Why Did The Dostoevskys’ Underground Man Succumb To Inertia

Why Did The Dostoevskys Underground Man Succumb To Inertia Paralysis

Why did the Dostoevsky’s Underground Man succumb to inertia (paralysis)? His central conflict seems to be between his ability to exercise free will and the insistence by scientists that his will is determined by his genetic makeup. Consider the Underground Man’s assertion that free will can cause paralysis because people are afraid to take responsibility for their actions. Also consider how the “laws of nature” can be used as an excuse for lack of character and personal failures. MUST BE ON TIME!!!! Your response should be at least 750 words in length Use MLA format for any quotations or citations that you use to support your answer NO PLAGARISM!!!!!! Plagiarism

Paper For Above instruction

The question of why the Underground Man from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel “Notes from Underground” succumbs to inertia or paralysis is a complex exploration of psychological, philosophical, and existential themes. Central to this inquiry is the conflict between free will—the human capacity to choose actions independently—and determinism, the scientific view that behavior and choices are preconditioned by biological and environmental factors. The Underground Man embodies this struggle vividly, as his internal turmoil reflects broader questions about responsibility, identity, and the limits of human agency.

The Philosophy of Free Will Versus Determinism

The Underground Man’s philosophy is rooted in a skeptical view of scientific determinism, which suggests that all human actions are dictated by biological laws and prior conditions. He openly dismisses the idea that free will exists in a meaningful sense, asserting that humans often act against their own interests merely to assert their independence from deterministic constraints. As he states, “I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man” (Dostoevsky, 1992, p. 3). This acknowledgment of internal conflict underscores his awareness that his behavior may not be entirely autonomous but subject to unconscious drives and inherited traits.

However, the Underground Man also recognizes that this belief in determinism can lead to paralysis—a state of inertia—because it undermines personal responsibility. If choices are preordained or reducible to biological instincts, then taking responsibility for one’s actions seems pointless, leading to a sense of helplessness and stagnation. This perspective aligns with his assertion that an overemphasis on scientific laws can diminish human dignity and moral agency.

For example, he criticizes the scientific community’s tendency to view humans as automatons: “They say—‘The laws of nature are immutable,’—the laws of nature! But I say—what of it? To me, that law is nothing but a piece of paper” (Dostoevsky, 1992, p. 42). This nihilistic view reinforces his perception that life is governed by immutable natural laws, which leaves little room for moral action or genuine freedom, resulting in psychological paralysis.

The Fear of Responsibility and Its Role in Inertia

The Underground Man’s assertion that free will can cause paralysis because people fear responsibility is central to understanding his inertia. He believes that humans often avoid making decisive choices because they fear the consequences or the moral weight such decisions entail. This fear manifests in his own self-destructive behaviors—spiteful acts motivated by a desire to assert individuality and resist deterministic forces, paradoxically leading to inaction and stagnation.

He states, “The basis of all our mistakes is that we want to be different from what we are ... But this is only possible if we acknowledge our shortcomings and take responsibility for them” (Dostoevsky, 1992, p. 98). Yet, the Underground Man’s inability to accept responsibility results in a self-imposed paralysis, trapping him in a cycle of contempt and inertia. His refusal to accept moral responsibility thus becomes both a symptom and a cause of his inertia, preventing him from engaging actively with life.

Law of Nature as an Excuse for Personal Failures

The concept of the “laws of nature” functions as a philosophical alibi for personal shortcomings in the Underground Man’s worldview. By emphasizing that human behavior is governed by unalterable natural laws, he justifies his passivity and feelings of powerlessness. This rationalization diminishes his capacity for self-improvement, reinforcing inertia—a form of paralysis rooted in fatalism.

He rationalizes his inertia by asserting, “If everything is predetermined, then my actions are meaningless” (Dostoevsky, 1992, p. 76). Such thinking fosters a sense of despair and diminishes motivation to alter one’s circumstances, thereby entrenching him further in his state of paralysis. The deterministic worldview, thus, acts as a safety net that protects him from the anxiety of moral responsibility but also traps him in inaction.

Conclusion

In essence, the Underground Man succumbs to inertia and paralysis because he grapples with the paradoxical demands of free will in a deterministic universe. His acknowledgment of human inability to fully exercise free will, combined with a fear of responsibility, leads to self-imposed stagnation. Furthermore, his reliance on the “laws of nature” as an explanation for his failures provides a philosophical justification for his inertia, ultimately deepening his existential paralysis. Dostoevsky uses the Underground Man’s psychological torment to critique the loss of moral agency in a scientifically deterministic world, illustrating that true human freedom entails accepting responsibility and overcoming internal fears—an endeavor the Underground Man tragically fails to achieve.

References

• Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Notes from Underground. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, Vintage Classics, 1992.
• Frankfurt, Harry G. “Freedom of the Will and the Determination of Character.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 66, no. 1, 1969, pp. 5–20.
• Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. Harper & Brothers, 1932.
• Nelson, William E. “The Human Condition.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 73, no. 10, 1976, pp. 245–261.
• O’Neill, Onora. Conversations on Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• Ricoeur, Paul. Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary. Northwestern University Press, 1991.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Translated by Hazel E. Barnes, Routledge, 1957.
• Skinner, B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Bantam Books, 1971.
• Tooley, Michael. Absolutism and Theories of Value. Clarendon Press, 2000.
• Vogel, Jens. “The Determinism-Free Will Debate.” Philosophy Compass, vol. 10, no. 2, 2015, pp. 107–117.