Excellent analysis Dana. I liked that you brought up the diagnosis angle as it’s something that I’ve been thinking about too. There certainly seems to be something going on with his mental health. Boys get sad too, to use a current meme.
Thank you! Nice meme 👌🏼 It's fascinating to see how his psychological state influences his actions and decisions throughout the novel. Various doctors diagnosed him with both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but Dostoevsky was not a psychiatrist to describe the illness accurately.
This chapter was so interesting. There seems to be a clear, albeit faulty, logic to his motivations. He's not a cornered animal driven by desperation in the way I suspected he might be from earlier chapters. It's also interesting (I'd say funny but that's not quite right) that if you're looking for "signs" to justify your actions you surely will find them. The thought-experiment-gone-bad aspect reminded me of the Hitchcock film "Rope", where a philosophical discussion of justified murder led to the warped plan to commit the perfect crime just to show it could be done. As an aside, your note reminded me of the website for increasingly absurd trolly problems: https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
I really love philosophical puzzles. I played your app with trolley problems: have 84 kills 👻It's interesting how a small detail can change my decision. Raskolnikov probably had his own conditions in his problem too: the old woman was getting worse, and the unfortunate people were increasingly in need of protection.
And you are absolutely right about the signs: the brain will find them for everything. Otherwise, there wouldn't be conspiracy theorists.
I don't remember this Hitchcock movie, but now I'll watch it! Thanks for the recommendation.
What a “game!” I agonized over some of those…particularly the cat/lobster quandary. I found it interesting how much better I felt if I was in the majority after the decision.
Some of those are an absolute no-brainers, some are just two evils.
While the game is humorous, there's something to it, a closer look at the problem of action vs inaction. I often fin that a well made absurd piece is a bit more revealing an poignant than something realistic.
Fascinating chapter! I see a possible parallel with Kafka's Metamorphosis. Both works explore the dangerous territory of dehumanisation, showing how easily we can label individuals (the old lady, Gregor) as 'parasites' or 'cockroaches' to be eliminated. This scapegoating mechanism has potentially horrifying real-world implications when adopted on a societal scale. Dostoevsky's critique of utilitarian ethics is subtle yet incredibly biting. By having Raskolnikov cling to a pseudo-rational 'greater good' argument (his crime is 'not a crime'), Dosto exposes the hollowness of reducing complex moral problems to simple arithmetic (what he also calls 'casuistic', probably alluding to the Jesuits who he repeatedly criticises). The 'trolley problem' comparison is spot-on, highlighting the absurdity of such childish oversimplifications.
Raskolnikov's desperate attempts to logically justify his murderous intentions reveal reason as a thin veneer over his darker, irrational impulses (in his case, I'm still unclear about their nature). This also aligns with Nietzsche's later critiques of rationality, suggesting a shared scepticism towards purely logical approaches to morality. The intricate steps (the axe, the hat, etc.) between chance and planning in Raskolnikov's preparations in the second half of the chapter adds another layer of complexity: it underscores the chaotic nature of human actions, further undermining any notion of cold, calculated control. It's also quite suspenseful and even funny to read!
Funny you should ask, but you’re right, there are multiple deaths in Kafka, but in each case, Kafka’s protagonists are the victims or witnesses, not the perpetrators: in ‘Metamorphosis’, Gregor dies of neglect (and the apple his father threw at him), in ‘Penal Colony’, the Officer dies inside his own torture machine, in ‘Hunger Artist’, the artist dies of undernourishment, in ‘The Trial’, Josef K is stabbed by two men, so on. Interestingly, in almost every case, these deaths are not the result of a crime proper, but of a form of (sometimes self-inflicted) death sentence.
The parallel with Kafka's Metamorphosis is indeed apt, as both works delve into the chilling realm of dehumanization and its societal ramifications. Raskolnikov's attempts at logical justification eerily foreshadow Nietzsche's later critiques of rationality. This shared skepticism towards purely logical approaches to morality deepens our understanding of both thinkers' philosophies.
Dostoevsky's profound influence on subsequent great thinkers is undeniable—and for good reason. The novel likely harbors yet-undiscovered facets that may inspire future literary and philosophical works.
This multifaceted interpretation not only enriches our understanding of the novel but also underscores its enduring relevance in modern discourse. Your next chapter is truly important, you're on the threshold - it will be interesting to hear your thoughts about it.
And I'm curious, did Kafka's main characters commit any crimes in his books? I just don't remember such instances; usually, on the contrary, he was subjected to them. But maybe?
Really interesting magical thinking here, shifting a lot of blame to external factors. Crime is described as something out of his control, a bird picking the shell inside an egg, a piece of clothing caught in a cog, a mysterious virus. Still Raskolnikov somehow believes he can control his emotions.
Another interesting symbolism is the dream about the oasis, pure blue water among the yellow sand. Later he wishes there were more fountains to clean and cool the heat and stink of the city. I keep highlight all mentions of cleanliness, it's fascinating how characters strive for it and how useless it seems, first Sonja and now Lizaveta.
I like your observations. Yes, regarding the fountains and cleanliness — this is indeed a recurring theme. Dirt, the yellow color — this is definitely the main thing that Dostoevsky notes in Petersburg. He often wrote that it is an unnatural, artificial city, where people do not live but go mad.
I liked your comparison of his thought process to 'The trolley problem'... It is perfect!! Also, i have wondered if Raskolnikov himself wasnt a schizophrenic... May be those wer Dostoevsky's thoughts in real life n he was using Rodya as a mouthpiece?
Some (profesors) attribute both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder to him. But the thing is, Dostoevsky is not a doctor, not a psychiatrist, and he himself wrote that he doesn’t want to make medical diagnoses. He perceived it as a social disorder rather. But it is clear that a mentally healthy person does not behave this way.
The game Chris L. linke to made me think of something.
There was a question posed to us by a professor in my first year in the university.
If I remember correctly, the situation was as follows. A wife cheats on her husband, the husband hires a killer to kill his wife, and the killer does his job. Saint Peter sees it all and does not interfere. The question was, how would you rank the involved in terms of their blame, in terms of the severity of the action/inaction.
Wife, husband, lover, killer, saint Peter.
The answers from the students were all over the place. Me and another gal in my group were then explaining our logic, because we both put the killer at the bottom of the list, an saint Peter at the top :)
We both put the most ammount of blame on saint Peter, as he has means to do something to stop a series of tragedies, but he doesn't.
While Raskolnikov's situation is different, I unerstand the logic, though is does seem at times that he tries to put on a layer of philosophical and moral justification on something that has purely selfish roots.
I was struck by the officer’s comment about the woman: “Of course she doesn’t deserve to live…But then, that’s nature.” The idea that we must sit idly by, watching terrible people be terrible IS truly infuriating. I can see how overhearing this conversation could be the final push for Rodion to take action after ruminating over his plan for so long.
I completely agree. The officer's comment is a chilling reminder of the harsh realities and moral ambiguities that Raskolnikov grapples with. It's understandable how such a callous perspective could serve as the catalyst for Rodion's drastic actions. When faced with such indifference, especially towards human life, it's no wonder that Raskolnikov feels driven to take matters into his own hands, believing he can impose his own sense of justice in an unjust world.
I thought this was a really absorbing and compelling chapter. Raskalnikov takes actions to further his plan, steals the axe, makes the loop etc, while at the same time feeling fully convinced he won't carry out his plan. I felt the suspence of the chapter, and even though I am well aware of the outcome, I still found myself hoping that he doesn't go ahead.
To be honest, I did think all the coincidences were a bit overdone, especially the conversation of the students about killing the old woman to benefit thousands of others. On my reading of the text atm, Raskalnikov is not motivated by wanting to benefit unknown thousands of others.
He manages to rationalise that his plan is 'not a crime' for reasons Dostoevsky does not disclose. Perhaps that will come later. I think that, coupled with the very real pressures of his life, he has been fantasising for so long that he is now completely divorced from reality. It is as if all this is only taking place on some abstract plane, as if he has become some 'other' no longer anchored to everyday social norms and, indeed, the law itself.
Love your analysis, Glenys! I completely agree that this chapter is incredibly gripping. Raskolnikov's internal conflict and actions create a palpable tension that keeps you on edge.
Raskolnikov's rationalization of his plan as 'not a crime' is fascinating and troubling. It suggests a profound disconnection from reality, driven by his desperate circumstances. His detachment from social norms and the law indicates a deeper psychological and philosophical struggle, one that Dostoevsky peels back layer by layer as the story progresses.
I agree, it does sound like he's trying to put a spin on his selfish horrible plan, to convinse himself that he's oing this for the greater good. We've heard that one before :)
Excellent analysis Dana. I liked that you brought up the diagnosis angle as it’s something that I’ve been thinking about too. There certainly seems to be something going on with his mental health. Boys get sad too, to use a current meme.
Thank you! Nice meme 👌🏼 It's fascinating to see how his psychological state influences his actions and decisions throughout the novel. Various doctors diagnosed him with both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but Dostoevsky was not a psychiatrist to describe the illness accurately.
This chapter was so interesting. There seems to be a clear, albeit faulty, logic to his motivations. He's not a cornered animal driven by desperation in the way I suspected he might be from earlier chapters. It's also interesting (I'd say funny but that's not quite right) that if you're looking for "signs" to justify your actions you surely will find them. The thought-experiment-gone-bad aspect reminded me of the Hitchcock film "Rope", where a philosophical discussion of justified murder led to the warped plan to commit the perfect crime just to show it could be done. As an aside, your note reminded me of the website for increasingly absurd trolly problems: https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
I really love philosophical puzzles. I played your app with trolley problems: have 84 kills 👻It's interesting how a small detail can change my decision. Raskolnikov probably had his own conditions in his problem too: the old woman was getting worse, and the unfortunate people were increasingly in need of protection.
And you are absolutely right about the signs: the brain will find them for everything. Otherwise, there wouldn't be conspiracy theorists.
I don't remember this Hitchcock movie, but now I'll watch it! Thanks for the recommendation.
What a “game!” I agonized over some of those…particularly the cat/lobster quandary. I found it interesting how much better I felt if I was in the majority after the decision.
55 dead. Some of them - me :)
Some of those are an absolute no-brainers, some are just two evils.
While the game is humorous, there's something to it, a closer look at the problem of action vs inaction. I often fin that a well made absurd piece is a bit more revealing an poignant than something realistic.
Fascinating chapter! I see a possible parallel with Kafka's Metamorphosis. Both works explore the dangerous territory of dehumanisation, showing how easily we can label individuals (the old lady, Gregor) as 'parasites' or 'cockroaches' to be eliminated. This scapegoating mechanism has potentially horrifying real-world implications when adopted on a societal scale. Dostoevsky's critique of utilitarian ethics is subtle yet incredibly biting. By having Raskolnikov cling to a pseudo-rational 'greater good' argument (his crime is 'not a crime'), Dosto exposes the hollowness of reducing complex moral problems to simple arithmetic (what he also calls 'casuistic', probably alluding to the Jesuits who he repeatedly criticises). The 'trolley problem' comparison is spot-on, highlighting the absurdity of such childish oversimplifications.
Raskolnikov's desperate attempts to logically justify his murderous intentions reveal reason as a thin veneer over his darker, irrational impulses (in his case, I'm still unclear about their nature). This also aligns with Nietzsche's later critiques of rationality, suggesting a shared scepticism towards purely logical approaches to morality. The intricate steps (the axe, the hat, etc.) between chance and planning in Raskolnikov's preparations in the second half of the chapter adds another layer of complexity: it underscores the chaotic nature of human actions, further undermining any notion of cold, calculated control. It's also quite suspenseful and even funny to read!
Funny you should ask, but you’re right, there are multiple deaths in Kafka, but in each case, Kafka’s protagonists are the victims or witnesses, not the perpetrators: in ‘Metamorphosis’, Gregor dies of neglect (and the apple his father threw at him), in ‘Penal Colony’, the Officer dies inside his own torture machine, in ‘Hunger Artist’, the artist dies of undernourishment, in ‘The Trial’, Josef K is stabbed by two men, so on. Interestingly, in almost every case, these deaths are not the result of a crime proper, but of a form of (sometimes self-inflicted) death sentence.
Can’t wait for the next chapter!
The parallel with Kafka's Metamorphosis is indeed apt, as both works delve into the chilling realm of dehumanization and its societal ramifications. Raskolnikov's attempts at logical justification eerily foreshadow Nietzsche's later critiques of rationality. This shared skepticism towards purely logical approaches to morality deepens our understanding of both thinkers' philosophies.
Dostoevsky's profound influence on subsequent great thinkers is undeniable—and for good reason. The novel likely harbors yet-undiscovered facets that may inspire future literary and philosophical works.
This multifaceted interpretation not only enriches our understanding of the novel but also underscores its enduring relevance in modern discourse. Your next chapter is truly important, you're on the threshold - it will be interesting to hear your thoughts about it.
And I'm curious, did Kafka's main characters commit any crimes in his books? I just don't remember such instances; usually, on the contrary, he was subjected to them. But maybe?
Really interesting magical thinking here, shifting a lot of blame to external factors. Crime is described as something out of his control, a bird picking the shell inside an egg, a piece of clothing caught in a cog, a mysterious virus. Still Raskolnikov somehow believes he can control his emotions.
Another interesting symbolism is the dream about the oasis, pure blue water among the yellow sand. Later he wishes there were more fountains to clean and cool the heat and stink of the city. I keep highlight all mentions of cleanliness, it's fascinating how characters strive for it and how useless it seems, first Sonja and now Lizaveta.
I like your observations. Yes, regarding the fountains and cleanliness — this is indeed a recurring theme. Dirt, the yellow color — this is definitely the main thing that Dostoevsky notes in Petersburg. He often wrote that it is an unnatural, artificial city, where people do not live but go mad.
I liked your comparison of his thought process to 'The trolley problem'... It is perfect!! Also, i have wondered if Raskolnikov himself wasnt a schizophrenic... May be those wer Dostoevsky's thoughts in real life n he was using Rodya as a mouthpiece?
Some (profesors) attribute both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder to him. But the thing is, Dostoevsky is not a doctor, not a psychiatrist, and he himself wrote that he doesn’t want to make medical diagnoses. He perceived it as a social disorder rather. But it is clear that a mentally healthy person does not behave this way.
The game Chris L. linke to made me think of something.
There was a question posed to us by a professor in my first year in the university.
If I remember correctly, the situation was as follows. A wife cheats on her husband, the husband hires a killer to kill his wife, and the killer does his job. Saint Peter sees it all and does not interfere. The question was, how would you rank the involved in terms of their blame, in terms of the severity of the action/inaction.
Wife, husband, lover, killer, saint Peter.
The answers from the students were all over the place. Me and another gal in my group were then explaining our logic, because we both put the killer at the bottom of the list, an saint Peter at the top :)
We both put the most ammount of blame on saint Peter, as he has means to do something to stop a series of tragedies, but he doesn't.
While Raskolnikov's situation is different, I unerstand the logic, though is does seem at times that he tries to put on a layer of philosophical and moral justification on something that has purely selfish roots.
I was struck by the officer’s comment about the woman: “Of course she doesn’t deserve to live…But then, that’s nature.” The idea that we must sit idly by, watching terrible people be terrible IS truly infuriating. I can see how overhearing this conversation could be the final push for Rodion to take action after ruminating over his plan for so long.
I completely agree. The officer's comment is a chilling reminder of the harsh realities and moral ambiguities that Raskolnikov grapples with. It's understandable how such a callous perspective could serve as the catalyst for Rodion's drastic actions. When faced with such indifference, especially towards human life, it's no wonder that Raskolnikov feels driven to take matters into his own hands, believing he can impose his own sense of justice in an unjust world.
Kill count 62. 😵💫
I did the trolley problem. Kill count was 69.
I thought this was a really absorbing and compelling chapter. Raskalnikov takes actions to further his plan, steals the axe, makes the loop etc, while at the same time feeling fully convinced he won't carry out his plan. I felt the suspence of the chapter, and even though I am well aware of the outcome, I still found myself hoping that he doesn't go ahead.
To be honest, I did think all the coincidences were a bit overdone, especially the conversation of the students about killing the old woman to benefit thousands of others. On my reading of the text atm, Raskalnikov is not motivated by wanting to benefit unknown thousands of others.
He manages to rationalise that his plan is 'not a crime' for reasons Dostoevsky does not disclose. Perhaps that will come later. I think that, coupled with the very real pressures of his life, he has been fantasising for so long that he is now completely divorced from reality. It is as if all this is only taking place on some abstract plane, as if he has become some 'other' no longer anchored to everyday social norms and, indeed, the law itself.
Love your analysis, Glenys! I completely agree that this chapter is incredibly gripping. Raskolnikov's internal conflict and actions create a palpable tension that keeps you on edge.
Raskolnikov's rationalization of his plan as 'not a crime' is fascinating and troubling. It suggests a profound disconnection from reality, driven by his desperate circumstances. His detachment from social norms and the law indicates a deeper psychological and philosophical struggle, one that Dostoevsky peels back layer by layer as the story progresses.
I agree, it does sound like he's trying to put a spin on his selfish horrible plan, to convinse himself that he's oing this for the greater good. We've heard that one before :)