He cannot affirm himself above others, in my view, that is his condition, which is sad.. Or at least, at the festival of Dionysus, he;d have killed the bull but lost the battle.
Perhaps the only difference between Napoleon and Raskolnikov was that the latter had a family. He killed for them in my view, because he unconsciously despised himself for selling him his family's watch at the start of the story, that was what made him superior in my view, not his conquest of the old pawnbroker and her maid Lisavetta. He was like Nietzsche in that he preached materialism, but lol, the substance of his soliloque's are the overcoming in the process, not cold murder.
@fredbloggs02 Nope, it's pretty clear throughout the novel that Raskolnikov murdered the pawnbroker because he believes himself to be an extraordinary man, above moral and societal code, and views her life as worthless. Even after the murders, when he begins to feel the repurcussions of guilt and paranoia, her still refers to her as a "louse". He had no desire for the material objects that he robbed from the pawnbroker, he never even looked inside the pouch to see how much money he stole.
@Limegrape If that was what you read into it, that's alright. To me, it was pride that profferred him such grandiose notions of "the overman". What was his cause? To know his superiority to a pawnbroker? How was she a louse only after he killed her? He may have been the overman, but that explanation doesn't satisfy me. Where the watch came from is significant I believe. He practised an honest hypocrisy; his revolution was one of sentimentality consistent with Napoleon; not in Petersberg.
@Limegrape He had no desire for the pawnbroker's possessions, so how is one man superior to another if not through his possessions? In his ability to procure them from the lowliest through his superiority? Ok, but so too could a louse kill another louse for their money. It was a very lowly crime anyone could have commited. his ethos was inconsistent with a conqueror. What made it significant was the manner and the substance of what he stole. He stole, to prove the pawnbroker unfeeling.
@Limegrape How does one discern an extroidinary man? That is key to understanding Raskolnikov. To me, it was nothing to do with the material possessions. He, like Nietzsche was not a materialist, but superiority is expressed in everything he says. I believe he misunderstands himself when he likens himself to Napoleon, and that was the tragedy, he mistakes quality for quantity, his isolation from himself that expresses such sentiments. Quantity over quality he already possesses.
He cannot affirm himself above others, in my view, that is his condition, which is sad.. Or at least, at the festival of Dionysus, he;d have killed the bull but lost the battle.
fredbloggs02 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Perhaps the only difference between Napoleon and Raskolnikov was that the latter had a family. He killed for them in my view, because he unconsciously despised himself for selling him his family's watch at the start of the story, that was what made him superior in my view, not his conquest of the old pawnbroker and her maid Lisavetta. He was like Nietzsche in that he preached materialism, but lol, the substance of his soliloque's are the overcoming in the process, not cold murder.
fredbloggs02 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 4 months ago
@fredbloggs02 Nope, it's pretty clear throughout the novel that Raskolnikov murdered the pawnbroker because he believes himself to be an extraordinary man, above moral and societal code, and views her life as worthless. Even after the murders, when he begins to feel the repurcussions of guilt and paranoia, her still refers to her as a "louse". He had no desire for the material objects that he robbed from the pawnbroker, he never even looked inside the pouch to see how much money he stole.
Limegrape 3 weeks ago
@Limegrape If that was what you read into it, that's alright. To me, it was pride that profferred him such grandiose notions of "the overman". What was his cause? To know his superiority to a pawnbroker? How was she a louse only after he killed her? He may have been the overman, but that explanation doesn't satisfy me. Where the watch came from is significant I believe. He practised an honest hypocrisy; his revolution was one of sentimentality consistent with Napoleon; not in Petersberg.
fredbloggs02 3 weeks ago
@Limegrape He had no desire for the pawnbroker's possessions, so how is one man superior to another if not through his possessions? In his ability to procure them from the lowliest through his superiority? Ok, but so too could a louse kill another louse for their money. It was a very lowly crime anyone could have commited. his ethos was inconsistent with a conqueror. What made it significant was the manner and the substance of what he stole. He stole, to prove the pawnbroker unfeeling.
fredbloggs02 3 weeks ago
@Limegrape How does one discern an extroidinary man? That is key to understanding Raskolnikov. To me, it was nothing to do with the material possessions. He, like Nietzsche was not a materialist, but superiority is expressed in everything he says. I believe he misunderstands himself when he likens himself to Napoleon, and that was the tragedy, he mistakes quality for quantity, his isolation from himself that expresses such sentiments. Quantity over quality he already possesses.
fredbloggs02 3 weeks ago