Essay About God in The Novel The Brother’s Karamoozan. The Unspoken Truth About God

The novel The Brother’s Karamoozan was written by a well accredited Russian novelist, Fyodor Dostoevsky. This novel is considered to be one of the highest praised pieces of literature due to the effectiveness of rhetorical strategies and literary devices. In particular, this novel is declared as incorporating one of the foremost arguments of all time. Through the wings of his novel, Fyodor Dostoevsky is able to express his field of vision towards religion.

Dostoevsky impressively argues that God is not honorable. Withstanding the fact that this might sound astounding and severely incorrect for various citizens in contemporary society, Dostoevsky's novel is able to effectively sway readers to abide by his philosophical view that God is unmerciful. Through the employment of anecdotes, rhetorical questions, and other strategies Dostoevsky is able to manifest his message that God is detrimental.

On the other hand, this is a plain argument without any sort of context, but as we are all aware, context has the potential to completely shift the argumentation of a piece of literature. Now utilizing background information about Dostoevsky it becomes evident that the actual purpose of this novel was to grant Dostoevsky an opportunity to express his resentment and inter doubts about humanity, morality, and God. Unfortunately, the argument with context is less effective due to the fact that it is biased to solely Dostoevsky's point of view.  

To commence, a rhetorical strategy that was immensely coherent throughout the argument was the practice of anecdotes. Dostoevsky presents the audience with a countless of real life stories that were actually bestowed upon his own eyes in the midst of writing this novel. Dostoevsky most predominantly inserts these so-called “images” to enhance his reasoning. For instance, “Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms . . . pulls the trigger in the baby’s face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn’t it? . . . Turks are particularly fond of sweet things.”(Dostoevsky 261).

This quotation implements the precise emotion for Dostoevsky’s argument, this sense of inhumanity, and barbarism while tying it down to the church. By doing so, this projects him with more credibility because one realizes that God is not this quote on quote marvelous person if he’s authorizing actions of Turks butchering children. Relating to this logic it becomes evident that God is sinful as well because if we agree that the Turks to be committing a crime under God’s supervision proves that God is allowing this to prevail. It projects Dosotversky with creditiability because this is a valid example of how exactly God is unsinful.

This is sincerely effective to any and all readers because no one in their right state of mind will agree that torturing precious children is a lawful act and since God is allowing these actions God must be unfavorable. In continuation, through the operation of severe imagery in all the anecdotes the readers are now literally holding the baby arms, and dreadfully watching the brains spurt out of that innocent lifeless child. By doing so, readers connect to their pathos as this is something that is ethically wrong or immoral and someone has to save this child. In matter of fact, the only one with the necessary power to do so is God, but as stated in the text God has failed to answer the child’s cries losing credibility towards God (ethos). In addition, this also enforces the audience to sense such remorse towards the dying child that guilt (pathos) arises with this longing to even be inserted into the novel to rescue the aching child since God is unwilling too.

Now, recall the bystander effect, we are all aware that anyone witnessing the crime is as guilty as the sinner itself. Using this chain of logic (logos) the audience puts two and two together pronouncing God guilty for the death of this precious infant. I believe that the audience will follow this specific syllogism because our whole justice system and society follows these rules. Even children are aware of this connotation proving that is well known and will be complied with. In sum, by this simple quotation the author is able to connect to the readers pathos, ethos, and logos to convince one that God is the one supporting devilish actions to occur meaning he’s just as accusable. Using the syllogism that if God is responsible for all the ill of humanity then he must not be favorable modeling Dostoevsky’s argument as effective. 

Furthermore, Dostoevsky utilizes the argument of conversion through the character Alyosha. Alyosha, is a well credited character known to be loving, logical, and attempts to witness the best in human society. In continuation, Alyosha is also a true believer that there is still goodness in humanity. In the commencement of the novel, Alyosha’s older brother, Ivan, speaks to Alyosha about his fundamentals and impressions towards God. Alyosha begins to contradict and question Ivan’s prospect of God because in Alyosha’s conviction, there is still love in mankind that can override the cruelty arising around society (Dostoevsky 259). As Ivan’s argument continues to advance the character Alyosha becomes more attentive, silent, and becomes more open minded about the case of God illustrating a sense of agreement.

By the usage of rhetorical questions which are inserted purposely to implement the power to construct a dramatic effect to force the audience to converse to a certain fact. At one point Ivan questions his brother “I challenge you—answer…  a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end . . . but that it was . . .  inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature—that baby beating its breast”(Dostoevsky 269). Unsurprisingly, Alyosha agrees that harmony and free will is not worth the death of innocent children and the sinner should be sentenced to death (Dostoevsky 269). By Alysoha now being in unison that the stake for harmony or happiness in the afterlife is not worth the persecution of children it completely displeases the purpose of believing in God to find happiness at the end, but if children have to be murdered, ripped to pieces by hounds to reach “happiness” the price is just simply too high. Alyosha’s purpose is also utilized as a counter argument. Alyosha is representing the reader that is slowly walking onto Dostoevsky's side. If Dostoevsky had the power to even convince Alyosha, a fellow believer, he must have convinced readers as well, and so he did.

Relating to innocent children that no one will dare touch makes everyone question God’s decisions. Dostoevsky’s claim presented real situations of persecution that convinced Alyosha that the price to reach and praise God is too immutable to be done. Meaning God is not a valid figure that should not be praised once again enhancing Dostoevsky’s argument. This will work because as humans we tend to be followers and witness that someone is slowly converting and agreeing to these claims one is more prone to do so.

In continuation, Fyodor also inserts a parable from the bible when Jesus himself comes back to earth during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was a demoralizing point in history where the Christian faith was seeking full control through numerous barbarous methods (History.com Editors par. 1-2). As many are aware, Jesus in the Christian faith is perceived as another God; one who sacrificed everything to liberate the ill in humanity. During this parable while Jesus is meandering through streets healing elderly and children at all corners he is immediately arrested on the sentence that he has not complied with the rules of the church (Dostoevsky 289).

This parable makes one question not only God but Jesus as well. How different would life be if Jesus would have proven his worth to Stan there will be no free will, there could have been bread for all the starving children, and there will be no question of God’s existence. This causes readers to realize that possibly Jesus nor God loves us and is forcing one to live in temptation for the truth. One now realizes that Jesus' deeds actually resulted in issues of insecurity in humanity. There is no one to follow meaning everyone is allowed to do as they wish with only one goal harmony and are willing to do anything to attain this. Fyodor states, “not love that matters, but a mystery which they must follow blindly. . . upon miracle, mystery and authority. And men rejoiced that they were again led like sheep, and that the terrible gift that had brought them such suffering,”(Dostoevsky 286).

By Jesus refusing to do as Stan ask we are now living in a world with the necessity of miracles, mystery, and authority being swiped away without having love and compassion for others which is causing the rage in humanity. I agree, the world would be different if everyone was presented with their daily bread, there would be no need for the brutality of killings or stealing. It is almost nearly impossible to argue against daily bread for all, amplifying Dostoevsky’s argumentation. In brief, not only does the parable convey a prolepsis to those who view Jesus as unsinful and lawful illustrating that in fact he shaped the wrong ideology for humanity through his actions, but it questions if both God and Jesus contain all power it should not remain hidden.

Us as humans seek logic we believe until we see it, and this magnifies Dostoevsky’s argument by making the readers realize that Jesus never proved himself worthy so one cannot believe. Consequently, Alyosha’s final gesture of kissing his brother Ivan at the end of the parable (Dostoevsky 290) is symbolizing his understanding really takes his argument to a deeper level by once again illustrating that even a fellow believer agrees with Dostoevky’s claim that both God and Jesus did wrong. This is effective because it wipes out a major counterargument that even though one is a fellow be;ever in the Chritiain faith but provided such coherent examples and proof that Jesus is unmertifical, it also connects that God is unlawful as well.

On the opposing side, although I am now aware that Dostoevsky claimed publicly to be a Christian and a believer of God, I still believe the purpose of Dostoevsky’s final novel is to provide Dostoevsky a chance to express his inner doubts. Dostoevsky did not have a lavish and glorious lifestyle that various writers have (CliffNotes). For instance, Dostoevsky was forced to contend with imprisonment where his values towards God began to shift. I believe that this led to Dostoevsky stating that the world and humanity was unfair and cruel due to God’s actions. He questioned the fact that why would God authorize Dostoevsky, a fellow believer, to be treated so unjustifiable in prison; “After … after the death sentence, Dostoevsky was sent to Siberia and during the years there, he changed his entire outlook on life. During this time, amidst horrible living conditions — stench, ugliness, hardened criminals, and filth — he began to re-examine his values”(CliffNotes). It becomes evident that prisonment placed a major role in altering Dostoevsky’s beliefs explaining why a fellow Christian will have such an opposing argument that God is an offender because succeeding such traumatic events like so, one’s outlook in life is bound to be completely redefined. 

Moreover, God tested Dostoevsky by forcing Dostoevsky to witness the ugly truth about humanity leading to him to question his own faith showcasing the purpose of this novel to illustrate his new emotions. In addition, due to the fact that Dostoevsky was fairly open about his religious beliefs (Morson) and these go against his previous theories the only manner to express his true feelings was through the fictional character, Ivan as previously mentioned. Ivan states, “I knew a criminal in prison who had, in the course of his career as a burglar, murdered whole families, including several children ”(Dostoevsky 261).

One can theorize that since Dostoevsky inserted his experiences in prison enhances my claim that these encounters influenced his novel to speak about Dostoevsky’s untold truth about God. Unfortunately, the fact that Dostoevsky went to prison harms his argument because he is now brainwashed and traumatized. Dostoevsky is only focused on the brutality of killings, murder, and mistreatment that can never be unseen making his argument one sided. In addition, the fact that Dostoevsky was in prison completely weakens his argument because Dostoevsky himself went against the church by sinning, and testing the justice system swipes out the previous connotation that Dostoevsky was a well raised human with a big heart whom just could not agree with the torture of society in particular toward children, but it turns out he himself did inhumane actions that even led him to prisonment. This completely discredits his ethos further weakening his argument.

Furthermore, one tortuous event to another during imprisonment Dostoevsky’s epsiplesly became more severe, and afterwards his three year old son died of this monstrous illness (Kalyan). To make matters worse, Dostoevsky himself genetically passed on to his son (Kalyan). In one certain letter written by Dostoevsky describes the severeness of his eplisely; ‘“I receive such a variety of contradictory advice from the local doctors that I have lost all faith in them.’ [15] . . . His 3-year-old son died of epilepsy in 1880.”(Kalyan). Not only does this prove his shift on losing faith, but it once again inserts another terrifying event that can severely change one's output in life. If he quickly lost faith towards all the doctors who were put on earth by God, logically this means he is also symbolizing that he has lost faith in God himself for not being able to cure him.

Furthermore, not only living with the illness itself, but losing a child to this horrifying disorder is something that is completely unbearable while also dealing with a sensation of guilt of his son’s cause of death. This explains Dostoevsky’s focus on poor innocent children, having the villain be the father of the novel, and making the character Smerdyakov have epilepsy (Dostoevsky 24). Validating that this sincerely affected Dostoevsky and proves that he utilized his novel as a coping method as a way to express his true emotions. Lamentably, all that is being shown in this novel is sentiments once again discrediting his argument.

This is the belief of solely one person who has unfortunately been faced with the gruesome side of reality, but to have an effective argument it is required to present both sides. What if someone grew up with both loving parents, opposite of Dostoevsky both his parents died at a fairly young age (Morson), and was able to witness their children be successful in life. It is assured that him or her will have a different aspect of humanity, life, and possibly God. Dostoevsky himself stated he is losing faith, and this very novel is a representation of how he views humanity, and God has tailored explaining the purpose of this novel to speak out his new theories without actually stating them himself.

Yes, there is irony, that a fellow Christian will declare such statements about the God they idolize, but this makes Dostoevsky more angry that although he was a strong believer that did not motivate God to help cure his epilepsy, take him out of prison, or save his three year old son. As one can note, context reworked the purpose of the novel from attempting to prove that God is not admirable to an escapegoat to illustrate his true feelings after such dreadful circumstances which defames the effectiveness of Dostoevsky’s argument.

In conclusion, one can note that Dostoevsky does a phenomenal job in furnishing his argument through his well known novel The Brothers Karamazov. I along with several others found his argument to be immutable and a piece of literature that is dangerously well written. Through the usage of anecdotes, rhetorical questions, and parables Dostoevsky is able to conquer a task that might seem impossible to execute; convincing one against one’s beliefs and even questioning their own God. Something that takes sincere talent to acquire and Dostoevsky outstanding accomplished this quest in a fundamental manner.

Given context, it might also be claimed that the purpose of the novel is not to turn one against God is was merely a way for Dostoevsky to express his inner emotions without being looked down upon is a possible argument, and by the end of the novel Dostevsky accepts his interdoubts all through they go against his previous beliefs. Both Jesus and Alyosha being utilized as his inner conscience do a similar task of kissing Ivan or Dostoevsky showcasing that they compile and accept his new beliefs. This reasoning indicates that after speaking out his unspoken truth he still accepts himself. As one can note, context completely opens a variety of various opposing or similar ideas to the same piece of literature, but in this case the argument before any context was more effective than the following argument.