"But my passion is stronger than reflection,
passion that causes the greatest
misfortunes to mortals"
Medea. Euripides
And that is the question of my essay. Does the moral pain of Raskolnikoff based on a feeling of vanity that prevents seen himself as a man great? In light of this, I clarify that by "moral pain" we are dealing with a nietzschean morality, seeking that the subject is free and be his own master and slave himself. On the other hand, the issue of vanity is treated from its division of the "geniuses" and "mediocre men" who, Raskolnikoff eyes are the majority.
Nietzsche says that the human body is a lot of nerves and muscles, in short, nothing beautiful to see. But what beautifies the body is the skin, which makes us a picture bearable. It is also for the soul of vanity: vanity is the skin of the soul. Such is the argument.
Assuming that the book Crime and punishment is a kind of psychopathology story of a murderer who ends up being defeated by itself and guilt rather than by the authorities, we face a fundamental question: Why does he regret? But Raskolnikoff never regret having killed. In fact he is agree that if he'd saw the old lender would kill her again. So what is pain? Why suffer from a kind of paranoia after the murder? At first glance, one can assume that paranoia would be a normal reaction, almost chemical, of having committed a crime, no a vulgar offense, but a serious one that weighs and relates directly to consciousness, to that hidden place that is never seen but always is talking and judging. Raskolnikoff is an imitation of the nietzschean superman as having its own value system, and judges the world from there. Why blame if no one is judging him?
Indeed, no one judges, but also Nietzsche's thesis can be read from the other side. That is, as I build my own values, I also must give an account before me of my own actions. In short, what is self-determination Nietzsche proposes that humans should have to live. So Raskolnikoff. He has his idea, lives by it, wants to become great. Full details of the story are certainly a trivial matter while the bottom line is precisely the act of murder and the subsequent reaction Raskolnikoff, the response to stimulation caused by his own act. It is judging himself from two places: first, for killing, and second, by the pervasive feeling that after killing. Let alone remorse, nor the fault. It just takes awareness that is buckling under pressure and is what to avoid. He convinces himself that a thousand ways he has done is fine, but your body is reacting badly. That's the drawback, that is the crux of the matter.
But how is this possible? If we stop in literary theory and we use Bakhtin's works about Dostoevsky, Bakhtin asked him and he responds as follows: "We're not looking for who is the hero, but how to recognize, and our artistic vision and does not face the reality, but the pure function of recognition of this reality for him "[1]. Why say this? Because crime and punishment, do not forget that serves Raskolnikoff be the protagonist, but not just any player. Raskolnikoff is the hero, the hero realistically, a hero who differs from the classical concept of hero (a subject representing the ideals of a community) to move to be a more simple, more humble, a hero who has characteristics that Mikhail Bakhtin explained very well. For example, "The hero of Dostoevsky's all self-consciousness" [2] and hence, the hero builds his world as his reflection. Or this one: "In Dostoevsky does not care what the hero represents to the world, but above all, what is the world to him and what comes to be for himself." [3] And all these definitions apply hero in Dostoevsky, of course, Raskolnikoff. And all the latter are subsumed by Bakhtin said: "That which must be represented becomes the last count of conscience and self-awareness and, after all, his last word about yourself and your world" [4 ] That is, in Dostoevsky's heroes have the final say as to its vision of world and of themselves, therefore, there is nothing to add to the heroes that they do not know Dostoevskian. Such is the Bakhtinian argument.
But back to Raskolnikoff, which is in Siberia (or was I do not know if it came out) paying for his crime. One may ask: if he does not regret having committed the crime, can be some kind of forgiveness? In short, what he is not forgiven is precisely not to become a great and stately man who wanted to be. His pride does not give even a chance to be forgiven for not being able to achieve the objective. The most that do justice for him is "pay off your debt," but then forgiveness is a huge difference. Who will forgive him? And how will you forgive him if he does not repent? This is where Sonia
What is Sonia? She is also unfortunate, is a prostitute rather than the profession is a woman prostituted by the situation. It's different. Now, since it so, that fact must have a meaning: that she is low class and yet love is both unfortunate, downtrodden subjects between themselves and their miserable situation. She is the one who forgives, she is the one who reads the passage of Lazarus and invites him to the resurrection, it is what convinces him ultimately delivered. Raskolnikoff wanted to flee, and the question "where" he sees that his idea is stupid, not what should happen. You do not have to answer more than "anywhere, far, far away", but without any specific location. She argues that it can not live on the run, and follows an argumentative tirade in which Raskolnikoff is lost, and she makes it look: "I missed you," he says.
The only way left is to give, and it is Sonia who makes him see this. But even before Sonia Raskolnikoff we have a proud, arrogant, which simply responds reluctantly to what is asked, to what is said. He is furious, angry, discharge their anger with others, perhaps because of his clumsiness, perhaps because of his lack of strength to not be great, not to be Napoleon. Ivan Karamazov is like this: an intellectual who understands the world and interprets it from an original vision. But the interpretation of the implementation there is a jump, one of those leaps that often can not afford. Easier said than than done, and so happens to Raskolnikoff. His idea was never kill to steal his idea was that if I could prove, that if I could be what he wanted. Finally, after all, was this the intention, hence the division of men. And the problem is not that he feels entitled to kill, or good, this is part of another problem and another trial. The problem here is that it is precisely this: If it was so clear, what went wrong? And their pain is not repentance [5], their pain is by failure. Raskolnikoff not what I wanted to be. Failed, and therein lies the moral problem (Nietzsche and Dostoevsky's moral, for that matter). His judgment is himself, and can not escape to say "shit, I failed". There is no way to escape from himself, so the claim is absolutely appropriate Bakhtin and heartbreaking, "there is nothing to add to Dostoevskian heroes they do not know."
Now, let us separate cause from effect. The effect is that Raskolnikoff killed, but the cause becomes the motivation. What do you want to be a Napoleon? What do you get one with be great? What is the purpose of this? After all, the genius by the genius does not exist. It is an ideal. It is therefore something further away. Raskolnikoff wants to be great, great, super man, call it what you want, but the point is the same: to highlight. Leaving the vast majority of poor who live and swarm in the world. For what purpose? The admiration, vanity. What must be determined is whether it requires self-admiration (and prove to yourself that you are capable of a certain action, such as killing, in this case) or whether it also requires admiration of others, of that mass so criticized and beaten by the superior man, for Raskolnikoff, in our case.
The last thing we can discard when you consider Bakhtin again with the following: "the hero has an ideological authority is independent and is perceived as an ideological author of its own, and not as an object of Dostoevsky's artistic vision" [6 ]. Consequently, Raskolnikoff is an independent entity even its creator, so he does not care if Dostoevsky agrees with him, much less you to import other (although this does not mean that his act is reckless as put the item in the beginning. In this case, the heading is set to be denied).
Raskolnikoff is what is (up to a murderer), but not rash. In fact all his self-consciousness is simply the process of reflection and constant meditation on what to do and what happens next, this projection that seeks to explain that things are controlled by it. But be persistent and can not say that. And that of trashes his pride and vanity, and with them, ultimately, it destroys morale. Why? Because your table of values ??did not work, because it could not implement it because it has failed in his attempt, for his idea could not be carried out. In short, it is fair to say Raskolnikoff this (and I hope he do not bother because the familiarity): you could not be what you wanted to be. And the pain is not able, not to get the will to power of Nietzsche, in not being able. And not being trained, how can there be self-assessment?, Where does the vanity?, Where is the pride? But all this is possible talking about morality itself, because in a broad sense, he never repents the murder. After all, it would be, and all this discussion is even before the emergence of Sonia and delivery. What does this end? Why Raskolnikoff, like Lazarus, to revive? This question is in the air, but is solid. Of course, it is worth clarifying: vanity, my favorite sin ...
passion that causes the greatest
misfortunes to mortals"
Medea. Euripides
And that is the question of my essay. Does the moral pain of Raskolnikoff based on a feeling of vanity that prevents seen himself as a man great? In light of this, I clarify that by "moral pain" we are dealing with a nietzschean morality, seeking that the subject is free and be his own master and slave himself. On the other hand, the issue of vanity is treated from its division of the "geniuses" and "mediocre men" who, Raskolnikoff eyes are the majority.
Nietzsche says that the human body is a lot of nerves and muscles, in short, nothing beautiful to see. But what beautifies the body is the skin, which makes us a picture bearable. It is also for the soul of vanity: vanity is the skin of the soul. Such is the argument.
Assuming that the book Crime and punishment is a kind of psychopathology story of a murderer who ends up being defeated by itself and guilt rather than by the authorities, we face a fundamental question: Why does he regret? But Raskolnikoff never regret having killed. In fact he is agree that if he'd saw the old lender would kill her again. So what is pain? Why suffer from a kind of paranoia after the murder? At first glance, one can assume that paranoia would be a normal reaction, almost chemical, of having committed a crime, no a vulgar offense, but a serious one that weighs and relates directly to consciousness, to that hidden place that is never seen but always is talking and judging. Raskolnikoff is an imitation of the nietzschean superman as having its own value system, and judges the world from there. Why blame if no one is judging him?
Indeed, no one judges, but also Nietzsche's thesis can be read from the other side. That is, as I build my own values, I also must give an account before me of my own actions. In short, what is self-determination Nietzsche proposes that humans should have to live. So Raskolnikoff. He has his idea, lives by it, wants to become great. Full details of the story are certainly a trivial matter while the bottom line is precisely the act of murder and the subsequent reaction Raskolnikoff, the response to stimulation caused by his own act. It is judging himself from two places: first, for killing, and second, by the pervasive feeling that after killing. Let alone remorse, nor the fault. It just takes awareness that is buckling under pressure and is what to avoid. He convinces himself that a thousand ways he has done is fine, but your body is reacting badly. That's the drawback, that is the crux of the matter.
But how is this possible? If we stop in literary theory and we use Bakhtin's works about Dostoevsky, Bakhtin asked him and he responds as follows: "We're not looking for who is the hero, but how to recognize, and our artistic vision and does not face the reality, but the pure function of recognition of this reality for him "[1]. Why say this? Because crime and punishment, do not forget that serves Raskolnikoff be the protagonist, but not just any player. Raskolnikoff is the hero, the hero realistically, a hero who differs from the classical concept of hero (a subject representing the ideals of a community) to move to be a more simple, more humble, a hero who has characteristics that Mikhail Bakhtin explained very well. For example, "The hero of Dostoevsky's all self-consciousness" [2] and hence, the hero builds his world as his reflection. Or this one: "In Dostoevsky does not care what the hero represents to the world, but above all, what is the world to him and what comes to be for himself." [3] And all these definitions apply hero in Dostoevsky, of course, Raskolnikoff. And all the latter are subsumed by Bakhtin said: "That which must be represented becomes the last count of conscience and self-awareness and, after all, his last word about yourself and your world" [4 ] That is, in Dostoevsky's heroes have the final say as to its vision of world and of themselves, therefore, there is nothing to add to the heroes that they do not know Dostoevskian. Such is the Bakhtinian argument.
But back to Raskolnikoff, which is in Siberia (or was I do not know if it came out) paying for his crime. One may ask: if he does not regret having committed the crime, can be some kind of forgiveness? In short, what he is not forgiven is precisely not to become a great and stately man who wanted to be. His pride does not give even a chance to be forgiven for not being able to achieve the objective. The most that do justice for him is "pay off your debt," but then forgiveness is a huge difference. Who will forgive him? And how will you forgive him if he does not repent? This is where Sonia
What is Sonia? She is also unfortunate, is a prostitute rather than the profession is a woman prostituted by the situation. It's different. Now, since it so, that fact must have a meaning: that she is low class and yet love is both unfortunate, downtrodden subjects between themselves and their miserable situation. She is the one who forgives, she is the one who reads the passage of Lazarus and invites him to the resurrection, it is what convinces him ultimately delivered. Raskolnikoff wanted to flee, and the question "where" he sees that his idea is stupid, not what should happen. You do not have to answer more than "anywhere, far, far away", but without any specific location. She argues that it can not live on the run, and follows an argumentative tirade in which Raskolnikoff is lost, and she makes it look: "I missed you," he says.
The only way left is to give, and it is Sonia who makes him see this. But even before Sonia Raskolnikoff we have a proud, arrogant, which simply responds reluctantly to what is asked, to what is said. He is furious, angry, discharge their anger with others, perhaps because of his clumsiness, perhaps because of his lack of strength to not be great, not to be Napoleon. Ivan Karamazov is like this: an intellectual who understands the world and interprets it from an original vision. But the interpretation of the implementation there is a jump, one of those leaps that often can not afford. Easier said than than done, and so happens to Raskolnikoff. His idea was never kill to steal his idea was that if I could prove, that if I could be what he wanted. Finally, after all, was this the intention, hence the division of men. And the problem is not that he feels entitled to kill, or good, this is part of another problem and another trial. The problem here is that it is precisely this: If it was so clear, what went wrong? And their pain is not repentance [5], their pain is by failure. Raskolnikoff not what I wanted to be. Failed, and therein lies the moral problem (Nietzsche and Dostoevsky's moral, for that matter). His judgment is himself, and can not escape to say "shit, I failed". There is no way to escape from himself, so the claim is absolutely appropriate Bakhtin and heartbreaking, "there is nothing to add to Dostoevskian heroes they do not know."
Now, let us separate cause from effect. The effect is that Raskolnikoff killed, but the cause becomes the motivation. What do you want to be a Napoleon? What do you get one with be great? What is the purpose of this? After all, the genius by the genius does not exist. It is an ideal. It is therefore something further away. Raskolnikoff wants to be great, great, super man, call it what you want, but the point is the same: to highlight. Leaving the vast majority of poor who live and swarm in the world. For what purpose? The admiration, vanity. What must be determined is whether it requires self-admiration (and prove to yourself that you are capable of a certain action, such as killing, in this case) or whether it also requires admiration of others, of that mass so criticized and beaten by the superior man, for Raskolnikoff, in our case.
The last thing we can discard when you consider Bakhtin again with the following: "the hero has an ideological authority is independent and is perceived as an ideological author of its own, and not as an object of Dostoevsky's artistic vision" [6 ]. Consequently, Raskolnikoff is an independent entity even its creator, so he does not care if Dostoevsky agrees with him, much less you to import other (although this does not mean that his act is reckless as put the item in the beginning. In this case, the heading is set to be denied).
Raskolnikoff is what is (up to a murderer), but not rash. In fact all his self-consciousness is simply the process of reflection and constant meditation on what to do and what happens next, this projection that seeks to explain that things are controlled by it. But be persistent and can not say that. And that of trashes his pride and vanity, and with them, ultimately, it destroys morale. Why? Because your table of values ??did not work, because it could not implement it because it has failed in his attempt, for his idea could not be carried out. In short, it is fair to say Raskolnikoff this (and I hope he do not bother because the familiarity): you could not be what you wanted to be. And the pain is not able, not to get the will to power of Nietzsche, in not being able. And not being trained, how can there be self-assessment?, Where does the vanity?, Where is the pride? But all this is possible talking about morality itself, because in a broad sense, he never repents the murder. After all, it would be, and all this discussion is even before the emergence of Sonia and delivery. What does this end? Why Raskolnikoff, like Lazarus, to revive? This question is in the air, but is solid. Of course, it is worth clarifying: vanity, my favorite sin ...
[1]
Bajtín, M (2003). Problemas de la poética
de Dostoievski. Ciudad de México: Fondo de cultura económica P. 75
[2] Ibíd. P 79
[3] Ibíd. P. 73
[4] Ibíd.P74
[5] In this senses there isn't "moral pain" in a traditional sense.
[6] Ibíd. P.13
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario