This book is so hard for me to read. Its almost earthbreakingly relatable and makes me think back on a lot of bad things Ive done without directly saying Im bad but making me come to my own conclussion on the fact.
I always read _Notes_ as a kinda cautionary tale. _"If this is how you wanna think, this is how you are gonna end up."_ It's a stretch to think that a man as devoutly Christian as Dostoyevsky could have actually advocated that _Underground_ life.
I'm beginning my studies of Dostoevsky now ("The Brothers"). Doestoevsky is writing to the Russian middle class in their "vernacular." He is the ultimate imposter. His novel "The Double" indicates this quite well. It's a major theme in all his novels. He is writing the the Russian middle class in order to convince them of "other" things. Things quite opposite of faith, God, the church, history, laws, economic conditions, society as it is known. Freedom as an absolute seems to be the only motivation. Diversity without unity. Liberty without law. Doing without direction or restraint.
I will look for the movie, "The Double," staring Peter O'Tool as Dostoevsky. Now, reading through the liberal arts is interesting. But, mostly its just exasperating. I consider where Hutchins and Adler, the editors of the Great Books Series, ended up. The book, "A Great Idea at the Time" (1994) gives the humorous account. But the story goes on from there. Mortimer Adler grew up an orthodox Jew. In college (freshman year) he became an atheist. So, what else is new? He remained an atheist until his readings in the liberal arts made him aware of his ignorance in Christianity. Literature and the humanities is filled with significant references to Christianity. So, Adler converted to Christ (sometime after his 50th birthday) and joined the Episcopal Church. He lived on past one-hundred-years of age! At the last five years of his life, Adler converted once again, this time to Catholicism! Both Adler and Hutchins were believers in one-world government. They saw the United Nations as the best answer to war and inequality. Today, they would be called "globalist." But, they would also be appalled at the controversy over "queer" bathrooms. Or, would they? This is, at last, the logical conclusion of freedom in the West... queer....
against the wall, the firing squad ready. then he got a reprieve. suppose they had shot Dostoevsky? before he wrote all that? I suppose it wouldn't have mattered not directly. there are billions of people who have never read him and never will. but as a young man I know that he got me through the factories, past the whores, lifted me high through the night and put me down in a better place. even while in the bar drinking with the other derelicts, I was glad they gave Dostoevsky a reprieve, it gave me one, allowed me to look directly at those rancid faces in my world, death pointing its finger, I held fast, an immaculate drunk sharing the stinking dark with my brothers. -Bukowski
Thanks, TheGameHaa. Right now I'm working on a video on Existentialism and Human Development, which combines philosophy and psychology. I'm hoping to get it out during Spring break (later this month). Anyhow, thanks for the warm words. Eric
A man is what his brain is. MRI, CAT, and PET scans tell all. This, after an IQ test (at the proper age of 17 to 22)... Doestoevsky and the existentialists had diseased brains... the individual brain was/is extremely uncomfortable for them... It's a matter of brain-body chemistry (physiology). Instead of philosophy, we should all be studying human anatomy, physiology, chemistry.
@@garundip.mcgrundy8311 Well Dostoevsky was an epileptic and that's not a big secret. And yes, you can easily see it in his works. He sees the world cursed or doomed and thinks that the big changes should come. He is also very suspicious and hateful towards some nations. It is the same as others who suffer from chronic illness like Nietzsche or Lovecraft. Still it doesn't mean that you should reject all of his thoughts. I think that they has even more worth because of that. His hard life (sickness, exile, mock execution) made him a very sensitive person, so we can take a look deep inside ourselves through his eyes.
Eric, You humanize existentialism which is not always an easy thing to do. Keep publishing these videos, and I look forward to viewing your take on Heidegger next. I'm using your video in my world lit class tomorrow. You won out over Thug notes, which again, is not easy to do. Your reflections on spite, freedom, and morally judgmental hierarchies remind me of my existentialism class at Fairfield. I was 20, and I was blindly answering questions about freedom, despair, and suffering while the rest of the class stared. Thanks for the memory. Jamie
Wow, thanks, Jamie, for noticing that! Yeah, I'm definitely trying to present existentialism in a way that makes it more accessible and more palpably human. For me, these ideas are really alive and provocative and beautiful... and so my intent is to try to help people perceive all of that. And it's gratifying when people are able to feel that intention in these videos. So, thanks again for noticing it... and good luck on your presentation tomorrow. Eric P.S. I'm currently working on a video that interrelates existentialism and human development -- both personally and socially.
@@revmachine2662 It's called, "Existentialism and Human Development." If you type "Dodson existentialism development" into TH-cam's search bar, it should be the first video to pop up. Anyhow, thanks for your interest. Eric D.
Thank you for this video! It really helped me understand more about his notes from a better point of view because I couldn't understand what he meant in my English textbook for college after reading the first 10 pages out of 80.
Eric, your videos are awesome! To give up some of your time to make these is a real benefit to others, especially with some of the more difficult ideas and concepts. I'm a big fan of existential philosophers and writers so I love findings videos like these on TH-cam that share those themes. Looking forward to more of the same!
Hi John... Thanks... Actually, you've hit on one of my big motivations for making these videos. Personally, I've benefited so much from the TH-cam videos that other people have made (especially when I have an appliance or car to fix) that I definitely feel a desire to give-back in whatever way I can. Right now I'm working on a longer video that I'm calling "The Adventure of Phenomenology," but it'll probably take several weeks to complete. Anyhow, thanks so much for watching, and for taking the time to comment. Eric
I noticed before you mentioned you'd like to do videos for Kierkegaard and Phenomenology, Kierkegaard would be brilliant ut TH-cam doesn't really have any videos for Phenomenology and its such a fascinating subject so I'm sure people will be delighted you're doing it. I'm reading a genuinely impressive book about it at the moment by Dermot Moran, it's a fantastic introduction.
Does anyone notice that Underground Man seems to exhibit characteristics of social anxiety disorder? When I read the novella 40 years ago, the concept of "anxiety" was common, but not "social anxiety." As I read the first section of novella, I kept thinking this person has the SA disorder.
I don't currently have the words to describe how good this video is. Well done though. Notes from Underground is a very dark book, especially when you're in a similar situation.
Hi Eric. Feel compelled once again to complement your videos. I read Kaufmanns Existentialism from Distoyevski to Sartre and found and still found Dostoyevski difficult to grasp. Your 10 minute brief helped me gain a footing and I'll be looking forward to reading Kaufmann and the full aunderground Man now :o). So once again .. Thanks!
Thanks, I didn't get all these themes from reading the book. The 2nd half appeals to me more where he demonstrates his self destructive behaviour rather than theorising about it.
I was this guy. I even had the liver disease and the addiction (not gambling). Not him anymore, and I am actually grateful to "that guy" for teaching me the awful power of what Nietzsche called "ressentiment".
Well, thanks, hellvanful. The truth is that I'm not all that great at self-promotion. For instance, I'm not into social media like Facebook™ & Twitter™, which I think are conduits for getting a lot of views on TH-cam. But I feel thankful for whoever takes the time to watch the videos I've made... so many thanks to you, hellvanful. Eric
Hi Eric, I was wondering about Dostoyevski's view of freedom. If pursuit of happiness is not freedom because of selectively committing to one aspect of life, then doesn't the same hold true for committing to freedom itself? This argument could be generalised to prove that any sort of commitment is a loss of freedom, even if it is an expression of one's will, and thus, an expression of one's freedom. Any free person has freedom to choose not to be free in a certain aspect of life. This choice, however doesn't seem to make the peron any less free in a sense that he can always choose not to commit to something he decided to commit in the past. Also, isn't commitment something that allows us to give meaning to our lives? Is it even possible to have meaning without commitment? Not expecting you to have the answers, but hearing more questions could be very helpful!
thebil Well, it's good that you're not expecting m to have the answers, because I feel pretty acutely that all I ever have is more questions. In fact, I find that anything thing that I have by way of an answer to anything is always just a prelude to a new question. Basically, I find that answers are themselves mostly just new questions. Anyhow, does committing to freedom itself entail a diminution of freedom? I think that a lot of this depends on how one defines commitment. For some people, committing to something necessarily involves excluding the possibility of considering and pursuing other options. In my view, however, this isn't actually genuine commitment, but a form of fanaticism or zealotry. For me, genuine commitment of course involves being whole-hearted about something. But it also involves some measure of doubt & uncertainty about it (shades of Kierkegaard here). That's what differentiates the committed person from the maniacal zealot. So, insofar as commitment involves doubt, it involves one's being open to other options. So.... in committing to freedom, one would then necessarily recognize the possibility of being wrong, and consequently of being open to the non-pursuit of freedom, or the pursuit of non-freedom... or any number of other hybridized possibilities. From this point of view, only ersatz commitment in the sense of fanaticism would involve closing off the option of running from freedom (which as you say -- correctly, I think -- would also be an expression of one's freedom). The trick, I suspect, is to maintain a sense of both commitment and freedom that is loose and approximate, and hence always open to being questioned, redefined, re-interpreted, etc. After all, who's to say that our present, already existing ideas about these things are somehow the final formulae for them? So... the pursuit of freedom could itself become a kind of imprisonment. But it could also be one of the roads to freedom. It depends mostly on how you're going about it, I suspect. Anyhow... cool question. I hope I provided an interesting non-answer to it. Cheers, Eric
Eric Dodson But if the measure of freedom is the amount of possible actions one can take, then any commitment has to be necessarily a loss of freedom, as by definition, one is more likely to choose some thing over other things when committed. Something like taste, or reason can be thought in category of commitment, and as such would be a loss of freedom regardless of amount of zealotry or doubt involved. A human totally free, would be one without any predisposition to do any thing over other things, and as such would become something totally meaningless. It seems that freedom is the currency one has to pay with for meaning, if meaning is something one is committed to obtaining :). I would even argue that freedom cannot be truly the meaning of life, because the totally free man would have to be not committed to life more than he would have to be committed to non - life. Moreover, the more freedom we spend on meaning, the more meaningful our life becomes, and as such, one could regard the lack of freedom as the meaning of life... strange, isn't it? It becomes even stranger once you mix some Heidegger into equation as he regards humans as being hung in present with the decision making process being predisposed by past only to extent human chooses it to be. If we consider that, then we cannot really say that any human can choose not to be free once he has really realised that he is free... Does that mean that a human cannot pay for meaning with freedom? It seems to assert that regardless to any meaning we give to life, it cannot become meaningful in any sense!
thebil Yeah... I'd agree that commitment implies that we're more likely to choose some things over others, which does indeed seem like an impingement on an absolute vision of human freedom. The problem, it seems to me, is that absolute visions of freedom always end up being at odds with reality as we encounter it -- every bit as much as the opposite deterministic visions of life are. It seems to me that real freedom lies somewhere between those extremes. And related constructs like meaning and commitment lie in that ambiguous middle-range, too. Consequently, to me the point of grappling with these ideas isn't so much to find a way of affirming or negating them as absolutes -- or even as relativities or probabilities. The point is to find a way of find a way of seeing them that deepens & amplifies the way we experience them (yes, I'll own this as a personal value that I have chosen... mostly because it makes life more fun). In other words, the reason why these existential analyses are important is that they can have the effect of pushing the outer boundary of our perception of freedom closer to the reality we're inhabiting. Here I agree with Sartre (and others) who claim that our habitual nasty pattern is almost always to search for ways to evade or disown or narrow our sense of our freedom. That happens naturally enough all on its own. So, the challenge is to find a way of counter-balancing that tendency with a view that operates in the opposite direction... which is what I suspect these existentialist are trying to do. It's not necessarily a shortcoming of their project that they end up falling short of affirming the deepest conceivable vision of freedom. It may be ambition enough just to broaden the horizon a mile or two. Hmm... I might be wander a bit from your point... but hopefully it's still in a fruitful direction.... Eric
Eric Dodson after more thinking about this, I realised that I completely omitted the value of choices when defining the measure of freedom. Since values are completely subjective, then we can't really say anything general about total freedom one possess, even if amount of choices varies (paradoxically, one can even value less choices more!). What I also noticed is that reversible choices, such as the one about commiting to freedom do not really inhibit it, as we can always undo them (as you already observed). Moreover, choosing to commit may be meaningful, as well as stopping the commitment, so one can be both free and have meaningful life! Hooray! Your view of freedom and related stuff is very interesting. You really don't seem to be concerned with truth, all you want is fun. I envy that spirit. Anyway, great discussion, I really learned something important, even if no answers were given. I hope that you don't mind if I post more questions sometime in the future?
thebil Yes, I'm enjoying this thread, too. And so of course I don't mind your posting more questions, comments, etc. That's one of the reasons I make these videos. Actually, I am still concerned with truth. But I've learned that truth -- at least the way it's usually conceived -- serves deeper things in life. It's still part of the equation, but there are more important variables (at least in my estimation). In the past I probably considered the will to truth to be the fundamental motive force in human affairs. But after a while, I came to sense that truth is really nothing more than a kind of conceptual framework for making sense of things. And like all other conceptual frameworks, it's historically and culturally conditioned... and it continues to evolve as we ourselves evolve (I'm thinking here about how Heidegger's notion of "truth as alethia" improves on the medieval adequation theory of truth, for instance). Anyhow, my point is that I see truth as being only a step along the way, rather than the destination we often take it to be. To put it in perhaps a more compact form: Truth serves the further reaches of life, rather than the other way around. One of those further reaches is something like fun -- the experience of taking joy in our time as human beings, and of feeling life's ecstasies & moments of transcendence in powerful and transformative ways. And yes, I suppose that I've found that seeing things this way does lead to a greater sense of playfulness, liberation, laughter with life, etc. Maybe I've reached an age where I find greater substance in enjoying life than in being right about things. Or it might be just an expression of my own idiosyncratic, personal pathology... I'm not always sure. Anyhow... I'm not so sure about the whole idea that value is completely subjective. I see value as involving a confluence or inter-penetration of both subjective experience and objective substantiality. For instance, we value, say, wood partly because of its place within the sphere of objects and their properties -- as well as our subjective experience of it (its inviting tactile & olfactory aspects, e.g.). Well, my wife is calling.... Cheers, Eric
Thank you Eric Dodson for unearthing the philosophical underpinnings of this novella. You did not add or remove anything from the original text...u did justice, at least in my judgement. Something is however not clear to me. It seem Dostoyevsky was describing the tendencies of a particular type of conscious minded people (at least the author told us about another set of shallow minded people who are not as deep minded as the underground man). But its not true... in fact, he was describing a tendency which exist in every human being, at least in varying degree...depending on one's level of consciousness.
I agree with Kenji Lota...I could listen to you for hours. Especially when you read the short lines from the book. You put such emotion into what was happening, it transports the listener into the authors realm. Thank you for your time and posting.
Excellent summary of a deeply insightful book….but you lose credibility when you get the title wrong it’s “Notes from Underground”….there is no “the”….it’s important because there is no single “underground”, it’s different for each of us.
Hmm... I don't know to whom you're referring. Does "FB" stand for "Facebook?" If so, well... I don't do Facebook, so I don't know about "Feature Posts" or about "A Spontaine." Could you briefly enlighten me?
adam lichten Yeah, you got it! I've always loved that piece. So, when it came time to pick something from a 19th century Russian composer, I thought of it pretty quickly (although Tchaikovsky & Rimsky-Korsakov were in the running, too). Anyhow, thanks for watching, oh cultured one! Eric
Wow, that sounds like great topic for a paper. Good luck with it. Hmm... Hvistendahl... that sounds, Danish maybe? In any case, greetings from the USA. Eric D.
Thanks for making some really worthwhile videos. Question, was Dostoyevsky a biblical literalist, or more of a philosophical Christian? Because, I can imagine the latter, like Tolstoy, but would be baffled by the former. Not that it would be unusual for me to be baffled…
In 1947, a couple of aliens flew to Earth in a silver saucer-shaped craft. After closely observing mankind, they shit themselves laughing and crashed into the desert in Roswell, New Mexico. The US Army found the shit covered craft, conducted an investigation, deduced what happened and out of embarressment told the public it was a weather balloon. .
I don't think your examples that people enjoy exploding things or breaking them makes the point. This has to do with an adrenalin reaction, which is a survival skill. The fact is, that breaking a window may be fun, but having broken glass in your living room isn't fun at all. And as far as war goes, wars are fought in the pursuit of happiness. Nations want to acquire goods or territories, so they go to war. Spite is asserting your will, pleasing your ego even to the point of self-harm.
No it is just fine. If I was 17 I would struggle too. The ideas presented are hard to comprehend, but the writing style can also be really tricky at times. I say, go slow, look up words you don't understand, you work through it. If you don't understand what the ideas are, then chances are life hasn't ran you into the ground just yet. Someone above said that this book is a cautionary tale and they are right. I wish I would have read this at your age. I am not quite where he is in this book, but I absolutely see myself going down this path if I make the wrong decisions enough times.
We live in a societal conditioning that is itself conditioned. But actually the Life is the true being and all the rest is a structure through which to experience shared being.
I think his point was to point at how stupid it is to pursue self-ownership and how becoming a slave to pursuing independence is so destructive. The editors actually removed a section of Notes from the Underground where Dostoevsky talks about the need for Jesus Christ.
I think you shouldn't put the Underground man's thoughts as Dostoevsky's thoughts as you made here 6:22. The whole book is about critisizing the Underground man's worldview so it's not what Dostoevsky's actual beliefs were.
I don't think this video is very persuasive when it comes to showing that people choose the disadvantageous for its own sake. For instance, the example of the student playing video games before an exam in the video is actually one where a person has made a hedonic calculation that the short-term pleasure of playing video games tonight is worth paying the long-term cost of doing badly on the test tomorrow. It's not an example of someone making the choice to do what is disadvantageous absent any calculation in an act of self-destruction that serves as an affirmation of one's freedom.
I enjoy your videos but I think this one misses the mark. I don't believe Dostoyevsky intended to imbue the underground man with nobility any more than he would ascribe such to the Grand Inquisitor. Perhaps we might view this work as an apology for slave morality (akin to how The Grand Inquisitor apologizes for Communism...in concept at least). As for Nietzsche, I believe he would identify spite as a quality or emotion that detracts from "the great health," and as a marker of inferiority on the whole. I'm not contending that Dostoyevsky was an enlightenment thinker and I don't believe either he or Nietzsche would be against breaking things (which, as I see it, has no direct correlation to spite). I do give you credit for being somewhat persuasive in your presentation.
That was the old model in a world that refuses to hear your pleas and humanity, you just go underground, you numb the pain Nietzche isolating himself and going mad, coco, bananas was an example of this. But now the model is to not bury yourself bury your problems but to act them out, and I will say in some respect this is a better way (of course everything has it's limits). Now at the absurd all around people go sideways witness the Comedian from Alan Moore's Imagining, who may or may not have bee at his younger stages an actual comedian, but seeing the madness the refusses all around him, perhaps at that time Veitnam's needless an endless boque of carnage delights and whims. He goes craxy at the absurd you can only question the answers the refuse to give for so long, and then you become. The Comedian in the Watchmen was very, very dark, but still admired by his pee perhaps because they know somewhere deep inside his heart's onion was a layer however thin that refused to give into the bleakness all around him. He was very dark but I liked that charcter study, perhaps the best of the Watchmen. Consider the Joker in all those endless avalanch retalling and re-stories. He to has some hurt that is masked a very deep and sensitive hurt of his then newborn and young family. He resoned, why not ? in the face of all this cruelty and unquestion when the obseanly rich can kill the begger who wants to tame the grohl of his stomach, why not. Why cant i just be another cog in the wheel, out for my own, when everybody else just the same, refusing their neigbors splinter for what is in them a plank, so uncaring and so out for ther own. In society today do yo recognize them, the Comedian and the Joker, who might share a joke before making a shooters gallery of the innocent?
+mathew idicula Well, if you're looking to life for answers to these kinds of questions... the answer would be that you can invent any kind of life you'd want... saint, sinner, apathetic, engaged, whatever. Of course, you're also responsible for the consequences, whatever they might be. But that in itself isn't stopping you. So, the real question is: What do you really want out of your life?
I read it twice and didn’t get any deep idea out of it. Except the one but really huge one about free will and how men chose their path to distraction over all the advantages promised by regular way of living. Other then that, it’s a story written by a looser about a looser who enjoys his loooserness so much that he keeps loosing out of spite.
No, mr. d., I have no love of suffering. I don't know anyone who has such leanings. I'm afraid you made a mistake on this one, d. I've seen lots of suffering from an early age. No, you can't sell me on this. I'll be back to see you.
This book is so hard for me to read. Its almost earthbreakingly relatable and makes me think back on a lot of bad things Ive done without directly saying Im bad but making me come to my own conclussion on the fact.
“I beg you readers listen to the groans of a man with a toothache”
best line. Fyodor was wildin in 18-whatever it was
when i read that paragraph, it was a HARD HIT!
I read this book years ago while I was in a dark place. It fuckin ruined me. And I'm glad about it.
Well said. I think we need to get uncomfortable and broken to rebuild ourselves over and over....but with long pauses. Emma
I always read _Notes_ as a kinda cautionary tale. _"If this is how you wanna think, this is how you are gonna end up."_ It's a stretch to think that a man as devoutly Christian as Dostoyevsky could have actually advocated that _Underground_ life.
I'm beginning my studies of Dostoevsky now ("The Brothers"). Doestoevsky is writing to the Russian middle class in their "vernacular." He is the ultimate imposter. His novel "The Double" indicates this quite well. It's a major theme in all his novels. He is writing the the Russian middle class in order to convince them of "other" things. Things quite opposite of faith, God, the church, history, laws, economic conditions, society as it is known. Freedom as an absolute seems to be the only motivation. Diversity without unity. Liberty without law. Doing without direction or restraint.
The fact Dostoevsky was a christian contradicts most of those.
Most of those what?
Garundi P. McGrundy The things you said. On a digression have you seen the film The Double? It came out in 2013 I think
I will look for the movie, "The Double," staring Peter O'Tool as Dostoevsky. Now, reading through the liberal arts is interesting. But, mostly its just exasperating. I consider where Hutchins and Adler, the editors of the Great Books Series, ended up. The book, "A Great Idea at the Time" (1994) gives the humorous account. But the story goes on from there. Mortimer Adler grew up an orthodox Jew. In college (freshman year) he became an atheist. So, what else is new? He remained an atheist until his readings in the liberal arts made him aware of his ignorance in Christianity. Literature and the humanities is filled with significant references to Christianity. So, Adler converted to Christ (sometime after his 50th birthday) and joined the Episcopal Church. He lived on past one-hundred-years of age! At the last five years of his life, Adler converted once again, this time to Catholicism! Both Adler and Hutchins were believers in one-world government. They saw the United Nations as the best answer to war and inequality. Today, they would be called "globalist." But, they would also be appalled at the controversy over "queer" bathrooms. Or, would they? This is, at last, the logical conclusion of freedom in the West... queer....
against the wall, the firing squad ready.
then he got a reprieve.
suppose they had shot Dostoevsky?
before he wrote all that?
I suppose it wouldn't have
mattered
not directly.
there are billions of people who have
never read him and never
will.
but as a young man I know that he
got me through the factories,
past the whores,
lifted me high through the night
and put me down
in a better
place.
even while in the bar
drinking with the other
derelicts,
I was glad they gave Dostoevsky a
reprieve,
it gave me one,
allowed me to look directly at those
rancid faces
in my world,
death pointing its finger,
I held fast,
an immaculate drunk
sharing the stinking dark with
my
brothers. -Bukowski
Montana, there is much to learn from Dostoevsky.
By far, this is one of the best summaries, of philosophical discourse, on TH-cam thus far. Love it. Keep it up.
Thanks, TheGameHaa. Right now I'm working on a video on Existentialism and Human Development, which combines philosophy and psychology. I'm hoping to get it out during Spring break (later this month). Anyhow, thanks for the warm words. Eric
"I do not own any of these images, or the introductory music -- especially since I'm not a 19th century Russian composer named Mussorgsky."
PROVE IT
Dostoevsky's best work. One of the best pieces of literature ever written.
A man is what his brain is. MRI, CAT, and PET scans tell all. This, after an IQ test (at the proper age of 17 to 22)... Doestoevsky and the existentialists had diseased brains... the individual brain was/is extremely uncomfortable for them... It's a matter of brain-body chemistry (physiology). Instead of philosophy, we should all be studying human anatomy, physiology, chemistry.
+Garundi P. McGrundy just cuz their brains were a bit different doesn't mean their insights don't apply to other peope
You might ask, "What insights?"
@@garundip.mcgrundy8311 You fail to see and comprehend what makes a human.....human. A man is not merely flesh and bone.
@@garundip.mcgrundy8311 Well Dostoevsky was an epileptic and that's not a big secret. And yes, you can easily see it in his works. He sees the world cursed or doomed and thinks that the big changes should come. He is also very suspicious and hateful towards some nations. It is the same as others who suffer from chronic illness like Nietzsche or Lovecraft.
Still it doesn't mean that you should reject all of his thoughts. I think that they has even more worth because of that. His hard life (sickness, exile, mock execution) made him a very sensitive person, so we can take a look deep inside ourselves through his eyes.
A wonderful and thoughtful summation of a brilliant piece of literature. Great job!!
Reminded me of that quote from fight club
"I wanted to destroy something beautiful"
Eric, You humanize existentialism which is not always an easy thing to do. Keep publishing these videos, and I look forward to viewing your take on Heidegger next. I'm using your video in my world lit class tomorrow. You won out over Thug notes, which again, is not easy to do. Your reflections on spite, freedom, and morally judgmental hierarchies remind me of my existentialism class at Fairfield. I was 20, and I was blindly answering questions about freedom, despair, and suffering while the rest of the class stared. Thanks for the memory. Jamie
Wow, thanks, Jamie, for noticing that! Yeah, I'm definitely trying to present existentialism in a way that makes it more accessible and more palpably human. For me, these ideas are really alive and provocative and beautiful... and so my intent is to try to help people perceive all of that. And it's gratifying when people are able to feel that intention in these videos. So, thanks again for noticing it... and good luck on your presentation tomorrow. Eric P.S. I'm currently working on a video that interrelates existentialism and human development -- both personally and socially.
@@ericdodson2644 Hi, can you tell me what's the title of that video ?
@@revmachine2662 It's called, "Existentialism and Human Development." If you type "Dodson existentialism development" into TH-cam's search bar, it should be the first video to pop up. Anyhow, thanks for your interest. Eric D.
Read “existentialism is a humanism” by Sartre.
Thank you for this video! It really helped me understand more about his notes from a better point of view because I couldn't understand what he meant in my English textbook for college after reading the first 10 pages out of 80.
Your points are very concise. Thanks for the vid. I really like it.
And thank-you, thalyx90, for taking the time to watch it, and to comment on it
Youth health and freedom are the greatest blessings of life.
Deep.
"are we geniuely free if all we ever choose is what optimizes our advantages in life" What a great thought. Thank you for your great explanation.
Eric, your videos are awesome! To give up some of your time to make these is a real benefit to others, especially with some of the more difficult ideas and concepts. I'm a big fan of existential philosophers and writers so I love findings videos like these on TH-cam that share those themes. Looking forward to more of the same!
...and make longer studies of these videos in your engaging and accessible language and put them in a book, that would sell!
Hi John... Thanks... Actually, you've hit on one of my big motivations for making these videos. Personally, I've benefited so much from the TH-cam videos that other people have made (especially when I have an appliance or car to fix) that I definitely feel a desire to give-back in whatever way I can. Right now I'm working on a longer video that I'm calling "The Adventure of Phenomenology," but it'll probably take several weeks to complete. Anyhow, thanks so much for watching, and for taking the time to comment. Eric
I noticed before you mentioned you'd like to do videos for Kierkegaard and Phenomenology, Kierkegaard would be brilliant ut TH-cam doesn't really have any videos for Phenomenology and its such a fascinating subject so I'm sure people will be delighted you're doing it. I'm reading a genuinely impressive book about it at the moment by Dermot Moran, it's a fantastic introduction.
What an awesome analysis. Half way through this book and this puts it in perspective. Thanks!
Does anyone notice that Underground Man seems to exhibit characteristics of social anxiety disorder? When I read the novella 40 years ago, the concept of "anxiety" was common, but not "social anxiety." As I read the first section of novella, I kept thinking this person has the SA disorder.
No he has not ,he used to talk a lot with his colleagues and mock them,one with SA can’t do that
I got reference of Dostoevsky in movie " Tokyo Godfather " [ anime comedy of 3 Homeless ], searched for Dostoevsky and got this great video.
Yes, you point out not only that it’s about irrationality, but that it is unique in that it is able to somewhat define irrationality in rational terms
I don't currently have the words to describe how good this video is. Well done though. Notes from Underground is a very dark book, especially when you're in a similar situation.
Hi Eric. Feel compelled once again to complement your videos. I read Kaufmanns Existentialism from Distoyevski to Sartre and found and still found Dostoyevski difficult to grasp. Your 10 minute brief helped me gain a footing and I'll be looking forward to reading Kaufmann and the full aunderground Man now :o). So once again .. Thanks!
And thanks again, Michael, for taking the time to watch. Eric
Thanks, I didn't get all these themes from reading the book. The 2nd half appeals to me more where he demonstrates his self destructive behaviour rather than theorising about it.
Thank you for creating this.
I was this guy. I even had the liver disease and the addiction (not gambling).
Not him anymore, and I am actually grateful to "that guy" for teaching me the awful power of what Nietzsche called "ressentiment".
Super work, Eric. Thank you.
This was fantastic and right on point.
Thank you sir! you deserve more views.
Well, thanks, hellvanful. The truth is that I'm not all that great at self-promotion. For instance, I'm not into social media like Facebook™ & Twitter™, which I think are conduits for getting a lot of views on TH-cam. But I feel thankful for whoever takes the time to watch the videos I've made... so many thanks to you, hellvanful. Eric
Thanks for the effort and time you put in these great videos
Hi Eric, I was wondering about Dostoyevski's view of freedom.
If pursuit of happiness is not freedom because of selectively committing to one aspect of life, then doesn't the same hold true for committing to freedom itself? This argument could be generalised to prove that any sort of commitment is a loss of freedom, even if it is an expression of one's will, and thus, an expression of one's freedom. Any free person has freedom to choose not to be free in a certain aspect of life. This choice, however doesn't seem to make the peron any less free in a sense that he can always choose not to commit to something he decided to commit in the past. Also, isn't commitment something that allows us to give meaning to our lives? Is it even possible to have meaning without commitment?
Not expecting you to have the answers, but hearing more questions could be very helpful!
thebil Well, it's good that you're not expecting m to have the answers, because I feel pretty acutely that all I ever have is more questions. In fact, I find that anything thing that I have by way of an answer to anything is always just a prelude to a new question. Basically, I find that answers are themselves mostly just new questions.
Anyhow, does committing to freedom itself entail a diminution of freedom? I think that a lot of this depends on how one defines commitment. For some people, committing to something necessarily involves excluding the possibility of considering and pursuing other options. In my view, however, this isn't actually genuine commitment, but a form of fanaticism or zealotry. For me, genuine commitment of course involves being whole-hearted about something. But it also involves some measure of doubt & uncertainty about it (shades of Kierkegaard here). That's what differentiates the committed person from the maniacal zealot. So, insofar as commitment involves doubt, it involves one's being open to other options. So.... in committing to freedom, one would then necessarily recognize the possibility of being wrong, and consequently of being open to the non-pursuit of freedom, or the pursuit of non-freedom... or any number of other hybridized possibilities. From this point of view, only ersatz commitment in the sense of fanaticism would involve closing off the option of running from freedom (which as you say -- correctly, I think -- would also be an expression of one's freedom).
The trick, I suspect, is to maintain a sense of both commitment and freedom that is loose and approximate, and hence always open to being questioned, redefined, re-interpreted, etc. After all, who's to say that our present, already existing ideas about these things are somehow the final formulae for them? So... the pursuit of freedom could itself become a kind of imprisonment. But it could also be one of the roads to freedom. It depends mostly on how you're going about it, I suspect.
Anyhow... cool question. I hope I provided an interesting non-answer to it.
Cheers, Eric
Eric Dodson But if the measure of freedom is the amount of possible actions one can take, then any commitment has to be necessarily a loss of freedom, as by definition, one is more likely to choose some thing over other things when committed. Something like taste, or reason can be thought in category of commitment, and as such would be a loss of freedom regardless of amount of zealotry or doubt involved. A human totally free, would be one without any predisposition to do any thing over other things, and as such would become something totally meaningless.
It seems that freedom is the currency one has to pay with for meaning, if meaning is something one is committed to obtaining :). I would even argue that freedom cannot be truly the meaning of life, because the totally free man would have to be not committed to life more than he would have to be committed to non - life. Moreover, the more freedom we spend on meaning, the more meaningful our life becomes, and as such, one could regard the lack of freedom as the meaning of life... strange, isn't it? It becomes even stranger once you mix some Heidegger into equation as he regards humans as being hung in present with the decision making process being predisposed by past only to extent human chooses it to be. If we consider that, then we cannot really say that any human can choose not to be free once he has really realised that he is free... Does that mean that a human cannot pay for meaning with freedom? It seems to assert that regardless to any meaning we give to life, it cannot become meaningful in any sense!
thebil Yeah... I'd agree that commitment implies that we're more likely to choose some things over others, which does indeed seem like an impingement on an absolute vision of human freedom. The problem, it seems to me, is that absolute visions of freedom always end up being at odds with reality as we encounter it -- every bit as much as the opposite deterministic visions of life are. It seems to me that real freedom lies somewhere between those extremes. And related constructs like meaning and commitment lie in that ambiguous middle-range, too. Consequently, to me the point of grappling with these ideas isn't so much to find a way of affirming or negating them as absolutes -- or even as relativities or probabilities. The point is to find a way of find a way of seeing them that deepens & amplifies the way we experience them (yes, I'll own this as a personal value that I have chosen... mostly because it makes life more fun). In other words, the reason why these existential analyses are important is that they can have the effect of pushing the outer boundary of our perception of freedom closer to the reality we're inhabiting. Here I agree with Sartre (and others) who claim that our habitual nasty pattern is almost always to search for ways to evade or disown or narrow our sense of our freedom. That happens naturally enough all on its own. So, the challenge is to find a way of counter-balancing that tendency with a view that operates in the opposite direction... which is what I suspect these existentialist are trying to do. It's not necessarily a shortcoming of their project that they end up falling short of affirming the deepest conceivable vision of freedom. It may be ambition enough just to broaden the horizon a mile or two.
Hmm... I might be wander a bit from your point... but hopefully it's still in a fruitful direction.... Eric
Eric Dodson after more thinking about this, I realised that I completely omitted the value of choices when defining the measure of freedom. Since values are completely subjective, then we can't really say anything general about total freedom one possess, even if amount of choices varies (paradoxically, one can even value less choices more!).
What I also noticed is that reversible choices, such as the one about commiting to freedom do not really inhibit it, as we can always undo them (as you already observed). Moreover, choosing to commit may be meaningful, as well as stopping the commitment, so one can be both free and have meaningful life! Hooray!
Your view of freedom and related stuff is very interesting. You really don't seem to be concerned with truth, all you want is fun. I envy that spirit.
Anyway, great discussion, I really learned something important, even if no answers were given. I hope that you don't mind if I post more questions sometime in the future?
thebil Yes, I'm enjoying this thread, too. And so of course I don't mind your posting more questions, comments, etc. That's one of the reasons I make these videos.
Actually, I am still concerned with truth. But I've learned that truth -- at least the way it's usually conceived -- serves deeper things in life. It's still part of the equation, but there are more important variables (at least in my estimation). In the past I probably considered the will to truth to be the fundamental motive force in human affairs. But after a while, I came to sense that truth is really nothing more than a kind of conceptual framework for making sense of things. And like all other conceptual frameworks, it's historically and culturally conditioned... and it continues to evolve as we ourselves evolve (I'm thinking here about how Heidegger's notion of "truth as alethia" improves on the medieval adequation theory of truth, for instance). Anyhow, my point is that I see truth as being only a step along the way, rather than the destination we often take it to be. To put it in perhaps a more compact form: Truth serves the further reaches of life, rather than the other way around. One of those further reaches is something like fun -- the experience of taking joy in our time as human beings, and of feeling life's ecstasies & moments of transcendence in powerful and transformative ways. And yes, I suppose that I've found that seeing things this way does lead to a greater sense of playfulness, liberation, laughter with life, etc. Maybe I've reached an age where I find greater substance in enjoying life than in being right about things. Or it might be just an expression of my own idiosyncratic, personal pathology... I'm not always sure.
Anyhow... I'm not so sure about the whole idea that value is completely subjective. I see value as involving a confluence or inter-penetration of both subjective experience and objective substantiality. For instance, we value, say, wood partly because of its place within the sphere of objects and their properties -- as well as our subjective experience of it (its inviting tactile & olfactory aspects, e.g.).
Well, my wife is calling....
Cheers,
Eric
That was fantastic, thank you!!
this is awesome. thank you 😊
This helped me out so much, thank you! Great analysis
REALLY GOOD! GOOD JOB!
Thank you Eric Dodson for unearthing the philosophical underpinnings of this novella. You did not add or remove anything from the original text...u did justice, at least in my judgement. Something is however not clear to me. It seem Dostoyevsky was describing the tendencies of a particular type of conscious minded people (at least the author told us about another set of shallow minded people who are not as deep minded as the underground man). But its not true... in fact, he was describing a tendency which exist in every human being, at least in varying degree...depending on one's level of consciousness.
eric ...this analysis was cool......you seem to be intellectual.....keep up this work
Thanks Erick for the great job. I wish you were using simpler English words in your videos so non-English speakers could also fully understand
do you have audiobooks? I could listen to your voice all day.
+Kenji Lota Well, thank you. No, I don't have audiobooks. I'm just an amateur doing these videos in my spare time. Thanks for watching, though!
I agree with Kenji Lota...I could listen to you for hours. Especially when you read the short lines from the book. You put such emotion into what was happening, it transports the listener into the authors realm. Thank you for your time and posting.
Thank you, I really liked the analysis.
I never wanted to destroy anything in my entire life.
I am sorry about that.
Thanks. Good work.
You are one smart man
Thanks! for summing it up
Good stuff, hats off to you
I always considered 'Notes from the Underground' to be one of the most hilarious books ever written. That, and 'The good soldier Svejk'.
Superb explanation!
Superb. Thank you.
YO SMART, YO LOYAL, I APPRECIATE THAT!
thank you so much for this!!
Excellent summary of a deeply insightful book….but you lose credibility when you get the title wrong it’s “Notes from Underground”….there is no “the”….it’s important because there is no single “underground”, it’s different for each of us.
A Spontaine (FB) Today (3/24/17) Feature Post. I am surprised that you did not do more with "The Tyranny of Logic".
Hmm... I don't know to whom you're referring. Does "FB" stand for "Facebook?" If so, well... I don't do Facebook, so I don't know about "Feature Posts" or about "A Spontaine." Could you briefly enlighten me?
thank you!
8:30 That is horrifyingly insightful .
Excellent
pictures at an exhibition!
i feel so cultured for knowing the name. Haha
adam lichten Yeah, you got it! I've always loved that piece. So, when it came time to pick something from a 19th century Russian composer, I thought of it pretty quickly (although Tchaikovsky & Rimsky-Korsakov were in the running, too). Anyhow, thanks for watching, oh cultured one! Eric
As a "calculus fan," that was actually pretty funny.
Great video! Comparing this with taxi driver for a paper
Wow, that sounds like great topic for a paper. Good luck with it. Hmm... Hvistendahl... that sounds, Danish maybe? In any case, greetings from the USA. Eric D.
@@ericdodson2644 Norwegian, so very close:)
If I want to learn more of that, what should I study?
Psychology?
Thanks for making some really worthwhile videos. Question, was Dostoyevsky a biblical literalist, or more of a philosophical Christian? Because, I can imagine the latter, like Tolstoy, but would be baffled by the former. Not that it would be unusual for me to be baffled…
Seriously though, awesome job
Brilliant!!
In 1947, a couple of aliens flew to Earth in a silver saucer-shaped craft. After closely observing mankind, they shit themselves laughing and crashed into the desert in Roswell, New Mexico. The US Army found the shit covered craft, conducted an investigation, deduced what happened and out of embarressment told the public it was a weather balloon. .
"Immune to thier command."
The Manhattan Transfer, "Notes From The Underground " Brazil
4:21 what?
I can relate so much to the Underground Man
Awesome, awesome, awesome!!!
4:20 you really gonna spit that entire sentence out and just move on to "Third" like you didn't just say a whole lotta ooogalo boogalo type shit
I don't think your examples that people enjoy exploding things or breaking them makes the point. This has to do with an adrenalin reaction, which is a survival skill. The fact is, that breaking a window may be fun, but having broken glass in your living room isn't fun at all. And as far as war goes, wars are fought in the pursuit of happiness. Nations want to acquire goods or territories, so they go to war. Spite is asserting your will, pleasing your ego even to the point of self-harm.
you are great thank you
Is it bad that I, as a 17 year old, do not understand any of this? I am so confused with what he is trying to say?
No it is just fine. If I was 17 I would struggle too. The ideas presented are hard to comprehend, but the writing style can also be really tricky at times. I say, go slow, look up words you don't understand, you work through it.
If you don't understand what the ideas are, then chances are life hasn't ran you into the ground just yet. Someone above said that this book is a cautionary tale and they are right. I wish I would have read this at your age. I am not quite where he is in this book, but I absolutely see myself going down this path if I make the wrong decisions enough times.
You haven't lived long enough yet, just wait till you enter the work world
Freedom is in books rights is in books humanity is in world
We live in a society
We live in a societal conditioning that is itself conditioned.
But actually the Life is the true being and all the rest is a structure through which to experience shared being.
Well done
Does this philosophy support Ayn Rand's view vs Carl Marx's?
I think his point was to point at how stupid it is to pursue self-ownership and how becoming a slave to pursuing independence is so destructive. The editors actually removed a section of Notes from the Underground where Dostoevsky talks about the need for Jesus Christ.
Jeremy Chong you cant make a claim like that with zero sources. Led Zeppelin was actually a Jesus band, the record label removed it. #amen
That kind of reasoning makes me think about Fight Club. Anyone else ?
thanks again
I think you shouldn't put the Underground man's thoughts as Dostoevsky's thoughts as you made here 6:22. The whole book is about critisizing the Underground man's worldview so it's not what Dostoevsky's actual beliefs were.
Certainly one interpretation.
A little older, a little more confused.
I don't think this video is very persuasive when it comes to showing that people choose the disadvantageous for its own sake. For instance, the example of the student playing video games before an exam in the video is actually one where a person has made a hedonic calculation that the short-term pleasure of playing video games tonight is worth paying the long-term cost of doing badly on the test tomorrow. It's not an example of someone making the choice to do what is disadvantageous absent any calculation in an act of self-destruction that serves as an affirmation of one's freedom.
The best aphorism and summery of that books true meaning I have heard .
The torment of over thinking .
Deep down the ''Underground" has not hurt anyone! He is more redemptive than Albert Camus (The Stranger)
take a shot every time he says quasi moralistic XD
I enjoy your videos but I think this one misses the mark. I don't believe Dostoyevsky intended to imbue the underground man with nobility any more than he would ascribe such to the Grand Inquisitor. Perhaps we might view this work as an apology for slave morality (akin to how The Grand Inquisitor apologizes for Communism...in concept at least). As for Nietzsche, I believe he would identify spite as a quality or emotion that detracts from "the great health," and as a marker of inferiority on the whole.
I'm not contending that Dostoyevsky was an enlightenment thinker and I don't believe either he or Nietzsche would be against breaking things (which, as I see it, has no direct correlation to spite).
I do give you credit for being somewhat persuasive in your presentation.
Notes from Underground, the The Underground
What did you major in homie
music at the beginning?
+Georgios Ware Pictures at an Exhibition by Modest Mussorgsky
Of course, Damon Salvatore would be included in this lol
8:29
Fs
That was the old model in a world that refuses to hear your pleas and humanity, you just go underground, you numb the pain Nietzche isolating himself and going mad, coco, bananas was an example of this. But now the model is to not bury yourself bury your problems but to act them out, and I will say in some respect this is a better way (of course everything has it's limits). Now at the absurd all around people go sideways witness the Comedian from Alan Moore's Imagining, who may or may not have bee at his younger stages an actual comedian, but seeing the madness the refusses all around him, perhaps at that time Veitnam's needless an endless boque of carnage delights and whims. He goes craxy at the absurd you can only question the answers the refuse to give for so long, and then you become. The Comedian in the Watchmen was very, very dark, but still admired by his pee perhaps because they know somewhere deep inside his heart's onion was a layer however thin that refused to give into the bleakness all around him. He was very dark but I liked that charcter study, perhaps the best of the Watchmen. Consider the Joker in all those endless avalanch retalling and re-stories. He to has some hurt that is masked a very deep and sensitive hurt of his then newborn and young family. He resoned, why not ? in the face of all this cruelty and unquestion when the obseanly rich can kill the begger who wants to tame the grohl of his stomach, why not. Why cant i just be another cog in the wheel, out for my own, when everybody else just the same, refusing their neigbors splinter for what is in them a plank, so uncaring and so out for ther own. In society today do yo recognize them, the Comedian and the Joker, who might share a joke before making a shooters gallery of the innocent?
+mathew idicula Well, if you're looking to life for answers to these kinds of questions... the answer would be that you can invent any kind of life you'd want... saint, sinner, apathetic, engaged, whatever. Of course, you're also responsible for the consequences, whatever they might be. But that in itself isn't stopping you. So, the real question is: What do you really want out of your life?
@@ericdodson2644 how do we figure out what we want from life?
I read it twice and didn’t get any deep idea out of it. Except the one but really huge one about free will and how men chose their path to distraction over all the advantages promised by regular way of living. Other then that, it’s a story written by a looser about a looser who enjoys his loooserness so much that he keeps loosing out of spite.
The negative choice I made out of pure caprice: not starting my Notes from Underground paper until the last minute 😰
Ha ha... that's probably a pretty common one. Anyhow, I hope that this video helps.
No, mr. d., I have no love of suffering. I don't know anyone who has such leanings. I'm afraid you made a mistake on this one, d. I've seen lots of suffering from an early age. No, you can't sell me on this. I'll be back to see you.
Sat that in Russian in ten minutes ausgezeichnet
It is, after all, Ill mannered to live past the age of 40.
thnx.....
I've decided to not stay home. Ever.
Does no one understand?
Bukowski brought me here.
Or he could be seriously mentally ill, in which case we should move on (as we should when we read Nietzsche).