Help with c&p

[lewlew]

I am in a 10th grade honors class and i need to write 2 discussion outline essays. We have to come up with two questions and have to be able to answere them throughout the outline. my teacher gave an example but this is the first time i have had to do a discussion type outline. if you could help me i need to figure out how to exactly do one and the two questions. Can anyone help me out??!!!??!! thanks for those who can

[ivans_nightmare]

I'm not sure what you mean by discussion essays. Are you outlining a discussion, or an essay? Also, are the questions supposed to come from any part of the whole book? If you can clear up these things I can help you with some ideas. Crime and Punishment is full of questions.

[lewlew]

this is what the assignment says, Pose two discussion questions/insights per work. There should be one question for character (or setting) and theme.
You must ireason through your questions/insight. Use evidence from the novel to elaborate on potential interpretations.
Be logically organised (chronological)

then it gives us an example from a book we read last year The Pearl the question was Does Kino demonstrate characteristics of a shakespearean tragic hero? and he answeres it with two answeres for like the overal book then the climax and then the resolution.

But like i said i have never done this before and have no clue what I'm doing.

[Mikkiella]

How about 'What traits does Rodion Raskolnikov display of an anti-hero throughout the novel 'Crime and Punishment'?

Then you could write about the good traits he has, such as seeming loyal to his mother, and getting angry at the thought of Luzhin using his mother and sister. But at the same time he had committed a murder at the beginning of the novel, not very hero like. I am positive you can get a lot more out of that question. You could research into characteristics of anti-heroes to get more out of it.

Is that the sort of thing you were looking for?   

[Slovenly Old Man]

Here's a quote from C&P that I used to write an essay for philosophy class last semester..... I'm sure you can think of something with this one


"Look here; on one side we have a stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing, horrid old woman, not simply useless, but doing actual mischief, who has not an idea what she is living for herself, and who will die in a day or two in any case…  On the other side, fresh young lives thrown away for want of help, and by thousands, on every side!  A hundred thousand good deeds could be done and helped, on that old woman’s money which will be buried in a monastery!  Hundreds, thousands perhaps, might be set on the right path; dozens of families saved from destitution, from ruin, from vice, from the hospitals – and all with her money.  Kill her, take the money, and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all.  What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?  For one life, thousands would be saved from corruption and decay.  One death, and a hundred lives in exchange – it’s simple arithmetic!"

[Slovenly Old Man]

Here, we have Raskolnikov justifying a reprehensible action with the idea that he will be causing more good than harm.  If Raskolnikov had ended up saving lives and changing the world, in short causing more good than harm, would his actions be justified?  What do you think?

[Mikkiella]

In response to the quesion above you could write how Raskolnikov originally overheard the idea being discussed in an inn (I think it was an inn...). So there is part of society who questioned and debated this theory. I believe there are plenty of quotes to be found where he questions himself. How could it be proven that he would do more ood than harm, or is that a given? But then it is not up to him to decide when somone else's life is to end. And it is not certain that he would save lives, just maybe a bit of grief in a person's life for a while. But that is what part of human is being about; to have up's and down's, good and harmful periods in life. Then surely he would be messing with nature?

Would you be able to compare Raskolnikov to another Dostoevsky character? Another idea is that you could draw comparisons between the ideas and traits of strong minded characters in different novels. I would think Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov would be a good example. Both are intelligent and have strong and even radical ideas about society. Raskolnikov with justifying murder, and Ivan with his views on the Church, beliefs in God and the purpose of this notion within society. You may even find further links between the two. Title-wise, for instance: 'In what ways does 'Crime and Punishment's Rodion Raskolnikov compare to Ivan Karamazov from 'The Brothers Karamazov' in regards to ideas and thoughts of society.' (I'm sure you could refine that!!)
Even though I studied Music, the lecturers (and old school English teachers) loved comparisons to other works.

If any of the things I have mentioned would be of any use I'm afraid they all need more depth... I read the book a long time ago! But they are ideas nonetheless 

[Mikkiella]

*just thought of another link between the two characters. Karamazov believed that he agreed to the murder of his father, did not stop it, and in a way requested it (although perhaps due to the persuading of the real murderer that he was in fact the guilty one). But both (albeit one mentally) involved in murder, perhaps both for society? 'Let dog eat dog' he quipped after witnessing a brawl between his father and brother. Could this be linked to some views he has on society?

[Slovenly Old Man]

Mikkiella:

I agree with you that there is no way that Raskolnikov could know in advance whether or not his action would cause more good than harm.  There are simply too many variables to take into account.  As it turned out, he didn't end up causing more good than harm, rather the opposite occurred; he caused much more harm than good.  Really, the only good that his act caused was the eventual redeeming of Raskolnikov's character at the end of the story.

What I'm interested in is the following:  Suppose that you are in Raskolnikov's shoes.  Suppose that you know for absolute certain that killing the woman will yield massive amounts of good, relative to the intrinsic bad associated with the murder.  Under these conditions, in which it is absolute fact that more good will result than bad, would you be justified in committing the murder?

Is it just simple arithmetic, as Raskolnikov indicates?

  

[Mikkiella]

From his point of view, yes. If he was certain it would do all that good then it would just be arithmatic. He could justify it. Countries are at war all the time, and the leaders believe (or at least hope) that the killing is for the greater good; however many they kill, they save much more. They must feel they are justified. So if I were Raskolnikov, would I feel I was justified? Yes. Well at least I could see how he would come to that conclusion.

It is hard to answer definitely as it is difficult not to take the situation from your own stance. If it were me personally, then no. I couldn't do it, as I hope not many could and it isn't surprising he has to grapple with his conscience. But at the same time it is human nature to think about things like that. For instance I am sure many people have wondered how Europe would have been if Hitler had died before 1938.

So I suppose my conclusion to the question posed would be 'yes, it is simple arithmatic and he is justified' as much as I would hope it would be 'no'. But if I were writing the essay my answer would be 'no, he is not justified'. Just in case the teacher thought I was nuts and told authorities to keep an eye on me! 

But I suppose there is no right or wrong answer? What would you write?

[Slovenly Old Man]

If we make that supposition, namely that the murder will cause more good than harm, it's very difficult to say that he would be unjustified in his action.  I want to say that it would be wrong to commit the murder regardless of any good consequences of the act, simply because it is wrong to commit murder, and wrong to commit any act that is bad in and of itself.  I'd like to not even take into consideration the consequences of an act, and focus on the nature of the act itself, but in this case I can't.  If there exists an absolute truth that act-A will cause massively more good than act-B, I would have to agree that you would have a duty to commit act-A, even if that meant killing an old woman with an ax.  

However, I don't think that there ever exists such absolute truths.  I think we can reject the supposition as an entirely impossible circumstance.  I don't think there is ever certainty of the consequences of our actions.  We can reach near certainty with many mundane consequences in our daily lives, such as 'when I flip a light-switch the light will come on' or 'when I turn the key in the ignition, the car will start.'  But when it comes to consequences far down the causal chain (like improving society in the eventual future, which is Raskolnikov's thought), there are simply too many variables to consider.  

I would argue that it is impossible to know all the potential outcomes that a given act will cause, and therefore impossible to know if any given act will cause more good than bad.  One thing we can know for certain is that an intrinsically bad act will absolutely cause some amount of bad (the bad which is intrinsic).  It only might cause some extrinsic good, depending upon countless variables beyond the control of the person who commits the act.  If we can't be absolutely certain that an intrinsically bad act will cause more good than bad, then we shouldn't commit that act.  It's hard to come up with a solid position on questions like these though.

[Mikkiella]

That was the problem I had when posed that question; don't want to say yes because of the act being what it is, but at the same time feeling the need to say he was justified. Though as the novel progressed I didn't want Raskolnikov to get caught, so I am not sure if that says something about me, or whether it was just that Dostoevsky created a brilliant character, who even though did such a horrible deed - far removed from anything I would even consider, I felt I could relate to.

You certainly put it more eloquently than I did. A true philospher speaking. Do you think that Raskolnikov felt truly justified himself though? Does the fact that he had to convince himself mean that he naturally and instinctively thought he was right in comitting such an act? Throughout the novel he grappled with his conscience and beforehand wondered whether he would have the courage. Could this be his sub-conscience kicking in? (maybe I am reading too much into it!!) The confession towards the end of the novel could certainly be interpreted as Raskolnikov believing he was not justified, and the final repentance at the very end even more so. Or perhaps he only believed he wasn't in a special group of people who were above the law and could do what they liked afterall, so felt the need to confess. But maybe his whole theory on this, as you could say, 'elite' group of society being in existence crashed after accepting he was unjustified. Or he could just have yielded to the pressure the police inspector/detective (I can't remember now!) was putting on him.

I feel like I am doing the assignment myself, but it is all good! Though I am not too sure whether what I write makes sense. I hope it is understandable!

[Slovenly Old Man]

Or perhaps he only believed he wasn't in a special group of people who were above the law and could do what they liked afterall, so felt the need to confess

You're making sense to me.... I think this is one of the most interesting portions of the story.... that is Raskonikov's whole 'extraordinary man' theory.  You can see some ties to Nietzsche's Ubermensch with this idea.

Raskolnikov has his 'extraordinary man' theory, in which he breaks down people into two categories; ordinary, and extraordinary.  The ordinary ones are relegated to a simple life of following others and abiding by all laws.  Extraordinary people however, are on earth for a reason: "to say a new word," to better mankind in some profound way, and have the right to break certain moral laws if the objective of their extraordinary nature depends upon those laws being broken

Raskolnikov fancied himself an extraordinary man. He sincerely believed that if he could get a start in life with the money obtained from the murder and robbery that he could rise to greatness, exploiting his extraordinary potential, and helping the whole of humanity.  Perhaps Raskolnikov did have the potential to become an extraordinary man, but I think we watched that potential dissolve over the course of the story.  After Raskolnikov commits the crime, we witness the breakdown of his mental faculties. Due to the guilt he feels, his thoughts become muddled beyond recognition, and eventually, realizing the error of his justification, he turns himself in to the authorities, accepting a sentence to Siberia where his potential gifts to humanity will have no chance to reach fruition. This immense guilt experienced forced him to re-consider his existence, and, by the end of the story, he has concluded that he is not an extraordinary man at all.  Before he committed the act, he still had the potential to become extraordinary, but, once he realized what a filthy thing he had done, his mindset changed, and instead of thinking of himself as extraordinary, he now viewed himself merely as an ordinary criminal. I f someone doesn't think that they are extraordinary, how can they ever attain any level of greatness which would allow them to impact humanity at all, whether positively or negatively?  I would argue that in order to be extraordinary one must perceive themselves as such; one must think highly of themselves.  Furthermore, if a person commits murder, an intrinsically bad act, it isn't possible for them to think highly of themselves.

[Mikkiella]

Furthermore, if a person commits murder, an intrinsically bad act, it isn't possible for them to think highly of themselves.

That is a very interesting point. But say these extraodinary people existed then would leaders (or ex-leaders) of nations count or generals of forces? They, I am sure, are sorry over casualties of war but at the same time they have sanctioned the war and accept death as a regrettable part of it. These people are still revered and some most probably do think of themselves rather highly. Though I am not entirely sure of the validity of the claim of being able to group these people with the notion of 'extraordinary' men who feel ey can do anything.

Or to put it on a less 'public' level, mob/mafia-bosses? People who have killed in their past and now are thought of highly by their group and maybe themselves. (I have to admit all my mob/mafia experience has ben through watching films and a few articles I have read - I am no expert )

Is it an exception that proves the rule?

Perhaps internally they do not feel 'extraordinary' or perhaps Raskolnikov could not identify with such people?

[Slovenly Old Man]

I am not entirely sure of the validity of the claim of being able to group these people with the notion of 'extraordinary' men

I'd have to agree with you on this point.  I think that Raskolnikov had in mind a very rare type of man with his notion of extraordinary.  I would say that nearly all politicians would fail to meet the specifications of 'extraordinary,' in Raskolnikov's sense of the word.  He described men like Newton and Keplar as extraordinary for their contributions to science.  The character attribute which Raskolnikov focuses on as being indicative of an extraordinary nature in a human being is that of him 'saying a new word.'  He has to have an original idea which he contributes to mankind.  As far as politicians go, I can't think of one, aside from Ghandi, who Raskolnikov, according to his own specification, would consider extraordinary.  I'm certain that there are others but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.  So, largely, I'd say that politicians and generals would fall into the category of 'ordinary men,' as they generally don't 'say a new word,' which is the primary indicator of a man being extraordinary.  As far as mob bosses goes, again, they typically don't have a new word to say.

But now that we've come up with these examples to explain Roskolnikov's theory, I think we can quite frankly say that his theory is crap.  It is obvious that most men are ordinary, according to Raskolnikov's definition of the word--and that only a select few are extraordinary--only a select few actually utter a new word.  A man like Fyodor Dostoevksky was certainly extraordinary, as was Socrates and Kierkegaard.  They all had new ideas which they contributed to humanity.  That's the only component of his theory that I agree with.  I would concede that some men are ordinary, and very few men are extraordinary, but that's as far as it goes.  If a man is extraordinary, if he has a new word to say, he won't need to commit murder in order to utter that new word.