What contradictions in Raskolnikov’s behavior did you discover? What is Raskolnikov’s internal inconsistency? How does his personality withstand Raskolnikov’s experiment?

In the world
literature belongs to Dostoevsky the honor
discoveries of inexhaustibility and multidimensionality
human soul. The writer showed
possibility of combination in one person
low and high, insignificant and great,
vile and noble. Man is a mystery
especially Russian people. “Russians
people in general are broad people... broad, as they say
earth, and are extremely prone to
fanatical, to disorderly; but the trouble is
to be broad without much genius,” -
says Svidrigailov. In the words of Arkady
Ivanovich lies the key to understanding
character of Raskolnikov. The surname itself
the hero indicates duality,
internal ambiguity of the image. A
Now let's listen to the characteristic that
Razumikhin gives Rodion Romanovich: “One and a half
I've known Rodion for years: gloomy, gloomy, arrogant
and proud; lately... suspicious and
hypochondriac... Sometimes, however, not at all
hypochondriac, but simply cold and
insensitive to the point of inhumanity, really, for sure
he has two opposite characters,
take turns... terribly high
appreciates and, it seems, not without some right to
That".

Excruciating
the internal struggle does not subside for a minute in
Raskolnikov. Rodion Romanovich is tormented
not a primitive question - to kill or not
kill, but the all-encompassing problem: “Is he a scoundrel?
man, the whole race in general, that is
human". Mar-meladov's story about
the greatness of Sonya's sacrifice, a letter from her mother about
Dounia's fate, the dream about Savraska - all this
flows into the general stream of consciousness of the hero.
Meeting with Lizaveta, memories of
recent conversation in a student's tavern and
officer about the murder of an old pawnbroker
lead Raskolnikov to something fatal for him
decision.

Attention
Dostoevsky is chained to understanding
the root causes of Raskolnikov's crime.
The words “kill” and “rob” can
lead the reader's thoughts down the wrong path.
The point is that Raskolnikov
He doesn't kill in order to rob.
And not at all because he lives in poverty, that “the environment
stuck.” Couldn't I
he, without waiting for money from his mother and sister,
provide for yourself financially, as you did
Razumikhin? Dostoevsky's Man
is initially free and makes his own
choice. This fully applies to
Raskolnikov. Murder is the result
free choice. However, the path to “blood through
conscience” is quite complex and lengthy.
Raskolnikov's crime includes
creation of the arithmetic theory of “right to
blood". Inner tragedy and
the inconsistency of the image lies
precisely in the creation of this logically almost
invulnerable theory. The “great idea” itself
is a response to a crisis
peace. Raskolnikov is by no means a phenomenon
unique. Similar thoughts in the novel
expressed by many: a student in a tavern,
Svidrigailov, even Luzhin...

Basic
the provisions of his inhuman theory, the hero
sets out in confessions to Sonya, in
conversations with Porfiry Petrovich, and before
this, in hints, in a newspaper article. Rodion
Romanovich comments: “...unusual
a person has the right... to allow his
conscience to step over... over
other obstacles, and the only thing is
only if the execution of his idea (sometimes
saving for all humanity) that
will require... People, according to the law of nature,
are generally divided into two categories:
lower (ordinary) ... and actually on
people...” Raskolnikov,
as we see, he substantiates his idea
reference to the benefit of all humanity,
calculated arithmetically. But can
the happiness of all mankind is based on
blood, on a crime? However,
the reasoning of a hero who dreams of “freedom and
authorities...
over all trembling creation”, are not deprived and
selfishness. “Tell you what: I wanted Napoleon
happen, that’s why he killed,” admits
Raskolnikov. “You have departed from God, and God
struck, betrayed to the devil!” - with fear
says Sonya.

Moral
and psychological consequences
crimes are exactly the opposite of those
which Raskolnikov expected. Break apart
basic human connections. Hero
admits to himself: “Mother, sister, how
I loved them! Why do I hate them now? Yes I
I hate them, physically hate them, next to me
I can’t stand it...” At the same time Rodion
Romanovich decisively overestimates
the scale of one’s own personality: “The old lady
nonsense!.. The old woman was just an illness... I
I wanted to cross quickly... I'm not a human
I killed, I killed the principle! I killed the principle, but
I didn’t step over, on this
remained on the side... Eh, aesthetically I'm a louse, and
nothing else!" Note that Raskolnikov
does not abandon theory altogether, he only
denies himself the right to kill, only
removes himself from the category of “extraordinary”
of people".

Individualistic
theory is a source of constant suffering
hero, the source of undying inner
struggle. Serial logic
refutations of “idea-feelings”
Raskolnikov is not in the novel. Yes and is it possible?
it? And yet Raskolnikov’s theory has a number of
vulnerabilities: how to differentiate
ordinary and extraordinary people; What
what will happen if everyone imagines themselves to be Napoleons?
The inconsistency of the theory is revealed and
in touch with the “real”
reality." The future is impossible
predict arithmetically.
The same “arithmetic” that I spoke about in
In a tavern, an unfamiliar student suffers a complete
collapse. In Raskolnikov's dream about murder
The old woman's ax blows do not reach their target. "He...
quietly released the ax from the noose and struck
the old woman on the crown, once and twice. But it's strange:
she didn't even move from the blows, as if
wooden... The old woman sat and laughed...”
Raskolnikov's powerlessness, lack of control
the will around him is expressed by a complex
figurative symbolism. The world is not far yet
solved, it cannot be solved,
habitual cause-and-effect relationships
are missing. “Huge, round, copper-red
I looked straight out the window for a month.” “This is from a month
such silence, thought Raskolnikov, he,
right, now he’s asking a riddle.” So
Thus, the theory is not refuted, but, as it were,
repressed from consciousness and subconscious
hero. The essence of spiritual resurrection
Raskolnikov is to gain
through the suffering of “living life”, love, faith
into God. A dangerous dream about a pestilence
marks the exit from the darkness of the labyrinth.
The gap between the hero and
simple convicts, expanding
horizons of the hero's personality.

Let's sum it up
some results. Inner tragedy
Raskolnikov is associated with the disconnection of the hero
from people and with the creation of an inhuman theory
“blood according to conscience.” In your actions
a person is free and independent of social
circumstances. Continuous
internal struggle indicates that in
Rodion Romanovich at the same time
coexist a martyr's dream of deliverance
people from suffering and selfish
confidence in one's own right to “step over
through other obstacles" so that "Napoleon
become". At the end of the novel Raskolnikov
comes to spiritual resurrection not in
as a result of renunciation of the idea, and through
suffering, faith and love. Gospel
the parable of the raising of Lazarus is bizarre
refracted in the destinies of Sonya and
Raskolnikov. “They were resurrected by love,
the heart of one contained endless
the sources of life of the heart of another.” In the epilogue
the writer leaves the heroes on the threshold of a new one,
unknown life. Before Raskolnikov
the prospect of the infinite opens up
spiritual development. This is where faith comes in.
writer-humanist into a person - even in
killer! - belief that humanity
she hasn’t said her main word yet. All
ahead!

Content:

In world literature, Dostoevsky has the honor of discovering the inexhaustibility and multidimensionality of the human soul. The writer showed the possibility of combining low and high, insignificant and great, vile and noble in one person. Man is a mystery, especially Russian man. “Russian people are generally broad people... broad, like their land, and extremely prone to the fanatical, to the disorderly; but the trouble is to be broad without special genius,” says Svidrigailov. The words of Arkady Ivanovich contain the key to understanding Raskolnikov’s character. The very name of the hero indicates duality, the internal ambiguity of the image. A
Now let’s listen to the characterization that Razumikhin gives to Rodion Romanovich: “I’ve known Rodion for a year and a half: he’s gloomy, gloomy, arrogant and proud; lately... suspicious and a hypochondriac... Sometimes, however, he’s not a hypochondriac at all, but simply cold and
insensitive to the point of inhumanity, right, as if there were two opposite characters in him, alternately replaced... he values ​​himself terribly highly and, it seems, not without some right to
That".
The painful internal struggle does not subside for a minute in Raskolnikov. Rodion Romanovich is tormented not by a primitive question - to kill or not to kill, but by an all-encompassing problem: “Is a person a scoundrel, the entire race, that is, the human race.” Marmeladov's story about the greatness of Sonya's sacrifice, his mother's letter about Dunechka's fate, the dream about Savraska - all this flows into the general stream of consciousness of the hero.
Meeting with Lizaveta, memories of a recent conversation in a student's tavern and
officer about the murder of an old money-lender lead Raskolnikov to something fatal for him
decision.
Dostoevsky's attention is focused on understanding the root causes of Raskolnikov's crime.
The words “kill” and “rob” can lead the reader’s thoughts down the wrong path.
The point is that Raskolnikov does not kill at all in order to rob.
And not at all because he lives in poverty, because “the environment is stuck.” Couldn't he, without waiting for money from his mother and sister, provide for himself financially, as he did?
Razumikhin? Dostoevsky's man is initially free and makes his own
choice. This fully applies to Raskolnikov. Murder is the result
free choice. However, the path to “blood according to conscience” is quite complex and lengthy.
Raskolnikov's crime includes the creation of an arithmetical theory of the "right to
blood". The internal tragedy and inconsistency of the image lies
precisely in the creation of this logically almost invulnerable theory. The “great idea” itself
is a response to the crisis state of the world. Raskolnikov is by no means a phenomenon
unique. Many people express similar thoughts in the novel: a student in a tavern,
Svidrigailov, even Luzhin...
The hero sets out the main provisions of his inhuman theory in confessions to Sonya, in conversations with Porfiry Petrovich, and before that, in hints - in a newspaper article. Rodion Romanovich comments: “... an extraordinary person has the right... to allow his conscience to step over... other obstacles, and only if the fulfillment of his idea (sometimes saving for all mankind) requires it... People, according to the law of nature, are divided in general , into two categories: the lowest (ordinary)... and the people themselves...” Raskolnikov, as we see, substantiates his idea with reference to the good of all humanity, calculated arithmetically. But can the happiness of all mankind be based on blood, on crime? However,
the reasoning of the hero, who dreams of “freedom and power... over all trembling creatures,” is not devoid of egoism. “Here’s the thing: I wanted to become Napoleon because...
and killed,” admits
Raskolnikov. “You walked away from God, and God struck you down and handed you over to the devil!” - with fear
says Sonya.
The moral and psychological consequences of crime are exactly the opposite of those
which Raskolnikov expected. Basic human connections are falling apart. Hero
admits to himself: “Mother, sister, how I loved them! Why do I hate them now? Yes, I hate them, I physically hate them, I can’t stand being around me...” At the same time, Rodion Romanovich decisively overestimates the scale of his own personality: “The old woman is nonsense!.. The old woman was only an illness... I wanted to get over it as quickly as possible... I didn’t kill a person, I killed a principle! I killed the principle, but I didn’t step over it, I stayed on this side... Eh, aesthetically I’m a louse, and nothing else!” Note that Raskolnikov does not abandon theory in general, he only denies himself the right to kill, he only removes himself from the category of “extraordinary people.”
Individualistic theory is the source of the hero’s constant suffering, the source of undying internal struggle. There is no consistent logical refutation of Raskolnikov’s “idea-feelings” in the novel. And is it even possible? And yet, Raskolnikov’s theory has a number of vulnerabilities: how to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary people; what will happen if everyone thinks they are Napoleons? The inconsistency of the theory is also revealed in contact with the “real”
reality." The future cannot be predicted arithmetically.
The very “arithmetic” that the unfamiliar student spoke about in the tavern suffers a complete collapse. In Raskolnikov's dream about killing an old woman, the blows of the ax do not reach their target. “He... quietly released the ax from the noose and hit the old woman on the crown, once and twice. But it’s strange: she didn’t even move from the blows, like a piece of wood... The old woman sat and laughed...” Raskolnikov’s powerlessness, the inability of those around him to control his will, is expressed by complex figurative symbolism. The world is far from being solved yet, it cannot be solved, the usual cause-and-effect relationships are absent. “A huge, round, copper-red moon looked right out the window.” “It’s been so quiet for a month,” thought Raskolnikov, “he’s probably asking a riddle now.” Thus, the theory is not refuted, but is, as it were, forced out of the hero’s consciousness and subconscious. The essence of Raskolnikov’s spiritual resurrection is the acquisition of “living life,” love, and faith in God through suffering. A dangerous dream about a pestilence marks a way out of the darkness of the labyrinth. The gap between the hero and ordinary convicts is narrowing and expanding
horizons of the hero's personality.
Let's summarize some results. Raskolnikov’s internal tragedy is associated with the hero’s separation from people and with the creation of the inhuman theory of “blood according to conscience.” In his actions, a person is free and independent of social circumstances. The ongoing internal struggle indicates that in Rodion Romanovich, a martyr’s dream to save people from suffering and selfish confidence in his own right to “step over other obstacles” in order to “become Napoleon” simultaneously coexist. At the end of the novel, Raskolnikov comes to spiritual resurrection not as a result of renouncing an idea, but through suffering, faith and love. The Gospel parable about the resurrection of Lazarus is intricately refracted in the destinies of Sonya and
Raskolnikov. “They were resurrected by love, the heart of one contained endless
the sources of life in the heart of another.” In the epilogue, the writer leaves the heroes on the threshold of a new
unknown life. The prospect of the infinite opens up before Raskolnikov.
spiritual development. This demonstrates the humanist writer’s faith in man - even in
killer! — the belief that humanity has not yet said its most important word. All
ahead!

In the section on the question, what contradictions in Raskolnikov’s behavior did you discover? Help, I really need it!! given by the author VERONICA the best answer is I think you are interested in the hero of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment”.
The contradictions in the behavior of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov are connected primarily with the fact that his human compassionate nature fights his inhuman theory.
Raskolnikov considers himself among the powerful of this world, that is, he believes that, according to his own theory, he belongs to people who have the right to say their own word, to people like Lycurgus, Napoleon, and he himself shows pity towards the Marmeladovs, the drunken girl on the boulevard, the first gives away his last pennies, pays the cab driver to take the girl home. Every time, showing mercy, Rodion pulls himself back, condemns himself, because neither Lycurgus nor Napoleon would even notice the suffering of little people. It is no coincidence that Raskolnikov’s merciful act is immediately followed by his contemptuous reflections, for example, about the girl: “Let it be! This, they say, is how it should be. This percentage, they say, should go every year... somewhere... to hell..."
The contradictions in the nature of the main character of Dostoevsky’s novel are also manifested in the motivation for the crime. “But the motivations for the hero’s behavior in the novel are constantly bifurcated, because the hero himself, captured by an inhuman idea, is deprived of integrity. Two people live and act in him at the same time: one Raskolnikov’s “I” is controlled by the consciousness of the hero, and the other “I” at the same time "It's time to make unaccountable mental movements and actions. It is no coincidence that Raskolnikov's friend Razumikhin says that in Rodion "two opposite characters alternately replace each other." (Quote from the site).

Municipal educational institution

secondary educational school with in-depth study of subjects of the artistic and aesthetic cycle No. 23

Project on the topic

"What is the inconsistency of the rebellion of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov"

(based on the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment”)

Performed:

Barannik Vitalina Igorevna

11th grade student B

Supervisor:

Myachina Lyudmila Veniaminovna

teacher of Russian language and literature

Allowed for protection:

FULL NAME. __________________

"____" ______________ 20__

Komsomolsk-on-Amur

2016

Table of contents

2. The history of the novel

“Crime and Punishment,” the creation of which lasted almost 7 years, is one of the most famous novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky, both in Russia and abroad.It was formed from the spiritual experience of the author during his stay in hard labor. The novel was published in the Russian Bulletin magazine in 1866.In this creation of a classic of Russian literature, his talent as a psychologist and connoisseur of human souls was revealed as never before. What gave Dostoevsky the idea to write a work about a murderer and pangs of conscience, since this theme was not typical of the literature of that time?

The life of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky had it all: great fame and poverty, dark days in the Peter and Paul Fortress and many years of hard labor, addiction to gambling and conversion to the Christian faith.

In Russian literature, Fyodor Mikhailovich is given the place of the main psychologist and expert on human souls. Some literary critics (for example, Maxim Gorky), especially of the Soviet period, called Dostoevsky an “evil genius” because they believed that the writer in his works defended “wrong” political views - conservative and at some point in his life even monarchical. However, one can argue with this: Dostoevsky’s novels are not political, but they are always deeply psychological, their goal is to show the human soul and life itself as it is. And the work “Crime and Punishment” is the most striking confirmation of this.

The novel was created in an era when old moral laws were rejected and new ones were not developed. Society has lost its moral guidelines, which were embodied in the image of Christ, and Dostoevsky was able to show the horror of this loss. He was against violence and with his novel polemicized with revolutionaries who argued that the path to universal happiness was “to call Rus' to the axe.” Dostoevsky's main idea: you cannot achieve good through crime. He was the first in world literature to show the disastrousness of individualistic ideas of a “strong personality” and their immorality.

Raskolnikov's idea grows out of the depths of the historical disappointment experienced by the younger generation after the collapse of the revolutionary situation of the 60s, due to the crisis of utopian theories. His violent rebellion simultaneously inherits the force of social negation of the sixties, and falls away from their movement in its concentrated individualism. All the threads of the narrative converge on Raskolnikov. He absorbs everything around him (grief, misfortune and injustice). We see how human tragedies, disasters - both very distant (the girl on the boulevard), and those that seriously enter his life (the Marmeladov family), and those closest to him (the story of Dunya) - charge the hero with protest and fill him with determination.

Throughout the first part of the novel, the writer makes it clear: for Raskolnikov, the problem is not in improving his own “extreme” circumstances... For Raskolnikov, to obediently accept fate as it is means to renounce all right to act, live and love. The main character does not have that egocentric concentration that completely forms Luzhin’s personality in the novel.

Raskolnikov is one of those people who, first of all, do not take from others, but give to them. However, he is ready to do this without asking - dictatorially, against the will of the other person. The energy of goodness is ready to turn into self-will, “violence of goodness.”

4. The inconsistency of the hero’s actions

Raskolnikov wanted to do good, but at the same time kill;

The hero wanted to surrender to the police, but not go to prison;

He was a mentally developed person, but made an inhumane decision;

Conscientious, but with pride. (see appendix 6)

The moral and psychological consequences of the crime are exactly the opposite of those that Raskolnikov expected. Basic human connections are falling apart.

Raskolnikov's internal tragedy is associated with the hero's separation from people and with the creation of the inhuman theory of "blood according to conscience." In his actions, a person is free and independent of social circumstances. The ongoing internal struggle indicates that in Rodion Romanovich, a martyr's dream to save people from suffering and selfish confidence in his own right to “step over other obstacles” in order to “become Napoleon” simultaneously coexist.

Any theory is absurd. You cannot live your life according to theory.

The writer depicts the clash of theory with the logic of life. In his opinion, life always refutes any theory, even the most advanced revolutionary one. and criminal. Dostoevsky’s task is to show what power an idea can have over a person and how terrible and criminal it can turn out to be. The philosophical questions that Raskolnikov tormented over occupied the minds of many thinkers. The German philosopher F. Nietzsche created the theory of the “superman”, to whom everything is allowed. Later, it served as the basis for the creation of fascist ideology, which brought untold disasters to all of humanity.

The main character’s mistake is that he sees the cause of evil in human nature itself, and considers the law that gives the powerful the right to do evil to be eternal. Instead of fighting against the immoral system and its laws, he follows them. It seems to Raskolnikov that he is responsible for his actions only to himself and the judgment of others is indifferent to him. Rodion is not at all affected by the crime he committed. He is too confident in the correctness of his ideas, confident in his originality and exclusivity.

What's wrong with it if he killed? He killed only one “louse, the most useless of all lice.” When he hears the word “crime,” he shouts back, “Crime! What crime?.. the fact that I killed a nasty, malicious louse, an old pawnbroker, no one needed, who if you kill - forty sins will be forgiven, who sucked the juice out of the poor, and this is a crime? I don’t think about it, and I don’t think about washing it off!”

Yes, in Raskolnikov’s theory there are thoughts that may arise in an abnormal person, but they are immediately suppressed by common sense and the law. Perhaps, if the theory had remained only on paper, it would have seemed like the fruit of a poor man's jaded imagination. But Raskolnikov began to implement it! The old woman-pawnbroker is “an abscess that needs to be removed,” she does not bring any benefit to anyone, she must die, she is that same “trembling creature.” But why, in this case, does the innocent Lizaveta die? So Raskolnikov’s theory begins to gradually collapse. You cannot divide people only into “bad” and “good”, and it is not the job of one person to judge others. You cannot kill a person, even for great and good purposes. Life is the most valuable thing we have, and no one has the right to pass judgment on it just like that, at their own whim.

Individualistic theory is the source of constant suffering of the hero, the source of undying internal struggle. There is no consistent logical refutation of Raskolnikov’s “idea-feelings” in the novel. And is it even possible? And yet, Raskolnikov’s theory has a number of vulnerabilities: how to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary people; what will happen if everyone thinks they are Napoleons? The inconsistency of the theory is also revealed in contact with “real reality”. The future cannot be predicted arithmetically. We see that the very “arithmetic” that the unfamiliar student spoke about in the tavern is collapsing completely.

At the end of the novel, Raskolnikov comes to spiritual resurrection not as a result of renouncing an idea, but through suffering, faith and love. The Gospel parable about the resurrection of Lazarus is intricately refracted in the destinies of Sonya and Raskolnikov. “They were resurrected by love, the heart of one contained the endless sources of life of the heart of the other.” [1.33.]

“What is Raskolnikov’s internal contradiction?” (based on the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment”)

In world literature, Dostoevsky has the honor of describing the inexhaustibility and multidimensionality of the human soul. The writer showed the possibility of combining low and high, vile and noble in one person. Man is a mystery; in particular, the hero’s surname indicates duality, the internal ambiguity of the image. Russian man. This is the key to understanding Raskolnikov’s character. Herself

The painful internal struggle does not subside for a minute in Raskolnikov’s soul. He is tormented not by a primitive question - to kill or not to kill, but by an all-encompassing problem: “Is man, the entire race, that is, the human race, a scoundrel.”

Dostoevsky's attention is focused on understanding the root causes of Raskolnikov's crime. The point is that Raskolnikov does not kill at all because he lives in poverty. Couldn't he, without waiting for money from his mother and sister, provide for himself financially, as Razumikhin did? Dostoevsky's man is initially free and makes his own choice. This fully applies to Raskolnikov. Murder is the result of free choice. However, the path to “blood according to conscience” is quite complex and lengthy.

Raskolnikov's crime includes the creation of the arithmetic theory of the "right to blood". The internal tragedy and inconsistency of the image lies precisely in the creation of this logically almost invulnerable theory. The “great idea” itself is a response to the crisis state of the world.

The hero sets out the main provisions of his inhuman theory in confessions to Sonya and in conversations with Porfiry Petrovich. Raskolnikov justifies his idea by referring to the benefit of all mankind, calculated arithmetically. But can the happiness of all mankind be based on blood?

The moral consequences of the crime are exactly the opposite of those that Raskolnikov expected. Basic human connections are falling apart. The hero asks himself: “Mother, sister, how I loved them! Why do I hate them now? At the same time, Rodion Romanovich decisively overestimates the scale of his own personality: However, he does not abandon theory altogether, he only denies himself the right to kill, he only removes himself from the category of “extraordinary people.”

Individualistic theory is the source of constant suffering of the hero, the source of undying internal struggle. There is no consistent, logical refutation of Raskolnikov’s “idea-feelings” in the novel. And is it even possible? And yet, Raskolnikov’s theory has a number of vulnerabilities, for example, how to distinguish between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” people? The inconsistency of the theory is also revealed in contact with reality.

Raskolnikov's powerlessness, the lack of control over the will of those around him, is expressed through complex figurative symbolism. The world has not yet been solved, it cannot be solved, the usual cause-and-effect relationships are absent. Thus, the theory is not refuted, but is, as it were, forced out of the hero’s subconscious. The essence of Raskolnikov’s spiritual resurrection is the acquisition of “living life,” love, and faith in God through suffering. A dangerous dream about a pestilence marks a way out of the darkness of the labyrinth. The gap between the hero and ordinary convicts is narrowing, and the horizons of the hero’s personality are expanding.

Let's summarize some results. Raskolnikov's internal tragedy is associated with his isolation from people and with the creation of the inhuman theory of “blood according to conscience.” In his actions, a person is independent of social circumstances. The ongoing internal struggle indicates that the hero simultaneously coexists a martyr's dream to save people from suffering and selfish confidence in his own right to “step over other obstacles” in order to “become Napoleon.” At the end of the novel, Raskolnikov comes to spiritual resurrection not as a result of renouncing an idea, but through suffering, faith and love. In the epilogue, the writer leaves the heroes on the threshold of a new life. The prospect of endless spiritual development opens up before Raskolnikov. This shows the humanist writer’s faith in man, the belief that humanity has not yet said its most important word. Everything is ahead!