from evil. This is similar to Ivan’s argument in Rebellion because he claims that children are innocent for the simple fact that they don’t know good from evil, grownups have sinned by ‘choosing to eat the apple’. This can also be related to Adam and Eve before Eve gave into temptation and ate the apple, both of them previously did not know of good and evil. In a sense, the believers in The Grand Inquisitor are the same as the grownups in Rebellion and Adam and Eve after Eve eats from the tree of knowledge because both become aware of good and evil. All three stories preach that knowledge can be a burden, just as free will is a burden (as opposed to obedience).

This text works as a case study exploring how the traditional association between god and tsar could be used to justify new leadership and rule. Kivelson uses extensive primary sources to illustrate the widely held belief in this connection of Tsar and God. This text will help with this research paper’s own case study of Tsar Dmitri fall from rule and how the political religious ideology of the time was used in discrediting Tsar Dmitri.

Pale Fire has spawned a wide variety of interpretations and a large body of written criticism, which Finnish literary scholar Pekka Tammi estimated in 1995 as more than 80 studies.(Wiki) Although no “correct” interpretation exists, a strong case can be made for interpreting the novel in terms of Kinbote’s insanity. His mental decline, paired with his academic unfulfillment, sparked by harsh criticism by his colleagues leads him to murder John Shade in order to obtain the author’s most recent poem and redeem himself through its thoughtful commentary and analysis. This interpretation entails that the world of Zembla is entirely fictional and the comically careless assassin Gradus is nothing more but an impersonation of Kinbote’s delirious

Captain Beatty put the fire down. This is not a book that you, sir, want to burn; we have too much to learn from it. The book The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky is about three brothers and their lives before their killing of their father and the aftermath of the killing of their father. Why you, Beatty, can’t burn this book is because it has an amazing message behind it. After reading the book I feel like it teaches the reader forgiveness. Forgiveness is a big part of the book, from the time the brothers forgive their dad for walking out on them at birth to the time Koyla forgiving Ilusha for almost killing as stray dog. As I read this book at each scenario where it showed forgiveness I was thinking of what I would have done. Most

The Grand Inquisitor is a chapter in Dostoyevsky’s classic novel “The Brothers Karamazov.” The Greater novel itself is a philosophical debate on God, free will, human nature and morality written by Dostoevsky over 2 years and published in 1880. As with all of Dostoyevsky’s novels it is set in a modernizing Russia and it is a deep psychological study of faith and reason, as well as the doubt, psychology, moral decisions and the thought processes that occur during man’s journey to enlightenment and greater awareness. Although The Brothers Karamazov itself is a work of art and one of the greatest novels ever written the true genius of “The Grand Inquisitor” chapter is that

“Nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.” –The Grand Inquisitor” “Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” - Father Zosima. These two quotes voice the polarized philosophies that impregnate the book, The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan, the second of the three sons, and Zosima, the old monk, are huge commentators on the question, “Is the burden of free will to much for a human to bear?”

In high school I read a short story called The Bet by Anton Chekhov. The story was about a young lawyer who made a bet with a banker that imprisonment for fifteen years was better than the death penalty. Like Socrates in Plato’s Crito the lawyer was trying to challenge society’s beliefs. While in confinement the lawyer read many books, whose subjects ranged from languages to philosophy. After fifteen years of solitary confinement the lawyer rejects his prize money and defaults on the bet, hours before winning. I wonder if the man had read the Crito. We can reason that Socrates’ could have inspired the man to decide to pick the more brash choice to try and teach his accusers a lesson. The man may have decided to default on the bet when he was so close to winning because he wished to make the lesson the banker learned more memorable and infinite. In the Crito even though Socrates thinks himself to be innocent of the charges brought against him he still refuses to escape prison when presented with the opportunity. This helps him teach his final lesson about the principles he believes are worth dying for. His principles are that the opinion of the many is unimportant, his life is not worth living with a corrupt soul, life is not as important as living justly, the only consideration to take into account is justice, and acting unjustly is always bad and shameful. Even though Socrates and the polis or laws arrive at the same conclusion that Socrates should not escape prison, the