While the points being made are mostly valid critiques or concerns regarding utilitarianism, determinism and ideas of universal morality, is there a particular reason that Dostoyevsky decided to couch these beliefs in one of the most tonally obnoxious and contrarian narrators imaginable? I feel like I'm reading TVTropes blogposts from 2009. I'm confused as to whether this character is to be pitied or laughed at for his absolute repugnance.
He is free to be a scoundrel and he choses to be one.
>>7789590
The intellectual (or hyper-conscious) person cannot act except in contradictory terms since he understands the perspective of the Other person that he is expected to be in opposition with. As D states: "t was not only that I could not become spiteful, I did not know how to become anything; neither spiteful nor kind, neither a rascal nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect. Now, I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot become anything seriously, and it is only the fool who becomes anything."
>>7789590
Nobody else felt embarrassed. He had to be embarrassing enough for the whole world. I typed that as a joke, but it's sort of interesting to view him as a savior figure now that I think about it.
