of his crime and that therefore he must be punished, and then they are quits. (Ideology and Imagination. IV, 147) Dostoevsky's solution lies in exactly the opposite from the class struggle and the solution that it brings. All of those strives bring only shifts and turns but are still based on hate and not on love. When one thinks of God it is not in terms of class one belongs to, or sex or age. One either accepts the Word or one does not, one either believes that even the sparrow has its place in God's mercy or one goes around raving against God, simultaneously talking of his necessity. Dostoevsky shows such attitude, such part time rationalizing as worthless and very often dangerous: suicides and murders. He truly despises it and mercilessly attacks those sins with all his strength and his ambiguous words. Zosima's gives an account of what being without Christ can do: They, following science, want to base justice on reason alone, but not with Christ, as before, and they have already proclaimed that there is no crime, that there is no sin. And that's consistent, for if you have no God what is the meaning of crime? ( Brothers Karamazov. VI, 3) This is the danger of Raskolnikov and Ivan's logic. The society around them and around Dostoevsky is one which makes children suffer and turns young, beautiful and wise creatures, like Sonya, into prostitutes. What is the answer? Is one answer possible to it at all? Can one go on living with the thought of how much suffering there is ? Does one rebel against the society, then try to establish a new one, forgetting that society does not come to be of itself, but is built by human beings: beings imperfect and ready to hurt and rebel against their fathers, against the idea of "old," or the society of the past and present. If that is taken into account the only people who do make sense out of human existence, which is best showed and expressed through suffering, ar...
