SIGN UP NEWSLETTER // WEBSITE: thoughtsonthinking.org Follow us on social media: Donate on Patreon (thank you!) www.patreon.com/thoughtsonthinking / Instagram: instagram.com/thoughtsonthinking/ Twitter: twitter.com/thoughtsonthin3/
fascinating take. i didn't catch the representation of the mother as the pawn broker. I don't think the mother was a narcissist I think she was very proud of Raskolnikov and instilled an overinflated pride in him. Without this pride, raskolnikov would have been unable to view himself as the arbiter of human worth
I think that she’s one of several characters (Marmeladov’s wife and Luzhin being two others) who have some fixation on upward mobility in society and she saw Raskolnikov as a way to get there. I read her attitude towards Dunya’s marriage as her being overly willing to not look critically at her daughters marriage due to the possibility of escaping poverty and, through Raskolnikov’s completion of college and job prospects (something Luzhin could also provide), being at least middle class or well off. This bias almost leads Dunya into a relationship that she can’t be satisfied in and would have trapped them all beneath Luzhin. (I haven’t finished the book so this may change but this is just my thoughts).
I mean, making her daughter sacrifice her love life to finanically support your child is kind of narcissistic. Instead of caring for both equally you are hedging your bets on the child that you see most likely to be succesful in life, and you are sacrificing the other's freedom for that purpose. Still I think it's more from roskalnikov's perspective. He is undoubtedly narcissist in the story but views his mom as a narcissist for doing pushing all her chips towards making Roskolnikov successful so that she can take familial pride in raising a decorated son.
At one point Raskolnikov performs projection and emotional transference at the same time. He projects his self hatred on his family while emotionally transferring repressed Christian values on Sonya. Then he projects his hatred of Sonya again when she tells him to confess to the murder. From this point in the novel he's battling his own super-ego with Sonya taking its form. He finds excuses to harm himself at every turn because his super ego is basically getting him to kill himself. He's stuck in a standstill with his super-ego until Porfiry shows up as divine intervention and brings a message from the divine unconscious. What's interesting here is that he presents not an ethical choice but a RATIONAL one. Basically he tells him: 'be on the lam for the rest of your life or sit around until you get arrested.' A rational choice (in antiquity a message from the heavens) is forced upon Raskolnikov because his morality and ethics (self and society)--both entirely human conventions--have become indistinguishable from each other as well as totally corrupted. It's arguable that Raskolnikov never developed morality in the first place and was enslaved by ethical impositions his entire life. Raskolnikov is driven purely by his internal system of logic, which is eating him alive. Logic is the last refuge of his ego. Only after rationality is introduced does he get set on the path of repentance. In the prologue, his dreams of nations of 'Napoleons' killing each other is his entire consciousness consuming itself. With his ego finally vanquished, he realizes Sonya's care is unconditional and breaks down, a new man. What's unfortunate is that even though Dostoevsky depicts it as a happy ending, you can assume that Raskolnikov has sacrificed his ego and its associated traits, like his intelligence. Unless he learns to think for himself, he is doomed to idealize Sonya, thus repeating the cycle of dependency with his mother. I think this is where C&P's message falls flat. Raskolnikov believes he is indebted to Sonya, to him a representation of perfection, but in reality just another incarnation of ethics. He should've been indebted to Porfiry, and moreover indebted to Razumikhin, both representations of reason; a principle of the cosmos. The question is, could a person who committed murder retain a sense of free will after what they had done? How could they not? I imagine Raskolnikov would have to be a very unique person to be able to live a life of happiness caring solely for Sonya. A life of devoting oneself to another.
I think that's the point, the idea is that there's never a real reform of identity, just a different mascarade of what you are. If Raskolnikov was indebted to Porfiry or Razumikhin it meant he had overcome his flaws, his insecurities and dependences, his true nature. But humans are bound to be twisted and perverted creatures, ones that construct societies and cultural habits that contradict their sole beeing, and once they are traped, they try desperatly to fit everything they experience inside a very particular perception bubble, without even realizing the true and absolute nature of everything. I don't think it was an happy ending and I don't think it was meant to be, I think it was a sad truth, a realization that you are and will always be a flawed beast, tied by natural constraints. You might be aware of it, but there is no real escape. Only a few have the luck of beeing born pure and free of disease, greed, jelousy, hatred, stupidity ... Just look around, we are all just monsters pretending not to be. WE ARE disease, greed, jelousy, hatred, and stupidity. Nothing more, nothing less. I think the novel is a reflection on human weakness, and how one can never really flee from it. For me, it would not make sense for there to be a fundamental restructuring of thought and emotion, at least that's how I see it, but then again, does it matter what I think or not?
I'd say Lizaveta represented Dunya more than she represents Raskolnikov himself. In striking out (figuratively) at his mother, his sister would be caught in the crossfire, shown by the marriage ordeal.
And Raskolnikov would represent the monastery or the church more generally, which the pawn broker is trying to support by committing acts that are against the principles of that very church, which brings us back to Raskolnikov's own breaking of his principles (at least his true subconscious principles) in the service of his perceived notion of the greater good
In order to label someone Narcissistic for example, you yourself have to be somewhat narcissistic. If you think about it clearly. Is that what he means?
@@lokoomontana4818 no he wants to say that one can use to aspects of psychology to explain a phenomenon , each of the aspects quite contrary to the other.
This is a really interesting perspective, as I recall, there wasn’t this emphasis on his mother, I think that the Infantile dependence is spot on, but I do not buy that the mother was at fault. Keep up the great work
This is a great analysis that makes total sense and has evidence supporting it throughout the book. Far better than most analysis of crime and punishment which just state the obvious such as, "Oh he just views himself above people generally because he is smart."
I don't blame Raskolnikov's mother; I blame society as a whole. Raskolnikov's mother just gave in to society. Raskolnikov is isolated from society and yet society places such high demands. And yet society places no demands. Society has requirements but doesn't care if you meet them. That's why Raskolnikov "adopts" a family and gives his money to them. The family is rejected by society worse than he. And so he takes the place of society. Though instead of being indifferent like society, Raskolnikov is instead welcoming and nonjudgmental. Freud was obsessed with parents.
I'm listening to the audiobook for Crime and Punishment right now and this was a fantastic insight into the experience. Perfect timing for this video, thanks!
Hey dude, loved this video on one of my favorite books and I love your channel in general. As someone who is currently stuck with studying something different, I really enjoy learning about philosophy and literature in my free time. Your videos are always very interesting and full of great ideas to think about. Thank you for this.
Congrats, very interesting points! I don't know if narcissistic is the best word to describe Raskolnikov's mother, but I think that the belief and pressure that she had put on him since he was a child to be successful, famous, and briliant, ultimately saving the family, made him that narcissistic. Also, IMO the fact that her mother made Dunia sacrifice so much for his own sake, led him to hate her mother for his own failure, so in that way I agree that he was killing his mother when he did the crime, who had created his own "super ego", therefore killing himself, like he mentions in the book.
Freud whole psychological analysis came out of the Dostoyevskian movement(study of psychology) wich itself was deeply rooted in early Byzantine Christianity….study of morality and psychology. He also credited Dostoyevsky as the greatest literary mind that has come out of later part of 19century…probably of all times
On a related note, could you take a look at Dostoyevsky's answer to nihilism in Crime and Punishment throught the journey of Raskolnikov ? Great video as always.
I do think that Raskolnikov's father has effect on him especially that dream scene on the murder of the horse. Even though his father wasn't even reminded him except the dream and mother mentioning his father in the letter.
Have you done a video on the brothers karamazov? If you haven't you should. I think it's very interesting that the brothers represented completely 3 different personalities and how they come to change with the progression of the book (ivan more than others) also it has one of the best critique of religion and my favorite chapter the grand Inquisitor.
This is very deep....his mother was quite obsessive, I think, but it certainly contributed to his degradation. The fact that Raskolnikov was manifest with his mother's infantile care and obsession, is a nice parallel of Freudian thoughts..👌👌
And Plato and Rousseau and several other philosophers... Freud was great in crystalizing psychological problems, but he didn't really stumble on anything new.
Not exactly, I think I cover the potentiality of that idea in my Nietzsche // AI video (you can find it in the Nietzsche playlist) but Nietzsche didn't exactly propose what the overman SHOULD BE except for something that is always overcoming itself and forwarding the species, therefore, it is never a human state of possible reality (like a platonic form or an ideal of man) just a continuous act of overcoming.
So cool! Thanks for your analysis. So often we see the "tortured genius" and think, ah, too smart for this world/their own good. But you're right: the torture is not just intellectual, but a reflection of the tortured existence of their upbringing. It makes sense that "intelligent" children would be especially susceptible to a narcissistic upbringing: who wouldnt want a genius, ultra-successful child? Fascinating also the parallel between R and his mother and the pawnbroker and her sister. The dynamic is similar, with the dominant feeding off of the subordinate, but of course the pawnbrokers abuse is so much more overt. From this lens, the pawnbroker is R's perfect target: symbolizing his mother, yet cloaked in all sorts of "acceptable" excuses (greedy, violent, dirty, cruel). And of course, we see why killing her wouldnt "cure" R: it's NOT his mother; he is still powerless and under tremendous pressure; and he knows he couldnt bear to really kill his mom: he's a human, he needs love, he is (and we all are) dependent on the love of others.
I read the novel about 4 months ago. I was already familiar with most of the themes of freudian theories. But it never occurred to me that the novel centred around such themes. Take me for an idiot but I dont really think rodin's mother is a narcissist, I dont think there is any case of infantile dependence on the part of rodion and heck, I dont even see how he's projecting anything. He is not repressing any emotions concerning his family and his act of murdering the pawnbroker was certainly not a manifestation( as he had been planning that well before his family arrived in Petersburg)
Self-hatred is a sign of child-trauma that morphes into superiotity-complexes . People who say they are superior actually inner-feel inferior and insecure , they have to compensate that and say to themselves that they are (or should be , and really mentally strive for that , which is far more self-damaging(because nobody is perfect)) superior , in order to feel safe from that inner inferiority and insecurity . Dostojevsky's youth must have been troubled . Apparently his father was very authoritarian , and was later even tortured and murdered . Why exactly i don't know , but if that had to do with the fact that he indeed was actually an authoritarian , than his child , fjodor dostojevsky the writer , must likely have had trouble with such a father , hence the self-hatred expressed and (attempt to)sublimated in his writings . It is often the same pattern . Kafka is another such example of a writer that as a child was badly treated by his father . Dare i also to mention Adolf Hitler , beaten by his father ? Did he not start speaking of "übermenschen" , or superior race with his nazism ? Where could that have come from now ? People with a damaged personality like that are just like cars who go nowhere . Not because the engine is damaged . Far from it . Writing with passion takes up a lot of work . No . They don't go anywhere because the driver has no clue anymore . How can one live normally if they don't realise by themselves that they are self-destructive or malfunctioning ? Nobody should hate himself , it is the worst thing that can happen to a person . Worse than somebody who is hurt , is somebody whose personality is damaged . A personality is just what a human being needs , in order to live normally . To have self-respect , and therefore to respect others . One goes hand in hand with the other . Somebody damaged like that sits in a pit , and cannot get out of it himself , he needs help from others . Even if he , or she , would write whole encyclopedia's .
Looking at Dostoevsky through the 'lens' of Freudian psychology is as useful as looking at the Grand Canyon with your eyeball placed just inside the 'lens' of your own sphincter.
Ikr? There were times when freud when overboard with his theories and perspective. That being said, dostoevsky had his own take on human nature and this is what we see through his novels. It is impractical to analyze the works of one psychologist through another especially if the other is obsessed about certain themes( sex and parenting for freud).
Freud had a lot more to say about Dostoyevsky that is not PC enough to comment here but it had to do with epilepsy and the G in the 🌈. Freudian fundamentals, always back to sex, duh!
Having a bad childhood is no excuse. It’s been said Elon Musk suffered greatly at the hands of his father and school bullies. He chose to dream big and improve humanity than go on a shooting rampage. If one is aware enough, he can break the pattern of memories of emotional trauma with imagination and excitement if a far better future. The subconscious does not know the difference. The key is repetition, repetition, repetition.
You've succeeded in rendering a decent Freudian interpretation of Raskolnikov's personal psychology - but in terms of a true and accurate profile - I think it's complete and utter crap. Freud was full of sh#t. He should never have gained the prominence that he did. Rubbish framework for understanding psychology. I love that first painting.
I hate to say this but Crime and Punishment is overrated and it makes Fyodor Dostoevsky look naive . This book is not just fiction it is outright fantasy because it focuses on the mind of a character who could not exist in the real world. Some people assume that Crime and Punishment is just a psychological exercise that has little bearing on reality. However, it is my conjecture that Fyodor Dostoevsky simply did not truly understand the human mind and the nature of the type of human capable of committing a heinous crime driven by narcissism and self entitlement. Raskolnikov shows all the signs of being high on the antisocial spectrum of personality disorders, and he is probably a malignant narcissist at best and a sociopath at worst. The vast majority (99.9%) of people on this spectrum do not feel guilt after committing any crimes. In the real world Raskolnikov would have killed those women without a second thought, justified it to himself, and then went on to live his best life. Get this through your thick skulls folks, people with the ability to feel empathy and remorse DO NOT KILL OTHER PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD! Normal people with the capacity to feel guilt would not have the mental fortitude to kill another human being. The only exceptions are people who have anger issues and kill others in a blind rage or crime of passion, and people who are psychotic or bat crap crazy. And don't you dare tell me about people who have turned themselves in after committing a crime in real life. People who turn themselves in after killing someone in real life do it for one of two reasons. The first reason is that they are not on the antisocial spectrum and therefore feel guilty after their crime because they killed under a blind rage due to pent up anger issues, but after the rage subsides they are back to their normal selves and are able to feel guilt and empathy again. The other reason is that they are indeed on the antisocial spectrum but they have made a cold calculation that turning themselves in and faking remorse would be more advantageous than living life on the run, in hiding, or looking over their shoulders. Once these sociopath/psychopathic monsters are in the penal system they can use their manipulative skills to guilt the system into going easy on them. They could theoretically live better in prison than they would out in the real world if they play their cards right. This is why Raskolnikov is a fantasy character who could not exist in the real world. In the real world a person who is capable of feeling high levels of guilt, remorse, and empathy would never have committed a brutal double murder in the first place. Furthermore, in the real world, not the wonderful would of Disney, a person who is on the antisocial spectrum like Raskolnikov, would kill two women in a heartbeat without guilt, and they would not go about doing it like the beta male simp in Fyodor Dostoevsky's book, they would coldly do it with ease.
SIGN UP NEWSLETTER // WEBSITE: thoughtsonthinking.org
Follow us on social media:
Donate on Patreon (thank you!) www.patreon.com/thoughtsonthinking
/
Instagram: instagram.com/thoughtsonthinking/
Twitter: twitter.com/thoughtsonthin3/
fascinating take. i didn't catch the representation of the mother as the pawn broker. I don't think the mother was a narcissist I think she was very proud of Raskolnikov and instilled an overinflated pride in him. Without this pride, raskolnikov would have been unable to view himself as the arbiter of human worth
yeah i think raskolnikov was narcissistic instead of his mother.
I think that she’s one of several characters (Marmeladov’s wife and Luzhin being two others) who have some fixation on upward mobility in society and she saw Raskolnikov as a way to get there. I read her attitude towards Dunya’s marriage as her being overly willing to not look critically at her daughters marriage due to the possibility of escaping poverty and, through Raskolnikov’s completion of college and job prospects (something Luzhin could also provide), being at least middle class or well off. This bias almost leads Dunya into a relationship that she can’t be satisfied in and would have trapped them all beneath Luzhin. (I haven’t finished the book so this may change but this is just my thoughts).
I mean, making her daughter sacrifice her love life to finanically support your child is kind of narcissistic. Instead of caring for both equally you are hedging your bets on the child that you see most likely to be succesful in life, and you are sacrificing the other's freedom for that purpose. Still I think it's more from roskalnikov's perspective. He is undoubtedly narcissist in the story but views his mom as a narcissist for doing pushing all her chips towards making Roskolnikov successful so that she can take familial pride in raising a decorated son.
At one point Raskolnikov performs projection and emotional transference at the same time. He projects his self hatred on his family while emotionally transferring repressed Christian values on Sonya. Then he projects his hatred of Sonya again when she tells him to confess to the murder. From this point in the novel he's battling his own super-ego with Sonya taking its form. He finds excuses to harm himself at every turn because his super ego is basically getting him to kill himself.
He's stuck in a standstill with his super-ego until Porfiry shows up as divine intervention and brings a message from the divine unconscious. What's interesting here is that he presents not an ethical choice but a RATIONAL one. Basically he tells him: 'be on the lam for the rest of your life or sit around until you get arrested.' A rational choice (in antiquity a message from the heavens) is forced upon Raskolnikov because his morality and ethics (self and society)--both entirely human conventions--have become indistinguishable from each other as well as totally corrupted. It's arguable that Raskolnikov never developed morality in the first place and was enslaved by ethical impositions his entire life. Raskolnikov is driven purely by his internal system of logic, which is eating him alive. Logic is the last refuge of his ego. Only after rationality is introduced does he get set on the path of repentance.
In the prologue, his dreams of nations of 'Napoleons' killing each other is his entire consciousness consuming itself. With his ego finally vanquished, he realizes Sonya's care is unconditional and breaks down, a new man. What's unfortunate is that even though Dostoevsky depicts it as a happy ending, you can assume that Raskolnikov has sacrificed his ego and its associated traits, like his intelligence. Unless he learns to think for himself, he is doomed to idealize Sonya, thus repeating the cycle of dependency with his mother.
I think this is where C&P's message falls flat. Raskolnikov believes he is indebted to Sonya, to him a representation of perfection, but in reality just another incarnation of ethics. He should've been indebted to Porfiry, and moreover indebted to Razumikhin, both representations of reason; a principle of the cosmos. The question is, could a person who committed murder retain a sense of free will after what they had done? How could they not? I imagine Raskolnikov would have to be a very unique person to be able to live a life of happiness caring solely for Sonya. A life of devoting oneself to another.
I think that's the point, the idea is that there's never a real reform of identity, just a different mascarade of what you are.
If Raskolnikov was indebted to Porfiry or Razumikhin it meant he had overcome his flaws, his insecurities and dependences, his true nature. But humans are bound to be twisted and perverted creatures, ones that construct societies and cultural habits that contradict their sole beeing, and once they are traped, they try desperatly to fit everything they experience inside a very particular perception bubble, without even realizing the true and absolute nature of everything.
I don't think it was an happy ending and I don't think it was meant to be, I think it was a sad truth, a realization that you are and will always be a flawed beast, tied by natural constraints. You might be aware of it, but there is no real escape. Only a few have the luck of beeing born pure and free of disease, greed, jelousy, hatred, stupidity ... Just look around, we are all just monsters pretending not to be.
WE ARE disease, greed, jelousy, hatred, and stupidity. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the novel is a reflection on human weakness, and how one can never really flee from it. For me, it would not make sense for there to be a fundamental restructuring of thought and emotion, at least that's how I see it, but then again, does it matter what I think or not?
Crime and Punishment and The Stranger shows a shift from 19th century to the 20th century.
I'd say Lizaveta represented Dunya more than she represents Raskolnikov himself. In striking out (figuratively) at his mother, his sister would be caught in the crossfire, shown by the marriage ordeal.
Yes!!
And Raskolnikov would represent the monastery or the church more generally, which the pawn broker is trying to support by committing acts that are against the principles of that very church, which brings us back to Raskolnikov's own breaking of his principles (at least his true subconscious principles) in the service of his perceived notion of the greater good
I'm reading CNP for the second time but I never thought about raskolnikov in this perspective. Thanks for the insight.
also from Dostoyevsky: " psychology is a knife that cuts both ways."
In order to label someone Narcissistic for example, you yourself have to be somewhat narcissistic. If you think about it clearly. Is that what he means?
@@lokoomontana4818 no he wants to say that one can use to aspects of psychology to explain a phenomenon , each of the aspects quite contrary to the other.
peshawa jalal Where did he wrote this quote
@@lokoomontana4818 the brothers karamazov , part four , a section named "a knife that cuts both ways".
@@peshawajalal2492 Thanks
What a wonderful supplement to my reading of the book...
This is a really interesting perspective, as I recall, there wasn’t this emphasis on his mother, I think that the Infantile dependence is spot on, but I do not buy that the mother was at fault. Keep up the great work
Yes! This is great! I have no idea why you are so underrated, keep making these videos, I come back for more every time!
This is a great analysis that makes total sense and has evidence supporting it throughout the book. Far better than most analysis of crime and punishment which just state the obvious such as, "Oh he just views himself above people generally because he is smart."
I don't blame Raskolnikov's mother; I blame society as a whole. Raskolnikov's mother just gave in to society. Raskolnikov is isolated from society and yet society places such high demands. And yet society places no demands. Society has requirements but doesn't care if you meet them.
That's why Raskolnikov "adopts" a family and gives his money to them. The family is rejected by society worse than he. And so he takes the place of society. Though instead of being indifferent like society, Raskolnikov is instead welcoming and nonjudgmental.
Freud was obsessed with parents.
I'm listening to the audiobook for Crime and Punishment right now and this was a fantastic insight into the experience. Perfect timing for this video, thanks!
Hey dude, loved this video on one of my favorite books and I love your channel in general. As someone who is currently stuck with studying something different, I really enjoy learning about philosophy and literature in my free time. Your videos are always very interesting and full of great ideas to think about. Thank you for this.
Congrats, very interesting points! I don't know if narcissistic is the best word to describe Raskolnikov's mother, but I think that the belief and pressure that she had put on him since he was a child to be successful, famous, and briliant, ultimately saving the family, made him that narcissistic. Also, IMO the fact that her mother made Dunia sacrifice so much for his own sake, led him to hate her mother for his own failure, so in that way I agree that he was killing his mother when he did the crime, who had created his own "super ego", therefore killing himself, like he mentions in the book.
Freud whole psychological analysis came out of the Dostoyevskian movement(study of psychology) wich itself was deeply rooted in early Byzantine Christianity….study of morality and psychology.
He also credited Dostoyevsky as the greatest literary mind that has come out of later part of 19century…probably of all times
On a related note, could you take a look at Dostoyevsky's answer to nihilism in Crime and Punishment throught the journey of Raskolnikov ? Great video as always.
Or nihilism through The Brothers Karamazov? Just an idea (-:
Agreed! He mentioned it in Crime & Punishment. I wanna know more
I do think that Raskolnikov's father has effect on him especially that dream scene on the murder of the horse. Even though his father wasn't even reminded him except the dream and mother mentioning his father in the letter.
Have you done a video on the brothers karamazov? If you haven't you should. I think it's very interesting that the brothers represented completely 3 different personalities and how they come to change with the progression of the book (ivan more than others) also it has one of the best critique of religion and my favorite chapter the grand Inquisitor.
Great video, thank you
This is very deep....his mother was quite obsessive, I think, but it certainly contributed to his degradation. The fact that Raskolnikov was manifest with his mother's infantile care and obsession, is a nice parallel of Freudian thoughts..👌👌
Honestly it’s interesting because Freud got his ideas from Dostoevsky, not the other way around
And Plato and Rousseau and several other philosophers... Freud was great in crystalizing psychological problems, but he didn't really stumble on anything new.
Do you have a video on what nietzsche proposes as the over man or super man?
Not exactly, I think I cover the potentiality of that idea in my Nietzsche // AI video (you can find it in the Nietzsche playlist) but Nietzsche didn't exactly propose what the overman SHOULD BE except for something that is always overcoming itself and forwarding the species, therefore, it is never a human state of possible reality (like a platonic form or an ideal of man) just a continuous act of overcoming.
So cool! Thanks for your analysis. So often we see the "tortured genius" and think, ah, too smart for this world/their own good. But you're right: the torture is not just intellectual, but a reflection of the tortured existence of their upbringing. It makes sense that "intelligent" children would be especially susceptible to a narcissistic upbringing: who wouldnt want a genius, ultra-successful child?
Fascinating also the parallel between R and his mother and the pawnbroker and her sister. The dynamic is similar, with the dominant feeding off of the subordinate, but of course the pawnbrokers abuse is so much more overt. From this lens, the pawnbroker is R's perfect target: symbolizing his mother, yet cloaked in all sorts of "acceptable" excuses (greedy, violent, dirty, cruel). And of course, we see why killing her wouldnt "cure" R: it's NOT his mother; he is still powerless and under tremendous pressure; and he knows he couldnt bear to really kill his mom: he's a human, he needs love, he is (and we all are) dependent on the love of others.
Digging it!! Appreciate you🤘🔥🤘🔥
Really great analysis.
Great analysis
Freud said that, "The Brothers Karamazov," was the best book ever written.
I wonder if Freud ever elaborated further...
I read the novel about 4 months ago. I was already familiar with most of the themes of freudian theories. But it never occurred to me that the novel centred around such themes. Take me for an idiot but I dont really think rodin's mother is a narcissist, I dont think there is any case of infantile dependence on the part of rodion and heck, I dont even see how he's projecting anything. He is not repressing any emotions concerning his family and his act of murdering the pawnbroker was certainly not a manifestation( as he had been planning that well before his family arrived in Petersburg)
Self-hatred is a sign of child-trauma that morphes into superiotity-complexes . People who say they are superior actually inner-feel inferior and insecure , they have to compensate that and say to themselves that they are (or should be , and really mentally strive for that , which is far more self-damaging(because nobody is perfect)) superior , in order to feel safe from that inner inferiority and insecurity . Dostojevsky's youth must have been troubled . Apparently his father was very authoritarian , and was later even tortured and murdered . Why exactly i don't know , but if that had to do with the fact that he indeed was actually an authoritarian , than his child , fjodor dostojevsky the writer , must likely have had trouble with such a father , hence the self-hatred expressed and (attempt to)sublimated in his writings . It is often the same pattern . Kafka is another such example of a writer that as a child was badly treated by his father . Dare i also to mention Adolf Hitler , beaten by his father ? Did he not start speaking of "übermenschen" , or superior race with his nazism ? Where could that have come from now ? People with a damaged personality like that are just like cars who go nowhere . Not because the engine is damaged . Far from it . Writing with passion takes up a lot of work . No . They don't go anywhere because the driver has no clue anymore . How can one live normally if they don't realise by themselves that they are self-destructive or malfunctioning ? Nobody should hate himself , it is the worst thing that can happen to a person . Worse than somebody who is hurt , is somebody whose personality is damaged . A personality is just what a human being needs , in order to live normally . To have self-respect , and therefore to respect others . One goes hand in hand with the other . Somebody damaged like that sits in a pit , and cannot get out of it himself , he needs help from others . Even if he , or she , would write whole encyclopedia's .
We should put an end to generational trauma
I really enjoyed that!
what is the music in the outro please?
Oh
Dependances with Grammatical Insecurities
Make Freud and sartre
In relation to what?
@@ThoughtsonThinking how Sartre reject unconsciousness or Freud theory, how they reject each other idea I think.
yea that's not really feasable for me. The whole mother thing
Looking at Dostoevsky through the 'lens' of Freudian psychology is as useful as looking at the Grand Canyon with your eyeball placed just inside the 'lens' of your own sphincter.
Ikr? There were times when freud when overboard with his theories and perspective. That being said, dostoevsky had his own take on human nature and this is what we see through his novels. It is impractical to analyze the works of one psychologist through another especially if the other is obsessed about certain themes( sex and parenting for freud).
What is schizomatic?
Freud had a lot more to say about Dostoyevsky that is not PC enough to comment here but it had to do with epilepsy and the G in the 🌈. Freudian fundamentals, always back to sex, duh!
Raskolnikov: I'm mad
Freud: It's probably penis
Your voice isnt clear please put english subtitles
I disagree with every single take. You guys give Freud a bad name.
Bologna.. Freudian psychology bologna.. can't be proved
Having a bad childhood is no excuse. It’s been said Elon Musk suffered greatly at the hands of his father and school bullies. He chose to dream big and improve humanity than go on a shooting rampage. If one is aware enough, he can break the pattern of memories of emotional trauma with imagination and excitement if a far better future. The subconscious does not know the difference. The key is repetition, repetition, repetition.
You've succeeded in rendering a decent Freudian interpretation of Raskolnikov's personal psychology - but in terms of a true and accurate profile - I think it's complete and utter crap. Freud was full of sh#t. He should never have gained the prominence that he did. Rubbish framework for understanding psychology. I love that first painting.
I hate to say this but Crime and Punishment is overrated and it makes Fyodor Dostoevsky look naive . This book is not just fiction it is outright fantasy because it focuses on the mind of a character who could not exist in the real world.
Some people assume that Crime and Punishment is just a psychological exercise that has little bearing on reality. However, it is my conjecture that Fyodor Dostoevsky simply did not truly understand the human mind and the nature of the type of human capable of committing a heinous crime driven by narcissism and self entitlement. Raskolnikov shows all the signs of being high on the antisocial spectrum of personality disorders, and he is probably a malignant narcissist at best and a sociopath at worst. The vast majority (99.9%) of people on this spectrum do not feel guilt after committing any crimes. In the real world Raskolnikov would have killed those women without a second thought, justified it to himself, and then went on to live his best life. Get this through your thick skulls folks, people with the ability to feel empathy and remorse DO NOT KILL OTHER PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD! Normal people with the capacity to feel guilt would not have the mental fortitude to kill another human being. The only exceptions are people who have anger issues and kill others in a blind rage or crime of passion, and people who are psychotic or bat crap crazy. And don't you dare tell me about people who have turned themselves in after committing a crime in real life. People who turn themselves in after killing someone in real life do it for one of two reasons. The first reason is that they are not on the antisocial spectrum and therefore feel guilty after their crime because they killed under a blind rage due to pent up anger issues, but after the rage subsides they are back to their normal selves and are able to feel guilt and empathy again. The other reason is that they are indeed on the antisocial spectrum but they have made a cold calculation that turning themselves in and faking remorse would be more advantageous than living life on the run, in hiding, or looking over their shoulders. Once these sociopath/psychopathic monsters are in the penal system they can use their manipulative skills to guilt the system into going easy on them. They could theoretically live better in prison than they would out in the real world if they play their cards right. This is why Raskolnikov is a fantasy character who could not exist in the real world. In the real world a person who is capable of feeling high levels of guilt, remorse, and empathy would never have committed a brutal double murder in the first place. Furthermore, in the real world, not the wonderful would of Disney, a person who is on the antisocial spectrum like Raskolnikov, would kill two women in a heartbeat without guilt, and they would not go about doing it like the beta male simp in Fyodor Dostoevsky's book, they would coldly do it with ease.
both are dead no more.