duplicate

Yes, although I feel Ivan doesn't really believe what he's saying. I don't think D. would allow that.

Suppose Ivan was highly religious but still wanted the lion's share of his family's inheritance and let it be known. Without the 'absence of god everything is lawful' philosophy there still would have been murder and for the same reason.

Was it the philosophy that unhinged him or was it what he thought he interpreted from conversations with Ivan? Was it ambition and material gain which was the great motivator or was it an idea which clouded or poisoned better judgment? I say it was the former. His 'everything is lawful' philosophy was just another nod in Smerdy's direction as he chose to see it - not an adopted way of life that controlled his actions.

I'll concede that he may have used it as an excuse and that the philosophy is dangerous and impossible in a functioning society but I still think the argument that there is no moral or ethical law without god is crap and that's why I have a hard time with the book and its arguments for belief.

I feel somewhat bound by not being able to discuss more openly. I'm trying not to give too much away for those who aren't where I'm at in the book. I'm sure most everyone is probably already done by now but I have a little more to go.

I know my point of view and what I'm concentrating on is secondary to the actual purpose of the book as a treatise of D.'s ideology and a warning against living an individualistic and materialistic life. The fiction is only a literary tool for entertainingly preaching his views. No one would read a boring 1000 page book on ideology but they'd read an interesting tale such as this one. I am trying to pick apart this ideology, not the book itself when it may seem like I'm missing the bigger picture - which I may very well be.