What a person should be like according to Dostoevsky. Ideal, perfect. About the tragic inconsistency of man

F.M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment” (1866)

Genre

The genre of Dostoevsky’s work “Crime and Punishment” can be defined as philosophical novel, reflecting the author’s model of the world and philosophy of the human personality. Unlike L.N. Tolstoy, who perceived life not in its sharp, catastrophic breaks, but in its constant movement, natural flow, Dostoevsky gravitates toward revealing unexpected, tragic situations. Dostoevsky's world is a world at the limit, on the verge of transgressing all moral laws, it is a world where a person is constantly tested for humanity. Dostoevsky’s realism is the realism of the exceptional; it is no coincidence that the writer himself called it “fantastic,” emphasizing that in life itself the “fantastic,” the exceptional, is more important, more significant than the ordinary, and reveals truths in life that are hidden from a superficial glance.

Dostoevsky's work can also be defined as ideological novel. The writer’s hero is a man of ideas, he is one of those “who do not need millions, but need to resolve the thought.” The plot of the novel is a clash between ideological characters and the testing of Raskolnikov’s ideas with life. A large place in the work is occupied by dialogues and disputes between the characters, which is also typical for a philosophical, ideological novel.

Meaning of the name

Often the titles of literary works become opposite concepts: “War and Peace”, “Fathers and Sons”, “The Living and the Dead”, “Crime and Punishment”. Paradoxically, opposites ultimately become not only interconnected, but also interdependent. So in Dostoevsky’s novel, “crime” and “punishment” are the key concepts that reflect the author’s idea. The meaning of the first word in the title of the novel is multifaceted: crime is perceived by Dostoevsky as the transgression of all moral and social barriers. The heroes who “overstepped” are not only Raskolnikov, but also Sonya Marmeladova, Svidrigailov, Mikolka from the dream about the slaughtered horse, moreover, St. Petersburg itself in the novel also oversteps the laws of justice. The second word in the title of the novel is also ambiguous: punishment becomes not only suffering, incredible torture, but also salvation. Punishment in Dostoevsky’s novel is not a legal concept, but a psychological and philosophical one.

The idea of ​​spiritual resurrection is one of the main ones in Russian classical literature of the 19th century: in Gogol one can recall the idea of ​​the poem “Dead Souls” and the story “Portrait”, in Tolstoy - the novel “Resurrection”. In the works of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, the theme of spiritual resurrection, renewal of the soul, which finds love and God, is central to the novel “Crime and Punishment.”

Features of Dostoevsky's psychologism

Man is a mystery. Dostoevsky wrote to his brother: “Man is a mystery, it must be solved, and if you spend your whole life solving it, don’t say that you wasted your time. I am engaged in this mystery because I want to be a man.” Dostoevsky has no “simple” heroes; everyone, even the minor ones, is complex, everyone carries their own secret, their own idea. According to Dostoevsky, “complex any human and deep as the sea.” There is always something unknown in a person, not fully understood, “secret” even to himself.

Conscious and subconscious (mind and feeling). According to Dostoevsky, reason, reason is not a representative Total man, not everything in life and in man is amenable to logical calculation (“Everything will be calculated, but nature will not be taken into account,” - the words of Porfiry Petrovich). It is Raskolnikov’s nature that rebels against his “arithmetic calculation”, against his theory - the product of his reason. It is “nature”, the subconscious essence of a person that can be “smarter” than the mind. Fainting, seizures of Dostoevsky's heroes - failure of the mind - often save them from the path on which the mind pushes. This is a defensive reaction of human nature against the dictates of the mind.

In dreams, when the subconscious reigns supreme, a person is able to know himself more deeply, to discover something in himself that he did not yet know. Dreams are a person’s deeper knowledge of the world and himself (these are all three of Raskolnikov’s dreams - the dream about the little horse, the dream about the “laughing old woman” and the dream about the “pestilence”).

Often the subconscious guides a person more accurately than the conscious: the frequent “suddenly” and “accidentally” in Dostoevsky’s novel are only “suddenly” and “accidentally” for the mind, but not for the subconscious.

The duality of heroes to the last limit. Dostoevsky believed that good and evil are not forces external to man, but are rooted in the very nature of man: “Man contains all the power of the dark principle, and he also contains all the power of light. It contains both centers: the extreme depths of the abyss and the highest limit of the sky.” “God and the devil are fighting, and the battlefield is the hearts of people.” Hence the duality of Dostoevsky's heroes to the last limit: they can contemplate the abyss of moral decline and the abyss of highest ideals at the same time. The “ideal of Madonna” and the “ideal of Sodom” can live in a person at the same time.

Image of St. Petersburg

St. Petersburg is one of the most beautiful and at the same time most controversial cities in the world. The combination of the cold, perfect beauty of this Northern Palmyra and something gloomy, gloomy even in its very splendor allowed Dostoevsky to call St. Petersburg “the most fantastic city in the world.” Often St. Petersburg in Russian literature of the 19th century is perceived as a lost or enchanted place where a person goes crazy or falls into the power of the Devil - this is exactly how this city is depicted in Dostoevsky’s novel - a city that has transgressed the laws of humanity. The writer takes the reader not to Nevsky Prospekt or Palace Square, but to the neighborhoods of the poor, where there are cramped streets and mud-drenched staircases, squalid dwellings that can hardly be called dwellings.

One of the main ideas of Russian literature is the idea of ​​Home: Home is not just four walls, it is a special atmosphere of mutual understanding, security, human warmth, unity, but most of Dostoevsky’s heroes are deprived of such a home. “Cage”, “closet”, “corner” - this is what they call where they live. Raskolnikov’s closet “looked more like a closet than an apartment,” the Marmeladovs lived in a passage room “ten steps long,” Sonya’s room looked like a barn. Rooms like these that look either like a closet or like a barn give rise to a feeling of depression, loss, and mental discomfort. “Homelessness” is an indicator that something in the world has become loose, something has been displaced.

The city landscape of St. Petersburg in the novel amazes with its fantastic gloominess and discomfort. Consider the description of the city at the beginning of the novel: “The heat outside was terrible, plus it was stuffy, crowded, there was lime, brick, and dust everywhere.” The motif of stuffiness, lack of air becomes symbolic in the novel: as if from the St. Petersburg heat, Raskolnikov is suffocating from the inhumanity of his theory, which crushes him, oppresses him, it is no coincidence that Porfiry Petrovich will say: “Now you only need air, air!”

In such a city, it seemed impossible to remain healthy both physically and morally. The sickness of this world, manifesting itself outwardly, paints both the walls of houses and the faces of people in an unhealthy, irritating yellow color: yellow, shabby wallpaper in the rooms of Raskolnikov, Sonya, Alena Ivanovna; the woman who threw herself into the ditch has a “yellow, elongated, worn-out face”; before the death of Katerina Ivanovna, “her pale yellow, withered face fell backward.”

The world of the novel “Crime and Punishment” is a world of constant tragedies that have already become everyday and familiar. There is not a single death in the novel that could be called natural: the wheels of the master’s carriage crushed Marmeladov, Katerina Ivanovna burned from consumption, an unknown woman tried to commit suicide by throwing herself into a ditch, Raskolnikov’s ax crushed two lives. All this is perceived by others as something everyday, familiar, and even providing a reason for some kind of entertainment. Curiosity, offensive, cynical, soulless, reveals how lonely a person is in the world of such St. Petersburg. In cramped apartments, in a street crowd, a person finds himself alone with himself and with this cruel city. This peculiar “duel” between man and city almost always ends tragically for Dostoevsky’s heroes.

Traditionally, literature has developed a view of St. Petersburg as a city that combines the real and the fantastic, the concrete and the symbolic. In Dostoevsky's novel, St. Petersburg becomes a monster city that devours its inhabitants, a fatal city that deprives people of all hope. Dark, insane forces take possession of the human soul in this city. Sometimes it seems that the very air “infected by the city” gives birth to half-real, half-fantastic phenomena - that tradesman, for example, who seemed to rise out of the ground and shouted to Raskolnikov: “Murderer!” Dreams in this city become a continuation of reality and are indistinguishable from it, like, for example, Raskolnikov’s dreams about a slaughtered horse or a laughing old woman. The very idea of ​​the main character of Dostoevsky's novel appears as a phantom, born of the entire painful atmosphere of St. Petersburg; the city, having transgressed the laws of humanity, becomes an accomplice in the crime.

A person is not a “rag”, not a “louse”, not a “trembling creature”, however, in the Petersburg as Dostoevsky portrays it - a world of injustice and self-affirmation at the expense of people’s destinies and lives - a person often turns out to be turned into a “rag”. Dostoevsky's novel amazes with its brutal truth in its depiction of “humiliated and insulted” people driven to despair. All the misfortunes and humiliations that an unfairly structured world brings to a person are combined in the history of the Marmeladov family. This poor drunken official who tells his story to Raskolnikov, it turns out, thinks in the eternal categories of justice, compassion, and forgiveness: “After all, it is necessary that every person should have at least one place where he would be pitied!” Marmeladov is not only pitiful, but also tragic: he no longer has hope for the arrangement of his earthly life, his only hope is in the heavenly Judge, who will turn out to be more merciful than those on earth: “And the one who took pity on us and who understood everyone and everything, he alone, he is the judge.” The author’s ardent interest in man, his compassion for the “humiliated and insulted” is the basis of Dostoevsky’s humanism. Not to judge, but to forgive and understand a person - this is Dostoevsky’s moral ideal.

Raskolnikov

Raskolnikov's personality. The main character of the novel “Crime and Punishment” becomes an extremely contradictory, bright, strong personality, according to Razumikhin, in Raskolnikov “two people take turns”, it is no coincidence that the hero’s surname comes from the word “schism”; in the very outward appearance of Dostoevsky’s hero, a prince and a pauper are combined.

Raskolnikov is not allowed to pass by the suffering of others; the pain and torment of people is completely unbearable for him. The first impulse of Raskolnikov’s nature is always an impulse of goodness: for the first time he saw a deceived girl on the boulevard - without hesitation, without calculation, he does everything to save her (“Raskolnikov rushed at the gentleman, not even calculating that the stout gentleman could cope with two people like him"), gives the last money to the Marmeladov family; from Razumikhin’s story at the trial, we learn that Raskolnikov saved the children from the fire.

However, the “split” between the first impulse of compassion and the cold voice of reason pushes Dostoevsky’s hero to mutually exclusive actions. “When leaving, Raskolnikov managed to put his hand into his pocket, grabbed as much copper money as he could and inconspicuously put it on the window. Then, already on the stairs, he came to his senses and wanted to turn back. “Well, what kind of nonsense have I done,” as if something had stung Raskolnikov; in an instant it was as if he had been turned over”; “Listen,” he shouted after the mustache. - Leave it! What do you want? Give it up! Let him have fun (he pointed to the dandy). What do you want?"; “Why did I get involved in helping here? Well, should I help? Let them swallow each other alive – what do I care?”

The reasons for Raskolnikov's crime. One of the reasons for Raskolnikov’s crime is the injustice of the world, in which the innocent suffer, and those like Luzhin and Svidrigailov are happy. “I suddenly imagined how it was that not a single person had dared, passing by all this absurdity, to simply take everything by the tail and shake it off!.. I got angry and didn’t want to.” “He got angry,” “shake it off,” “he didn’t want to” - these words reveal in Raskolnikov the full extent of his hatred for this world.

Another reason is to test oneself for the ability to realize an idea, which, according to Raskolnikov, can transform human life.

Raskolnikov's theory. Raskolnikov’s theory, as well as his personality itself, combines mutually exclusive principles: the desire to give people happiness and the conviction that this is possible through violence. All people, according to Dostoevsky’s hero, are divided into lower and higher, ordinary, capable of increasing humanity only numerically, and extraordinary, giving new ideas, insights, capable of moving humanity a step forward towards happiness, towards the “New Jerusalem”. Extraordinary, “rightful” “geniuses” can realize this highest mission only by transgressing all previous human laws, including the most ancient one - “thou shalt not kill.” All the greats in this sense were criminals for whom there were no barriers to the embodiment of their ideas, they were capable of shedding the blood of thousands in the name of the happiness of millions, they had the right to allow themselves “blood according to their conscience,” that is, not to suffer from blood shed in the name of good most of the blood of those deemed unworthy to live. For the great, according to Raskolnikov, “everything is permitted.”

Raskolnikov reveals his idea twice in the novel: to Porfiry Petrovich, who mentioned Raskolnikov’s article “On Crime,” and to Sonya. In a conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, Raskolnikov highlights in his theory the right of the great to “transcend” and permissiveness in the name of fulfilling the highest mission of giving happiness to humanity. Raskolnikov needs Sonya as an ally in the struggle to achieve the highest goal of gaining the right to resolve issues of life and death, because, according to Dostoevsky’s hero, Sonya also “overstepped” - true, over her life, but before the highest court this is the same as overstepping through the life of another: “Didn’t you do the same? You also stepped over, so we must walk together, along the same road!”

Like many heroes of Russian literature, Raskolnikov also answers the question “what to do?”: “What to do? Break what you need, once for all, and that’s all: and take the suffering upon yourself!.. Freedom and power, and most importantly power! That’s the goal!” Thus, Raskolnikov convinces Sonya that the world is terrible, and therefore something needs to be done immediately, taking upon himself all the power and all the suffering (and therefore all responsibility), to autocratically decide who lives, who dies, what happiness is for everyone. You cannot wait for the world to change; you must dare to break its laws yourself and establish new ones.

It is Raskolnikov’s theory and the double murder committed in order to test it that becomes his transgression over man and God, who gave the ancient law “Thou shalt not kill.” By killing, Raskolnikov tests both his theory and himself to determine whether he belongs to a higher or lower class. A letter from his mother, the news of his sister Dunya’s forced consent to marry Luzhin, his own poverty and humiliation accelerate the decision that has ripened in the hero’s mind.

The moral torment of Raskolnikov. The scene of Raskolnikov’s murder of the old pawnbroker and Lizaveta is shown by Dostoevsky with harsh naturalism for a reason: the crime is unnatural to human nature itself. According to Dostoevsky, human life, whatever it may be, is priceless, and no one has the right to step over a person, since life is given to him by God. A crime against a person, according to Dostoevsky, turns out to be a crime against God himself. Raskolnikov steps over man, God, and finally, through himself, his nature, at the basis of which there has always been a heightened sense of justice and goodness.

Raskolnikov's theory is not accepted by the very nature of his personality, hence his discord with himself, his internal conflict, hence his “terrible torment of himself and others.” After committing a double murder, Raskolnikov finds himself in the abyss of mental chaos: fear, anger, momentary joy, despair, hope and hopelessness are simultaneously combined in him, causing exhaustion to the point of unconsciousness. He felt that, as if with scissors, he had cut himself off from people; even those closest and most beloved: his mother, his sister, caused rejection, as if Raskolnikov felt that he no longer had the right to love them and accept their love. Having crossed the line of good and evil, Raskolnikov found himself outside the world of people, and this feeling of loneliness and separation from people was “the most painful of all the sensations he had experienced so far.”

Having hit Lizaveta, he hit Sonya, all the “humiliated and insulted” whom he wanted to protect from the injustice of a ruthless world. His dream about the laughing old woman convinces that Raskolnikov only multiplied the evil of this world already overflowing with evil, and after this dream, Dostoevsky’s hero clearly understands that he has stepped over himself, over his human nature: “I didn’t kill the old woman - I killed myself.” .

Raskolnikov does not see the possibility of continuing his life; he loses faith in the future, in himself, in life itself. The loss of faith in theory is combined in Raskolnikov with a “caustic and rebellious doubt” about the need for repentance. Even at Sennaya, where Sonya sends Raskolnikov, he was unable to utter words of repentance, since they were not yet in his soul; even in hard labor, for a long time he felt pride and anger towards himself - who was unable to step over the blood. He experiences an insurmountable hatred for himself, calling himself a “low”, “insignificant” person, a “scoundrel”, however, not because he killed the old woman, this, as he calls her, “disgusting, malicious louse”, but because he could not stand it this murder, did not calmly step over the blood, as the Napoleons, the rulers, the “extraordinary” ones would have done. For a long time to come, the pangs of conscience will be combined in Raskolnikov’s soul with contempt for himself due to the fact that he turned out to be not Napoleon, however, according to Dostoevsky, it is precisely these incredible sufferings that reveal in Raskolnikov a person capable of resurrection.

The loss of self-confidence and self-hatred intensify when Raskolnikov sees that Sonya, his mother, his sister love him, that he himself has not lost the ability to love, but love, instead of joy, brings him only despair and suffering: “But why? They themselves love me so much if I’m not worth it! Oh, if I were alone and no one loved me and I myself would never love anyone! All this wouldn’t exist!” However, it is love, even bringing suffering, that saves Raskolnikov, helps him rise from the abyss of moral decline.

The path to spiritual resurrection. The gospel theme of suffering is embodied in the novel and becomes a reflection of the author's ideal of spiritual purification through suffering. A person’s punishment, like his salvation, is inherent in his nature, his soul - this is one of Dostoevsky’s main ideas. Good and evil are not outside a person, but within him, therefore only Raskolnikov himself had to find the strength to overcome the devil’s obsession.

The very nature of Dostoevsky’s hero rebels against the blood he shed: the incredible tension of the struggle with himself, fainting, unconsciousness, a painful feeling of loneliness - all this shows that Raskolnikov’s soul has not died, that a person is alive in him. Raskolnikov is exhausted under the yoke of his theory; it is no coincidence that Porfiry Petrovich tells him: “Now you only need air, air, air.”

Epiphany comes after a dream about a pestilence, which Raskolnikov had in hard labor: Dostoevsky’s hero sees what a catastrophe inevitably turns into the desire of some people to take “all power and all responsibility” for resolving the issue of life and death of others. The pictures of Raskolnikov’s dream are consonant with the Gospel lines about the End of the World - this was very important for Dostoevsky: The End of the World will come if people imagine themselves to be prophets, if they step over the eternal moral law “thou shalt not kill.”

Liberation from the idea became for Raskolnikov a resurrection for love and for God, because his crime severed ties not only with the world, people, but also with God; it was no coincidence that Raskolnikov himself asked Sonya for the Gospel after his recovery from the painful disease of permissiveness. In Dostoevsky’s drafts we read: “The last line of the novel. The ways in which God finds man are mysterious.” One of the climaxes in the novel is the scene of reading the legend of the resurrection of Lazarus. God exists, he lives in every person, it is important to believe in this, and then even a dead soul can be reborn, just as Lazarus was reborn - this is exactly what Sonya wanted to convince Raskolnikov.

Dostoevsky’s novel has an open ending, and this is also connected with the theme of spiritual resurrection: God and love come to Raskolnikov, a feeling of renewal and faith in the future, new horizons open up for Dostoevsky’s heroes, they are on the threshold of a new life, it is no coincidence that the gloom of St. Petersburg landscapes is replaced at the end the freshness and vastness of the Siberian expanses, spring clarity and warmth. “They were resurrected by love, the heart of one contained endless sources of life for the heart of the other... But here a new story begins, the story of the gradual renewal of man, the story of his gradual rebirth, gradual transition from one world to another, acquaintance with a new, hitherto completely unknown reality. This could be the theme of a new story - but our current story is over,” these are the last lines of Dostoevsky’s novel about a man who was able to rise from the abyss of moral decline.

No matter what abyss of moral decline a person finds himself in, he is capable of spiritually resurrecting for love and for God - so enormous was Dostoevsky’s faith in the moral powers of man. The theme of the resurrection of the soul is one of the central ones in the novel.

Raskolnikov's doubles

Having crossed the line separating good from evil, Raskolnikov became a “double” of those whom he despised, who were alien to him. In literary criticism, this image is called "black double" The idea of ​​permissiveness, embodied in different images, gives Raskolnikov’s “doubles” - the student, Luzhin, Svidrigailov, Mikolka from the dream about the little horse.

Doubles are a distorted, exaggerated “mirror” of Raskolnikov. The hero’s first double is a nameless student in a tavern with his idea of ​​expedient, useful murder of an old money-lender, whose money could save many people dying from poverty: “Kill her and take her money, so that with their help you can devote yourself later to serve all humanity and the common cause: do you think that one tiny crime will not be atone for with thousands of good deeds? For one life - thousands of lives in return - but it’s arithmetic!”

Luzhin is a man of the middle, of proportion, everything is calculated, everything is measured, even his feelings. His main idea is “love yourself first, first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest.” A man of the middle, Luzhin would never have formulated the final statement of the logical chain that comes from the idea of ​​“personal interest,” but the schismatics did: “But bring to the consequences what you preached, and it turns out that people can be slaughtered.”

If Luzhin is outraged by such an interpretation of his philosophy of life, then Svidrigailov does not hide the fact that life on the other side of moral laws has long become natural and the only possible for him. Svidrigailov has already lost the ability to distinguish between good and evil, he is also one of those who “overstepped.” He subordinated his entire life to the satisfaction of his instincts and base desires. There is no act that he would be horrified by, that he could call a crime. He tortures and brings to death the lackey and his wife, he rapes the child, he persecutes Dunya. Svidrigailov does not believe in Divine will and retribution.

However, Svidrigailov knows not only the “abyss of fall”, but also the “abyss of higher ideals” too. He is unselfish, not devoid of honor, capable of deeply loving, capable of condemning himself to the point of suicide. Svidrigailov saves Marmeladov’s family: he places the younger children in boarding schools, transfers money to Sonya, and claims that his late wife bequeathed the sum of three thousand to Dunya. Svidrigailov’s suicide has a deep reason: the man in him woke up, but he no longer had moral support for life.

However, Raskolnikov has not only “devilish” but also “divine” doubles - for example, Mikolka the dyer, who is ready to take upon himself suffering for an uncommitted crime in order to purify his soul and repent. To some extent, Sonya can also be called Raskolnikov’s “divine” double, whose fate combines transgression and compassion. However, the external similarity turns into a fundamental, deep difference between life’s ideas and truths. Raskolnikov is pride taken to the limit, Sonya is humility, compassion, meekness, self-sacrifice. Raskolnikov lives with his mind, Sonya lives with his heart, soul, feeling. Raskolnikov is a man of protest, even against God (“Maybe there is no God at all.” It is no coincidence that Sonya says: “You have departed from God, and God struck you down and betrayed you to the devil”), Sonya is of true, organic faith (“What How would I be without God?”). Sonya's faith is a deep, natural faith, it is a faith of the heart, for which no rational evidence is needed.

Sonya Marmeladova

Sonya Marmeladova becomes the embodiment of the author's ideal of compassion and love in the novel. The love and compassion of Sonya Marmeladova become both for the children of Katerina Ivanovna and for Raskolnikov the road to salvation; it is no coincidence that Dostoevsky emphasized “insatiable compassion” in his heroine as the leading quality of nature.

Life has undeservedly treated Sonya cruelly: she lost her mother early, her father becomes an alcoholic from the powerlessness to change his life, she is forced to live in shame and sin. But it’s surprising: these sins and shame don’t seem to concern her, they are unable to denigrate or belittle her. We first meet Sonya on the pages of the novel, when Raskolnikov brings the crushed Marmeladov; in a tastelessly bright robe, decorated in a street style, a creature appears completely devoid of any traits of depravity. Describing the portrait of Sonya, Dostoevsky will more than once note her blue eyes, which are most accurately defined by the epithet “clear.” There is so much clarity in Sonya that everything she touches and everything that is near her becomes clear.

Sonya, without hesitation, steps over herself to help her closest and beloved people. Sonya carries her cross quietly, without complaining, she has no grudge against Katerina Ivanovna, she knows how to understand and forgive - and she does not need to make an effort on herself for this. Sonya does not lose faith in people; she knows how to see the good beginnings in a person. Sonya's faith is active good in relation to a specific person, and not to humanity as a whole.

Trying to prove to Sonya the correctness of his path, Raskolnikov says: “If suddenly all this was now left to your decision: to live this way or that way in the world, that is, should Luzhin live and do abominations, or should Katerina Ivanovna die? How would you decide: which of them should die?” For Sonya, there can be no such “arithmetic calculation”: who should live and who should die. “Why such empty questions? How can it happen that this depends on my decision? And who made me the judge here: who should live and who should not live?” For Sonya, the most important thing is clear: a person cannot and should not take upon himself the solution to an issue that only God has the right to decide.

Even in Marmeladov’s first story about Sonya, one is struck by the boundlessness of her compassion and non-judgment: “It’s not like this on earth, but there... they grieve for people, cry, but do not reproach, do not reproach.” “He doesn’t reproach,” this is precisely what determines Sonya’s attitude towards people, which is why in Raskolnikov she saw not a murderer, but an unhappy, tormented man: “There is no one more unhappy than you in the whole world! Why did you do this to yourself!” - these are Sonya’s first words after she learned about Raskolnikov’s crime. Sonya follows Raskolnikov without asking for anything, she is not even sure whether he loves her, and she does not need this confidence, it is enough that he needs her, needs her even when he pushes her away. Sonya sees with pain the depth of spiritual devastation he finds himself in. She felt that Raskolnikov was infinitely lonely, that he had lost faith in himself, in God, in life itself. “How can we live without a person?” - these words of Sonya contain special wisdom. “Together we will go to suffer, together we will bear the cross,” says Sonya, confident that only suffering and repentance can resurrect the soul.

Man is a mystery. It needs to be solved, and if you spend your whole life solving it, don’t say you wasted your time; I deal with this mystery because I want to be a man.

(Letters. XXVIII/I. P. 63)

Man is not made up of just one impulse, man is the whole world, if only the main impulse in him were noble.

(Diary of a writer. XXV. P. 170)

...It seems to me that we are such different people in appearance... for many reasons that we, perhaps, cannot have many points in common, but, you know, I myself don’t believe in this last idea, because very often it just seems like that there are no points in common, but they very much exist... it’s because of human laziness that people sort themselves out by eye and can’t find anything...

(Idiot. VIII. p. 24)

No one can be anything or achieve anything without first being himself.

(Notebook. XX. P. 176)

...The reasons for human actions are usually infinitely more complex and varied than we always explain later, and are rarely clearly outlined.

(Idiot. VIII. p. 402)

What's the difference between a demon and a human? Goethe's Mephistopheles says in response to Faust's question: “Who is he?” - “I am part of that part of the whole that wants evil, but does good.” Alas! A person could say the exact opposite about himself: “I am part of that part of the whole that eternally wants, thirsts, hungers for good, and as a result of its actions - only evil.”

(Notebook. XXIV. pp. 287–288)

Dostoevsky F. M. Golden Quotes: Collection / comp. D. A. Kuznetsov; Assist. comp. M. A. Kurchina. - M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2017. - 128 p.

That’s the horror, that here you can do the most dirty and vile thing, without sometimes being a scoundrel at all! This is not just with us, but all over the world, always and since the beginning of centuries, in times of transition, in times of upheavals in people’s lives, doubts and denials, skepticism and unsteadiness in basic social beliefs. But here this is possible more than anywhere else, and precisely in our time, and this feature is the most painful and sad feature of our present time. The ability to consider oneself, and even sometimes almost actually be, a non-scoundrel, doing obvious and undeniable abomination - that is our modern misfortune!

(Diary of a Writer. XXI. P. 131)

Everyone wants to appear noble. Do meanness with nobility.

(Notebook. XXIV. p. 98)

...In our age, a scoundrel who refutes a noble one is always stronger, because he has the appearance of dignity derived from common sense, while the noble one, resembling an idealist, has the appearance of a buffoon.

(Diary of a writer. XXV. P. 54)

...There are three kinds of scoundrels in the world: naive scoundrels, that is, convinced that their meanness is the greatest nobility, scoundrels who are ashamed of their own meanness with the inevitable intention of finishing it, and, finally, simply scoundrels, purebred scoundrels.

(Teenager. XIII. p. 49)

There are things in the memories of every person that he reveals not to everyone, but perhaps only to his friends. There are also those that he will not reveal to his friends, except to himself, and even then in secret. But, finally, there are those that a person is afraid to reveal even to himself, and every decent person will accumulate quite a few such things.

(Notes from the Underground. V. P. 122)

The qualities of an executioner are in embryo in almost every modern person.

(Notes from the Dead House. IV. p. 155)

In every person, of course, there lurks a beast - a beast of anger, a beast of voluptuous inflammation from the cries of a tortured victim, a beast without restraint, unleashed from the chain, a beast of diseases acquired through debauchery, gout, diseased livers, and so on.

(The Brothers Karamazov. XIV. p. 220)

In fact, people sometimes speak about the “brutal” cruelty of man, but this is terribly unfair and offensive to animals: an animal can never be as cruel as a person, so artistically, so artistically cruel.

(The Brothers Karamazov. XIV. p. 217)

With an impossible person, relationships sometimes take on an impossible character, and sometimes impossible phrases come out.

(Diary of a writer. XXIII. p. 17)

For a limited “ordinary” person, for example, there is nothing easier than imagining himself as an extraordinary and original person and enjoying this without any hesitation.

(Idiot. VIII. p. 384)

There are strange friendships: both friends almost want to eat each other, they live like this all their lives, and yet they cannot part. It’s even impossible to separate: a friend who becomes capricious and breaks the connection will be the first to get sick and, perhaps, die if this happens.

(Demons. X. P. 12)

There are characters who really like to consider themselves offended and oppressed, complain about it out loud, or console themselves in secret, worshiping their unrecognized greatness.

(Netochka Nezvanova. II. p. 157)

Man is a creature that gets used to everything, and I think this is the best definition of him.

(Notes from the Dead House. IV. p. 10)

Honest people always have more enemies than dishonest ones.

(Notebook. XXIV. p. 230)

I learned that not only is it impossible to live as a scoundrel, but it is also impossible to die as a scoundrel... No, gentlemen, you must die honestly!..

(The Brothers Karamazov. XIV. p. 445)

There is nothing in the world more difficult than straightforwardness, and nothing easier than flattery. If in straightforwardness only one hundredth of a note is false, then immediately dissonance occurs, followed by a scandal.

(Crime and Punishment. VI. P. 366)

Everyone acts according to his conscience, but a decent person acts according to his conscience and calculates.

(Letters. XXVIII. p. 228)

…There should always be a standard of decency that we must respect, even if we don’t want to be decent.

(Notebook. XXIV. p. 85)

...Whoever is so easily inclined to lose respect for others, first of all, does not respect himself.

(Diary of a writer. XXV. P. 16)

...If you want to examine a person and know his soul, then delve not into how he is silent, or how he speaks, or how he cries, or even how he is excited by the noblest ideas, but look better at him when he laughs. A person laughs well means he is a good person. With laughter, some people completely give themselves away, and you suddenly find out all their ins and outs. Even undeniably intelligent laughter can sometimes be disgusting. Laughter requires, first of all, sincerity, and where is the sincerity in people? Laughter requires good-naturedness, and people most often laugh evilly. Sincere and good-natured laughter is gaiety, but where is gaiety in people in our age, and do people know how to have fun?<…>The cheerfulness of a person is the most outstanding feature of a person, with legs and arms. It takes a long time to figure out a different character, but the person will laugh very sincerely, and his whole character will suddenly appear in full view. Only with the highest and happiest development can a person know how to have fun sociably, that is, irresistibly and good-naturedly.

(Teenager. XIII. p. 285)

A coward is one who is afraid and runs; and whoever is afraid and does not run is not a coward.

(Idiot. VIII. p. 293)

Without the sacred and precious, carried away into life from childhood memories, a person cannot live. Others, apparently, don’t even think about it, but still unconsciously retain these memories. These memories may even be difficult and bitter, but the suffering experienced can later turn into a shrine for the soul.

(Diary of a writer. XXV. pp. 172–173)

I'll tell you what a rod is. The rod in the family is a product of parental laziness, the inevitable result of this laziness. Everything that could be done through labor and love, tireless work on children and with children, everything that could be achieved through reason, explanation, suggestion, patience, education and example - all of this is what weak, lazy, but impatient fathers most often believe to reach with a rod: “I will not explain, but I will command, I will not suggest, but I will force.” What is the result? A cunning, secretive child will certainly submit and deceive you, and your rod will not correct him, but will only corrupt him. You will kill a child who is weak, cowardly and tender-hearted. Finally, a kind, simple-minded child with a direct and open heart - you will first torment him, and then harden him and lose his heart.

(Diary of a writer. XXV. P. 190)

You can tell a child everything - everything; I was always amazed by the thought of how little big children, fathers and mothers even know their own children. There is no need to hide anything from children under the pretext that they are small and that it is too early for them to know. What a sad and unhappy thought! And how well the children themselves notice that their fathers consider them too small and not understanding anything, while they understand everything. Big people don’t know that a child, even in the most difficult matter, can give extremely important advice. Oh my God! when this pretty bird looks at you, trustingly and happily, you are ashamed to deceive her! I call them birds because there is nothing better in the world than a bird.<…>The soul is healed through children...

(Idiot. VIII. p. 58)

...I solemnly declare that the spirit of life still blows and the living force has not dried up in the younger generation. The enthusiasm of modern youth is as pure and bright as that of our times. Only one thing happened: the movement of goals, the replacement of one beauty with another! All the confusion is about what is more beautiful: Shakespeare or boots, Raphael or petroleum?<…>And I declare that Shakespeare and Raphael are above the liberation of the peasants, above the nationality, above socialism, above the young generation, above chemistry, above almost all of humanity, for they are already a fruit, a real fruit of all humanity and, perhaps, the highest fruit ever May be! The form of beauty has already been achieved, without achieving which I may not even agree to live... Oh God!

(Demons. X. S. 372–373)

The human race does not accept its prophets and beats them, but people love their martyrs and honor those whom they tortured.

(The Brothers Karamazov. XIV. p. 292)

Curious what people fear most? They are most afraid of a new step, a new word of their own...

(Crime and Punishment. VI. P. 6)

...Life is an entire art, living means making a work of art out of yourself...

(Petersburg Chronicle. XVIII. p. 13)

E. N. Kholondovich (Moscow)

IN At the present time, when the problems of national identity and national policy are actively discussed, the question arises of how the original Russian character traits differ, to what extent does the psychology of modern Russians correspond to those mental characteristics that have been formed over many centuries and have been inherent in the Russian person from time immemorial? And hasn’t a new generation emerged in recent decades, embodying a certain new psychotype?

To answer the questions posed, it is necessary, first of all, to try to understand what the main features of the “national Russian character” are, to highlight the peculiarities of thinking and the emotional and sensory sphere of the Russian person, the specifics of his attitude to different aspects of reality.

Historian N.I. Kostomarov argued that “literature is the soul of the people’s life, it is the self-awareness of the people. Without literature, the latter is only a passive phenomenon, and therefore the richer, the more satisfactory a people’s literature is, the stronger its nationality, the more guarantees that it will more stubbornly protect itself against the hostile circumstances of historical life, the more the very essence of nationality is more tangible, clearer” (Kostormarov , 1903, p. 34). In this regard, one should turn to the work of F. M. Dostoevsky, who, according to I. L. Volgin, is “one of the deepest Orthodox thinkers who embodied the Orthodox idea in the real artistic context of his novels. Of course, this is a preacher who sees the abyss of the human spirit and has a prophetic gift. It is difficult to name another artist who has been so relevant for such a long time. Not just classic, “museum-worthy,” “cultural-historical,” but actually relevant - in an existential sense. With the advent of the 21st centuryhow his work not only does not become outdated, but is also filled with new meaning” (Volgin, 2005, p. 43). F. M. Dostoevsky, like no other Russian writer and publicist, was an exponent of the Russian national idea. Unlike most writers of the 19th century, he knew the Russian people first-hand, directly communicating with him, observing and studying him during his four-year stay in hard labor. The writer’s works provide accurate descriptions of the way of life and psychology of Russian people.

In 2010, we conducted a historical and psychological study of the life path and creativity of F. M. Dostoevsky with the aim of reconstructing the psychological characteristics of his personality. The tasks of identifying the main determinants of Dostoevsky’s personal and professional formation and development, revealing the stages of creativity and identifying the psychological characteristics reflected in the writer’s works were solved. The stages of creativity identified during the study reflected the main themes of his works. These are the characteristics of the “little man”, the danger of entering the path of unbelief and, finally, the idea that only God allows a person to remain human. These three themes express the main ideas that dominated the minds of the Russian intelligentsia of the 19th century.

In the works of Russian writers, religious philosophers and historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. religiosity stands out as the basis, the system-forming core that determines the character, way of thinking and behavior of the Russian person. Solidarizing with this opinion, F. M. Dostoevsky goes further, showing that the religiosity of the Russian people is based not on knowledge of church canons, but on a certain internal need for goodness and light, immanently embedded in the Russian soul and finding spiritual reinforcement in Orthodoxy.

The fundamental spiritual need of the Russian people is the need for suffering. According to F. M. Dostoevsky, it not only runs like a red thread throughout Russian history, but is also widely represented in folklore.

The Russian person is characterized by an ineradicable thirst for truth and justice - at any cost, even by making sacrifices in its name. The image of the best person, stored in the depths of the Russian consciousness, is “the one who will not bow to material temptation, the one who seeks tireless work for the cause of God and loves the truth and, when necessary, stands up to serve it, leaving home and family and sacrificing his life "(Dostoevsky, 2004, p. 484).

Russians are capable of great feats, manifestations of selflessness and fortitude. If necessary, in exceptional cases, they know how to unite. And it was precisely these qualities that were demonstrated by the Russian people during the War of 1812 and in other years of difficult trials. F. M. Dostoevsky pointed out this, believing that the moral strength of a people is revealed in the highest manifestations of the spirit in the most critical periods of its history. The desire for self-preservation and self-improvement gives the Russian people the strength to overcome the most difficult times in the history of their country.

At the same time, Dostoevsky notes the gentleness of Russians. “Russian people do not know how to hate for a long time and seriously, and not only people, but even vices, the darkness of ignorance, despotism, obscurantism, and all these other retrograde things” (ibid., p. 204). This quality explains the rapid oblivion by the Russian people of their tyrants and their idealization.

The Russian soul is characterized by innocence and honesty, sincerity and a broad “all-open” mind, meekness, sympathy for the weak and oppressed, mercy, forgiveness and open-mindedness.

Dostoevsky also highlights such qualities of the Russian person as receptivity to the culture of other peoples, acceptance and “apology” of other ideals, tolerance for foreign customs, morals, and faith. Religious tolerance as the primordial quality of the Russian nation is expressed in the very spirit of Russian statehood as a multinational state, incorporating various religious confessions. But at the same time, Orthodoxy has always been the main dominant in the consciousness of Russian people. On its basis, ideal images of the Russian people were formed - Sergei of Radonezh, Tikhon of Zadonsk and other ascetics and zealots of the faith. In accordance with these ideals, it is necessary, according to Dostoevsky, to approach the Russian person: “Judge our people not by what they are, but by what they would like to become” (ibid., p. 208).

Being an objective researcher of his people, striving to reveal all facets of their national character, Dostoevsky could not help but touch upon the “dark sides” of the Russian soul. In this regard, he highlights frequent manifestations of cruelty, a tendency to sadism, oblivion of any measure, impetuosity in both bad and good, self-denial and self-destruction. “Whether it’s love, wine, revelry, pride, envy - here some Russian people give themselves up almost selflessly, ready to break everything, renounce everything: family, custom, God. Another kind person can somehow suddenly become a negative ugly person and a criminal” (ibid., p. 153). Dostoevsky's journalistic articles provide examples of the monstrous cruelty to which a Russian person can reach - both a simple man and a representative of the educated layer of society.

Discussing the criminal trials of his time with readers, Dostoevsky categorically spoke out against the justification of crimes. He pointed to unconscious ideas, both individual and collective, that were “hidden” deep in the soul of a people. One of them is the idea of ​​empathy, compassion for criminals. The Russian people always called them unhappy. But if he were in their place, perhaps he would have committed an even more serious crime. According to the opinion of the Russian people, the criminal is worthy of compassion, but not justification, since his “environment has eaten him up.” The criminal is guilty before the law and must bear the deserved punishment. Justification of a crime leads to the emergence of a feeling of permissiveness, instills in the soul of a Russian person “cynicism, lack of faith in the people’s truth, in the truth of God” (ibid., p. 34). Faith in the law and in people's truth is thus shaken.

Dostoevsky also pointed out the Russians' penchant for drunkenness and the worship of gold and warned against cultivating these qualities as dangerous to the individual. Seeing examples of depravity and impunity, the Russian people take this as an invitation to action.

Foul language is very common among people. But if in a secular, educated society it is considered a kind of “highlight”, then a simple person is more chaste in this regard; he uses bad words out of habit, mechanically.

The tendency to lie is also noted by Dostoevsky as a Russian trait, although it is more often associated with the need to embellish life rather than deceive the interlocutor. A Russian person can get so carried away that he himself believes in his own lies.

Protest, denial and rebellion are interpreted by Dostoevsky as the flip side of Russian long-suffering. If you have already “fallen”, then go even lower, “like flying from a mountain.” It’s difficult, impossible, and I don’t even want to stop. This expresses the immensity of the Russian soul, its extreme polarity.

Russians are able to get along with anything; they lack that sense of proportion that is characteristic of a European person: “... no, a man is broad, too wide, I would narrow it down... What seems shameful to the mind, is entirely beauty to the heart... The terrible thing is that beauty is not only terrible, but also mysterious thing. Here the devil fights with God, and the battlefield is the hearts of people,” says one of the heroes of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” (Dostoevsky, 1970, p. 100). Dostoevsky noted this lack of sense of proportion in his character.

By endowing the heroes of his works with such characteristics as excessive passion and emotionality, polarity and ambivalence of feelings, experiences, aspirations, the writer thereby not only revealed the weaknesses of the people’s character, but also struggled with these manifestations in himself: “This trait is characteristic of human nature in general. A person can, of course, double up for a century and, of course, will suffer at the same time... One must find an outcome in oneself in some activity that can give food to the spirit, quench its thirst... I always have a ready-made writing activity, which I indulge in with passion, into which I invest all my sufferings, all my joys and hopes, and give this activity an outcome” (quoted from: Expedition to Genius, 1999, p. 407). Dostoevsky's work is a constant reworking of the writer's thoughts and feelings, of everything that consciously and unconsciously controlled his soul. All his heroes - both positive and negative - are various incarnations of his personality. His work is a continuous internal dialogue with himself in different faces, a constant analysis of his actions and thoughts. Exploring the personality of the character he created, his actions and actions in different life circumstances, Dostoevsky, as it were, put himself in his place, compared him with himself and thus worked through his complexes and passions. Analyzing himself, reflecting, accumulating events and faces in his memory, connecting them, transforming them, discarding the unimportant and leaving the important, he created his heroes. It was creativity that did not allow him to “go beyond the line” and maintain a sense of proportion.

In the works of Dostoevsky, the special emotionality of the Russian soul is very accurately noted. It is precisely this that is characteristic of the positive heroes of the writer - Prince Myshkin, Alyosha Karamazov. They live not with their minds, but with their “hearts”. The rational principle dominates among the heroes who commit a crime - Rodion Raskolnikov, Ivan Karamazov, Nikolai Stavrogin.

A wide palette of Russian characters is presented in the novel The Brothers Karamazov. They are so vividly described and believable that V. Chizh and K. Leongard take them as the basis for their personality typologies. This is Dmitry Karamazov - a broad-minded man, capable of drunkenness, debauchery, petty meanness, but not crime. He appears from the first pages of the novel as a chaotic, superficial personality. Dmitry does not build his life himself: life circumstances decide for him what and how he will do. His thirst for activity, increased verbal activity, and the flow of ideas alternate with depression, slowness of reactions and thinking. Emotional reactions replace one another with such speed that people around them watch their manifestations in bewilderment. His energy is high, but at the same time, his criticality towards the goal and especially towards the means of its implementation is insignificant. At the same time, this is a naive, romantic person, who believes in some unexpected and wonderful resolution to all difficulties, has his own code of honor, is able to see beauty, to be surprised at what is familiar and ordinary to others. Despite all his vices, he retains sincerity and simplicity.

Ivan Karamazov is a proud man, easily vulnerable, purposeful, capable of setting difficult goals for himself and realizing them. Awareness of the meaning of good and evil, their closeness and contradiction, love for children and suffering for them are combined in his soul with self-centeredness and cruelty. At the same time, this is not exactly an “idea man”; he is capable of loving and hating, being enthusiastic and spontaneous in his impulses. Ivan is a man of strong passions, which he constantly suppresses. But in critical situations, these feelings, as he himself characterizes them, “the power of Karamazov’s baseness,” break through, and he is ready to do anything to achieve his goal. Smerdyakov discerns in Ivan the negative sides of his nature: excessive pride, voluptuousness, contempt for man, the desire to be above everyone and decide the destinies of his own kind. All these qualities, perhaps not fully realized by Ivan, arose against the background of a complex of insufficiency, fueled by loneliness and a tendency to think, add up to a certain idea that gradually subjugated the person.

Alyosha Karamazov is the standard of morality for each of the heroes and for the author himself. His image embodies the ideal of truthfulness and sincerity - qualities deeply valued by the Russian people. Dostoevsky shows Alyosha’s deep compassion, responsiveness, and high empathy. For him, relationships with people, understanding them and trusting them are of particular importance. Alyosha may even be overly trusting, but this does not prevent him from understanding a person and penetrating into the innermost depths of his “I”. He sees not the bad in people, but the best, projecting the purity of his soul onto them. Alyosha is characterized by a readiness for true Christian forgiveness, a loving attitude towards people, a lack of self-superiority, modesty, tact and delicacy. He is characterized by deep introspection of his strengths and weaknesses, which is, without a doubt, a stimulus for development. The character has fairly stable values ​​and ethical ideas. But despite all the realism in his character, there is a certain mysticism characteristic of Russian people in general.

Smerdyakov is limited in his ideas, despises everything Russian, is subject to influence and is capable of anything. As a child, he was cruel, touchy and vindictive, had little interest in anything, looked for some special “truth” in life, did not love anyone, and showed elements of sadism in his behavior. With growing up, all these qualities were not leveled off, but, on the contrary, developed and strengthened, acquiring a modified form. He takes external signs of reality as the most significant. In his thoughtfulness, the author sees an internal readiness to surrender to any idea, believing in which, he will become its slave and thoughtless executor. The idea of ​​the absence of God and, therefore, immortality, the resulting conclusion about permissiveness turned out to be so close to him that Smerdyakov’s next step is murder. Having committed it, he is surprised to realize that no one gave him “permission to kill.” This discovery becomes a disaster for Smerdyakov. Life loses its meaning for him. Despite all the negativity of this image, it reflects the qualities of Russian boys, so brilliantly shown by Dostoevsky - their idealism and all-consuming faith. If he believes in something, he goes to the end both in faith and in disappointment.

One of Dostoevsky’s favorite images, which is present in his novels throughout his entire work, is the image of the “little man.” Love for the “little man”, offended by life due to personal qualities or life circumstances, is expressed by Dostoevsky very poignantly. His Marmeladov, Snegirev and all those countless “offended and insulted”, filled with suffering, are also Russian characters who are found everywhere today, quenching their grief in wine, “when there is nowhere else to go.” Falling from grief into drunkenness, “showing off”, brawling, the characters depicted by Dostoevsky at the same time, having reached the very limits of “ugliness”, realize and deeply experience the baseness of their behavior. They are dissatisfied with themselves, but precisely because of this they take even more revenge on others, while suffering and reveling in their fall.

The characters described by Dostoevsky are not only typically Russian, but also universal. N.A. Berdyaev wrote that Dostoevsky is an exponent of what is truly Russian and at the same time universal.

The writer creates another negative figure in his works - a Russian intellectual, chattering and playing at liberalism. It is characterized by a lack of sense of proportion, extraordinary conceit and vanity, on the one hand, and disrespect for oneself, “deep and hidden,” on the other (Dostoevsky, 2004, p. 369). The writer’s insight into the essence of the Russian intelligentsia and understanding of the tragedy of its fate were vividly reflected in the novels “Demons,” “Crime and Punishment,” and “The Brothers Karamazov.” According to S. N. Bulgakov, Dostoevsky, like no one else, revealed and “predicted” in these novels, in the idea of ​​“everything is permitted,” the human-divine nature of Russian intelligentsia heroism, its inherent “self-deification,” putting oneself in the place of God, instead of providence - and not only in goals and plans, but also in ways and means of implementation. Carrying out their idea, fighting for a bright future, these people freed themselves from the bonds of ordinary morality, gave themselves the right not only to property, but also to the life and death of other people, and did not spare themselves if it was necessary to achieve their goal. . The reverse side of the atheism of the Russian intelligentsia is self-deification, extreme individualism and narcissism. The desire to make humanity happy and to “civilize” one’s people actually leads to contempt for them. And, as you know, forced happiness, “forced” good results in evil and coercion, which has been confirmed by our entire history. “Self-deification” leads to unprincipledness and permissiveness under the guise of humanistic ideas.

Dostoevsky understood well that idealism is a trait not only of the Russian intellectual, but of the entire Russian people as a whole. If he believed in something, it was immediately without any conditions, and this faith determines everything; with her he is ready for both heroism and crime. Based on ideological convictions, the Russian person is “capable of monstrous villainy” (ibid., p. 160). The theories and ideas of the West in Russia are taken for granted as an exact axiom.

Russian people have always been characterized by a protest “against the evil, misfortunes and suffering of life.” But out of pity, “the inability to endure human suffering,” he becomes an atheist, a person who violates the laws of morality. This atheism, according to N.A. Berdyaev, is based on “a sense of humanity brought to exaltation” (Berdyaev, 2006, p. 274). Thus, there is a slide from extreme philanthropy to a terrible dictatorship. By this logic, the images of Ivanov Karamazov, Raskolnikov, Stavrogin and Verkhovensky can be considered prototypes of future Russian revolutionaries and terrorists.

Idealism and love for humanity are inherent in all Russian literature of the 19th century; F. M. Dostoevsky is no exception in this regard. He saw the great destiny of the Russian people, which is to “embrace the idea of ​​all-human unity, brotherly love, a sober look that forgives the hostile, distinguishes and excuses the dissimilar, and removes contradictions. This is not an economic trait or any other, it is only a moral trait” (Dostoevsky, 2004a, p. 39).

F. M. Dostoevsky insisted that a Russian person needs ideals to improve himself; he needs to strive for the best. And responding to those figures who preached the value of material wealth while ignoring ideals, he wrote in the “Diary of a Writer”: “Without ideals, that is, without definite desires for at least some better, no good reality can ever arise. One can even say positively that there will be nothing but even more abomination” (Dostoevsky, 2004, p. 243).

F. M. Dostoevsky reaches the heights of creativity precisely when his values ​​finally crystallize. And the highest value for him was Man, Faith and Suffering.

Such qualities of the Russian soul as compassion, mercy, the desire for goodness and truth are most in demand in our time. Their lack in modern Russian society has led to the cultivation of opposite qualities - cruelty, aggressiveness, irresponsibility, individualism and selfishness. Naturally, in modern society a lot is changing very rapidly. But there are, undoubtedly, certain foundations and fundamental features in the structure of the mentality that are difficult to change and “correct”; they need to be identified and taken into account when solving practical problems of transforming social life.

Literature

• Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism // Spiritual foundations of the Russian revolution. M., 2006. pp. 234-445.
• Bulgakov S.N. Heroism and asceticism. M., 1992.
• Volgin I. L. Culture must be imposed, like potatoes under Catherine (interview) // Grapes: Orthodox Pedagogical Journal. 2005. No. 2 (11). pp. 42-47.
• Dostoevsky F.M. Brothers Karamazov // F.M. Dostoevsky. Collection Op. In 17 vol. L., 1970. S. 14-15.
• Dostoevsky F.M. Writer's Diary. M., 2004. T. 1.
• Dostoevsky F.M. Writer's Diary. M., 2004a. T. 2.
• Kolupaev G. P., Klyuzhev V. M., Lakosina N.D., Zhuravlev G.P.An expedition into genius. M., 1999.
• Koltsova V. A. A systematic approach to the development of the history of Russian psychological science // Psychological Journal. 2002. No. 2. pp. 6-18.
• Koltsova V. A. Deficit of spirituality and morality in modern Russian society // Psychological Journal. 2009. No. 4. pp. 92-94.
• Koltsova V. A., Medvedev A. M.On the study of the history of psychology in the cultural system // Psychological Journal. 1992. No. 5. pp. 3-11.
• Koltsova V. A., Kholondovich E. N.Genius: a psychological and historical study // Psychological Journal. 2012. T. 33. No. 1. P. 101-118.
• Koltsova V. A., Kholondovich E.N. The embodiment of spirituality in the personality and work of F. M. Dostoevsky. M., 2013.
• Kostomarov N. I. Two Russian nationalities // N. I. Kostomarov. Collection cit.: In 21 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1903. T. 1. P. 33-65.
• Leonhard K. Accented personalities. Kyiv, 1981.
• Chizh V. F. Dostoevsky as a psychopathologist and criminologist // Chizh V. F. Illness of N. V. Gogol: notes of a psychiatrist. M., 2001. pp. 287-419.

Ideal, perfect- a concept expressing the idea of ​​​​the highest perfection.

Dostoevsky highly valued the humanistic ideals developed throughout the history of mankind, but the highest spiritual ideal for him was Christ and the Christian faith. Back in 1854, the writer formulated his “symbol of faith”: “...to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, deeper, more sympathetic, more intelligent, more courageous and more perfect than Christ, and not only is there not, but I tell myself with jealous love that there is no maybe" (28 1; 176). Dostoevsky believed that the nature of Christ was divine-human. The appearance of Christ is a theophany that opened the path to salvation and eternal life for humanity.

At the same time, in Christ, human nature discovered its divine capabilities and the law of development towards the ideal: “After the appearance of Christ, how the ideal of man in the flesh it became clear as day that the highest, final development of the human personality must reach precisely that<...>so that a person finds, realizes and with all the strength of his nature is convinced that the highest use that a person can make of his personality, from the fullness of his development I- it's like destroying it I, give it entirely to everyone, completely and wholeheartedly. And this is the greatest happiness" (20; 172 - Dostoevsky's italics. - Note ed.). As the exponent of this law and as the guarantee of the immortality of the human soul (the main value on which all human morality is based), Christ is the embodiment of not only Good and, but also Truth.

Dostoevsky was also aware of the existence of other truths that were outside of Christ and Christianity - truths obtained by analysis (science) and real earthly experience. These truths affirmed both the inevitability of human death and the inevitability of the “law of personality on earth,” which impedes Christian love for one’s neighbor. Dostoevsky was acutely aware of the discord between the truth comprehended by analysis and the truth revealed in faith. Hence the problem he posed: what to do if “someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth, and really it would be that the truth is outside of Christ...” (28 1; 176 - Dostoevsky’s italics. - Note ed.). The writer’s conclusion: “...I would rather remain with Christ than with the truth” (ibid.) - some researchers interpret it as an unconditional rejection of analytical truth for the sake of faith; others as evidence that “Dostoevsky’s faith is affirmed as a search and finding of the principle of connection, the pairing of Christ and truth, ideal and reality” ( Tikhomirov B.N. On Dostoevsky’s “Christology” // P. 104).

Failure by a person to fulfill the “law of striving for the ideal”, i.e. refusal to sacrifice for the sake of selfish goals makes a person suffer, realizing his “sin.” The collision in the soul of the ideal need for sacrifice and the law of “I” leads a person to orientation towards directly opposite ideals - the ideal of Madonna and the “ideal” of sodom. A person in whose heart “the devil fights with God” is every hour in a situation of moral choice of an ideal.

However, not only the individual, but also the nation as a whole, and even all of humanity is faced with a choice. Every nation faces an alternative: to live guided by national egoism and pragmatism, or by universal human interests: “faith in the holiness of one’s ideals, faith in the power of one’s love and a thirst for serving humanity<...>is the guarantee of the highest life of nations, and only through this will they bring all the benefit to humanity that they are destined to bring...” (25; 19). Dostoevsky sees the spiritual and moral strength of the Russian nation in the people who have preserved the purity of the Christian ideal: “...We have faith in the idea, in the ideal, first of all, and personal, earthly goods only then” (22; 41). Dostoevsky views all human history as a continuous process of ascension to the ideal, to the social. Dostoevsky develops the idea of ​​the future of the ideal of social life, of the final state of humanity in the spirit of Christian eschatology.

Dostoevsky's aesthetic ideal is directly related to his religious and moral ideal. “By creating an image of beauty, the artist makes hints of a divine ideal that lies beyond human existence” ( Jackson R.L. Dostoevsky's quest for from: A study of his philosophy of art. New Haven - London, 1966. R. 57). The concept of “ideal” in Dostoevsky’s consciousness is combined with the idea of: “beauty is an ideal” (28 1; 251) and corresponds to the Christian ideal: “in the Gospel it is predicted... that people are calmed down not by the progress of the mind and necessity, but by the moral recognition of the highest beauty, which serves as an ideal for everyone...” (24; 259). , suggesting that art should contribute to the moral regeneration of humanity: “Aesthetics is the discovery of beautiful moments in the human soul by man himself for self-improvement” (21; 256) Thus, according to Dostoevsky, the highest beauty in art can be achieved where it is inspired. religious and moral ideal.

Arsentieva N.N., Shchennikov G.K.