Here, we see that the author feels as though logic and ability has led to much destruction. On a separate note, I think this quote shows how the underground man is an outlet for which Dostoevsky can express his sometimes dark beliefs without accrediting all the blame to his own opinion. It's almost as though the he hides behind the underground man, relating deeply to this character he created.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Continuation of the Discussion on Friday/Dostoyevsky
During the long period last week, we discussed many philosophical things, including the role of logic in separating us from animals. In a book I'm reading, the author cites a moment in The Brothers Karamazov where Dostoyevsky reveals his viewpoint on this topic. He states: "Love the animals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and joy untroubled. Do not trouble it, don't harass them, don't deprive them of their happiness, don't work against God's intent. Man, do not pride yourself on superiority to the animals; they are without sin, and you, with your greatness, defile the Earth by your appearance on it, and leave the traces of our foulness after you - alas, it is true of almost every one of us!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I love the quote you bring up, and I think its really interesting how you bring up that the Underground Man may just be an outlet for Destoyevsky to let out some of his darker thought. The line between the opinion of the Underground Man and the opinion of Destoyevsky is very shaky, and as a reader without a deep knowledge of the background of Destoyevsky, it is hard to tell when that line is there and when the Author is directly voicing his opinions. I like the idea that this character he made up may be a subconscious way that Destoyevsky lets out opinions that he knows will be controversial, but in a safe way because he can always come back with the argument that what he wrote was of fiction. I feel that this may be an interesting interpretation of the novel and could lead to some interesting conclusions about the author himself.
I think the points both of you bring up are very intriguing. However, I think it's important to remember that Dostoevsky is using Underground Man to satirize many aspects of modern society (including rationalism, utopianism, socialism, the idea that humans can achieve perfection, other ideas from the enlightenment, etc.). Although no one can exactly prove that Dostoevsky wasn't using UM to express some darker ideas, I really don't believe he was. From all that I've read about Dostoevsky, he doesn't really sound that much like UM. Although some of their beliefs seem to match up, I think that on the whole, UM is not supposed to represent Dostoevsky's viewpoints. I think UM is primarily a tool Dostoevsky uses to satirize a multitude of ideas; as we discussed in class, Dostoevsky specifically targets Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done.
As some proof of my point, I think one of UM's major characteristics is in direct opposition to Dostoevsky's fundamental beliefs. UM is a nihilist ("Nihilism is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. More commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value." - via Wikipedia) In stark contrast, Dostoevsky was a Russian Orthodox Christian; his Christian faith is one of the many things that separates him from UM.
I actually think one of things that makes Dostoevsky such a talented and impressive author is his very ability to separate himself from UM, who is a very philosophical and psychologically broken character.
Alana, wow, this is one of the best blog posts I’ve seen! You’re so insightful and I love the connections you created between our discussion and the reading you nobley did on the side. I also think that Dostoevsky uses the Underground man as a cover for his true opinions. It is suggested that he lived his life in a similar manner, with antisocial or nihilistic tendencies.
I can never tell if these are actually Dostokevskys beliefs or not. Y’all mentioned that a lot of his statements are actually the opposite of what he believes and that he is satirizing the social opinions of the time. So does he really believe that animals are just as superior as humans and that we shouldn’t bother them? Or is he ridiculing such rational thinkers? It’s so hard to tell! I think he is trying to just incite the minds of people who might strongly agree or disagree with his statements and get the people of society to start thinking about their actions with a more logical mind. I don’t believe that he truly believes everything he writes or uses certain characters to express his feelings. Some things might just act as like the flame that can ignite the fire in our minds to think about our actions and how they affect our future.
Post a Comment