Instead of making Christ all God, Dostoevsky emphasizes both His perfection and His humanness. The only explicit action that Christ takes during his time with the Inquisitor is at the end of the Inquisitor's very long diatribe against him. “He saw the Prisoner had listened intently all the time, looking gently in his face and evidently not wishing to reply. The old man longed for Him to say something, however bitter and terrible. But He suddenly approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips. That was all His answer” . There is no walking on water, no raising the dead, no thunderbolts and lightning. Christ's action itself is very human, but the ability to remain compassionate after such verbal abuse is truly divine. Dostoevsky's ability to impart humanity to characters which are meant to be the very embodiment of good and evil is part of the great power of the work.
	Another aspect of Kant's philosophy of treating humanity as an ends is a willingness to discuss and examine the issues that are important to humanity. I believe that this principle is closely tied to Keats's “negative capability”. In order to create great literature an author must be willing to respect the doubt and confusion and lack of clear answers that is an integral part of what it means to be human. Again, Dostoevsky proves to be a master. This short passage deals, and deals deeply, with faith and doubt, justice and mercy, love and expectations, forgiveness, compassion, and belief and action. The conversation between Alyosha and Ivan toward the end of the passage is so powerful because it is so human. All of us have been Ivan - doubting, tired of searching for elusive Truth, and we have all been Alyosha, having our faith confronted with the harsher realities of the world. The attitudes and emotions they have when dealing with these big issues are complex and confusing and utterly human. Dostoevsky gives no pat answers, but this is why we are able to understand and identify with his characters. By recognizing that it is the humanity that is so much of the genius, and by reading through the lens of Kant, we better appreciate the respect that Dostoevsky has for his characters, and by extension, for us as readers. In addition, we are able to recognize a new beauty in the work, by seeing how the very humanity of his characters connect us to the ethereal and eternal concepts of good and evil.
	Alternatively, I believe that Kant's philosophy can also be used to show why some bad literature is bad. With an advance apology to those who may enjoy the works that I criticize, I will begin with Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Her characters are painfully manipulative. Manipulative to each other, but even more dastardly, manipulative toward the reader. Ironically, Rand uses Kant's very terms in her preface, claiming, “This is the motive and purpose of my writing: the projection of an ideal man. 