Preparation of Ivan Karamazov's argument

The idea that Ivan Karamazov is beginning to prepare his argument from afar is only an illusion. The illusion may get greater due to the place at which the conversation is being led and the way the argumentation is going to be explained. Although it is, from the mouth of Karamazov himself, quite according to the customs, not strange to his time and people, spoken at a non-academic place, at an inn, and not within an academic discussion, but presented as a matter of conversation between two brothers, we should not miss the attention with which the analysis was prepared, nor the strength of it when finally brought out by the elder brother.

1. Thesis on meeting and parting - at the beginning of the conversation Ivan emphasises that he considers his meeting Aljoša as "getting acquainted". At the end, regardless of anything, Ivan can leave his brother quietly because he has posed to himself a clear task: "Our task is that I explain to you my essence, i.e. the man I am, what I believe and what are my hopes." And Ivan adds immediately after "That will be our parting as well" by which he emphasises the nature of the following confession. Profane, but even more philosophical and metaphysical, points of view Ivan is attempting to bring to light are not made under pressure of the parting, crammed within the time, shadowed by departure, and owing to the fact incomplete and fragmentary, breakable and questionable. Quite the contrary, the forthcoming Theodicy idea is being such a strong concept (the power will be confirmed several times by Ivan himself during the conversation), that "parting" should emphasise the spirit of established finality of what is to be said. After that brothers could only say their farewells, because what had been said is so fundamental that, apart some eventual by-the-way remarks, nothing much could be added. Hence Ivan's belief that one gets best acquainted with somebody at parting. They will really part at the end of conversation, which will emphasise even more, the fact that nothing was to remain the same as before. So, the first "incidental" intervention of Ivan Karamazov on getting acquainted at the end emphasises the fact that he was standing behind what he said with his whole being whatever the cost, though he would later on admit to himself that, as Aljoša told him "one cannot live with the hell in the bosom" and that "he will kill himself..!". Rhetorically speaking, that intervention is put there to strengthen the impression of the forthcoming words.

2. Vitalistic thesis - Ivan Karamazov then confesses a passionate, really unconditional infatuation with life. The confession represents classical vitalism because the fact of love towards life cannot be justified with any rational reasoning; he loves "against any logic".

   Though, at first, Aljoša tends to agree with him almost naively, wishing only to complete his thought, Ivan's whole speech is to prove where his thought was directed even then. The thought corrodes the crucial idea of Leibniz that factum of logics is hovering above everything, expressed even in the principle of sufficient reason as well as in the postulate of the best of possible worlds, and finally, in the alternatives of Leibniz idea on harmonic structure of the world. He does not recognise, as shown later, the primacy of the reason in the structure of the world because he himself does not find reasonable justification of the Theodicy problem. This will annul not only every possibility of harmony, but open the space for the showdown with the world on the level of ontology, and bring in the final move of Ivan's "returning the ticket". Thus placed inflexible vitalistic thesis intercepts the possible objection regarding Ivan's Theodicy argument being derived from his resignation with life or his inner state of mind, pessimism.

3. Agnostic-subjectivist thesis - Ivan Karamazov considers the question on the existence of God "completely inaccessible for our mind", because of which he advises his brother not to start thinking about it. Moreover, he does not consider his own thoughts as theoretical and does not want them to be generally instructive. As he said to Aljoša, he does not want to talk of God, he wants only to explain "in what he lives". He does not want his brother "to change his grounds", he, Ivan, wants only to pay his due, that is all.

At the beginning of formulating his thesis, Ivan Karamazov is solving what seems to be crucial for the direction of his argumentation: the question on God. Though it may seem important to define the way to come to the idea on God, "has God made the man, or has man made God", and whether it really is the question "completely inaccessible for our mind"; whether it is the matter of the agnostic or any other hypothesis there are only two solutions; God is or is not. What would the Theodicy solution be like in either case?

If God does not exist, and it is, as Ivan Karamazov said "all a damnable, demon, messed up chaos", then it does not appear very difficult to agree on the possibility that evil and suffering are possible effects of that chaotic mess. The reverse is also possible: to consider evil and suffering the reason and proof for atheism, or as Berdiaiev wrote: "Russian atheism has originated on moral basis, provoked by the impossibility to solve the Theodicy problem". If Ivan Karamozov, in the context of all his beliefs set forth in previous theses that he used when preparing his arguments, were the atheist, then the problem would prove much simpler. But, following in the steps of many powerful characters of Dostoievski's novels, Ivan, with regards to his brother Aljoša's position, will show all the generosity of his soul and approach him closely. Despite his agnosticism he makes a concession, "acknowledges God sincerely and simply, admits his great wisdom, his goals unknown to us, believes in the word which is God himself, and in his immortality…" On the level of rhetorics and power of arguments, it is a great move: he is seemingly magnanimous, but the magnanimity opens the possibility of even more intensive formulation of the problems then if he were to accept the atheistic idea. The postulate of God's existence, as is visible in the presentation on Leibniz, intensifies the problem of evil to extreme, because then it is, at least theoretically, possible that, in spite of everything, God is guilty for the suffering in the world, at least for having permitted it. Such a strong argument for his thesis will not be overlooked or missed by clever Ivan Karamazov, whether it is to confirm God's existence for rhetoric reasons or to express his own belief. The basis of his argumentation is undoubtedly two arguments which are not questionable: God and Evil. And on the firmness of these two categories his dialectic string is drawn tautly - just what Dostoievsky had been so well-known for.

It is clearly visible here that the power of the ideas Dostoievsky is pondering over and presenting in his characters does not rely on themselves alone if taken individually - the destructive power of the idea and talked of "suffering of the mind" are developed as opposing them, in dialectics - that is how the get all new life in them.

Though there are opposing stand-points, it seems that the argument of Ivan Karamazov is not a thinking relative of Voltaire's Candide or Schopenhauer's thesis, as often found in literature. The sharp blade of Ivan's argument is not getting square with Leibniz thesis of a best possible world, though his protesting against the thought can be derived from everything he had said.

Ivan Karamazov questions Leibniz's idea of harmony on two levels: that of existence and eternity:

• He cannot accept the thesis on harmonic structure of the world because the suffering of the children invalidates the possibility of thinking the world harmonic. It is with the deepest revulsion that he wanted to return the ticket for this world with, and that he asks "if all must suffer to purchase the eternal harmony, what has it to do with children?" The thesis on solidarity in sin with the adults, does not help according to Ivan, as, in that case, it turns children into "the victims of the system", and their suffering into undesired side-effects of otherwise harmonically structured world.

• Not even getting square with the sufferings of innocent children in the eternity, i.e. "postulate of the existence of hell", cannot save the harmony, states Ivan Karamazov : the revenge to the tormentors cannot help because one cannot reach the harmony through hell, for it had ended with the act of tormenting the children. On the other hand, looking at it from the point of view of theory, Ivan thinks: what kind of harmony is it if established afterwards (even if we allow it to have been established before and we needed the eternity in which everything was to be explained); if there is a Hell, then the co-existence of Hell and harmony does not injure Hell as much as it does the universal harmony which again cannot be universal with Hell existing?

Aljoša offers a warning at the end of Ivan's argument that the ransom paid by the blood of God, and it perhaps discloses Ivan's atheism and the fact that his acceptance of God is only rhetorical, for he allows the possibility of "all will be explained once" and that all will then rejoice "Oh, Lord how just you are for you paths are revealed", allowing thus non-Euclidian geometry of faith, while he remains selective on the question of children's suffering, rejecting all possibility of other reasoning except the earthly one, i.e. the one by Euclidean geometry. On the other hand, Ivan Karamazov, could remain completely gallant towards his collocutor even in case of such objection, though they would not be able to solve the problem, as he could only repeat what he had already said in the discussion with his brother earlier on: "I want to stay with the facts!"