The Difference in Thoughts on Freedom of the Grand...

Q1: The Grand Inquisitor According to The Grand Inquisitor, human beings do not want absolute freedom. The parable of Dostoevsky is told on a religious level, whereby the Inquisitor condemns Christ for offering human beings the choice between good and evil yet gives them a weak will to make such decisions. It is better to be happy and to have no choices, says the Inquisitor, since so many people will end up miserable and condemned as a result of their freedom. (Much like Adam and Eve seem inevitably destined to be cast out of the Garden of Eden by their own, freely-willed choice to eat of the Tree of Knowledge). To a contemporary American, the idea that freedom could be negative is profoundly disturbing. The value of freedom is so dear to our secular culture that it is seen as a universal good. However, it can be observed that even within a relatively free society, people often seem desperate to constrict themselves with self-made prisons. People remain in bad marriages and bad jobs, saying they have no choice, without exploring the limits of what choice means. Theoretically, one can walk away from a bad job and not look back, provided one is willing to accept the uncertainty of not knowing where the next paycheck will come from. But the anxiety of too many choices often paralyzes the individual so we prefer to say we have no choice. The idea of security, which The Grand Inquisitor says is what people really want, can cause many people to reject a happier, freer life.