2.5 "So Be It, So Be It!"
Paradise on Earth —the question lingers in the air. The chapter centers around sociopolitical discussion that the average reader at the time was most likely familiar with: ecclesiastical courts. On one hand was the modernization of State power and justice, and on the other was the deeply rooted hold the Church had on the country. Ivan's article was applauded by both the clergy and atheists because he is fundamentally saying the Church and the State can't coexist as separate powers. The Church having a small place in the State becomes State, the paradise has no choice but to become Earth. Ivan suggests the State becoming Church is the only way to achieve the Christian mission —the Earth is brought closer to paradise.
However, Ivan presents himself as an atheist in society. No wonder people started to see the article as mockery after the initial reception. What seems like an endorsement of the Kingdom of God might as well be a disguised impossibility of the realization of the ideal of justice. Miusov slyly brings up Christian socialists upon seeing Paissy's enthusiastic faith in the divine mission, as if implying that he's no different than socialists who are often accussed of "daring to create paradise on Earth".
Zosima engages with the topic at hand sincerely and respectfully. His belief in the possibility of justice based on repentance and redemption is surprising and probably absurd to many modern and non religious readers, however, reading it as a standalone speech is a mistake. Zosima's affirmation of the idea seems like agreement while being quite different from Ivan's. The perspective Ivan chooses to present is one of negation (a Church that can't become the Kingdom of God is no Church, creating a little paradox!) whereas Zosima's is one of affirmation because he believes the deeply rooted Christian conscience of the people would be a foundation of the ecclesiastical courts and this Kingdom of God, and not the other way around, following God as a historical destiny. Ivan's premise has been read beyond the shape of its words not through exam but through dialogue. Most sense that ideal justice does not belong to our world, but hearing it is another matter, or rather: what does it mean to affirm or negate the ideal of justice? The idea doesn't just mean what it merely is. It's woven by whoever pronounces it and the world of discourse it's thrown into. This chapter delves into an extremely specific matter, but through it, the ideas have entered the text and are here to stay.
--------
Links:
@keepingupwiththekaramazovs
