Raskolnikov

The novel revolves around our protagonist, Raskolnikov, a law student who is in financial turmoil. Barely able to afford food, clothing, or rent, he begins selling off possessions to this pawn lender: an old woman who is spiteful and abusive to everyone around her. Being a well educated intellectual, Raskolnikov has been taken by the newfound beliefs of rationalism and nihilism. He begins to reason that if he were to murder this woman and rob her, he could use the money to benefit his endeavors to do great things while also removing a terrible person from society.

What makes Dostoevsky’s work stand apart from others is his courage to give the opposing viewpoint the best argument he can. Many authors and philosophers tend to paint the ideas that oppose the main agenda as irrational. They develop the antagonists as “straw men” who are easily brushed aside with little reason. For instance, in The Republic, Plato portrays Socrates pushing his beliefs amidst a group of “yes men” that agree with every thought he has. On the contrary, Dostoevsky will give every opposing belief and idea the most agreeable and understandable case possible. He practically builds up a group of “steel men” and then proceeds to let them fight out their ideologies against one another.

Raskolnikov likens himself to a future Napoleon

One such example of these “steel men” is Raskolnikov. He is described as a likable, smart, and handsome young man. His financial problems are only perpetuated after he receives a letter from his family describing his mother’s worsening health and his sister who plans to marry a wealthy man. He realizes that his sister is simply prostituting her hand in marriage in efforts to better support the family. Raskolnikov also imagines himself capable of doing great things in the world and likens himself to Napoleon. The only thing that seemingly stands in his way is the current financial struggle he is facing.

While we may not agree with his eventual verdict, it becomes hard to argue against the rationalization Raskolnikov uses. Dostoevsky portrays a man that has every reason to commit murder both ethically and rationally. The pawn broker’s death would not only benefit his current financial situation, but it would seemingly bring an overall net positive into the world. She is described as immoral, spiteful towards everyone around her, and often beats her innocent sister. Why should this evil woman be immensely wealthy while he, who is capable of greatness, struggle to survive? With this line of thinking by his side, Raskolnikov bludgeons her with an axe. This all having only happened in the first part of the novel, the remaining five parts describe the true punishment for his crime.

While the novel is full of meaningful insights, I will focus on three main takeaways that we would all benefit to keep in mind. The first pertains to the idea of who we are versus what truly lies inside. Raskolnikov considered himself to be a pure rational nihilist who was capable of anything if logic was by his side. He figured that most murderers lose their sense of reason whenever they commit the crime and that’s why they get captured. He planned the entire event and knew that upon her death he would stay rational and able to hide the trail.

The second the axe came down, Raskolnikov became manic and driven by pure emotion. Reason cast aside, he barely took any money off the woman and ended up never using what he did steal. Right after the murder, he fled and buried the loot under a rock. He then fell deep into a state of desperation and depression and would eventually turn himself in to the police. Although he was sentenced to a labor camp in Siberia for many years, the true punishment for his crime became the irrevocable damage done on his conscious and psyche.

Many of us hold idealistic images of ourselves that we often consider true. The desires for what we want will often lead us to lie and convince ourselves we are something we’re not. While Raskolnikov thought himself to be a pure nihilistic materialist, he inadvertently discovered that he was a kind hearted person incapable of living after committing such atrocities. He was driven to desperation for some form of salvation from his mistakes. While our own lives likely won’t offer the same circumstances as Raskolnikov, his errors stand as a lesson that it is better to be honest with who you truly are instead of attempting to live a lie.

The second lesson to takeaway pertains to the use of pure reason. While many ideas and philosophies such as rationalism, materialism, and socialism seem reasonable on paper, they often fail to account for human nature. By all accounts, Raskolnikov’s plan was rational and reasonable (to an extent). The “math” worked out and he had every reason to go through with his action. What he failed to account for was the emotional distress that would plague him. Raskolnikov made an error that countless others have before and will in the future: he tried to make a rational decision about humans without accounting for our irrational nature. When you try to make a rational decision without accounting for our irrational tendencies and emotions, you aren’t truly being rational at all. After learning from his mistake, Raskolnikov demonstrates this point while talking to another proprietor of nihilism. The man had asked him,

“But what I say is this: if one convinces a person logically that he essentially has nothing to cry about, he’ll stop crying. That’s clear. Or are you convinced that he won’t?” “Life would be too easy that way,” Raskolnikov replied.

The final lesson is quite an intricate one to address: the value and meaning of a human life. Continuing with the last point, let us suppose Raskolnikov was emotionally capable of living with his actions. Would that have made them correct? The true answer depends on whether a human life has some value that is beyond reason. To have some innate value is completely contradictory to ideas of nihilism, atheism, and materialism. While this idea of meaninglessness is often perpetuated, Dostoevsky uses Raskolnikov to demonstrate his belief that there might be some hidden value we can’t account for. This final question, which is one of the greatest out there, is something none of us will ever know for certain, but it alone is worth reading the entire novel to help you decide for yourself.