This has been bothering for me some time now. I can't refute against Dostoevsky's arguments against the Napoleonic myth in Crime & Punishment.
However, how are great man suppose to come about and change the world? Does Dostoevsky just not believe in such a thing? Did he think that Serfs should just accept their suffering and put their faith in Jesus Christ and not actively try to advance their situation?
>tl;dr how is chad supposed to overpower and awe us according to dostoevsky?
Other urls found in this thread:
Dostoevsky's argument was that if you're a great man you won't give a fuck. Its not even a question of should you follow morality its that you KNOW that you are above the structures designed to restrict the common man. Every sacred impetus is just like playdough for you to manipulate. Its not even that you're breaking the law, its that you are the very spirit of the law itself. Your very transgression of it is a heroic fulfillment of it, in itself for itself
This is rather Hegelian though
But doesn't this bring back to the debate of what makes a person ordinary or extraordinary? Or is the mere fact that you are questioning or having to justify what you are doing is moral disqualifies you from being hero?
Does Dostoevsky despise these heroes who become the spirits of the law? Or does he despise the Enlightenment and German Idealism ideology for making anyone think they can be extraordinary and be another Napoleon and dangers that come with that?
From what I understand, I think Doestoevsky has to despise people like Napoleon and Caesar because they are in stark contrast with his ideal, most favorite, saintly hero Prince Myshkin.
However, I do not see how Prince Myshkin can serve as a realistic model of achieving greatness when Machiavelli (and really history) makes clear that kind and good rulers are the worst. What do you think about this?
>Prince Myshkin
he pretty much destroyed a community with his naivety though, i don't think Doestoevsky presents him as a viable model for the current times, i think he also had dark plans for Alyosha if he had written the following books to BK
>Or does he despise the Enlightenment and German Idealism ideology for making anyone think they can be extraordinary and be another Napoleon and dangers that come with that?
I believe so yes. I'm not sure if I can say he has a clear alternative to this issue though and I don't think he would claim to. He was a resignated person who knew there was little hope of reasoning with people like this.
I mean, his arguments aren't even supposed to be arguments against the Napoleonic myth. The whole thing is just included to give you an insight into Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov has a sort of superiority complex and so he comes up with a random fucking philosophy to excuse his horrible thoughts.
Nothing in the book is there to refute Raskolnikov's thoughts in general about the Napolenoic myth. Common sense says there are people who will be "napoleons" like he describes. But narratively, the philosophy Raskolnikov uses to justify his actions could've been ANYTHING. The whole thing is about the limits of any subjective philosophy in guiding your life.
>Machiavelli (and really history) makes clear that kind and good rulers are the worst
Really? I don't buy this at all.
Machiavelli is a meme and not taken seriously today
>Machiavelli is a meme
This is stupid. Napoleon was well known for having read Machiavelli and applying him in his rise to power and rule as Emperor. Andrew Roberts makes this clear in his biography of Napoleon. It's just naive to think modern politicians have abandoned the tried and tried method of politics. Machiavelli is considered a founder of realpolitik and Kissinger discusses him extensively in his book New World Order.
If anything, you are the meme user.
I forget the name of the other student but Raskolnikov himself realizes he's being giant pseud when he talks about how he spent all his time sulking instead of actively working toward a better future, like his friend. Raskolnikov is intelligent but does nothing with his time and has no ambition, he believes that destiny will guide his way into greatness, his friend is poor but works hard and has goals, even though he isn't wealthy or "great" he impresses Rask's hot sister enough to agree to marriage.
No it wasn't.
Machiavel was a subject of the post doc thesis of Macron
Razumihin
>Self-will in the little man who recognizes his insignificance becomes self-destructive.
I've thought about this some more
I do not think Dostoevsky looks down upon the great man, otherwise how could he support monarchies where it is literally one great man ruling over everyone else. He just despised the Napoleonic myth and Enlightenment for perpetuating the idea that anyone can do this, when clearly Napoleon himself was very extraordinary from an early age and not like anyone else and why he belongs to history's triumvirate of great man.
Then again, I am not sure how you reconcile this with his alternative to Raskolnikov in Razamukhin who is also ambitious. Maybe Dostoevsky does not have a problem with ambition itself, or even its scope, but the methodology on one which plans to achieve it?
But this begs the question, what is the appropriate methodology? It is definitely not like Svdrigailov's which is disgusting for both Raskolnikobv and ultimately Svdrigailov.
Some may accuse of Svdrigailov as acting Machiavellian, but I think that is a twisted and perverted vision of what Machiavellianism promotes. Machiavelli despised unwanted cruelty, and only believes people should be cruel in the first place to prevent further suffering coming on later when there is no other option available.
So, I think you can reconcile Dostoevsky with Machiavelli in that Dostoevsky despises people being intellectually lazy and taking shortcuts to their goals that do not need to be taken, especially when these shortcuts are cruel.
Raskolnikov did not NEED to kill the pawnbroker to save the poor of St. Petersburg (or elevate his ego). There are nobler and better ways of doing this like achieving an education (like Razhamukin) instead of being a law school drop out like him.
But the problem with this, is it worthwhile to pursue the nobler way when everyone else who is pursuing your same goal is taking the short cut?
I don't know the answer to that anons. What do you think?
Idk OP, but your question reminded me of this scene from Bronx Tale
>The working man is the tough guy.
>People don't love him. They fear him. There's a difference.
You seem to have thought more about this and it's been a long time since I've read C&P so I might not provide the best points for discussion.
I personally wouldn't call Raskolnikov ambitious because none of his goals are reasonable. He wants to be like Napolean and other great men but he can't even figure out how to honestly rise above the poverty line.
Knowing Dosto and the ending of the novel, his opinion would be that the appropriate methodology would be based in christian beliefs. I think your point about Dosto despising people intellectually lazy could also be attributed to a christian considering sloth to be a sin. His idea would be that one should pursue the nobler way based on the fact that it is the holier way, and that in acting in line with christian values will give you far more pleasure and meaning than the shortcut, like Svdrigailov.
Also Razhamukin was a dropout too, like Rask, but his outlook on life was more proactive.
Why is Napoleon in hell in this picture?
Anglo propaganda
But what did Napoleon do wrong that makes the eternal Anglo put him in hell?
>But the problem with this, is it worthwhile to pursue the nobler way when everyone else who is pursuing your same goal is taking the short cut?
The reason why you're having so many issues drawing clear connections is because ambition and the whole "great person" myth isn't really the point of the story. It's just used to explain Raskolnikov's psychology, and Dostoevsky could've written it as literally any self-destructive philosophy.
The reason why so many readers get stuck on it (you see this all the time in Veeky Forums threads) and think it's a core issue worth dealing with is that it's the only "obvious" bit of philosophy in the whole book. Pretty much everything else is implicit in the behaviors of the characters. This whole thing about Napoleon is explicit, and so it's the only thing inexperienced readers can even grasp onto, even though it's actually a very minor part of the themes involved.
>great men
Meme way of looking at history.
Dostoevsky's argument was that nihilists are retarded, that we have social stratification and other societal context systems for a reason and that trying to existentially force yourself into becoming something you're not will ruin your life and lead to extreme grief or suicide if you don't repent to the greatest form of social authority, God.
So Dostoevsky believed Chads were born and not made?
Shit
Tried to stop the consumption of European blood.
Continental Blockade
I would say rather that Dostoevsky believed Napoleon was a product of his society and the authority systems therein, and still largely Overstepped his Bounds (that being the closer literal translation of the word translated as Crime in C&P's title) and was likely miserable for most of his life.
>any way of looking at history is not a meme way
whew lad
this, or that Napoleon was appointed by God, depending on exactly how religious you think Dostoevsky was after his time in prison
The book literally doesn't include Dostoevsky's opinion on whether Chads are born or made. It's just not the point of the book even though it's all you autists argue about.
Road to hell is paved with good intentions. Machiavelli points out none pf the good were ever taught.not to be bad.
Goodness, therefore, as a consistent way of life, is not only impossible within the confines of the public realm, it is even destructive of it.
Nobody perhaps has been more sharply aware of this ruinous quality of doing good than Machiavelli, who, in a famous passage, dared to teach men “how not to be good.”
Needless to add, he did not say and did not mean that men must be taught how to be bad; the criminal act, though for other reasons, must also flee being seen and heard by others.
Machiavelli’s criterion for political action was glory, the same as in classical antiquity, and badness can no more shine in glory than goodness. Therefore all methods by which “one may indeed gain power, but not glory” are bad.
Badness that comes out of hiding is impudent and directly destroys the common world; goodness that comes out of hiding and assumes a public role is no longer good, but corrupt in its own terms and will carry its own corruption wherever it goes.
Thus, for Machiavelli, the reason for the Church’s becoming a corrupting influence in Italian politics was her participation in secular affairs as such and not the individual corruptness of bishops and prelates. To him, the alternative posed by the problem of religious rule over the secular realm was inescapably this: either the public realm corrupted the religious body and thereby became itself corrupt, or the religious body remained uncorrupt and destroyed the public realm altogether.
A reformed Church therefore was even more dangerous in Machiavelli’s eyes, and he looked with great respect but greater apprehension upon the religious revival of his time, the “new orders” which, by “saving religion from being destroyed by the licentiousness of the prelates and heads of the Church,” teach people to be good and not “to resist evil”—with the result that “wicked rulers do as much evil as they please.
-HA
How else are we suppose to look at history you autist?
le machiavelli is just satire tho xdxdxd
Invaded a bunch of other countries and killed many people.
They started it
Friends, I've read C&P, Notes from Underground, and Poor Folk, and I want to read Brothers. Should I read the Idiot first?
It wouldnt hurt. I think you should, its not even too long and quite enjoyable so BK wouldnt be postponed by too much :)
This book shows us that we should completely abandon the idea of the chad and the normal guy. They were named by the historians and after where they doctored by the idealists.
This crave that you have to become this so called chad, is a dangerous one. (Christian values)
Dosto wasn’t an historian, don’t come here with your War and Peace gibberish.
Dostoevsky was also by his own account not a philosopher. His use of Napoleon as the exemplar of the Great Man Problem was most likely meant to get the attention of the would-be peers of Raskolnikov who were the ones shitting themselves over European history and philosophy, especially the kind of anti-orthodox nihilism that Dostoevsky attacks in the story. Its unlikely Dostoevsky was making any kind of point about Napoleon, he wrote primarily about people at large and not about archetypes or historical figures.
But someone has to be Chad in society or else society breaks down. You can't have a functional society without a social hierarchy. So how does Dostoevsky solve this problem if he doesn't believe in Chads?
Or does he think Chads don't try to be Chads and just naturally are and the pick yourself up by the bootstrap people are delusional? Does this mean Dostoevsky not believe in self-improvement or just not in self-improvement towards becoming Chad?
Chad is a social construct. This incel autism needs to stop.
Just because it's a social construct doesn't make it any less "real"
Chads are normies, not Great People
Machiavelli was a bit smarter than just an author of self-help books for rich assholes. Sadly, none of you faggots understand this.
You're right.
Gigachads are great people.
Enlighten us then faggot
opinions on garnett translation of karamazov?
The greats are able to accurately differentiate from the sublime and the ridiculous. It's when they misjudge this that leads to their downfall like Napoleon in his invasion of Russia.
"From the Sublime to the Ridiculous There Is But One Step" - Napoleon
P&V is the best translation
t. rich asshole
bump
Can you really say Russia was better off after all the horrible events that followed the toppling of the Tzars?
Are you saying any change is bad? Becaus obviously socialist change and revolution is a disaster, but if the Romanovs were to institute reforms that strengthened the monarchy and orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality (which dostoevsky was very fond of) would that be bad because it changes the status quo or is it how you are changing the status quo that matters?
Razkolnikov's friend was a Chad
How so?
>Dostomemeskij
>Believing in "products of society"
wew
>Razkolnikov's friend was a Chad
have you even read c&p he was most definitely not a chad
He got laid tho
Getting laid doesn't make you Chad you incel