Raskolnikov's theory - social and philosophical origins of the theory and its meaning.

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. Only an “extraordinary person” can accomplish this, 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 inferior 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.

F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” raises a number of social, psychological and moral problems, forcing the reader to seriously think about finding answers to many questions facing the individual and humanity as a whole. Each character in the work demonstrates the result of this eternal human search and fatal mistakes along the way with an example of his own life and choice.

The main character of the novel, Rodion Raskolnikov, is a young man, tormented by the thought of his own destiny and undertaking a search for truth, based on the question “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” Based on the answers found, he builds his monstrous theory that the common good can be achieved by destroying what, in his personal opinion, is strangling a person. The moneylender becomes for him a symbol of evil that needs to be eradicated. According to his theory, it turns out that one person, “having the right,” has all the authority to decide who lives and who dies. Therefore, the old money-lender Alena Ivanovna is sentenced to death on this basis. However, Raskolnikov is not limited to killing the old woman; running away and saving himself, he kills blessed Lizaveta, who is innocent even according to his inhuman theory. The well-founded theory collapses and Raskolnikov realizes his own inadequacy as the savior of humanity.

The moral torment of the hero throughout the narrative takes on various forms: attempts to help the family of the bitter alcoholic Marmeladov, an impulse to save his sister from the clutches of the predatory libertine Svidrigailov, love out of compassion for Sonechka. The whole horror is that Raskolnikov tries to justify himself to the last by the fact that he personally did not want anything for himself by killing the old woman. There really was no self-interest in his actions. All he wanted was to prove the validity of the wild theory that it was possible to cleanse the world with blood. The half-educated intellectual did not take into account the fact that usury is not evil in itself, but an evil generated by the general plight of people. The pawnbroker is only the visible part of the iceberg of human misfortunes and troubles, and the roots of disorder are much deeper. Taking an ax in his hands and cutting off, as it seems to him, what is unnecessary, Raskolnikov simply destroys the last link of the chain that fetters people, without freeing them, only sacrificing himself. Pointless and ineffective.

Raskolnikov's theory is based on harsh life experience, on his “truth” as understood by a young man. On your personal troubles, on your lack of organization, on the truth about the ordeals of your relatives, on the truth about malnourished children singing for a piece of bread in taverns and squares, on the merciless reality of the inhabitants of crowded houses, attics and basements. In such terrifying realities, it is fair to look for the social reasons for the crime of rebellion against bourgeois reality, which were initially embodied only in the speculative constructions of the hero.

But, mentally denying the existing evil, he does not see, does not want to see what opposes him, denies not only legal law, but also human morality, is convinced of the futility of noble efforts: “People will not change, and no one can change them, and no work not worth spending." Moreover, the hero convinces himself of the falsity of all social foundations and tries to put in their place the “head” institutions invented by himself, such as the slogan: “Long live the eternal war!” Disbelief and substitution of values ​​are the intellectual source of the theory and crime of the hero-ideologist.

The modern world is unfair and illegal in Raskolnikov's view. But the hero does not believe in the future “universal happiness.” The ideal of utopian socialists seems unattainable to him (the writer’s position here coincides with the position of the main character, as well as with Razumikhin’s views on socialists in general). “I don’t want to wait for “universal happiness.” I myself want to live, otherwise it’s better not to live.”

This motive of desire, which arose in “Notes from the Underground,” will be repeated in “Crime and Punishment” (“I live one day, I also want ...”), developing into a motive of willfulness, self-affirmation at any cost. The “exorbitant pride” inherent in the hero gives rise to a cult of absolute self-will. This is the psychological basis of the theory of crime.

The theory itself is set out in an article by Raskolnikov, published six months before the crime, and is retold by two participants in one meeting: investigator Porfiry Petrovich and Raskolnikov. The dialogue after the murder in the investigator’s apartment is the most important, culminating episode in the ideological development of the conflict. The main idea that Raskolnikov believes in (!) is expressed laconically: “People, according to the law of nature, are generally divided into two categories: the lower (ordinary), that is, so to speak, the material that serves solely for the generation of their own kind, and actually on people, that is, those who have the gift or talent to say a new word in their midst.”

So, material - and people. Some are for reproduction, others are for new ideas. Raskolnikov’s very thought seemed to divide and split society. (Isn’t this where another meaning of the hero’s surname comes from?) In its formulation there is the idea of ​​elitism (chosenness), contempt for the main part of humanity.

The names of outstanding personalities, historical figures, and examples from world history are called upon to support the theory. The image of Napoleon from a concrete, historical figure turns in Raskolnikov’s head into a symbolic one. This is the embodiment of absolute power over people, and over the course of history, and most importantly, over the cardinal laws of life, it is a symbol of unconditional “permission”.

There are also discussions about the laws of nature, and reflections about the movement of humanity towards the goal, about the replacement of the present by the future. Raskolnikov, even presenting the article orally, skillfully resorts to cunning, demagogic arguments, relying on both philosophical laws and accurate everyday observations. The theory, as retold by the author of the article, excited and inspired (after the murder he committed!), even looks attractive in other places. Indeed, the new is the enemy of the conservative, a unique genius is born among the masses of ordinary people, some people live in the present, others bring the future closer, and, of course, extraordinary people most often contribute to progress.

But in this demagoguery lurks a hidden trap, a terrible danger. After all, the arguments are designed to convince that the material, the mass, the inferior are obliged to be obedient, and the extraordinary - the destroyers of the present in the name of the better (is this so?!) have the right to step over any obstacles: “over a corpse, through blood.” The key phrase appears: “The right to commit a crime.”

Dostoevsky achieves his goal: the reader begins to understand with horror the essence of the “new word.” Raskolnikov is trying to autocratically abolish what, good or bad, saved humanity from self-destruction: contained in religious commandments, written or unwritten laws, moral prohibitions, vetoes on crime, no matter how historically changeable this concept may be. “I killed the principle,” the hero says self-confidently and cynically after the bloody massacre of the defenseless. The barriers that separate a moral act from an immoral one, a humane one from an inhumane one, that more than once hold people back at the edge of the abyss, according to Raskolnikov, are “prejudices, only false fears, and there are no barriers.”

It becomes clear: one of the leading motives for a particular crime was an attempt to assert the very right to permissiveness, the “rightness” of murder. M. M. Bakhtin spoke about testing an idea in a novel: the hero-ideologist experiments, practically strives to prove what can and should be done, “if you are people of any talent, even a little bit capable of saying something new.”

From here follows the second most important motive for the crime: testing one’s own strength, one’s own right to commit a crime. It is in this sense that the words spoken by Raskolnikov to Sonya should be understood: “I killed for myself.” The explanation is extremely clear: I wanted to check “whether I’m a trembling creature or whether I have the right...”.

Obsessed with exorbitant vanity, the hero wanted to free himself from “prejudices”: conscience, pity (“Don’t be sorry, because it’s none of your business!”), to stand “beyond good and evil.” Does Raskolnikov really want to become equal to God himself? Not certainly in that way. He rebels against God and the world he created, overthrows it, despite statements that he believes, believes in both God and the New Jerusalem (that is, in the final establishment of the Kingdom of God). Let us remember, by the way: Porfiry Petrovich hints to Raskolnikov about the incompatibility of his teaching and true faith.

Raskolnikov's ambitions are of a different kind (note that ambition is one of the writer's favorite words). His theory embodied the gradually gaining strength of ideas about the special qualities and rights of the individual, whose capabilities almost exceed earthly limits. In the artistic form of the novel, Dostoevsky anticipated the ideas of the time that floated in the intellectual atmosphere of real - not novel - Europe. Ten to twenty years will pass, and the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche will create a poetic theory, an almost mythical teaching about an ideal superman, freed from “slave morality”, called upon to destroy everything false, painful, hostile to life. In European culture, a cult of a strong personality will arise, an individualist who overcomes everything in his path thanks to his own will and without regard to morality. Raskolnikov, with a certain degree of justice, can be called a Nietzschean before Nietzsche. But if the German philosopher will glorify the superman, turning him into a poetic cultural myth, then Dostoevsky will warn about the danger posed by nihilism and voluntarism (from the Latin voluntas - will), so popular in the minds of some of his contemporaries.

This danger is most clearly expressed in the last, convict dream (in the text of the novel - “dreams”) of Raskolnikov: masses of people, confident in the sole possession of the truth, “killed each other in some kind of powerless malice,” they killed fearlessly and mercilessly.

The nightmares of convict Raskolnikov are the last phase of punishment. Its essence lies in the painful experiences of what has been done, in torment that reaches the limit, beyond which there are only two mutually exclusive outcomes - the destruction of personality or spiritual resurrection.

Punishment, like crime, is not single-motive. It has many faces, many components, it is outside of Raskolnikov and inside of him. To understand it, let's return to the compositional point that marks its beginning.

Immediately after the murder, waking up in his own closet, Raskolnikov feels physical horror from what he has done. Fever, stupor, severe oblivion, the feeling that he is going crazy - the writer does not skimp on characterizing the abnormal state, a state of obvious ill health. This is the punishment (suffering) that nature itself inevitably imposes on those who rebel against it, against living life, no matter how small and unmanifested it may seem.

Alienation and desperate loneliness also turn out to be inevitable, even in the circle of those closest to him (“Mother and Dunya rushed to him... But he stood as if dead.” “I can’t hug them,” flashed like lightning in his head "). “Oh, if only I were alone,” exclaims the individualist hero, who still feels responsible to his sister, mother, friend for his own actions, for his and their fate. Having committed a grave sin, Raskolnikov realizes that he “cut himself off from people with scissors.” But for man, a social being, a complete break with his own kind is unbearable. This was “the most painful feeling of all.” This was Raskolnikov’s punishment, determined by the social essence of every person.

It, the punishment, is especially harsh and painful because “theory,” as we remember, captured Raskolnikov’s heart (“theoretically irritated heart,” diagnoses Porfiry Petrovich); The “infected spirit” led to embitterment and unbelief. “He was already a skeptic, he was young, distracted and, therefore, cruel” - the author reveals such a psychological connection between the beliefs, emotions and character of the hero.

Against this background, an incorrect, perverted understanding of one’s own action arises. Natural for every somewhat normal person, without pathological, criminal inclinations, feelings of fear, disgust from what they have done, a sense of isolation, and finally, the timid voice of conscience, Raskolnikov takes for weakness, the worthlessness of his “I”, his own personality, which failed to cope with the test, experiment, unworthy theory. “He killed, but didn’t cross. Nature failed." He is tormented by the fact that he could not stand his crime. This is the punishment that Raskolnikov himself imposes on himself. By and large, it is false, artificial, these are the same sinful, from the point of view of the Christian author, possessed passions, and not true suffering.

Liberation from them - latent, slow - begins when Raskolnikov finds a person who is able to fully understand him, alleviate suffering with active sympathy, love, and dare to undertake a long, desperate struggle to overcome someone else's “truth.” According to the paradoxical logic of Dostoevsky’s artistic world, such a person becomes a prostitute.

The theoretical basis of Raskolnikov's idea

It is no coincidence that Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky pays so much attention to the description of Raskolnikov’s theory in the novel Crime and Punishment. She is not a figment of the imagination of a great writer. Among Dostoevsky's contemporaries there were many young, educated people who were keen on Nietzsche's ideas. It was his teaching that gave rise to similar beliefs, popular among young people trying to find a way out of a humiliating beggarly situation. The work of a talented writer raised pressing problems of modern society. Crime, drunkenness, prostitution - vices generated by social inequality, have overwhelmed Russia. Trying to escape from the terrible reality, people became carried away by the ideas of individualism and forgot about the eternal moral values ​​and commandments of the Christian religion.

The birth of an idea

The main character of the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky, possessing extraordinary abilities, dreaming of a great future, is forced to endure poverty and humiliation. This had a detrimental effect on the psychological state of the hero. He leaves his studies at the university, locks himself in his stuffy closet and ponders a plan for a terrible crime. A conversation overheard by chance seems like a strange omen to Raskolnikov. Individual thoughts and phrases repeated the theses of the article “On Crime,” which he wrote for the newspaper. Captivated by the idea, the young man decides to bring the theory to life.

The right of a strong personality to commit a crime

What was Raskolnikov’s famous theory? People, according to the student, from birth are divided into two categories. Some belong to the upper class of the chosen ones “who have the gift or talent to say a new word among themselves.” They are destined for an unusual fate. They make great discoveries, make history, and advance progress. A person like Napoleon can commit crimes for the sake of a higher goal, expose others to mortal danger, and step through blood. They are not afraid of laws. There are no moral principles for them. Such individuals of the human race may not think about the consequences of their behavior and strive to achieve their goal no matter what. They are “entitled”. The rest of the mass of people is material “serving solely for the generation of their own kind.”

Testing the theory with life

Possessing exorbitant pride, Raskolnikov considered himself one of the chosen ones. The murder of a greedy old woman committed by a young man is a test of the theory on himself. The “Chosen One” easily steps over the blood in order to later benefit all of humanity. Feelings of regret and remorse are unknown to such a person. This is what the main character of the novel thinks. Life puts everything in its place. Rodion Raskolnikov, having committed a terrible crime, finds himself in painful isolation. He, who has crossed the moral line, is unhappy, separated from communication with his family, and doomed to loneliness. “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself,” exclaims Raskolnikov. The murder puts a young man, kind and noble by nature, on a par with such vicious personalities as Svidrigailov and Luzhin. After all, they also ignored moral laws and lived, thinking only about their own well-being. “We are birds of a feather,” Svidrigailov says to the hero. The protagonist's experiences are the most terrible punishment and proof of his delusions. Only by repenting of his deeds and turning to God does Raskolnikov gather his “shattered” soul and find peace and happiness. Sonya Marmeladova's devotion and love make her forget about her delusions and be reborn for a new life.

Lessons from a brilliant novel

Terrible consequences

Raskolnikov's inhuman theory, based on the idea of ​​egoism and individualism, is inhumane. No one has the right to control the lives of other people. By committing such actions, a person violates the laws of morality and the commandments of Christianity. “Thou shalt not kill,” says the Bible. It is no coincidence that the smart Porfiry Petrovich, trying to understand the conclusions of Rodion Raskolnikov, is interested in how one can distinguish an unusual person. After all, if everyone imagines themselves to be special and starts breaking the law, chaos will begin! The author of the theory does not have a clear answer to this question.

Who is guilty

Who is to blame for the fact that smart, kind, noble people were carried away by such ideas, crippled their lives, ruined their souls. Dostoevsky tries to answer this question with his novel. Social inequality, the miserable position of the majority of the working people, the “humiliated and insulted” pushed people along this criminal and immoral path.

Good is the basis of life

In the novel Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov's theory fails. This helps to understand that a person is not a “trembling creature,” but a person who has the right to life. “You can’t build happiness on someone else’s misfortune,” says popular wisdom. Relations between people should be based on kindness, mercy and faith in God, as the novel of the great writer convinces us.

A description of the theory of the main character of the novel and proof of its inconsistency will be useful for 10th graders when writing the essay “Raskolnikov’s Theory in the Novel “Crime and Punishment”.”

Work test

He creates first, if we take into account only his ideological novels. In the center of the image is the main character Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, to whom all the threads of the narrative come down. Raskolnikov's theory in the novel "Crime and Punishment" becomes a connecting and symbolic element, thanks to which the work acquires integrity and completeness.

A young man living in a shabby rented room walks along the streets of St. Petersburg and is plotting some business. We still don’t know what Raskolnikov is thinking about, but from his painful state it is clear that this is a crime. He decides to kill the old pawnbroker. However, one murder leads to another. To eliminate the witness, he has to kill Alena Ivanovna’s younger sister, Lizaveta Ivanovna. After the crime, the hero’s life becomes unbearable: he seems to be in the hell of his own thoughts and passions, he is afraid that he will be discovered. As a result, Raskolnikov himself makes a confession, and he is sent to hard labor.

Genre originality of the novel

A brief retelling suggests that this novel can be considered as a detective novel. However, this is too narrow a framework for Dostoevsky’s profound work. Indeed, in addition to a thorough depiction of the crime scene, the author also resorts to accurate psychological sketches. Some researchers clearly attribute the work to the genre of an ideological novel, because it is brought to the fore in the novel “Crime and Punishment” that it does not become known immediately, only after the murder. However, from the very first chapters it is clear that the hero is not just a maniac, his action is supported by certain rational reasons.

What pushes Raskolnikov to murder?

Firstly, terrible living conditions. A former student who was forced to quit his studies due to lack of money, Raskolnikov lives in a cramped closet with torn wallpaper. His clothes look like something anyone else would be embarrassed to wear. The day before, he receives a letter from his mother, in which she reports that his sister Dunya is marrying a wealthy man who is older than her. Of course, she is driven by need. The old pawnbroker is rich, but she is very stingy and evil. Raskolnikov thinks that her money could help many, not just his family. The theory is supported by one minor character - a student whom the hero sees in the tavern. This student is talking to an officer. In his opinion, the old woman is a vile creature, she is unworthy to live, but her money could be divided among the poor and the sick. All this strengthens Raskolnikov’s idea that he needs to be killed.

Raskolnikov's theory in the novel "Crime and Punishment"

In which chapter do we learn that the hero had his own theory? Porfiry Petrovich in the fifth chapter of the third part talks about Raskolnikov’s article, which he wrote when he was still studying. He cites this article as accusations. After all, in it Rodion divided people into two categories: those who have the right and those who tremble. The first - the powers that be - can decide destinies and influence the course of history. The latter are the material. By committing the murder of the old woman, Raskolnikov wants to prove to himself that he belongs to the first category. However, the torment that murder brings him says otherwise. In the end, we, the readers, understand that Raskolnikov’s Theory in the novel “Crime and Punishment” is initially doomed to failure: it is inhuman.

The idea of ​​duality in the novel

A huge role in revealing Raskolnikov’s theory and character is played by the so-called double heroes. There are many of them in the novel, but the brightest are Luzhin and Svidrigailov. Thanks to these characters, Raskolnikov's theory is refuted in the novel Crime and Punishment. The table shows the similarities and differences between the three characters.

The table shows that the most sinful of all three is Luzhin, because he never admitted his sins and did not commit a single good deed. Svidrigailov, before his death, managed to atone for everything with one good deed.

Raskolnikov hates and despises both of them because he sees his resemblance to them. All three are obsessed with inhuman theories, all three sin. The most thoughtful is Raskolnikov’s theory in the novel “Crime and Punishment” (quotes from the hero confirm this). He cynically calls the old woman a “louse” and says that he wanted to become Napoleon.

Everything that happens in the novel is an idea. Even the behavior of the main character itself. A special role in the novel is also played by the last dream about a pestilence, thanks to which it becomes clear how destructive Raskolnikov’s theory in a novel on a similar topic cannot do without deciphering this dream. If everyone thought the way Raskolnikov did, the world would have collapsed long ago.

conclusions

So, Raskolnikov’s inhuman theory in the novel “Crime and Punishment” is refuted by the author, who calls on people to live according to God’s laws. No rational reason can justify killing a person, no matter who he is.