Author: Sara Butler

Submitted by email on July 1, 2020 at 1:27pm

The Role of Free Will in the Christian Evolution from Nihilism to Existentialism in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment

Raskolnikov felt a chill down his spine as he learned that the old woman whom he had visited to pawn his watch, would be left at home alone at between six and seven o’clock in the evening. The opportunity for murder of the old woman presented itself so perfectly, that it seemed like a predetermination of Raskolnikov’s fate, and suddenly Raskolnikov felt like he had no control over the matter—he must commit the murder of the old woman, whether he wanted to or not. This sense of no control over one’s mind or will is a central theme in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, in which the protagonist Raskolnikov commits a murder of two women and is punished for his crime by the deterioration of his own psyche. Ultimately, because Raskolnikov’s transition from a nihilist to an existentialist is motivated by his desire to obtain free will that he failed to access without faith in God, Raskolnikov’s recognition of his own free will is crucial to his purification and Christian evolution. Raskolnikov, motivated by existential nihilistic ideas, commits murder with the belief that life has little meaning. Yet, throughout the novel, Raskolnikov is tortured by his guilt and, by confessing his murder, is able to discover life’s meaning through God as a Christian Existentialist. His confession is motivated by his desire to claim freedom through autonomy and the recognition of his free choice to kill. In addition to tracking the evolution of Raskolnikov, this paper also explores the Christian perspective of free will as it relates to the novel’s protagonist. Infused with several Christian themes, Crime and Punishment, is heavily influenced by Dostoevsky’s beliefs. A Christian Existentialist, Dostoevsky believed in both the ability of the soul to act freely without necessity, and also the existence of God. This overlap of the existentialist philosophy and the Christian theology, as revealed in his works, appears to take form in Dostoevsky’s belief that God created the soul, but actively gives it freedom. Raskolnikov believes that his consciousness is limited by ‘fate’ in its ability to act freely, a belief that causes confusion surrounding the origin of his immoral thoughts: “Oh, God, how loathsome this all is!,” Raskolnikov exclaims. “Could such horror really come into my head?” (Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment 9).

In the beginning of the novel, Raskolnikov is a skeptical academic motivated by logic. Influenced by nihilistic ideas, he believes his environment is responsible for his poverty, boredom, and isolation. A mere pawn of his environment, he believes he has no free will and is therefore unable to access it. In order to free himself from the limit imposed by his environment, Raskolnikov conceives of a crime of a pawnbroker that will help him define his own autonomy separate from a that of a law-abiding citizen and an agent of moral society. This takes the form in his psyche of desiring extraordinary status or seeing himself as God so he may be freed from his environment by becoming superior to it. He partly plans a murder, but not so meticulously as to leave some up to chance, demonstrating that he does place some faith in the force of fate; but primarily, he believes that by assuming the role of a Napoleonic extraordinary man through his illegal and immoral act, he frees himself of the model supposedly forced upon him by society. This attempt at obtaining free will by making himself God fails, but leads him to access his own free will by recognizing it through adoption of existentialism and surrendering himself to God.

Ironically, in the process of becoming a pseudo-Napoleon, Raskolnikov forfeits his rationality, upon which free will relies, and completely surrenders his free will to his environment as he recognizes the role of coincidence. Before committing his murder, he walks home one night and overhears the pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna, and her sister, Lizaveta, converse. He learns that Lizaveta will be away from her house the next evening. Raskolnikov sees this opportunity as so ideal, that he has no choice but to go through with his crime while the pawnbroker’s sister is absent. Feeling once again like a pawn of his environment, Raskolnikov loses his ability to reason and feels “with his whole being that he no longer [has] any freedom either of mind or of will, and that everything has been suddenly and finally decided” (62). This statement is ironic, as it reveals that Raskolnikov has become subject to the same position from which he was trying to release himself through committing a crime. Thus, Raskolnikov begins his journey from a man who searches for freedom in rationality and logic to one whose free will is founded in the decision to choose God. As suggested by Dostoevsky, the former relationship is suggestive of nihilism and limits one’s personal freedom, while the latter relationship is ideally existentialist and the only true reflection of freedom. 

In addition to the coincidence of the pawnbroker’s conversation with her sister, Raskolnikov discovers several coincidences, such as a conversation at the tavern in which “exactly the same thoughts” that he just conceived were repeated (65). He attributed this coincidence to something out of his control and ‘predestined’ by God (66). Throughout the novel, instances to which he ascribes to fate severely threaten his ego, but a greater threat to his “extraordinary” self takes form in his belief in the Biblical story of Jesus and Lazarus. After committing his crime, Raskolnikov and his friend, Razumikhin, visit Porfiry Petrovich, who suspects that Raskolnikov is guilty and investigates him by asking several questions to gain access to the criminal’s psyche. Porfiry asks if Raskolnikov believes in the raising of Lazarus. Raskolnikov then responds hesitantly, “I be-believe,” to which Porfiry presses “You believe literally?” (261). Raskolnikov confirms. This response reveals to Porfiry the complexity of Raskolnikov’s character – a nihilistic murderer who admits the literal power of God. But, to the reader, Raskolnikov’s hesitation allows deeper access to the protagonist’s psychology. It reveals that Raskolnikov is in spiritual transition, and, although he was introduced to the Biblical story before in school, his belief in Lazarus is fairly new (324). Raskolnikov later begs Sonya to read him the story of how Jesus resurrected Lazarus (327). It is clear Raskolnikov is fascinated by the idea of rebirth after death. While it may appear that this fascination stems from his internal suffering of guilt from his crime, it is more likely that Raskolnikov discovers he was spiritually ‘dead’ before committing a murder. Therefore, as a nihilist could never believe in the miracles of God, Raskolnikov’s belief and increasing interest in the story of Lazarus reveals his transition from a dead man, a man without spiritual freedom, to a man awakened by God.

This transition is almost complete when Raskolnikov confesses his crime to Sonya (418). He gives no excuses, even though Sonya provides many reasons as to why he would have committed his murders ranging from his poverty to his mental state. Yet, Raskolnikov rejects Sonya’s attempt at humanizing Raskolnikov as “Nonsense” as he affirms:

I simply killed—killed for myself, for myself alone—and whether I would later become anyone’s benefactor, or would spend my life like a spider, catching everyone in my web and sucking the life-sap out of everyone, should at that moment have made no different to me!…And it was not money above all that I wanted when I killed, Sonya; not money so much as something else…I know all this now… (418).

By admitting his choice made by his own free will, Raskolnikov finally recognizes how separate he had always been from his environment—no longer a mere pawn but rather a freely thinking agent with free will. This awareness is necessary for Raskolnikov to take responsibility for his actions and ready himself for spiritual awakening. His confession also reveals how he sees himself, no longer a Napoleon but a ‘louse.’ The conclusion of his Napoleonic idea signals the resolution of his nihilistic philosophy and makes room for his adoption of existentialist ideas which require admittance of free will.

         In the novel’s epilogue, Raskolnikov’s transition enters its final stage. Like Lazarus, he falls sick and is ‘awakened’ at Easter, hinting that Raskolnikov is ‘reborn’ and will achieve salvation from God (506). This rebirth is the effect of his free choice to surrender to God rather than feed his Napoleonic ego, and thus is caused by Raskolnikov’s attainment of existentialist thought. He recognizes his free will and is thereby able to access it.

         Through the spiritual awakening of his main character, Dostoevsky reveals the power of Christian existentialism, that is, the believe that “consciousness is radically free” through God (Crowell). Free will changes meaning for Raskolnikov from being founded in “acting rationally” to being founded in “existential terms, as choice and transcendence” (Crowell). This transcendence is foreshadowed by the character’s name, whose root, raskol, means ‘schism,’ as noted by Dostoevsky’s translator, and begs to be whole by appealing to the supernatural (Kindle Location 270). Dostoevsky suggests that through nihilism, one may not obtain the meaning of life, a focus of Russian thought that took form in the question “What is to be done?” And, like Raskolnikov influenced by Western philosophy, it may lead to internal suffering because, without some “rational goal whose content cannot be merely this empirical life itself,” one is unable to live a life of meaning (Frank Location 512). Discovering this meaning of life through faith in God is central to making one whole.

         In addition to unveiling the personal motivation for adopting Christian existentialism, Dostoevsky also inserts a motivation for the reader to recognize his own free will by rejecting the Russian tendency to villainize the environment, as Raskolnikov had for most of his life. In A Writer’s Diary, he warns that blaming the environment is dangerous to the development of the community and opposes Christianity which, “fully recognizing the pressure of the environment . . . , still places a moral duty on the individual to struggle with the environment and marks the line where the environment ends and duty begins” (Dostoevsky, A Writer’s Diary 136). Raskolnikov throughout the majority of the Crime and Punishment, struggles with his environment all the while assigning responsibility to it. It is not until he—himself—can assume full “moral duty” that he is considered saved by Christianity. Thus, his beginning state as a nihilist who is not Christian according to Dostoevsky in A Writer’s Diary directly opposes his final state as an existentialist who has full Christian faith in God’s power. His spiritual evolution motivated by his need to feel free is obtained by his recognition of his own free will, as both an existentialist who believes his consciousness is free and a Christian who sees himself as an autonomous moral agent.

Works Cited

Crowell, Steven. “Existentialism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 9 June 2020, plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor M., et al. A Writer’s Diary. Northwestern University Press, 2009.

—. Crime and Punishment: A Novel in Six Parts with Epilogue. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, Vintage Books, 1992.

Frank, S. L. The Meaning of Life. Translated by Boris Jakim, William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2010.

Christian Existentialism as the Anecdote to the Dangers of Nihilistic Atheism: As Illustrated by Ivan Karamazov in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov

“What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.”   –Elder Zosima

“There’s no ghost, sir, besides the two of us, sir, and some third one. No doubt he’s here now . . . between the two of us,” Smerdyakov spoke of God with a crooked grin to his brother, Ivan Fyodorovich, who shook with fear (Dostoevsky 623-4). Ivan, Smerdyakov warned, should not bother to look for the ‘third one’, as Ivan, upon claiming that the world does not belong to God, would not be able to find Him. Troubled Ivan later hallucinates a devil, whom Ivan asks, “Is there a God, or not?” (642). The devil, by admitting he does not know, reveals that he is the embodiment of Ivan. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Fyodorovich escapes nihilism by accepting moral responsibility, therefore expressing Dostoevsky’s belief in the acceptance of Christian existentialism as an antidote to the dangers of nihilism. Ivan believes that, since there is no God, there is no such thing as morality. His rejection of God resigns him to nihilism, defined by his inability to answer the existential question, “For what purpose?” (Ludovici). Ivan thus relies on his intellectual ideas in place of God, which foster his Napoleonic pride. Ivan’s nihilistic and Napoleonic philosophy isolate him from society and render him vulnerable to internal conflict. By acknowledging his moral responsibility, Ivan escapes his tormenting mindset and sets him on the path towards Christian existentialism. The reasons and consequences for his rejection of morality and God are explored throughout the novel and unveil Dostoevsky’s argument that faith in God is central to having a meaningful life and is able to cure one’s isolation and tormented soul once enslaved by nihilism.

Dostoevsky introduces the protagonist, Ivan Fyodorovich, as a proud, independent intellectual concerned with the suffering of unjust humankind. Influenced by nihilistic ideas, Ivan’s mental paradigm opposes that of the respected elder, Father Zosima. In Book Six, Father Zosima teaches how all of humankind is connected. He expresses the unity of humankind through his teaching of active love, ‘a whole science’ of labor and perseverance (58), in the form of the following anecdote. An adult, full of anger, passes by a young child and says a foul word under his breath. The word heard by the child stays with him and plants “a bad seed in him” that grows and leads the child to later commit an act out of anger (319). The child, lacking defense against the word, may not have learned how to stop its growth, but the adult, if he had practiced active love, could have restrained himself and prevented the growth of the ‘bad seed.’ Father Zosima’s message reveals how the actions of one man impact the actions of another because God created all of man and all of humankind is united in God. The active love Father Zosima refers to requires a deep faith in humanity that cannot sustain nihilism, and so directly conflicts with the beliefs of Ivan. 

While Ivan “accepts God outright simply” (Dostoevsky 216), he severely doubts God, because he cannot rationalize how a loving, merciful God can allow for the suffering of innocent children. He deduces that, if God does not exist, there is no such thing as morality and so “everything is permitted” (263), because the decision to act wickedly has no consequences after death of the mortal soul. Ivan’s rejection of morality strips him of his quest to answer the question, ‘For what purpose should man do good?’, thereby alluding to his nihilistic philosophy. While Ivan accepts the role of God in the community as a check on societal lawlessness in a way that constitutes a form of socialism, he claims that God is unwilling to rule the world through free will efficiently because freedom is the greatest cause of suffering (254). In Ivan’s poem, “The Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan illustrates that man is not able to accept the ideas of Christ and that individual free will “forever [burden] the kingdom of the human soul with its torments” (254). This strongly held belief, in accordance with the egotistical portrayal of Ivan, reflects Ivan’s inflated self-image. Furthermore, the role of the Grand Inquisitor in questioning Jesus seems to suggest that Ivan sees himself as the judge of God. Ivan’s poem thus demonstrates his Napoleonic mentality. Ironically, in seeking freedom from God’s inadequate use of power, Ivan finds himself trapped in isolation in a meaningless world. Only by admitting the existence of morality and deconstructing his pride, can Ivan liberate himself from the dangers of nihilism.

Ivan’s nihilism found in the form of his mantra, “everything is permitted,” and Napoleonic pride at the center of his belief in his superiority over God must be destroyed by his acceptance of moral responsibility. Throughout the novel, Ivan resigns to his isolation and distances himself from the rest of humankind. When Ivan visits his ill brother Smerdyakov, he learns that Smerdyakov has committed the murder of their father, the death of whom had begun to tempt Ivan to admit that there is such a thing as morality. Smerdyakov professes how Ivan’s ideas and logic have influenced Smerdyakov to commit parricide: “It was true what you taught me, sir,” Smerdyakov admits, “because you told me a lot about that then: because if there’s no infinite God, then there’s no virtue either, and no need of it at all.” Ivan questions if his brother has come to such a conclusion independently and Smerdyakov proclaims that it was under Ivan’s guidance that Smerdyakov committed his crime (Dostoevsky 631).  In direct conflict with his nihilistic assertions, hysterical Ivan begins to take some responsibility for his father’s murder.

Dostoevsky utilizes Ivan’s spiritual encounters to convince the reader that Ivan’s nihilistic logic, being “everything is permitted,” is dangerous and harmful. The nihilist, as Dostoevsky illustrates in his novel, is unable to find meaning in his life. This inability, as outlined in S. L. Frank’s The Meaning of Life, torments the soul and forfeits the possibility of obtaining inner peace (Loc. 1019).  This is demonstrated in The Brothers Karamazov when Ivan’s nihilism and ego prompt his madness. With his entire belief system unhinged by his meeting with Smerdyakov, Ivan approaches insanity and hallucinates the devil paying him a visit. In the scene, “The Devil. Ivan Fyodorovich’s Nightmare,” the devil, a shadow of Ivan, taunts Ivan with his own nihilistic and Napoleonic ideas, teasing that man can become a ‘man-god’ (Dostoevsky 648). Trembling with his hands covering his ears, Ivan learns of the true emptiness resulting from his rejection of God and morality. This spiritual encounter is the climactic realization of his own entrapment, as demonstrated by the arrival of his brother, Alyosha, who represents the active love that Father Zosima teaches. When Alyosha first knocks on Ivan’s door, Ivan feels his arms and legs suddenly bound. He tries to break free, in vain, to no avail, until Alyosha’s knocks grow louder, and Ivan is freed (650). Dostoevsky uses this moment to illustrate that only active love may free Ivan from his own self-imposed limitations. 

Although Ivan still suffers from insanity, the novel ends on an optimistic note that may hint at Ivan’s future redemption. In the final Book, Ivan confesses during the trial of his brother, Dmitri Karamazov, that Smerdyakov “killed [Fyodor Pavlovich] on [Ivan’s] instructions” (Dostoevsky 686). Ivan calls himself a murderer and publicly accepts moral responsibility for his father’s murder. This confession is immediately followed by Katerina Ivanovna, out of love for Ivan, reversing her earlier testimony in favor of Dmitri’s innocence and defending that Ivan’s madness is caused by grief. The first time Katerina has acted on her love for Ivan, this act of love sparks the beginning of Ivan’s acceptance in society as a direct outcome of Ivan’s acceptance of blame. According to the teachings of Father Zosima, this form of active love could be capable of planting a ‘good seed’ in Ivan that sprouts into Ivan’s happiness once prevented by his rejection of God. This scene predicts that as Ivan escapes nihilism, he moves toward Christian existentialism that is dependent on recognizing the unity of humankind and capable of relieving Ivan’s suffering.

In tracking the evolution of Ivan Karamazov from a nihilistic atheist tormented by isolation and the devil to a hopeful man integrated in society approaching Christian existentialism, Dostoevsky illustrates both the seduction and dangers of adopting nihilistic ideas. In addition to his critique of nihilism through Ivan, Dostoevsky’s contrast between Ivan and his faithful brother, Alyosha, demonstrates that adoption of Christian existentialism grants freedom to the same soul that would otherwise look mistakenly towards individual autonomy as the path towards freedom. Dostoevsky therefore urges the Russian reader to reject the temptation to find freedom in nihilism and turn instead to Christian existentialism for liberation from the suffering of a meaningless life.

Works Cited

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov: A Novel in Four Parts with Epilogue. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2002.

Ludovici, Anthony M., translator. The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Oscar Levy, vol. 14, T.N. Foulis, Edinburgh and London, 1909. The Will to Power, Book I and II, www.gutenberg.org/files/52914/52914-h/52914-h.htm.

Frank, S. L. The Meaning of Life (Kindle Version). Translated by Boris Jakim, W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2010.

For my second paper, I would like to discuss the role of moral responsibility in The Brothers Karamazov. The novel tracks the evolution of Ivan, whose doubt in God relieves him, he believes, of all responsibility for the actions committed by others. This logic is deduced by his believe that since there is no God, and hence no afterlife, the concept of morality has no grounding. Therefore people are justified to act in whatever way they want. This conclusion lies at the core of Ivan’s character and directly conflicts with the teachings of Father Zosima, who asserts that every person shares at least some responsibility for the sins of others because all actions are interconnected. In my paper, I would like to explore the role of cause and effect, or causality, a concept of long-lasting philosophical interest, because it connects with the existence of God. For example, what kind of world allows for the existence of causal relations? Is it one subjected to a creator or to random occurrence? Dostoevsky acknowledges the relationship between causality and Christianity, as the murder of Ivan’s father, Fyodor Pavlovich, is illustrated to be a direct effect of Ivan’s influence, the realization of which is a turning point in Ivan’s character.

For this paper, I plan to focus on two scenes in the novel: The scene that includes the poem of the Grand Inquisitor, because it reveals what is wrong with Ivan’s prioritization of society over the individual, and the scene of Smerdyakov’s confession, because it reveals Ivan’s struggle to accept partial guilt for his father’s murder.