Christian Existentialism as the Anecdote to the Dangers of Nihilistic Atheism: As Illustrated by Ivan Karamazov in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov
“What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.” –Elder Zosima
“There’s no ghost, sir, besides the two of us, sir, and some third one. No doubt he’s here now . . . between the two of us,” Smerdyakov spoke of God with a crooked grin to his brother, Ivan Fyodorovich, who shook with fear (Dostoevsky 623-4). Ivan, Smerdyakov warned, should not bother to look for the ‘third one’, as Ivan, upon claiming that the world does not belong to God, would not be able to find Him. Troubled Ivan later hallucinates a devil, whom Ivan asks, “Is there a God, or not?” (642). The devil, by admitting he does not know, reveals that he is the embodiment of Ivan. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Fyodorovich escapes nihilism by accepting moral responsibility, therefore expressing Dostoevsky’s belief in the acceptance of Christian existentialism as an antidote to the dangers of nihilism. Ivan believes that, since there is no God, there is no such thing as morality. His rejection of God resigns him to nihilism, defined by his inability to answer the existential question, “For what purpose?” (Ludovici). Ivan thus relies on his intellectual ideas in place of God, which foster his Napoleonic pride. Ivan’s nihilistic and Napoleonic philosophy isolate him from society and render him vulnerable to internal conflict. By acknowledging his moral responsibility, Ivan escapes his tormenting mindset and sets him on the path towards Christian existentialism. The reasons and consequences for his rejection of morality and God are explored throughout the novel and unveil Dostoevsky’s argument that faith in God is central to having a meaningful life and is able to cure one’s isolation and tormented soul once enslaved by nihilism.
Dostoevsky introduces the protagonist, Ivan Fyodorovich, as a proud, independent intellectual concerned with the suffering of unjust humankind. Influenced by nihilistic ideas, Ivan’s mental paradigm opposes that of the respected elder, Father Zosima. In Book Six, Father Zosima teaches how all of humankind is connected. He expresses the unity of humankind through his teaching of active love, ‘a whole science’ of labor and perseverance (58), in the form of the following anecdote. An adult, full of anger, passes by a young child and says a foul word under his breath. The word heard by the child stays with him and plants “a bad seed in him” that grows and leads the child to later commit an act out of anger (319). The child, lacking defense against the word, may not have learned how to stop its growth, but the adult, if he had practiced active love, could have restrained himself and prevented the growth of the ‘bad seed.’ Father Zosima’s message reveals how the actions of one man impact the actions of another because God created all of man and all of humankind is united in God. The active love Father Zosima refers to requires a deep faith in humanity that cannot sustain nihilism, and so directly conflicts with the beliefs of Ivan.
While Ivan “accepts God outright simply” (Dostoevsky 216), he severely doubts God, because he cannot rationalize how a loving, merciful God can allow for the suffering of innocent children. He deduces that, if God does not exist, there is no such thing as morality and so “everything is permitted” (263), because the decision to act wickedly has no consequences after death of the mortal soul. Ivan’s rejection of morality strips him of his quest to answer the question, ‘For what purpose should man do good?’, thereby alluding to his nihilistic philosophy. While Ivan accepts the role of God in the community as a check on societal lawlessness in a way that constitutes a form of socialism, he claims that God is unwilling to rule the world through free will efficiently because freedom is the greatest cause of suffering (254). In Ivan’s poem, “The Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan illustrates that man is not able to accept the ideas of Christ and that individual free will “forever [burden] the kingdom of the human soul with its torments” (254). This strongly held belief, in accordance with the egotistical portrayal of Ivan, reflects Ivan’s inflated self-image. Furthermore, the role of the Grand Inquisitor in questioning Jesus seems to suggest that Ivan sees himself as the judge of God. Ivan’s poem thus demonstrates his Napoleonic mentality. Ironically, in seeking freedom from God’s inadequate use of power, Ivan finds himself trapped in isolation in a meaningless world. Only by admitting the existence of morality and deconstructing his pride, can Ivan liberate himself from the dangers of nihilism.
Ivan’s nihilism found in the form of his mantra, “everything is permitted,” and Napoleonic pride at the center of his belief in his superiority over God must be destroyed by his acceptance of moral responsibility. Throughout the novel, Ivan resigns to his isolation and distances himself from the rest of humankind. When Ivan visits his ill brother Smerdyakov, he learns that Smerdyakov has committed the murder of their father, the death of whom had begun to tempt Ivan to admit that there is such a thing as morality. Smerdyakov professes how Ivan’s ideas and logic have influenced Smerdyakov to commit parricide: “It was true what you taught me, sir,” Smerdyakov admits, “because you told me a lot about that then: because if there’s no infinite God, then there’s no virtue either, and no need of it at all.” Ivan questions if his brother has come to such a conclusion independently and Smerdyakov proclaims that it was under Ivan’s guidance that Smerdyakov committed his crime (Dostoevsky 631). In direct conflict with his nihilistic assertions, hysterical Ivan begins to take some responsibility for his father’s murder.
Dostoevsky utilizes Ivan’s spiritual encounters to convince the reader that Ivan’s nihilistic logic, being “everything is permitted,” is dangerous and harmful. The nihilist, as Dostoevsky illustrates in his novel, is unable to find meaning in his life. This inability, as outlined in S. L. Frank’s The Meaning of Life, torments the soul and forfeits the possibility of obtaining inner peace (Loc. 1019). This is demonstrated in The Brothers Karamazov when Ivan’s nihilism and ego prompt his madness. With his entire belief system unhinged by his meeting with Smerdyakov, Ivan approaches insanity and hallucinates the devil paying him a visit. In the scene, “The Devil. Ivan Fyodorovich’s Nightmare,” the devil, a shadow of Ivan, taunts Ivan with his own nihilistic and Napoleonic ideas, teasing that man can become a ‘man-god’ (Dostoevsky 648). Trembling with his hands covering his ears, Ivan learns of the true emptiness resulting from his rejection of God and morality. This spiritual encounter is the climactic realization of his own entrapment, as demonstrated by the arrival of his brother, Alyosha, who represents the active love that Father Zosima teaches. When Alyosha first knocks on Ivan’s door, Ivan feels his arms and legs suddenly bound. He tries to break free, in vain, to no avail, until Alyosha’s knocks grow louder, and Ivan is freed (650). Dostoevsky uses this moment to illustrate that only active love may free Ivan from his own self-imposed limitations.
Although Ivan still suffers from insanity, the novel ends on an optimistic note that may hint at Ivan’s future redemption. In the final Book, Ivan confesses during the trial of his brother, Dmitri Karamazov, that Smerdyakov “killed [Fyodor Pavlovich] on [Ivan’s] instructions” (Dostoevsky 686). Ivan calls himself a murderer and publicly accepts moral responsibility for his father’s murder. This confession is immediately followed by Katerina Ivanovna, out of love for Ivan, reversing her earlier testimony in favor of Dmitri’s innocence and defending that Ivan’s madness is caused by grief. The first time Katerina has acted on her love for Ivan, this act of love sparks the beginning of Ivan’s acceptance in society as a direct outcome of Ivan’s acceptance of blame. According to the teachings of Father Zosima, this form of active love could be capable of planting a ‘good seed’ in Ivan that sprouts into Ivan’s happiness once prevented by his rejection of God. This scene predicts that as Ivan escapes nihilism, he moves toward Christian existentialism that is dependent on recognizing the unity of humankind and capable of relieving Ivan’s suffering.
In tracking the evolution of Ivan Karamazov from a nihilistic atheist tormented by isolation and the devil to a hopeful man integrated in society approaching Christian existentialism, Dostoevsky illustrates both the seduction and dangers of adopting nihilistic ideas. In addition to his critique of nihilism through Ivan, Dostoevsky’s contrast between Ivan and his faithful brother, Alyosha, demonstrates that adoption of Christian existentialism grants freedom to the same soul that would otherwise look mistakenly towards individual autonomy as the path towards freedom. Dostoevsky therefore urges the Russian reader to reject the temptation to find freedom in nihilism and turn instead to Christian existentialism for liberation from the suffering of a meaningless life.
Works Cited
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov: A Novel in Four Parts with Epilogue. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2002.
Ludovici, Anthony M., translator. The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Oscar Levy, vol. 14, T.N. Foulis, Edinburgh and London, 1909. The Will to Power, Book I and II, www.gutenberg.org/files/52914/52914-h/52914-h.htm.
Frank, S. L. The Meaning of Life (Kindle Version). Translated by Boris Jakim, W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2010.