And though Razumihin noticed him, he passed him by, as he did not want to annoy him.
Razumihin appears to be a sort of inverse of Rask. Goes with the flow, is more concerned with the comfort of those around him than with himself. Great physical strength. Self-controlled generally. Desires to return to his studies. Diligently works to save up to return to his studies. Does not appear to be bitter, resentful, or contemptuous of the world/people around him.
He seemed to some of his comrades to look down upon them all as children, as though he were superior in development, knowledge and convictions, as though their beliefs and interests were beneath him.
Despite the truth that beneath all of that, he was still to some degree possessed by something deeper that kept him - albeit perhaps only slightly - tied to the common morality that we all seem bound to.
“But where am I going?” he thought suddenly. “Strange, I came out for something. As soon as I had read the letter I came out.... I was going to Vassilyevsky Ostrov, to Razumihin. That’s what it was... now I remember. What for, though? And what put the idea of going to Razumihin into my head just now? That’s curious.”
One of the troubles with submitting oneself to possession is that - like ignorant cattle - we find ourselves thinking and saying and doing things that don't "make sense" at some level. This is particularly likely to happen when we are unknowingly possessed by many, as I believe is the case with R.
He longed to forget himself altogether, to forget everything, and then to wake up and begin life anew....
Life anew free from moral constraints, or life anew free from this intellectual ideal that possessed him?
At that moment something seemed to sting Raskolnikov; in an instant a complete revulsion of feeling came over him. “Hey, here!” he shouted after the policeman. The latter turned round. “Let them be! What is it to do with you? Let her go! Let him amuse himself.” He pointed at the dandy, “What is it to do with you?” The policeman was bewildered, and stared at him open-eyed. Raskolnikov laughed.
R. senses here - perhaps subconscously - that he is not an "extraordinary" man. He thinks he can rise above the norm by means of reasoning/intellect, but he consists of more (perhaps much more) than his reasoning/intellect. He is even more than what he is conscious of. His moral instincts (however we might frame that) cannot be suppressed by intellect, no matter how much condescension and contempt fogs the intellectual lens through which he reflects on his moral instincts.
Look here, hopelessly drunk, and she has just come down the boulevard. There is no telling who and what she is, she does not look like a professional. It’s more likely she has been given drink and deceived somewhere... for the first time... you understand? and they’ve put her out into the street like that.
Here's a snapshot of an aspect of the society in which R. resides (or at least his perception of an aspect of the society in which he resides). One manifestation of a sort of state of moral decay. It sounds like this sort of thing could reasonably be assumed to have happened just as R. surmises.
on the further side of the boulevard, about fifteen paces away, a gentleman was standing on the edge of the pavement. He, too, would apparently have liked to approach the girl with some object of his own. He, too, had probably seen her in the distance and had followed her, but found Raskolnikov in his way. He looked angrily at him, though he tried to escape his notice, and stood impatiently biding his time, till the unwelcome man in rags should have moved away. His intentions were unmistakable. The gentleman was a plump, thickly-set man, about thirty, fashionably dressed, with a high colour, red lips and moustaches. Raskolnikov felt furious; he had a sudden longing to insult this fat dandy in some way.
Despite the cold plans in his heart toward the pawnbroker, R. feels morally superior to this man he perceives to be a predator. R. believes himself and his situation exceptional such that the deed he is planning is acceptable (perhaps even good). He does not see that in this man, of course. It doesn't even cross his mind that this other man might likewise be "exceptional" by the same standards.
And yet all these questions were not new ones suddenly confronting him, they were old familiar aches. It was long since they had first begun to grip and rend his heart. Long, long ago his present anguish had its first beginnings; it had waxed and gathered strength, it had matured and concentrated, until it had taken the form of a fearful, frenzied and fantastic question
more evidence that he's not the extraordinary man he'd like to believe he is.
what are you going to do to prevent it?
here R. critically engages with himself, noting that the alternative to the marriage plans has its own serious costs that he can do little to nothing to remedy should he cause the abortion of the marriage plans.
what have you taken me for? I won’t have your sacrifice, Dounia, I won’t have it, mother! It shall not be, so long as I am alive, it shall not, it shall not! I won’t accept it!”
Part of him is concerned with the abuse he foresees his sister will have to endure should the marriage plans carry out. The prideful part of him is wounded by what he perceives to be at best a naive sort of condescension from his mother and sister toward him. It is bitter like bile to him.
It’s clear that Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov is the central figure in the business, and no one else. Oh, yes, she can ensure his happiness, keep him in the university, make him a partner in the office, make his whole future secure; perhaps he may even be a rich man later on, prosperous, respected, and may even end his life a famous man! But my mother? It’s all Rodya, precious Rodya
Here even when he is highlighting one of his sister's virtues, it is clouded with a sort of prideful condescension.
mother I don’t wonder at, it’s like her, God bless her, but how could Dounia
More contemptuous condescension toward mother and sister. It has poisoned his love for them. I think the love is still there. There is still a concern there, but it seems greatly distorted by a heart infected with contempt, resentment, and pride. Pride is of central importance here. He has an utter lack of gratitude, and in its place is some sort of festering pride mixed with bitterness, resentment, and contempt. A deadly witch's brew.
His bitterness grew more and more intense, and if he had happened to meet Mr. Luzhin at the moment, he might have murdered him.
Odd that his bitterness was directed at Luzhin when he seems most upset by the words and plans and actions of his sister and mother. He doesn't seem particularly worried for their best interest, but rather pridefully contemptuous of their decision to move forward with the plan with Luzhin.
turned in the direction of the Vassilyevsky Ostrov, walking along Vassilyevsky Prospect, as though hastening on some business, but he walked, as his habit was, without noticing his way, muttering and even speaking aloud to himself, to the astonishment of the passers-by. Many of them took
R. had a habit of wandering about aimlessly (perhaps especially when he was overcome with mental turmoil, cramped in his little apartment).
convinced that he will be generous and delicate enough to invite me and to urge me to remain with my daughter for the future, and if he has said nothing about it hitherto, it is simply because it has been taken for granted;
I'm noticing that, just like R., his mother and sister plan out their futures largely on assumptions not grounded upon fact or observation. They assume benevolence in Pyotr Petrovitch despite having largely only witnessed pride and even hints of contempt from his words and actions.
And, besides, it was obviously not said of design, but slipped out in the heat of conversation, so that he tried afterwards to correct himself and smooth it over, but all the same it did strike me as somewhat rude, and I said so afterwards to Dounia
Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. (biblical scripture reference).
beware of judging him too hastily and severely, as your way is,
Rodya's mother reveals something about R's character: he is quick to judge others on first appearances (which we in part already know from his behavior and thoughts in the tavern from chapter 2).
This was how it happened. He is already of the rank of a counsellor, Pyotr Petrovitch Luzhin, and is distantly related to Marfa Petrovna, who has been very active in bringing the match about. It began with his expressing through her his desire to make our acquaintance
The wife of the man who disgraced Rodya's sister has orchestrated a match for Rodya's sister (Dounia). This shows something about her heart.
really treating the crazy fellow too harshly.
This shows something about the heart of Raskolnikov's mother. She is considerate even for the man who disgraced her daughter.
It would have been difficult to sink to a lower ebb of disorder, but to Raskolnikov in his present state of mind this was positively agreeable.
R. is in a state of mind that is agreeable to disorder. His room (that is, the untidiness of his room) reflects his inner self. He is disordered inside and out.
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
This reminds me of something I often say because of certain experiences I've had: "Anyone is capable of anything."
This also reminds me of scripture that refers to a "searing of the conscience".
Finally, this also reminds me of our tendency to take things for granted. It reminds me that "familiarity breeds contempt."
We forget about the miracle of life in general, take it all for granted, and even become contemptuous of it all.
Raskolnikov listened intently but with a sick sensation. He felt vexed that he had come here.
Why does Raskolnikov have a sick sensation? He knows how this story "ends". When you know the fall of a person and you hear them recollect with joy that period of time just before their most recent (current) fall, it is a sickening feeling.
And Katerina Ivanovna would not let it pass, she stood up for her... and so that’s how it happened. And Sonia comes to us now, mostly after dark; she comforts Katerina Ivanovna and gives her all she can.... She has a room at the Kapernaumovs’ the tailors, she lodges with them;
Dostoevsky notes that though what Sonia is doing is morally questionable, the why seems important here. Her heart is shown in a positive light in how she comforts Katerina Ivanovna and gives her all she can.
And I went on lying there, just as before.... And then I saw, young man, I saw Katerina Ivanovna, in the same silence go up to Sonia’s little bed; she was on her knees all the evening kissing Sonia’s feet, and would not get up, and then they both fell asleep in each other’s arms... together, together... yes... and I... lay drunk.” Marmeladov stopped short, as though his voice had failed him. Then he hurriedly filled his glass, drank, and cleared his throat.
There's something to the fact that Marm. refuses, apparently, to pass judgment on Katerina Ivanovna. While he does recount some of her shortcomings (the rash way she initially dealt with Sonia), he affords her some understanding and grace because of her circumstances. He ultimately seems to suggest that he believes he is ultimately to blame.
But Mr. Lebeziatnikov who keeps up with modern ideas explained the other day that compassion is forbidden nowadays by science itself, and that that’s what is done now in England, where there is political economy. Why, I ask you, should he give it to me? And yet though I know beforehand that he won’t, I set off to him
Marm. here parrots what Lebez. apparently said about compassion being forbidden by science where political economy is found. What is meant by political economy, here? Why would science forbid compassion? Are we talking about a circumstance wherein compassion has been abstracted up to the state to be managed via this "political economy"? I could have this wrong, but that sort of resonates.
In spite of the momentary desire he had just been feeling for company of any sort, on being actually spoken to he felt immediately his habitual irritable and uneasy aversion for any stranger
His beliefs/motivations are not in line with his thoughts/words. He is conflicted (as hinted at by the name Dostoevsky gave him).
there was something very strange in him; there was a light in his eyes as though of intense feeling—perhaps there were even thought and intelligence, but at the same time there was a gleam of something like madness. He was wearing an old and hopelessly ragged black dress coat, with all its buttons missing except one, and that one he had buttoned, evidently clinging to this last trace of respectability.
This is what has drawn Raskolnikov's attention. Why? Why is he drawn to someone "strange", a mixture of intelligence and madness who on the exterior clung to his last trace of respectability.
all smelling very bad. It was insufferably close, and so heavy with the fumes of spirits that five minutes in such an atmosphere might well make a man drunk
He has submerged himself into an atmosphere rank/saturated with death/fermentation.
Something new seemed to be taking place within him, and with it he felt a sort of thirst for company. He was so weary after a whole month of concentrated wretchedness and gloomy excitement that he longed to rest, if only for a moment, in some other world, whatever it might be; and, in spite of the filthiness of the surroundings, he was glad now to stay in the tavern.
Is he sensing that he is getting closer to doing "the thing"? Does he feel guilt rising up in himself? Is his conscience rising up in him? If it's any of those, does he want to drown out that internal moral turmoil by submerge himself in the noise of the tavern? He'd also be likely to find someone he could look at as morally inferior to himself if he spends time in a tavern. Has he already committed himself to "the act"?
He sat down at a sticky little table in a dark and dirty corner; ordered some beer, and eagerly drank off the first glassful. At once he felt easier; and his thoughts became clear. “All that’s nonsense,” he said hopefully, “and there is nothing in it all to worry about! It’s simply physical derangement. Just a glass of beer, a piece of dry bread—and in one moment the brain is stronger, the mind is clearer and the will is firm! Phew, how utterly petty it all is!” But in spite of this scornful reflection, he was by now looking cheerful as though he were suddenly set free from a terrible burden: and he gazed round in a friendly way at the people in the room. But even at that moment he had a dim foreboding that this happier frame of mind was also not normal.
Even in this moment of apparent self-reflection, he is only willing to do so after the effects of alcohol have begun to settle in.
Three or four door-keepers were employed on the building. The young man was very glad to meet none of them, and at once slipped unnoticed through the door on the right, and up the staircase.
More contempt for his fellow man. Their very existence is merely an inconvenience to him.
Not shame, however, but quite another feeling akin to terror had overtaken him.
Again, not critical of himself, but of how he might stand out to the world around him. Or, more accurately, how the loathsome world for which he has deep contempt might be drawn to have a critical eye toward him. A prideful sort of condescension is hinted at here, which often comes along with bitterness, resentment, and contempt. The result of pairing suffering with pride rather than suffering with humility.
He was so badly dressed that even a man accustomed to shabbiness would have been ashamed to be seen in the street in such rags.
Yet more lack of self-reflection and self-awareness. His critical eye is ever pointed outwards.
The heat in the street was terrible: and the airlessness, the bustle and the plaster, scaffolding, bricks, and dust all about him, and that special Petersburg stench, so familiar to all who are unable to get out of town in summer—all worked painfully upon the young man’s already overwrought nerves. The insufferable stench from the pot-houses, which are particularly numerous in that part of the town, and the drunken men whom he met continually, although it was a working day, completed the revolting misery of the picture.
Notice the focus on the external. Anything to drown out the shame and other self-critical reflections.
It’s because I chatter that I do nothing. Or perhaps it is that I chatter because I do nothing.
It seems to me that he chatters in order to bury his shame and justify his contempt.
to be stopped on the stairs, to be forced to listen to her trivial, irrelevant gossip, to pestering demands for payment, threats and complaints, and to rack his brains for excuses, to prevaricate, to lie—no, rather than that, he would creep down the stairs like a cat and slip out unseen.
Here we see that his shame was a breeding ground for bitterness, resentment, and contempt not only for the landlady, but anyone with whom he might come in contact.
each time he passed, the young man had a sick, frightened feeling, which made him scowl and feel ashamed. He was hopelessly in debt to his landlady, and was afraid of meeting her.
It seems it wasn't so much that he had a problem with the landlady, but that he had a problem with himself in relation to the landlady. He was ashamed, indebted, embarrassed. Rather than face up to his own shortcomings of which he was painfully aware, he'd rather avoid the landlady.
It’s OK that Jesus has a beard and breasts
No. In fact, Jesus refused to give in to His own desire to pass the cup that God had destined for Him (to be persecuted, tortured, crucified, and literally become sin and bear the punishment thereof) because He knew that the ultimate good was in doing the will of His Father. He did not change the way God made Him. He put aside His own desires over His own life to instead submit to the will of His Creator.
We’re trying to embrace society as it is.
Mark 2:17 “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
It is not the job of the church to embrace society as it is. It is the job of the church to help society become what it can be (or, more specifically, help the individuals in that society become heirs of the kingdom of God by receiving sonship via faith in Christ Jesus). It is an extreme disservice to society to rob them of the opportunity to experience what it is to be heirs of the kingdom of God. It robs them of the deepest gratitude which produces a life most deeply motivated by love.
The goal was to emphasise diversity, not to hurt people or shock them
First, I do not think this is true (that it wasn't meant to shock people). Whether or not you are a Christian (though certainly if you are a Christian), if you are at all aware of today's social climate, you'd have to be incredibly ignorant to think that following through with such a thing would not shock people and garner worldwide attention for such a controversy.
However, assuming that the goal really was not to hurt or shock people but to only emphasize diversity, would it not be best to show Christ in a more realistic depiction but perhaps holding his hand out to someone who identifies as lgbtq+? This would emphasize that - despite the fact that living in such a way grieves the heart of God - God so loved the lgdbtq+ person that He gave his only Son that if you believe in Him you would not die but have everlasting life?
it’s really important that each and every person see themselves in Jesus
Close, but not quite.
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things just as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let’s approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace for help at the time of our need. Hebrews 4:15-16
It is not important for us to see ourselves in Jesus, but to realize that Jesus has seen Himself in our shoes and yet remained without sin, so that we can turn to Him to help us live in accordance with the will of our Heavenly Father.
Let us overthrow, in short, the ‘family
This is inconsistent with her claim to want to expand the role of raising children to beyond the family.
we can mother one another after the abolition of the family, this is what will hopefully be lifted up,
See, I do not think any of this requires the abolition of the family. Why first aim at abolishing the family? Why not take incremental steps toward expanding family. Then, if they hypothesis proves true (that this new decentralized parenting is better than centralized parenting), and if it seems the centralized family has become meaningless, let it die off naturally.
If it does not prove out, then find that sweet spot of complementing the centralized family with additional decentralized supports.
the “left needs to get a little bit braver also at challenging the rhetoric of motherhood.”
I'd say the rhetoric of motherhood is mostly colonized by the left, currently. The right needs to become braver at challenging this rhetoric of what seems to me to be anti-motherhood.
We all deserve better than the family
Better? While I agree that society (well, our immediate neighbors more specifically) would ideally help reinforce and even fill out a child's upbringing in ways that would be lacking without their involvement, I'm not so sure I'd call that "better" than the family.
Perhaps it would be a good thought experiment to approach from the opposite direction.
Imagine a society in which there is no family, and the raising of children was completely decentralized out to the society at large. Would that be missing anything essential that a centralized/localized familial structure would include? Which would be "better": completely decentralized parenting, or completely centralized parenting? If it's some combination of the two, how would the ideal balance look? Would that be a one-size-fits-all scenario, or would that be particular to the child?
infrastructures that would mean that the family was a domain of real choice or real freedom and you weren’t coerced into needing it so much
Ah, my first real concern. "...coerced into needing it so much." I'm not so sure that the absence of a perceived need of the family would be a good thing. I see she seems to be leaning into some sort of utopia vision wherein experiences of need, suffering, and so on are minimized (with the ultimate goal of eliminating want and suffering altogether). Surely, unnecessary need/suffering should be minimized, but it's not exactly clear how to define "unnecessary need/suffering". This is akin to that saying about science, "They spent so much time figuring out if they could, and never stopped to think if they should."
I suppose that I’m called to the challenge of thinking about these really difficult questions of how those intimate spheres are affected by capitalism and how they are political
Certainly, family is affected (or at least has the potential to be affected) by capitalism. I am curious to read/listen to her more comprehensive thoughts on what this effect entails.
“abolishing the family” is to reimagine the notion of the family past fatherhood and motherhood into a more universal sense, where children are not “property” of parents, but raised by society as a whole.
What does she mean by "property" here? This seems like it could just be a slightly more detailed rephrasing of desiring the raising of children to reach beyond parent-child. Again, that's reasonable enough as it is.
children should be raised by society rather than just their parents.
This sounds reasonable enough. I do think it is regrettable that - particularly in the west (and especially in the US) - we no longer know our neighbors. We no longer have a sense of relying on one another. It seems that we've raised up independence to become such an idol of sorts that we no longer sense any sort of interdependence between self and neighbor (and even enemy). Surely, a society in which we knew and trusted and needed our neighbors to such an extent that we could trust each other to positively impact each other's children's lives would be desirable.