That simple arithmetic of Raskolnikov's theory. Raskolnikov’s theory is the theory of crime “according to conscience,” “blood according to conscience.” VI. Homework

The hero of the novel is endowed with a tragic worldview. It is characterized by duality of consciousness, disagreement, a split with oneself (hence the surname Raskolnikov), internal confrontation, a clash in the soul of good and evil, love and hate. He is a proud, thoughtful, undoubtedly talented person. He deeply experiences the injustice, pain and suffering of other people - but he himself turns out to be a criminal.

Raskolnikov’s crime is a consequence of his idea, theory, but this idea itself arose in his confused consciousness under the influence of external life circumstances. At any cost, he needs to find a way out of the impasse in which he has found himself, he needs to take some active action. The question is “What should I do?”

Raskolnikov witnesses Marmeladov's confession, stunning in its sincerity, hopelessness and despair, his story about tragic fate unrequited Sonya, who, for the sake of saving her loved ones, is forced to go out into the street to sell herself, about the torment of small children growing up in a dirty corner next to a drunken father and a dying, always irritated mother, Katerina Ivanovna. From a letter to his mother, Raskolnikov learns about how his sister, Du-nya, who was a governess there, was disgraced in Svidrigailov’s house, how she, wanting to help her brother, agrees to become the wife of the businessman Luzhin, i.e., she is ready, in essence, sell yourself, which reminds the hero of Sonya’s fate: “Sonya, Sonechka Marmeladova, eternal Sonechka while the world stands! Have you fully measured the sacrifice to yourself? Is it so? Is it possible? Is it beneficial? Is it reasonable?

Appeal to reason in in this case especially significant. It is reason that leads Raskolnikov to his monstrous theory and, as a consequence, to crime.

Investigator Porfiry Petrovich tells Raskolnikov: “...you value the human mind more highly, following the example of all young people. The playful sharpness of the mind and abstract arguments of reason tempt you, sir...” Porfiry Petrovich is very smart. He found the main link in Raskolnikov’s thoughts and behavior, which predetermined his crime - abstract arguments of reason, logical constructions.

In a conversation he accidentally overheard, Raskolnikov was struck by the words: “In one life—thousands of lives saved from rot and decay. One death and a hundred lives in return - but this is arithmetic!” But even before this episode, Raskolnikov, mentally preparing for murder, convinces himself that in all his calculations everything is “clear as day, fair as arithmetic.” Arithmetic becomes a symbol of dry calculation, built on the arguments of pure reason and logic. Dostoevsky is convinced that an arithmetic approach to the phenomena of life can lead to the most tragic consequences, for example, to an axe. This is not a random image in the novel. Why is this how Raskolnikov carries out his terrible crime? The ax became a kind of symbol of the violent transformation of reality. If you remember, someone sent a letter to Herzen’s “Bell” with a call: “Call Rus' to the axe!” Raskolnikov picks up an ax...

However, Raskolnikov’s thoughts and actions cannot be reduced to just arithmetic and logic. On the contrary, he often acts in a pointedly illogical manner, even contrary to his own well-being and safety. There is often no mathematical calculation in his actions. Raskolnikov every now and then deliberately puts himself on the edge of the abyss, finding some kind of painful pleasure in this: “So he tormented himself and teased himself with these questions even with some kind of pleasure.”

Let us recall one of the most famous scenes of the novel, when, after the crime, Raskolnikov again went up to the fourth floor to the apartment where the old woman he had killed lived, “grabbed the bell and pulled... He shuddered with each blow, and it became more and more pleasant for him it was becoming." You will say that there is something abnormal about this, and you will be right. But this is Dostoevsky and this is Dostoevsky’s hero, who needs to execute himself, but who also finds some incomprehensible pleasure in this self-execution. Weren't you struck by Raskolnikov's extremely strange behavior in the tavern when he accidentally met the police official Zametov there?

“What if it was I who killed the old woman and Lizaveta? “he said suddenly and came to his senses.” (Pay attention to the word “suddenly,” which is characteristic of Dostoevsky’s narrative style.) Material from the site

Raskolnikov’s thought develops very complexly, very contradictorily. It’s hard to follow her, to look for some kind of logic in her, especially since he thinks and acts in highest degree unpredictable (primarily for yourself). But here’s what’s significant: the first movement of his heart is generous and humane, but as soon as he begins to theorize, his kindness and selflessness immediately disappear. At the beginning of the novel, it is told how Raskolnikov did everything possible to save a disgraced girl whom he accidentally met on the boulevard. So what? A moment later he is shouting to the policeman: “Leave me alone! What do you want? Give it up! Let him have fun (he pointed to the dandy). What do you care?

Having received a letter from his mother and learned about his sister’s proposed wedding, Raskolnikov decides: “This marriage will not happen while I’m alive, and to hell with Mr. Luzhin!” But on a meeting with Dunya, his mood unexpectedly changes. “It’s strange,” he said slowly, as if suddenly struck by a new thought, “why am I making such a fuss? What's all the screaming about? Yes, marry whoever you want!”

It is impossible to reduce the meaning of Dostoevsky’s most complex philosophical novel to the preaching of only one specific idea.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

There is extensive information about Raskolnikov’s idea. scientific literature, much of it is noticed correctly, but this, as a rule, is only a partial assimilation of the hero’s thoughts or the judgment of others about him. And indeed, it is difficult to understand Raskolnikov’s complex and contradictory idea as a whole; it is difficult to untangle the knot of contradictions in which his idea was pulled together before the crime; it is easy to break those logical and illogical connections that create the disharmonious whole of Raskolnikov’s idea. There is no need to make a strict and logical system out of it, but there is such a need to figure out what the hero of the novel is confused about.

Raskolnikov’s idea is often presented as a theory about “two categories” of people - “ordinary and extraordinary”, about the right of a strong personality to “all sorts of outrages and crimes”, as if not “noticing” that this is how his idea sounds from the lips of Porfiry Petrovich himself the hero explains his article “On Crime” differently. Or often Raskolnikov’s idea is reduced to the “arithmetic” of atonement for one crime with “hundreds”, “thousands of good deeds”, but it was not Raskolnikov who floated this way, but “another” student, whose conversation with the “young officer” the hero of the novel accidentally overheard “a month and a half ago” . Also, in his own way, Svidrigailov explains Raskolnikov’s idea - in his understanding, this is “a kind of theory, the same thing for which I find, for example, that a single villainy is permissible if the main goal is good. The only evil and a hundred good deeds!” Of course, these “alien” interpretations can be confirmed by the words of Raskolnikov himself, but this is not the main thing in his idea - it is its “vulgar” and “ordinary” appearance, while Raskolnikov’s idea itself is complex, multi-component, contradictory, disharmonious.

The main thing in Raskolnikov’s idea is his theory, his “new word.” In contrast to the complex and disharmonious idea, Raskolnikov’s “new word” is simple and logical in its own way. A detailed presentation of the theory is given in the first conversation of the hero of the novel with Porfiry Petrovich. It should be remembered, however, that not everything said about the theory in this scene is its presentation. It is necessary to take into account the psychological background of this scene. So, at one point during the “interrogation,” Raskolnikov “smirked at the intensified and deliberate distortion of his idea” by Porfiry Petrovich, later he admits it himself;

“I scoffed then, but this was in order to challenge you further.”

It turns out that Raskolnikov “does not at all insist that extraordinary people must and must always commit all sorts of outrages, as you say,” he addresses Porfiry Petrovich. The meaning of his theory is different. Regarding the two “categories” of people, Raskolnikov “reassured” Porfiry Petrovich somewhat: Raskolnikov himself is not going to divide humanity into two “categories”, this is not from him, but according to the “law of nature”

This is how Raskolnikov presents his theory:

“I simply hinted that an “extraordinary” person has the right... that is, not an official right, but he himself has the right to allow his conscience to step over... other obstacles, and only if his idea is fulfilled ( sometimes saving, perhaps for all mankind) will require it.” True, Raskolnikov wanted to pretend that his theory was not new: “This has been printed and read a thousand times, but Razumikhin has already understood what Raskolnikov’s “new word” is: “You, of course, are right in saying that this is not new and similar to everything that we have read and heard a thousand times; but what is really original in all this - and really belongs to you alone, to my horror - is that you still allow blood according to your conscience, and, forgive me, even with such fanaticism...”

Raskolnikov’s theory is the theory of crime “according to conscience”, “blood according to conscience”. This is, indeed, an attempt to say a “new word” in philosophy. Compared to the half-educated student Raskolnikov and F. Nietzsche, he is ordinary. The desire of the German philosopher to free the criminal from the “pangs of conscience”, to justify the crime with a “strong” personality and the character of a “superman” does not look “original” in the light of Raskolnikov’s theory - this has been written and spoken about “a thousand times”.

Dostoevsky highlighted the theory in Raskolnikov's idea - this, in particular, is the function of italics in the novel: the highlighted words explain to the reader the essence of Raskolnikov's theory, its meaning.

Dostoevsky does not deign to criticize Raskolnikov’s theory; he gives it a moral assessment. Theory (“new word”) - Raskolnikov’s law. This “his law” is opposed to “their law,” according to which “everything is permitted,” “everything is permitted.” “Their law” is a kind of “soil” on which Raskolnikov’s theory arose. He recognizes violence as a world-historical law, only everyone is ashamed to admit it, but he “wanted to dare.” For him, what he “discovered” was so, is so and will always be so:

“...people will not change, and no one can change them, and the labor is not worth wasting! Yes, that's right! This is their law... The law, Sonya! This is so!.. And now I know, Sonya, that whoever is strong and strong in mind and spirit is the ruler over them! Whoever dares the most is right with them, whoever can spit on more is their legislator, and whoever can dare the most is righter than everyone else! This is how it has been done until now and this is how it will always be! Only a blind man can’t see it!”

D.I. Pisarev also drew attention to the fact that Raskolnikov expanded the meaning of the concept of “crime” so much that he made it vague. For Raskolnikov, everyone who is capable of a “new word” is a criminal. But it is noteworthy that everything ultimately comes down to the “terrible bloodsheds” - “benefactors”, “legislators and organizers of humanity.” In its meaning, Raskolnikov’s historical concept turns into a stinging satire in the novel on canonized, officially recognized heroes human history. Raskolnikov was confused by the “aesthetics” of state violence.

But for Raskolnikov, if this is not considered a crime, then his “case” is not a crime. The defeated hero demands justice: take his head, but in this case, many of humanity’s “benefactors” would have to be executed at their very first steps. But those people endured their steps, and therefore they are right, but I did not and, therefore, I did not have the right to allow myself to take this step.” Sometimes he is simply enraged by the “aesthetics” of state violence:

“They themselves harass millions of people, and even consider them to be virtues. They are cheats and scoundrels, Sonya!..”

Or: “Oh, as I understand the “prophet”, with a saber, on a horse. Allah commands, and obey the “trembling” creature! The “prophet” is right, right, when he places a good-sized battery somewhere across the street and blows on the right and wrong, without even deigning to explain himself! Obey, trembling creature, and don’t desire, because it’s none of your business!..” According to Raskolnikov’s historical concept, which includes the Napoleonic motif, the “true ruler” “is allowed everything,” he is always “right.”

“Everything is permitted” or only “according to conscience”, to live according to “their law” or according to one’s theory is the dilemma of his moral self-awareness that is not finally resolved in Raskolnikov’s idea.

Crime in Raskolnikov’s ideology becomes a solution moral problem, “a scoundrel or not a scoundrel.” This is one of the paradoxes of the “casuistry” of the hero, who tried to combine crime and conscience. If he’s a scoundrel, then “a scoundrel-man gets used to everything!” And it doesn’t cost anything to change people’s lives. The second condition for solving this problem is significant: “...if a person is really not a scoundrel, the whole race in general, that is, the human race, it means that the rest is all prejudices, just false fears, and there are no barriers, and so it should be.” be! “The face of this world” does not suit Raskolnikov; he does not want to get used to meanness - out of moral motives he decides to revolt, which, however, has become a criminal offense.

References

The attitude of F. M. Dostoevsky to the “hero of action” - characteristic person sixties of the XIX century

The novel “Crime and Punishment” was conceived by F. M. Dostoevsky in hard labor “in a difficult moment of sadness and self-destruction.” It was there, in hard labor, that the writer encountered “strong personalities” who put themselves above the moral laws of society. Having embodied the traits of such personalities in Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky in his work consistently debunks their Napoleonic ideas. To the question: is it possible to destroy some people for the sake of the happiness of others, the author and his hero answer differently. Raskolnikov believes that it is possible, since this is “simple arithmetic.” No, Dostoevsky claims, there cannot be harmony in the world if even one child’s tear is shed (after all, Rodion kills Lizaveta and her unborn child). But the hero is in the power of the author, and therefore in the novel the anti-human theory of Rodion Raskolnikov fails. The theme of rebellion and the theme of the individualist hero, recent years who owned Dostoevsky, united in Crime and Punishment.

The hero's rebellion, which lies at the basis of his theory, is generated social inequality society. It is no coincidence that the conversation with Marmeladov became the last straw in Raskolnikov’s cup of doubt: he finally decides to kill the old money-lender. Money is salvation for disadvantaged people, Raskolnikov believes. The fate of Marmeladov refutes these beliefs. Even his daughter’s money cannot save the poor guy; he is crushed morally and can no longer rise from the bottom of his life.

Raskolnikov explains the establishment of social justice by violent means as “blood according to conscience.” The writer further develops this theory, and heroes appear on the pages of the novel - Raskolnikov’s “doubles”. “We are birds of a feather,” Svidrigailov says to Rodion, emphasizing their similarities. Svidrigailov, like Luzhin, exhausted the idea of ​​abandoning “principles” and “ideals” to the end. One has lost his bearings between good and evil, the other preaches personal gain - all this is the logical conclusion of Raskolnikov’s thoughts. It is not for nothing that Rodion responds to Luzhin’s selfish reasoning: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it will turn out that people can be slaughtered.”

Raskolnikov believes that only “real people” can break the law, since they act for the benefit of humanity. But Dostoevsky proclaims from the pages of the novel: any murder is unacceptable. Razumikhin expresses these ideas, citing simple and convincing arguments that human nature resists crime.

What is the result of Raskolnikov, considering himself the right to destroy “unnecessary” people for the benefit of the humiliated and insulted? He himself rises above people, becoming an “extraordinary” person. Therefore, Raskolnikov divides people into “chosen ones” and “trembling creatures.” And Dostoevsky, removing his hero from the Napoleonic pedestal, tells us that it is not the happiness of people that worries Raskolnikov, but he is occupied by the question: “...am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...” Rodion Raskolnikov dreams of ruling people, this is how the essence of an individualist hero is revealed.

Refuting life goals of his hero, preaching Christian principles, Dostoevsky introduces the image of Sonya into the novel. The writer sees the “greatest happiness” in the destruction of his “I”, in undivided service to people - Fyodor Mikhailovich embodied this “truth” in Sonya. Contrasting these images, Dostoevsky pits Raskolnikov’s revolutionary atheistic rebellion against Christian humility, love for people and Sonechka’s God. Forgiving love Sonya and her faith convince Rodion to “accept suffering.” He confesses to the crime, but only in hard labor, comprehending the truths of the Gospel, does he come to repentance. Sonya brings Raskolnikov back to the people from whom he was distant committed crime. "They were resurrected by love..."

Having destroyed Raskolnikov's "harmonious" theory, his "simple arithmetic", Dostoevsky warned humanity against the danger of revolutionary riots, proclaimed the idea of ​​​​the value of any human personality. The writer believed that “there is one law - the moral law.”

Sections: Literature

Target: consolidation of the studied material from the novel, checking the degree of its assimilation.

Tasks:

• develop logical thinking, the ability to compare, generalize, contrast, prove and analyze.
• convey the idea of ​​the highest value of the human person, about moral values the novel and its main characters.

Lesson question: Is it possible to do good to people through crime?

Lesson type: lesson of generalization and systematization of knowledge.

Lesson progress

I. Reading and discussion of the epigraph

Epigraph on the board:

Teacher: Some idea was born in the head of the main character long ago, which overshadowed all other deeds and thoughts. A half-ill student wanders around the stuffy city, avoiding people and stubbornly pondering some “item”, some “undertaking”. What thoughts are troubling the poor student? What is he thinking so hard about? What is he up to? (Raskolnikov has a business with an old pawnbroker, then a chance meeting with a drunken official, thoughts about his mother and sister, his own poverty and problems with the owner of the apartment.)

– What conclusion does Dostoevsky’s hero make? (The world is completely unfair. He is also pushed to this thought by a conversation about an old money-lender overheard in a tavern.)

The student states: “Arithmetic.” “Of course, she is unworthy to live..., but this is nature,” the officer retorts.

– Let’s figure out what “nature” is in a novel, and what “arithmetic”? How can you divide the characters in a novel?

– Where can we place Rodion Raskolnikov? (People of “nature” experience only pain and suffering; and people who live by simple calculation are the masters of life. Raskolnikov, wanting to correct a monstrous injustice, involuntarily chooses “arithmetic.”)

II.

– Remember Raskolnikov’s theory.

1. Divides people into two categories;
2. “Extraordinary” people, if necessary, allow themselves to “step over even a corpse, over blood”;
3. These people are criminals because, bringing a new word, they deny the old laws).

– What could push the hero to such “arithmetic”? (a large, soulless city; poverty; people’s hatred of each other; Rodion’s passion for new ideas; the collapse of moral principles both in society and in the soul of the hero; everyday deprivation; fear of the future; “Napoleonic idea”).

– And now is the time to remember who Napoleon is and why the “Napoleonic idea” is still alive?

(Napoleon is a hero of time, the entire 19th century passed under the sign of this man. Pushkin and Lermontov wrote about him, in their works Napoleon is ambivalent: romantic hero, a villain, a tyrant, but on the other hand, a ruler, ruler of the world, a hero... Later, Leo Tolstoy would also evaluate Napoleon in the novel “War and Peace.”

So, Raskolnikov is tormented by the question: “Napoleon dared - he ascended from oblivion into immortality, but what about him?”

- Which of the literary heroes of the XIX centuries tormented by similar questions? (Herman from “The Queen of Spades” by A.S. Pushkin).

– Are there points of contact between the heroes of Dostoevsky and Pushkin?

1. They want everything at once.
2. They become murderers, although Herman indirectly.
3. They enter into a duel with fate.
4. Having forgotten the Christian commandments “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” they are ready to take sin upon their souls.
5. They forgive themselves for the crimes they have committed.

– But you can find many differences in the heroes. What are they?

Differences.

Conclusion: Raskolnikov's theory is not new; Personalities similar to Rodion are no exception to the rule.

Pushkin, in the image of a maniac, a pathetic madman, strives to deprive the type of “exceptional person” of the romantic aura.

Dostoevsky conducts a psychological study of a person obsessed with the “Napoleonic idea”, makes society shudder and curse this idea.

Raskolnikov commits a crime, and a struggle between two principles begins in his soul.

Who will win: Angel or Demon?

III.

- Let's try to describe Raskolnikov's condition after the murders.

– Fear, disgust, guilt, shame, horror and... illness.

– Paroxysms of mercy, the desire to return to the scene of the crime, to pour out my soul.

Conclusion: all this forces the hero to seek loneliness, but at the same time constantly be among people. “Arithmetic” turned “the chosen one into an outcast, dreaming of punishment as a release from suffering.”

IV.

“But it was not for the sake of torment and his own suffering that Rodion took the lives of women. He rushes about, suffers, looking for a kindred spirit who can listen and ease his suffering. And then Sonya appears.

Meetings and conversations with Sonya Marmeladova, assistance to the family of the deceased official, turning himself in to the police station bring Rodion Raskolnikov closer to “nature”.

But only in hard labor does the hero’s resurrection occur: “He did not open it (the book) even now, but one thought flashed through him: “Can her (Sonya’s) convictions not now also be my convictions? Her feelings, her aspirations, at least...”

The entire space of the novel provokes crime and tragedy.

– How does the landscape change at the end of “Crime and Punishment”? (Endless space, the mighty Siberian river, pristine beauty... This is a sign of a change in the hero’s fate.)

Conclusion: in the epilogue of the novel, the author gives hope that “nature” has prevailed over “arithmetic” in Raskolnikov’s life. But repentance and cleansing are necessary. Repentance is suffering and self-denial, followed by atonement. This is a long and painful path, but the hero must go through it to become human.

V.

This issue can be considered using the example of the experiments of V. Lenin, I. Stalin, A. Hitler and others.

- Why Soviet people won the Great Patriotic War? (We are people. (Compassion, mercy, respect, love, “nature”.))

Fascists are not people (“arithmetic”).

Conclusions from the lesson:

1. Having taken the path of “arithmetic,” Raskolnikov turned into an ordinary murderer.
2. The theory, even the best one, can turn out to be monstrous in practice.
3. The substitution of moral laws for the laws of arithmetic is brought up “in man as a whole.” modern life, the very atmosphere of the city of gray stone.”
4. Only by following the laws of morality can one remain Human.

VI. Homework

Write a letter to Raskolnikov (try to convince the hero not to take the fatal step).

When you can help yourself,
Why cry out to heaven?
We have been given a choice. Those who dare are right;
He who is weak in spirit will not achieve his goal...
W. Shakespeare

In the novel Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky tells the story of a murder committed to test a theory that had formed in the head of a poor student. Rodion Raskolnikov is offended by the unfair structure of the world around him, where millions of the weak and defenseless perish (like the Marmeladov family), and thousands of unscrupulous scoundrels succeed (like Svidrigailov and Luzhin). How to correct social injustice? Raskolnikov, sitting in the attic in his room, which looks like a coffin, hungry, embittered, ponders this “eternal” question. He will outline his decision in the article “On the Crime.” Studying at the law faculty of the university was not in vain for him. In his head there is a series of historical figures who became famous for giving their people new laws, abolishing (“crossing over”) the old ones: Lycurgus (legislator of Sparta), Solon (legislator of Athens), Magomed (they still live according to Sharia law Islamic countries), Napoleon (according to the Napoleonic Code, France lives for almost two hundred years). These “criminals” benefited their peoples and left behind a grateful memory for centuries. Now it is clear that, according to his theory, Raskolnikov divided all people into two groups: the majority - “trembling creatures” who can only obey and carry out laws-orders, and a few - “those who have the right”, these create laws and have the power to command “ the whole anthill."

The poor student, himself humiliated by poverty, believes that a worthy task for a superman is nothing less than “the good of humanity.” For “universal happiness,” the superman must eliminate social evil, the symbol of which for Raskolnikov so far is the nasty, evil, useless old woman pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna. Is it permissible to destroy an “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 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, since it combines incompatible goals and means. As Svidrigailov sarcastically notes, “there was a mistake in the theory” (5, V). The superman, in the opinion of the main character, must intervene in the fate of humanity in such a way as to achieve the reign of morality and justice in the world, albeit through cruel, bloody, immoral means. Behind the idea of ​​the “common good” in Raskolnikov’s theory appears the “idea of ​​Napoleon” - one chosen one standing above humanity and prescribing his 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 a 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 began to cry in response to his confession of murder: her tears outweighed all the “logic of the idea” in the hero’s soul (5, IV).

Secondly, humiliated and insulted, for whose sake main character planned to become a superman and do good to the world, they reject his good deed. Raskolnikov, in addition to the old pawnbroker, unexpectedly kills the meek and unrequited 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 people's principles in the novel: patience, humility, immeasurable 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 judgment of conscience and go to hard labor - “accept suffering” (5, IV).

Thirdly, Dostoevsky pits his hero against people who share his opinion about superpersonality and the crowd. The first “theorist” is Dunya’s alleged fiancé, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, who argues: “Science says: love yourself first, first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest” (2, V). From Luzhin’s point of view, so that the state has more happy people, we need to raise the level of prosperity. Since the basis of economic progress is personal gain, everyone should take care of it and get rich, 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 main character 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 slaughtered...” (2, V).

The second hero who allows “blood according to his conscience” is Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov. He is, however, no longer a theorist, 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 (provides for Katerina Ivanovna’s children) and evil (kills his wife, who interferes with his romance with Dunya) - good and evil are no longer distinguishable for him. Both - Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov - resolve the crime, so they are “birds of a feather,” as Arkady Ivanovich rightly notes. But Svidrigailov has gotten used to murder, and the main character still clings to “justice”, to the “lofty 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 it, does not try on the idea of ​​“blood according to conscience,” but lives by it. Both the life and thoughts of this “overstepped” superman are terrible. Suffice it to recall his conversations with 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 personality of every person sacred? It is impossible to logically prove this truth - such is the moral law, the law of human conscience. Immediately after the murder, the main character 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 and constrained. Dostoevsky’s own conscience, according to Dostoevsky, takes revenge on him for violating the moral law.

Most consistently defends " human nature"(3, V) Razumikhin: 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 wow, sometimes the most shrewd calculations are thwarted!” (4,V) - Porfiry Petrovich echoes Razumikhin. The investigator turns out to be right: the former student, under the influence of Sonya, denounces himself and accepts punishment and suffering for a crime that, in his own conviction, he did not commit. After all, while no one has proven to him the fallacy of his theory, the epiphany for him will come only in hard labor. Thus, conscience (moral law) protests against the shedding of blood and defeats reason in Raskolnikov, which justifies blood.

To summarize, it should be noted that Dostoevsky structured his work in such a way as to prove the doom of Raskolnikov’s rebellion against the world, even as unsettled and unjust as it is shown in the novel. According to Dostoevsky, the reorganization of the world according to “logic” and “reason” (according to theory) is impossible, because in no society can evil be avoided until the person himself changes. Submission to an idea (theory), no matter how initially logical and humane it may be, leads to murder and loneliness, which is what happened to Raskolnikov.

For Dostoevsky, it is obvious that the division of people into “trembling creatures” and “those with rights” is wrong. In the novel, the characters who, according to Raskolnikov’s theory, belong 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 “titans-benefactors of humanity” at all, but petty scoundrels (Luzhin) or insane egoists (Svidrigailov).

From the writer's point of view, ideal person It is not the legislator who “transgressed” the old laws, but Sonya Marmeladova, capable of sacrificial love, capable of understanding and responding to the pain of others. 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: “They were resurrected by love...”

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 personality, and therefore the equivalence of all people, despite their real social and material inequality. This demonstrates Dostoevsky’s high humanism.