The Philosophy of Crime and Punishment
Nihilism — what an interesting idea. Friedrich Nietzsche tells us Nihilism is simply the inevitable result of mankind’s rationalism. But we often forget that rationalization is a tool for us to use, not a mode of being. Dostoyevsky explains the difference well in his Crime and Punishment. Through a beautiful story, we are enveloped in a world in which prostitutes are god-fearing and murders have hearts. But the most interesting part is the conflict of the mind we can all relate to.
For what reasons is something justified? Is it when the results are useful? Is it when there is greatness to be achieved? Or is it never because it crosses vaguely defined moral boundaries? Through his genius, Dostoyevsky forces us to either justify or condemn the protagonist Raskolnikov’s actions, including the killing of an old woman, but he makes this seemingly impossible at the same time. Such is representative of the way rationalism works in all our minds: something is convenient, but it’s wrong. Why shouldn’t it be done?
Dostoyevsky lays out an answer for us through his subtly, which seems to be a warning to all those embracing Nihilism in 19th century Russia: rationalism does not grant a holistic perspective. If we seek to only rely on our abilities to rationalize, we will never find the point in anything and therefore face the degeneration of both our character and mind. How many times does Raskolnikov contemplate suicide? Can we truly expect this mode of being to be conducive to life if the adopter cannot stand life itself? Dostoyevsky emphasizes this idea by reminding the readers that Raskolnikov was a murder who not only murdered a woman, but his Self. So what is the solution? Dostoyevsky provides one towards the end of the novel. Though somewhat sappy and most certainly hard to explain using logic, the main character finds peace and meaning in love.
Love might not necessarily be the answer, but it is more what love represents. Irrational belief that life itself matters. Take relationships for example. An individual can find such meaning in their relationships with other human beings. Yet it is hard to produce a logical reason as to why they have love for friends, family, and significant others. Dostoyevsky implores us to understand this if we are to conquer the nihilist within. I by no means think Dostoyevsky is against the use of logic and reasoning when approaching the vast number of problems we face, but simply that applying these tools in things like relationships that matter deeply dampens both the meaning in one’s life and their character.
But we still must find clarity. What truly is the caveat of persistent rationalization outside of relationships? Of rationalization as a mode of being? Raskolnikov’s mind postulates a theory, and his actions execute this theory. I believe that Dostoyevsky is warning us against this. A much more efficient approach is to use life alongside intellect to develop a theory, so one’s experiences become the backbone. This way we may use concrete evidence along with the abstractions of our subjective minds to determine if our actions will have the outcomes we desire. This approach is simply pragmatic. Raskolnikov spent too much time alone brooding on how things “should” work and, as a result, completely neglected reality. This led him to miscalculate the effects of his actions on himself and on how the outside world would view him afterwards. Here is evidence that rationale can be seen as an incomplete tool. We cannot expect something no more than 50,000 years old to be perfect in its estimation of a world billions of years old. This viewpoint reeks of arrogance. We must see logic, reasoning, and all rationale’s derivatives as tools for us to discover the world, and they certainly are useful. But we must be wary of their limits, as all good explorers are. After all, beauty is a constant in life, but can one truly explain it?
