Social and philosophical origins of rebellion Raskolnikov table. Social and philosophical origins of Raskolnikov's rebellion - essay

Social and philosophical origins of Raskolnikov's rebellion

Here God lies defeated -

He fell, and he fell low.

That's why we built it

Higher the pedestal.

Frank Herbert

The novel "Crime and Punishment" was written in 1866. The sixties of the nineteenth century were very turbulent not only politically, but also in the field of thinking: the centuries-old moral foundations of society were collapsing. The theory of Napoleonism was widely preached. Young people thought that everything was allowed to them. “In one life - thousands of lives saved from rot and decay. One death and a hundred lives in return - but there’s arithmetic here!” Of course, in real life no one killed anyone, but only thought about it - as a joke. Dostoevsky took this theory to its zenith to see what happened. And this is what happened: an unhappy person who does not understand his mistake, a lonely person, suffering spiritually and physically. This is how Raskolnikov appears to us.

If we turn to Raskolnikov’s childhood memory (a dream), we see a kind, sensitive boy who is trying to save a dying horse. “Thank God, it’s just a dream! But what is this? Is it possible that a fever is starting inside me: such an ugly dream!” - says Raskolnikov, waking up. He can no longer imagine himself like this, for him this boy is “a trembling creature, a louse.” But what changed Raskolnikov so much? There are many reasons, but they can be reduced to several, more general ones.

The first, we will probably call the time in which Raskolnikov lived. This time itself pushed for changes, protests, riots. Probably every young man then (and even now!) considered himself the savior of the world. Time is the root cause of Raskolnikov's actions.

The second reason is the city of St. Petersburg. Here is what Pushkin writes about him:

The city is lush, the city is poor,

Spirit of bondage, slender appearance,

The vault of heaven is pale green,

Boredom, cold and granite.

In Crime and Punishment, Petersburg is a vampire city. He drinks the vital juices from the people who come there. This happened with Raskolnikov. When he first came to study, he was still that nice boy from childhood. But time passes, and the proudly raised head sinks lower and lower, the city begins to choke Raskolnikov, he wants to take a deep breath, but he cannot. It is interesting that throughout the entire novel, St. Petersburg only once appears before Raskolnikov with a piece of its beauty: “An inexplicable coldness blew over him from this magnificent panorama; this magnificent picture was full of a dumb and deaf spirit for him...” But the majestic view of St. Isaac’s Cathedral and Winter Palace silent for Raskolnikov, for whom Petersburg is his closet - a “closet”, a closet - a “coffin”. It is Petersburg that is largely to blame for the novel. In it, Raskolnikov becomes lonely and unhappy, in it he hears the officers talking, and in it, finally, lives an old woman who is guilty of her wealth.

Digging into the main social reasons rebellion, it is worth taking on philosophical and psychological ones. Here the first thing to name, of course, is Raskolnikov’s character: proud, even vain, independent, impatient, self-confident, categorical... but you never know how many definitions you can come up with? Because of his character, Raskolnikov fell into a hole from which few can get out...

When Raskolnikov was just developing his theory, he, without even suspecting it, already considered himself to be a People with capital letters. Further more. Being constantly alone, all he did was think. So, he deceived himself, convinced himself of something that was not there. It is interesting that at the beginning he justifies himself, like many young people, with the noble goal of helping others. But after committing the crime, Raskolnikov realizes that he killed not to help others, but for himself. “The old woman was only ill... I wanted to cross as quickly as possible... I didn’t kill a person, but I killed the principles. I killed the principles, but didn’t cross, I stayed on this side,” “... I needed to find out then, and quickly find out whether I’m a louse, like everyone else, or a man?.. Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...” It is also interesting that until the very end Raskolnikov considered himself the only one in the right. “Nothing, they won’t understand anything, Sonya, and they are not worthy to understand,” “...maybe I’m still a person, and not a louse, and I’m hasty in condemning myself. I’ll still fight.”

Raskolnikov's loved ones understood him better than he understood himself. “After all, he doesn’t love anyone; maybe he never will!” - says Razumikhin. “And a scoundrel, however, this Raskolnikov! He has carried a lot on himself. He can be a big scoundrel over time, when nonsense pops up, but now he wants to live too much,” says Svidrigailov. “I consider you to be one of those who at least cut out the intestines, and he will stand and look at the tormentors with a smile - if only he finds faith or God. Well, find him, and you will live,” says Porfiry Petrovich. “She [Sonya] also knew his vanity, arrogance, pride and lack of faith.”

Disbelief. It is with this word that Dostoevsky wants to justify Raskolnikov’s action. This is evidenced by Sonya, “character number two,” who truly believes and lives by it, and thanks to this, has risen much higher than Raskolnikov. The name of the main character speaks about this. This is evidenced by numerous hints and “unquoted” quotations from the Holy Scriptures, hidden Gospel images. After all, God means not just belief in something supernatural, but also the presence of minimal moral principles. And this is so necessary in an era of change and rebellion in order to keep a person afloat and not lead him astray from the “true path”!

“If a creature has already become someone, it will die, but will not turn into its own opposite,” “there is no sharp line between people and gods: people become gods, and gods turn into people” - these lines were written much later, and this proves that no matter what time we live, the themes for novels remain the same: where is the border between fas and nefas (permissible and unlawful).

F. M. Dostoevsky focuses on the terrible reality of Russia mid-19th century, with its poverty, lack of rights, oppression, suppression, corruption of the individual, suffocating from the consciousness of his powerlessness and rebellious. Such a hero in the novel “Crime and Punishment” is Rakolnikov.

Presciently foresaw great writer the emergence of rebellious ideas that explode old ideas and norms of human behavior. This was the idea that Raskolnikov endured in long agony. His task is to rise above the world, to achieve “power over the entire human anthill.” “Am I a trembling creature” or “do I have the right” - such is the painful dilemma facing the hero. The murder of the old pawnbroker becomes a way to resolve all contradictions.

What are social origins this way of thinking? Dostoevsky, introducing his hero, immediately, on the first page, talks about his social status. The young man comes out not from the room, but from the closet, which the author later compares with a closet, chest, fob, describes its squalor, emphasizing the extreme poverty of its occupant: “he was crushed by poverty,” as he writes Dostoevsky.

The origins of Raskolnikov’s rebellion are told in symbolic form by a dream about a slaughtered horse, which he sees before committing a crime. Firstly, this protest against murder, senseless cruelty, sympathy for the pain of others. All this testifies to the subtle, vulnerable soul of the hero. Secondly, the dream is perceived as a battle of existing orders. Life is unfair, motherfucker, cruel, its owner-riders drive the unfortunate downtrodden nags.

The author directly correlates Raskolnikov’s philosophy with the activities of Napoleon. It was in him that some of the youth of the early 20th century found an example of a bright personality who rose from the bottom to the heights of power. “I wanted...to become Napoleon,” Raskolnikov says to Sonya. Napoleon is close to Raskolnikov in his ability to walk over the corpses of his fellow tribesmen for the sake of self-affirmation. In addition, Raskolnikov’s philosophy has a closer source. The strong nature of the hero, with youthful impatience, rushed to the extreme of officialdom, because it was necessary “now, and quickly” to decide “at least on something.” Raskolnikov's mind reveals the ugly structure of human relationships, and at the same time all other aspects of life. He is ready to consider the entire human race “scoundrels” and perform his actions based on this.

Yes, this is nihilism, but not even on Bazarov’s scale, but in its most extreme development, phagic nihilism. In officialdom, Raskolnikov goes to the last point - to the decision to commit an act in action, and not in words, official of this life.

An idea, false at its core, is debunked from the inside - through the despair of the unfortunate. Raskolnikov understands that nothing can be changed by crime. The novel is written in such a way that all events not only amaze the reader, but also convince them with their great and phagic truth.

• | Views: 10849
• | Views: 356

Raskolnikov's theory:

“Crime and Punishment” or Crime – Punishment?

conclusions

Sonya Marmeladova

Epilogue of the novel

Here God lies defeated -

He fell, and he fell low.

That's why we built it

Higher the pedestal.

Frank Herbert

The novel "Crime and Punishment" was written in 1866. The sixties of the nineteenth century were very turbulent not only politically, but also in the field of thinking: the centuries-old moral foundations of society were collapsing. The theory of Napoleonism was widely preached. Young people thought that everything was allowed to them. “In one life - thousands of lives saved from rot and decay. One death and a hundred lives in return - but there’s arithmetic here!” Of course, in real life no one killed anyone, but only thought about it - as a joke. Dostoevsky took this theory to its zenith to see what happened. And this is what happened: an unhappy person who does not understand his mistake, a lonely person, suffering spiritually and physically. This is how Raskolnikov appears to us.

If we turn to Raskolnikov’s childhood memory (a dream), we see a kind, sensitive boy who is trying to save a dying horse. “Thank God, it’s just a dream! But what is this? Is it possible that a fever is starting inside me: such an ugly dream!” - says Raskolnikov, waking up. He can no longer imagine himself like this, for him this boy is “a trembling creature, a louse.” But what changed Raskolnikov so much? There are many reasons, but they can be reduced to several, more general ones.

The first, we will probably call the time in which Raskolnikov lived. This time itself pushed for changes, protests, riots. Probably every young man then (and even now!) considered himself the savior of the world. Time is the root cause of Raskolnikov's actions.

The second reason is the city of St. Petersburg. Here is what Pushkin writes about him:

The city is lush, the city is poor,

Spirit of bondage, slender appearance,

The vault of heaven is pale green,

Boredom, cold and granite.

In Crime and Punishment, Petersburg is a vampire city. He drinks the vital juices from the people who come there. This happened with Raskolnikov. When he first came to study, he was still that nice boy from childhood. But time passes, and the proudly raised head sinks lower and lower, the city begins to choke Raskolnikov, he wants to take a deep breath, but he cannot. It is interesting that throughout the entire novel, St. Petersburg only once appears before Raskolnikov with a piece of its beauty: “An inexplicable coldness blew over him from this magnificent panorama; this magnificent picture was full of a dumb and deaf spirit for him...” But the majestic view of St. Isaac's Cathedral and the Winter Palace silent for Raskolnikov, for whom Petersburg is his closet - a “closet”, a closet - a “coffin”. It is Petersburg that is largely to blame for the novel. In it, Raskolnikov becomes lonely and unhappy, in it he hears the officers talking, and in it, finally, lives an old woman who is guilty of her wealth.

Having delved into the main social causes of the rebellion, it is worth taking on the philosophical and psychological ones. Here the first thing to name, of course, is Raskolnikov’s character: proud, even vain, independent, impatient, self-confident, categorical... but you never know how many definitions you can come up with? Because of his character, Raskolnikov fell into a hole from which few can get out...

When Raskolnikov was just developing his theory, he, without even suspecting it, already considered himself a People with a capital M. Further more. Being constantly alone, all he did was think. So, he deceived himself, convinced himself of something that was not there. It is interesting that at the beginning he justifies himself, like many young people, with the noble goal of helping others. But after committing the crime, Raskolnikov realizes that he killed not to help others, but for himself. “The old woman was only ill... I wanted to cross as quickly as possible... I didn’t kill a person, but I killed the principles. I killed the principles, but didn’t cross, I stayed on this side,” “... I needed to find out then, and quickly find out whether I’m a louse, like everyone else, or a man?.. Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...” It is also interesting that until the very end Raskolnikov considered himself the only one in the right. “Nothing, they won’t understand anything, Sonya, and they are not worthy to understand,” “...maybe I’m still a person, and not a louse, and I’m hasty in condemning myself. I’ll still fight.”

Raskolnikov's loved ones understood him better than he understood himself. “After all, he doesn’t love anyone; maybe he never will!” - says Razumikhin. “And a scoundrel, however, this Raskolnikov! He has carried a lot on himself. He can be a big scoundrel over time, when nonsense pops up, but now he wants to live too much,” says Svidrigailov. “I consider you to be one of those who at least cut out the intestines, and he will stand and look at the tormentors with a smile - if only he finds faith or God. Well, find him, and you will live,” says Porfiry Petrovich. “She [Sonya] also knew his vanity, arrogance, pride and lack of faith.”

Disbelief. It is with this word that Dostoevsky wants to justify Raskolnikov’s action. This is evidenced by Sonya, “character number two,” who truly believes and lives by it, and thanks to this, has risen much higher than Raskolnikov. The name of the main character speaks about this. This is evidenced by numerous hints and “unquoted” quotations from the Holy Scriptures, hidden Gospel images. After all, God means not just belief in something supernatural, but also the presence of minimal moral principles. And this is so necessary in an era of change and rebellion in order to keep a person afloat and not lead him astray from the “true path”!

“If a creature has already become someone, it will die, but will not turn into its own opposite,” “there is no sharp line between people and gods: people become gods, and gods turn into people” - these lines were written much later, and this proves that no matter what time we live, the themes for novels remain the same: where is the border between fas and nefas (permissible and unlawful).

In preparing this work, materials from the site http://www.studentu.ru were used

One of the main themes of F. M. Dostoevsky’s work is the theme of the relationship between man and idea. In most of his novels there are characters obsessed with some idea, living only by it, subordinating all actions to it and, as a result, destroying both their lives and the lives of other people.

The novel “Crime and Punishment” was conceived by the author while still in hard labor. Then it was called “Drunken”, but gradually the concept of the novel changed. AND new novel Crime and Punishment became "a psychological account of a crime." But we're talking about not about an ordinary murder, but about an ideological one, carried out by a criminal thinker.

But is Rodion Raskolnikov, a poor student, a villain, a murderer? What led him to crime? A plight on the brink of poverty, an illness, or a self-invented theory about “chosen” and “ordinary” people? What happened before?

An intelligent, proud, self-conscious young man, Rodion Raskolnikov, was expelled from the university because he had nothing to pay for his studies. He lives in extreme poverty, suffers from hunger and deprivation, from the humiliation that he himself, and his mother and sister Dunya experience. He sees only dirt, poverty, and vices around him. He tries to help Marmeladov, but in vain; wants to help Sonya, his sister Duna - but they remain “humiliated and insulted.” Raskolnikov is forced to pawn some of his belongings so as not to die of hunger.

Raskolnikov feels useless to anyone, an outcast among rich mansions and elegant audiences. Depressed by poverty and injustice, he comes to the idea of ​​killing the pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna. This crime has, so to speak, a theoretical justification. The murder of an old woman is not just a banal murder, but a murder “in conscience.”

Even before the crime, he writes and publishes an article in which he sets out the theory that all people are divided into “ordinary” and “extraordinary, like Napoleon.” Extraordinary people have the right to break the law for the benefit of people. Raskolnikov thinks for a long time about his own role: whether he is an “ordinary” person - a “trembling creature”, or “has the right.” And he decided to prove in practice that he “has the right to commit a crime according to his conscience”, to become the ruler of the world. Material from the site

Rodion Raskolnikov thought of killing the old pawnbroker, this “worthless creature,” and freeing himself and his loved ones from poverty. But he forgot the main thing: no one gave him the right to take the life of another person. And yet, having committed a crime, Raskolnikov could not step over himself, through his conscience. “I didn’t kill the old lady... I killed myself,” he will say.

F. M. Dostoevsky refutes Raskolnikov’s theory: the logical refutation was presented by Porfiry Petrovich, and the moral refutation was presented by the “eternal” Sonya Marmeladova.

Dostoevsky’s attitude towards Raskolnikov is complex, but the writer’s sentence is merciless - no one has the right to commit a crime! Showing the inhumanity of bourgeois society, Dostoevsky still does not see it as the reason for his hero’s crime. The reason is Raskolnikov himself. And before you change society, you need to change yourself.

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

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• philosophical reasons for Raskolnikov's crime
• social and ideological origins of Raskolnikov's rebellion briefly
• social and philosophical origins of schismatic riots
• social and philosophical roots of Raskolnikov's theory
• social origins of Raskolnikov's rebellion based on the novel Crime and Punishment