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).

1. That ends don't justify means.
2. That not everyone can be Napoleon.
3. That russian nihilism is nonsense.
4. That values exist and that you can read all aboutem in the new testament.

Dostoevski even lists people who he thinks are the ones who realized themselves in the novel such as Napoleon and Mohammed. It doesn't really matter if he did read Nietzsche or not or if they call this concept by the same terms.

>That not everyone can be Napoleon.
Less that and more that you cannot know that you are Napoleon, therefore it isn't a justification for your actions.

This will explain it perfectly.

No but Nietzsche read Dostoevsky

Don't come to lit to do your homework

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

user, these are modern philosophers. They started from the notion that objective external source/example of total goodness/knowledge/etc. on which classical philosophy was based does not exist. This is what “God is dead” means. You can't just plug religion back into their reasoning.

Also, Dostoyevsky criticized semi-literate materialists and progressives of his times. They were like reddit atheists, but way more active, and their bastardized ideas would spread and cause a lot of trouble half a century later.

not really comparable to reddit atheists. reddit atheitsts are classical liberals with a socialist spin and a strong urge to divide the church and state.

the materialists of his time were similar in stopping state sanctioned customs and traditions, but they actually were authoritarian communists who wanted to eradicate the church and put all under the banner of their ideology.

t. reddit atheist

just look at 3 key characters, who all have sinned/committed a crime (against other or themselves) and deal with it in different ways

1. Swidrigailow - thinks he can atone for his bad deeds by good deeds (similar reason to Raskolnikows 100 good deeds make up 1 murder argument) but it doesnt work out for his conscience nevertheless and he ends up khs

2. Sonetschka - knows she is a sinner but begs God for forgiveness and keep faith however shitty her situation is, resulting in her 'carrying her cross' better than the other two

3. Raskolnikow - want's to ease his conscience with his Napoleon-theory etc. but almost loses it and ends up like swidrigailow but he is saved and later redeemed by Sonja when he stops his dialectical thinking and just starts to love (not only Sonja but also God, as is implied)

E M B R A C E J E S U S

He obviously wanted to merely convey oldfashioned and crude Christian ideals onto the Ubermensch, and made him weak.
/Sarcasm

I read for plot

>you can't add religion to exitantialism

that's where you are wrong kiddo.
t. dostoevski

You can't add language to reason.