Firstly, it was not the theory itself, but Raskolnikov himself who failed (or call it that - Raskolnikov failed in relation to this theory). The “theory” itself is that all people can be divided into 2 types: “ inferior people", "trembling creatures", that is, ordinary, ordinary people ("material", according to Raskolnikov). These people are obedient and conservative. And "actually people", "having the right", that is, outstanding people who move the world, which allowed more than others, and who themselves determine what is allowed and what is not allowed. Assuming that he can be “having the right,” he kills an old moneylender with another woman. Further, the plot is hopefully more or less known to whoever reads this answer. A strange question, considering that it was not Raskolnikov who invented and created it. And what is the collapse of Raskolnikov’s theory if he eventually surrendered to the police, considering that there are still young people who are probably also influenced by such ideas, based on the fact that Raskolnikov is not the author of this concept?

Secondly, in the work, in my opinion, there is an obvious line consisting in the theory of “this theory” and its practice, or more precisely, its practical origin for the main character. Having read the works in their entirety for the first time, I couldn’t help but wonder why it was necessary to pay so much attention to various episodes, such as the memory of a killed horse, the incident with the policeman and the girl, with this Svidrigailov, Luzhin. They did essentially terrible things, but they had no conscience for what they did (and we will never see any punishment for them). Raskolnikov's theory was born not so much from the mainstream ideas of the second half of the 19th century centuries, as much as life itself, which Raskolnikov himself saw as a witness to such episodes. And the work shows how he could not live after this crime and he is not embarrassed by the punishment itself, and certainly did not need money when he committed this crime. If only the “theory” line had been the main one, as I was taught at school, then the work, of course, would have been worth cutting by three times. In fact, there is a kind of psychological “iceberg” in Raskolnikov’s work. We see only that part of his thoughts that he thinks directly, but from his actions it is clear that he cannot survive the murder of another person, he cannot commit any nasty thing at all (not counting the main crime, but what else can be charged against Raskolnikov ? Inability to help your family?). In fact, this character is even too moral, compared to other characters like Luzhin, Svidrigailov and characters from his memories and/or third-party episodes. Those who say that there is a lot of reasoning and reflection in Crime and Punishment are wrong. In my opinion, there is just not enough of it, and it is presented as a kind of mise-en-scène, which the reader must taste and understand.

The theory did not fail, but even acquired some different forms, and as they say, “its ghost haunts” various ideas to this day. The idea that there are those who make history and can do everything, and there are those who are simply nobody and “material”. Of course, adherents of such ideas consider themselves to be in the first category (or strive to become such), being rather representatives of the second in practice (throughout their entire subsequent lives). It can be veiled under the idea that representatives of a certain people are carriers of some super-ideas, and the rest are nobody and nothing, and therefore the super-people can determine their will.

If we apply Raskolnikov’s theory to the characters in the work, then they are all “trembling creatures,” including Raskolnikov himself. If we conceptually consider the inconsistency of Raskolnikov’s theory, then its main absurdity is that the role of the individual in history is exaggerated and thereby denies the fact that a historical personality is a product of historical circumstances and social processes, and to a greater extent is rather an exponent of the will of objective processes (if this or that historical figure goes against them, her life path not as long as it could be). Intoxicated most likely by biographies historical figures, where any fact of childhood is interpreted taking into account the already lived life of this figure and is described as if he was destined to accomplish certain feats that he accomplished in his life, is described as if even an argument with a teacher at school about some absurdity has already said that this person would become a great scientist, for example. Or some great commander even as a child he showed developed skills in strategy and tactics. And Raskolnikov begins to believe that it is necessary to perform various feats and suppress the will of the “material”, to embody this theory, although in practice he simply did not and could not pay the old money-lender and instead of trying to get out of this financial situation, which of course was difficult , reaches despair that he decides to kill and steal money from her. But in life, everything is essentially “material”, and those who, according to Raskolnikov, “have the right” are the same people, no different from other people. And how could the murder of some grandmother to whom you owe prove the theory that there are people who determine history, and there are those who are the masses, whose history is determined by the former?

Despite its origin in the case of Raskolnikov, that is, from the practice of life that he saw, he himself could not become its spokesman due to his character and personality. He killed, but what was the burden, what was the point in that? Now he himself has become someone who is disgusting to him in the form of various scoundrels who trample on the lives of other people, indifferent to the fates of people who are, in principle, the same as him. Personally, I got the impression that the punishment he received was not enough for him, and at some point his behavior in hard labor is described. His crime remained an indelible stain/stamp on his soul, and he will no longer run away from himself. And his punishment is not hard labor, but life, knowing that he took the lives of innocent people, either trying to prove a wretched theory, or out of despair of a plight, or for some other reason, which in any case is not cost the lives of those people.

Am I a trembling creature?

or do I have the right?

F. M. Dostoevsky

In his novel Crime and Punishment, published in 1866, Dostoevsky explores the problem of “personality - society,” that is, reconciling the uniqueness of one person with the equal value of all other people.

The main character of the novel, poor student Rodion Raskolnikov, is convinced that the entire human race is divided into two unequal parts. In his article, written half a year before the crime, he says that “people, according to the law of nature, are divided into two classes: the lower (ordinary), so to speak, the material that serves solely for the generation of their own kind, and on people themselves, that is, those who have the gift or talent to say a new word in their midst.” The meaning of the division into two categories is the affirmation of the “right of the strong” to break the law and commit crimes. Raskolnikov speaks of loners who rise above the crowd: this is “a superman who lives according to the law given to himself. If, for his idea, he needs to step over even a corpse, over blood, then within himself, in conscience, he can, in my opinion, give himself permission to step over blood - depending, however, on the idea and the size of it ..."

At first glance, his reasoning is logical. He is thinking about what Napoleon would have done if he had successful career It would have been necessary not to conquer Egypt, but to kill the pitiful old woman. Raskolnikov decides that for Napoleon such a question simply did not exist: “... power is given only to those who dare to bend down and take it.” A person of the “highest rank” has the right to take power without stopping at anything.

Raskolnikov undertakes to prove in practice that he is an extraordinary person. He carefully considers and carries out a terrible plan: he kills and robs the old, stingy and insignificant pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna. True, at the same time, her quiet, meek sister Lizaveta, who did not harm anyone, also accepts death. Raskolnikov failed to reap the benefits of his crime; his conscience tormented him. But he himself believes in his theory even when he goes to confess to the murder, believing that it was he himself who did not live up to expectations.

He tried to decide for himself the question of whether he was Napoleon, but was defeated. “Who in Rus' now doesn’t consider himself Napoleon?” — investigator Porfiry exclaims sarcastically. In Russia in the turning sixties, many were inclined to consider themselves people superior to others. In particular, the desire to get rich with one blow was a natural manifestation of the spirit of profit that had seized the big and petty bourgeoisie (in the novel this element is called Luzhin). Raskolnikov does not seek wealth and comfort, he wants to make humanity happy. He did not believe in socialist ideas and revolutionary struggle. He wanted to become such a ruler who would use strength and power to lead humanity out of humiliation into a bright paradise. For him, power is not an end in itself, but only a means of realizing the ideal. Material from the site

At the same time, Raskolnikov himself does not notice how he violates his own rules. For strong personality there are no others, and he is always trying to do something for people (either he gives his meager money to the Marmeladovs, or he tries to save a drunk girl on the boulevard). He has too much compassion. And although he brings the plan to the end, Raskolnikov’s conscience, protesting against the shedding of blood, and reason, justifying the murder, battle in Raskolnikov’s soul. This duality led to the collapse of Raskolnikov’s idea. He wanted to become Napoleon and the Messiah, the Savior, rolled into one. But tyrant and virtue do not go together. Raskolnikov’s idea did not justify itself precisely because Rodion, crushed by hunger, illness, and poverty, turned out to be a living and conscientious person, ready to take responsibility for his actions.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• what is the reason for the collapse of Raskolnikov’s theory essay
• how and with what did the schismatics want to justify the shed blood
• what is the meaning of Raskolnikov’s theory and the reason for his defeat
• the meaning of Raskolnikov’s theory and the reasons for its collapse.
• characteristics of Raskolnikov and the essence of his theory

(343 words)

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” - repository tragic destinies. While reading the book, more than once you become immersed in thoughts not only about the fate of the heroes of this particular story, but also about what the people you see every day experience. Think about which of the heroes is happy? Sonya Marmeladova? Dunya? Luzhin, Svidrigailov? Or Rodion? The latter is probably even more unhappy than everyone else. In this general misfortune, the roots of Raskolnikov’s famous theory grew, which not only took the lives of the old pawnbroker and her pregnant sister, but also destroyed the personality of the killer himself.

The main idea of ​​Raskolnikov’s theory is that people are divided into two categories: “those with the right” and “trembling creatures.” Some are ordinary and driven people, others are great arbiters of destinies. Rodion says: “...most of these benefactors and founders of humanity were especially terrible bloodsheds.” Maybe. But is it really main character novel - “the benefactor and founder of humanity”? Most likely, he is just a “trembling creature.” He comes to this conclusion at the end of his mental torment.

Under the hardships of life, Raskolnikov caved in and committed a crime not only towards himself, but also towards Lizaveta and Alena Ivanovna. But is he really to blame? According to Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev, famous literary critic, it is not Raskolnikov’s idea that leads him to murder, but the cramped social circumstances in which life, devoid of any income, places the hero. Social injustice, stratification of society, poverty, unsanitary living conditions - all these are factors that led Rodion to the embodiment of the theory. It is not for nothing that the meeting with the poor man Marmeladov finally convinces the hero that he is right.

In my opinion, such ideas arose not only in Raskolnikov’s thoughts. Absolutely all heroes are forced to commit certain crimes: someone turned against himself and received a yellow ticket; someone, completely disillusioned with life, found salvation in alcohol; someone, wanting to help his brother, agrees to an arranged marriage. All these heroes are victims of an unjust social order.

Once again raising the issue little man V big world, Fyodor Mikhailovich wants to say: “Look! They are unhappy! Who is to blame for this? And no one has ever found the exact answer, and never will. Yellow, sickly St. Petersburg, gray, gloomy entrances, staggering staircases shrouded in cobwebs, apartments - corners, apartments - cubicles, windows overlooking ditches and dirt - here it is, the cultural capital. Here it is, a repository of tragic destinies...

The novel "Crime and Punishment" was conceived by Dostoevsky while still in hard labor. Then it was called "Drunk", but gradually the concept of the novel was transformed into a "psychological report of a crime." Dostoevsky himself, in a letter to the publisher M.I. Katkov, clearly retells the plot of the future work: “A young man, expelled from university students and living in extreme poverty, ... having succumbed to some strange unfinished ideas ..., decided to get out of his bad situation at once, having killed and robbed an old woman..." At the same time, the student wants to use the money received in this way for good purposes: complete a course at the university, help your mother and sister, go abroad and “then be honest, firm, and unwavering throughout your life in fulfilling your humane duty to humanity.”

In this statement by Dostoevsky, I would like to especially emphasize two phrases: “a student living in extreme poverty” and “succumbing to some strange, unfinished ideas.” These two phrases are key to understanding the cause-and-effect relationship of the novel. What came first: the hero’s plight, which led to illness and a painful theory, or the theory that was the cause of Raskolnikov’s terrible situation.

Dostoevsky in his novel depicts the clash of theory with the logic of life. According to the writer, the living process of life, that is, the logic of life, always refutes and makes untenable any theory - both the most advanced, revolutionary, and the most criminal. This means you can’t live life according to theory. And therefore the main philosophical thought The novel is revealed not in a system of logical proofs and refutations, but as a collision of a person obsessed with an extremely criminal theory with life processes that refutes this theory.

Raskolnikov's theory is based on the inequality of people, on the chosenness of some and the humiliation of others. And the murder of the old woman is intended as a vital test of this theory using a particular example. This way of depicting the murder very clearly reveals author's position: the crime that Raskolnikov committed is a low, vile deed, from the point of view of Raskolnikov himself. But he did it consciously, stepped over his human nature, stepping over himself.

With his crime, Raskolnikov excluded himself from the category of people, became an outcast, an outcast. “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself,” he admitted to Sonya Marmeladova. This isolation from people prevents Raskolnikov from living. His human nature does not accept this alienation from people. It turns out that a person cannot live without communicating with people, even such a proud person as Raskolnikov. Therefore, the hero’s mental struggle becomes more intense and desperate, it goes in many directions, and each leads to a dead end. Raskolnikov still believes in the infallibility of his idea and despises himself for his weakness and mediocrity; Every now and then he calls himself a scoundrel. But at the same time, he suffers from the inability to communicate with his mother and sister, thinking about them as painfully as he thinks about the murder of Lizaveta. And he tries not to think, because if he starts to think, he will certainly have to decide where to classify them according to his theory - to what category of people. According to the logic of his theory, they should be classified as a “lower” category and, therefore, the ax of another Raskolnikov could fall on their heads, and on the heads of Sonya, Polechka, Katerina Ivanovna. Raskolnikov must, according to his theory, give up those for whom he suffers. He must despise, hate, kill those he loves, he cannot survive this. He cannot bear the thought that his theory is similar to the theories of Luzhin and Svidrigailov, he hates them, but has no right to this hatred. “Mother, sister, how I love them! Why do I hate them now?”

Here his human nature most acutely collided with his inhuman theory. But the theory won. And therefore Dostoevsky, as it were, comes to the aid of the human nature of his hero. Immediately after this monologue, he gives Raskolnikov's third dream: he again kills the old woman, and she laughs at him. A dream in which the author brings Raskolnikov's crime to the people's court. This scene reveals the full horror of Raskolnikov's act. Dostoevsky does not show the moral resurrection of his hero, because that is not what his novel is about. The writer’s task was to show what power an idea can have over a person and how terrible this idea can be, how criminal. The hero's idea of ​​the right of the strong to commit crime turned out to be absurd. Life has defeated theory.

In the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky, we observe how the great and cruelest theory of Rodion Raskolnikov is born, how the main character tests himself, testing it. The collapse of such a theory is inevitable, but it occurs in two senses: in real world and in the minds of Raskolnikov himself. The origin of Raskolnikov’s theory and its collapse form the basis of the plot of the novel “Crime and Punishment.”

The origin of the theory

A difficult financial situation, hopeless poverty and the inability to change his present and future pushes the young student Raskolnikov to create his own theory. At the time when he left the university (due to lack of money for training), he submitted his article for publication, but the newspaper closed. After some time, he learns that his brainchild was published in another newspaper. At that time, the theory still seemed like a game to him; it did not enslave Raskolnikov’s consciousness. He developed it, found a number of evidence, looked closely at people and became convinced of the correctness of his conclusions. However, after he left his studies, hunger, stress, powerlessness and despair forced him to withdraw into himself. The theory became his main idea, its implementation, testing for “strength” moved into the planning stage.

The essence of the theory is as follows: by nature, all people are born either “decent”, “ordinary” or “great”, “special”. Of course, very few of the latter are born; nature itself decides when and where a special person should be born. Such people “move history”, create something new, and accomplish something of global importance. The rest live quietly, give birth to their own kind, they are “material” for those who are higher and more important than them. However, Raskolnikov does not believe that this makes them worse: such people are obedient, kind, but they are a “crowd”, “mass” (“... they are obliged to be obedient, because this is their purpose, and there is absolutely nothing humiliating for them "). Having overheard a conversation in a pub, a young man becomes convinced that other people support his opinion. A random student voices in a conversation what arose in Raskolnikov’s soul and was waiting in the wings.

Conversation between Raskolnikov and the investigator

Raskolnikov's theory is revealed in sufficient detail in a conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, an investigator in the case of the murder of an old woman and her sister. He, as it turned out, was familiar with Raskolnikov’s article and was interested in the unusual view of society. young man. Explaining the postulates of his theory, Rodion rather carefully reveals to his interlocutor his motives for the crime, but the investigator, naturally, does not realize this. He is sincerely glad that he can communicate with the author of the article and express his opinion on this topic.

People who are called upon to bring something new into the life of humanity, according to Raskolnikov, have a certain superiority and completely different rights (moral, of course).

For example, to kill someone if necessary: ​​“...if he needs, for his idea, to step over even a corpse, through blood, then within himself, in his conscience, he can, in my opinion, give himself permission to step over the blood , - depending, however, on the idea and its size, - note this...").

Testing the theory and its collapse

The theory so absorbed Raskolnikov, as if “someone took him by the hand and pulled him along... It was as if he had caught a piece of clothing in the wheel of a car, and he began to be pulled into it.” He is sincerely convinced that “Whoever dares a lot is right with them. Whoever can spit on the most is their legislator, and whoever can dare the most is rightest! This is how it has been done until now and this is how it will always be!” Driven by such convictions, the hero commits a crime, checking whether he belongs to those who are “stronger.”

What happens next shocks Raskolnikov - he does not repent that he took a man’s life, he is horrified that he turned out to be weak, humane, obedient “material.” The main flaw in the system, which seemed ideal, was the one who gave birth to it. The hero is tormented by fear, confusion of thoughts, no goals or ideas please the character - the soul is tormented and suffering, and the mind is torn from the realization that he is the same as everyone else.

The material in the article will be useful in preparing for the essay “Raskolnikov’s Theory and Its Collapse.”

Work test