The meaning of Raskolnikov's theory
The origins of Raskolnikov's theory
Dostoevsky wrote that Raskolnikov’s theory is based on ideas “floating in the air.”
Firstly, this is the idea of rejection of evil and violence. Raskolnikov passionately wants to change the world and is looking for ways to save the “humiliated and insulted.”
Secondly, in Russia in the 60s of the XIX century, the ideas of “Bonapartism” spread, that is, the idea of the special purpose of a strong personality and the immunity of its general laws.
Raskolnikov's theory is born under the influence of many reasons. This is also social - the society in which the hero lives is truly based on evil and violence. These are also personal - one’s own need, unwillingness to accept the sacrifice of the mother and sister.
Dreaming of remaking the world, Raskolnikov strives to bring good to people, but this is good in his opinion. Can only do " extraordinary person“, and only an “extraordinary person” can remake the world. Therefore, another reason that pushes him to commit a crime is the desire to check who he is, a strong personality or a “trembling creature.”
The main provisions of Raskolnikov's theory
1. Raskolnikov divides all people into two categories: “ordinary” who live in obedience, and “extraordinary” who are able to “say a new word in the environment.”
2. These “extraordinary” people, if their idea requires it, allow themselves to “step over even a corpse and blood.”
Kepler and Newton, for example, if there was an obstacle in their way, would have the right and even the obligation to eliminate 10 or 100 people in order to convey their discoveries to the world.
The collapse of Raskolnikov's theory
Arguments exposing Raskolnikov's theory
Dostoevsky cannot accept Raskolnikov’s “social arithmetic,” which is based on the destruction of at least one life. Therefore, from the very beginning he proves the inconsistency of the theory, believing that there are no criteria by which people could be divided into “ordinary” and “extraordinary”.
Wanting to save people and bring good to the “humiliated and insulted,” Raskolnikov instead, during the commission of a crime, kills Lizaveta, one of those whom he wanted to save.
Wanting to bring good to people, Raskolnikov becomes the culprit of many tragedies (the death of his mother, the imprisonment of Mikolka, etc.).
The hero himself feels the vulnerability of his theory. “This man is a louse,” Sonya tells him. “But I know that I’m not a louse,” Raskolnikov answers.
According to Raskolnikov's theory, Sonya, Katerina Ivanovna, Dunya, his mother are people of the lowest rank, and they should be despised. However, he loves his mother and sister, admires Sonya, that is, he comes into conflict with his theory.
Wanting to be among the “extraordinary”, he becomes like Luzhin, Svidrigailov, but it is precisely these people that he deeply hates, that is, he hates those people who live according to his theory.
For Raskolnikov, Luzhin, Svidrigailov, the old pawnbroker are inferior people, however, on the other hand, for the same Luzhin, Raskolnikov himself is a low-class person who can be stepped over.
Having committed a crime, Raskolnikov suffers and suffers, but an “extraordinary” person would have done it “without any thoughtfulness.” And these pangs of conscience are evidence that a person did not die in Raskolnikov.
The dream that Raskolnikov had while in hard labor is proof that his theory leads to chaos, to the destruction of humanity.
At hard labor, Raskolnikov’s spiritual healing occurs when he admits the inconsistency of his theory and accepts Sonya’s truth, the truth of Christian humility and forgiveness.
And Punishment” was conceived by F. M. Dostoevsky during his stay in hard labor. Then it was called “Drunk People,” but gradually the concept of the novel transformed into “a psychological report of a crime.” Dostoevsky himself, in a letter to the publisher M.I. Katkov, clearly retells the plot of the future work: “A young man, expelled from university students and living in extreme poverty... having succumbed to some strange unfinished ideas... decided to get out of his bad situation at once by killing and robbing an old woman... “At the same time, the student wants to use the money received in this way for good purposes: to complete a course at the university, help his mother and sister, go abroad and “then be honest, firm, and unwavering in fulfilling his humane duty to humanity.”
In this statement by Dostoevsky, I would like to especially emphasize two phrases: “a student living in extreme poverty” and “having succumbed to some strange unfinished
the essence of the novel. Which came first: a plight that led to illness and a painful theory, or a theory that was the cause of a terrible act.
Dostoevsky in his novel depicts the clash of theory with the logic of life. By. In the writer’s opinion, the living process of life, that is, the logic of life, always refutes and makes untenable any theory - both the most advanced, revolutionary, and the most criminal. This means you can’t live life according to theory. And therefore the main philosophical thought The novel is revealed not in a system of logical proofs and refutations, but as a collision of a person obsessed with an extremely criminal theory with life processes that refute it.
The theory is based on the inequality of people, on the chosenness of some and the humiliation of others. And the murder of the old woman is intended as a vital test of this theory using a particular example. This way of depicting the murder very clearly reveals author's position: the crime that Raskolnikov committed is a low, vile deed, even from the point of view of Raskolnikov himself. But he did it consciously, stepping over his human nature, through himself. With his crime, Raskolnikov excluded himself from the category of people, became an outcast, an outcast. “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself,” he admitted to Sonya Marmeladova. This detachment from people prevents Raskolnikov from living. His human nature does not accept this. It turns out that a person cannot live without communicating with people, even such a proud person as Raskolnikov. Therefore, the hero’s mental struggle becomes more intense and desperate, it goes in many directions, and each one leads him to a dead end.
Raskolnikov still believes in the infallibility of his idea and despises himself for his weakness and mediocrity, and at the same time calls himself a scoundrel. He suffers from the inability to communicate with his mother and sister, thinking about them as painfully as he thinks about the murder of Lizaveta. And he drives away his thoughts, because they haunt him and require him to resolve the question of what category to include close people according to his theory. According to the logic of his theory, they should be classified as a “lower” category, and, therefore, the ax of another Raskolnikov could fall on their heads, and on the heads of Sonya, Polechka, Ivanovna. Raskolnikov must, according to his theory, give up those for whom he suffers. Must despise, hate, kill those he loves. He can't survive this.
He cannot bear the thought that his theory is similar to the theories of Luzhin and Svidri-Gailov, he hates them, but has no right to this hatred. “Mother, sister, how I love them! Why do I hate them now? Here his human nature most acutely collided with his inhuman theory. But the theory won. And that’s why Dostoevsky seems to come to the rescue human nature your hero. Immediately after this monologue, he introduces Raskolnikov's third dream: he again kills the old woman, and she laughs at him. The dream in which
The main idea of Raskolnikov's theory is the right of an exceptional person, for the benefit of humanity, to transgress generally accepted norms of human behavior, norms of morality, and to “push back” these norms. Raskolnikov states “... I do not at all insist that extraordinary people must and must always commit all sorts of outrages... 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 the fulfillment of his idea (sometimes saving, perhaps for all mankind) requires it.”
Raskolnikov is not groundless in his reasoning. Dostoevsky allows his character to make all possible arguments; the writer does not want to cover up or hide anything, does not want relief in solving the problem posed. Raskolnikov's main argument is history, which testifies to the combination of reformism, immorality, and the reformers' violation of moral norms in the name of realizing their ideas. The real existence of such a combination, its impunity, its non-condemnation by people, the lack of moral assessment of the actions of such reformers - these are Raskolnikov’s arguments. Since it is not punishable, it means permissibility, but permissibility is not for everyone - ordinary standards of morality are necessary for everyone - but only for the elite, who are allowed what is not allowed to ordinary people. Raskolnikov explains the meaning of his theory: “...I develop it in my article. That all... well, for example, even the legislators and founders of humanity, starting with the ancients, continuing with the Lycurgus, Solons, Mohammeds, Napoleons and so on, every single one was criminals, already by the fact that, giving new law, thereby violating the ancient law, sacredly revered by society and passed down from their fathers, and, of course, did not stop at blood, if only blood (sometimes completely innocent and valiantly shed for the ancient law) could help them. It’s even remarkable that most of these benefactors and founders of humanity were especially terrible bloodsheds.”
Raskolnikov forms a historical law: everything outstanding for its accomplishment allows for any means, moreover, it cannot but be committed, accompanied by crimes against morality. Moral standards are not for outstanding people, not for organizers public life, but only for ordinary people - for them they are unconditional and obligatory. The first move the world and lead it to the goal, the second preserve the world and increase it numerically. The law derived by Raskolnikov is commented on and explained by investigator Porfiry Petrovich, bringing the author’s reasoning to the utmost clarity: “all people are somehow divided into “ordinary” and “extraordinary.” “Ordinary” must live in obedience and have no right to break the law, because, you see, they are ordinary. And “extraordinary” people have the right to commit all sorts of crimes and break the law in every possible way, precisely because they are extraordinary.” So there is a principle: progress and crime are inextricably linked. Raskolnikov's action - the murder of the old woman-pawnbroker for the sake, as he believes, of money for his sister and mother, relatives and loved ones, tests himself in the role of an extraordinary person. In fact, the idea itself is tested - this is the main thing.
The problem is brought to its extreme acuteness in the novel: a harmful, evil old woman-pawnbroker, who does not justify her existence in any way, does not arouse any sympathy, on the one hand, and on the other - an enlightened, disinterested person who cares not about his personal welfare, but about his neighbors Raskolnikov is not a killer by nature. He is a person capable of loving and being loved. Thus, in the confrontation between an ordinary person and an extraordinary person, the place of the ordinary person is taken by a completely worthless person, and in the role of a criminal he is far from a villain.
The main thing is that the murder plunged Raskolnikov into an ongoing tragedy, which was inevitable, since the murder took place - this highest manifestation violations of law and morality, and this is murder by intention, allowed in advance, justified by the killer himself.
Murder “according to conscience” is called by Dostoevsky a crime, the resolution of which is given by the person’s own conscience, convinced that there are people who have the right to dispose of someone else’s life, who can decide for others whether to live or not to live, and people who can be disposed of unlimitedly . Moreover, according to Raskolnikov’s conviction, such people (strictly speaking, not people at all, but mostly material for history) are the majority, so the damage, based on strict calculations, in the case of cruel treatment of them is small, while extraordinary people for whom everything is permitted according to conscience - very few, one out of a hundred thousand, and there are only a few geniuses. There is a great temptation, Dostoevsky shows, to call oneself just that, extraordinary, such as one can list on one’s fingers!
In your social, psychological and philosophical novel“Crime and Punishment,” written in 1866, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky reproduced the life of Russia in the 60s XIX century, when the country was experiencing powerful social shifts and changes.
Dostoevsky sharply criticizes bourgeois civilization, which gives rise not only to visible evil, but also to the worst, inhumane thing that lurks in the depths of human consciousness.
The main character of the novel is Rodion Raskolnikov, a former student who lives in deep poverty without any hope of any improvement in his situation. But, despite the fact that Raskolnikov is just a “little man,” he is a bright individual. He is smart, endowed with outstanding abilities, prone to introspection, and loves his neighbors.
But poverty, from which a person is no longer able to rise, a room that looks like a coffin, constant screams and moans 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, he had to change the entire existing order of things. A feeling of protest is born in him, and he rebels against the whole world alone, according to his own program, developed by himself.
Analyzing the reasons for the existing unjust order of things 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 the sake of their interests other people, without stopping to commit crimes if necessary.
In order to rid the world of injustice and prove to himself that he is not a “trembling creature,” Raskolnikov goes to kill the old money-lender. 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 torment he experiences after committing a murder. Dostoevsky explores the consciousness and subconsciousness of the hero. The subconscious tells the hero that he killed not the old woman, but himself, his soul. To do this, the writer introduces the hero’s dreams and visions into the text of the novel.
The evil done did not benefit anyone. After committing a crime, the hero is constantly susceptible to physical illness: he often falls into unconsciousness and has a fever. He is weakened, sometimes he cannot even get out of bed. He himself already realizes that in vain he convinced himself of the supreme expediency and justification of his “experiment.” At this moment, he decides to reveal his secret to Sonechka Marmeladova, who is also a criminal who violated the moral law and ruined her soul. It was Sonya, her sacrifice, mercy, humility, and submission to fate that played the leading role in debunking Raskolnikov’s theory. He realizes that his experiment led nowhere: 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 lead 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 will receive a fair punishment, which will be liberation for him from moral torment.
Rodion Raskolnikov, realizing the disastrous nature of his theory, its anti-human, inhumane essence, is reborn to a new life - “however,” says Dostoevsky, “this is a completely different story.”
Thus, the writer in his novel conveys the idea that crime, no matter what noble 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 the “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 his era. In the novel \"Crime and Punishment\" the moral question of a person's responsibility for a crime is acutely raised - and not only before the law, but also, first of all, before himself, before his conscience. Central character The novel "Crime and Punishment" is Rodion Raskolnikov, the bearer of the theory of the "superman", who is capable of anything, to whom 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 there are very few “unusual” people, and they have the right of power over others. Unusual people, according to Rodion, they can even break the law, like, for example, Napoleon, Mohammed, Lycurgus. Such people will not stop at either a small crime or shedding blood to realize their intentions. The hero is convinced that “supermans” 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, and the difficult situation of his sister and mother push the hero to commit a crime. But he does not consider himself a criminal. Rodion overheard a conversation in which similar thoughts were expressed, therefore, they can be safely implemented.
Dostoevsky's hero is so confident in 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 can help his family. It seems that Rodion Raskolnikov is guided by noble motives, but investigator Porfiry Petrovich, who is leading Rodion’s case in court, immediately notes: “... this suppressed, proud enthusiasm in young people is dangerous! \".
Why is Raskolnikov’s theory dangerous? Rodion is a kind, honest, sensitive nature, capable of perceiving the pain of others and is ready to help. But the destructive theory brings him closer to such thieves as Luzhin and Svidrigailov, in whose hearts there is not a drop of humanity. Of course, they are close not in their characters, not in their way of life, but in their thoughts, theories, ideas.
Luzhin is a mediocre entrepreneur who suddenly became rich \" little man", who really wants to become a "big" person, to turn from a slave into the master of life. His theories justify the exploitation of people for his own gain.
Svidrigailov is deprived of conscience and honor, the depths of moral decline are revealed in him, he took 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 is both frightened and attracted by Svidrigailov at the same time - after all, he was able to break the law and live on, enjoy this life. Rodion wonders how a repeat offender 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, devoid of moral values and compassion for others. Spiritual world Raskolnikov is completely different.
Luzhin's reasoning and his means of achieving his goal are evidence of his baseness. And Svidrigailov scares Rodion away 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 is what happened to Rodion Raskolnikov: he was forced to kill Lizaveta, an accidental witness to the first crime. This random murder only emphasizes the essence of what was done.
If the hero were completely similar to his doubles - Luzhin and Svidrigailov - he would not be tormented by his conscience. This did not happen, Raskolnikov is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. He is no longer the same person he was before the crime. Together 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 no escape from this torment. Opinions about the murder he committed will haunt him all his life, opening up his mental wound.
The hero's tragic experiment did not lead to the consequences he expected. Rodion feels as if he had cut himself off from other people, from his loved ones, with scissors. According to his theory, Sonya, his mother, Dunya, and Katerina Ivanovna belong to the category of “ordinary” people. So, there may be a similar Raskolnikov whose hand will rise against them.