Crime and Punishment

I suppose many of you are familiar with Dostoyevski's superb classic Crime and Punishment. When I first read the novel about 14 years ago, I was truly fascinated by the author's profound psychoanalysis of a person who has committed their first crime.

But apart from that, I still don't know whether to accept Raskolnikov's philosophy that the more intelligent and well-intentioned people in the society deserve to be placed above the law and be allowed to try and achieve their (noble) objectives by whatever means they choose. Dostoyevski himself does set out a few pros and cons, but I for one have been unable to decide so far. Small wonder, though, as I don't know the first thing about ethics and sociology and philosophy .... :( :(

So I am taking this opportunity to discuss the issue with members of this forum, in the hope of reaching some sort of consensus in the end.

Your thoughts, please.

Your question was so well presented and thought out, I felt compelled to respond.

The “intelligent” and “well-intentioned,” are, of course, always subjectively defined by the already ruling, elite class. If you go back to the record of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison makes it very clear that the new constitutional system must be designed so as to insure that the government will, in his words "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

The so-called noble objectives of the elite are always achieved by whatever means men in the ruling class or party choose, whether it be in a so-called democracy, communism, socialism, a dictatorship, or constitutional monarch leaning toward socialism. This hierarchal structure of power goes back to even before the feudal system and belief in the divine right of kings--nothing's really changed. It matters not what political system is in place——corruption and power always surface and take control. I think one needs then to address a much deeper issue: man's psyche, his perceived separation from the universe and how that affects his spiritual sense of self, or lack of.

Suggested reading: Plato’s The Republic, (which you can read for free on-line, do a google), A People’s History of The United States, by Howard Zinn, and Seth Speaks, by Jane Roberts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hal9000
The “intelligent” and “well-intentioned,” are, of course, always subjectively defined by the already ruling, elite class... The so-called noble objectives of the elite are always achieved by whatever means men in the ruling class or party choose...

---

Yeah I suppose you are right there but the point I am trying to make is that in Dostoyevski’s opinion, too many young and talented people are being stifled because of poverty and social injustice. Raskolnikov is an honest and intelligent person who is forced to quit university because he is literally starving, while that filthy, stupid loan shark has more money than she can ever spend. Rask. argues that people in his condition must be allowed to cut a few corners and get the opportunities they deserve in order to fulfill themselves; and this is all supposed to be in the greater interest of mankind. One just can’t help sympathising with him. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by den


Interesting way to start your response to this question hal ... It's almost as if you've answered the issue the Dr. brings up here unconsciously.

If he had asked the same question, but in monosyllabic words and various spelling mistakes, would you have still been compelled to respond?

---

Fluency and art appreciation are not necessarily signs of intelligence or altruistic motives; but aw shucks! God help me, I am drawn to them so. Does this mean I unconsciously think the doctor deserves to be placed above the law? LOL! I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Cynic
"...too many young and talented people are being stifled because of poverty and social injustice. Raskolnikov is an honest and intelligent person who is forced to quit university because he is literally starving, while that filthy, stupid loan shark has more money than she can ever spend. Rask. argues that people in his condition must be allowed to cut a few corners and get the opportunities they deserve in order to fulfill themselves; and this is all supposed to be in the greater interest of mankind. One just can’t help sympathising with him. What do you think?

---

Yes, I empathize with the theme; nevertheless, it is my belief one can only be stifled by a political system when one chooses to believe their success is contingent on that system. Poverty and social injustice don’t preclude one from critical thinking and original thought. Frankly, those that are self-taught are far more inclined to be original, free thinkers and politically savvy. The formally educated study revisionist history and are molded into the matrix. Malcolm X spent six years educating himself in prison, and while I never agreed with his militant views, he emerged a clear thinker, and powerful social force.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by den
(this is not ~quite~ on topic, it's an early morning pre-coffee observation though into `human nature' ) ;)

---

I have always wondered why for some, (possibly unconscious) modest deviations in forum discussions require quaint, little renouncements. :-)

You know what I haven't had in a while?

Tang.

as* in pootang?

No, the freakin' beverage . . . GOD! Of course I meant poontang.

well, f me sideways :( i wasn't SURE

in fact, Would you sprint for some now please and get rid of a few cells, can't believe you yelled at me. i have blonde genes and am clueless sometimes. honestly!!! ;)

Isn't the whole problem that the law is merely a concept?

The law is there to keep society in statis - the rich and powerful do what the hell they like and get away with it anyway.

I love that whole Napoleon complex in Crime and Punishment, but to me there is no law - if I want to kill it is between my conscience and I.

Hehe, I was only joshing, az. I meant the tastey beverage.

Who's to say that in her old age, the old woman might not have undergone a transfomation and have had something valuable to contribute to society. Although it's highly unlikely, Rascolnikov eliminated that possibility.

Aside from her personal contributions, there is also a possibility that her existence could trigger an important societal contribution--the whole butterfly flapping its wings effect.

Raskolinikov, although intelligent, took upon him powers that exceeded his intelligence, including the power to control life and death.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piquant
Who's to say that in her old age, the old woman might not have undergone a transfomation and have had something valuable to contribute to society..... there is also a possibility that her existence could trigger an important societal contribution...

---

Typical judge's argument. Are you in the justice business or something?

Well that sort of logic works both ways: maybe if Raskolnikov was allowed to go free, he would've become a great scientist and made invaluable contributions to the entire human community.

I guess the problem with Rask. was that he was paralysed by his own doubts and fears, and in the end he did what he did...