This is The End

         Personally, I found this book to be interesting enough to be worth the read and, like Luisa said, it would not have been worth it to read it on my own, seeing as I would not have been able to understand most of it, but because we read it as a class, I was able to understand much more about the book. Also, the fact that reading the book entailed a good grade in this class means that it was worth reading just for that, even though Dostoyevsky would argue that trying to get a good grade in this class is absolutely useless, as is almost anything according to Dostoyevsky. After reading this book and discussing the different themes in class, I have thought a little bit more deeply about a couple of things and questioned life a little bit, but only that, I have not been converted into a full time philosopher. I have made some jokes about the book, pondered a few ideas, but I quickly realize that what Dostoyevsky is trying to get at, the uselessness of the pursuit of a wall, is just an extended way of saying that the human pursuit in life is meaningless. I quickly ignored this as not having that nagging thought in the back of my head would allow me to progress and actually succeed in life, as opposed to the philosopher who only ends up asking one question: “do you want fries with that.”

           Now I might be getting a little cynical in the previous paragraph, but that is how I am. Being a man of logic and reason I often scoff in the idea of a philosopher who holds no benefit to society, other than to provide thought experiments, and possibly confuse some people more than actually help them. But that brings me to the next question: What will I remember most? Probably the notion of the wall and the general concept that humans are driving headlong towards an explanation, without any real expectation of what to do when we get there. This idea gives an interesting perspective on life and allows me to have another viewpoint whenever considering something, albeit a viewpoint that is very far from normal logic and will probably have very little effect in the decisions I make. Another thing that I will remember from this book is the concept comparing evolution to religion in that it is just another wall that has been accepted and that it WILL be refuted sometime in the future, yet this just tells me that I do not really care for what is actually right, as long as I have some explanation for the world around me. I do not see that evolution will be disproved by another theory in the near future, but when the moment comes, I hope I am alive so that I may see the social chaos that Dostoyevsky saw with the introduction of evolution. Overall I have enjoyed reading this book, but to be honest, I will not miss these discussions. 

The end

            Today in class I was quite frustrated. Although I was relieved that we finally finished the book, the conversation of dark thoughts came up. It may be valid, and I have no trouble understanding it, but I do not think it ever gets that extreme. There are thought you suppress as a human. It is human nature. But we suppress these ideas because society tells us that we must. If we were cavemen for example, there would be nothing holding us back. No wall. This is what is scary. Now society and its norms are the walls. I am also a very up front and verbal person. If I have a problem I will say it. I think this results in less of those thoughts that I must suppress versus someone who is rather shy and bottles everything up. When things get complicated and frustrating, everything bottled up just blows up. These are not necessarily suppressed thoughts, and they were definitely not in our subconscious.

            Apart from that, I really thought it was worth reading this book. The analysis is the only reason that I understood and although it was a long process, I enjoyed it for the most part. There were some times that I got annoyed with the thoughts that the book was demonstrating, such as religion. This bothered me because there must be faith and the religious quality was ridiculed. This is something that some people truly believe and they do not want to hear something like that. Do we necessarily know it is true? No, Nothing is absolute. That is something that I learned quite well with this novel. The infinite is scary, and I learned also about human nature. There are some contradictions that frustrated me though. He is telling us to accept the answer that there are no answers. This novel really made me stop and think, as well as change the way I view different situations. I can also relate it very closely with my term paper bog book, Zen an the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. There are many similar themes and philosophies. For example, the journey versus the destination conflict is a recurring theme in both novels. I really like the novel for the most part and was able to take in what it has to say. This helped me broaden and define my ideas and beliefs. Thank you.

Final Post

Just to be rebellious and because I can (a decision that I think is very reflective of Notes from the Underground) I am going to start with the last question. You ask “what will you most remember?”. What I will remember won’t be a specific theory that Dostoyevsky presented; instead I think I will remember his how he felt. I had always aspired toward intellectualism (which I now realize sounds very foolish) and Dostoyevsky is the epitome of an intellectual. As we discussed in class, Dostoyevsky’s character analyzes and dissects every side to every argument, decision, and thought that he would encounter. In class we described him as being render inactive for being the most indecisive human being on earth, but I saw him as paralyzed. He talks about how amazing and beautiful free will is and the advantage it is for humanity, and yet for him it is a curse. He lives for nothing other than death because that is the only thing he knows for certain, and I cannot seem to wrap my mind around that, this also leads me to think that it may be easier and happier to be blissfully ignorant than paralyzed and in pain.

I know for me when everyone was analyzing his or her passages from the novel I would frantically be going over the next paragraph because I was so afraid I would be called on next and I would not have anything to say. But I also agree that two (three?) weeks of lecturing would have been rather monotonous. I am being completely sincere when I say having the discussion and hearing the other students analyze the novel gave me the chance to hear other student’s perspectives which at times made it easier to understand and relate to Dostoyevsky’s theories.  But my conclusion on the discussion is that the anxiety of having to speak to the class made it hard to solely concentrate on the discussion and in the end the discussion, for the lack of a better phrase, never found its rhythm.

Lastly my answer to the first question is a slightly stronger than weak yes. I can’t even imagine what I would have been like to read Notes from the Underground when it was first released. If I had been asked “was it worth reading” in 1864 it would have been a very, very strong yes. But 150 years have passed since the novel was released and his theories, though revolutionary at the time, have been repeated and used so many times that it no longer sounds new. But I still feel pretty cool when I tell people that I have read the novel so I think reading Notes from the Underground was worth it.

Notes from Above the Ground (Zane Mandell)

I can honestly say that I have thought long and hard about what to say in the post. I personally believe that some questions should be left unanswered. This sense of mystery gives me the peace of mind that some things can simply not be known. Still, every person with a true consciousness will choose to believe what they believe and accept that is all they need to know. This apparent paradox allows man to function, it allows us to act. I in fact subscribe to both of these ideas just like everyone else. There is in fact a choice in this matter, as the narrator shows one can choose simply observe and not act at all. But if you look at the essence of how we function I believe we must act because there is nothing else to do. I find that there is no point in dwelling on doing nothing. The best way I can explain this is my writing right here; I am currently acting. If I subscribed to the idea of observation then you would not know what I think, simple as that.

Therein lies the dilemma I find with a book such as this one; a true Underground
Man does not act. This cannot be credited to his humanity as he does for his desires to fit in with those he despises. Dostoyevsky leaves this major problem untouched. He tries to answer it through his narrator by expressing a sense of rowdiness where the narrator can no longer hold it all in. Sorry, that just does not cut it. A true Underground Man would not say anything, because it is against everything he believes in, at least that is by my perception of this type of person. The true Underground Man goes underground and stays there, watches, stews, but he never returns, it is against his established nature.

If you’re still reading, waiting for answers to the questions at hand, you are sorely mistaken. While I find this hard to explain I will still try. If there is not reason, if there is not a point, then why is it important to ask ‘was it worth reading’? I will submit and say that discussion has value simply because it is acting as opposed to doing nothing. But what will I remember? The most important question of them all, yes? Ha! Thanks for reading, but that will be all. Now, on to whatever comes next…

Class Discussion: 2/25/14

                After finishing Notes from the Underground and undergoing days of discussion, I do believe that it was worth the read. However, as Luisa mentioned in class, I think it became worth it after the discussions. I did not have a clear understanding of the book immediately after reading it, but it made a lot more sense after the discussions. If we were to have read the book and not had any discussions, then it would not have been worth it to read. I think that everyone has a clearer understanding of the book since we have had discussions in class.

               The thing that I will remember the most from this book is probably the idea of the “most advantageous advantage”. This topic came up many different times throughout the book, and it has made me realize certain things about human nature that I would have otherwise never thought about. For instance, I never did pay much attention to the fact that humans are the only animals that act differently from what is in their own best interest. All other animals live based on rationality and reason, while humans live less scientifically-based and more on their interests.

                Another thing I will probably remember is that humans claim to be superior to all other creatures, yet humanity is the one that decides this. We have this idea in our minds that all animals are below us, due to the idea that we are more intelligent and powerful. While this may be true, it is all a matter of perception. We have absolutely no idea what other animals think; they may feel that they are superior to man for their own reasons. Our humanization of animals is what leads us to believe that we are superior. Humans dictate what is considered better or superior, but there is a far larger scope. This is where the idea of an infinite universe comes into play. On this scale, we are infinitely insignificant.

                Lastly, the idea of the wall is something that will stick with me. I agree that humans like having some sort of barrier that is difficult to break. As we saw in class, the idea of an infinite universe is utterly frustrating; we hate the idea of picturing something that in intangible to us. In our minds, even when trying to imagine something that has no end, we have to picture a barrier and then say to ourselves that it continues. We become frustrated that we are unable to perceive such an idea as an infinite universe.

What am I even "grasping"? I am accepting both sides to an idea (just as Dostoyevsky did)

      Today’s concluding discussion was a bit controversial. Personally, I did not “have trouble grasping” the idea nor did I find any reason to “distract” myself or anybody else from the topic at hand. I completely agree that we, as humans, are all likely affected by the dark thoughts that were discussed in class today. As Carlye argued in her post, I also believe that some people have darker thoughts than others and that everything about the concept is relative. Thinking about this does not scare me in the slightest and I am not trying to hide from it. This is an idea that I have thought about before, specifically last year when I was taking psychology. In my opinion, I do think that we all have these hidden, dark sides that we try to bottle up because if we let them come out for even a second, they can change the rest of our lives. However, I feel that the examples discussed were so extreme that it became difficult to imagine every person being affected by those type of thoughts. Then again, however, I actually accept the fact that we may have a side so dark that we cannot even visualize or accept it until it takes over us (that is…if we ever allow it to). But, prove to me that this is true…you can’t and no one can. Hence, what prevents me from thinking the other way around? Maybe humans do not have a dark side at all. After all, is that not what Dostoyevsky has been telling us since the beginning of the book? We cannot just accept an idea for being true. What makes this idea different from its counterpart and why should I have to accept either of them at all if there is no basis other than human creation? I know the answer to that. Nothing makes it different. We are truly being ignorant if we accept one side of the argument and shun the other after all that Dostoyevsky has taught us.
     On a lighter note, there is no doubt in my mind that the novel was worth reading. Our class discussions were also extremely beneficial in developing a true understanding for the work. Moreover, through my perspective, works like this one and Atlas Shrugged are ones that leave a lasting impression on one’s philosophical thoughts. Today it was mentioned that “everything is worth reading” and I agree…but some things are more worth reading than others and I believe that in my life, this novel and Atlas Shrugged are the two works that have been worth the most to me.

The End

After finishing the novel, I feel relieved and a bit wary. I'm relieved that I finished the book (partly because I now have the ability to tell people that I read a book by Dostoevsky), but I'm also wary of the message it sends. Should I follow Dostoevsky's beliefs by not following anything (holy paradox, Batman!), or just take it as a nutjob's ramblings? Overall, I believe that any side to "the answer" of the meaning of life and what we should do with ourselves is a valid point, and that Dostoevsky's word is better than none. So, I did enjoy reading the book and I do think that it was worth it. As far as the effect it had on me, call me in twenty years.

Dostoevsky attempts to shatter our beliefs in the same way that science (and Darwin) did to religion. It's scary to think that all of these "beliefs" are just that, and nothing more. I would like to believe that we evolved from apes, as it seems logical. But what truth does logic have when we base it on things that aren't observable, such as things too far for us to reach or things that happened centuries before?

Gentlemen, you will say that it had a profound effect on my train of thought. You will say that it has changed me. Well, let me make myself clear; it won't change how I live from day-to-day. I'll still strive to be the best that I can, on all fronts (politically, socially, economically, intellectually, athletically, etc.). However, when presented with the idea, the notion that true logic, science is a lie, can we logically take it with a grain of sand and just move on?

If Dostoevsky had brought the idea that God was a myth in the same way that we feel about Zeus, Apollo, Hades, and so on, I would have accepted it. I believe that religion is a great way to give hope to the hopeless. However, I do not believe in religion myself. Does a higher being exist? In my opinion, no. Physically, no "higher being" can exist somewhere in the clouds. But can I be sure that such a being doesn't exist?

Long story short, I enjoyed the book for the logic of a lack of logic it brings. That is, I enjoyed that it tried to take up the roots of science and religion, because we do need a form of a restraint as to science. I want to find out a lot of answers to a lot of questions. But on the other hand, what would happen to spontaneity? To the random? I don't want to be a case of twice two makes four. Every now and then, don't we all want to be a case of twice two makes ten?