2nd post- 685 words

In Crime and Punishment, there is substantial reason to believe that Raskolnikov might have been suffering from an existential crisis. An existential crisis is a moment at which an individual questions the very foundations of their life: whether their life has any meaning, purpose or value at all. Raskolnikov himself was struggling with internal issues, torn within himself between two major polar identities. In essence, he regarded himself so highly that he was mentally confined within his own philosophical thinking. He had lost the power to set his mind on something and to go out and do it. He dropped out of school, cheating himself of an education, his fiance was gone, he stopped working, and he acted as a hermit, holing himself up within the four walls of his landlord’s attic to wallow in depression and self pity. Right from the get go it is quite evident that he is experiencing a major crisis in his life and his thoughts toward that crisis are rather depressing. He does not know how to hold himself or how to continue on; he has no definite reason for living. On the other hand, Raskolnikov wanted to be something that he so clearly was not. He did not want to be the poor, uneducated, pitiful man that he is in reality so he assumed a personality that encompassed the exact opposite. His character is perceived as a narcissistic, egotistical man who is extremely confident and sure of himself. His false confidence is completely transparent, though, due to the reader being privy to his stream of consciousness. He puts on an act for the public, but within his own mind is turmoil, insecurity, fear, and confusion. The reasoning behind this theory is simple. If Raskolnikov had committed the murders and experienced a change in his personality, thoughts or perspective on life after the fact, then the theory would hold no merit. However, it is made known from the first page of the novel that his crisis existed long before his actions of murder. He murdered the pawnbroker and her sister for no reason that he can think of. He murdered due to the lack of action and direction in his life. He was so deeply entrenched in his apathetic life that he desperately needed to do something, to “dare,” as he puts it: "I wanted to dare, and I killed.  I only wanted to dare, Sonia - and that's the whole reason!"

Another piece of evidence to support this theory is the fact that he does not feel anything after he murdered. His actions did not benefit or “cure” his sense of listlessness and inaction in any way. The guilt that stems from the murders only temporarily alleviates his lack of action. It allowed him to focus on something, to blame himself for something, to worry about something that is completely separate from his own lack of motivation and self orientation. His guilt may have been relieved once he turned himself in to the authorities, but the epilogue informs the reader that he soon reverts back to his initial state of mind that we were first introduced to.  There is no escape from his existential crisis because his attempt to fix himself proved to be unsuccessful. The one time in the entire story where he experiences true redemption is when he steps away from himself and his own thinking and gives up his inherent need for control. This occurs when he learns to accept Sonia’s guidance and love. Raskolnikov finally stops thinking about himself and gives himself over to another person, subjecting himself to pain and uncertainty.  He is then able to separate himself from the polarizing despair of his identity and adopt a different view on life where he accepts the fact that nothing is realistically within his control.  The romance itself plays little to no importance to his journey of self discovery and is symbolic in the escaping of one's self. This is the one and only solution he finds to cure his primary absence of purpose that drove him to commit the murders in the first place.