Thesis of Crime and Punishment

What do you think Dostoevsky fundamentally wanted to convey through his book: Crime and punishment? How does it tie into his worldview and personal beliefs?

I'm curious about Veeky Forums's interpretation.

> fundamentally wanted to convey through his book
Is this “stupid people try to rationalize art using readymade crutches and training wheels” thread?

That philosophical ideals tend to falter under real life circumstances

the homework help board is

It's how Raskolnikov tries to become an ubermensch and realize himself through his existantialism but fails at first by going about it the wrong way. Then actually realizes himself by accepting God into his heart.

Take everything Nietzsche and Sartre says but think about all of them only achievable through god and faith in religion.

I just wanted to know what anons from this board thought of it and what were his motivations to write this. If you dislike this thread, feel free to leave and continue shitposting (or asserting your intelligence) on any one of the numerous other threads on this board.

yeah that's what i gathered too. I feel like he also was a great moralist and believed that a psychologically healthy mind for most can exist only with strong reinforcement of conventional values and not lofty philosophical ideals.

i'm curious because i recently found some philosophical ideals of mine get me into pretty deep shit which left me fucked up like raskolnikov which is why i made this thread. but thanks for the ridicule and contirbuting to the thread.

A perfect crime is an action of a child. Punishment is endured by a man.

Dostoevskij didn't read any Nietzsche. Stop this retarded meme.

Where did I say he did?

You didn't, but it doesn't change the fact that Raskolnikov isn't the Nietzschean ubermensch (although they have some similiarities).