A Brief Philosophical History
Throughout Western philosophy, from ancient Greece to the 19th century, numerous thinkers have argued that the key to a better society lies in the moral and intellectual growth of individuals rather than in sweeping political reforms. Figures like Michel de Montaigne and Leo Tolstoy, who embodied this outlook, prioritized personal virtue or self-cultivation over systemic change. Socrates, the Cynics, the Stoics, Epicurus, Søren Kierkegaard, and Friedrich Nietzsche, among others, all in their own ways placed greater emphasis on personal development than on grand-scale transformations.
In this overview, I present philosophers and ideas that will inform much of the discussion of this website. While the primary focus will be on Leo Tolstoy’s unique vision of Christianity, I will develop the theory that his worldview fits comfortably into a philosophical tradition that long rejected engagement with politics or belief in state power as an effective tool of social change.
Below, I’ll examine these philosophers’ views on self-improvement and its significance in society, their skepticism toward state power or institutional reforms, the foundations of their moral philosophies, and the extent to which their perspectives converge or diverge, particularly regarding morality. Additionally, I’ll examine the historical and ideological connections among these thinkers and their respective schools of thought.
Socrates: Virtue and the Examined Life
Socrates (470–399 BCE), often considered the founder of inward-focused philosophy, famously emphasized the significance of self-improvement over wealth and political success. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates outlines his life’s mission as urging individuals to prioritize the “greatest improvement of the soul” over concerns for their physical bodies or material possessions. He asserts that virtue (aretê) is the source of true value, stating that it leads to money and every other good, both public and private. Socrates effectively argues that individual goodness has a more reliable impact on society than pursuing wealth or status solely for personal gain. This belief underscores his conviction that if each person diligently nurtures their moral character, the community as a whole will flourish.
Due to his profound skepticism about the possibility of remaining just and honest while wielding power in the Athenian state, Socrates deliberately avoided a career in politics. He recounted that a divine inner voice, his daimōnic sign, repeatedly prohibited him from publicly advising the state. He believed that attempting to fight injustice as a politician would have led to his demise and done no good. In the Apology, he generalized this lesson, stating that no one who honestly struggles against unrighteousness and wrong in the state will save their life. Those who truly fight for the right must maintain a private life rather than a public one. This striking statement reveals Socrates’ belief that a truly virtuous person cannot survive long as a public official in a corrupt society. Instead, he saw his role as a social “gadfly,” indirectly improving the city by questioning individuals one by one to spur their moral growth. Socrates placed his hope in personal enlightenment rather than institutional reform. His moral foundation was the notion that virtue is a form of knowledge, and that the unexamined life is not worth living. This ethic centered on inner wisdom and integrity rather than legal or political schemes.
Socrates’ ethics were grounded in the pursuit of truth and virtue through rational inquiry. He famously declared his ignorance (“I neither know nor think that I know” in the Apology) as a means to foster continuous learning and self-reflection. For Socrates, morality concerned the state of one’s soul—developing qualities such as justice, courage, self-control, and piety—rather than adhering to external authority. He believed that if an individual genuinely comprehends the good, they will act accordingly, aligning personal improvement with moral action. This emphasis on the examined life and personal virtue had a profound impact on subsequent educational institutions.
The Cynics: Radical Individualism and Scorn for Power
Focus on Self-Improvement: The Cynic philosophers, influenced by Socrates (through his follower Antisthenes), took the concept of individual virtue to an extreme. Cynics believed that personal virtue alone is sufficient for happiness and that one should live in accordance with nature, embracing complete simplicity. Their goal was to liberate themselves from societal conventions, wealth, and desires—effectively practicing an extreme form of self-discipline and self-sufficiency. Diogenes of Sinope (4th century BCE) stands as the most renowned Cynic; he lived in poverty (according to legend, in a barrel) and dedicated himself to eliminating any dependence on luxury or external approval. This unwavering commitment to personal moral freedom constituted the Cynic path to self-improvement: they trained themselves to endure hardships, resist pleasures, and mock pretenses, all in the pursuit of strengthening their character.
Skepticism of the State and Society: The Cynics were profoundly skeptical of social institutions, customs, and political power. Diogenes, in particular, became renowned for his shameless rejection of authority. In a well-known encounter, Alexander the Great, the most powerful man of his time, offered Diogenes any favor. Diogenes simply responded, “Stand a little out of my sun,” suggesting that the only thing Alexander could do for him was to allow sunlight to reach him. This anecdote, reported by multiple sources, encapsulates Diogenes’ disregard for authority, wealth, and social conventions. He had no need for the state or rulers; in fact, he often ridiculed them. The Cynics viewed government, social status, and even cultural norms as largely corrupt or irrelevant to the virtuous life. They introduced the concept of being a “citizen of the world” (cosmopolitan) instead of a citizen of a specific polis, emphasizing that one’s allegiance was to living a good life rather than any state. Morality for the Cynics was based on natural simplicity and honesty—a form of ethical absolutism that disregarded institutional rules. In practice, they advocated for living austerely, speaking truth to power (often with a caustic tone), and relying on one’s own reason and virtue as guides rather than laws or public opinion. This extreme individualism had a lasting impact on later Stoics and resonates with any philosophy that values authenticity over conformity.
Stoicism: Inner Virtue and Duty over Politics
Focus on Self-Improvement: Stoicism, a school founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century BCE) and later prominent in Roman philosophy (e.g., Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius), placed significant emphasis on personal virtue as the sole key to a fulfilling life. Stoics believed that virtue is the only genuine good, and that everything external (wealth, health, political power, even life or death) is ultimately indifferent in terms of moral value. What truly matters is how one utilizes life’s circumstances in accordance with virtue. Therefore, Stoic philosophers concentrated on cultivating wisdom, courage, justice, and self-control within their own character. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor who was also a Stoic philosopher, famously wrote, “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.” – a concise call to personal moral action rather than theoretical debate. The Stoics viewed every challenge in life as an opportunity to exercise virtue. Epictetus (c. 50–135 CE), a former slave who became a Stoic teacher, emphasized the importance of focusing solely on what is within our control (our thoughts, intentions, and actions) and accepting what is beyond our control (external events or others’ actions) with calm equanimity. The Stoics argued that our eudaimonia (flourishing or happiness) is entirely dependent on our own character and rational attitude, not on external circumstances. This inward-directed philosophy naturally leads to self-improvement: our duty is to become a better person (wiser and more virtuous) through reflection, ethical practice, and mastery of our impulses.
Stoicism’s stance on society and state power was cautious. While it didn’t outright reject participation, it discouraged political upheavals and institutions. Stoics believed in fulfilling their social roles ethically, such as being just rulers, loyal friends, or dutiful parents, and recognized justice as a cardinal virtue. However, they generally discouraged utopian political schemes or rebellion, advocating for personal improvement and duty in one’s station.
Historically, some Stoics were close to power (Seneca was an advisor to Emperor Nero, and Marcus Aurelius was emperor), yet Stoic writings primarily focused on personal ethical challenges rather than policy or reform. In fact, Stoicism has often been criticized as politically quietist. Modern scholars note that Stoics opposed individual tyrants like Nero but not the concept of tyranny. They advocated for treating enslaved people with dignity and respect but not the abolition of slavery as an institution.
In essence, Stoics encouraged moral behavior within existing structures rather than demanding structural change. They were ahead of their time in advocating for universal respect for human dignity (including for women and slaves), but they didn’t seek to overthrow the Roman social order. The Stoic ideal was a cosmopolis, a community of rational beings living according to nature and reason—a vision that encompassed morality and politics in a broad sense, but it was to be achieved through individual virtue rather than revolution.
Moral and intellectual foundations of Stoicism lie in the belief that the universe operates under the divine reason, logos. Humans, as rational beings, fulfill their nature by living virtuously in accordance with reason. Virtue, the highest form of character, is the sole true good, while vice is the sole true evil. Everything else, such as health, wealth, and political status, is considered “indifferent” – valuable only to the extent that it facilitates virtuous action. This worldview fosters a robust moral individualism. A Stoic strives to develop unwavering character, free from the shackles of passions and public opinion. As Epictetus wisely taught, even a slave can attain spiritual freedom through virtue, while a king is a slave to his own fears and desires if he lacks wisdom. Stoicism’s alignment with personal growth is evident. For a Stoic, progress (prokopê) means becoming more virtuous and wise each day. They were not opposed to good governance but believed that the most significant contribution one can make to society is to become a just and reasonable person within it. Stoics were somewhat cautious about the mob and sudden political changes, valuing stability and order as long as they could practice virtue within it. If a regime was unjust, a Stoic might endure it while maintaining integrity (or, as some did, like Seneca, engage in martyrdom when integrity and imperial commands conflicted). Ultimately, the Stoic school aligned with the notion that moral self-mastery is the cornerstone of improving the world.
Epicureanism: Personal Tranquility Apart from Public Life
Focus on Self-Improvement: Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and his followers also prioritized individual well-being, although their approach diverged from the Stoics’. Epicurean philosophy posited that the ultimate good is ataraxia—a state of serene tranquility and liberation from fear or pain. To attain this, one should lead a modest life, nurture friendships, and gain a deeper understanding of nature, thereby dispelling irrational fears, particularly the fear of the gods and death. This doctrine of simple pleasure (centered on mental contentment rather than excessive indulgence or ambition) placed personal happiness and peace of mind as the primary objective. Notably, Epicurus asserted that each individual can achieve happiness through wise choices and mental fortitude, irrespective of political circumstances. For an Epicurean, self-improvement entailed refining one’s desires (reducing them to what is natural and essential), cultivating virtues such as prudence and temperance (since these virtues lead to the most stable happiness), and studying philosophy to eliminate superstitions. This inward, therapeutic perspective on philosophy was encapsulated by Epicurus’s statement: “The word of a philosopher is vain if it does not alleviate the suffering of humanity.” In essence, philosophy should directly assist individuals in living better, more peaceful lives.
Retreat from Politics: Epicurus, renowned for his skepticism of political involvement, advised his followers to “live unnoticed” (in Greek, lathe biōsas, meaning “live in hiding” or obscurity). The Epicureans viewed public life, characterized by competitions for honor, wealth-seeking, and factional conflicts, as a source of anxiety and disturbance that could hinder the philosopher’s pursuit of inner peace. They disapproved of agitation for social change, believing that political struggle created unnecessary stress, instead advocating for “living unnoticed, abstaining from public life, and avoiding anything that provoked enemies.” This practical guidance allowed individuals to focus on cultivating friendship and virtue within a peaceful community (Epicurus himself established a small community known as “The Garden”). While Epicureans were not anarchists, they recognized the value of basic justice and a stable society (viewing laws as arising from mutual agreements for safety). However, they were deeply cautious of grand political ambitions. Their ideal was a small circle of friends living a self-sufficient and virtuous life, rather than engaging in the tumultuous affairs of public life.
Moral Foundations: Epicureanism, a philosophical framework, posits hedonism as the natural goal of life, identifying pleasure (absence of pain and fear) as the ultimate pursuit. However, Epicurus distinguished between simple, natural pleasures (easily attainable and enduring) and vain, empty desires (such as craving luxury or fame, which lead to anxiety). Ethically, this distinction translated into a life of simplicity, intellectual reflection, and virtue, as virtues (like prudence, justice, etc.) serve as means to secure lasting peace of mind.
Epicurus’s advice to avoid politics stems from this moral calculus. He believed that power and honor are fleeting and often cause more pain than pleasure. He wrote, “The wise man does not desire to be a king or hold office because that yields no tranquility.” Instead, Epicureans advocated for justice in personal dealings, recognizing that injustice breeds fear of punishment, which disturbs the mind. They also saw social contracts as useful for maintaining peace. However, they placed no faith in the notion that changing rulers or laws could eliminate the fundamental pains of life; only personal philosophical living could achieve that.
In essence, Epicureanism aligns with the ideas of Montaigne and Tolstoy, emphasizing the importance of improving one’s own life and understanding as the path to human betterment. While pursuing political solutions may seem like a shortcut, it often misses the root cause of human anxiety.
Michel de Montaigne: Self-Examination and Skepticism of Reform
Focus on Self-Improvement: Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), a Renaissance essayist and thinker, exemplifies a philosopher who turned inward to seek wisdom. In his Essays, Montaigne serves as the subject of his own exploration, delving into his thoughts, quirks, and experiences to gain insights into the human condition. He famously adopted the motto “Que sais-je?” (“What do I know?”) to embody a spirit of introspection and self-doubt. Montaigne placed utmost importance on personal authenticity, self-knowledge, and intellectual honesty. He believed that by examining ourselves candidly, acknowledging our habits, beliefs, and ignorance, we can cultivate judgment and virtue. Each individual, he thought, embodies the entirety of the human condition, so understanding oneself sincerely can illuminate universal truths. Instead of constructing grand theories, Montaigne “ties all moral philosophy to common and private life.” He presents a “merely passable and ordinary life of an individual who for the most part led a private life” as worthy of philosophical examination, explicitly rejecting the extreme self-mastery or pursuit of perfection found in ancient moralists or Christian ascetics. In essence, Montaigne’s project was to improve himself—to live a virtuous and honest life—and to reflect on that journey for the benefit of his readers. He valued qualities such as moderation, tolerance, friendship, and personal freedom of thought. For Montaigne, the role of self-improvement in society was indirect: by cultivating reasonableness and humility within oneself, one contributes to a more compassionate and peaceful world.
Skepticism of State Power and Reform: Living through the tumultuous French Wars of Religion, Montaigne’s experiences profoundly shaped his skepticism towards any form of ideological fanaticism or sweeping political change. While he did hold public office, serving as the mayor of Bordeaux, his writings cautioned against excessive intervention in matters of state. Montaigne believed that society’s complexity rendered it beyond the sole comprehension of any single individual’s reason, leading him to conclude that conservatism was the wisest stance. He argued that drastic changes often have unintended consequences that can unleash chaos, suggesting that maintaining the status quo was more prudent. This conservative inclination was not born of ignorance but stemmed from his philosophical skepticism. Given the inherent uncertainty of human grasping absolute truth, Montaigne cautioned against imposing our theoretical schemes upon society. He critiqued the dogmatism prevalent in his era, whether religious or political, advocating instead for moderation and gradual improvement. While he was not opposed to all progress, Montaigne believed that reason alone was insufficient to reliably redesign the social order. Therefore, he emphasized the importance of improving our own conduct and preserving society’s foundations unless there was a clear need for change. Consistently, Montaigne placed great emphasis on the private realm. He asserted that each individual must find the good life “individually,” and for many, it will be a private, inwardly cultivated good rather than something defined by public achievements. He even advised maintaining a personal “backshop”—a mental sanctuary untouched by public turbulence—where one can preserve their autonomy and find peace.
Montaigne’s philosophy, rooted in skepticism and humanism, was profoundly influenced by classical authors like Plutarch and Seneca, as well as the skeptic Sextus Empiricus. He concluded that human reason is limited and often deceived by custom or pride, leading him to value tolerance and open-mindedness. Morally, he advocated for understanding others, particularly for his relatively enlightened views on indigenous peoples and his advocacy for religious tolerance during a cruel era. Intellectually, his skepticism meant he distrusted universal doctrines, preferring experimentation and personal experience. The term “Essay” in French originally meant “trial/attempt.”
Montaigne’s moral vision is one of moderate virtue, promoting traits like honesty, kindness, fidelity in friendship, enjoyment of life’s simple pleasures, and acceptance of one’s own nature. He explicitly rejected the Stoic or ascetic idea of striving for perfect wisdom or holiness, finding it inhuman and presumptuous. In this sense, he diverged from figures like Tolstoy, who demanded strict moral purity, and Socrates, who centered morality in the individual. Montaigne wrote, “Every man bears the entire form of the human condition,” implying that moral insight comes from within and from reflecting on one’s lived reality. By being called “a French Socrates” (as some called him), he questioned himself and his society’s assumptions, contributing to societal wisdom without proposing any grand new political system. His perspective aligns with others in valuing personal virtue, intellectual humility, and the private pursuit of the good over any collective utopian program.
Søren Kierkegaard: Individual Faith vs. Christendom
Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855), a Danish philosopher and theologian, emphasized that truth and meaning are ultimately subjective matters, particularly in faith and ethics. Often referred to as the father of existentialism, Kierkegaard’s focus was on personal choice, commitment, and responsibility. His mission was to awaken the individual to an authentic relationship with God and to “live truly” as a unique person, rather than conforming to social or religious norms. Kierkegaard believed that genuine Christianity (or self-actualization) demanded passionate personal commitment, self-reflection, and often a solitary struggle, rather than adhering to rules or societal expectations. In his opinion, Christianity was not a doctrine to be taught but rather a way of life, requiring continuous self-renewal and inwardness. Therefore, Kierkegaard highlighted inner transformation—the subjective journey of faith, which may involve fear, risk, and personal “dread”—over any objective or institutional approach to salvation. Works like Either/Or, Fear and Trembling, and The Sickness Unto Death delve into how an individual grapples with ethical and spiritual dilemmas in isolation, confronting despair or the “leap of faith” necessary to become authentic before God. Kierkegaard’s ultimate goal was not societal improvement but rather the personal growth of each individual—becoming a true “single individual” in relation to the divine. If society were to improve, it would only be a consequence of having more sincere and self-aware individuals.
Critique of Institutions (Christendom and the Crowd): Kierkegaard, a renowned critic, was notoriously critical of the established Danish Church and what he termed “Christendom”—the institutionalized, state-sanctioned form of Christianity prevalent during his time. He perceived it as superficial and devoid of genuine faith. Kierkegaard emphasized personal, individual faith over institutional religion and criticized a complacent, nominal Christianity that demanded no substantial commitment from its adherents. In his work “Attack upon Christendom,” Kierkegaard severely criticized the church for making Christianity too accessible and too social. In a state church, everyone was presumed to be Christian, which, to him, meant that no one was truly Christian. Kierkegaard drew parallels between his role and Socrates’, but instead of Athens, his mission was to confront Christendom. He saw himself as a “Socrates of Christendom,” striving to awaken individuals from their comfortable conformity to an authentic, lived faith. This meant challenging both laypeople and clergy to examine whether they genuinely lived by the radical teachings of Christ (such as loving one’s neighbor and embracing suffering). Kierkegaard distrusted “the crowd” as a source of truth. In fact, he famously declared, “the crowd is untruth,” suggesting that truth lies in the individual’s passionate commitment rather than in collective agreements. Politically, Kierkegaard was not an activist; if anything, he leaned towards conservatism, but he was largely apathetic towards political matters. His primary conflict was with cultural religion and any external identity that supplanted inward authenticity. Kierkegaard did not propose reforms for the church institution; instead, he urged individuals to break free from herd mentality. Morality, for Kierkegaard, had its foundation in the individual’s relationship with God. He explored how this relationship could sometimes lead one to suspend conventional ethics (as exemplified in the biblical story of Abraham, which he analyzed to illustrate the distinction between truly obeying God and adhering to universal ethics). In essence, Kierkegaard aligned himself with the theme of skepticism toward institutional authority, particularly religious authority, when it undermines personal responsibility. He emphasized the importance of each individual standing alone before God or conscience. By prioritizing “subjective truth,” he paved the way for later existentialists who also valued individual meaning-making over societal norms.
Moral-Religious Foundations: Kierkegaard’s ethical perspective is deeply rooted in Christian existentialism. He believed that the highest life is the “religious” life, where an individual takes full and serious commitment to God and continuously strives to become a true Christian. This involves what he termed the “infinite resignation” (renouncing worldly certainties) and then the leap of faith (embracing the absurdity of faith). Unlike Tolstoy, Kierkegaard did not provide specific ethical rules for society. Instead, his concern was on how the individual relates to the absolute (God). However, he admired individuals who acted from their own conscience against the crowd. He also believed that a life of faith would inevitably express love and ethical goodness, but it might not conform to socially approved morality.
Importantly, Kierkegaard’s stance diverges from a purely moralistic improvement (like self-help) because it emphasizes anxiety, despair, and the need for grace in self-improvement. Yet, it is intensely personal: each person must confront these profound issues on their own; no church or state can do it for you. In that, Kierkegaard stands firmly in the camp of those who prioritize individual transformation over collective reform.
Leo Tolstoy: Moral Self-Perfection and Rejection of the State
Focus on Self-Improvement: Leo Tolstoy, the renowned Russian novelist, underwent a profound spiritual transformation in his later years. After a crisis outlined in his book “A Confession” (1879), Tolstoy embraced a radical interpretation of Jesus’s teachings, particularly the Sermon on the Mount. He believed that the true purpose of life lies in pursuing goodness, simplicity, and truth within oneself. Tolstoy advocated for the “law of love,” nonviolence, and personal asceticism, emphasizing the importance of moral perfection. He envisioned each individual striving to live according to the principles of Christ, embodying chastity, non-resistance to evil, the absence of anger and oaths, and an unwavering love for all. Tolstoy himself attempted to renounce his wealth, adopt a vegetarian diet, engage in manual labor, and live like a peasant to purify his soul, though his efforts were not entirely successful. A central theme in Tolstoy’s thought was the notion that genuine change in the world occurs one conscience at a time. He famously remarked, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing themselves,” underscoring his conviction that personal ethical reform is the cornerstone of societal progress. Tolstoy believed that if individuals lived righteously, refraining from lying, killing, and exploiting others, social ills such as war, oppression, and poverty would gradually diminish. Consequently, he founded a spiritual-anarchist movement known as the “Tolstoyans,” emphasizing the practical application of one’s values in daily life. For Tolstoy, self-improvement was not merely a personal endeavor but a means of creating a better society. He recognized the contagious nature of goodness when practiced sincerely, while he believed that institutional solutions without personal virtue were inadequate.
Tolstoy, a staunch critic of the state, church, and all forms of institutional power, believed governments were inherently corrupt and violent. In his 1894 book, “The Kingdom of God Is Within You,” he presented his doctrine of Christian anarchism, asserting that true Christians should refrain from participating in any form of state violence or coercion, as these actions contradict Jesus’s command to “resist not evil” and love one’s enemies. Tolstoy advocated for withdrawing support from the state, stating that individuals should not support or participate in governments they deemed immoral, violent, and corrupt.
For his opposition to the Russian Orthodox Church’s hierarchy and rituals, which he perceived as distortions of Christ’s message, Tolstoy faced excommunication. According to Tolstoy (as summarized by Trotsky), “every state is an institution for committing, by violence and with impunity, the most horrible crimes.” He held that genuine social progress can only be achieved through the religious and moral self-perfection of individuals.
Rather than resorting to revolution or voting, Tolstoy advocated for nonviolent non-cooperation. He argued that eliminating states is not necessary through external means; all that is required is to abstain from participating in them and refraining from supporting them.This perspective reflects his belief that if enough individuals simply refuse to comply with the evils commanded by governments (such as going to war or enforcing unjust laws), the state machinery would eventually collapse.
Tolstoy’s writings had a profound impact on figures like Gandhi, inspiring the development of nonviolent resistance. This is significant because Tolstoy provided the moral foundation for societal change, emphasizing that it begins with individual resistance to wrongdoing. In essence, Tolstoy was highly skeptical of the possibility of top-down reforms or revolutions effectively improving humanity. Instead, he placed his faith in spiritual regeneration that originates from the bottom up. Each individual who followed their conscience, particularly by adhering to nonviolence and compassion, would contribute to dismantling the oppressive structure of the state.
Tolstoy’s philosophy was rooted in a radical interpretation of Christian morality. At its core, he placed the primacy of love, empathy, and nonviolence as absolute commandments. He rejected the doctrines and miracles of the Church, instead focusing on Jesus’s ethical teachings as the “one eternal universal teaching of Truth.” Tolstoy emphasized the importance of conscience and the inner voice of God within each individual.
Intellectually, Tolstoy was influenced by various moral philosophers, including the Stoics and Schopenhauer. However, unlike Nietzsche, who was his contemporary, Tolstoy upheld what Nietzsche called “slave morality”—values of humility, charity, and forgiveness—as the highest good. Tolstoy rejected any morality apart from this love-centric framework and even interpreted progress and art through moral lenses, famously criticizing art that did not promote moral improvement.
In terms of alignment, Tolstoy shared Socrates’ and the Stoics’ belief that one should never do wrong even if commanded by authority. Socrates refused to perform unjust acts under the rule of the Thirty Tyrants, and Tolstoy similarly refused to condone state violence. However, unlike a skeptic like Montaigne, Tolstoy was much more absolutist in his moralism. Tolstoy believed in the clear truth of the Gospels, while Montaigne doubted the existence of any single truth.
Tolstoy also diverged from Stoicism by emphasizing compassionate love and meekness, while Stoics valued rational kindness but not self-abasement. In contrast to Kierkegaard, Tolstoy’s Christianity was less concerned with paradox and more focused on practical ethics. Both Tolstoy and Kierkegaard shunned the established church and emphasized the importance of individual faith. Tolstoy insisted that people should follow their conscience over the clergy.
Perhaps most relevant to our theme, Tolstoy explicitly stated that society improves only through individual moral improvement. He was deeply distrustful of institutional solutions to moral problems.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Self-Overcoming and Critique of Mass Morality
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) offers a unique yet interconnected perspective on individual growth. Unlike conventional notions of self-improvement, Nietzsche’s philosophy centers on the individual’s self-overcoming and self-creation. He believed that after the “death of God” (the erosion of traditional religious beliefs), exceptional individuals were tasked with crafting their own meaning and virtues in life.
In his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” Nietzsche introduced the concept of the Übermensch, an ideal human who has transcended the ordinary and established a new way of being. Zarathustra famously challenges individuals to “remain faithful to the earth” (focus on life) and to infuse their character with style. Nietzsche highly values qualities such as strength of will, creativity, courage, and intellectual honesty in the individual. He holds contempt for complacency and urges people to embrace their fate (amor fati) with joy.
Nietzsche’s philosophy is a call for radical self-affirmation and personal growth. He even wrote in “Ecce Homo” of his aspiration to say “Yes” to life at the individual level, embracing one’s destiny with unwavering acceptance. While Nietzsche’s idea of self-improvement may differ from conventional notions (he rejects the meek and altruistic approach championed by Tolstoy or Christianity), it represents an ethos of personal excellence and transformation that he believes has the potential to elevate humanity.
Antagonism toward State Power and Mass Movements: Nietzsche held deep distrust for the state and any mass or collective morality. He didn’t advocate for political reform; in fact, he scorned politics of his time, regardless of whether it was liberal, nationalist, or socialist. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he vividly portrays the state as a monstrous entity: “A state is called the coldest of all cold monsters. It lies coldly, and this lie creeps from its mouth: ‘I, the state, am the people.’” He accuses the state of appropriating the language of the people’s virtues to justify its existence, labeling state founders as “destroyers” who set traps for the masses. Nietzsche’s writings are replete with contempt for the “herd”—his term for the conformist masses and their morality. He believed that democratic and socialist movements of his era were merely new manifestations of herd mentality, which exalt mediocrity and suppress higher human potential. For Nietzsche, institutions like the Church and the modern state enforce a slave morality—a set of values (such as humility, equality, and pity) that originated from the resentment of the weak and now dominate European society. He contrasts “master-morality” (represented by aristocratic cultures of the past) with “slave-morality” (exemplified by Christian and modern egalitarian ethics). Master-morality values pride, ambition, power, and sees itself beyond good and evil in the traditional sense. Slave-morality, on the other hand, values sympathy, kindness, and humility, prioritizing the alleviation of suffering and the restraint of the strong. Nietzsche unequivocally favored the former (at least in reworked form) and perceived the latter as life-denying. Consequently, he was skeptical of any institutional reform that stemmed from slave-moral values—for instance, movements for equal rights or socialist redistribution, which he interpreted as the envious leveling of the herd. In practice, Nietzsche didn’t advocate for political action at all. Instead, he addressed individual readers, perhaps “the few,” urging them to step away from petty politics and focus on self-cultivation. He praised figures who stood out (Goethe, Beethoven, Napoleon – though these weren’t “moral” reformers but strong individuals). Nietzsche even referred to the state as “the new idol”that people worshiped to the detriment of their own individuality. His political vision (to the extent he had one) was of a future where exceptional individuals could reorganize values, but certainly not a utopian government. In short, Nietzsche’s stance was that one should transcend the state and public morality, not reform them. He trusted cultural creators (philosophers, artists) over politicians for improving humanity.
Nietzsche’s philosophy is grounded in several key ideas. The will to power, a fundamental drive he perceives in all life, propels growth, dominance, and shaping. Additionally, he advocates for the revaluation of traditional morality, which he believes is life-denying. Embracing life’s challenges, he introduces concepts like amor fati (love of one’s fate) and eternal recurrence (living as if one’s life were eternal).
Morally, Nietzsche breaks away from the Judeo-Christian tradition entirely. He identifies as an immoralist not to promote immorality but to reject the prevailing moral valuations. His goal is to achieve a transvaluation, where values affirm life, strength, and individuality. In practice, his ethical ideal emphasizes authenticity, creativity, and courage. He admired hardness and risk-taking, contrasting sharply with Epicurean tranquility and Tolstoyan meekness.
However, Nietzsche does envision personal excellence that can be considered a form of virtue ethics, albeit not altruistic virtue. He upholds qualities such as independence, profundity, and the intensity of life. Notably, he agrees with others that morality is a human creation. While Tolstoy and the Stoics believe a divine or natural order provides a single, absolute morality, Nietzsche asserts that humans must construct their own values. This skepticism leads him to question anyone who preaches a fixed moral system for all. Each individual might have their own morality.
In terms of societal role, Nietzsche aligns with the notion that society’s greatness lies in the individuals within it. He famously declared, “Mankind must continually strive to produce great individuals,” viewing the rest as the fertile ground from which these individuals emerge. This elitist perspective diverges significantly from philosophers like Tolstoy and Kant, who believed moral worth was inherent in every person equally. Nietzsche’s open disdain for the “weak” or “last men” (comfortable modern individuals with limited aspirations) places him at odds with most moralists. However, when it comes to prioritizing personal development over political reform, Nietzsche firmly stands in this camp. He believed that political systems were mere epiphenomena of culture, and culture was shaped by the creative personalities of individuals. His alignment with Montaigne is intriguing—Nietzsche admired Montaigne’s zest for life and honesty—but Nietzsche’s tone and conclusions are far more radical. Ultimately, Nietzsche diverges from all others in this regard regarding the content of morality. For instance, he would consider Tolstoy’s humble and pacifist virtue a form of weakness, while Tolstoy would view Nietzsche’s proud aristocracy as a form of evil. Nevertheless, Nietzsche agrees that what truly matters is creating one’s own meaning in life and not relying on institutions or prevailing norms to do so for you.
Comparative Analysis: Common Threads and Key Differences
Despite their diverse philosophical perspectives, the philosophers discussed above share a fundamental belief: lasting improvement in the human condition starts with the individual. They are united in prioritizing personal virtue, wisdom, or authenticity over structural or political interventions. However, they justify this stance through varying means and hold differing interpretations of what constitutes “virtue” or a fulfilling life. Below, we examine how these thinkers align or diverge on key aspects of their philosophical views.
The Importance of Personal Virtue: All these figures emphasize the significance of each individual’s moral state in society. Socrates openly declared that personal virtue is the foundation for every other public good. Tolstoy later echoed this sentiment, asserting that “genuine progress” can only be achieved through “moral self-perfection of individuals.” The Stoics and Epicureans even built entire philosophies around the idea that if one’s inner life is in order, external circumstances hold little importance. In different contexts, Montaigne and Kierkegaard both argued that individuals should focus on their own souls or selves. Montaigne approached this from a skeptical-humanist perspective, while Kierkegaard viewed it from a religious-existential standpoint. Nietzsche also believed that social “herds” are shaped or destroyed by the caliber of individuals within them, particularly exceptional ones. This shared emphasis rejects any purely material or legal notion of progress; instead, moral and intellectual cultivation is considered essential.
One practical convergence is a suspicion of materialism and wealth. Socrates chose poverty, Cynics begged and flouted wealth, Stoics and Epicureans advocated for minimalism, Montaigne spoke of the simple life, Kierkegaard lived modestly, Tolstoy abandoned his aristocratic comforts, and Nietzsche praised hardship over luxury. All of these figures recognized that character is more valuable than comfort.
Skepticism of political and institutional solutions is another common thread among these thinkers. They often reject the notion that laws, governments, or revolutions can fundamentally improve humanity. These thinkers generally view state power as either limited in value or deeply corrupt.
Socrates, Epicurus, Stoics, Montaigne, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche all had varying degrees of involvement in politics. Socrates, for instance, avoided politics due to its perceived conflict with philosophy and personal integrity. Epicurus even advised against public office for the sake of peace. While the Stoics didn’t entirely avoid politics, they generally focused on personal interactions rather than grand political reforms. Marcus Aurelius, for example, wrote as an individual practicing virtue rather than advocating for institutional changes. Montaigne, while serving as a magistrate, critiqued grand political engineering. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, stayed out of politics, dedicating his life to religious pursuits. Tolstoy renounced any involvement in state affairs and urged others to do the same. Nietzsche, in particular, held a scathing view of the state and mass politics. The Cynics, such as Diogenes, publicly mocked rulers and refused to honor worldly authority. In essence, noneof these figures placed faith in parliaments, kings, or revolutions as means of redeeming society.
Reasons for Skepticism. While the shared stance is that skepticism is a valid perspective, the reasons behind it vary. Montaigne’s skepticism stems from epistemic humility, recognizing that society is too complex to be rationally fixed. In contrast, Stoics and Epicureans adopt a more pragmatic and utilitarianapproach. They believe that politics often brings anxiety and compromises virtue, so it’s better to focus on one’s own moral duty or achieve ataraxia (a state of tranquility). Kierkegaard’s spiritual reason is that a crowd or institution cannot produce faith; it’s a personal relationship with God. Tolstoy’s moral and pacifist perspective suggests that the state is inherently violent and evil, so any engagement with it taints one’s morality. Nietzsche’s elitist and cultural reason is that politics is an arena for the herd and mediocre values; true creators work outside or above it. Despite these differences, a unifying idea emerges: top-down change is viewed as either futile or dangerous unless individuals themselves are virtuous or awakened. This contrasts with Marxist or Platonic thinking, where the system or rulers are seen as the primary agents of change, and people follow suit. Our philosophers here generally believe that people must change (or free themselves) before society can improve organically.
Moral and intellectual foundations shape each thinker’s concept of the good life, influencing the self-improvement strategies they advocate.
Virtue Ethics, championed by thinkers like Socrates, Stoics, and Cynics, posits that virtue is an objective excellence. Socrates and his followers emphasized the importance of wisdom, justice, courage, and self-control in achieving this virtue. The Stoics further developed this concept by advocating for living in accordance with one’s rational nature and duty, aiming to cultivate an even-tempered and resilient character. Self-improvement in this context involves enhancing one’s rationality and ethical reasoning, but it is an inward journey with a universal appeal. Virtue is seen as a common trait shared by all humans, and while morality may be universal and knowable through reason, individuals must actively practice it in their own lives.
Hedonist-Avoidance Ethics, also known as Epicureanism, posits that the moral foundation lies in natural pleasure and pain. Self-improvement involves training oneself to desire only what is healthy and necessary, ultimately leading to tranquility. While there is a moral component, such as valuing justice and friendship as means to peace of mind, Epicureanism places less emphasis on moral perfection and more on wise self-care. Like Stoics, Epicureans adopt an individualistic approach, but their ultimate goal differs: pleasure is defined as the absence of distress.
Skepticism and moderation, as championed by Montaigne, form the cornerstone of his philosophical outlook. Unlike strict moral codes, Montaigne’s ethical framework emphasizes acknowledging human fallibility and refraining from cruelty or fanaticism. Self-improvement, for him, is an intellectual endeavor that involves self-knowledge and recognizing one’s own ignorance. Morality, in Montaigne’s view, is a pluralistic concept that adapts to individual circumstances. He was wary of one-size-fits-all doctrines and advocated for a more nuanced approach to morality. While he diverged from the ancient schools that defined virtue in dogmatic terms, he shared their emphasis on maintaining personal balance and sanity over seeking public acclaim.
Religious-Existential philosophers like Kierkegaard and Tolstoy both place religion at the center of their philosophical views, but they do so in distinct ways. Kierkegaard’s moral foundation lies in existential faith, which is a personal leap of faith towards God. While ethics (the “ethical stage”) is important to him, it ultimately pales in comparison to the religious stage. Kierkegaard upholds many Christian virtues, such as love and self-sacrifice, but he emphasizes that these virtues must arise from an inward passion rather than conformity. Tolstoy’s foundation is based on a simplified gospel ethic: love, nonviolence, and truthfulness. He essentially elevates the Sermon on the Mount to the status of a moral law. Unlike Kierkegaard, Tolstoy downplays paradox and emphasizes the practical application of Jesus’s teachings in everyday life. Both philosophers reject institutional authority in morality. Kierkegaard opposes state church definitions of Christianity, while Tolstoy advocates for the autonomy of the conscience in favor of individual conscience over church and state morality.
They both believe that morality is derived from a higher divine truth, but they realize it only in the individual’s heart and actions, not through collective ceremonies or laws. However, they differ from Montaigne and Nietzsche in their belief in an absolute moral truth. They are not relativists or aesthetic experimenters.
Transvaluation of Morality (Nietzsche): Nietzsche’s intellectual foundation is iconoclastic. He employs genealogy to dismantle conventional morals and envisions a future where novel values can be forged. His perspective revolves around power, vitality, and life-affirmation. For Nietzsche, morality is not an immutable entity; “good and evil” are merely interpretive concepts. He shares similarities with others in the belief that each individual (particularly the formidable) should determine their own values rather than allowing institutions or traditions to dictate them. However, he stands out as the sole exception in his overt rejection of the content of the Judeo-Christian moral framework that most others (except perhaps Montaigne’s skepticism) hold in esteem.
In Nietzsche’s view, self-improvement entails self-overcoming: embracing struggle, cultivating one’s creative and spiritual fortitude, potentially at the expense of what conventional morality labels as “good.” This represents a profound divergence in the concept of improvement—compare Nietzsche’s ideal Übermensch, who may embody hardness and audacity, to Tolstoy’s ideal saint, who embodies humility and non-harmfulness. Nietzsche would likely perceive Tolstoy’s pursuit of self-perfection as a form of decadent denial of life, while Tolstoy would view Nietzsche’s hero as a manifestation of satanic pride. Surprisingly, both agree that authentic values originate from within, not from conforming to societal norms.
Morality and Society – Alignment vs Divergence
Among these thinkers, there’s a spectrum regarding morality’s role in society.
Socrates, the Stoics, Tolstoy, and even Confucius (though not covered here, and similarly) share a belief that if individuals become virtuous, society will harmonize. Socrates explicitly stated this to Athens, while the Stoics believed in a rational cosmos, envisioning a society governed by sages. Tolstoy posited that if individuals refrain from violence, war, and oppression, these conflicts would naturally cease. This optimism suggests that individual goodness can collectively lead to social progress. Montaigne also implied that reasonable individuals contribute to a tolerant society (he demonstrated this by maintaining cordial relations with both warring Catholic and Protestant parties, embodying tolerance). Each of these thinkers downplays the need for direct institutional change but emphasizes the indirect impact of improving individuals on the community.
Kierkegaard didn’t develop a comprehensive social vision. An authentic Christian might stand apart as a “knight of faith,” defying conventional ethics and being inscrutable to others, as exemplified by Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. His alignment with society is minimal. He prioritized the individual over God and found society largely irrelevant or even an obstacle to true selfhood. The “crowd” is seen as the enemy of authentic selfhood. Nietzsche takes this notion even further, opposing the concept of common morality. He believed that superior individuals inevitably clash with the herd’s values. While he acknowledged the potential for humanity to progress, he didn’t advocate for universal elevation. Instead, he proposed the creation of higher types at the expense of egalitarian principles. Consequently, Nietzsche diverges significantly from traditional morality. He doesn’t envision a moral society in the conventional sense; instead, he envisions a culture that nurtures greatness, which may necessitate the discarding of conventional moral boundaries.
Montaigne and Nietzsche both employ skepticism toward conventional norms, albeit in different degrees. Montaigne adopts a moderate approach, while Nietzsche takes a radical stance. In contrast, Tolstoy and Kierkegaard are unwavering in their absolute moralism, but they challenge official norms, such as church or state laws. Stoics and Epicureans fall somewhere in between: they uphold a rational morality that is somewhat absolute (virtue is always beneficial to Stoics), yet their approach to society is generally adaptable. Unlike Stoics and Epicureans, who don’t actively crusade to change others, they exemplify virtue themselves.
There are clear lines of influence among some of these figures, highlighting their historical and ideological connections.
Socrates’ influence extended to Antisthenes and the Cynics, who, in turn, influenced Zeno and the Stoics. These philosophers all upheld the principle that virtue is independent of external circumstances. The Stoics frequently referred to Socrates as a wise sage who remained free even in chains. They also inherited the Cynic’s disdain for luxury, though they moderated it.
Montaigne drew heavily on classical sources, quoting Plutarch, Seneca (a Stoic), and others, thereby bridging ancient ethics with early modern thought. In a Renaissance context, he can be seen as reviving the idea of philosophy as a way of life, similar to how Stoics and Epicureans practiced it.
Montaigne, a prominent figure of the Renaissance, was widely read and admired by thinkers of the Enlightenment and beyond. Emerson, in particular, held Montaigne in high esteem, even writing an essay about him. Emerson’s ideas of self-reliance, which were influenced by Montaigne, later had a profound impact on Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche, who read both Emerson and Montaigne, was particularly fond of Montaigne’s cheerful wisdom. This intellectual connection between Montaigne’s individualism and Nietzsche’s, despite their differing tones, underscores the enduring relevance of Montaigne’s ideas in contemporary thought.
Kierkegaard explicitly drew inspiration from Socrates, referring to himself as a Socrates of Christendom. He also drew from Christian existential sources, such as St. Augustine’s confessions of inner turmoil, although Augustine engaged in Church-building, which Kierkegaard avoided. Kierkegaard’s ideas later influenced 20th-century existentialists like Camus and Sartre, who also emphasized the importance of individual choice over social systems.
Tolstoy, inspired by his Bible readings and thinkers like Rousseau, particularly admired Rousseau’s emphasis on living naturally and nurturing the individual conscience in works like Emile. Tolstoy’s influence extended significantly to social and political movements, but it did so through individuals. Gandhiadopted Tolstoy’s principle of nonviolent resistance rooted in personal conscience, while Martin Luther King Jr. was influenced by both Tolstoy and Rousseau. This demonstrates Tolstoy’s enduring legacy: not in government reforms, but in empowering individuals to morally resist injustice.
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, interestingly, were contemporaries who never read each other. However, later scholars often compare them as two distinct paths out of the decline of traditional values. Kierkegaard retreated into a purified faith, while Nietzsche boldly forged ahead to develop a new philosophy of life. Both shared a common opposition to the mass culture of 19th-century Europe, which encompassed Christendom or herd morality. In a sense, they represent opposite ends of the individualist response spectrum – one religious, the other atheist – yet each maintained a relentlessly personal focus.
Contributions to the concept of morality
Most philosophers view morality as closely linked to an individual’s character rather than legal codes or social contracts. For instance, Marcus Aurelius, a Stoic philosopher, wrote moral reflections to himself, not as laws for Romans. Tolstoy asserts that each person who follows their conscience is the path to eliminating wrongdoing, not parliament passing new laws.
Morality is a topic of debate among philosophers. Tolstoy, a traditional Christian, exalts humility, charity, and pity, while Montaigne values kindness and disapproves of cruelty. However, Nietzsche criticizes these virtues as indicative of a “slave morality” that hinders human progress. In contrast, Nietzsche praises pride, ambition, and strength, which might be labeled as vices by classical philosophers like Socrates and Stoics (who cautioned against excessive pride). This divergence in moral content highlights the classical/Christian line (including Socrates, Stoics, Tolstoy, and Kierkegaard to some extent) and Nietzsche’s revisionist perspective. Montaigne falls somewhere in between, neither praising strength over kindness nor being doctrinaire about his views. He values moderation and empathy but doesn’t impose strict moral dogmas.
Alignment in Critique of Hypocrisy: One area where all agree is a disdain for hypocrisy and moral pretence. Socrates exposed false wisdom, Diogenes lampooned false virtue, Stoics and Epicureans both despised individuals who professed virtue but sought power. Montaigne detested religious hypocrisy (he advocated for honest acknowledgment of weakness over false piety). Kierkegaard criticized the societal facade of Christianity. Tolstoy vehemently condemned the hypocrisy of the Church and State (leaders blessing armies in the name of Christ, etc.). Nietzsche criticized the moralists of his time for concealing their weaknesses behind virtuous talk. Therefore, they all valued authenticity. Each believed their version of self-improvement was an authentic way of life, rather than mere lip-service to morality or second-hand convictions.
In conclusion, the philosophical journey from Socrates to Nietzsche reveals a diverse array of ideas converging on the significance of the individual. Whether it’s Socrates’ emphasis on caring for one’s soul, the Cynics’ defiance of authority, the Stoics’ cultivation of virtue, the Epicureans’ pursuit of friendship, Montaigne’s private reflection, Kierkegaard’s unwavering faith, Tolstoy’s uncompromising conscience, or Nietzsche’s self-overcoming creator, all these thinkers caution against placing hope in leaders, parties, or revolutions. Instead, they urge individuals to introspect, knowing themselves, mastering themselves, or transcending themselves. Society, in their view, undergoes transformations only as a reflection of numerous individual changes. However, it’s evident that they hold profound disagreements in spirit. Some, like Tolstoy and the Stoics, believe in a clear moral imperative that individuals must adhere to; others, such as Montaigne and Nietzsche, perceive morality as more fluid or self-created. Some, like Tolstoy and Epicurus, advocate for universal benevolence and the avoidance of harm; others, like Nietzsche, emphasize the transformative power of conflict and difficult choices. These differences underscore that “self-improvement” can encompass various meanings, including moral perfection, inner peace, wisdom, faith, or power. What unites these thinkers across time is less a single doctrine but a perspective—a focus on the microcosm of the self as the starting point for any better world, coupled with skepticism about the effectiveness of altering the macrocosm (state or church) unless the individual human heart and mind are first nurtured. Each of these thinkers, in their respective historical contexts, served as a conscience against the notion that larger institutions or radical revolutions alone could save humanity. Instead, they remind us that the examined, virtuous, and authentic life of each individual holds the true potential for meaningful change.
**Sources:**
* Plato, Apology – Socrates’ mission of soul-improvement and his refusal to engage in politics.
* Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch (via Wikipedia) – Diogenes the Cynic’s exchange with Alexander, illustrating Cynic philosophy.
* Pigliucci, Aeon (2021) – Stoic political engagement and its limitations.
* Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Epictetus” entry – Stoic ethics (virtue as the sole good).
* Epicurus and Politics (epicurus.today) – Epicureans living “unnoticed” and avoiding political conflict.
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Montaigne” – Montaigne’s skepticism of grand reform.
* Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Montaigne” – Private life and individual good in Montaigne’s thought.
* Kierkegaard summary, Logos forum – Personal faith versus Christendom.
* “Tolstoyan movement” (Wikipedia) and Trotsky’s summary of Tolstoy’s social philosophy – Self-perfection and non-participation in the state.
* Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “On the New Idol” – The state as the “coldest of monsters.”
* Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil – Master vs. slave morality.
* New York Review of Books, Shakespeare’s Montaigne – Nietzsche’s praise of Montaigne.
English