Alfred Romero
4/7/2023
Professor Frank
LIL 420
Remote Learning
This journal entry is an addition to journal #8, where I use rhetorical analysis to unpack one of my sources. This source was “The Grand Inquisitor” by Fyodor Dostoevsky and I explain a character, Ivan’s, argument for the suffering of the innocent. In his conversation, he made many great points, all of which I agree with. But this journal won’t focus on my forwarding of these ideas, rather more of the limiting factors behind the source. In summary, a certain portion of the story consists of Ivan having a conversation with Alyosha, and in this conversation he concludes that any argument for the support of the suffering of the innocent, such as the suffering leading to a greater good, isn’t worth the actual suffrage itself. He claims that this suffering is not justified, nor can it ever be, especially suffering involving children. Furthermore, he concludes that a just God would never allow this to happen in the first place, assuming that God exists. If that God does exist, then they wouldn’t be worthy of our praise due to the tragedy they let on. During this argument, it’s important to note that Ivan is aware of his lack of knowledge. He knows he’s only human and that he doesn’t know the true meaning behind why tragedy happens, but this is just his opinion on the matters. A great argument, but a limiting factor I immediately think of is how it doesn’t directly answer Job’s question in the “Book of Job”. Two major questions are at the center of my project. Why do the innocent suffer? Would a just God allow for the suffering of the innocent? I suppose Ivan answers the second question, but not really the first. The idea of suffering not being worth some end goal utopia and the idea of God not being a worthy figure still doesn’t truly answer why the innocent suffer. It provides some sort of alternate approach as to thinking about the concept in a bigger picture lens, but the primary limit to this source is that it doesn’t directly answer that question.
