Comparing Dostoevsky And Kierkegaard

There is the age old debate that has gone on for centuries among scholars, theologians, commoners to get to the root of what it means to be religious. This case is particularly interested in what it means to be a Christian. Not just a person that believes in the faith and teachings but actually what does it mean to believe and have faith. Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard are two philosophers that extensively delved into great contemplation and introspection of what it means to be a Christian. Both of these philosophers took a critical microscope to the typical Christian teachings of how one should conduct their selves to prove their devotion to God. What both of these philosophers eventually deduced is that the traditional teachings of Christianity

He presents this man with great power and control over the minds and actions of the followers of Catholicism. In this story, the Grand Inquisitor is faced with Jesus Christ whom has come back to earth for the second coming. The Grand Inquisitor goes on with his monologue of how the Catholic Church provides the happiness and idea of salvation that the followers of Catholicism desperately need in order to live their lives. In one instance, the Inquisitor challenges Christ for giving up all the worldly possessions that most men would succumb to when the devil tried to entice him. The Inquisitor argues that is what a mistake by Christ in saying, “Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering” (Dostoevsky, pg 12). For the Inquisitor, this was a fatal mistake by Christs as by turning down all the power in the world, he taught his followers that freedom is what one should truly try to obtain. However, this freedom comes at a price as it means one is now responsible for one’s actions and choices. This the Grand Inquisitor argues to great a burden for men to bear and actually want to have someone to carry that burden to ensure their own happiness. For Dostoevsky, to be a true believer it equates to suffering and unhappiness.

For Kierkegaard however, this suffering was by the hands of a personal sacrifice. To convey his point, he used the example of Abraham, “The Father of Faith.” In this story, we have a man that is called upon by God to take his beloved son to be sacrificed to the Lord. Now this is an absurd proposition for anyone to pose to someone and one most would not even entertain. Nonetheless, Abraham resolved that he would obey God’s orders and sacrifice his one loved son. Kierkegaard argues that: The story of Abraham contains, then, a teleological suspension of the ethical. And the single individual he became higher than the universal. This is the paradox that, which cannot be mediated… when a person walks what is in one sense the hard road of the tragic hero, there are many who can give him advice, but he who walks the narrow road of faith had no one to advise him--- no one understands him” (Kierkegaard, pg 23). Kierkegaard argues that there is a universal ethical law that all humans have to abide by. In the case of Abraham, he breaks the ethical law of not to murder and is prepared to murder his son. He contrasts this with the tragic hero, one that makes a sacrifice but in the end it is for the greater good of the people. On the other hand, Abraham is not doing this unethical act for the good of the people but for his own selfish gains. This is an