Pierce reviewed Crime and Punishment by Фёдор Достоевский
Meh | From Goodreads (small edits)
3 stars
I don't think I read this book with the right intention. I should probably revisit the book in the future without outside interference (in 1, 2 years). It's certainly not a bad book, this is why I gave it 3 not 2 stars ("liked it"). I share the criticism of the "Übermensch"(superman in English as I got told) but I think the idea of the Übermensch as presented in Dostoevsky is not complete (I will not say wrong -partly because it’s not the term Dostoevsky would have used, for obvs reasons-, though I did think of this a few times while reading). It is not the absence of a god (more precisely, a belief in god) that enables one to be a Übermensch, but rather a superior thinking (german: "überlegenheit"). This is more likely to be instigated by a belief in God. Religion is based on the superiority …
I don't think I read this book with the right intention. I should probably revisit the book in the future without outside interference (in 1, 2 years). It's certainly not a bad book, this is why I gave it 3 not 2 stars ("liked it"). I share the criticism of the "Übermensch"(superman in English as I got told) but I think the idea of the Übermensch as presented in Dostoevsky is not complete (I will not say wrong -partly because it’s not the term Dostoevsky would have used, for obvs reasons-, though I did think of this a few times while reading). It is not the absence of a god (more precisely, a belief in god) that enables one to be a Übermensch, but rather a superior thinking (german: "überlegenheit"). This is more likely to be instigated by a belief in God. Religion is based on the superiority of the followers of the "right" religion, i.e. every religion. Morality is handed over to an imaginary figure and even more dangerous to its representatives, for example the churches, which has led to incredible suffering in history (e.g. the Crusades). A believer is forced per se to act amorally (which I would describe as acting against human nature, but there is more to that which I have no space to depict here), for example to kill one's own child if one's own God commands it. This is of course an exaggerated example, but it is humanity, in the sense of our nature as social beings, that normally prevents you from doing so, unless you are ill like Raskolnikov. As a believer, however, you must (theoretically) be prepared to cross this line for your God. Fortunately, I don't believe hardly anyone in this world would do so. (This is not to say believers are in some way amoral or would kill or sth. like that. These are just my philosophical ideas regarding the moral implications I interpreted in this book, influenced by what I also read about this book beforehand, which probably has influenced the way I read it - also the reason I want to revisit it in the future |( edit: though if one wanted a real world example, someome could point to J.D.Vance in some sense, hypothetically speaking of course ))