How we cite our quotes: Citations follow this format: (Book.Chapter.Paragraph). We used Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's translation.
Quote #1
"What, then, is an elder? An elder is one who takes your soul, your will into his soul and into his will [...] A man who dooms himself to this trial, this terrible school of life, does so voluntarily, in the hope that after the long trial he will achieve self-conquest, self-mastery to such a degree that he will, finally, through a whole life's obedience, attain to perfect freedom." (1.5.3)
Zosima explains how, paradoxically, it is only through complete submission to someone else (the elder) that a monk can attain true freedom: freedom from material needs.
Quote #2
"Not only that, but then nothing would be immoral any longer, everything would be permitted, even anthropophagy." (2.6.8)
Here Miusov restates Ivan's argument that without their religious belief in immortality (or their souls), men would reject all morality and be completely free to do whatever they wished. Of course the ironic consequence of this freedom is anthropophagy, or cannibalism, an irony Ivan doesn't seem to be aware of.
Quote #3
"[...] and the unworthy one will disappear down his back lane – his dirty back lane, his beloved, his befitting back lane, and there, in filth and stench, will perish of his own free will, and revel in it." (3.4.9)
Dmitri shows here how man's free will can be perverted by his sensual needs.
Quote #4
"[The Grand Inquisitor] lays it to his and his colleagues' credit that they have finally overcome freedom, and have done so in order to make people happy. [...] Man was made a rebel; can rebels be happy? " (5.5.5)
Ivan restates the Grand Inquisitor's belief that man is made terribly unhappy by the burden of free will; thus the Grand Inquisitor seeks to set up a society with a strong authority (like himself) that tells men what to do. This type of society is based on the Grand Inquisitor's belief that men are essentially "rebels": they use their free will only to defy authority, as opposed to any greater aim. Ironically, Ivan himself is being rebellious with his own blasphemy; Alyosha calls him out as a rebel a few pages earlier (5.4.22).
Quote #5
"[...] man has no more tormenting care than to find someone to whom he can hand over as quickly as possible that gift of freedom with which the miserable creature is born [...]."(5.5.11)
According to Ivan's Grand Inquisitor, man can't stand having free will because the burden of choice – and the responsibility that comes with choice – is just too much. (For example, if you choose to steal, then you are responsible for your theft.) Man would far prefer to have someone else tell him what to do – no choice, no responsibility. (To go back to our earlier example, if somebody in a position of authority tells you to steal, then it's not your fault – you were just following orders.)
Quote #6
"There are three powers, only three powers on earth, capable of conquering and holding captive forever the conscience of these feeble rebels, for their own happiness – these powers are miracle, mystery, and authority." (5.5.11)
According to Ivan's Grand Inquisitor, the Church (here the Roman Catholic Church, not the Russian Orthodox Church) deprives men of their free will through engaging their belief in miracles; disabling their critical thinking processes through mystery; and controlling their actions through authority.
Quote #7
"[...] the enlightened world of today [...] has proclaimed freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs: only slavery and suicide! For the world says: 'You have needs, therefore satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the noblest and richest men. Do not be afraid to satisfy them, but even increase them' – this is the current teaching of the world. And in this they see freedom." (6.3.e)
Zosima attacks another notion of freedom, this time the idea of freedom inherited from the Enlightenment, which asserted that all men were born free and equal. Zosima points out that inequalities still exist in society (between the rich and the poor), and Enlightenment philosophy is no solace to the poor, who don't feel any more free than in the days of serfdom.
Quote #8
"Obedience, fasting, and prayer are laughed at, yet they alone constitute the way to real and true freedom: I cut away my superfluous and unnecessary needs, through obedience I humble and chasten my vain and proud will, and thereby, with God's help, attain freedom of spirit, and with that, spiritual rejoicing!" (6.3.e)
Zosima explains here that in giving up one's will to the rigors of monastic life, one will actually become even more free because one is free of delusions and material desires. One can finally experience true joy.
Quote #9
"[...] since God and immortality do not exist in any case, even if this period should never come, the new man is allowed to become a man-god, though it be he alone in the whole world, and of course, in this new rank, to jump lightheartedly over any former moral obstacle of the former slave-man, if need be. There is no law for God! Where God stands – there is the place of God! Where I stand, there at once will be the foremost place . . .'everything is permitted,' and that's that! It's all very nice, only if one wants to swindle, why, I wonder, should one also need the sanction of truth? But such is the modern little Russian man: without such a sanction, he doesn't even dare to swindle, so much does he love the truth . . ." (11.9.95)
At this late point, the novel completes its ironic characterization of Ivan's skepticism. The devil here parrots Ivan's views back to himself. Ivan's notion of a "new man," who sets his own morality – "everything is permitted" – is shown to be ridiculous through the contrast between the grandiose aspirations of the "new man" and the very humble and shabby appearance of the devil himself.
Quote #10
"Who could say which of them was to blame or calculate who owed what to whom, with all that muddled Karamazovism, in which no one could either define or understand himself?" The whole tragedy of the crime on trial [Rakitin] portrayed as resulting from the ingrained habits of serfdom and a Russia immersed in disorder and suffering from a lack of proper institutions. (12.2.37)
Rakitin takes the view of social determinism: we have no free will because our social condition determines how we act. Basically, society makes us do what we do, and we have no control over it. Specifically Rakitin ascribes Fyodor's murder to the fall of serfdom and the weakening of aristocratic power in Russian society. (See "Setting" for more historical details.)
Quote #11
[The Moscow doctor] spoke at length and cleverly about 'mania' and the 'fit of passion' and concluded from all the assembled data that the defendant, before his arrest, as much as several days before, was undoubtedly suffering from a morbid fit of passion, and if he did commit the crime, even consciously, it was also almost involuntarily, being totally unable to fight the morbid moral fixation that possessed him. (12.3.2)
The Moscow doctor here takes the stand of psychological determinism: our psychology makes us do what we do, and we have no control over the matter. It's a kind of insanity defense for Dmitri: he was crazy when he committed the murder so cannot be held responsible for what he did. (Of course, Dmitri didn't kill his father.)