James Skemp's StrivingLife

In his Notes from Underground, Fyodor Dostoevsky asks what it is that civilization, or society in general, gives to the individual. In essence, the question concerns where the individual resides in society; what can be learned from man's place in a society? Dostoevsky presents to the reader a conflicted, sickly individual, and explores why the individual is the way he is, as well as whether society could do anything to help him from his lowly state. I will argue that society, in fact, created this man; because society has this capability to degrade man it must inherently lack something. If humans are to ever put their trust in progress and society, this lack must be rectified.

The man from underground initially presents himself to the reader by confessing that he is sick, and that he has no desire to do anything to lessen the pain and sickness. Instead, he would rather suffer - an act that is deeply spiteful towards his own self. The question that arises is this: Why would someone, knowing that his pain can be alleviated, resist the alleviation and remain thus in pain, seemingly preferring the discomfort? It appears to the reader that this underground man is being illogical, and is possibly insane.

He then goes on to say that he used his position of power to frighten those that came to him, those that were weaker then him. He did this for no other reason then to be spiteful. But, soon after this confession, he retracts it; the man claims now that he was lying when he said he exercised his power over others unjustly. Here, there is confusion over the character's motive. Is this another case of spite, this time not directed inwardly toward himself or to another character, but directed instead at the reader? As the author of these notes, he has a certain amount of power to pass off lies as truths; the reader can know nothing but what is presented to him, so perhaps he was, in fact, spiteful.

The other possibility is that the underground man is telling the truth to us, and thereby not only spiting us, but also himself. That is, he spites us - 'Ha! You believed me' - but also himself, in that we are no longer as eager to listen to him. This type of self-spite, which was seen previously in his desire to prolong the pain of his sickness, implies an intensely deep self-hatred. Now, our desire to know why he hates himself so much and how he came to be so hateful has increased. What brings a man to wish to be an insect - a bug - rather than a human being?

We later find out that he is unable to do anything spontaneously, at least not for very long. Instead, he must plan, and plan, and plan. And then, when he has his plan, he must act on it. However, his actions and their effects are never as 'magnificent' as he would wish. He wishes to be able to act with spontaneity, without all of the thinking. Perhaps he curses his intellect, finding it a hindrance to happiness; is this cursing responsible for his state?

This is our underground man, a mess of conflicting feelings. Why is it that he is the way that he is? I hold that it is society that has made the underground man a man of the underground - a man who hides in the dark. It is society that, at its root, has suppressed this individual to a point that he no longer knows what to do, and that society refuses to give him what it is that he needs in order to survive, in order to become whole once again, in order to leave the dark underground.

My first justification for this claim is the author's beginning words. He tells us that he is sick, but then claims that he is not, and then claims that he is indeed a sick man. He is crying out for help, but then retracts that plea after reconsidering it. However, he cries out yet again. Knowing from the later writings how hard it is for him to speak out, it is perhaps impossible to know just how hard it is for him to express himself.

This inability to express difficult emotions ties in immensely with his discussion of the two kinds of people; those that act, and those that only think and cannot act. Clearly, the middle ground is missing from this description; there are individuals that can think before they act, yet do not allow their act of thinking to overpower any other act. The underground man sees people as being either bulls or insects, but this is not true; he denies the possibility of a person who is part bull and part insect.

Why would he have this false belief though? Is it something that he was taught, or was it something that he just happened to come upon while thinking alone one day? In my opinion, it was society that has given this man this incorrect idea. Society has told him that there are those people who think, and those who act; that every man must fall in one of the two groups. But why would a society that exists for the people do something like this, which denies the fact that humans are, by nature, multifaceted?

Let us imagine that we are in control of a populace, that we were the institution of society. In order for us to remain in control, we would want to be able to protect ourselves and our populace from others. In order to do this we would need men that would act physically against such threats - we would want bulls that would see red and attack. However, in order to protect ourselves from our own people, we would have to teach, and thus, train our bulls not to attack us - to believe what we tell them.

However not everyone is a bull, not everyone can merely act blindly to what they are told. Rather, they think things through; they attempt to make the best decision. It is these kinds of people that we would want to protect ourselves, and our bulls, from. If these gnats continually distract our bulls from their task, and allow them to think about what they are doing, then it is possible that our bulls will begin to think for themselves, and possibly turn against us.

However, we cannot completely remove these thinkers from our mist. Rather, we must do something so that they themselves do not take action. What better then to make them see themselves as we, the institution of society, see them - as mere bugs? If we can do this, then they will begin to hate themselves, to wish that they were what they are; not men, but rather insects.

It is precisely this which society has done to the underground man. For so long, he was frowned upon and rejected because he was a thinking, rather than an acting, man; eventually he began to reject his own self in the same manner. Not only that, but his cries for help are unanswered. The only real way for him to be welcome in society is to become a bull, but he cannot be a bull, not after being a thinking man. Therefore, in society's eyes and consequently in his own, he can never be anything but a hindrance to society - there is always a possibility that he will lapse back into his old state and question actions.

In fact, society has done such a good job of getting the underground man to hate himself that he can no longer even believe that he can be who he is and be wanted. Although he has a strong desire to be loved, welcomed, and helped, as we can see in the first lines of the book, which are pleas, he resists that comfort at the same time. Because he believes that people will not like him for who he is, he strikes out against anyone that does like him. For example, his actions towards Liza; first he is kind, but then becomes cold because of her interest; his conflicting actions show his conflicted mindset. He wants love, but has come to believe that he is unable to change, that not even the love of another individual can remove the stigma that he has been given from society. Thus, he resents the very thing he desires; any sort of acceptance merely heightens his perception of how unaccepted he truly is.

It is society that created Dostoevsky's underground man, a man who hates himself, yet wishes to be loved. Yet, even when he finds something that may just make him happy, he believes that he will instead make him even more spiteful towards himself. Society does this because it lacks acceptance of a variety of men; it supports and welcomes some men, and degrades and ruins others. The underground man could have been helped, but only with an extreme reconstruction of that society in which he lives; but instead, his pain and grief and cries for help were ignored.

Source of sorts:

Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground, Bantam Books, 1992.

Notes

Created: October 31st 2002
Modified: February 13th 2004; February 5th 2005
Notes: See also my papers tiled: Can Man and Society Exist Without Religion?; The Increase of the Power of Man and Science as the Main Theme of the Nineteenth Century; Man’s Quest for Dominance over Nature within Frankenstein.

The Problem

What exactly is it that makes an individual a ‘friend’? Why is one person a ‘friend’, another not, and yet another your ‘best friend’?

According to Dictionary.com, a friend is;

1. A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts.
2. A person whom one knows; an acquaintance.
3. A person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade.
4. One who supports, sympathizes with, or patronizes a group, cause, or movement: friends of the clean air movement.¹

Looking up some other related words, we find;

1. Knowledge of a person acquired by a relationship less intimate than friendship.²
2. A person whom one knows.²
3. A person who shares one's interests or activities; a friend or companion.³
4. A fellow member of a group.³
5. A person who accompanies or associates with another; a comrade.⁴
6. A person employed to assist, live with, or travel with another.⁴
7. One of a pair or set of things; a mate.⁴

Definitions 1 and 2 bring up yet another question: are there levels of friendship? If someone isn’t a friend, what are they (or what could they be)? Just because you like someone, does that mean that you are their friend? Must friendship be a mutual agreement (see definition 4, but contrast that with definition 8).

For this article, I would like to discuss these questions, as well as posit a few possible answers. It is extremely doubtful that I will ever be able to come up with a concrete answer to this question, in any universal sense. However, I, for my own personal sake would like to be able to come up with some definition that I can give to others. For these reasons, while this article will never really be completed, I will state a few possible conclusions that I have come to by means of this article, and which may be specific to me. Just because I come up with a definition of ‘friend’ does not mean that everyone will agree with it, but a good definition would allow anyone to come to the same conclusions.

§1: Beginning Opinions of Relationships in General

As I see it, we must start at the basics. In my opinion, people have relationships with other people. There are various levels of relationships (I posit four at this point);

• A simple, state of nature, relationship
• An acquaintance relationship
• A friendship relationship
• A love/spiritual/whole-body relationship

A “simple, state of nature, relationship” (definition R1) is one in which we have a relationship with an individual only in that they are another individual living on the planet, or the city, or whatever region you would like to apply. I have a relationship with my fellow human beings. Whatever I do, will have some effect upon everyone in one way or another.

“An acquaintance relationship” (definition R2) is something more then the ‘state of nature’ relationship. When you have some kind of interaction, direct interaction, with an individual, then one could say that you have an acquaintance relationship. No longer are they some nameless/faceless individual that you know only the basic, foundational, things about. You have directly shared some moment in time, or some common idea with this person.

“A friendship relationship” would also be something more then the ‘state of nature’ relationship, as well as the ‘acquaintance’ relationship. A friendship is something more then an acquaintance, in one way or another – perhaps it is longer interaction. Exactly in what way the two differ is the question that we are here seeking an answer to.

“A love/spiritual/whole-body relationship” is, obviously, something more then a ‘friendship’ relationship, and therefore those relationships before it. In my opinion, this type of relationship is one that you would have with someone that you have consented to love, such as a spouse. At least, in theory (which is yet another problem...).

One could easily argue, I think, that there are varying levels within each relationship. For example, people commonly talk of their ‘best friend’, meaning someone that fulfills a ‘friendship’ relationship, but not the ‘love/spiritual/whole-body’ relationship.

The problem with all of the above opinions is that we don't really know what these words mean. Unfortunately, we have to have some basic idea of what we mean in order to determine whether these ‘criteria’ work.

§2: Examples for the Four Relationships Posited Thus Far

A simple, state of nature, relationship

Each of us has a relationship with everyone else, even those people that we have not yet met. What I do will have some kind of effect upon any other person, no matter whether I like it, or not. This, then, is what I would call a ‘simple, state of nature’ relationship, as it is the first, primary, most basic, relationship that we can have. People that I pass in the street would have this kind of relationship with me (assuming that no language - of any sort - is exchanged).

At the lowest level, I do not even know what the individual looks like. At the highest level, I know what they look like, have some basic information about them - what I have learned from what I perceive about them - but have little other knowledge. Knowing the individual’s name may or may not mean that I have this type of relationship with the person. If I am told the name, but make no attempt to remember it, such as reading their name-tag, then one might argue that this does not qualify as an ‘acquaintance’ relationship. These types of relationships do not require any kind of benefit to occur on any side (contrast this versus an acquaintance relationship).

An acquaintance relationship

As soon as you are introduced to an individual, or introduce yourself to an individual, with the purpose of starting a ‘relationship’ (in the sense that you wish to get to know each other better, to open up conversation with each other) beyond that of the simplest, state of nature, relationship, you enter into an ‘acquaintance’ relationship. No longer is the other person a nameless face, or a bodiless individual, now they are something much more.

Sitting at a bus stop, you start a conversation with the individual next to you. If you never see each other again, then you have not entered into an acquaintance relationship. If, you were to met this individual again, and have another conversation, or a sharing of a nod, then we might argue that you have entered into this closer relationship. Perhaps one would like to argue that both examples, that of further conversation, and that of no further conversation, are examples of an acquaintance relationship. I, however, would not like to say that. Until convinced otherwise, I will not hold this belief then.

These relationships tend to have a ‘subject’, or ‘topic’, about them, in that they came about for this reason, this ‘topic’. An example would be a ‘work acquaintance relationship’ in which you have met the person because you work with them. Other ‘topics’ may be passing in the hall, similar tastes - in books, movies, clothing, etcetera, etcetera. These are typically not continuing through time because of the person them self, but because of the topic. Also, these types of relationships are usually such that they are created for the benefit of one over the other or to the benefit of both, but not to the ‘un-benefit’/harm of either, in a short term period, in order to gain some good - such as your relationship with the person at the register of a checkout lane, at a store that you have never frequented before.

A friendship relationship

A friendship relationship is something more then an acquaintance relationship. In a friendship, one would hope that you have some idea of what the other person likes, what they are like, some background on the individual, as well as their name. To say that you are a friend of an individual whom you only met while waiting for the bus, would seem, to me, to be a severe cheapening of one’s friendships. That is, if one enters into a friendship relationship with people that easily, then this relationship would be easy to get into. If there is no ‘challenge’, so to speak, then a friendship relationship would be similar to an acquaintance relationship...
One might argue that friendship is based on trust, and information. Trust, in that one should have a great level of trust in their friends - a trust that is not given to mere acquaintances. Information, in that one should have a greater deal of background on their friends. With this background, you will have an idea of how to best be that other person’s friend. What makes the person happy, what they like to talk about, do, etcetera. These relationships tend to continue because of the person and not only for a topic of conversation.

A love/spiritual/whole body relationship

A love/spiritual/whole body relationship is a relationship in which, one would hope, two people that are in love with each other would be in. I find it hard to believe that a love/spiritual/whole body relationship can be shared with more then one, perhaps two, individuals, at least at the highest level. A parent’s love for their children would probably be near the top of this type of relationship, but a children’s love for their parents would not be at that same level. Of course, this is assuming a great deal, which is not necessary for this discussion.

Examples of the four types of relationships

• A simple, state of nature, relationship
  • Lowest sense: Your relationship with an individual, in some region or other, whom you have never met nor heard anything about, such as a poor child in a third world country. Note that this example points out that generalizations about anyone, or any ones, is not, by this view, knowledge about the one or ones. Only by meeting someone can you truly know them, and to meet the person would transform this lower sense into either a higher sense, or to an acquaintance relationship.
  • Higher sense: Your relationship with the busboy at a local restaurant.
• An acquaintance relationship
  • Lowest sense: Your relationship with a person that you have seen a few times before, and have some ideas about them, such as someone that you pass in the halls and say ‘hello’ to, or that you nod to.
  • Higher sense: Someone who you see in class three days out of the week and that you have met with a few times for a project for that class. Also someone who you began to know because of a shared interest, or similar cause, which developed into a relationship, but a limited one, in other topics (see the lowest sense of a friendship relationship).
• A friendship relationship
  • Lowest sense: Someone who you began to know because of a shared interest, or similar cause, which developed into a relationship, but a limited one, in other topics. For example, while you first met the person because you were in the same class, after a while you began to spend some amount of your free time with the other person, meeting at bars, or what have you, in order to ‘pass the time’.
  • Higher sense: Someone whom you have known for many years, whatever many years may be, and that you have an almost intimate relationship with. You know what this person ‘likes’/enjoys, in many different senses of the word(s), and like this person for who they are. You feel comfortable around this person, and enjoy your time with this person.
• A love/spiritual/whole body relationship
  • Highest sense: An example can showcase this, but the example may be quite flawed... Two people have been known each other for their entire lives, and are married to one another. They have had children together, etcetera. Imagine the couple that is celebrating some insanely high numbered anniversary and you will have some idea of what I imagine this type of relationship to be. This does not have to be a male-female relationship, but, in many ways, is one of the most well known.

§3: Not Yet Available.

n/a

Notes

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=friend – Checked October 29th 2002, August 1st 2004.
2. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=acquaintance – Checked August 1st 2004.
3. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=comrade – Checked August 1st 2004.
4. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=companion – Checked August 1st 2004.

Modification history

Created: October 29th 2002; August 1st 2004
Modified: April 20th 2003; December 5th 2003; March 8th 2004; February 5th 2005

Notes: Originally titled The Search for a Definition 1: 'Friend'. Includes material that was originally written in Relationships with Others.

It is important to mention what sentential logic is. While my guide has been out for almost two years now, I’ve yet to discuss what these rules are for. Sentential logic is one logical system, by which conclusions can be reached via premises, which may or may not be true. The truth of the premises does not concern sentential logic. Rather, sentential logic will tell you what conclusions necessarily come from the premises posited.

The simplest rule is addition, but the one that we use most frequently is conjunction. This states that if I say that my car is a Volkswagen, and I also say that my car is a 1987 model, I can conclude that my car is a 1987 Volkswagen. Logically speaking, the implicational argument forms (laid out in rules one through eight) are the ones that we typically use in common speech, and that will come fairly easy to use. The other rules are not quite as easy, but build upon the ‘first’ eight rules, so are therefore easy to pickup.

When I constructed this list I used many different sources. One of the sources was the second logic book that I picked up – but the first textbook – called Logic & Philosophy. The printing we used in my Elementary Logic course was the eighth edition, but I later picked up a copy of the third edition, since it was so cheap :)

The order of the rules below is not by the book (Paul Tidman and Howard Kahane's Logic & Philosophy: A Modern Introduction, Eighth Edition), but rather alphabetical. The same rules can be found in Howard Kahane's Logic and Philosophy: Third Edition, which is merely a previous edition of the book above, as stated previously.

Also, different books use different notation, some of which are noted below (for the main 5 connectors). Whatever symbolism you use, these rules will apply.

If you’d like more information regarding logic, I have a couple of pages dealing with the subject. As far as books, I recommend the Logic & Philosophy books (information above). I’ve also had time to look through The Logic Book: Second Edition, by Merrie Bergmann, James Moor, and Jack Nelson. I unfortunately cannot recommend this latter book as much as Logic & Philosophy, for a quick glance tells me that the former is a better resource. That said, I present the following sentential logic forms.

1. Valid Implicational Argument Forms
   • Addition (Add)
   • Conjunction (Conj)
   • Constructive Dilemma (CD)
   • Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
   • Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)
   • Modus Ponens (MP)
   • Modus Tollens (MT)
   • Simplification (Simp)
2. Valid Equivalence Argument Forms
   • Association (Assoc)
   • Commutation (Comm) or (Com)
   • Contraposition (Contra) or Transposition (Trans)
   • DeMorgan's Theorem (DeM)
   • Distribution (Dist)
   • Double Negation (DN)
   • Equivalence (Equiv)
   • Exportation (Exp)
   • Implication (Impl)
   • Tautology (Taut) or Idempotence (Idem)
3. Conditional and Indirect Proof
   • Conditional Proof (CP)
   • Indirect Proof (IP)

Rules for Sentential Logic:

Valid Implicational Argument Forms:

1. Addition (Add):

p /∴ p ∨ q

2. Conjunction (Conj):

p
q /∴ p • q

3. Constructive Dilemma (CD):

p ⊃ q
r ⊃ s
p ∨ r /∴ q ∨ s

4. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS):

p ∨ q
~p /∴ q
p ∨ q
~q /∴ p

5. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS):

p ⊃ q
q ⊃ r /∴ p ⊃ r

6. Modus Ponens (MP):

p ⊃ q
p /∴ q

7. Modus Tollens (MT):

p ⊃ q
~q /∴ ~p

8. Simplification (Simp):

p • q /∴ p
p • q /∴ q

Valid Equivalence Argument Forms:

9. Associaton (Assoc):

[p ∨ (q ∨ r)] :: [(p ∨ q) ∨ r]
[p • (q • r)] :: [(p • q) • r]

10. Commutation (Comm):

(p ∨ q) :: (q ∨ p)
(p • q) :: (q • p)

11. Contraposition (Contra):

(p ⊃ q) :: (~q ⊃ ~p)

12. DeMorgan's Theorem (DeM):

~ (p • q) :: (~p ∨ ~q)
~ (p ∨ q) :: (~p • ~q)

13. Distribution (Dist):

[p • (q ∨ r)] :: [(p • q) ∨ (p • r)]
[p ∨ (q • r)] :: [(p ∨ q) • (p ∨ r)]

14. Double Negation (DN):

p :: ~~p

15. Equivalence (Equiv):

(p ≡ q) :: [(p ⊃ q) • (q ⊃ p)]
(p ≡ q) :: [(p • q) ∨ (~p • ~q)]

16. Exportation (Exp):

[(p • q) ⊃ r] :: [p ⊃ (q ⊃ r)]

17. Implication (Impl):

(p ⊃ q) :: (~p ∨ q)

18. Tautology (Taut):

p :: (p • p)
p :: (p ∨ p)

Conditional and Indirect Proof:

19. Conditional Proof

p                AP
.
.
.
q
p ⊃ q        CP

20. Indirect Proof

~C        AP
.
.
.
p • ~p
C            IP

 

Notes:

See also my paper titled The Three Kinds of Inference.

Created: October 29th 2002
Modified: September 11th 2003; October 5th 2003; November 24th 2003; February 4th 2004; February 9th 2004; August 6th 2004; October 3rd 2004