I used to perceive Raskolnikov & Zarathustra as diametrically opposed responses to the “modern condition” or “death of God.”

I now see that they are not opposed at all, rather Raskolnikov is an example of the state of suffering that Zarathustra came to overthrow

Dostoyevsky offers faith as a greater path than reason; the primacy of the intellect leaves us without God, responsible for a moral system with which to order both our lives & our society. Ivan also represents this challenge, & he & Rodion both suffer intractable psychosis

Dostoyevsky shows the chaos wrought by a world and a life ordered by reason, eschewing both faith but also tradition (more on this in the future), specifically utilitarianism, which purports to offer the greatest good for the greatest number, *instead of* traditional morality

By this logic, Raskolnikov reasons that the wrong of killing an old pawn broker would be absolved by the greatness he goes on to accomplish with her money. He points out that great men of the past (Solon, Napoleon), eschewed morality in the pursuit of a greater purpose...

...trodding over countless lives lost to history. It was this aspiration to greatness that made me consider him in light of Zarathustra. Nietzsche often, and with much bombast, venerates men of the past who did not submit to slave morality (“blonde beasts”)...

However, I thought Nietzsche mistaken in this, because most men would end up a Raskolnikov, and not a Zarathustra. My old take was that we must fall back on faith and religion because we are ourselves fallen, and cannot achieve greatness without god, the church, or tradition

Because of Bronze Age Pervert and Caribbean Rhythms, I went on to read several other books by Nietzsche, and I see that his perspective is the one we need to take, deprive my deep and continued love for Dostoyevsky.

Dostoyevsky is critiquing mans replacement of God with reason and intellect, but we *must* be Nietzscheans, and futurists, for the “death of God” is not an atheistic proclivity, but a sober assessment of the challenge we face today. Spengler spends a lot of time discussing this

At a certain point in civilizational development, Nietzsches “autumn of a people,” we outgrow the faith of the past, our connection to nature, and our traditions are lost. We are left in the wake of ruined authenticity, cursed only to mimic what our ancestors embodied

There *is no* church to fall back on, as Dostoyevsky advocated. There *is no* tradition anymore, our waking lives are not daily revelations of the will of God expressed through Nature, but enframement within the edifices of man, human institutions and products of the intellect

Zarathustra is not advocating for us to use our reason to construct a moral system, which is the precise project Raskolnikov fails at, he is telling us to eschew reason and let our instincts take over. This also shucks morality, as tradition would have it.

As Nietzsche says, this embodiment of the instinct within the edifice of civilization makes us criminals, quite literally criminals, “subterraneans” as he calls them, and from this comes BAPs call to piracy! Society *will not* accept you as a real man

The balancing act required to allow your instincts to guide you, to overcome your intellect in a transcendent way, is not for the many. Most must fall back on a dying and empty tradition, give themselves over to faith. You submit to God. There is no shame in this...

...it is in fact quite beautiful. However it is no path forward, it will help you weather the storm of life but it will not redeem civilization. The few of you will break the fetters of reason AND morality, and live *outside* the prison of modernity....

...but the very few, the select, when the time is right, will ride the storm at the crest of its mightiest wave, and in the calm of the morning after emerge as a Caesar, or an Alaric, maybe even a Zarathustra