Leo Tolstoys Theory of History, Essay Example

Leo Tolstoy’s theory of history is very complicated and complex and it is undoubtedly the reason he had to include so many persons in its pursuit. In one of the many things, he explores in explaining his theory is the assertion that, ‘the course of world events is predestined from on high, depends on the coincidence of all the wills of the people participating in those events (Martin 23).’ According to him, irrespective of the numerous wishes people have over events, they cannot help to change their occurrence. In support of this assertion, Tolstoy borrows from fatalism evident in history, which influences many senseless happenings, some that are difficult for human beings to understand. Arguably, the more people attempt to understand them, the more incomprehensible and senseless they become. In other words, the events are beyond knowledge and intelligence of human beings. He asserts that, although God cannot talk to human beings in the wake of all these unfortunate events, he seems to enjoy their coming. He refers to God as history, whose purpose is unknown to us.

Leo Tolstoy continues to argue that, human beings live for themselves, but they are unconscious that they are being used as instruments of achieving historical goals. He appeals to the power that governs worlds and people to try to cease some of the unfortunate incidences that people cannot explain. In his theory, Leo Tolstoy argues that in the historical realm, war should not be seen as anything, but mere confusion dressed to appear as a conflict. As such, he goes ahead to assert that Austrians and Russians will never win a battle against Austerlitz, even if they were to spend their entire life making plans. He asserts that the battle had been won six decades before. According to him, men have no other aspiration; apart from pursuing interests, that life has for them. Human beings are driven by strivings and aspirations and are always searching for greater freedom. In his view, ‘‘Wealth and poverty, fame and obscurity, power and subjection, strength and weakness, health and disease, culture and ignorance, work and leisure, repletion and hunger, virtue and vice are only greater or lesser degrees of freedom (Martin 45).’’

In view of Leo Tolstoy’s theory of history, I tend to disagree with his claims, which are not only wild, but also strange and weird. In view of his explanations, Tolstoy attempts to use some confusing idioms, which are religious and philosophical. As such, he ends up undermining his own assertions, and ends up exposing some sense of inconsistencies. This is especially the case when he attacks human beings on their helplessness to explain historical fatalities. Chance, destiny, God, and fatalism do not seem to overlap, for whatever reason. As it appears, Leo Tolstoy is temperamental in his explanations and seems incapable of drawing the line in as far as the capacity human knowledge is concerned. It is wrong to try to imagine that posterity or God is to blame for lack of knowledge. He is equally wrong in his argument that, human intellect is nothing when it comes to explaining diverse fatalities that emanates from nature. While it is difficult to determine the causes of certain phenomenon, it is significant to try to identify the cause, in order to take measures. In that sense, I disagree with Leo Tolstoy’s theory of history.

Works Cited

Martin E. Hellman. Resist Not Evil in World Without Violence (Arun Gandhi ed.), M.K. Gandhi  Institute, 2013. Print