Detailed Analysis:

In this shloka, Arjuna's argument reaches a height of rhetorical persuasion. He asks Krishna, 'katham na jneyam asmabhih'—how should it not be known to us—'papad asman nivartitum' (to turn away from this sin)? He is essentially appealing to Krishna's own logic and wisdom. He argues that since they (the Pandavas) have the 'Jnana' (knowledge) to see the 'dosham' (fault) in 'kula-kshaya' (destroying the family), they are morally obligated to 'nivartitum' (withdraw/turn back). He is framing his desire to flee not as an act of cowardice, but as an act of 'Conscious Renunciation.' He believes that his awareness makes his participation in the war a much greater sin than that of the Kauravas. He is trying to force Krishna into a corner by suggesting that turning away is the only logical and holy path for a man of knowledge. He is essentially asking for Krishna's permission to be a saint instead of a warrior.

The psychological complexity of this verse lies in the word 'Prapashyadbhih' (by those who see clearly). Arjuna is claiming a state of 'Clarity' that he does not actually possess. In our practical lives, we often do this when we want to avoid a difficult responsibility; we say, I'm too enlightened for this or This is beneath my spiritual level. Arjuna is using his 'Viveka' (discrimination) as a weapon against his 'Dharma' (duty). He is experiencing what psychologists call 'Moral Intellectualization'. Instead of feeling the raw fear, he has transformed his fear into a sophisticated moral argument. He is trying to persuade Krishna that Knowledge should lead to Inaction. He is ignoring the fact that true 'Jnana' should lead to 'Nishkama Karma' (selfless action), not to 'Karma-Sannyasa' (renunciation of action) out of fear. He is using his intellect to build a golden cage for his soul.

Furthermore, by addressing Krishna again as 'Janardana,' Arjuna is appealing to the protector of the people to protect the 'Kula' (family) from destruction. He is suggesting that the highest knowledge should lead to the preservation of life. This is a very subtle and dangerous argument because it sounds so true. But in the Gita's worldview, the preservation of life is secondary to the preservation of Dharma. If life is preserved at the cost of Truth, that life is a living death. Sanjaya reports this to show that Arjuna has become his own lawyer, arguing his case with great intensity. This verse teaches us that our clear vision is often just a reflection of our clever ego. Arjuna’s 'Prapashyan' (seeing clearly) is actually a 'Viparyaya' (seeing wrongly). He sees the destruction of the body as a crime, but he does not see the destruction of the moral order as a greater crime. He is trying to use 'Sattva' to justify 'Tamas', a common error of the spiritually confused mind.