Is reason truly superior to emotion? Should we always prioritize reason? Many philosophers and writers have debated these questions, but today we will focus specifically on the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) and the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881), through their works Twilight of the Idols (Nietzsche) and Notes from Underground (Dostoevsky). Before diving into the works themselves, I feel obliged to provide a brief introduction to each author.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
In essence, Nietzsche challenged traditional morality, declared the “death of God,” and advocated for the creation of new values through the will to power. The goal here is not to provide a biography of him, so I will focus only on why we should study him and what he meant by his famous phrase “God is dead.”
Why Study Nietzsche?
Nietzsche is a somewhat peculiar and controversial philosopher for expressing his views against religion and other popular beliefs and elements. However, regardless of one’s stance on his opinions and works, he is a classic, and no one becomes a classic by chance.
First, his works and philosophy are fundamental to understanding contemporary philosophy; without him, you’d struggle to comprehend our modern world. Additionally, one of the works discussed in this article (Twilight of the Idols) is excellent for philosophy beginners, as he is a compelling writer, addresses highly relevant topics, and his books are relatively short. Finally, he is extremely relevant to our current cultural and global context.
“God is dead, and we have killed him”
This idea was written by Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but what does it really mean? It does not refer directly to the “person” of God but to the values and morality associated with religion.
What the author seeks to convey is that in the past, particularly during the Middle Ages, humanity was deeply religious, with everything tied to the church and God—He was “alive” back then. Today, the idea of God is losing strength, whether due to scientific advancements or various other reasons.
It’s worth noting that Nietzsche does not say this in a celebratory tone, as, like it or not, religion and its values are not entirely bad and play a certain role in society. He also does not claim that by “replacing” God with science we are better off than before; according to him, both are problematic.
Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881)
Dostoevsky is renowned for exploring the complexity of the human soul, morality, and religion in works like Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov. You’ve likely heard of him, as his works are “trending” on some social media platforms.
Why Study Dostoevsky?
I dare say that, with each passing day, Dostoevsky and his ideas become increasingly important and relevant to the contemporary world. His works explore themes such as existentialism and the human condition, morality and ethics, suffering and redemption, alienation and society, and more.
His writings have become crucial for understanding the dilemmas many of us face, such as identity crises, moral conflicts, and the search for meaning.
As if that weren’t enough, he is famous for anticipating psychoanalytic concepts and depth psychology due to the psychological depth of his characters and his narrative style, which employs inner monologues, stream of consciousness, non-linear structures, and narrative complexity.
“Dostoevsky is the only psychologist from whom I have something to learn”
Believe it or not, this phrase was written by Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols.
Although they never met in person, Nietzsche paid considerable attention to Dostoevsky, recognizing in him a profound understanding of the human condition. However, this admiration came with significant philosophical criticisms and divergences.
Nietzsche viewed Christian morality, to which the Russian writer adhered, as an expression of “slave morality,” which he considered limiting and contrary to the flourishing of the strong, autonomous individual. We will explore his criticisms of religion further in the section on Twilight of the Idols, where you can draw your own conclusions.
Twilight of the Idols
The last book written by Nietzsche while still lucid, it aims to present the main ideas of his philosophy. It also goes by the title How to Philosophize with a Hammer, which should not be misunderstood. Early in the work, the author explains the intended meaning of “hammer,” likening it to a tuning fork (a metallic instrument used to identify whether something is hollow—or false, in his philosophy—or not), allowing one to discover whether the “idols” are real or false. An interesting fact about the use of the hammer is that Nietzsche notes the more “hollow” a god is, the more “faithful” followers it may have, regardless of how unreal it is.
The title is inspired by a work by his friend Wagner, where “Twilight” refers to an end, and “idols” (notably the same term used in the Old Testament of the Bible for false gods or entities, i.e., beyond the “true” Judeo-Christian God) refers to religious or metaphysical elements.
Chapter II: “The Problem of Socrates”
Nietzsche criticizes Socrates and his dialectic for valuing reason above all else and practically abandoning the real value of human senses and instincts. I know this may seem strange at first, as we live in a culture heavily influenced by post-Socratic Greek philosophy, but trust me, it will all make sense in the end!
Before Socrates, the Greeks still valued beauty, the senses, and human instincts; they did not suppress feelings in favor of reason but recognized their importance and naturalness in humanity. They understood that humans were not rational, as later post-Socratic philosophers would claim.
Nietzsche says that Socrates was ugly, a “monster,” and that even foreigners remarked on this, though his friends, accustomed to his appearance, found such comments outrageous; even Socrates himself admitted it. Thus, as a form of revenge, or “ressentiment” as Nietzsche calls it, he created the dialectic, introducing the use of reason.
The author claims that the dialectic is the last line of defense, used only when no other options remain. For example, Nietzsche suggests that Socrates, aware of his physical limitations and the hostility he faced, used the dialectic to overcome these disadvantages and assert himself intellectually. Instead of relying on strength or traditional status, he turned to the power of logical argumentation to gain influence and respect.
But what’s wrong with prioritizing reason above all else? Isn’t that correct? Not exactly, Nietzsche tells us that reason is not everything in life. What Socrates, the Stoics, religious figures, and practically all post-Socratic philosophers preached is that we must suppress the “flesh,” that we should not give way to our instincts and emotions and instead seek rationality.
But there’s a problem: humans do not have such power of self-control. Thus, they “swallow” their desires, emotions, instincts, and senses until, eventually, they explode. And what results from this? Domestic violence, rapes, murders, road rage, and so on. All these suppressed senses will, sooner or later, resurface.
However, Nietzsche is not saying we should do everything we want or feel like doing. Instead, we should not control our senses so much; we need a proper way to mitigate them, not simply suppress them. We must know the right place, time, and way to express them. The author uses art as an example to “discharge” accumulated emotions and desires. He also notes that those who absorb or “swallow” their senses and emotions are, in fact, physiologically ill (e.g., depressives).
Chapter IV: “How the ‘True World’ Finally Became a Fable”
In this chapter, the author divides his argument into six numbered paragraphs, with parenthetical remarks at the end, comparing them to the process of a new day dawning.
He begins by criticizing the idea of the “World of Ideas,” primarily developed by Plato. But what exactly is this? The World of Ideas claims that the world we live in is false and that there exists another world where everything is true. According to Plato, everything is first created in the “World of Ideas,” and we only see the shadow of the truth, not the truth itself. Nietzsche argues that this is all a lie and that the idea of the “World of Ideas” is incompatible with a democratic world or with Nietzsche’s conception of truth.
The Christian heaven can also be understood as a “World of Ideas,” as to reach it, you must follow a series of dogmas and precepts in this “false and fleeting” world, and the same applies outside of religion.
In the first aphorism of the chapter, Nietzsche refers to the “World of Ideas” as something attainable by the wise, the devout, and the virtuous. In other words, to reach the “truth,” you must do and dedicate yourself to a series of things that, by being considered the only truth, are not democratic, as in a democracy, everyone would have equal rights and thus valid opinions and conceptions of truth.
For Nietzsche, truth is perspectival, meaning everyone has their own. Some call this relativism, but it’s not, as relativism requires a true and false dichotomy, and Nietzsche suggests things are not quite that way. Read what he says in the final aphorism of the chapter:
“6. We have abolished the true world: what world remains? The apparent one, perhaps? No! With the true world, we have also abolished the apparent world!
(Noon; moment of the shortest shadow; end of the long error; zenith of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA [Zarathustra begins])”
What he means in this aphorism is that by abolishing the idea of the World of Ideas (the “true” world), we also abolish the apparent world (the supposedly false one). Thus, the conception of true and false, established by Plato, must be abolished for Nietzsche as it is a kind of illusion.
For example: if the Church or Christianity were to end, so too would the ideas of sin, hell, heaven, etc. In fact, for Nietzsche, these shouldn’t even be promised, but they are.
Notes from Underground
Introduction
If Nietzsche criticizes the excess of rationality in Western philosophy, Dostoevsky, in turn, presents a character who illustrates the consequences of this excessive rationalism in everyday life.
Considered by many as a precursor to existentialism—a philosophy concerned with the anguish of existence, the human experience, and a constant sense of confusion—Notes from Underground is composed of two parts and is a book against rationalism. The first part (Underground) is densely philosophical, while the second part (Apropos of the Wet Snow) is more narrative, as if it were a practical application of the theory presented in the first part.
The protagonist, whose name is never revealed, is a former Russian civil servant living off a small inheritance, sufficient for survival but not luxurious. He narrates his memories at age 40, recalling episodes from his youth.
Part 1
The underground man begins the work by saying he is wicked, unpleasant, and suffers from liver issues. He is deeply dissatisfied with his life, declares himself somewhat solitary, yet still writes about his memories. His life is recalled with bitterness, and at times he feels superior to his readers, who are nothing more than assumptions, as if they were his audience.
One of his main characteristics is his tendency to turn everything into a paradox. For example, he says he writes for no one but has an audience, claims to be superior to others but occasionally belittles himself.
The historical context of this work is 19th-century Russia, where a book titled What Is to Be Done? by Nikolai Chernyshevsky, which set standards for building a rational, equitable society where each person acts in their own interest while sharing with others, had been published. Upon reading it, Dostoevsky felt the author was naive, observing that, contrary to Chernyshevsky’s claim that “the struggle to maximize pleasure and minimize pain is what drives humans,” or as if the most irrational aspects of humanity could be caged and educated, he believed there is a dimension to humans that is not, above all, “a piano key.” Even if placed on a piano keyboard, humans would, in one way or another, rebel, whether in defense of their freedom or by self-mutilation to affirm they are alive beyond a “mathematical calculation.” This is precisely why the underground man self-affirms and is paradoxical. He tells us that human history is anything but reasonable, that it is a bloodbath, where he identifies a tendency for the outpouring or “ejaculation” of violence, of one’s own character, of individual will. Even if he might deny these claims in the future, what matters is that this will is his own and not dictated by an exact calculation.
He is sometimes referred to as an advocate of barbarism, irrationalism, and humanity’s most morbid tendencies, but that’s not our focus here. What he shows us is the difficulty in creating a society based on new principles of “equality, freedom, and fraternity” as envisioned by those revolutionary thinkers. He polemicizes this to say that any society created must include some kind of “escape valve” for humans to express themselves, or else, if there were strict regulation and a demand to sacrifice one’s personality for the collective, determined not by all of us but only by the rulers, it could lead to profound authoritarianism, as there would be a vast distance between the individual and the collective civilization seeks to build.
Part 2
Titled Apropos of the Wet Snow, this part includes episodes from his youth, exemplifying what was written in the first part. As he recounts these stories, it becomes clear that he has been ruminating on them for 20 years and that he even tried to be a man of action in them, including efforts to join a group.
He divides people into “men of action” and “intelligent men” (the group he identifies with). The man of action does what needs to be done, is practical, functions well in society, but is also a perfect factory pawn. This is not his case, as he is the man who thinks, who analyzes everything around him, but his situation, especially financial, limits him and makes him not want to do anything. As a Russian, he also feels superior to other nationalities around him, part of the culture of that era.
The first story he tells is about how he got into trouble just to feel something. For example, one night, while leaving his house, wandering the streets to indulge in his debaucheries, he passes by a man who is thrown out of a window. He immediately thinks how wonderful it would be to be thrown out of a window and tries, unsuccessfully, to achieve this. Then he tells of a young man he disliked and begins to follow him, finding out where he lives, where he goes, etc. He often imagines the moment he will provoke and get beaten by him, but nothing actually happens.
The second story recounts how he invites himself to a friend’s house. Upon arriving, he notices other guests are there, planning a celebration for another friend who is not present. These friends all met in school, where they studied together, and the young man for whom the party is being planned is someone the underground man detests simply because he is very handsome, full of friends, pleasant, but had never done anything wrong to our character. He promptly invites himself to the party, contributing money he doesn’t even have, hoping others will recognize his “superiority,” when, in reality, his presence is insignificant. At some point, he’s there and wonders if this is companionship for him, then begins to regret it and feel superior again.
In the third story, while indulging in his debaucheries, he is attended by a young woman, Liza, to whom he speaks some harsh truths, “destroying” her.
All this anguish, he tried to silence with reading. He says we all have an underground man within us; the challenge is controlling it. The problem is that his underground took over his life, and he settled into this state. “The girl is crafted as an heir to the Christian virtues Dostoevsky identified in simple people, in contrast to the moral nihilism he accuses the educated classes of embracing […] This trait makes her the only truly positive figure in the story, making it easy to see her as a kind of moral and spiritual antipode to the underground man.” (Villaça, 2021).
Beware of Misinterpretations
As presented in Davi Villaça’s article (2021), misinterpretations are often made when reading this book. The first is that “These are not just Dostoevsky’s words: they are the words of a third-person narrator who only appears at the end of the story,” particularly evident in the novel’s closing, where “The final words of the novel state that the narrator’s story continues beyond what is recorded.” Additionally, the narrator’s word is life itself in progress, in its incompleteness. It’s also important to distinguish between Dostoevsky and the Underground Man, the book’s narrator. “The warning that the narrator is not a direct and simple expression of the author can set us on the right path but does little to unravel the tangle of problems the character himself represents.” (Villaça, 2021).
The Parallel Itself + Conclusion
You may not have noticed, but there are similarities between what Nietzsche says in Twilight of the Idols and what Dostoevsky depicts in Notes from Underground. Let’s try to understand what the authors were trying to tell us.
The Transvaluation of Values
Just as Nietzsche warns, Dostoevsky illustrates the loss of certain values with the Underground Man. “And since this situation is tied precisely to a process of modernization and the loss of traditional values—exactly what Dostoevsky aimed to critique in the educated segment of society—we can say that the underground man’s narrative is a search for the roots of his own uprooting.” (Villaça, 2021), much like Nietzsche’s phrase “God is dead,” explained earlier in this article.
The Problem of Socrates and the Underground Man
You may not recall, but Nietzsche made some criticisms of Socrates that we can also identify in the Underground Man. To start, he said Socrates had poor physical characteristics and sometimes used “reason” to feel superior to others, who likely envied him, though we don’t know for sure. Similarly, the Underground Man uses his “intelligence” to stand out from others, as if he were someone separate from society, someone special.
However, they don’t only share similarities but also differences. Because the Underground Man is so contradictory and paradoxical, he feels superior to others, like Socrates, but does not value reason as much as the Greek philosopher did. “Reason, gentlemen, is a fine thing, no doubt, but reason is only reason and satisfies only the rational capacity of man, whereas the act of willing is a manifestation of the whole life, that is, of the entire human life, including reason and all its scratching. And though our life, in this manifestation, often turns out to be rather vile, it is still life and not just the extraction of a square root. For example, I naturally want to live to satisfy my entire capacity for life, not just my rational capacity, which is about one-twentieth of my capacity to live. What does reason know? Only what it has had time to learn (and some things, perhaps, it will never learn; though this is no consolation, why not express it?), whereas human nature acts in its entirety, with everything it contains, conscious and unconscious, and though it lies, it lives.” (Villaça, 2021).
Dostoevsky likely shared some of this view, as “For Dostoevsky, reason is just one of the functions of human life, and therefore it cannot present or understand the whole of life.” (Villaça, 2021).
The Suppression of Human Characteristics and Instincts
Another point in Nietzsche’s critique is the suppression of human instincts, leading individuals to seek ways to relieve them. Similarly, Dostoevsky’s character shows this tendency. “In a categorical refutation of that writer’s assumptions and conclusions, the underground man exposes what he believes are some original and irreducible human traits: the inclination toward immorality, the desire to pursue a goal but not to achieve it, the attachment to notions of personality and freedom—in the name of which a man may, just to assert his individual will, renounce well-being, tranquility, and any other ‘advantages’ that a utopia like Chernyshevsky’s would offer him. Dostoevsky, evidently, agrees with his character’s critiques.” (Villaça, 2021).
The End of the Fable and the Ideal Society
Finally, we can draw an analogy between the “True World,” i.e., Plato’s World of Ideas, which Nietzsche “refuted,” and the ideal society Dostoevsky fights against, as proposed by Nikolai Chernyshevsky. Just as the World of Ideas is neither real nor possible, the ideal society based on “freedom, equality, and fraternity” would also be impossible, for the reasons already discussed in the Notes from Underground section of this article.
Conclusion
What can we conclude from all this? That we should neither overvalue reason nor undervalue it. We must seek balance to avoid becoming a “Socrates” or letting our underground take over our lives. Additionally, we must always strive to preserve our freedom and not allow governments or rulers to treat us like “piano keys,” as, as we’ve seen, this could eventually lead to authoritarianism.
If we reject both extreme rationalism and unrestrained surrender to instincts, how can we find balance in contemporary society?
Now, a meme to lighten the mood 😂
References
- FELTRIN, Tatiana. Notes from Underground (Dostoevsky) 🇷🇺 | Tatiana Feltrin. YouTube, 2021. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wgry2nbxew. Accessed on: 30 Jan. 2025.
- DOSTOEVSKY, Fyodor. Notes from Underground. Translated by Boris Schnaiderman. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2000.
- NIETZSCHE, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols. Translated by Paulo César de Souza. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2006.
- VILLAÇA, Davi Lopes. Notes from Underground: Interpretive Problems. Revista Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, v. 12, n. 20, p. 1-42, Dec. 2021.
- VASSOLER, Flávio Ricardo. Vassoler’s Review: Notes from Underground | Dostoevsky | Part I. YouTube, 2023. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgnDyBEu4X0. Accessed on: 29 Jan. 2025.
- CHERNYSHEVSKY, Nikolai. What Is to Be Done? Translated by Angelo Segrillo. São Paulo: Prismas, 2015.
💬 Enjoyed the article? Leave a comment and share your opinion!