陀思妥耶夫斯基《罪与罚》中的自我牺牲、启示和感悟外文翻译资料

Self-Sacrifice, Inspiration, and Evocation in Dostoevskys Crime and Punishment

Carl Ross Beideman

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY

We last left Raskolnikov, following an appellation from nature, appealing to God for resolution of alienation. Obviously, the act of murder is an attempt (however inadvertently) to “improve Gods arrangement.” As such, through murder Raskolnikov is not simply testing a new theory of utilitarianism, but probing the abyss for the absent creator. In murder, Raskolnikov is asking, even taunting the creator for a rebuke. If God exists, then murder is perhaps Raskolnikovs way of calling out from an alienated existence. The murder could then be understood as an act of frustration as well as an act of logical reasoning—the lesser of two evils. From this perspective, we may begin to understand Raskolnikovs murdering as sacrifice. Superficially, he sacrifices one soul (the pawnbroker) for the benefit of humanity. As she had intended to donate her hoarded money to a church as a form of indulgence, Raskolnikov murders from the side of realism in which he feels that humanity could use the money more than a greedy church.

However, since that money becomes, in a sense, a connection to God as an indulgence, we may interpret the murder as partly cued by hard feelings toward the creator (since through murder and stealing Raskolnikov withholds—the indulgence—from an absent and thus undeserving creator). He states in confession to Sonya, “I decided to dare and I killed...I just wanted to dare, Sonya, and that was the whole reason”. In daring Raskolnikov dares to challenge creation. As such, his dare was an effort to act subjectively, to confirm his separation. The pseudo-indulgence symbolizes that in murder Raskolnikov is stealing from God or Gods plan. As such, Raskolnikov also sacrifices his self in that he is willing to give up salvation for a chance to know God: to know his will on earth, even if it be through punishment. The murder is therefore not a simple rationalization of the greater good, but a desperate attempt to seek ontological understanding. This sacrifice is important if we are to understand how Raskolnikov moves toward infinity; by divining Dostoevskys recipe for responsible existence we more clearly understand how alienation functions for each novelist by comparison, and therefore learn whether or not some universal design for the human home may be extrapolated, or whether alienation (specifically half-brotherhood) functions differently across time, space and cultures/societies.

Concerning murder, Raskolnikov relies on both his rational mind, and his lsquo;nocturnal perambulations.rsquo; Porfiry states “...reality and nature, my lad, are very important things and my goodness, how they sometimes undermine even the best-laid plans” ! For all of Raskolnikovs calculations, the murder is a blunder, and Raskolnikov gets away only by chance when he hides in an empty apartment as men discover something awry in the apartment of the late pawnbroker. “Not for anything in the world would he have gone back to the trunk now, nor even the two rooms. But gradually a kind of absent-mindedness, or perhaps even pensiveness, began to come over him; for minutes at a time he would forget himself . Immediately following the murder Raskolnikov realized that his rational egoism, based in utilitarian motives, was nevertheless morally unjustifiable. Faced with the realization of the failure of his rational logic, he resigns himself to revelry and sickness, like Dulouz faced with the void.

There was something epiphanic following the murder in which Raskolnikov just knows that his act of murder was an affront to creation; he no longer believes in his theory of Napoleons. The following morning he admits, “Truly my reason must be going” . This realization of the error of his logic in providing a recipe for existence falls in line with Dulouzrsquo;s understanding of the teachings of Buddhism as leading away from the celebration of separation—humans are always already “desolation angels.” As such, there is a latent primordial function for each character that undermines the mastery of human logic. In such a state, Raskolnikov is now tortured not by the alienating perception of an absent creator,but suffers from the shame of the realization that his murder was in fact wrong. He states, “What, has it started already, is the punishment beginning” ? Levinas describes this knowledge of evil in relation to the manifestation of infinity stating, “This infinity, stronger than murder, already resists us in his face, is his face, is the primordial expression, is the first word: you shall not commit murder . Hence, the infinite as epiphany presents itself in the implanted internal realization that murder is unethical. In contrast to Dulouz who retreats into himself and society through Americana and adolescent sterility instead of subverting shame through the embrace of rational egoism and reversion, Raskolnikov outright rejects human systems that he perceives contradict nature. This transition fittingly occurs on yet another bridge:

On Nikolayevsky Bridge he was forced fully back to his senseshellip;.When attending the university he had usuallyhellip;happened to stop, perhaps a hundred times or so, at this very spot and gaze at this truly magnificent panorama, and to wonder almost every time about this one indistinct and unfathomable impression of his. The magnificent panorama always sent an inexplicable chill through him; this sumptuous picture held for him a mute and muffled spell. He had wondered every time at this gloomy, enigmatic impression of his and, distrusting himself, had postponed its resolution to the future. Now, suddenly, he was sharply reminded of those former questions and perplexities of his, and it seemed no accident that he recollected them nowhellip;there was a painful contradiction in his breast. Far, far away, somewhere belowhellip;he now had a vi

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

陀思妥耶夫斯基《罪与罚》中的自我牺牲、启示和感悟

卡尔·罗斯·比德曼

蒙大拿州立大学

顺从自然之名，我们最后离开了拉斯柯尔尼科夫，去恳求上帝解决异化问题。显然，谋杀是一种企图“改善上帝安排”的尝试(无论多么地无意)。因此，拉斯柯尔尼科夫通过谋杀并不是简单地检验一种新的功利主义理论，而是为缺席的造物主探索深渊。在谋杀中，拉斯柯尔尼科夫一直在追问，甚至嘲讽造物主的责备。如果上帝存在的话，谋杀也许是拉斯柯尔尼科夫从异化状态中寻找到的方法。那么，谋杀可以理解为一种沮丧行为，也可以理解为一种逻辑推理行为—“两种罪恶的较轻者”。从这个角度来看，我们可能会将拉斯柯尔尼科夫的谋杀开始理解为一种自我牺牲。表面上，他牺牲了一个灵魂（高利贷老太婆）以造福人类。正如她本来打算把自己的积蓄捐献给教会来获得“赎罪券”，拉斯柯尔尼科夫的谋杀从现实角度来看，他认为人类可以利用这笔钱而不是贪婪的教会。

然而，由于金钱在某种意义上与上帝的宽恕有关。我们可以把这起谋杀解释为对造物主“不满”的部分暗示。（因为通过谋杀和偷窃，拉斯柯尔尼科夫已经失去了缺席、不称职的造物主的宽恕）他在向索尼娅忏悔时说：“我痛下决心并且杀了...我只是想挑战，索尼娅，这就是原因。”大胆的拉斯柯尔尼科夫敢于挑战造物主。因此，他的胆量使他主动地采取措施来确认他的孤立状态。伪放纵象征着在谋杀中，拉斯柯尔尼科夫是在上帝那或上帝的计划中进行“偷窃”。因此，拉斯柯尔尼科夫也牺牲了他自己，因为他愿意放弃救赎，以获得认识上帝的机会：即使是通过惩罚，也要知道自己生存的意志。因此，谋杀不是更高利益的简单合理化，而是寻求存在意义的绝望尝试。如果我们要理解拉斯柯尔尼科夫是如何走向极限的，这种牺牲是很重要的。通过猜测陀思妥耶夫斯基关于“责任性生存”的理解，我们可以更加清楚地比对理解每一位小说家的异化是实现的、了解人类“家”中的某种通用设计是否可以外推、了解在不同的时间、空间和文化/社会中异化是否具有不同的作用。

关于谋杀，拉斯柯尔尼科夫既依赖他理性的头脑，也依赖于“夜间巡视”。波尔菲里说“hellip;我的孩子，现实和自然是非常重要的，而我的善良有时甚至破坏最好的计划” ! 据拉斯柯尔尼科夫计算，这起谋杀是一个失误。他只是偶然逃走，因为当他躲在一间空荡荡公寓里的时候，人们在已故老太婆的公寓里发现了一些不对劲的东西。世界上的任何事情都不能让他现在回到后备箱，回到那两个房间。但是一种心不在焉的甚至沉思的情绪渐渐开始在他的脑海里浮现，让他出神了好几分钟。拉斯柯尔尼科夫在谋杀案之后立刻就意识到，他基于功利动机的合理利己主义在道义上并说不过去。面对他理论失败的现实，他向狂欢和恶心自首，就像杜鲁兹面临空虚一样。

在谋杀之后，拉斯柯尔尼科夫知道他的谋杀行为是对造物主的侮辱。他不再相信他的拿破仑理论。第二天早上，他承认，“我的理论确实破产了”。这种承认自己理论错误的认识提供给了他一个存在的方法，这与杜鲁兹对佛教教义的理解一致。随着孤独状态更加深入，人类一直都是“荒凉天使”。因此，每个人都有潜在的非理性的原始状态。在这种状态下，拉斯柯尔尼科夫现在并不是因为不称职的造物主的抛弃而倍感折磨，而是因为意识到他的谋杀实际上是错误而倍感羞愧。他说，“什么，它已经开始了，惩罚开始了吗”？列维纳斯描述了极限形式的罪恶知识，“这种极限，比谋杀更强大，已经在他的脸上惩罚我们，是他脸上的原始表情、是他的第一句话：lsquo;你不能杀人rsquo;。因此，当极限作为顿悟出现在内在意识中，拉斯科尔尼科夫认识到谋杀是不道德的。杜鲁兹通过美国和青少年不孕症，而不是通过理性利己主义的恢复来颠覆羞耻感。拉斯柯尔尼科夫与杜鲁兹相反，他彻底拒绝他认为与自然矛盾的人类系统。这种转变恰如其分地发生在另一座桥上：

在尼古拉耶夫斯基桥上，他被迫完全恢复了理智，hellip;他上大学时，他经常hellip;恰巧停在这个地方，大概一百来次。凝视着这个真正的壮丽的全景，他几乎每一次都会怀疑这个模糊又难以理解的印象。壮观的全景总是让他感到莫名其妙的寒意。这幅华丽的画给他留下了沉默寡言的魔咒。他每次都受到这种神秘忧郁印象的干扰而倍感困惑，推迟了关于未来的各种方案。突然，他想起了以前的种种问题和困惑，现在想起它们似乎不是偶然hellip;他心中有一个痛苦的矛盾。很远、很远，在某个地方，他现在对他以前的生活、以前的思想、以前的问题、以前的主题、以前的印象、以及这一切、他自己、一切的一切都有了一种看法，他突然摸到一枚二十戈比硬币hellip;他松开他的手，专注地凝视着那枚硬币，然后松手将它扔进了水里。

为了能够从城市范围内查看全景，拉斯科尼科夫必须像在牧区聚集的城市边缘一样，通过各种方法观察自然。这个点就像理论上的“角落”一样，作为一个连接世界的纽带，在那里你可以跨越深渊。在这里，他以缪斯的身份从自然中得到灵感。在这一转变过程中，拉斯柯尔尼科夫的“印象”涉及到一种以自然方式存在的真理、一种超越所有人类逻辑的真理。这将在“沉默寡言的咒语”中被注意到，它揭示了另一个包含了“自我沉默”的自我。因此，这种顿悟是在他的理性利己主义阴谋消亡后适时地发生的。在“不信任自己”中，拉斯柯尔尼科夫在接受极限之前，还没有完全相信自己会完全接受这个个性化的、令人顿悟的真理。就好像他当时还没有完全准备好接受对方的教导。

请注意这一段顿悟历程，它上升到高潮，仿佛“他以前的种种问题”都被一次又一次地否定，就像一幕接一幕地摘下面纱。在那里，他发现“一切”和宇宙的本质，无所不包，没有极限。也就是说，一旦消除了因知识获取的狭隘、理性、分类、顺序而阶级化的倾向，世界只有到那时才会向拉斯柯尔尼科夫开放。因此，他以这种对现实的新认识为武器，通过摆脱那枚硬币（它本身就是人类阶级的象征）象征着放弃人性的总体倾向。陀思妥耶夫斯基通过硬币掉进了源源不断的河流，表明了主人公的愿望：让自然冲走人类阶级的残余。在跨过这一门槛之后，拉斯柯尔尼科夫从自我主义中脱离了出来。他确实在和警察玩猫捉老鼠，但这是出于本能并不是理性。在小说的其余部分发生的都是自我保护的本能欲望和顺从上帝之间动摇矛盾。本质上，拉斯柯尔尼科夫必须先了解罪恶，然后才能被唤醒去顿悟真理。因此，谋杀本身就是一个门槛，跨过这个门槛，拉斯柯尔尼科夫终于能够否定自己的理论。通过谋杀和随后的悔恨，拉斯柯尔尼科夫开始像其他人一样“了解自己”并不是“拿破仑”。因此，通过确认谋杀实际上是一种罪恶，是违反理性的。拉斯柯尔尼科夫不得不面对自己的罪恶，不再做功利主义的拥护者。对他理性的头脑丧失信任之后，拉斯科尔尼科夫必须想出一种彻底消灭利己主义的方法。因此，谋杀也是自我牺牲，因为放弃了人格（拿破仑），这也是传统上确认自我个性的主动行为。拉斯柯尔尼科夫后来在向温顺的索尼娅供认他的自我牺牲时说：“我杀了那个老妇人吗？”我杀了我自己，不是那个老女人！我就这样离开了自己...” 。当然，人们可能会认为这是一种无处安放的自责，在一定程度上这确实是。然而，通过把谋杀的焦点从老太婆的死亡转移到自我的毁灭上，陀思妥耶夫斯基巧妙地描述了两者的联系。如果所有的存在都是相互依存的话，那么谋杀一个人的同时也就意味着在杀害凶手。这种自我牺牲与人类在环境恶化方面的罪行如出一辙，既损害了人类的繁荣，也促进了人类的异化。因此，陀思妥耶夫斯基利用谋杀来揭示人类感情和生态主义在整个人类伦理道德中的重要性：相互依存。陀思妥耶夫斯基借用了自然中介来阐述启示意义，证明了这种相互依存的关系不仅仅存在于人类之间，而且存在于人类和环境之间。

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[24926]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word