도스토옙스키의 지하로부터의 노트: 합리적 이기주의와 유토피아주의에 대한 비판

### 도스토옙스키의 "지하로부터의 노트": 이성적 이기주의와 유토피아주의에 대한 경고
* 📜 '지하로부터의 노트'는 **자유, 책임, 개성을 강조한 최초의 실존주의 작품** 중 하나로 꼽힙니다.
* 🇷🇺 도스토옙스키의 소설은 **1860년대 러시아 허무주의 운동에 대한 사회 비판과 풍자**로, 다양한 사상이 득세하는 것에 대해 경고하고 있습니다.
* 🌍 '지하로부터의 노트'의 역사적 배경에는 **러시아에서 허무주의, 합리적 이기주의, 유토피아주의가 부상하는 시기**가 포함됩니다.
* 🧠 도스토예프스키는 **이성적 이기주의가 부도덕하고 파괴적인 이기주의로 이어질 수 있는 진정한 위험**이라고 생각했습니다.
* 🏰 "무엇을 할 것인가?"에서 체르니셰프스키의 유토피아적 비전과 절대 결정론에 대한 그의 믿음은 **도스토옙스키가 지하인간 캐릭터를 통해 비판**합니다.
* 🐭 언더그라운드 맨은 **자신의 과잉 반성적 의식에 갇혀 행동하지 못하는 전형적인 안티 히어로**를 상징합니다.
* 🎭 그는 모든 것이 합리적이고 예측 가능한 유토피아에 대한 생각을 거부하며 **자신과 끊임없이 갈등**하고 있습니다.
* 😈 도스토옙스키는 인간은 **행복만큼이나 고통이 필요**하기 때문에 항상 그런 세상에 반항할 것이라고 주장합니다.

도스토예프스키의 '지하로부터의 노트'는 합리적 이기주의, 결정론, 유토피아주의를 비판하며 개성과 의식적인 자기 희생의 가치를 강조합니다.

The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote Notes from Underground in 1864, which is considered one of the first existentialist works, emphasizing the importance of freedom, responsibility, and individuality. It is an extraordinary piece of literature, social critique, and satire of the Russian nihilist movement, as well as a novel with deep psychological insights into human nature. It is not surprising that Nietzsche wrote: Dostoevsky, the only psychologist from whom I have something to learn... is among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life. Dostoevsky's most sustained and vigorous attack against the Russian nihilist movement is expressed by one of the darkest and least understanding characters of all his characters: the unnamed narrator and protagonist known as the Underground Man, who reveals the desperate dilemmas in which he finds himself as a result. Notes from Underground attempts to warn people of various ideas that were gaining ground in the 1860s, including: moral and political nihilism, rational egoism, determinism, utilitarianism, utopianism, atheism, and what would become communism. As we will see, many of these themes are mentioned in the novel. But before delving into Notes from Underground, we must first look at the historical context in which it was written, to better understand Dostoevsky's warning. In 1862, Ivan Turgenev published one of the most acclaimed Russian novels of the century, Fathers and Sons

of a strange new philosophy called nihilism that became popular among the Russian youth. Previously synonymous with skepticism, it transformed into moral and political nihilism: A nihilist is a man who does not bow to any authority, who does not take any principle on faith, whatever reverence that principle may be consecrated in. Nihilist characters defined themselves as those who deny everything, representing the negation of all pre-existing ideals. Rational egoism emerged as the dominant social philosophy of the Russian nihilist movement, proposing that we are only rational if we maximize our own interest, sharing similarities with utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize utility, such as well-being or happiness for all individuals. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, actually devised a mathematical formula to calculate happiness called the hedonic calculus, to measure the amount of pleasure and pain that any given action would produce, in order to predict human behavior simply through rationality. Dostoevsky saw the rise of rational egoism as a genuine danger because by glorifying the self, it could divert the minds of impressionable youth from solid values and push them towards true, immoral, and destructive selfishness. The following line perfectly captures this mentality: I say let the world go to hell, but I should always have my tea. After his journey through Europe, Dostoevsky wrote that what prevails in Western culture

It states: principle of individuality, principle of isolation, intense self-preservation, personal selfishness, self-definition in terms of one's own self, in placing this Self in opposition to all nature and all other individuals, as an autonomous, independent principle, completely equal and equally valuable to everything that exists outside of it. In contrast to this, Dostoevsky calls for a return to the earth, emphasizing the value of family, religion, personal responsibility, and brotherly love, in which each individual feels part of everyone and is willing to sacrifice for the other. Dostoevsky defends this conscious self-sacrifice, which cannot arise from any calculation of self-interest. The Underground Man is under the influence of selfish individualism, considering himself as an educated man, a modern intellectual who has lost all capacity for unselfish moral feeling. As he writes in the footnote attached to the title of his novel: Both the author of the Notes and the Notes themselves are, of course, fictitious. However, such persons as the author of such memoirs can not only, but must, exist in our society, if we take into consideration the circumstances that led to the formation of our society. Notes from Underground was written in response to the spokesman of the Russian radicals, Nikolay Chernyshevsky, who wrote a novel titled What Is to Be Done? in 1863. In the novel, he shares Rousseau's idea that

The flaws of man, he is inherently good and docile to reason, but somehow is corrupted by society. So, once clarified about his true interests, reason and science would finally allow him to build a perfect society. That is to say, a society created from purely rational calculations of self-interest would lose the very possibility of doing evil. Therefore, rational selfishness is the basis for the development of a utopian society. His dream is to build a well-ordered society for human beings to act predictably. This utopia is symbolized by the Crystal Palace, representing humanity's supreme achievement, where all problems will be solved. Chernyshevsky writes that if we all followed the radical socialist path, we could turn society into a Crystal Palace. He also proposed a belief in absolute determinism (or lack of free will) that Dostoevsky brilliantly criticizes with his Underground Man. In Chernyshevsky's novel, while discussing the greatness of rational selfishness, one of the characters rhetorically asks, Do you hear that, in your underground hole? A year later, Dostoevsky published Notes from Underground. Dostoevsky believed that man was inherently irrational, capricious, and destructive, and that not reason, but only faith in Christ, could help him master the chaos of his impulses. Atheism was on the rise, and Dostoevsky saw this as disastrous.

For society, emphasizing the need to believe in Christ. After his death, what he had warned us against had come true, foreseeing the rise of the totalitarian state, which he also analyzes in his novel Demons, an allegory of the catastrophic consequences of the political and moral nihilism that were becoming prevalent in his time. Marx's ideology gave way to communism, implemented by Lenin and Stalin, making people believe that it was possible to create a perfect society without God, a Golden Age, where everything is provided abundantly and equally for all, eliminating suffering once and for all. Totalitarian states ended up justifying murder in the name of their ideology, leading to the bloodshed of the 20th century. Unfortunately, we have not learned from our mistakes. As Hegel wrote: We learn from history that we do not learn from history. Today we are plagued by a mass mania in the West, where crimes against humanity are hidden under the often attractive guise of progress, attempting once again to create a utopia. The Underground Man is the quintessential anti-hero, a bitter, lonely, self-loathing 40-year-old retired official who lives underground. Or as in the original Russian text, in a sort of crawl space, not big enough for a human, where insects and rodents roam. This explains why he calls himself a mouse. He has been here for years listening to people.

Through a crack under the floor, writing these notes from the underground. However, the underground can be better seen as a metaphor representing his deep alienation from society. He lives locked underground, and these are his confessions. I am a sick man... I am a resentful man... I am an unattractive man. I think my liver is diseased... No, I refuse to consult a doctor out of spite. You probably won't understand that. My liver is bad, well, let it get worse! We are introduced to the strange behavior and psychological distress of the Underground Man from the beginning. He calls himself sick, then resentful, then unattractive, and finally says he has a liver problem. He constantly reassesses himself to please his imaginary audience but is unable to characterize himself properly. However, we can see that he is not acting to promote his own interests as rational egoism dictates. He writes: Actually, I could never become resentful. I was aware at every moment in myself of many, many elements absolutely opposed to that... I knew they had been swarming in me all my life and longing for some way out of me, but I wouldn't let them... intentionally I wouldn't let them come out. They tormented me until I was ashamed: they led me to convulsions and... made me sick, finally, how they made me sick! The Underground Man seems to be nothing more than a chaos of conflicting emotional impulses

a search for his own character, his quest to find himself, as he does not know who he is. This torments him, however, he knows that this is his normal condition and that there is no way to escape from it. Therefore, he tries to detach himself from reality in the world of literature, spending most of his time reading and feeling completely disappointed when facing the real world, as he says: I could not speak except as if I were reading a book. At other times, he offers an incredibly lucid view of the human psyche: Every man has reminiscences that he would not tell everyone, but only to his friends. He has other matters in his mind that he would not reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret. But there are other things that a man is afraid to admit even to himself, and every decent man has several of those things stored in his mind. The more decent he is, the greater the amount of such things in his mind. Dostoevsky distinguishes between two types of men: the man of action and the man of acute conscience. The underground man is extremely envious of the man of action, one who lives life without pondering too much on his thoughts. He has a lower intellectual capacity that frees him from the questions and torments of his own conscience, while the Underground Man is paralyzed by his thoughts. Dostoevsky gives us an analogy with the Stone Wall

Four and anyone who says otherwise is absurd. This represents an obstacle to free will. When faced with revenge, the man of action charges directly at his target like a raging bull with his horns down, because he seeks justice. But when he stumbles upon the stone wall, he is truly surprised and unable to speak - the wall is not an evasion, it is simply what makes his activity impossible. The Underground Man, on the other hand, tries to invent all sorts of tricks, and instead of admitting defeat and turning back, he crashes his head against the wall, knowing the futility of his actions. Of course, I can't break through the wall by banging my head against it if I really don't have the strength to bring it down, but I won't reconcile with it just because it's a stone wall and I lack the strength. As if such a wall were really a consolation... Every course of action seems insufficient, and that's why he is paralyzed, or as Dostoevsky says, he finds himself trapped in a state of inertia, only capable of thinking but unable to act. He suffers the greatest ailment of all, consciousness. Overthinking is a disease. This better describes the mental state of the Underground Man; he is trapped in his own hyper-reflective consciousness, thus creating a greater accumulation of resentment than in the man of action. The result is that the intellectual cannot do anything and, therefore, lacks character.

I couldn't turn myself into anything; neither resentful nor kind, neither a scoundrel nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect. Now, I am living my life in my corner, mocking myself with the bitter and useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot become anything serious, and only a fool becomes something. He is aware of his flaws, while the man of action is content with his foolishness and believes himself to be great. The Underground Man finds solace in being more intelligent than everyone he knows, but socially, they are all far above him. His vanity convinces him of his own intellectual superiority and he looks down on everyone; but when he realizes he cannot rest without them acknowledging his superiority, he hates others for their indifference and hates himself for his humiliating dependence. The Underground Man considers the man of action as the true normal man, while he sees himself as a product born from a test tube. He calls himself a mouse, although no one tells him he is one, as if he had built a hell from his own internal reflections: The unfortunate mouse manages to create so many other unpleasant things around him in the form of doubts, emotions, and the contempt that the direct men of action spit at him... Of course, all he can do is dismiss all of that with a movement of his paw, and with a smile of assumed contempt in which.

Not even he himself believes, he slides ignominiously into his mousetrap. There, in his disgusting, stinking underground house, our insulted, crushed, and ridiculed mouse quickly absorbs himself in a cold, malicious resentment, and, above all, eternal spite. For forty years together, he will remember his wound down to the smallest, most ignominious details, and each time he will add, by himself, even more ignominious details, mocking with bitterness and tormenting himself with his own imagination. The Underground Man essentially buries himself alive with spite, but there is a twist. He goes on to say that in that state of despair, dissatisfaction, and hopelessness, is precisely where he finds his enjoyment. Although he points out that most likely people will not understand any of that. He thinks that man is cursed with consciousness, but at the same time, it is what allows free will and individuality. With consciousness, man must suffer, but without consciousness, man will never be free, a clear critique of determinism. Whatever happened, happened according to the normal and fundamental laws of intensified consciousness and by a kind of inertia that is a direct consequence of those laws, and... therefore, not only can you not change yourself, but you simply cannot even try. The Underground Man finds irrational pleasure in suffering, even in his painful toothache.

that makes him maliciously moan to make others suffer around him, giving him pleasure. He is not only a sadist, but he also confesses his masochism: I felt a kind of secret, abnormal, and despicable delight when, arriving home on one of the most horrible nights in Petersburg, I intensely realized that I had been guilty again of some cowardly act that day ... and inside, secretly, I kept scolding myself, worrying, accusing myself, until finally the bitterness I felt turned into a kind of shameful, cursed sweetness, and finally, into real positive delight! Yes, into delight! ... The feeling of delight was there only because I was so intensely aware of my own degradation. The essence of his activity is simply the result of being plagued by boredom. And with a heightened consciousness, he cannot stop thinking. I invented adventures and invented a life, to at least live in some way. How many times has it happened to me... well, for example, to be offended just on purpose, for nothing; and one knows, of course, that one is not offended for nothing; that one is putting it on oneself, but still, one ends up feeling really offended. While the underground man is committed to the principles of rational egoism, he is simultaneously an opponent of it throughout the novel. His conflict arises from the clash between human nature and the laws of nature. While his reason assures him that there is nothing

What can one really do to improve, he refuses to abdicate his conscience to determinism, wants to preserve his individuality and go against the comfortable predictability of life. What can be done with the millions of facts that attest that men, consciously, that is, fully understanding their real interests, have put them in the background and have rushed down another path, to face danger... and if it so happens that a man's advantage, sometimes, not only can, but even must, consist in wanting, in certain cases, what is harmful to him and not advantageous. The underground man writes that man is not at all a rational animal, and that he will always rebel against the idea of a utopia, to act in a way that goes against his own interest, simply to validate his existence and confirm his individuality. Man is monstrously ungrateful. In fact, he writes that the best definition of man is the ungrateful biped. But that is not his worst flaw, his worst flaw is his constant deviation from moral order. One only needs to take a quick look at the history of humanity to observe this. He writes: Anything can be said about the history of the world, anything that can enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing that cannot be said is that it is rational. The underground man says that man would sacrifice all his advantages just to be independent and choose for himself, and only the devil knows what he will choose. Man

The right to desire for oneself. This whim of ours, actually, can be more advantageous for us than anything else on earth. It is called our most advantageous advantage (which does not fit into any system), and for which even happiness, health, prosperity, and security are sacrificed simply to preserve the most precious and important thing, that is, our personality, our individuality. Write: By the way, in the midst of general prosperity, a man with an ignoble or rather reactionary and ironic countenance would rise and, with arms akimbo, say to us all: 'I say, gentlemen, wouldn't it be better for us to overlook the whole show and spread rationalism to the winds, just to send these logarithms to hell and allow ourselves to live once again according to our own sweet and foolish will!'  The underground man does not criticize reason per se, but rather a completely one-sided rationalistic view of the world, which does not satisfy one's own impulses and desires, which form a much broader scope than reason and much closer to the human condition. A person always and in every way prefers to act as they please and not as reason and interest dictate. Shower man with all earthly blessings, immerse him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of happiness can be seen on the surface, give him economic prosperity in such a way that he has nothing to do but sleep,

Eating cakes and being busy with the continuation of their species, and even out of sheer ingratitude, pure spite, man would play a dirty trick on you... just to prove to himself, as if that were so necessary, that men continue to be men and not the keys of a piano, that the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will not be able to desire anything else except by the calendar. Dostoevsky attacks the idea that greater rationality leads to greater human progress and happiness. It is an attempt to view life as a mathematical formula to follow, to align man with the best interests of society. Man is not a piano key. He cannot simply uncover the laws of nature so that he has found all the answers to his problems, a world in which everything will be so clearly calculated and explained that choices would cease to exist. Life would become extraordinarily boring, and man would act against reason to demonstrate his free will, so that two plus two equals five. And if he does not find the means, he will plot destruction, chaos, and all kinds of suffering. If it is said that this too can be calculated and tabulated, so that the mere possibility of calculating everything in advance would stop everything, and reason would be reaffirmed, then man would intentionally go mad to rid himself of reason and make his point. Dostoevsky observed this madness firsthand in his fellow prisoners when he was sent to a penitentiary labor camp

The sudden violent outburst of a prisoner such as: Simply the moving and hysterical longing for self-expression, the unconscious longing for oneself, the desire to assert oneself, to affirm one's crushed person, a desire that suddenly seizes him and reaches the tone of fury, resentment, mental aberration, attacks, and nervous convulsions. Rational egoists would have to admit that human action is radically unpredictable and that their program is doomed to fail. Man likes to make roads and create, that is an indisputable fact. But why does he have such a passionate love for destruction and chaos as well? ... Could it be that he loves chaos and destruction... because instinctively he is afraid of reaching his goal and completing the building he is constructing? Who knows, maybe he only loves that building from a distance, and in no way is in love with it up close, perhaps he just likes to build it and does not want to live in it... Indeed, man is a comical creature, there seems to be some kind of joke in all of this... This building refers to the Crystal Palace, to reach the literal end of the story when all effort, struggle, and internal conflict have ceased. He writes: I myself rejected the Crystal Palace for the sole reason that I would not be allowed to stick out my tongue in it. Dostoevsky says that man will never give up suffering, destruction, and chaos, and that sometimes it is also very pleasant

Things: Man is sometimes extraordinarily and passionately in love with suffering: that is a fact. We want happiness, but we have a special talent for making ourselves miserable. Man is like a chess player who loves the process of the game, but not the end. Trying to abolish suffering and replace it with eternal happiness only plunges us deeper into it. Man needs suffering as much as happiness. What's better: cheap happiness or sublime suffering? Well, come on, which is better? I hope you enjoyed this video, you can support the channel on Patreon or by liking, sharing, and commenting. Thank you for your attention =)

The Underground Man - Fyodor Dostoevsky's Warning to The World

In Pursuit of Meaning.

My life's task is to help as many people as possible who seek to enrich their lives with value and meaning.

Send me anything you like to my mailing address (thank you):

Eternalised
P.O. Box 10.011
28080 Madrid, Spain


Eternalised

표도르 도스토옙스키의 『지하에서』가 갖는 의미

1864년 표도르 도스토옙스키가 쓴 지하로부터의 노트는 러시아 허무주의 운동에 대한 사회 비판과 풍자를 담은 획기적인 실존주의 작품입니다.

이 소설은 자유, 책임, 개성이라는 주제를 깊이 있게 탐구하며 인간 본성에 대한 심오한 심리적 통찰을 제공합니다.

도덕적, 정치적 허무주의, 합리적 이기주의, 이기적 개인주의의 미화에 대한 도스토예프스키의 경고는 가족, 종교, 자기희생과 같은 가치로 돌아가야 한다는 그의 요구를 반영합니다.

체르니셰프스키는 이성적 이기심에 기반한 유토피아 사회를 믿었고, 도스토옙스키는 비이성적인 것과 그리스도에 대한 신앙의 필요성을 주장했습니다.

이러한 이념적 갈등은 완벽한 사회를 상징하는 체르니셰프스키의 <수정궁>과 소외와 내적 갈등을 표현한 도스토예프스키의 <지하인> 등 그들의 캐릭터와 작품에 반영되어 있습니다.

이성적인 유토피아적 이상과 인간 본성의 혼란스러운 현실 사이의 투쟁은 러시아 문학의 중심 주제이며, 도스토예프스키의 이성적 이기주의와 그리스도에 대한 믿음에 대한 비판은 오늘날에도 여전히 유효합니다.

도스토예프스키의 지하인간이 겪는 심리적 투쟁

언더그라운드 맨은 정체성을 찾고 현실에서 벗어날 수 없어 괴로워하며 문학에서 도피처를 찾습니다.

그는 행동하는 인간과 달리 지나치게 활동적인 양심으로 인해 마비되어 분노와 인격의 결여를 느낍니다.

언더그라운드 맨의 끊임없는 자기 성찰과 지적 허영심은 내면의 혼란과 주변 사람들에 대한 경멸에 기여합니다.

언더그라운드 맨의 악의와 의식에 대한 철학

언더그라운드 맨은 자신의 타락을 받아들이고 고통스러운 치통을 즐기는 등 역경과 고통에서 즐거움을 찾습니다.

그는 인간의 의식이 고통을 가져다주지만 자유 의지와 개성을 허용한다고 믿으며 결정론적 관념을 거부합니다.

그는 인간은 자신의 개성을 주장하기 위해 자신의 이익에 반하는 비합리적인 행동을 하며 합리적인 유토피아의 개념에 반항한다고 주장합니다.

지하세계의 남자는 개인적 욕망이 인간 존재의 가장 소중하고 중요한 측면이라고 믿으며 합리주의적 관점보다 개인적 욕망의 가치를 옹호합니다.

도스토옙스키는 더 큰 합리성이 인간의 진보로 이어진다는 생각을 비판하며, 오히려 삶을 지루하게 만들고 이성에 반하는 행위로 이어질 수 있다고 주장합니다.

노동 수용소의 광기에 대한 도스토예프스키의 관찰은 합리주의적 세계관에 맞서 개인이 자유 의지를 주장하기 위해 얼마나 극단으로 치달을 수 있는지를 보여줍니다.

인간의 욕망과 자기 표현의 복잡한 본질

죄수의 폭력적인 폭발은 자기 표현과 주장에 대한 갈망에서 비롯되며, 이는 이성적인 이기주의자들에 따르면 예측할 수 없는 것입니다.

창조와 파괴를 향한 인간의 경향은 목표 완수에 대한 두려움과 고통에 대한 열정적인 사랑에서 비롯될 수 있습니다.

고통과 혼돈에 대한 욕망은 인간 본성의 근본적인 부분으로 간주되어 영원한 행복을 위해 그것을 폐지하려는 생각에 도전합니다.