BitaTruble
Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006 From: Texas Status: offline
|
Cliff notes version of Raskolnikov's Extraordinary Man Theory as penned by Dostoevsky in Crime and Punishment: Men are "somewhat arbitrarily" divided into two groups, the ordinary and the extrodinary. "The first class of people preserve and people [populate] the world, the second move the world and lead it to its goal." Rather a sheep and shepherd sort of thought as Raskolnikov views the first group as servile or even docile though quite necessary. He further goes on to postulate that extraordinary men by their very nature must be criminals who step outside the bounds of society in order to achieve change. This may include mass murder of innocents or what have you but it's not my purpose here to go on at length about such extremes whether they be positive or negative in nature but, rather to address a lesser degree; there are plenty of folks here who do step outside the bounds of society in order to pursue change albeit usually in regard to our own life circumstance or views and rarely (though sometimes) at the expense of the well-being or peace of mind of the masses - to a point, of course. I think most folks just want to be left alone to pursue their lives as they see fit, but some small few do want to bridge gaps (or widen them) and open minds (or close them) to new thoughts and ideas and do so via the practice and embracing of SM. In other words, they seek change. The Marquis de Sade was one such man. Roland Loomis (aka Fakir Musofar) is another. There have been others, of course who may fall on either side of a good/evil paradigm (or somewhere in between). A few questions to ponder from a Raskolnikovian viewpoint: Should those who seek change (even if it's simply a change of thought) via SM practices be viewed as criminals since consent doesn't fall under a Raskolnikov microscope to alleviate liability in a given practice? Given that Dostoevsky viewed de Sade as evil/nihilistic and that Crime and Punishment (and to an even greater extent The Brothers Karamozov most notably the character of Ivan) spoke in repudiation of de Sade, does embracing the Extraordinary Man Theory automatically make one a nihilst? According, again to Raskolnikov, as the law of nature arbitrarily divides us into one of the two groups, which one would most likely host the majority of SM practioners and why? Is it more likely that those of a dominant persuassion would fit into the Extraordinary Man Theory as opposed to those of a submissive mindset or given the theory itself, are they equally likely to fit? Just a few thoughts as I take a break from studying.
< Message edited by BitaTruble -- 7/5/2008 4:10:41 PM >
_____________________________
"Oh, so it's just like Rock, paper, scissors." He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."
|