Speaker 1: Underground, Part two from Notes from the Underground by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
Speaker 1: This LibriVox recording is in the public domain read by Bobnefeld. Seven.
Speaker 1: But these are all golden dreams. Oh tell me, who
Speaker 1: was it first announced? Who was it first proclaimed? That
Speaker 1: man only does nasty things because he does not know
Speaker 1: his own interests, And that if he were enlightened, if
Speaker 1: his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man
Speaker 1: would at once cease to do nasty things, would at
Speaker 1: once become good and noble, because being enlightened and understanding
Speaker 1: his real advantage, he would see his own advantage in
Speaker 1: the good and nothing else. And we all know that
Speaker 1: not one man can consciously act against his own interests. Consequently,
Speaker 1: so to say, through necessity he would in doing good, Ah,
Speaker 1: the babe or the pure innocent child. Why in the
Speaker 1: first place, when in all these thousands of years has
Speaker 1: there been a time when man has acted only from
Speaker 1: his own interest? What is to be done with the
Speaker 1: millions of facts that bear witness that men, consciously, that is,
Speaker 1: fully understanding their real interests, have left them in the
Speaker 1: background and have rushed headlong on another path to meet
Speaker 1: peril in danger compelled to this course by nobody and
Speaker 1: by nothing, but as it were, simply disliking the beaten track,
Speaker 1: and have obstinately wilfully struck out another difficult, absurd way,
Speaker 1: seeking it almost in the darkness. So I suppose this
Speaker 1: obstinacy and perversity were pleasanter to them than any advantage advantage?
Speaker 1: What is advantage? And will you take it upon yourself
Speaker 1: to define with perfect accuracy in what the advantage of
Speaker 1: man consists? And what if it so happens that a
Speaker 1: man's advantage sometimes not only may, but even must consist
Speaker 1: in his desiring in certain cases, what is harmful to
Speaker 1: himself and not advantageous? And if so, if there can
Speaker 1: be such a case, the whole principle falls into dust.
Speaker 1: What do you think are there such cases? You laugh,
Speaker 1: laugh away, gentlemen, but only answer me. Have man's advantages
Speaker 1: been reckoned up with perfect certainty? Are there not some
Speaker 1: which not only have not been included, but cannot possibly
Speaker 1: be included under any classification? You see, you, gentlemen, have,
Speaker 1: to the best of my knowledge, taken your whole register
Speaker 1: of human advantages from the averages of statistical figures and
Speaker 1: politico economical formulas. Your advantages are our prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace,
Speaker 1: so on and so on. So that the man who should,
Speaker 1: for instance, go openly and knowingly in opposition to all
Speaker 1: that list, would, to your thinking, and indeed mine too,
Speaker 1: of course, be an obscurantist or an absolute madman, would
Speaker 1: not he? But you know this is what is surprising.
Speaker 1: Why does it so happen that all these statisticians, sages
Speaker 1: and lovers of humanity, when they reckon up human advantages,
Speaker 1: invariably leave out one. They don't even take it into
Speaker 1: their reckoning in the form in which it should be taken,
Speaker 1: and the whole reckoning depends upon that. It would be
Speaker 1: no greater matter. They would simply have to take it,
Speaker 1: this advantage, and add it to the list. But the
Speaker 1: trouble is that this strange advantage does not fall under
Speaker 1: any classification, and is not in place in any list.
Speaker 1: I have a friend, for instance, gentleman, But of course
Speaker 1: he is your friend too, and indeed there is no one,
Speaker 1: no one to whom he is not a friend. What
Speaker 1: he prepares for any undertaking this gentleman immediately explains to
Speaker 1: you elegantly and clearly exactly how he must act in
Speaker 1: accordance with the laws of reason and truth. What is more,
Speaker 1: he will talk to you with excitement and passion of
Speaker 1: the true normal interests of man. With irony, he will
Speaker 1: upbraid the short sighted fools who do not understand their
Speaker 1: own interests nor the true significance of virtue. And within
Speaker 1: a quarter of an hour, without any sudden outside provocation,
Speaker 1: but simply through something inside him which is stronger than
Speaker 1: all his interests, he will go off on quite a
Speaker 1: different tack. That is, act in direct opposition to what
Speaker 1: he has just been saying about himself, in opposition to
Speaker 1: the laws of reason, in opposition to his own advantage,
Speaker 1: in fact, in opposition to everything. I warn you that
Speaker 1: my friend is a compound personality, and therefore it is
Speaker 1: difficult to blame him as an individual. The fact is, gentlemen,
Speaker 1: it seems there must really exist something that is dearer
Speaker 1: to almost every man than his greatest advantages, Or not
Speaker 1: to be illogical, there is a most dangerous advantage, the
Speaker 1: very one omitted of which we spoke just now, which
Speaker 1: is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages,
Speaker 1: for the sake of which a man, if necessary, is
Speaker 1: ready to act in opposition to all laws, that is,
Speaker 1: in opposition to reason, honor, peace, prosperity, in fact, in
Speaker 1: opposition to all those excellent and useful things, if only
Speaker 1: he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is
Speaker 1: dearer to him than all. Yes, but it's advantage all
Speaker 1: the same, you will retort. But excuse me. I'll make
Speaker 1: the point clear. And it is not a case of
Speaker 1: playing upon words. What matters is that this advantage is
Speaker 1: remarkable from the very fact that it breaks down all
Speaker 1: other classifications and continually shatters every system constructed by lovers
Speaker 1: of mankind for the benefit of mankind. In fact, it
Speaker 1: upsets everything. But before I mention this advantage to you,
Speaker 1: I want to compromise myself personally, and therefore I boldly
Speaker 1: declare that all these fine systems, all these theories for
Speaker 1: explaining to mankind their real normal interests, in order that inevitably,
Speaker 1: striving to pursue these interests, they may at once become
Speaker 1: good and noble, are, in my opinion, so far mere
Speaker 1: logical exercises. Yes, logical exercises. Why to maintain this theory
Speaker 1: of the regeneration of mankind by means of the pursuit
Speaker 1: of his own end advantage is to my mind, almost
Speaker 1: the same thing as to affirm, for instance, following Buckle,
Speaker 1: that through civilization, mankind becomes softer and consequently less bloodthirsty
Speaker 1: and less fitted for warfare. Logically, it does seem to
Speaker 1: follow from his arguments, But man has such a predilection
Speaker 1: for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to
Speaker 1: distort the truth intentionally. He is ready to deny the
Speaker 1: evidence of his senses only to justify his logic. I
Speaker 1: take this example because it is the most glaring instance
Speaker 1: of it. Only look about you. Blood is being spilt
Speaker 1: in streams and in the merriest way, as though it
Speaker 1: were Champagne. Take the whole of the nineteenth century in
Speaker 1: which Buckle lived. Take Napoleon the Great, and also the
Speaker 1: present one. Take North America, the Eternal Union, Take the
Speaker 1: farce of Schleswig Holstein. And what is it that civilization
Speaker 1: softens in us? The only gain of civilization for mankind
Speaker 1: is the greater capacity for variety of sensations, and absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing more. And through the development of this many sidedness,
Speaker 1: man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed. In fact,
Speaker 1: this has already happened to him. Have you noticed that
Speaker 1: it is the most civilized gentlemen who have been the
Speaker 1: subtlest slaughterers to whom the attilas and stank of razines
Speaker 1: could not hold a candle? And if they are not
Speaker 1: so conspicuous as the attilas and the stank of razines,
Speaker 1: it is simply because they are so often met with,
Speaker 1: are so ordinary, and have become so familiar to us.
Speaker 1: In any case, civilization has made mankind, if not more bloodthirsty,
Speaker 1: at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days,
Speaker 1: he saw justice in bloodshed, and with his conscience at peace,
Speaker 1: exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable,
Speaker 1: and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more
Speaker 1: energy than ever. Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves.
Speaker 1: They say that Cleopatra, excuse an instance from Roman history,
Speaker 1: was fond of sticking gold pins into her slave girl's
Speaker 1: breasts and derived gratification from their screams and writhings. You
Speaker 1: will say that that was in the comparatively barbarous times.
Speaker 1: That these are barbarous times too, because also comparatively speaking,
Speaker 1: pins are stuck in even now that though a man
Speaker 1: has now learned to see more clearly than in barbarous ages,
Speaker 1: he is still far from having learned to act as
Speaker 1: reason and science would dictate. But yet you are fully
Speaker 1: convinced that he will be sure to learn when he
Speaker 1: gets rid of certain old bad habits, and when common
Speaker 1: sense and science have completely re educated human nature and
Speaker 1: turned it in the normal direction. You are confident that
Speaker 1: then man will cease from intentional error, and will, so
Speaker 1: to say, be compelled not to want to set his
Speaker 1: will against his normal interests. That is not all, then,
Speaker 1: you say, science itself will teach man, though to my
Speaker 1: mind it's a superfluous luxury that he never has really
Speaker 1: had any caprice or will of his own, and that
Speaker 1: he himself is something of the nature of a piano
Speaker 1: key or the stop of an organ, and that there
Speaker 1: are besides things called the laws of nature, so that
Speaker 1: everything he does is not done by his willing it,
Speaker 1: but is done of itself by the laws of nature. Consequently,
Speaker 1: we have only to discover these laws of nature, and
Speaker 1: man will no longer have to answer for his actions,
Speaker 1: and life will become exceedingly easy for him. All human
Speaker 1: actions will then of course be tabulated according to these laws,
Speaker 1: mathematically like tables of logarithms up to one hundred and
Speaker 1: eight thousand, and entered in an index. Or better still,
Speaker 1: there would be published certain edifying works of the nature
Speaker 1: of encyclopedic lexicons, in which everything will be so clearly
Speaker 1: calculated and explained that there will be no more incidents
Speaker 1: or adventures in the world. Then this is all what
Speaker 1: you say. New economic relations will be established, already made
Speaker 1: and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible
Speaker 1: question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply
Speaker 1: because every possible answer to it will be provided. Then
Speaker 1: the palace of crystal will be built. Then, in fact
Speaker 1: those will be halcyon days. Of course, there is no guaranteeing.
Speaker 1: This is my comment that it will not be, for instance,
Speaker 1: frightfully dulled. Then, for what will one have to do
Speaker 1: when everything will be calculated and tabulated. But on the
Speaker 1: other hand, everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course, boredom
Speaker 1: may lead you to anything. It is boredom sets one
Speaker 1: sticking golden pins into people, but all that would not matter.
Speaker 1: What is bad. This is my comment again, is that
Speaker 1: I dare say people will be thankful for the gold pins.
Speaker 1: Then man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid. Or rather,
Speaker 1: he is not at all stupid, but he is so
Speaker 1: ungrateful that you could not find another like him in
Speaker 1: all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the
Speaker 1: least surprised if, all of a sudden apropos of nothing,
Speaker 1: in the midst of general prosperity, a gentleman with an
Speaker 1: ignoble or rather with a reactionary and ironical countenance, were
Speaker 1: to arise, and, putting his arms to kimbo, say to
Speaker 1: us all, I say, gentlemen, hadn't we better care over
Speaker 1: the whole show and scattered rationalism to the winds, simply
Speaker 1: to send these logarithms to the devil and to enable
Speaker 1: us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will,
Speaker 1: That again would not matter. But what is annoying is
Speaker 1: that he would be sure to find followers. Such is
Speaker 1: the nature of man, and all that for the most
Speaker 1: foolish reason, which one would think was hardly worth mentioning.
Speaker 1: That is that man, everywhere and at all times, whoever
Speaker 1: he may be, has preferred to act as he chose,
Speaker 1: and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated,
Speaker 1: and one may choose what is contrary to one's own interests,
Speaker 1: And sometimes one positively ought, that is my idea, one's
Speaker 1: own free, unfettered choice, one's own caprice, however wild it
Speaker 1: may be, one's own fancy worked up at times to frenzy.
Speaker 1: Is that very most advantageous advantage which we have overlooked,
Speaker 1: which comes under no classification, and against which all systems
Speaker 1: and theories are continually being shattered to atoms? And how
Speaker 1: do these wiseacres know that man wants a normal, a
Speaker 1: virtuous choice? What has made them conceive that man must
Speaker 1: want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply
Speaker 1: independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it
Speaker 1: may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows
Speaker 1: what choice eight ha ha ha, But you know there
Speaker 1: is no such thing as choice in reality. Say what
Speaker 1: you like, you will interpose with a chuckle. Science has
Speaker 1: succeeded in so far analyzing man that we know already
Speaker 1: that choice and what is called freedom of will is
Speaker 1: nothing else than stay at. I meant to begin with
Speaker 1: that myself. I confess I was rather frightened. I was
Speaker 1: just going to say that the devil only knows what
Speaker 1: choice depends on, and that perhaps that was a very
Speaker 1: good thing. But I remembered the teaching of science and
Speaker 1: pulled myself up, And here you have begun upon it. Indeed,
Speaker 1: if there really is, some day discovered a formula for
Speaker 1: all our desires and caprices, that is an explanation of
Speaker 1: what they depend on, by what laws they arise, how
Speaker 1: they develop, what they are aiming at in one case
Speaker 1: and in another, and so on, that is a real
Speaker 1: mathematical formula, then most likely man will at once cease
Speaker 1: to feel desire. Indeed, he will be certain to, for
Speaker 1: who would want to choose by rule? Besides, he will
Speaker 1: at once be transformed from a human being into an
Speaker 1: organ stop or something of the sort. For what is
Speaker 1: a man without disaire, desires, without free will, and without choice?
Speaker 1: If not a stop in an organ? What do you think?
Speaker 1: Let us reckon the chances can such a thing happen?
Speaker 1: Or not? Hm you decide? Our choice is usually mistaken
Speaker 1: from a false view of our advantage. We sometimes choose
Speaker 1: absolute nonsense, because in our foolishness we see in that
Speaker 1: nonsense the easiest means for attaining a supposed advantage. But
Speaker 1: when all that is explained and worked out on paper,
Speaker 1: which is perfectly possible, for it is contemptible and senseless
Speaker 1: to suppose that some laws of nature man will never understand,
Speaker 1: then certainly so called desires will no longer exist. For
Speaker 1: if a desire should come into conflict with reason, we
Speaker 1: shall then reason and not desire, because it will be
Speaker 1: impossible retaining our reason to be senseless in our desires,
Speaker 1: and in that way knowingly act against reason and desire
Speaker 1: to injure ourselves. And as all choice and reasoning can
Speaker 1: be really calculated, because there will some day be discovered
Speaker 1: the laws of our so called free will, so joking apart,
Speaker 1: there may one day be something like a table constructed
Speaker 1: of them, so that we really shall choose in accordance
Speaker 1: with it. If, for instance, someday they calculate and prove
Speaker 1: to me that I made a long nose at someone
Speaker 1: because I could not help making a long nose at him,
Speaker 1: and that I had to do it in that particular way,
Speaker 1: what freedom is left to me, Especially if I am
Speaker 1: a learned man and have taken my degree somewhere, then
Speaker 1: I should be able to calculate my whole life for
Speaker 1: thirty years beforehand. In short, if this could be arranged,
Speaker 1: there would be nothing left for us to do anyway.
Speaker 1: We should have to understand that, and in fact we
Speaker 1: ought unwearyingly to repeat to ours ourselves that at such
Speaker 1: and such a time, and in such and such circumstances,
Speaker 1: nature does not ask our leave. That we have got
Speaker 1: to take her as she is and not fashion her
Speaker 1: to suit our fancy. And if we really aspire to
Speaker 1: formulas and tables of rules, and well even to the
Speaker 1: chemical retort, there's no help for it. We must accept
Speaker 1: the retort too, or else it will be accepted without
Speaker 1: our consent. Yes, but here I come to a stop. Gentlemen.
Speaker 1: You must excuse me for being over philosophical. It's the
Speaker 1: result of forty years underground. Allow me to indulge my fancy.
Speaker 1: You see, gentlemen, reason is an excellent thing, There's no
Speaker 1: disputing that. But reason is nothing but reason and satisfies
Speaker 1: only the rational side of man's nature. While will is
Speaker 1: a manifestation of the whole life, that is, of the
Speaker 1: whole human life, including reason and all the impulses. And
Speaker 1: although our life in this manifestation of it is often worthless,
Speaker 1: yet it is life, and not simply extracting square roots. Here, I,
Speaker 1: for instance, quite naturally want to live in order to
Speaker 1: satisfy all my capacities for life, and not simply my
Speaker 1: capacity for reasoning. That is not simply one twentieth of
Speaker 1: my capacity for life. What does reason know? Reason only
Speaker 1: knows what it has succeeded in learning some things. Perhaps
Speaker 1: it will never learn. That is a poor comfort, But
Speaker 1: why not say so frankly? And human nature acts as
Speaker 1: a whole with everything that is in it, consciously or unconsciously,
Speaker 1: and even if it goes wrong, it lives. I suspect, gentlemen,
Speaker 1: that you are looking at me with compassion. You tell
Speaker 1: me again that an enlightened and developed man, such in
Speaker 1: short as the future man will be, cannot consciously desire
Speaker 1: anything disadvantage to himself. That that can be proved mathematically.
Speaker 1: I thoroughly agree it can by mathematics. But I repeat
Speaker 1: for the hundredth time. There is one case, one only,
Speaker 1: when man may consciously purposely desire what is injurious to himself,
Speaker 1: what is stupid, very stupid, simply in order to have
Speaker 1: the right to desire for himself even what is very stupid,
Speaker 1: and not to be bound by an obligation to desire
Speaker 1: only what is sensible. Of course, this very stupid thing,
Speaker 1: this caprice of ours, may be, in reality, gentlemen, more
Speaker 1: advantageous for us than anything else on earth, especially in
Speaker 1: certain cases, and in particular, it may be more advantageous
Speaker 1: than any advantage, even when it does us obvious harm
Speaker 1: and contradicts the soundest conclusions of our reason concerning our advantage.
Speaker 1: For in any circumstances, it preserves for us what is
Speaker 1: most precious and most important, that is our personality, our individuality.
Speaker 1: Some you see, maintain that this really is the most
Speaker 1: precious thing for mankind. Choice can, of course, if it chooses,
Speaker 1: be in agreement with reason, and especially if this be
Speaker 1: not absurd, but kept within bounds, it is profitable and
Speaker 1: sometimes even praiseworthy. But very often, and even most often,
Speaker 1: choice is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason. And do
Speaker 1: you know that that too is profitable, sometimes even praiseworthy. Gentlemen,
Speaker 1: Let us suppose that man is not stupid. Indeed, one
Speaker 1: cannot refuse to suppose that if only from the one
Speaker 1: consideration that if man is stupid, then who is wise?
Speaker 1: But if he is not stupid. He is monstrously ungrateful,
Speaker 1: phenomenally ungrateful. In fact, I believe that the best definition
Speaker 1: of man is the ungrateful biped That is not all,
Speaker 1: That is not his worst defect. His worst defect is
Speaker 1: his perpetual moral obliquity, perpetual from the days of the
Speaker 1: flood to the Schleswig Holstein period. Moral obliquity, and consequently
Speaker 1: lack of good sense. For it has long been accepted
Speaker 1: that lack of good sense is due to no other
Speaker 1: cause than moral obliquity. But put it to the test
Speaker 1: and cast your eyes upon the history of mankind. What
Speaker 1: will you see? Is it a grand spectacle? Grand if
Speaker 1: you like? Take the Colossus of Rhodes, for instance, that's
Speaker 1: worth something with good reason. Mister Annevsky testifies of it
Speaker 1: that some say that it is the work of man's hands,
Speaker 1: while others maintain that it has been created by nature herself.
Speaker 1: Is it many colored? Maybe it is many colored too.
Speaker 1: If one takes the dress uniforms military and civilian of
Speaker 1: all peoples in all ages, that alone is worth something.
Speaker 1: And if you take the undressed uniforms, you will never
Speaker 1: get to the end of it. No historian would be
Speaker 1: equal to the job. Is it monotonous? Maybe it's monotonous too.
Speaker 1: It's fighting and fighting. They are fighting now. They fought
Speaker 1: first and they fought last. You will admit that it
Speaker 1: is almost too monotonous. In short, one may say anything
Speaker 1: about the history of the world, anything that might enter
Speaker 1: the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say
Speaker 1: is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat.
Speaker 1: And indeed, this is the odd thing that is continually happening.
Speaker 1: There are continually turning up in life moral and rational persons,
Speaker 1: sages and lovers of humanity, who make it their object
Speaker 1: to live all their lives as morally and rationally as
Speaker 1: possible to be. So to speak, alights to their neighbors,
Speaker 1: simply in order to show them that it is possible
Speaker 1: to live morally and rationally in this world. And yet
Speaker 1: we all know that those very people, sooner or later
Speaker 1: have been false to themselves, playing some queer trick, often
Speaker 1: a most unseemly one. Now I ask you what can
Speaker 1: be expected of man, since he is a being endowed
Speaker 1: with strange qualities, shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown
Speaker 1: him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but
Speaker 1: bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface, give
Speaker 1: him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else
Speaker 1: to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with
Speaker 1: the continuation of his species. And even then, out of
Speaker 1: sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick.
Speaker 1: He would even risk his cakes, and would deliberately desire
Speaker 1: the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to
Speaker 1: introduce into all this positive good sense, his fatal, fantastic element.
Speaker 1: It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly, that
Speaker 1: he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove
Speaker 1: to himself, as though that were so necessary, that men
Speaker 1: still are men, and not the keys of a piano,
Speaker 1: which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely
Speaker 1: that soon one will be able to desire nothing but
Speaker 1: by the calendar. And that is not all. Even if
Speaker 1: man really were nothing but a piano key, even if
Speaker 1: this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics,
Speaker 1: even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely
Speaker 1: do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain
Speaker 1: his point. And if he does not find means, he
Speaker 1: will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts.
Speaker 1: Only to gain his point. He will launch a curse
Speaker 1: upon the world, and as only man can curse, it
Speaker 1: is his privilege. The primary distinction between him and other
Speaker 1: animals may be. By his curse alone. He will attain
Speaker 1: his object, that is, convince himself that he is a
Speaker 1: man and not a piano key. If you say that
Speaker 1: all this too can be calculated and tabulated, chaos and
Speaker 1: darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating
Speaker 1: it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would
Speaker 1: reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order
Speaker 1: to be rid of reason and gain his point. I
Speaker 1: believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole
Speaker 1: work of man really seems to consist in nothing but
Speaker 1: proving to himself every minute that he is a man
Speaker 1: and not a piano key. It may be at the
Speaker 1: cost of his skin, it may be by cannibalism. And
Speaker 1: this being so, can one help being tempted to rejoice
Speaker 1: that it has not yet come off, and that desire
Speaker 1: still depends on something we don't know. You can scream
Speaker 1: at me. That is, if you condescend to do so
Speaker 1: that no one is touching my free will, that all
Speaker 1: they are concerned with is that my free will should
Speaker 1: of itself, of its own free will coincide with my
Speaker 1: own normal interests, with the laws of nature and arithmetic.
Speaker 1: Good heavens, gentlemen, what sort of free will is left
Speaker 1: when we come to tabulation and arithmetic, when it will
Speaker 1: all be a case of twice to make four twice
Speaker 1: two makes four without my will? As if free will
Speaker 1: meant that nine gentlemen, I am joking, and I know
Speaker 1: myself that my jokes are not brilliant. But you know
Speaker 1: one can take everything as a joke. I am perhaps
Speaker 1: jesting against the grain. Gentlemen, I am tormented by questions
Speaker 1: answered them for me. You, for instance, want to cure
Speaker 1: men of their old habits and reform their will in
Speaker 1: accordance with science and good sense. But how do you
Speaker 1: know not only that it is possible, but also that
Speaker 1: it is desirable to reform man in that way? And
Speaker 1: what leads you to the conclusion that man's inclinations need reforming?
Speaker 1: In short, how do you know that such a reformation
Speaker 1: will be a benefit to man? And to go to
Speaker 1: the root of the matter. Why are you so positively
Speaker 1: convinced that not to act against his real normal interests,
Speaker 1: guaranteed by the conclusion of reason and arithmetic, is certainly
Speaker 1: always advantageous from man, and must always be a law
Speaker 1: for mankind. So far you know, this is only your supposition.
Speaker 1: It may be the law of logic, but not the
Speaker 1: law of humanity. You think, gentlemen, perhaps that I am mad.
Speaker 1: Allow me to defend myself. I agree that man is
Speaker 1: pre eminently a creative animal, predestined to strive consciously for
Speaker 1: an object, and to engage in engineering, that is, incessantly
Speaker 1: and eternally, to make new roads wherever they may lead.
Speaker 1: But the reason why he wants sometimes to go off
Speaker 1: at a tangent may just be that he is predestined
Speaker 1: to make the road, and perhaps too, that, however stupid
Speaker 1: the direct practical man might be, the thought sometimes will
Speaker 1: occur to him that the road almost always does lead somewhere,
Speaker 1: and that the destination it leads to is less important
Speaker 1: than the process of making it, and that the chief
Speaker 1: thing is to save the well conducted child from despising engineering,
Speaker 1: and so giving way to the fatal idleness which, as
Speaker 1: we all know, is the mother of all the vices.
Speaker 1: Man likes to make roads and to create. That is
Speaker 1: a fact beyond dispute. But why has he such a
Speaker 1: passionate love for destruction and chaos? Also tell me that.
Speaker 1: But on that point, I want to say a couple
Speaker 1: of words myself. May it not be that he loves
Speaker 1: chaos and destruction? There can be no disputing that he
Speaker 1: does sometimes love it because he is instinctively afraid of
Speaker 1: attaining his object and completing the edifice he is constructing.
Speaker 1: Who knows. Perhaps he only loves that edifice from a
Speaker 1: distance and is by no means in love with it
Speaker 1: at close quarters. Perhaps he only loves building it and
Speaker 1: does not want to live in it, but believe it
Speaker 1: when completed for the use of laisanimodo mystique, such as
Speaker 1: the ants, the sheep, and so on. Now, the ants
Speaker 1: have quite a different taste. They have a marvelous edifice
Speaker 1: of that pattern which endures forever the ant heap. With
Speaker 1: the ant heap, the respectable race of ants began, and
Speaker 1: with the ant heap they will probably end, which does
Speaker 1: the greatest credit to their perseverance and good sense. But
Speaker 1: man is a frivolous and incongruous creature, and perhaps, like
Speaker 1: a chess player, loves the process of the game, not
Speaker 1: the end of it. And who knows, there is no
Speaker 1: saying with certainty. Perhaps the only goal on earth to
Speaker 1: which mankind is striving lies in this incessant process of attaining,
Speaker 1: in other words, in life itself, and not in the
Speaker 1: thing to be attained, which must always be expressed as
Speaker 1: a formula as positive as twice two makes four. And
Speaker 1: such positiveness is not life, gentlemen, but is the beginning
Speaker 1: of death. Anyway, man has always been afraid of this
Speaker 1: mathematical certainty, and I am afraid of it now. Granted
Speaker 1: that man does nothing but seek that mathematical certainty. He
Speaker 1: traverses oceans, sacrifices his life in the quest. But to succeed,
Speaker 1: really to find it dreads, I assure you, he feels
Speaker 1: that when he has found it there will be nothing
Speaker 1: for him to look for. When workmen have finished their
Speaker 1: work day, they do at least receive their pay. They
Speaker 1: go to the tavern. Then they are taken to the
Speaker 1: police station, and there is occupation for a week. But
Speaker 1: where can man go? Anyway? One can observe a certain
Speaker 1: awkwardness about him when he has attained such objects. He
Speaker 1: loves the process of attaining, but does not quite like
Speaker 1: to have attained, And that, of course is very absurd.
Speaker 1: In fact, man is a comical creature. There seems to
Speaker 1: be a kind of jest in it all. But yet
Speaker 1: mathematical certainty is, after all something insufferable. Twice two makes
Speaker 1: four seems to me simply a piece of insolence. Twice
Speaker 1: two makes four is a pert coxcomb who stands with
Speaker 1: arms akimbo, barring your path and spitting. I admit that
Speaker 1: twice two makes four is an excellent thing, But if
Speaker 1: we are to give everything it's due, twice two makes
Speaker 1: five is sometimes a very charming thing too. And why
Speaker 1: are you so firmly, so triumphantly convinced that only the
Speaker 1: normal and the positive, In other words, only what is
Speaker 1: conducive to welfare is for the advantage of man is
Speaker 1: not reason in error as regards advantage. Does not man
Speaker 1: perhaps love something besides well being? Perhaps he is just
Speaker 1: as fond of suffering. Perhaps suffering is just a greater
Speaker 1: benefit to him as well being. Man is sometimes extreme,
Speaker 1: ordinarily passionately in love with suffering, And that is a fact.
Speaker 1: There is no need to appeal to universal history to
Speaker 1: prove that. Only ask yourself if you are a man
Speaker 1: and have lived at all. As far as my personal
Speaker 1: opinion is concerned, to care only for well being seems
Speaker 1: to me positively ill bred whether it's good or bad.
Speaker 1: It is sometimes very pleasant too to smash things. I
Speaker 1: hold no brief for suffering nor for well being either.
Speaker 1: I am standing for my caprice and for its being
Speaker 1: guaranteed to me when necessary. Suffering should be out of
Speaker 1: place in Vaudeville's for instance, I know that in the
Speaker 1: Palace of Crystal it is unthinkable. Suffering means doubts, negation,
Speaker 1: And what would be the good of a palace of
Speaker 1: crystal if there could be any doubt about it? And
Speaker 1: yet I think man will never renounce real son, that
Speaker 1: is destruction and chaos. Why suffering is the sole origin
Speaker 1: of consciousness? Though I did lay it down at the
Speaker 1: beginning that consciousness is the greatest misfortune for man, Yet
Speaker 1: I know man prizes it and will not give it
Speaker 1: up for any satisfaction. Consciousness, for instance, is infinitely superior
Speaker 1: to twice two makes four. Once you have mathematical certainty,
Speaker 1: there is nothing left to do or to understand, There
Speaker 1: will be nothing left but to bottle up your five
Speaker 1: senses and plunge into contemplation. While if you stick to consciousness,
Speaker 1: even though the same result is attained, you can at
Speaker 1: least flog yourself at times, and that will at any
Speaker 1: rate liven you up. Reactionary as it is, corporal punishment
Speaker 1: is better than nothing. Ten you believe in a palace
Speaker 1: of crystal that can never be destroyed, a palace at
Speaker 1: which one will not be able to put out one's
Speaker 1: tongue or make a long nose on the sly. And
Speaker 1: perhaps that is just why I am afraid of this edifice,
Speaker 1: that it is of crystal and can never be destroyed,
Speaker 1: and that one cannot put one's tongue out at it,
Speaker 1: even on the sly. You see, if it were not
Speaker 1: a palace but a hen house, I might creep into
Speaker 1: it to avoid getting wet. And yet I would not
Speaker 1: call the hen house a palace out of gratitude to
Speaker 1: it for keeping me dry. You laugh and say that
Speaker 1: in such circumstances a hen house is as good as
Speaker 1: a mansion. Yes, I answer, if one had to live
Speaker 1: simply to keep out of the rain, But what is
Speaker 1: to be done if I have taken it into my
Speaker 1: head that that is not the only object in life,
Speaker 1: and that if one must live, one had better live
Speaker 1: in a mansion. That is my choice, my desire. You
Speaker 1: will only eradicate it when you have changed my preference. Well,
Speaker 1: do change allure me with something else, give me another ideal.
Speaker 1: But meanwhile, I will not take a hen house for
Speaker 1: a mansion. The palace of Crystal may be an idle dream.
Speaker 1: It may be that it is inconsistent with the laws
Speaker 1: of nature, and that I have invented it only through
Speaker 1: my own stupidity, through the old fashioned, irrational habits of
Speaker 1: my generation. But what does it matter to me that
Speaker 1: it is inconsistent. That makes no difference, since it exists
Speaker 1: in my desires, or rather exists as long as my
Speaker 1: desires exist. Perhaps you are laughing again, laugh away. I
Speaker 1: will put up with any mockery rather than pretend that
Speaker 1: I am satisfied when I am hungry. I know anyway
Speaker 1: that I will not be put off with a compromise
Speaker 1: with a recurring zero simply because it is consistent with
Speaker 1: the laws of nature and actually exists. I will not
Speaker 1: accept as the crown of my desires. A block of
Speaker 1: buildings with tenements for the poor, a lease of a
Speaker 1: thousand years, and perhaps with a sign board of a
Speaker 1: dentist hanging out. Destroy my desires, eradicate my ideals. Show
Speaker 1: me something better, and I will follow you. You will say,
Speaker 1: perhaps that it is not worth your trouble, But in
Speaker 1: that case I can give you the same answer. We
Speaker 1: are discussing things seriously, but if you won't deign to
Speaker 1: give me your attention, I will drop your acquaintance. I
Speaker 1: can retreats into my underground hole. But while I am
Speaker 1: alive and have desires, I would rather my hand were
Speaker 1: withered off than bring one brick to such a building.
Speaker 1: Don't remind me that I have just rejected the Palace
Speaker 1: of Crystal for the sole reason that one cannot put
Speaker 1: out one's tongue at it. I did not say because
Speaker 1: I am so fond of putting my tongue out. Perhaps
Speaker 1: the thing I resented was that, of all your edifices,
Speaker 1: there has not been one at which one could not
Speaker 1: put out once. On the contrary, I will let my
Speaker 1: tongue be cut off out of gratitude. If things could
Speaker 1: be so arranged that I should lose all desire to
Speaker 1: put it out. It is not my fault that things
Speaker 1: cannot be so arranged, and that one must be satisfied
Speaker 1: with model flats. Then why am I made with such desires?
Speaker 1: Can I have been constructed simply in order to come
Speaker 1: to the conclusion that all my construction is a cheat?
Speaker 1: Can this be my whole purpose? I do not believe it.
Speaker 1: But do you know what? I am convinced that we
Speaker 1: underground folk are to be kept on a curb. Though
Speaker 1: we may sit forty years underground without speaking, when we
Speaker 1: do come out into the light of day and break out,
Speaker 1: we talk and talk and talk eleven. The long and
Speaker 1: short of it is, gentlemen, that it is better to
Speaker 1: do nothing better conscious inertia, and so hurrah or underground.
Speaker 1: Though I have said that I envy the normal man
Speaker 1: to the last drop of my bile, yet I shall
Speaker 1: not care to be in his place such as he
Speaker 1: is now, though I shall not cease envying him. No, No, anyway,
Speaker 1: the underground life is more advantageous there at any rate
Speaker 1: one can oh. But even now I am lying. I
Speaker 1: am lying because I know myself that it is not
Speaker 1: underground that is better, but something different, quite different. For
Speaker 1: which I am thirsting, but which I cannot find damn underground.
Speaker 1: I will tell you another thing that would be better,
Speaker 1: and that is if I myself believed in anything of
Speaker 1: what I have just written. I swear to you, gentlemen,
Speaker 1: there is not one thing, not one word of what
Speaker 1: I have written that I really believe. That is, I
Speaker 1: believe it perhaps, But at the same same time I
Speaker 1: feel and suspect that I am lying like a cobbler.
Speaker 1: Then why have you written all this? You will say
Speaker 1: to me, I ought to put you underground for forty
Speaker 1: years without anything to do, and then come to you
Speaker 1: in your cellar to find out what stage you have reached.
Speaker 1: How can a man be left with nothing to do
Speaker 1: for forty years? Isn't that shameful? Isn't that humiliating? You
Speaker 1: will say, perhaps, wagging your heads contemptuously, you thirst for
Speaker 1: life and try to settle the problems of life by
Speaker 1: a logical tangle. And how persistent, how insolent are your sallies,
Speaker 1: And at the same time, what a scare you are in.
Speaker 1: You talk nonsense and are pleased with it. You say
Speaker 1: impudent things and are in continual alarm and apologizing for them.
Speaker 1: You declare that you are afraid of nothing, and at
Speaker 1: the same time try to ingratiate yourself in our good opinion.
Speaker 1: You declare that you are gnashing your teeth, and at
Speaker 1: the same time you try to be witty so as
Speaker 1: to amuse us. You know that your witticisms are not witty,
Speaker 1: but you are evidently well satisfied with your literary value.
Speaker 1: You may perhaps have really suffered, but you have no
Speaker 1: respect for your own suffering. You may have sincerity, but
Speaker 1: you have no modesty. Out of your pettiest vanity, you
Speaker 1: expose your sincerity to publicity and ignominy. You doubtlessly mean
Speaker 1: to say something, but hide your last word through fear,
Speaker 1: because you have not the resolution to utter it, and
Speaker 1: only have a cowardly impudence. You boast of consciousness, but
Speaker 1: you are not sure of your ground. For though your
Speaker 1: mind works, yet your heart is darkened and corrupt. And
Speaker 1: you cannot have a full, genuine consciousness without a pure heart.
Speaker 1: And how intrusive you are, how you insist and grimace, lies, lies, lies.
Speaker 1: Of course, I have my self made up all the
Speaker 1: things you say. That too, is from underground. I have
Speaker 1: been for forty years listening to you through a crack
Speaker 1: under the floor. I have invented them myself. There was
Speaker 1: nothing else I could invent. It is no wonder that
Speaker 1: I have learnt it by heart, and it has taken
Speaker 1: a literary form. But can you really be so credulous
Speaker 1: as to think that I will print all this and
Speaker 1: give it to you to read to? And another problem,
Speaker 1: why do I call you gentlemen? Why do I address
Speaker 1: you as though you really were my readers? Such confessions
Speaker 1: as I intend to make are never printed nor given
Speaker 1: to other people to read. Anyway, I am not strong
Speaker 1: minded enough for that, and I don't see why I
Speaker 1: should be. But you see, a fancy has occurred to me,
Speaker 1: and I want to realize it at all costs. Let
Speaker 1: me explain. Every man has reminiscences which he would not
Speaker 1: tell to every one, but only to his friends. He
Speaker 1: has other matters in his mind which he would not
Speaker 1: reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and
Speaker 1: that in secret. But there are other things which a
Speaker 1: man is afraid to tell even to himself. And every
Speaker 1: decent man has a number of such things stored away
Speaker 1: in his mind. The more decent he is, the greater
Speaker 1: the number of such things. In his mind anyway. I
Speaker 1: have only lately determined to remember some of my early adventures.
Speaker 1: Till now, I have always avoided them, even with a
Speaker 1: certain uneasiness. Now, when I am not only recalling them,
Speaker 1: but have actually decided to write an account of them,
Speaker 1: I want to try the experiment whether one can, even
Speaker 1: with oneself, be perfectly open and not take fright at
Speaker 1: the whole truth. I will observe in parentheses that Heine
Speaker 1: says that a true autobiography is almost an impossibility, and
Speaker 1: that man is bound to lie about himself. He considers
Speaker 1: that who so certainly told lies about himself and his confessions,
Speaker 1: and even intentionally lied out of vanity. I am convinced
Speaker 1: that Heine is right. I quite understand how sometimes one may,
Speaker 1: out of sheer vanity, attribute regular crimes to oneself, and
Speaker 1: indeed I can very well conceive that kind of vanity.
Speaker 1: But Heine judged the people who made their confessions to
Speaker 1: the public. I write only for myself, and I wish
Speaker 1: to declare once and for all that if I write
Speaker 1: as though I were addressing readers, that is simply because
Speaker 1: it is easier for me to write in that form.
Speaker 1: It is a form an empty form. I shall never
Speaker 1: have readers. I have made this plane already. I don't
Speaker 1: wish to be hampered by any restrictions in the compilation
Speaker 1: of my notes. I shall not attempt any system or method.
Speaker 1: I will jot things down as I remember them. But here,
Speaker 1: perhaps someone will catch at the word and ask me,
Speaker 1: if you really don't reckon on readers, why do you
Speaker 1: make such compacts with yourself and on paper too? That
Speaker 1: is that you won't attempt any system or method, that
Speaker 1: you jot things down as you remember them, and so
Speaker 1: on and so on. Why are you explaining? Why do
Speaker 1: you apologize? Well, there it is, I answer. There is
Speaker 1: a whole psychology in this. Though perhaps it is simply
Speaker 1: that I am a coward, and perhaps that I purposely
Speaker 1: imagine an audience before me in order that I may
Speaker 1: be more dignified while I write. There are perhaps thousands
Speaker 1: of reasons. Again, what is the object precisely in writing?
Speaker 1: If it is not to be for the benefit of
Speaker 1: the public, Why should I not simply recall these incidents
Speaker 1: in my own mind without putting them on paper. Quite so,
Speaker 1: But yet it is more imposing on paper. There is
Speaker 1: something more impressive in it. I shall be better able
Speaker 1: to criticize myself and improve my style. Besides, I shall
Speaker 1: perhaps obtain actual relief from writing today. For instance, I
Speaker 1: am particularly oppressed by one memory of a distant past,
Speaker 1: and came back vividly to my mind a few days ago,
Speaker 1: and has remained haunting me, like an annoying tune that
Speaker 1: one cannot get rid of. And yet I must get
Speaker 1: rid of it. Somehow. I have hundreds of such reminiscences,
Speaker 1: but at times some one stands out from the hundred
Speaker 1: and oppresses me. For some reason, I believe that if
Speaker 1: I write it down, I should get rid of it.
Speaker 1: Why not try? Besides I am bored, and I never
Speaker 1: have anything to do. Writing will be a sort of work.
Speaker 1: They say, work makes man kind hearted and honest. Well
Speaker 1: here's a chance for me anyway. Snow is falling to day,
Speaker 1: yellow and dingy. It fell yesterday too, and a few
Speaker 1: days ago. I fancy it is the wet snow that
Speaker 1: has reminded me of that incident which I cannot shake
Speaker 1: off now, And so let it be a story. Apropos
Speaker 1: of the falling snow and of Underground Part two