Idiot Dostoevsky analysis of the work. Problems and ideological meaning of Roman FM

Phenomenological reading of the novel "Idiot" F.M. Dostoevsky
Trukhtin S.A.

1) Many researchers of creativity F.M. Dostoevsky agrees that the novel "Idiot" is the most mysterious of all his things. At the same time, this mysteriousness is usually associated, ultimately, with our inability to understand the artist's intent. However, after all, the writer was left, although in a not very large number, but still in a fairly intelligible form of instructions about their ideas, even various preliminary plans of the novel are preserved. So, the general place has already become a mention that the work was conceived as a description of a "positively beautiful man." In addition, numerous inserts in the text of the novel from the Gospel almost no one left doubts that the protagonist Prince Myshkin really - the image is bright, extremely wonderful, that it is almost "Russian Christ" and so on. And so, despite all this, it would seem that transparency, the novel, according to the general agreement, still remains unclear.
Such a safety of the design allows us to talk about mysteriousness, which manites us and makes a desire to look closely for the shell of the shape, stretched on the semantic frame. We feel that something hides something behind the shell that it is not the main thing, and the main thing is its basis, and here on the basis of this feeling and the perception of the novel, as such, for which there is something hidden. At the same time, since Dostoevsky, despite the sufficient number of explanations, could not fully disclose the meaning of his creation, then from this it can be concluded that he himself did not fully realize his essence and issued, as it often happens in creativity, desired For actually obtained, i.e. For valid. But if so, it makes no sense too much to trust documentary sources and hope that they will somehow help, and it should be at the final product once again, which is the object of these studies.
Therefore, without questioning the fact that Myshkin is really a person, in general, not bad, however, I want to object to this that has already become the usual, approach in which the failed project of Christ is investigated.
2) "Idiot" is Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin. The fact that in this name is a contradiction, I would say, ironic, was noticed for a long time (see, for example,). Obviously, the neighborhood of the names of Leo and Myshkin somehow does not even harmonize with each other, they prevent and confuse in our heads: whether our hero is like a lion, or the mouse. And it seems that the main thing here is not in associations arising from these animals, but in the presence of the contradiction itself, which indicates their neighborhood. Similarly, the internal, immanent indicates that the fact that the hero is a figure with a high title of Prince, which suddenly receives low filling of the "idiot". Thus, our prince even at the first superficial acquaintance is a figure in the highest degree of contradictory and far from the perfect form, which, it would seem (because of the preliminary notes of Dostoevsky), one can bind or identify with it. After all, perfection by nature stands on some edge separating the earthly, erroneous and ridiculous from the unmistakable ideal, endowed with one only positive properties - positive in the sense of the absence of any drawbacks in them, unfamilies. No, our hero is not without flaws, with some kind of raisins of the wrongness, which, in fact, make it a man and do not give us the right to identify it with a kind of speculative absolute, which in everyday life is sometimes called God. And no wonder several times in the novel repeats the topic of Myshkin's humanity: in 14 ch. I h. Nastasya Filippovna (in the future - N.F.) says: "I am in it ... as a person believed", and further in 16 ch. I h.: "For the first time, I saw a man!". In other words, A. Moontsev rights, when she argued that "... we see in it (in Myshkin - S.T.) ... the most ordinary person." Dostoevsky, perhaps in the rational consciousness and imagined a certain similarity of Myshkina and Christ, and maybe even "Russian Christ", as writes G.G. Yermilova, but the hand brought something different, excellent, significantly more humane and close. And if you understand the novel "Idiot" as an attempt to express an inexpressible (ideal), then it should seem to recognize the incompleteness of their idea. On the other hand, Prince Myshkin, too, turned out to be in a situation of impossibility to fulfill its mission, which suggests the true result of the novel: it turns out to be urgently from the non-fulfillment of some idea to our hero - a man by the name of Prince Myshkin. This result is issued objectively, structurally, out of connection with the fact, Fedor Mikhailovich sought him, or not.
Last circumstance, i.e. That, whether Dostoevsky was sought to receive the collapse of the Myshkin project, or there was no such initial desire, and it was drawn by "self", at the end of work, this is all quite intriguing theme. In some way, it again returns to the question of whether the author of the masterpiece of what creates. And again, I'm inclined to give a negative answer. But on the other hand, I will argue that the writer had a certain hidden thought, hidden primarily for himself, who fought inside his consciousness and did not give him peace. Apparently, it is an internal demand that the essence of this thought is explained to himself and served as a motive for creating this truly great and solid work. This thought sometimes broke out of the subconscious, as a result of which a network of peculiar islets arose, relying on which you can try to pull out the meaning for which the novel was written.
3) Start research is best from the beginning, and since we are trying to comprehend the essence, this beginning should be essential, and not formal. And if on the form, the whole story begins to make a member of Myshkina and Rogozhin in the community with Lebedev in the train, then essentially all starts much earlier, from the stay of Leo Nikolayevich in a distant and comfortable Switzerland and its communications with the locals. Of course, the novel introduced a brief history of the hero and to his Swiss period, but it is pretty faded and compared compared with the description of the main events that are associated with the relations of the prince and the Swiss girl Marie. These relationships are very remarkable and, in essence, are the key to understanding the whole novel, therefore, it is in them that concluded a semantic beginning. The correctness of this situation will become apparent over time, as the entire point of view is present, and now the reader can recall that similar positions adheres to, for example, T.A. Casatkin, which drew attention to the story with the donkey: in Switzerland, Myshkin heard his cry (after all, as she was fine, the ass shouts so that it looks like a cry "I") and realized my self, I. True, it's hard to agree with what exactly from the moment the prince heard "me", i.e. He heard, therefore, I realized my own project, since his entire project began to unfold, because it is not about the awareness in Dostoevsky. But it still seems to be quite true that finding abroad, in a spray Switzerland with its wonderful nature and the "white thread of the waterfall" is precisely the state from which the sense shell of the novel begins to unfold.
The cry of the Donkey "I" is the detection of the hero in its subjectivity, and the story of Marie is the creation of a project that will subsequently be destroyed. Therefore, it will be more correct to say that the story with the donkey is, rather, not the semantic beginning, but the prelude to this beginning, which could be omitted, without losing in the content, but which was inserted by a writer as the crack in the formal narrative canvas, through Which is sought by our mind in search of meaning. A donkey cry is an indication of a methodology with which you should move, or, in other words, this is an indication (label) of the story language. What is this language? This is the language of "I".
To be more clearly understood, I will speak radical, it can be risking, but but saving time at the expense of secondary explanations: Donkey screams that Myshkin has reflexes, and he really sees this ability and, therefore, acquires the clarity of internal gaze. From now on, it is able to use reflexes as a tool with a special language and philosophy to this tool. Myshkin becomes a philosopher-phenomenologist and all its activities should be assessed with this important circumstance.
Thus, abroad finds the focus of the prince on the phenomenological plant of consciousness. At the same time at the end of the novel, the mouth of the Lizaveta Prokofievna, Dostoevsky tells us that "all this ... Europe, all this is one fantasy." All right! In these words, Lizaveta Prokofievna leaked to the mystery of the novel, which still does not have a mystery, but an important condition for its comprehension. Of course, abroad is the fantasy of the Myshkin, in which he discovers his self. What kind of imagination? Yes, no matter what - any. Zagred is not a physical place prince, no. Zagrantsa is the immersion of him in itself, fantasizing an ordinary person, what he is in fact, about certain circumstances.
It should be noted that this interpretation differs from the one according to which Switzerland is represented as paradise and, accordingly, Myshkin seems like "Russian Christ", which came down from heaven (from Swiss Paradise) to sinful (ie, Russian) land. At the same time, it should not be noted here and some similarity with the proposed approach. Indeed, paradise is intonantically intangible as the result of fantasy; The outcome of Paradise implies materialization, as well as the output from the state of fantasy implies the appeal of consciousness from himself into the outside world, i.e. It assumes the implementation of transcendence and re-issuance of himself.
Thus, the disabilities of "evangelical" (call it) approach and what is offered in this paper, it is unlikely that there may hardly have durable ontological grounds, but rather there is a consequence of our desire to get rid of unnecessary mysticism, which appears whenever it comes to Divine. By the way, Fedor Mikhailovich himself, although inserted a quotation from the Gospel to the novel, but called on not to start talking about God in an explicit form, since "all conversations about God is not about" (ch. 4 h. II). Therefore, following this call, we will use not an evangelical language, but by the language that competent philosophers think, and with which you can pull out the outwardly hidden in the man Myshkin. This other language is definitely not we are not reduced to evangelical and its use can give new non-trivial results. If you want, a phenomenological approach to the prince of Myshkin (but it is proposed to be done in this paper) there is another angle that does not change the object, but giving a new formation layer. At the same time, only with this approach can be dealt with the structure of the novel, which, according to the fair opinion of S. Yang, is closely connected with the Hero Consciousness.
4) Now, with the understanding that everything begins with some fantasy Leo Nikolayevich, it should be understood to the subject of the subject of fantasy. And here we come to the story with Marie and the attitude towards her Myshkin.
Briefly can be retended as follows. I lived, there was a marie girl, she was seduced by a certain passing, and then thrown out as a survived lemon. Society (pastor, etc.) condemned it and left him, while even innocent children threw stones into her. Marie Sami agreed that she did evilly and took bullying against himself. Myshkin regretted the girl, began to care for her, and persuaded the children that she was not to blame for anything, and even more, he was worthy of pity. Gradually, not without resistance, the entire village community moved to the point of view of the prince, and when Marie died, the attitude was completely different to it than before. The prince was happy.
From the point of view of the phenomenological approach, all this history can be interpreted as the fact that in his mind Myshkin was able to connect with the help of logic (he acted with the help of conviction, used logical arguments) Public morality of the village and pity for the one who is worthy. In other words, our hero simply created a speculative scheme in which the public morality does not contradict pity, and even it corresponds to it, and this correspondence is achieved by a logical way: logically pity docked with morality. And so, having received such a speculative design, the prince felt happiness.
5) Next, he returns to Russia. Obviously, as it has already been often noted, Russia in the novel acts as a certain opposite of the West, and if we agreed that the West (more precisely, Switzerland, but this clarification is not fundamentally) is the designation of the phenomenological plant of consciousness, reflection, then, in contrast to her Russia is logical to identify with an external installation, in which people are under time and in which the world seems to be an objective, non-reality from them.
It turns out that after creating a speculative scheme for the arrangement of the world, Myshkin emerges from the world of his dreams and draws his eyes to the real world. Why does he do, if not with some purpose? It is clear that he has a goal that tells us (Adelaide) at the beginning of the novel: "... I really, perhaps, a philosopher, and who knows, maybe, in fact, I have to teach" (Ch. 5, Part I) And then adds that he thinks smarter than everyone to live.
After that, everything becomes clear: the prince constructed the speculative scheme of life and decided, in accordance with this scheme, to build (change) the life itself. On it, life should obey some logical rules, i.e. be logically conditioned. This philosopher has impass a lot about himself, and everyone knows what it ended: life turned out to be more complicated.
Here it can be noted that, in principle, the same thing happens with the Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment", which has its own logical manipulations (about Napoleon, about lich and right, etc.) set up its own emotions opposing conceptual arguments. He crossed them, as a result of emotion punished him through the flour of fear, and then - conscience.
It turns out that in the novel "Idiot" Fedor Mikhailovich remains faithful to his general thought about the existentialness of the human soul, in which a person is guided primarily with the flow of sensitivity, existential, but its essential side is secondary and not so important in order to live decent and Happy life.
6) What is the feature of the novel "Idiot" compared to other works of Dostoevsky? Actually, this is what we have to find out. At the same time, having received at its disposal an understanding of the general idea that goes beyond the individual novel and covering all the life of a writer in his mature creative years, and also having received the right to use the language of phenomenology as the most accurate tool in this situation, we will somewhat change the structure of our presentation and begin Follow the cart on the narrative of the work, trying to catch the thoughts of his creator. After all, the status of the presentation depends not only on the level of understanding, but also from the tools that the researcher has. And since our understanding, as well as the toolkit, enriched, then with new opportunities to logically change the approach.
7) The novel begins with the fact that Myskin goes on the train in Russia, returning from Switzerland, and meets Rogohe. In fact, this action is the transition of the Hero Consciousness from the status of fantasy (abroad) to the external consciousness (Russia). And since from the very beginning, Rogozhin demonstrates his riotiness, the element of life, and in the future, during the whole novel, this property does not at all weaken, then the output of the prince consciousness in reality occurs in parallel, or simultaneously with his dip in the stream of unmanaged life sensations that rogozhin personifies . Moreover, in the subsequent (ch. 3, part II) we learn that, according to Rogozhin himself, he did not study anything and does not think about anything ("Yes, and I think!"), So that he is far from - By reflection of reality and there is nothing in it, except for naked sensations. Consequently, this hero is a simple, uncommunicative existence, which is, with which the prince of Myshkin enters into reality so that it is organized.
It is important that in this attitude to reality another remarkable meeting of Myshkina occurs - with Nastasya Filippovna (hereinafter - N.F.). He does not see her yet, but he knows about her. Who is she, Magic Beauty? Soon everything will be revealed. In any case, it turns out to be the Rogozhinsky rue, which is worthwhile.
At the Epang, to which Myshkin comes immediately upon arrival in St. Petersburg, he is already found with the face itself (photography) N.F., who is striking him and reminds something. From the story about the fate of N.F. Certainly clearly appears to the similarity of this heroine with Marie: both suffered, both worthy of pity, and both rejects society in the face of the village flock - in the case of Marie, and in the face of those who are introduced to know people, in particular, the Epantane - in the case of N.F. . At the same time, N.F. - Some kind of not so marie, not quite similar to it. Indeed, her offender Totsky was able to "build" so that he would envy any woman. She lives in full, beautiful (as opposed to Marie) and she is full of grooms. Yes, and call her by name-patronymic, solid and proudly - Nastasya Filippovna, although she is just 25 years old, at the same time the most important character - Prince Myshkin - sometimes it is called less respectful, by the name, and the daughters of the daughters, despite the entry into secular Circles, and at all often master with ordinary names, although those approximate roveles "humiliated and offended" heroine. In general, N.F. It turns out that the Marie is not identical, although it reminds her. It reminds primarily the Myshkina himself, because from the very first sight he felt that he could have seen her somewhere, felt a unclear connection with her: "... that I was imagined ... As if I saw somewhere ... I have your eyes ... I saw exactly somewhere ... maybe in a dream ... "(ch. 9, part I). Similarly, and N.F. On the first day of dating, after the intercession of the prince for Vary Ivolgin, he admits the same: "Somewhere I saw his face" (Ch. 10, Part I). Apparently, here we have a meeting of the heroes who were familiar in another world. Rejecting Gnosticism and all mysticism, and adhering to the adopted phenomenological approach, it is best to accept that N.F. - This is what the Myshkina consciousness was remembered as Marie, i.e. - Compassion object. Only in real life, this object looks completely different than in fantasies and therefore the full recognition does not occur on the side of the prince, nor from the object of sorrow (Marie-N.F.): the subscriber and the object met again, albeit in another hatchet.
Thus, N.F. - This is an object that requires compassion. According to the project of the Prince, the world should harmonize by bringing morals and pity to the logical correspondence, and if it succeeds, then happiness will come, apparently, happiness is universal, universal. And since the object of pity is N.F., and the society, the belonging of it is unknown for which and rejecting it from himself, is presented first of all with the Epang's family, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe prince is concretized by the requirement to convince the Epantane, and others, edit their attitude to . in the side of pity. But this is exactly what is stumbled in the first minutes of resistance (quite expected and resembling the situation in Switzerland) from society: it is not ready for such compassion.
Myshkin, in accordance with his project, must overcome this resistance, but does he have conceived? After all, it turns out in a difficult situation. On the one hand, the object (rogozhyn) seeks to the object of pity. On the other hand, a society that gives a moral assessment, therefore, evaluating at all, does not seek it, i.e. Does not evaluate it adequately.
The point here is to be as follows: if the existence seeks something to something, then this is something should be something opposite to him. What is the opposite to existing? The opposite is the opposite of its being, being existing. Then N.F. It turns out the personification of the existence of all things, and the being, which is worthy of pity, in the sense, it is worthy that all the nuances of his soul should be asked to find an adequate condition of consciousness. Speaking easier, it is self-shatter as a process (or an act) is the fact that the object of pity is able to be perceived adequately, i.e. What is capable of learning being. And here's a society, i.e. The subjectivity that gives an assessment is not ready to evaluate, in fact - to know being; The subject refuses to know. This is a logical contradiction (after all, the subject is the one who knows) and must overcome the Myshkin.
8) Rogozhin-Bulk is constantly striving for N.F.-Being, which constantly eludes him, but does not let go, but, on the contrary, manites. The company's society does not want to evaluate what is intended to be measured - being.
Here you can remember Heidegger, who said that being seems only in the situation of our concern to them. The Dostoevsky analogue of Hydegger's care existential is self-shattered, pity, so that Myshkin, turning into reality, reveals the reluctance of some subjectitivity (society) to move towards the disclosure of its essence, its meaning, its ontological center. Society without the foundation - this is how the reality has taken the prince. This does not fit with his aspectable ideas about the world order, in which society is noticeably due to pity, compassion. And then he is solved on the jerk: in the house of N.F. (Ch. 16, Part I) He offers her his respect: "I will respect you all my life." The prince decided to repeat the fulfilled in Switzerland (designed in consciousness) and put in place of that subject matter, which will carry out the act of mercy - cognition. Thus, the world, apparently, must acquire its existent center, fill in its reason and harmonize. And, by his plan, all Okuman of the Universe should harmonize, since it was in this that his initial idea was.
Thus, the idea of \u200b\u200bMyshkina embodied in his decision to replace himself, his, something objective (society), independent of him. Natural and objective, which is happening in the world as it is a natural way, he decided to replace (or, maybe addiction, which does not fundamentally change the case) on its subjective Ya.
Myshkin in reality repeated his scheme: He personally, his example, began to show all people the need for pity - first, and secondly, he decided to take advocate for the belief of society. Only in consciousness (in Switzerland), his attention was marie, and in reality (in St. Petersburg) - N.F. With Marie, he did everything, but will it work out with N.F.? And in general, should it come in reality as it occurs in the imagination?
9) To answer this question in the first part, the topic with execution (ch. 2, 5) is very active.
At the beginning (ch. 2) penetrately talks about the experience of convicts for execution, and it is described on the face of Myshkina as if the Dostoevsky himself sets out all this (and we know that there are historical reasons, his personal experience), as if we are not Myskin Fedor Mikhailovich his own person directly shares his experiences and thoughts. There is a feeling that the author is trying to convey his idea to readers in a pure, undistressed form and wants the reader without a doubt take it. What idea does he preach here? It is absolutely clear what - a man in front of a deliberate death clearly realizes the whole horror of the situation that arose, which lies in the vision of his end, its limb. Consciousness of a person per second before the inevitable death faces the evidence of the fact of its limitations. In the fifth chapter, this topic is developing: it says that in a few minutes before the execution it is possible to change their mind and remake that this limited period of time allows consciousness to carry out something, but not all. Consciousness turns out to be limited, in contrast to the lifetime itself, which is infinity next to death.
Apparently, Dostoevsky in plots with mortal executions wants to say: the consciousness of man exists inside this huge, infinite world and it is secondary about him. After all, limited consciousness is because it is still limited, which is not capable of everything, in particular, it is not capable of drawing into the reality and infinity of this world. In other words, the possibility of consciousness is not like what is possible in a living reality. That's it, this is not the likeness of the consciousness and the outside world emphasized the most acute and convex "a quarter of a second" before death.
And if so, the stories about the experience of people before execution are needed by Dostoevsky in order to show the impossibility of transferring the results of thinking in reality directly, without approving them itself. The author prepares the reader by rejection, it would seem the generous act of Myshkina in relation to N.F., when he invites her to be with him when he invites her "all his life respect." This action of the prince, from an ordinary point of view, normal, natural, turns out to be false, erroneous from the point of view of the philosophical analysis of the novel.
The feeling of this error enhances against the background of what he offers Adelaide to draw the scene before the execution of the execution: Adelaide as part of society is not able to see the meaning (this is expressed in the fact that she, too, together with everyone, does not appreciate and does not regret N.F .) And does not know for himself a real, full pictorial topic (goals). Prince, able to understand people, easily characterizing them and seeing the meaning of the events of occurring events, so that the reader is even strange to listen to his self-character as a "patient" or even "idiot", this prince advises Adelaide to write, apparently, the main and most relevant for him on that The point is the meaning - the picture with the image, in fact, denoting the awareness of the man of its limitity, imperfection. In fact, Myshkin offered Adelaide to approve the fact of the totality, the primacy of this world in relation to the consciousness of the individual. And here he, who considers it, suddenly decides to dive with his idealistic idea of \u200b\u200blife reality and thereby approve the opposite to what he himself had previously insisted. This is an obvious mistake, which then cost him expensive.
10) But why then Myshkin made this mistake, what led him to her? At first he had a scheme of the world order, but did not carry it into life, something kept him from it. But at a certain point, this restriction turned out to be removed. Here with this and you should figure it out now.
First of all, we will remind the important circumstance that Myshkin appears on the pages of the novel as a very insightful analyst, the expert of human souls, capable of seeing the meaning of what is happening, and the essence of human nature. For example, when Ghania first appeared before him with a false smile, the prince immediately saw another in him, and he felt about him that "he must be when alone, not so much and, maybe never laughs" (ch . 2, Part I). Further, in the house of the Epang, in the first meeting, he tells the Adelaide plot for the picture, the meaning of which is in the image of the act of awareness of the prisoner of his death, its limitation, i.e. He teaches to see the meaning of what is happening (Ch. 5, Part I). Finally, it gives classic in simplicity and correctness, i.e. A very harmonious characteristic of the ladies of Epang: Adelaide (artist) is happy, Alexandra (older daughter) has a secret sadness, and the Lizaveta Prokofievna (Maman) is a perfect child in all good and in all bad. The only one who he could not give a characteristic is Agela, the youngest daughter of the family.
Aglaya is a special character. She says the prince: "You are so good that you are afraid to look at you," "Beauty is difficult to judge ... Beauty is a mystery," and in the future it is reported that he perceives it as "light" (ch. 10, part III). According to the philosophical tradition, which comes from Plato, the light (sun) is usually considered as a condition of vision, knowledge of being. It was not clear whether Dostoevsky was familiar with this tradition and therefore paying attention to better (from the point of view of obtaining reliable results) not on this characteristic of AGLAI, but to another, completely obvious and not causing any objections, i.e. On her beauty, which is "afraid to watch", and which is a mystery. This riddle of the prince of Myshkin refuses to solve, and not even just refuses, but it is afraid to do it.
In other words, Aglaya is an intriguing exception for unclear properties. Everything else is amenable to the vision of Myshkin, and this is the main thing: our hero as a whole is capable of reality to thoughts about it, and, almost by general recognition, he does it very workively and plausible. Here, Myshkin from reality moves to thoughts filled with real content arising from reality that have root in reality, so that they can be called real thoughts. Thus, for him, and for all we are obvious to the existence of communication between reality and thoughts in general and, therefore, the question of the possibility of reverse transformation is raised: thoughts are reality. Is it possible if it is possible to implement your ideas in reality? Are there any prohibitions here? Again, we came to the matter that already sounded, but now we already understand his inevitable character.
11) In this regard, we will continue our search for the reasons for the removal of the mushkin ban on the use of purely logical structures in the life. We found out that he began to carry out the activities of his external consciousness (i.e., while in the installation of the natural perception of the world) through the implementation of a completely legal transformation in the house of Epancini: Reality is a real thought. And then he goes to settle to Ghana on an apartment, in the room. There, he meets with the whole family of Ghani, including with a very remarkable person - the head of the family, the general resignation by Ivozhin. The exclusivity of this general is entirely and fully consists in its constant fantasy. He comes up with stories and non-residents, sucking them out of his finger, from nothing. Here, when meeting Myshkina, he invents the story about the fact that the father of Leo Nikolayevich, really convicted (perhaps, and unfairly) in the case of the death of one of his subordinate soldiers, is not guilty due to the fact that this very soldier, whom, By the way, buried to the coffin, found in another military unit after a while after the funeral. Indeed, once a person is alive, he is not dead, and if so, it is purely logically the innocence of the father of Myshkina in the absence of a crime composition, although the whole story is really not more than fiction: can not resurrect. But General Ivigina he resurrect, so his ideas are torn off from life. At the same time, the general insists on their authenticity. It turns out that this figure is trying his thoughts that do not have strong grounds in the reality, give out for the thoughts precisely with such grounds. At the same time, the focus is that the prince, apparently, believes. He entrusted to the scheme, according to which unreal thoughts are identified with real. He seeming meaning, i.e. As if seeing thoughts, the differences between thoughts are real and unreal. The beauty of a logical design, in which his father turns out to be innocent, suppresses the laws of life, and Myshkin loses control over himself, fascinates and falls under the influence of syllogism. For him, the right (truthful) turns out to be not what stems from life, but what is harmonious, beautiful. Subsequently, through the Hippolyta, we will be transferred to the words of Myshkin that "the beauty will save the world." This famous phrase is usually encompassing by all researchers, but there is nothing in my humble look, in addition to performances here, and as part of our interpretation it would be more correct to depict this dostoevsky as an underlined of Dostoevsky. Not a positive nature of this phrase, but negative. After all, the approval of Myshkina that "the beauty will save the world," most likely, it means "the world is beautiful", and since the slender Slimogius is definitely handsome, he falls here, and then it turns out: "Sillogism (logic) will save the world." This is the opposite to the fact that, in fact, trying to show the writer in all his work.
Thus, it can be said that it was the beauty that was the reason for the implementation of its most important mistake: a thought based on reality, he identified (ceased to distinguish) with the thought, cut off from it.
12) Our position can be criticized on the grounds that beauty acts as a peculiar pointer to the negative, although it can carry and positive features. For example, sisters Epang and N.F. Beautiful or even beauties, but they are not at all something negative, bad, etc. It should be answered that the beauty of the Molia and, as Fedor Mikhailovich, "Mysterious", i.e. Contains hidden parties. And if the open side of beauty is striking, hypnotizes, admires, and so on., The hidden side should differ from all this and to be separated from all these positive emotions. In fact, Alexandra, despite the high position of his father, beauty and meek temper, are still not married, and it is sad. Adelaide does not know how to see the meaning. Aglaya is cold, and subsequently we learn that it is very contradictory. N.F. During the whole novel called "patient", "crazy", etc. In other words, in all these beauties there is one or another lack of wormochin, which is the stronger than the more obvious the beauty of each of them. Consequently, the beauty of Dostoevsky is not at all synonymous with solid positivity, virtue or something else in this spirit. Actually, it's not for nothing that he exclaims through the Myshkin about the photo N.F.: "... I don't know if she is good? Oh, kababi good! Everything would be saved! ". Dostoevsky here as if he says that "here, if there were no flaws in beauty and the idea of \u200b\u200bbeauty corresponded to life! Then everything would be given in harmony, and the logical scheme would be saved, would be accepted by life! ". After all, if in fact, beauty would be some ideality, then it would be that the ideal logical scheme as extremely beautiful does not differ from the sensation that we receive from a beautiful reality, therefore, any harmonious syllogism (and there are no other syllogisms) It turns out in identity with some (beautiful) reality, and the prohibition in the form of limited consciousness on the fulfillment of the mystery of his speculative idea would be fundamentally removed. Myshkin is striving through the beauty, in particular, through the beauty of logic, get the justification of his project.
13) An example, which confirms our idea of \u200b\u200bthe negative beauty of beauty from Dostoevsky in his novel, serves as a scene in the house N.F., in which guests talk about their bad affairs (ch. 14, part I). Indeed, here Fddyshchenko tells the truthful story about his next pumidity, which causes universal indignation. But clearly fictional presentation of the "respectable" gene. Epanchin and Totsky turn out to be quite frauded, from which they only won. It turns out that the truth of Fddyshchenko appears in the negative light, and the fiction of Epanchin and Totsky - in the light of positive. Beautiful fairy tale is more pleasant than rude truth. This friend and relaxes people and allows them a beautiful lie to perceive for the truth. They just want it to be so, so, in fact, it is their aspirations for good, they are often confused with themselves good. Myshin allowed a similar error: the beauty for him turned out to be the criterion of truth, in his desire for it, as an extreme value, everything beautiful began to acquire the features of the attractive.
14) And why, let me ask, for Myshkina, the beauty has become the criterion of truth?
Truth is a thought corresponding to reality, and if beauty, or in other transcription, harmony, turns out to be decisive here, then it is possible only in a situation where the harmonicity of the world is initially assumed, his arrangement according to some kind of Divine or of any sentence. In essence, this is nothing but the doctrine of St. Augustine, but ultimately - Platonism, when the Platonic Matrix of Being predetermines the grasp of the consciousness of the existing.
Being deeply convinced of the falsity of the predestination of human being, Dostoevsky all the novel is building on it. He enters Myshkina in faith in the existence of a single pre-installed harmony of the universe, within which everything beautiful and harmonious is declared true, having unconditional roots in reality, connected to him so that they cannot be divided without damage and, therefore, it is impossible to disconnect. Therefore, beauty has a peculiar principle (mechanism) of identifying any idea, including obviously false (but beautiful), with the truth. Lies, being beautifully presented, becomes like a truth and even stops different from it.
Thus, the root, the most source mistake of Myshkina, as presented by Dostoevsky, is its mood for the teaching of Plato. Note that A.B. To the vision of the commitment of the main character of the novel to Platonism. Crinzin, when he rightly argued "... In Aure, the prince sees something that is more true reality for him than the visible reality, but, unfortunately, he did not formulate this case explicitly.
15) The follower of Plato Myshkin as the criterion of the truth took beauty (pre-installed harmony) and as a result of this, it was a beautifully pecked gene. Ivolgine is a false idea with a real thought. But this has not yet been the final reason for it began to embody his speculative project into life, i.e. So that he got into place of society and suggested N.F. His high rating. That it turned out to be possible, i.e. To finally remove the restriction on the right to enjoy your scheme, he was still required something else, it was - he had to obtain evidence that a mental forecast based on reality is justified and embodied in what was expected. In this case, the following chain of schemes is built:
1) Real Thought \u003d Unreal Thought (Fantasy);
2) real thought goes into reality,
From where it turns out an unconditional conclusion:
3) Fantasy goes into reality.
To obtain this chain, i.e. To obtain the right to implement paragraph 3, the Myshkin required paragraph 2, and he received it.
Indeed, the prince came from Switzerland with a letter of inheritance. And although his chances at first were clearly not enough, it was not obvious, but he, on the basis of the received letter, suggested the reality of the opportunity and tried to implement a real idea in practice. At first, as we know, it somehow did not get it: both the gene. Epancin and all the others who could help him just shook him out, cost him only to talk about his business. The situation seemed completely deplorable, because it was to get this letter to the prince and got into Russia, and here it seems that no one wants to listen to him about him. It seems that the world resists the desire of Myshkin to figure out that his question that would say, as if he says: "What are you, dear prince, throw, forget and live in a normal life like everyone else." But Myshkin does not forget everything, and to be like everything does not want.
And so, when the reader has almost forgotten the existence of the letter, in the most peak of the events of the first part of the novel, on the apartment N.F., Myshkin suddenly recalls him, recalls how a very important case that never missed and kept The mind, since I remembered him when it would seem to be about everything you can forget. He takes out the letter and announces the possibility of obtaining inheritance. And, about a miracle, the assumption comes true, inheritance practically in his pocket, the beggar turns into rich. It looks like a fairy tale, on a miracle embodied in life. However, it is important that this fairy tale had a real poverty, so that there is a fact that the exercise of Mushkin conceived and receive proof of the legality of the transformation: real thoughts are moving into reality.
Everything! The logical chain is built, and it is possible to obtain unconditional (from the point of view of this built semantic design) to the conclusion about justice and even the need for transformation: fantasy - reality. Therefore, Myshkin, not at all pondering, rushes to carry out his project - falls on the place of evaluating society and offers a high assessment of N.F. ("I will respect you all my life"). So erroneous Platonism of the prince (erroneous - from the point of view of Dostoevsky) turns into a rough vital mistake - the implementation of their abstract fantasy.
16) Dostoevsky plunges the prince in the implementation of his project, in sorry N.F., i.e. In the cognition of being. But it turns out to be at all like that as he expected him to see, remembering the story with Marie. After all, Marie as an object of pity (being) is completely motionless and only perceives the movements to it, which are carried out by Myshkin. Unlike her, N.F. Suddenly, completely for Myshkina unexpectedly, it shows activity, and herself regrets him, because he rejects all his suggestions, motivating it by what he considers himself a fallen woman, and does not want to drag him along with him on the bottom.
It must be said that the activity of N.F. It rushes into the eyes from the very beginning: Would she exure and Totsky and the rest of society without this activity? Of course not. Then maybe it is not related to being; Maybe it means not being, and something else?
No, all these doubts are in vain and N.F., of course, indicates what they want to know (in the context of Poetheevsky poetics - to regret), i.e. being. In fact, in the novel, it appears in front of us (and Myshkina) gradually: at the beginning we hear about it, then we see her face, and only then she herself appears, hypnotizing the prince and making it his servant. So only mystery appears. Is that being not mysterious? Next, in ch. 4, h. I We read: Her "looked looked - I defined the riddle", etc. Here N.F. It is obviously an object requiring the attelligence, i.e. Cognition. N.F. - This is being, sitting to himself, but escape, it is worth noting him. At the same time, it matures not as it really is. For example, Ivolgins (ch. 10, part I) Myshkin, who knows how to recognize the essence, says N.F.: "Do you have been such as now. Maybe it can be! ", And she agrees with it:" I'm not really like that ... ". In other words, N.F. In the philosophical structure of the Roman denotes being not only according to the formal signs mentioned above (to Being-N.F. It seeks his opposite-rogozhin), but because of the numerous coincidences of the characteristics that are immanent to being, with the characteristics of its own.
Thus, in contrast to the Being, which Myshkina seemed to be in his Swiss fantasies, in reality being was different, not stationary and passive, and with a well-known activity that rushed to him itself and turned it into his object of sorry. What do we have here? The first - being is active, the second is the detection by the subject of the fact that he also turns out to be an object. Myshkin was on the verge of immersion in himself, in reflection.
17) Entry into reflection is not an easy, and before it occurs, the events described in the second part of the novel. However, before proceeding with their understanding, it is useful to think, and for what Dostoevsky needed to put Myshkin in the caches of your own?
Apparently, he is simply trying to trace the progress of the functioning of consciousness: the desire to harmonize the world of Myshkina pours out in an attempt to know being and it becomes a subject, finding the activity of that object to which he rushed. The existent (essential) meaning of this object is completely natural (to this nature, Dostoevsky prepared us in advance) it turns out that our hero expected to see. In this case, a closer look is required for the subject of cognition, expressed in the fact that since being is gathered by us not as it is in fact, and it is given only in a distorted form in the form of phenomena, it is necessary to study these phenomena, or mapping of the root cause subject in consciousness. So there is a need for a reflexive look at things.
18) The second part of the novel begins with the fact that Myskin is setting up its consciousness on the phenomenological vision of the world. To do this, it has a good base in the form of a obtained inheritance, which, in addition, which gave the right to become the subject of knowledge and pushed to exercise his mission, showed him the very rest of his EGO. After all, property in its essence is a thing deeply selfish and, no matter how to treat him, there is a consequence of the selfishness of the owner. Therefore, at that moment, when Myskin became rich, he acquired an EGO center. If it were not, then, perhaps, he would not have to become a phenomenologist; But Dostoevsky endowed his property, sending (obviously, intentionally) the conveyor of events in the famous channel.
19) At the beginning of the second part, Myshkin leaves the inheritance to Moscow, in other words - to constitute its EGO. Rogozhin S N.F. followed there, and this is understandable: the existence (rogozhin) and being of the existence (N.F.) coexist only in the presence of a subject (Myshkin), while their coexistence is similar to some ripples when They are connected (identified) for a moment, then disconnected (approve their difference). Similarly, the prince for some moment converges with N.F. and immediately diverge; The same thing - and with Rogozhina. This Trinity Rogozhin - Myshkin - N.F. (Myshkin - in the middle as an intermediary between them) can not be without each other, but also do not converge with each other forever.
It is important that the stay of this Trinity in Moscow Dostoevsky describes as it were from the side, with other people's words, as if hears heard. This circumstance researchers are interpreted in different ways, I assume that it is denoted here to describe in detail the process (act) of the design, i.e. Constitution EGO - Center. Why so, to say it is definitely difficult, but most likely Fedor Mikhailovich simply does not see the mechanics of this process and concludes in a black box what is happening during it. He as if he says: in some state of consciousness (in Moscow), somehow the design of his pure I (EGO - Center) occurs; As it happens - unknown; It is only known that this self-resistance is carried out against the background of the presence of the external pole of being and the existing, the presence in this form, in which otherwise it is impossible. Another possible explanation of the wisestness of the look of the Writer on the events in Moscow may be his unwillingness unnecessary to delay the story with secondary scenes, directly related to the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe work.
20) Nevertheless, the question arises, why Dostoevsky needs, so that Myshkin acquires an EGO - the center, if he already, it seems, has possessed from the moment he heard a donkey cry in Switzerland heard.
The fact is that the EGO - the center in Switzerland did not have a property of substance, he was purely fictional, Nafantazed: Prince at the time took the existence of a certain EGO center, but he had no reason for this. Now, after the appeal of the gaze into real life, he received such a base (inheritance) and already on this basis headed to grab a new, substantive EGO center.
It must be said that this act is deeply reflective, and its implementation should mean the gradual entry of the prince into the phenomenological installation of consciousness. For its part, this movement, strictly speaking, is impossible without the presence of an EGO - the center that provides it. Dostoevsky, apparently, decided to break this vicious circle, suggested that at the beginning of the EGO - the center is put forward as a hypothesis (as a fantasy). Further, there is an appeal to the reality of this world, where this hypothesis is justified and is already being taken as postulates, while without singeing the shell of reflection. And only having the postulated EGO - the center of the subject is resolved to approach to itself, to reflection.
21) Now consider what form is described by the approximation of Mishkina to the inner state of consciousness.
Immediately upon arrival from Moscow to Peter, when leaving the train of the train, he as if he saw a "hot look of someone's two eyes", but "looking more closely, he had no longer distinguished anything" (Ch. 2, Part II). Here we see that Myshkina has a kind of hallucination, when he is beginning to see some phenomena, which exist, whether there is no. It looks like a reflective state in which you doubt the seen: whether I saw the reality itself, or her glare. Further, after a while, the prince comes to the house of Rogozhina, which he found almost no on whistle; He almost guess this house. In this place, an association with actions in a dream immediately occurs when it is suddenly acquired by almost supernatural possibilities and begin to make things, it would seem impossible in a state of wakefulness, not at all suspecting their unnaturalness. Like this, it seems to guess the house of Rogozhin among the many buildings of St. Petersburg as something unnatural, exactly Myshkin became a little wizard or, more precisely, it turned out to be in a kind of dream, in which the observed reality loses its materiality and turns into a phenomenal flow of consciousness. This stream began to bother already at the station, when the princess was harmed a pair of eyes looking at him, but in full, he began to be expressed as our hero approaches the house of Rogozhin. The presence in real consciousness with fluctuation jumps inside the reflection is gradually replaced by the situation when these fluctuations are enhanced, increase in time and, finally, when the prince found himself inside the house, the jump suddenly screamed to such an extent that he became stable, and, along with reality, was stable as Independent fact of the Myshkin Creature. This does not mean that the prince fully immersed in reflection; He is still aware that reality does not depend on it, independently as a substantial force, but he already knows about the existence of the world from the point of view of "phenomenological brackets" and is forced to take it together with the reality itself.
22) What was the stability of the occurrence of the reflexive vision of the world in Myshkina? It was primarily expressed in the fact that the previous unclear, fleeting hallucinations are now, in the house of Rogozhin, have acquired a fairly clear outline, and he saw the same eyes that he feared to him at the station, - Rogozhina's eyes. Of course, Rogozhin himself did not admit that he really spied for the prince, and therefore the reader remains some feeling that he really hallucinated at the station, but now Phantom eyes materialized and ceased to be mystical otherworldly. The fact that was previously halfded, now acquired the property of "strange", but not quite a mystical. The "strange" view of Rogozhin points out or that he himself has changed, or on changes that occurred in the Myshkin, which in a new state everything begins to seem otherwise. But during the whole novel (if not considered the very end) Rogozhin practically does not change, and Myshkin, on the contrary, undergoes essential metamorphoses, therefore, in this case, the adoption of the fact that Rogozhin suddenly acquired a "strange one", an unusual look appears to resist the entire design of the work . It is easier and consistently considering this episode as a result of what exactly the prince has changed in his consciousness and the narrator, setting events from a third party, simply without comment issues the flow of events in the new view of the vision.
Next, the prince ceases to control what he does. This is shown on the example of the topic with a knife (ch. 3, part II): the knife as if he jumped himself in his hands. Here the object (knife) appears in the field of view of the subject (prince) unexpectedly, without his efforts and intentions. It seems that the subject ceases to control the situation and loses its activity, loses itself. Such a semi-sound state can some way remind the state in the phenomenological installation of consciousness in which the whole world is felt by some viscosity, and even their own actions begin to be perceived as other people, so that the taking of a knife in the hands can easily seem someone else's act (action) But not your own, and therefore, the appearance of this knife in the hands, as well as the appeal to the knife of consciousness, it seems to be a "jump" from you. The mind refuses to associate the appearance of a knife in his hands with the activities of consciousness, as a result there is a feeling that the subject or "himself" fell into your hands, or someone else attached to this effort.
23) Thus, the prince in the House of Rogozhin acquires a sustainable reflexive vision of the world. And immediately gets a warning not to get involved in this case, a warning in the form of a picture with the killed Christ.
This picture of Golbien Myshkin has seen another abroad, and here, Rogozhina, he met with her copy.
In this place, probably, it would be possible to speculate about the fact that the original painting was in Basel, and in Russia it is its copy. But it seems that Dostoevsky did not pay much importance to this circumstance, he was more important to show a hero of something significant, having a direct attitude towards the course of action.
Many researchers of the novel "Idiot" (see For example) believe that through this picture the writer sought to show the impossibility of overcoming the laws of nature, because in it Christ, who deceased in significant sufferings, is not resurrected in the fact. Moreover, all his insistered body instills a great doubt, and whether he will be able to rise in three days, as required by Scripture. I will allow myself to take advantage of this idea, because it is she, apparently, is the main thing here for Dostoevsky, since, in fact, is a reminder of the existence of nature, the real world, the laws of which are so strong that they keep even those who are called from They break out. And even more so all this refers to a simple mortal mushkin. For him, this picture appears after the acquisition of the reflexive installation of consciousness and encourages not to delve into its mindlessness, not to break away from reality, not to enter solipsis. She as if he says: "Prince, BDI!". This line is further intensified against the background of the fact that the theme of death in the novel, as clarified above, should show the limitations of the human being and should hold it from the presentation of himself as an all-possible and omnipotent infinity.
24) The warning of the Myshkin did not work. Indeed, coming out of the house of Rogozhin with a reflexive vision of the world and a warning about the danger, the prince wandered around the city almost as a carnal man, but as a shadow and became an intangible phantom, which is a clean phenomenon of someone's consciousness. Whose? Obviously, he turned into a phenomenon of his own consciousness into his own display. He is no longer he, but sometimes, who ceases to give a report on his actions, as if who invisible leads him by the hand. At the same time, his idea of \u200b\u200bthe last seconds before the epilepsy is given, the offensive of which he suddenly would expect: in these seconds, the sense of life, self-consciousness was almost rated. " In fact, here we are talking about touching your pure, so that at the time of the epilepsy (according to the prince) there is an identification with its pure being, when "time will no longer be", because it is, pure being, or, in other words, pure I, Transcendental EGO, EGO - center (all this one), the time itself and is already only therefore cannot be in a temporary stream (as something cannot be in itself, i.e. denote the place of its presence relative to yourself). Later, Husserl and Heidegger will be taken to the same, considering the Genesis of a person as self-year.
Before epilepsy, i.e. In the border state, from the position of which it is clear, although it does not seem explicitly, Myshkin comes to the conclusion: "What is this disease? ... What is the case that this tension is abnormal, if the very result, If a minute of sensations, recumbered and considered in common state, is highly harmony, beauty, gives a unheard and hazardous dotol feeling of completeness, measures, reconciliation and enthusiastic prayer drainage with the highest synthesis of life? ". In other words, here the hero comes to approval of the highest lifestyle in self-defining with its pure being; The meaning of life is to appeal to himself, peculiar meditation; Such a reflection in which an infinite display occurs in itself when differentiation is lost between the self-identifying center and the fact that this center is intended to compare with you; Transcendental subject and the object is merged at one point and turn into absolute.
It turns out that Myshkin before epilepsy is inclined to become the center of constitution of all this world, he forgot (or did not understand, or did not perceive) the warning of the picture of the Golbien.
25) Myshkin accepted the presence of an internal being, in which, as at one point, all his thoughts and sensations merge. But then, then to be with N.F., which is also being, and is such a being, which is beyond the edge of the Consciousness of the prince? This external pole as a certain significance, worthy of cognition, threaten to escape from him, and his entire project is under threat of disruption. In other words, in front of him the task of exiting the situation, i.e. The task of substantiating the existent significance N.F. In the new conditions, and here he puts forward his famous formula: "The compassion is the most important and, perhaps, the only law of the life of all mankind."
Browsing this phrase more closely, it is easy to notice an amazing thing: Being (notice, not existence!) It turns out that there is some law. How could this be such that being (not existence), the maximum meaningful generalization, has the law, i.e. the rule to which it obeys. After all, such a rule is nothing more than some meaningfulness, and then it turns out that the grateful meaning is obeying meaningful. Even if we assume that this intention is the limit, then absurd absurd: the limit is obeyed by itself, i.e. Indicates itself as the lowest relative to itself.
All these contradictions are removed if the "Law of Genesis" is considered as "the law of the attitude of being into consciousness", in other words, the "Law of Cognition of Genesis", which immediately refers to the "method of knowing being". The latter is already deprived of any contradictions and absurdities. In this case, everything becomes clear and understandable: compassion, or sorry is to enjoy in someone else's soul, accepting its experiences as its own. The compassion involves merging human emotions into one whole, into a single living organism, and it is through it, according to the intention of the Myshkin-phenomenologist, the difference between each individual EGO center for all people, so that the internal and external being for each subject (and for the prince Also) merge into one. Finding in a state of reflection ceases to threaten a common project. It is only necessary to correct the upper goals: now it is not to know the outside world, but internal, and only then, through the operation of the sorry, proceed to the generalization of the human community, i.e. on all the universe. By and large, all this is the expression of the Prince's phythenia, with the only difference that in the Ficht, the transcendence task was resolved with the help of the Will's freedom, and at Myshkina (as presented by Dostoevsky) - with the help of a sorry existential, which Hydegger in the XX century. Move into the existential care.
26) What do we have? In general, we have the following: the prince of Myshkin invented (decided), which should be improved by the world. This improvement he began to carry out his cognition. The natural process was naturally replaced by the desire to see (learn) its pure, from the position of which (according to the prince's plan) only and can be correctly and consistently implement its mission. And in this state, he moves behind a familiar pair of eyes (ch. 5, part II), while they do not materialize in Rogozhina, who brought the knife over him, apparently - the one that "jumped" and in his, Myshkin, hands And which is associated with us, readers, with non-action of the will of the subject. This independence as something inevitable hung over the prince and was ready to prove his allocation over him, but he exclaimed "Parfen, I do not believe!" And everything suddenly suddenly ended.
The prince was in deep reflection (we found out higher) and in this state he refused to perceive as a risk of hazardous over him. For him, the whole world began to be presented as a phenomenological flow of pure consciousness, devoid of material substance. Therefore, he did not believe in the reality attempt to kill him in the reality: he didn't believe him that Parfen is tuned seriously and does not joke, but it did not believe that the partner with a real knife, not fictional. His preliminary sensations that Rogozhin wants to kill him, intensified before the idea that Rogozhin is the result of only his own sensations and perception of these sensations by his own consciousness. "Parfen, I do not believe!" - This is a painting in solipsis, in which Myshkin is hopelessly stuck, despite the recent warning of the picture of the Golbien.
As soon as it happened, as soon as he marked his hopeless immersion, so immediately Dostoevsky plunges him into an epileptic seizure. Immediately before this consciousness, Myshkina appears "extraordinary inner light", and then "his consciousness was fed instantly, and a complete darkness occurred." It turns out that although the prince in front of the fit was sought to the Center for Constitution, I am, and during the epilepsy at the first moment he, apparently, reaches it (when he sees "extraordinary inner light"), but immediately after that everything goes Thoughts and images, so the reached center ceases to be the center. Therefore, in motion to himself, there is a moment of loss of everything, including the loss of oneself; At the same time, this moment comes himself, without the desire of the subject, thereby denoting the loss of any activity by the subject, denial to the subject of itself, so that the movement to the EGO-center ends with a complete collapse, the loss of purpose and therefore it is a movement, is false, erroneous.
In other words, Dostoevsky shows that the method of harmonization (improvements) of the world is chosen by the mysteric, leading to anywhere, in anywhere. The cognition of its EGO-center does not give anything to achieve the goal, a new attempt is required in the new direction.
27) the prince began to exercise such an attempt to exercise in Pavlovsk, where he went after Epang.
Pavlovsk is some kind of new state of consciousness, differing from St. Petersburg, but worth not far from him. And since in the St. Petersburg period we saw Myshkin and in the natural installation of consciousness (the first part of the novel) and in a state of solipsis (ch. 5, part II), then Pavlovsk state should differ slightly and on the other, i.e. Must be between them. In other words, in Pavlovsk, our hero equally takes the existence of external and internal, without becoming at some one-sided position. Myshkin begins a new attempt to implement his project as a dualist.
28) Before considering all the next news, it is useful to disassemble the question of what Dostoevsky is a painful state in the novel.
To begin with, we note that the crazy, an idiot is called not only Myshkin, which suffers from a periodic disorder of reason, but also seemingly mentally healthy N.F. And Agela. In their direction, sometimes one, then another character throws something like "she is crazy", etc. In particular, in relation to N.F. More than once, Lev Nikolayevich himself was expressed in such a spirit. What would this madness mean?
Laut in inclined to the fact that Dostoevsky, in all his work, a "cruel formula" can be traced: all thinking is a disease, i.e. Crazy - the one who thinks. I do not know how about all things Fedor Mikhailovich, but in "Idiot" the situation seems somewhat different.
Indeed, it seems not by chance that the epithet "crazy", etc. He always expresses the one who never reflects or at least at the time of statement is in the position of reality: Myshkin against himself (ch. 3, 4, part I), Ghana in relation to Myshkina many times, Elizabeth Prokofievna - to AGLAI , gene. Epancin and Myshkin - in the direction of N.F. During the whole novel, etc. And since "crazy", "abnormal" in our consciousness is automatically positioned as excellent from others, then this difference should be in opposition to conventional reality. Madness in the work means not so much thinking as it believed in Laut, how much is that the character with such a property is directly related to the ideal side of the world, that its carnal form is only visibility that does not reflect its content, and the content itself is not a carnal, Not real, in the sense that there is no essential relationship. "Crazy" is some kind of ideal substance.
29) Under dualism, usually understand the point of view, when the existence and real and ideal worlds are equally taken (in contrast to the monism, within which the world is one, and the real and perfect are its different parties). So the Dualism of Myshkina resulted in his bundle on two opposing duch of the twin - Evgenia Pavlovich Radomsky and Ippolit.
About twins in the "Idiot" is written quite a lot, and everyone converge on the fact that the Hippolyte is the twin of the prince. The fact that this is in fact so there is no doubt. After all, he, like the prince, periodically hallucins, abides in itself and this reflection gives out something significant, so that this tuberculosis seems to be the double that characterizes the reflexive side of the Mushkin.
At the same time, almost no one noted that the twin is also Evgeny Pavlovich. Only he is not an impersonation of reflection, but, on the contrary, demonstrates his aspiration for life as it is in his pragmatic truthfulness. Evgeny Pavlovich is that twin, which was born from the real part of the Consciousness of Myshkina.
From the said you can freeze: it's somehow quick and simple it all issued. And where the evidence is asked by a dear reader, "and why did this prince become a dualist, and why did two twins" come out "from him (and not three, four ... ten)?
Issues are legal, but they should be not addressed to someone who decrypts, but to the one who has encrypted. I simply state the facts that are reduced to the fact that after the hero in the epilepsy and leaving it to Pavlovsk, two heroes with opposite aspirations and characters reminiscent of the Myshkin itself appear on the scene near the mushkin, reminiscent of the Myshkin itself at different times: Evgeny Pavlovich reminds him In the first part of the novel, when he is well and healthy talking about completely different, but certainly real things relating to the characters of people and the relationship between them, and Russian orders; Hippolyte reminds Prince in the first five chapters of the second part of the novel with its shadows and the desire to perceive the whole world in phenomenological brackets.
It can be assumed that Dostoevsky plunges the hero first into deep reflection, and then in dualism in order to show his common position from different sides, and to show that no one doubts in her falsity. In other words, Fyodor Mikhailovich, apparently, sought to form the greatest persuasive mistakes of Myshkin, which consists in his desire to harmonize the world, i.e. In the desire to improve the world, ultimately, not by doing something possible in this life, but by simple and worthless knowledge. And life, as you do not know her, will still be a secret and nothing else, how worthy to live it, making her work, does not remain. But Myshkin did not accept it, went to another way and came to nowhere.
30) But why, nevertheless, dualism? To this it is easy to come next way. We have seen two obvious twins of Myshkin. Physically, they are executed as independent heroes, and this is their independence and makes it possible to conclude that the prince now seems to us as one who sees two different worlds, each of which is filled with its essential content and, in the limit, has Your own substance: one - the substance is not-me, the other - I.
Note that sometimes (see for example) "Pour Doubles" of the main character is called such characters as a gene. Ivolgin, Lebedev, Fddyshchenko, Keller. But all this is nothing more than a misunderstanding. Does the pussy of Lebedev and Fddyshchenko have some foundations in the spirituality of Myshkin? Of course not. But the double according to his status should be a continuation of his original source for some, even if one, property. Otherwise, the twininess (if they allow me to express) is reset, ceases to be ontologically conditioned, but becomes a simple game of the imagination of the researcher. The hero should somehow continue in his twins, and the move itself with doubles it makes sense only as a way more convex to reflect the side of interest. What are the essential, relating to the case, the quality of the mystery to the gene. Ivolgin, Lebedev, Fddyshchenko, Kellor? Yes, no. There is nothing significant in these, in general, minor heroes, which would associate them with the main character. They serve only in order to or fill the narrative with the desired paints, or in order to ensure the connection of the prince with the whole world (as it is in the case of Lebedev). Perhaps the exception to the degree of importance here is the gene. Ivolgin, however, he cannot be considered a twin of Myshkin, because he did not adopt something from Myshkinsky, but, on the contrary, Myshkin took over the identification of real and purely fantasy thoughts.
31) Dualism is different. In one case, taking the equivalence of the inner world of phenomenov, still the process of cognition is made from the point of view of the unconditional reality of the external world. In another case, taking reality on faith in a calm serene, the position of Ya is updated.
Upon arrival in Pavlovsk, Myshkin could choose any of these options. Moreover, remembering the recent failure, he could go both on the first way. This, of course, would still not mean the immediate abandonment of attempting to equip the world through his cognition, but it would bring it to reality that it is not ontologically, and axiologically, putting the possibility of creating a basis for exiting a global error situation. However, everything went wrong, despite the next warning, which he received from mysterious Aglai.
Indeed, the Aglaya did not see the prince for six months, and here, having met, she immediately reads him (first of all) Pushkin's poem "On Knight Poor" (Ch. 7, Part II). What is it and, most importantly, what is it given for?
In order to at least dispel the veil of the fog, try to give a brief interpretation of the poem.
;) Lived in the light Knight Poor,
Silent and simple
Seemingly gloomy and pale,
The spirit is bold and straight.
InterPR: Someone lived.
;) He had one vision,
Incomprehensible mind -
And deeply impressive
In the heart crashed to him.
InterPR: He came up with one idea that he liked.
;) Since then, burned soul
He did not look at women
He is up to a coffin
I did not want to pray words.
InterPR: He left without all the other ideas.
;) He is on his neck rosary
Instead of scarf tanguated
And from the face of the steel lattice
I did not raise anyone.
InterPR: He closed on his idea.
;) Full of pure love,
Ranele sweet dream,
A.M.d. Its blood
He draws on the shield.
InterPR: He was sincere in his aspirations.
;) And in the deserts of Palestine,
Meanwhile as on the rocks
Rushed into the battle of Paladin,
Calling loudly ladies

Lumen Coeli, Sancta Rosa!
He exclaimed, Dick and Ryan,
And how thunder his threat
Amazed Muslims.
InterPR: With his idea, he was strong.
;) Returning to your Far Castle,
He lived, strictly concluded,
All silent, everything is sad,
He died like a madman.
InterPR: In the end, he completely went to his idea, he went to his senses, as a result of which it was all over for him.

In other words, the "knight is poor" is a symbol of who with honest intentions "looked around" on their idea, does not pay attention to the riot of life and, despite all its original power, is dying with nothing. Aglaya by this poem as if shouting: "Prince, do not go crazy, bring off from my thoughts and schemes, pay attention to the rest of the diversity of the world." At the same time, she says, and completely seriously and sincerely, he respects the "knight" for his focus on the ideal, idea, i.e. She supports cognition as such and does not seek to distract Myshkin from his project. Such inconsistency can mean only that Aglady is not against the cognition (especially since in the poem, it changed the initials AMD on N.F. B. and thereby denoted by N.F. As an object of the aspiration of Myshkina), but it is against deep ( subjective) idealism. In fact, she is trying to push the hero on that dualism, in which the reality is not taken in the regime of calm faith, but as an environment.
32) But even more radically than the Age, agitates the Myshkina to abandon his idea of \u200b\u200bLizaveta Prokofievna. Indeed, it was worth it only to learn about the arrival of the prince in Pavlovsk and his seizure, as she almost immediately came to visit him, i.e. I came to regret it. This is the most Dostoevsky through it as part of society, trying to tell us that society and the whole world is quite harmonious, that public morality is quite absorbed by pity and does not contradict her that the world is known in the usual, natural rhythm. This rhythm, of course, is not the case which he is in the imagination of the prince and pity is unfolded not by N.F., and he himself; those. Prince, who considers himself a subject, he himself turned out to be in the field of cognition (as in the case of the scene at the end of the first part, where he suggests the Nabi Philippovna his pity, and that in response itself begins to regret it), and this is not logical for him. But after all, the main thing is not in the logical completion of the accomplishment, but in its consistency of human feelings: here the prince I soldered, I came to regret, find out what happened to how his business. The world turns out to be quite harmonious if just perceiving it as it is and not trying to squeeze his existence in the invented framework. Thus, the author of the novel through Lizaven Prokofievna is trying not to just show the unnecessaryness of idealism (solipsis), as is done through AGLAY (reading Pushkin's poem), but seeks to show the meaning of the project itself to improve the world, since this world is already harmonious due to the fulfillment of existing Norm of behavior.
33) Despite all the efforts of Agelai and Lizaveta Prokofievna, the prince is stubborn as that donkey who breathed awareness (not yet a vision) of his egg (from German Ichheit).
Indeed, after the Aglaya read the "knight's knight", i.e. Immediately after its agitation, five guests declared to the Myshkina (Ch. 7, 8, Part II), among whom was the Hippolyte, which, by the way, is thus incurred in a circulation of events: he began to demand some That right. The right comes from the truth, and the latter - from the correctness (such, in any case, you can build a chain). It turns out that new guests together with the Hippolite began to demand from the prince so that he recognize the correctness of their position. What is it lies? If you discard all the husks, it turns out that they came to pull money on knowingly false, they disgrave. In other words, their position is brazen, unacted egoism. And now it turns out that Myshkin takes this point of view and agrees with their claims. He takes not only the existence of EGO - it would be more Polbie - but he believes that the point of view of these heights (EGO point of view) is more correct and consistent than the opposite, emanating from the Lizaveta Prokofievna, which began to shame the aliens for their arrogance, and Eugene Pavlovich, who supported her. Moreover, the opinion of Myshkina practically did not change even after Ghania, this standard representative of the Company, quite consistently and self-regulatory proved all inconsistency of complaints to the prince. Nothing worked! Prince turned toward the Ippolitis, i.e. In the direction of idealistic dualism, preaching activity I and the passivity of the non-I, which immediately affected the subsequent events.
34) The main thing that happened after the adoption of the prince of the PPPolita point is the loss of its activity: if the prince served as a center, around which all events developed, and from which all the fascinating fluids were developed, now IPPOLIT - the inner part Myshkin, who became a new conductor of the event flow, and Myshkin himself was aside. Andersen's shadow captured power over her former owner.
The transition of the prince to idealistic dualism leads to the fact that his idealistic side in the face of Ippolit declares its claims regarding its absolute correctness: "It is only a quarter of an hour in the window with the people to talk, and he immediately ... in all agree" (ch. 10, h . Ii). So-so, went on a second to the window, put his head, blurted out something, - and ready! However, to convince the people, it is necessary to live with him together, you must know it; To convince people, if it is possible, it's not about it, but the matter of life. But the hippolyte, not sniffing real difficulties, all this does not understand and misunderstands some kind of genius. In general, Dostoevsky exhibits him here as anxiously revealed from the Earth of the ambulance, which brought himself unimaginable. It is natural, therefore, that Ippolit considers itself almost absolute, in which the object and subject merge together, is identified, so that this narcissistic type is constantly crying and regrets itself, i.e. his cognition draws itself to the very It is itself - both the object, and the subject in one person.
35) Prince, although it is inclined towards the IPPOLIT, but still does not refuse dualism, standing on the border between the real and ideal worlds and perceives what is happening in them quite critical.
Indeed, IPPOLIT somehow (ch. 10, h. II) declares to society: "You are sincerely afraid of our most." Under sincerity, you can understand the removal of the boundaries between people. Hippolytie professes a phenomenological point of view and believes the whole world by the generation of his consciousness. For him, people - phantoms, phenomena of consciousness constituted by its transcendental center, which only can remove the boundaries between phantom people due to the fact that he sees the essential meaning of each phenomenon himself. Hattle for sincerity, Ippolit argues this position.
And now the prince catches him on contradictions, noticing his shortness, and everything reports that.
Shame means incorrect, excessive exhibiting for the show to the public of something, personal, intimate. It comes out, happily, IPPOLIT refutes its own requirement to reveal the soul in front of everyone. The prince saw this contradiction and pointed out to everyone, including the Hippolyte himself. In other words, Ippolit was in a situation of lies, the mistakes that went to the public. The latter circumstance brought him out of himself: this egoist can not tolerate indications of his irregularity, because, being in solipsis, MNIT about its exclusivity.
36) Myshkin became a dualist idealist, while still seeing the felt felt in solipsism (still the previous experience of the impessment of aspiration to his pure I) was affected. Thus, Dostoevsky prepared him to a new jerk in the knowledge of being.
And here we see the appearance of a faery N.F. In the equestrian crew (ch. 10, part II), which reports Evgeny Pavlovich about his money matters, and turns to him on "you". Of course, it is not addressed to Evgeny Pavlovich as such as such, but to him as the twin of Myshkin, and since she is with the last on the short leg, then Evgeny Pavlovich - a certain shadow - also turned out to be in the situation "you". All this unexpected message has one goal: N.F. As an external Forest Pole of the world encourages Myshkin - it is him, and not anyone else - do not forget about the external element; She reminds of themselves about their significance, the significance of reality.
N.F. He knocked down the prince: he was just gathered to be bowed toward idealism, as he indicates (the life itself indicates) on the elemental reality of things. Soil leaves him from under his feet, and he no longer knows what point view is correct - external consciousness or internal. As a result, he begins to doubt everything. Even the appearance of N.F. In the equestrian crew, it seems to him some unreal event; Reality becomes unreality; Everything is confused, and much stronger than before: if it was angry with him in the form of a reality ("a pair of eye" rogozhin), now reality seems to be a fantasy. In general, the prince is finally confused in the coordinate system.
What should he do? Refuse your project? After all, it is impossible to improve the world without having a solid base! But no, "it is impossible to run", because "in front of him there are such tasks that not to allow or, at least, not to use all the forces to resolve them, it does not even have any right."
37) The mysterious task began to decide on the mystery: if he is a dualist, then what dualism to choose is idealistic (internal) or realistic (external)? Solved seems to be the task again becomes relevant, and even more significant than before, since its decision is no longer there is a normal routine work, but is the withdrawal of a fundamental restriction on the realizability of his idea.
With this, he enters the dialogue with Keller on the topic of double thoughts and is actually recognized not only that it is difficult to fight these double thoughts, but that he has not yet exit the situation (which occurred, recall, after the appearance of N.F . In an equestrian carriage): Thinking about one is accompanied by the detection of the fact that the former thinking is, it turns out that something else was concerned that he was hidden in the wilds of consciousness. Similarly: Here you think that I found a justification of one point of view, and in fact, in this justification, the exact opposite position is linked. In a formal plane, this means that antithesis is visible in any tez. Myshkin came to the vision of this, i.e. He gained a necessary condition for understanding the immanity to the world of the dialectical functioning of consciousness. His initial monism was replaced by dualism, from which he evolved to look towards dialectics, within which the opposites are interdepended. But ontologically, the last (in the case of its sequential execution) is again in monism, so the prince, having passed the dialectic spiral cycle, went to the approaches of his initial point of view, but only no longer in a natural version inherent in the philistine, but in deeply verified conviction which preceded the serious work of all his being.
38) Dostoevsky put Myshkin on the way of cultivating dialectics. And if the vision of the existence of differences, i.e. The coexistence of theses and antithesis is a rise in this way, then the first step on it is the denial of any unambiguity in anything, including in differences, simply speaking - skepticism (which, by the way, was very fashionable In Germany, during the writing of the Dostoevsky novel there). And the prince does it: in a conversation with Kolya Ivolgin, he recognizes himself a skeptic, i.e. Doubting, demonstrating this distrust call that Ghana seems to have certain types of Agela (Ch. 11, Part II). His doubt is the beginning of an explicit understanding of what he does something wrong or not that.
39) Prince turned to a dialectic face and clearly (consciously), as part of his strategic search, moved to her. And here in full force begins to declare a figure of Aglai.
Aglaya, probably, is the most mysterious heroine of the novel. Finally, it's time to talk about her. What is she present?
Here are just some of its properties: beautiful, cold, contradictory. And the contradiction does not have the nature of total denial, but is only a continuation of the approval; Thesis is issued through antithesis. For example, at the end of the second part of the Lizaveta Prokofievna, I understood about the "love" of Aglai to the prince (it is more correct to talk about it to him) after it turned out that she does not want to see him: the mother knows his daughter and gives her hidden parties. Next, you should remember that the Aglayer is perceived by the prince as "light". Finally, she is not against the fact that Myshkin agrees with the ideal (remember, an episode with the "knights is poor"), but against his surveys in an empty nothing of solipsism. So who is she?
Dialectical logic! It was in such an interpretation of AGLAI that the inability of the Myshkin analyst, seeing the essence of everything, from the very beginning of his acquaintance to recognize it. He could not then, in the first of his appearance in the house of Epang, give it a characteristic because this act is not just an element of thinking, but there is thinking about thinking, which for him at that time was still closed. He did not take the need for dialectics, therefore, he did not see it at all.
But when he, in the end, saw the need for dialectical buildings, then went to unfold in full force with his marriage to Agela: Now she became necessary and he needs (more precisely, of course - Dostoevsky) considered a completely natural movement on their connection As a result of which the subject (Myshkin) should be obtained on legal grounds (read - at the level of natural patterns) dialectical logic (AGLA). Similarly, it becomes clear and the desire of the beauties of Aglai to sexually none Myshkin (if you look at the situation from everyday point of view): the dialectic for realizing itself you need the one who will carry out the act of dialectical thinking, i.e. Need a subject. Without a subject - a carrier of activity - any logic is converted in the absence of movement, so that the dialectical logic as the embodiment of the motion of thought without carrier of this movement turns into a perfect opposite, in peace, in smely. Without subject, the dialectic is resetting, because it does not have a "self-one," as, say, stone on the banks of the river, which exists without our concern. If you want, dialectic is - this is the "concern" of the subject in its conscious form.
40) Well, Lev Nikolaevich-dialectic is already progress; And although he has not yet become, but only wishes them to become, still positive movements regarding the initial parcels are obvious. Now, when he became doubting, the synthesis is becoming a natural step: doubt is not just a vision of the existence of individual theses and antithesis, but this is also the assumption of their connectivity (after all, the doubt concerns
There is any difference, including differences in the pair of thesis-antitiza), so that the natural development of doubt - in its overcoming through the creation of a single base, in which opposites are removed and become part of the whole.
Such a synthesis of Myshkin is trying to carry out an operation through a familiar to him, which can be conventionally called "the disclosure of his soul", when he begins to be completely frank before his twin - Evgeny Pavlovich (ch. 2, part III). In short, the plot here is: Myshkin is recognized (publicly) Evgeny Pavlovich, which considers him the most noble and best person; He confused and responsible that the prince did not want to say; Myshkin agrees, but continues in that spirit that he has such ideas about which he should not speak; Everything is perplexed.
What do we have here? The prince, on the one hand, believes that being frank indecent (he has such ideas about which he should not speak), but the statement of this is already some raising curtains over his secrets, which is confused by everyone, and therefore this approval is concurred in A contradiction. Thus, he understands the presence of boundaries between people and they himself - like the existence of the boundary between theses and antithesis. At the same time, he himself does not accept these borders and believes to shoot them. At the beginning of the novel, in the house of Epang, the prince also removed these borders, demonstrating his ability to see the essence of other people as if he climbed into the soul and saw her from the inside. But then he tactfully stopped at the very border of someone else's soul and did not really deepen into her inside. This was expressed that he gave people the characteristics of an objective property. Now the prince does not see the possibility or necessary to be tactful and hurts the inner intimate aspects of the people with whom he communicates, as if the souls of these people are fledged with his own, or almost that fled. At the same time, the way he enjoys to introduce in other people we called "the disclosure of their soul", or, otherwise, "turning themselves to the wrong way" (all this can be viewed as in some way to antice agencies of the future intersubjective world of Husserl). In the fact that he gives his maritime, intimate, only him relating to the side of himself, he is trying to destroy the boundaries between himself and others, and it is very thorough to destroy, capital and reach their essential nucleus - the irritation of which causes pity for another, t. e. In this case, to himself, Myshkin. Through it, he is trying to initiate society to synthetic cognition.
Such an attempt of synthesis, generalizations in which simultaneously sees the attempt to explore the opportunity to influence society and direct his pity-cognition to the right channel (in this case, it does not work for himself, because people resist deep interference in their essence. After all, in fact, Myshkin, through the assumption of the possibility of removing the boundaries between the souls of people, is trying to present them not as actually existing with the borders inherent in them, but as the phenomena of their consciousness, which they are constitutable for him, and, therefore, are transparent to it The sense of the ability (more precisely - eligibility) to touch their essential features. In people, such an attempt meets bewilderment and, ultimately, rebuff.
By and large, the prince here demonstrates its total commitment to the same move, which recently carried out Ippolit - his inner twin, and which he himself recently did not make it possible, but pointed to their inconsistency. It turns out that, in spite of everything, Myshkin is a fallen idealist in the sense that he considers his primary substance. He cannot break away from this, because, apparently, this is his indigenous entity. He can, and like Evgeny Pavlovich, and he even admires them, but this side of his personality is not the main thing for him. Actually, this is the entire tragedy of Myshkina - he is immersed in himself and no way to get out of it. His reflection has no way out. It is in such a spirit that the remark of Prince Sh. Myshkin should be understood: "... Paradise on Earth goes not easy, and you still count on the paradise." Paradise here serves as an analogue of some idea, the ideal substance, which, according to the intention of Myshkin, should be implemented in reality.
41) The attempt of the synthesis of Myshkin failed. It was noticed by everything, including Aglaya. But if the society did not take the idea of \u200b\u200bthe implementation of a certain action on it, even if the synthetic, then the Aglaya most attempt supported: "For what you are (the word" it "should be understood as" frankness "- S.T.) Here you speak? - Suddenly sharpened, for what you say to them? Them! Them!" In other words, Aglaya-Dialecticism did not accept the revelation of Myshkin as a correct dialectic course, but approved the intention to implement it. Along with the best epithets with which she awards Prince, she does not consider it possible to marry him: he is not yet ready to become her carrier-expressive. Nevertheless, she needs a subject and she appoints our hero a date. But before it happens, we will witness two important scenes.
42) After an unsuccessful attempt at the synthetic association of opposites (knowledge of the world), under the code name "Swinging his soul", Myskin will plunge Dostoevsky into a situation where he defends N.F. (Ch. 2, Part III). In essence, it is N.F. Initiates this noble act of Prince, since again demonstrates its activity. By and large, she struggles to ensure that our hero does not deepen to himself, more precisely - she continues to fight for it, because all its activity is both the former and current one - only on this purpose and aim: to make a realist Myshkin. This time its efforts are justified, the prince stands for her. This is the second time, when he stands for someone: for the first time it happened at the beginning of the novel, in the family of Ivolgic, and now, in Pavlovsk, he again shows his ability to act. Yes, he is a short idealist - it does not argue again, but something does. At the same time, if his actions were completely spontaneous and aimed at protecting the one who, being innocent, is still not rejected by society, now he defended the quintessence of whom he should regret (know).
The fact that he did not succeed in the logical level (and it did not work for him to enjoy all society in the situation of the acceptance of a frank conversation, i.e. the removal of all borders through the revelation of thinking), it turned out at the level of its natural humanity. As the Lizaveta Prokofievna, who came to spend him after the disease, and he himself in his spontaneous directness turns out to be much closer to the knowledge of being than any speculation on this. The laws of nature, perceiving through the sensual stream, are not only a simple limiting condition separating a person and his consciousness from omnipotence and infinity, but the same laws allow him to overcome themselves and move themselves to other laws (within, of course, all the same Nature) through act of validity, which crosses any manipulation by ideas, but at the same time, it is impossible without aims uniform on the existing pole, which is essentially an idea about the idea. The action turns out to be a true synthetic generalization, which sought to obtain Myshkin, but the generalization is not logical, but rather, out-logical or even an allochic.
The situation threatened to pour out the fact that Myshkin will completely come out of the field of perfect, and thus will come out of the control of AGLAI, which in its status of logical dialectics implies creating and, consequently, immersion in the region of thought, i.e. - ideal. She needs an introduction to the perfect (however, not immersed in solipsism - we have seen before), and everything is purely realistic, without the elements of the perfect, it clearly rejects. An example of this is her rejection of a worthy groom (and for money, and in public situation, and in its appearance, and so on.) Evgeny Pavlovich, since he is a realistic pragmatist, without a gift of fantasy, i.e. Not having anything from the perfect. Here, the term "perfect" with us carries exclusively ontological load and is not synonymous with the "best" and so on.
All this explains why Aglaya did not accept the intercession of the prince, called all this "comedy". She needs a prince - a subject (that is, the one who has a "main mind" - the ability to comprehend the being of the existence) and she does not intend to let it just be released. The next move behind her, she will make it on a designated date, and while it can relax.
43) After the prince exhibits realism glimpses, it turns out that N.F. invites him to him It turns out that at almost the same time he appoints a meeting and Agnaya and N.F.: The struggle for the method of cognition of Myshkin - through thinking (from Aglai) and through activity that includes real actions (from N.F.) - unfolds in Full strength. This does not mean that each of these beauties wants to get him as his groom. In particular, N.F. For myself, this does not want with all the certainty, moreover, as it follows from the words of Rogozhina, she would even consider the best option so that Aglaya and Myskin married. After all, then, by its plan, Myshkin, armed with the right way of thinking - dialectic, could correctly carry out the cognition of being. The struggle for Myshkin is not just a part of the narrative canvas, but this is the essential element of the whole philosophy of the novel.
44) Our hero was able to bring public morality and pity in accordance with his act for some MiG, and it seemed to him that he enters into a new lane in life, in which everything was harmonious and properly arranged (it was formally determined by his occurrence of his birthday). However, this harmonization is not a logical path, but by action. And this is despite the fact that the desire for harmony is the desire for some relevant idea. In such a context, the harmony arrangement is the construction of a speculative design committed from an idealistic point of view and allowing the proof of its truth on the conceptual, i.e. on a logical level. In this situation, the question arises: is the achievement of the goal through the action final in terms of the requirements of meaningful consciousness?
The answer to this question is Dostoevsky builds from the opposite, through the clarification of the opposite question: is it possible to justify the thought of reality, or is it is the ideal higher form compared to reality? In the case of a positive response to it, the desired question loses its strength.
To this end, the author initiates the doubles of Prince - Ippolitis - to a lengthy speech, in which an attempt to verify the recent Myshkin experience with the action of the experience of consciousness will occur.
45) Hippolyte in his famous story is asked: "Is it true that my nature is defeated now completely?" (Ch. 5, Part III). This question can be understood in two ways.
On the one hand, a hopelessly sick Hippolyte thinks about his inevitable death, thinks that his ability to live and resist almost completely broken, overcome, defeated "perfectly". However, then, then his natural ability to live overcomes the other natural ability - to die, since death is inherent only by living. Death, like life, there are forms of the same laws of nature. Therefore, if the IPPITOLIT focuses on illness, it flows or in contradiction (his biological nature cannot be defeated by biological laws in principle), or in a misunderstanding of what he asks (he asks whether his nature is defeated with The help of nature, i.e. deny the nature of itself with the help of itself in the sense that it transfers himself into its full opposite - substantial zero, which, again, is logically absurd in its foundation).
All this suggests that Dostoevsky, apparently, invests in the question of the Hippolyte of a different meaning and under his nature does not understand the biological hypostsy, not a disease, but something else. Most likely, it is meant that the Ippolite is the inner twin of Prince Myshkin.
Of course, it is: the author initiates the inner essence of Myshkina to form a response to the question of the legality of logical evidence in the form of real action. We observe the result of this initiation as the activity and frankness of the Hippolyte, which is an internal (ideal) side of the prince. At the same time, his question can be transformed into another, more understandable and adequate form: "Is it true that my ideal nature is defeated now at all?". It is not asked about the fact that the laws of nature are overcome, but, deeply opposite, - about whether his ideal essence of the laws of nature is defeated. In other words, he wants to find out whether it is finally necessary, after the realism of Myshkina during the intercession for N.F., agree with the reality primary (with the so-called materialism) and the secondaryness of the ideal, or still there is a certain move that can save (with His points of view) situation, i.e. Save idealism as a worldview. During this search, he, as a true twin of Myshkin, as well as his prototype, builds a logical substantiation scheme, which we will now discern.
46) a) IPPOLIT sets out how he helped the doctor's family, tells about the old man, who helped the convicts, and concludes that good things are returned. Essentially, here it is based on real affairs (his or strangers) withdraws the thought regarding such cases (good), which, as if exist without our control and can even come back. Independent things are real things, so Ippolit talks about the legality of the conversion of reality into the idea of \u200b\u200breality.
B) Next, through the picture of the Golbien at Rogozhina, the Ippolit comes to the question: "How to overcome the laws of nature?", I.e. In fact, on the basis of a real picture, he comes to thoughts about the possibility of overcome reality. This is a scheme: reality proceeds to the thought of denial of reality.
C) the dream in which Rogozhin was first seemed real, then suddenly discovered the phantom (unreal), but even after the disclosure of this phantom, continued to be perceived as real. Here, like the mushkin after fantasy gene. Itvin, real and unreal completely twisted and identified: reality \u003d unreality.
D) after sleep (B), taking into account (b) it turns out that from unreality you can get the thought of denial of reality: unreality proceeds to the thought of denial of reality.
E) it encouraged the Hippolyte to decide on suicide. It became necessary for him to test the hypothesis: the thought of denial of reality \u003d unreality, because in suicide such a identity is realized in direct form. Indeed, you come to suicide yourself by generating the idea of \u200b\u200bleaving life, about the denial of reality. At the same time, suicide itself is an act of jumping from life, from reality - in unreality, so that suicide is found in identical equality and the idea of \u200b\u200bdenial of reality and unreality itself.
E) if the hypothesis is correct (e), then taking into account (c) it turns out: the thought of denial of reality \u003d reality.
G) given (a, b), it turns out that the thoughts on the denial of reality and the reality itself are intelligible to each other and become part of one whole, which is, in which this conclusion is obtained, i.e. Real area of \u200b\u200baging. Consequently, reality becomes part of the perfect world.

This is not the best and not so beautiful, like the Myshkina (see paragraph 16 of our study), the logical design of the most vulnerable link is a hypothesis (e) involving suicide. It must be said that the wormwort at this point is not only that there is still a certain unverified assumption here, but also in the fact that the IPPOLITY in the logical scheme as an integral element introduced an action. Thus, the whole hippolyte vapor, ultimately, the desire of the Myshkin (IPPOLIT - its inner twin) to check the eligibility of evidence of the speculative scheme using real cases, comes out of the discharge of logically closed operations, since here it is taken as a parcel what should be Proved. Such evidence is immobally, empty. And in fact, his suicide attempt is incredibly fails and he is disgraced, deleted with nothing.
Myshkin has nothing to do with anything: he did not receive evidence of the need to return to idealism, but also did not receive evidence of the legality of the replacement of elements of a logical multi-part design by practical affairs. And this is understandable: configured to cognition, and not for doing, i.e. In its fundamental error, he cannot through cognition (logically) to go to doing. This requires a special mood, which he does not have.
47) Myshkin remained in suspended. Formally, of course, this is due to his finding in Pavlovsk, which means equidality and from solipsism and from unconditional realism. But most importantly, as a result, he continues his fluctuations regarding the boundary real-ideal - his conviction in the correctness of the logical scheme, which he built in the first part of the novel (see paragraph 16 of our research), and which, which still has not been able to break anyone. Therefore, even having received an implementation impulse, the prince still cannot finally leave the area of \u200b\u200bthe ideal because it binds the cord of the beauty of logic. It comes out, his dating with Agela could not take place.
Aglaya suggested a prince not love - no, God forbid! - She offered him the role of an assistant with whom she could leave home and leave abroad. So-here, submitting the prince at the beginning of the novel as a semantic center, around which all events are developing (even by performing the role of a boy on parcels, he remained this center), Dostoevsky gradually translates him to the level of a minor hero, when the initiative almost completely passed to That is the other. At first, this other, to whom the initiative passes, was the prince himself in the appearance of his inner essence called "IPPOLIT", and now the activity has left him at all, and he turned out to be only material in other people's hands. Thus, the writer sews into the structure of the work of the work of the mistake of the overall position of Myshkin.
Aglaya-dialectic decided to stand over the prince of the subject and turn into pan-beamism, apparently, the Gegelian sense, having received power over everything that is in thought. Logic threatens to become a totality.
48) And here, then the Dostoevsky affix the invulnerability of the logical design of Myshkina: gene. Ivolgin, this vanity and a blister, who gave a prince an important basis for his conclusion about the possibility of equipping the world in accordance with the fictional ideas, demonstrates its inconsistency of this life. The need for Lebedev's money, which happened even bye with Agela, is now revealed so that the thief comes out of the gene. Ivolgin. His fiction about the sublime is divided into the sinful land of reality, smoke is displeasted, and Myshkin no longer believes in Rosskazni. And when the general was reflawed relative to its former proximity to Napoleon (ch. 4, Part IV), our hero only gone poorly, because for him this verbal flow turned into nothing, in an empty nothing. Theft has turned the general of a highly aimed at beauty (ie to the truth) of the character in a low and primitive old man, illuminated his real essence, which was not the desire for the truth, and the desire for a worthless deception, and all of him made it a solid symbol of lies. In other words, from the scheme represented in paragraph 16 of this work turned out to be the first equality, so the conclusion (3) ceased to be unconditionally correct and the desire of Myshkin to its implementation, i.e. The desire to equip the world according to its fantasy ideas, loses any meaning.
49) Lev Nikolayevich suddenly saw that his logic scheme was not working, and that his project to harmonize life was strictly as he was conceived (in Switzerland), it cannot be implemented.
So, he should abandon everything or still try again, to a new manner to convince society in his ability to be pitiful, and convince him to force him (society) to recognize puzzle and, therefore, to ensure almost Lost identity formally logical and real? After all, if society admits this, then it will have to be a matter or express, or form a relation to pity, worthy of pronouncing, logical design. Then it turns out that the society-reality recognizes the existence of such an ideal formula in itself, in accordance with which actually functions.
In other words, the Myshkina instead of the destroyed scheme of the rationale for his project, which he once created for himself, it took to create a similar scheme for society so that it makes this scheme and the beginning of it would be to implement it, even without him, Myshkin participation. Here again I recall his commitment to the teachings of Parmenide and Plato on the primacy of being (now you can add about the primacy of existential significance) and the secondaryness of the simple existence. The prince believes that society, like the whole world, there is not just so, self-in-one, without an internally pronounced goal. On the contrary, according to his ideas, a society drives some kind of initial goal, to which you can come only in overcoming yourself and in the coming to yourself, when there is a permanent, systematic re-registration of its entity, pouring, ultimately, in expanding its borders, That the relationship between the subject and the object is expressed in the cognitive process, and the relationship between society and a separate person is expressed in the acceptance of such morality, which would assume pity as an obligatory element.
Dostoevsky fully implements this installation to the change in Myshkin, forcing it to constantly look for the right moves. Their diversity in the novel makes the honor of the persistence of the main character, but aims to emphasize not so much of its positive qualities as another obvious thing: failed attempts made inside some paradigm indicate the falsity of this paradigm, the stronger, the more diverse they were.
The next attempt of the prince was born and after spiritual exposure of the gene. Ivigin.
50) Roman "Idiot", despite its magnitude (not a small novel!), Very concise: there is nothing superfluous. So in this case, as soon as new goals have arisen before the prince, the writer immediately, without delay, creates the necessary situation for him.
Agela-dialectic needs a provider for its entity, you need a subject, but its family doubts whether the prince is suitable for her candidate for her. Therefore, it was decided to expose it to show different titled individuals and get their verdict, i.e. To get the opinion of the "light" of society personifies the society itself, regarding the ability of the prince to fulfill the required role (ch. 7, Part IV). As a result, Prince Lev Nikolayevich was among the important old men and the old women who were waiting for sober mind and realistic judgments from him (this is what Agela needs and how to personify dialectics, and as a simple person). They were waiting for him to refuse that idea, according to which the world rules a certain pre-installed harmony, and the role of people and societies is reduced only to the obedient execution of certain Most High Prescriptions. Finally, they waited for recognition of their significance, i.e. Self-satisfaction of society and the reality that rigidly reminds of itself whenever it is worth only to think about her secondaryness. At the same time, the Aglaya asked the Myshkin in advance not to say "school words", i.e. Do not pour into a non-overall, cut off from reality, verbal water, and in general, to be a normal person. In addition, she suggested that if he dispersed and comes out of the state of real consciousness, he could break a large Chinese vase. This assumption here serves the role of a call, which must warn Myshkin in the event of a threat that it loses control over the situation and is too deep in perfect.
Myshkin, this meeting with the "light" was needed to realize his goal. As already mentioned, he was important for him to convince society just in the opposite of what he wanted to hear from him: he wanted to convince everyone to recognize Platonism, while everyone was waiting for him to refuse these views.
As a result, of course, nothing good from the meeting of Myshkin and "Light" did not happen. The prince began to use the usual already "smashing his soul" and to pronounce an important speech, in which he exposes almost the very deep pieces of his soul; Society widespread him and constantly calls to calm down, but everything is in vain: the prince is included in the rage, breaks the vase, but this warning does not work (no warnings do not act on him! - Stubborn as Swiss donkey). Moreover, he makes a new move and reminds one Mother about his good act. It is necessary for him to show the ability of them all to sorrow and force them to agree with this, take it as voiced and therefore logically determined (predicative) fact. The prince, as it were, from the breaking of his soul, as not justified hope, moved to an attempt to open the souls from others, but this focus could not, and the society is even more persistent than before (when only Myshkin concerned it), refuses to accept such experiments. As a result, our hero is in the situation of deep misunderstood, the mistakes, which is emphasized by the epilepsy attack.
Thus, the prince wanted society to admit that it exists not in itself and value does not have in itself, but in something else, what should it strive for. However, he did not come out: on Dostoevsky - society, and indeed the whole reality, there is not for something, but for himself.
51) Prince Lev Nikolayevich wanted to squeeze life into logic schemes, he did not succeed; Further, he wanted to prove that the society should go to a particular purpose (ideas), which constitutes his own essence, and thereby carrying out self-knowledge (self-discharge) - also failed. Finally, he got up before the question: do there be any ways of knowing being through logical formulas?
More precisely, of course, the question is given by Dostoevsky and directs Agela to N.F. The dialectic herself can not anything, for her act she needs a subject, so she went for the prince and together they went to know Genesis (Ch. 8, Part IV).
Aglaya was very determined: the received letters from N.F., in which she admired her, created the impression of the weakness of being and the forces of dialectics. From these letters followed some incredible greatness of Agela (not in the social sense, but in the sense that she is likened to a certain diamond, to which everyone kneads and in front of which everyone goes on tiptoe: "You are for me perfection!"). At the same time, N.F. I wrote "I'm almost no significant" (ch. 10, iv). Indeed, since the main character did not get a reliable cognition of being (there were only some glimpses of this, no more), then there was a threat to his complete abandonment from any knowledge, and Being without knowing, without appealing to it ceases to be It becomes the fact that there is no.
So, Aglaya decided to be screwed up, so to speak, it was purely logically to carry out an act of cognition and came to his object (N.F.) as a sort of quarreling, began to command and try to disdain the one for which herself exists in every way. But it was not here: N.F. As a true external exterior center, Muksu showed himself, did not allow himself to dive and discovered the immense force, which would revouch as Aglai pressure on it increases. Being showed itself: it is defenseless without our attention to him, but the more stubborn, we are trying to "take it up" and to subjugate to themselves under the structure of our consciousness, for our desires, and so on., Ever durable and inaccessible to It turns out.
As a result, the end is known: Aglaya, who demanded cognition through logic, lost (fainted) Nastasya Filippovna, who assumed that the cognition was the direct act of expressions of feelings, outstanding himself in operation. Myshkin completely instinctively rushed to N.F. And cried: "After all ... she is so unfortunate!". Thus, he expressed what was needed to her, but what was impossible for Aglai. Myshkin voted for direct cognition, he came out of the perfect world and plunged into reality. How long?
52) Prince, having passed the difficult path of doubt and throw, again came to the immediate perception of life as it is. Good, but what's next? After all, it is not enough to reach this level, it is not enough to understand this necessity, it is also important to act accordingly, i.e. Simply, almost every second prove its involvement in life with their affairs and actions. What demonstrates our hero? He shows his complete weakness.
Indeed, after he unexpectedly chose N.F., went cooking to the wedding. He, according to the logic of events, would have to turn into the most real cycle of activity, run, fuss, to negotiate everything and settle everything. But no, it is strangely naive and reconciles to conduct things one, others, the third ... At the same time, "if he ordered as soon as possible, having passed the troubles, then the only thing for it and not to think about it and even, maybe to forget About this "(Ch. 9, Part IV).
Well, tell me please, who needs a sort of groom? As a result, already in a wedding dress in front of the church, N.F. I prayed before Rogozhin so that he would drive her and did not make it impossible. After all, it was not necessary for the mystery to be needed, but lively activity. And when she saw the lack of such a groom, she understood what was deceived. All his activity, which seems to show itself periodically, starting from the moment he showed the whole society, and at the same time, and his existent center - N.F. - What is able to act when I defended Ivolgin from her brother Gani, all that is his activity, and in the subsequent sometimes out of the outside, it turned out to be some kind of unreal, unstable, like the Mirage, which appears on some fraudulent circumstance, and which Absolutely far from the present subject.
In general, N.F. Fucked to Rogozhina, and Myshkin remained alone. Initially, he refused Aglai when N.F. chose, and then N.F. left him. This "philosopher" slapped his happiness while Vital in the sphere of dreams.
53) What has become with Agela and N.F. After they stayed without their prince-subject?
Aglaya, while there was a connection with the prince, was through it connected with the existent pole of reality - with N.F. After all the gaps, she lost a fair, live filling, but did not curse, and with the Pole ran out of the house abroad: read, live dialectic after losing communication with real life switched to formalistic, formal logic.
N.F. came to the house of Rogozhina, and it came not to leave how she did before, but to stay. Being lost a subject and next to the unmanaged flow of sensations (Rogoheus) ceased to be the one to be comprehended (after all, Rogozhin, we will remind, nor think nor know it is not capable of). As a result, Being ceased to differ from the merits, uncommunicating sensations annihilated with meaningfulness. And in the metaphysical plan it happened perfectly natural: Parfuna stabbed N.F. Almost no blood (which additionally proves the intangible nature of N.F. - because being is the reality of intangacy), after which she himself ceased to exist. The existence and being of the existence indicate themselves only in opposing each other. In the absence of one of these sides, another, having lost its antithesis, disappears from the field of our vision. And when Myshkin got into the house of Rogozhin and discovered the dead N.F., which passed into the category of objectivity ("The tip of the naked leg ... It seemed that it would be turned out of marble and terribly immobile"), then finally realized the full collapse of his project, which once Most recently, it seemed so wonderful and beautiful. Now this dead beauty of his formula has passed into the beauty of "marble", devoid of life.
Myshkin without all: without a favorable center, without ability to clear and dialectically think - who is he? Who is he, "ugly" after the urgent ignoring of the mass of tips (and the picture of the Golbaine, and the poem of Pushkin and others) to go into their life deadlock? Moron! The idiot is not in the sense of mental infringement, but in the sense of the desire to replace the life itself as it is, herself on his idea of \u200b\u200bher. Such errors do not pass in vain.
54) Well, we got to the final and now, seeing the entire diagram of building the narrative, knowing and understanding the philosophical aspects of certain actions, try to analyze the entire work of Fedor Mikhailovich entirely. The previous work carried out allows you to ensure that the global analysis will not be empty fantasy and catching scattered quotes, and will be such a reconstruction of the original idea, which is due to the entire structural of the novel. In part, we have already been implemented such a reconstruction higher, now it is necessary to reduce everything in a single whole.
In general, the following picture is evaporated. Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin decided to improve the world. Noble thought! But the thing is how he began to exercise it. And he began to carry out his idea through an absurd thing: through such a movement of the soul, which, being expressed in sorry, in fact, means the cognition of this world. A convinced follower of Platonism (or, perhaps some neoplatonic derivatives), he rested against the conviction that as if cognition would be equivalent to creating the necessary conditions (and may also be sufficient) in order to fulfill real improvements. In any case, the implementation of real changes, according to Myshkin, should be made according to plan. Moreover, this plan is created exclusively in one thinking and no connection with reality is required. It is only necessary to grab a certain perfect matrix of being, in which absolutely all strokes of development are laid. A person here is given the role of only the right, neat followed by these Almighty regulations. We know, the project of Myshkina failed. No matter how he tried to go to his exercise from one side, and from the other, and from the third, changing every time a way of discursive cognition, he did not work. And even armed with a dialectic, this mighty tool in skillful hands, in the detachment from the coarse reality, he could not know what demands knowledge - being.
But could the project come true? Yes, of course, I could not, and this constitutes an important thought of Dostoevsky: reality is transformed not through empty cognition (for the sake of cognition), and not through the introduction of beautiful-dead schemes, but through live doing.
However, the cognition did not succeed, and not due to the absence of some abilities (he had everything in order to how much impetus to the life flow of events with the subsequent awareness of the degree of this enlightenment. Indeed, as soon as the Myshkina had glimpses of doings - whether in the form of intercession, or in the form of serving someone (Aglai and Ghana as a messenger) - every time he rummaged in the eyes of the public. But just once his qualifications turned against him, lowered him into the emptiness of nothing (epilepsy attacks). Fedor Mikhailovich as if he says: Life is to really live, absorbing all the juices of the world, giving himself to him at the present, without fantasy decoration (like, for example, Kolya Ivolgin and Vera Lebedev). Life denies empty, worthless intelligence, but, on the contrary, implies an active part in all occurring processes. At the same time, doing is completely not opposed to thinking, which relies on real facts. On the contrary, such activity of consciousness is absolutely necessary, because the loss of thinking ability deprives a person the opportunity to consciously relate to himself and to others. Without full, dialectical thinking (within the framework of the novel - without AGLAI), strictly speaking, a person is likened to the usual natural element (Rogozhina) and ceases to be those who can carry out transformations. But it should be thought carefully, not blindly trusting your mind, systematically checking your ideas with practice.
55) Well, what about the social aspect of the novel "Idiot"? After all, this topic constantly sounds in it at one point of view, then under another. We will try to focus their attention on what, in our opinion, everything comes down and what is the social pathos of the work.
We found out that Dostoevsky opposed the absolutization of abstract thoughts. This means, he opposed the liberal ideas that came from the West (Nafantazed, untested on our Russian land) were applied in Russia in direct form. Recall, for example, the speech of Evgenia Pavlovich Radomsky that liberalism is not about Russian rejects, but rejects Russia itself (ch. 1, part III). A proven and successfully operating idea in the West (from the point of view of the structure of the novel - successfully working in consciousness) requires special verification in Russia (in reality). By the way, Myshkin supported this thought. Apparently, this Dostoevsky wanted to strengthen the sounding theme and paint it into a variety of colors. In this case, it is important that again, the liberalism itself is rejected (the idea of \u200b\u200bliberalism, the idea at all), but how it is being introduced into Russia: without respect and take into account her customs, without communication with his life itself, as it is. This is also expressed by the dislike of Liberals to Russia. After all, the object of love is respected, appreciated. Loving seeks to bring the benefit of someone who loves, and any hint of harm is right there is a signal to prevent the possibility of receipt of this harm. If there is no love, then there is no experience about possible failures, ultimately, no responsibility in decision-making. The society in the eyes of such figures turn into a currency mass, over which it is possible and even need to produce experiments, and any, since the degree of truth of all these experiments is in the plane of the experimenters themselves. It turns out - that they will think, then they must perform the "masses" (this is exactly how Ippolite behaved - this finished liberal, which suffers by Mania and his rightness).
If the rude, but simmally, Fedor Mikhailovich opposed the absolutization of knowledge as such and convinced the need to listen to the nature of the nature, in the vibration of life.
Apparently, it was important for him for the following reason. After the peasant reform of 1861, a layer of people called themselves intelligents, which are already visible from the Turgenev Bazarov to the Turgenev Bazarov, actively began to occur. These intellectuals exceeded specific knowledge, were Westernly oriented (in the sense that they were actively dragged from there their ideas for the social reorganization of Russia) and even the most preparing experiences of society were ready to introduce (remember, IPPOLITY in Ch. 7, Part III "What seems to have the right to kill), because they considered themselves" clever ". And that's precisely against such intellectuals, the "clever", apparently, and the entire quintessence of the aspirations of Dostoevsky was sent. It was the thought that he fought in his subconscious and which he tried to take out the novel "Idiot". This explicated idea resulted in its next program work "demons", where he already in an absolutely obvious form acts categorically against the "socialists" -nigilists.
Dostoevsky was a prophet, but the prophets do not listen to the prophets. He managed in almost half a century to the Bolshevik coup. Dislike the brewing tragedy, because he saw: in the Russian society, the clan of the Ippolite experimenters (and others like them), which are not stopped by anything before. They extolish their ideas to heaven, put themselves in the place of the Absolute, their experiments put the above human destinies and take on the right of all disagreement to destroy them in the first wishes. The Bolsheviks practically proved that the brilliant writer was not mistaken, they even surpassed all possible expectations and worked in the country such a massacre compared to which all sorts of "great" French revolutions seem innocuous entertainment.
Of course, the Communists saw that Dostoevsky is their serious enemy, the severity of which is connected with the fact that he raised all their maritous to everyone, issued the true caches of their souls and the real motives of their actions. But Fedor Mikhailovich - Genius, with this the Communists could not do anything.
By the way, after the Communists were completely cooled and decomposed, they came to change the so-called. "Democrats", which also called themselves intellectuals and therefore, in the deep foundation did not differ from the former communists. Their common resemblance was to resolve themselves to experiment on society. Only the experiments of some lives were held in one channel, and others were different, but they were all equally far from their people and all their actions were guided by only passion for power, to the realization of their ambitions at any cost. As a result, the activities of these new democrats of intellectuals brought innumerable suffering to the Russians.
Dostoevsky was right. Russia needs not realization already somewhere existing ideas on the social structure of life. Accordingly, the clan of people who directs their efforts in this direction, in more simply, the Clan of Russophobes (to which, of course, the Communists also include a systematic consciousness of Russian self-association) is extremely dangerous for Russia. And only when it is free from the ideological power of such people when it goes to the irrevocable past desire to "experiment" over people, only then it will be able to truly shake as a global world reality.
56) Finally, as codes, I want to say that according to my feelings, the novel "Idiot" F.M. Dostoevsky is the most significant achievement in the novels in the entire history of human civilization. Dostoevsky in the Romanist is I.S. Bach in music: The next time there is time, the more significant things are their figures, although they are not very honored during their lifetime. These are real geniuses and differ from pseudogeniyev, which are exalted during life, but they forget as the Cronos deviates everything too much and apparent.
2004
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ocean V.P. Idiot locus: Introduction to the plain culturofony // Roman Dostoevsky "Idiot": meditation, problems. Interuniversity Sat. Scientific Labor. Ivanovo, Ivanovo State. un-t. 1999 P. 179 - 200.
2. A. Moontsev. Light and temptation // ibid. P. 250 - 290.
3. Yermilova G.G. Roman F.M. Dostoevsky "Idiot". Poetics, context // Author. dis. Dokt. filient Science Ivanovo, 1999, 49 p.
4. Kasatkina TA Creek Osla // Roman Dostoevsky "Idiot": meditation, problems. Interuniversity Sat. Scientific Labor. Ivanovo, Ivanovo State. un-t. 1999 P. 146 - 157.
5. Yang S. Picture of Golbaine "Christ in the grave" in the structure of the novel "Idiot" // Roman F.M. Dostoevsky "Idiot": the current state of study. Sat Works edech. And Cube. Scientists are ed. TA Casatina - M.: Heritage, 2001. P. 28 - 41.
6. Kaufmann W. Existentialism from Dostojevsky to Sartre. Cleveland - N.Y. 1968.
7. Krintin A.B. On the specifics of the visual world in Dostoevsky and semantics of "visions" in the novel "Idiot" // Roman F.M. Dostoevsky "Idiot": the current state of study. Sat Works edech. And Cube. Scientists are ed. TA Casatina - M.: Heritage, 2001. P. 170 - 205.
8. Chernyakov A.G. Ontology of time. Genesis and time in the philosophy of Aristotle, Gusserly and Hydegger. - St. Petersburg: Higher Religious and Philosophical School, 2001. - 460 p.
9. Laut R. Dostoevsky Philosophy in systematic presentation / under. ed. A.V. Gulgi; per. with it. I.S. Andreva. - M.: Republic, 1996. - 447 p.
10. Volkova E.I. "Good" cruelty of idiot: Dostoevsky and Steinbeck in a spiritual tradition // Roman Dostoevsky "Idiot": meditation, problems. Interuniversity Sat. Scientific Labor. Ivanovo, Ivanovo State. un-t. 1999 S. 136 - 145.

All of your favor.

Thank you for answering.
Come on my page. I decided to publish some of my articles here. I'll take overclocking.
One of them is just about Okudzhava. His novel "Date with Bonaparte". When I wrote her, I didn't clearly formulate what it became now - especially after your work on Dostoevsky.
Your article about Bulgakov makes thinking. It initially even shocks: Woland killed the master, brought him out of the state of creativity (I can conceptually "wander", I read the article not from the end, I'm still reading ...)? But then you will find the justice of your observations. And you think ...
I used to think a lot over M.Im .. The article in due time disappeared.
Mystic has a place to be.
Is Bortko - is it only money? I think he managed to social reservoir. And he does not hear spiritual-mystical. And takes ... sorry.

Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821 - 1881) is one of the most popular and recognized Russian writers in Western countries. Famous Russian Prosaik, like no one else managed to look into the depths of the human soul and reveal its vices. That is why he became so interesting to the public, and his works and on today's day did not lose their relevance.

This article opens a separate cycle dedicated to F.M. Dostoevsky. The site will try to understand and analyze the art's work with you.

So, our topic is today: F.M. Dostoevsky "Idiot" - a summary, history and analysis of the novel. We do not pay attention and domestic screenwings that have been published at different times.

Before talking about the plot, it is necessary to mention the vital circumstances of the author, thereby briefly touching the biography of Dostoevsky.

Dostoevsky's biography - briefly and most importantly

The future brilliant writer was born in Moscow and was the second child, of eight, in the family. Father Mikhail Andreevich Dostoevsky earned medicine for life, and mother Maria Fedorovna Nechaeva belonged to a merchant class. Despite the fact that the Dostoevsky family lived modestly, Fyodor Mikhailovich received excellent education and education and from an early age instigated the love of reading books. In the family, the creativity of Pushkin was guarded. At fair early age, Dostoevsky got acquainted with the classics of world literature: Homer, Servantes, Hugo, etc.

But by the execution of 16 years in the life of the writer, the first tragedy is happening - a consumers (tuberculosis of the lungs) takes the life of his mother.

After that, the father of the family sends Fyodor and his older brother Mikhail for training in the main engineering school. No matter how many sons did not protest, the father insisted on a special education, which could continue to provide material well-being.

In 1843, Dostoevsky ends the school and is credited with a pole-in-law engineer in the St. Petersburg engineering team, but after a year of service, it is resigned to completely and completely devote himself to literature.

In 1845, the first serious novel "Poor people" is published, after which the literary public recognizes the writer's talent. Began to happen to "New Gogol".

Soon the next tragedy is coming to the Writer sharply, the next tragedy is coming. In 1850, Dostoevsky sentenced to the death penalty. At the very last moment, she was replaced by a carriage and subsequent reference to Siberia for four years.

What did the genius writer created an unlawful? The fact is that since 1846, the writer has become a friendship with Patrashevsky Mikhail Vasilyevich, a convinced socialist. He visited the so-called "Friday of Petrashevsky", where music, literature and partly the policy were mainly discussed. The circle acted for the abolition of serfdom and called for the fight against corruption.

As a result, the entire group of dissent, according to the personal order of the emperor Nicholas I * was taken under close attention, then arrested and entered into the Petropavlovsk fortress.

For reference

*Nikolai I. - Emperor All-Russian, ruled by the country for 30 years (1825 - 1855). The throne was inherited from the older brother of Alexander I. The Board of Nicholas I was marked by the increased number of the official apparatus. A critical look at the work of officials of that time brightly conveyed N.V. Gogol in the "Revolution"

The arrested accused of liberty and sentenced to shooting.

But then the sentence was mitigated. Nicholas I added personally: "Announce about pardon only at that moment when everything will be ready for execution of execution" .

image of the death penalty - shooting

The initiation of the sentence was carried out on December 22, 1849. After such improvisation, one of the sentenced (Grigoriev) was crazy after some time. Dostoevsky just outlined his spiritual shock in one of the heads of the novel "Idiot". Therefore, I propose to switch to the plot of books, but we will certainly return to the biography of the writer just below.

Dostoevsky "Idiot" summary

prince Myshkin

The main hero of the novel is a young man, Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, returning after a long treatment (from the Paduchasis) from Switzerland. In your pocket, despite your princely title, it has nothing, but from the booties - a small knot.

His goal is to find his distant relative in St. Petersburg, the generals of Lizaven Prokofievna Epancin.

On the way in St. Petersburg, the prince meets with the merchant son of Parfyan Roghines, who in turn goes to get a tremendous legacy from his late dad. There are mutual sympathy between the two characters.

Rogozhin tells a new friend about meeting an extraordinary Petersburg beauty Nastasya Filippovna, who has a reputation as a fallen woman. On this, new friends are diverged.

Prince Myshkin arrives in the house of Epang. General Ivan Fedorovich, father of the family, first with reluctance takes an uninvited strange guest, but then it is decided to present his family - his wife and three daughters, Alekandra, Adelaide and Agela.

But, in front of acquaintance with women of this house, Myshkin falls the opportunity to see the portrait of Nastasya Filippovna. He literally captivated by the beauty of this woman.

From this point on, the amazing and intriguing string of events around the main hero of the novel begins. To bring the summary of the novel "Idiot", as well as any other work, more unfriendly - inappropriate and unfair in relation to the author. Therefore, we once again adhere to our tradition and acquainted you only with the string of this story.

The greatest interest in this work, of course, represent characters.

Characters novel "Idiot"

Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin - Key character of the novel, embodying humility and virtue. Dostoevsky himself writes Mikikov A.N. (Poet, secret advisor) about his main character as follows:

"One thought has long been tormented by me, but I was afraid of making a novel, because thought too hard And I am not cooked to her, although the thought is quite intelligent and I love it. This idea is to portray quite a wonderful person..»

And putting such a task, Dostoevsky appeals to the famous character of Cervantes - Don Quixhot and dickens - Samuel Pickwick. The author gives Prince Myshkin as virtue, but at the same time she gives him a shade of seriousness.

The main features of the hero; "Noble simpleness and limitless gullibility."

In the main acting person you can find autobiographical elements. The writer endowed the Myshkin epilepsy, which his own life suffered. And from the mouth of the prince sounds ideas close to Dostoevsky himself. This is the question of Orthodox faith, attitude to atheism.

This topic is clearly shown in the episode where Myshkin considers picture of Gansa Golbien Junior "Dead Christ in the Coffin". Dostoevsky saw her personally in Basel. According to the writer's spouse, the picture produced on Fedor Mikhailovich shock.

Hans Golbien Jr. "Dead Christ in the Coffin"

- Yes, it ... This is a copy of Hans Golbien, "said Prince, having time to see the picture, - and even though I am a small expert, but it seems a great copy. I saw this picture abroad and I can't forget ...
- And I love to look at this picture, - muttered, silent, Rogozhin ...
- On this picture! - Screened suddenly the prince, under the impression of a sudden thought, - on this picture! Yes, from this picture, another faith can aby!

The attitude to the death penalty is also reflected in one of the prince's monologues:

"The murder by the sentence is disproportionately awful than the murder of robbery.<…> Give and put a soldier against the gun itself on the battle and shoot him, he will still hope everything, but read this very soldier sentence probably, and he will go crazy or pay "

"My friend stood the eighth in turn, it became, he had to go to the pillars in the third place. The priest bypassed everyone with a cross. It went out that it remains to live for about five minutes, no more. He said that these five minutes seemed to him with an infinite period, enormous wealth; It seemed to him that in these five minutes he would live as many lives that even now there is nothing to think about the last moment, so he still did different orders: I calculated time to say goodbye to comrades, it put two minutes, then put two minutes, then put two minutes To think for the last time about myself, and then to look around for the last time. "

Parfen Rogozhin - Gloomy, ugly manlab, who lives only in the gusts of passion. After reading the novel, it is difficult to understand whether his love for Nastasya Philippovna sincerely or is this obstacle that develops into a mental disorder. Rogozhin is the opposite of the Mushkin.

The second author of the blog Hobbiobook Vladislav Dicaroov calls Parfon Rogozhin his favorite character in the domestic literary classics. Why? He does not quite agree with the fact that it is an unknown man. Rather, the soul lives in the chest of Rogozhin, spoken by contradictions. Soul patient, feverish. And in many ways its motives are dictated by a maniacal desire to possess Nastasya Filippovna. However, constant resistance on its part, the feeling that a woman does not respond to him any reciprocity, incites Parfren's passion even more. And with her and rage. Rogozhin literally goes crazy before our eyes, the personality of him collapses under the weight of such a spiritual way.

If these two characters are connected to one piece, in principle we will get all the advantages and disadvantages of Dostoevsky.

Nastasya Filippovna - Woman of a challenging destiny. Smart, proud and beautiful, but it is difficult for her to find his place in society.

- Amazing face! - Prince replied, - and I am sure that her fate is not ordinary. - The face is cheerful, and she suffered terribly terribly, eh? About this eyes say, these two bones, two points under the eyes at the beginning of the cheek. This is a proud face, terribly proud, and I don't know if she is good? Oh, kababi good! Everything would be saved!

In addition to major characters, there are a number of other characters.

Family of Epang In which General Ivan Fedorovich is included, his spouse and daughter.

Family of Ivolgic, once occupied a significant position in society, but due to the promiscuity and impulsivity of the father of the family, the retired general of Ivigin, is forced to reduce the ends with the ends, passing apartments in their home.

"Idiota", read the challenches is unlikely to have. Throughout the work, it and then you have to come in for roughness and trivia, not honed by the author. Elements that Dostoevsky did not have time to "lick". That were their reasons.

Unlike the same Nekrasov or Turgenev, Dostoevsky did not have high noble origin and was forced to write to earn their bread. He had a timeline that he could not violate the publishers of the magazine "Russian Bulletin". In addition, after the death of his elder brother Mikhail, Fyodor Mikhailovich took the debt obligations of the deceased. As a result, further worsened its financial situation. The author began to bother creditors, threatening to him "Debt Pome."

In such an atmosphere, the writer could not work, and Dostoevsky was forced to leave Russia. It was abroad that the novel "Idiot" was written. But the writing process stretched almost a year and a half and ended in 1869.

The novel "Idiot" went out in parts in the magazine "Russian Bulletin". That is why reading the book, you can see some repetitions and reminders of the author about the development of the plot. And the plugness on the sharp turns of the plot was to lure the readers of the magazine, reading the following chapters. About how in modern television serials.

If a little more restart the curtain of the plot, then in the novel is presented with complex love peripetics.

• Prince - Nastasya Filippovna and Prince - Aglaya
• Gavril Ivolgin - Nastasya Filippovna and Gavril Ivolgin - Aglady
• Parfen Rogozhin - Nastasya Filippovna

Thus, the author provides the reader of the judgment about several types of love. It is a passionate and direct love of Rogozhina, Mercantyl love from Gavrille Ivigin, and Christian (from compassion) Love Prince Myshkin.

The novel "Idiot" is part of the so-called "Pentafium"who entered all the best works of Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. It includes:

1. "Crime and Punishment" (Year of Edition 1866)
2. "Idiot" (year of publication 1868)
3. "Beams" (year of publication 1871)
4. "Teenager" (year of publication 1875)
5. "Karamazov Brothers" (Year of Edition 1879)

Of course, they will all somehow be considered on our blog. Therefore, subscribe to the latest newsletters and follow the update site.

FM Dostoevsky "Idiot" - movies

It is also worth mentioning domestic filmmaking to the novel.

The first film based on the novel was filmed in 1910 and is naturally a mute shielding. Director Pattern Petr Ivanovich Cherdinin.

In 1958, the second Russian film release comes. The creator of the picture is Ivan Alexandrovich Pyriev (also put the magnificent on-screen version of the "Karamazov brothers"). The picture already has color and sound.

film Idiot (1958)

The role of Prince Myshkin performed quite another young Yuri Yakovlev. But only one film series was released, on the first part of the novel. From further filming Yuri Yakovlev refused due to the nervous breakdown of the first series received after the filming. To take another actor to the role of Pyriev refused.

After 45 years, the next film "Idiot" appeared on Russian screens. Vladimir Bortko became the director of the painting, who gathered an impressive cast: Evgeny Mironov, Vladimir Mashkov, Olga Budina, Inna Churikova, Oleg Basilashvili and many others.

But in my opinion the 2003 film was not very successful. It remains too much inacked and unconnected that spoils all the integrity of the story. The viewer, familiar with the original source, the film will seem rather boring. So there is a risk that he does not see the series to the end.

In conclusion, I would like to bring an excerpt from the letter to Dostoevsky to the same A.N. Mikikova about how this novel ends:

"If there are readers" Idiota ", then they may be somewhat amazed by the surprise of the end; But, reflection, will certainly agree that it was necessary to cum. In general, the end is from successful, that is, actually as the ending; I do not speak about the advantage of the novel itself; But when I camp, I will write to you as a friend, what I think about him ...<...> The end of the "idiot" will be impressive (I do not know, is it good?) ... I have no idea about the success or failure of the novel. However, everything will solve the end of the novel ... "(A. N. Mikikova, December 1868, from Florence)

I hope we were intrigued by the novel of Dostoevsky "Idiot" briefly taking up the content of the work and the discontinuity of significant events from the author's life. We will be glad to see your opinion in the comments. Read books - it's interesting!

Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881) - Prose, critic, publicist.

About book

Writing time:1867–1869

Content

The young man, Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, returns to Petersburg from Switzerland, where he was treated from severe nervous disease.

After several years of almost the recovery life, he falls into the epicenter of the St. Petersburg society. The prince regrets these people, sees that they are dying, trying to save, but, despite all efforts, nothing can change.

Ultimately, Myshkina is brought to the loss of reason the people he most tried to help.

History of creation

The novel "Idiot" was written abroad, where Dostoevsky went to correct his health and write a novel to pay with creditors.

Work on the novel was hard, health was not improved, and in 1868 a three-month daughter Dostoevsky died in Geneva.

While in Germany and Switzerland, Dostoevsky comprehends the moral and socio-political changes in Russia of the 60s of the XIX century: Mugs of the allocations, revolutionary ideas, the mindset of nihilists. All this will find its reflection on the pages of the novel.

Boboli Garden in Florence, where he liked to walk a writer during his stay in Italy

Plan the work

Dostoevsky believed that in the world there is only one positively beautiful face - this is Christ. The writer tried to endow the main character of the novel - Prince Myshkin - similar features.

According to Dostoevsky, in the literature closest to the ideal of Christ stands Don Quixote. The image of Prince Myshkin echoes the hero of the Roman Servantes. Like Cervantes, Dostoevsky puts the question: what will happen to a person who endowed the qualities of the saint if he is in modern society, how will his relationship with the surrounding and what influence will be on them, and they are on him?

Don Quixote. Figure D. A. Harker

Title

The historical meaning of the word "idiot" is a person living in himself far from society.

In the novel, various shades of the meaning of this word be played to emphasize the complexity of the image of the hero. Myshkin is considered strange, it is considered ridiculous and ridiculous, they believe that he can "try to read the other person. He, honest and truthful, does not fit into generally accepted norms of behavior. Only at the very end of the novel actualizes another meaning - "mentally ill", "perky reasoning".

It is emphasized by the childhood of the appearance and behavior of Myshkina, its naivety, defenselessness. "Perfect child", "Child" - so called him surrounding, and prince-seemingly with it. Myshkin says: "What are we still kids, Kolya! And ... and ... how good it is that we are children! ". The evangelical appeal sounds quite clearly. "Be as children"(MF 18 :3).

Another hint of the meaning of the word "idiot" is a wilderness. In the religious tradition of blissful - conductors of Divine Wisdom for ordinary people.

The meaning of the work

The genuine evangelical history is repeated in the novel, and the story of Don Quixote. The world does not accept a "positively beautiful person." The Lion Myshkin is endowed with Christian love and good and brings them to the neighbor. However, the main obstacles on this path are the disbelief and the poorness of modern society.

People who are trying to help the prince fight themselves in his eyes. Rejecting him, society rejects the opportunity to escape. From a plot point of view, the novel is extremely tragic.

Activity and theatrical productions

Many directories of cinema and theater, composers addressed the plot of the novel, the novel "Idiot". Dramatic insignments start from 1887. One of the most significant theatrical performances of the versions of the novel Dostoevsky was the performance of 1957, delivered by George Tovstonogov in the Great Drama Theater in St. Petersburg. In the role of Prince Myshkina performed by Innokenty Smoktunovsky.

"Moron". Director Peter Cherdyinin (1910)

The first screen version of the Roman belongs to 1910, the period of silent movies. The author of this short film was Peter Chardynin. An outstanding cinema of the first part of the novel was the feature film Ivan Pyriev "Idiot" (1958), where the role of Myshkina played Yuri Yakovlev.

"Idiot", dir. Akira Kurosava (1951)

One of the best foreign shields of the novel is the Japanese black and white drama "Idiot" (1951) director Akira Kurosava.

Evgeny Mironov as Prince Myshkin in the adaptation of the novel "Idiot" (dir. Vladimir Bortko, Russia, 2003)

The most detailed and most closely close to the original film of the Romani is the Motheric film of Vladimir Bortko "Idiot" (2002), the role of Myshkina performed Evgeny Mironov.

Interesting facts about the novel

1. Idiot "- the second novel of the so-called" Great Pentateuch of Dostoevsky. " It also includes novels "Crime and Punishment", "Player", "Demons" and "Brothers Karamazov".

Tom of one of the first editions of the Essays Assembly F. M. Dostoevsky

2. On the idea of \u200b\u200bthe novel greatly influenced the impression of Dostoevsky from the picture of Hans Golbein of the younger "Dead Christ in the coffin." On the canvas, the body of a dead Savior is extremely pictured after removal from the cross. In the form of such Christ, nothing divine, but according to the legend of Golbaine and wrote this picture at all from a drowned man. Arriving in Switzerland, Dostoevsky wanted to see this picture. The writer came to such a horror that he said: "We can lose faith from such a picture." The tragium Fabul Roman, where most of the heroes live without faith, largely stems from reflections about this picture. It is not by chance that it is in the gloomy house of Parfön Rogozhina, which then will make a terrible sin of murder, a copy of the painting "Dead Christ" is hanging.

3. In the novel "Idiot" you can meet the well-known phrase "the world will save beauty." In the text, it is pronounced in a sad, ironic and almost mockery tone, two heroes - Aglaya Epanchin and a deadly sick and terentyev. Dostoevsky himself never believed that the world would save some abstract beauty. In his diaries, the salvation formula sounds like that - "the world will be the beauty of Christ." The novel "Idiot" Dostoevsky proves that the beauty is inherent not only spiritual, but also a destructive force. The tragic fate of Nastasya Filippovna, women of extraordinary beauty, illustrate the idea that beauty is able to cause unbearable suffering and destroy.

4. The terrible stage in the Rogozhin house in the final part of the "idiot" Dostoevsky considered the most important in the novel, as well as the stage "of such a force that was not repeated in the literature."

Quotes:

There is nothing offensive to the person of our time and the tribe, than to tell him that it is not original, weak character, without special talents and ordinary person.

The compassion is the most important and, perhaps, the only law of the life of all mankind.

So much strength, so much passion in the modern generation, and no matter what!

Following the "crime and punishment", F.M.Dostoevsky writes the novel "Idiot" (1868). If in the first work the hero is shown as a negative character, then in the "Idiot" the author set himself the opposite task - "depict a completely beautiful person." This idea was "ancient and beloved" from Dostoevsky. His desire to create a "positive hero" the author embodied in the image of Prince Myshkin. Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin differs at first glance from all those who act novel by the fact that he gladly perceives the world. He knows how to be happy. He declares this on the first day of arrival in St. Petersburg. In a conversation with the family of Epang, when the story about his life in Switzerland, the prince admits: "I, however, was happy almost all the time." Creating the image of the prince, Dostoevsky in notebooks with plans and sketches to the novel gives the following characteristic: "His look at the world: He all forgives, everywhere sees the causes, does not see the sin of unforgivable and excuses everything."

Dostoevsky deprives Myshkin all external qualities that can attract others. Ugly, awkward, and sometimes even ridiculous in society, the prince is sick with severe illness. At most of the people with whom he faces, he gives the impression of "Idiot" at the first moment. But then all the heroes of the novel are perfectly aware of the superiority of the prince on themselves, his spiritual beauty. And all this is because the prince is a happy man. "Love is the ability to be happy. Love man is looking for, because joy is looking for. Happy heart - loving heart. Love in itself is the highest good. And in the people of Myshkin, it opens this always alive and enhanced, but a timid and fair flow of love, love to love and be loved. " (A.Captites).

The reasons that prevent people love, Dostoevsky reveals in the images of the rest of the novels. Nastasya Filippovna, Rogozhin, Aglaya, Lizaveta Prokofievna, Ippolit, Ghania Ivolgin and General Ivolgin - to all of them, to a greater or lesser extent, prevents being happy, understand and forgive the feeling of pride, pride. All the wonderful beginners of human feelings they hide, do not give them to go out. The desire to approve himself over all turns to them in the loss of their own person. A great desire to love, to reveal yourself in front of another person is suppressed in them by virtue of the great pride and brings them only pain and suffering.

The person who is opposed to all of them is the prince of Myshkin, a person who is completely deprived of proud. Prince is the only person who knows how to recognize in people those of their beautiful mental qualities that they are so diligently hiding from prying eyes. No wonder the prince easily and is good only with children. The children have not yet learned to hide their feelings, deceive, inhabit the sincere impulses. And Myshkin himself - "Big Child". The Dostoevsky feeling of "Childhood" in his heroes is always a sign that in their soul they still did not quite disappear by "live heart sources", they are still alive, they did not stop them the finally "assurances and temptations of denying reason and pride."

But the prince is always difficult with his open soul and simply in the society of "big people", because the naive-open shower for others, unloved eyes, wormful and envious hearts is ridiculous and does not fit into the framework of society, where all the feelings are tightly closed and where are observed Your own laws of decency. In such a society, sincerity is even indecent and can only humiliate a person. For those who love the prince more, and appreciates, and respects, such behavior causes shame for him, embarrassment and indignation on the prince itself for reveals the soul to unworthy people.

But the prince of Myshkin feels the distance among themselves and the inner ideal. And knows how to appreciate the attitude towards yourself. He suffers a lot from what he understands the difference between what he says, as he says, and himself "I know that I ... offended by nature ... in society I am superfluous ... I'm not from vigorous ... I know very well that talking about my feelings to all shame. " The prince feels not because he is proud, unlike all other actors of the novel, but because it is afraid that the expression of these thoughts may not be understood by others that "the main idea" can distort and because he will suffer even more. And the prince also dreams of a man who would understand him, loved this as it is.

This "light" of understanding and the practice of his soul he felt in Agela. Therefore, the novel sounds the motive of Double Love Prince. On the one hand, love for Nastasya Filippovna, love compassionate, love-forgiveness, love "for her." On the other hand, the love of Agela, thirst for forgiveness for himself, love "for yourself." The prince always believed that the Aglaya would understand it. Prince understands that it is difficult to love, but he seeks love. In his heart, one love displaces another, they both live in his soul and if by the will of the author, the prince would not be drawn into a conflict situation, he would stay with Agela. But he stayed with Nastasya Filippovna, and this did not happen by his will, because he knew what was necessary for her.

"Idiot" is one of the most difficult works of Dostoevsky. Saltykov-Shchedrin called the idea of \u200b\u200bthe novel "radiant" and stressed that Dostoevsky joined the field of "anticipation and premonitions", where the "remote search" was directed. The image of Prince Myshkin, conceived as a type of "positively beautiful man," turned into an image of a patient, a weak person with a seal of deep internal suffering.

The prince is not able to resolve a single life contradiction, he is aware of the tragic, hopeless hapacter of the occurrence of phenomena, but it still cannot change this life. Despite the fact that the prince deeply understands life and people, he cannot have any influence on them. He can't prevent the torment of Nastasya Filippovna, to warn her murder of Rogozym, to help Agela find a way out of a dead end and he himself cums life madness. Dostoevsky brings together Myshkin with Don Quixote and Pushkin's "poor knights". On the one hand, he emphasizes the moral height of the prince, and on the other hand, his impotence, generated by the inconsistency of his ideals and life. This is the result of the meeting of the perfect hero with the people of the confused, decaying society. "He," Dostoevsky noticed, "just touched their lives. But what he could do and take, then everything died with him ... But where only he touched - everywhere he left an insecrated trait. "

The novel affects different topics that are very relevant in the modern world. The first theme that Fedor Mikhailovich raises is korestolubie. What only people are not ready for the sake of obtaining their own benefits, they only think about how to take a more prestigious position in society. All this does not remain unnoticed. After all, the thirst for wealth pushes people to the dirtiest deeds that are committed without conscience. The person is convinced that the goal justifies funds. It doesn't need anything else, this is enough that soothe myself. After all, everyone do. Thirst for profit pushes people on slander, a little later, they begin to change their own principles and beliefs.

The problem is that in society you can become someone significant only if you have significant people in the highest circles, which will silence the word in front of whom you need. Moreover, careless does not work independently, she has a faithful girlfriend, which is called vanity.

This work has a philosophical meaning. The author resorts to the rules and polls of Christianity. He takes a lot as a basis for the famous teacher named Christ. Moreover, Fedor Mikhailovich highlights one character who is the prince on the surname of Myshkin and gives it many Christian qualities. This hero even has the function of the Savior. He cares about the closest. Myshkina is not indifferent to the state of other people, he is compassionate, capable of mercy and not malicious. These qualities are trying to learn and surrounding the prince people.

Further, the novel very actively raises the topic of love. Here you can find all its varieties. There is love for people in the work, love between a man and a woman, friendly love and love in the family. Also, the author did not forget about passion, which is especially inherent in the character on the name Rogozhin. The highest love is characteristic of the Myshkin's prince, Ghania has low love, built on vanity and its own gain.

The author wanted to show how much the society was at the highest circles, which are referred to as the intelligentsia. Here you can observe moral and spiritual degradation. For heroes, double life is in order. For this, the author allocates Myshkin, which is endowed with the qualities of a spiritual person. He has a deal to other people, it is not selfish, it is able to forgive them to other misdeed. This hero exists in order for a person to finally disappointed in this world, which is full of vice and where everyone thinks only about himself. This hero gives hope that not everything is lost and there are clean people in the world.

Dostoevsky stresses that the Society needs holy people who will indicate vices and sins. Because without them everything has long been falling apart. Of course, the righteous is difficult to live, because it is impossible to adapt to such conditions. However, they do not surrender, have something more than ordinary people. Moreover, they are very rejoicing when they manage to help someone and make someone's life at least a little bit better.

Option 2.

Roman Fedor Dostoevsky "Idiot" (very short content) is one of the masterpieces of Russian classical literature. Interest in this product is still traced. And not only among our country readers, but also abroad. And it is not surprising, because the novel is a table for philosophers. The product is filled with symbolic content. In each hero, Dostoevsky has invested hidden meaning. For example, Nastasya Filippovna symbolizes beauty and maiden passion, and Prince Myshkin - Christian love and justice.

In order to understand the meaning and the essence of the work, it is necessary to refer to its analysis.

The most important goal of this work is to show the process of expanding the society of the time, in particular in the circles of the intelligentsia. The reader may noted exactly how this decomposition process is happening: through love changes, peace and dual life. The author created an image of an excellent person endowed with such qualities as justice, kindness and sincerity. But with this, Dostoevsky shows readers that the great regret, a wonderful soul, a person is not able to surrender to the horded people of vile and miserable. It becomes powerless, surrounded by envious and calculating people.

However, the meaning of the novel is that for the most part the vile society is simply necessary for the righteous. This righteous life of the Christian canons is the prince of Myshkin. It was with him every other hero of the work feels at some security from lies and pretendation, behaves naturally and finally, know their own soul.

Dostoevsky raises many topics in the novel. One of the most blatants is the topic of korestoloby. The desire to achieve a certain status and the vision of happiness in irrelevant wealth are traced in such heroes of the novel as Ghania Ivolgin, General Eadancin and Totsky. The author emphasizes that in such a society will not succeed the one who does not know how to lie, who has no connections and a valued name.

Of course, Dostoevsky could not help but highlight the topic of religion. And the main character, directly involved in the theme of Christianity, of course, Prince Myshkin. It is he who is some Savior of the novel. It can be compared with Jesus Christ himself, sacrificed for the sake of salvation of others. It is thanks to the prince of Myshkina, other heroes of the work learn to be merciful and show compassion to the neighbor. They are Varya, Aglaya and Elizabeth Petrovna.

Along with religious themes, the topic of love in all its species is traced in the work. For example, the love of Prince Myshkin to Nastasya Filippovna is a Christian, according to the Hero of the Roman himself, his feelings - "love from pity." What calls love your feelings of rogozhin, nothing like a passion. After all, to go to such an act as murder you can only from passion, but not from love. In Hali, Ivigin, love has a vain character. His feelings are measured by the amount of money he can get well playing the role of a loving person.

Roman Fedor Dostoevsky was created in order to encourage people to love for good. At the same time, the author teaches readers to believe in the salvation of the human soul and in him see the goal of life.

Analysis of the work of idiot

The idea of \u200b\u200b"Idiot" Dostoevsky appeared in the process of writing to them another, also the immortal novel of "Crime and Punishment". If the "crime and punishment" of Raskolnikov lost faith in everything: in God, in humanity, even in itself. Trying to establish as a person, through a crime.

The protagonist of the novel "Idiot" Prince Myshkin, on the contrary, embodies not only the kindness, but also faith, not only in God and in people, too, he has hope that from the mass of the villains there is one worthy person. It is thanks to his honesty and kindness, the prince is very highlighted on the overall background of other people. The rest of the vigilant and mercenary people do everything to benefit their own to make meanness for others.

Myshkin eats such a life, he understands it in part, but does not accept. For the rest, this person is really not clear and even moreover, evil languages \u200b\u200bdubbed him offensive "nickname - idiot." He cannot (do not want) to understand. Although many like it honesty, however, many of his good acquaintances annoy it over time. In essence, friends, real and sincere Prince never appears.

Dostoevsky as an experienced psychoanalyst displaced the essence of that time in which he lived. He put two opposites and as it were, compared them. The essence of which he noted lies in that revolutionality and disintegration that he moved to Russia. Dostoevsky still in "demons" predicted what will happen to Russia if the revolution becomes and how it will be. "Rus will be born ...", "says the main antiger of Roman Verhlensky. And such Verkhovlensky walked a lot in Russia, it was they who created the revolution of 1905 and the two revolutions of 1917.

Society and people in general ceased to perceive and take good and honesty. They do not believe in them, and they themselves are not. Prince Myshkin annoying them. Yet his honesty disarms evil. But, unfortunately, not always. Surrounding evil and misunderstanding, as well as the suffered disease makes the prince closed in themselves. He meets the "highest" light and finds it cruel and vicious.

In general, Dostoevsky shows in Myshkin, - Christ, but in essence he is. He tries to encourage people to good, everyone forgives even enemies but dies. His misunderstanding around him.

Several interesting writings

• Death of the prosecutor in the poem dead souls Gogol

  Episodes, where the primary heroes turn out to be a prosecutor not very much, but they still have. The very first meeting of Chichikov is provided to us on the ball, where there is nozzles.

• Do you agree with the fact that indifference is the highest cruelty? Outcome essay

  Such a phrase can carry a positive promise, as it encourages people to act as actions. Accordingly, they become more interested in the rest of the world, other people

• Children in the works in the bad society Korolenko

  The story "In a bad society" was written by V.G. Korolenko during his stay in the exile. Due to the fact that the writer was distinguished by the objectivity of the view, bold statements, often criticized

This work is devoted to the battle of people from Ukraine for the independence and freedom of their homeland. Writer has a good enough to have a general presentation of the history of his country

• Historical events in the novel Captain's daughter Pushkin

  The Captain's Daughter Fundamental Historical Roman A. S. Pushkin became one of his last works in life. The work was published at the end of 1836, after two months of his author will kill duel.