Lit202

p.183 luzhin

the picture we get of luzhin is that he's a cold manipulative character - that he sees people as a means to an end. P.183 that paragraph about Luzhin's 'fiance' - sister.

Luzhin criticizes Raskolnikov's mother's intellectual dispositions p.184 - imagination, etc.

Luzhin would like to eradicate feeling and sentiment for scientific progress etc endless dreaming and sentiment and that is confirmed here.

In retort, Raskanikol says that the end of that would be people going around killing people - a very personal remark, as he has already killed someone, and so we see that it's on his mind. And from Dostoyevky's position, the subjective reasons, the social climate, objective critique from the author himself.

Raskanilkov - wanting to test his theory he puts it into action - he murders the woman the landlady - he has pangs of conscience that he has to suppress to prove he is the ultimate. This crisis comes to represent the crisis in Russia itself in war between the old Order of the Tsar and the new humanist movement. Dostoyevsky is seen as a prophet as a few years later in 1918, Russia, the October revolution occurs.

The morality or immorality about killing were common - so he asserts. It's the most extreme form of the great ideas of the time. But there are others, for example, in the conversation in the bar between Marmeladov and Raskinolkov, he talks about Mr. Lazbetiyetnikov, is known to beat his wife. Compassion has been declared a social evil. This notion is already being put into practice in England.

So we have the idea now that there are all these theories and there's someone who tries to put them into action - and so for Raskanilkov, he tries to follow one theory, to kill someone and get away with it - so that he may feel that he has escaped the morality of the tribe (Christian morality) and thus is above the rest of the horde.

As therefore, things that don't have an end, a utile purpose, Monks, worship, prayer, are unnecessary.

The latest fashion of ideas. The latest fashion of 'unbelief' it's re-iterated a lot. So now we have the latest emergence of Atheism.

Ironically Raskalnikov shows up the super-ficiality of these theories. He proves the theories wrong by trying to prove them right - because he always feels guilt - he's not made for these type of theories.

It's seen as the new order vs the old order. And Dostoyevsky is seen as prophetic precisely because these tensions came to ahead in 1917, many years after his death.

Raskalnikov goes to see Rezumikem, Rez mentions to Ras about the book seller. If science is being recquisitioned to prove ideas like woman are not human. The irony here is palpable because Raskalnikov just killed a woman who to him was not worthy of living in the human race. He did a service to mankind.
Everyone has to appeal to the idea that they are doing something for the good of others, for the good of mankind, for the sake of humanity.
Everything is being called into question.
It's a time of cultural, social and religious ferment.

Part 1 - Chapter 5. Reason, rationalism, and the irrational.
Razumikhum - Razum means reason - thus razumikhum is linked to reason in a positive way.
In this chapter they are debating an issue: To what extent, are one's actions culturally determined and conditioned?
Bear in mind in all of this that Porphry is trying to set a trap to see if Raskalnikov is the murderer.
Razumikhum demonstrates the inadequacy of the socialist theory - it doesn't fit in with human nature (an early argument that will become full blown communism)
Reason (inadequate in and of itself) it's impossible to leap over nature solely by means of logic, says Razumikhum. Razumikhum is critical of the idea that life's great mystery can be reduced to two printer's sheets (this reference reminds us of what he gave to Raskalnikov to translate, the work about whether woman is human). Razumikhum doesn't think that these theories can expound about human nature because they ignore the human soul. So Razum (And Dostoyevsky through him) is critiquing the Atheist theories as well as the latest trends. As such there is this objective thing which has certain qualities and characteristics which can't be argued away by theory however seemingly logical. This reminds us of Raskalnikov, he has endeavoured to put a theory into practice through logic. Razumikhun, not aware that Raskanikov has committed the murder, says that it's impossible to step over human nature - we can't escape the universal conscience. These theories are dead because they don't have reference to the soul and to have reference to the soul you need to have reference to God. And if you take away God, and you take away the soul - then man will act like there is no God and he has no soul.
Razumikhum is desperate to preserve the idea of the soul, of free will. It's impossible to leap over nature by logic.

Raskalnikov has attempted to apply abstract theories to reality - he has tried to justify murder - but he hasn't been able to live. And so he proves Razumikhum right. You can rationalise away human nature, away love and the soul, if you want. But can you actually LIVE with that. What happens to you, if you do that? (Disenchantment.)

"Heart of Darkness" - Conrad. Kurtz steps over the bound. "THE HORROR, THE HORROR!"

What he does is that he kills her to prove his point that if one kills somebody one need not always feel compunction or something.