A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY
The title of this course is “Dostoevsky Presently: Poetics, Philosophy, Politics, and Psychology.” So I find it absolutely imperative to approach Dostoevsky’s work from a multidisciplinary angle. In this essay, I will analyze the characters’ actions and motivations based off the literal words Dostoevsky has written, and the subtext as understood from both a theological and psychological perspective. These will prove to be most appropriate choices of disciplines to view the subject within the lens of, as there is an abundance of Bible passages on wealth, as well as a body of psychological research on the effects of affluence on the general population. Now I shall begin the analysis.
MONEY LEADS TO POWER
Then …show more content…
Rogozhin, over the course of the novel, adopts a fascination with an idealized version of Nastasya. While she is a broken, tortured soul, who brutishly casts aside anyone who gets to close to her (lest they abuse her as Count Totsky did, in her youth), Rogozhin, instead, sees a well-mannered beauty who is knowledgeable in social decorum and would make a great wife. Clearly his lust for her has distorted reality and lead him to evil; he attempts to stab Prince Myshkin upon theorizing that the Prince is all that stands in the way between Nastasya Filippovna loving him, and later, Rogozhin murders her by stabbing her with the same knife as the one he attempted to use to extinguish his rival in love. It is not explained in the novel exactly why Rogozhin murdered Nastasya Filippovna, but my understanding is that upon truly “having” her, Rogozhin realized she does not at all line up with his romanticized image of Nastasya. The cognitive dissonance, in combination with his intense passion, is what drives him into a homicidal rage. His lack of empathy towards Nastasya Filippovna - that is, refusing to see her as the broken soul she is - is not exactly uncharacteristic of the super-rich. In a study from 2010, psychologists found upper class participants struggled recognizing common facial patterns and identifying emotions, resulting …show more content…
In a way, Ganya complements Prince’s naivete towards life with his own naivete towards the wealthy. Like Rogozhin idealizing Nastasya, Ganya idealizes the lives of the wealthy and lusts for nothing more than to join the upper class as a full nobleman, instead of an unrespected assistant to a general. Instead of cherishing the relationships he has with his parents and two siblings, he choses to resent them and focus his intensity on the goals of: a) becoming rich and b) obtaining Nastasya Filippovna hand in marriage, even though he despises her. Interestingly, in Part Four, Ptitsyn attempts to guide Ganya towards wealth by assuring him that a solid job will lead him to future riches. Instead, Ganya is angry at Ptitsyn for not seeking greater riches himself, and then goes to proclaim that if he were in Ptitsyn’s position (being a usurer, that is), he would “squeeze people dry, coin money out of them, become a character, become the king of the Jews!” This dichotomy of attitudes towards social mobility is
The title of this course is “Dostoevsky Presently: Poetics, Philosophy, Politics, and Psychology.” So I find it absolutely imperative to approach Dostoevsky’s work from a multidisciplinary angle. In this essay, I will analyze the characters’ actions and motivations based off the literal words Dostoevsky has written, and the subtext as understood from both a theological and psychological perspective. These will prove to be most appropriate choices of disciplines to view the subject within the lens of, as there is an abundance of Bible passages on wealth, as well as a body of psychological research on the effects of affluence on the general population. Now I shall begin the analysis.
MONEY LEADS TO POWER
Then …show more content…
Rogozhin, over the course of the novel, adopts a fascination with an idealized version of Nastasya. While she is a broken, tortured soul, who brutishly casts aside anyone who gets to close to her (lest they abuse her as Count Totsky did, in her youth), Rogozhin, instead, sees a well-mannered beauty who is knowledgeable in social decorum and would make a great wife. Clearly his lust for her has distorted reality and lead him to evil; he attempts to stab Prince Myshkin upon theorizing that the Prince is all that stands in the way between Nastasya Filippovna loving him, and later, Rogozhin murders her by stabbing her with the same knife as the one he attempted to use to extinguish his rival in love. It is not explained in the novel exactly why Rogozhin murdered Nastasya Filippovna, but my understanding is that upon truly “having” her, Rogozhin realized she does not at all line up with his romanticized image of Nastasya. The cognitive dissonance, in combination with his intense passion, is what drives him into a homicidal rage. His lack of empathy towards Nastasya Filippovna - that is, refusing to see her as the broken soul she is - is not exactly uncharacteristic of the super-rich. In a study from 2010, psychologists found upper class participants struggled recognizing common facial patterns and identifying emotions, resulting …show more content…
In a way, Ganya complements Prince’s naivete towards life with his own naivete towards the wealthy. Like Rogozhin idealizing Nastasya, Ganya idealizes the lives of the wealthy and lusts for nothing more than to join the upper class as a full nobleman, instead of an unrespected assistant to a general. Instead of cherishing the relationships he has with his parents and two siblings, he choses to resent them and focus his intensity on the goals of: a) becoming rich and b) obtaining Nastasya Filippovna hand in marriage, even though he despises her. Interestingly, in Part Four, Ptitsyn attempts to guide Ganya towards wealth by assuring him that a solid job will lead him to future riches. Instead, Ganya is angry at Ptitsyn for not seeking greater riches himself, and then goes to proclaim that if he were in Ptitsyn’s position (being a usurer, that is), he would “squeeze people dry, coin money out of them, become a character, become the king of the Jews!” This dichotomy of attitudes towards social mobility is