Often authors develop a central idea in a novel by presenting it repeatedly in different forms throughout the work. Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov is a perfect example of this technique. Specifically, throughout the work Dostoevsky speculates on the nature of submission with respect to important issues such as inter- and intrapersonal relationships, freedom, and even happiness. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The theme of submission occurs at the beginning of the text. The father, Fyodor Pavlovich, together with his two eldest sons and some members of the extended family, visits the monastery where the third son, Alyosha, studies. The monastery is characterized by the institution of elders: wise monks who are heralded almost as saints. Elder Zosima is the one who is responsible for teaching Alyosha the principles of the monastery and religion. The elders, and in particular Zosima, introduce the idea of ​​submission in relation to one's personal freedom. In describing elders, the narrator states that an elder “is one who carries your soul, your will into his soul and into his will. Having chosen an elder, you renounce your will and give it to him with total obedience and with total self-denial” (Dostoevsky 27). Therefore, it is clear that men like Alyosha should place all their will and being in the hands of a trusted elder. However, this is not an action that was forced upon him; rather, the narrator describes how those who “doom themselves to this trial” do so willingly; he «does it voluntarily, in the hope that after the long trial he will achieve self-overcoming, self-control to the point of finally reaching, through lifelong obedience, perfect freedom, that is, freedom from himself. " (27-28). In this way, Alyosha and other young people hope to “avoid the fate of those who live their entire lives without finding themselves” (28). This seemingly paradoxical process allows individuals to achieve “ perfect freedom” because they are able to find themselves through interactions with other individuals and with society. They achieve self-mastery by gaining an understanding of others and their relationships with them "proof" may be, it is the way to reach this higher state of existence. The faith that thousands of followers have in the elders, in addition to the faith that young people like Alyosha must have in themselves, helps to present the ancient institution and its customs as highly respectable and reliable. However, the discussion is not without a slight disclaimer. After explaining the institution, the narrator adds: It is also true, perhaps, that this proven and already thousand-year-old instrument of moral regeneration of the. man from slavery to freedom and moral perfection can turn into a double-edged sword. , which can lead a person not to humility and maximum self-control but, on the contrary, to the most satanic pride, that is, to chains and not to freedom. (29)This represents a stylistic element present in almost all the main thematic ideas of the novel. Rather than providing a concrete answer to large philosophical or moral questions, Dostoevsky creates well-rounded contemplations that encourage the reader to examine both sides of a question before jumping to conclusions. In this case, Dostoevsky's narrator bluntly reminds the reader that the heralded teaching practice of the ancients always has the capacity to become destructive rather than productive. It seems to suggest that there is hardly a simple solution to a big oneproblem, particularly those concerning concepts such as morality and the existence of man on earth. Dostoevsky even goes so far as to suggest that elderly saints might arouse “satanic pride.” An interaction that Zosima has with a lady landowner, Mrs. Khokhlakov, indirectly provides insight into how elders try to achieve freedom and self-control through their relationships with others. The woman is distressed by her lack of faith in the afterlife and her inability to perform altruistic actions without expecting gratitude in return. He states: “I work for a wage and I demand my wages immediately, that is, praise and a reward of love for my love. Otherwise I couldn't love anyone!" (57) Zosima connects his situation to that of a doctor with whom he once spoke, who said: "the more I love humanity in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate people", because "as soon as someone is there, near me, their personality oppresses my self-esteem and limits my freedom" (57). This inverse proportion suggests that it is not possible to love both individuals and humanity equally. However , Zosima himself seems to contradict this idea, as it seems to be dedicated and loved by both individuals (like Alyosha) and society at large. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that freedom and self-esteem are inhibited by the presence of other individuals, exactly the opposite of the goal of the. elders previously described. Zosima's solution to Madame Khokhlakov's dilemma is the practice of "active love", which he describes as "work and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science" (58). Zosima instructs the lady:Try to love your neighbors actively and tirelessly. The more you are able to love, the more you will be convinced of the existence of God and the immortality of your soul. And if in the love of others you reach complete altruism, then without a doubt you will believe and without a doubt you will also be able to enter into your soul. This has been tested. It's certain. (56)It was previously described that meaningful relationships (such as selfless love) allow one to find oneself and achieve perfect freedom. In this case, the same relationships bring security and faith in God and immortality, suggesting that the two are interconnected. Zosima's statements that this has “been tested” and “is certain” help the reader remember the earlier presence of Zosima's method: self-mastery through self-denial and submission. However, instead of telling the woman to join the monastery, Zosima seems to imply that complete submission to a higher power is obtainable outside the institution. As described above, altruism and altruism allow you to better realize and control yourself. In fact, during Zosima's conversation with the woman, he refers to his need for punishment when interacting with others; she realizes that she actually expected praise from him and exclaims: "You brought me back to myself, you took me by surprise and explained me to myself!" (58) Thus, although the theme of submission is present in both the elders' discussion and Zosima's meeting with Mrs. Khokhlakov, the nature and premises of submission vary slightly. An interpersonal situation later in the text presents the theme of submission in another, slightly different form. A young woman named Katerina Ivanovna is torn between marrying Fyodor's eldest son, Dmitri, and being with his brother, Ivan. Alyosha, known for his inherent ability to immediately sense the inner workings of other characters, has some insight into Katerina's situation. The narrator states that he "intuited by a kind of instinct that acharacter like Katerina Ivanovna had to rule, and that she could only rule over a man like Dmitri, but not over a man like Ivan" (186-187). the reason for this is that Dmitri "could finally submit to her 'for his own happiness',...but not Ivan, Ivan could not submit to her, and such submission would not bring him happiness" (187). While previously submission had been discussed in reference to achieving freedom, in Katerina's case submission is considered over the happiness of individuals. As the novel develops, it becomes evident that Ivan continually torments himself with internal philosophical conflicts regarding morality, immortality, faith and humanity. He could not submit to Katerina because he is constantly in a state of doubt, skepticism and distrust; even if he tried to submit to Katerina, he would be unhappy because he would never be completely loving and secure with her. Dmitri, on the other hand, is presented as a character who, despite being often carried away by his passions, has a strong inclination towards morality, faith and love. In theory he could submit to Katerina because she knows how to achieve happiness with individuals and humanity. Katerina's situation therefore links submission to happiness and the question of doubt over faith, an important conflict that resonates throughout the work. Interestingly, Katerina herself offers completely different conceptions of her relationships with Dmitri and Ivan – another example in which Dostoevsky presents the reader with several divergent opinions on a conflict. Unlike Alyosha's speculations, Katerina's comments are less easy to interpret because she often contradicts herself and appears less confident and insightful than Alyosha. At the beginning of the text, Dmitri tells Alyosha how Katerina wrote him a love letter asking him to be his fiancée, in which she says: "Do not be afraid, I will not hinder you in any way, I will be your furniture, carpet on which you walk... I want to love you eternally, I want to save you from yourself” (116). Only in this letter does Katerina seem to contradict herself. At the beginning she appears submissive, willing to give herself completely to Dmitri, to the point of simply being the “carpet ” that he walks on. However, he ultimately says that he wants to save Dmitri from himself, a proactive statement that necessarily puts Dmitri in the submissive position rather than Katerina. Later, Katerina talks to Alyosha herself and tells him that she wants to remain faithful to Dmitri ; he says: «And let him see that all my life I will be faithful to him and to the word I once gave, even though he has been unfaithful and has betrayed me» (189). , “as if delirious”: “I will insist that he finally knows me and tells me everything without being ashamed… I will be his god, who he will pray to… I will simply become… the instrument, the mechanism of his happiness” (189). Therefore, although it may seem that Katerina wants to be loyal to Dmitri - which she also associates with submission to him - she intends to gain control over Dmitri to decide how to achieve happiness and escape from his problems. In other words, she wants Dmitri to submit to her completely, placing her in a position of power somewhat similar to that of the elders. Indeed, the precise word “tool” is used in reference to both the elder's method of achieving freedom and Katerina's desire to control Dmitri (29, 189). Compared to the external point of view of the respected and trusted Alyosha, Katerina's contradictory and emotional comments about her situation seem less sincere and credible. Dostoevsky most likely uses the inconsistency between points of view as a subtle way to help develop the conflict between being faithful and loving, like Alyosha, or tormentedfrom distrust and doubts, like Katerina. Ivan's character development and a passage he recites called The Grand Inquisitor offers some of the richest commentary on the fundamental conflicts discussed in the novel, including submission as it relates to both freedom and happiness. Before the passage, Ivan discusses his inability to reconcile human suffering, particularly that of children, and how because of it he is unable to submit to the religious principles that others hold to and rely on. In this conversation he states that "it is still possible to love one's neighbor in an abstract way, and sometimes even from afar, but almost never up close" (237). This statement recalls the previously mentioned inverse proportion of Zosima on the inability to love both individuals and humanity. Ivan even states that “if we want to love a man, the man himself should remain hidden, because as soon as he shows his face, love vanishes” (237). Ivan believes that while one can have faith in humanity in the abstract, it is rare to find an individual that one can truly love because there are so many bad qualities that can be found in him: people sin and cause suffering. In the prose proceedings on the Grand Inquisitor, Ivan reveals many of his intellectual conjectures about religion and the existence of God. The Grand Inquisitor is a cardinal who played an important role during the Inquisition, a period in which thousands of people were declared heretics and burn. death. In Ivan's passage, the Grand Inquisitor meets Christ in a prison cell and monologues to him about the purpose and beliefs of those who rule the church. His criticism of Christ is based on Christ's rejection of the three temptations, which for him represent the symbol of «everything that man seeks on earth, that is: someone to bow down to, someone who takes charge of his consciousness and a means to finally unite everyone in a common, concordant and incontestable anthill” (257). By rejecting temptation – bread, the opportunity to perform a miracle, and power – Christ allowed people to retain their freedom, in the form of free will and the ability to decide for themselves who to follow and what is right or wrong. For example, the Grand Inquisitor describes what, in his opinion, Christ meant by the refusal of the bread: “you did not want to deprive the man of freedom and you rejected the offer, because what kind of freedom is this, you reasoned, if the Is obedience bought with loaves? ?” (252). The concept of “bought” obedience is entirely juxtaposed to the obedience described above, in which young people submit willingly and completely to their elders. Although the passage seems intended to criticize Christ, in reality it often aligns Christ with the monastery teachings presented thus far, supporting its message and intentions. The theory behind the Grand Inquisitor's rule is that people prefer to have a defined source to obey and gain a sense of morality, rather than be burdened with free will. He mockingly asks Christ: “Is this how human nature was created? Reject the miracle, and in those terrible moments of life, the moments of the most terrible, essential and tormenting questions of the soul, remain alone with the free decision of the heart?" (255). The Grand Inquisitor instead believes that "freedom, free reason and science will lead them into such a labyrinth and will put them face to face with such miracles and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, undisciplined and ferocious, will exterminate themselves... they will exterminate each other...[or] cry out [to the church] - 'save us from ourselves'" (258). The mention of saving someone from themselves is similar to that encountered earlier in Katerina's dilemma: by taking control over someone, you might help them achieve a sense of.