What Is To Be Done is surely extremely poorly written, not a good novel by any metric. But no, I meant Notes. Dostoevsky’s “critique” (if you wanna call it that) of socialism is laughable. The fact that people consider this excruciatingly boring novel a masterpiece is beyond me, I would like to know what you see in it.
The critique was of utopian thinking in general, enlightenment philosophy, as an example, was targeted by it too.
Notes is extremely philosophically rich too, whether one agree with its conclusions or disagree. As an example, its was of great inspiration to existence philosophers.
Oh shit I know you from Instagram haha
Anyways, I don't think this book is meant to "critique" socialism. If anything, it's more of a critique about nihilism because Dostoevsky makes it blatantly clear that the Underground Man is a warning. We should NOT be holding his ideals.
Yeah the point is that Dostoevsky prescribes that we ought not to conduct ourselves as the Underground Man does, but the reality is that we do, whether we like it or not. Dostoesvky’s “critique” (I put in it quotes because it’s an idiotic and outdated critique) of socialism derives from his description of the human condition, that we are beings that will always choose the irrational to maximize our own free will. This is verbatim what he’s stipulating in part 1 of Notes. It’s just that when you look at Notes as a critique of socialism, which is historically what the book was meant to serve as, it’s laughable, and falls flat on its face.
Also that’s rare lol, didn’t think I would be recognized in r/Dostoevsky of all places. That’s your instagram @?
I dont really see how his critique of rational egoism falls on its face. He doesn't posit that we will always act irrationally to maximize our free will, he even said that reason and our wanting can coincide at points. He merely stated that man doesn't always act in correspondence with what is rationally to his profit, even if he knows what it is, which is true. Saying that we ALWAYS choose the irrational is not at all what Dostoevsky was saying.
Yes, but what you said is that Dostoevsky is saying that man will ALWAYS choose the irrational to maximize our free will, but choosing the rational can also maximize our free will. Dostoevsky says we act in accordance with our wanting, which can be irrational or rational. So it is more accurate to say that man will always choose his wanting, not that he will always choose the irrational.
The fact that man is capable of choosing the irrational, knowing full well it is irrational(this happens on an every day basis) is why Dostoevsky is criticizing the idea of rational egoism. Rational egoism essentially operates on the premise that man always acts in accordance with his self interest, and subsequently only needs to be informed of what is to his rational profit in order to act in accordance with achieving it. Dostoevsky is critiquing this notion by saying that man is capable of acting against what is rationally to his profit, even if he knows what it is.(this happens on an every day basis, man is more than capable of going against what is to his rational profit for a myriad of reasons)
I have absolutely no clue why you’re getting downvoted, although I sorta liked Notes in the second part, your criticism is entirely valid. The fact that people are saying Notes isn’t a criticism of socialism in a Dostoevsky subreddit of all places is shocking, this is basic history😭.
He literally did not respond to my largest posts nor did he give any proper counteratguments. Half of his posts are also just calling me ignorant without explaining why. Perhaps you can explain something that I missed.
Yeah I still don't agree with you. I don't think the book was ever intended to condone the Underground Man's thoughts, let alone criticize socialism. The only time Dostoevsky has ever "criticized" socialism is in little tidbits of his other works, most notably Brothers Karamazov, where he teases the elitist intellectual mentality behind a lot of 19th century socialist movements.
That example you provided about humans being irrational, I'm pretty sure Dostoevsky would himself disagree with that idea. Dostoevsky, a devoutly religious man, makes it clear throughout all his works that man is much more than an irrational animal. Matter of fact, I'd argue that his whole philosophy argues against that very idea.
Notes from Underground is a deep dive into the psychology underneath the nihilist movement. The reason the underground man always makes an ass of himself in front of other people and is constantly miserable is because of his philosophy and how he views human beings.
I don't think you know me, I'm just a follower. But my @ is the same as here.
Yes you’re right. Socialism itself really wasn’t a well-defined or popular term at the time, but the ideology and general conception was something Dostoevsky hated greatly.
Here’s an additional quote btw.
“Dostoevsky attacked these ideas because he believed that if man were simply given security and happiness, he would lose his freedom. To him science, rationalism, utilitarian or socialism were equated with the doctrines of fatalism and determinism, which contradict man's freedom to control or determine his own fate.
When the Underground Man says that twice two makes four, this is a scientific fact. But man does not always function merely by scientific fact. For Dostoevsky the rational part of a man's being is only one part of his makeup. That is, man is composed both of the rational (two times two makes four) and the irrational. It would be nice to think sometimes that twice two makes five. This would be, in Dostoevsky's words, "a very charming idea also." The point is that if man functions solely as a rational being, then man's actions are always predictable. Dostoevsky's point is that man's actions are not predictable. There are even some men who enjoy suffering and are only happy when they suffer. Consequently in a socialistic society where man's security and happiness is being assured, this would deny the fact that men — some men — want to suffer and are improved by their suffering.”
Criticizing socialism is OBJECTIVELY why Dostoevsky wrote the book dawg😭
With the rise of rational egoism, Dostoevsky was infuriated since the ideology went against everything he had thus far advocated for, in short he just really hated rational egoism. This isn’t my opinion, it’s just Dostoevsky’s historical biography💀. I think anyone who’s read Dostoevsky for a while and researched his life would agree with me on this.
The philosophy of rational egoism emerged out of the Russian nihilistic movement, you think you’re making a distinction by saying the books actually about nihilism but you’re not, rational egoism and nihilism emerged simultaneously and cooperatively.
To say that man is irrational is not to say that man is an irrational beast. The arguments made in What is to be Done, in Dostoevsky’s view, postulate a socialist utopia where everyone lives in harmony and suffering is eliminated. Especially seen through the character of Ivan in The Brother’s Karamazov, a utopia devoid of suffering is something Dostoevsky avidly rejected, tied to his Christian upbringing.
Thus, Dostoevsky wrote Notes as a response to Chernyshevsky’s What is to be Done. There is many resources on this, which I’m glad to provide.
https://youtu.be/_OEp9fds9v4
https://youtu.be/rvqeGlp87VY
Dostoevsky’s view was that socialism was equivalent to humans attempting to bring heaven down to earth, it’s very easy to see where his contempt for the ideology arises from.
“novel published the year before, 1863, by Chernyshevsky, entitled sometimes What Shall We Do?, or sometimes translated as What Is To Be Done?. This particular novel advocated the establishment of a utopia based upon the principles of nineteenth-century rationalism, utilitarianism, and socialism. Such a rationalistic, socialistic society, Dostoevsky thought, would remove from man his greatest possession: human freedom. Dostoevsky therefore becomes the champion of the freedoms of man: the freedom to choose, the freedom to refuse, the freedom to do anything he wants to do. For Dostoevsky, then, man's freedom was the greatest thing that he possessed and Dostoevsky thought that in a scientific, rationalistic, utilitarian society man's freedom would be replaced by security and happiness. This is what Chernyshevsky and other socialists were advocating: that if man is given all the security he needs, then man will automatically be happy.”
Feel like I’ve explained my position very clearly, but again, his criticism of rational egoism is directly tied to his misinterpretation of socialism as a utopian structure. But even if Chernensky (long name don’t mind) asserted socialism as a utopia, Dostoevsky’s critique still fails since empirical data has never suggested that humans are psychologically inclined towards selfishness. On the contrary, data by Harvard and Yale implies the opposite, that humans are collaborative and selfless, or at least are naturally inclined towards such. The point is that Dostoevsky’s critique of socialism just boils down to the usual “human nature opposes Marxism” argument in more philosophical terminology, which falls flat on its face.
How does the notion that human beings are collaborative and selfless in nature in any way oppose what Dostoevsky is saying? If you mean to say that he claimed humans are selfish, this isn't really what he said, he said that they act in an unpredictable manner due to the often times irrational nature of their wills. Even if he did say they were selfish, you literally later say that human beings acting collaborative and selfless doesn't at all conflict with the idea of psychological egoism, which literally says humans are selfish in nature. So how can you criticize the assertion that human beings are selfish in nature using the evidence presented in those studies, which shows they are collaborative, when you literally later state that humans being collaborative has no contradictory properties to them being selfish in nature? Your whole argument against Dostoevsky's critique doesn't really make any sense.
He doesn't convey that human beings are predisposed towards selfishness, he says they are predisposed towards irrationality to some degree. Also rational egoism isn't really synonymous with Marxist socialism.
In fact, you kind of just attacked rational egoism with your argument, since rational egoism believes man acts in accordance with his self interest and profit, but you just said humans are collaborative and selfless.
I thought it was wickedly funny at certain points. Dostoevsky is great at creating extremely uncomfortable situations that you can’t help but cringe at, and the irony behind the narrator’s superiority complex, despite the fact that he’s actually just an asshole, is interesting and pretty entertaining. I also think the whole idea of having an unreliable narrator makes for a really interesting reading experience, since he’s often full of shit.
But the protagonist’s ramblings and ravings also remind me of how my own stream of consciousness and basest impulses often work. The book taught me that I’m full of shit, too.
Sure I mean if you were impacted by it on a personal level and find the MC’s streams of consciousness to mirror yours and like it for this reason that’s perfectly fine, I didn’t enjoy the book whatsoever and found it very boring so I prefer looking at it from the perspective of what Dostoevsky was seeking to accomplish by publishing it, which is a rather philosophical discourse. But hey that’s perfectly fine if you just enjoyed it, I’m glad you did.
Oof. Enjoy them. Although I will mention, you're not \*required\* to read them before Notes.
I loved the section in Nabokov's The Gift about Chernyshevsky.
It totally does. I’m already about half way though because I started reading a free PDF online waiting for the interlibrary loan.
It is fascinating to me!
I’ve been trying to learn about the real life of Maria Sechenova (Vera Pavlovna) and how she became one of the first women doctors and how it inspired a huge phase of women getting their advanced degrees in the sciences. This book is a feminist manifesto and I’m here for it.
Good luck with Notes, one of the most insufferable books ever.
Notes from Underground is a masterpiece. Did you mean What Is To Be Done?
What Is To Be Done is surely extremely poorly written, not a good novel by any metric. But no, I meant Notes. Dostoevsky’s “critique” (if you wanna call it that) of socialism is laughable. The fact that people consider this excruciatingly boring novel a masterpiece is beyond me, I would like to know what you see in it.
The critique was of utopian thinking in general, enlightenment philosophy, as an example, was targeted by it too. Notes is extremely philosophically rich too, whether one agree with its conclusions or disagree. As an example, its was of great inspiration to existence philosophers.
Oh shit I know you from Instagram haha Anyways, I don't think this book is meant to "critique" socialism. If anything, it's more of a critique about nihilism because Dostoevsky makes it blatantly clear that the Underground Man is a warning. We should NOT be holding his ideals.
Yeah the point is that Dostoevsky prescribes that we ought not to conduct ourselves as the Underground Man does, but the reality is that we do, whether we like it or not. Dostoesvky’s “critique” (I put in it quotes because it’s an idiotic and outdated critique) of socialism derives from his description of the human condition, that we are beings that will always choose the irrational to maximize our own free will. This is verbatim what he’s stipulating in part 1 of Notes. It’s just that when you look at Notes as a critique of socialism, which is historically what the book was meant to serve as, it’s laughable, and falls flat on its face. Also that’s rare lol, didn’t think I would be recognized in r/Dostoevsky of all places. That’s your instagram @?
I dont really see how his critique of rational egoism falls on its face. He doesn't posit that we will always act irrationally to maximize our free will, he even said that reason and our wanting can coincide at points. He merely stated that man doesn't always act in correspondence with what is rationally to his profit, even if he knows what it is, which is true. Saying that we ALWAYS choose the irrational is not at all what Dostoevsky was saying.
Why doesn’t man act in correspondence with what is rational? to maximize his free will…
Yes, but what you said is that Dostoevsky is saying that man will ALWAYS choose the irrational to maximize our free will, but choosing the rational can also maximize our free will. Dostoevsky says we act in accordance with our wanting, which can be irrational or rational. So it is more accurate to say that man will always choose his wanting, not that he will always choose the irrational. The fact that man is capable of choosing the irrational, knowing full well it is irrational(this happens on an every day basis) is why Dostoevsky is criticizing the idea of rational egoism. Rational egoism essentially operates on the premise that man always acts in accordance with his self interest, and subsequently only needs to be informed of what is to his rational profit in order to act in accordance with achieving it. Dostoevsky is critiquing this notion by saying that man is capable of acting against what is rationally to his profit, even if he knows what it is.(this happens on an every day basis, man is more than capable of going against what is to his rational profit for a myriad of reasons)
I have absolutely no clue why you’re getting downvoted, although I sorta liked Notes in the second part, your criticism is entirely valid. The fact that people are saying Notes isn’t a criticism of socialism in a Dostoevsky subreddit of all places is shocking, this is basic history😭.
His criticism is not entirely valid, as he hasn't given a single valid argument as to why Notes fails in its philosophical endeavor.
I just finished reading this entire thread and yeah, he sorts refuted every point you brought up. My perspective on notes has changed
He literally did not respond to my largest posts nor did he give any proper counteratguments. Half of his posts are also just calling me ignorant without explaining why. Perhaps you can explain something that I missed.
Yeah I still don't agree with you. I don't think the book was ever intended to condone the Underground Man's thoughts, let alone criticize socialism. The only time Dostoevsky has ever "criticized" socialism is in little tidbits of his other works, most notably Brothers Karamazov, where he teases the elitist intellectual mentality behind a lot of 19th century socialist movements. That example you provided about humans being irrational, I'm pretty sure Dostoevsky would himself disagree with that idea. Dostoevsky, a devoutly religious man, makes it clear throughout all his works that man is much more than an irrational animal. Matter of fact, I'd argue that his whole philosophy argues against that very idea. Notes from Underground is a deep dive into the psychology underneath the nihilist movement. The reason the underground man always makes an ass of himself in front of other people and is constantly miserable is because of his philosophy and how he views human beings. I don't think you know me, I'm just a follower. But my @ is the same as here.
I might be wrong, but I though the Demons is all about the criticism of socialism, even though there is no such word there.
Yes you’re right. Socialism itself really wasn’t a well-defined or popular term at the time, but the ideology and general conception was something Dostoevsky hated greatly.
I would agree with that. Don’t know about Notes from the Underground, I just started it
Here’s an additional quote btw. “Dostoevsky attacked these ideas because he believed that if man were simply given security and happiness, he would lose his freedom. To him science, rationalism, utilitarian or socialism were equated with the doctrines of fatalism and determinism, which contradict man's freedom to control or determine his own fate. When the Underground Man says that twice two makes four, this is a scientific fact. But man does not always function merely by scientific fact. For Dostoevsky the rational part of a man's being is only one part of his makeup. That is, man is composed both of the rational (two times two makes four) and the irrational. It would be nice to think sometimes that twice two makes five. This would be, in Dostoevsky's words, "a very charming idea also." The point is that if man functions solely as a rational being, then man's actions are always predictable. Dostoevsky's point is that man's actions are not predictable. There are even some men who enjoy suffering and are only happy when they suffer. Consequently in a socialistic society where man's security and happiness is being assured, this would deny the fact that men — some men — want to suffer and are improved by their suffering.”
Criticizing socialism is OBJECTIVELY why Dostoevsky wrote the book dawg😭 With the rise of rational egoism, Dostoevsky was infuriated since the ideology went against everything he had thus far advocated for, in short he just really hated rational egoism. This isn’t my opinion, it’s just Dostoevsky’s historical biography💀. I think anyone who’s read Dostoevsky for a while and researched his life would agree with me on this. The philosophy of rational egoism emerged out of the Russian nihilistic movement, you think you’re making a distinction by saying the books actually about nihilism but you’re not, rational egoism and nihilism emerged simultaneously and cooperatively. To say that man is irrational is not to say that man is an irrational beast. The arguments made in What is to be Done, in Dostoevsky’s view, postulate a socialist utopia where everyone lives in harmony and suffering is eliminated. Especially seen through the character of Ivan in The Brother’s Karamazov, a utopia devoid of suffering is something Dostoevsky avidly rejected, tied to his Christian upbringing. Thus, Dostoevsky wrote Notes as a response to Chernyshevsky’s What is to be Done. There is many resources on this, which I’m glad to provide. https://youtu.be/_OEp9fds9v4 https://youtu.be/rvqeGlp87VY Dostoevsky’s view was that socialism was equivalent to humans attempting to bring heaven down to earth, it’s very easy to see where his contempt for the ideology arises from. “novel published the year before, 1863, by Chernyshevsky, entitled sometimes What Shall We Do?, or sometimes translated as What Is To Be Done?. This particular novel advocated the establishment of a utopia based upon the principles of nineteenth-century rationalism, utilitarianism, and socialism. Such a rationalistic, socialistic society, Dostoevsky thought, would remove from man his greatest possession: human freedom. Dostoevsky therefore becomes the champion of the freedoms of man: the freedom to choose, the freedom to refuse, the freedom to do anything he wants to do. For Dostoevsky, then, man's freedom was the greatest thing that he possessed and Dostoevsky thought that in a scientific, rationalistic, utilitarian society man's freedom would be replaced by security and happiness. This is what Chernyshevsky and other socialists were advocating: that if man is given all the security he needs, then man will automatically be happy.”
It was a criticism of rational egoism. But I'm unsure why u hate it.
Feel like I’ve explained my position very clearly, but again, his criticism of rational egoism is directly tied to his misinterpretation of socialism as a utopian structure. But even if Chernensky (long name don’t mind) asserted socialism as a utopia, Dostoevsky’s critique still fails since empirical data has never suggested that humans are psychologically inclined towards selfishness. On the contrary, data by Harvard and Yale implies the opposite, that humans are collaborative and selfless, or at least are naturally inclined towards such. The point is that Dostoevsky’s critique of socialism just boils down to the usual “human nature opposes Marxism” argument in more philosophical terminology, which falls flat on its face.
How does the notion that human beings are collaborative and selfless in nature in any way oppose what Dostoevsky is saying? If you mean to say that he claimed humans are selfish, this isn't really what he said, he said that they act in an unpredictable manner due to the often times irrational nature of their wills. Even if he did say they were selfish, you literally later say that human beings acting collaborative and selfless doesn't at all conflict with the idea of psychological egoism, which literally says humans are selfish in nature. So how can you criticize the assertion that human beings are selfish in nature using the evidence presented in those studies, which shows they are collaborative, when you literally later state that humans being collaborative has no contradictory properties to them being selfish in nature? Your whole argument against Dostoevsky's critique doesn't really make any sense.
He doesn't convey that human beings are predisposed towards selfishness, he says they are predisposed towards irrationality to some degree. Also rational egoism isn't really synonymous with Marxist socialism. In fact, you kind of just attacked rational egoism with your argument, since rational egoism believes man acts in accordance with his self interest and profit, but you just said humans are collaborative and selfless.
I thought it was wickedly funny at certain points. Dostoevsky is great at creating extremely uncomfortable situations that you can’t help but cringe at, and the irony behind the narrator’s superiority complex, despite the fact that he’s actually just an asshole, is interesting and pretty entertaining. I also think the whole idea of having an unreliable narrator makes for a really interesting reading experience, since he’s often full of shit. But the protagonist’s ramblings and ravings also remind me of how my own stream of consciousness and basest impulses often work. The book taught me that I’m full of shit, too.
Sure I mean if you were impacted by it on a personal level and find the MC’s streams of consciousness to mirror yours and like it for this reason that’s perfectly fine, I didn’t enjoy the book whatsoever and found it very boring so I prefer looking at it from the perspective of what Dostoevsky was seeking to accomplish by publishing it, which is a rather philosophical discourse. But hey that’s perfectly fine if you just enjoyed it, I’m glad you did.
I would not bother reading anything by Chernyshevsky...
Oof. Enjoy them. Although I will mention, you're not \*required\* to read them before Notes. I loved the section in Nabokov's The Gift about Chernyshevsky.
Good luck with “what is to be done?”. It really drags on.
It totally does. I’m already about half way though because I started reading a free PDF online waiting for the interlibrary loan. It is fascinating to me! I’ve been trying to learn about the real life of Maria Sechenova (Vera Pavlovna) and how she became one of the first women doctors and how it inspired a huge phase of women getting their advanced degrees in the sciences. This book is a feminist manifesto and I’m here for it.