Underground

But these are all golden dreams. Oh, tell me, who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble because, being enlightened and understanding his real advantage, he would see his own advantage in the good and nothing else, and we all know that not one man can, consciously, act against his own interests, consequently, so to say, through necessity, he would begin doing good? Oh, the babe! Oh, the pure, innocent child! Why, in the first place, when in all these thousands of years has there been a time when man has acted only from his own interest? What is to be done with the millions of facts that bear witness that men, consciously, that is fully understanding their real interests, have left them in the background and have rushed headlong on another path, to meet peril and danger, compelled to this course by nobody and by nothing, but, as it were, simply disliking the beaten track, and have obstinately, wilfully, struck out another difficult, absurd way, seeking it almost in the darkness. So, I suppose, this obstinacy and perversity were pleasanter to them than any advantage.... Advantage! What is advantage? And will you take it upon yourself to define with perfect accuracy in what the advantage of man consists? And what if it so happens that a man’s advantage, sometimes, not only may, but even must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous. And if so, if there can be such a case, the whole principle falls into dust. What do you think—are there such cases? You laugh; laugh away, gentlemen, but only answer me: have man’s advantages been reckoned up with perfect certainty? Are there not some which not only have not been included but cannot possibly be included under any classification? You see, you gentlemen have, to the best of my knowledge, taken your whole register of human advantages from the averages of statistical figures and politico-economical formulas. Your advantages are prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace—and so on, and so on. So that the man who should, for instance, go openly and knowingly in opposition to all that list would to your thinking, and indeed mine, too, of course, be an obscurantist or an absolute madman: would not he? But, you know, this is what is surprising: why does it so happen that all these statisticians, sages and lovers of humanity, when they reckon up human advantages invariably leave out one? They don’t even take it into their reckoning in the form in which it should be taken, and the whole reckoning depends upon that. It would be no greater matter, they would simply have to take it, this advantage, and add it to the list. But the trouble is, that this strange advantage does not fall under any classification and is not in place in any list. I have a friend for instance ... Ech! gentlemen, but of course he is your friend, too; and indeed there is no one, no one to whom he is not a friend! When he prepares for any undertaking this gentleman immediately explains to you, elegantly and clearly, exactly how he must act in accordance with the laws of reason and truth. What is more, he will talk to you with excitement and passion of the true normal interests of man; with irony he will upbraid the short-sighted fools who do not understand their own interests, nor the true significance of virtue; and, within a quarter of an hour, without any sudden outside provocation, but simply through something inside him which is stronger than all his interests, he will go off on quite a different tack—that is, act in direct opposition to what he has just been saying about himself, in opposition to the laws of reason, in opposition to his own advantage, in fact in opposition to everything ... I warn you that my friend is a compound personality and therefore it is difficult to blame him as an individual. The fact is, gentlemen, it seems there must really exist something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages, or (not to be illogical) there is a most advantageous advantage (the very one omitted of which we spoke just now) which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages, for the sake of which a man if necessary is ready to act in opposition to all laws; that is, in opposition to reason, honour, peace, prosperity—in fact, in opposition to all those excellent and useful things if only he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is dearer to him than all. “Yes, but it’s advantage all the same,” you will retort. But excuse me, I’ll make the point clear, and it is not a case of playing upon words. What matters is, that this advantage is remarkable from the very fact that it breaks down all our classifications, and continually shatters every system constructed by lovers of mankind for the benefit of mankind. In fact, it upsets everything. But before I mention this advantage to you, I want to compromise myself personally, and therefore I boldly declare that all these fine systems, all these theories for explaining to mankind their real normal interests, in order that inevitably striving to pursue these interests they may at once become good and noble—are, in my opinion, so far, mere logical exercises! Yes, logical exercises. Why, to maintain this theory of the regeneration of mankind by means of the pursuit of his own advantage is to my mind almost the same thing ... as to affirm, for instance, following Buckle, that through civilisation mankind becomes softer, and consequently less bloodthirsty and less fitted for warfare. Logically it does seem to follow from his arguments. But man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic. I take this example because it is the most glaring instance of it. Only look about you: blood is being spilt in streams, and in the merriest way, as though it were champagne. Take the whole of the nineteenth century in which Buckle lived. Take Napoleon—the Great and also the present one. Take North America—the eternal union. Take the farce of Schleswig-Holstein.... And what is it that civilisation softens in us? The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations—and absolutely nothing more. And through the development of this many-sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed. In fact, this has already happened to him. Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever. Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves. They say that Cleopatra (excuse an instance from Roman history) was fond of sticking gold pins into her slave-girls’ breasts and derived gratification from their screams and writhings. You will say that that was in the comparatively barbarous times; that these are barbarous times too, because also, comparatively speaking, pins are stuck in even now; that though man has now learned to see more clearly than in barbarous ages, he is still far from having learnt to act as reason and science would dictate. But yet you are fully convinced that he will be sure to learn when he gets rid of certain old bad habits, and when common sense and science have completely re-educated human nature and turned it in a normal direction. You are confident that then man will cease from intentional error and will, so to say, be compelled not to want to set his will against his normal interests. That is not all; then, you say, science itself will teach man (though to my mind it’s a superfluous luxury) that he never has really had any caprice or will of his own, and that he himself is something of the nature of a piano-key or the stop of an organ, and that there are, besides, things called the laws of nature; so that everything he does is not done by his willing it, but is done of itself, by the laws of nature. Consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have to answer for his actions and life will become exceedingly easy for him. All human actions will then, of course, be tabulated according to these laws, mathematically, like tables of logarithms up to 108,000, and entered in an index; or, better still, there would be published certain edifying works of the nature of encyclopaedic lexicons, in which everything will be so clearly calculated and explained that there will be no more incidents or adventures in the world.

But these are all golden dreams. Oh, tell me, who first announced, who first declared, that people do nasty things only because they do not know their own interests? Who claimed that, if people were enlightened and their eyes opened to their real, normal interests, they would immediately stop doing nasty things? That they would immediately become good and noble? The idea is that, once enlightened and aware of their real advantage, they would see their advantage in doing good and nothing else. And we all know that no one can consciously act against their own interests. So, supposedly, people would have to start doing good. Oh, the baby! Oh, the pure, innocent child! First of all, when in all these thousands of years have people ever acted only in their own interest? What are we to do with the millions of facts that show otherwise? People have consciously, with a full understanding of their real interests, set those interests aside. They have rushed headlong down another path to meet peril and danger. No one and nothing forced them to do it. It was as if they simply disliked the well-worn path. They stubbornly and willfully chose another difficult, absurd way, searching for it almost in the dark. So, I suppose, this stubbornness and perversity were more pleasant to them than any advantage.... Advantage! What is advantage? Will you take it upon yourself to define exactly what human advantage consists of? What if a person's advantage sometimes not only can, but must, consist in wanting something harmful rather than advantageous? And if that is so, if such a case is possible, the whole principle crumbles to dust. What do you think? Are there such cases? You laugh. Laugh away, gentlemen, but answer me this: have human advantages been calculated with perfect certainty? Are there not some advantages that have not been included and cannot possibly fit into any classification? As far as I know, you gentlemen have drawn your whole list of human advantages from statistical averages and political and economic formulas. Your advantages are prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace, and so on, and so on. Suppose a man openly and knowingly opposed everything on that list. You would consider him an enemy of enlightenment or a complete madman, wouldn't you? And, of course, so would I. But here is the surprising thing. Why do all these statisticians, wise men, and lovers of humanity always leave one advantage out of their calculations? They do not even take it into account in the form they should, though the whole calculation depends on it. It should be simple enough. They would only have to add this advantage to the list. But the trouble is that this strange advantage fits into no classification and belongs on no list. I have a friend, for instance ... Oh, gentlemen, but of course he is your friend too. Indeed, there is no one, no one at all, whose friend he is not! When this gentleman prepares to do anything, he immediately explains exactly how he must act. He does so elegantly and clearly, according to the laws of reason and truth. What's more, he speaks excitedly and passionately about people's true, normal interests. He mockingly scolds the short-sighted fools who understand neither their own interests nor the true meaning of virtue. Then, within fifteen minutes, he goes off in a completely different direction. There is no sudden outside provocation. He does it simply because of something inside him that is stronger than all his interests. He acts in direct opposition to what he has just said about himself. He acts against the laws of reason, against his own advantage, in fact, against everything ... I should warn you that my friend is a composite personality. So it is difficult to blame him as an individual. The fact is, gentlemen, that there seems to be something dearer to almost everyone than their greatest advantages. Or, to avoid being illogical, there is a most advantageous advantage. It is the very one we just said had been left out. It is more important and more advantageous than all the others. For its sake, a person is ready, if necessary, to act against all laws. That means acting against reason, honor, peace, prosperity, in fact, against all those excellent and useful things. A person will do it if only they can gain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage, which is dearer to them than anything else. “Yes, but it’s advantage all the same,” you will reply. But excuse me, let me make my point clear. I am not playing with words. What matters is that this advantage is remarkable precisely because it breaks down all our classifications. It continually shatters every system built by lovers of humanity for humanity's benefit. In fact, it upsets everything. But before I tell you what this advantage is, I want to compromise myself personally. So I boldly declare that, in my opinion, all these fine systems and theories have so far been mere exercises in logic! They claim to explain people's real, normal interests, so that people will inevitably pursue those interests and immediately become good and noble. Yes, exercises in logic. To my mind, the theory that humanity can be transformed through the pursuit of self-interest is almost the same as another claim. Following Buckle, one might claim that civilization makes people gentler and, therefore, less bloodthirsty and less suited to war. That conclusion does seem to follow logically from his arguments. But people are so fond of systems and abstract reasoning that they are ready to deliberately distort the truth. They are ready to deny the evidence of their senses just to defend their logic. I use this example because it is the most glaring case of that habit. Just look around you. Blood is being spilled in streams, and in the merriest way, as though it were champagne. Consider the whole nineteenth century, when Buckle lived. Consider Napoleon, both the Great and the present one. Consider North America, the eternal union. Consider the farce of Schleswig-Holstein.... And what does civilization soften in us? The only thing civilization gives humanity is a greater capacity for varied sensations, and absolutely nothing more. And as people develop this wider range of sensations, they may come to enjoy bloodshed. In fact, that has already happened. Have you noticed that the most civilized gentlemen have been the most subtle slaughterers? The Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle to them. And if these gentlemen are less conspicuous than the Attilas and Stenka Razins, it is simply because we meet them so often. They are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case, civilization has made humanity, if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more disgustingly bloodthirsty. In the old days, people saw justice in bloodshed. They exterminated whomever they thought fit, with a clear conscience. Now we do think bloodshed is horrible, yet we commit this horror with more energy than ever. Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves. They say Cleopatra was fond of sticking gold pins into her slave girls' breasts. Excuse an example from Roman history. They say she took pleasure in their screams and writhing. You will say those were comparatively barbarous times. You will say these are barbarous times too, because, comparatively speaking, pins are still being stuck in people. You will say that people have learned to see more clearly than in barbarous ages. But they are still far from having learned to act as reason and science would dictate. Yet you are fully convinced that people will surely learn. They will learn once they get rid of certain old bad habits. They will learn once common sense and science have completely re-educated human nature and set it on a normal course. You are confident that people will then stop making intentional mistakes. They will, so to speak, be forced not to want to set their will against their normal interests. That is not all. You say science itself will then teach people something else, though to my mind it is an unnecessary luxury. Science will teach them that they have never really had whims or wills of their own. Each person is something like a piano key or an organ stop. And besides, there are things called the laws of nature. So nothing people do is done because they will it. Everything happens on its own, according to the laws of nature. Therefore, we only have to discover these laws of nature. Then people will no longer have to answer for their actions, and life will become exceedingly easy for them. All human actions will, of course, be mathematically tabulated according to these laws, like tables of logarithms up to 108,000. They will be entered in an index. Or, better still, certain instructive works will be published, something like encyclopedic dictionaries. Everything in them will be so clearly calculated and explained that there will be no more incidents or adventures in the world.

Then—this is all what you say—new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply because every possible answer to it will be provided. Then the “Palace of Crystal” will be built. Then ... In fact, those will be halcyon days. Of course there is no guaranteeing (this is my comment) that it will not be, for instance, frightfully dull then (for what will one have to do when everything will be calculated and tabulated), but on the other hand everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course boredom may lead you to anything. It is boredom sets one sticking golden pins into people, but all that would not matter. What is bad (this is my comment again) is that I dare say people will be thankful for the gold pins then. Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the least surprised if all of a sudden, à propos of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: “I say, gentleman, hadn’t we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will!” That again would not matter, but what is annoying is that he would be sure to find followers—such is the nature of man. And all that for the most foolish reason, which, one would think, was hardly worth mentioning: that is, that man everywhere and at all times, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated. And one may choose what is contrary to one’s own interests, and sometimes one positively ought (that is my idea). One’s own free unfettered choice, one’s own caprice, however wild it may be, one’s own fancy worked up at times to frenzy—is that very “most advantageous advantage” which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms. And how do these wiseacres know that man wants a normal, a virtuous choice? What has made them conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.

Then, according to you, new economic relations will be established, ready-made and worked out with mathematical precision. Every possible question will vanish in an instant, simply because every possible answer will be provided. Then the “Palace of Crystal” will be built. Then ... In fact, those will be happy, peaceful days. Of course, there is no guarantee that life will not be terribly dull then. That is my own comment. After all, what will anyone have to do when everything has been calculated and tabulated? But on the other hand, everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course, boredom can lead you to do anything. Boredom is what makes people stick golden pins into others, but none of that would matter. What is bad, and this is my own comment again, is that people would probably be grateful for the golden pins. Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid. Or rather, he is not stupid at all, but so ungrateful that you could not find his equal anywhere in creation. For instance, I would not be surprised if a gentleman suddenly appeared, out of the blue, amid general prosperity. His face would be mean, or rather reactionary and sarcastic. He would put his hands on his hips and say to us all: “I say, gentlemen, shouldn’t we overturn the whole thing and throw rationalism to the winds? Let’s send these logarithms to the devil, so we can live once more by our own sweet, foolish whims!” That would not matter either. But what is annoying is that he would be sure to find followers. Such is human nature. And all for the most foolish reason, one you would think hardly worth mentioning. Man, everywhere and at all times, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he chose, not as reason and self-interest dictated. And a person can choose what goes against their own interests. Sometimes a person positively should choose against them, or so I believe. A person’s own free, unrestricted choice, their own whim, however wild, and their own fancy, sometimes whipped into a frenzy, are the very “most advantageous advantage” we have overlooked. This advantage fits no classification. And it continually shatters all systems and theories to atoms. And how do these know-it-alls know that man wants a normal, virtuous choice? What makes them think that man must want a choice that is rationally advantageous? What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And as for what that choice will be, only the devil knows.