A few of the major themes that I saw where Free will,
rationality, and determinism. I think free will has a lot to do with choice
which I also believe to be our most advantageous advantage. The underground man
makes a case that by breaking away from our real advantages and taking the road
less traveled involves injurious and bad decisions. But at the same time this
is our most advantageous advantage because we have the freedom to go down that
less traveled road. I don’t think that we have to necessarily go down that less
traveled road but I think have the choice and being able to think about it is a
great expression of free will. Someone brought up in class that our greatest
advantage doesn’t have to be a bad act it could be good like volunteering. But I
would consider volunteering to be one of our real advantages. I personally believe
that the majority of people try to do good things, which is why volunteering
would be a real advantage because it is the road often traveled.
The underground man also calls us ungrateful, not stupid,
but ungrateful. He is calling us ungrateful because we aren’t content with what
we have or how we do things. We are constantly trying to break away from our
routines to try something different. We tend to be so ungrateful that we are
aware that going down the path less traveled we are causing harm but we still
proceed anyway.
One of the themes was determinism, which means that
everything we do is already determined. I think the underground man is trying
to tell the gentleman this; because the underground man already knows what is
to come from his actions. With this it seems that we don’t have freedom to
choose because what we choose has already been determined. Everything we do in
life is already determined from when we were first born, and in the end all we
are is dead.
Dostoevsky is also attacking the idea of a utopian society.
He does not agree with such a thing because it is too broad. A utopian society cannot
provide for everyone because it doesn’t look at the individuals needs. He makes
a statement at the end of the reading referring to that when everything is laid
out on the table there will be more than there is there. You cannot account for
everyone because of free will. All individuals have the free will to go a
different way and therefore you cannot predetermine everything. There is no way that the deterministic mindset
can account for the things we do in the spare of the moment.
In regards to rationality, I do not believe that man is as
rational as he thinks himself to be. Rationality is just a base for the things
we do. Everything else we do is irrational because there is no way to
rationalize what we do not yet know. After we have made the choice we try to
argue why that choice was rational.
Towards the end of class we were asked if we had a kiss in
our heart. Because the topic was in reference to Jesus, I responded that I do
not have a kiss in my heart. Because when those two subjects come together I consider
the kiss that Judas had in his heart to betray Jesus. I do not feel that I have
any such kiss because I do not wish to cause any harm or suffering to anyone. Furthermore,
I consider the kiss to be an act of betrayal because we our letting it fester
inside of us, and I don’t believe that I have such evil in my heart.
I think it's interesting to hear your interpretation of the kiss, although I personally dislike the little addendum. Ivan's story would have had much more strength if it had just ended at the monologue.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the kiss really stands for an act of harm or betrayal though. There's just something in this line:
"The kiss glows in his heart, but the old man adheres to his idea."
It just seems that the language used is supposed to raise the idea that the kiss was 'for the positive'. The usage of the word "but" kind of suggests that the man acted contrary to what is to be expected from the kiss. And "glows in his heart" sounds like typical cheesy "nice feeling of warmth". So what I infer from the kiss part is that the jesus communicated no ill intent to the inquisitor, but the opposite.
Interpreting the kiss in this form adds a dimension of uncertainty to the story, as it kind of seems that both opposing sides have the same underlying motivation albeit their actions seem like polar opposites, which is their commitment to the well-being of mankind.
That is not to say that the kiss doesn't really represent symbolism of Judas Escariot and an expression of ill intent. I think I've seen imagery of "glowing scars" before. It just seems that the uncertainty aspect that my interpretation introduces corresponds more to Ivan's character and way of thinking, since it's unlikely he would actually commit to the Inquisitor's way of thinking, but intends to instigate reflection upon Alyosha.