Realize Underground man is a satirical character

that's brainlet talk. In what way is the gentle and gullible nature of Prince Mishkin related to the paranoid and treacherous disposition of the Underground Man?

Ok there are counter examples but rodya, the underground man and the protagonists from White Nights and the Gambler all ressemble each other so much in their thought processes, mental health etc...
There are probably more examples but I've only read two novels and his short stories so far

Most writers write the same character over and over with a few exceptions.

can you do your best to summarise the purpose of the story ?

>Satirical
He isn't satirical, he's just not a good person. You are, to some extent, supposed to relate to him. Everyone, after all, is spiteful, and no one truly wants utopia, deep down. But at the same time, the moral core of the novel is Liza. Dosto's telling you not to give into the pessimism and spite of the Underground Man. To, like Liza, refuse his money, and leave him, trapped in his basement, complaining about his shitty liver.

tl;dr find God

(Reminder Liza lived and died the exact way the Underground man described)

He has a fucking servant tbqh.

He isn't satirical because (at least in Dosto's head) he's actually real

I never met Liza again and I have heard nothing of her. I will add, too, that I remained for a long time afterwards pleased with the phrase about the benefit from resentment and hatred in spite of the fact that I almost fell ill from misery.

We don't know that. Liza disappears after giving him the money. Whether she remained a prostitute or not is of no consequence to the moral message of the book. She has refused to be miserable, she's refused to live in a basement and complain about overcoats and drinking-parties to which she wasn't invited all day. She has, despite being a prostitute, become a better person than the supposedly more noble and learned main character.

so do you want 2*2 to be 5 or are we doing nothing but making sounds in eachothers heads with using only marks on a page or screen?

>What's the next step?
why not complete the set and make 2+2 =5 with 1984

I liked Underground man too. Whether others find him a satirical person is not really of any importance. For that matter, I've seen writers I respect (the Russian symbolists) refer to Dostoyevski as the 'Underground man' which for me underscores the point that there's a truth in the Underground man which reaches further than defining a character in a book, rather it says something of Dostoyeski and his literary importance.

To this day, you still can’t refute anything the underground man said, or prove anything he did was better or worse than what the others did.

I didn't like him but there was something I found resonated with me about his openly hypocritical attitude.

don't you mean hypercritical

Let me guess. You understand the purpose of the story.

both but I kind of like the idea of disarming all of your opponents by holding yourself up to no real standards up to and including internal logical consistency.

>i know that feel in pic related

Yes, the character, the character's ethics don't matter, and even so, for that reason his observations ring more true. I symphatize with what psychologists would call a psychotic/manical protagonist all the time, because that's literature's, greatness, the greatness of the Underground man: the hypocritical, bitter, unmistakenly weak and hopeless human.

Are you thinking about the interpretation of Girar ?

Got it all wrong OP

Uman isnt satirical. Hes a dramaticized version of every human being: irrational and contradictory at every turn

The Uman is the dark underbelly all beasts possess. He seems abhorrent autistic and undesirable. Yet you cannot escape the Uman that you are

His characters usually go through the full range of emotions one could get in social settings or loneliness. I believe that you might get that impression because loneliness is a theme explored by Dostoevsky with great accuracy, so if all characters go through loneliness they might seem similar. But their personalities are different, the underground man doesn't rationalize his superiority with the same historical and somewhat logical argumentation, he is more of an adult with an undeveloped emotional side, while Rodya is at the point of conflicting ideologies under a great societal change.

No, as another poster pointed out him and his travails are modelled after parodying the "superfluous man" trope that was popular in Russian Literature. Basically books about supreme gentlemen who are crawling in their skin. I commend him for it

The man was petty. The way he reacted to his friends when he wasn't invited to the send-off party was something a child would do out of stubbornness by forcefully injecting himself into their group not caring at all that his presence would shake the dynamic they were already comfortable with.
I didn't find any reason to refute his points or prove whether his actions were right or wrong, I mainly looked at the man acting infantile with certain fondness because I had felt the exact same things as he, but at an earlier age. I think it's a cautionary tale of isolation. Socialization is paramount if you really want to further yourself as a person.

Stop living and become the pure essence of parody

But he can't even pay the servant