Intellectualism In Crime And Punishment By Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Raskolnikov’s brusque affectation eventually yields to his predilection for salvation and redemption. He ultimately comes to the realization that he is not worthy of being “extraordinary” because of the crippling guilt that followed his murder of the pawnbroker. Raskolnikov reflects upon the implications of his crime on his psyche, “I murdered myself, not her! I crushed myself once for all,

In order to understand Raskolnikov’s guilt, it is important to understand the religious influences at work in the time period and place he lived in. In St. Petersburg where Raskolnikov lives, there are strong Christian influences from the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church condemns killing people with few exceptions. Although is not a devout believer, these influences are still at work in the book. It is clear that Raskolnikov is struggling to fight God away because, as he says that “once God’s will gets mixed up in it, nothing will be done” (389). He acknowledges that the guilt he has is God’s doing, and he struggles internally to get rid of it. The idea that he is not able to feel good about the murder that he knows improved society. He states that “what bothers [him] is this permission according to conscience” (253). Even though he wants to establish his own moral code, it is impossible for him to do so because of the influence of religion.

Between all the other characters in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are the most similar in that Svidrigailov is depicted as Raskolnikov’s baser self and a depraved character. While Raskolnikov is seen to be a more repentant character who is afflicted with guilt after murdering the pawnbroker for his own selfish desires despite telling himself it is for the greater good, Svidrigailov is rumored to have committed several murders and feels nothing for his victims, one of them being his own wife. Throughout the story, Rask is shown as wanting to be like Svidrigailov just as Svidrigailov longs to be like Rask because each one has qualities that the other wants in their life.

    This is how Raskolnikov is able to commit his crime: his intellectual side ignores his conscience and is able to commit the crime in a rational and orderly way. It is his dual character that serves as his punishment. One side of him is able to commit the murders, so the other must bear the punishment. He is tortured by the cruelty in mankind, and yet he himself is able to repeat it.

The mood of confusion due to the characters disorientation from his guilty conscious is what manipulates the tone. The mood and tone are also expressed during the state of agitation the character encounters when battling his conscious about committing the murder in the first place. Going back to the point of the characters un-confessed sin which is his main cause of his torture; there comes the moment of truth within the story. In the excerpt, the author says, “There had been little difficulty about his trial. The criminal adhered exactly, firmly, and clearly to his statement… He explained every incident of the murder” (lines 4-6). This is the point in the story where Raskolnikov unleashes the demons in his mind and confesses to his sin. It’s shown here just how brutal the battle with his guilty conscious truly was, by Raskolnikov being pushed to a confession, stating the exact incidents and not missing a single detail, all while showing absolutely no remorse for himself. There is finally a sense of hope that is shown for the main character at the end of the excerpt when the author describes the moment in prison after his confession. When the author says “In prison, how it happened, he did not know. But all at once something seemed to seize him and fling him at her (Sonia’s) feet. He wept and threw his arms round her knees. They were both pale and thin; but those sick pale faces were bright with the dawn of a new future, of a full

It shall not be, so long as I am alive, it shall not, it shall not! I won’t accept it!” (Part 1. 4.). Raskolnikov begins to alienate himself from his ex-colleague, Razumikhin, although at points it is Razumikhin who supports Raskolnikov the most. It forces Razumikhin to replace Raskolnikov in situations that should have been left to his authority. In a situation where Raskolnikov should have reassured Dounia and Pulcheria of their safety “he waved his hand weakly to Razumikhin to cut short the flow of warm and incoherent consolations he was addressing to his mother and sister” (Part 3. 1). As Raskolnikov began to slowly move away from any form of comfortable socialization and a growing poverty situation, his stubbornness to contain his pride and dignity eventually builds up to the brutal murder of Alyona.

When Raskolnikov was a student he enjoyed the debate and human contact, but also strived for acceptance. He had a dual nature to himself, which could be characterized by his cold intelligence, which separated him from society, and his compassionate side. After Raskolnikov murdered Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna

“I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right…” (329). This quote shows the reason why Raskolnikov wanted to commit the murder. He wants to prove that he has the power to control his own life.

Being the protagonist in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is subject to most ridicule and analysis for his moral ambiguity and outlandish views. After reading about his dreadful murder of Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna, many come to the conclusion that Raskolnikov is purely evil. His lack of guilt and belief of justification for his crime surely points readers in this direction. Raskolnikov remains convinced that he is superior and that it was his duty to kill such a worthless person. Although some may view this as evilness, others may perceive it as downright ignorant. His atypical way of thinking doesn’t necessarily make him evil, but that is how some comprehend it. At certain points in the story, we see Raskolnikov not as a deranged man, but instead as a compassionate human being. After the murder, we see him carrying out various charitable acts, perhaps as an attempt to atone for his unforgivable crime. For example, we see some good in him when he gives Sonya’s family twenty rubbles after Marmeladov passes on. We also see this when he attempts to rescue a drunk girl from a man by giving her money for a taxi. As much as Raskolnikov expresses that he was justified in his actions, through his mental and physical illnesses it is apparent that he feels some guilt about it. This guilt makes him seem at least a little bit more human. For these reasons, when all is said and done, it is difficult to determine

Dostoevsky’s beliefs and philosophies are reflections of the Russian philosophies from his era. He incorporates many of his own opinions and beliefs into his work in Crime and Punishment. Dostoevsky’s insight affects the novel as he integrates his views into his characters.

After the murder, his restless conscience tortures him, leading him into madness. Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky describes Raskolnikov as “delirious” and “fanatical,” likening him to a madman. Stemming from his guilt, this condition, remarked upon by his friend Razumihkin, the doctor Zossimov, the inspector Porfiry Petrovich, and others, consumes him and manifests as a physical disease. By portraying him as diseased, Dostoevsky links his murder with corruption – a corruption so great that it infects both his mind and body.

The ability to think logically and emotionally is a rare combination in any person. People do not typically posses both traits and identify themselves as either rationalists or anti-rationalists. Rationalists believe that their opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge. They are not generally the most religious people as they cannot rely on blind faith to guide them, but instead crave a logical explanation for every aspect of their life. On the other hand, blind faith is almost essential for an anti-rationalist. They do not require a scientific theory to know that their beliefs are valid. Anti-rationalists boldly deem reason and intellect as unimportant when applied to real-life situations, while emotions and morality are held to higher standards within their group. It is all too clear that rationalism and anti-rationalism beliefs contradict each other, making it difficult for reason and emotions to coexist. However, it is not impossible to find a perfect balance of the two, it is just improbable. Fyodor Dostoevsky understood this human flaw, and focused his criticism on rationalism to demonstrate the type of chaotic results that anti-rationalists do not experience. Through the use of the characters Luzhin, Svidrigailov, Raskolnikov, Sonya, and Dunia in his novel Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky advanced the belief that pushing theories to an extreme would generate detrimental consequences and a balance of the principles is best for human accommodations.

The main theme of Crime and Punishment is estrangement from society. In the beginning, Raskolnikov distances himself from the people of the world. “It was not that he was a cowed or naturally timorous person, far from it; but he had been for some time in an almost morbid state of irritability and tension. He had cut himself off from everybody and withdrawn so completely into himself that he now shrank from every kind of contact.” He was poor but because of his egotistic view of his importance and his feelings of superiority to everyone else he “had ceased to concern himself with everyday

Throughout the story we are shown that he is not above the emotions and guilt that are the basic human reactions to an action as extreme as murder. His downfall comes because of this very fact, as he mentally and physically deteriorates under the stress of his culpability. His arrogance is proven to be the unfounded and foolhardy ideas of one who is truly a deeply insecure and unstable person (though Raskolnikov never truly realizes this).

Therefore Amoia notes that, "as the implications of the deed unfold in his conscience, Raskolnikov attempts to jusitfy his actions as a 'rational' crime" (53). Though he understands that he will be able to escape the physical punishement for the crime, he has yet to comprehend the burden that comes with such an unethical action. Even when Porfiry suggests that the criminal who murdered the pawnbroker may run away but, "psychologically he won't escape" (287), Raskolnikov becomes infuriated and accuses Porfiry of trying to scare him. However, Raskolnikov fails to understand the meaning behind Porfiry's words perhaps because he still chooses not to rely on his conscience and confess to the crime.While the superiority complex sets him apart from the society in the beginning, his piercing conscience distances him from people later on in the novel. He refuses to speak to Razumuikhin or to his family. It only before he goes to jail, that he decides to see his mother. Even when he does so, he is relieved that Dunya is not in the room. He later admits to Dunya that he doesn't, "even remember why [I] even went" to meet his mother. His conscience does not allow him to face his loved ones and eventually, he tries to isolate himself from society. While Raskolnikov tries to alienate himself from his own conscience, he is alienating himself from humanity in general.