9 September 2017

Dostoevsky`S & # 8220 ; Brothers Karamazov & # 8221 ; And & # 8220 ; Crime And Punishment & # 8221 ; Essay, Research Paper

In Dostoevsky & # 8217 ; s novels hurting and some heavy load of the inevitableness of

human agony and helplessness signifier Russia. And he depicts it non with

white baseball mitts on, nor through the blisters of the provincial, but through people

who are close to him and his worlds: metropolis people who either have religion,

or secular humanists who are so distant from world that even when they love

humanity they despise worlds because of their ain inability to accomplish or to

create Eden on Earth. His novels The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and

Punishment are best illustrations of the toxicant consequence of such ideals on the

common homo. The rebellion of these humanists against the system and the

world of human life becomes more of import, therefore love becomes the filter

and the retainer of pride and ideals. The cause of XIX c. progressives becomes

more of import to them than the existent homo being that might non suit the

image of their perfect and humane society. Through these jobs and

antonyms which cross and overlap each other, Dostoevsky depicts societal

issues, particularly the job of slaying, through an image of people who go

through hurting. He presents a graphical experience of 1s who do non cognize how

to cover with humanity and its jobs. Dostoevsky himself does non give a

clear solution nor does he go forth one with the certainty of religion for an

illustration. He says himself:

Finding myself lost in the solution of these inquiries, I decide

to short-circuit them with no solution at all. ( From the Author. The

Brothers Karamazov )

Through the presentation of offense and the issue of money which is frequently

connected to it, Dostoevsky retells a Bible narrative. His reply to the job

of evil and human life filled with agony, at least the most persuading

one, for a better society and better societal conditions is active love. That

is non the love that is directed towards the humanity as a whole, but

towards the person: & # 8220 ; Strive to love your neighbour actively and

tirelessly & # 8221 ; ( II, 4 ) . For Dostoevsky such love is a false 1 and he

nowadayss it through such characters as Rakitin, Perkhotin and even Luzhin:

Consciousness of life is superior to life, cognition of the Torahs

of felicity is superior to happiness & # 8211 ; that is what we must contend

against. ( The Dream of a Pathetic Man, p. 382 )

One of greatest immoralities for Dostoevsky are the alleged progressives who & # 8220 ; love

humanity more than an single man. & # 8221 ; Yet he does non stand for their

behaviour as truly evil. Their hatred towards humanity arises precisely from

the antonym: love. Secular humanists see so much immorality, offense and

inhumaneness, they can non halt it so they rebel. Ivan Karamazov and his

rebellion are strictly of that sort. He is non despicable, he merely can non understand

that there might be a solution for such agony, particularly in the instance of

kids who are guiltless in Christianity. That is why Ivan asks:

Love life more than the significance of it? ( II, 3 )

Ivan as any mean rational, wants to cognize. To cognize the significance of life

for him is more of import than to really make something about the human

enduring. Ivan forgets that one human life is every bit of import as the full

humanity. For him humanity is simply an abstraction which go on to be

environing him. He thinks that by cognizing and logically, rationally eventually

understanding the enigma of life jobs would be solved. For Alyosha, the

merely reply is love for life, irrespective of the significance and the logic behind

it. To assist people and seek to forgive them if they do incorrect or assist them if

they need aid is all that Alyosha wants. Faith in God and people is the

merely manner to populate with love. To believe in God and to hold trust in homo

nature and fate agencies to forgive and to atone. It means non aching

others. Ivan gets trapped by the power of his ain mind and his ain

pride: the pride that pulses in worlds who want to cognize more. Ivan

contradicts himself with his rebellion. On one side, everything is

permitted, because there is no God ( Ivan is an atheist ) , on the other the

regulation of despotic Inquisitors who claim that there is God, but & # 8220 ; know & # 8221 ; the

truth: that there is no God. Ivan desires rebellion against the Father and

his male parent, the announcement of a man-god, but in the same clip Ivan looks

at people like himself as male parents to the multitudes. Raskolnikov does the same.

He separates people on ordinary and extraordinary. His demigod is permitted


I merely adumbrate that the & # 8220 ; extraordinary & # 8221 ; adult male has the right & # 8230 ; I

Don & # 8217 ; t mean a formal, official right, but he has the right in

himself, to allow his scruples to transgress & # 8230 ; ( Crime and

Punishment. III, 5 )

Ivan praises the thought of God, & # 8220 ; which entered the caput of such a barbarian,

barbarous animal as adult male & # 8221 ; ( Brothers Karamazov, V, 4 ) . So he besides thinks most of

people unworthy. How can a adult male that despises humanity love it at the same

clip? If worlds are like that than who has a right to be a Superman or the

Inquisitor. Yes, it is true that there are bad worlds, but one can non travel and

hatred all of human race for the mistake of some. Without love the redemption and

better society are impossible. Sonya and her forfeit for others and her

forgiveness are the best illustration. She has God because she knows that she is

as large of a evildoer and no better than others, and she still loves people,

she does non desire to be better for the intent of narcissistic pride.

In Russia at the clip the Church was 2nd topographic point and the values of Western

European broad thought were brushing through. What Dostoevsky saw was that

none of those thoughts really improved the position of the multitudes. Therefore, the

reply has to lie someplace else instead than in the averment of humanists

and positivists that work forces are Gods. What Raskolnikov does is precisely that:

he gives himself the licence to offend and to make up one’s mind to be a God. He

Rebels against society and its norms. Raskolnikov hates Luzhin and

Svidrigaylov, but by killing the old lady and Lizaveta on his manner to his ain

intent he turns into people every bit evil as the 1s he despises most. Once he

crosses the line he does non cognize where to halt. Geoffrey Kabat writes:

On another, symbolic degree, the slaying is an effort to eliminate

a symbol of the oppressive forces of a society in which money

gives one power over other people & # 8217 ; s lives and in which deficiency of

money means dependance on others. ( V, 124 )

The job of money and its oppressive and evil character is an of import

issue in Dostoevsky & # 8217 ; s novels. Raskolnikov is originally troubled because of

his fiscal jobs, Sonya is a cocotte to supply for her household,

Mitya wants to kill his male parent for money. Judas betrays Jesus for money.

This subject is repeated in Dostoevsky, but there is ever something more: in

the terminal the money ( as in the instance of Rodion or Mitya ) is of lesser

importance than the existent rebellion against the society and the effort to

alter the societal conditions which are about intolerable. They both consider

perpetrating self-destruction, but do non make it because they are lucky plenty to run into

and to follow a Christ figure. Jesus would hold forgiven Judas, but Judas

did non inquire for forgiveness. He felt guilt, but the feeling of guilt is a

necessity if one knows of guilt and possesses fear. To cognize the guilt is non

plenty: to atone is important. Grushenka and Sonya forgive because they have

to forgive, but in the first topographic point they know that the guilty have to forgive

themselves and take the way of penitence. Otherwise, reason at its

best turns a adult male into a autocrat, on a smaller graduated table than the Inquisitor, but

still a autocrat. This self-importance and child rebellion ( against every male parent possible )

of Rodion kill Alyona and Lizaveta and that is why he hurts his female parent and

sister. Joseph Frank writes:

By this clip, Raskolnikov has begun to understand how easy a prideful

egoism can get down with love and turn into hatred. ( Dostoevsky: The Old ages of

Ordeal 1850-1859.I, 7 )

The option to the behaviour of Svidrigaylov and Raskolnikov in the Crime

and Punishment is Sonya or Sofia. Her name implies that Dostoevsky even

through this wants to demo how foolish the Greco-Roman foundation for the

Western idea is. The lone individual that possesses the ultimate wisdom and

the key to felicity is Sonya. The adult female of Russia who believes and takes an

the function of the female parent for her sisters and brothers every bit good as for Rodion

.She loves actively & # 8211 ; with her organic structure she sacrifices herself for her household.

Sofia is the 1 with the reply:

Travel at one time, this blink of an eye, stand at the cross-roads, foremost bow down

and snog the Earth you have desecrated, so bow to the whole

universe, to the four corners of the Earth, and say aloud to all the

universe: & # 8220 ; I have done murder. & # 8221 ; ( V, 4 )

Raskolnikov will non travel because for him authorization is another representation

of amorality, no better than himself. They do non care about his psyche or his

compunction. They want to happen the liquidator and penalize him. The point that

follows out of is that no judicial system is adequate to do one truly experience

sorry. The issue of penalty is non what affairs. Surely Sonya does non

want Raskolnikov to turn himself in because she hates him or because she

thinks that he is a vile and evil animal. She wants to salvage him and she

knows that the first way to the Jesus is the entree of one & # 8217 ; s ain wickedness,

and want already exists. Sonya knows that Rodion will non be saved if he

is simply sent to Siberia. She follows him with the offer and the illustration of

her Christian love, carry throughing her words and actively loving, trusting that

his evildoing will non force him off from the universe back into his ain

interior universe in which cipher else has a topographic point. Opposite to Sonya is what

& # 8220 ; humanists & # 8221 ; make, what the & # 8220 ; extraordinary & # 8221 ; work forces do. Their thought becomes more

than the existent humanity, more than the existent substance of that thought. The

inevitableness of human enduring becomes obvious if one is seeking for an

reply. Therefore merely like Raskolnikov and Ivan rejection of such society and

life comes, which leads to the & # 8220 ; cold and inhumanely indurate to the point of

inhumaneness & # 8221 ; ( Crime and Punishment, V, 2 ) .

In order to get the better of evil 1 has to get down with the premise that there is

goodness. To arise violently because of a kid & # 8217 ; s decease merely brings greater

immorality. Ivan does non love others nor does he love himself. He does non accept

the most of import of all, and what is important to Sonya and Alyosha:

forgiveness. He can non forgive himself, for he is impeaching himself of

Fyodor & # 8217 ; s decease, and he goes mad. The Grand Inquisitor and Ivan come really

near together in their hatred towards humanity. They hold the sentiment that

Jesus made a error when he sacrificed for the human race. What they do

non understand is that Christ, with his buss, once more and once more dies and

forfeits hims

hob. Jesus does non lose religion in worlds and in the

possibility of goodness, even though there is evil. He forgives. Sonya

forgives, she expresses wisdom with her actions. In The Brothers Karamazov,

and Crime and Punishment, active love is the highest value and the lone

redress to all of humanity & # 8217 ; s jobs! Sonya & # 8217 ; s manus motions, Zosima & # 8217 ; s bow,

Christ & # 8217 ; s busss are a definite and the ultimate reply that Dostoevsky has to

offer to the people. Father Zosima makes this thought really clear:

If you are repentant you love. And if you love you are a God. All

things are atoned for, all things are saved by love. If I, a

evildoer, even as you are, am stamp with you and have commiseration on you,

how much more will God. Love is such a invaluable hoarded wealth that you

can deliver the whole universe by it, and aby non merely your ain

wickednesss but the wickednesss of others. ( Brothers Karamazov. II, 4 )

From the narrative & # 8220 ; Akulka & # 8217 ; s Husband, & # 8221 ; in which there is everything but sorrow

on the side of the slayer, religion in God is the lone way to saneness.

Dostoevsky was a immature adult male when he heard these narratives. How could he populate

otherwise, if he truly actively loved people, but take the belief in God as

a necessity? The belief that the thought of God should be at that place because

otherwise everything would be allowed is Ivan & # 8217 ; s position. His claim that

society should be based on the Christian tenet, and that offense should non be

merely against the province, but besides against Christ, is precisely the antonym of

what to believe and to truly love Christ means. Christ did non set out to

penalize the transgressors, but he gave them all the love that he could give:

forgiveness and love:

Remember peculiarly that you can non be a justice of anyone. For no

one can judge a condemnable, until he recognizes that he is merely such

a condemnable as the adult male standing before him, and that he possibly is

morethan all adult male to fault for that offense. ( Brothers Karamazov. VI,

3 )

For Ivan, ageless justness does non be, and he besides does non believe that

there are guilty. But after that he accuses people of being evil and he does

non forgive them. So he needs a prevarication to cover the fact of the human

mortality. The lone job is that God is non a prevarication, at least non for

Dostoevsky. Ivan would set up the regulation of the Inquisitor: he would

set up a system that uses Christ for its ain endurance. To actively love

agencies to believe and non to cipher or believe merely nine hours a twenty-four hours or

when it is helpful to one & # 8217 ; s survival

Through the act of rebellion against the societal norms and the Christian

tenet secular progressives, or humanists, bury about fellow human existences as

being fallible as much in idea as in action. In those minutes, great

guardians of broad idea and love for humanity forget that they might

non hold the definite reply, therefore they fall into the same trap as their

predecessors who thought that they knew what is the best for people and

enforced their thoughts. They all become Grand Inquisitors and & # 8220 ; populating gods. & # 8221 ;

They all want to save worlds from the load of their ain egos, & # 8220 ; for merely

we, we who guard the enigma, shall be unhappy. & # 8221 ; They preach prevarications alternatively of

the truth, therefore they develop a different sort of love: oppressive love. The

Christian love has to be free. This is where the societal issue of slaying, as

in the instance of Akulka & # 8217 ; s hubby comes in. He evidently does non experience compunction

because he owes something to the authorities or the system, or to his married woman:

Forgive me, I & # 8217 ; ll rinse your pess now and imbibe the H2O too. & # 8221 ; ( Akulka & # 8217 ; s

Husband )

He feels no compunction for the slaying and the ill-treatment of the adult female. The

authorization did direct him to prison, but what he feels is nil else but the

feeling of being punished. There is no compunction and seems that there is no

forgiveness. Possibly that is why Dostoevsky does non brood on his imprisonment

excessively much. He does non desire his ain penalty to turn into pride: so

society does non derive anything from the penalty of the 1 who

transgressed, but plain averment of its ain power. This lapurlative

political orientation, system for the interest of itself, does non convey the solution. There

has to be remorse and existent recognition and confession. Not confession for

the interest of mere forgiveness, nor that same sentence, & # 8220 ; I can non forgive

myself. & # 8221 ; For Dostoevsky, that is simply an alibi for pride and self-pity.

Peoples find safety in their theories or in other external factors, such as

being deprived from something by birth, burying that the quality of life

is one & # 8217 ; s ain pick, & # 8220 ; wear & # 8217 ; t do to others. & # 8221 ; In a secular society every category

feels responsible merely to its ain & # 8220 ; natural & # 8221 ; or instead inadvertent


The inmate is about ever disposed to experience himself justified in

offenses against authorization, so much so that no inquiry about it

of all time arises for him. However, in pattern he is cognizant that

the governments take a really different position of his offense and that

hence he must be punished, and so they are quits. ( Ideology

and Imagination. IV, 147 )

Dostoevsky & # 8217 ; s solution lies in precisely the antonym from the category battle

and the solution that it brings. All of those strives bring merely displacements and

bends but are still based on hatred and non on love. When one thinks of God it

is non in footings of category one belongs to, or sex or age. One either accepts

the Word or one does non, one either believes that even the sparrow has its

topographic point in God & # 8217 ; s clemency or one goes around raving against God, at the same time

speaking of his necessity. Dostoevsky shows such attitude, such portion clip

apologizing as worthless and really frequently unsafe: self-destructions and slayings.

He genuinely despises it and pitilessly onslaughts those wickednesss with all his

strength and his equivocal words. Zosima & # 8217 ; s gives an history of what being

without Christ can make:

They, following scientific discipline, want to establish justness on ground entirely, but

non with Christ, as earlier, and they have already proclaimed that

there is no offense, that there is no wickedness. And that & # 8217 ; s consistent,

for if you have no God what is the significance of offense? ( Brothers

Karamazov. VI, 3 )

This is the danger of Raskolnikov and Ivan & # 8217 ; s logic. The society around them

and around Dostoevsky is one which makes kids suffer and turns immature,

beautiful and wise animals, like Sonya, into cocottes. What is the

reply? Is one reply possible to it at all? Can one travel on life with the

idea of how much agony there is? Does one Rebel against the society,

so seek to set up a new one, burying that society does non come to be

of itself, but is built by human existences: existences imperfect and ready to ache

and arise against their male parents, against the thought of & # 8220 ; old, & # 8221 ; or the society

of the past and present. If that is taken into history the lone people who

make do sense out of human being, which is best showed and expressed

through agony, are people such as Ilyushka and Sonya. Their statement is

much stronger. They are better for the cause of the betterment of societal

issues than the existent speechmakers for the multitudes. Why? They offer the solution

for peace in one & # 8217 ; s psyche. They offer it with religion in God, non the rational

way of the Western mind or with the denial of a Russian nihilist, but

with a spring of religion that charms one against existent, barbarous, universe. The

autocrats, the intellectuals, the Ivans can non be prevented, but religions can

get the better of them, over and over once more. The bow and the busss have to be.

Children dice, kids suffer, society is unfair, people kill for stupid

grounds and base, despicable feelings. In a universe that is hopelessly destined to

travel on like that, religion, God, are the best replies to our desperation.

Intellectualism evidently does non convey much advantage or peace & # 8211 ; religion and

love bash. With God one & # 8217 ; s pride can be defeated, one & # 8217 ; s duty

recognized, one & # 8217 ; s active love awakened, one & # 8217 ; s psyche saved:

By the experience of active love. Strive to love your neighbour

actively and tirelessly. Insofar as you advance in love you

will turn surer of the world of God and of the immortality of

your psyche. If you attain to hone self-forgetfulness in the love

of your neighbour, so you will believe without uncertainty, and no

uncertainty can perchance come in your psyche. ( Brothers Karamazov. II, 4 ) )

Ivan recognizes that same necessity and utility of God. However, he does

non truly believe in God, therefore he can non forgive, he can non forgive

himself, and most significantly he does non believe in the immortality of the

psyche and in justness. He does non love. Without a belief in the being of

justness offense has no significance. His thought of God is worthless because he is an

atheist, he does non believe. The lone manner out is non through the prevarication, with

which the Church for centuries managed its personal businesss, but through true and

honest belief that things have a intent and that it does count to be good

and non to ache others. One can non work out society & # 8217 ; s jobs unless one truly

believes that what is done has a intent. That is non the manner because when

one starts looking at humanity as a whole one will non happen many good things

and one will ne’er hold any felicity. Merely by looking at the person can

one get a minute of felicity and ecstasy of the psyche, such as

Alyosha & # 8217 ; s experiences in the field. Faith is non rational way, but it

equips one with love. Merely by holding certain values and love for others can

the household as the basic unit of the society survive. Family Karamazov is

surely a barbarous illustration of what the society may come to if society does

non keep values which produce love: we are all responsible for each other

and we have to forgive each other.

To better the society and societal conditions and to free people from immorality on

Earth is impossible. The belief that there is immortality of the psyche and

that there is God who takes attention of worlds is necessary. Dostoevsky goes

farther than Voltaire. He believes that you have to hold true religion in order

to achieve felicity and to make the land for better life. Intellectual

treatment and the recognition of the necessity for the God as an thought or

a Prime Mover becomes worthless the minute it is meant as a prevarication. It has to

be the Truth, there has to be faith. If one lives a prevarication his resentment that

the dream and the ideal are impossible will merely take to madness, hatred, and

finally suicide or slaying. One has to give active love.

So the ultimate reply to the agony and the unfairness in the universe is

love. What higher feeling and more positive there is in human being?

Again there is no rational manner to explicate and to truly take one on that

way of religion. The possibility of such belief is existent because worlds are

able to love. That means that they must be able to endure for others, they

besides must be able to forgive. & # 8220 ; Love all work forces, love everything & # 8221 ; are Zosima & # 8217 ; s

words. Dostoevsky can non travel further than that.


A limited
time offer!
Get authentic custom
ESSAY SAMPLEwritten strictly according
to your requirements