Alex's Reaction to Second Discussion

     During yesterday’s discussion, we delved even further into Dostoyevsky’s psychoanalytical perspective. The talk about religion resurfaced as we discussed the need for man to feel comfort in something that cannot be scientifically proven. Established as a symbol of peace, religion is meant to placate the never ending conflict of man versus man. It was interesting to see how society contradicts the ideals of religion by prioritizing the elderly. At first read, one might judge the blunt references the narrator makes in regards to people becoming useless in society after the age of 40. The narrator himself falls into this category; however, he believes he has a purpose; this does not apply to him (selfishness/superiority over the rest). After discussing about this particular section of the novel and relating it to present day society as well making historical references to the “superman”, the contradictions between state and religion became clearer to me. It was also interesting to see these pillars of society that were originally portrayed in Kafka’s work be represented by Dostoyevsky in his work.  

Reaction to 2nd Discussion

By analyzing yesterday's paragraphs , I feel like I understand the duality of the underground man's opinions more fully. I can  see how being a man of character severely limits you as you may have opinions but they do not really mean anything and once you think them over rationally you discover you have no basis for your thoughts. Seeing both sides of the argument , as the underground man does , is truly a logical way of looking at things. For example , the underground man concedes that to live past forty is vulgar but , being a selfish individual , he proclaims that he will live to eighty if he can. The recent reading had me pondering if my beliefs somehow limited me. Notes from the underground really is an insightful book.

Sharon's Eighth Reaction

Today’s discussion was particularly fascinating to me because upon the initial read-through and annotations, I hadn’t connected the analysis of the two paragraphs with such intricate topics like evolution and religion. The debate on the extent to which both clash interested me greatly; I had never critically thought about the idea that religion is, in essence, a necessary byproduct of evolution. As mentioned in class, we’ve evolved so much to the point that we now fear ourselves. Religion thus no longer has the same unifying effect it once did, a fact evidenced by the numerous religion-based conflicts nowadays. Instead, the paradigm has shifted to a society leaning towards logic; I feel that the narrator’s paragraph on aging past 40 years attempts to convey this concept by referring to his reasoned idea that older men do not contribute to society at all and are only ‘worthless’.

Ryan C Discussion Post #2

      The first paragraph discussed today in class further showed that Dostoyevsky presents both sides of every argument and flips what the reader believes, he does so by going back and forth whether or not the narrator is in fact a spiteful person. The idea that religion was a necessary byproduct of human evolution is quite complex. Religion was needed to protect humans from other humans, which is rational argument, however, although religion has outlasted its original purpose, it is still somewhat needed in society. Going back to the lecture on The Stranger, there can only be rich people because there are poor people. Religion is necessary to ensure social class distinction; it is the opiate of the masses. Today religion ensures that the people at the bottom of society stay at the bottom with the hope of a greater reward. Mr. Shapiro made a point that I thought was true, he said that religion cannot suppress thousands of years of human instincts, a thought that is particularly prudent evident since world history is plagued by wars in the name of religion.

Maya's NFTU Discussion Post #2

           After some careful thought, I can see where Dostoyevsky is coming from when he talks about the “active man”. He considers the active man to be a fool; however, according to Dostoyevsky, the fools are the only ones who really become anything in life. After today’s discussion, I think I have a better understanding as to why Dostoyevsky believes this. The fool does not posses the consciousness that the main character has. He sees one path and he takes it because he is certain that there’s nothing more to it, there is only one right answer. So while Dostoyevsky’s character is sitting around idly making up his mind as to the “character” he will become, the fool is already halfway down his path because he has not given it a second thought or brought himself to fully understand both sides of it. The fool will willingly and unquestioningly spend one third of his life in school, the other third looking for a job, and the final third basically counting down the days because he has been convinced this is the only way to do things. The fool doesn’t recognize any “inherent contradictions” because he doesn’t have the capacity to see something more/he has not been given anything else to believe is right by others. 

Isa's Discussion Reaction

The class discussion was incredibly eye-opening today. The perhaps "heartless" notion that maybe the old shouldn't survive as long as they often do is actually incredibly practical once you look at it from an objective point of view. At first, I questioned why the narrator would see those over 40 as a hindrance. But the sad reality is that there is not enough sustainability in this world for those who can no longer contribute. It sounds harsh, but the narrator almost seems to say that the old have lived their life, and it is now time to make way for the young. I found this selfish at first, but Shap's comparison to a zebra herd clarified it for me. Yes, death is tragic but seeing it from both sides, like the narrator aspires to, death is needed.

Keri's second discussion post

Today's discussion of "Notes from the Underground" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky was insightful just as yesterday's discussion was. When I read the book the first time, I did not notice all of these subtle themes and ideas so it was interesting for me when they were brought up. For some reason, it is much easier to detect these ideas when we read the passages together in class. One of the prominent subjects we talked about today was the fact that the narrator is clearly trying to rationalize the fact that he does not have any goals in life. He does not even have many aspirations. He rationalizes this by claiming that only fools amount to anything in their lives. This is obviously not true. 
However, one subject touched on in class kind of inferred that Jewish people feel guilty in some way. I do not think that this applies to everyone since I am Jewish and I do not feel this way at all. I am actually proud to be Jewish. 
All in all, the discussion today was effective and taught us a lot about the intentions of the novel. 

Ciara's Discussion #2

I thoroughly enjoyed today's conversation because, as you can see, I have strong views about religion and it's role in the past, present, and future. Yes: I do understand that religion was necessary at some point in our past to bring man into unthreatening, productive contact with one another; however, this time has passed, and as Shap mentioned, religion has become an alibi for wars and mass murders across the globe. Its progression over history resembles something of a bell curve: it fulfilled it's original intention, peaked, and over time it has returned to catalyze the issues it was created to prevent, bringing us into an even deeper shit hole than the one in which we started. I believe that religion emits a deep fog of ignorance in our minds that allows us to explain the unexplainable and wrongly purge us of our wrongdoings, also known as sins. 

I also enjoyed our conversation (and heated af debate) about the selfishness of mankind, and to what extents we would go with our selfishness. Is it irrational to think that many people would kill 50,000 people over their one family member? Or does this represent the mind of a human in its most simple, impulsive form?

Discussion post 2 ( thursday) Juan Pino

            Today in class we again discussed the idea of religion, only this time we discussed how it affected the evolution of society. A very interesting point was brought up that I had never thought about: man created religion in order to coexist. It is interesting to me to think that our innate instincts of blood thirst and selfishness put us at the top of the food chain, but that once we were at the top we ended up fearing ourselves. I also find interesting the fact that government came about and was based off of religious ideals, such as thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. While I do agree that this is one of the reasons religion was created and that Dostoyevski was very insightful in his analysis of the situation,  I still firmly believe in my religion and that there were other factors that contributed to the creation of religion, such as God.

Raoul's Thursday post

Today's analysis of Dostoyevsky in my opinion has been the most interesting discussions thus far. In class today we discussed one of societies biggest problems. Societies' inability to let go of the weak and get rid of the unproductive that leach off of the rest of society, has eliminated the factors that allow for evolution. In fact, I believe that this inability to let go, has created a process of de-evolution. I believe this because the unproductive are those who reproduce the most. However, when we come to the state of having to eliminate our selves or our loved ones we cannot. Any way, I find it interesting that Dostoyevsky was able to think of these ideas of evolution before Darwin created the formal definition of evolution.

Ryan Pearson NFTU 8

             Today's discussion was fantastic. It really touched on a subject which I am intensely interested in. Like I mentioned during class, the parallel between religion and human evolution is strange, to say the least. For one, human evolution directly invalidates the possibility of an "Adam and Eve" type of human progression. These theories cannot coexist. With regard to Notes From The Underground, I think the author is spot on with his description of older adults becoming a burden. While that sounds harsh and cruel to say as a fellow human myself, it is not exactly false when you remove yourself and your emotions from the equation. Social Security and Medicare are slowly sneaking up on our generation and will be a complete nightmare when it becomes our turn to pay for it. Due to the "Baby Boom" Era of the 50's, we will be responsible for paying for a significantly greater number of patients than ever before. With the passing of Obamacare, we will have even more weighing us down which we will have to pay for. Back to the discussion of religion, does anyone else find it strange that it was founded to explain concepts too abstract to understand, yet even now, when science proves a great deal of its foundation false, we choose to remain its followers? I would love to discuss this in greater detail. Perhaps it will come up again in the book.
               Ryan Pearson

Kaylee Discussion 2 (Thursday)

I really enjoyed the discussion today. Religion has always been a topic that interested me. It is something that I personally do not understand; yet it has been apart of my life since I was little.  The idea of religion being apart of evolution is seemingly contradictory because most religions do not support the idea of evolution of mankind.  I have always asked myself who made up religion and why. The discussion we had in class. I always saw it as a way to control the masses; I just failed to connect certain details. Religion alters our darkest instincts, hiding them beneath the surface. However, just like everything else humanity has butchered the importance of religion, making it the root of social issues that have caused wars and other violence. Today, I am accepting of the fact that our generation leans more towards reason and logic when it comes to our origins and a “higher power”. It will be interesting to see how our children perceive religion in the future. In relation to the novel, I think it is amazing how Dostoevsky can provoke such insight on a topic as vast as the ones mentioned in a single paragraph. 

Alexa Ferrer Thursday Post

Today’s discussion was much more controversial dealing with religion and science. Coming from a catholic school my whole life I’ve been instilled with the same religious ideologies. As soon as I got to Gulliver I really expanded my thinking simply because I was allowed to and I had to resources to. After listening to the lecture today in class I understand and empathize with both sides. However, even both sides have two sides so we’re left with a constant struggle of a million sides.

I think the more intelligent you get the harder it is to have a valid opinion which I think Dostoyevsky tries to get at when he mentions how people that do something with their lives are stupid. What I really think he means is that it is almost impossible to have a view on something and remain intelligent without understanding the opposing views. I think the stupid people are ignorant and it’s hard to be intelligent without…going insane.

Discussion reaction 1

I thought that the recent discussion  was insightful and interesting. It did not occur to me that the underground man could see both sides of everything although I often noted it in certain parts of the book such as when he is fully conscious that his plan to slap his old school friend was preposterous. After the discussion I began to truly appreciate Dostoevsky's writing style and how he reveals to the reader that we are all petulant children at heart set on making certain people unhappy. Although the thought that I am just like the underground man  is rather unsettling , I can definitely see the correlations now that it was brought up in class.
 The idea that superstitions are a form of insurance regardless if you believe in them or not was quite intriguing and I look forward to discussing more of Part I.

Seventh Reaction

I found today’s class discussion to be immensely interesting. Although we only analyzed the first two pages, it feels like we’ve already covered several of the book’s major topics.  From the narrator’s belief in superstition even though he knows better, to his fickle nature in demeaning people, we have established the type of character he is. Although I had noticed these surface characteristics initially, I did not think of the in-depth possibility that the persona represented by the narrator in this novel is actually oneself. Yet after thinking it over in class, I now see the correlation; we view the narrator as strange or irregular due to his ‘weird’ perspectives and irregular, awkward interactions, yet the truth is that he is just like any of us. At any given time, we would have the same reactions and make the same choices he did, whether it’s constantly wavering between decisions or feeling uncomfortable with an action after it’s been done. I’m interested in what else comes up during discussion because this new input has changed the way I think about the novel; as we reread it, I think I may draw more parallels between the decisions we make versus those our narrator makes. 

Alex's 1st Discussion Post

     Although I caught on to much of what was discussed in class today, there were a few points that particularly caught my attention because I failed to pick up on them while reading on my own. I’ll admit that my opinion on the narrator was a biased one. His character did not appeal to me because I thought that his “playing around” with people’s happiness was pathetic. However, I failed to realize that he was simply admitting to something that we are all guilty of. We are not used to reading about or hearing someone admit to something in such a straight-forward manner (he says what we do not) so our natural instinct is to judge. The narrator, however, seems to be a man of deep emotional understanding; having developed the ability to comprehend both sides to every decision, which for some, is very difficult to do. 

     What stood out to me the most about the discussion was the talk about religion as a form of superstition. I never made the parallel between religion and superstition, but after discussing it in class, I realized just how similar the two are. They are concepts created by humans in order to add a sense of comfort to those who follow their rituals/beliefs. 

     I am looking forward to tomorrows lecture and I find that the majority of Dostoyevsky’s novel has a deeper, underlying meaning (usually about the human psyche) which I find to be very interesting. 

Ryan C Post #7

      Today’s lecture reaffirmed my thoughts that most people can relate to Dostoevsky’s thoughts and beliefs. The idea of superstitions was particularly intriguing. People do certain things, like the throwing salt over their shoulder, to put their mind at ease. If someone does not throw the salt, their thoughts will become chaotic of what can happen, furthermore, they might think that anything bad that happens is due to their superstition. People are afraid of their mind’s ability to think of every conceivable unfortunate situation more than the possibility of bad luck. I agree that the narrator presents both sides of every situation that renders him incapable of action and yearning for an identity. I think that the narrator’s appearance of being spiteful even though he is not, which makes him embittered is a classic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy that I believe has happened to everyone because I know that has happened to me before and it is interesting to see it put down in writing.

Natalies 7th Post

I really enjoyed the class discussion and thought that it helped me understand the book further. Like many other people pointed out, I too believed that the underground man saw things from both points of view. I feel like this is bound to occur whenever someone stops and really thinks about something. The whole first section of the book is basically him ranting, and when you write or speak freely as you think  you are bound to dissect and discuss a topic from all view points. Sharon used the word "unapologetic" to describe the underground man, and I thought that this was an interesting word to describe him and one I had not really thought about previously. I agree with her that unapologetic is a good word to describe him. He speaks freely and as does not care what he says or who he offends. Overall I really enjoy the discussion.

Ryan Pearson NFTU 7

I will admit, today’s discussion had a rocky beginning. That being said, the conversation quickly transpired into an insightful one, where we discussed the first four paragraphs of the book. Personally, I am enjoying the discussion more now than I did while I read on my own. Throwing around individual ideas is a really engaging way to stimulate the thought process. Today we spoke of the correlation between superstition and religion, the “cycle of bullying,” and the two distinct sides to the narrator’s personality, which were, in truth, distinctions which reflected being “normal” in modern society. What stood out to me the most today was the concept that the narrator’s “rabid” and civilized/reserved sides were in essence, normal. Looking back at the story as a whole, I can definitely see this point of view and even embrace it. It’s funny to think that when someone else describes an account of their entire life, it comes off as strange, yet it is essentially just a blunt timeline. I enjoyed our talk today and look forward to tomorrow’s.

Ryan Pearson

Keri's first discussion post

I thought the discussion today about "Notes of the Underground" was intellectual and thorough. I agreed with many of the points brought up. I agreed with Ryan when he said that the narrator is blunt and pessimistic. I also agreed with him when he said that the narrator lacks confidence and is passive aggressive. I thought the point brought up about superstition was interesting. In general, I really do not believe in most superstitions that others have. I just do not think that inanimate objects can have an effect  on the lives of humans. In addition to this, I thought it was rather interesting that the narrator is rather intelligent yet chooses not to see a doctor for his ailments. You would think an intelligent man like him would know better.
It was cool to see how the narrator always has both sides of every situation in mind when he interacts with others and makes decisions. However, this often causes him to be rude to others. I still hold true to the fact that this rude behavior is due to his desire to inflict his inner suffering on other people. In this way, everything in his life is a game to him.

Maya's NFTU Discussion Post #1

        This lecture has been my favorite so far. It was interesting, though frustrating to an extent, to talk about people who wholeheartedly carry these superstitions with them even though they are more than capable of realizing that these things literally don’t matter. I’d actually love to hear the explanation as to why knocking over a salt shaker is bad luck. Out of all the animals in the world, why is specifically a black cat unlucky? Why isn’t it a goldfish? There’s no logic behind it, but humans find comfort in it. Like the class discussed, these superstitions all act as insurance to protect us from the “what ifs”. I guess religion has some justification: a moral compass, a sense of something greater. However, as intelligent beings, why would we need religion to acquire these things? True intelligence would be knowing what you should and should not do regardless of what’s out there. 

Raoul's Wednesday Response

I found today's lecture to be insightful in helping me understand the book. In the first five paragraphs of the novel the narrator has already come off as self contradictory. While, most people would label the narrator as a lunatic for flipping being spiteful and being kind; however, in fact the narrator is a representation of the normal person. Honestly, I did not grasp the idea of the narrator being a representation of a normal person, during my first read. However, now that I know that he is normal some of my analysis of the novel has changed dramatically. Never the less, in the first five paragraphs our narrator did express a common contradiction of logic and reason. He describes himself as an intelligent person, intelligent enough not to be superstitious, but he is still superstitious. He knows he should go see a doctor, but he still does not go see the doctor. This when looked at by an observer is stupid and illogical, yet it happens to all of us. I am going to end my response here. :)

nftu post wednesday, 1st discussion

            The discussion we held in class today took an unexpected twist in my opinion. Never in a million years would I have thought of superstition as a tool widely used for comfort. I can also understand how religion and superstition can be compared to one another, though I disagree that they are in fact similar. Being a religious person I do look to God in times of need when I want to be comforted. On the other hand, religion is not merely a way to buy insurance. I am religious because I genuinely believe that we should appreciate and love God. Unlike what Shapiro said, for me religion is not a way of buying insurance. Regardless of whether a person is religious or not, for whatever reason it may be, I believe that if you are not religious you can still go to heaven if you are a genuinely good person. That is where I see the difference between superstition and religion.

Ciara Discussion Day 1

Today was a little slow in the beginning but the conversation gradually progressed into something more insightful.  Particularly interesting to me was the discussion about religion.  Personally, though I consider myself somewhat ignorant for thinking so, I automatically think lesser of someone when they say they are religious.  I guess it is because I believe that insightful, rational people would't believe in something that is so obviously contrived for the pure (and I find obvious) reason of eliminating fear and instilling hope.  To be religious is to convince oneself that there is something higher and better, solely as a source of comfort, despite the fact that there is no evidence for it, and all evidence against it.  I also liked where we ended the conversation.  As I read the book, I found myself criticizing him for what seemed like his "strange thoughts"; however, early on, I subconsciously juxtaposed this book and The Stranger and realized that, yet again, I am really not that much different than him.

This book kind of has the same appeal as all those Facebook pages had that we liked when we were in, like,  7th grade- we liked them because they appealed to aspects of our life in which we thought we were alone.  Turns out, our strangest ideas aren't as unique as we think.

Kaylee Fantis Post 7

           Although choppy at first, the discussion today was stimulating and very relevant to the story. We are just beginning to scratch the surface on the underlying meaning of the novel, so I am happy to continue. We began our discussion with superstition, medicine and validation. To me the topic of superstition is much like karma. Both give you rough guidelines to live by and if followed will give you positivity (or the idea of it). To me they are used as a form of comfort and assurance. When you think positively and act positively, it reflects on your life. Religion is also close in context to these ideas, because it serves as an answer and offers a sense of hope. The narrator switches from superstition to his acceptance of fate. Which is another contradiction in itself. I am sure we will go further into fate because it is more prevalent in upcoming pages. 

Final Reaction

I thought that the ending to notes from the underground was fitting. I was glad that Liza realized that the underground man was not suited for her as he cannot carry on a relationship. Even when he talked about his only friend he mentioned that the second he gave himself over to him completely he was completely repulsed by him. I liked the whole style of the book and the fact that at the end of his notes he declares himself an anti-hero and all his notes were a form of corrective punishment. The revelation at the end of the book that none of us are suited for "Real" life was particularly insightful as I can see that in everyone to a certain degree. It is good to know that I always have the underground to fall back on if the modern world gets the best of me. Lastly , I ended up liking the plot elements of the second part of the book a lot more than the abstractness of the first part as they provided a nice context for Dostoyevsky's ideas.

Sixth Reaction

The ending of NFTU is definitely not what I expected. To start off, I was surprised at the events concerning Liza; she ended up comforting the narrator until he realized he did not want to be the ‘weak’ one. His poor decision to demean her by ‘paying’ her was rejected respectably by Liza, a character who I thought shone with her understanding of the narrator’s complicated nature. That being said, however, the ending also put the spotlight on the narrator’s insecurities. I disliked his interactions with Apollon, which were again instances to prove his own superiority; the narrator’s eventual attitude in handing in the money and asking for favors, which Apollon performed out of pity, was representative of his desperation to appear great by even throwing his pride out the window. By confessing to numerous faults, but blaming them on Liza, the narrator and his attitude also reminded me heavily of the psychology defense mechanism term projection; he is so consumed with guilt and can’t accept his own vices that he projects them onto Liza as if she is the bad one. All in all, NFTU was not my favorite book we’ve read this school year, but it is certainly one that I see the immense value in reading. 

Alexa Ferrer Post 5

He is so over-analytical which I enjoyed in the first part but it kind of drives me crazy in the second part. The dinner was embarrassing but not absurd. A lot of people act crazy when trying to prove a point or justify themselves. The whole time I just wanted him to go home because I understand him and feel for him but I knew that the other men wouldn’t. He said so himself their occupied by their own stupid affairs. It’s almost impossible for him to explain himself when he is on such a different analytical level of intellect than they are.

I still have 10 pages left so I have yet to find out what happens with Liza. Is she actually a prostitute? It is never truly confirmed except in the 3 page attack where he criticizes women. I found that attack very strange when it first started but then it started to make sense. For the first time he was able to tell someone his thoughts in a way that related to that person. I do not think he was being malicious but he realized she was capable of understanding and shared consciousness (illness) was her to perhaps feel less alone.  

Natalies 6th Reaction

Overall I very much enjoyed the book, I found it interesting and applicable to my life. (I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing). The narrator has a weird superiority complex, he constantly believes that he is smarter and better than everyone else, but at the same time he hates himself. This is seen throughout the novel when the narrator goes from stages of confidence to complete doubt. He sees and judges other people, and comments how he is greater then them because he is smarter. Later a small detail will cause him to be full of doubt, and go off on a tangent. What was once a good quality (his consciousness) will be described negatively. I felt like the entire novel was an attempt to validate his opinions and worth, I believe this is why he constantly addresses the reader. He constantly asks them questions, and tells them that what they think are wrong. I think because he keeps thinking so much he needs to write down all his thoughts because that is the only way to validate their worth. Overall he reminded me of an angst-y teenager.

Maya's 6th NFTU Post

         To conclude my blog posts based on reading, I would like to point out Dostoyevsky’s obsession with free will. For some time, he has his character analyze how people act upon their free will. He says that even if you end up generating some sort of calculation that can tell a person what decision will be in his best interest, they will still choose to do things that may not necessarily have any advantages. Some people might think, why would anyone choose something that is obviously to their disadvantage? I think that how people perceive advantages and disadvantages is entirely subjective. Deciding which has more weight is also up to the individual. Dostoyevsky is basically saying that this is what makes us human. We enjoy and cherish the fact that we can still decide for ourselves, we are at a different level from the rest of nature. If we weren’t, we would be like all the other animals; we’d do the same thing every day and others could essentially predict what we are going to do for the rest of our lives.  

Alex's Tuesday Post

Throughout the continuation of the novel, the narrator seems most interested in obtaining control over people, in exerting power over them. However, his insecurities continue to interfere with this need for power. His insecurities mainly lie in physical appearance; the way he looks (aesthetics), the way his apartment looks, some of the things he says, his reactions. I was surprised to discover a change in roles between Liza and the narrator, specifically since the narrator was able to display weakness after his longing of dominance and control. I was disappointed in how things between Liza and the narrator ended since he simply was not capable of unselfish love without humiliating her. The story concludes with the narrator ultimately blaming himself for his “unheroic” actions. Although the novel had an unconventional ending, it was effective and straight to the point. 

NFTU Final Reaction

                In the final part of the Notes from the Underground the reason behind his isolation is finally revealed in my opinion.  Thanks to his intense crush on Liza, the narrator is in a heightened state of anxiety with the thought of Liza coming to see him.  The fact that he is unhappy with himself means he can’t move onto to caring for other people.  He has to be able to accept himself in order to allow other people to accept who he is.  His inability to come to terms with the person he is ultimately destroys his chances at finding happiness, and leaves him feeling that he wasted his life.  I think the ultimate warning from this story is to learn to accept yourself.  If you can’t do this, your entirely life will be spent fretting over things that can’t be changed such as looks, or personality.  Learn to love yourself, and you can move forward in your life.  Unfortunately his hatred for himself causes him to lash out in agony at Liza, who leaves his house confused as to why he acted in such a way.  She liked him, but she knew he was an unfixable human being.