4 ms·

Almost by accident I started reading 'The kingdom of God is within you' by Tolstoy a couple of months ago. I haven't read anything by Tolstoy before. And boy,

Almost by accident I started reading 'The kingdom of God is within you' by Tolstoy a couple of months ago. I haven't read anything by Tolstoy before. And boy, was I in for a surprise. It was a very powerful and inspiring book. Being very fond of the counterculture, the hippy movement, free society, open source, tech anarchy, etc - I was very surprised to see him talking about these concepts with such clarity back then. And it also changed my outlook towards 'Christianity', which I dismissed before as just a religion. Tolstoy carefully builds the idea of Christianity as a philosophy of non-violence, anarchy and peaceful disobedience, claiming that that was the true teaching of Jesus Christ and the reason why Christians have been persecuted and killed everywhere - before the whole thing was transformed into a dogmatic religion. Tolstoy argues that in order to truly renounce violence, one must not support it in any way, including through proxies - the State (which is backed by the military), the Government and Legal System (which has the police, the judges and the prisons), the corporations (which support the state and use violence to aquire resources), stay away from the Church and religion, Patriotism (which is a brain washing methodology) and so on. From the perspective of the state, the church, etc, those ideas are very dangerous. But from the standpoint of humanism, respect for life, the right way to live, these ideas are the truth. Unfortunately, some people inspired by Tolstoy, like Ghandi or Martin Luther King or Lennon have been murdered, but only after fundamentally changing our society for the better. Tolstoy himself was excomunicated from the Orthodox Church and burried on a hill. There is inherent danger in telling people to just love one another. This generates fear and hatred in some. I hope we'll slowly come to accept the idea more and more. Anyway, if you haven't read him, please do yourself a favor, the books are available for free.

loblollyboy 11y ago
I also read Tolstoy 'almost by accident' about 1 month ago and now see references to him everywhere. I'm in my late 20s, and the entirety of it has been a big disillusionment. There are so many wrongs on societal/ organizational levels that nag at me whenever I have idle time - as they probably do any adult with half a heart or brain - and I was having trouble comprehending them. All I could do was see and be bothered by the 'what,' but I couldn't wrap my head around the 'why?' And unlike some code or problem set, I couldn't fathom an answer, leaving me feeling hopeless. Tolstoy reinterprets the New Testament and what he finds is as relevant to our times as they were to his. Just as one who studies physics might start to see patterns in nature, I now see societal problems as manifestations of patterns in human nature. He offers a very bold solution that makes sense logically, but doesn't seem possible. But it has been proven to a certain extent (Ghandi, MLK, etc.) This left me feeling less hopeless and I would also highly recommend.
vacri 11y ago
What is Tolstoy's method of protecting the weak from the strong without some analogue of police?
- loblollyboy 11y ago
  He says the weak should just deal with it. And he isn't really coming up with this himself, but pretty much just saying what the New Testament actually reads. His point is that if everyone 'does not resist violence' then the world will be perfect. This seems like a recipe for disaster, but it worked for Gandhi and the other thing Tolstoy advocates is not supporting any entity that does violence. So yeah, thugs could kill good people (as they have and do), but if everyone bought in then that would eventually take away the power of the thugs.
  - stinkytaco 11y ago
    There's a school of thought that argues that it didn't work for Gandhi, or MLK for that matter. That both of those "non-violent" leaders' words and actions were backed by the everpresent threat of violence. These include obvious threats like Malcom X and less obvious ones like the potential for a large group of people to simply devolve into violence when provoked. Indeed, one could possibly argue that encouraging non-violence is beneficial to the state because it effectivly reduces the threat to the state and makes alternate views easier to ignore. I personally think it's more complicated than either view, but it's worth considering that in a larger context, non-violence rarely means non-coercive.
  - vacri 11y ago
    'Worked for Gandhi' != 'worked for the weak'. The weak in India have a pretty poor experience. I also wouldn't use the New Testament as a canonical reference for human psychology. Jesus wasn't above a bit of 'violent' police-work anyway - chasing away shopkeepers from a temple with a whip isn't purist non-violence.
    - futureUnsure 11y ago
      No offense, but don't the 'weak' anywhere have poor experiences? (as in the stronger one would take advantage of the weak) I don't think it applies specifically to India?
thelark 11y ago
Woah, I should read Tolstoy. I had no idea he was into this stuff. I've recently been rediscovering Jesus from a new perspective, having grown up with a typical American Christianity and abandoned it as a teenager. I've been finding that a lot of people from all kinds of backgrounds see the Jesus story and "Christianity" from this other perspective, where his teachings are universal and very subversive as you describe, and quite unlike the christian religion that we see. I've started to see the "kingdom of God" Jesus talks about in all kinds of people from all backgrounds -- including atheists and people who are still in the christian religion, and in all other religions or non-religions. Basically, I'm learning that people are people, and that all people have something good at their core that can be nurtured and brought out. I've found Jesus' teachings and example extremely compelling to what I think of as the "real" me inside. And it's actually radically changed my life in 2015, in terms of how I spend my time and how I react to the things that happen to me. What if I really could love my neighbor as I love myself? (And genuinely love myself, to start with.) Then nothing could really harm me. It's really exciting to see these ideas popping up all over the place in various forms. I no longer see there being one group that is "in" while all the rest are "out", but rather that all of us have bits of this "kingdom of God" in us regardless of what we call it, and it's good and can grow, and it doesn't actually matter what we call it. The point is that it always brings love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, etc, which are universally good things that we all desire deep down.
- krick 11y ago
  Actually this topic is kind of signature for Tolstoy. There's even a special word for that: "толстовство"[1]. On the other hand, the word "толстовство" and especially "толстовец" (that is somebody, who is participating in Tolstoyan movement) has somewhat derogatory connotation in Russian today. Not without a reason, I guess. Many have been noticing that Tolstoy is kind of a "poser" and often his words contradict his actions, aren't honest — quite often nothing more than beautiful words, actually. I, personally, agree with many of these criticisms, so I don't consider Tolstoy the best teacher and inspirer of that matter. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan_movement
mercer 11y ago
> And it also changed my outlook towards 'Christianity', which I dismissed before as just a religion. Tolstoy carefully builds the idea of Christianity as a philosophy of non-violence, anarchy and peaceful disobedience, claiming that that was the true teaching of Jesus Christ and the reason why Christians have been persecuted and killed everywhere - before the whole thing was transformed into a dogmatic religion. I'd argue that it's still a bit dismissive to state that the whole thing ended up a dogmatic religion, but perhaps that's splitting hairs at this point. Having grown up on the Evangelical/pentecostal fringes, I saw much of Christianity as 'dogmatic religion' (not seeing that much of this was present in my denomination too), but now that I'm not a Christian any longer, I've come to realize pretty much all denominations of Christianity contain both significant figures and movements that tend toward the 'non-violence, anarchy and peaceful disobedience' side of things, as well as a lot of dogma. I've recently found a lot in Zen buddhism that reminds me of Jesus' teaching, except somehow more practical. I can strongly recommend doing some research in that.
- bkudria 11y ago
  Thich Nhat Hanh (the Vietnamese Zen monk whom MLK nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize) wrote "Living Buddha, Living Christ" drawing more extensive parallels.
  - mercer 11y ago
    Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely look that book up.
humanrebar 11y ago
For what it's worth, the apostle Paul thought that turning Christianity into a secular philosophy (as opposed to supernatural theology) would be a mistake. 1 Corinthians 15, ESV Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. I think a lot of people are correct that there is a powerful philosophy in Christianity, but to ignore the existence of God and Jesus, specifically the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, is to ignore the main (constantly reiterated) point of the Bible. And the Bible says Christians are pitiful and Christianity pointless if Jesus isn't God. Of course, apologies if you do believe in the resurrection and the Bible, but it wasn't apparent from your post. In that case, I'm positive others here have not heard this aspect of Christian philosophy.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
+1 thanks, I just bought "The kingdom of God is Within You" for a dollar (kindle version). I am into spirituality, not religion. Reading your summary of Tolstoy's philosophy and the comments on amazon convinced me to move this to the top of my reading list. A little off topic: I agree with Tolstoy that love is the foundation for what society should be, and I beieve that there is much more love, cooperation, and people doing good things in the word than anyone would imagine after exposing themselves to corporate news media.
jugad 11y ago
Its Gandhi ( not Ghandi ).

loblollyboy 11y ago

I also read Tolstoy 'almost by accident' about 1 month ago and now see references to him everywhere. I'm in my late 20s, and the entirety of it has been a big disillusionment. There are so many wrongs on societal/ organizational levels that nag at me whenever I have idle time - as they probably do any adult with half a heart or brain - and I was having trouble comprehending them. All I could do was see and be bothered by the 'what,' but I couldn't wrap my head around the 'why?' And unlike some code or problem set, I couldn't fathom an answer, leaving me feeling hopeless. Tolstoy reinterprets the New Testament and what he finds is as relevant to our times as they were to his. Just as one who studies physics might start to see patterns in nature, I now see societal problems as manifestations of patterns in human nature. He offers a very bold solution that makes sense logically, but doesn't seem possible. But it has been proven to a certain extent (Ghandi, MLK, etc.) This left me feeling less hopeless and I would also highly recommend.

vacri 11y ago

What is Tolstoy's method of protecting the weak from the strong without some analogue of police?

loblollyboy 11y ago
He says the weak should just deal with it. And he isn't really coming up with this himself, but pretty much just saying what the New Testament actually reads. His point is that if everyone 'does not resist violence' then the world will be perfect. This seems like a recipe for disaster, but it worked for Gandhi and the other thing Tolstoy advocates is not supporting any entity that does violence. So yeah, thugs could kill good people (as they have and do), but if everyone bought in then that would eventually take away the power of the thugs.
- stinkytaco 11y ago
  There's a school of thought that argues that it didn't work for Gandhi, or MLK for that matter. That both of those "non-violent" leaders' words and actions were backed by the everpresent threat of violence. These include obvious threats like Malcom X and less obvious ones like the potential for a large group of people to simply devolve into violence when provoked. Indeed, one could possibly argue that encouraging non-violence is beneficial to the state because it effectivly reduces the threat to the state and makes alternate views easier to ignore. I personally think it's more complicated than either view, but it's worth considering that in a larger context, non-violence rarely means non-coercive.
- vacri 11y ago
  'Worked for Gandhi' != 'worked for the weak'. The weak in India have a pretty poor experience. I also wouldn't use the New Testament as a canonical reference for human psychology. Jesus wasn't above a bit of 'violent' police-work anyway - chasing away shopkeepers from a temple with a whip isn't purist non-violence.
  - futureUnsure 11y ago
    No offense, but don't the 'weak' anywhere have poor experiences? (as in the stronger one would take advantage of the weak) I don't think it applies specifically to India?

thelark 11y ago

Woah, I should read Tolstoy. I had no idea he was into this stuff. I've recently been rediscovering Jesus from a new perspective, having grown up with a typical American Christianity and abandoned it as a teenager. I've been finding that a lot of people from all kinds of backgrounds see the Jesus story and "Christianity" from this other perspective, where his teachings are universal and very subversive as you describe, and quite unlike the christian religion that we see. I've started to see the "kingdom of God" Jesus talks about in all kinds of people from all backgrounds -- including atheists and people who are still in the christian religion, and in all other religions or non-religions. Basically, I'm learning that people are people, and that all people have something good at their core that can be nurtured and brought out. I've found Jesus' teachings and example extremely compelling to what I think of as the "real" me inside. And it's actually radically changed my life in 2015, in terms of how I spend my time and how I react to the things that happen to me. What if I really could love my neighbor as I love myself? (And genuinely love myself, to start with.) Then nothing could really harm me. It's really exciting to see these ideas popping up all over the place in various forms. I no longer see there being one group that is "in" while all the rest are "out", but rather that all of us have bits of this "kingdom of God" in us regardless of what we call it, and it's good and can grow, and it doesn't actually matter what we call it. The point is that it always brings love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, etc, which are universally good things that we all desire deep down.

krick 11y ago
Actually this topic is kind of signature for Tolstoy. There's even a special word for that: "толстовство"[1]. On the other hand, the word "толстовство" and especially "толстовец" (that is somebody, who is participating in Tolstoyan movement) has somewhat derogatory connotation in Russian today. Not without a reason, I guess. Many have been noticing that Tolstoy is kind of a "poser" and often his words contradict his actions, aren't honest — quite often nothing more than beautiful words, actually. I, personally, agree with many of these criticisms, so I don't consider Tolstoy the best teacher and inspirer of that matter. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan_movement

mercer 11y ago

> And it also changed my outlook towards 'Christianity', which I dismissed before as just a religion. Tolstoy carefully builds the idea of Christianity as a philosophy of non-violence, anarchy and peaceful disobedience, claiming that that was the true teaching of Jesus Christ and the reason why Christians have been persecuted and killed everywhere - before the whole thing was transformed into a dogmatic religion. I'd argue that it's still a bit dismissive to state that the whole thing ended up a dogmatic religion, but perhaps that's splitting hairs at this point. Having grown up on the Evangelical/pentecostal fringes, I saw much of Christianity as 'dogmatic religion' (not seeing that much of this was present in my denomination too), but now that I'm not a Christian any longer, I've come to realize pretty much all denominations of Christianity contain both significant figures and movements that tend toward the 'non-violence, anarchy and peaceful disobedience' side of things, as well as a lot of dogma. I've recently found a lot in Zen buddhism that reminds me of Jesus' teaching, except somehow more practical. I can strongly recommend doing some research in that.

bkudria 11y ago
Thich Nhat Hanh (the Vietnamese Zen monk whom MLK nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize) wrote "Living Buddha, Living Christ" drawing more extensive parallels.
- mercer 11y ago
  Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely look that book up.

humanrebar 11y ago

For what it's worth, the apostle Paul thought that turning Christianity into a secular philosophy (as opposed to supernatural theology) would be a mistake. 1 Corinthians 15, ESV Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. I think a lot of people are correct that there is a powerful philosophy in Christianity, but to ignore the existence of God and Jesus, specifically the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, is to ignore the main (constantly reiterated) point of the Bible. And the Bible says Christians are pitiful and Christianity pointless if Jesus isn't God. Of course, apologies if you do believe in the resurrection and the Bible, but it wasn't apparent from your post. In that case, I'm positive others here have not heard this aspect of Christian philosophy.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

+1 thanks, I just bought "The kingdom of God is Within You" for a dollar (kindle version). I am into spirituality, not religion. Reading your summary of Tolstoy's philosophy and the comments on amazon convinced me to move this to the top of my reading list. A little off topic: I agree with Tolstoy that love is the foundation for what society should be, and I beieve that there is much more love, cooperation, and people doing good things in the word than anyone would imagine after exposing themselves to corporate news media.

jugad 11y ago

Its Gandhi ( not Ghandi ).