I just finished reading "Notes from the underground". The last thing he does in the book does align with the first things he said in his book, that he's a terrible person and that he would destroy paradise just to have something interesting happen. Sort of a sad ending. I guess though that it wouldn't be russian literature if it had a happy ending.
It's sad, but I feel like I can see a postmodern man in the underground man. Filled with a paradoxical self-loathing and self-aggrandizement, and filled with post-hoc rationalizations for bad behavior. I know people like him, and I think it's some disconnect from our human nature that would result in such a toxicity. Although our current world isn't perfect, one can easily live better than kings of old, and worry about nothing but the propagation of the species and eating cakes, but it isn't what makes men happy. On the other hand, just like the underground man, once a vindication might approach, such postmodern men will talk themselves out of it.
I feel like maybe there's something of a theme I've written about before elsewhere, the difference between natural gifts and earned accomplishments. The Underground man is highly intelligent, very well read, but lacks wisdom. That's why he must be miserable, because ultimately without wisdom intelligence is pure potential. Just like uncontrolled energy it can do things that are beneficial but equally it can do things that are harmful.
In the same way, postmodern man is the most intelligent in the history of the world. The best fed, the best raised, the most well-read (though not through books but through the omnipresent media in front of us such as television or the Internet), and their mothers took care of them in the womb the best knowing what will and will not harm them. But that unbridled potential can be used to justify anything, good or evil. Without wisdom to guide them...
Postmodernism can be a useful philosophy, but not by itself. By itself, it looks at wisdom and claims it can't be real because nothing is real, particularly if it's something our minds. You can look at the lessons of the past and just say "no, those ancestors of ours weren't so wise, they didn't even have postmodernism!" I think that poses a key difference between the underground man and postmodern man. The former lacks wisdom, but the latter can actively reject it as a core tenet of his philosophy. The former may someday find wisdom, the latter will go out of their way to avoid it.
It's sad, but I feel like I can see a postmodern man in the underground man. Filled with a paradoxical self-loathing and self-aggrandizement, and filled with post-hoc rationalizations for bad behavior. I know people like him, and I think it's some disconnect from our human nature that would result in such a toxicity. Although our current world isn't perfect, one can easily live better than kings of old, and worry about nothing but the propagation of the species and eating cakes, but it isn't what makes men happy. On the other hand, just like the underground man, once a vindication might approach, such postmodern men will talk themselves out of it.
I feel like maybe there's something of a theme I've written about before elsewhere, the difference between natural gifts and earned accomplishments. The Underground man is highly intelligent, very well read, but lacks wisdom. That's why he must be miserable, because ultimately without wisdom intelligence is pure potential. Just like uncontrolled energy it can do things that are beneficial but equally it can do things that are harmful.
In the same way, postmodern man is the most intelligent in the history of the world. The best fed, the best raised, the most well-read (though not through books but through the omnipresent media in front of us such as television or the Internet), and their mothers took care of them in the womb the best knowing what will and will not harm them. But that unbridled potential can be used to justify anything, good or evil. Without wisdom to guide them...
Postmodernism can be a useful philosophy, but not by itself. By itself, it looks at wisdom and claims it can't be real because nothing is real, particularly if it's something our minds. You can look at the lessons of the past and just say "no, those ancestors of ours weren't so wise, they didn't even have postmodernism!" I think that poses a key difference between the underground man and postmodern man. The former lacks wisdom, but the latter can actively reject it as a core tenet of his philosophy. The former may someday find wisdom, the latter will go out of their way to avoid it.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1