Classics and the Western Canon discussion

To me the discussion between Alloysha and Dimitri which includes the famous or to some infamous poem titled the grand Inquisitor is the high point of the book. I have wrestled with many interpretations but I have a feeling that to do do well requires a deep understanding of the social, historical, political, and cultural context in which Dostovesky wrote the book in. I confess, in this area I am relatively ignorant which I suspect may obscure the purpose Dostovesky had. Any body feel the same way? I have much more to say but I have physical chemistry in 15 so, more for later

The two Ivan discourses in the fifth part of Karamazov are among the greatest chapters ever written IMHO. I think that they can be interpreted on several levels and reflect the complexity of Dostoyevsky's state of mind at the time. Joseph Frank's magnificent biography of Dosto spends nearly an entire chapter on this very point. As an atheist, I personally was comforted in my view that a benevolent god would not allow children to die ("Rebellion") and that organized religion has corrupted many of the ideas at the origin of Christianity ("The Grand Inquisitor"), but for Dosto, he was actually justifying his faith in the Orthodox Church by this exegesis. I don't think there is any one interpretation because like all great works of art, it is the observer that needs to find his place in relationship to the questions that Ivan poses.
My 2¢ in any case :-)

Dosto was an ardent orthodox Christian. As I wrote in my comment before yours, Joseph Frank's biography explains that that Ivan is a sort of anti-Dosto and (spoiler alert!) his unhappy end was meant to demonstrate Dosto's feel that nihilism was a dead end. As any piece of great art, the reader is free to take away a difference conclusion or interpretation then the author intended and that fact that many (myself included) have drawn different conclusions is proof of how incredibly universal Karamazov is and particularly the chapters "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor".

I've never tried to figure out or understand Dostoyevsky's point of view, and it has been a long time since I've read this, but I thought Ivan was speaking ironically in the sense that the church had become so corrupt that when faced with a visit from the "savior" would not in any way respond appropriately. I'm glad Michael brought "Rebellion" into the conversation it is my favorite chapter in the book: as it epitomizes for me at least the true power of Dostoyevsky's skills as a writer. The scene I chose to call "The Passion of the Horse" has lived with me and haunted and terrorized me for over 30 years. I hate it, and I hate the author for sneaking it into his book. Cruelty to defenseless animals, or maybe better just the senselessness of all human cruelty is so hard to process. But it is he writing, the description and the drama, the monstrousness of the actions describe that made me cry when I first read it. It hurt, and it hurt me deeply, but the truth of the greatness of the author is that I dared to go back and read it a second knowing before hand the suffering my soul would be subjected to: the power of great Art.