Category: Notes from Underground

The underground man lives an isolated life colored by his own imagination (“Of course, it was I who just invented all these words for you. That too comes from the underground. For forty years in a row, I’ve been listening to all your words through a crack. I’ve invented them myself since that’s all that’s occurred to me” (Dostoevsky, p.28)). Unable to resolve his personal, literary, and social ideals with that of reality, he lives an unhappy existence unable to either garner respect from others or even respect himself (“Well, and is it possible, is it really possible for a man to respect himself if he even presumes to find enjoyment in the feeling of his own humiliation?” (Dostoevsky, p.12)).

his is largely due to an acute awareness that the end result of consciousness is a sense of humiliation over his own powerlessness at the hands of nature as man is neither equipped to nor capable of ending his own suffering (“In the first place, these moans express all the aimlessness of the pain which consciousness finds so humiliating, the whole system of natural laws about which you really don’t give a damn, but as a result of which you’re suffering nonetheless, while nature isn’t. They express the consciousness that while there’s no real enemy to be identified, the pain exists nonetheless; the awareness that, in spite of all possible Wagenheims, you’re still a complete slave to your teeth” (Dostoevsky, p.11)).

Subsequently, his spiteful, irrational and cruel behavior is an attempt at exercising his free will and exerting a measure of control and power over both nature and man (“How many times did it happen, well, let’s say, for example, that I took offense, deliberately, for no reason at all? All the while I knew there was no reason for it; I put on airs nonetheless and would take it so far that finally I really did feel offended” (Dostoevsky, p.12)) in order to regain a measure of dignity and control over his own life. Ultimately, the underground man’s primary complaint is one of a life unlived (“I used to think up adventures for myself, inventing a life so that at least I could live” (Dostoevsky, p.12)) devoid of the most basic human needs such as social support, moral worth, human dignity and a sense of meaning that is wholly necessary to man’s well-being, livelihood, and personal identity.

1. How does the Underground Man’s language ‘sound’?

The Underground Man “sounds” like he is holding an intellectual discourse with a group of gentlemen, attempting to present his ideas both in a witty and dignified if not contradictory manner, often writing as if responding to actual reactions and replies (“Well, rest assured, gentlemen, I’ve never received such a slap, although it’s really all the same to me what you think about it…But that’s enough, not another word about this subject which you find so extremely interesting” (Dostoevsky, p.9) . In addition to anticipating these types of replies, he even goes as far as to imagine entire conversations with these gentleman (“’Perhaps,’ you’ll add with a smirk, ‘even those who’ve never received a slap in the face won’t understand’” (Dostoevsky, p.9) and “’Ha, ha, ha! Why, you’ll be finding enjoyment in a toothache next!’ you cry out with a laugh. ‘Well, what of it?” (Dostoevsky, p.11)). While the Underground Man addresses the point of this “conversation” towards the end of Part I by both asking and answering his own question (“’And why do I keep calling you ‘gentleman?’ Why do I address you as if you really were my readers?’” (Dostoevsky, p.28) and “Perhaps it’s just that I’m a coward. Or perhaps it’s that I imagine an audience before me on purpose, so that I behave more decently when I’m writing things down” (Dostoevsky, p.29)), it’s hard to take what he says seriously as, up to this point, he has painted himself as an unreliable and contradictory character (“I am a spiteful man” (Dostoevsky, p.3)/“I was shamefully aware at every moment, even at the moment of my greatest bitterness, that not only was I not a spiteful man, I was not even an embittered one” (Dostoevsky, p.4)). Overall, the Underground Man sounds like he is presenting a literary ideal of what intelligent, dignified, and respected men sound like amongst themselves. Subsequently, his rambling thoughts come off more like an intellectual confession, one that he himself does not fully believe (“I don’t believe one word, not one little word of all that I’ve scribbled.” (Dostoevsky, p.27)).

2. What is the ‘stone wall’?

The stone wall is a symbol for reason, fact, logical thinking, and the laws of nature. Thus, for “normal men,” this wall “possesses some kind of soothing, morally decisive definitive meaning, perhaps even something mystical” (Dostoevsky, p.8). According to the Underground Man, reason and logic hold a very concrete and real place in the world for normal men and acts as something that soothes and stops them from foolish action. On the other hand, the Underground Man views it as a divergence from truth and freewill and instead of representing the consolation and impossibility that it represents for the normal man, he himself rails against it (“Good Lord, what do I care about the laws of nature and arithmetic when for some reason I dislike all these laws and I dislike the fact that two times two makes four?” (Dostoevsky, p.10)). By attacking the stone wall of reason in a literary manner, he asks us to question reason and our own thinking, to not allow the fashions of the time deflect our search for truth and freedom.

3. What does the Underground Man’s language and behavior (his total response) reveal about his struggle to live a moral life in the face of deterministic understandings of reality?

The Underground Man’s response to the norms of his day reveals a rather nihilistic belief that life has little meaning past the suffering and slavery inherent in human existence. This is due to a large degree to the deterministic claims of modern science and philosophy that posits that everything, including man, is predetermined and therefore is bound to certain laws and can only act in certain ways. The problem with a hard deterministic viewpoint is that it argues against the concept of free will. The implications that not only life but man is predetermined ultimately raises questions about whether moral worth and responsibility can exist without free will. Thus, the only that that science has to tell the Underground Man is that the world is determined and that humans are no longer answerable for their actions (“Consequently, we need only discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have to answer for his own actions and will find it extremely easy to live…in which everything will be accurately calculated and specified so that there’ll be no more actions or adventures left on earth.” (Dostoevsky, p.18)). The fatalism that human will can be relegated to that of a “piano key” or “organ stop” is a common trend through the Underground Man’s measured ruminations that essentially causes the narrator to express a sense of mistreatment by these insufferable “laws”; laws that “you really don’t give a damn” about “but as a result of which you’re suffering nonetheless, while nature isn’t” (Dostoevsky, p.11). The fact that our Underground Man clearly believes in determinism as evidenced by his discourse on science, mathematics, and natural laws and yet rails against it at the same time ultimately leaves him in a state of inertia, unable to rationalize living a moral live nor take any responsibility for his actions (“Not only couldn’t I become spiteful, I couldn’t become anything at all: neither spiteful nor good, neither scoundrel nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect. Now I live out my days in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and entirely useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot seriously become anything and that only a fool can become something” (Dostoevsky, p.4).

4. How important is free will (‘advantageous advantage’) to the Underground Man?

According to the Underground Man, free will is in direct opposition to reason and the laws of nature and in fact, threatens it (“This advantage is remarkable precisely because it destroys all our classifications and constantly demolishes all systems devised by lovers of humanity for the happiness of mankind” (Dostoevsky, p.16). In a world ruled by the laws of nature, science, and reason, the Underground Man raises the question of how free will can exist within the confines of predetermined laws and rules of fact such as science or mathematics. His discussion on how the mathematics of two times two equals four will always be true regardless of how humans feel about it shows how free will and choice cannot exist within the confines of such strict logic and, in fact, the choice inherent in “two times two makes five” is what makes it such a “charming little thing” (Dostoevsky, p.24). Subsequently, the Underground Man argues that man is willing to suffer and abandon reason all together for the sake of their own desires and free will (“People knowingly, that is, possessing full knowledge of their own true interests, have relegated them to the background…and so they stubbornly, willfully forged another way, a difficult and assured one, searching for it almost in the darkness”(Dostoevsky, p.15).

The Underground Man himself gives a practical example of this abandonment of reason in a description of his own behavior. Talking about how his liver is diseased and how he won’t see a doctor out of spite, he states “I know perfectly well that I can’t possibly ‘get even’ with doctors by refusing their treatment; I know better than anyone that all this is going to hurt me alone, and no one else. Even so, if I refuse to be treated, it’s out of spite” (Dostoevsky, p.3). Ultimately bound by the laws of nature and the powerlessness inherent in his suffering, against all reason he chooses to suffer out of spite as an exercise of his free will. While the decision is obviously irrational, it is still a decision of his conscious and free will and represents his choice. This “advantageous advantage” for the Underground Man is what makes him human and not just a “mouse,” piano key, or organ stop. This irrationality of his behavior, of “two times two equals five” represents the concept that freedom and living cannot be separated and that slavery to rational laws such as “two times two equals four” can only ever lead to the death of one’s spirit.

5. What is the Crystal Palace? What kind of utopia is it? And what does the Underground Man’s response to it reveal about its influence on human persons and human community?

The crystal palace is the ultimate symbol of rationality, reason, and scientific progress. It represents the culmination of rational thought and behavior; an “eternally indestructible” ideal that creates a palace of reasoning where man has mastered his opposing desires and has learned how to “act in accordance with the dictates of reason and science” (Dostoevsky, p.17). It is a place where old, bad habits have been discarded and “common sense” and “science have completely reeducated human nature and turned it in the proper direction” (Dostoevsky, p.17). To the Underground Man, this crystal palace represents a deterministic ideal, “one at which you can never stick your tongue furtively nor make a rude gesture, even with your fist hidden away” (Dostoevsky, p.25) as doing so represents everything that the crystal palace looks to eradicate in human nature by scientifically removing man’s guaranteed “whims.” Essentially, the Underground Man shows us that while this may be an alluring ideal, it is, in fact, a dangerous one. As a general representative of “normal man,” he holds the idea that reason and the laws of nature are an inevitability of living and yet tears this inevitability down as the antithesis of free will. Thus, his response reveals the contradictory nature of humans to act against their rational nature and pursue “chaos and destruction” in an unreasonable display of their “whims” and desires and that quite frequently, what any individual human might desire may be incompatible with the fashions of one’s generation.

Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground depicts a man who is deeply rooted in a lifestyle of pessimism and bitterness. He is highly governed by his own taxing philosophies. The Underground Man lives by the precedent of his own conceptions on how life should be lived. His understanding of the way people should interact socially and how individuals should be engaged emotionally has been thought through intensively. He is highly contradictory in his rationalization of his own practices, but appears to rather scorn in his own self-pity. The Underground Man has a tendency for feeling sorry for himself and rather than take part in society naturally, he forcibly places himself in encounters that will play to his mental demise. So this leaves me with an array of intriguing questions for my audience, suppose the Underground Man realized that there is no ‘stone wall’ or obstacle. What would he do, and why? And why was he such a spiteful man brimming with pride and a superior sense to dominate?

The Underground Man presents a captivating blend on the archetypal argument between fate and freewill. Fate does not involve delightful will, but a man who has free will, is indebted to the laws of mathematics and science. As we are aware, two plus two equals four which is a fact no matter what. One cannot ever change the immutable laws of nature, like gravity or mathematics, but one can rage against them, and in doing so, evolve to the highest heights of one’s capabilities. A historical example of defying the odds would be the Wright Brothers. Forseeing the laws of gravity which hold people to the Earth did not help the Wright brothers in flying over the Earth, rather, raging against this law of nature through bravery and modernization was the reason for their success. For one’s life to have meaning and validity, actions must be understood as non-robotic; an answer to this question must not only be unknown, but more importantly, undecided. He then goes on to say that “consciousness, for example, is infinitely higher than two times two.” As we continue to read, the underground man’s consciousness which desires to rid itself from the notion of acceptance produces an ironic situation. As readers, we understand through words and upcoming chapters, his story has already been decided. The underground man can not make conscious decisions because they have already been made for him. The underground man is crafted solely from the author’s experience. This announcement marks the shift from part one of the book to part two. In part two the underground man writes about his past (20 years ago) as an experiment designed to gain understanding about his true nature and the logic that governs it. His hope is to realize where his path took a wrong turn and what, if anything, can be learned from it.

The underground man continually is questioning how free will is applicable with such laws. In this regard, the underground man asserts that the only means in which a person can achieve free will is through hitting his skull against a stonewall. (Which is in no ways suggested). A man can change the laws of nature to be free if he tries. If an individual functions with respect to the natural laws or reason, it is possible to predict all that a human would ever do or think. As a result, a man operates against nature laws and reason to demonstrate his free will. From the perspective of the Underground man, a person’s will is to destroy, leave reason, and suffer for being free. If a man realizes that there is no stone wall, life would be good as he would not destroy or suffer from trying to change the nature’s law or reason. Apparently, a stone wall obstructs the direct actions of human beings, but in this case, man hates the effects radiating from the stone wall. If the stone wall that the laws of nature, was not there, the underground man would fulfill all his desires because he would not be bound to natural laws. This stone wall represents so much I think to not only the Underground man but to every individual in our society. This is seen as a plateau, a roadblock that we will undoubtedly be faced with multiple times in our life but in order to reach the next level we must surpass and conquer the feat. The “stone wall” is a threat or a broken man’s promise in order to see the dedication we possess and the free will that will come from the situation. As this text reaches a more profound meaning we see that the Underground Man is plagued by the proponents of a society which thrives on reason and rationality. The idea that behind every question and thought there lies a calculated and precise answer that is highly valued in the face of civilization.

As we advertised above, we see that there is one definitive principal theme that stands superior amongst its peers. That theme being Spite. In the very first paragraph we see a quote from Dostoevsky “I am a sick man, I am a spiteful man, I’m an unattractive man. I think there is something wrong with my liver.” Stating a few lines down that if he refuses to consult a doctor it is purely out of spite. We see him as a man who is mentally and physically sick because he can not conform the ideas currently popular in his society. This again points to the Underground Man’s theory of man’s contradictory nature, a nature which prevents him from fitting into the scientific mold which the rationalists have fashioned for him. With the Underground Man being as spiteful as he has demonstrated it poses the question where “Is it really possible to convince your mind/body to not feel pain and make a miserable experience and enjoyable one?” As the text goes on it relates a man’s moan to pain and the metaphysical implications. He almost goes on to suggest that the moans protest the futility of pain. The simple minded man as he states would simply accept pain for what it’s worth and go on living that way as a normal part of life but a man with a higher intellect and a stronger sense of consciousness takes the time and searches for answers and reasoning on where the purpose of the pain is coming from. The moans are almost trying to shed light and figure out a way to cope with the pain and suffering. Spite has allowed the Underground Man a false sense of self, an overwhelming bravado, an arrogant approach to life which has negatively affected the people surrounding him. As a side effect of the enlightened mindset of society, Underground Man develops a level of consciousness in which his pride and spiteful ways directly leads to his break with Liza and the consequences that stem from that break. We see this precedent distinctively when the underground man is asked to join for dinner. The Underground man decides to combat that social institution of attending the event only when asked by the other guests in order to arrive at the end for his own sadistic inclination. Accordingly, he imagines duels and arguments as the only way he can participate in the social world. He has shown us time and time throughout the context of this story that he is incapable of having one on one meaningful conversations, unless it is abusive, rudely sarcastic, or completely pointless. There is no substance to the Underground man.

With my stance being firm in the ground a counterargument does offer itself a validity of points. While the Underground man can be perceived as a dark person by the majority of his audience, he also has shown us how to feel pity for him. This man has allowed his audience to feel mixed emotions and an array of thoughts as a reader, he comes with no identity, no name, basically someone who is alienated from society. The Underground man can be seen as a very thoughtful person, he is far from the societal “norm” but this is only because he has been preserved and inexperienced. Do we feel bad for the Underground man because he was never given a fair chance to thrive? Him being unaware how to act due to his alienation from society and therefore his difficulties become surfaced. Although this all may be true, I feel no pity for this man. As I had previously stated above, human beings during the course of our life experience individual hardships and carry burdens which tend to cause setbacks and people become unaware of how detrimental that can be on a day to day basis. Many of us, especially in this day and age, are surface creatures and have very little intellectual understanding of someone’s emotional mindset. We see his domination tactics in many scenarios most specifically after he retired from his civil service job. It is indeed his job which makes him feel as if he has power and gives him the joy of dominating. He thrives off of humiliation as he mentions, “When petitioners came up to my desk for information, I snarled at them and felt indescribably happy whenever I managed to make one of them feel miserable..” Humiliating is what gives the underground man happiness, this is his duty in his opinion to earn this sense of power and gratification. The underground man will forever present a mystery for his readers and give us mixed emotions on how to resonate towards his antics, but maybe that is because we all have the underground man’s characteristics living in us.

The Underground Man and Meursault share the goal of ensuring that they lead authentic lives, lives free from the expectations and confines of society and themselves. However, each undergo a different process to reach this objective. The Underground Man believed he would achieve his authentic self by rebelling against the deterministic laws of nature. That is, he believed that meaningful existence would be created by intentionally going against the general assumption that humans do what is most advantageous to them. Instead of complying with the “law” of rational determinism, he intentionally chose actions that were painful or irrational. By doing this he demonstrated his free will which allowed him to take such actions. One example of this behaviour is when a group of his friends from his schooldays throw a farewell party for Zverkov, a friend in the group.

The Underground Man decides to demonstrate his free will by forcing himself into the affair, knowing the definite awkwardness it would cause. He explains, “I’d go on purpose. The more tactless, the more indecent it was for me to go, the more certain I’d be to do it” (Dostoyevsky 46). At the party he upsets all his friends, deeply offending them and causing himself mental anguish as he was exiled from the group. He knows that the longer he stayed, the worse the situation got, and the deeper it burned itself into his memory, yet he still refused to leave. Revealing his torment, he exclaimed “These [are the] filthiest, most absurd, and horrendous moments of my entire life. It was impossible to humiliate myself more shamelessly or more willingly” (Dostoyevsky 55). While the Underground Man tries to live authentically through railing against determinism, Meursault refuses to conform to the societal expectations of his behaviour. In almost every situation he responds in a way which shocks and disgusts those around him. He does not cry upon receiving the news of his mother’s death, nor show any grief at her funeral, pursuing pleasurable and sexual activities the very next day. Furthermore, he is not upset when he overhears his neighbour beating his mistress, and he shows no remorse after killing someone. He staunchly refuses to fit within society’s confines because it meant that he couldn’t be his authentic self.

Being his authentic self also meant that he could not tell any form of untruth. Even in his trial, Meursault refuses to lie even when he knows it would keep him from being convicted. Both Meursault and the Underground Man experience this aloneness, this distance from society, as a consequence of pursuing self-authentication. The titles themselves of the two works alert the reader to the intrinsic nature of alienation to the protagonists experiences. Camus entitles his novel L’Étranger, a term which is incredibly difficult to accurately translate into English. In the French dictionary Le Petit Robert the definition of “‘étranger” is a “person whose personality is not that of a given country; a person who does not belong, or is considered not to belong to a family or clan; a person with whom one as nothing in common”. These last two meanings are notably applicable to Meursault, who definitely does not belong in society and is therefore alienated and rejected. On the reasons for this alienation however, there is no consensus. In his extended essay, “An Explication of The Stranger”, Jean-Paul Sarte says that Meursault is “one of those terrible innocents who shocks society by not accepting the rules of its game”. Albert Maquet also sees society as a game governed by strict rules that we must all follow. He interprets Meursault’s alienation as stemming from this refusal to support society’s constructs, saying “Society condemns… this kinda of monster who refuse with unequaled firmness to enter into the game of their illusions, lies, and hypocrisies. Society wants a reassuring attitude from him and he does nothing but denounce, by his tranquil stubbornness in speaking the truth, the real and miserable aspect of man’s fate”.