Tolstoy as philosopher(greenash.net.au)
greenash.net.au
Tolstoy as philosopher
https://greenash.net.au/thoughts/2020/10/tolstoy-the-forgotten-philosopher/
55 comments
Interesting that this isn't more widely known. At the peak of his popularity Tolstoy was an international celebrity, not only for his novels (which are among the greatest works of literature of all time), but for his social teachings.
The article mentions that if anything outside of his novels is discussed, he is more often than not called a cult-inspirer. He was aware of this, and asked people not to follow "Toltoyism", but their own conscience. Nevertheless, people still started what they called Tolstoy Farms. Almost all of these farms quickly collapsed.
So people forgot about Tolstoy's social teachings, even while his novels remain timeless, and people inspired by him, like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., are still celebrated today. I think the problem was Tolstoy's social teachings removed the timeless aspects of Christ's teachings (what other people would call the religious/supernatural aspects), and like other rationalist movements, such as the French Revolution and eventually the Bolshevik Revolution, Tolstoy's social teachings gradually faded away (though thankfully his teachings were explicitly based on nonviolence).
What MLK and Gandhi did was take what Tolstoy saw as the best parts of Christianity, and recontextualize them in religion, MLK in Christianity and Gandhi in Hinduism. Gandhi was very familiar with many religious traditions, and remained a Hindu his whole life, approaching nonviolence, boycotts, and hunger strikes with a Hindu perspective. MLK regularly delivered sermons at churches, and one of his most remembered speeches, I've Been to the Mountaintop, was one such sermon. MLK's speeches, teachings and actions wholeheartedly embraced Christianity. I think religion will let MLK's and Gandhi's teachings endure, while today most people aren't even aware of the influence Tolstoy had on them.
The article mentions that if anything outside of his novels is discussed, he is more often than not called a cult-inspirer. He was aware of this, and asked people not to follow "Toltoyism", but their own conscience. Nevertheless, people still started what they called Tolstoy Farms. Almost all of these farms quickly collapsed.
So people forgot about Tolstoy's social teachings, even while his novels remain timeless, and people inspired by him, like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., are still celebrated today. I think the problem was Tolstoy's social teachings removed the timeless aspects of Christ's teachings (what other people would call the religious/supernatural aspects), and like other rationalist movements, such as the French Revolution and eventually the Bolshevik Revolution, Tolstoy's social teachings gradually faded away (though thankfully his teachings were explicitly based on nonviolence).
What MLK and Gandhi did was take what Tolstoy saw as the best parts of Christianity, and recontextualize them in religion, MLK in Christianity and Gandhi in Hinduism. Gandhi was very familiar with many religious traditions, and remained a Hindu his whole life, approaching nonviolence, boycotts, and hunger strikes with a Hindu perspective. MLK regularly delivered sermons at churches, and one of his most remembered speeches, I've Been to the Mountaintop, was one such sermon. MLK's speeches, teachings and actions wholeheartedly embraced Christianity. I think religion will let MLK's and Gandhi's teachings endure, while today most people aren't even aware of the influence Tolstoy had on them.
Parker on one facet of A Confession: "Razors pain you / Rivers are damp."
Similarly, Tolstoy's thought influenced Martin Luther King Jr. Arguably among the most influential thinkers of the 20th century in terms of social and political impact.
In one of MLKJ's speeches, he laid out his calculations for a boycott strategy:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23414101
He was cancelled the very next day, suggesting that economic sanctions might be a kind of nonviolence on which state level actors prefer to retain their monopoly.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23414101
He was cancelled the very next day, suggesting that economic sanctions might be a kind of nonviolence on which state level actors prefer to retain their monopoly.
Even before reading the article I was about to comment on "War and Peace". Its size is initmitating and I only started to read it because it is a classic and I had some time on a lenghy train ride. I braced myself for a torturous read ala Dostoevsky (no offence, but I really dont enjoy his tangents). But to my complete surprise "War and Peace" is not only an enjoyable read, it is also extremely educating and still relevant today.
Of course it is set in its time, but what is brilliant about it is that it covers a vast amount of people in different positions, locations and upbringings and puts them into a vast amount of different situations. And the outcome feels realistic. Some people fare well, others dont. Most have to make sacrefices in some way or another. Some survive, some dont. Some become better of and some dont. Some deserve what happens to them, some dont. In that sense it is different than most other books.
Due to the war setting and its allegedly realistic description of the campaign on the ground, it feels like a massive companion to Sun Tzus "Art of War". Without referring to "Art of War" at all (I dont know if Tolstoy knew it), "War and Peace" puts it into the context of politics and society, and expanding on the impact decisions have on individuals. It also show-cases the impact of "Art of War" principles in the strategies of Napoleon and Kutuzov and how human nature can get into the way of the best plans. In that way I recommend "War and Peace" as an essential read for entrepreneurs who find the "Art of War" useful.
Of course it is set in its time, but what is brilliant about it is that it covers a vast amount of people in different positions, locations and upbringings and puts them into a vast amount of different situations. And the outcome feels realistic. Some people fare well, others dont. Most have to make sacrefices in some way or another. Some survive, some dont. Some become better of and some dont. Some deserve what happens to them, some dont. In that sense it is different than most other books.
Due to the war setting and its allegedly realistic description of the campaign on the ground, it feels like a massive companion to Sun Tzus "Art of War". Without referring to "Art of War" at all (I dont know if Tolstoy knew it), "War and Peace" puts it into the context of politics and society, and expanding on the impact decisions have on individuals. It also show-cases the impact of "Art of War" principles in the strategies of Napoleon and Kutuzov and how human nature can get into the way of the best plans. In that way I recommend "War and Peace" as an essential read for entrepreneurs who find the "Art of War" useful.
FYI to folks who consider War and Peace intimidating: at least the Russian audio version on Audible is excellent, and fairly easy to enjoy. More so than the book itself, in my opinion, because narration is excellent.
I was forced to read War and Peace when I was 15 (it's required reading in Russian schools), and didn't like it then because I wasn't yet equipped to understand it. Nor did I understand any Dostoevsky we were required to read either. A 16 year old just can't understand any of what's going on in such works - it's easy for me to see that now when I have a son that age.
After I listened to it some 25 years later, it became my favorite work of literature by quite a margin. I strongly suspect that as I get older, I might be due for another pass through it, and I will enjoy it even more then.
So there's no shame in listening to an audiobook on your commute, once we have commutes again. I just don't know if there are English language productions of it that are any good. Perhaps someone could chime in and recommend. But if you speak Russian, get the version from Audible and spend some quality time with it, you won't regret it.
I was forced to read War and Peace when I was 15 (it's required reading in Russian schools), and didn't like it then because I wasn't yet equipped to understand it. Nor did I understand any Dostoevsky we were required to read either. A 16 year old just can't understand any of what's going on in such works - it's easy for me to see that now when I have a son that age.
After I listened to it some 25 years later, it became my favorite work of literature by quite a margin. I strongly suspect that as I get older, I might be due for another pass through it, and I will enjoy it even more then.
So there's no shame in listening to an audiobook on your commute, once we have commutes again. I just don't know if there are English language productions of it that are any good. Perhaps someone could chime in and recommend. But if you speak Russian, get the version from Audible and spend some quality time with it, you won't regret it.
I think the wide variety of characters and entourages is something that novels can pull off way better than film, as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24746574 observed. Screenplays are not as dense as novel pages, and even so they're unlikely to run over 120 pages.
====
"War and Peace" has also spun off an entire genre of jokes:
Natasha Rostova is at ball. First Prince Bolkonsky asks to dance. Natasha says, "Why, Andrey Nikolayevich, there is some cake on your moustache." Bolkonsky begs leave to go clean up.
Then Pierre Bezukohov asks to dance. Natasha says, "Why, mon cher, someone has spilled wine on your sleeve." Bezukhov begs leave to go clean up.
Finally Lt. Rzhevsky asks to dance. Natasha says, "Why, Poruchik, there is some mud on your boots." Rzhevsky quickly answers, "Don't worry your pretty little head, Mam'zelle, that's not mud, it's shit. Anyway, after it dries it'll fall off all by itself."
====
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPIGNua5WM&t=78
====
"War and Peace" has also spun off an entire genre of jokes:
Natasha Rostova is at ball. First Prince Bolkonsky asks to dance. Natasha says, "Why, Andrey Nikolayevich, there is some cake on your moustache." Bolkonsky begs leave to go clean up.
Then Pierre Bezukohov asks to dance. Natasha says, "Why, mon cher, someone has spilled wine on your sleeve." Bezukhov begs leave to go clean up.
Finally Lt. Rzhevsky asks to dance. Natasha says, "Why, Poruchik, there is some mud on your boots." Rzhevsky quickly answers, "Don't worry your pretty little head, Mam'zelle, that's not mud, it's shit. Anyway, after it dries it'll fall off all by itself."
====
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPIGNua5WM&t=78
Love the novel, don't get the joke at all
Maybe it would help if one is in the habit of buying footwear advertised as being "barnyard-acid resistant", known less euphemistically as shitkickers[1].
Bolkonsky and Bezukohov have both been raised respectably (are glad to say that they have never seen a spade) and prefer to sit out a dance than allow Rostova to be seen on the floor with anything other than an impeccably turned out gallant.
Rzhevsky (who I forgot to mention is a cavalry lieutenant and presumably has been invited to the ball solely due to military rank and not social position) not only hasn't polished his boots, he hasn't even cleaned them before coming inside; not only doesn't mind dancing with Rostova with shit on his boots, he also implies that during their dance it will be flaking off all over onto the ballroom floor.
[1] infra dig in urban areas:
Bolkonsky and Bezukohov have both been raised respectably (are glad to say that they have never seen a spade) and prefer to sit out a dance than allow Rostova to be seen on the floor with anything other than an impeccably turned out gallant.
Rzhevsky (who I forgot to mention is a cavalry lieutenant and presumably has been invited to the ball solely due to military rank and not social position) not only hasn't polished his boots, he hasn't even cleaned them before coming inside; not only doesn't mind dancing with Rostova with shit on his boots, he also implies that during their dance it will be flaking off all over onto the ballroom floor.
[1] infra dig in urban areas:
Blame it all on my roots
I showed up in boots
Ta desh na koming gut
Mi kom ere butI guess I did get it after all. Odd joke in that it boils down two complex characters into a very superficial difference (from my perspective, albeit likely a much more meaningful distinction to one more fluent in russian cultural tradition).
Highly recommend his writings on money and government. The man was brilliant.
"The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere." — Leo Tolstoy
"The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another’s labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live. ('Taxation')" - Leo Tolstoy
"The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere." — Leo Tolstoy
"The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another’s labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live. ('Taxation')" - Leo Tolstoy
Are these notions applicable in practice? Could a society without a state hold against its neighbors who have governments and armies?
Kipling's 1894 view: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24527260
To what extent did the turn of that century agree? Among the afghanistani? Among the boers? What about later decades?
To what extent did the turn of that century agree? Among the afghanistani? Among the boers? What about later decades?
If any question why we died
Tell them, because our fathers lied.Their fathers might have lied, but their nephews lived a jolly good life, donchathing? (Afghanistan was a waste of time of course, other colonies not so much)
No general wants his compatriots dead, but the will to sacrifice some for benefit of others seems to advance countries big time.
No general wants his compatriots dead, but the will to sacrifice some for benefit of others seems to advance countries big time.
In the general case, I doubt fraternisation was a thing in the turn of the century brit army, so while enlisted men may have been compatriots ("people who share a fatherland") of their officers, they literally were neither potes ("mates at the pub", compare symposium) nor copains ("messmates").
In this particular case, there were to be no (in the narrow sense) nephews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsie_Bambridge (née Kipling)
> "On her death, in 1976, having no children, she bequeathed her property and its contents to the National Trust."
In this particular case, there were to be no (in the narrow sense) nephews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsie_Bambridge (née Kipling)
> "On her death, in 1976, having no children, she bequeathed her property and its contents to the National Trust."
In an even more general sense, there were many more people staying in Britain than dying or in fact participating in any war. They got the spoils of war (some more than others for sure).
Second Afghan war was mostly fought by Indians too, how's that for benefiting.
Second Afghan war was mostly fought by Indians too, how's that for benefiting.
Colonised with benefits? Emperors (and Empresses) gonna empire.
Victoria: Let's you and him fight.
Caesar: Divide et impera
Phillip: Διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε
I wonder how the sentiment was expressed in Sumerian? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221
Victoria: Let's you and him fight.
Caesar: Divide et impera
Phillip: Διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε
I wonder how the sentiment was expressed in Sumerian? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221
The War on Terror could be construed as an attempt to prove that it cannot
There isn't a state more oppressive than what "we" fight in that war. ISIS is pretty much a swearword for a reason.
Bringing ideology into this is a distraction. ISIS is a swear word to you (and most), but do you think they see themselves as evil, or as freedom fighters?
You seemed to imply that war on terror is a war on people unoppressed by the state, whereas, ideology aside, people under Taliban and ISIS are as far from that from that as you can possibly imagine.
Pretty sure Hitler didn't see himself as evil either. Your point?
Pretty sure Hitler didn't see himself as evil either. Your point?
Ok, I see where you're coming from now. You are thinking of a specific organization that you believe operates in a way that resembles a state structure in terms of control (or oppression).
That's another interesting discussion unrelated to my point. I'm saying that the War on Terror has been waged under the (perhaps false) belief that a powerful state actor is able to eliminate a group of people who are united by an idea, regardless of how good, evil, or ugly that idea might be.
That's another interesting discussion unrelated to my point. I'm saying that the War on Terror has been waged under the (perhaps false) belief that a powerful state actor is able to eliminate a group of people who are united by an idea, regardless of how good, evil, or ugly that idea might be.
>money that he must get to live
That refered to taxation as a secondary measure, but much less so as it refered to the wage system.
From "What shall we do?", Tolstoy :
-"So it was in ancient times, in the Middle Ages, and so it occurs now. In the ancient world, where the subjugation of one people by another was frequent, personal slavery was the most widespread method of subjugation, and the centre of gravity in this compulsion, owing to the non-recognition of the equality of men. In the Middle Ages, feudalism—land-ownership and the servitude connected with it—partly takes the place of personal slavery, and the centre of compulsion is transferred from persons to land. In modern times, since the discovery of America, the development of commerce, and the influx of gold (which is accepted as a universal medium of exchange), the money tribute has become, with the increase of state power, the chief instrument for enslaving men, and upon this all economic relations are now based." (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38690)
Tolstoy here refers also to the centrality of the state in the institution of wage labour, that he sees as akin to slavery. Indeed, Tolstoy was an anarchist, and thus violently anti-capitalist.
That refered to taxation as a secondary measure, but much less so as it refered to the wage system.
From "What shall we do?", Tolstoy :
-"So it was in ancient times, in the Middle Ages, and so it occurs now. In the ancient world, where the subjugation of one people by another was frequent, personal slavery was the most widespread method of subjugation, and the centre of gravity in this compulsion, owing to the non-recognition of the equality of men. In the Middle Ages, feudalism—land-ownership and the servitude connected with it—partly takes the place of personal slavery, and the centre of compulsion is transferred from persons to land. In modern times, since the discovery of America, the development of commerce, and the influx of gold (which is accepted as a universal medium of exchange), the money tribute has become, with the increase of state power, the chief instrument for enslaving men, and upon this all economic relations are now based." (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38690)
Tolstoy here refers also to the centrality of the state in the institution of wage labour, that he sees as akin to slavery. Indeed, Tolstoy was an anarchist, and thus violently anti-capitalist.
Not 'violently. He was a Christian anarchist.
Ah yes, that was a poor choice of words. I meant it as in "in a very strong or vigorous manner".
in this regard with can take it further and call ourselves slaves of our instincts and desires. (eating, breading etc) in which case word slave loses meaning.
I disagree. slavery is real absolutely immoral thing, while working for money is more about law of energy conservation, something transforms in something else, hence very reasonable and natural.
I disagree. slavery is real absolutely immoral thing, while working for money is more about law of energy conservation, something transforms in something else, hence very reasonable and natural.
Yes tolstoi influence was key to the liberation of russian peasants under the tsar rule , before bolchevike revolution, most of the land was already distributed from landlords and nobles
no way, he became known after his great novels in the 60s, he had no influence on the liberation which was officially pronounced 1861. Maybe as part of the overall public opinion in the upper class (he was a count, after all)
Related: A Letter to A Hindu
The Subjection of India-Its Cause and Cure.
With an Introduction by M. K. Gandhi.
by Leo Tolstoy
http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2733/
The Subjection of India-Its Cause and Cure.
With an Introduction by M. K. Gandhi.
by Leo Tolstoy
http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2733/
One of my friends had an interesting observation about novels. Themes aren't created so much as discovered. If you start from a theme a priori, you're at risk of being preachy. However, the amount of effort involved in constructing a long story, drafting it over and over, and then editing it to sufficient quality, is so substantial that no writer can keep it up for the amount of time a serious work takes unless he has a strong philosophical reason.
I think some truly excellent authors can start novels with themes in mind and still have a great book at the end. I am thinking C.S. Lewis specifically. Many of his works he knew the philosophical themes that would be present before writing them, but none of the come off as preachy (though some of his children books are basic) because they are such good stories.
On the whole though I do think a lot of discovery and learning takes place well writing. Though I have never written a novel so I do not really know.
On the whole though I do think a lot of discovery and learning takes place well writing. Though I have never written a novel so I do not really know.
"I am thinking C.S. Lewis specifically. Many of his works he knew the philosophical themes that would be present before writing them, but none of the come off as preachy"
I don't know about that.. they come off as incredibly preachy to me.
C. S. Lewis was basically a Christian apologist, and that's very obvious in his work.
It's pretty hard to stomach for those of us who don't share his views.
A much better example is Dostoyevsky, who was probably at least as devout a Christian as Lewis, and also had an agenda, but he didn't make even the most repulsive of his characters in to two-dimensional caricatures as Lewis tended to do.
Instead, Dostoyevsky could get the reader to understand and even sympathize with the worst characters in his books, and see the world through their eyes... something Lewis could not aspire to as he always had to make his antagonists in to whipping boys for his faith.
I don't know about that.. they come off as incredibly preachy to me.
C. S. Lewis was basically a Christian apologist, and that's very obvious in his work.
It's pretty hard to stomach for those of us who don't share his views.
A much better example is Dostoyevsky, who was probably at least as devout a Christian as Lewis, and also had an agenda, but he didn't make even the most repulsive of his characters in to two-dimensional caricatures as Lewis tended to do.
Instead, Dostoyevsky could get the reader to understand and even sympathize with the worst characters in his books, and see the world through their eyes... something Lewis could not aspire to as he always had to make his antagonists in to whipping boys for his faith.
> It's pretty hard to stomach for those of us who don't share his views.
I don't think this is true. I'm not a Christian and I loved his books as a kid. Tolkien and Madeleine L'Engle wrote novels in a similar vein (that are also excellent children's books). Some fiction is full of cliches and thin characters but, surprisingly, this ends up working in its favor as it takes on a mythical quality.
I also like moral ambiguity and morally complex characters but good luck getting a child to sit through The Brothers Karamazov.
I don't think this is true. I'm not a Christian and I loved his books as a kid. Tolkien and Madeleine L'Engle wrote novels in a similar vein (that are also excellent children's books). Some fiction is full of cliches and thin characters but, surprisingly, this ends up working in its favor as it takes on a mythical quality.
I also like moral ambiguity and morally complex characters but good luck getting a child to sit through The Brothers Karamazov.
> Tolkien and Madeleine L'Engle wrote novels in a similar vein (that are also excellent children's books).
Tolkien very much did not write Christian allegory/apologia in the guise of fiction, though he did remix Christian themes. So I wouldn't say Tolkien’s books were much at all in the same vein as Lewis’s.
Tolkien very much did not write Christian allegory/apologia in the guise of fiction, though he did remix Christian themes. So I wouldn't say Tolkien’s books were much at all in the same vein as Lewis’s.
Tolkien said many times he despised allegory, but it is hard to ignore what could accurately be called the Christian rebirth of everyone's favorite wizard.
"I'm not a Christian and I loved his books as a kid"
As a kid the Christian overtones go right over your head.. as an adult they're a lot more glaring, and (to some of us), grating.
"Tolkien and Madeleine L'Engle wrote novels in a similar vein (that are also excellent children's books)."
I loved Madeline L'Engle as a kid, but tried to pick up A Wrinkle in Time recently, and couldn't bear all the Christian preachiness. Worked for me as a kid, though, and back then I had no idea that was in it. I guess that's saying something. But as an adult it's nauseating.
As a kid the Christian overtones go right over your head.. as an adult they're a lot more glaring, and (to some of us), grating.
"Tolkien and Madeleine L'Engle wrote novels in a similar vein (that are also excellent children's books)."
I loved Madeline L'Engle as a kid, but tried to pick up A Wrinkle in Time recently, and couldn't bear all the Christian preachiness. Worked for me as a kid, though, and back then I had no idea that was in it. I guess that's saying something. But as an adult it's nauseating.
I think it may be different if you are philosophically opposed to the themes the author is trying to convey. My views do somewhat align with CS Lewis so I am biased. But the reason I specifically mentioned him is because he has many overtly Christian themes he actively portrays in his novels but I never feel like he is banging me over the head with obvious allegories. His novels are not overly complex but have much depth in terms of the characters and the people and themes they portray. Narnia is an obvious exception, but it is a childrens book. I am currently reading Till We Have Faces and would highly recommend it. It has a Christ like figure, but the more interesting part of it is the exploration of relationship and love.
With Dostoevsky I do not know if he really set out to convey a specific philosophical truth or not. To me his novels seem more of an exploration of human suffering and what living in his day was like. But I am not Dostoevsky scholar.
Tolkien may be a better example. You can easily read Lord of the Rings without picking up any Christian symbolism.
With Dostoevsky I do not know if he really set out to convey a specific philosophical truth or not. To me his novels seem more of an exploration of human suffering and what living in his day was like. But I am not Dostoevsky scholar.
Tolkien may be a better example. You can easily read Lord of the Rings without picking up any Christian symbolism.
> But the reason I specifically mentioned him is because he has many overtly Christian themes he actively portrays in his novels but I never feel like he is banging me over the head with obvious allegories.
Even outside of _Narnia_, Lewis is known for rather heavy-handed and direct allegory. I mean, I guess it might seem to not be hitting you over the head if you compare it to something that goes beyond allegory to direct interpretation, like the _Left Behind_ series, but...
> Tolkien may be a better example. You can easily read Lord of the Rings without picking up any Christian symbolism.
That's because, while there is considerable inspiration from Christian morality and mythology in LotR, Tolkien was actively opposed to allegory and thus did not write it or use the kind of direct symbolism associated with it.
Even outside of _Narnia_, Lewis is known for rather heavy-handed and direct allegory. I mean, I guess it might seem to not be hitting you over the head if you compare it to something that goes beyond allegory to direct interpretation, like the _Left Behind_ series, but...
> Tolkien may be a better example. You can easily read Lord of the Rings without picking up any Christian symbolism.
That's because, while there is considerable inspiration from Christian morality and mythology in LotR, Tolkien was actively opposed to allegory and thus did not write it or use the kind of direct symbolism associated with it.
> Narnia is an obvious exception, but it is a childrens book.
I liked Lewis as a kid, but found him unusually preachy, even for a children book. I mean, I probably cant think of a children book that would be more obviously about hamming moral-education-point into you. While many children book try to teach some values, they tend to deal with much more nuance then Narnia.
I liked Lewis as a kid, but found him unusually preachy, even for a children book. I mean, I probably cant think of a children book that would be more obviously about hamming moral-education-point into you. While many children book try to teach some values, they tend to deal with much more nuance then Narnia.
Yeah Aslan was constantly lecturing about some awful thing somebody had done, and nobody ever had a word to say in response, unless of course they were irredeemably evil.
Not quite my favourite novel overall but I adore the way Joyce plays with circulation in Ulysses. Water imagery, reincarnation, myth becoming reality which becomes myth, and of course the return of Odysseus to Ithaca. It’s just so masterful and was obviously premeditated to a huge degree. It’s got to be, Joyce mines the same symbolism in Finnegans Wake (even the titles are saturated with it, more so with FW.)
Can one really separate Tolstoy's ideology from his philosophy?
I'd say the former defined the latter.
I'd say the former defined the latter.
That is something I struggle with in politics today. Philosophy is boring and tedious, it has no hard answers, but how can it be so thoroughly divorced from politics? Two people with differing social philosophies will never agree on something like immigration. It is also hard to pin down what the underpinning philosophies of our political parties are.
It's really hard to distinguish between ideology and philosophy, if you're just excluding philosophy and calling ideology philosophy. Most people don't have a philosophy, they barely have a worldview.
Worth noting that that’s a fairly recent development. Whether for good or ill though I really can’t say.
He wrote War and Peace several decades before he came out with his ideology, and before he accordingly altered his lifestyle.
But then again, his philosophy later evolved to significantly encompass his ideology. So can one separate Tolstoy's ideology from his early philosophy? Sure. But his later philosophy? Perhaps not. They're two distinct beasts.
But then again, his philosophy later evolved to significantly encompass his ideology. So can one separate Tolstoy's ideology from his early philosophy? Sure. But his later philosophy? Perhaps not. They're two distinct beasts.
Gospel in brief is in words of tolstoi himself his most important work , anyone wanting to understand tolstoi as philosopher should read it since it has the tolstoi beliefs in it
Basically tolstoi resume the teachings of Jesus from the original greek works, and remove any sobrenatural aspect of it, miracles etc
I recommend it to anyone how wants to learn about jesus teachings and real christianity a not the current ones Versions we have
Basically tolstoi resume the teachings of Jesus from the original greek works, and remove any sobrenatural aspect of it, miracles etc
I recommend it to anyone how wants to learn about jesus teachings and real christianity a not the current ones Versions we have
Tolstoy was definitely very interesting in that aspect. I'm not a christian myself, but his "anarchist" interpretation is certainly interesting.
If you lack crimestop reflex for heresy and are interested in gospel reboots, I recommend the J'lem chapters of Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita.
Thank you, will read eventually.
I'd strongly recommend his best non fiction book "What is my faith?". Unfortunately, I cant find out wheather its tranlsated to english or not
I think in English it is most often given the title "My Religion"
Apparently Mahatma Gandhi listed this one among the three books that have most influenced his views.
A short (ca 80 pages in my language) interpretation on these topics was also "A Confession" [2]. I sometimes wonder if I would have made a few different choices if I had read this book in my early 20s. Probably not, but it is a nice dream.
Also, a short fiction masterpiece by Tolstoy on life and death is "The Death of Ivan Ilych" [3]. It has some excellent plot twists. I remember feeling like a ping-pong ball in the hands of the author; whatever he wanted me to think, I did.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_Y...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Confession
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Ivan_Ilyich