Here we are. This is perhaps the most important post in my entire project because this is solely what Crime and Punishment is all about. There is much to discuss in this category, so I will try to take it in the most comprehensive steps I can.
First, I will identify the genre. The genre is primarily psychological and philosophical fiction, but you could also say that the book falls under the thriller and mystery categories as well. The psychological genre is defined as being characterized by internal motivations, circumstances, beliefs, and biases of a character, and this in turn is derived from and creates the external events that are happening. Thus, this genre explains the why behind the what, or the motivation behind the action. It seeks to show the deeper insights of the characters' mentalities. The philosophical genre is defined as answering the same questions and addressing the same topics that normal philosophy tries to answer and address, but it does so from a fictional perspective. These topics include the role of society, the meaning of life, morality, and the role of experience in the development of knowledge. It seeks to present philosophical ideas, but through the perspectives of characters who have their own opinions and biases.
Now, I will describe the philosophy of existentialism, as it is Dostoevsky's main philosophy in Crime and Punishment, using mainly Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism and Human Emotions. Sartre's main argument for explaining existentialism is that in existentialism to be a human is characterized by the concept of existence preceding essence. What this means is that man first shows up in the world, and only after he is living is he able to define himself. Thus there is no human nature because humans must choose their own paths completely. In this way, humans are essentially abandoned into the world at the very moment they are born, but it is important to note that man always chooses to be born because man chooses his opinion on his birth, thus defining his existence. Because of this, we know that it is impossible for a human to say that they didn't 'ask to be born'. Since there is no God in this specific idea, man has complete freedom, but also complete responsibility for himself and the world at the same time. By this concept, every situation man finds himself in is his own choice. Man always has a choice and always has the freedom to make that choice. This can be defined as liberty. It is important to note, however, that this does not mean that the choices man is able to make in a given situation are fair. An example of this is a man going off to fight in a war. The man has several different options, and all of them are choices he can make. He can either kill himself, desert, or fight in the war and either live or die. No matter which of these options he chooses, one of his values will be compromised and set to the side as less important. Perhaps the man really doesn't want to die, but keeping his family name in good standing is more important to him. This means the man must put aside his value in his life in order to save his family name. In this way, choices are not always fair, but humans are always free to make them. This is the basics of Sartre's philosophy.
Here are some helpful quotes to go along with this information:
* "What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
-page 15
* "...man will be what he will have planned to be. Not what he will want to be. Because by the word 'will' we generally mean a conscious decision, which is subsequent to what we have already made of ourselves."
-page 16
* "I am abandoned in the world, not in the sense that I might remain abandoned and passive in a hostile universe like a board floating on the water, but rather in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help, enraged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant. For I am responsible for my very desire of fleeing responsibilities. To make myself passive in the world, to refuse to act upon things and upon Others is still to choose myself, and suicide is one mode among others of being-in-the-world."
-page 57
* "I am ashamed of being born or I am astonished at it or I rejoice over it, or in attempting to get ride of my life I affirm that I live and I assume this life is bad. Thus in a certain sense I choose being born.
-pages 57-58
Now that we understand the genre and the general philosophy of existentialism, let's talk about Dostoevsky and philosophy and how this relates to Crime and Punishment. Dostoevsky represents much of the same ideas I just discussed, but he also brings in some different aspects. Dostoevsky actually said once, "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible." This quote brings up another interesting point of existentialism: the idea that if humans collectively discovered that God didn't exist, nothing should change in our society. This means that humans should act like God exists in order for certain values to be taken seriously in order for society as a whole to prosper. In that way, humans have already been taught these values and principles their whole lives and are unlikely to go against them. We can relate this idea to Raskolnikov's philosophy of ordinary and extraordinary people. According to this philosophy, Raskolnikov essentially believes that some people were born to be superior to all the other people in the world. These extraordinary people (he uses Napoleon Bonaparte for an example) are the lawmakers and are allowed to bend the rules and break the laws because they won't get caught or feel guilt for their terrible actions that allow them to be 'great'. The ordinary people are the ones who are unable to break the law because their guilt over their crimes will force them to either slip up or confess. This relates to the concept around God existing or not because for most of the story, Raskolnikov does not believe in God. This means that he is failing society by losing all of his values even though society should, in theory, still run by this principles even without the existence of God. This led to him believing in his ordinary and extraordinary philosophy, and because of that he thought he might one of these extraordinary people. He thought he could get away with the murder and not feel any guilt. As we know, however, Raskolnikov did confess at the end of the book. Also, while Raskolnikov spent his time in prison, he actually recognized his crime. But he didn't feel any guilt over the murder, instead, he felt sorrow in the fact that he was not an extraordinary person because he failed to commit his crime since he confessed. That is the only way he recognized his criminality. As this was paired with him coming back to believing in God, we know as readers that he slowly began to gain back some of his values and that this was the first step. This first step, of course, isn't great as he didn't feel any lack of morality in the murder he committed. The future, however, looked positive at the end of the book as Raskolnikov looked forward to the future as he began to open back up his heart. Also, during his trial, many people who knew Raskolnikov came forward and told of all the good things he had done as a person. Along with the fact that Raskolnikov didn't really steal anything from the two women, Raskolnikov's sentence was reduced greatly. Based on these facts, it is really easy to believe that the only reason why Raskolnikov wanted to commit murder is because he wanted to know whether or not he was extraordinary. In my next point, however, you'll see that he already knows that he is not extraordinary.
The last important note is knowing that Dostoevsky did what is called an existential psychoanalysis of Raskolnikov. Existential psychoanalysis, or EP for short, is concerned mainly with fully understanding the totality of a particular human being in all of their behavior patterns. It has a couple guidelines and assumptions: the subject must not be aware of this EP, the subconscious does not exist, and the subject already knows all of the information that the analyst is trying to discover. A few key notes on this: when I say that the subconscious doesn't exist and the subject already know all the information about themselves, what I mean is that a person can have knowledge of a certain thing but still not be aware of this knowledge. Note that this still doesn't mean that this knowledge is in the subconscious. When we consider these facts up next to Raskolnikov, we can make the claim that Raskolnikov already knew that he wasn't an extraordinary person. He simply wasn't yet aware of this until much later in the story after he confesses. Dostoevsky, as the EP coordinator, leads Raskolnikov through certain events in the story to unravel him and make him become aware of truths about himself that he already knew. I personally believe that this last paragraph may be the most important comprehensive personal opinion I can give on this book. I have combined my knowledge from reading Sartre and Dostoevsky and spending much time comprehending all these different facts to come up with this one opinion: Dostoevsky existentially psychoanalyzed Raskolnikov to allow him as a character to understand that the philosophy he believed in did not apply to his own self, which was a fact he already knew in the first place. This was a biggest realization I had while thinking about this book, and I'm so glad I was able to share my opinion.
*Note: that was definitely an opinion. While I do know for a fact that Dostoevsky did EP experiments with his characters, I have no proof about any of what was said about Raskolnikov's own self discovery and philosophy. I can only provide evidence of my claims.
Yay! You made it to the end. Here you go. Have a celebratory existentialist pun.
#philosophy #psychology #Raskolnikov # existentialism #ordinary #extraordinary #existential psychoanalysis #Dostoevsky #J.P. Sartre #good stuff #the tea #big 'ole discovery #it was lit #I like slapped my forehead and was like 'oh that's it!' #yay me
Kommentarer