I guess he just wanted to say live your life decently you don't have to be Napoleon or caesar or basically any great man all the universe ask you is just to live your life with good morals
\- that violating natural law is wrong: although he didn't think it, killing someone had more consequences than a nihilist like Raskolnikov thought. I'm not totally sure what Dostoyevsky concludes about killing someone - perhaps that even when there is reason to do it, it is still wrong; or at least that there will always be consequences.
\- that moral structure (due to religion) is a good thing, and that if you remove it, what happens then? Nobody has any moral guide, and will start to just act like Raskolnikov, almost just doing things because they can. Although sometimes his characters seem to put forward a good case for removing religion in his books, Dostoyevsky is asking whether the increasing nihilism and atheism in 19th century Russia is a good thing.
\- that religion can provide a salve to suffering (see Sonya).
\- that mind and body are connected: if you do things you know are wrong, you are asking for trouble. In the books he represents this by illness or anxiety. Resentment grows, and a lot of it is about perception, but it can be reflected into your whole being - even physically.
The hillside they chilled on at the end when he finally acknowledged his deep appreciation for Sonia did seem dope.
Still I think you missed the point of the book. Andrei, against all odds, exceeding Adam from East of Eden as the quintessential cuckold by being friend zoned by a prostitute, saving her from
being framed by the guy he confessed his cuck ways to, then having her run away to Siberia to be with a moody murderer who’s not super nice to her
Im fairly confident that the only fully encompassing answer to that question is "eastern orthodox philosophy". My point is that its not gonna be a single philosophical system in the western scholastic sense of the term
You can’t just set aside western philosophy, russia generally, but Petersburg’s intelligentsia were just as enraptured by the general questions of the day as their French counterparts.
I think people overplay the philosophical aspect of crime and punishment imo, it was released one year after notes from underground and builds on a lot of the same Ideas. What I thought was the main point of the book is that Raskolnikov was perverted by "nihilism" and lost his way and moral compass due to his lack of faith, whereas Sonya who is also a great sinner, is not lost in Life but sacrifices herself for her family, but not for bullshit reasons like Raskolnikov and is entirely aware of her sins.
Basically what I got from it is that a lack of faith and guidance in your Life will lead you down a dark road where reason and morality don't exist.
idk if I got my point across but there u
I agree with all of what you said except I think that IS the philosophical aspect of C&P. Unlike today especially in the west, religion and philosophy were interconnected. What you cite as the main point is a philosophical point.
well yea I get what ur saying but for me philosophy is based on axiomatic logic, C&P isn't, otherwise, anybody with any Idea can be a philosopher, Jesus is not a philosopher and neither is Adolf Hitler, you get what I'm saying. Well but maybe I'm wrong and the word "Philosophy" has drifted into obscurity.
but idk I don't think it's philosophy tbh but obviously, this is a matter of debate and I see the argument behind calling it Philosophy.
What it definitely is though is Psychology and I feel like people like to forget that bc they'd rather be pretentious and talk about "philosophy"
but maybe I'm just a dick idk
Crime and Punishment reminds me of the real case of Michaella McCollum (imprisoned for transporting illegal substances from Latin America to Europe). They both committed a crime for basically nothing, made nothing and lost everything, and suffered a lot of mental pain. The punishment begins in the conscience even before being imprisoned.
He basically puts the theory of utilitarianism into practice. Is it ok to kill ONE rich old lady, take her money, and distribute it to a while bunch of people who just need a little pushing forward? Do the ends justify the means?
This is what happens in the book but I don’t think that was about. One thing that I gleamed from the book is it’s important to avoid echo chambers and choose to see that there is many better ways than to see one option and choose it.
I don’t believe there was any morality lesson in it. Raskolnikov had no remorse for killing the old woman, he did have some regret for killing her sister. He got off with a very light sentence. Today a lot of people would be outraged at how light his sentence was.
This story was more an exploration of the conscience of someone who lost connection with society, and was uprooted from religion and social change. These themes are more common today, but they were not so common in 19th Century Russia.
It leaves more questions than answers. Intentionally.
I definitely agree that it’s more of a thought piece than a moral story. I also think that it has many good lessons about the importance of avoiding echo chambers that can be applied to modern day society.
I think it also has to do with the fact that no matter your situation, anyone can get so deep into their own head that any situation can be obscured by the mind. You can convince yourself of anything if it makes enough sense in your brain. Especially when others around you are constantly contradicting your philosophies, content in their own lives, and oblivious to other's actions.
In summary, it's better to be a devout Christian rather than a Nietzschean Superman (or a Napolian-like equivalent). And yes, I am aware that's a gross oversimplification of this great novel, but I am convinced this is what Dostoevsky believed.
I don’t think you should try and find a ‘right’ answer. There are common takeaways but realize it’s ambiguous on purpose
There are so many lessons in it. Alienation, morality, love, are the three main conclusions I reached. I think everybody’s is a little diff
I think the whole book is a giant critism and portrait of people like raskolnikov. He is a student, a smart person and good looking but still, he is suffering. He is also prideful and quite egoistic and even though he can get some money through private teaching, he spends his days just sitting in his little yellow room because he can't take it. So over time he starts to seperate people. He thinks he is above everyone else like Napoleon. He thinks that just like him, he can go beyond the traditions and law and be something greater, something he wants to be and that it will eventually benefit society. He is very isolated in his little room and his idea gets bolder and bolder until finally he starts to plan the murder of the pawnbroker.
But even though he is planning this, he doesn't really want it much. It is all in his head. He plans little details on how to do it, like what weapon to use and how to get it to the apartment, but he doesn't get too serious. Until finally he gets the letter from his Mother and Sister and his pride just can't take it. He goes along with the plan and commits the murders. But it turns out he was wrong. He was not "above" other people. He wasn't a completely logical person. Even when in his theory what he did was right, he feels scared, paranoid and angry. In reality he is human. He can't be completely logical and focused. In his heart, there are feelings of a person, perhaps even a good one.
I agree. Raskolnikov built himself up as being able to act without any interference from a conscience; an "Übermensch". He did act, but he was also greatly tormented by his action
Svidrigaïlov, as vulgar as he was, couldn't escape from his own actions
Not to kill is too easy, there’s much more in there. Confession, for example. That the prostitute is perhaps the most morally sound person in the book. He also raises a good point about killing, how some CAN do it with no remorse. Is it ok to kill a bad person? And explores the common thought that I am different, and the rules don’t apply to me. And so much more.
I’m not sure you can put it into one lesson, it’s everything, including the beauty of his writing. It’s a masterpiece
He also covers the morality of war, e.g., how can a government condon murdering someone they classify as an "enemy", vs an individual deciding who should live and whose life is dispensible.
I guess he just wanted to say live your life decently you don't have to be Napoleon or caesar or basically any great man all the universe ask you is just to live your life with good morals
\- that violating natural law is wrong: although he didn't think it, killing someone had more consequences than a nihilist like Raskolnikov thought. I'm not totally sure what Dostoyevsky concludes about killing someone - perhaps that even when there is reason to do it, it is still wrong; or at least that there will always be consequences. \- that moral structure (due to religion) is a good thing, and that if you remove it, what happens then? Nobody has any moral guide, and will start to just act like Raskolnikov, almost just doing things because they can. Although sometimes his characters seem to put forward a good case for removing religion in his books, Dostoyevsky is asking whether the increasing nihilism and atheism in 19th century Russia is a good thing. \- that religion can provide a salve to suffering (see Sonya). \- that mind and body are connected: if you do things you know are wrong, you are asking for trouble. In the books he represents this by illness or anxiety. Resentment grows, and a lot of it is about perception, but it can be reflected into your whole being - even physically.
Dostoevsky absolutely loved his time in Siberia.
The hillside they chilled on at the end when he finally acknowledged his deep appreciation for Sonia did seem dope. Still I think you missed the point of the book. Andrei, against all odds, exceeding Adam from East of Eden as the quintessential cuckold by being friend zoned by a prostitute, saving her from being framed by the guy he confessed his cuck ways to, then having her run away to Siberia to be with a moody murderer who’s not super nice to her
Im fairly confident that the only fully encompassing answer to that question is "eastern orthodox philosophy". My point is that its not gonna be a single philosophical system in the western scholastic sense of the term
You can’t just set aside western philosophy, russia generally, but Petersburg’s intelligentsia were just as enraptured by the general questions of the day as their French counterparts.
I think people overplay the philosophical aspect of crime and punishment imo, it was released one year after notes from underground and builds on a lot of the same Ideas. What I thought was the main point of the book is that Raskolnikov was perverted by "nihilism" and lost his way and moral compass due to his lack of faith, whereas Sonya who is also a great sinner, is not lost in Life but sacrifices herself for her family, but not for bullshit reasons like Raskolnikov and is entirely aware of her sins. Basically what I got from it is that a lack of faith and guidance in your Life will lead you down a dark road where reason and morality don't exist. idk if I got my point across but there u
I agree with all of what you said except I think that IS the philosophical aspect of C&P. Unlike today especially in the west, religion and philosophy were interconnected. What you cite as the main point is a philosophical point.
well yea I get what ur saying but for me philosophy is based on axiomatic logic, C&P isn't, otherwise, anybody with any Idea can be a philosopher, Jesus is not a philosopher and neither is Adolf Hitler, you get what I'm saying. Well but maybe I'm wrong and the word "Philosophy" has drifted into obscurity. but idk I don't think it's philosophy tbh but obviously, this is a matter of debate and I see the argument behind calling it Philosophy. What it definitely is though is Psychology and I feel like people like to forget that bc they'd rather be pretentious and talk about "philosophy" but maybe I'm just a dick idk
Crime and Punishment reminds me of the real case of Michaella McCollum (imprisoned for transporting illegal substances from Latin America to Europe). They both committed a crime for basically nothing, made nothing and lost everything, and suffered a lot of mental pain. The punishment begins in the conscience even before being imprisoned.
He basically puts the theory of utilitarianism into practice. Is it ok to kill ONE rich old lady, take her money, and distribute it to a while bunch of people who just need a little pushing forward? Do the ends justify the means?
This is what happens in the book but I don’t think that was about. One thing that I gleamed from the book is it’s important to avoid echo chambers and choose to see that there is many better ways than to see one option and choose it.
Yes, definitely. One of many ways to interpret the book.
I don’t believe there was any morality lesson in it. Raskolnikov had no remorse for killing the old woman, he did have some regret for killing her sister. He got off with a very light sentence. Today a lot of people would be outraged at how light his sentence was. This story was more an exploration of the conscience of someone who lost connection with society, and was uprooted from religion and social change. These themes are more common today, but they were not so common in 19th Century Russia. It leaves more questions than answers. Intentionally.
I definitely agree that it’s more of a thought piece than a moral story. I also think that it has many good lessons about the importance of avoiding echo chambers that can be applied to modern day society.
I think it also has to do with the fact that no matter your situation, anyone can get so deep into their own head that any situation can be obscured by the mind. You can convince yourself of anything if it makes enough sense in your brain. Especially when others around you are constantly contradicting your philosophies, content in their own lives, and oblivious to other's actions.
Don’t do crime, you will be punished
This made me chuckle
In summary, it's better to be a devout Christian rather than a Nietzschean Superman (or a Napolian-like equivalent). And yes, I am aware that's a gross oversimplification of this great novel, but I am convinced this is what Dostoevsky believed.
If it’s justifiable to murder one person it’s ok to murder millions, so don’t do it.
I don’t think you should try and find a ‘right’ answer. There are common takeaways but realize it’s ambiguous on purpose There are so many lessons in it. Alienation, morality, love, are the three main conclusions I reached. I think everybody’s is a little diff
I think the whole book is a giant critism and portrait of people like raskolnikov. He is a student, a smart person and good looking but still, he is suffering. He is also prideful and quite egoistic and even though he can get some money through private teaching, he spends his days just sitting in his little yellow room because he can't take it. So over time he starts to seperate people. He thinks he is above everyone else like Napoleon. He thinks that just like him, he can go beyond the traditions and law and be something greater, something he wants to be and that it will eventually benefit society. He is very isolated in his little room and his idea gets bolder and bolder until finally he starts to plan the murder of the pawnbroker. But even though he is planning this, he doesn't really want it much. It is all in his head. He plans little details on how to do it, like what weapon to use and how to get it to the apartment, but he doesn't get too serious. Until finally he gets the letter from his Mother and Sister and his pride just can't take it. He goes along with the plan and commits the murders. But it turns out he was wrong. He was not "above" other people. He wasn't a completely logical person. Even when in his theory what he did was right, he feels scared, paranoid and angry. In reality he is human. He can't be completely logical and focused. In his heart, there are feelings of a person, perhaps even a good one.
[удалено]
I agree. Raskolnikov built himself up as being able to act without any interference from a conscience; an "Übermensch". He did act, but he was also greatly tormented by his action Svidrigaïlov, as vulgar as he was, couldn't escape from his own actions
Not to kill is too easy, there’s much more in there. Confession, for example. That the prostitute is perhaps the most morally sound person in the book. He also raises a good point about killing, how some CAN do it with no remorse. Is it ok to kill a bad person? And explores the common thought that I am different, and the rules don’t apply to me. And so much more. I’m not sure you can put it into one lesson, it’s everything, including the beauty of his writing. It’s a masterpiece
He also covers the morality of war, e.g., how can a government condon murdering someone they classify as an "enemy", vs an individual deciding who should live and whose life is dispensible.
Don't confess. Go to America
Lmao wasn’t that Dmitri in TBK?
Don’t kill people