Chapter 4 of The Kingdom of God is Within You: Tolstoy Against Skeptics

Chapter 4: CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE.

As we have seen in the previous chapter, Tolstoy rejects the religious institutionalized version of Christianity in the way that skeptics of religion (here and throughout the book called "men of science") have. So of course, according to Tolstoy, these critiques of Christianity do not apply to the "true" conception of Christianity. 

The men of science regard as Christianity only what the different churches have been professing, and, assuming that these professions exhaust the whole significance of Christianity, they recognize it as a religious teaching which has outlived its time.

Notice here that while separating the term religion and spirituality is something commonly done today, Tolstoy embraces the term religion and thus we should be careful to not see the word "religion" as a red-flag, but instead "churches". According to Tolstoy,
religion is a constant element to human life that exists beyond its evolutionary purposes (again, one wonders why Tolstoy sees the inherent aspects of social control in governments and churches, but not in religion or "Christianity" itself) and a necessary
aspect of life.

religion, in the first place, is not, as science thinks, a phenomenon which at one time accompanied the evolution of humanity, and later became obsolete, but is a phenomenon always inherent in the life of humanity, and is in our time as inevitably

inherent in humanity as at any other time. In the second place, religion is always a determination of the activity of the future, and not of the past, and so it is obvious that the investigation of past phenomena can in no way include the essence of religion.

Tolstoy redefines religion as something forward looking, as in last chapter's movement towards perfection, rather than something backward looking. The reasons for this redefinition and why people should accept it are defined in Tolstoy's three conceptions of
life that coincide with the evolution and progress of the human species.

According to the first life-conception, man's life is contained in nothing but his personality; the aim of his life is the gratification of the will of this personality. According to the second life-conception, man's life is not contained in his personality alone,

but in the aggregate and sequence of personalities, — in the tribe, the family, the race, the state; the aim of life consists in the gratification of the will of this aggregate of personalities. According to the third life-conception, man's life is contained neither
in his personality, nor in the aggregate and sequence of personalities, but in the beginning and source of life, in God.

The further humanity looks outside of itself for meaning and reason for acting, the more advanced the person becomes and the more advanced humanity as a whole becomes. This is a clear rejection of not only later Objectivist philosophy, but also Existentialist philosophy, which generally states that meaning cannot come from outside of yourself but must come from inside of yourself. Tolstoy rejects this and sees collectivism as a progress in human civilization, but the next advance has to come with the rejection of collectivism and the acceptance of living the Christian life for God.

The savage recognizes life only in himself, in his personal desires...A pagan, a social man, no longer recognizes life in him self alone, but in the aggregate of personalities, — in the tribe, the family, the race, the state, — and sacrifices his personal good  for these aggregates. The prime mover of his life is glory...The man with the divine life-conception no longer recognizes life to consist in his personality, or in the aggregate of personalities (in the family, the race, the people, the country, or the state), but in the source of the everlasting, immortal life, in God; and to do God's will he sacrifices his personal and domestic and social good. The prime mover of his religion is love….The whole historical life of humanity is nothing but a gradual transition

           from the personal, the animal life-conception, to the social, and from the social to the divine.

The main characters of War and Peace (many of the one-dimensional secondary characters are stuck in the savage conception of life), except when they are in their temporary moments of realization, are stuck in the second conception of life, with glory or tribe the primary driving aspect of their life. Being truly religious and following Jesus, for Tolstoy, is about rejecting not only the personal and self-obsessed portion of life, but the social and political conceptions of life as well. Transcending politics and understanding that Christianity moves beyond political conceptions is important for understanding the rest of the book and Tolstoy's thought in general. Just as War and Peace and Anna Karenina are packed full with political discussions that Tolstoy puts the reader at a distance from, the true form of life is not apolitical or apathy, but a move beyond politics and an understanding that true reform and love cannot come from a nationalistic or political perspective.

For the majority of scientific men, who view Christ's vital, moral teaching from the lower point of the social conception of life, this teaching is only a very indefinite, clumsy combination of Hindoo asceticism, Stoical and Neo-platonic teachings, and

          Utopian antisocial reveries, which have no serious significance for our time

Those in the scientific frame of life are stuck in the second conception of life and do not understand that Jesus's teachings take a different (simultaneously, and in a seeming contradiction, more sophisticated and simplistic) point of view and cannot be judged by the same standards as other, seemingly similar (Tolstoy's conception of "true religion" is a little odd or at least very complicated, as elsewhere he endorses religious pluralism as many different paths to a truth, but he holds Christianity as defined by Jesus's teachings at a higher conception of truth), teachings. Why this is so and why people should accept this as so is not entirely clear in Tolstoy's argumentation but is seen something inevitable as humanity progresses forward (admittedly, it is quite convenient to argue that your critics are operating at a lower conception of life).

They do not notice that to say that Christ's commandment about non-resistance to evil is an exaggeration is the same as saying that in the theory of the circle the statement about the equality of the radii of a circle is an exaggeration. And those who

say so do precisely what a man, who did not have any conception as to what a circle is, would do if he asserted that the demand that all the points on the circumference should be equally distant from the centre is an exaggeration. To advise that the
statement concerning the equality of the radii in a circle be rejected or moderated is the same as not under standing what a circle is. To advise that the commandment about non-resistance to evil in the vital teaching of Christ be rejected or moderated
means not to understand the teaching.

This is quite an odd argument and analogy, equating Jesus's teachings to geometry, but the emphasis is on the literal truth and interpretation of Jesus's teachings. Those who do not understand or accept Jesus's teachings are equated with those who do not know geometry, but again, not much empirical evidence is given for this and those looking for apologetics will simply not find them in Tolstoy and it is probably because Tolstoy puts more emphasis on the emotional than the rational reaction to religion (though as seen in the previous chapter, Tolstoy isn't above using rationality and argumentation). 

The life of your personality cannot be the true life, because it is wretched and transitory. 

This is a very Buddhist teaching (though Tolstoy may have gotten it by way of Schopenhauer) in which the self is a "no-thing" and can't be the focus of life because the human life, and indeed everything in the human life, is non-eternal and transitory. Here, Tolstoy substitutes God and the teachings of Jesus as the eternal part of life that people are to latch on to find true meaning in life.

The true, rational life is possible for man only in proportion as he can be a participant, not in the family or the state, but in the source of life, the Father; in proportion as he can blend his life with the life of the Father.

And this is an important part of understanding Tolstoy's beliefs about Jesus, which does not see him as a God-Man, but does not see him in an atheistic "good teacher" way either. While not driven by miracles, Tolstoy's conception of religion does have a God as a father figure that humanity needs to move closer to and this is done through Jesus. 

it is impossible to judge of the teaching, without having first grasped the life-conception from which it results; still less possible is it to judge about a subject of a higher order from a lower point of view

Again, this is why it is nearly impossible to combat his religious teachings on a rational grounds in a way that sounds almost cultish, but probably owes a lot to Eastern Philosophy in which meditation leads to higher conception of being (though this usually drags a person inside themselves, if the self is admitted, not to something outside of themselves and higher, as in Tolstoy).

Christ's teaching guides men in a different way from the way those teachings guide which are based on a lower life-conception. The teachings of the social life-conception guide only by demanding a precise execution of the rules or laws. Christ's

teaching guides men by indicating to them that infinite perfection of the Father in heaven, toward which it is proper for each man to strive voluntarily, no matter at what stage of perfection he may be.

Volunteerism and moving towards perfection again appear as the key cogs of the Tolstoy religion machine. This is not done by rule following, because (though Tolstoy prescribed plenty of rules for himself and others) rules limit freedom and true love only comes through freedom (if you get a creepy "Ministry of Love" Big Brother type vibe here, I really recommend the novel We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, which predates 1984 and does a better job of pointing out how the concept of religion paved the way for even secular tyranny, with the latter using the vocabulary but bringing it down a conception from God and Church to leader and state).

the perfection pointed out by Christ is infinite and can never be attained; and Christ gives His teaching with this in view, that complete perfection will never be attained, but that the striving toward complete, infinite perfection will constantly

increase the good of men, and that this good can, therefore, be increased infinitely. Christ does not teach angels, but men, who live an animal life, who are moved by it. And it is to this animal force of motion that Christ seems to apply a new,
a different force of the consciousness of divine perfection, and with this He directs the motion of life along the resultant of two forces.

So every element of life is important and nothing can be ignored, just as no commandment can be ignored and consistency has to come across the board. And this is an important point because the point is not to live a better or more comfortable life but to be a better human and to make humanity better which is a different goal entirely. And the ideas of an animal versus a Christ-like consciousness sounds a lot like a Hegelian thesis/anti-thesis to synthesis, with the collision of the animal-like reality of the human life meeting up with Jesus's teaching of perfection and creating something new. This unconscious fatalistic movement of consciousness is much like we see in War and Peace, where the collision of ideals creates something new that the characters cannot understand or see properly but moves humanity forward through one of Russia's, especially at that time, most important historical events. 

No condition, according to this teaching, can be higher or lower than another. Every condition, according to this teaching, is only a certain step, indifferent in itself, toward the unattainable perfection, and so in itself forms neither a greater

          nor a lesser degree of life.

So the reason, for Tolstoy, that all sin or actions against the teaching of Jesus (thus his calling out of those who advocate for the continued support of state violence while enforcing rules against fornication, two "sins" which Tolstoy unfortunately equates) work against the synthesis of the animal-human life and the divine conception of Jesus's teachings. The work and progress toward complete perfection has to be total and complete, containing both outward and inward actions.

The ideal consists in having no ill-will against any one, in calling forth no ill-will, in loving all

Tolstoy of course takes Jesus's teaching on adultery literally and almost repellently so and Tolstoy's anti-sexual revolution (which of course implies antipathy to LGBT groups) ideas (and the conservatism toward gender roles) age really poorly and do not fit in with what is usually considered progress in society, separating the ideas of moving to a generally more peaceful society (arguable I know) with a more sexually liberating one from Tolstoy's view of society moving toward perfection.

The ideal is complete chastity, even in thought

And the focus on today and the day to day life and living in the now is again a Buddhist ideal, but, more importantly, fits in with Tolstoy's anti-pragmatism and skeptical epistemology. Glory, planning, and ambitious dreams are to be rejected for living a life in your present condition the best as possible (one can easily see some negative and positives to this style of life, as separating oneself from expectations can help one achieve contentment while at the same time, the inability to dream can cause stagnation that leads to unhappiness, as well as being something that sounds dangerously conservative or at least apathetic to social causes, leading to inaction).

The ideal is not to care for the future, to live only in the present

While Tolstoy advocates for some kind of religious pluralism and a rejection of miracles, he should not be considered some kind of religious moderate. He takes the commandments or at least the ideals put forth by Jesus in complete and utter regard with, even more than many fundamentalists, especially when it comes to non-resistance, giving no exceptions in a hard-line deontological Kantian vein. 

The ideal is never, under any condition, to make use of violence

And of course, the most famous ideal in Christianity and of Jesus's teaching:

The ideal is to love our enemies, who hate us

While the above teachings could be considered good secular teachings that could be applied to anyone in society despite their creed or background, Tolstoy roots this in the love for God which secular society rejects but Tolstoy considers absolutely fundamental to following the commandments. 

The Christian teaching of loving God and serving Him, and (only in consequence of this love and this service) of the love and service of our neighbour, appears obscure, mystical, and arbitrary to the men of science, and they completely

exclude the demand of love of God and of serving Him, assuming that the teaching about this love of men, of humanity, is much more intelligible and firm and better grounded.

It seems perfectly reasonable to replace love for God, who may or may not exist (Tolstoy certainly is not interested in proving the existence of God), with the love for people, starting with the people around us and then expanding that to the whole of humanity. But, Tolstoy argues, this cannot work. Love for God is necessary for movement in society because the movement comes with the collision between the animal life and the religious life. 

This opinion is quite faulty. The Christian teaching, and that of the positivists, communists, and all the preachers of a universal brotherhood of men, which is based on the profitableness of such a brotherhood, have nothing in common

among themselves, and differ from one another more especially in this, that the Christian teaching has firm, clear foundations in the human soul, while the teaching of the love of humanity is only a theoretical deduction from analogy.

Again, those looking for reasons why the Christian teachings have clear foundations in the human soul are going to be disappointed, and it very much sounds like a theoretical deduction from analogy. However, Tolstoy has quite a disdain for "theoretical deductions" and "science" in his work and if it sounds like something that can be put together from a rational syllogism, then it will probably be rejected. But, to follow his argument, we see how his three levels of conception affect the way he views how love for humanity cannot replace love for God in the advancement of the morals of humanity. 

The love of one's nation, which is of the same race, tongue, and faith with one, is still possible, though this sentiment is far from being as strong as the love of self, or even of family and race; but the love of a country, like Turkey,

Germany, England, Austria, Russia, is almost an impossible thing, and, in spite of the intensified education in this direction, is only assumed and does not exist in reality.

The differentiation between nation and country makes very little sense and the argument that it is easier to love one's own race than one's own country sounds like the kind of argument a racial supremacist would make and should most likely be ignored as nonsense. 

The tribe, the family, even the state, are not invented by men, but were formed naturally like a swarm of bees or ants, and actually exist.

This is a bizarre passage that is followed by another bizarre passage below in which Tolstoy, contrary to many of his arguments earlier, argues that the state and family are actually not social constructions, but natural developments in the human process that of course need to be left behind, but natural developments regardless. 

But what does a man love, when he loves humanity? There is the state, the nation ; there is the abstract conception — man ; but there is not, and there cannot be, a real conception of humanity. Humanity? Where is the limit of

humanity? Where does it end and where does it begin? Does humanity stop short of a savage, an idiot, an alcoholic, an insane person? If we are going to draw a line of demarcation for humanity, so as to exclude the lower
representatives of the human race, where are we going to draw it? Are we going to exclude the negroes, as the Americans do, and the Hindoos, as some English do, and the Jews, as some do ? But if we are going to include
all men with out exception, why include men only, and not the higher animals, many of whom stand higher than the lower representatives of the human race?

Not only are there some really unfortunate hypotheticals in the quote above, it may be the weakest argument in the book. Of course, defining humanity, life, and defining race and gender (Tolstoy only seems to focus on the masculine or at least doesn't mention anything about the rights of women as a hypothetical here) are difficult things that cause discussions and arguments in society and there is a natural empathy that is easier to have to those around to you than those further away from you in location, race, and religion, but at the same time, Tolstoy's reasoning for why there cannot be love of humanity as a conception is really weak and threatens to uproot his entire argument that love for God is the highest conception there can be.

It would indeed be very convenient, if men could love humanity just as they love the family; it would be very convenient, as the communists talk of doing, to substitute the communal for the competitive tendency of human

activity, and the universal for the individual, so that every man may be for all, and all for every man, only there are no motives whatever for it.

This is really difficult to square with his anti-Hobbesian outlook, but if we are just to try to understand his argument, love for the whole of humanity cannot happen, so the only way to come up with love outside of a national conception is to love God and follow Jesus's teachings (interestingly, Pauline theology gives a stronger basis for love outside of race, religion, and nationality than theology based solely on Jesus's teachings).

it cannot be, because love which is based on the personal and the social conception of life cannot go beyond the state.

Again, this seems extremely nationalistic and even racist, recalling the nationalism of War and Peace (which again, makes all of Tolstoy's comments on Germans, French, and other nationalities really seem like a blind spot). I guess that if we were to really give Tolstoy some credit, the state can rally people around a common flag, creed, or anthem, while the whole of humanity has really failed to do so. But, this allegiance can not really be considered love. can it? So why can humanity have love in the context of state but not in the context of humanity as a whole? This seems like an artificial social distinction that Tolstoy, for some reason, claims is a natural one.

Christianity recognizes the love of self, and of the family, and of the nation, and of humanity, — not only of humanity, but of every thing living, of everything in existence; it recognizes the necessity for an endless widening

of the sphere of love; but the object of this love it does not find outside of self, or in the aggregate of personalities, — in the family, the race, the state, humanity, in the whole external world, but in oneself, in one's personality,
— which, however, is a divine personality, the essence of which is the same love, to the necessity of widening which the animal personality was brought, in saving itself from the consciousness of its perdition.

Perhaps again, if we are to try to give Tolstoy credit and read him charitably, that love for humanity is in itself an artificial distinction and must be accompanied by love for the world, for not only all life, but naturae and the existence of everything. Obviously late Tolstoy was a vegetarian but some of his arguments, like this one seem proto-environmentalist like many of the so-called "Romantics" that Tolstoy can very loosely be associated with.

Man does not love because it is advantageous for him to love this man or these men, but because love is the essence of his soul, — because he cannot help loving.

The important thing is the radical change that a person that confronts Jesus's teachings will experience. Tolstoy of course does not phrase this as the modern Evangelical "born-again" Christian, as he does not understand it from this conception. But, this change in outlook is what is necessary and not something that can come outside of religion. And this is where while Tolstoy appeared very much a materialist in Chapter 3, he is very much mystical, religious, and spiritual in Chapter 4. There is a higher force, tied to Jesus and his teachings, that does progress humanity in a certain direction and it is only possible to be part of this progress by not only rejecting violence and attempting to follow these teachings, but to have a higher conception of life through the soul-changing force of Jesus.