Interpreting Tolstoy

For most of my life, I had wanted to read “War and Peace,” by Leo Tolstoy. A few years ago, on my own incentive, I finally got around to it. It is an impressive book, to say the least. Its size alone had me astonished. However, once I actually began to read the book, I found that it was not nearly as difficult a read as I had expected. Over the course of half a year, for about an hour each night, I read the entire book, and it is by far my favorite work of literature - Tolstoy easily remains my favorite author. Although, upon reading Tolstoy’s conclusion, which was included in the copy of the book I was reading despite being originally published apart from it (in a Russian newspaper a few years after “War and Peace” was published), something about what Tolstoy claimed about his own work struck me as odd.

Tolstoy began pondering upon and explaining what “War and Peace” actually is. He said that it is not a novel. This I found to be rather curious, especially seeing as I had always considered the book to be a novel. My European history textbook had called it a novel. What’s more, do a quick “Google” search, and one will find that “War and Peace” is certainly called a novel. It has all the aspects of a novel: a realistic plot line, historical accuracy where it needs it, and a very good and well-thought-out set of characters and character development. However, for some reason, Leo Tolstoy did not consider it to be a novel, and clearly he did not want it to be considered one.

I flipped back through the last few pages of the book to the places where the story of the characters and their quarrels were abandoned to discussion about philosophy. In these chapters, much of what Tolstoy touched upon was that free will does not exist, and that it is difficult to trace what events truly are responsible for the causes of historical events and actions. Tolstoy’s reasoning behind this was that if one could only see the grander spectrum of events surrounding each and every action, then one would realize that each and every action is also a product of those events (similarly, but not identical to, what David Hume had argued, and somewhat to what Frederick Nietzsche would later argue). Essentially, Leo Tolstoy was claiming that total and absolute free will does not exist.

I had often pondered on this concept before (for truly, if one is a product of their environment, then it would make sense that they are not fully self-determined). However, I did not know if I was willing to accept the notion of an utter and complete lack of free will in humanity. Rather, I actually came to adapt the view. Reading these philosophical sections of “War and Peace” that apparently made it not a novel caused me to think about the concept of free will much more in depth than I had in the past.

I came to the conclusion (one that many have already held) that Tolstoy was ultimately correct, but only to a certain extent. Yes, the way I see it, the environment in which we live does play a large role in determining what choices we make. But can it really retract our free will completely? I do not think so. After much thought and contemplation (as philosophy is a topic which I truly love), I came to rest on a compromise between Tolstoy’s theory and the theory of free will. The way I discern the controversy, it would make sense that the natural influencing factors of our environment would severely limit our ability to make choices, but not diminish it completely. The influencing factors of our lives narrow down our choices, that is what I came to conclude, not a total rejection of free will, but more of a limitation of it.

Regardless, when reasoning on this subject, I do tend to quote Tolstoy and reference him quite a bit, in both my own books and other philosophical writings. Reading “War and Peace,” for me, brought me further into the world of philosophy. If before, I had been swimming at the surface of the ocean that is contemplative thought, now I was suddenly being dragged further and further into the depths, where things are more obscure and more thought is required to clarify them. In all, had I not read “War and Peace,” I do not think I would be half of the philosopher as I am today. In a way, I was not interpreting Tolstoy, but the work of Tolstoy led me further on my path into the realm of thought and contemplation that is philosophy.

Tolstoy is often regarded as merely an author of fiction…He should be regarded as one of history’s better philosophers, in addition.