A person or creature trembling. “I am a trembling creature, or do I have a right?” What prevents an ordinary person from getting rich

"Who am I? A man or a trembling creature?!" Rodion Raskolnikov exclaimed and went to kill and got the best answer

Answer from Obama[guru]
What only means are not used to cheat themselves. For example, one girl - “Oh, but if I don’t put on makeup, then there is a risk that they will consider me a provincial.
Obama
Enlightened
(32403)
Oh, so you really want to? .. Then this is the pathetic babble of Dostoevsky's protest against Nietzsche. Pitiful because Rodion coveted a lot, not having the right to this much; in Nietzsche, the superman is the one who abounds and squanders (and not the one who needs something).

Answer from Unknown.................[guru]
A person knows good and evil, and only he himself chooses what fruit to bring the fruit of evil or Good into this world! From those fruits that I knew!
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (??? ???????? ???? ??????, Etz ha-Da'at Tov va Ra) - according to the book, a special tree planted by God in the middle. It symbolizes knowledge, first of all, of ethical categories, the ability to consciously choose between and.

Answer from Count de Wall[guru]
It does not seem.
For the religious consciousness does not posit at all. that it is not a man who directs his actions. It believes that it simply always has someone to consult with.
And the disease .... the disease is the same as that of believers. that of atheists.
It's just that the words are different.

Answer from Andrey L[guru]
No. Only you are responsible for your actions, and sometimes inaction.

Answer from Akhmat Beroev[guru]
So you did not understand Dostoevsky.

Answer from chimit itigilov[guru]
He suffered from poverty. His love, Sonya Marmeladova, lived in poverty and went to the panel to feed her family. He suffered from injustice (why does the old woman pawnbroker have money, she doesn’t have children and a family, one sister, they lived theirs). He believed that having taken the money some and giving them to those in need will make the world a happier place. but by killing the old woman, he killed moral principles in himself. he stepped over the boundaries of morality and realized that he had killed the human in himself. Rodion schismatics and got caught on one word. This is not a story of murder. This is the life of people with their passions, desires, dreams and suffering. It is in the West that all the characters are caricatures. Russian literature, like life, is complex and deep. Russian literature gives a person a chance, when he stumbles, he justifies him (crime and punishment, war and peace, Anna Karenina). as John Lennon sang (give the world a chance).

Answer from Vladislav Tararashkin[guru]
Just trying to free himself from the power of God in his soul (a servant of God, exaggerated - "a trembling creature"), or "I have the right", that is, to live exclusively according to OWN will, and not God - and went to kill. This is exactly what liberation from religious consciousness. . .And then you hear the ringing, but the conclusions ...

Answer from Matteo F[guru]
The mind can rush about painfully
believing that he has a choice of several options.
And if everything is the will of God, what's the point of rushing about and worrying?

Answer from Valentin[guru]
Well, I can even imagine his feelings at the moment when he talked about it or thought about it. Well, he was mistaken in the fact that hatred will solve everything and that if he kills, he will prove something to himself and this will change something. But do not rely on hatred and pride.

Answer from I will not say[guru]
He said this to demonstrate his courage.

Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?

Can killing a person unworthy of life be considered a bad deed? Or does his "unworthiness" still serve as a sufficient justification for murder? Is it even possible to justify murder? And are there people unworthy of life?

Is it God, or does fate give a person life ... if a person exists, then it must be so. If he was superfluous, not needed for anything, he would simply not be born. Nothing in the world is accidental, and everything that happens is worthy of happening.

There are no right and wrong actions, there is only what we have done and the consequences of it. It is never possible to predict what certain actions will lead to, even the most mundane ones. Our smile now can save the life of someone on the other side of the world, or it can kill. Everything we do is not right or wrong, it just is, and it makes history.

But this cannot justify all our actions: no matter what providence exists there, there are laws and rules that regulate our lives and prevent us from being savages. If everyone starts killing each other, considering their victims "unworthy", humanity will die out. Raskolnikov implies that this will not happen, because not everyone is capable of this: there are “ordinary” people, and there are “extraordinary”.

"Ordinary" people he calls people who are not able to go beyond the existing rules, commit atrocity and / or step over it. That is, either conscientious and principled, or cowardly. He believes that the history of mankind is driven by "extraordinary" people - people who have the right to drown in blood up to their elbows and not be embarrassed by this, if they act for the "common good". And humanity forgives them everything, including some of them even as saints.

Let's take Hitler as an example. He killed in battles, and these are wars, not "personal" killing for his own purposes. In war, the goal is to defeat the enemy and bring victory to the state. Without them, history would also go, just in a completely different way. Wars are an incentive to develop faster than other states in order to win. But not the people who lead these battles and cut out half the world. That is, the war has causes that accumulate, and the result is a clash of warring parties, this makes it develop. Competition. Not people. Hitler did not promote new technologies. If it were not for him, humanity would not have stopped at that stage of development and would not have died out. They only radically changed something, both for the worse and accelerating any social processes.

Minds are the movers of humanity. Those who created the digging stick, understood how to light a fire, invented electricity, a cure for the plague, discovered the laws of physics, made chips, telephones, found metals resistant to acids, etc. Without them, mankind would have remained at the stage of primitive people . Not tyrants. Tyrants are people who left a mark on history, but do not move it. More precisely, just those who lengthened history, and did not raise humanity to a new level.

Raskolnikov does not say that all "extraordinary" people must commit acts of violence. But they are obliged to allow their conscience to step over the committed atrocity, if it is in the name of fulfilling his idea. That is, if Newton had to kill to publish his discoveries, he would have to do it.

But if he could not, by virtue of his character, upbringing, principles, etc., commit murder, would he become "ordinary"? According to the protagonist of Dostoevsky's novel, yes. But it is he who is the one who moved mankind far ahead. And his strength was in his mind, and not in unscrupulousness and the thought that his discoveries were higher than human life.

Raskolnikov says that all the "extraordinary" are capable of crime. Franz Kafka was able to publish only a few short stories during his lifetime, which made up a very small proportion of his work, and his work attracted little attention until his novels were published posthumously. That is, he did not promote his ideas at the cost of the lives of other people or other atrocities, was not capable of crimes and did not commit them. If we take Dostoevsky's contemporaries, then Mendel can serve as an example, who discovered the basic principles of heredity as a result of experiments, published part of the work in a journal, but was not understood. The extreme importance of his discovery was understood only at the beginning of the 20th century. And although Mendel could go to the crimes to let the world know about his discoveries, he did not. Raskolnikov's theory is not supported by historical examples.

Killing a person cannot be considered a bad deed. The division of actions into "bad" and "good" people came up with it themselves in order to survive. If everyone does "bad" things, this "survival" is unlikely to come true, so there is such an encouragement of "good" actions. There are consequences that will happen if you kill a person and you can't do anything about it, because the existence of these consequences keeps society from falling apart and is backed by forces much higher than ours.

God complex... it's not for us to decide who are worthy people and who are not. "Unworthy" do not exist at all, since all people contribute to the history of mankind.

Everything can be justified. Man, in essence, is not to blame for anything. All his actions are due external factors for which he is not responsible and for which he cannot be blamed. Any human act is a consequence of a number of reasons: the upbringing that other people give him, the chemical processes in his body, the lack of any vitamins due to the ecological situation in the city. It is no longer a mystery or a hypothesis that all our feelings are hormones and chemical reactions. From the abundance of endorphins we are happy, from thyroxine - irritable, oxytocin - affectionate and friendly.

And hormones come to us with food, sleep phases, etc. A person can kill because he will be angry due to a lack of endorphins, because he did not sleep for four nights in a row, because he was called on the night shift to work, because another man broke his leg in an accident because the driver of the car did not notice him, as he was blinded by the sun. It turns out that the man killed because the sun is shining. All this chain was cited in order to say: everything can be justified.

Again, you can not be guided by this and repair insanity. The consequences are again at the forefront, we are able to control our hormones and impulses in most cases. There are situations of breakdowns, when no arguments of the mind and all the points of the consequences do not reach the brain, because at such moments everything is run by emotions. But in cases based not on a surge of emotions, but on their stability, everyone should be aware of the consequences of their choice.

So. There are no bad deeds, unworthy people to live and actions that cannot be justified. Just as there are no "ordinary" and "extraordinary" people, and if there are, then not in the sense that Raskolnikov put into these concepts. Killers do not pull humanity upward and must obey all the same laws that others obey.

Who is Raskolnikov?

Raskolnikov is a person who has realized his insignificance in front of the existing web of laws, rules, traditions, patterns of actions that establish our behavior in certain situations. A man who realized and did not want to accept, and therefore, came up with a theory about "extraordinary" people and wanted to prove - first of all to himself - that he is not a "louse". It is difficult to understand one's utter impotence, and Rodion's character could not cope with this. "Extraordinary" people, in his opinion, are people who are above this system. And he wanted to be just that. Only by choosing the wrong path, he committed the murder of a man.

The system was invented by a man, and therefore, the man himself has the right to change it. Even if it has already taken root over the years, its roots go back to the time of the first Romanovs, put them (roots) deep into the consciousness of every living person, it can change, because we are its authors, and we are the people who support it and give it "water" for prosperity. And the system is not the purest evil and the cause of all problems. This is the core of society, what does not allow it to fall apart, people to become savages and start outrageous acts in the open. There is Raskolnikov's pride, which made him wish for freedom and insubordination general rules. And that's it. There are no worthy and unworthy, "ordinary" and "unusual". Only humanity and its actions that will eventually lead somewhere. Where, no one knows. And therefore, having finished reading this tedious and very subjective speech, readers, I urge you to live and not to saw yourself because of wrong actions. No one will say what would have happened if you acted differently, no one will say what these actions will lead to: there is a legend that "everything that happens happens for the better." Believe it and think what you do .. but not really: thinking is harmful and tiring :)

The text is large so it is divided into pages.

"Am I a trembling creature, or do I have a right?"

Vladimir Grigoryan

Recently, we again argued with friends about the introduction of the basics of Orthodox culture at school. They are wonderful people, moreover, Orthodox. But at the same time they share liberal ideas. So there was some bitterness in the conversation.

“Maybe we should just let the parents decide for themselves?” I suggested.

Why should parents decide? - I heard in response. - When the children grow up, they will choose for themselves.

- It will be too late.

It's not about faith - you can come to God even at ninety. But there are things that need to be laid in childhood. What is good, what is bad. Who are the saints, what is love. And most importantly - why do we live? And the new school subject is the basis not only of Orthodox culture, but of what can be called education.

A society deprived of basic values ​​is doomed to degradation and death. For more than twenty years, children have not been brought up in schools at all. Why be good? Orthodox say - for the salvation of the soul, because it is beautiful, gives joy, makes you a person. The communists said - for the sake of the happiness of mankind in this world, the building of communism. What can a multicultural society offer in return? That you need to be good, otherwise you won't get a good salary, you won't become efficient and competitive. This is not an answer.

Of course, the communists were wrong, they could not build a brave new world. But the understanding that without faith nothing good will happen, they adopted from Christians. And now, while we're playing political correctness, the kids are going crazy. Not only in the medical sense, although that too. It seems to them that intelligence and education are enough, and the mind, the desire for wisdom are practically not in demand.

“It will be too late,” I said to my friends. A month has not passed, as a young lawyer Dmitry Vinogradov shot six of his colleagues and a guy who came to get a job. Before that, the killer wrote a manifesto on his VKontakte page, where he confessed his hatred of humanity. It seems to him that it has no right to exist, because it destroys nature, like cancerous tumor, and is not capable of anything else - only to consume and consume. I am now retelling what the media wrote about this, although I have read the manifesto and know that it is not only about this. The main thing in the text is that humanity is perishing because the thought “love one another” is imposed on it. And from this children are born. There are too many of us, it would be nice to reduce. Dmitry participated in the environmental movement, rescued birds and loved weapons since childhood. Mother asked how he combined it - love of nature and rifles. And he was silent. After all, you don’t admit to your mother that you are going to shoot at people.

The newspapers also came up with a story of Vinogradov's great love for Anna, an employee of the company. What exactly is it that brought the guy to the handle. He courted, even bought tour packages to England. But the girl refused, then broke off the relationship altogether, and the romantic Vinogradov sighed and suffered. In fact, she didn't give up on anything. They completed the paperwork, and on the eve of their departure, Anna received an SMS from her admirer: "I'm with you, with ... I'm not going anywhere." Periodically sent "romantic" messages like: "Give me back my book, creature."

It's called "love" now.

He has two educations, he is not only a lawyer, but also a programmer. Among the favorite writers is Kafka. The manifesto is written in impeccable language, you can feel the intellect, if we talk about the ability to shape and present emptiness. This guy almost managed to grow up effective and competitive, he is five minutes away the one that the liberals of the 90s could be proud of. It's theirs new person, born in 1992, the year the reforms began. And then this new man took two rifles and went to hunt people. And after that, 10 thousand visitors to VKontakte gave him "likes" - bonuses confirming that they were satisfied with what they read. How many are there really? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Among the reasons that brought Hitler to power, they forget to name one, perhaps the most significant. His support was the same young people who were desperately, sickeningly bored with life. They did not know why they should do this, and were ready to kill and die, and Nazism just turned up under their arm. Dostoevsky described a similar state in Crime and Punishment, when there was no fascism at all. The difference is that Raskolnikov knew how to love, the gospel entered his flesh and blood with mother's milk, with communion. The whole structure of the then life was against the abomination that he invented and professed. What is the opposite of her now? Capital of innovation Skolkovo? Suppose they do not plunder, they invent something there, they introduce something. Will this convince the grapevines that life has meaning, that humanity has the right to life? Not at all.

Mom of the Moscow killer, by the way, good woman. She just couldn't do it alone. And society proudly declares that it will not help people like her raise children. Out of principle. Personal violence-s. Something from Vinogradov's mother laid down almost reflexively works. He apologized to the families of the victims. However, he did not imagine that it would come to this, that he would have to look them in the eye. I wanted to commit suicide, but did not have time to become a martyr of that very ancient religion, which is covered either by socialism, or nationalism, or Islam, or liberalism, and in the case of Vinogradov, some environmental considerations.

There is a line in his manifesto where he is outraged that people save the lives of disabled children - they interfere with evolution. This old idea was updated and put into circulation by the idol of today's atheists Alexander Nikonov. Before, I had not imagined that he was popular among them, it was painfully vile, but it turned out that he was almost the number one ideologue. His followers first filled the forums, insulting the Church, Christ, and now they just started killing us.

“You invented all this, but the basics won’t fix anything,” I hear the voices of my friends.

Yes, they won't fix it on their own. Do you have other suggestions? After all, for twenty years they have not figured out where else to start. “I am the door: whoever enters by Me will be saved, and will go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9).

Vladimir GRIGORYAN

Crime and Punishment is a novel written by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky in 1866.

The main character of the work is Rodion Raskolnikov. With his theory "I am a trembling creature or I have the right" he claims that humanity and man in itself are criminal, but there are crimes for evil, and there are for good. Raskolnikov has a desire to help people, but he understands that he will have to act dishonestly. The protagonist decides to commit a crime for a long time, but seeing human suffering (Marmeladova, a letter from relatives, a drunken girl, etc.), he stops hesitating.

F.M. Dostoevsky at the end of the novel "broke" Raskolnikov's theory. Infidelity began to appear at the beginning of the work, when Rodion had not only the old woman, but also Lizaveta (her sister), as well as the child she was carrying. But partly for her sake, the crime was committed. He begins to feverishly hide the things acquired as a result of the crime, not because of the search, but because he simply cannot use them as an honest person.

The author in Svidrigailov and Luzhin showed Raskolnikov his future if he does not go astray. They all have different goals, but the means are the same. After talking to them main character understands that his path will only lead him to a dead end: "I did not kill the old woman, I killed myself."

Raskolnikov did good deeds: he helped financially his student friend, gave the last money to Marmeladov, took care of a young drunk girl, etc. With the help of this "wake up" his human qualities. After the death of Svidrigailov (he committed suicide), Raskolnikov completely abandons his theory - a crime for good. Before his death, Svidrigailov tried to improve: he helped the children of Katerina Ivanovna, released Dunya and asked her for love, because every person needs something good.

By comparing Luzhin, Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky shows their similarity, even though they have different means.

Rodion understands that he is "the same louse as everyone else." Sonya helps him get on the right path, urging him to repent. He sees that Sonya is in the mud (forced to sell her body), but at the same time she is clean. These torments only elevate her soul. Raskolnikov's theory is opposed to the suffering of Sonya, Dunya (marries unloved person to help his family), Mikolki (takes on other people's misdeeds and suffers because of them). At this moment, Rodion "resurrects" to life, he sees new world, filled with spiritual values, with the help of love for Sonya.

Thus, the protagonist's theory "I am a trembling creature or I have the right" is understood as I am either a louse in this world, or I have the right to commit crimes for good. But, as proven, this theory is completely wrong.

Some interesting essays

• Composition according to the proverb Anger is your enemy for grade 7

  I agree with this phrase, since anger makes us do things that we often have to regret later. I heard that many crimes are committed in anger

• Characteristics and image of Aksinya Astakhova in Sholokhov's novel Quiet Don essay

  Already in her youth, Aksinya began her tragic path. The rape and tragic death of the father seemed to have led to a series of misfortunes

• Composition My favorite school

  Every person in life, at one time or another, has a favorite place to which he wants to return again and again. At the moment, my school is such a place.

• The image and characteristics of Prince Utyatin in the poem Who in Rus' live well Nekrasov's composition

  Utyatin is an old man with a strange, inhuman appearance: he has different eyes, he is very thin, pale and wears a white hat, he has a hawk nose

• Heroes of the work Miraculous Doctor Kuprin