A Discussion of the Philosophical Implications of Leo Tolstoy’s The Confession
In this article, we question Tolstoy's perspectives on the meaning of life and what the source of such meaning should be.
Leo Tolstoy’s work The Confession, which alongside other ‘heretical’ works such as Resurrection contributed to his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church, deals with such metaphysical questions as the meaning of life and the nature of the individual; approached from a theological lens. Tolstoy leads us chronologically through his own experience of grappling with these questions and the emotional tribulations that came with his spiritual journey to find meaning in the universe.
Initially, he opens the work with the premise that God doesn’t exist, that the universe is empty and that he is just a random arrangement of molecules that will eventually dissipate into nothingness. This premise stems from what Tolstoy describes as ‘rational knowledge’, from which he concludes that life is “meaningless and evil”. From this conclusion, he argues that the only rational action would be to commit suicide, which Tolstoy contemplated on a regular basis. However, he does not go through with the logical conclusion of his arguments, seemingly unhappy and with an instinctual feeling that there must be something that he is missing. After exploring both the scientific and philosophical “branches of knowledge”, Tolstoy seemingly can’t find any answer beyond the one already stated.
However, it dawns upon him that there is a disconnect between the question that he is asking and the answer that he is trying to find. Tolstoy frames this as seeking a finite answer to an infinite problem. In other words humanity is finite and can not provide an answer to such an infinite question such as the meaning of life. Instead only God may provide such an answer. In particular, Tolstoy argues that the meaning that God gives is to provide for humanity and to unite said humanity through love. Arguably, this may be summarised as humanity needing external validation beyond its finite borders in order to have meaning. Initially, this brings comfort to Tolstoy and he resumes attending mass as he did in his childhood. However, he quickly grasps the ‘falsehood of the church’. Tolstoy frames this as the inherent contradictions in the church’s teachings. On the one hand, the goal of faith should be to unite humanity in love, and yet, the Orthodox church professes that it is the one true faith and supports the invasion and subjugation of those who do not uphold this faith. In addition, he finds it rationally impossible to justify that during communion one consumes the actual blood and body of Christ. In short, Tolstoy argues that the church is not the propagator of true faith, but rather the political ideals of the clergy and the state.
However, he does not condemn faith entirely, for he sees truths amongst “fine threads of falsehood”. Tolstoy seeks to study the theological scriptures and texts that serve as the basis of Orthodoxy, to separate the true faith from what he describes as falsehood. However, he does not seek a rational explanation, for he argues that the very nature of religion is irrational. Rather, he seeks to separate what can not be understood (the irrational and therefore truly faithful) from that which simply is to be believed by decree of the Church.
In the final segment of the book, Tolstoy recounts a dream where knowledge of an infinite above, despite knowledge of the infinite below, provides him with the reason to carry on living. It would appear that the ‘infinite above’ is his faith and that the ‘infinite below’ is the rational conclusion that life is meaningless. In a sense, he is arguing that faith alone prevents us from falling into the ‘below’. However, the identity of this above, and the identity of his faith are not explicitly clarified. Consequently, Tolstoy’s final conclusion is that the meaning of life is created by faith and our service to this faith is the driving force for our existence.
One does not find such an explanation entirely satisfactory. Although there are kernels of truth within the argument, it seems unacceptable that the meaning of one’s existence must be left in the hands of some external infinite. Instead, surely there should be some internal infinite (some internal ‘God’) that may have generated the finiteness of humanity.
Indeed, it should be noted that Tolstoy searches for an absolute truth, an absolute answer. However, it would appear to one that meaning is a relativistic concept. Thus, the meaning of life to the individual will surely be different from the meaning of life on a societal or even a universal scale. In the same way that Einstein’s relativity is dependent on the reference frame in question, life’s meaning should also be answered from the perspective of a particular reference frame.
Thus, let us begin first with the universal scale. In comparison to the infinite grandeur of the cosmos, all of humanity and its art, sciences, and accomplishments are nothing. On such a scale we truly are meaningless clumps of atoms that happen to have organised in such a manner as to become conscious and pose the question ‘Why am I?’. How could it be otherwise? Indeed, this correlates closely with Tolstoy’s original conclusion and is a rational answer to the question.
However, if one drops to the level of humanity, then the computation must change. For, on a societal level, the actions of countries can be the difference between life and death. One country’s decision to wage war or another’s to declare peace have real tangible consequences; as we see in the world today. Some may argue that this is irrelevant, for I have already conceded that any human action will always be meaningless on the scale of the universe. However, this is where it is important to understand the principle of relative meaning. Indeed this societal justification and meaning of life is what Tolstoy also argues when he adopts Orthodoxy. In particular, he argues that one’s purpose should be to improve the lot of humanity.
Finally, we drop to the level of the individual. This is perhaps the most difficult to answer, for neither the cosmos nor the actions of countries provide significance to this reference frame. It is certainly true that societal decisions may impact this reference frame but they do not often provide the meaning of life for it. For example, a declaration of war rarely provides the meaning of life for an individual (even if it does that is because the individual has chosen for it to be so). Instead, one must find this meaning for oneself. Tolstoy identifies this meaning as faith, which justified his view of Christianity. However, according to him, this necessitates irrational knowledge that depends on something greater than finite humanity and thus can not be known. One would argue that this is pushing the question into the realm of the unanswerable, which is the same as not providing an answer at all.
Despite the cynicism of your dear author, I do not deny that this is a valid solution. Indeed for most of human history across almost all cultures ranging from the Mesoamericans to the Mesopotamians this has been the go-to answer. In fact, humanity's tendency to worship a God or several Gods seems almost a necessity.
Instead, one is arguing that for oneself this answer is not satisfactory for when one sees behind the magic curtain, the effect is lost. Thus, one agrees that faith is fundamental but that faith must come from within the finiteness of humanity. However, humans are, as far as we are aware, uniquely positioned to develop faith. Put differently, we are the only entities with the capacity to rationalise and make independent decisions based on said rationalisation. Thus, human’s should be uniquely positioned to choose their ‘faith’. This is perhaps more often referred to as one’s meaning, or one’s reason to exist. Thus, in a sense, we derive meaning from finding meaning amongst meaninglessness. We are a bunch of random atoms, in an infinite and uncaring universe; unable to significantly impact the cosmos and yet we are still imbued with free will, or at least an illusion of it. Indeed, we do exist for no reason at all and yet that doesn’t and shouldn’t stop us from giving ourselves meaning anyway. Ask the artist what is the meaning of life and they will answer to paint, ask the scientist and they will answer to discover, ask the engineer and they will answer to build. Therefore, the lack of meaning in the universe should not be seen as a burden but rather as a great liberation. We have an entire universe within which we, as individuals, can explore and find meaning amongst the meaninglessness. In summary, life has meaning because we wish it to.
Indeed, it should be noted that meaning and purpose may be separate entities. People may derive meaning from, say, their faith and purpose from their work. Indeed, there are Christian artists. In one’s personal experience, they hold the same value. However, even for those who disagree with this one’s argument still holds. For such individuals, purpose may be thought of as what they are meant to be doing, whereas meaning may be thought of as why they should bother to do anything in the first place. From this perspective, purpose may be thought of as the physical manifestation, the verbal form, of meaning.
As a final note, one would like to add that this is admittedly a very privileged philosophy. There are millions for whom painting, discovering and creating are impossible. For many faith may be substituted with survival. This unfortunately, is not a lofty meaning and reflects the failures of the societal reference frame. However, it also reminds one that it is possible to change the lot of these millions. If enough individual reference frames join in a common life purpose we may change this, nothing is set in stone. We just have to create the right meaning of life. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, humanity may even have a cosmological significance powered by an internal justification for its significance.
Thank you for reading and for supporting the blog. If you would like to receive the very latest from Machina Ex Vita please subscribe below.