I mentioned this in class on Monday; I am fascinated by the lesson we might learn, or in the least, Dostoevsky might be attempting to portray, from Ivan's archetype. While Ivan is an extremely intelligent person and capable of advanced thought and reasoning, he nonetheless repeatedly accepts amoral to immoral conclusions. So are we to assume the point here is that detached contemplation is, maybe necessary, but insufficient for a moral life? I see two options here.
Obviously, since it was a yes or no question, there are two options.
Yes; that is the intended point. While contemplation and serious thought is required to resolve moral quandaries, there must exist also another factor that aids us in our decision making process. Pihlstrom seems to hint in the concluding remarks, as well we mentioned it in class, that guilt or the conscience might be one such answer. I am slightly uneasy with this though. We correctly identified the conscience as reinforcing the values we learn from our society and culture; if this were the base of our moral considerations, we would end up continuing to perpetuate the values of our culture. However, our culture repeatedly engages in immoral activity.
--
No; while that is one lesson we could infer from this character trait of Ivan's, it is not the only one. Ivan could merely be wrong in his reasoning rather than his reasoning be insufficient. Ivan bases his argument on the premise that the only reason to lead a moral life is to secure a good afterlife. Thus, if one were not to believe in God, there would be no obligation to act morally. His father seems to actualize this theory. But divine punishment and reward is not the only reason to act morally; we may very well have a secular obligation to a moral life. Ivan could merely be wrong.
Question: What do you think? What could we infer from Ivan's primacy on reason?
I responded to this in my blog.
ReplyDelete