>Inane ramblings and cope about how people who do something with their life are actually the stupid ones while the insufferable, washed up losers are da real alphas
What a bore. This book is just a personal therapy session for Dostoevsky telling himself to have a normal one and hang out with the boys in the barcade
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Hey, don't talk shit about my diary tbh
blessed digits
I've come to the realization that Dostoevsky is low IQ. He's only praised because he's old and his prose is boring and lengthy so pseuds think he's a genius. He offers no solution to the ills of the underground man besides having a normal one. What a load of shit. I am much smarter than him. Could he even do calculus? What was his max bench? Net worth?
I want everyone who talks shit about him to state their personal favorites
Napoleon biographies, Savitri Devi, Any Rand, Mishima
I wanted to say you sound like your favorite book is Atlas Shrugged as a joke but now it isn't even funny, its sad. I'm not even going to argue with you, you're special ed for me the moment you mention Ayn Rand.
Cringe
literal children 'do calculus' but i'm happy for you that the degree you spent thousands on makes you feel smart
>Could he even do calculus?
He studied to become a military engineer, of course he fricking could do calculus.
>his prose is boring and lengthy
Oh wow so you're really stupid, like borderline mentally moronic
Amarnite steps out of his Twitter hugbox safe space, instantaniously gets BTFOd. Many such cases!
No I didn't you insipid moron. You offered no rebuttals
You're a 16 year old homosexual who got himself into a cargo cult whose sole purpose is to assail Christianity for being too mean to your favourite israeli sodomite, the communist Costin Alamariu, because he latched onto insubstantive grandiloquent locutions about becoming a god by jerking off to gay furry anime porn or something to mollify your feelings of inadequacy, but unfortunately you will never be a woman.
Underground man certainly NOT having a normal one
What are you talking about chuddy? I don't care about Costin because he's just a limp wrists writer. I care about men of action like Alcibiades or Julien Sorel which Dostoevsky derides
>I care about men of action like Alcibiades or Julien Sorel which Dostoevsky derides
Wrong. Read The Village of Stepanchikovo. Dosto creates this Foma Fomich character as a parody of late period Gogol and his more civil Christian sentimentalism. One of Foma's big speeches is about how people should be banned from reading about Julius Cesar or his writings, Dosto has a lot of fun with this character and makes him look totally ridiculous. Dostoevsky doesn't 'deride action', the whole argument is just centered on it not having the moral or intellectual substance that the postivists wanted it to. Action and 'men of action' are restrained to whatever they're actually doing and that follows it's own chain of events, it's not magical, and the methods require submission of personal literary ideals not the granting of their substance and purpose. Basically if you want to act you have to act, but in doing that you don't really care about arguing for action because now you're locked in this chain of events where you can't really make a free objective observation that would have substance to people. It's like in House of the Dead. Dosto did a good job of giving the prisoners their own victories and justifications, like the one bandit that killed a bunch of people that Dosto writes like some legendary folk figure that looks down at his self insert 'like a child' and he's some great wise life liver looking down on him because he was in the 'gentleman' class that the prisoners hated. Dosto literally writes this man of action looking at his self insert like a child. But he's also not writing him as some great hero of substance because that would just kind of moronic and naïve. The prisoners are all totally submissive to power and demand displays of judgement and strength, even if it's being directed against themselves. Action itself could be seen as criminal. The mind of that world demands judgment and display of skill following the same type of cleverness that commands a dog. While the gentleman gets out of prison and becomes a tutor and the cute e-girl cries when the narrator comes to visit him and asks about him after he dies. Ask yourself what world you want to live in, anon.
>Ask yourself what world you want to live in, anon.
I want to live in the world where I am a hero and die a heroic and beautiful death while young. I can never be a charismatic leader and live a storied life like Alcibiades because I am not beautiful so I just my one shining moment of heroism and then frick off from existence. Like saving someone from a burning building.
I will check out your book recommendation and read it tomorrow. I appreciate it
>I want to be a total homosexual that betrayed everyone but I'm too ugly :~~*
>Nooo you have to be happy with a 3/10 fat wife and your office job!
No.
Weird dichotomy you've proposed. Perhaps I can't understand it because I'm not ugly. Can you explain why having a fat ugly wife is the other option to being Alcibiades?
You're a worm
Are you fricking moronic? Do you realize the underground man is an unreliable narrator and the way he sees the world is a intentionally written as a cope?
I know this is bait but "do calculus" is meaningless, it is a tool that can be used with varying degrees of complexity depending on what you need it for
You've posted 10 threads about him today
>jews were the real neets all along
deepest lore
>only israelites have aquiline noses
I wont take the bait I wont take the bait I wont take the baitI wont take the bait I wont take the bait I wont take the bait
I can tell you're broke and ugly
1/2
It's not a 'psychological' book, he's using characters he already made to argue that life is inherently sinful and no one's going to be able to logic lord their way into some moral utopia and wholesome chungus folxy community where they eventually win in the good guy way and they don't have to be subservient to immorality and unfree despite being a le intellectual. What makes the Underground Man great is that even he's better than the positivists or liberal utilitarian's pining for that because he turned his need to remain morally pure into his own weird mystic power that he uses to mess with people and assert himself in his own twisted way and that actually gives him literary talent at different moments.
Holy shit no wonder you like that moron. He loves his purple prose because it makes him feel smart. Women like Devi or Rand are much better at dissecting what a great man is because women are all boy crazy and their purpose is to identify the greatest man. Philosophy in general is worthless if it does not deal with the question of becoming God or at least the Pope or king
>Women like Devi or Rand are much better at dissecting what a great man is because women are all boy crazy
Bro it would be really weird and gay to read something like that wtf. You are sissified
Writer of that post here. It is extremely heterosexual but you think only gay men should define what a great man is like Costin Alamariu you sissy homosexual
>Costin Alamariu
So how did that profile pic scandal go down in the end? Was it him or not?
Also I’m not a BAP guy, I’m a Otto Weininger guy and I backed Kantbot in their beef as a Kantian. I introduced BAP to Weininger and then he stopped tweeting about him after I made fun of his take and pointed out Weininger made Nietzsche look like a moron and created the ultimate defense of Christianity
I was with you for the first half but the second half, idk. I can see what you mean about him needing to remain "morally pure," but he isn't, he's driven by spite primarily and is a hypocrite. What makes the Underground man an interesting character is his seeming awareness of this, and, later, the revelation that he does actually feel bad and pathetic due to it, and knows he does it just to feel some bit of power or integrity because he feels powerless and bitter. He's vulnerable to the woman, bc that's Dostoevskys shtick, his male characters like to open up to women; for his cynical, world weary characters, women are like the pristine womb they can crawl back into for comfort, and whom they can reveal themselves to.
I do agree though that this book and most of Dostoevskys work is about the hubris of late 19th century men thinking they could impose a moral utopia through a material utopia. And that the power of mitigating social harm will always lay in things like empathy and connection versus "reason"
>hubris of late 19th century men
It's as applicable now as it was then. Almost the entire modern ideological spectrum, from the WEF-style globohomosexual low-carbon LGBTQ+ utopia to the right-wing "self-improvement" culture, which in itself comes in all shapes and colors, is fundamentally not that different from what Dostoyevsky was criticizing. And his argument, which implies that human thirst for meaning and dignity often supersedes all considerations of rational benefit, has been proven true again and again. Ironically, an average normie is still unaware of this, believing that something like Maslow's pyramid fully explains what humans need in this world.
Maslow pyramid is true, it's just that it's backward.
You START with self-actualization, which was Maslows superstitious word for a scientific concept called God.
but bro he says multiple times that the goal throughout his whole life is to remain morally superior and keeping the literary ideals he initially had above sinful life. The point of the book is that life is sinful. Dostoevsky is ice cold there's no little happy fun time intellectual takeaway.
LIFE IS SIN. That's the point. That's the idea. That's the TRUTH!
Bro this is really my problem with you guys is you're always playing around with these concepts like the teacher just dumped them in your lamp and walked out of the room. You can think whatever you want about this stuff you don't have to say they're cool just to be polite. Just going off of basic psychology it doesn't make any sense for women to be able to identify what makes a man a hero. Why would her brain look for any other identifiers beyond what satisfies her incestual ego. Explain why in non-optimistic terms.
If you just skip the beginning rant and go to the story of the falling sleet, you would appreciate its brilliance
>sleet
Midwits love this word so much lmao. Just say rain or hail instead of trying to sound deep
You don’t know what sleet is. Sleet is half snow half rain when it is 33 or 34 degrees outside
I don't like Dosto that much but its supposed to be inane, and it's made patently clear that the narrator is a total loser from the start
I really don't understand people who judge the value of a literary work solely on how much they like the protagonist.
>It's supposed to be shit
Why are writers incapable of answering the questions they set out to answer. Dostoevsky doesn't have a sufficient answer to the underground man's listlessness and despondency. He doesn't know what to do with his fanasties or great and terrible feats he will never act out. Meanwhile, I do. I have the answer. That makes me smarter than the supposed greatest Russian writer
filtered
>Just enjoy the small stuff bro!
Frick off. I want to be like Griffith when he bursts out of that egg a winged superman. Does Dostoevsky have the answer to that? Thought not
kek
I love giving short responses to see how angry morons auto-fill interpret them
Scared to give out a real answer? You're a coward and unintelligent.
>Dostoevsky doesn't have a sufficient answer to the underground man's listlessness and despondency.
The underground man is meant to be a ridiculous character. He is totally superfluous and self obsessed man. Idk what you mean by an answer to his despondency, i didn't see that as the purpose of the book.
It's like saying Cervantes doesn't have an answer to Quixote's madness.
>He is meant to be ridiculous
Only to midwits and mofugghin' normal one havers like you
It's a cautionary tale about how to wind up as a broken human being, as well as some social commentary about how modernity produces men like this. His little breakdown towards the end reveals that it's all bullshit and he is indeed a man who wants love and connection and dignity and respect, and when he immediately reverts back to being a prick, the point is for Dosto to highlight the tragedy of the situation. If a man is a cynic from day one then no matter, so it is; if instead he is a man pretending to be a cynic to cope, thats a loss of potential which is a tragedy.
As for answers, sometimes an analysis of the issue at hand is it's own answer. Or, other times, it could be staring someone right in the face and they don't know it. For example, do you realize you write exactly like the Underground Man? May God keep you with him always.
Dostoyevsky truly does attract the rats of the literary world. Sometimes it feels as if the barely literate are discussing him
>do something with their life are actually the stupid ones
they are, because they never fix anything in the world, they just reap the benefit of their luck and never fix anything out there.
Because the world is a playground, you intellectual midget.
completely irrelevant
Only for the young and healthy
It's literally showing how pathetic the character is. You got the point but we're too stupid to realize it. Of course this is just bait anyway...
>how people who do something with their life
define this in your words.
because most people define it tautologically as running around in circles
>implying
Incels are the only real people I have recently been convinced, women could be people but they are too naturally stupid and live without pressure/are the result of having no evolutionary pressure so our x genome is faulty. Sex having men have no freedom of thought they can exercise while remaining sex having men, thus if a sex haver ever became a person they would also have to become an incel and so only incels are people. You cannot have free thought with something to lose.
Beautiful people are the only non npcs and they are most assuredly having sex