The two main characters of the first two chapters, Raskalnikov and Marmeladov, are searching for meaning in their lives. Both are muddling around and acting in somewhat strange manners. Marmeladov is quite drunk and trying to find pity despite having performed actions that he himself views as inexcusable. Raskalnikov is wandering around, planning something, and reviewing himself. He is constantly analyzing what is going on around him and inside his head, but this analysis is somewhat disconnected from his actions. Basically, both men are unsure what to do with their lives and are mentally and metaphorically lost without some purpose in their lives. So my question is, will either of them find their purpose? (Does anyone else think of Avenue Q when reading that sentence?) Or will they be lost forever?
In C&P, there is a considerable connection with nihilism. Nihilism is the philosophy that life is without meaning. it can also be described as the concept that morality doesn't exist, and it's merely a social convention fabricated by those who dominate society to impose their own beliefs on the rest. In these first three chapters that I read, Raskalnikov's life and environment are places of what we as a society generally consider to be "immoral" - he drinks, gambles, ostensibly can't pay his rent on time, associates with social lowlifes and misfits, and is planning a crime. In addition, his association with the Maremeladovs - a family of drunks and alcoholics - would be considered immoral. Perhaps the author is trying to get the reader to reconsider the conventional definitions of morality (including "crime", as we said it has a totally different connotation in Russian). Anyway, there seems to be rut that Raskalnikov is stuck in - a cycle - of lack of success and misery caused by gambling debts (mirroring the author's life maybe?) and then drinking to get rid of his misery. This cycle, like OYHOS, is fruitless and perhaps this lack of meaning in his life is forcing him to plan a crime to try to escape this life and change his routine. Maybe the nihilist philosophical approach to life is not a way for Raskalnikov to achieve happiness.
ReplyDeletei think raskalnikov(i like to call him raskal) and the other dude are on completely different paths. raskal seems to me to be the main character, which makes me believe he will be embarking on a journey or a multitude of experiences and he will eventually grow as a character, so therefore i think eventually he will find his puprose. Marmel seems to be to be completely stuck in the cyclical nature of his actions, he gets drunk, ruins everything, is given new life, drinks it away, etc, he almost seems like an EXAMPLE to me than a character, it sort of makes me feel like raskal is going to encounter a number of individuals with similar problems that they are stuck in but they are all connected somehow(like marmels daughter has to be a prostitute out of poverty(2 of the 7 things weve covered already) so finally to answer Eds question, raskal yes, marmel no
ReplyDeletehey guys. okay ubermench. its sounds like its a idea/philosophy founded by Friedrich Nietsche. Its the idea of a sort of man who transcends others. He impresses his ideas and values on everyone else and somehow he furthers humanity. This seems to be a reference to what we were discussing in class about how crime in russian means not necessarily a specific act, but to transgress. Maybe rather than criminals in this book, we will find examples of the ubermench instead.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading a short bio of Dostoyevsky (D), it seems that a lot of C&P (at least what we've read so far) is taken from his own life. Similar to Raskalnikov (R), D studied in St Petersburg. Ms. Siegel told us in class that D was in a lot of financial debt, as he was a gambler. This too plays out in C&P, as a shortage of money seems to be a recurring problem for most of the characters we have seen thus far. Additionally, just as D had a gambling addiction, Marmeladov (M) struggles with an alcohol problem. Lastly, D's father, although did not physically abuse his children, did not treat them well-I read that he ordered his children to stand silently and swat flies that came near his head while he slept. This is reminiscent of M's wife and her abusive relationship with her children.
ReplyDeleteLike Erica, I looked up what ubermensch means. To add to what she said, an ubermensch is a "superman" who not only transcends people, but also transcends classes, nationalities, human nature, and the conventions of social life. I also found that this idea of a transfiguring freedom parallels some pessimistic ideas that follow existentialism; I think these ideas refer to the consequences of following one's own path instead of following society's norms. In relation to what we have read thus far in Crime and Punishment, I think that the connection that is to be made here is that Rodka may have some ubermensch qualities in the sense that he transfigures freedom by searching for a means of life (as Ed commented in his post). This concept relates to the pessimistic ideas that follow existentialism because in pursuing his own path, it's possible that as we continue to read we will see that Rodka is going to be forced to suffer a severe "punishment" - as a result of doing the "crime." It also may relate to the pessimistic ideas because in addition to suffering punishment, isolation could be another consequence of following existentialism. And I think it goes without saying that we have seen Rodka as a very isolated, lonely man.
ReplyDeleteContrary to Erica's post, I think we will be more likely to see examples of the antithesis of the ubermensch. There is a HUGE difference between transcending and transgressing. The ubermensche, from what I read, is more of an ideal example of man, or even more of a super/extraordinary man, especially to Dostoyevsky. Looking at the characters we have met so far, I think they are much more likely to flip the coin and fail to qualify as the ubermensch character, unless they suddenly have a huge breakthrough and become model citizens of society. From my limited knowledge of Yiddish, I know a mensch is a man of integrity and honor, and Raskalnikov and Marmeladov are much more of the villains and lowly members of society that would not fit into such a category. I'm pretty sure they're actually criminals, as Erica had also said, for transgressing with alcohol, gambling, etc.
ReplyDeletei havent read yet but ill tell you about existentialism - from what i remember of what ms san taught me.
ReplyDeletethere are 2 kinds of existentialists - existentialist and atheistic existentialists. the regular existentialists believe that god exists, but he is an absentee landlord, and you have to make your decisions on your own. the atheistic existential view says god doesnt exist.
but both agree that man is basically alone. and bc of this, mans decisions are his own, and he must therefore take responsibility for his actions and consequences. im sure this relates to the book since its crime and punishment - and what we discussed today was the question of choice. according to existentialism, its all your choice.
theres also the idea of the ripple effect and that each decision leads to some consequence and everything effects the future.
okay now i have to eat dinner but if i think of more ill post later
I'm also going to talk about nihilism. When Ms. Siegel said the word I was excited because I remember learning about the nihilist uprisings in Russia.
ReplyDeleteSo there seems to be a strong nihilist backdrop, especially since the Nihilist uprisings in Russia took place in the 1860s. In a nutshell, the nihilists were anarchist-esque, and wanted to overthrow the existing governmental system because they believed it wasn't working. (Many of the Russian liberals believed the the proposals by the intelligentsia and conservative monarchical government were not working). And as Demetra said, the core of the Nihilist philosophy was that life lacked meaning.
In Crime and Punishment, there seems to indeed be a nihilist backdrop (I may even think that Dostoyevsky was a nihilist?) To add to what Demetra, said, Raskolnikov is a transgressor. His actions on the margins of society mirror the marginal movement of the nihilists. The nihilist movement stemmed into the Narodnik movement, essentially a populist one. So ultimately, the movement had strong roots in disillusioned peasants who drank and gambled, and were frustrated with the government. (Muh like the 1890s populist movement in America!) This mirrors Raskolnikov's and Dostoyevsky's lifestyle, because these people were not necessarily the most ambitious and driven, many were irritated and lacked direction, but wanted/needed help.
Sorry, had to apply to Tufts.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as I understand it (and Mr. Links is a wise man), existentialism is the search for meaning in life, while nihilism is the acceptance that life has no meaning. Ubermensch, as Dani says, transcends class, nationality, religion, etc. But those things, divisive they may be, give purpose to life, so I think the notion of Ubermensch is also nihilist.
I think Rodya is an Ubermensch, but he also shows this failure of the Ubermensch. Depressed, he is no longer attached to anything, so in that sense he is transcendent. But with that, he has lost his sense of purpose.
i forgot to say that existentialists ask questions like whats the meaning of life? im pretty sure they think there is none and you make your own - bc existence precedes essence. also satre was a big existentialist
ReplyDeletei really agree with demetra's post about nihilism. R and M are clearly immoral, according to R's standards. since he is always getting mad at himself for drinking and contemplating theft, it only makes sense that he thinks M is immoral for being an alcoholic. with the whole life-without-meaning philosophy..i think this really applies to R because he doesn't really have a successful life. apparently he has no goal to reach, and it's clear that he can't have one, seeing as he can barely find enough money to pay his rent.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if we are supposed to talk about one of these terms as it relates to crime and punishment or if we are just supposed to define/talk about it but i guess ill just be safe here.
ReplyDeleteNihilism is a form of extreme skepticism, maintaining the idea that absolutely nothing has real meaning/existence purpose. As well as the rejection of all moral principles.
As it relates to what we read tonight, I think we have Rasky being nihilistic if that's a word in that we see that him planning out something that is seemingly morally wrong. Dostoevsky leaves small hints throughout the chapter as to what this "desperate deed" will be I guess in order to create suspense but nevertheless we can infer that it will be something drastic and unethical and therefor a crime/transgression. I would say he is nihilistic because of this rejection of moral principles.
Alright, so I'm going with the existential theme here. After researching these terms, it looks like existentialism is about finding the meaning in life through one's one terms, with an emphasis on people's choices forming their natures.
ReplyDeleteI think Emily had a really important point about how a lot of existentialism has ties to atheism, b/c of the idea that everyone controls their lives, so god is irrelevant. I thought this was significant because there were clear references to religion throughout the first three chapters ex. M's whole speech about god accepting sinners and how R's mom wrote that his sister prayed in front of the icon.
Maybe religion will have an important role in the coming chapters? The oh so many chapters...
I agree with Sarah. Thus far in C&P, we have already seen examples of gambling, alcoholism, plots to commit crimes, etc. so as of now, there are no examples of anyone exhibiting ubermensch qualities. Additionally, I would like to add that the term "existential nihilism" relates to each person/a person's life having no meaning. It coins each individual as insignificant and incapable of significantly altering the future. Although this is just my opinion, this belief just seems like an excuse and a way to rationalize poor behavior or failure. When people can claim that their actions are completely insignificant, they have no motivation to act progressively or towards positive change for themselves or for others. (I think this also relates back to the alcoholism, gambling, crime, etc. that we see (and most likely will continue to see) throughout the book.)
ReplyDeleteI would like to talk about nihilism in this blog post and say that i disagree with Demetra. So far we have read the story of a man who simply can't get a break (im a large fan of Raskol). Whether or not he deserves this break is up for much debate and im sure we will be discussing that later. Even though he is poor and is in debt to many people, he does seem to have some friends and although i read the assignment completely wrong it seems like although he is indebted many people like him. This is seen at the start with the landlady who give him some rubles for a watch that she knows is worth zero, and then again when he makes friends with the friendly alcoholic. Taking the definition of Nihlism as demetra said as meaning that there is no meaning to life, i would say it doesnt apply to Crime and Punishment. This is because like Raskol and Sonia, many of these characters are doing things like gamble (trying to win big) or prostitute themselves out in order to make a living and support their family. Although this does conjure up images of going about a daily routine of nothingness just to make it to the next day, if the next day or "life" as some nihilists say doesnt matter, why would they bother? wouldnt they just commit suicide? it wouldnt be as taboo as their lives while living...
ReplyDeleteLike others have said, Ubermensch is the German word meaning “superman” or someone who transcends great power and will. The ubermensch justifies the existence of humanity and fights conformity with his own set of values. Regarding what we read tonight, at first I thought Raskolnikov was the ubermensch because he was described in the beginning as attractive and relatively smart. However, as I read on, he doesn’t come off as “super”. He is scared of his landlady and socially awkward when he goes to M’s house. He is also poor and struggling to make ends meet. I agree with Sarah that we are more likely to see examples of the antithesis of the ubermensch judging from the types of characters we’ve met. So far, they appear to be poor and low members of society rather than the ideal example of man.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on Russell's post, nihilists don't see themselves as damned and are usually not depressed or veering towards suicide. They tend to view their meaninglessness/insignificance in the larger picture in a much more liberating way. It allows them to act how they want and not feel as though there are any real consequences to their actions. (Also this may not be true for every nihilist out there.)
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the type of nihilist we are talking about here i think that the characters shown in Crime and Punishment arent related to them. I realize i might be digging myself into a hole because we probably wouldnt be asked about this if it were true but the simple fact that the people see consequences to their actions are evident throughout the first three chapters we have read. For example Raskol realizes not paying his rent is bad becuase it will end in him not having a place to live so he tries to sell the little things he can to keep the apartment and pay some of his debt. Second of all Sonia realizes a lack of money would result in a lack of life (which is definitely a consequence) and therefore she certainly sees a real consequence for that. And finally in the letter written by Raskols mother the people in the town thought differently of his sister after the "event" with the employer and these perceptions affected the mother and Raskols sister very much so because they realized the consequences of a bad reputation. And finally i dont understand how life without meaning is liberating. If you and your life doesnt matter... then why are you living?
ReplyDeleteYou are living because it is all you have. There are obviously consequences (like if you don't pay rent you don't have a place to live), but nihilism is the means by which some people allow themselves to be free of social ideals, morals, ethics, etc. Your purpose is to live and to fully live your life according to how you want to live it. If you want a place to live, you will pay your rent. At the same time, you don't feel the need to adhere to what society sees as moral because it is a construct of society and is not an absolute. It has no real value to nihilists. For example, resorting to prostitution (immoral?) is okay because it is the means to an end (having the money to pay for your home).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Russell to a certain extent. I think that all of the internal strife that Rodya goes through points to the fact that he is searching for a meaning in life and therefore is not a nihilist. Rodya stops himself from committing a crime and he looks down on Marmeladov and his family situation because he still thinks about societal standards. If he had accepted that life had no meaning, I dont think that he would care about these standards and therefore would not have all the internal arguments. I also do not feel that Marmeladov is a nihilist because he is upset that he practically forced his daughter into prostitution. Furthermore, Marmeladov did manage to get a job (even though he lost the job later he is still trying). While both characters dont have much hope, they are still trying to find meaning in their lives, otherwise I dont think they would care so much about their actions.
ReplyDeleteMaybe there's actually a religious element to existentialism, and maybe this relates to Marmeladov's whole rant about wanting to be crucified for his sins. He knows he's a drunk who's like wasting his life away, so maybe he's trying to reinvent himself as a martyr who is willing to die for the sins of everyone else. Therefore, in his search for meaning in his life, he sees kind of a glimmer of hope in the fact that he could perhaps improve the way he is viewed by both himself and others.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't know anything about the Bible or crucifixion so there's a good chance this is totally off.
Okay ubermensch:
ReplyDeleteLike many of my predecessors here tonight, I looked at definition to begin my journey, capturing a definition of ubermensch as Nietzsche's concept for "an over man" who overcomes the herd perspective and is capable of creating a new perspective without dogmatically forcing his perspective on others.
In the context of C&S, I think none of the characters are ubermesch(es?) just looking at the character list and what the people are in context of what they have done thus far, they all seem to be faulty whether it be in how they treat others, or are as people. If I'm right, which i doubt I am, i guess the point would be that in C&S that no person is really an ubermensch.