Within the sarcastic, dry humor that Conrad displays in his masterwork, there has been a recurring theme of philosophy. The main discussion I find the most interesting is the contrasting views of injustice between the Professor and Chief Inspector Heat. The Professor is a chemist who creates bombs for anarchists while Chief Inspector Heat is the head of the Special Crime Lab at the London headquarters. Obviously, they are totally opposite people when it comes to their morals. Yet, they are extremely similar: "The mind and the instincts of a burglar are of the same kind as the mind and the instinct of a police officer." (p.57) How is this possible? Apparently, both criminals and law enforcement have the same conventions and have the same knowledge of each other's working ways.
According to Chief Inspector Heat, burglars are only doing wrong because of their imperfect education. So maybe if they grew up in a different neighborhood, they would be a "good" guy? Maybe not. On the other hand, the Professor totally throws this image off because he views himself as a "moral agent". The Professor even comes to the conclusion that the revolutionaries are actually finding peace among mankind. Most people would find this very skeptic, but not to a man who thinks life itself is the biggest weakness one may possess.
Among these tidbits include the meeting between The Red Committee and whether or not if they agree with Mr. Vladimir, the First Secretary, to start blowing up buildings as part of the revolt. This discussion involves cannibalism, optimistic, and scientific views. Another philosophy encounter was between one of The Red Committee members, Ossipon, and The Professor. Here, the argument is about the force of personality, basically meaning the advantages and disadvantages of life and death. As one can tell, The Professor is a very interesting character to have conversations with.
What I want to know is: which views does Conrad agree with the most? Did he write this book only for the purpose of sharing all of his mixing views of morality? It would be a much better way to put his philosophy within characters of a book than voicing his opinion among hostile nations. So, what was Conrad's purpose in writing so many passages of conflicting morals and ethics among peculiar individuals?
