I thought that the points presented by Lily and Brita were really interesting. Brita’s argument that the Underground Man becomes gradually more aggressive throughout the first 29 pages made me consider the idea that the Man is bitter and disappointed with mankind. For instance, we learn from the very beginning that he considers his home in St. Petersburg to be “nasty and squalid” and “bad for [his] health” (5). Yet he also describes St. Petersburg as a premeditated city, conceived by “progress and European civilization” (11). This shows his general contempt for the progress of mankind. Another example is his discussion of bloodshed: “At least if man hasn’t become more bloodthirsty as a result of civilization, he’s become bloodthirsty in a nastier, more repulsive way than before. Previously man saw justice in bloodshed and exterminated whomever he wished with a clear conscience; whereas now, though we consider bloodshed to be abominable, we nevertheless engage in this abomination even more than before” (17). The Underground Man seems to be belittling the development of humans and mocking the idea that they are wiser now than in “barbaric times.” In his discussion of free will and man’s ability to choose his own actions, the Underground Man continues his derision for the human race. “Man,” he states, “is stupid, phenomenally stupid” (18). He argues that even in a perfect society, where everything was ruled by logic, someone would choose to ignore it. Furthermore, the Underground Man believes that this person would foolishly gain followers because “such is the way man is made” (19). In fact, the Underground Man frequently strives to prove the existence of free will by the stupidity of mankind. I believe that the remainder of the novel may help to shed some light on the Underground Man and his viewpoints, particularly how he came to be so bitter. He mentions having no respect for himself as well as the difficulties he’s had falling in love. While the philosophy he develops is interesting, so is the character behind it. Hopefully as the novel goes on, we will discover more about the Underground Man. I believe it would help to deepen our understanding of his philosophical musings.
I thought both Brita and Lily made very interesting observations, Brita on the character of the narrator and Lily on the many levels of contradictions apparent in the musings of the underground man. Brita alluded to this briefly, but it is fascinating how the many contradictions observed by Lily also can be found in the narrative voice, and the narrator's relationship to the audience. Many of these contradictions are present in the first paragraph, even: he claims his liver is diseased, but says he doesn't know what hurts; he "respects both medicine and doctors," but he refers to getting even with them; he is educated enough not to be superstitious, but the he is anyway. The many layers of contradiction in the narrator are evident by simply reading the first paragraph. Throughout the text, he calls us gentlemen then attacks us and lies to us, he says he is only writing this out of boredom and for no one but addresses the audience directly, as if he intended us to read his confessions. He says that he doesn't care what we think about him, but feels the need to explain and justify himself and his action/inaction to us. Further, he is trying to explain his philosophy to us throughout these confessions in the hopes that we understand and take something from it, but then torments us,imagines that we "interrupt him with a laugh" (19), and fears that we will "shout at him" (23). In addition to running around in circles in his philosophy and his reasoning, he seems to be running the same circles in his relationship with his audience. It almost seems like he is addressing two audiences: a more enlightened and aware audience who will understand his logic and arguments, and a body of the rational, western/forward looking thinkers and the utopian visionaries. Makes for some pretty interesting circles of logic.
On of the many interesting aspects of Solomon's presentation was his claim that the Underground man's character is internally doubled: the underground man is filled with a desire for acceptance into the social hierarchy of St. Petersburg and the admiration of his peers while at the same time despising and recognizing as absurd that very society and admiration. Natalie echoes this contrast by recasting it as the competing values of "real life" and the "idealized life" found in books. I'd like to argue that the very structure of the book creates in part this sense of doubling. Part I is purely philosophical, with little in the way of characters, while Part II has plot, character interactions, and settings. In other words, this contrast is as explicit as possible. Furthermore, within the chapters of Part II, the narrator alternates between actual episodes of real life and endless ruminations thereupon. Of course, the novel ends with a long philosophical monologue condemning monologues and fictions, a crystallized contradiction that embodies the above contrast. Of course, Dostoevsky highlights the clash between solipsistic ideals and the real world by placing the Underground man in situations in which he must engage in a two-sided conversation. Perhaps the best of this technique is in the Underground Man's conversation with Liza. The Underground Man finds this conversation boring (he is continually "yawning" (63); talking with Liza leaves him feeling "sick and more depressed" (62); at the beginning he is even incapable of forming a complete sentence ("the weather today ... snow ... foul" (62)). In surety, the narrator quickly begins a lengthy, sentimental monologue designed to win Liza over - I think it is important that he does not view the traditional Socratic dialogue as sufficiently persuasive to achieve his goals. In contrast to the comparison made by another commenter in class today, in this respect the Underground Man appears as an anti-Socrates - unable to interact with other people. The ultimate irony is that the narrator's ideals are based on Socratic notions of the ideal (i.e. the rational), another touchstone of Natalie's presentation. The different structural layers of the novel thereby reinforce the themes Natalie and Solomon identified in their presentations.
I feel like we missed to discuss an import part of Solomon's presentation about the Underground man's character development it can be used in general to compare him to the individuals that make up society. The fact of the matter is that the events in one's life shape them into who they are to become. Here we see a man who doesn't have a family and is sent away at a young age to go to boarding school. All of his attempts to join society as an individual were futile which led him to live an extremely antisocial and critical life. Dostoyevsky uses the Underground man as a means of comparison to the rest of people in society. Other people in society live their lives like they always have without realizing that the outcome of their actions may affect others, meaning that they act on impulses. The entire first part of the novel is a monologue by the Underground man where there are several quotes that make this clear. “An intelligent man cannot seriously become anything and that only a fool can become something. Yes, sir, an intelligent man in the nineteenth century, is morally obliged to be, principally a characterless creature,” this criticizes intelligent humans by assigning morals to them which prevent them acting on impulses (page 4). Later at the bottom of page 5 he goes on to say that being conscious is a “disease” and that having the consciousness of a person that acts on impulse would be much better. If being a conscious person means that one is aware of their feelings, thoughts, and surroundings, and being moral means that one knows how to behave based on rational standards set by society, then based on these facts it wouldn’t be farfetched to say that the people who are not conscious or intelligent are unaware of their surroundings and will act based on a different set of moral standards. The reason for this is given on the very last page of the Underground man’s notes Dostoyevsky finally ties these together, “What concerns me in particular, is that in my life I’ve only taken to an extreme that which you haven’t even dared to take halfway; what’s more, you’ve mistaken your cowardice for good sense; and, in so deceiving yourself, you’ve consoled yourself” (page 91). While the Underground man’s journey to find the “truth” and to be conscious was painful and continues to be so he has gained an understanding of things which other people are not willing to learn because the truth is something to be scared of. That’s why people continue to live their lives lying to themselves and behave the way they do, they can’t handle being flawed.
I thought that the points presented by Lily and Brita were really interesting. Brita’s argument that the Underground Man becomes gradually more aggressive throughout the first 29 pages made me consider the idea that the Man is bitter and disappointed with mankind. For instance, we learn from the very beginning that he considers his home in St. Petersburg to be “nasty and squalid” and “bad for [his] health” (5). Yet he also describes St. Petersburg as a premeditated city, conceived by “progress and European civilization” (11). This shows his general contempt for the progress of mankind. Another example is his discussion of bloodshed: “At least if man hasn’t become more bloodthirsty as a result of civilization, he’s become bloodthirsty in a nastier, more repulsive way than before. Previously man saw justice in bloodshed and exterminated whomever he wished with a clear conscience; whereas now, though we consider bloodshed to be abominable, we nevertheless engage in this abomination even more than before” (17). The Underground Man seems to be belittling the development of humans and mocking the idea that they are wiser now than in “barbaric times.” In his discussion of free will and man’s ability to choose his own actions, the Underground Man continues his derision for the human race. “Man,” he states, “is stupid, phenomenally stupid” (18). He argues that even in a perfect society, where everything was ruled by logic, someone would choose to ignore it. Furthermore, the Underground Man believes that this person would foolishly gain followers because “such is the way man is made” (19). In fact, the Underground Man frequently strives to prove the existence of free will by the stupidity of mankind. I believe that the remainder of the novel may help to shed some light on the Underground Man and his viewpoints, particularly how he came to be so bitter. He mentions having no respect for himself as well as the difficulties he’s had falling in love. While the philosophy he develops is interesting, so is the character behind it. Hopefully as the novel goes on, we will discover more about the Underground Man. I believe it would help to deepen our understanding of his philosophical musings.
ReplyDeleteI thought both Brita and Lily made very interesting observations, Brita on the character of the narrator and Lily on the many levels of contradictions apparent in the musings of the underground man. Brita alluded to this briefly, but it is fascinating how the many contradictions observed by Lily also can be found in the narrative voice, and the narrator's relationship to the audience. Many of these contradictions are present in the first paragraph, even: he claims his liver is diseased, but says he doesn't know what hurts; he "respects both medicine and doctors," but he refers to getting even with them; he is educated enough not to be superstitious, but the he is anyway. The many layers of contradiction in the narrator are evident by simply reading the first paragraph. Throughout the text, he calls us gentlemen then attacks us and lies to us, he says he is only writing this out of boredom and for no one but addresses the audience directly, as if he intended us to read his confessions. He says that he doesn't care what we think about him, but feels the need to explain and justify himself and his action/inaction to us. Further, he is trying to explain his philosophy to us throughout these confessions in the hopes that we understand and take something from it, but then torments us,imagines that we "interrupt him with a laugh" (19), and fears that we will "shout at him" (23). In addition to running around in circles in his philosophy and his reasoning, he seems to be running the same circles in his relationship with his audience. It almost seems like he is addressing two audiences: a more enlightened and aware audience who will understand his logic and arguments, and a body of the rational, western/forward looking thinkers and the utopian visionaries. Makes for some pretty interesting circles of logic.
ReplyDeleteOn of the many interesting aspects of Solomon's presentation was his claim that the Underground man's character is internally doubled: the underground man is filled with a desire for acceptance into the social hierarchy of St. Petersburg and the admiration of his peers while at the same time despising and recognizing as absurd that very society and admiration. Natalie echoes this contrast by recasting it as the competing values of "real life" and the "idealized life" found in books. I'd like to argue that the very structure of the book creates in part this sense of doubling. Part I is purely philosophical, with little in the way of characters, while Part II has plot, character interactions, and settings. In other words, this contrast is as explicit as possible. Furthermore, within the chapters of Part II, the narrator alternates between actual episodes of real life and endless ruminations thereupon. Of course, the novel ends with a long philosophical monologue condemning monologues and fictions, a crystallized contradiction that embodies the above contrast. Of course, Dostoevsky highlights the clash between solipsistic ideals and the real world by placing the Underground man in situations in which he must engage in a two-sided conversation. Perhaps the best of this technique is in the Underground Man's conversation with Liza. The Underground Man finds this conversation boring (he is continually "yawning" (63); talking with Liza leaves him feeling "sick and more depressed" (62); at the beginning he is even incapable of forming a complete sentence ("the weather today ... snow ... foul" (62)). In surety, the narrator quickly begins a lengthy, sentimental monologue designed to win Liza over - I think it is important that he does not view the traditional Socratic dialogue as sufficiently persuasive to achieve his goals. In contrast to the comparison made by another commenter in class today, in this respect the Underground Man appears as an anti-Socrates - unable to interact with other people. The ultimate irony is that the narrator's ideals are based on Socratic notions of the ideal (i.e. the rational), another touchstone of Natalie's presentation. The different structural layers of the novel thereby reinforce the themes Natalie and Solomon identified in their presentations.
ReplyDeleteI feel like we missed to discuss an import part of Solomon's presentation about the Underground man's character development it can be used in general to compare him to the individuals that make up society. The fact of the matter is that the events in one's life shape them into who they are to become. Here we see a man who doesn't have a family and is sent away at a young age to go to boarding school. All of his attempts to join society as an individual were futile which led him to live an extremely antisocial and critical life. Dostoyevsky uses the Underground man as a means of comparison to the rest of people in society. Other people in society live their lives like they always have without realizing that the outcome of their actions may affect others, meaning that they act on impulses. The entire first part of the novel is a monologue by the Underground man where there are several quotes that make this clear. “An intelligent man cannot seriously become anything and that only a fool can become something. Yes, sir, an intelligent man in the nineteenth century, is morally obliged to be, principally a characterless creature,” this criticizes intelligent humans by assigning morals to them which prevent them acting on impulses (page 4). Later at the bottom of page 5 he goes on to say that being conscious is a “disease” and that having the consciousness of a person that acts on impulse would be much better. If being a conscious person means that one is aware of their feelings, thoughts, and surroundings, and being moral means that one knows how to behave based on rational standards set by society, then based on these facts it wouldn’t be farfetched to say that the people who are not conscious or intelligent are unaware of their surroundings and will act based on a different set of moral standards. The reason for this is given on the very last page of the Underground man’s notes Dostoyevsky finally ties these together, “What concerns me in particular, is that in my life I’ve only taken to an extreme that which you haven’t even dared to take halfway; what’s more, you’ve mistaken your cowardice for good sense; and, in so deceiving yourself, you’ve consoled yourself” (page 91). While the Underground man’s journey to find the “truth” and to be conscious was painful and continues to be so he has gained an understanding of things which other people are not willing to learn because the truth is something to be scared of. That’s why people continue to live their lives lying to themselves and behave the way they do, they can’t handle being flawed.
ReplyDelete