Victor Frankenstein Fundamentally Rational

The question of whether we are fundamentally rational or irrational beings is a fundamental philosophical one. Authors have taken different positions throughout history, with some arguing that it is ideal to embrace our passions and others espousing reason over everything. Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, seems to argue that while we are capable of both extremes, reason is a far better ideal to follow. Her two main characters, Victor Frankenstein and the creature he creates, represent these opposite extremes. It is the creature who is more rational and, in the novel, seems to be more admirable. However, Dostoyevsky, the author of Notes from the Underground, argues to the contrary. Not only does he argue that humans are fundamentally

irrational, he seems to argue that this is better than the alternative. In the first part of his novel, Dostoyevsky argues this through ramblings of his main character, the Underground Man. In the second, this theory is given practical application through the example of the Underground Man’s irrational actions. The contrasting views of the authors of Frankenstein and Notes from the Underground on the validity of reason and desire as governing principles inform their characters’ actions and reflections.
In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley places her characters on opposite ends of the spectrum of reason and desire.

There is one common thread throughout Victor Frankenstein’s behavior in the novel: he is ruled by his passions. From the beginning of the novel, he is unrestrained and unbalanced, and his major action in the novel is an expression of the fundamentally selfish and presumptuous desire to create life. As he says, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source...” (Shelley 55). He wants to be lauded by the world as the first and only man who could create life. This desire to be special and noticed stops him from contemplating that there might be a reason that no one else has created life before. Once the creature has come to life, Victor is overpowered by fear and unable to provide care for him, an action of fundamental irresponsibility that is almost as reckless as his initial creation. He does not even begin to contemplate the ramifications of his act of godlike creation until it has already been done. It is only after he has lost everything that he seems to develop a somewhat more accurate and much more critical view of himself and his actions. In Victor Frankenstein, Shelley shows the folly of allowing your desires to rule over

rationality.
In the same way that Victor is ruled by his desires, his creation is largely rational.

Even as Victor’s mental state is deteriorating, his creature emerges on Mont Blanc to plead his case as a fully rational being. The creature has spent the interim between his creation and this meeting learning all he can through study with an unaware family. He then comes before Victor asking to be heard and have his requests considered, and proceeds to lay out a reasonable argument for why Victor should create a companion for him. The creature has been driven to murder because his kindness has been rejected by so many. “The feelings of kindness and gentleness, which I had entertained but a few moments before, gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind” (Shelley 143). He has realized that there is no place in humankind, and so he tells Victor that either he will give him the companion he desires, or the creature will destroy everything Victor loves. Victor refuses his request, leading to the inevitable death of all of Victor’s family. Still, the creature seems to be the more rational and controlled character in the novel. He even recognizes what Victor cannot: that Victor is the seat and cause of any passion and irrationality in their lives. “This passion is detrimental to me; for you do not reflect that you are the cause of its excess” (Shelley 148). The creature is much more reasonable than his creator, and

Shelley presents this as a preferable and more admirable state.
The first and second part of Notes from the Underground illustrate Dostoyevsky’s ideas that it is both natural and preferable to prioritize desire over reason in different ways. In the first part, it is through the Underground Man’s reflections on the subject. The man argues against utopian ideals, saying that they are impossible and that humans are fundamentally irrational. It would make no sense for humans to be basically rational, considering the fact that people frequently do things that are out of their best interest. It is one thing to argue that humans are largely irrational, but it is another thing entirely to say that this is a good thing. Dostoyevsky does just that, having the Underground Man wax poetic about the bleakness of a world ruled by reason. “Who would want to desire according to some table? And that’s not all: he would immediately be transformed from a person into an organ stop or something of that sort; because what is man without desire, without will, and without wishes if not a stop in an organ pipe?” (Dostoyevsky 1.8.2). He makes reflections like this at length, seeming to believe that the idea of a “crystal palace,” a rational utopia, is a large problem facing people of his time.
The second part of the novel takes these reflections out of the Underground Man’s head and brings the message in through his own actions. He demonstrates the fundamental irrationality of man by acting irrationally himself, sometimes in ways that are not in his best interests. He makes spur of the moment decisions like giving Liza his home address or inviting himself to Zverkov’s party. He follows his impulse not to visit a doctor for his diseased liver instead of making the rational choice to have it treated. He sums his attitude up well when he’s discussing his refusal to pay Apollon his wages, saying “I won't, I won't, I simply won't pay him his wages, I won't just because that is ‘what I wish,’ because ‘I am master, and it is for me to decide’” (Dostoyevsky 2.8.20). This irrational desire gets him into trouble at multiple points, leading the Underground Man to embarrassment and inevitable ruin. Dostoyevsky makes a compelling argument for the irrationality of humans, but it seems that there is not much evidence to suggest that this is a good thing. It is difficult to argue the superiority of being ruled by one’s passions when the Underground Man, who is a figure of passion, has such an unfortunate existence.
The contrasting views of the authors of Frankenstein and Notes from the Underground on the validity of reason and desire as governing principles inform their characters’ actions and reflections. It would seem that the authors of these novels, Shelley and Dostoyevsky, are each trying to communicate contrasting views on the nature of reason and desire as they relate to humanity. Shelley, on the one hand, seems to posit that there is no higher aim than reason, and that those characters who operate rationally are more admirable. Surprisingly, the character who acts rationally in her novel is not the scientist but his creation, who, despite his murderous tendencies, makes rational choices to attempt to achieve happiness once he realizes he will not be accepted by humanity. On the other hand, Victor Frankenstein, his creator, is a selfish and passion-ruled man who attempts to create life, which is the most presumptuous act of all. On the other hand, Dostoyevsky argues through his character, the Underground Man, that a world full of people ruled by desire is not only impossible but horrifying, lacking any real meaning. He not only philosophizes on the subject but demonstrates the fundamental irrationality of man through his own actions. It may be difficult, however, to view either Shelley’s creature or Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man as aspirational figures, seeing as both end the novels they feature in unhappily. Regardless, the two works espouse radically different views of reason and desire, seemingly because of their authors’ own leanings.