|
Key insights from
A Confession
By
Leo Tolstoy
|
|
|
What you’ll learn
At the age of 51, even after the publication of his most
seminal novels, War and Peace and Anna Karenina, Leo
Tolstoy (1828-1910) still considered his life a meaningless failure. Here
was one of the most celebrated novelists in history, who had ascended to
literary and artistic heights few others have attained, and yet a crisis of
meaning plagued him. His inner anguish drove him into a sparring match with
faith and doubt and reason, and to question what relationship—if any—exists
between people and God. In his Confession, Tolstoy describes his
upbringing, his spiral into nihilism and despair, and the epiphanies that
brought him back from the abyss.
Read on for key insights from A Confession.
|
|
1. Tolstoy’s
boyhood faith was hollowed out and replaced by societal norms that seemed
more connected to everyday life than the church.
Leo Tolstoy grew up in the Orthodox Church, but like many in
Russia, became disenchanted and cynical toward his faith. As a boy, he knew
the catechisms and went through the motions of ritual, but as a teenager,
saw the rites and doctrines as empty. By 16, he had stopped praying and was
agnostic about God's existence.
This was the trend he observed around him: Religion as practiced
and taught intersected very little with “real life,” making society’s
wisdom seem more compelling and helpful for navigating life’s challenges
and vicissitudes. As a result, religious practices ended up becoming a
useless shell or exoskeleton to be shed. Tolstoy describes his faith and
that of his friends as a precarious, crumbling wall toppled by the
slightest push of a finger.
Tolstoy remembers a deep desire to be good when he was a
boy. But how could he hold to any kind of faith when just about everyone
around him ridiculed his vulnerability and yearning to be good, and
celebrated the moments when he indulged vengeful and lustful impulses?
By abandoning the strictures and structures of childhood, he
knew he was embracing other beliefs, though he had no words for what
those beliefs might be. Looking back, he had an implicit “faith in
perfection.” Without knowing what was driving him, Tolstoy obsessively
chased perfection in everything from academics to athletics. He was
determined to be the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, the
wealthiest—and much less to see himself as better than others—or even for
God to see him that way. It was more about seeing himself through the eyes
of other people and liking what they saw.
|
|
2. Tolstoy found
flimsier character among the poets and intellectuals than among the
soldiers with whom he fought.
Tolstoy describes his youth as wild, and his impulsiveness
and waywardness was far more likely to be praised than his desire to do
good. One aunt whom he lived with and admired was constantly encouraging
him, in the interest of his development, to have an affair with a married
woman at some point in his life. Such was the advice of his elders and the
influences in the military where he served and killed. He killed men on the
battlefield and in duels; he lost his money to women and at the gambling
tables. According to Tolstoy, he left no crime uncommitted.
After the Crimean War (1853-1856), a 26-year-old Tolstoy
moved to St. Petersburg, where he joined the city’s literary circles.
Jealous, backbiting, and factious, this priesthood of writers and artists
considered themselves society’s shapers, and as such, congratulated
themselves on their most important occupation of instructing the masses.
Tolstoy points out the many ironies that progressively
dawned on him while moving among St. Petersburg’s literati. For example,
the peasants who read these artists’ magazine articles worked their fingers
to the bone every day, using their reserves to learn what life is all about
from poets who spent their days at cafes and their nights at parties. Who
understood life better, really? Moreover, how could these thinkers and
self-christened teachers instruct others about morality, when they
practiced so little of it themselves? In Tolstoy’s estimation, there was
greater moral fiber in his wild military days than among his fellow poets
and artists. To further amplify the dissonance, there were schisms among
the cultural priesthood, and the advice they doled out to the masses was as
variegated as the writers themselves. There was no central cohesion to the
intelligentsia’s faith—other than the conviction that their clique knew
best and rival cliques did not.
These were nothing more than vague intimations at the time,
but Tolstoy ignored them all because he loved the pay and the praise he
received for his writings. In such an environment, Tolstoy was the classic
madhouse resident—convinced that only he was truly sane. Still, he
continued in the madness, teaching the masses what he didn’t really know
himself, like the rest of the madhouse.
|
|
3. Witnessing an
execution and seeing his brother slowly die shook Tolstoy’s faith in
progress and perfection—the question “Why?” shattered it.
Tolstoy continued to write alongside and schmooze with the
educated elites for six years. His boyhood faith in Orthodox Christianity
gave way to a faith in individual perfection, which in turn gave way to a
more general faith in human progress—very much the zeitgeist among the
educated with whom Tolstoy mingled. As he traveled to Europe, he found the
same sentiments in social circles—although no one seemed to know or care
where the currents of ideas were carrying them.
Two moments stand out that shook his faith in progress:
witnessing an execution in Paris and watching his brother slowly succumb to
an illness and die. No clever theory could explain away the evil of one man
chopping off another’s head, and no well-crafted defense could justify his
brother dying so young or so painfully. Beyond those brief, sobering
moments, the narrative of progress persisted.
Tired of the supercilious and hypocritical elite, Tolstoy
stepped away from writing for magazines and newspapers and began focusing
on educating peasants. Even though he had distanced himself from the
educated, he didn’t distance himself from their narrative of progress. He
came to the poor in the name of progress, but he knew deep down that he was
in no position to teach what mattered most when he didn’t know himself.
Teaching the poor and uneducated left him disillusioned,
too, and he managed to postpone the nagging questions of meaning by
marrying and having a family. Then his hunt for perfection simply took the
form of care for his family, and this was a wonderful distraction. But the
questions of “Why?” and “What next?” continued to knock at the door of his
soul. As the knocking grew louder and more insistent, so did Tolstoy’s
dread, because he had no answer. He had a large estate, thousands of acres
of land, 300 horses, and fame enough to rival Gogol and Shakespeare, but so
what?
|
|
|
|
4. Tolstoy
considered suicide as the pleasures that distracted him from death’s
inevitability lost their luster.
Tolstoy’s life ground to a halt as he realized that he had
no answer to the meaning of life. The women, gambling, the endless
drinking, writing, critical acclaim, wealth, and luxury were all just
distractions from the basic fact of death—and from the equally dreadful
fact that he had no answer to hold up against death’s inevitability.
He no longer desired anything, because he sensed futility
lurking behind everything he attempted or hoped for. He compared his life
to the traveler in an Eastern tale being chased by a wild animal. The man
leaps into a dry well to avoid being devoured, only to discover that there
is a dragon waiting at the bottom of the well. So he grabs hold of a branch
from a bush growing out of a crack in the well’s wall. As his arms get
tired from grasping the branch, he notices two mice gnawing at it. But then
he notices something else—drops of honey on the leaves. He greedily laps up
the saccharine sweetness and forgets about his plight.
Tolstoy considered his writing and his family the biggest
drops of honey in his life, but despaired of the fact these distractions
had lost their sweetness. They no longer distracted him from death’s
immanence or life’s meaninglessness. Why should he continue to write? What
was the point of loving his wife? Of caring for his children?
These realizations pulled Tolstoy into a downward spiral of
despair. He thought of his death often. Why not just let go of the branch
he’d been clinging to and drop into the dragon’s jaws—just to get it over
with? He stopped bringing his gun on hunting trips, and he removed all rope
from his bedroom so that he wouldn’t hang himself from the rafters.
|
|
5. A nagging doubt
that he’d missed something kept Tolstoy from taking what he saw as life’s
meaninglessness to its logical conclusion—suicide.
Tolstoy circled the drain for a while as he came to grips
with the meaninglessness of life. But then he wondered, “Am I missing
something?” So he scoured every field of knowledge he could, read
everything he could get his hands on, and reached out to friends and
colleagues who were experts in a variety of disciplines. “How should I
live? And what does it matter?”
His pursuit of meaning through knowledge left him
unsatisfied. He realized that knowledge tended to gravitate toward one of
two poles: empirical science at one end—the extreme of which is
mathematics—and speculative philosophy at the other end—the extreme of
which is metaphysics. The speculative philosophy side asked the same
questions Tolstoy was inquiring about, questions of meaning and how to live
well, but never seemed to arrive at any definitive conclusion on the
matter. In the scientific, mathematical hemisphere, the question never came
up at all. The more precise the answers, the more obtuse and irrelevant to
life they became.
The ancients also left Tolstoy with little hope. Solomon
looked at human striving and called it “vanity” and “folly.” The Buddha
said that living life is not really possible with death and old age looming
ahead of us, and that we must free ourselves from the illusion of life.
Socrates saw death as a blessing we are constantly preparing for.
Maybe it was better to shed the mortal coil and be done with
it, but Tolstoy still wondered if he had missed something. He began
observing people more closely, wondering how they dealt with life’s
emptiness. He found that people often adopted one of four strategies. Some
chose ignorance—distracting themselves from the evil of life and
inevitability of death. Others chose epicureanism—acknowledging that life
is short and meaningless, so we might as well grab what pleasure we can.
Others picked the path of strength and energy—these are often the strongest
and most logical among us, who face the cosmic joke that is life and say
“no more,” and find a way to end their lives. Still others opt for
weakness—understanding life’s absurdity, but never finding the courage to
end their lives. This group passively drifts and limps through life, almost
as if they hope something will happen to them to change their fate.
Even still, Tolstoy wondered if he was missing something.
After all, humanity had persisted as long as it had without people killing
themselves en masse. Tolstoy realized it would be absurd for him
to believe himself the culmination of all human history. It would be even
more absurd to consider himself the man who could stand on the shoulders of
previous generations and denounce his efforts and the efforts of all those
who preceded him as meaningless.
|
|
6. The faith of
the educated took Tolstoy back to despondency, but the faith of the poor
showed him that meaning in life is possible.
Tolstoy ultimately found that his formulations about life
and how people coped with it were derived mostly from his own social class.
The poor seemed to live lives full of meaning and were not torn apart by
the same logical quandaries that goaded him toward suicide. Most did not
resort to ignorance, epicureanism, suicide, or aimlessly drifting through
life. This was the educated person’s dilemma. What did the poor have? There
was something that held the lives of commoners together that rationality
could not touch or rip apart.
Tolstoy realized that the missing ingredient was faith—a
reality that rationality couldn’t touch. The profoundest answers to life
were coming from a position of faith—not rationality. For Tolstoy, using
rationality to give life meaning was not that different from children
playing with a pocket watch. They take out cogs and springs to examine
them, but then are shocked to see that the watch has stopped working.
Tolstoy threw himself at the question of faith with
characteristic intensity. He explored “Mohammedanism” (i.e., Islam),
Buddhism, and especially Christianity. But his disappointment and
hopelessness returned as he realized that the religious people he
questioned about faith provided answers so precise that they ceased to be
compelling, and more than that, these religious devotees failed to live up
to the principles they explained to him. They weren’t that different from
him. They were full of lust and greed too. And, whatever fine words came
out of their mouths, the meaning of life they claimed to find in faith had
failed to dispel fear of death or suffering. If this is what faith was, he
didn’t want it.
Eventually Tolstoy realized he’d been questioning the wrong
people: Once again, he’d begun his exploration of faith with his own social
milieu—the educated. Once he began spending time with the religious among
the poor, the uneducated, monks, pilgrims, and Raskolniks (i.e., dissenters
of the Orthodox Church), he realized that there were superstitions woven
into the truths of Christianity, but that these people completely bought
into their faith. Their lives were not possible without it.
Tolstoy came to love and admire these people. They worked in
peace, they took pain and adversity in stride, and they knew the meaning of
life—even if only implicitly. For two years, Tolstoy began to work among
the peasants as one of them and he was shocked to see the transformation
that took place. He realized that meaning in life was not to be found among
the wealthy and learned with all their superfluities and affectations, but
among those who created life and made it possible for their families,
communities, and the wealthy who also depended upon them.
|
|
7. Tolstoy
returned to the Orthodox Church—for a time.
“What is my life?” During his seasons of intense despair,
Tolstoy’s answer to this question was, “An evil.” Looking back on those
dark seasons, he now sees that he was absolutely right. His life was an
evil, frittered away on lusts and the hunt for accolades. The problem was
that he extrapolated that sentiment onto the entire universe: Not only was
his life an evil, but so was life everywhere. Before awakening to his need
for faith, he considered his existence to be parasitic. Not only had he
failed to live life for the benefit of others, but he had failed even to
live life for himself.
Tolstoy found that life was not in the removed pondering but
in carrying out what was given a man to do. He realized that the anguish
inside himself was, at bottom, a search for God. It was not a quest born of
reason, but of emotion—emotional pain. Even though he had read Immanuel
Kant and other philosophers and accepted their conclusions that there is no
way to prove God’s existence logically, he hoped that God was real and
relational.
He felt like a bird who had fallen from his nest. Even
though he felt abandoned and alone on the cold ground, he sensed that he
came from love, that someone who cared for him had given birth to him. This
quest for God had Tolstoy continually vacillating between hope and despair.
He concluded through these cycles that he only felt alive and himself when
he believed in God, whereas he felt dead inside whenever he abandoned
belief in God. To know God and to live end up being the same thing. It
seemed life and meaning were impossible without God.
And so, Tolstoy returned to the faith of his childhood,
though he came to it not as inherited, but as a necessity to be connected
to faith. He kept his skepticism about miracles and his dislike for the
schisms between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants to himself, choosing
to believe his need for faith and meaning in his life were far more
important than his need to argue and pull the proverbial watch apart again.
One of the pivotal moments that drove him from the Church
again was when he decided to take the Eucharist for the first time in
decades. The idea that the elements of bread and wine became the literal
body and blood of Jesus was too much to swallow. His distaste for some of
the doctrines and hypocrisy of the churchgoers forced him to leave the
Orthodox Church.
Tolstoy retained his belief in God, even though he was at
times horrified by many Christians’ attitudes. Still, he knew that it was
facile and arrogant to say it was all a lie. Even though lies got pulled
into the mix, he saw tremendous truth to it as a whole.
|
|
Endnotes
These insights are
just an introduction. If you're ready to dive deeper, pick up a copy of A
Confession here. And since we get a commission on
every sale, your purchase will help keep this newsletter free.
*
This is sponsored content
|
|
|
This newsletter is powered by Thinkr, a smart reading app for the
busy-but-curious. For full access to hundreds of titles — including audio —
go premium and download the app today.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment