Due to the Underground Man’s strong consciousness he usually ends up in inaction or inertia. He explains this lack of action, “You know the direct, legitimate fruit of consciousness is inertia, that is, conscious siting-with-the-hands-folded…all ‘direct’ persons and men of action are active just because they are stupid and limited” (Dostoyevsky, 11). Thus, the theory of the Underground Man is contrasted to that of the Man of Action, again saying the Man of Action is “stupid” leaving the Underground Man with a superior consciousness, but with an inability to act on it. The Underground Man attributes his inertia with his belief in determinism, or the laws of nature that take free will out of the decision-making process, “It was all in accord with the normal fundamental laws of over-acute consciousness, and with the inertia that was the direct result of those laws, and that consequently one was not only unable to change but could do absolutely nothing” (Dostoyevsky, 5). Consequently, the laws of nature support the Underground Man’s conclusion to remain …show more content…
As a determinist, the Underground Man rejects that free will plays a role in one’s actions. Therefore, taking revenge would leave the Underground Man miserable because he nor the offender controls his own actions, so the punishment would be unjust and the Underground Man would have strayed from his beliefs. On the other hand, the Underground Man cannot avoid misery by not taking revenge either; however, this misery is rooted in the emotional or physical pain caused by the offense. Therefore, no matter the choice, the Underground Man will inevitably be