დოსტოევსკის მორალური ფილოსოფია და კანტის პრაქტიკული ფილოსოფია. DOSTOEVSKY AS A MORAL PHILOSOPHER AND KANT’S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON

Abstract

In this article we discuss the views of Fyodor Dostoevsky on morality and human freedom, analyzing them in the context of Kant’s practical philosophy. Accordingly, we are trying to understand the relationship between Dostoevsky’s ethics and Kant’s Critique of the Practical Reason. To solve this problem, the analysis focuses on one of Dostoevsky’s novels. This is his last great book, The Brothers Karamazov. In particular, we are interested in its two chapters: The Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor. Based on the consideration of these two chapters, we consistently define the views of the great Russian writer on the human being, its nature, religion, freedom, good and evil, conscience, morality, and man’s ability to lead a moral life. It should also be noted that we do not agree with the widespread opinion that only Alyosha Karamazov expresses Dostoevsky’s outlook and Ivan Karamazov’s views are the opposite of Dostoevsky’s practical philosophy. Contrary to this position, we believe that in the thinkings of both brothers there are statements that convey Dostoevsky’s own anthropology and philosophy of morality. This approach lets us to clarify that F. Dostoevsky is characterized by the same account of Ethics as Kant. In particular, we know that according to Kant morality is based on a practical reason, autonomy, and a categorical imperative. However, the practical reason is fundamentally different from the sensual nature of man. The nominal and phenomenal nature of man are incompatible with each other. They are in constant and irresistible conflict. According to Kant, in such a situation, man for moral actions takes ability merely from faith. Only on its ground can a person act as a free non-natural being. A similar opinion can be found in the both chapters. As Ivan Karamazov says, sensual nature does not allow a human being to be free, to act freely, because acting freely makes it be suffering. Humankind renounces freedom, the power of which he actually does not have. For a human being, the main thing is not freedom, but happy life. For the sake of a happy life, a man is ready to give up his human nature (freedom) and become an ant. Dostoevsky considers it impossible to overcome Ivan Karamazov’s standpoint by rational arguments. It seems to him impossible to convince anybody, whoever he is, by rational discourse that a man is free to live according to the dictates of a free conscience, and not of feelings and sensual inclinations. About Dostoevsky’s approach in this way refers the fact that Christ does not dispute anything the Grand Inquisitor says. Listening silently, he offers no counterarguments during the whole encounter. But what is most important for our examination is what they do. Christ approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his lips, and on his part the same did Alyosha regarding his brother. hat these behaviors mean? By depicting these behaviors of Christ and Alyosha Dostoevsky emphasizes that the only argument by which it is really possible to overcome Ivan’s and Grand Inquisitor’s assertions about inability of human being determined by its sensual inclinations to live morally, is the practical action which is based the pure reason, free conscience. Practical actions clearly show that man can be free and live morally. However, like Kant, Dostoevsky believes that what gives to man the power to be a moral agent is faith. For both Kant and Dostoevsky, faith is an act of freedom and as such a true ground to live according to super sensual laws.