Raskolnikov's theories about the ordinary man versus the extraordinary man are often blurred and indistinct in his own mind. If one is to assume that the crime was committed in order to prove a theory, then the flaws in the crime indicate the flaws or incompleteness of the theory.
If the theories seem to be contradictory at times, it is not a result of Dostoevsky's carelessness; quite the contrary, Dostoevsky intentionally made the theory contradictory at times. Raskolnikov had to commit the murder before he had completely formulated the theory. Dostoevsky wanted to show the young intellectual being influenced by various theories and then using these theories before he had had a chance to analyze them. For example, a typical contradiction would be that Raskolnikov will at one time maintain that the murder was committed to benefit mankind, but then he will maintain that the extraordinary man must be above mankind and not be concerned with what mankind will think of him. Such an incomplete understanding of his own thoughts and such contradictory statements are the rationale that leads Raskolnikov to the possibility of redemption. A brief analysis of the various ideas will partly show what aspect of the theories are borrowed and what aspects are the result of Raskolnikov's own thinking.
The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1830) wrote many works on the general nature of the Ubermensch or extraordinary man. His ideas, however, were never formulated into one consistent thesis. But generally extracted from various parts of his philosophy, his views may be stated with some consistency. In its broadest statement, the Hegelian man exists for noble purposes; if the ends are noble, then the means can be justified. The emphasis is always on the ends rather than the means. As applied to Raskolnikov's crime, the theories have relevance in the following ways.
