I have long dwelled on the question of the relativity in life of the concepts of good and evil. Among mankind, Raskolnikov separated small group people who, as it were, stood above the questions of good and evil, above the ethical assessments of deeds and deeds, people who, due to their genius, their high usefulness for mankind, nothing can serve as an obstacle, to whom everything is allowed. The rest, who do not leave the circle of mediocrity, the mass, the crowd, must obey the existing general norms and laws and serve as a means of high goals for the chosen people. Moral rules do not exist for the latter, they can break them, because their ends justify their means.
Raskolnikov's theory
“In my opinion,” says Raskolnikov, “if the Keplerian and Newtonian discoveries, due to any combinations, could in no way become famous people otherwise, as with the donation of the life of one, ten, a hundred, and so on, people who would interfere with this discovery, or would stand in the way, as an obstacle, then Newton would have had the right and. he would even be obliged to eliminate these ten or even a hundred people in order to make his discoveries known to all mankind. All the legislators and founders of mankind, starting with the most ancient, continuing with the Lycurgs, Solons, Mohammeds, Napoleons and so on, every single one were criminals, already the one that, giving new law, thereby violated the ancient one, sacredly revered by society and passed from the fathers, and, of course, they did not stop at blood, if only blood (sometimes completely innocent and valiantly shed for the ancient law) could help them. It is remarkable even that most of these benefactors and founders of mankind were especially terrible bloodsheds.
This is how Raskolnikov substantiates the right of an exceptional person to commit crimes in the name of not animals and selfish, but general and lofty goals. Raskolnikov understands that such a course of action must also correspond to the special mental structure of the personality of a person who is ready to “transgress” morality. He must be the owner for this strong will, iron restraint, and in him over feelings of fear, despair, timidity, only the consciousness of the set intellectual goals should rule. Having fallen into despair and longing, Raskolnikov needs to prove to himself that he is not a “trembling creature”, that he dares, maybe that he is destined to go through all his plans. “Power is given only to those who dare to bend down and take it. There is only one thing: you just have to dare.”
Thus, the planned murder attracts Raskolnikov not with the possibility of enrichment, but as a victory over himself, as a confirmation of his strength, as proof that he is not “material” for construction, but the builder himself. It is characteristic of Raskolnikov that, contemplating a murder, he goes entirely into the theoretician, into philosophical reflections, and he is much more interested in logical conclusions than in the results of an act. He remains a theoretician, a thinker even when he fulfills all his plans. And, despite the fact that, as it seemed, he foresaw and foresaw everything in advance in thought, he could not foresee the most important thing precisely because he was a man of thought, not action.
Refutation of Raskolnikov's theory
Raskolnikov did not foresee precisely the fact that between a theoretical solution and practical implementation there often lies an abyss, that what seems so easy in theory and even fills with complacency and pride in reality reveals an unexpected, formidable and ominous meaning. He foresaw a lot in the planned plan and imagined almost all of its external consequences, but he could not foresee the inner state of health both at the moment of shedding blood, hitting the old woman’s skull with an ax, and in the days and nights that followed. Raskolnikov, as a theoretician and as an individualist, reckoned only with himself, with his own intellectual goals, while he was preparing to go and commit violence, take the life of another.
At its core, the fallacy of Raskolnikov’s theory boils down to the fact that he attributed to moral laws in general and in particular the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” a purely external meaning, which should be externally obligatory for some and from the recognition of which some can be exempted. That is why, while preparing for the murder, he thinks all the time mentally only of his logical positions, but does not consciously dwell on the essence of the very moment of the murder. And only vaguely something in him protests against decision, and he feels anguish and disgust at the thought of having to commit murder.
And after committing a crime, when he tries in vain to sort out his feelings, he believes that the whole point is simply that he did not have the strength to “transgress” the norm, to dare. “I only killed a louse, Sonya,” he says to Sonya Marmeladova, “useless, nasty, malicious” ... - “Is this a louse?” - exclaims Sonya, and by this emphasizes her special, deeply religious attitude to human life. For Sonya Marmeladova, moral laws, the commandments of life are embedded deep into the foundation of the human soul, and no one, no matter how high a person reaches, can transgress these commandments and laws without disfiguring his life, without committing terrible violence over your own soul. That's why she exclaims, sobbing: "What are you, what are you above oneself done! There is no one more unhappy than you now in the whole world.
As for Raskolnikov himself, he remains until the end of the novel, until the final lines of the epilogue, not understanding Sonya's religious attitude to life. But the author shows how Raskolnikov's immediate life reveals his violation of the basic laws of human life. Raskolnikov's theory, which allows murder for the few, the author opposes to the spontaneous logic of life, not rational, like Raskolnikov's, but irrational, completely subjugating the young theorist and smashing to smithereens all his positions, which seemed to him so firmly established and inviolable.
The state of complete mental disorder that Raskolnikov fell into after the murder, the complete loss of all his life affirmations, a painful and terrible state showed how powerless personal human logic is when it runs counter to the general life foundations.
When you can help yourself
Why cry out in prayer to heaven?
We have been given a choice. Those are right who dare;
Whoever is weak in spirit will not reach the goal ...
W. Shakespeare
In the novel Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky tells the story of a murder committed to test the theory that has developed in the head of a poor student. Rodion Raskolnikov is offended by the unjust structure of the world around him, where millions of the weak and defenseless die (like the Marmeladov family), and thousands of shameless scoundrels succeed (like Svidrigailov and Luzhin). How to correct social injustice? Raskolnikov, sitting in the attic in his coffin-like room, hungry, embittered, ponders this "eternal" question. He will state his decision in the article "On the Crime". Training on law school the university was not in vain for him. A number of historical figures line up in his head, who became famous for giving their peoples new laws, canceling (“crossing over”) the previous ones: Lycurgus (legislator of Sparta), Solon (legislator of Athens), Magomed (Islamic countries still live according to Sharia law ), Napoleon (according to the Napoleonic Code, France lives for almost two hundred years). These "criminals" did good to their peoples, left behind a grateful memory for centuries. Now it’s clear that Raskolnikov, according to his theory, divided all people into two groups: the majority are “trembling creatures” who can only obey and fulfill laws-orders, and units are “having the right”, these create laws and have the power to command " all the ants."
The poor student, himself humiliated by poverty, believes that a worthy task for the superman is nothing less than "the good of mankind." For "universal happiness", the superman must eliminate social evil, the symbol of which for Raskolnikov so far has become the nasty, evil, useless old woman pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna. Is it permissible to destroy the “unnecessary” minority for the sake of the happiness of the majority? Raskolnikov answers this question with his theory as follows: it is permissible and should, because it is “ simple arithmetic» (1, VI). Dostoevsky, on the other hand, proves in the novel that arithmetic calculations in relation to people are unacceptable. The writer shows how the speculative theory of the protagonist is consistently refuted by life itself.
Firstly, Raskolnikov's theory cannot be put into practice, as it combines incompatible ends and means. As Svidrigailov sarcastically remarks, “there was a mistake in the theory” (5, V). The superman, according to the protagonist, must intervene in the fate of mankind in such a way that, albeit by cruel, bloody, immoral means, he will achieve the reign of morality and justice in the world. Behind the idea of the "common good" in Raskolnikov's theory comes through the "idea of Napoleon" - one chosen one, standing above humanity and prescribing his own laws to everyone. However, Raskolnikov fails to truly rise above people, because he has a wonderful quality in his soul - philanthropy. Raskolnikov, despite his contempt for the "anthill", cannot indifferently pass by the drunken girl on Konnogvardeisky Boulevard, although he later scolds himself: "Isn't it monstrous that just now I got involved in a story with a girl ..." (1, IV). The collapse of Raskolnikov's theory began when Sonya, in response to his confession to the murder, began to cry: her tears outweighed the entire "logic of the idea" in the hero's soul (5, IV).
Secondly, the humiliated and insulted, for whose sake main character conceived to become a superman and benefit the world, they reject his beneficence. Raskolnikov, in addition to the old pawnbroker, unexpectedly kills the meek and unresponsive Lizaveta, so that “simple arithmetic” does not work. When the killer explains to Sonya the motives for his crime (“I didn’t kill a man, but a louse!”), she does not understand them and exclaims: “This man is a louse!” (5, IV). Sonya does not accept Raskolnikov's rebellion, she does not want deliverance at any cost, and therefore she is a person. According to Dostoevsky, she embodies the folk principle in the novel: patience, humility, boundless love for man and God. Only the people (in the form of Sonya) can condemn Raskolnikov's "Napoleonic" rebellion, force him to submit to the moral court of conscience and go to hard labor - "accept suffering" (5, IV).
Thirdly, Dostoevsky confronts his hero with people who share his opinion about the superpersonality and the crowd. The first "theorist" is Dunya's alleged fiancé, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, who argues: "Science says: love yourself first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest" (2, V). From Luzhin's point of view, in order for the state to have more happy people need to raise the level of prosperity. Since the basis of economic progress is personal gain, then everyone should take care of it and enrich themselves, without worrying too much about love for one's neighbor and other romantic nonsense. Luzhin's call for personal gain is a logical continuation of Raskolnikov's idea - "everything is allowed to the strong." The protagonist understands this and formulates to the neat and self-satisfied Pyotr Petrovich the essence of his “economic” theory: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it turns out that people can be cut ...” (2, V).
The second hero who allows "blood in conscience" is Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov. He, however, is no longer a theoretician, but a practitioner. This gentleman has already freed himself from "principles" and "ideals", for him life no longer makes sense: life is boring and uninteresting. Out of boredom, he does both good (he provides for the children of Katerina Ivanovna) and evil (kills his wife, who interferes with his romance with Dunya), - good and evil are already indistinguishable for him. Both - Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov - resolve the crime, therefore they are "of the same field," as Arkady Ivanovich rightly notes. But Svidrigailov got used to the murders, and the main character still clings to “justice”, to “high and beautiful”, to “Schiller” (6, III), although he already justifies the crime if it benefits (!) Humanity. So, Raskolnikov meets a man who does not think about, does not try on the idea of \u200b\u200b"blood according to conscience", but lives by it. Both the life and the thoughts of this “stepped over” superman are terrible. Suffice it to recall his conversations with murdered wife or his idea of eternity ( afterlife) as about a smoky sauna with spiders in the corners.
Fourthly, "human nature" rebels against Raskolnikov's theory. Why is the person of every person sacred? It is impossible to prove this truth logically. moral law, the law of human conscience. Immediately after the murder, the protagonist does not feel remorse, but very quickly begins to feel as if "cut off" (2.11) from people. Cold alienation reigns in his soul even in relation to close relatives: with his beloved mother, he feels awkward, constrained. His own conscience, according to Dostoevsky, takes revenge on him for violating the moral law.
Razumikhin defends “human nature” (3, V) most consistently: he fundamentally rejects any theories of violence against people, since life is always much more complicated than it seems to theorists. “Reality and nature are important thing, and wow, how sometimes the most far-sighted calculation is cut down! (4,V) — Porfiry Petrovich echoes Razumikhin. The investigator turns out to be right: the former student, under the influence of Sonya, denounces himself, accepts punishment-suffering for a crime that, in his own opinion, he did not commit. After all, while no one has proved to him the fallacy of his theory, insight for him will come only in hard labor. So conscience (moral law) protests against the shedding of blood and wins in Raskolnikov the mind that justifies blood.
Summing up, it should be noted that Dostoevsky built his work in such a way as to prove the doom of Raskolnikov's rebellion against the world, even such an unsettled, unfair one as it is shown in the novel. According to Dostoevsky, the reorganization of the world according to "logic" and "reason" (in theory) is impossible, because in no society can evil be avoided until the person himself changes. Submission to an idea (theory), no matter how logical and humane it is from the beginning, leads to murder and loneliness, which happened to Raskolnikov.
For Dostoevsky it is obvious that the division of people into "trembling creatures" and "those who have the right" is erroneous. In the novel, the characters related, according to Raskolnikov's theory, to "creatures" (Sonya, Dunya, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, Marmeladov, Katerina Ivanovna, Razumikhin) are not primitive, but complex and deep personalities. And the heroes who, according to Raskolnikov's theory, have the "right to blood" are not at all "titans-benefactors of mankind", but petty scoundrels (Luzhin) or insane egoists (Svidrigailov).
From the writer's point of view, perfect person is not a legislator who "crossed" the old laws, but Sonya Marmeladova, capable of sacrificial love able to understand and respond to the pain of others. Unlike Raskolnikov with his inhuman theory, Sonya is convinced that all people have the same right to life; unlike Luzhin, she believes that personal happiness cannot be the only goal of existence, a person comprehends true happiness through suffering-love. These beliefs are confirmed by the author's remark in the epilogue: "Love resurrected them..."
Condemning rebellion in principle, since it leads to the murder of people, Dostoevsky, however, shows in the novel the inevitability of rebellion, which inevitably follows from the unjust structure of society. Nevertheless, the writer affirms the significance of any person, and, consequently, the equivalence of all people, despite their real social and material inequality. This shows the high humanism of Dostoevsky.
Material from the book by Volkova L.D. “The novel by F. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment” in school learning". A guide for the teacher. L., Education, 1977.
Essence human life in freedom, in the self-will of man
What is the essence of Raskolnikov's self-will? Behind the words about the good of mankind (as in Chernyshevsky's 4 dream-building crystal palace) advocates the idea of Napoleonism, standing above humanity)
Dostoevsky poses the question: is it permissible to build a crystal palace? Is it permissible for one person to arrogate to himself the right to be a benefactor?
Is it permissible for the sake of the majority to destroy the minority?
Dostoevsky - no, it's impossible. And Dostoevsky refutes the theory. How?
Let's prove it with text.
1 Kills two instead of one. Thus, Raskolnikov becomes not free, but a slave of his idea-passion (like Luzhin and Svidrigailov are slaves of their passions). Self-will separates a person from people, as a result, he is erased as a person. And in solitude, death (moral for Raskolnikov, physical for Svidrigailov)
2 Raskolnikov does not repent of the crime, but accepts punishment for the protest that he did not commit. Something higher wins in him. The struggle of conscience, the protest against blood, and the reason that justifies blood - in this emotional drama . The confession proved that it was not the theory that was wrong, but that he himself did not belong to the ranks of the great. And only in hard labor moral consciousness awakened. Conscience, nature turned out to be stronger "In theory, a mistake came out"
What is the fallacy of Raskolnikov's theory?
1argument
From Luzhin's point of view, everything is correct. In order for the state to have more happy people, it is necessary to raise their level of prosperity. And since the basis of economic progress is personal gain, take care of it. This is a consequence of Raskolnikov's theory: "everything is allowed to the strong." This is a parody of Raskolnikov's theory. This is the permission of the right to exist of the louse that will take the commanding position.
Raskolnikov says to Luzhin: “Let’s take what you preached just now to the consequences, and it will turn out that people can be cut.”
The irresistible logic of this reasoning ruins Raskolnikov. It follows that there is some error in his reasoning.
Argument 2 People like Raskolnikov initially proceed from the humanism of compassion - protection of the humiliated. And if he takes on such a mission, then he considers himself extraordinary, to whom everything is permitted. That is why he divides into two categories. And he cares: who is he?
Dostoevsky is against all ideas and theories of rebellion.
Argument 3. It follows from the resolution of blood according to conscience. If the hero is freed from principles and ideals, then naturally he will turn into Svidrigailov. Svidrigailov has already walked the path for justice.
DENIAL OF MORALITY - this is what Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov have in common .. Svidrigailov blocks Raskolnikov's path to repentance (only after his death Raskolnikov goes and confesses)
4 Argument Nature opposes (crime abhors sound human sense. Razumikhin rejects the theory
5 argument. The writer himself is against any rebellion. Dostoevsky rejects the revolutionary path, raises the question of moral self-improvement - to Christ.
At the same time, Dostoevsky also shows its inevitability. It comes from the state modern world. WHAT TO DO? " Freedom and power...goal Rskolnikov. His answer is a contradiction, which Dostoevsky emphasizes. On the other hand, break once and for all. On the other hand, to stand OVER.
Thus, Dostoevsky understood and showed the inevitability of rebellion, since he WOULD NEVER AGREE TO IMPLEMENT A REVOLUTION BY MURDER.
After the rebel Raskolnikov, a positive, wonderful person, Prince MYSHKIN, will appear, preaching LOVE FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR.
Moral laws must not be violated. Any human personality sacred and inviolable.
Raskolnikov's theory (based on Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment").
The socio-philosophical novel Crime and Punishment was written in 1866. Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky reproduces a picture of life in Russia in the middle of the 19th century, when the active struggle of new revolutionary forces began, deepened even more social contradictions. In his novel, the author opposes the existing social structure a society that pushes a person to crime. Dostoevsky shows not just a crime, but the feelings, thoughts, experiences of a person and the reasons for his atrocity.
The main character of the novel is Rodion Raskolnikov, a former student, raznochinets, who lives in deep poverty without any hope of improving his situation. He is endowed with many positive qualities: intelligence, kindness, responsiveness. There are many good beginnings in him, but need, difficult life circumstances bring him to exhaustion. And around him Raskolnikov sees poverty and lack of rights. It was in such an environment where the hero is forced to live that his inhuman theory could have been born. According to Raskolnikov's theory, people are divided into "trembling creatures" and into special people who "have the right" to commit a crime for the sake of great tasks. "Extraordinary" - these are the people who rule the world, reach heights in science, technology, religion. They can and must destroy everything in their path to achieve the goal necessary for all mankind.
The theory is based on the assertion that happiness for the majority is possible through the destruction of the minority. The protagonist himself is trying to find out who he is: "a trembling creature" or "having the right." Raskolnikov tries to attribute himself to last category. He decides to take a test to make sure he belongs to strong personalities. Raskolnikov goes to kill an old pawnbroker. Wanting to make the world a better place, to rid it of injustice, the hero becomes a murderer. The evil done does not benefit anyone. Dostoevsky begins a refutation of Raskolnikov's theory. The murder was the beginning of all the moral suffering of Rodion. He is tormented by his conscience, he is afraid of being caught, he is afraid to betray himself and take an extra step. The hero failed the experiment on himself. He could not, without remorse, "step over the blood." Raskolnikov comes to the conclusion that he is the same "trembling creature" as all other people. The consciousness of the senselessness of the perfect crime falls heavily on the soul of Rodion. But while he does not want to lose faith in his theory, he continues to consider his ideas correct. The death of the old woman cut him off from those around him. The theory that was supposed to lead him out of a dead end led him into an even more hopeless dead end. Raskolnikov feels his complete isolation from the world and people. It is impossible to understand the truth of what happened in such loneliness: the consciousness of the hero cannot independently escape from the circle of ideas defined by the theory. He rushes about in search of a living soul who could listen to him and ease his suffering. Rodion opens up to Sonya Marmeladova, who is also a criminal who has violated the moral law and ruined her soul. Under the influence of Sonya, Raskolnikov confesses to the murder and receives a just punishment. Even in hard labor, he does not want to deviate from his theory. Awareness of guilt and repentance is not given to Rodion immediately. It is the kindness, faith in people and in God of Sonechka Marmeladova that help the hero to abandon his inhuman theory. The final collapse of the idea occurs in his last dream, in which people kill each other in the name of the happiness of all mankind. Desert land is the logical outcome of Raskolnikov's theory. And only after this dream begins his release from the power of the idea, his gradual return to people begins. Rodion begins to understand that all people are the same and everyone deserves happiness, which everyone should strive for by helping others. He abandons his theory, comes to Christian values, understands that happiness cannot be built on crime. The hero's idea of the right of the strong to commit crime turned out to be absurd. Life defeats this theory.
Thus, Dostoevsky in his novel conveys the idea that crime is unacceptable in human society that a theory aimed at destroying even one person has no right to exist.
Today we will talk about the theory that F. Dostoevsky introduces us to in the novel Crime and Punishment. What ideas did the author want to convey and what is the fallacy of Raskolnikov's theory?
About the book
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky wrote a wonderful book about human madness called Crime and Punishment. It was written back in 1866, but remains relevant to this day. The writer lifts the veil over life ordinary people V Russia XIX century. At this time, the struggle between various revolutionary currents is activated, and social contradictions are becoming more acute. In his book, Dostoevsky did not pursue the goal of creating a negative hero: he brings to the fore the problems of society, which creates the reasons forcing a person to commit a crime. To show this, he describes in detail the thoughts, doubts, torment and reasons of Rodion.Main character
The main character is Rodion Raskolnikov - humble person, a former student who works part-time and lives in astounding poverty. He does not see any light in life, he understands this very well. Raskolnikov's theory in the novel "Crime and Punishment" is revealed to readers gradually in order to convey all the depth and doom. It should be understood that Rodion is not the last villain and stupid, he is quite smart, which is clearly seen in the process of reading the book. The guy is not without even such qualities as responsiveness and kindness. Isn't there a paradox of crime in this? After all, units from all over the world, which can be counted on the fingers, have a truly animal inexplicable rigidity, which is dictated by nothing but a thirst for blood. There are incredibly few such people, and crimes are committed everywhere. How so? Every criminal also has something good in himself, no matter how difficult it is sometimes to admit it. It is easy to talk about this, in practice the situation is not so simple, but still the essence of this does not change. We understand that Rodion has a number of positive qualities, but the poverty surrounding him greatly hurts the feelings. In addition, he sees the complete lack of rights and doom of those like himself. All this brings the hero to complete spiritual exhaustion, in the conditions of which his inhuman theory is born.
The essence of Raskolnikov's theory
With what thoughts did Rodion try to calm himself? Did he succeed? Raskolnikov's theory in the novel "Crime and Punishment" is that it divides people into two types: completely powerless people and those who can break the law for their own personal purposes. This is the main idea that the main character develops in the course of the book. Over time, it changes a little, some new features of two categories of people appear. The funny thing is that at first Raskolnikov himself thought his theory was a joke, he did not take it seriously, but considered it just entertainment in order not to think about pressing matters. The more Rodion "has fun" in this way, the more truthful, rational and true it seems to him. own theory. He begins to bring everyone and everything under it and think about people only on the basis of this position.
Finding yourself
What is the theory of Raskolnikov, we already know, but what place is assigned to him in it? Throughout the book, he himself tries to answer this question for himself. Raskolnikov's theory in the novel "Crime and Punishment" states that for the happiness and well-being of the majority, the destruction of the minority is necessary. Through difficult reflections and analysis of his mind, Rodion decides that he belongs to the category of people who have the right to perform any actions in order to achieve the goal. In order to test his luck and make sure that he belongs to the "elite", Rodion decides to kill the old pawnbroker. The essence of Raskolnikov's theory is deceptive, because, trying to make the world a better place, he commits a terrible crime - murder.
Consequences
Wanting to improve the world around him, Raskolnikov eventually realizes that the crime committed does not benefit anyone. He realizes the meaninglessness of his act. At this point, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky begins to refute the already known theory. In the book, this happens against the backdrop of Rodion's intense torment, which he experiences after the murder. Raskolnikov's theory in the novel "Crime and Punishment" fails, and the protagonist himself feels like a driven animal, because, on the one hand, his conscience torments him, and on the other, he is afraid to make a mistake and betray himself.Making sense
The main character conducts a very unsuccessful experiment on himself, which leads to apathy and depression, because the problems remain unresolved, and besides, every night his conscience torments him. What is Raskolnik's theory after the crime? For him, she remained the same, but he had to accept the fact that he, apparently, was a powerless trembling creature. To the last, he tries to keep his views. The death of the old woman cuts him off from the outside world, he is completely immersed in inner life. Raskolnikov's theory, whose quotes amaze even adults with cruelty, should have helped young man to find peace, but led him into the terrible jungle of his own conscience.
He tries to find some kind of salvation, for he feels that the oppression of thoughts will soon destroy him. Raskolnikov wants to find a person to whom he can tell his story. terrible secret. He decides to trust Sonya Marmeladova, a girl who has violated the laws of morality. Raskolnikov relieves the soul. The young man continues to communicate with the girl and, under her influence, repents of his crime before the law. Raskolnikov's theory (it is briefly described in the article) fails. 
collapse
Refusal of views is given to Rodion very hard. A great influence on him is the belief in people in God and the immense kindness of Sonya Marmeladova. Raskolnikov's theory (summarized above) suffers utter collapse only after he has a dream where everyone is killing each other and the land becomes devastated as a result. Complete absurdity. Finally, Rodion understands the fallacy of his theory, because its essence is that there will be no people left. After sleep, the main character gradually begins to regain faith in people and in goodness. This is not easy, he stubbornly refuses past views. Rodion begins to understand that happiness should be available to everyone. He will also come to a deep understanding of Christian values. Happiness and prosperity cannot be built on crime. It is unacceptable to kill even one person, because people are absolutely equal by nature. Below are some quotes from the book:“Power is given only to those who dare to bend down and pick it up. There is only one thing, one thing: you just have to dare!”
“The more cunning a person is, the less he suspects that he will be knocked down on a simple one. The most cunning person should be taken on the simplest one.
“... And you will reach the line that you will not step over it - you will be unhappy, but if you step over, you may become even more unhappy ...”
So, today we learned what Raskolnikov's theory is.
