Notes From Underground Page 4

bad habits, and when common sense and science have completely

  re-educated human nature and turned it in a normal direction. You are

  confident that then man will cease from INTENTIONAL error and will, so to

  say, be compelled not to want to set his will against his normal interests.

  That is not all; then, you say, science itself will teach man (though to my

  mind it's a superfluous luxury) that he never has really had any caprice

  or will of his own, and that he himself is something of the nature of a

  piano-key or the stop of an organ, and that there are, besides, things

  called the laws of nature; so that everything he does is not done by his

  willing it, but is done of itself, by the laws of nature. Consequently we

  have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have

  to answer for his actions and life will become exceedingly easy for him.

  All human actions will then, of course, be tabulated according to these

  laws, mathematically, like tables of logarithms up to 108,000, and

  entered in an index; or, better still, there would be published certain

  edifying works of the nature of encyclopaedic lexicons, in which everything

  will be so clearly calculated and explained that there will be no

  more incidents or adventures in the world.

  Then--this is all what you say--new economic relations will be

  established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude,

  so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye,

  simply because every possible answer to it will be provided. Then

  the "Palace of Crystal" will be built. Then ... In fact, those will be

  halcyon days. Of course there is no guaranteeing (this is my comment)

  that it will not be, for instance, frightfully dull then (for what will one

  have to do when everything will be calculated and tabulated), but on the

  other hand everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course boredom

  may lead you to anything. It is boredom sets one sticking golden

  pins into people, but all that would not matter. What is bad (this is my

  comment again) is that I dare say people will be thankful for the gold

  pins then. Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is

  not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another

  like him in all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the least

  surprised if all of a sudden, A PROPOS of nothing, in the midst of general

  prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and

  ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to

  us all: "I say, gentleman, hadn't we better kick over the whole show and

  scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the

  devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will!"

  That again would not matter, but what is annoying is that he would be

  sure to find followers--such is the nature of man. And all that for the

  most foolish reason, which, one would think, was hardly worth mentioning:

  that is, that man everywhere and at all times, whoever he may

  be, has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and

  advantage dictated. And one may choose what is contrary to one's own

  interests, and sometimes one POSITIVELY OUGHT (that is my idea). One's

  own free unfettered choice, one's own caprice, however wild it may be,

  one's own fancy worked up at times to frenzy--is that very "most

  advantageous advantage" which we have overlooked, which comes

  under no classification and against which all systems and theories are

  continually being shattered to atoms. And how do these wiseacres know

  that man wants a normal, a virtuous choice? What has made them

  conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What

  man wants is simply INDEPENDENT choice, whatever that independence

  may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil

  only knows what choice.

  VIII

  "Ha! ha! ha! But you know there is no such thing as choice in reality, say

  what you like," you will interpose with a chuckle. "Science has succeeded

  in so far analysing man that we know already that choice and

  what is called freedom of will is nothing else than--"

  Stay, gentlemen, I meant to begin with that myself I confess, I was

  rather frightened. I was just going to say that the devil only knows what

  choice depends on, and that perhaps that was a very good thing, but I

  remembered the teaching of science ... and pulled myself up. And here

  you have begun upon it. Indeed, if there really is some day discovered a

  formula for all our desires and caprices--that is, an explanation of what

  they depend upon, by what laws they arise, how they develop, what they

  are aiming at in one case and in another and so on, that is a real

  mathematical formula--then, most likely, man will at once cease to feel

  desire, indeed, he will be certain to. For who would want to choose by

  rule? Besides, he will at once be transformed from a human being into

  an organ-stop or something of the sort; for what is a man without desires,

  without free will and without choice, if not a stop in an organ? What do

  you think? Let us reckon the chances--can such a thing happen or not?

  "H'm!" you decide. "Our choice is usually mistaken from a false view

  of our advantage. We sometimes choose absolute nonsense because in

  our foolishness we see in that nonsense the easiest means for attaining a

  supposed advantage. But when all that is explained and worked out on

  paper (which is perfectly possible, for it is contemptible and senseless to

  suppose that some laws of nature man will never understand), then

  certainly so-called desires will no longer exist. For if a desire should come

  into conflict with reason we shall then reason and not desire, because it

  will be impossible retaining our reason to be SENSELESS in our desires, and

  in that way knowingly act against reason and desire to injure ourselves.

  And as all choice and reasoning can be really calculated--because there

  will some day be discovered the laws of our so-called free will--so, joking

  apart, there may one day be something like a table constructed of them,

  so that we really shall choose in accordance with it. If, for instance, some

  day they calculate and prove to me that I made a long nose at someone

  because I could not help making a long nose at him and that I had to do it

  in that particular way, what FREEDOM is left me, especially if I am a learned

  man and have taken my degree somewhere? Then I should be able to

  calculate my whole life for thirty years beforehand. In short, if this could

  be arranged there would be nothing left for us to do; anyway, we should

  have to understand that. And, in fact, we ought unwearyingly to repeat to

  ourselves that at such and such a time and in such and such circumstances

  nature does not ask our leave; that we have got to take her as she is

  and not fashion her to suit our fancy, and if we really aspire to formulas

  and tables of rules, and well, even ... to the chemical retort, there's no

  help for it, we must accept the retort too, or else it will be accepted

/>   without our consent ...."

  Yes, but here I come to a stop! Gentlemen, you must excuse me for being

  over-philosophical; it's the result of forty years underground! Allow me to

  indulge my fancy. You see, gentlemen, reason is an excellent thing, there's

  no disputing that, but reason is nothing but reason and satisfies only

  the rational side of man's nature, while will is a manifestation of the whole

  life, that is, of the whole human life including reason and all the impulses.

  And although our life, in this manifestation of it, is often worthless, yet

  it is life and not simply extracting square roots. Here I, for instance,

  quite naturally want to live, in order to satisfy all my capacities for

  life, and not simply my capacity for reasoning, that is, not simply one

  twentieth of my capacity for life. What does reason know? Reason only

  knows what it has succeeded in learning (some things, perhaps, it will

  never learn; this is a poor comfort, but why not say so frankly?) and

  human nature acts as a whole, with everything that is in it, consciously

  or unconsciously, and, even if it goes wrong, it lives. I suspect,

  gentlemen, that you are looking at me with compassion; you tell me

  again that an enlightened and developed man, such, in short, as the

  future man will be, cannot consciously desire anything disadvantageous

  to himself, that that can be proved mathematically. I thoroughly agree, it

  can--by mathematics. But I repeat for the hundredth time, there is one

  case, one only, when man may consciously, purposely, desire what is

  injurious to himself, what is stupid, very stupid--simply in order to have

  the right to desire for himself even what is very stupid and not to be

  bound by an obligation to desire only what is sensible. Of course, this

  very stupid thing, this caprice of ours, may be in reality, gentlemen,

  more advantageous for us than anything else on earth, especially in

  certain cases. And in particular it may be more advantageous than any

  advantage even when it does us obvious harm, and contradicts the

  soundest conclusions of our reason concerning our advantage--for in

  any circumstances it preserves for us what is most precious and most

  important--that is, our personality, our individuality. Some, you see,

  maintain that this really is the most precious thing for mankind; choice

  can, of course, if it chooses, be in agreement with reason; and especially

  if this be not abused but kept within bounds. It is profitable and sometimes

  even praiseworthy. But very often, and even most often, choice is

  utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason ... and ... and ... do you

  know that that, too, is profitable, sometimes even praiseworthy? Gentlemen,

  let us suppose that man is not stupid. (Indeed one cannot refuse to

  suppose that, if only from the one consideration, that, if man is stupid,

  then who is wise?) But if he is not stupid, he is monstrously ungrateful!

  Phenomenally ungrateful. In fact, I believe that the best definition of

  man is the ungrateful biped. But that is not all, that is not his worst

  defect; his worst defect is his perpetual moral obliquity, perpetual--from

  the days of the Flood to the Schleswig-Holstein period. Moral obliquity

  and consequently lack of good sense; for it has long been accepted that

  lack of good sense is due to no other cause than moral obliquity. Put it to

  the test and cast your eyes upon the history of mankind. What will you

  see? Is it a grand spectacle? Grand, if you like. Take the Colossus of

  Rhodes, for instance, that's worth something. With good reason Mr.

  Anaevsky testifies of it that some say that it is the work of man's hands,

  while others maintain that it has been created by nature herself. Is it

  many-coloured? May be it is many-coloured, too: if one takes the dress

  uniforms, military and civilian, of all peoples in all ages--that alone is

  worth something, and if you take the undress uniforms you will never get

  to the end of it; no historian would be equal to the job. Is it monotonous?

  May be it's monotonous too: it's fighting and fighting; they are fighting

  now, they fought first and they fought last--you will admit, that it is

  almost too monotonous. In short, one may say anything about the history

  of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination.

  The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks

  in one's throat. And, indeed, this is the odd thing that is continually

  happening: there are continually turning up in life moral and rational

  persons, sages and lovers of humanity who make it their object to live all

  their lives as morally and rationally as possible, to be, so to speak, a light

  to their neighbours simply in order to show them that it is possible to live

  morally and rationally in this world. And yet we all know that those very

  people sooner or later have been false to themselves, playing some queer

  trick, often a most unseemly one. Now I ask you: what can be expected of

  man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon

  him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that

  nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him

  economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but

  sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and

  even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some

  nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire

  the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to

  introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is

  just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain,

  simply in order to prove to himself--as though that were so necessary--

  that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of

  nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to

  desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really

  were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural

  science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable,

  but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude,

  simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive

  destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his

  point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse

  (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals),

  may be by his curse alone he will attain his object--that is,

  convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all

  this, too, can be calculated and tabulated--chaos and darkness and

  curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would

  stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go

  mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I

  answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing

  but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key!

  It may be at the cost of his skin, it may be by canniba
lism! And this being

  so, can one help being tempted to rejoice that it has not yet come off, and

  that desire still depends on something we don't know?

  You will scream at me (that is, if you condescend to do so) that no one

  is touching my free will, that all they are concerned with is that my will

  should of itself, of its own free will, coincide with my own normal

  interests, with the laws of nature and arithmetic.

  Good heavens, gentlemen, what sort of free will is left when we

  come to tabulation and arithmetic, when it will all be a case of twice

  two make four? Twice two makes four without my will. As if free will

  meant that!

  IX

  Gentlemen, I am joking, and I know myself that my jokes are not

  brilliant,but you know one can take everything as a joke. I am, perhaps,

  jesting against the grain. Gentlemen, I am tormented by questions;

  answer them for me. You, for instance, want to cure men of their old

  habits and reform their will in accordance with science and good sense.

  But how do you know, not only that it is possible, but also that it is

  DESIRABLE to reform man in that way? And what leads you to the conclusion

  that man's inclinations NEED reforming? In short, how do you know

  that such a reformation will be a benefit to man? And to go to the root of

  the matter, why are you so positively convinced that not to act against his

  real normal interests guaranteed by the conclusions of reason and arithmetic

  is certainly always advantageous for man and must always be a law

  for mankind? So far, you know, this is only your supposition. It may be

  the law of logic, but not the law of humanity. You think, gentlemen,

  perhaps that I am mad? Allow me to defend myself. I agree that man is

  pre-eminently a creative animal, predestined to strive consciously for an

  object and to engage in engineering--that is, incessantly and eternally to

  make new roads, WHEREVER THEY MAY LEAD. But the reason why he wants

  sometimes to go off at a tangent may just be that he is PREDESTINED to make

  the road, and perhaps, too, that however stupid the "direct" practical

  man may be, the thought sometimes will occur to him that the road

  almost always does lead SOMEWHERE, and that the destination it leads to is

  less important than the process of making it, and that the chief thing is to

  save the well-conducted child from despising engineering, and so giving

  way to the fatal idleness, which, as we all know, is the mother of all the

  vices. Man likes to make roads and to create, that is a fact beyond dispute.

  But why has he such a passionate love for destruction and chaos also? Tell

  me that! But on that point I want to say a couple of words myself. May it

  not be that he loves chaos and destruction (there can be no disputing that

  he does sometimes love it) because he is instinctively afraid of attaining

  his object and completing the edifice he is constructing? Who knows,

  perhaps he only loves that edifice from a distance, and is by no means in

  love with it at close quarters; perhaps he only loves building it and does

  not want to live in it, but will leave it, when completed, for the use of

  LES ANIMAUX DOMESTIQUES--such as the ants, the sheep, and so on. Now the

  ants have quite a different taste. They have a marvellous edifice of that

  pattern which endures for ever--the ant-heap.

  With the ant-heap the respectable race of ants began and with the ant-

  heap they will probably end, which does the greatest credit to their

  perseverance and good sense. But man is a frivolous and incongruous

  creature, and perhaps, like a chess player, loves the process of the game,

  not the end of it. And who knows (there is no saying with certainty),

  perhaps the only goal on earth to which mankind is striving lies in this

  incessant process of attaining, in other words, in life itself, and not in the

  thing to be attained, which must always be expressed as a formula, as