Abstract

The article examines the interpretation of Leo Tolstoy’s ethical conception provided by a Russian poet Maximilian Voloshin. A brief exposition of Tolstoy’s ethical conception position of a person’s concern for their soul is provided. In this regard, the requirements of love and nonviolence are not of value in and of themselves but are subordinate to the main cause of salvation, the improvement of a person’s soul. This is the point on which Voloshin focuses his criticism reproaching Tolstoy for selfishness. Non-resistance to evil by violence is paradoxically interpreted by Voloshin as evasion from evil. Voloshin emphasizes that Tolstoy’s understanding of evil is simplified due to his failure to understand the sinful nature of mankind. Voloshin opposes Tolstoy’s ethics interpreted by him in this manner with his own ethical conception suggesting that it is necessary to not move away from evil in the world but, on the contrary, take it into oneself and strive to transform it with the internal forces of good. In conclusion, it is examined that despite their differences both thinkers agreed that responding with evil to evil is unacceptable from the point of ethics. Both Tolstoy and Voloshin were also characterized by the implementation of their ethical provisions in their personal lives.

Highlights

  • Leo Tolstoy’s doctrine of non-resistance to evil by violence was widely interpreted and criticized in Russian philosophical literature of the early 20th century

  • Maximilian Voloshin expressed his attitude towards Tolstoy in the article “The Fate of Leo Tolstoy” timed to coincide with the death of the great writer and published in 1910 in the “Russian Thought” journal along with articles and memoirs about Tolstoy by Z

  • Within the situation of choice, a person is free to choose between good and evil and nothing can force them to choose one or another against their will. This provision lies at the base of the norms of Christian ethics that postulate that a completely developed human person must make a conscious and free choice in favor of good

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Leo Tolstoy’s doctrine of non-resistance to evil by violence was widely interpreted and criticized in Russian philosophical literature of the early 20th century. We compare this description with Voloshin’s characteristic of the existence of Tolstoy as “the painlessness of a paralyzed part of the body” to understand that to Voloshin, Tolstoy’s ethical conception invites back into the prehuman, spontaneous, fused-undivided world, into a world where the human personality has not yet been born.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.