Talking to Oneself

When I was reading C&R and began to realize just how much Raskolnikov talks to himself, I thought about it for a second, and I realized I talk to myself quite a lot. Now, I will say that the way and amount Raskolnikov talks to himself borders on the crazy spectrum, but as weird as it seems to say, I am definitely an advocate of self talk. In Raskolnikov's case, his self talk is mostly doubting things about himself and questioning things that he does. This kind of self talk only makes any insecurities one has get much worse. From the very start of the book, Raskolnikov is characterized by his self talk, and specifically by the way he talks to himself. He shows that he does indeed have the intellectual capacity to consider certain topics of weight, but he also hints at some very deep seated personal problems in doing so.

p.s.- sorry this is a really random thing to notice

This is my favorite book ever please please don't blow it off. Read it.

I first read this book a year and a half ago for summer reading. I went into a local used bookstore to find it; after searching on my own for awhile, I finally resorted to asking the cashier if he by chance had it. "As a matter of fact, I do," he said. It was right behind me on his 'Favorites' display. He intensely asked me what I was reading it for, and I told him for a my AP English class. He then looked at me very seriously. "This book changed my life," he said.

I know, I know right? I thought it was really weird. And yeah, that's a cheesy way to start a blog, but that encounter always comes to mind when I think about this book. I get what he was saying now.

The depth and complexity of the characters Dostoevsky creates is incredible. The suspense that builds is just agonizing. Raskolnikov, this awful lunatic, is simultaneously such a powerful conveyer of truth. Like Mitchell said, that is what makes it so incredible--not that the profound comes from some holy Christian person, but from this despicable sinner. It's fabulous writing all around. The ending gets me... the redemption is just so beautiful! I just can't wait to get there. But perhaps all the suffering through is what makes the ending truly worth it, so I suppose I'll just try to contain myself until then.

I guess I have been struck anew with the strength and beauty of Dunya and Sonya's characters. They truly are very similar, and wonderfully complex. Sonya is my favorite--her sacrifice is unimaginable. Ironic that a prostitute can be a Jesus figure in a book, huh? I don't know, I guess all I can say is that Dostoevsky is the man.

I don't truly know what else to say, other than how excited I am to get to discuss this.

This book just does something to me. I can't explain it.

--Danielle

Commented on Samuel's post talking to oneself.

In my head!

Although it is tech week for "a 1940s Radio Christmas Carol", which you should all come see by the way, I still found time to glance over the reading material and I actually had a wonderful conversation with my mother about it. Crime and Punishment just happens to be one of her favorite books of all time, and as we were talking about it we came to the topic of psychosomatic illness.

For those who don't know, psychosomatic illness is defined as a disorder that involves both mind and body. In other words, the illness may be emotional or mental in origin, but it has physical symptoms. In part II, Raskolnikov begins to suffer from such an illness caused by the grief of his own actions.

Anyway, as I was talking to my mother, she mentioned that she had read a book recently about psychosomatic 'stuff' and christianity, and she told me that it is mentioned several times in scripture. Being my mother, though, she didn't tell me where, so I had to go digging for myself. Here's what I found.

"3There is no soundness in my flesh
   because of your indignation;
there is no health in my bones
   because of my sin.
4For my iniquities have gone over my head;
   like a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me."Psalm 38: 3-4

"7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; 
   fear the LORD and shun evil. 
8 This will bring health to your body 
   and nourishment to your bones." - Proverbs 3:7-8

I found a few other verses that I will post at the bottom, but those two are the most relevant. Both of those verses seem to describe Raskolnikov perfectly, well the part about being weighted down and ill because of guilt/sin, not the fearing the lord and shunning evil part.

So, what did we learn today? Nothing? That thoughts can have physical repercussions? That Ben's mom is pretty cool? All good answers. Tune in next week when I'll have time to legitimately read ALL of the text.

PS. I commented on Samuel Oliver's Blog "I don't think it has a title."

PPS. Here are the other scriptures.
John 3:20
Romans 7:23-25
Matthew 23:28
Proverbs 28:13

All About The Murder

English blog 11/16/11

I think it’s really interesting to see the thought process that this man is going through leading up to the murders he commits in part 2. While the act is pre-meditated, it is clear that something is wrong with the guy’s head and he definitely appears a little crazy. He barely eats at all, he is always commenting on the sickly way he feels, and his thought process does not seem like the way a normal person thinks. Actually, it kind of reminds me of honors. I think that if this guy was put on trial he could definitely get away with pleading insanity, even though the act was premeditated. It was not very organized, tons of evidence was left behind, and he acted totally guilty afterwards. He also thought that it was his civil duty to commit the murders due to his own thoughts and then the quote from another scholar “Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all. What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?” If these murders were committed today in the exact same way the killer would be found in no time.

-Susan

P.S. I commented of Sam's "untitled"

Russian Authors and Taoist Philosophy

As I read Crime and Punishment, I am increasingly intrigued by Raskolnikov. Here is a dynamic, developing character that seems to constantly flip back and forth from compassion to contempt to compassion to contempt again. As I read into the thought processes of him, I notice that while others see an evil, murderous creature in him, there is also some good as well. For example, although he immediately regrets the decision because of (A) his lack of money and (B) his concern over how the money will be used, the fact remains that he did give money to Sonya's family. In addition, (pg. 154-55)in an uncharacteristically good mood, he again is compassionate in his giving to the street-singer.

In reading this, I am constantly reminded of the Taoist yin yang symbol:

There is the Yang side, the white field with the black spot (insert Treasure Island reference here) and the Yin side, which is the... you know what, you can figure it out. What it represents is that, in this world, there is always an element of the other in two opposing forces. (e.g. Light cannot exist without darkness, initially there must be darkness for the light to fill. Likewise there must be or have been light at one time in order to recognize that the darkness is there.) Bringing this all back to Dostoevsky, even though Raskolnikov is widely considered to be criminally insane. Some will to do good is inside him, even though it is suppressed by his murderous thoughts and intentions. (spoiler alert: apparently Sonya thinks the same way)

~Cody Martin

I posted on Sam's... untitled...

I find it very interesting the way that Raskolnikov is paranoid about his hat being to obvious. Once he realizes that it sticks out and is obvious he makes a mental note that he should wear a less obvious hat for if and when he commits the murder. If I was planning a murder I would never be able to carry it out. I would always be paranoid about all the little things. I think the only way I would be able to do it would be the same way he did. In the heat of the moment.

p.s. I comment on Katelyn Osborne's post.

I am a Fan of Dostoevsky's Attention to Detail

As I read Dostoevsky I found myself very pleased with his attention to detail. These details enrich the plot and define the work as a whole. What would crime and punishment be without it? An excerpt that was a particular favorite of mine is a good example of the detail he uses. On page seven he describes Lizaveta’s apartment. Not only does he describe the apartment, but he highlights Raskolnikov’s reactions to it. Further, he writes in a way that lays out the most inner thoughts of the main character. This is not easy to accomplish as a writer. Many writers try to do this, but somehow Dostoevsky hits it on the nail. He highlights tendencies in humanity by describing the brutal details inside and out.

P.S. I commented on Chloe's

A Crazy Good Time!

"The lunatic is in my head, you raise the blade,
you make the change, you rearrange me 'till I'm sane.
You lock the door and throw away the key,
there's someone in my head, but it's not me."
-Pink Floyd, Brain Damage

Dark Side of the Moon-buy it, lock yourself in a room, put it in an iPod/CD player and turn off all the lights. It's freakin' awesome (and no, you don't need drugs like some people suggest you do)! But I digress to make a more pertinent point-is Rodya insane? For those looking on the outside of Rodya's steady decline, it would certainly seem so. Just looking at his behavior, we see sarcasm, despair, rage, and an overall disgust with everything around him. He's like all the most annoying types of soap opera personalities rolled up into one! Of course, the inward focus on Rodya's mind is the main focal point of the novel and the ultimate conflict to be resolved, because if he's insane, he has good reason.

If one were to ask Rodya if he were insane, he would probably reply no, but in the back of his mind he'd be going over all the reasons why you asked him that question, what the implications are of that question, whethere you suspect him of anything, whether he really is insane, and then will either get really angsty about the whole thing or just blow up at you! Your first thought would probably be that he's a head case, but is he really? I'm reminded of me Edgar Allen Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart in which the narrator insists that he is not a madman because a madman would not be as genius as he is-genius enough to go through with the master plan of murder! Rodya is clearly a smart man, evidenced by his dissertation on the "superman" (hello, nihilism!), he knows exactly how to handle certain situations, but all that changes when he commits murder. Suddenly, what once seemed so rational and explainable suddenly becomes a living nightmare, as logic and careful planning are dissolved by guilt and fear. Is Rodya's loss of control of his thoughts and actions the extent of his insanity?

What if you were in his shoes? Think about it-when's the last time you were doing something-or did something-you know you shouldn't have done. How did you feel? Did you maintain composure during and after the fact, or did doubts start having their way? Did you start looking over your shoulder uncontrollably, wondering whether someone would figure you, or-please no-how you would be punished?! If insanity is losing your ability to make sound judgements, then Rodya became insane the moment he chose to kill Alena, as that decision really has no good or helpful motivation. But before you start assuming you've never dabbled in insanity, think of all the times you've done something terrible and knew that you could be found out. Think of how you would feel to know that one irrational, evil decision could ruin everything about you. Suddenly, crazy isn't that crazy to think about, is it? Finally, to quote the Joker, an expert on the subject, "AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

So, that's that. Please feel free to comment as you please, thanks for reading! BTW, I commented on Lane's post, Man Complex.

I agree and disagree with you, although in the end I think I'm mostly agreeing with you. Yes, I know from personal experience that men deal with emotions in an equal and opposite manner as women, where we let things explode and things get broken. This is especially true when it comes to fixing problems, as that typically make us happy-the opposite is true when we can't. I could throw in a comment about how the family needs to turn to Jesus and trust Him as their provider, leaning on the church for support, but seeing as how Rodya doesn't believe in an afterlife that kind of compounds the problem and doesn't do anything to help his own male complex. That's sad.

Man Complex

As men we want desire to the one to fix all the problems that our families experience. Washing machine breaks we want to fix it. Grass needs cutting we do that too. Sometimes though things happen that we can't fix. Being unable to pay the bills is the number one reason for male suicide. Raskolnikov is happens to find himself in one of theses situations. He really wants to help his family but at the same time he knows that he can do nothing to help them. His mom and sister give him all they can to help him stay in school but it's just not enough. His sister is even willing to marry a man that she doesn't love just to get Raskolnikov a job so he can continue his education. He wants to stop the marriage but he doesn't know how since he doesn't have the funds. Men hold in anger and frustration until it explodes out of them. This is what happened to Raskolnikov when he killed the pawnbroker. He didn't really want to kill her but he needed the money and in his mind that was the only way that he thought he could make ends meet.

P.S. I commented on Katelyn Osborne's post

Cue The Screeching Violins

I decided to read Crime and Punishment with Alfred Hitchcock's movie, Psycho, playing in the background. As I was reading the first part, I realized how similar Psycho and Crime and Punishment really are. For those of you who are not familiar with the movie, the female lead is killed off about 30 minutes into the movie. This was one of the biggest shocks in a movie that I had ever seen. Crime and Punishment did the exact same thing. The crime was committed in the first part of the book.
Alfred Hitchcock did this so that we would actually relate more to Norman Bates. I feel that Dostoevsky is doing the same, but slightly different. He wants us to be able to see the thoughts that progress through Raskonilkov as he deals with what he has done. We are forced to relate to Raskonilkov now just like Hitchcock wanted us to with Norman Bates. The fact that Psycho was on while I was reading Crime and Punishment is merely coincidental. Maybe this means that I have seen too many horror movies.

P.S. I commented on His Beloved's blog, "No Title"

That Crazy Spy Guy

Ok, I have got to be honest, in the beginning of the book I thought Raskolnikov was a spy because of how aware he was of things, and the way that he thought things through in his head. Later, of course, I realized as he was plotting the murder that he is actually just crazy. The fact that I could confuse a crazy person for an intelligent spy is hilarious to me. It just proves the thin line of character that people sit on. This also really convicts me about how easily I judge people and write them off stereotypically. Please forgive me for using a Biblical reference, it's the only one I can think of right now, but how many people thought that Jesus was crazy when He was actually the Savior of the world? It just makes me want to laugh because it's so easy to pass from the absolute truth into absolute craziness. All of these thin lines in life have really been on my mind a lot lately; I seem to be obsessed with finding the thin line in every situation. I still ponder about the thin line of seeking truth and then going too far, and attempting to be like God in our knowledge out of pride. Anyways, this book really makes me think of how quick I am to observe someone, judge them, write them off, and never again consider who they might actually be, and not just in the realm of craziness and genius, but with everything. I so easily look at someone and immediately think of them as materialistic, or prideful, or dramatic, when I actually have never engaged in a conversation with the person. It's an awful trait to have.

Self- Analysis

Yesterday, I became angry unfortunately at another person for their decision which I did not agree with, and upon arriving at the realization of my anger I realized it was an over reaction (no surprise this happens a lot). Upon a deeper search of self I realized I have had a lot that I have been stressed about (muscle and bone test in anatomy-GAH!) and the other person (who made me mad) probably did too.

Now, I know this seems like a very obvious statement, in fact quite unrelated to this reading of Crime and Punishment. But as Dostoevsky paints the portrait of Raskolnikov he shows the audience not only his actions but the development of his character. The audience learns the situation surrounding this gruesome murder. Yes, murder is wrong (lets not get into an argument about that statement), but sometimes it is important for people watching the situation to understand how and why the circumstance lead to that murder. No, not to excuse the person for their actions; not because if they just understood themselves they would make better decsions. Rather, we need to examine others circumstance to recognize our own reality, we stand on the tip of making possibly deathly decisions everyday...

Don't believe me? Let's talk about texting and driving because it is easy...Every time I get behind the wheel I have a responsibility to drive properly for the safety of myself and others. Now, if I look at someone else who causes a wreck and say, "Wow, that idiot!" but do not examine the situation and recognize my own possible connections with that conclusion then I have learned nothing.

Thus, as Dostoevsky painstakingly puts together the pieces of this puzzle, we should not distance ourselves from the main character nor walk on unaffected, but examine our own selves.

I commented on #iheartvillans by BK

No Title

So in psychology, i'm learning about psychotic disorders. And as many have already said, Hedda definitely fits under this category. She is one of those "villains" who i believe seems to go completely insane as time goes on. Hedda seemed to be fine as we first started to watch the play. It seems that she becomes more insane because she loses control of everything. Hedda only seeks for her own way but everything doesn't always go how we want them do they? It kind of reminds me of the following words:
  "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." Does that sound familiar? ;) It's like Hedda is spinning her own little web and by the end of it, she gets all tangled up.
    Hedda, on the other hand, made it easy to seem like the good person. It was easy to sympathize with her, but at the same time, I did not like her at all. She married a guy she did not love, still had feelings for the guy that did not profess his love for her either. It was like dreamed for a better life while settling for a simple one.

p.s i commented on Amanda's Post

The Cure for Boredom: The Unexpected

While reading Crime and Punishment for class, I honestly did expect the murder to happen within the first part of the book. Why? Because when, at the beginning, Raskolnikov already had the act planned out I knew he was very close to the kill. Again, why? Maybe because that’s the way I think. Why waste an entire book on plotting the kill, when you can perform the action within the first part and then devote the rest of the book to how the action affected the person that committed the murder. I’ve always thought this way, maybe it’s why I’ve always loved detective novels (the possibility is there that this is the reason I expected the murder to happen in the beginning instead of the end).

Okay, so what is the “unexpected”? Webster defines it as, “Surprising, happening without warning.” Okay, well, obviously the murder in Crime and Punishment wasn’t unexpected, like I said. Now, Dr. Mitchell and Tiffany planking in the middle of class, that was unexpected. The book Inheritance by Christopher Paolini, is full of the unexpected, so I’ve heard. I’m only a fifth of the way through it, but seeing as the three books preceding this one were full of twists, I know that there’s going to be a lot of unexpected stuff in it. But since I’m aware that there are twists and unexpected stuff coming, does that mean it’s expected? I don’t think so, because while I know there are things that are going to surprise me in this book, I have no earthly idea where or when they are going to happen; or what they could possibly be. Conversely, after only about a chapter of Crime and Punishment, I knew something was going to happen, and soon, making it a very expected.

To me, the unexpected is what you should look forward too, why? Because if you knew exactly what was going to happen every minute of every day, you’d get bored, and you’d be boring too, despite what Kierkegaard says about boredom. The unexpected is what makes Christmas so fun, especially for little kids. Have you ever watched a little kid on Christmas Eve? They are always so excited for what’s going to happen the next day, though they never have any idea what they are going to get, or what they are going to get to do that day. Here’s a challenge for you, not sure this is allowed but I feel it should be. Be excited for the unexpected things that happen to you over the next few weeks. When something unexpected occurs, be thankful, even if it’s not something necessarily good, because the unexpected keeps the boredom out of your life. And, as Kierkegaard says, boredom is the root of all evil. Embrace the unexpected!!!

Until next time,

~Meghan

PS I commented on Brittany’s #iheartvillains

Hedda Gabler/C&P

I would like to start with Hedda Gabler, and would just like to say that as a whole I felt sorry for her. Maybe it's because I have a bleeding heart for any woman who has to live the kind of life she did. First off she felt like she had to marry George because that was her only option or she would be alone and well that to me is borderline tragic because it's true. If she hadn't married what were her other options for her life? I don't feel like she really had any. Not only that but she never went anywhere, she was so confined to that house and that marriage that it drove her crazy. I feel like she was essentially oppressed by her house wife lifestyle that she had to escape it. It's a shame that she took people down along the way but I sum that up to the madness that plagued her because of her mundane life. I also sympathize with her because I too would be a terrible housewife if there were no television.



Now crime & punishment. Which for the record I was secretly hoping would turn out to be an epic romance... but to my disappointment an old lady took an axe to the head.
Anyways.
"...I only say he is a nice man in his own way! But if one looks at men in all ways—are there many good ones left?”
I feel like Razhumin’s character says some incredibly interesting things. Like he just has random spurts of knowledge (and I'm sitting there like "dang Razhumin... get it boy.") This line to me stuck out a lot. I felt like he was speaking to Raskolinov in a sense. Or at least that line is completely relevant to the predicament that Raskolinov is currently in. I just thought this line was so interesting… and essentially it contains a lot of truth (I say truth specifically because that is the perpetual focus in this class). But as I got to thinking about it not all aspects of a person are all good. So really he’s simply right, there’s always something back within a person and if you look at those things then who is really good? Totally intriguing to me. Cause really if I think about it I have qualities or even thoughts that if that's the only thing people saw then I wouldn't be a good person... man, I feel like I'm calling myself out. But honestly if we looked at every aspect of every person there would be plenty of bad things... I'm not positive where I'm going with this other than I'm perplexed by the whole idea.

My Poorly Titled Blog

“A man possessing character, a man of action, is fundamentally a limited creature.” This line from Notes from Underground really stuck out to me. A few lines before, the narrator was saying that not only could he not become spiteful, he couldn’t become anything at all. At first I found this to be very strange. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I personally have found myself, on several occasions, questioning the defining elements of my character. When I help others and do good things, others may say that I am a good person. I, however, will think back to the bad things I have done and know immediately that this is not the case. On the other hand, if I where to be called into question for doing something wrong, I would immediately defend myself for pointing out my goodness.

If a person is consistently good, they become known as good person. To protect his or her reputation, he or she must do good, thereby limiting himself to goodness. The same could be said for those who have bad character. To truly remain unlimited in thought or action, one must remain unpredictable. However, by this logic, (“only a fool can become something”) I think everyone is a fool. If a person is never defined by any one characteristic, doesn’t that mean he has become unpredictable?

Commented on Katelyn’s “Self-suffering”

#iheartvillians

So, I would like to comment on the literary ability of an author to make the audience sympathize with the "bad guy." We can bring this back to Paradise Lost as some of us found ourselves sympathizing with Satan in all of his troubles. The same can be said of our not so virtuous characters in Crime and Punishment. I love Rodya! The only times I dislike him are when, in his delirium, he almost spills the beans on what he has done. Is it bad that I felt bad that he missed the money that would have been untraceable in his robbery?
One thing that this device doesn't encompass, for me at least, is the drunkard Mr. M. Perhaps the situation hitsa little to close to home for me, but I just can't feel sorry for him. I think he's slime. But maybe you guys can share your feelings, or lack there of, for him based on his description in the text. One of my biggest questions about the whole Crime is WHY? Why exactly did he do it? Was it just for the money? Because if that is the case then he isn't really doing much with it now. Or, should we take what he said in his delirium to Mr. Z seriously in that "if he were the killer" he would go back for the hidden goods when the whole thing has brushed over.
And what happens next? We have seen the crime so will the punishment come later? He seems to be slowly reveling himself to those who could bring about this punishment.

ps commented on Will's

Freedom?

Hedda Gabler was one of those plays that challenge you to think. Ibsen was part of the 19th century but this play means so much to our culture even today. Everybody wants freedom for themselves as well as control over their own lives. For Hedda, death ended up being the only true way to freedom, which is accented in today's society. The problem is that no body really knows what freedom is and I don't believe we can ever have true earthly freedom. There is freedom of sin through Jesus and even freedom of worrying about anything. The way I see it, God is the only way to being free of anything in this world because by surrendering the control He allows us to have in this world is also surrendering our worries and society to Him.

Treadmills, Psychosis, and Suffering

How to blog on this? I don’t know… Crime and Punishment has been a good read, but just finding time to get through it has been a challenge. Hence the late nights in the commons on the treadmill, trying to stay awake and follow the psychotic madness of Rodya/Rodion/Raskolnikov… What is his name, anyway? So, 8.3 miles later, I’ve read Parts 1 and 2, and I’m a little bit confused about what all is going on. Obviously I know about the murders, but the underlying plots remain a mystery, so I will just keep reading. I personally think that Raskolnikov is schizophrenic (thank you, Intro to Psychology). He exhibits many of the symptoms, and his delusions and paranoia make me laugh. It’s no surprise that he’s a bit psychotic, considering he murdered two people and now has to live with himself, but I digress.

The main thing that stood out to me is how Dostoevsky brought out the intensity and brutality of suffering in Crime and Punishment. Whether he’s writing about the death of the horse, or Marmeladov getting run over, or Raskolnikov’s ranting and dysfunctional interactions with others, he does not skimp the specifics but gives “all the gory details.” Many authors gloss over these imperfections and circumstances, because they are messy, unorganized, brutal, and painful, but Dostoevsky revels in such details. Suffering is not sentimental or ordinary, but a living entity that is volatile and unpredictable.
Well, that concludes the jumbled musings of Amanda… :)
Commented on: Katelyn’s “Self-Suffering”

"The Best of All Possible Worlds"

In class, last week, we watched Hedda Gabler, and afterwards we broke up into groups and discussed similarities between Hedda and another story of our choosing that we have done in class. Our group maily chose Voltaire's Candide, because it appeared that in Candide, everyone had a sob story. Stories ranged from Candide's banishment, cunegonde's escape and especially, the tale of the woman with only one buttock. (The story of which Dr. Olsen is particularly fond of) The same can be said Hedda. It seemed like she was living the good liffe until she missed her chance at love, then things spiraled until she had to take her own life. Now as we are reading Crime and Punishment, I'm finding the very same problem. It seems at this pont that everything is going wrong and everything is not for the best (Or at least after reading Part 1). Raskolnikov is a poor man with serious paranoia and various other mental issues. The same with the other characters. Look at the dim-witted sister of the pawnbroker. She spent her whole life under service of her wretched sister until she was faced with a painful death. At that point, she did not even put up a fight because she was used to be abused all of her life. If one more example is needed, look at Sonya Marmeladov. She's living her life in a family in poverty as it is. Then, as if things weren't bad enough. Her step-mother forces her to be a prostitute to make sure their family doesn't starve. Why? because their father is a drunkard and lazy and won't go to work to support them.
All of this goes back to the idea of suffering. It seems like practically every major role in these stories has a terrible life that just keeps getting worse and worse. It seems like what Pangloss says in Candide is false. Everything does NOT happen for the best.

Josh Goldman
P.S. I posted a link to a youtube video below. It's from a play on Candide, and it really summarizes Pangloss' ideas well.
http://youtu.be/TlIUXvAdpcw

just another post

I would like to start off by apologizing to you as my classmates for me not being in class much recently. Being a music student has caused me to miss a lot of my classes lately.

With that being said, because I haven’t been in class, I’m kind of behind on a lot of what has been covered, so I would love for you all to feel free to pour some of your recently acquired knowledge into me.

From what I have read so far, Crime and Punishment is really interesting. I haven’t gotten into it so much yet that I can pull out some deep thought to analyze, but I will eventually. So far all that I can say is that I enjoy it and I’m glad we’re reading it.

If there is anything that you all have found that you think is something very critical to know and want to share it, I would be very appreciative.

 Kelsey Moore

Habakkuk 1:5

Commented on Katelyn Osborne's post.

Insects: the Bearers of Truth

Dostoevsky's Underground man is the epitome of Kierkegaard's esthetic man. He is questioning everything, tearing down theories, but unable to accept anything as truth himself. The difference in Kierkegaard's description and the Underground Man however, is that the Dostoevsky presents the esthetic man as somehow greater than the ethical:

"an intelligent man of the nineteenth century must be, is morally obliged to be, principally a characterless creature; a man possessing character, a man of action, is fundamentally a limited creature" (1308).

This is much in opposition to Kierkegaard's idea of the ethical. Kierkegaard speaks of the ethical, the ability to choose and to live by laws which have been put in place, as if it is a great revelation which changes man indefinitely. He speaks of the ethical becoming "manifest" to a man. Thus it would seem that Kierkegaard does not view the ethical to be completely limiting as the Underground Man is proposing it to be, or, at least he does not view this limiting nature in a negative manner. For, to speak of the ethical as a power that becomes "manifest" certainly implies that he sees some great advantage or purpose in the ethical life itself.

But what is this advantage which Kierkegaard sees, but the Underground Man completely denounces and trades in for his "disease" of being "overly-conscious?" What is so advantageous about the ethical life that is worth the "limitations" which it implies?

Well, Kierkegaard speaks of the Underground Man's exact predicament. He states,

"Ordinarily we view the ethical altogether abstractly and therefore have a secret horror of it. In that case the ethical is viewed as something alien to the personality, and we shrink from devoting ourselves to it, since we cannot be really sure of what it will lead us to in the course of time." (81)

However, Kierkegaard attributes this fear of the ethical to a lack of transparency. He states, "if a person fears transparency, he always avoids the ethical, because the ethical really does not want anything else." (81)

So quite possibly could the Underground Man's inability to accept the ethical be due to an underlying fear of being "transparent," the fear of realizing that the web of objections and rational theories he has created as a sort of rebelling against society are ultimately "unreasonable" (Kierkegaard 81). Thus, he cannot accept societal norms because with this acceptance comes the confirmation that all of his own theories and reasoning against it are useless and devoid of true reason. In such a theory, Kierkegaard seems to be presenting the limiting nature of the ethical as equivocal with the limits of the truth. In a way, the ethical becomes the truth. This would explain his use of the word "manifest" in describing such an idea.

But, would Dostoevsky agree that one can find such truth within the limits of the ethical life? For after all, if this is true, truth is not found in the individual mind, but instead in the anthill, in the system. Insects hold the truth whereas "overly conscious" men are "nothing."

I commented on Meghan's : "The Cure for Boredom: The Unexpected"

Self-Suffering

I thought about how we talked about "enjoying self-suffering" in class today and wondered why people would actually want to suffer. One reason is to receive more love and attention. "Raskolnikov said nothing and made no resistance though he felt quite strong enough to sit up on the sofa without support and could not merely have held a cup or a spoon, but even perhaps could have walked about." chap. 3. Oftentimes people pretend to be suffering more than they actually are and we look down on them for this, but it could be that they feel the need to be loved more than they are. Suffering can bring you instant popularity and love, though it may not always be real.

Another reason people want to suffer is because their religion says that it is good. Nikolay, for example, believes that suffering is a way to purification and a way to access love. For this reason, some people intentionally inflict suffering upon themselves. I do not believe this to that extent, but I do believe that if we believe in Jesus, he states that we will undergo suffering. Without intentionally causing ourselves to suffer, Paul states that when the suffering comes, we should rejoice in it because God is getting the glory.

PS commented on Anna Rhodes "Self-Love?"

Questions for questions, I've got a question.

Crime and Punishment..what a whirlwind of thought! Initially, I believed Raskolnikov to be an early Ted Kaczynski, but mostly because we have been covering the Unabomber in psychology as of late. Dostoyevsky is absolutely thrilling to read. My attention was easily kept, though more than likely due to C&P being of the novel nature rather than theological/philosophical excerpt. No offense to them, it just becomes drudgery after a while.

As for our friend Raskolnikov, I am really bewildered by his character, especially concerning his sister’s engagement to Luzhin. R sees this as a loss of freedom, as a type of slavery much akin to Sonia’s. Both women lose their sense of self in the attempt to provide for others. But is there something so wrong in sacrificing yourself for the sake of others’ well-being? Perhaps in Sonia’s case as there are immoral or unethical implications there, but is this so much a crime for Dunya? As ever, I am constantly reminded of Pride & Prejudice, but this time my recollection of it is when Charlotte Lucas marries the insufferable Mr. Collins. Her reasoning is that she is a burden enough to her parents, with no future or prospects. So at the age of twenty-seven, Miss Lucas sacrifices herself and her true desires to settle. While Miss Lucas certainly has better circumstances than Sonia, or even Dunya, is this not the same sort of movement? Charlotte was not praised by her peers, but she found comfort and freedom in the life she came to lead.

Back to Raskolnikov, he seems almost envious of the idea. He does not want this sacrifice, but yet he is not willing to deny it. If he denies it, he must make a sacrifice of his own to supplement the one he forbids of Dunya. Would this not make him a hypocrite? “Let my life be ruined so long as my loved ones are happy!” Is there not nobility in such a sacrifice? Or is Raskolnikov’s problem that Dunya can be bought? I have heard that everyone has a price at which they can be bought; is the well-being of her family too lowly a cost for R’s approval? At what point, reader, can you be bought? Perhaps his problem is that there is not real love in this union, and therefore no respect. But how much does respect matter in chronic destitution? Does respect have any worth here, or does it have worth at any time? I do not hate to pull the God-card, so what of Christ’s sacrifice? Did He not die for the sake of many? What about Raskolnikov: does he not kill for the sake of many? Is it simply a matter of how you value human life circumstantially? What is the real difference between Dunya and Sonia, Dunya and the Alonya, Sonia and Alonya? Questions, questions, questions...

COMMENTED ON WILL'S

Recurring Theme

Raskolnikov reminds me so much of Poe's writing. Dostoevsky writes Raskolnikov to be a hypochondriac. This reflects what Poe claims to be a mental problem with Roderick Usher, a possible problem with the narrator in the "Fall of the House of Usher," and a very likely problem with Poe himself. He always thought something was wrong, tricking himself into a psychological problem. Raskolnikov is definitely struggling with this, evidenced by his struggle with the unmentioned act, the odd dream, as well as the way he lives his life. This semester seems to be preparing to throw us back at the darkness that lives in the cave we escaped from.

Ready yourselves.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

Commenting on Joy's "A Guilt He Was Unprepared For"

A Guilt He Was Unprepared for

Crime and Punishment - I am not done with this book yet, but I figured I would write my blog before I forgot to. This guy is very strange. He seems to be repressing a demonized personality from within. However, it comes out and he allows it to rule over him as he brutally murders two people. Then he is tormented from within. He debates admitting he has done it and then the devil in him overtakes him and he decides not to admit his guilt… Or at least that is the case to the point I have read to… He really should find a therapist! LOL :P