Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mveldeivendran1 's review for:
Notes from Underground
by Fyodor Dostoevsky
It was a tuesday morning, I boarded a train to the city library. I remember a similar tuesday, almost a couple years ago, I took myself to the same place to read a work of Camus, The Stranger. I thought today it would be no different maybe except for the name and intention. I already know something of the Underground and the man talking about it having read the first portion on Sunday.
"I swear to you gentleman, that to be overly conscious is a disease, a real, thorough sickness."
The narrator in his 40s talks sick and well about people, institutions, ideals that drive them. He tells the readers that he himself has equipped with consciousness by having suffered a lot to the extent that he's able to see things from various perceptions, in turn, to the extent he's contradicting himself.
"an intelligent man cannot become anything seriously, and it is only the fool who becomes anything.”? ~ And there's just only a feeble word that distinguish an intelligent and a fool, and it all invoked and justified my beliefs on Agnosticism.
The second part of the work is much faster paced relatively with the first part where I remember reading a paragraph where the words 'want' and 'wanting' are used like 15 times. The structure felt redundant and mind toiling at times. Still it queerly reminded me of Camus' The Fall. I felt the influence of this man over Camus, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer having familiar of some of their works.
"We've all grown unaccustomed to life, we're all lame, each of us more or less. We've even grown so unaccustomed that at times we feel a sort of loathing for real 'living life,' and therefore cannot bear to be reminded of it. For we've reached a point where we regard real 'living life' almost as a labor, almost as a service, and we all agree in ourselves that it's better from a book.”
Dostoevsky conveys that most people succumbing to certain patterns of consumption and justification find alienated with what it means to live life and most of the unconventional non-frivolous, genuine ways were mostly considered to be possible only in books.
The book had been banned in most communist countries during the revolutionary days for its perceived harm in disrupting the conscious movement with promoting the notion of rationality is hardly perceivable in human condition and it's futile struggle towards utopianism. But personally, also in hindsight, I think that to reach an utopia one need not rationality. As an [learning] Anthropologist looking at simple societies so unconventional, with prestations and counter prestations as in gift economies, political structure with no authority that many of such concept and aspects don't seem to require rationality. So yeah Probably Dostoevsky would have had second thoughts if he were alive today which pretty much justifies my stand. Also taking help from Tolstoy that if life could be ruled by reason, the possibility of life is utterly destroyed.
"I swear to you gentleman, that to be overly conscious is a disease, a real, thorough sickness."
The narrator in his 40s talks sick and well about people, institutions, ideals that drive them. He tells the readers that he himself has equipped with consciousness by having suffered a lot to the extent that he's able to see things from various perceptions, in turn, to the extent he's contradicting himself.
"an intelligent man cannot become anything seriously, and it is only the fool who becomes anything.”? ~ And there's just only a feeble word that distinguish an intelligent and a fool, and it all invoked and justified my beliefs on Agnosticism.
The second part of the work is much faster paced relatively with the first part where I remember reading a paragraph where the words 'want' and 'wanting' are used like 15 times. The structure felt redundant and mind toiling at times. Still it queerly reminded me of Camus' The Fall. I felt the influence of this man over Camus, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer having familiar of some of their works.
"We've all grown unaccustomed to life, we're all lame, each of us more or less. We've even grown so unaccustomed that at times we feel a sort of loathing for real 'living life,' and therefore cannot bear to be reminded of it. For we've reached a point where we regard real 'living life' almost as a labor, almost as a service, and we all agree in ourselves that it's better from a book.”
Dostoevsky conveys that most people succumbing to certain patterns of consumption and justification find alienated with what it means to live life and most of the unconventional non-frivolous, genuine ways were mostly considered to be possible only in books.
The book had been banned in most communist countries during the revolutionary days for its perceived harm in disrupting the conscious movement with promoting the notion of rationality is hardly perceivable in human condition and it's futile struggle towards utopianism. But personally, also in hindsight, I think that to reach an utopia one need not rationality. As an [learning] Anthropologist looking at simple societies so unconventional, with prestations and counter prestations as in gift economies, political structure with no authority that many of such concept and aspects don't seem to require rationality. So yeah Probably Dostoevsky would have had second thoughts if he were alive today which pretty much justifies my stand. Also taking help from Tolstoy that if life could be ruled by reason, the possibility of life is utterly destroyed.