In Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, the narrator writes from an underground location reflecting on the flaws in man and the society he once lived in. Through examining his days prior to retreating underground the narrator comes to hate the bonds of society and human nature more and more, providing evidence for his reasoning. Dostoevsky uses the narrator to convey his own messages about his society and his thoughts on the people that live in it. He has his narrator argue that although man is flawed and he may realize this, to survive in his society he must ignore his epiphany and work with his flaws. In Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky uses the narrator as a vessel to carry his philosophy on man to society through this book.
Dostoevsky's ideas were influence by his time period and his peers leading to the topics and characters that he writes about. His main thoughts shown through the narrator in the Notes from Underground were predominately; "the dilemma of human freedom:
[...] The narrator realizes, in his younger years, that he must declare his position in society and not let others be above him in the eye of society. It is through these struggles to prove himself that he is striving for more but still will not be satisfied with any result. The underground narrator further explores man's habits and mind set while questioning if it would be beneficial to change these attributes of man. Dostoevsky is conflicted with the same dilemma as the narrator in asking these questions. [...]
[...] Like Dostoevsky, Kant wants man to empower himself by understanding his human nature and how to work with it in order to succeed. Kant's ideas about enlightenment start by defining the men that which live in society and how society is able to control them. The “guardians” make the public and obedient by restricting their movements and attaching guidelines to all of them. They further instill fear by showing the public what dangers would befall them if they were to stray from the herd. [...]
[...] He has come to the conclusion that although man is an individual he cannot remove himself from society because man needs each other as he explains; Whatever their convictions, men must nonetheless remain men, they are not able to destroy their own nature; the instinct of conservation would remain unchanged in them, and besides, man, because he is man, would feel the need to love his neighbor, the need to sacrifice himself of his neighbor, because love is unthinkable without self sacrifice, and love, we repeat, cannot be destroyed. [...]
[...] He once again looks at the flaws in man and how he imposes them on others. As he states earlier man's greatest fault is his deceptiveness, especially when he can deceive himself. We are oppressed at being humans, humans with our own real bodies and blood; we are ashamed of it, we think it a disgrace, and we keep trying to be some sort of fairy-tale universal beings. We are stillborns, and for generations past have been begotten, not by living fathers, and that suits us better and better. [...]
[...] if only for their mutual advantage; no society is possible unless the obligations of its members toward each other are recognized and since men cannot escape behaving in their own lives according to some code of morality, they should not be denied the right to discuss its principles” (Frank 102). Dostoevsky argues that man must live together in order for man to maximize his worth. It is because of this that man helps fellow men out in order to satisfy the needs of the group. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
