People can have the same education and similar professional experience, but one will earn a lot, and the other will live from paycheck to paycheck. About why this happens, “Compare ru” told psychologist Dmitry Pechkin.
Fear and will
A person who has material wealth says: “I can afford it.” This is almost the same as saying: “I have the right.” A quote from the classic novel is very appropriate here: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?”
Two aspects always separate a person from owning money - fear and will. Therefore, the amount of well-being directly depends on the extent to which a person gives himself the right to certain actions through which he expresses himself in the world. And from a deeper, psychological point of view, it sounds like this: “how much a person can resist his fear with his willpower.”
People often believe that wealthy people have innate confidence. But a person who has managed to make a fortune will say that this is not true. Confidence is only the result of real experience, which says that one’s own efforts always bring results.
People who have problems with money are, first of all, those who are unable to muster the willpower to make a choice. The choice that will allow you to express yourself by achieving a certain goal. Fear always precedes any action. Only those who take risks and leave their comfort zone can move forward.
People mistakenly associate potential with knowledge. This is a delusion based on their psychological defenses. For this reason, there are a whole sea of educated and knowledgeable people, but only a few wealthy ones.
Many people hide behind acquiring knowledge as a process that eliminates the need to take specific steps and get results. While the majority are studying, businessmen are earning billions without graduating from universities.
If someone is stopping you from doing something, it is you yourself. One part of you wants, and the other trembles with fear. You just need to choose which of the two parts you identify with?
What allows a person to live in abundance is the will that resists fear. It is she who makes you take every new step forward. If you want to earn more, you need to develop your will. How to do it?
- Focus on your efforts, not on fear. Just do it.
- Listen to your personal desires and do not put them off for later.
- Stop shifting responsibility for yourself and your life to your employer, the state. Learn to be independent.
Edition "Kluber" lists the following seven habits that program for poverty:
- The habit of feeling sorry for yourself.
- The habit of saving on everything.
- The habit of valuing everything in banknotes.
- The habit of panicking when money runs out.
- The habit of spending more than you earn.
- The habit of doing something you don't like.
- The habit of staying away from relatives.
As the site previously wrote, psychologist and behavioral economist Dan Ariely explained that saving money is actually more difficult than it seems. In life, there are regularly occasions for unexpected expenses: car repairs, wedding gifts, invitations to concerts - and then all good intentions go to waste. And here only cunning comes to the rescue.
It was not without reason that this seemingly wild question worried the famous literary character, and with him a fair portion of the intelligent public at the end of the cheerful, rational and self-confident nineteenth century. After all, stupid, boring rationalism, coupled with impenetrable self-confidence, as psychiatrists well know, is a sure sign of mental illness. Conversely, a reasonable person, today, as in the distant past, is characterized by a skeptical attitude towards his abilities. “I only know that I know nothing,” says Socrates, and Rev. John Climacus recommends “laughing at your own wisdom.”
Today, almost a century and a half later, Raskolnikov’s reasoning actually sounds like absolute nonsense: “I simply hinted that an “extraordinary” person has the right... that is, not an official right, but he himself has the right to allow his conscience to overstep... through other obstacles." It is obvious, however, that his contemporaries perceived him differently: otherwise the author of Crime and Punishment would not have deserved his fame. And the dispute between Porfiry Petrovich and Raskolnikov in the context of the novel looks less like a conversation between a healthy person and an insane person, and more like a dispute on equal terms. Dostoevsky is even forced to return to this dispute and involve other participants in it, other artistic means: “I had to find out then, and find out quickly, whether I was a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Will I be able to cross or not! Will I dare to bend down? and should I take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right... - To kill? Do you have the right to kill? - Sonya clasped her hands."
It is not surprising that Raskolnikov has nothing to answer her. The madness of the nineteenth century, as if in a textbook case history, developed from symptom to symptom with general benevolent connivance, until it culminated in a violent explosion in the twentieth. And only today, somewhat humbled by the blood shed in the search and establishment of “human rights,” people gradually began to come to their senses, to understand the legacy that the “progressives,” “liberals,” and “enlighteners” left them.
“Human rights” refers to at least two different schools of ethical, legal and political thought. The first direction formulates mainly negative theses: freedom from coercion or persecution of one kind or another, non-interference by the state in certain spheres of human life. The second puts forward positive demands, such as the right to work, to social security, to education, medical care, etc., declaring, on the contrary, active state participation in people’s everyday lives. They are sometimes called the first and second generations of human rights. The first, correspondingly earlier, is based on the political philosophy of individualism of the 17th - 18th centuries; the second - on later socialist theories.
At first glance, human rights in this formulation, whether of the first or second generation, look quite reasonable and attractive: they seem to have absolutely nothing in common with the bloody fantasies of the Raskolnikovs. But this is only at first glance. Even the American Declaration of Independence was based on a position, to put it mildly, very dubious from the point of view of common sense and the Christian worldview: “We hold it to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are equally endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.” Doesn't a person take on too much when he declares the Creator to be his counterparty in a legal procedure? And if this were to happen, then for what reason could the Creator, who has endowed his creation with certain rights, not take them away with the same ease?...
However, the founders of the American Republic, with all our critical attitude towards them, cannot still be accused of idiocy. They proceeded from the once popular concept of the so-called “natural law,” which spread in the West along with medieval scholasticism and was subsequently discredited, both in practical life and in theory. It was not for nothing that the condition of equality of people formed the basis of the Declaration of Independence, and a few years later, along with a rather specific freedom and quite fantastic fraternity, it turned out to be among the basic principles of the French Revolution. However, tell me, how often have you seen, in addition to identical twins, two equal people?
Of course, they will hasten to convince you that we are talking only about the equality of people before the law, as opposed, they say, to the ancient feudal order, when for the same violation the aristocrat had to pay so much and the commoner so much. But do not rush to be persuaded. Better pay attention to the obvious vicious circle: “human rights” are formulated on the basis of the very equality of people, which is then derived from them as a legal norm!
One way or another, by the time of Raskolnikov, human rights were attracting steady interest, and their attractiveness, of course, was in inverse proportion to their achievability. This is especially true for second generation rights. And since the equality of people - actual, not legal - has long been self-evident nonsense, the thought of differentiation naturally arises: different people, so to speak, have different rights.
So it should not be surprising that the long saga of human rights today, in the twenty-first century, has led us along a dialectical curve to the third generation of these same rights - to “group rights” of all kinds of minorities, national, sexual and others. In the Soviet Union during the period of stagnation, restrictions and preferences were practiced against certain nations when hiring, entering universities, etc., and everyone gnashed their teeth about such injustice, looking with longing and hope towards the progressive West. But in the progressive West, especially in the American cradle of democracy, the same (and much worse) restrictions and preferences have long caused almost no emotion. I remember in 1985, when everything was new to me in the USA, I began listening to Bruce Williams’ radio program - open-air consultations on labor and commercial matters - and some unlucky businessman of Anglo-Saxon origin called the studio with a complaint about the city government where he I couldn't get a contract. The businessman asked if, in this regard, he needed to change his last name to Gonzales or Suarez? Truly, jokes know no bounds.
So what are human rights? As children say: are they “good” or “bad”? Do they lead to prosperity and justice, or to abuse, to the ax and dynamite? For an answer, you can turn to another Russian author, whose hero participated in a discussion about “respect for a peasant”:
There is a man and a man -
If he doesn't drink up the harvest,
Then I respect the man!
We should answer exactly the same: there are rights and rights. If they act as a working tool for social and economic relations, if - as Margaret Thatcher notes in her new book - one does not try to develop them in a vacuum, in isolation from the living tradition of a given society, and thereby undermine the national interests and sovereignty of the country - then We respect these rights, protect and take care of them.
But our “human rights defenders” do not need such rights. It is appropriate to liken them to a bearded man with a machine gun who came out of the forest to meet a frightened old woman:
Grandma, where are the Germans?
- Germans?? The Germans, the killer whale, have been driven away for twenty years.
- Yah? And I keep derailing trains...
The bearded man at least managed to rethink his mission. Where are the “human rights activists”? At the same time, despite all their madness, they are quite rationally waging their struggle on the internal front: “a person has the right... that is, not an official right, but he himself has the right to allow his conscience to overstep...” In other words, among the schismatics of the past and the present law works as an inhibitor of conscience. Or maybe as a killer.
If “human rights” become a supranational force, a kind of idol or demiurge that challenges the Creator and replaces a sober Christian view of man and society - then forgive me, we have no place for such rights. And it won't.
I killed myself, not the old woman...
F. M. Dostoevsky
F. M. Dostoevsky is the greatest Russian writer, an unsurpassed realist artist, an anatomist of the human soul, a passionate champion of the ideas of humanism and justice. His novels are distinguished by their keen interest in the intellectual life of the characters, revealing the complex and contradictory consciousness of man.
Dostoevsky's main works appeared in print in the last third of the 19th century, when a crisis of old moral and ethical principles emerged, when the gap between rapidly changing life and traditional norms of life became obvious. It was in the last third of the 19th century that society started talking about a “revaluation of all values”, about changing the norms of traditional Christian morality and morality. And at the beginning of the twentieth century, this became practically the main issue among the creative intelligentsia. Dostoevsky was one of the first to see the danger of the coming revaluation and the accompanying “dehumanization of man.” He was the first to show the “devilishness” that was initially hidden in such attempts. This is what all of his main works are dedicated to and, of course, one of the central novels - “Crime and Punishment”.
Raskolnikov is the spiritual and compositional center of the novel. External action only reveals his internal struggle. He must go through a painful split in order to understand himself and the moral law, inextricably linked with human essence. The hero solves the riddle of his own personality and at the same time the riddle of human nature.
Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel, was a student in the recent past who left the university for ideological reasons. Despite his attractive appearance, “he was so poorly dressed that another, even an ordinary person, would be ashamed to go out into the street in such rags during the day.” Raskolnikov lives in extreme poverty, renting a closet resembling a coffin in one of the St. Petersburg houses. However, he pays little attention to the circumstances of his life, as he is passionate about his own theory and the search for evidence of its validity.
Disillusioned with social ways of changing the life around him, he decides that influencing life is possible with the help of violence, and for this, a person who intends to do something for the common good should not be bound by any norms and prohibitions. Trying to help the disadvantaged, Rodion comes to the realization of his own powerlessness in the face of world evil. In desperation, he decides to “transgress” the moral law - to kill out of love for humanity, to commit evil for the sake of good.
Raskolnikov seeks power not out of vanity, but to help people dying in poverty and lawlessness. However, next to this idea there is another - “Napoleonic”, which is gradually coming to the fore, pushing aside the first. Raskolnikov divides humanity into “...two categories: the lowest (ordinary), that is, so to speak, the material that serves solely for the generation of their own kind, and actually people, that is, those who have the gift or talent to say a new word in their midst ". The second category, the minority, is born to rule and command, the first is to “live in obedience and be obedient.”
The main thing for him is freedom and power, which he can use as he pleases - for good or evil. He admits to Sonya that he killed because he wanted to know: “Do I have the right to have power?” He wants to understand: “Am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Will I be able to cross or not? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” This is a self-examination of a strong personality testing his strength. Both ideas control the hero’s soul and reveal his consciousness.
Having become isolated from everyone and withdrawn into his own corner, Raskolnikov harbors the idea of murder. The world around him and people cease to be a true reality for him. However, the “ugly dream” that he has cherished for a month disgusts him. Raskolnikov does not believe that he can commit murder, and despises himself for his abstraction and inability to take practical action. He goes to the old pawnbroker for a test - to inspect the place and try it on. He thinks about violence, and his soul writhes under the burden of world suffering, protesting against cruelty.
The inconsistency of Raskolnikov's theory begins to be revealed already during the commission of the crime. Life cannot fit into a logical scheme, and Raskolnikov's well-calculated script is disrupted: Lizaveta appears at the most inopportune moment, and he is forced to kill her (and also, probably, her unborn child).
After the murder of the old woman and her sister Lizaveta, Raskolnikov experiences the deepest mental shock. Crime puts him “beyond good and evil,” separates him from humanity, and surrounds him with an icy desert. A gloomy “feeling of painful, endless solitude and alienation suddenly consciously affected his soul.” Raskolnikov has a fever, he is close to insanity and even wants to commit suicide. Rodion tries to pray, and laughs at himself. Laughter gives way to despair. Dostoevsky emphasizes the motive of the hero’s alienation from people: they seem disgusting to him and cause “... endless, almost physical disgust.” He cannot even talk to those closest to him, feeling an insurmountable border “lying” between them.
The path of crime for Raskolnikov (and according to Dostoevsky, for no one) is unacceptable (it is not for nothing that Dostoevsky compares Raskolnikov’s crime with death, and his further resurrection occurs in the name of Christ). That human thing that was in Raskolnikov (he supported a sick fellow student for almost a year at his own expense, saved two children from the fire, helped, giving the last money for the funeral, Marmeladov’s widow), contributes to the speedy resurrection of the hero (Porfiry Petrovich’s words that Raskolnikov "I fooled myself for a short time"). Sonya Marmeladova resurrects Rodion to a new life. Raskolnikov's theory is contrasted with the Christian idea of atonement for one's own and others' sins through suffering (images of Sonya, Dunya, Mikolka). It is when the world of Christian spiritual values opens up for Raskolnikov (through his love for Sonya) that he is finally resurrected to life.
Tired of “theory” and “dialectics,” Raskolnikov begins to realize the value of ordinary life: “No matter how you live, just live! What a truth! Lord, what a truth! A scoundrel is a man! And a scoundrel is the one who calls him a scoundrel for this.” He, who wanted to live as an “extraordinary person” worthy of true life, is ready to come to terms with a simple and primitive existence. His pride is crushed: no, he is not Napoleon, with whom he constantly relates himself, he is just an “aesthetic louse.” Instead of Toulon and Egypt, he has a “skinny, nasty receptionist,” but that’s enough for him to fall into despair. Raskolnikov laments that he should have known in advance about himself, about his weakness, before going to “bleed.” He is unable to bear the gravity of the crime and confesses it to Sonechka. Then he goes to the police station and confesses.
With his crime, Raskolnikov removed himself from the category of people, became an outcast, an outcast. “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself,” he admits to Sonya Marmeladova. This isolation from people prevents Raskolnikov from living.
The hero's idea of the right of the strong to commit crime turned out to be absurd. Life has defeated theory. No wonder Goethe said in Faust: “Theory, my friend, is brimstone. But the tree of life is ever green.”
According to Dostoevsky, no high goal can justify the worthless means leading to its achievement. An individualistic rebellion against the order of life around us is doomed to failure. Only compassion, Christian empathy and unity with other people can make life better and happier.
Do you notice that there is a problem (more likely it will be more accurate - problematic), and it is global, and most importantly, it concerns you specifically..
The problem is financial well-being; a person falls into a rigid framework after birth and cannot get out of it all his life (as Vysotsky sings about “his rut”).
Quote in the title - “The essence of Raskolnikov’s philosophy was that he divided people into “ordinary” and “extraordinary.” ... Raskolnikov asked himself the questions: “Am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man?”, “Am I a creature?” trembling or do I have the right?
Georgy Taratorkin as Raskolnikov
I recently read the book: “Sapiens. A Brief History of Humanity” (Author: Yuval Noah Harari), it examines both aspects of the development of humanity and the social aspects of existence. The main idea of this part of the book is that social inequality has existed at all times, and a person cannot rise above his caste.
Actually, another interesting guy writes on this topic - Alexey Krol (Theory of Castes and Roles), showing even more clearly that castes exist, and the transition from one to another is very difficult, almost impossible.
One of the castes, the most massive, is you and me, experts in our profession (doctors, builders, teachers, salesmen, etc.), when earnings have a limit associated with a time constant (you can serve a certain number of people per unit of time ).
The only solution, being in the same caste, is to increase the cost of your hour (serve the same number of clients, but at a rate two, three times higher than the current one)..
But another problem arises: when the rate increases, the number of clients decreases, and you may be left without any income at all.
The solution to this problem is to increase the flow of incoming requests and increase your level of expertise in the eyes of clients.
In essence, I propose to look at your current work from a “Business within a Business” angle, when you take the structure of the company and deal only with yourself within the company. For example, if you are a salesman, you start creating videos on Youtube on how to choose a car, if you are a technician, write articles on Yandex.Zen on how to properly fill the engine with oil, a doctor - write a blog on Instagram talking about the primary signs of diseases..
The result of such activity on social networks is that many people will know about you and you will receive a flow of clients. Further, you report that the rate is higher than the market average, and thus you receive only those clients who are willing to pay this amount.
Result - you, being in the ordinary caste of workers, begin to earn much more money than the market average. This allows you to overcome the limitations that exist in life now.
Are there any precedents for earning a lot of money as an expert in your field? Yes, of course, they exist in any profession, they probably exist among your colleagues. Now is the time when you can make the same leap, you just need to use stories about yourself and your work on social networks.
We interviewed a realtor who shoots videos and receives a flood of orders for real estate. A doctor, working in a clinic and running a blog, is buying a second home, a car salesman who receives orders from social networks, a fitness trainer, and many, many other examples..
We have created a service (TASK.social) that can help in the transition of company employees to this method of working with clients.
Here is a video we made when we first approached the problem.
(1821 - 1881).
This question is asked by the main character of the novel, Rodion Raskolnikov, talking about himself after the murder of the old pawnbroker.
According to Raskolnikov, all people are divided into two categories: lower and higher people. Inferior people live in obedience and love to be obedient. Great people realize great goals and ideas. If such a person needs to step over a corpse, through blood, to realize his idea, then he, within himself, can give himself permission to step over the blood.
Raskolnikov considered himself one of the highest people. Therefore, asking yourself the question “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” he was looking for self-confidence that he was a higher class of people (who have the right), and not a lower class (a trembling creature).
Svidrigailov told Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova, about the theory of her brother, Rodion Raskolnikov(Part 6, Chapter 5):
“Here there was also one theory of our own - a so-so theory - according to which people are divided, you see, into material and into special people, that is, into people for whom, due to their high position, the law is not written, but on the contrary, who themselves make up laws for other people, matter, rubbish. Nothing, so-so theory; une theorie comme une autre. Napoleon fascinated him terribly, that is, in fact, he was fascinated by the fact that so many brilliant people do not do a single evil looked, but walked through without thinking. He seemed to imagine that he, too, was a man of genius - that is, he was sure of that for some time. He suffered very much and now suffers from the thought that he knew how to compose a theory, but to step over something without thinking, and is not able, therefore the person is not a genius. Well, for a young man with pride and humiliation, especially in our age...
The phrase “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” in the text of the novel
1) From a conversation between Rodion Raskolnikov and Sonya Marmeladova
Rodion Raskolnikov confessed to Sonya Marmeladova in the murder of the old pawnbroker and Elizabeth and explained why he did it (Part 5, Chapter 4):
The thing is: I once asked myself this question: what if, for example, Napoleon had happened in my place and he would have had neither Toulon, nor Egypt, nor the crossing of Mont Blanc to start his career, but instead of everyone these beautiful and monumental things are simply some funny old woman, a register clerk, who, in addition, must be killed in order to steal money from her chest (for a career, you know?), well, would he have decided to do this, what if there was no other way out? Wouldn’t you cringe because it’s too unmonumental and... and sinful? Well, I’m telling you that I tormented myself with this “question” for an terribly long time, so that I felt terribly ashamed when I finally guessed (suddenly somehow) that not only would it not have bothered him, but it would have even gone to his head It didn’t occur to him that this was not monumental... and he wouldn’t even have understood at all: why bother? And if only there was no other way for him, he would have strangled him so that he would not have given a word, without any thoughtfulness!.. Well, I... came out of my reverie... strangled... following the example of authority... And this is exactly how it was! Do you find it funny? Yes, Sonya, the funniest thing about this is that maybe that’s exactly what happened...
Part five, chapter IV:
“- Shut up, Sonya, I’m not laughing at all, I know myself that the devil was dragging me. Shut up, Sonya, shut up!” he repeated gloomily and insistently. “I know everything. I’ve already changed my mind and whispered to myself when I was lying in the dark then... I argued with myself all this, down to the last smallest detail, and I know everything, everything! And I was so tired, so tired of all this chatter then! I wanted to forget everything and start again, Sonya, and stop chatter! And do you really think that I went headlong like a fool? I went like a smart guy, and that’s what ruined me! And do you really think that I didn’t know, for example, that if I had already started to ask and interrogate: do I have the right to have power? - then, therefore, I do not have the right to have power. Or what if I ask the question: is a man a louse? - then, therefore, a man is not a louse for me, but a louse for that , who doesn’t even think about it and who goes straight without asking questions... If I suffered for so many days: would Napoleon go or not? - I clearly felt that I was not Napoleon... All, all the torment of all I stood up to this chatter, Sonya, and wanted to shake it all off my shoulders: I wanted, Sonya, to kill without casuistry, to kill for myself, for myself alone! I didn’t want to lie to myself about this! I didn’t kill to help my mother - nonsense! I did not kill so that, having received funds and power, I could become a benefactor of humanity. Nonsense! I just killed; I killed for myself, for myself alone: and whether I would have become someone’s benefactor or spent my whole life, like a spider, catching everyone in a web and sucking the living juices out of everyone, at that moment I still had to have it! And it wasn’t money, the main thing, that I needed, Sonya, when I killed; It wasn’t so much the money that was needed, but something else... I know all this now... Understand me: maybe, walking the same road, I would never repeat the murder again. I needed to know something else, something else was pushing me under my arms: I needed to find out then, and find out quickly, whether I was a louse like everyone else, or a human being? Will I be able to cross or not! Do I dare to bend down and take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?..."
2) From a conversation between Rodion Raskolnikov and an investigator
Raskolnikov’s views on the division of people into lower and higher are set out in the discussion of the article Rodin Raskolnikov in (Part 3 of Chapter 5) between Raskolnikov himself and the investigator in the case of the murder of the old woman, Porfiry Petrovich:
"- Yes, sir, and you insist that the act of executing a crime is always accompanied by illness. Very, very original, but... I was, in fact, not interested in this part of your article, but in a certain thought that was missed at the end of the article, but which you, unfortunately, it is only a hint, it is unclear... In a word, if you remember, there is some hint that there are supposedly some persons in the world who can... that is, not only can, but have the full right to commit all sorts of outrages and crimes, and that for them, as if the law was not written.
Raskolnikov chuckled at the increased and deliberate distortion of his idea.
How? What's happened? Right to crime? But it’s not because “the environment is stuck”? - Razumikhin inquired with some fear.
No, no, not really because,” Porfiry answered. - The whole point is that in their article all people are somehow divided into “ordinary” and “extraordinary”. Ordinary people must live in obedience and have no right to transgress the law, because, you see, they are ordinary. And extraordinary people have the right to commit all sorts of crimes and break the law in every possible way, precisely because they are extraordinary. That’s how it seems with you, unless I’m mistaken?
How can this be? It can't be like that! - Razumikhin muttered in bewilderment.
Raskolnikov grinned again. He immediately understood what the matter was and what they wanted to push him into; he remembered his article. He decided to take on the challenge.
This is not entirely true for me,” he began simply and modestly. - However, I admit, you presented it almost correctly, even, if you want, absolutely correctly... (He was definitely pleased to agree that it was absolutely true). The only difference is that I do not at all insist that extraordinary people must and must always commit all sorts of outrages, as you say. It even seems to me that such an article would not have been allowed to be published. I simply hinted that an “extraordinary” person has the right... that is, not an official right, but he himself has the right to allow his conscience to step over... other obstacles, and only if the execution of his idea (sometimes saving, perhaps, for all humanity) will require it. You are pleased to say that my article is unclear; I am ready to explain it to you, if possible. I may not be mistaken in assuming that this is what you seem to want; if you please, sir. In my opinion, if Keplerian and Newtonian discoveries, as a result of some combinations, could in no way become known to people except with the sacrifice of the lives of one, ten, a hundred, and so on, people who would interfere with this discovery or stand in the way as an obstacle, then Newton would have the right, and even be obliged... eliminate these ten or one hundred people to make their discoveries known to all mankind. From this, however, it does not at all follow that Newton had the right to kill anyone he wanted, on and off, or to steal every day at the market. Further, I remember, I develop in my article that all... well, for example, even the legislators and founders of humanity, starting with the ancients, continuing with the Lycurgus, Solons, Mohammeds, Napoleons and so on, every single one of them were criminals, even more so one, that by giving a new law, they thereby violated an ancient one, sacredly revered by society and passed down from their fathers, and, of course, they did not stop at blood, if only blood (sometimes completely innocent and valiantly shed for the ancient law) could help them. It is even remarkable that most of these benefactors and founders of humanity were especially terrible bloodsheds. In a word, I conclude that everyone, not only great people, but also people who are a little out of the rut, that is, even a little bit capable of saying something new, must, by nature, certainly be criminals - more or less, of course. Otherwise, it’s difficult for them to get out of the rut, and they, of course, cannot agree to stay in the rut, again by their nature, and in my opinion, they are even obliged to disagree. In a word, you see that there is still nothing particularly new here. This has been printed and read a thousand times. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I agree that it is somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t insist on exact numbers. I only believe in my main idea. It consists precisely in the fact that people, according to the law of nature, are divided at all into two categories: the lowest (ordinary), that is, so to speak, the material that serves solely for the generation of their own kind, and the people themselves, that is, those who have the gift or talent to speak in their midst new word. The divisions here, of course, are endless, but the distinctive features of both categories are quite sharp: the first category, that is, the material, generally speaking, people are by nature conservative, decorous, live in obedience and love to be obedient. In my opinion, they are obliged to be obedient, because this is their purpose, and there is absolutely nothing humiliating for them. The second category, everyone breaks the law, destroyers or is inclined to do so, judging by their abilities. The crimes of these people, of course, are relative and varied; for the most part they demand, in very diverse statements, the destruction of the present in the name of the better. But if he needs, for his idea, to step over even a corpse, over blood, then within himself, in conscience, he can, in my opinion, give himself permission to step over blood - depending, however, on the idea and on its size, mind you. It is only in this sense that I speak in my article about their right to commit a crime. (You will remember that we started with a legal issue). However, there is nothing much to worry about: the masses almost never recognize this right for them, execute them and hang them (more or less) and thus, quite rightly, fulfill their conservative purpose, with the exception that in subsequent generations this same mass puts executed on a pedestal and worshiped (more or less). The first category is always the master of the present, the second category is the master of the future. The first preserve the world and increase it numerically; the latter move the world and lead it to the goal. Both have exactly the same right to exist. In a word, everyone has an equal right with me, and - vive la guerre éternelle - until the New Jerusalem, of course! "
3) Other mentions in the novel
The phrase “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” mentioned several more times in the novel "" (1866):
Part 3, Chapter VI
“The old woman is nonsense!” he thought hotly and impetuously, “the old woman is probably a mistake, that’s not the point! The old woman was just an illness... I wanted to get over it as quickly as possible... I didn’t kill a person, I killed a principle! So I killed, but I didn’t cross, I stayed on this side... All I managed to do was kill. And even that, it turns out, I didn’t manage... Principle? Why did the fool Razumikhin scold the socialists just now? Hardworking people and merchant; they are engaged in “general happiness”... No, life is given to me once, and I will never have it again: I don’t want to wait for “general happiness.” I myself want to live, otherwise it’s better not to live. Well? I just didn’t want to pass by the hungry mother, clutching my ruble in my pocket, in anticipation of “universal happiness.” “I am carrying, they say, a brick for everyone’s happiness and that is why I feel peace of mind.” Ha-ha! Why did you let me through? I only live once, I also want... Eh, I’m an aesthetic louse, and nothing more," he suddenly added, laughing like a madman. "Yes, I really am a louse," he continued, clinging to the thought with gloating. rummaging through it, playing and amusing myself with it - and for the sole reason that, firstly, I am now arguing that I am a louse; because, secondly, I disturbed the all-good providence for a whole month, calling as witnesses that I was not undertaking this for my own flesh and lust, they say, but had a magnificent and pleasant goal in mind - ha-ha! Because, thirdly, I decided to observe possible justice in execution, weight and measure, and arithmetic: of all the lice I chose the most useless one and, having killed it, I decided to take from it exactly as much as I needed for the first step, and no more. less (and the rest, therefore, would have gone to the monastery, according to the spiritual will - ha-ha!)... Because, because I am completely a louse,” he added, gnashing his teeth, “because I myself, perhaps even worse and nastier than a killed louse, and I had a presentiment in advance that I would tell myself this after I killed it! How can anything compare with such horror? Oh, vulgarity! Oh, meanness!.. Oh, how I understand the “prophet”, with a saber, on a horse. Allah commands and obey "trembling" creature! The “prophet” is right, right, when he places a good-sized battery somewhere across the street and blows on the right and wrong, without even deigning to explain himself! Obey, trembling creature, and don’t covet, because it’s none of your business!.. Oh, I will never, never forgive the old woman!”
