Frozen Yogurt Machine Rental

The importance of Dostoevsky for Western culture is recognized by all critics. From the first appearance of his novels, ideas, insights and problems in his works continue to be studied, explored and interpreted from various areas of culture: literature, psychology, sociology and anthropology, but not all.
This is because the center of his works, especially the great works, there is the man. Dostoevsky, in fact, explored the man like few other authors, revealing that hides the infinite problematic.
Not always, of course, I learned to decipher fully revealed by his research, but I tried to tell his experiences, le sue folgoranti illuminazioni e anche le sue allucinazioni e i suoi sogni.
Certo, molti ed illustri critici si sono da sempre cimentati con rigore nella lettura delle opere di Dostoevskij. Di proposito, non ho voluto seguire tutta questa letteratura critica, impossibile da abbracciare e dominare, data la sua dimensione e, per lo più, ancora in crescita continua, perché più si scava e si interpreta il pensiero di Dostoevskij e più si trovano nuovi elementi e nuovi spunti di riflessione.
Del resto, ho limitato la mia ricerca alla ricostruzione della prospettiva etica cosi come emerge dai grandi romanzi.
Anche qui, ovviamente, non mancano saggi critici di notevole valore. Ho analizzato quelli che ho ritenuto più pertinenti the theme and even more accessible, as is clear from the list of References.
Of particular interest and utility to the present work seemed to me, among others, the work of Pareyson [1] , Cantoni [2] and the introductory essay by Vittorio Strada [3] the Italian edition dell'Idiota. For the brief concluding remarks, I was also useful essay Givone [4] , not because it contains explicit references to the works of Dostoyevsky, but because it serves to frame the thinking of the writer in the cultural movement of Romanticism. Of particular interest were also the essays contained in this volume collective work The drama of freedom [5] .
would like at this point, made clear that this research is not intended as an exposition of the various interpretations that I found in different authors, highlighting converging or diverging points of view on this issue, but simply wants to focus on the centrality of the texts of our author, so for him to speak through her construction of events and characters that are most related to his ethical perspective. This effort forced me to read all the novels of Dostoevsky and reconstruct as closely as possible thought and figures. I hope that this type of work, although certainly less important from a critical standpoint, may be no less interesting for the purpose of listening and almost literally true of the thought of Dostoevsky's caught in its evolution, through insights, doubts, criticisms, suggestions and questions that are in different stories and different characters in a tangle of nuances certainly not easy. Somehow, I have tried to unravel this tangle detecting the presence of the theme of ethics in the various characters and other elements, present in different works, trying to rebuild a maturation process on the topic, to identify the final proposal and the limits thereof.
I have articulated, therefore, work in two parts: the first part reconstructs the diverse experience of evil, that Dostoevsky is essential for the revival and the discovery of the property, within a path that must be personal and not shared within an ideology. Dostoevsky was always haunted by the presence of evil, seen as pure freedom to do anything with complete autonomy and freedom, in search of his goal, regardless of the consequences that these actions, designed to achieve the objective pursued, can bring. In this regard I shall examine the diseased freedom that Dostoevsky, in my opinion he wished to convey through the novel Notes from underground, trying to highlight the sadistic behavior of the protagonist and his total inability to relate to one's neighbor, generating around him a kind of empty space that will live in complete inability to love.
This will result in inability to love pure and free will, verifiable through the hallucinatory behavior and thoughts of Raskolnikov, the main character of Crime and Punishment. The shocking news of this character is that he does not dwell only evil but also the sympathy for people less fortunate.
After all, this is the ongoing struggle between God and the devil that is the battlefield in the hearts of men. Raskolnikov is all evil, at first, and then, after sin, redemption.
short, Raskolnikov is a man in constant struggle between good and evil, which examines himself in the hope of being able to take the road that leads final armistice, the final regeneration, the discovery of a moral free from suffering.
This analysis, taking into account other moves are symbolic of Dostoevsky's novels, such as, The Brothers Karamazov or demons. All the novels of Dostoevsky, especially those concerning his second term, just to be clear to those later Notes from Underground, can lend indiscriminately to investigate the goodness and evil inside the human soul. Dostoevsky has never created a novel topic, and it is for this reason that every novel offers the possibility to extrapolate from its internal elements that lead to the generation of the new man, which is the ethical end of Dostoevsky. The idea of \u200b\u200bclosure, in this first part of the quest for freedom will be sick the concepts about the Poem of the Grand Inquisitor, bishop of the Roman Catholic Church that is forced, as it follows its own logic advocated a strict order to the stake to Jesus Christ Like a heretic. Jesus for the Bishop of Seville was wrong because she believed humans too, giving him freedom of will, the man for the Grand Inquisitor, however, should not have freedom of choice, otherwise lives a life punctuated by pain and suffering. The main error committed by Jesus, the Grand Inquisitor, was not wanting to tie the man's faith for miracles, for example with the three temptations that the devil has brought the desert. Jesus does not consider it worthy of note a faith bound by the miracle, if that were true this would only be a constraint and freedom, man must be free to believe in absolute freedom. The Poem of the Grand Inquisitor offers the opportunity to dig the notion that Dostoevsky's freedom, then that is the cornerstone of ethics training.
The second part of this paper is dedicated to the pursuit of positive liberty, in its various forms that result in small and large figures represented from the small Iljùša or Holy Zosima, which find their highest representation through Prince Myshkin, who escapes the rationalism prevailing in the society of his time being guided by emotions in order to establish an authentic contact with others. Dostoevsky was able to give this figure a goodness out of the ordinary. Myshkin, paradoxically, unlike Raskolnikov, has never experienced the dark side of freedom that leads to suffering and its atonement for their sins, so as to generate the redemption and the consequent birth profoundly moral man. He is able to love the man as himself, according to the commandment of Christ, and to consider the neighbor as an inalienable part of himself, which he can not do without and it can not be deprived.
In conclusion this is the great lesson dostoevskiana: atonement for the sins of suffering (except in some rare cases such as Prince Myshkin who has never known sin) can lead to spiritual rebirth and the generation of the new man.

Candies Charts Emerald

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I - Part I - FREEDOM AS A BASIS FOR ETHICS

The heart of Dostoevsky's philosophy is, as pointed out by his par Louis Pareyson 'experience in conceiving of freedom as the most profound experience of man. " And also because central to the achievement of the good and the attainment of salvation not so much the experience of evil, but rather the experience of "freedom primary", which then acts as the 'condition of all others. " But what is meant by freedom in Dostoyevsky?

for freedom should mean freedom primary, namely the freedom to choose between good and evil, freedom to choose between rebellion and obedience, the freedom to reject or approve the principle of being and good [1] .

And, indeed, in all the works, Dostoyevsky revolves around this problem, creating characters that express various interpretations and understandings of freedom. Famous people, in fact, embody the conflicting ideas present in society, but also in the same author. As always says Pareyson:

Dostoevsky's novels are positions of problems and conflicts of ideas, and his heroes are real ideas personified [...] All his characters are living ideas, adhere to ideas, ideas decipher, fighting ideas [2] .

ideas of course, are either right or wrong for Dostoevsky, constructive or destructive, for both the individual and for society. The idea
Prince, the mother of all other ideas, is freedom; for Dostoevsky, then it is extremely important to clarify the true concept of freedom and free from false interpretations.
Following these guidelines, my research, will set the focus on some of these characters-heroes, in which, more and more clearly, freedom is specified as a condition of ethics, cutting a path of research that does not pretend to completely eviscerate all the vast and complex issues related to the same characters-heroes.
intentionally omit to take account of the first period of production of Dostoevsky, a period which also includes major works, poor people, Memories from the house of the dead, humiliated and offended.
In these works, You can see some issues to be dominant in the works of the second period, but still at an embryonic stage the great problems of Dostoevsky. [3]
In fact, Dostoevsky "is inspired by a secular view of life and Europeanist, philosophical form of humanitarianism, of utopian socialism, and general optimism in the brotherhood of man" [4] .
The second period begins with: Notes from the underground, in 1864, is marked by a turning point, certainly influenced by his death sentence commuted, by the Tsar to the last minute, the deportation to forced labor camps, where he spent five years on the border with Mongolia, before returning to St. Petersburg. As always Pareyson
also states, believes that the experience of the death sentence revoked and then the painful odyssey of deportation have had a profound effect on his thinking: The tragic

minutes spent waiting for the shooting, condoned, with a grisly mass desired scene in the Tsar at the last moment, they taught him to "see life from the side of death", as rightly stated Thurneysen [5] , the acute interpreter Barth Dostoevsky, and the experience of the bathroom Criminal taught him to be able to see not just, as in the socialistic philanthropy, "a brother in humans more unimportant ' [6] , but above all "an unfortunate criminal in" [7] .

However, if you can say that the death penalty certainly had an impact on turning registratasi in the formation of Dostoevsky, but it is difficult to say that was the only reason.
Dostoevsky reported within his novels, through the characters he creates, the various issues that have followed and marked during its existence, as the theme of illness: tuberculosis, mental illness, epilepsy he is sick to father's death, and that the bad luck allowed him to be able to tell the disease from the side of the patient, enabling him to describe the inner light which anticipated the seizure, a light which reward the pain of the disease. In his stories more than his life, he was able to relate the fundamental themes that fill his life, he intertwines the difficult relationships with women, in respect of whom knows only a love smothering and possessive, he masterfully reported in his novels, his relationship with the female world is always domain, clipping his jealousy all his love, transforming it into outright dominance, difficult to manage for him and for those around him. Its economic problems often created in his novels characters who live or how great principles, luxury and ostentation, most luxurious humble servants dressed in rags.
Normality is rarely used by Dostoyevsky, because as rightly said, something trivial and hardly deserves to return to normal in a novel, whose purpose is to engage a reader who is usually attracted to things that are beyond the life of all days.
[1] L. Pareyson, the ethical thought of Dostoevsky, op. cit., p. 186.
[2] Ibid, pp. 25-26.
[3] As stated Nikolai Berdyaev, in his essay, The revelation of the work of Dostoevsky, AA.VV., The drama of Freedom, op. cit., p. 137.
"Dostoevsky's work is divided into two periods, before and after the Memoirs of the subsoil. Between these two periods in Dostoevsky was a spiritual revolution, after which he discovered new evidence in humans. Only after this began the real Dostoevsky, the author of Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, Demons, The Adolescent, The Brothers Karamazov. In the first period, in which Dostoevsky wrote Poor people, Memoirs of a House of the Dead, humiliated and offended, she was still "a beautiful soul," a humanitarian and dominated by the naive sentimentality. He was still under the influence of Belinsky's ideas, and he felt in his works the influence George Sand, Victor Hugo, Dickens. Even then transpired the peculiarities of Dostoevsky, but he had not yet become fully himself. "

My Dog Has Red Spots On His Lip

CHAPTER II - Part I - FREEDOM SICK

Notes from Underground [1] is a story written by Dostoyevsky, in 1864. It is divided into two parts: the first theory in which the protagonist recounts firsthand his inner state, while the second part, entitled Speaking of wet snow, tells the true protagonist's memories, memories of youth that are not more underscores the truth of the statements contained in the first part theoretical.
In the first part, the hero, turning to a hypothetical interlocutor, speaking of himself, of upbringing, education and the complex nature of its quality and defects which he defines as "underground."
The ground is hidden and concealed that personality at all, which emerges only after a detailed analysis and investigation in the depths of man, in that so far none of us ever wants to go into, because it is full of unpleasantness of things we like to forget. The subsoil is a tangle of feelings that do not control, we do not like in ourselves and we keep hidden from our social mask. The company demands a certain type of behavior and we respect him, but the soil present in each of us every so often brings out drives that do not control. These drives can sometimes lead to the infringement of social norms, as is indeed the man of the soil, which refuses to adapt to the expectations that others have in him and acts like he wants.
As can be seen in the last part of the novel, one of the outcomes to which it leads the investigation of the subsurface is that man is incapable of coping with the confusion that has arisen from this investigation and this led him to prefer unconsciousness to consciousness.
At this point the author should be followed in a few basic steps, and above all in its considerations related to the theme of freedom.
The criticism that most commonly appears in this first part concerns the right. According to Dostoevsky wants to find the reason to fix the precise coordinates of good and evil, sickness and health. But then he seems to categorically deny that with the famous phrase:

I am a sick person ..... I am a bad person. I think I have a liver disease. No sir, I do not want to take care of and I do not want just to spite [2] .

is not, therefore, a purely physical disease, but a psychological and spiritual disease, a spiritual disease that leads the indecision continues, and the pleasure of his conscience and the moral degradation of his baseness, he belongs to the category of people who enjoy to be humiliated, but this desire for humiliation comes not from desire of suffering as atonement for their sins, this self- Stoning is a sort of sadistic performance of his meanness. The character of the subsoil
states that the arithmetic does not fit human nature, he should be a higher mathematics. In humans regarded in its depth, there is a need for contempt of suffering and happiness. He wonders how people manage to be firm in his conviction that only what is normal positive for him prosperity is not necessarily an advantage, the Underground Man is wondering if the case is not that the reason it is wrong in assessing the benefits? It is not that man as well as prosperity and opulence like the deprivation and suffering, perhaps the pain is just as convenient and attractive as the prosperity? The Underground Man is totally convinced of this by identifying the chaos so attractive to the man so that this does not deprive it ever, because the suffering and chaos result is the true origin of consciousness. Therefore, the degradation and suffering as opulence:

Now I got want to tell you why I was unable to even become an insect. And I will tell you solemnly that many times I wanted to become an insect. I swear to you, gentlemen, that to be too conscious is an illness, a genuine, absolute disease, it would be quite sufficient, for example, that awareness of where people live the so-called spontaneous and men of action. [3]

People are always ready and easy spontaneous decision, because they have "a clear consciousness." They have the foundation of justice, in a clear and distinct, and can easily organize your life according to their dictates that coincides with what is right. But our hero wants to refute this very position, which only considers a form of truth and justice:

Again, rather strongly I repeat: all those wild and the men of action, are such precisely because they are dumb and limited. They, in consequence of their limitations, the causes closest exchange and yet secondary to the primary causes, and thus can more quickly and more easily than others to be convinced to have found an indisputable foundation for the way they act and thus tranquilize [4] .

But this is precisely what criticism of our protagonist. These people think they have found a good foundation in the primary cause of their actions, but this is not true, so that even the good conscience of which they are proud of is false, how false is their justice.
Even the main character has no clear ideas on the foundation and the primary cause, but at least not false consciousness, is aware of uncertainty and human wandering about these issues. Even on the freedom he has something important to say. Those who stick to the reason they think that the decision depends on knowledge. Just know the dictates of morality, what is good and what is bad for bearings. Just know, they say, their interest to act accordingly. But he, a man of clear consciousness, shows that it is not true and often, despite knowing that must follow the dictates, continues to act against its own interests, with full awareness, in fact, he says:

Oh, tell me who was the first to declare who was the first to proclaim that man is rogue only because he knows what its real interests, and that if instead it is lit, if someone opened our eyes to those who are his real, normal interests, he stopped immediately to make his villain, at once become good and noble, as being now enlightened and understand why what his personal benefit, he would know precisely recognize the advantage for good: and as is well known that no individual could ever knowingly act against their own advantage, it follows that we begin to do good, say so out of necessity. [5]

Our protagonist rejects precisely this argument, first because we do not know what the advantage and second, because, knowing where the action is beneficial in itself, very often we act against our advantage :

And if, at one time or another, this advantage could not, but even were to consist precisely in the fact that in some cases you want for themselves what was bad, but of what is beneficial? [6]

Just in the quotation above is exposed the weakness of reason and the reason for the frontal part of the protagonist from the rationalism of the subsurface because it would explain it all but clear dictates of the second frame, the will discover that in itself is easily separated from reason:

Yes, but for me it is here that the donkey falls. And you certainly will excuse me, gentlemen, if now I have started to philosophize, but here we are forty years underground! So allow me to fantasize a bit '. Yes, because, you see, the reason, gentlemen, is a great beautiful thing, do not argue, but the reason is only reason and satisfies only the discursive capacity of man, as an act of will is the manifestation of all life, that is a whole human life including reason and all that the number of multiples. And even if our life in this way to manifest it comes out mostly in the form of schifezzuola, the fact remains that it is still living and not some square root extraction. It is because I, just as an example, it is perfectly natural desire to live to meet all my ability to live, and not only my ability to meet discursive But .[.....] the human will, very often, and even more often than is absolutely and stubbornly at odds with the reasoning E. .. E. .. And you know that this is useful and sometimes even praiseworthy [7] .

The upshot of all this reasoning of the protagonist reveals a disturbing reality of the underground man: the inability to decide for the good. His fate will be that of solitude, ineptitude, estrangement from society and that is why the clear consciousness is a disease. It would be better not to have this clarity, but now our protagonist can not pull back and clear his conscience, being relegated to the suffering that suggests his soul that he puts in front of all his worries and doubts that are differentiated from ordinary people living their lives in the absence of questions about what is really right and what is truly wrong. If this is true of the so-called spontaneous people should not rejoice and be quiet because they are fools:

At the end of the fine gentlemen: it is better to do nothing! It is better aware of the inertia! So long live the underground [8] .

The difference between himself and the people's own spontaneous here: he, the protagonist, is aware of all the contradictions in his own being, in his own act, in his will, and people will spontaneously form, and then they are false, this thesis is not easily supported, as embodies a certain degree of criticism of a band very Ambia society, the so-called company, but this seems to me that Dostoevsky's character wants to say through his thoughts, as it deliberately devoid of any label.
The second part of the story unfolds with the presence of some episodes that do nothing but demonstrate his inability to fit into the social life and work. But the episode that most strikes, and that is the last of this series has to do with his inability to love. This inability is constructed the figure of Lisa.
Lisa is a girl found by chance in a brothel and invited her home with the excuse that he loves her. But here you will see the inability to love his obsession: to possess with violence only to humiliate her, as he felt humiliated

Why did you come? "Answer! Reply, "cried almost beside me. I'll tell you, my love, why you came. You are coming because the last time I told you the words of pity. So you touched et'è felt like other "words of pity." Well, we know that this time I have laughed at you, know this well. And now you ride. What are you shaking? I laughed, yes! Before m'avevano offended, to lunch, and those who came before me that night? Here, they had been. I come to you for stepping on an officer, but I had not failed, I was not on time, so I had to vent on someone, for that offense, I had to refer back, right? I happened to you six to hand, so my anger and it poured on you, and then I made some great laughs. I was humiliated, and so I wanted to humiliate someone, I was treated like a rag, and it was from my show I felt like my power ..... that's what it was, but you're long gone and to think that I had arrived there on purpose to save you, eh? That 's what you thought? That 's what you thought? [9] .

Lisa is the new man in a life littered the ground from normality, hatred and suspicion toward the neighbor, he feels this woman suddenly confronted with a new and unheard of for him, realizing that this girl does not look like him, a statement, not as he is engaged in a fight, but instead wants to give herself to him for help and be near him, for all his blather that has understand only one thing, he realized that he is deeply, hopelessly unhappy. For the Underground Man this is an unprecedented disclosure of which has only read about in books, he feels only then that there is a different kind of love, a state of grace that can afford to get out of hatred the next that followed him throughout his life, this feeling may be the way that allows him without a struggle to obtain recognition of himself that he had ever really tried to win by imposing its rule and exploiting the other. Lisa as the Christ of the legend of Ivan teach with silence and with only his presence. It will not be rhetoric or the dialectic that will save the world but only silence, contemplating our next goal of not as a means to achieve a goal, but as an end which we should draw, and to achieve this end, perhaps we should remember that before we have a person made in our image and likeness.
hatred towards others, can not lead anywhere, the only concrete result is to develop within our soul consciousness hypertrophic, which we pulling them deeper and deeper in our basement. This soil is loneliness and isolation from human society, it ceases to be a man 'social animal' according to the famous definition of Aristotle, he loses the quality of "social" simply to keep an animal, condemned to struggle for survival, competition with other human beings, with feelings of hostility and hatred, in dreams of revenge and domination. It is in these dreams, and in this gnashing of teeth that he is increasingly macerating the soul of man.
In this work there is no salvation. Our protagonist will be the victim of her I was sick and sick of his freedom. Sibaldi as rightly pointed out in the introduction to Memories of the Basement:

Christ does not have access to the soul of the underground man: the fate of these is not to be saved, to stay on this side, a little 'as the 'friendly Devil's Ivan Karamazov, who said not to have joined, on Ascension Day of Jesus, the glorious choirs of angels held back because of common sense and fear of appearing ridiculous [10]

He will be blocked by reasoning and reasoning, from the ability to reason and to think using common sense will always keep him away from society, and by the common man, which he certainly does not belong in this regard is the interesting part of the novel de The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan tells of the devil because they joined the merry ranks of cherubim and seraphim of the day Christ's ascension into heaven. Even the devil as the Underground Man is driven by rationalism, which then inhibit its strong artistic streak which led him to join the scenes of jubilation and shout Hosanna too.

I was there - says Ivan Karamazov's Devil - when the Word died on the cross was taken up into heaven, carrying on its bosom the soul of the thief crucified on his right hand, I have heard the joyful shrieks of the cherubim singing and glorifying with the Hosanna and the thunderous cry of rapture of the seraphim which shook heaven and the universe. And here, I swear on all that is sacred, I wanted to join the chorus and shout to everyone: "Hosanna." I already flew away, I tore from his chest ..... I know, are very sensitive, especially art. But common sense - the more unfortunate trait of my character - kept me even then to the extent due and I let the moment pass! Because, I thought at that very minute, what would happen after my "Hosanna"? Now everything would be off the ground and would not happen anymore. And then only to serve and to my status, I was forced to choke me in a good time and stay in the dirt. All about the good if someone else takes it, and I left the lot and only evil. But I do not envy the honor of living scrounger, I are not ambitious. [11]

Lisa had tried, and for her humiliating tumultuous encounter with the Underground Man, a hug to let him know that he would not take much to save: it was enough to recognize his evil, his spiritual distortions. But our character does not collect this opportunity is lost and disappearing into thin air, reducing to a single wound pain, a being who is suffering terribly personal loneliness, totally incapable of any relationship with his peers, but one thing is sure and certain as in Dostoevsky says Nikolai Berdyaev [12] :

There is nothing to lose man, every discovery is only in him, everything depends on him alone. When he was still close to Dostoevsky, N. Strachov observed: "His whole focus was on men and he was stretched to accommodate only their nature and their character. It affects men, only men, their spiritual structure, their way of life, their feelings and thoughts. " [13]

After clarifying this statement one can say with some degree of confidence that memories of the underground, is a novel that has gutted the innermost thoughts of the human mind by focusing it man; man tormented, insecure, hating next poured upon their fears, but depicts a man capable of a self-diagnosis, often convoluted and muddled but always able to find a result, whether positive or negative does not matter, it is commendable that the mind does a meta-communication about itself in order to understand first of all its neighbors.
The Underground Man is not entirely negative because they hide in him the seeds of rebirth. Paradoxically, the wickedness and cynicism are characteristics that can help man an improvement and its rebirth as a forest fire in the ashes of burnt trees are used as fertilizer for the soil, Similarly the feelings of hatred can help the human spirit to move towards its regeneration. The Underground Man is the dawn of man who is looking his way, there remained a man who may still be wrong.

Number Of Possible Combinations In 5 Number Lock

CHAPTER III - Part I - FREEDOM OF 'SUPERMAN'

In 1866 was published the novel Crime and Punishment [1] . When the entire novel, the story still had not materialized in his mind, thinking of a Dostoevsky short story to be written within a month, he called it "the psychological report of a crime." Writing to
Katkòf, editor of the Russian Messenger "to invite him to publish the story on its journal, Dostoevsky explains that the action takes place in the present age.
Raskolnikov, a student of St. Petersburg, is seeking a way out of poverty, even to help his mother and his sister, Dunya, who live in poverty in the province and keep it, sending what Dunja gained as a governess in the family Svidrigailov. Raskolnikov is dominated by the idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom to which man has the right top. In fact, he will not hesitate to kill, after meticulously designed and in the most minute detail the murder of an old moneylender and her sister Elisavjeta mild, to rob them:

For about five days before that day I went around like a crazy. I will not say never to have been really crazy and then I will not justify myself with this lie. I will not! I have all my faculties. I wandered around the city then, vagabonds and even got to the point of falling into a frenzy. But this was perhaps partly due to starvation, because for a month does not really know what to eat. The hostess, seeing that I had left university, I spent most meals. But I say! It is not at all here the main cause! Hunger was a third-rate factor ..... Everything, everything was absorbed by my project. There is more then I thought, in recent times, when tramp, because before everything had been thought, and I was all decided. [2]

circumstances svierà A course of the investigation, but the day of the murder Raskolnikov becomes the implacable judge of itself, will be torn between the memories of the killing and the obsessive fear of being discovered.
Polcherjia Aleksandrona is the mother of Raskolnikov. And it is in fact the key to the whole novel, in fact it is you who will set in motion the mechanism to drag the child to the knowledge of the action that he has made, making it move from its inaction. The paradigm of hatred or at least not love for his mother and sister accompany Raskolnikov throughout the novel, culminating in the episode the irritated gesture that concludes the last meeting with Dunya.
Raskolnikov, in the effort to get news on investigations, but also to prove his superiority, cunning play of the police, challenging, and the court will eventually Porfiry suspects his guilt, but let him go free, calculating that ends well to surrender himself into his hands.
only in Siberia, next to Sonja, who followed him, Raskolnikov is freed from the sense of defeat that weighed on him: Marmeladov Sonja is the daughter of a drunken employee, it is forced into prostitution to take home the money needed his family to live.
Around Raskolnikov, and in the novel there is a world of outcasts and sinners: his sister, Dunya, who is willing to help the family to marry the wealthy and vile Luzhin. Svidrigailov pursuing Dunya and after learning that Raskolnikov's confession, it will try to blackmail: rejected, it will kill. Among these sinners, the only truly sordid and mean and Luzhin, who will try to falsely accuse of theft for Sonja in a bad light in front of her and Raskolnikov's mother and Dunja.
The figure of Raskolnikov is very complex and contradictory. In him we are like two souls. On the one hand there is the blood flow that feels good, do not bear the injustices of the world. Loves her dearly his mother and sister and is sensitive to all the poor and suffering, against which experiences feelings of participation, as can be seen with the figure of Marmeladov, which is a secondary figure in the novel, but which is of considerable importance because allows the writer to describe the sad situation of human wrecks, made so by the despair and degradation. Marmeladov will give you the game and the wine and eventually completely degraded and abandoned by society. Raskolnikov will take care of him and his family, whose generosity truly commendable, as suggested by this episode:

Everyone talked, cried, cried, and the driver seemed dazed and every so often repeated:
"what a misfortune! O Lord, what a misfortune! "
Raskolnikov went out as much as he could, and finally saw the object of all this bustle and curiosity. On the ground lay a man just been crushed by the horse unconscious, it seemed very shabby, but with an elegantly dressed, and bleeding everywhere. On the face, blood flowed from the body and the face was all pesto, skinned, disfigured. It was evident that they had crushed seriously .[.....] The driver of the rest was quite miserable or scared. You could see that the car belonged to a rich and substantial owner, that somewhere there waiting for the arrival [.....] Meanwhile Raskolnikov had pushed forward and bent even more closely. Suddenly the fanaletto clearly illuminated the face of the unlucky: he recognized him.
I know him, I know him - he began shouting thrusting ahead of everything - is an employee at rest a titular councilor, Marmeladov! She lives next door, home Kosiòl ..... a doctor as soon as possible! The promissory note, here! - Had pulled out of his pocket money and he showed it to the policeman. [3]

Returning, then, the discourse on this episode with Rasumichin, add:

- Listen, Rasumichin-Raskolnikov took say, - you want to tell you frankly, a little while ago I was in the a house died, he died an employee ..... I gave my all the money ..... kissed me and also be a little while ago that even if I had killed someone, would well ..... In short, I have seen another creature ..... with a pen of fire-colored ..... But then, I digress, they are weak, sorreggimi ..... Now the scale is immediately ...... [4]

It is therefore a person of noble sentiments, religious and even delicate, capable of hate as to love at the same time, he's simply a man who lives on this earth, and tries to improve himself, but his search for a male best will lead to its self-destruction, then from the ashes This destroyed his personality now regenerate a completely new person, who experiences feelings unknown compared to what he once was, but his journey in search of feeling lost, it will not be immediate, nor easy. Raskolnikov was still nestled in the seeds of goodness, he was never completely a bad man, he lived in the same two sides of same coin, as it writes Pareyson, on Raskolnikov, he is capable of noble sentiments:

believe in God, in Christ and the resurrection of the other, agrees to represent justice, binds with a greater love and a noble woman who unfortunately is rejected the margins of society, such as Sonja. [5]

But Raskolnikov rebels against human injustice, gives way, even the ideas that are sucked from the West, and the great figures of history, who would like to emulate. Along this path of revolt will to commit the crime in the name of a morality that is outside of that community. Napoleon wants to imitate because according to him, or rather according to the belief that mature in a labor psychological and spiritual well described in the novel is Napoleon himself above the common ground, all straining to carry out its project of domination, and the building of the justice of which it feels spokesman:

For example, if he were in my place, and Napoleon did not have to start your career or Toulon nor Egypt nor the passage of Mont Blanc, but instead had all these beautiful, monumental undertakings, purely and just some ridiculous old woman who had to kill to steal money from the trunk (for his career, you know) Well, he would resolve this if there had been no other way out around this question ?[.....] .[.....] tortured me for a long time and finally I realized (in a way, all of a sudden) that not only he would feel hurt, but even he would have thought that this gesture was not monumental [.... .] and if he had not always another way, it would have choked so as not to give you even have time to breathe, without indulging in any daydreams !..... Well, I ..... I went from fantasies ..... and has the choke ..... example of that authority. [6]

According to this reasoning, our protagonist tries to convince himself that humans are divided into two categories and that on the one hand there are the so-called "Napoleon", which arise out of the ordinary , becoming the benefactors of mankind have in mind because of the revolutionary projects, they are the people who rule the masses, and only they are given the opportunity to live in the consciousness of what they're doing, the rest of humanity remains only the task of surviving the events following the dictates emanating from the ruler, through murder Raskolnikov wants to understand which of the two categories of people belongs, must at all costs include if it belongs to the mass of subordinates or to the small elite of Napoleon, and do not hesitate to kill in order to understand this mystery, and if he will not be haunted by remorse of conscience arising from the murder will be a napoleon, otherwise you will realize that they belong to the simple mass of subordinates. At first he is motivated by altruistic incentives, outraged by a desire to help the "weak and offended, "as the example of titular councilor Marmeladov well above makes sense, trying to save them at all costs, even at the cost of a crime, but then this will seem altruistic humanitarian side and turn into a sort of devilish pride, a desire for power, in a surge of affirmation and despotism, which he combines with a thirst for power seems to emerge a boundless pride mixed with arrogance and contempt for society, which then lead to a spiritual rebirth, forgetting the ravings in the past had made him lose his head in search of his place in society bipolar, in which he hoped to belong to the ranks of people who can transgress the laws of God and human:

commit crimes, they pour human blood, transgress the divine and human laws. It follows that, while the mass has a duty to observe the moral law and to obey the rulers, but these exceptional beings are not subject to any law, and can do whatever they want, what justified by their own superiority. [7]

The conclusion of all this ranting in Raskolnikov's mind leads him to believe that his crime is a price to pay for justice and protest. And then ask: what is at the bottom of the death of an old usurer, though this will the realization of its revolutionary dreams, as illustrated, in a monologue during a conversation between Raskolnikov and his former university colleague:

No, that's what I'll tell you. I that damn old to kill and rob, and, I assure you without any qualms of conscience, - the student said with heat. The officer returned to
strong rider, and Raskolnikov shuddered. How strange it was!
- allow me, I want to ask you a serious question .- heats their student.
- before, of course, I joked, but be careful: on the one hand vecchiuccia a stupid, foolish, of no account, poor, sick, do not need anyone, and, conversely, harmful to all, who does not know what she lives for, and that tomorrow, so will die by itself. Do you understand? Do you understand?
- Well, I understand, - said the officer, staring carefully mate who hotly .[.....] If you kill him and take his money, and then, with their help, devoting oneself to service of all humanity and the common cause: what do you think would not be a single, tiny delittuccio deleted thousands of good deeds? For a life, thousands of lives saved from rot and from the wreckage. A death and a hundred lives in exchange, but, you know, arithmetic! And that means the balance of the general life vecchiuccia consumptive, stupid and bad? No longer the life of a louse, of a cockroach, but not worth even that, because the vecchiuccia is harmful. Wears the lives of others [.....] Raskolnikov was extraordinary agitation. Of course, those were the most common and frequent speeches and thoughts of young people, he had already heard more than once, only in other forms and other issues. Why now, he had had to listen to speak for the fact of such a conversation, and these thoughts, when in his own head had just sprouted ..... exactly the same thoughts? And why now, he had just brought that thought from his shoot of the old house, he happened to just hear the conversation about old ?..... This always seemed strange coincidence. That insignificant conversation restaurant had on him an extraordinary influence in the further course of the matter: as if, really, there was there a kind of predetermination, the indication ...... [8]

Raskolnikov, he killed the usurer to get rid of common morality in the name of a morality of the superman, but the most difficult task that awaits him after this episode, is the liberation from guilt.
According to him, the great figures such as Napoleon never had in their steps, in front of killings of men (who were needed to realize their projects) guilt. Even our hero wants to justify his act in the name of a principle, to be able to say I did not kill a person but a principle.
Raskolnikov is where he will meet his failure, he will not be able to free themselves from guilt, despite all his efforts to attain the complete psychological belief that his act was necessary to be successful and achieve his dream of a rough justice within which he wanted to justify all its actions.
Pareyson writes:

Raskolnikov realizes that he knew only kill, but do not transgress that failed to climb: he killed the old usurer, but did not pass the law, the perpetrators murder, but was not placed beyond the norm of morality. [9]

So, Raskolnikov has failed in the quest for absolute freedom, unlimited, arbitrary. He realizes that it is not Napoleon, but was a "louse," a louse like everybody else, even a "aesthetic louse," which is worse, because it is a sign of a soul unclean and disgusting.
In this respect there is a quotation from Dostoevsky very clarifying the same, which explains what a moral action, identifying as the pure moral choice out of all the rules, but freedom of choice, taking into account an authority Top: A

Kavelin. You say that morality is only acting according to his conviction. But where will you put forward? I do not believe you at all and I say quite the contrary, that it is immoral to act on their beliefs. And you of course I can not refute anything more.
Pour the blood do not feel moral, but shed blood on the basis of its belief that these so you feel moral. But, let me then, because it would be immoral to shed blood?
If we do not have authority in faith and in Christ, then we stray.
There are moral ideas. And they come from the religious sense, but they can never be justified with only logic.
life becomes impossible. [10]

Dostoevsky in such a statement criticizing the moral views as a submission to the need to kill a necessity driven by their instincts and their instincts, freedom of Raskolnikov is immoral because it moves up a wrong track. This freedom is similar to a rebellion of slaves, and even morality itself disappears, first reduced to pure form and then more explicitly denied by the negation of what constitutes it as a moral experience: the relationship between his being a person, a 'living life' and not the 'formulas and categories "that enable all forms of violence such as murder committed by Raskolnikov.
As we have stated before Raskolnikov tried to figure out if he is bound by any moral law, through the killing of a person made in his image and likeness, realizing that he is bound by this law as a moral fact, says Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky [11] :

He has proven to be an ordinary human being subject to moral law. He wanted to have the "freedom and dominion, and above all the
domain! Over all beings and fearful over the anthill. " This domain would have to get rid of the moral law. But the moral law has shown stronger than him and he fell ..... [12]

But in this state of bankruptcy by a psychological point of view begins the redemption of Raskolnikov, who gradually becomes convinced that freedom is an absolute demon, demon destroyer of companies and persons; and becomes convinced that he was sucked into this idea demonic, which led him to self-destruction, and foreignness by the company. In this process of redemption, were crucial elements of goodness that lay within him, and gradually responded and took him to the belief that all his behavior was wrong. But above some simple shapes and marginalized by society, like Sonja, have played an important role, because, Sonja will be to collect his first confession, then she will accompany him to Siberia, where it will be condemned after his public confession, eight years of forced labor, and here you will realize the ultimate redemption, with its total and sincere confession to Sonya, and the reading of the passage of the resurrection of Lazarus from the Gospel of St. John.
Dostoevsky was able to describe the redemption of Raskolnikov with exemplary clarity and rich poetry of this concluding part of the novel is told that his spiritual rebirth it is a proof:

A tract was found beside him Sonia. Had approached him just making you feel and she started to sit on the side. It was still very early, the cool morning had not yet eased. She was wearing her poor, old green cloak and shawl.
His face still bore the signs of the disease, was emaciated, pale, had sharp. She smiled kindly and joyous, as usual, held out her hand timidly.
always held out her hand timidly, and sometimes not at all gave it to him, as if afraid that he rejects. He always took her hand with a kind of aversion, accepts it as angry, sometimes stubbornly silent the whole time of his visit. It happened and she was not and went intimorisse away deeply troubled. But now their hands will separate themselves, he escaped threw a quick look, said nothing and lowered his eyes to the ground. They were alone, no one saw them. The soldier of Commons at that time had turned away.
How that happened, he did not know, but suddenly it was as if something had grabbed and tossed at her feet. He wept and embraced his knees. In the first moment she is terribly frightened, and all of his face became deadly pale. Had jumped up and Messas to shake, looking at him. But now, in the same moment, he knew everything. In her eyes shone endless happiness, she had understood, and she was gone doubt that he loved her, loved her infinitely, and who had reached the end, that moment .....
volevan They speak, but could not. There were tears in their eyes. They were both pale and thin, but in their faces pale and sick already shone the dawn of a renewed future, a full resurrection to new life. He had resurrected the love, the heart of one contained infinite sources of life for the hearts of others. [13]

With this action stops the story. Dostoevsky does not tell us how to evolve the life of Raskolnikov redeemed, but it offers a particularly interesting and illuminating flesh, when he says that from that moment Raskolnikov totally changes the way it is: no longer angry, no longer unhappy, but happy, happy, even suffering, to emphasize that his worldview, and life was totally changed. This one's path of redemption, will be unexpectedly Raskolnikov. How much anguish and suffering he has endured, remorse for the killing of two innocent, the suffering of many people who loved him, all this evil can justify its final redemption?
Surely not, he has spent too much in exchange for what perhaps could be reached in other ways, with this you do not want to condemn the figure of Raskolnikov, but surely you can not elevate to hero a murderess, he will suffer much during his time in forced labor, and perhaps this will be the spring that will trigger the redemption, as though only with the deprivation and the wounds may finally receive the light:

was already sick for a long time, but not the horrors of the life force, not jobs, not food, not having his head shaved, not to be dressed in rags had broken down: oh! What did he care to all those suffering and torture! On the contrary, was even pleased with the work moving physically on the job, he at least he procured a few hours of peaceful sleep. And what it meant to him the board: the thin soup of cabbage with cockroaches? As a student, during the life of the first, often did not even have to [.....] He was ashamed that he just he, Raskolnikov, lost so blindly, without hope, so dark and simple, like a sentence of blind fate, and that he should resign and submit to the insistence of that sentence do not know if he wanted to calm down a tad.
anxiety without purpose and without purpose in the present and future in a never-ending sacrifice, with whom nothing would have got here is what stood before the world. [14]

Nikolai Berdyaev, Russian religious philosopher, born in Kiev in 1874, he starred in "Crime and Punishment as a work suitable for the discovery of the most recondite of the human spirit, but this research, unlike other works of Dostoyevsky, is a research done in solitary. In this novel does not discern the relationships that generate spiritual changes such as in The Brothers Karamazov, or nell'Idiota, all the introspective path for much of the novel, Raskolnikov is left in the hands of that is consumed with his thoughts, which in some moments appear to be close to your neighbor and be sensible, and at other times seems to deviate from it to be genuine and its delusions of omnipotence

In Crime and Punishment, there is nothing else besides the discovery of the inner life of man, experiments on the nature of his own and human in general, there is nothing else besides the search for all possibilities and could not enclosed in man. But the anthropological research in Crime and Punishment is conducted differently than the other novels: here lacks the passionate intensity of human relationships, the discovery of the only human face through the multitude of men. More than all the other works of Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, suggests a new science experiment on humans. [15]

Raskolnikov's mistake is that he wants a morality based entirely on reason, logic and inland reaches its complete denial, he tries to demonstrate logic of the moral law, not realizing that the moral law does not require proof. The fact is that our moral conscience gives top priority to the sanctity of the human person; Raskolnikov attempts to distort this record, this record branded in our soul that admits no violations, he remains deaf to the primacy of the sanctity of the human person, looking to reverse this natural principle, but groped to destroy the order in question, he falls. So whoever is destined to fall, having a moral conscience, violate the moral law.
course the individual does not feel that their conscience will have no problems at all to kill a person, he may pay safely without causing any blood tragedy in his soul. Ivan Karamazov's Devil has understood the problem circulating around the moral issues that people ask the same Ivan saying:

are now increasingly popular and harm 'guilty conscience' and all this nonsense. It also depended on you, "from the relaxation of your morals." Well, and who has won? We have only won those without conscience, for him what makes them the pangs of conscience if they have no conscience at all? In return for decent people have suffered, which were still conscience and honor ..... [16]

Who does not have the consciousness has no reason to fear it, this is what the devil says Karamàziano, it would seem, following the logic of this unlikely moralist, comparing it with Raskolnikov's theory about the fact that the world should be divided between napoleon and ordinary people, that Napoleon did not have a soul, because they can do any action, even the most brutal, not feeling the slightest remorse, the important thing for Napoleon is the achievement of the goal regardless of the mezzo.Una What is certain and secure, the remorse of conscience Raskolnikov tried making them come to the conclusion that an ordinary man, and did not belong to the race of napoleons.