In trying to extract some lasting meaning from Leo Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You,” I first have to sidestep an enormous amount of religious argumentation. It’s not that Tolstoy’s refutations of Christian theology aren’t interesting —they are fascinating, in their own way—but, it just seems ridiculous for me to engage them as a non-believer.
What I can do, however, is attempt to embrace the ideas of the historical Jesus in a philosophical sense, and that is what Tolstoy sets out, at least in part, in Chapter 4 of this book. But he’s not entirely walking away from the value of religion as he does so.
First, Tolstoy makes the point, very common in the 19th century, that the industrial age brought about changes in the way of life that necessitated shifts in the way people behave:
Just as a man with a wife and children cannot continue to perceive life as he did when he was a child, so too, in the face of the various transformations occurring, the increasing population density, the establishment of communication between diverse cultures, the advancements in methods for confronting nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot persist in viewing life as it once was. Consequently, it must devise a novel theory of life from which conduct can emerge, adapted to the new conditions under which it has entered and is entering.
And this was happening across the board in Tolstoy’s time. What we know as capitalism was first taking root in that century. Marx proposed his alternative, but he was not alone, all kinds of communist, socialist, anarchist systems were being proposed, and philosophies based on individual behaviors were sprouting up as well.
Tolstoy acknowledges the cultural shift underway and the numerous attempts to reshape the course of humanity. But he believes that all of these grand plans are, at their root, religions:
Humanity possesses a unique ability to produce individuals who impart a fresh meaning to the entirety of human existence—a theory of life from which emerge novel forms of activity distinct from all previous ones. The formulation of this philosophy of life suitable for humanity in the prevailing conditions it is entering, along with the resulting practices, is what is known as religion.
So, Tolstoy has a very unique understanding of religion, not as something that can help explain the past, but as a guide towards future human conduct:
The essence of religion lies in the human capacity to foresight and it’s ability to guide humanity’s path towards a new theory of life. This transformative theory would reshape humanity’s future conduct, diverging significantly from its past.
Then Tolstoy makes a very interesting statement that seems to fly in the face of his “theory of history” as articulated in “War and Peace,” that there are visionaries throughout history who shape and guide the future:
Throughout history, there have been individuals with exceptionally strong vision, who articulated the collective sentiments of humanity and formulated novel philosophical frameworks that guided humanity for centuries.
I wish I had the opportunity to argue with Tolstoy at this point, because I tend to think he was right the first time around, and these movements do not come about as a result of an individual’s vision, but the collective desires of groups that end up being voiced by one person. But whatever, next he explains probably the most important point he makes in this chapter, his theory of the three perspectives.
These three perspectives on life are as follows:
1. The individual view of life: In this perspective, life is seen as a journey of self-discovery and fulfillment, with the individual’s will and desires guiding their actions.
2. The societal view of life: This perspective emphasizes the importance of community and belonging. It suggests that life’s purpose lies in contributing to the well-being and harmony of society, and that individuals should align their actions with the collective will of their communities.
3. The divine view of life: This perspective posits that life is a divine gift, and that individuals are part of a larger whole. It emphasizes the importance of connecting with the divine source of life and living in accordance with its principles.
These three perspectives form the foundation of all major religions throughout history.
I would take Tolstoy one step further and say that these perspective are the three foundations of philosophy as well. Someone like Socrates or Montaigne, but also a Stoic, Epicurian or Pyrrhonist, is primarily interested in the individual view, how human beings can self improve so that they can be productive citizens in a society. The societal view is the realm of political philosophy, which system tend to create the greatest good for cultures over time. And the third view enters the realm of metaphysics, from Plato’s cave to Hegel’s dialectics.
Tolstoy was not willing to separate religious faith from this discussion. He believed that human progress moved towards a greater reliance of faith, understanding God’s will, and having people willing to devote their lives to divine inspiration. He’s writing this right around the time that Nietzsche is declaring God dead, so it’s very interesting timing.
But even if you put the religious aspect aside, there’s an interesting argument here. Tolstoy is basically saying that there’s an ongoing conspiracy between the religious and irreligious over the beliefs of Jesus, that neither group takes the things Jesus said very seriously, if for different reasons.
Tolstoy argues that we must take Jesus’s ideas seriously, and here’s why:
Take time to comprehend that the life you are living is not genuine life—the life of the family, society, or the state cannot save you from annihilation. The true, rational life is attainable for humanity only to the extent that they can participate, not within the family or the state, but within the source of life—the Father. The extent to which they can merge their life with the life of the Father is the measure of their true life. This undoubtedly represents the Christian conception of life, evident in every utterance of the Gospel.
And what is that life of the Father that Tolstoy is referencing? Mostly, it is Jesus’s radical philosophy, expressed throughout the New Testament, but especially in the Gospel of Mark, that human beings need to let go of everything that binds them, animalistically, to this earth.
We must be willing to walk away from our families, give up our possessions, swear off not just adultery, but even the thought of it. But most of all, we need to give up violence and judgment. We need to let other people walk all over us, if necessary, to earn entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, which Jesus makes fairly clear isn’t the afterlife, it’s the new human-inhabited world that awaits us when people overcome themselves.
There has never been a more radical philosophy offered, whether it comes from a divine or human voice. The obvious critique of such of philosophy is that it’s impossible. Anyone who adopted it would likely live a difficult, tortured life. But Tolstoy argues that this critique misses the point:
Christ’s teachings guide men by pointing them to the infinite perfection of their heavenly Father, to which every individual and voluntarily strives, regardless of their current imperfections. The misunderstanding of those who judge Christian principles based on state principles lies in the assumption that the perfection Christ points to can be fully achieved. They then wonder what the consequences would be if this perfection were attained. However, this assumption is flawed because the perfection held up to Christians is infinite and unattainable. Christ’s teachings, recognizing the impossibility of absolute perfection, emphasize the continuous pursuit of absolute, infinite perfection, which will continually increase the blessedness of humanity. This blessedness can potentially reach infinity.
It’s the act of striving towards this perfection that makes humanity rise above its perceived imperfections. Only by continually aiming to be less selfish, less driven by desire, less violent, less focused on protecting only those closest to you — this is the path towards human progress and salvation. There will undoubtedly be bumps along this path, but practical difficulties do not override the divine imperative.
What Tolstoy is advocating here, through Jesus, is a rejection of rule-based systems, very similar to Montaigne’s rejection of law-based societies:
In this process of liberation and strengthening, according to Christ’s teachings, lies the true essence of human life. In contrast to previous religions, which emphasized adhering to rules and laws, Christ’s teachings emphasize an ever-closer approximation to the divine perfection that exists before each individual and within themselves. This pursuit leads to a gradual and continuous convergence of our wills with the will of God, a goal that represents the ultimate destruction of the life we currently experience.
And what exactly is that ideal we should be striving towards? Here is how Tolstoy describes it. Please note that his definition of Christianity is different from any existing Christian church, but more on that later.
Christ expressed the eternal ideal that humanity naturally strives for in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as the potential level of achievement in our era.
The ideal is to refrain from causing harm to anyone, to avoid provoking ill will, and to love all people. The precept that outlines the lowest attainable level in this pursuit is the prohibition of evil speech. Therefore, it is the first commandment.
The ideal is absolute chastity, even in thought. The precept that demonstrates the lowest attainable level in this pursuit is the purity of married life, avoiding any form of debauchery. This is the second commandment.
The ideal is to live in the present moment, without worrying about the future. The third commandment, which shows the lowest level of behavior we can avoid, is the prohibition of swearing and making promises in the future.
The ideal is never to use force for any purpose. The fourth commandment, which shows the lowest level of behavior we can avoid, is to return good for evil, be patient with those who wrong us, and treat our enemies the same way we treat our neighbors.
All these precepts are indications of what we are already fully capable of avoiding on our journey to perfection and what we must work hard to attain now. They should gradually become instinctive and unconscious habits.
From here, Tolstoy goes on to make a point about how humanitarianism inevitably fails because there are limits to human affection. We cannot fully understand the whole world and love people so different from ourselves, so the noble mission of humanitarianism always crashes back into a nationalistic retreat. He argues that the only way to overcome this is to point your love towards a high power and make your strides in service of that devotion, not your affection for other people.
My instinct is to disagree with Tolstoy on this, but he unquestionably has a point — every human project to better humanity purely through a love of humankind has run up a against nationalistic, populist and fascist counterattacks. People will always argue that you should take care of people close to home first, even if they actually have no interest in taking care of those people either.
If Christianity actually functioned the way Tolstoy described it, perhaps it would be possible for secular humanitarians to find kinship with idealistic believers and change the world. Perhaps that’s the next step forward, when we are finished avoiding the worst of our current backslide.
English