III Fyodor Dostoevsky

In ‘Notes From Underground’, Fyodor Dostoevsky attacks many social philosophies. Among the ideas and institutions he criticizes ‘the beautiful and the sublime’, men of action, science vs. free will, and ‘the crystal palace’ are the ones that stand out.

“The more conscious I was of what was good, of everything “beautiful and sublime,” the more deeply I sank into the morass and the more capable I was of becoming entirely bogged down in it.” The Underground Man speaks these lines, meaning that no matter how aware a person is of what is noble and right, s/he will only fall deeper into what is wrong and immoral. He goes on to say that he believes this to be a normal, in fact, a natural condition of mankind. He mocks the idea of ‘the beautiful and sublime’, because if such a concept does exist, it means little to mankind. They will continue to do what they wish, no matter how despicable it may be. Man will even take pleasure in it, seeing that shameful behavior is his/her natural condition and cannot be struggled against or overcome. All this is especially true for people like the Underground Man, who have an overly acute consciousness. The inertia, which results from possessing such a consciousness, and the worry, and paranoia that comes along with it, makes one unable to change his or her shameful ways. Such a person is actually incapable of doing much of anything.

The man of action differs in that this person does not possess an overly acute consciousness, and in turn is seemingly more happy and productive, and certainly more successful and easy-natured. Dostoevsky illustrates the difference between these two types of people by discussing their method of getting revenge. A man of action will rush towards his revenge, and either take it or sincerely give up, depending on if he hits a ‘wall’ or not. The Underground Man, in contrast, would add on to the original nastiness he possesses. He would “…pile up all sorts of other nastiness around itself in the form of hesitations and doubts…” The ‘mouse’, as the Underground Man refers to this type of person, would be stuck in a state of spitefulness, due to the inertia caused by his overly acute consciousness.

The Underground Man also ridicules the idea that if man were to become enlightened to what was good and noble, that s/he would then shun evil, in the name of his or her own self interests, in the name of what is best for that person. The Underground Man does not believe that people act based on what is best for them, which is related to his opinions on ‘the beautiful and sublime’. He also criticizes the idea that common sense will reeducate human nature and turn it in the right direction. Supposedly, science will teach man that he has no free will, that he is nothing but a ‘piano key’ or an ‘organ stop’, and that all man does is in accordance with the rules and laws of nature, not his own desires. The Underground Man sees these laws of nature being discovered, and man being freed from the responsibility of their actions. He sees human nature as being mathematically tabulated and scheduled, taking all the uncertainty and adventure out of life, turning mankind into nothing but ‘organ stops’.

The Underground Man finds fault in this idea even as he ridicules it. He says that even if human nature was mathematically scheduled and the ‘crystal palace’ was built, still someone would get bored of the rationalism and perfection and decide to destroy the order, even if for no other reason that just to see it destroyed. He goes on to say that “what’s so annoying is that he would undoubtedly find some followers; such is the way man is made.” There is certainly a history of a single man with a stupid or misguided idea finding some followers, be it Hitler or someone who says you need to kill yourself so the spaceship can come and take you away.

Dostoevsky uses the Underground Man to voice his critiques of sundry social beliefs and institutions, too many to be covered in a brief analysis. Each of his critiques, however, contains many truths that can be applied even today, long after they were originally written. This is due in part to the insight into the workings of human psychology that Dostoevsky presents within the framework of social critique.

Gustave Flaubert / Leo Tolstoy / Fyodor Dostoevsky