HW. Enjoy the bloodshed!
Additionally, please read the Wikipedia entry for Fyodor Dostoyevsky and
follow any links that explain relevant parts of Russian history with which
you might be less than familiar (e.g., Tsar Nicholas, gulags, etc.).
Blog about the following:
A. A connection you find between Dostoyevsky's own life and his work, as
represented by C&P.
B. A THOUGHTFUL response to one of the following questions, with regard to
the most recent events occurring in C&P (the murder, duh): Is it a crime
if no one finds out? Is it a crime if someone other than yourself
benefits? Is it a crime if you do it for good reasons? For example: If you
could go back in time and kill Hitler, would it be the right thing?
He is apparently a founder or precursor of existentialism which will serve as a reference to my rather eccentric quote that i would like to add: "Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself." because I had an interesting conversation with my friend today. He moved to St. Petersburg, where the story takes place, to attend a Military Engineering Institute. It was located on one of the most horrible ares which apparently made a lasting impression and this can be seen in his description of the setting within the novel. Also Marmeladov's drunkeness reflects his father's drunken fits; quite ironic that he died from drowning from vodka (assuming the murder is true).
A crime, by definition (thanks to google), is:
1. An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law: "shoplifting was a serious crime".
2. Illegal activities: "the victims of crime".
So... yes, it is a crime if no one finds out or if you do it for good reasons (I live in a very grey world, haha). Now the repercussions and intentions will blur the crime's negative connotation and severity of the punishment (Crime & Punishment, I see why it's named as so). It was criminal for Rodya to kill the pawnlady. His intention was simpleton because her death would bring marginal benefits to any party. The cost outweighed the benefits. You could have just robbed her house whenever she left. Also, why an ax? It's not stealthy at all. You could have suffocated her or twist her neck. No bloodshed, clean kill. For a person of his intellect, I expected more thoroughness. He made a mess with the bloodshed and killing two people when his objective was one.
Now, a crime relative to my opinion would be something immoral or unethical. Then again, I'm quite pragmatic. Is it a crime if no one finds out? well, let's assume to things: that the crime isn't discovered and the criminal's mental stability. It is a crime if the criminal deems that he has, in fact, committed something immoral or unethical. A feeling of guilt would prove that. It isn't a crime if the criminal deems that it was justified or he is insane/crazy/mental. I don't think animal research is a crime but PETA especially thinks so. Well, they're the hypocrites. Saving animals, my butt.
It is not a crime if you do it for good reasons such as.. let's say... a man was going to rob you and kill you. Let's assume certain things: 1) he has already made a threat to you, 2) he is aware that he is risking his life, and 3) he is willing to die. Afterall, why would you rob someone without reflecting upon the consequences? The fact that you are robbing this man implies that you're willing to die. So, yes you should kill the man, but I prefer torture. No... I'm not some psycho, crazed student. I just think that allowing murderers to die is too easy for them. They should be aware and ready to die afterall. Now, putting them through torture allows them to experience what their victims went through and worse. How does it feel that you don't have the power to end your own life? You have no control, you're powerless yet you had so much when you decided to kill your victims. Being tortured and not having the power to end your life is my cup of tea in what society should do to murderers. But it's frowned upon society as inhuman and unethical. C'mon... they were the first to be inhuman and unethical, they don't deserve to be that ascended. Also, what's up with communism? There's such a negative connotation. This is conditioned to americans! It's a sick plot to support our economic system! No I'm just kidding, but I do support communism assuming the leader would not consumed by his pride and power. Seriously, no leader has ever done that.
As for travelling back in time to kill a person... I do not support it. What's done is done. Certain misfortunes can bring brighter futures. What if the Holocaust or the two world wars didn't occur? Who's to say what wouldn't occur due to that? It's also reminiscent to the time where we discussed about whether it was right to arrest a person with the knowledge that the person will commit a crime but at the moment of arrest, he/she has yet to commit it. You're just arresting an innocent person. Now... I would like to bring in the idea of parallel universes and that there is no past, present, or future, and eleven dimensions of reality but i shall not. It would be superfluous for a literature class. So I say "go on with the holocaust, the civil wars, and the genocide! May you experience a brighter life in an alternative universe." As cruel as it may sound, what if the world's savior was a product for a genocide or of the misfortunes of the world and if that mishap did not occur, it wouldn't produce the world's savior and we'd be doomed. Tabula rasa, man, a person is a person based on their experiences and perceptions. Humans nature isn't good nor evil. To even say what is good or evil is to play God because they are not objective terms. This would have been a very strong point to make for the in-between group. I'm sure I would have lost if the topic was arose.
No comments:
Post a Comment