A 19th century Russian nobleman is sent to a hard labour camp for four years, comes back...

A 19th century Russian nobleman is sent to a hard labour camp for four years, comes back, and then writes a character that is literally me. How is this possible?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder#Signs_and_symptoms
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Dosto was being satirical when he wrote the Underground Man, I hope you understand.

Notes from Underground is a case study of being irreparably spooked. Dosto was sent to gulag precisely because he was spooked by his Christian morality out of acting in his best interests, i.e keeping his head down and not being sent to gulag. The underground man is spooked by his literary ideals in a similar fashion. The conflict between egoism and subservience to higher ideals is timeless and manifests in infinite ways, but I believe the answer you are looking for is simply "spooks lol"

What's he satirising?

/r9k/

Not him, but I would argue he's satirizing rational egoism by making the underground man's egoistic desires contradictory.

Thus he takes pleasure from not going to the doctor, and would shit in the ideal crystal hall or whatever for the satisfaction of exercising his own freedom.

You

Apparently, but what am I?

Notes from Underground has such a frustrating protagonist. Crying in his arms was a cute girl who apparently liked him enough to seek him out after his autistic speech and the retard just scares her off for good.

He converted to Christianity in the gulag. He was a lefty faggot before he went.

Replace Christianity with leftist faggotry and the point still stands, but thanks for the correction.

As has been mentioned in this thread, that ties into the idea outlined in the first part of the book regarding the incurable inherent irrationality of humans.

people from russia

depressive people

Yeah, I mean I understand that the fourty odd pages leading up to apropos of wet snow was supposed to give the latter part of the book context, but that doesn't stop me from feeling annoyed. I'm a sucker for happy endings I guess.

You have borderline personality disorder?

>reading for plot
wew lad. A happy ending would destroy any merit Notes has.

Does the fact that I identify with the main character make that likely? I very rarely end up actually insulting people like he does with his former schoolmates, but the way he thinks, including his resentment towards both the world and himself, felt familiar.

BPD has a tenuous at best neurological basis. It's a collection of comorbid behaviors first and foremost. The underground man could indeed fall in the umbrella of BPD. That doesn't necessitate that you "have" it. Your best bet is to compare yourself to the signs and symptoms in the DSM rather than the character, obviously. There's a handy checklist on the wiki page here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder#Signs_and_symptoms
6 or 7 out of 10 would probably be enough for a diagnosis from some psychiatrists.

>medicalizing being a neurotic piece of shit
Nabokov said that Dostoyevsky seemed bogus because his characters always seemed so exaggerated and hysterical, that they think in strange, inhuman ways. Maybe damaged, insane Dostoyevsky was more visionary than he thought because the number of people like this is only increasing.

If the underground man was a person living today, he'd browse Veeky Forums regularly and post an excerpt from his diary desu (the Notes) and we'd respond "holy... I want more" unironically, but he'd think we were being ironic.

His characters were meant to exemplify different worldviews and ideals. Dosto wasn't a realist author.

he was a christian lefty faggot before he left

>>medicalizing being a neurotic piece of shit
If you've ever met these people you'd understand how much easier it is to medically lobotomize them than to deconstruct their neurotically shielded worldviews colored by daddy issues. Fwiw I think it's absurd to treat irrational thought medically, too, though.

this coming from a guy whos claim to fame is pedo fanfic.

He was embarrassed at his humble abode. In turn shut himself off front he world again and kicked her out of his bubble.

The entire narrative is from a man who destroyed his own life and is trying to justify his choices, actions, and behavior to the reader.
he hates himself and that manifests as fear, cynicism, spite, and anger, all the while he re-labels these feelings with a convoluted philosophical moralizing as to why what he is doing is "correct" or intellectually justified.
All of his pontificating about what's wrong with society and the world at large is actually him trying to shift the blame away from himself, justifying the position he put himself in, instead of admitting to his shortcomings, his social ineptitude, his character flaws.

It's the equivalent to /r9k/ memeing about roasties and non-whites and numale cucks. Because if you can make it anyone's fault but yours then you don't have to admit that you're wrong and need to seek help and change to live a loving and productive life.

Read Crime and Punishment

I have a punishment.

>implying /r9k/ isn't right

Just because a lot of the ad hominems you hurl against them are accurate doesn't detract from the insightfulness of their social critique.

He was making fun of you.

>the people who spread aids are not bad but the people who are depressed that aids is a problem are bad.

Try again Fattir Bint Ali bint Satir Bint Khan Bint Mehmet bint Jabil Bint Fatoush Bint Jalilikahn

Please leave and come back in ten years (or whenever you stop browsing /r9k/).

>has reliance on ad hominems challenged
>responds with another ad hominem

W E W
E
W

>he just learned what a logical fallacy is

>tfw you're so pathetic you can't even identify with a dostoevsky character

You should not feel too sad, you are probably pathetic enough to identify with a Dickens character.

this isn't me, but I was going to reply with something similar.

and while we're fruitlessly calling out logical fallacies, I'll see your ad hominem and raise you a strawman.

>Just because a lot of the ad hominems you hurl against them are accurate doesn't detract from the insightfulness of their social critique.
Views of society are neither here nor there and are completely irrelevant. The Underground Man's social critiques are quite accurate, and at times scathingly truthful about society's toxicity, but that doesn't justify his defeat. It does not validate his idea to make a fool of himself at the dinner party, it doesn't legitimize his words to the prostitute, and it doesn't justify him withholding money from his servant. All of these things could have been handled intelligently and benevolentlyof it weren't for his incessant victim complex, his "moral obligation" to greet the society he hates with more hate. His oppression came from outside, but his defeat came from within himself. He lacked the intellectual maturity to see that his "victimhood" was self-imposed.

Read The Idiot.

>because I can't grasp the fundamentals my logic, my critics are incapable of anything beyond them

>Read The Idiot.
It's on my to-do list. Also I do agree with your post.

>*fundamentals OF logic

>I'll see your ad hominem and raise you a strawman.
If you thought there was an ad hominem in what he said you clearly don't know what an ad hominem you sack of shit. I bet you even thought my post was an ad hominem, but if you thought that you are an idiot.

tl/rd learn what an ad hominem is before you call people out on it.

This.

The UM does the irrational to spurn his fear/hatred of the rational egoist.

ayyy someone else knows what the fuck they're talking about lmao. I'm satisfied, you can all go back to comparing the underground man to r9k now.

stop using all dem school words.

I recognize you. You motherfucker. Stop replying to all of my posts telling me to write simpler. The only superfluous polysyllabic word in that post was "egoistic," and even then it's necessary for nuance.

He had a horrible upbringing and became another lost, confused soul in a rapidly changing society brimming with fashionable ideas from the West which further uproot the people and lead them astray. Yes, the UM exacerbates his issues and does mental gymnastics but it's clear he's as much a victim as he is self-victimizing. Super autonomous "It's all on you" really has no place in Dostoevsky works, it's pretty egoistic.

Treating the novel as the account of a proto-robot really sells it short. The philosophical musings are important and play out in the second part. Not the mention the novel itself is commentary.

did we read the same book? he knows he's a piece of shit and tears down his own 'convoluted philosophical moralizing' as soon as he puts it on the page. he CONSTANTLY admits to his shortcomings and character flaws. what the fuck are you even talking about.

this is the biggest meme worth reading

L I T E R A L L Y M E