Can there be lawfulness, love & morality without belief in God?

While I think your dismissal of the work is a bit premature, I may know what you are getting at. Although my intention was to refute Ivan’s argument, I wanted to dedicate much more of the post to the research – but feared making the post too long. I’m happy to discuss the study in more detail with you now. }8^D I've added some pictures and notes to the post above, could not add them add. Check there first, then read below -

Although your thoughts may change after reading the above, I’ll try and address your previous points now. I have not read the paper but the general problem with what these seem to authors propose is that they ignore the capacity of humans to have culture which is a higher level of organization than that followed by social-biology which views everything in terms of individual advantage. In what way do you feel they ignore human culture, and higher levels of human organization? Individual advantage may be a necessary cause of social action – but it’s not a sufficient cause, as there are many variables involved. This model adds new variables to enhance predictive ability and as a result is more consistent with experimental observations of real groups of people. This model certainly takes into account that not all actions of the participants in a group create an immediate advantage for the individual. In fact, non participants and punishers are two types that do things that may not create the best immediate actions for themselves, but as it turns out their actions are pivotal to the successful establishment of consistent cooperation within a group. I think we can all agree that there can be no morality or lawfulness without cooperation. Culture does derive from individual advantage in that supporting the group increases the odds of successful genetic transfer to the next generation ON AVERAGE. I’m not sure what you intend by placing the emphasis “on average” – an individual that takes advantage of the benefits of the group increases their own chance of survival & gene propagation. Because punishment arises so predictably regardless of the initial population composition, cooperators and cooperating punishers tend to dominate, meaning that taking advantage of the group most often entails supporting it. But once culture exists the individual will support the group and group rules (culture) to his or her own disadvantage. This can be true, but evolution prefers individuals who choose groups that provide an advantage in survival and gene propagation. Thee cultural rules can be completely arbitrary and it is those rules that define morality in culture. Morality and cultural rules are manmade – this does not demand they be arbitrary, but you are correct sometimes they can be quite arbitrary. Cultures enforcing arbitrary and costly rules that result in a disadvantage to its individuals will not compete well w/ cultures that do better to avoid this pitfall. To wit, compare the cultural influence of more open societies like the US, UK, France & Germany, versus various more closed societies (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc.)

This appeal to a god is simply a rationalization to support ones cultural rules. I think belief in god can be a rationalization of cultural rules, or perhaps a rationalization to reject cultural rules like Jesus Christ as the annihilator of the Jewish cultural law. I think most often it’s probably a rationalization of whatever instinctual behavior results from one’s underlying cognitive processes being hijacked by irrational thoughts. Things that are rational are typically justified rationally because that is the most compelling justification for people. It’s the irrational beliefs that offer supernatural beliefs as their justification. These thoughts are usually symbolized by a belief in something that contradicts basic empirical observation, yet follows many of the rules and is understood in terms of what we observe empirically – such as avoiding the observed/inferred consequences of death via belief in immortality of souls or explaining the mystery of the universe with supernatural beings like creationist gods. In other words, our underlying cognitive processes selected by evolution for survival make us susceptible to accept certain contradictions, denials, or reasons in absence of empirical observation. Throughout history it has been used most often in the affirmation of totalitarian and authoritarian rules. So what is the source of morality? I am working on that ;). Well it’s not belief in God – otherwise my cousins in Sweden would be lawless and helplessly immoral. Besides playing too much texas hold’em on the internet during the cold months I don’t think they get into too much trouble honestly. I don’t think there is any one source of morality – it certainly didn’t appear on the scene at “time t” in history, and seems to be a natural component of groups, including in other animals – but the advantageous aspects of it can often be explained by evolution and neuroscience. Cooperation, respecting the rights of others, and punishing those who don’t are essential elements of a successful society and are products of natural selection. The disadvantageous aspects can often be explained by false assumptions, totalitarianism, and the hijacking of useful but easily misdirected underlying cognitive processes (indeed, the basis of religious experience seems to consist of this hijacking). That summarizes my thoughts on the matter! };->

I read the review - seems like an interesting book. However, I really didn't see anything within it that conflicted with or contradicted anything in the scientific research I posted. Are you sure you are reacting to the specific behavior the model actually predicts? The model predicts punishment under a given set of assumptions. For instance, the model clearly wouldn't apply to many situations, such as one where there are large economies of scale are in play, such as large scale collective political action where the benefits aren't excludable - like soldiers defending the group in a war, or major capital improvements to infrastructure. This type of action is more complex and requires the consideration of additional variables that are difficult to quantify. The research team wanted to create useful predictions of the early emergence of punishment before they attempted to expand the model to include more complex behaviors that are indeed only possible once punishment and cooperation have already emerged. The predictions of the research work well in the real world under the given assumptions, and this is evidenced by the various observations of public goods experiments performed to test the model.

What specific observation do you have in mind that falsifies one of the test statements of the theory? What empirical evidence suggests that the predictions of the model are faulty as you assert?

If you simply mean to say this research doesn't explain all moral behavior, I doubt anyone would argue with you there, because that wasn't the purpose of the model.

That’s basically the general rub in this book, isn’t it? You can interpet it various ways. Most people come away with the belief in god theory, but I think most people are driven by their preconceived notions, seeking only confirmations of their personal convictions. I am no expert of the book or the author, but it seems that Dostoevsky is most effective at trying to destroy the beliefs of his own characters – in contrast it’s difficult to decipher what if anything he wants us to be positively convinced of after reading him. My take is that Ivan is probably a rational agnostic existentialist through to the end of the novel, I don’t think he says anywhere that he believes in God. This would imply that the theme of the book at least leans toward advancing the aforemention argument, ∀x[!G(x) → !I(x) → !L(x) → !Mrl/Law(x)];

IMHO, one clear statement of BK is that life is suffering – and BK seems to present various ways for dealing with this, all of which parrallel and contrast with each other – Zossima, the Grand Inquisitor, Ivan, the devil, Alyosha, etc. The general dichotomy seems between christian essentialism and Ivan’s form of rationalist existentialism. The novel doesn’t seem to prove or disprove ∀x[!G(x) → !I(x) → !L(x) → !Mrl/Law(x)], but IMO it does seem to weigh the narration and the events of the story towards the support of christian essentialism. However, this is contrasted with Ivan’s rationalist existentialism which poses questions Dostoevsky himself does not attempt to answer directly, nor does he appear to think possible to answer. The paradoxically absurd rationality of Ivan’s position and his subsequent fate of madness in the story, along with the moral narration and opposing characters, seem to suggest that life and its inevitable/inseparable suffering result in the supposedly ‘rational’ conclusion that irrationality is the only possible source for love, law, and morality. This doubles with the typical Dostoevsky theme of the criminal as the antihero who makes it possible for us to reject criminal behavior ourselves, thus criminal behavior is necessary for moral & law abiding behavior to take place or have meaning. Smerydakov serves this role, by doing what the hero Ivan could not bring himself to do. The devil discusses the similar role he plays in the spiritual realm / ivan’s mind.

If we accept these suggestions, it seems that perhaps the remaining question is whether Dostoevsky’s BK was intended to support a transcendance of rationality through irrationality that could quite mysteriously convert suffering to bliss via the loss of the individual (christian essentialism). Or perhaps he’s classifying humanity into three psychological types, the consciousless, the existentialist, and the essentialist; moreover, that the nature of suffering in the world lends direct advantage only to those without a conscious – for those with a conscious, they must choose between the self (suffering) or loss of self (bliss).

This theme seems to be rather tragically nihilistic – that the only result we can expect from rationality is exacerbating our own suffering, through intellectual pride, by which one would rather stand proudly on the limits of their rational mind and suffer intensely than to give up a sense of self to convert suffering to bliss. Thus if we are to see Ivan’s transformation as heroic, and I believe we are, it’s utterly tragic protagonism. Then it only seems BK assumes its ‘logical’ to see the sacrifice of the self as inevitable – either through suffering to rationality (atheism), or through denial to irrationality (belief in god & immortality). The dichotomy is skewed because the only tangible consequences of the decision we are presented with are “self/criminal-egoism/madness/suffering” versus “selfless/morality/lawfulness/bliss”. This reminds me of Pascal’s wager – if whether god exists cannot be known, we’re merely left to choose between a chance to win and a chance to lose. In these cases the supposedly logical consequences of belief/unbelief are demonstrated through a false dichotomy that contrasts good consequences of belief in God (bliss for Dostoevsky, either infinite gain or no loss for Pascal), versus bad consequences of not believing in God (suffering for Dostoevsky, either inifinite loss or no gain for Pascal).

Honestly, it doesn’t matter so much what Dostoevsky intended – people interpret literature their own way and create independent ideas which should be critiqued independently of Dostotyevsky’s intentions. An author’s intentions are difficult to establish and usually immaterial in a response to other peoples ideas. Many people read Dostoevsky and claim that there can be no love, law, or morality without belief in God. One could argue that Dostoevsky didn’t mean that, or perhaps that he did but only because he was a delusional epileptic platonist. I chose to respond by trying to illuminate the non sequitur.

Have you read Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra? It was written in part as a rational existentialist response to some of the themes in BK. I want to reread it after reading BK.

I think the dichotomy that you've set up isn't quite accurate, really. }8^P I view BK as very pro-existentialism. Sure, I’d agree there. As far as novels go, this is certainly pro existentialism in the broadest sense, in that it seens to argue what drives an individual is their will or lack of will towards a certain form of existence. I don't think setting up Ivan as the only existentialist is right. No, I don’t agree that Ivan was the only existentialist by any stretch – it’s just that he was the main vehicle to showcase existentialism. I think Ivan represents the tragicly rational existentialist, and by tragically rational I mean as Dostoevsky views it: "I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong" - Ivan’s suffering stems from not knowing – all he can rationally accept is his mind. He’s not exactly what I would call a good rationalist, because I prefer critical rationalism to his form of debilitating skepticism. Contrast that quote with the essentialist view point from Father Zossima: “If you can take upon yourself the crime of the criminal your heart is judging, take it at once, suffer for him . . . and let him go without reproach. . . . If, after your kiss, he goes away untouched, mocking at you, do not let that be a stumbling-block. . . . It shows his time has not yet come. . . . And if it come not, no matter; if not he, then another in his place will understand and suffer, and judge and condemn himself, and the truth will be fulfilled”. Joyce Carol Oates puts it well here: “In such Christianity, then, it is precisely the individual who does not exist. One individual or another, one grasp of truth or another, it does not matter: truth itself is all that matters. So Zossima's religion is the same religion as that of the Grand Inquisitor: the existing individual is of no importance. One needs "saints" to bow down to, but it is the bowing down that is significant, not the fact that a certain individual bows down. Dostoevski imagines the Grand Inquisitor as the pragmatic representative of Zossima's mysticism. Both are lovers of mankind, but the Grand Inquisitor, in rejecting God, realizes that all men need laws and punishments and the process of confession and absolution. But both the Grand Inquisitor and Father Zossima recognize that man is a child—he is far from the existentialist's ideal of a fully committed, rational, responsible human being.” It’s not a totally one sided argument, however, IMO w/ this quote from the devil, Dostoevsky offers an existential conclusion, and foreshadows how essentialist belief will still be present even in existentialism, particularly within those who argue that existence is a relationship between God and the individual: "Don't believe it then. . . . what's the good of believing against your will? Besides, proofs are no help to believing, especially material proofs. Thomas believed, not because he saw Christ risen, but because he wanted to believe, before he saw." Dostoevsky’s implication applies when it comes to essentialism because you believe because you want to believe; the idealistic & material proofs like those of Plato & Aquinas don’t matter any more than Kierkegaard’s leap to faith to the overall conclusion of essentialist thought.

Alyosha was the hero of the story. Of course Alyosha was the explicitly proclaimed hero from the very start - an essentialist hero, although his function is often transmissive more than anything. Perhaps by analyzing him a bit more we'll get at the heart of what Dostoevsky meant. Of course, perhaps we won't. ;) I think analyzing Alyosha should support the essentialist view. I agree that Alyosha is proabably at the heart of what Dostoevsky is getting at. I think Father Zossima, Alyosha, and the boys are the strongest, most essentialist characters in the book. They get the final word, where they basically reiterate that the best thing possible in life is mutual love, and it’s tacitly implied this is made possible by mutual belief in God/immortality:

"Hurrah for Karamazov!" Kolya shouted ecstatically.

"And may the dead boy's memory live for ever!" Alyosha added again with feeling.

"For ever!" the boys chimed in again.

"Karamazov," cried Kolya, "can it be true what's taught us in religion, that we shall all rise again from the dead and shall live and see each other again, all, Ilusha too?"

"Certainly we shall all rise again, certainly we shall see each other and shall tell each other with joy and gladness all that has happened!" Alyosha answered, half laughing, half enthusiastic.

"Ah, how splendid it will be!" broke from Kolya.

"Well, now we will finish talking and go to his funeral dinner. Don't be put out at our eating pancakes- it's a very old custom and there's something nice in that!" laughed Alyosha. "Well, let us go! And now we go hand in hand."

"And always so, all our lives hand in hand! Hurrah for Karamazov!"

Kolya cried once more rapturously, and once more the boys took up his exclamation: "Hurrah for Karamazov!"
I agree that the novel is existential, in that it seems to argue what drives an individual is their will or lack of will towards a certain form of existence. However, I believe the explicitly stated hero is an essentialist, as was his teacher, and that their message gets more positive attention from Dostoevsky. The explicit anti-hero is Ivan the existentialist. If we thought that the novel was pro Nietzschean/Sartrean existentialism, we’d have to argue that Ivan was the true, but tragic hero. I think Dostoevsky writes in doubles, oppositions of ideal and real: Ivan could be seen as a tragic hero in a realist view, but instead, the more idealistic choice is to accept the essentialist Alyosha as the hero. I think Dostoevsky writes to the effect that the mystical, selfless essentialism Alyosha lives by would best for most people.While the idealist Zossima is an obvious essentialist - even the realist Grand Inquisitor appears to argue for essentialism, but from a political perspective working under a mystic framework, as opposed to the purely mystic approach of Zossima that Dosteovsky appears to prefer. To wit, the inquisitor : “Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man? . . . what is to become of the millions . . . who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? Or cost thou care only for the . . . great and strong . . . ? No, we care for the weak too. They are sinful and rebellious, but in the end they too will become obedient. They will marvel at us and look on us as gods, because we are ready to endure the freedom which they have found so dreadful and to rule over them. . . . Choosing 'bread,' Thou wouldst have satisfied the universal and everlasting craving of humanity—to find someone to worship. So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship” Plato, in Laws, says everyone needs a leader – the inquisitor says everyone needs someone to worship – both are essentialist positions.

And yeah, at the end, I agree that if you come away thinking that without God there is no morality, then you're wrong. If Dostoevsky meant that, he was wrong, but I don't think he did. I don’t know what Dostoevsky thought – I haven’t studied his notes extensively or anything. However, I can accept that it was not what he meant. Perhaps he thought belief in God was just one possible avenue to finding love & morality, that essentialism and existentialism were merely different ways to approach the same truth – the law of love; which might explain how some of the characters parody and support each other from such different positions. I’ll try listening to the UC Berkeley lectures sometime, along with reading Laura’s blog. For now I’ve got some web applications to get programming on… }8^>

Although I am happy to discuss what Dostoevsky meant, my intent was to address the independent claim of ∀x[!G(x) → !I(x) → !L(x) → !M/L(x)]; It’s not as though I am arguing that Dostoevsky wanted his readers to believe this claim. I am just reacting to the claim itself, because it is something that people often use to justify theism and to attack atheism, and I feel it totally ignores the human/mammalian origins of morality in our evolutionary past. That being said, I liked the BK for it’s existential content, particularly in the inquisition and devil talks, and I enjoy discussing and thinking about it.

The biggest problem I had with the BK is how it really failed to provide a character that represented the ahimsa+critical rationalist way of life that I prefer.

Throughout the book, Dostoevsky is juxtaposing two world views: Protestant and Roman Catholic from which he seems to think all other world views have originated (political scientific, etc.). Protestantism is based on the idea that man is sinful, therefore he will eventually self-destruct so must be saved by God in the form of Revelation, etc. that comes "later" (not now) and is highly individualistic. The Roman Catholics (as expressed through the Grand Inquisitor) believes that man is fallen, but you can "save" him by making things up: creating a society of people who can be controlled. This is likewise a view that requires a hatred of humanity. Although it appears to me that there are more than just these two world views depicted in BK – Ivan rejects god to remain true to his conception of humanity and mostly his own mind - I think there is some congruence with what you write above, and what I wrote earlier excerpted here: you believe because you want to believe; the idealistic & material proofs like those of Plato & Aquinas don’t matter any more than Kierkegaard’s leap to faith to the overall conclusion of essentialist thought. The idealistic & material essentialist proofs of Plato & Aquinas represent Roman Catholicism (by making things up: creating a society of people who can be controlled) – Kierkegaard’s leap to faith represents Protestants & Sola Fide, salvation through faith alone (man is sinful, therefore he will eventually self-destruct so must be saved by God in the form of Revelation… and is highly individualistic). Both views require a hatred of humanity indeed. }8^[ Nietzsche, now in heaven, twirls his mustache in agreement…]

Ivan seems to take the view that while Christ like love of a man is not possible without him being hidden, the unjustifiable suffering of children and his love for them supports his rejection of god and whatever salvation god might offer. Zossima’s answer is to spread love selflessly to all things, including the criminal. This is a typical Dostoevsky theme, examing how a criminal (evil) might make lawfulness (good) possible.

The new philosophical view that Ivan represents in Brothers Karamazov which would also include the sciences, in as much as people believe it can be used to "save humanity", comes out of these two western world views, too and rely on a hatred/denial of our humanity. To me, Ivan appears to be a skeptical existentialist that eventually degrades into a solipsist who cannot distinguish the mind from reality (seeing devils). As far as Ivan representing the sciences – the scientist in me thinks it would take quite a pessimistic view of science, even as it existed in Dostoevsky’s day, to claim the representation was accurate if indeed it was intended as you claim. I really didn’t see the sciences considered in any great detail in BK – if they were I don’t feel it was a fair consideration – nor was there an accurate depiction of Nietzschean/Sartrean existentialism. Ivan’s type of skepticism, which eventually degrades into solipsism, is quite counterproductive to the critically rational science of today, for certain.

I don't think Dostoevsky is pushing a belief in God or even pushing morality. I can agree with you on not pushing God, but not really on morality - I think the following quote might sum up what is ultimately being pushed in BK: His whole theory is a fraud! Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity - Rakitin to Alyosha. I think it’s the morality/law of love that is being pushed the hardest in BK.

The world doesn't need to be saved because all is OK right now. But,we can be transformed through love. I’d agree that Dostoevsky pushes the law of love, and what you say next sounds like the essentialism of Father Zossima: Any attempt to control, manipulate, demean, or deny our humanity, even the bad parts of our humanity, is based on a hatred of humanity because we fear the finite. If that is the message of the book, that would suggest that Dostoevsky does indeed prefer the selfless essentialism over self-defiling essentialism and also over solipsism. What I feel is a negative consequence of this selfless philosophy is, however, depicted here: “If you can take upon yourself the crime of the criminal your heart is judging, take it at once, suffer for him . . . and let him go without reproach. . . . If, after your kiss, he goes away untouched, mocking at you, do not let that be a stumbling-block. . . . It shows his time has not yet come. . . . And if it come not, no matter; if not he, then another in his place will understand and suffer, and judge and condemn himself, and the truth will be fulfilled” So when this criminal comes to torture & murder your child, you let him. And when he tortures & murders your child, you take it at once and suffer for him, letting him go without reproach – if he mocks you it’s no matter because someone else will suffer in his place, just as you have done. This philosophy entails tolerating the intolerant, which itself threatens to destroy tolerance and the tolerant all together. This selfless philosophy is quite a debilitating nihilism.

Now, I saved your first paragraph for last because it sort of confuses me, but it is certainly very interesting! Immortality requires a belief in time. I suppose that depends heavily on what you mean by “belief in time”. If immortality means endless life, I’m not sure what one has to believe about time to also believe immortality is possible, other than that time is not finite. Hasn't science proven there is no time? Saying science proves things went out of style in the early 1900s when falsifiability killed logical positivism }8^D but I think I get your point. Do you mean that general relativity predicts that time is neither finite nor the same for everyone everywhere? That it's simply a method of measurement - a means to order one event after another? In physics, time, better known as space-time, is an operational fundamental quantity that cannot be defined in terms of the other quantities (velocity, force, energy/matter). In this sense time is more like a coordinate, less like a means to order events. In another sense you are correct in that time is a means to quantify causation, along with the other fundamental quantities. If there is no time, then there is no immortality. Again, all I can see is that if time were finite, one couldn’t live forever because time would simply end. If time is infinite, then perhaps one could live infinitely. However, if there is indeed no “time”, there can be no “space-time”, which means there can be no matter, energy, force, velocity, etc.. Or, immortality is all there is. Man's ability to live forever, if possible, will not create immortality. Sorry, lost me again, because if “immortality” = “living forever”, how could “living forever” not = “immortality”? It already "Is" but we don't realize it. How could we already be immortal – that is, without invoking a soul? The theories of science predict that the energy that composes me cannot be destroyed – but the state of being that my energy takes on which allows me to consider myself alive (or to consider anything for that matter) does not appear to be naturally or already immortal. I think this is what Alyosha recognizes at the end of the book - that it is memory that creates our physical immortality. At the end of the book, he can't tell the boys that they will come back from the dead, but what he tells them is "Certainly we shall rise, certainly we shall see and gladly, joyfully tell one another all that has been". It is memory that creates our physical eternity. Not exactly sure what you mean there. In the speech on the stone Alyosha says “And may the dead boy’s memory live forever” – which suggests a reference to immortality through memory. Yet, when the boys ask if we shall rise again as depicted in religion, Alyosha replies “certainly we shall all rise again”. This appears to be referring directly to resurrection (coming back from the dead) – how would you argue this refers to memory and not resurrection? How does memory create a physical immortality/eternity? Because others will remember us after we are gone? (This is being proven scientifically, too - is it not? That much of our intuitive understanding arises through our ability to access the store memory of our ancestors in our nervous system?) The only way I know we can access the stored memory of our ancetors is through stored objective knowledge – oral traditions, texts, other media, etc., unless of course you mean the passing of genetic code that dictates our physiology and intuitive, instinctual processes... Somehow I doubt this is what you mean, can you explain?

Thanks for dropping by!

Peace,

Drac

We are likely having a misunderstanding here, in adittion to a disagreement, but some things we do agree upon! For one thing, existentialism is a broad term and many thinkers called existentialists reject the term. Nonetheless, the novel itself is existential because it displays characters that are depicted as individually responsible for both authenticating their beliefs and the consequences of their actions – this is the basic common theme in existentialist thought amongst many different thinkers.

I don't think Dostoevsky intends to present Ivan or Zosima as existentialists. I disagree & agree. I see Ivan is existential in that he finds human existence (particularly suffering) to be unexplainable, authenticates & changes his own beliefs, and takes responsibility for his role in his fathers murder. I never said Zossima was an existentialist – he is the most obvious essentialist in the novel.

It is Alyosha who represents the existentialist point of view for Dostoevsky I sort of agree, because Alyosha is an existentialist and appears to be Dostoevsky’s preferred manifestation of existentialism. However, he is really like a cross of the existentialist and essentialist views as described by Dostoevsky, who appears to be arguing at least in some way that the goals of essentialism can be incorporated into existentialism. This is only natural because Dostevsky is a russian existentialist with a strong orthodox essentialist background & framework. To wit, once again: "Don't believe it then. . . . what's the good of believing against your will? Besides, proofs are no help to believing, especially material proofs. Thomas believed, not because he saw Christ risen, but because he wanted to believe, before he saw." Existentialists can adopt essentialist beliefs if they want to without consideration of material proofs, & “Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity.” Alyosha & co believe in the form of essentialism they’ve adapted from Zossima, not because of some magical force, but because they will themselves to. This is in stark contrast to the Nietzsche-Camus-Sartrean existentialism. Ivan is the closest representative of that type of thought, to wit: from Sartre’s The Devil and the Good Lord: “I have nothing but contempt for you idiotic chosen ones who have the heart to rejoice when there are the damned in Hell and the poor on earth; as for me, I am on the side of men and I will not leave it” whereas Ivan says “I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong”. Ivan, too, is on the side of men and refuses to leave it.

and clearly, Alyosha does not follow in Zosima's footsteps. Alyosha is part existentialist, part essentialist. I agree that he does not mimic Zossima or follow exactly in his footsteps, but he wills to make his own interpretation of Zossima’s religious beliefs just as you imply here: It is through Alyosha's understanding that we see all of the traditional Christian symbols being "demagicalized". Alyosha still finds christian symbols very useful, in his own way, because he wants to.

It is my understanding that the existentialist view operates from inside the definitions acquired through the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it never defies the laws of physics or chemistry. This might accurately describe Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard, but not most other existentialists IMO. For instance, arguably the most famous existentialist, Sartre, wrote that existence preceeded essence, that there’s no good or evil that we do not think into being (existence preceeds good and evil), that the judeo-christian concept of god does not exist (existence preceedes god + the concept of a self conscious god who lacks nothing is a contradiction + god is a causa sui and the concept of a being who is the cause of his own cause-to-be is a contradiction). His use of theological language is a means to create an ontology of man’s impossible desire to become a causa sui. Naturally this includes critique and use of Judeo-Christian theological language. Sartrean existentialism contradicts your definition, because in fact it operates outside of Judeo-Christian linguistics in order to create an ontology of them. (existence preceeds Judeo-Christian linguistics!) Sartre is not interested in defining god and proving or disproving his existence (pure essentialist), or believing him or some symbolism of him (essentialist-existentialism) he is interested in disproving the Judeo-Christian notion of god, by showing that it is self contradictory by their own definition.

The main difference between Nietzsche and the other existentialists is that Nietzsche believed that although we have been defined by the Judeo-Christian tradition, it would benefit us to drop it altogether. Nietzsche probably agreed that we have at one time been defined by Judeo-Christian tradition, but he said that “God is dead”, which means the Judeo-Christian tradition is dead – it can have no hold over us and cannot define us as it once did. Instead, we are left with god’s shadow of nihilism and decadence. To Nietzsche, the Judeo-Christian tradition was indeed a blunder of man, but what we really need to drop are things like nihilism, master and slave morality, good and evil, one vs many, and nobility. We dropped the Judeo-Christian tradition long ago when we killed god. In an indirect way it still defines us because what people call judeo-christian faith is now just a guise for the domination of the instincts. - But he didn't believe as Camus did that we could just get over it. Western culture is too heavily defined by it. I think you may be oversimplifying Camus a bit, who often agreed with Nietzsche and built on many of his concepts. Camus also thought God was dead just as Nietzsche did, and that the collapsing of this religious stage leaves us in what was always there anyway, absurdity. To Camus, god’s shadow is man’s desperate attempt to avoid absurdity in some other way. Camus leaves us with an existential choice – commit suicide or affirm life by accepting that we cannot ever get over absurdity. Camus thought life was worth reaffirming even if we can never get over our absurdity. Similarly, Nietzsche thought humanity could reform its values to use the natural tension created by absurdity as a force to reaffirm life and reach distant goals – any attempt to get over absurdity was seen as nihilistic to Nietzsche. Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard on the other hand, didn't think we needed to get rid of it but attempted to show how all of the symbols could be demagicalized so that traditional ideas like resurrection, ordination, salvation, faith, etc.did not disobey the physical laws. I agree in part, because just as I suggested earlier, Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard thought it was possible for existentialists to transcend absurdity by choosing to believe essentialist beliefs, however not to justify them with essentialist justifications which they recognized all fail anyway (to wit: Kierkegaards leap to faith in an impossible god). So keeping the remants of the Judeo-Christian tradition around seemed useful to them, whereas it seemed futile to the others. Thinking that Dostoevsky means that were are actually resurrected in some sort of bodily form would not fit with his attempt to demagicalize all of the other traditional Christian terms. He has to mean that resurrection exists through memory and tradition (in that the boys are the new Russia and can change Russia from the inside and do not have to go outside of it to change it. Alyosha "ordains" the next generation, so to speak). It doesn't mean coming back from the dead in a literal sense. I think I understand what you are arguing and it does make sense, but I am simply wondering how this symbolism works. (It can be argued that those involved in the earliest Jesus movement did not think of Jesus as having come back from the dead in the literal sense, either. What was resurrected was the enthusiasm and courage he inspired even though he had physically died. He was resurrected through his followers who kept his memory alive by living out what had been meaningful to him.) I gather by your analogy that memory = immortality in that we live on in others memories of us. I still question the point of this analogy when in fact the memory of us in future generations naturally fades and is hardly immortal. This is also not consistent with Sartrean existentialism. Sartre argued that focusing on the memories the past is only a temporary avoidance of the nausea of our existence. Trying to avoid absurdity with the symbolism of memory=immortality constitutes bad faith (denial of freedom via false notion of self).

Individualism can be understood in two ways: Individualism as a single individual and individualism as individualism. (I don't really know how to put that.) I think you put that well actually. Even simpler might be the individual versus individualism. It is my understanding (which is minimal) that Kierkegaard understood the Individual (not the single individual) to be greater than the universal ideas of the Greeks (which Aquinas and Augustine attempted to define Christianity in terms of). But this is not the same as saying a single individual (or particular) is more important than the universal. I agree with all that. And faith to Kierkegaard is faith in an unconditional commitment to something finite and temporal, not to a Supreme Being. I disagree, because the leap to faith is to believe in a supreme being and also Jesus Christ, while recognizing the dialectical need for doubt. Christian faith cannot exist without doubt to Kierkegaard. So I think it would be faulty to claim Kierkegaard understood Sola Fide in the same way Martin Luther understood it or how most Protestants understand it. I will agree on this specific point that Kierkegaard was not exactly of the Martin Luther school of theology. However I do find it convenient to describe the certainty of Sola Fide & Luther in Kierkegaardian terms. For Kierkegaard, there is no supreme being to forgive your transgressions. That belief would be directly counter to what constitutes a Knight of Faith because the Knight of Faith finds happiness in the world, not in an abstract idea like God or that presented by the Greek philosophers. I think you might have slightly missed the point there. The knight of faith has faith in himself and the supreme god – faith with doubt of course. This allows him to pursue happiness in the world. The main difference between Greek->Hegelian concepts of god and the more existential-essentialist (neoorthodoxy) one’s are the materialist proofs, which don’t matter to Dostoevsky or Kierkegaard. You don't have to obey God's commands as Biblically understood - what you have to obey is the unconditional commitment you have made that has defined you as an individual and to do so without resignation (although resignation is initially required because this is what reconciles you with existence in the first place).

Ivan makes no such unconditional commitment. I agree, because Ivan is more like the Nietzsche-Camus-Sartrean existentialst, although I feel Dostoevsky’s use of Ivan is more in support for Alyosha than to create an honest depiction of that type of existentialism. However, Ivan’s will to stand on the side of humanity and reject god cannot be ignored as it is a central part of their existential thought.

And I think it could be argued that Zosima doesn't either because he pulls himself out of the world and lives in a monastery rather than existing in the world as does Alyosha. I agree again because Zossima is the purest essentialist.

I also think Ahimsa could easily be understood in terms of an unconditional commitment as long as it is understood "in the world" and not as an abstract philosophical ideal. Ahimsa is very much in the world when it has to do with respect for living beings in the world. I certainly don’t take a leap to faith to practice Ahimsa, it seems only logical as a natural extension of innate human ethics and morality, improved by logically removing a bias against other cultures, races, species, and other life forms in general. In that sense I can reject the unconditional commitment, stay on the side of humanity, and have perfectly sound motivation and justification to practice Ahimsa. It is a matter of knowledge, in Jainism for instance: “Some kill living beings for sacrificial purposes, some kill for their skins, some kill for their flesh, some for the blood, heart, liver, fat, feathers, or teeth, some with specific reasons, some without reason, some out of fear (defense). He who is disinclined from killing the smallest living beings knows what suffering is because he who knows his own happiness and pains, knows others' too, and he who knows others' feelings knows his own feelings. This is the way one must compare himself with others. He who has obtained this knowledge would not wish to live at the expense of other living beings." -Agam Acharang Sootra This knowledge helped compel me to become vegetarian and to respect all fairly tolerant life forms.