Lakewood the
Thinking City
It was Socrates who first gave us the idea that individual reasoning is profoundly and uniquely valuable.
John Stuart Mill, in his book On Liberty, took Socrates’ viewpoint
further by laying out the social conditions necessary for individuals to reason
for themselves, and by explaining why independent reasoning is a valuable –
indeed, essential – part of human life.
On Liberty
is the classic presentation of the case for freedom of expression and action,
as against the “tyranny of the majority.”
Mill distinguishes actions that affect
others from actions that affect only oneself.
The former may be regulated, he says, but actions that affect only
oneself should be left free.
Furthermore, thought and expression and expression should be free. He makes this point by saying:
“If all
mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than
he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
Mill points out that we cannot know
whether an idea is true or not until we have considered and criticized all the
alternatives. Furthermore, we can’t
completely understand our own ideas until we have to defend them.
Arguing for freedom of action, he holds
that only the individual can know what is for his/her own good, and that the
highest development of one’s human abilities results from making choices. He says:
“He
who lets the world . . . choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any
other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning
and judgment to foresee . . .discrimination to decide. . . .”
Mill sees human
beings as individuals who want to be free and who will use their freedom to
develop their best human capabilities.
Therefore, he says, society should be dedicated to developing
individuality and independence of thought in each person.
The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor
The
Legend of the Grand Inquisitor is an independent section of the novel The
Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, the 19th-century Russian
novelist. Dostoevsky’s main concerns
were religious, it seems fair to say, but he should be understood in terms of the spiritual-political
controversies and debates of his day.
He was on the side of traditional Russian culture, including Russian
Orthodox Christianity (not the Roman Catholic Church, obviously), against those
who wanted to Westernize Russia by making it more liberal, more democratic,
more scientific, and in general more
open to the Enlightenment. Thus
his ideas are both spiritual (in the general sense of that term) and political
at the same time. This is how one
author (Walter Kaufmann) characterized Dostoevsky:
"Dostoevsky himself was a Christian, to be sure, and for that matter also was a rabid anti-Semite, anti-Catholic, and anti-Western Russian nationalist. We have no right whatsoever to attribute to him the opinions of all of his most interesting characters. Unfortunately, most readers fail to distinguish between Dostoevsky's view and those of the Grand Inquisitor in Ivan's story in The Brothers Karamazov, though it is patent that this figure was inspired by the author's hatred of the Church of Rome. . . ."
In The Brothers
Karamazov, the central event is the killing of father Karamazov. This event and what it leads to bring out
the spiritual and moral struggles of the three sons of the elder
Karamazov: Alyosha, who is
predominantly religious; Ivan, who is predominantly intellectual and rational;
and Dimitri, who is predominantly sensual.
The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor is presented in the novel as a tale
written by Ivan, expressing his religious concerns, as told to Alyosha. However, it loses no meaning when presented
in isolation from the rest of the novel.
The Legend is set in Seville, Spain, during the Inquisition, which was under the command of the Grand Inquisitor. The story begins with the sudden appearance of Christ among the people, who all throng to His side.
Instead of welcoming Christ, the Grand
Inquisitor has Him seized and imprisoned.
The Grand Inquisitor visits Christ in His cell, and the substance of the
story is the conversation between the two, beginning with the latter’s saying
that “tomorrow I shall condemn Thee and burn Thee at the stake as the worst of
heretics. And the very people who have
today kissed Thy feet, tomorrow at the faintest sign from me will rush to heap
up the embers of Thy fire.” (At the
end of the story, however, the Grand Inquisitor releases Christ with the
admonition never to return.)
Essentially, the Grand Inquisitor sees
Christ as an enemy because Christ is the champion of freedom. This is expressed by the Grand Inquisitor’s
saying, “For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now
it is ended and over for good. . . .today, people are more persuaded than ever
that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and
laid it humbly at our feet.”
The Grand Inquisitor goes on to the first
of the questions (temptations) posed by Satan to Christ in the wilderness
(Matthew 4, 1-11), to which Christ gave his famous answer, “Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. . .
.”
The Grand Inquisitor reveals that he has been working on Satan’s side, against Christ, and he has been doing so out of a love for mankind. For, he says, Satan recognized the three needs of the mass (not the elite) of mankind:
1) “bread” – people
place first importance not on the ability make free choices, but on
satisfaction of material wants.(hence he says "there is no crime, and
therefore no sin; there is only hunger. . . . ," for in order to commit crimes and sins, people must have free choice.)
2) miracles - that which compels belief - as opposed to
faith freely given.
3) world-wide unity, a world-wide kingdom, among men (as the
Roman
Empire was, and
the Catholic Church aspired to be) - meaning
worship of a
human being (Caesar, or Pope), in place of God or Christ.
The satisfaction of these three needs
(according to the Grand Inquisitor) means the abdication of freedom. (Christ, of course, represents freedom.)
Clearly Dostoevsky is on the side of
Christ and strongly opposed to the Grand Inquisitor. But the latter is not a cardboard figure; he makes powerful
claims to the effect that his view of life – not Christ’s – is the true
depiction of human nature.
His overall picture is of human beings
as creatures who want above all to satisfy their material wants, and to have an
object to worship and give meaning to their life -- by sacrificing their
freedom.
While they live under a
rationally-designed, well-organized, totally-controlled system (the
"anthill" or "antheap").
(By the way, you might notice not only Dostoevsky's opposition to the Catholic Church, as he saw it, but also a forward-looking opposition to Marxism-Leninism as it would exist in Russia half a century or so after his time. The Communist Party - the "vanguard party" - takes the place of the Grand Inquisitor.)
The masses (not the elite, such as the
Grand Inquisitor) are shown as weak creatures, who have a deep and overpowering
desire not to be free. They
don't want to make their own choices.
They cannot find their own meaning in life, but must have it given to
them - they must acquire a meaning to life through submission to
authority. Furthermore, they are
morally weak. (They can't share their
"bread," but must be coerced into fairness.)
They want to be governed by
"miracle, mystery and authority," which means suppression of the
individual's understanding, faith and free choice.
Which side is America on? Almost every American, undoubtedly, would take the side of Mill and Socrates against the Grand Inquisitor, for Americans profess to believe in freedom. Yet the Grand Inquisitor has eloquently argued that the belief in freedom can be false: “. . . people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet.”
So where do the American people really stand? Are they on the side of freedom, or do they really side with the Grand Inquisitor? In the fervent declarations of our patriotism and our politics, in our advertising-driven consumerism, in our materialistic and success-driven values, in our commercially-driven educational system, are we submitting ourselves to never-examined ways of life that have been thrust on us by authority and mass persuasion and mass opinion?
Socrates and Mill on the one side, the Grand Inquisitor on the other – these opposing figures haunt the mind of anyone who thinks seriously about American life. Which one commands the field? That may be open to question. Let each individual choose.
-- G.B.