Ivan's Essay

[Neocartesian]

Ivan,
I said I'd reply in more depth to your essay when I had the chance and since the moment has now presented itself, and since the other thread was getting a little bit unwieldy, I thought I'd post a new topic on it. Honestly, some parts of your essay confused me, perhaps it is ambiguity on your part or pure stupidity on mine and I'm going to ask you to clarify alot of things. Please don't take this as a personal attack. The way I look at it, there's always something new to be learned from others even if we ultimately disagree.  

Let's start from the begining; it seems like a good place to begin In your introductory paragraph, you point out that the number of extraordinary men is very few in number, according to the novel. Now, I think it is interesting that Raskolnikov, or Dostoevsky if you prefer to think that it is really Dostoevsky speaking,  identifies extraordinary primarily with Napoleon. Raskolnikov's meditations on why Napoleon should have won the war, indeed how much better off Russia would have been under him, are quite revealing. Interestingly, Ivan goes off on a similar tangent in  "The Brothers Karamatzov." The main thrust of Raskolnikov's thought seems to be that Napoleon's ability to wave aside natural law at his whim and simply command  allows him to be a far better ruler. A ruler who will be more effective in the long run. Basically, Raskolnikov is advocating the enlightened despot with a difference...Like Napoleon, he believes that the man/woman best suited to rule has a moral obligation to seize power. Napoleon gained power by means of a coup de etat and Raskolnikov seems to saying that he advocates such a policy, at first. This probably stems from the fact that hereditary enlightened despots (Louis XVII, Maria Teresa, the Tzars etc.) were hardly the most effective rulers. It seems to me that that is Raskolnikov's new word: that some crimes are morally obligated. I'm sure that we can both agree that Raskolnikov is not an extraordinary man. But maybe instead of trying to satirize Raskolnikov as a fool, plain and simple, Dostoevsky is trying to, instead, satirize the foolishness of the principle which is expounded (the moral necessity of crime for some men). By the end of the novel, I was cheering for Raskolnikov to find the happiness which seemed contingent on his abandoning his new word. It seems that the character that the work follows predominately and that the reader supports would be the protagonist. Admittedly, this is true in a satire as well, but doesn't it seem to fit together better if we apply the satirical elements of the novel to the new word instead of Raskolnikov? His disavowal of the new word seems to keep him from the absurdity a satirical character is apt to plunge into...

This would also make the role of Svidragailov more clear as well. After all: if Svidragailov is supposed to be, not a fool, but a foil that demonstrates what exactly an extraordinary man really is, still a fool  , but an extraordinary fool nontheless, the novel seems to have a greater level of coherence. Consider the fact that Svidragailov kills himself: pretty foolish behavior, but very inline with the extraordinary way of thinking. But that's just my opinion. Please, let me know what you think of the above. I realize there's a good deal I've left unadressed, but time presses, would you mind terribly if I got back to it later?
Thanks Ivan,
Neocartesian

[Ivan]

Ok, I picked some quotes out of your response to my essay.

Raskolnikov's new word: that some crimes are morally obligated.

This wasn't a new word when Dostoevsky was writing.  This is called utilitarianism and it is a morality that was embodied by most of Dostoevsky's literary enemies, also known as the radicals of the '60s.

Dostoevsky is trying to, instead, satirize the foolishness of the principle which is expounded (the moral necessity of crime for some men).

Given what I said above I would agree with this, except I am confused as to why you demand  that we separate the character from the action.  Why is this a satire on Raskolnikov's principle and not on Raskolnikov?  Are you just saying the same thing, just in a more specific way?

but doesn't it seem to fit together better if we apply the satirical elements of the novel to the new word instead of Raskolnikov?

I'm confused.  You're saying that the basic principle of being "extraordinary" is being satirized and not Raskolnikov because even though he acts out these principles he isn't extraordinary?  It seems to me that things fit together if we say that neither the principle nor the man is extraordinary and both are therefore being satirized.

Svidragailov is supposed to be, not a fool, but a foil that demonstrates what exactly an extraordinary man really is, still a fool  , but an extraordinary fool nontheless

Svidragailov kills himself: pretty foolish behavior, but very inline with the extraordinary way of thinking. But that's just my opinion.

Why, besides committing suicide, is Svid an extraordinary man?  Apply his character to the essay Rask recites to Porfiry because I surely cannot.

[Neocartesian]

This wasn't a new word when Dostoevsky was writing.  This is called utilitarianism and it is a morality that was embodied by most of Dostoevsky's literary enemies, also known as the radicals of the '60s.

But is that so important? Yes it was real in the "real world" but it was a new idea in the context in which it was presented. Dostoevsky is writing a ficticious work and he certainly makes it seem as though Raskolnikov is the first person in the world of Crime and Punishment to come up with the idea. The other characters are pretty shocked by the whole affair which they wouldn't be if it was a common intellectual thesis. In the story it is a new word simply because Dostoevsky says it is. I find it hard to argue with the text. Would you like me to find a citation for this? It'd take me a bit but if you care I can do it.

I think it is important to the story to seperate character from action. Raskolnikov does many, many things in the story which are not "in character" for him as the character witnesses at his trial make clear. He was a good person who was decieved by his new word into doing some heinous things. He is not the new word even though he acts according to it at times. The reason he spends such a large portion of the novel in a state of anguish is because he is trying to reconcile character with action. In the end, he rejects the action and in the tradition of Polonius stays true to himself. The new word was a very large problem in Russia at that time. Dostoevsky saw where it was going and examines that in "Demons." If we simply say Raskolnikov is being satirized than we miss a very important subtext of the novel: the idea that even good men can be corrupted by bad ideas. Dostoevsky doesn't like the new word and he's trying to show what it can do to people, how it can corrupt them. Dostoevsky is trying to correct the idea by showing its evil aspects but not I think by inditing Raskolnikov.

Why, besides committing suicide, is Svid an extraordinary man?  Apply his character to the essay Rask recites to Porfiry because I surely cannot.

Raskolnikov follows the new word of, as you said, utilitarianism. However, as we see, following that road leads to suicide. The Raskolnikov/Svidragailov dichotomy makes this very clear. Especially the connection with mirrors and reflections drawn out by Dostoevsky. They're obviously foils for one another. So besides looking at Svidragailov's behavior, we can surmise that he is attempting to be an extraordinary man just as Raskolnikov does. Only, he succeds in doing so, which fits in with Dostoevsky's view of the whole issue, seeing as he hates the entire philosophical viewpoint.

[Ivan]

But is that so important?

Gaaaaaaaasp!  YES.

it was a new idea in the context in which it was presented.

The context in which it was presented was Dostoevsky's contemporary Russia!

The other characters are pretty shocked by the whole affair which they wouldn't be if it was a common intellectual thesis.

Ok, utilitarians did not go around killing people on a regular basis so if a utilitarian killed somebody... shock ensues.  Who is to say that Rask even realizes that he is working under a utilitarian morality?  I highly doubt that he is aware of this.

In the story it is a new word simply because Dostoevsky says it is. I find it hard to argue with the text. Would you like me to find a citation for this?

When does Dostoevsky say that Rask's murder (or the morality behind it) is a new word.  Again... The point is that the people reading the book, when it was first published, would recognize this "word" of Rask's as not new.  This recognition would have allowed them to develop the idea that D is satirizing a common morality... because it was!

If we simply say Raskolnikov is being satirized than we miss a very important subtext of the novel: the idea that even good men can be corrupted by bad ideas.

Let me break another chain in your definition of satire.  A satirical character can be redeemed.... Ask yourself, should I act like Rask?  No?  Ok then.  Raskolnikov is a sacrificial character, his misgivings are a warning to us.  They shout, "do not act like this man."  Did Rask's actions get taken over by his thoughts?  Yes.  Does D think we should do this (in this case)? No.  QED.

Should we sacrifice the main point of the story for a "sub-text?"  Because I don't mention a "sub-text" in my essay does not mean that I deny it exists.  And if I don't mention this sub-text it does not automatically mean that it goes against my thesis.  Your attention to this "sub-text" does not negate my thesis, it just points to a different aspect of the book.

utilitarianism. However, as we see, following that road leads to suicide.

I'm not convinced that Svid is in any way a utilitarian.

[Lev]

Did you read the post by Axon in which he suggests that both Sonia and Svidrigailov represent factions within Raskolnikov? I thought that was very interesting... If Svidrigailov is a sort of extraodinary man faction within Raskolnikov (not sure how to put that...) then you guys have a lot to argue about .

By the way...

It seems to me that things fit together if we say that neither the principle nor the man is extraordinary and both are therefore being satirized.

...that's the direction I tend to lean in. But I have trouble believing that the satire against Raskolnikov is in any way a cruel kind of satire. I actually found myself sympathizing with him despite his being a murderer and I felt that this was a major "lesson" in the book. Just me.

[Rinehart]

Svidrigailov is an extraordinary man. Re-read the passage when he enters Raskolnikov's room (he STEPS OVER the threshold).

[Rinehart]

the new word... read John 1,1

[sadfireworks]

Yeah, I was about to make that remark much earlier after reading Ivan's essay. Axon suggested that in fact Svidrigailov was a extraodinary man, whereas Ivan in his essay argues that he wasn't. I'm still making up my mind but I believe that there are good arguments to say that he is extraordinary, and therefore I think that is true. Especially because his destiny stands in contrast to Raskolnikov's. Be that as it may, that depends whether the principle (theory) is consistent or not, in the essay when Ivan says that (when the theory is explained thru Raskolnikov's article) it is Dostoevsky "speaking" and not Raskonikolv then it is possible that we would take the theory for being consistent, but not necessarily, and he (Dostoevsky) might be posing a serious question and at the same time satirizing it. Whether or not Svidrigailov is extraordinary might depend on whether or not the theory is being used as satire or as a consistent basis for defining those characters. Maybe it is both, Svidrigailov is extraordinary but the theory is Not consistent and therefore everything is satirical?

[sadfireworks]

Rinehart: That's a good point, I'll re-read that passage again but the idea that he is stepping over or "transgressing" might mean something

[Lev]

It's funny how the "stepping over" can either be seen as a moral transgression or as "extraordinary" --  . The two are struggling together. If Svidrigailov is truly "extraordinary" (rather than a moral transgressor I guess), it doesn't make sense to me that he should have that horrible nightmare. Dreams mean a lot in Dostoyevsky and in this book... I think it is significant. And then there is his relation to Dounia -- and to Raskolnikov -- and his suicide. Something doesn't fit. What does it mean? I've never really understood. But anyway, the point is that the stepping over could mean either.  

[sadfireworks]

Whether it's moral transgression rather than extraordinariness (but clearly the second is also moral transgression) it seems to me that the fact that Svidrigailov was "able" to commit suicide when Raskolnikov wasn't holds some meaning, that's why i mentioned that they stood in contrast. But maybe that is if you see the theory very simplistically. I said before that I thought Svidrigailov was extraorinary if the theory is consistent, so I think that his extraordinariness goes in hand with the reliability of the theory. But he doesn't do anything extraordinary. And the extraordinary man seem to be man of action, yet his personality seems to have potential, but his acts are actually mediocre compared to a Napoléon. We can assume that he killed his wife (and others), and compared to Raskolnikov was able to handle it better. (as far as we know)

I'm trying not to confuse, but if Svidrigailov is nothing more than a moral transgressor, and thus could he be only a man of action? And the reason why he was capable of handling the burden of his crimes was because he "believed in the justice of it", whereas Raskonikolv wanted to believe in the justice of his own crime but was too "highly conscious".

I was trying to see the relation between those concepts (from Notes from Underground) and Crime and Punishment.

I'm still keeping my mind open to Svidrigailov being or not extraorinary.

[Rinehart]

It's funny how the "stepping over" can either be seen as a moral transgression or as "extraordinary" --  . The two are struggling together. If Svidrigailov is truly "extraordinary" (rather than a moral transgressor I guess), it doesn't make sense to me that he should have that horrible nightmare. Dreams mean a lot in Dostoyevsky and in this book... I think it is significant. And then there is his relation to Dounia -- and to Raskolnikov -- and his suicide. Something doesn't fit. What does it mean? I've never really understood. But anyway, the point is that the stepping over could mean either.  

1. Think about Raskolnikov's delirious thoughts right before he falls asleep and dreams of the murdered pawnbroker. The way he describes those "extraordinary men" doesn't make them look very "great", does it?
2. Dunya is supposed to rescue Svidrigailov, since he is caught between the dream-world and reality. He is both a moral transgressor - lust! - and an extraordinary man. Ironically, no one can reallly prove that he has murdered his wife and Fikolka. In my opinion, that makes him truly extraordinary.
3. Suicide is equal absolute freedom. Think of the Greek philosopher Zenon.

[Lev]

So being extraordinary is just a more noble sounding label for your average diseased, idle, lustful old man who is suspected for poisoning his own wife? I am awed . (Excuse my sarcasm and the exaggerating. It is only for fun and also so that I will be able to understand it better -- ridiculous thinking aloud but edited ) Enter Svidrigailov Bonaparte... the great conqueror who bestrides the narrow world like a colossus... meanwhile we petty unextraodinary men who are too decent to poison harmless people will blindly condemn his majestic aim of... stopping at nothing to -- but then what on earth is his aim anyway? Wasting away, fleeting pleasures that perhaps are wearing thin by this time, tormenting a poor and troubled family (among a multitude of evil deeds) and then commiting suicide? Ah, what a lineup. O suicide, thou absolute freedom! (...and the following is only a suggestion to put the idea in a different context -- you get the idea I think.) Could it be the peak of arrogance to blindly assume that we can undo our existence? "I will now stamp myself out into nothingness..." -- And what if we woke up to find ourselves more existent and conscious than we ever thought possible? Would that be the ultimate nightmare? To ask the mountains to fall on you and realize that you are forever among the living, conscious dead -- or perhaps (as possible as anything) unable to evade the burning eyes of a Judge? It's a thought and no less likely than simply going blank after death. What is it about suicide that is so much more free than living? Isn't it merely an escape to a dream of nonexistence that we don't even know is real? Or are you thinking of Kirillov? Because that would be a different thing altogether... and I wouldn't be talking about the right things...
Just an interesting way to explore the question, I think you will understand or I wouldn't take this tone... but maybe I am missing something obvious? I'd love to hear more from you guys as I am quite lost.
Unfortunately Rinehart, and as a testimony to my ignorance , all three of your points went over my head! If you have the time, I'm afraid I need some help in getting your meaning. Not to mention I only faintly recall the name Zenon!

[sadfireworks]

Although I "believe" in the concept of absolute freedom in suicide...that's not quite what I wanted to say; I believe that a man can hold that conviction, debate it well, and live its philosophy with some logic. I don't believe that there's absolute freedom in commiting suicide. There's freedom, undoubtly. There's freedom in context, the freedom of transgression. But is that absolute freedom? Are you free from the act itself, from the (possible) cowardice of it? Unless you believe that to be free is to not exist, that doesnt seem right. But shouldnt one be free from something?

But anyway, If you think i'm talking nonsense, forgive me, it's late and i wanted to add something, I thought I had an interesting idea going, but maybe I lost it altogether. I think we're drifting away from the point, and i'm sorry for having contributed to it!  

Hopefully someone will have something to say about those concepts from Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment...

[Rinehart]

So being extraordinary is just a more noble sounding label for your average diseased, idle, lustful old man who is suspected for poisoning his own wife? I am awed .

Ironically, you just hit the bull's-eye.