... what one must do
... search Dostoevsky notes from underground ...
Dostoevsky Notes Underground
"Notes from Underground" is a novella by Fyodor Dostoevsky first published in 1864. It is a first-person narrative in the form of a "confession" and is considered one of Dostoevsky's most revolutionary works, marking the dividing line between 19thand 20th-century fiction and the visions of self each century embodied. The novella presents itself as an excerpt from the memoirs of a bitter, isolated unnamed narrator, generally referred to as the Underground Man, who is a retired civil servant living in St. Petersburg. The work was originally announced by Dostoevsky in the journal Epoch under the title "A Confession". The Underground Man's narrative is acutely dialogized, and according to Mikhail Bakhtin, it is a highly influential work in literature. The novella is known for its critique of a popular Marxist idea at the time, specifically Rational Egoism championed by Nikolai Chernyshevsky, which suggested that a Socialist Utopia could be created by everyone following their true self-interest. The book is often described as challenging and difficult to read, as the narrator is arrogant, misanthropic, obnoxious, rude, pathetic, and (frankly), egotistical. At the same time, many readers find themselves relating to the narrator's capriciousness, social awkwardness, anxiety, and disillusionment with the world. The novella is divided into two parts. The first part consists of a bitter rambling of the Underground Man who criticizes Petersburg society and civilization, and even the laws of nature, suggesting that these concepts dictate human action and behavior The second part includes a more narrative-driven storyline, though it is still deeply philosophical and introspective. Dostoevsky's existentialist views are prominently expressed in the novella, emphasizing the irrational nature of humans and the importance of independent choice and will The Underground Man's character is often seen as a warning against modernity and the forsaking of traditional values, as well as a critique of isolation and over-analyzing.
... its premise resembles Stendhal's memoirs of an egotist ...
Both Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Notes from Underground" and Stendhal's "Memoirs of an Egotist" are significant works that delve into the inner lives and psychological states of their respective narrators. However, they differ in their approach, style, and the broader contexts in which they were written. "Notes from Underground" is a novella that is divided into two parts. The first part is a monologue by the unnamed narrator, who is often referred to as the Underground Man, reflecting on his life and the absurdities of human nature. The second part is a narrative of specific events that illustrate the themes discussed in the first part. The Underground Man is a bitter, isolated, and highly intelligent individual who critiques society and the rationalist ideas of his time. He is deeply cynical and often contradictory, which makes him a complex and compelling character. The novella explores themes of alienation, the absurdity of human existence, the conflict between reason and emotion, and the struggle for individuality in a conformist society. Dostoevsky uses the Underground Man to critique the optimistic and deterministic views of the Enlightenment and the emerging socialist ideas of his time. The writing is intense, passionate, and often sarcastic. The Underground Man's monologue is a stream of consciousness that reveals his inner turmoil and philosophical musings. "Memoirs of an Egotist" is an autobiographical work that Stendhal wrote in 13 days in June and July 1832. It is a fragmented and candid account of his life in Paris and London from 1821 to 1830. The memoir is not a linear narrative but a series of impressions and reflections. Stendhal, writing under his own name, is the narrator. He is known for his acute psychological insights and his ability to self-analyze. The memoir is characterized by its honesty and self-deprecating humor, as Stendhal does not shy away from describing his failures and humiliations. The memoir explores themes of personal identity, the nature of love and relationships, and the challenges of navigating social and literary circles. Stendhal's reflections on his own life and the people he encountered provide a vivid picture of Parisian society in the early 19th century. The writing is witty, insightful, and often lyrical. Stendhal's prose is marked by its clarity and directness, and he frequently engages in self-criticism and self-reflection. Both works are psychologically personal in their candor, while the personalities of the narrators differ significantly. The Underground Man is a tortured, isolated figure who is often at odds with society, while Stendhal is a more self-aware and self-critical individual who is actively engaged in the world around him. Both authors are known for their psychological acumen, but Dostoevsky's focus is on the internal conflicts and contradictions of the human mind, while Stendhal's is on the interplay between personal experience and social context. "Notes from Underground" is a scathing critique of the rationalist and utopian ideals of the time, while "Memoirs of an Egotist" offers a more nuanced and personal reflection on the social and cultural milieu of early 19th-century Paris. Both works have had a significant impact on literature. "Notes from Underground" is often seen as a precursor to existentialist and absurdist literature, while "Memoirs of an Egotist" is considered a pioneering work in the genre of modern autobiography. While both "Notes from Underground" and "Memoirs of an Egotist" are profound explorations of the human condition, they differ in their narrative style, thematic focus, and the broader historical and cultural contexts in which they were written. Dostoevsky's work is a more intense and philosophical critique, while Stendhal's is a more personal and reflective memoir.
... was Dostoevsky aware of the writings of Stendhal ...
Fyodor Dostoevsky, a prominent Russian writer, was probably aware of Stendhal's writings, though the extent of Stendhal's direct influence on Dostoevsky's portrayal of radical egotism is not explicitly detailed in the provided context. However, both authors explored complex psychological and philosophical themes in their works, which often involved characters with strong, sometimes radical, egotistical traits. Dostoevsky's characters, such as Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment and the protagonist in The Double, exhibit profound inner conflicts and a deep sense of self, which can be seen as a form of radical egotism. These characters are often driven by their own internal philosophies and moral dilemmas, leading to dramatic and sometimes tragic outcomes. Dostoevsky's exploration of the human psyche, particularly the darker aspects of human nature, aligns with Stendhal's own interest in the inner lives of his characters, as seen in works like Memoirs of an Egotist and The Red and the Black. In contrast, while Stendhal's Memoirs of an Egotist provides a witty and introspective look at his life as a Parisian bon vivant, Dostoevsky's characters often grapple with more existential and moral questions. The influence of Stendhal's psychological depth and focus on individual consciousness may have resonated with Dostoevsky, contributing to his own portrayal of radical egotism in his characters. However, Dostoevsky's works are deeply rooted in his own experiences and the sociopolitical context of 19th-century Russia, which adds a unique dimension to his portrayal of such characters.
... expand on Dostoevsky's concept of the underground man ...
Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground is a profound critique of the radical egoism and utopian ideals of his time. The novella, published in 1864, is a first-person narrative by an unnamed narrator, often referred to as the Underground Man, who is a bitter, isolated, and highly conscious individual living in St. Petersburg. The Underground Man's monologue is a scathing attack on the rational egoism and utopian socialism that were gaining traction among Russian intellectuals in the mid-19th century. The novella is a direct response to Nikolai Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done?, which promoted the idea of rational egoism. Chernyshevsky argued that individuals, when properly educated and rational, would act in their own best interests, which would naturally align with the common good. This philosophy posited that a utopian society could be achieved through the application of reason and scientific principles. Dostoevsky's Underground Man is a stark contrast to Chernyshevsky's idealized egoists. He is a deeply flawed, morally repugnant, and psychologically complex individual who embodies the darker aspects of human nature. The Underground Man's narrative is a series of confessions and rants that challenge the notion that humans can be reduced to rational actors. The Underground Man emphasizes the importance of free will and the human desire to act contrary to reason. He argues that the ability to choose, even if it leads to irrational or self-destructive behavior, is a fundamental aspect of human nature. This theme is evident in his refusal to seek medical help for his ailments, despite knowing that it would be in his best interest to do so. The Underground Man is acutely aware of his own consciousness, which he sees as both a blessing and a curse. His heightened awareness leads to intense suffering and a sense of isolation. He describes himself as a "sick man" and a "spiteful man," highlighting the psychological toll of his conscious existence. Dostoevsky uses the Underground Man to critique the utopian ideals of his time. The Underground Man argues that a society based solely on reason and scientific principles would remove the element of free will, leading to a form of totalitarianism. He suggests that the desire for freedom and the ability to make choices, even if they are irrational, is essential for human happiness. The Underground Man is deeply alienated from society, which he sees as corrupt and superficial. His interactions with former schoolmates and a prostitute named Liza highlight his inability to form meaningful connections with others. These encounters are marked by his own self-destructive tendencies and his inability to escape his own consciousness. Dostoevsky's portrayal of the Underground Man is a masterclass in psychological depth. The narrator's inner monologue reveals a complex and contradictory personality, oscillating between moments of self-loathing and grandiosity. This psychological complexity makes the Underground Man a compelling and tragic figure. Notes from Underground is often considered one of the first existentialist works. The Underground Man's struggle with free will, consciousness, and the meaning of life foreshadows the themes that would later be explored by existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche. Dostoevsky's work emphasizes the importance of individual choice and the inherent absurdity of human existence. Notes from Underground is a powerful and complex work that challenges the prevailing ideologies of Dostoevsky's time. Through the character of the Underground Man, Dostoevsky explores the dark and complex aspects of human nature, questioning the assumptions of rational egoism and utopian socialism. The novella remains a relevant and thought-provoking read, offering insights into the human condition and the dangers of reducing human behavior to simple formulas.
... the title of Nikolai Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done was used by writers afterwards including lenin if I am not mistaken ...
The title "What Is to Be Done?" has been used by several writers, most notably by Vladimir Lenin, who borrowed it for his influential political pamphlet:
● Nikolai Chernyshevsky is a Russian revolutionary and philosopher. Nikolai Chernyshevsky's "What Is to Be Done?" was published in 1863. The novel was a significant piece of literature during the Russian revolutionary movement. The novel tells the story of several characters, including the protagonist, Rakhmetov, who is a model of the "new man" of the future. Rakhmetov is a radical who dedicates his life to the cause of the revolution and lives a life of asceticism and self-sacrifice. The book promotes the idea of rational egoism, suggesting that individuals, when properly educated, will act in their own best interests, which will naturally align with the common good. It also advocates for a utopian socialist society where scientific principles and rationality would lead to a better world. "What Is to Be Done?" was extremely influential among Russian radicals and revolutionaries of the time. It provided a blueprint for the ideal revolutionary and inspired many to take up the cause of social and political change.
● Vladimir Lenin is a Marxist revolutionary and the leader of the Bolshevik Party. Vladimir Lenin's "What Is to Be Done?" was published in 1902. Lenin's pamphlet was a key text in the development of the Bolshevik Party and the Russian Revolution. Lenin's work was a response to the debates within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) about the role of the working class and the need for a professional revolutionary organization. Lenin argued for the need for a centralized, disciplined party of professional revolutionaries to lead the working class to revolution. He criticized the idea that the working class could achieve revolutionary consciousness spontaneously without the guidance of a vanguard party. Lenin emphasized the importance of a small, dedicated group of revolutionaries who could organize and lead the masses. "What Is to Be Done?" became a foundational text for Leninism and the Bolshevik Party. It laid the groundwork for the organizational structure and strategy that would eventually lead to the Russian Revolution of 1917.
To summarize, both writers used the title "What Is to Be Done?" to pose a critical question about the path forward for social and political change. Chernyshevsky's novel was a call to action for the Russian revolutionary movement, while Lenin's pamphlet was a strategic guide for the Bolshevik Party. Chernyshevsky's work is rooted in the philosophical and literary traditions of the 19th century, emphasizing rational egoism and utopian socialism. Lenin's work is grounded in Marxist theory and the practical needs of organizing a revolutionary party. Chernyshevsky's novel was aimed at a broader audience of intellectuals and radicals, while Lenin's pamphlet was directed at the members of the RSDLP and the broader socialist movement. Chernyshevsky's ideas influenced the development of Russian populism and the early socialist movements in Russia. Lenin's ideas are the cornerstone of Leninism and the Bolshevik approach to revolution, shaping the course of the Russian Revolution and the subsequent establishment of the Soviet Union. The title "What Is to Be Done?" has been used by both Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Vladimir Lenin to address critical questions about the path to social and political change. While the contexts and contents of their works differ, both texts played significant roles in shaping the ideological and practical aspects of revolutionary movements in Russia.
... can Lenin himself be characterized as a rational egoist of the Rakhmetov type ...
Vladimir Lenin, while influenced by the revolutionary ideals and the ascetic dedication of characters like Rakhmetov from Nikolai Chernyshevsky's "What Is to Be Done?", cannot be fully characterized as a rational egoist of the Rakhmetov type. The following details may help clarify the similarities and differences:
● Nikolai Chernyshevsky's fictional Rakhmetov is known for his extreme asceticism. He denies himself all personal comforts and pleasures to focus entirely on the revolutionary cause. Rakhmetov's actions are driven by a rational calculation that his self-sacrifice will benefit the greater good. He believes that by living a life of self-denial, he can become a more effective revolutionary. Rakhmetov is deeply idealistic, envisioning a utopian future where rationality and scientific principles will lead to a better society. Despite his dedication, Rakhmetov is somewhat isolated from the broader society, focusing almost solely on his revolutionary goals.
● Vladimir Lenin is important historically as a highly strategic thinker who emphasized the importance of a disciplined, centralized party to lead the revolution. He believed that a small, professional group of revolutionaries (the vanguard) was necessary to guide the working class to revolution. Lenin was pragmatic and flexible in his approach. While he had a clear vision of a socialist society, he was willing to adapt his tactics to the changing political landscape. This pragmatism is evident in his shift from the New Economic Policy (NEP) to the more radical policies of the early Soviet state. Unlike Rakhmetov, Lenin was a prominent leader and organizer. He played a central role in the Bolshevik Party and the Russian Revolution, actively engaging with other revolutionaries and the broader working class. Lenin was known for his organizational skills and his ability to build and maintain a cohesive party structure. He emphasized the importance of a centralized party hierarchy and strict discipline among its members. While Lenin was a committed Marxist, his interpretation of Marxism was flexible and pragmatic. He was willing to adjust his ideas to fit the practical needs of the revolutionary movement.
Both Rakhmetov and Lenin were deeply dedicated to the revolutionary cause. They were willing to make significant personal sacrifices to achieve their goals. Both figures used rational thinking to guide their actions. Rakhmetov's self-sacrifice was a rational choice for the greater good, while Lenin's strategic decisions were based on a rational assessment of the political situation. Rakhmetov took asceticism to an extreme, denying himself almost all personal comforts. Lenin, while dedicated, did not practice such extreme asceticism. He was more focused on the practical aspects of revolution and leadership. Rakhmetov is more of an isolated figure, while Lenin was a central figure in the Bolshevik Party and the broader revolutionary movement. Lenin engaged actively with other revolutionaries and the working class. Lenin's approach was more pragmatic and flexible, while Rakhmetov's was more idealistic and rigid. Lenin was willing to adapt his tactics to achieve his goals, whereas Rakhmetov's actions were guided by a fixed, idealistic vision. Lenin was a leader and organizer, while Rakhmetov was more of a solitary figure. Lenin's leadership involved building and maintaining a strong, centralized party, whereas Rakhmetov's focus was on personal self-sacrifice. Thus, while there are some similarities between Lenin and Rakhmetov, particularly in their dedication to the revolutionary cause and their use of rational thinking, Lenin cannot be fully characterized as a rational egoist of the Rakhmetov type. Lenin's approach was more pragmatic, flexible, and focused on leadership and organization, while Rakhmetov's was more idealistic, isolated, and ascetic. Lenin's influence and legacy are deeply rooted in his strategic and organizational skills, which set him apart from the more solitary and idealistic Rakhmetov.
... briefly Rakhmetov is the irrational type of egotist as Lenin is the rational type of egotist ...
Your observation that Rakhmetov can be seen as the irrational type of egotist and Lenin as the rational type of egotist is insightful and highlights the different approaches to egoism and revolution that these two figures represent. Rakhmetov denies himself all personal comforts and pleasures, living a life of extreme self-denial. This asceticism is driven by his belief that it will make him a more effective revolutionary. While Rakhmetov's actions are driven by a desire to benefit the greater good, his methods often seem irrational and self-destructive. His extreme asceticism and willingness to endure physical and emotional pain can be seen as a form of irrationality. Rakhmetov is isolated from the broader society, focusing almost solely on his revolutionary goals. His isolation and single-minded focus on the cause can be seen as a form of irrationality, as it leads to a lack of balance and perspective. Rakhmetov is deeply idealistic, envisioning a utopian future where rationality and scientific principles will lead to a better society. His idealism can sometimes lead him to overlook practical realities and the complexities of human nature. Lenin was a highly strategic thinker who emphasized the importance of a disciplined, centralized party to lead the revolution. His actions were driven by a rational calculation of what would be most effective in achieving his goals. Lenin was pragmatic and flexible in his approach. While he had a clear vision of a socialist society, he was willing to adapt his tactics to the changing political landscape. This pragmatism is evident in his shift from the New Economic Policy (NEP) to more radical policies. Lenin was a prominent leader and organizer. He played a central role in the Bolshevik Party and the Russian Revolution, actively engaging with other revolutionaries and the broader working class. His focus on building and maintaining a cohesive party structure demonstrates a rational approach to achieving his goals. While Lenin was a committed Marxist, his interpretation of Marxism was flexible and pragmatic. He was willing to adjust his ideas to fit the practical needs of the revolutionary movement, which is a hallmark of rational egoism. Rakhmetov's actions, while driven by a noble cause, often seem irrational and self-destructive. His extreme asceticism and isolation can be seen as a form of irrationality, as they lead to a lack of balance and practicality. Lenin's actions are driven by a rational calculation of what will be most effective in achieving his goals. His strategic thinking, pragmatism, and organizational skills demonstrate a rational approach to revolution. Rakhmetov's egoism is irrational in the sense that it leads him to self-destructive behavior. His extreme self-sacrifice and isolation can be seen as a form of egoism that is not sustainable or practical. Lenin's egoism is rational in the sense that it is guided by a clear, strategic vision. His actions are calculated to achieve the greatest benefit for the revolutionary cause, and he is willing to adapt and change tactics as needed. Rakhmetov is more of an isolated figure, focusing almost solely on his personal revolutionary goals. His lack of engagement with broader society and other revolutionaries can be seen as a form of irrational egoism. Lenin is a central figure in the revolutionary movement, actively engaging with other revolutionaries and the working class. His leadership and organizational skills demonstrate a rational approach to achieving his goals. Rakhmetov and Lenin, therefore, represent two different types of egoism in the context of revolution. Rakhmetov's irrational egoism is characterized by extreme self-sacrifice, isolation, and a lack of practicality, while Lenin's rational egoism is marked by strategic thinking, pragmatism, and effective leadership. Both figures are driven by a deep commitment to the revolutionary cause, but their methods and approaches to achieving their goals differ significantly. This comparison highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of egoism and its role in revolutionary movements.
... the phrase "what is to be done" implies uncertainty doubt and hand-wringing neurotic inability to make decisions ...
The phrase "What Is to Be Done?" does give a sense of uncertainty and doubt, which can be interpreted in various ways depending on the context. Your interpretation of it as suggesting a "hand-wringing" inability to make decisions is insightful and aligns with critical aspects on both Nikolai Chernyshevsky's and Vladimir Lenin's works, though the implications differ in each case. Nikolai Chernyshevsky's title "What Is to Be Done?" reflects the intellectual and moral struggle of the characters in the novel. They are grappling with the question of how to bring about social and political change in a society they see as corrupt and oppressive. The characters, including Rakhmetov, are often torn between their ideals and the practical realities of their lives. This internal conflict can be seen as a form of uncertainty and doubt. While Rakhmetov is portrayed as a model of self-sacrifice and dedication, his extreme asceticism and single-minded focus on the revolution can be seen as a form of neurotic behavior. His inability to engage with the broader world and his extreme self-denial suggest a deep-seated uncertainty and doubt about his own humanity and the feasibility of his ideals. Despite the sense of uncertainty, the title also serves as a call to action. Chernyshevsky is asking his readers to consider what steps they should take to achieve a better society. The novel provides a blueprint for the "new man" who can lead the revolution, suggesting that while the path is uncertain, it is necessary to take action. Vladimir Lenin's "What Is to Be Done?" addresses the nonfictional uncertainties and debates within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) about the role of the working class and the need for a professional revolutionary organization. The title reflects the need to resolve these uncertainties and provide a clear direction. While Lenin is generally seen as a decisive and pragmatic leader, the title can be interpreted as acknowledging the internal doubts and debates within the revolutionary movement. The pamphlet itself is a response to these uncertainties, providing a clear and rational strategy for moving forward. Lenin's use of the title is a call to action, urging the revolutionary movement to adopt a more centralized and disciplined approach. He argues that the working class cannot achieve revolutionary consciousness spontaneously and that a vanguard party is necessary to guide them. The pamphlet provides a clear strategy for building such a party, addressing the uncertainties and doubts with a rational and practical plan. Rakhmetov's extreme asceticism and isolation can be seen as a form of neurotic behavior. His inability to engage with the broader world and his extreme self-denial suggest a deep-seated uncertainty and doubt about his own humanity and the feasibility of his ideals. The characters in Chernyshevsky's novel are often torn between their ideals and the practical realities of their lives, reflecting a sense of uncertainty and doubt. Lenin's approach is more pragmatic and strategic. While he acknowledges the uncertainties and debates within the revolutionary movement, he provides a clear and rational strategy for moving forward. Lenin's emphasis on a centralized, disciplined party of professional revolutionaries is a response to the uncertainties and doubts within the movement. His approach is rational and practical, aimed at providing a clear direction for the revolution. The phrase "What Is to Be Done?" suggests a sense of uncertainty and doubt, which can be interpreted as a "hand-wringing neurotic" inability to make decisions, in both Chernyshevsky's and Lenin's works, the title is an effective call to action, urging readers - and revolutionaries - to grapple with these uncertainties and take decisive steps towards practical goals. Where they differ is in Rakhmetov's neurotic behavior and extreme self-denial, symptomatic of irrational egoism, Lenin's strategic and pragmatic approach embodies a rational egoism that seeks to overcome uncertainty, doubt, and provide clear direction.