Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
hello lit. in pic related, what was the significance of the "wall"?
The wall is truth you can't just existentially will away, but which you don't have to make peace with. Like the atheist in hell mentioned in The Brothers Karamazov.
>>7694485
hmm what do you mean by "can't just existenially will away"? thanks
>>7694513
Not him, but he is talking about concrete laws.
I think the exact term in the book is "the laws of nature."
You can't chance the laws of gravity just by wanting things to float. That kind of thing.
The fact that upsets him in the book is that people have no free will. All the anger and effort will not change this fact.
If he were to rage against these laws he would be metaphorically banging his fists on the wall (which of course would not damage the wall in any way).
>>7694476
Any speanish speaker here can tell me whats the best spanish translation of "apuntes del subsuelo?
>>7694619
>>7694513
>>7694485
I thought that the walls we anything people "folded" before that they couldn't see through and got satisfaction because they were not "conscious" individuals like the narrator. They are analogous to "crystal palaces" and "golden dreams". I suppose that in a broader sense this could be interpreted as the idea of fee will, but then why is the narrator "conscious"? Simply because he sees that there is no free will?
>>7694476
>tfw read this book 4 1/2 times and still have no idea what he's ranting about in the first part
>>7694513
I mean things that don't accept but can't do anything about. The Underground Man rejects the, "accept what you can't change" maxim.
>>7694738
The crystal palace motif (taken from What Is To Be Done?) is the opposite of the wall. The wall is a hard truth, the crystal palace is a utopian fantasy.
>>7694738
>why is the narrator "conscious"? Simply because he sees that there is no free will?
I think you need to re-read the book. The narrator rails precisely against people who want to put human beings on a fellific calculus table and say there is no free will.
>>7694779
I will read What Is To Be Done?
In the mean time I want to ask you what the walls are if not "positive obstacles"? I mean every time the narrator talks about walls, they are thin, have a hole in them, or are sort of translucent (as in the case of the crystal palace walls). So you're saying that the people who are folding before the walls are folding before hard truths? I find that hard to believe because when the narrator talks about folding before walls it's people who try to do something or are happy. How does that indicate a hard truth?
>>7694783
Yes, his bit about the last man. I'm happy to say that I got what you're saying out of it. My response was an attempt to make out what was being said about free will. I did like what he said about people having whatever and only ever wanting what's different. I wonder if that's one of the reasons he made his "final insult" to Liza?
Never heard of felicific calculus before, though. Thanks for bringing my attention to that, it seems fun and interesting.
>>7694767
the single most important aspect from that book is his view on free will, imo. Free will is just a mechanical choice people make; They estimate their possibilities and then chose what ever option is the most beneficial/rational. He goes against this, and states something along the lines that its inhumane and human nature loves "smashing things" just for the sake of it.
>>7695838
The wall he's talking about as a "hard truth" is explicitly stone, such as evolution (Dostoevsky himself did not reject evolution, and is rather critical of the sort of Christians who did; he makes a point of his attitude concerning Christians who see everything materially with Father Ferapont and Grigory in The Brothers Karamazov).
