Description and analysis of Raskolnikov's theory. The meaning of Raskolnikov's theory and the reasons for its collapse in the novel F
Article menu:
"Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky is a theoretically complex novel. A significant part of the work is occupied by "Raskolnikov's theory", which is by no means the fruit of writer's fiction. The author tries to display in the novel the tendencies that dominated in the field of philosophy, ideology and social theories that time.
The connection between Raskolnikov's theory and Nietzscheism
The ideas of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche were embodied not only in philosophy. These ideas formed the basis of literary movements, where the direction of Nietzscheism is also known.
So, Nietzscheism opposed, firstly, naturalism, and secondly, leading role here the doctrine of the "superman" played. However, literature is characterized by a rethinking of this philosophical idea. The superman appears as:
- personality embodying knowledge and spirit;
- supreme essence;
- a person with the right to lead others (lower people, "rabble") to civilization.
Another idea that can be traced in "Crime and Punishment", associated with Nietzscheism, refers to understanding the role of Christianity. The old, traditional idea of Christianity breaks down, collapses in the concept of Nietzsche, because the philosopher considers this religion to be resentment. Instead, the idea of "will to power" is proposed, which is also interpreted as "will to power".
Nietzsche and Dostoevsky
The problem, which is titled here as "Nietzsche and Dostoevsky", is at the center of the study of the work of Fyodor Dostoevsky in the West.
In philosophy, there is an opinion that the novel of the Russian writer acted as a "forerunner of Nietzsche." Well, the fact that the German thinker was familiar with the work of Dostoevsky and respected the writer, as well as the ideas expressed by those in the works, also became a commonplace in such studies.
At the time of writing the novel, according to literary critics, Russian youth was fond of the ideas of Nietzsche. The philosophy of the German thinker said that a person today lives in a humiliating position, but if a person is a rope that was stretched over an abyss, this is lightning that struck from a cloud, then a way out of this situation should be found.
Raskolnikov's theory and problems of society
In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky turns the lining of the state of society inside out. modern writer Russia. The pages of the novel reveal social vices: a tendency to adultery and prostitution, alcoholism, immoderation in meeting needs and other social wounds. All this, the author writes, is the result of social inequality.
Fyodor Dostoevsky notices that the fascination with the ideas of individualism, the “superman” (in other words) is an escape, escapism, allowing you to forget about problems.
The origins of Raskolnikov's theory
As the reader remembers: the central character of the novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Rodion Raskolnikov, lives in terrible conditions of poverty and extreme need. The apartment that the hero rents is more like a closet than housing. Raskolnikov is forced to quit his studies: the reason is the same - lack of money.
The miserable living conditions push Raskolnikov into a passion for the ideas of individualism. Educated and erudite, Rodion is left alone with his thoughts in the closet where he lives. Here, in the head of the young man, an insidious plan is ripening: a crime designed to free the world from the embodiment of evil - the old woman, with whom the hero lived at the boarding house.
Earlier, Rodion wrote an article in the newspaper, symbolically entitled - "On the crime." This and the conversation, which the young man manages to overhear by chance, become the impetus for the realization of the idea that was ripening in the thoughts of the protagonist.
Superman and Crime
Raskolnikov's theory contains the idea that a strong personality, in Nietzsche's concept - a superman, has the right to commit a crime. In other words, the superman lives according to other laws, and what would be a crime for the rest, is law for a strong personality.
Rodion believed that, at birth, people are already divided into two "camps": in the first group there are unusual, unique personalities who are destined for a specific fate, and in the second - led people. The first group of people is endowed with a gift, a talent to change the existing state of things, to bring a new stream into the development of society.
Great commanders, writers, artists, scientists - people who change the course of history, promote social progress, are those who lead others. The end justifies the means - this is the motto of these individuals. The reader versed in philosophy will notice that Raskolnikov's theory contradicts enlightenment ideas Immanuel Kant.
Kant is also a German philosopher. In Kant's concept, the end cannot justify the means: the categorical imperative and the highest moral law prevail over everything. If Raskolnikov is sure that in any war there are human casualties, and a person sometimes acts as a means, then Kant said: a person should always be perceived only as an end, but never as a means.
Raskolnikov and the theory of the hero "Crime and Punishment" reject the existence of a moral, moral law for the superman, for a strong, higher personality. This category is called in the novel "the rightful," while another group of people are called "trembling creatures."
The embodiment of Raskolnikov's theory
The writer characterizes Raskolnikov as a proud, conceited person. Of course, Rodion could not attribute himself to the group of followers: main character considered himself to be the leader.
The time for paying the rent is approaching, and Raskolnikov falls into despair, because the student has no money in his pockets. It seems that there is no more suitable moment to implement ideas and test your own theory - on your own life -. Then Raskolnikov commits a terrible crime: Rodion kills an old pawnbroker.
In the student's theory, this murder is intended to bring benefit to mankind, because the old woman was conceived by Raskolnikov as a miserable and low creature, poisoning life. For a superman to stain his hands with blood is a common thing if it serves a higher purpose.
Punishment
In the theory built by Raskolnikov, legal punishment, the court is not perceived as punishment for an offense. Of course, Rodion does not want to be arrested and tried. But having escaped the punishment of the letter of the Law, the hero could not escape the punishment of conscience.
Conscience is a judge and an executioner in one person, conscience is worse than hard labor, because you can’t hide from it, you can’t escape.
Rodion feels himself in a vacuum, in isolation. The hero does not communicate with his family: being alone, Raskolnikov understands that his current destiny is a spiritual split corresponding to the surname. Rodion committed a crime against Christian values, against humanity in general. The murder equalizes the hero with other criminals (Svidrigailov or Luzhin). Repenting and realizing the depth of the spiritual split, Rodion says that he did not kill the old woman, but himself.
Murder seems to nullify positive traits Raskolnikov. Rodion from a nihilist becomes a repentant criminal who turns to God. This is the main proof of the incorrectness of the protagonist's beliefs, the incorrectness of Raskolnikov's theory.
Lessons learned from reading Crime and Punishment
Causes and consequences of misconduct
Readers' opinions are divided when it comes to the reasons that pushed Raskolnikov to commit a crime: the first version says that the source of the offense is poverty, the second is the theory of the protagonist.
You didn't come here in vain! We invite you to get acquainted with Fyodor Dostoevsky
Raskolnikov has his own classification of people: the hero divides the representatives of the human race into "lower people" and "proper people." The hero, of course, refers to himself as “the people themselves,” that is, those who lead and set the tone, “have the right.”
However, Raskolnikov does not answer all questions regarding his theory. For example, Porfiry Petrovich, an investigator, asks the main character if there are criteria to distinguish "proper people" from "lower people", but Rodion does not give an answer to this question.
Sonya Marmeladova
The role of Sonechka Marmeladova is great: the heroine must lead Raskolnikov to spiritual integrity. Sonya stays with Rodion even in the most difficult moments: the girl goes with him into exile, to hard labor, helps to return to the bosom of Christianity, accepting repentance for her misconduct.
Sophia teaches the hero that the soul can be relieved if one admits guilt. It is noteworthy that it is Sonya Raskolnikov who opens his heart and talks about the murder committed. Sonya becomes a kind of salvation for the hero.
In his social, psychological and philosophical novel Crime and Punishment, written in 1866, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky reproduced the life of Russia in the 60s of the 19th century, when the country was undergoing powerful social shifts and changes.
Dostoevsky sharply criticizes bourgeois civilization, which gives rise not only to visible evil, but also to the worst, inhuman that lurks in the depths. human consciousness.
The main character of the novel is Rodion Raskolnikov, former student who lives in deep poverty with no hope of any improvement in his situation. But, despite the fact that Raskolnikov is just a “little man”, he is a bright personality. He is smart, endowed with outstanding abilities, prone to introspection, loves his neighbors.
But poverty, from which a person is no longer able to rise, a room that looks like a coffin, constant cries and groans of people - all this led to the birth of Raskolnikov's theory.
He understood: in order to change his life, the fate of his mother and sister, it is necessary to change the entire existing order of things. A feeling of protest is born in him, and he rises against the whole world alone, according to his own program, developed by himself.
Analyzing the reasons for the unfair order of things existing in the world, Raskolnikov comes to the conclusion that there are two categories of people in the world: “material” suitable only for the reproduction of their own kind, and geniuses such as Mohammed and Napoleon, who have the right to sacrifice their lives for their own interests. other people, without stopping, if necessary, before crimes.
In order to rid the world of injustice and prove to himself that he is not a “trembling creature,” Raskolnikov goes to kill an old pawnbroker. He is obsessed with the idea of the common good. Wanting to make the world a better place, he becomes a murderer and is punished for his crime. Life teaches him a lesson in the moral anguish that he experiences after committing a murder. Dostoevsky explores the consciousness and subconsciousness of the hero. The subconscious tells the hero that he did not kill the old woman, but himself, his soul. To do this, the writer introduces the dreams and visions of the hero into the text of the novel.
The evil done did no good to anyone. After committing a crime, the hero is constantly subject to physical illness: he often falls into unconsciousness, he is in a fever. He is weak, sometimes he cannot even get out of bed. He himself is already aware that in vain he assured himself of the highest expediency and justification of his “experiment”. At this moment, he decides to reveal his secret to Sonechka Marmeladova, who is also a criminal who has violated the moral law and ruined her soul. It was Sonya, her sacrifice, mercy, humility, resignation to fate that played a leading role in debunking Raskolnikov's theory. He realizes that his experiment did not lead to anything: he did not realize himself as a superman.
The test he took proved that Napoleon and the Messiah in one person are incompatible, that the tyrant and the benefactor of the human race are incompatible in one person. His attempt to bring the world to justice and prove to himself his high purpose in the world of people fails. At the same time, Raskolnikov's theory also collapses. Realizing the incorrectness of his judgments, he confesses to the murder and receives a just punishment, which will be for him liberation from moral torment.
Rodion Raskolnikov, realizing the disastrous nature of his theory, its anti-human, anti-human essence, is reborn to a new life - "however," says Dostoevsky, "this is a completely different story."
Thus, the writer in his novel carries the idea that a crime, no matter how noble the goal it pursues, is unacceptable in human society that a theory aimed at destroying even one person has no right to exist.
The theory of "superman" In the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"
The works of the outstanding Russian writer F. M. Dostoevsky are characterized by philosophical and psychological considerations, attention to the most complex and controversial issues of their era. In the novel \"Crime and Punishment \" the moral question of a person's responsibility for a crime is sharply raised - and not only before the law, but, first of all, before himself, before his conscience. central character novel \"Crime and Punishment\" is Rodion Raskolnikov, the bearer of the theory of\"superman \", which is capable of anything, to which everything is allowed.
Raskolnikov divides all people into two types: into "material" and into "unusual" people who are able to say a new word in history. He notes that "unusual" people are very few, and they have the right to power over others. Unusual people, according to Rodion, can even break the law, such as Napoleon, Mohammed, Lycurgus. Such people will not stop at a small crime, nor at the shedding of blood to realize their intentions. The hero is convinced that "supermen" have the right to commit a crime, to deny any laws.
Raskolnikov's theory of "higher" and "lower" is generated by social injustice, hopelessness, and spiritual wanderings. The suffering of his relatives, poverty, the plight of his sister and mother push the hero to commit a crime. But he does not consider himself a criminal. Rodion heard a conversation in which similar thoughts were expressed, therefore, they can be safely implemented.
The hero of Dostoevsky is so sure of the validity of his theory that he decides to check what type of people he himself belongs to. To do this, he decides to kill the old pawnbroker, from whom, in his opinion, people see evil. And her money will help his family. It seems that Rodion Raskolnikov is guided by noble motives, but the investigator Porfiry Petrovich, who is handling Rodion's case in court, immediately notes: "... this suppressed, proud enthusiasm among young people is dangerous! \".
Why is Raskolnikov's theory dangerous? Rodion is a kind, honest, sensitive nature, able to perceive someone else's pain and is ready to help. But the pernicious theory brings him closer to such thieves as Luzhin and Svidrigailov, in whose heart there is not a drop of humanity. Of course, they are close not by characters, not by way of life, but by thoughts, theories, ideas.
Luzhin is a medium-sized businessman who suddenly became rich \" small man\", who really wants to become a \"big\" person, turn from a slave into a master of life. His theories justify the exploitation of people for their own gain.
Svidrigailov is deprived of conscience and honor, the depths of moral decline are revealed in him, he embarked on the path of crime through spiritual emptiness. The most terrible thing is that Svidrigailov is a vivid embodiment of what awaits Rodion Raskolnikov himself after committing a crime. Raskolnikov Svidrigailov both frightens and attracts at the same time - after all, he was able to cross the law and live on, enjoy this life. Rodion is interested in how a recidivist can continue to live in peace. Or maybe this is confirmation of his theory. Raskolnikov, alas, did not understand the main thing: Svidrigailov was an empty man, deprived moral values and compassion for others. Spiritual world Raskolnikov is completely different.
Luzhin's reasoning and his means to achieve the goal are evidence of his baseness. And Svidrigailov scares off Rodion by the fact that he has no prohibitions. Just like Luzhin, Dostoevsky's hero considers himself a "superman"; just like Svidrigailov, he is ready to commit a crime.
Dostoevsky shows that any crime leads to the next crime. This happened to Rodion Raskolnikov: he was forced to kill Lizaveta, an accidental witness to the first crime. This accidental murder only emphasizes the essence of the deed.
If the hero were quite similar to his counterparts - Luzhin and Svidrigailov - his conscience would not torment him. This did not happen, Raskolnikov is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. He is no longer the same as he was before the crime. Along with the old one, he killed his own soul. “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself,” he says to Sonya Marmeladova, realizing that there is nowhere to escape from these torments. Opinions about the perfect murder will haunt him all his life, tearing up his spiritual wound.
The tragic experiment of the hero did not lead to the consequences that he expected. Rodion feels that he himself, as if with scissors, cut himself off from other people, from his loved ones. According to his theory, both Sonya and his mother, and Dunya, and Katerina Ivanovna belong to the category of "ordinary" people. So, there may be the same Raskolnikov, whose hand will rise against them.
When you can help yourself
Why cry out in prayer to heaven?
We have been given a choice. Those are right who dare;
Whoever is weak in spirit will not reach the goal ...
W. Shakespeare
In the novel Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky tells the story of a murder committed to test the theory that has developed in the head of a poor student. Rodion Raskolnikov is offended by the unjust structure of the world around him, where millions of the weak and defenseless die (like the Marmeladov family), and thousands of shameless scoundrels succeed (like Svidrigailov and Luzhin). How to correct social injustice? Raskolnikov, sitting in the attic in his coffin-like room, hungry, embittered, ponders this "eternal" question. He will state his decision in the article "On the Crime". Education at the Faculty of Law of the University was not in vain for him. A number of historical figures line up in his head, who became famous for giving their peoples new laws, canceling (“crossing over”) the previous ones: Lycurgus (legislator of Sparta), Solon (legislator of Athens), Magomed (Islamic countries still live according to Sharia law ), Napoleon (according to the Napoleonic Code, France lives for almost two hundred years). These "criminals" did good to their peoples, left behind a grateful memory for centuries. Now it’s clear that Raskolnikov, according to his theory, divided all people into two groups: the majority are “trembling creatures” who can only obey and fulfill laws-orders, and units are “having the right”, these create laws and have the power to command " all the ants."
The poor student, himself humiliated by poverty, believes that a worthy task for the superman is nothing less than "the good of mankind." For "universal happiness", the superman must eliminate social evil, the symbol of which for Raskolnikov so far has become the nasty, evil, useless old woman pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna. Is it permissible to destroy the “unnecessary” minority for the sake of the happiness of the majority? Raskolnikov answers this question with his theory as follows: it is permissible and should, because this is “simple arithmetic” (1, VI). Dostoevsky, on the other hand, proves in the novel that arithmetic calculations in relation to people are unacceptable. The writer shows how the speculative theory of the protagonist is consistently refuted by life itself.
Firstly, Raskolnikov's theory cannot be put into practice, as it combines incompatible ends and means. As Svidrigailov sarcastically remarks, “there was a mistake in the theory” (5, V). The superman, according to the protagonist, must intervene in the fate of mankind in such a way that, albeit by cruel, bloody, immoral means, he will achieve the reign of morality and justice in the world. Behind the idea of the "common good" in Raskolnikov's theory comes through the "idea of Napoleon" - one chosen one, standing above humanity and prescribing his own laws to everyone. However, Raskolnikov fails to truly rise above people, because he has a wonderful quality in his soul - philanthropy. Raskolnikov, despite his contempt for the "anthill", cannot indifferently pass by the drunken girl on Konnogvardeisky Boulevard, although he later scolds himself: "Isn't it monstrous that just now I got involved in a story with a girl ..." (1, IV). The collapse of Raskolnikov's theory began when Sonya, in response to his confession to the murder, began to cry: her tears outweighed the entire "logic of the idea" in the hero's soul (5, IV).
Secondly, the humiliated and offended, for the sake of which the main character decided to become a superman and do good to the world, reject his good deed. Raskolnikov, in addition to the old pawnbroker, unexpectedly kills the meek and unresponsive Lizaveta, so that “simple arithmetic” does not work. When the killer explains to Sonya the motives for his crime (“I didn’t kill a man, but a louse!”), she does not understand them and exclaims: “This man is a louse!” (5, IV). Sonya does not accept Raskolnikov's rebellion, she does not want deliverance at any cost, and therefore she is a person. According to Dostoevsky, she embodies the folk principle in the novel: patience, humility, boundless love for man and God. Only the people (in the form of Sonya) can condemn Raskolnikov's "Napoleonic" rebellion, force him to submit to the moral court of conscience and go to hard labor - "accept suffering" (5, IV).
Thirdly, Dostoevsky confronts his hero with people who share his opinion about the superpersonality and the crowd. The first "theorist" is Dunya's alleged fiancé, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, who argues: "Science says: love yourself first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest" (2, V). From Luzhin's point of view, in order for the state to have more happy people need to raise the level of prosperity. Since the basis of economic progress is personal gain, then everyone should take care of it and enrich themselves, without worrying too much about love for one's neighbor and other romantic nonsense. Luzhin's call for personal gain is a logical continuation of Raskolnikov's idea - "everything is allowed to the strong." The protagonist understands this and formulates to the neat and self-satisfied Pyotr Petrovich the essence of his “economic” theory: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it turns out that people can be cut ...” (2, V).
The second hero who allows "blood in conscience" is Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov. He, however, is no longer a theoretician, but a practitioner. This gentleman has already freed himself from "principles" and "ideals", for him life no longer makes sense: life is boring and uninteresting. Out of boredom, he does both good (he provides for the children of Katerina Ivanovna) and evil (kills his wife, who interferes with his romance with Dunya), - good and evil are already indistinguishable for him. Both - Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov - resolve the crime, therefore they are "of the same field," as Arkady Ivanovich rightly notes. But Svidrigailov got used to the murders, and the main character still clings to “justice”, to “high and beautiful”, to “Schiller” (6, III), although he already justifies the crime if it benefits (!) Humanity. So, Raskolnikov meets a man who does not think about, does not try on the idea of \u200b\u200b"blood according to conscience", but lives by it. Both the life and the thoughts of this “stepped over” superman are terrible. Suffice it to recall his conversations with his murdered wife or his idea of eternity (the afterlife) as a smoky bathhouse with spiders in the corners.
Fourthly, "human nature" rebels against Raskolnikov's theory. Why is the person of every person sacred? It is impossible to prove this truth logically—such is the moral law, the law of human conscience. Immediately after the murder, the protagonist does not feel remorse, but very quickly begins to feel as if "cut off" (2.11) from people. Cold alienation reigns in his soul even in relation to close relatives: with his beloved mother, he feels awkward, constrained. His own conscience, according to Dostoevsky, takes revenge on him for violating the moral law.
Razumikhin defends “human nature” (3, V) most consistently: he fundamentally rejects any theories of violence against people, since life is always much more complicated than it seems to theorists. “Reality and nature are an important thing, and oh, how sometimes the most far-sighted calculation is undercut!” (4,V) — Porfiry Petrovich echoes Razumikhin. The investigator turns out to be right: the former student, under the influence of Sonya, denounces himself, accepts punishment-suffering for a crime that, in his own opinion, he did not commit. After all, while no one has proved to him the fallacy of his theory, insight for him will come only in hard labor. So conscience (moral law) protests against the shedding of blood and wins in Raskolnikov the mind that justifies blood.
Summing up, it should be noted that Dostoevsky built his work in such a way as to prove the doom of Raskolnikov's rebellion against the world, even such an unsettled, unfair one as it is shown in the novel. According to Dostoevsky, the reorganization of the world according to "logic" and "reason" (in theory) is impossible, because in no society can evil be avoided until the person himself changes. Submission to an idea (theory), no matter how logical and humane it is from the beginning, leads to murder and loneliness, which happened to Raskolnikov.
For Dostoevsky it is obvious that the division of people into "trembling creatures" and "those who have the right" is erroneous. In the novel, the characters related, according to Raskolnikov's theory, to "creatures" (Sonya, Dunya, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, Marmeladov, Katerina Ivanovna, Razumikhin) are not primitive, but complex and deep personalities. And the heroes who, according to Raskolnikov's theory, have the "right to blood" are not at all "titans-benefactors of mankind", but petty scoundrels (Luzhin) or insane egoists (Svidrigailov).
From the point of view of the writer, the ideal person is not the legislator, who has "crossed" the old laws, but Sonya Marmeladova, capable of sacrificial love, able to understand and respond to someone else's pain. Unlike Raskolnikov with his inhuman theory, Sonya is convinced that all people have the same right to life; unlike Luzhin, she believes that personal happiness cannot be the only goal of existence, a person comprehends true happiness through suffering-love. These beliefs are confirmed by the author's remark in the epilogue: "Love resurrected them..."
Condemning rebellion in principle, since it leads to the murder of people, Dostoevsky, however, shows in the novel the inevitability of rebellion, which inevitably follows from the unjust structure of society. Nevertheless, the writer affirms the significance of any person, and, consequently, the equivalence of all people, despite their real social and material inequality. This shows the high humanism of Dostoevsky.
I have long dwelled on the question of the relativity in life of the concepts of good and evil. In the midst of humanity, Raskolnikov separated a small group of people who, as it were, stood above questions of good and evil, above ethical assessments of actions and deeds, people who, due to their genius, their high usefulness for humanity, nothing can serve as an obstacle to whom everything is allowed. The rest, who do not leave the circle of mediocrity, the mass, the crowd, must obey the existing general norms and laws and serve as a means of high goals for the chosen people. Moral rules do not exist for the latter, they can break them, because their ends justify their means.
Raskolnikov's theory
“In my opinion,” says Raskolnikov, “if the Keplerian and Newtonian discoveries, due to any combinations, could in no way become famous people otherwise, as with the donation of the life of one, ten, a hundred, and so on, people who would interfere with this discovery, or would stand in the way, as an obstacle, then Newton would have had the right and. he would even be obliged to eliminate these ten or even a hundred people in order to make his discoveries known to all mankind. All the legislators and founders of mankind, starting with the most ancient, continuing with the Lycurgs, Solons, Mahomets, Napoleons and so on, every single one were criminals, already the one that, giving new law, thereby violated the ancient one, sacredly revered by society and passed from the fathers, and, of course, they did not stop at blood, if only blood (sometimes completely innocent and valiantly shed for the ancient law) could help them. It is even remarkable that most of these benefactors and establishers of mankind were especially terrible bloodsheders.
This is how Raskolnikov substantiates the right of an exceptional person to commit crimes in the name of not animals and selfish, but general and lofty goals. Raskolnikov understands that such a course of action must also correspond to the special mental structure of the personality of a person who is ready to “transgress” morality. For this he must be the owner of a strong will, iron endurance, and in him over feelings of fear, despair, timidity, only the consciousness of the set intellectual goals should rule. Having fallen into despair and longing, Raskolnikov needs to prove to himself that he is not a “trembling creature”, that he dares, maybe that he is destined to go through all his plans. “Power is given only to those who dare to bend down and take it. There is only one thing: you just have to dare.”
Thus, the planned murder attracts Raskolnikov not with the possibility of enrichment, but as a victory over himself, as a confirmation of his strength, as proof that he is not “material” for construction, but the builder himself. It is characteristic of Raskolnikov that, when contemplating a murder, he goes entirely into the theorizing, into philosophical reflections, and he is much more interested in logical conclusions than in the results of an act. He remains a theoretician, a thinker even when he fulfills all his plans. And, despite the fact that, as it seemed, he foresaw and foresaw everything in advance in thought, he could not foresee the most important thing precisely because he was a man of thought, not action.
Refutation of Raskolnikov's theory
Raskolnikov did not foresee precisely the fact that between a theoretical solution and practical implementation there often lies an abyss, that what seems so easy in theory and even fills with complacency and pride in reality reveals an unexpected, formidable and ominous meaning. He foresaw a lot in the planned plan and imagined almost all of its external consequences, but he could not foresee the inner state of health both at the moment of shedding blood, hitting the old woman’s skull with an ax, and in the days and nights that followed. Raskolnikov, as a theoretician and as an individualist, reckoned only with himself, with his own intellectual goals, while he was preparing to go and commit violence, take the life of another.
At its core, the fallacy of Raskolnikov’s theory boils down to the fact that he attributed to moral laws in general and in particular the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” a purely external meaning, which should be externally obligatory for some and from the recognition of which some can be exempted. That is why, while preparing for the murder, he thinks all the time mentally only of his logical positions, but does not consciously dwell on the essence of the very moment of the murder. And only vaguely something in him protests against the decision, and he feels anguish and disgust at the thought of the need to commit murder.
And after committing a crime, when he tries in vain to sort out his feelings, he believes that the whole point is simply that he did not have the strength to “transgress” the norm, to dare. “I only killed a louse, Sonya,” he says to Sonya Marmeladova, “useless, nasty, malicious” ... - “Is this a louse?” - exclaims Sonya, and by this emphasizes her special, deeply religious attitude to human life. For Sonya Marmeladova, moral laws, the commandments of life are deeply embedded in the foundation of the human soul, and no one, no matter how high a person reaches, can transgress these commandments and laws without mutilating his life, without committing terrible violence over his own soul. That's why she exclaims, sobbing: "What are you, what are you above oneself done! There is no one more unhappy than you now in the whole world.
As for Raskolnikov himself, he remains until the end of the novel, until the final lines of the epilogue, not understanding Sonya's religious attitude to life. But the author shows how Raskolnikov's immediate life reveals his violation of the basic laws of human life. Raskolnikov's theory, which allows murder for the few, the author opposes to the spontaneous logic of life, not rational, like Raskolnikov's, but irrational, completely subjugating the young theorist and smashing to smithereens all his positions, which seemed to him so firmly established and inviolable.
The state of complete mental disorder that Raskolnikov fell into after the murder, the complete loss of all his life affirmations, a painful and terrible state showed how powerless personal human logic is when it runs counter to the general life foundations.