Socyberty » tolstoy

Patriotism: A Debate for The Ages

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:29:43 +0000

Today, patriotism is widely considered to be among a group of ideals that we, as a society, accept as incontrovertibly and inherently good, a seemingly suitable grouping for a term created to indicate the love of one’s homeland or country. Indeed, the word patriot derives from the ancient Greek word patris, also a root of the word patriarch, and which translates to fatherland. However, regardless of its intended usage, the purpose and definition of patriotism would evolve into something quite in contrast with its original, more positive design. Patriotism became the primary measure of a person’s character and loyalties, and was quickly used as a means of separating the clergy from state office, as it caused an apparent conflict of interest, due to the clergy’s presumed homeland, or patrie, of Heaven. Thus began the tragically cruel and ironic history of a word whose definition was so inclusive and connecting, yet ended up as the target of heated, vitriolic scrutiny and debate, instead causing strife between countrymen and family alike for centuries. Indeed, over one hundred years ago both Leo Tolstoy and Samuel Johnson publicly questioned the merits of patriotism; while, in the last decade Simon Keller and George Kateb have progressed the debate, with Kateb, in particular, releasing a re-analysis of Tolstoy’s work and arriving at essentially the same conclusions, providing an example Tolstoy’s insight more than a century later! Furthermore, the term patriotism has taken a firm hold in the current political dialogue, from public officials to backyard conversationalists, being used both as an inspirational ideal as well as a public motivator, the latter being employed with cunning efficiency! As we’ll see, time has given patriotism many different meanings, to many different people, and for as long as the idea has been around, people of all backgrounds have been debating its true meaning and design!
                        As it turns out, William Shakespeare had an influence on two of the turn of the century’s most publicly vocal critics on patriotism, albeit in slightly different ways! Samuel Johnson, who would undertake the ambitious task of penning a complete critique of William Shakespeare, also produced “The Patriot”, a critique on what he viewed as “false patriotism”, later coining the phrase, “Patriotism if the last refuge of the scoundrel (referring to false patriots).” In “The Patriot”, Johnson observed and condemned self-proclaimed patriots who, preying on their fellow countrymen’s patriotic side, would agitate or incite overly aggressive reactions from their fellow citizens by “propagating reports of secret influence, dangerous counsels, violated rights, and encroaching usurpation”. He expressed his belief that those same “patriots” were, in fact, the exact opposite from what they believed themselves to be, reasoning that there were few things a government could do wrong that would warrant placing it at the vengeful whim of an enraged public that was ignorant of the complexity of such situations, was unrealistic in their reasoning for discontent, and were emotionally mercurial and prone to rash behavior! Meanwhile, Leo Tolstoy, who publicly admitted to feeling “an irresistible repulsion and tedium” when reading some of Shakespeare’s greatest works, also publicly declared his loathsome opinion of patriotism! Around 1900, he wrote an essay titled “Patriotism and Government”, in which he accused patriotism of being both “stupid”, based on the inability for each person’s country to truly be the best, and “immoral”, based on the inherently patriotic need to unwaveringly defend your country’s interests against those of a rival country. Tolstoy provides a wonderful example of insightful and humorous use of metaphor, when he likens patriotic “one-upsmanship” to children fighting,”I’ll pinch you..”, “I’ll punch you…”, “I’ll stab you..” comparing closely to, “We have 10 tanks!”, “We have 11!”, “Now we have 12!”, etc.!! However, Samuel Johnson and Leo Tolstoy were’t the only people to take issue with the notions of patriotism in their time, as Simon Keller and George Kateb would prove much later, at the dawn of an new millenium!!
                        Two of the more recent publicly published critics of patriotism, Simon Keller and George Kateb, have produced their own works furthering the debate on the definition of patriotism, despite living in a time where patriotic vitriol and aggression would presumably have been at an all time high! In 2005, Simon Keller wrote a paper, entitled that judged patriotism on the basis of a faith, proving unable to uncover merit or reason! He theorized that, due to the fact that if a new country were to display the same beliefs better, the patriot would still not change, they therefore could not be basing their faith, or patriotism, on a series of personal beliefs. Furthermore, since reconciling their beliefs with their patriotism becomes impossible at that point, patriotism itself must amount to “bad faith”, which he deemed a detriment to society. A year later, in 2006, George Kateb published a re-visiting of Tolstoy’s works entitled “Patriotism and Other Mistakes”, in which he came to the same conclusion Tolstoy had, on the merit of patriotism, even going so far as to say patriotism was “a mistake twice over; it is typically a grave moral error and its source is typically a state of mental confusion” and referring to the inferred social ties of patriotism as “abstract”! In his condemning conclusion, summarizing it as “a readiness to die and to kill for an abstraction … for what is largely a figment of the imagination”, Kateb left no room for misinterpretation as to his estimation of the merits of patriotism! Obviously, patriotism is a difficult topic to both define, an endeavor made more important by the resulting application, as well as debate, due to its potentially inflammatory and volatile subjects, which can overwhelm even the most accomplished of writers and debaters. However, its definition becomes a potentially catastrophic, even sinister tool in modern society, given individuals’ bias-driven, inherently diverse nature. Today, patriotism incites particularly strong, personal reactions, especially when misinterpreted by those without a full, accurate understanding of its meaning and intent, and occasionally, even by those who do!
                        Today, we see everyone from political activists, to criminals, to politicians themselves, using the term patriotism to gain a favorable advantage in arguments regarding everything from guilt and innocence, to genocide, to economic policy as well as to gain a favorable public perception over their rivals. Unfortunately, the ambiguous nature of the term has resulted in it’s being used more often to garner public support, or as political capital, than as a genuine sentiment. For example, many news sources are “guilty” of making use of patriotism, generally to support their views on the topics being debated at the time. One need only watch the latest political headlines on two stations to get two interpretations of what the government is currently working on: one claiming “socialism”, while another claims America was “held hostage by conservatives”, both sides playing on the patriotism of the target constituency! Yet another recent misrepresentation of patriotism relates to those convicted of violent crimes, generally against perceived threats to national security, who use “patriotism” as the reason they’ve committed their crimes. One recent example involved a white man murdering the owner of a local business, simply because the man was of Arab descent. Calling himself “a proud American” until the end, the suspect claimed the killing of the store owner and one of his employees, as well as wounding another, was “retaliation” for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. Perhaps as patriotically motivated, although not quite as directly, is the protection of potential war criminals in the form of Former President George W. Bush and Former Vice President Dick Cheney who both openly admitted, on camera and George in his memoirs, to the use of banned methods of torture (enhanced interrogation tactics), rendition, and many other acts that would have sent the leaders of a lesser nation straight to the Hague! The sheer patriotic insult of having a former American president arrested for war crimes may have more than a little bit to do with why these things have been overlooked! By now, it’s obvious that patriotism has seen its fair share of controversy since its birth, both as a term and as an ideal. However, when taken in its original context, it becomes one of the English language’s cruelest ironies…a word which, by its very definition, should bring people closer…used, instead, as a way of driving them further apart!
                           It would seem likely that, given its already lengthy history of causing debate, patriotism will continue to be a topic of heated discussion, occasionally reaching the point of intense, vitriolic argument. If great minds such as Tolstoy, Johnson, Keller, and Kateb couldn’t discover a universal definition for patriotism, nor an incontrovertible conclusion as to the merits or demerits of it, then it is to be assumed that quite a bit more debate and analysis will be required to come to a consensus. Given its multi-lateral use and the translation it’s subject to today, the likelihood of such a consensus being reached becomes mathematically smaller every year, if such a thing were ever possible to begin with! However, despite its consistently inflammatory quality, patriotism will always be a part of our language and culture, and we will, most likely, always debate its true meaning. Currently, Webster’s Dictionary describes patriotism as,”Love for or devotion to one’s country”. Much like a child’s love neither requires, nor precludes their approval of their parent’s actions or behavior, so the citizenship’s approval of a government should, seemingly, be neither required by, nor precluded by their love for their country. At this point, who knows, maybe this simple, time-honored discernment could be the first step towards true patriotism!

Works Cited
- Keller, Simon. “Patriotism as Bad Faith.” Ethics 115.3 Apr. (2005): 563-92. Web. 1 Nov. 2011.
- Tolstoy, Leo, and Maude Aylmer. Essays and Letters. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1904. 238-61. Print
- Johnson, Samuel. The Patriot. N.p.: n.p., 1774. N. pag. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.
- Kateb, George. Patriotism and Other Mistakes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Web. 1 Nov. 2011

On Leo Tolstoy’s “what is Art” Sections Xi & XII

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:47:54 +0000

I believe that there is no way to have good and bad counterfeits. I felt that Tolstoy’s schema did not give any leeway for counterfeits and that a counterfeit is always a bad counterfeit. Early in Chapter XII Tolstoy calls counterfeit “false art” and begins his tirade on this subject. He starts off with art becoming a profession. This professionalism in art began the degradation of the sincerity in art, which Tolstoy wrote was the most precious property of art. If a counterfeit lacks sincerity, then it will always be bad in Tolstoy’s definition. Another condition mentioned was that of the art schools, and how these art schools are churning out graduated students who are only trying to imitate past famous artists. Art was integrated into schools, “but are consists of conveying to others the special feelings experienced by an artist. This cannot be taught in schools. No school can call up feelings in a man, and still less can it teach a man what is the essence of art: the manifestation of feeling in his own peculiar fashion” If the essence of art is one’s own personal feelings brought out, then how can one teach another true art whenever it is each their own? I do not believe that this is a possibility, and therefore totally disagree that there are such things as good counterfeits.

On Leo Tolstoy “what is Art” Sections Ix & X

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:57:16 +0000

I do not believe that anything has “improved” in the last century. In fact, I think we just took the art of Tolstoy’s time and tried to find ways to tweak it to make it “our own”. Our TV entertainment is made for pure amusement (reality TV shows), and for me, our “contemporary art” is generally incomprehensible. I don’t understand how a spot of paint on a blank canvas can be viewed as a piece of art work. I do not understand this art, nor do I comprehend what these pieces of art are trying to portray. The first example of our manic eroticism that came to my mind is the creation of porn. It is film and pictures therefore, it is art (definition wise), but it is extremely erotic to the point that in the USA, the government enforces that only people above the age of 18 are able to purchase or view these films and magazines. I do not see how anything has improved since Tolstoy. In fact, I almost see us sliding backwards. We are trying to come up with new art, grander ideas, better concepts through art but all I see is others trying to be ‘individual’ and all they did was tweak another’s creation. There are also those who do create something new and exciting, but is it always appropriate? I remember some person in one of my Humanities classes mentioning an artist who had filled a jar full of urine and stuck a cross in it, calling it art. I don’t believe this is art, yet there are those who would argue against me. You didn’t see people in Tolstoy’s era filling jars with urine!! I wish that our culture was not so attracted to the bodily form so that we did not have this manic eroticism played out in everyday art work like billboards and commercials. Nor do I enjoy the confusing ‘modern art’ that we have in this day. But, I do have to admit that some of our entertainment that is solely focused on amusement is quite…..amusing.

On Leo Tolstoy “What is Art” Sections Iii-viii

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:57:04 +0000

Tolstoy’s reasoning of why it is more of a communion with other people than just a work of beauty and pleasure is thoroughly defined and he gives good examples that I understood. Tolstoy wrote “ The peculiarity of this means of communion, which distinguishes it from communion by means of the word, is that through the word a man conveys his thoughts to another, while through art people convey their feelings to each other” Do artists not take their emotions and feelings and ‘put it on paper’? They are conveying their emotions and feelings to us through a visual aid. With this visual representation they are trying to tell us something, and through looking at the artwork, the artist wants us to get a certain emotion from it. This shows a communal connection between the artist, the viewer, and the many viewers beforehand and those to come. This is a communal connection because the art begins with an artist wanting to communicate a certain expression or feeling, so the artist recaptures these emotions by an external object or sign and then communicates it to others through this object. And “Once the spectators or listeners are infected by the same feeling the author has experienced, this is art”. With these arguments and explanations of art, I agree with Tolstoy as to art being a communal action from one man to another.

The Richest Man in The World

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:05:43 +0000

Leo Tolstoy wrote a piece on ‘how much land does a man need?’ His conclusion was interesting. We need enough land to be buried on. I now pose this question: How much wealth does a man need? I am a rich man by African standards or so do many of my friends believe. The truth is, being rich is relative, and if I were transplanted to some part of the United States or Canada, or some other country in the west, I would be poor, befitting of alms perhaps. Reflecting on the situation, I can’t help but agree. I am the richest man on the planet earth!

I have come to discover that being rich should have nothing to do with the amount of money in my bank accounts. Being rich should not be measured by the size of my house, being rich should not be weighed by how expensively I dress, and neither should it be about the kind of food that I have been eating. It should be about the happiness in my heart!

When I look at the kind of life that people lead, I do not yearn for affluence, I do not yearn for extravagance, with lots of fat overseas accounts, with large estates that remain uninhabited for ages, I just want to lead a simple but happy life, I just want to be able to meet my basic needs, and those of my extended family, for millions do not have a decent shelter, and end up staying under some bridge, or some dumping site, for millions go without food and end up scavenging for whatever they can get from culverts, for millions may have the cash, but have never been so happy like I am, for millions have never been so healthy like I am, for millions have never been so comfortable even for a single moment of their lives.

Think of those men who have five thousand acres of prime land yet can not sleep a wink. Think of those men who have stashed billions in their bank accounts yet have never known a moment of happiness. Think of the thousands afflicted by strange diseases who yearn for a moment without pain, think of the millions in Haiti who were left homeless through a fault not their own, and the thousands in Indonesia that were swept away by the tsunami. How bad can it get, how worse?

I sleep when I choose to, and stay awake to do some reading when I feel like. Am surrounded by all my loved ones and whatever little I make from my businesses is enough to last me yet another day. I have friends that take care of my social well being, they put a smile on my face, and happiness floods my heart, aint I blessed? I can’t be grateful enough, I can’t thank them enough, but must proclaim to them that know me, yes I am rich, but it’s all because of you!

It is time we appreciated the lighter side of the world. The fact that you’ve got your two legs moving should make you think of those who have money but cant run around to spend it. The fact that you have a roof over your head should make you think of those who sleep out in the cold. The fact that you have a son or daughter should make you think of the thousands who yearn for a child of their own. We need to be healthy and loved, we need to be happy and forgiven, and that is the wealth we should strive for.

Leo Tolstoy and the Meaning of Life

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:07:21 +0000

Few questions have tormented humanity like the question of life. Why do we exist, what is our purpose, and if we are ultimately to be destroyed what is the point? There is not another question that is so poignant, dense, and more impossible to answer, yet it is a question every single human being asks sometime in his or her life. Countless books have been devoted to finding the meaning, and countless religions have sprung up in attempt to answer the question. Some individuals casually look into the question, others dive into the question with everything they have, forgoing all else in the search for why. Leo Tolstoy is one of those individuals. He is unique from all the others in the way we have a detailed account of his life, and his search for why. We can learn a lot from Tolstoy, but the final answer still remains for each individual to decide.

Throughout Tolstoy’s life, his definition of the meaning of life drastically changes as he moves through levels of understanding. Raised Christian, Tolstoy renounced his faith and became a hedonist, living off of others and partying all the time. Later in his life, Tolstoy refers to this life style as parasitical. Tolstoy then took up writing, and gained great fame in the sphere of writing. He and his companions convinced themselves that they were the best of men, for “all develops by means of Culture. And Culture is measured by the circulation of books and newspapers. And we are paid money and are respected because we write books and newspapers, and therefore we are the most useful and the best of men.” (Tolstoy, p 15) After Tolstoy realized this blaring logical fallacy, he began to think about the meaning of life, and become depressed by his life’s seeming meaninglessness. He came to the conclusion that life was evil and meaningless, even a “cruel trick.”(Tolsoty, p 19)

Tolstoy married soon after, and this distracted him from his fervent search for a time. During this time he thought that the meaning of life was thus: “that one should live so as to have the best for oneself and one’s family.” (Tolstoy, p 20) He lived this way for a long time, but he began to have moments where he felt “lost and dejected.” (Tolstoy, p 21) Over time, these moments increased in frequency, until they became an unignorable urge that had to be answered to. The question was simply “why.”

Tolstoy felt no meaning in life and was extremely depressed. He did not kill himself though, despite coming to the conclusion that life was evil. Tolstoy’s reasoning followed as thus, if everything in life fades away, only the honest accepts this and that life has no meaning whatsoever. Life must then be evil and an affliction, and death is much preferable to life. We see an interesting parallel here with the ancient Greek Socrates. Socrates believed that life is an affliction as well, but for slightly different reasons. He believed that the mind is stuck with the body, and the body simply distracts the mind from the powers the mind could have, and that death, the separation of soul and body, brings new freedom to the mind. (Phaedo) Socrates was also a fervent believer in the immortality of souls, this is reflected in all of his later recorded words.

At this point of his life, Tolstoy and Socrates were in agreement in regards to life. If life is really evil and not to be desired, why doesn’t one simply kill one’s self? Socrates has an answer that Tolstoy rejects. According to Socrates, we are the property of the gods, and destroying ourselves before our proper time would be destruction of the god’s property, which does not put you in good favor with the gods. Tolstoy did not believe in the Greek gods at this point in his life, so he clearly rejected this position. With Socrates’ reason for remaining alive void in Tolstoy’s mind, why did he remain living?

He attributes it to cowardice. He certainly thought about going through with it, but he could not, for “the horror of darkness was too great.”(Tolstoy, p 30) Tolstoy calls the conundrum of life a “terrible position in which we are all placed.” (Tolstoy, p 36) Life itself is a contradiction, and he concluded there are only four ways we as human beings deal with this thing called life. The first is ignorance, complete disregard of the fact that life is evil. These people find pleasure in life, and that is how they end up living their lives, oblivious to the oblivious looming before them.

The next is acknowledgement that life is evil, and that the best thing to do in life is to just enjoy it while you can. From Ecclesiastes: “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: and that this should accompany him in his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.” Tolstoy compares this type of acceptance to a man caught in a well hanging onto a branch between the jaws of a dragon and a terrible beast. The man notices some honey drops on some leaves within reach, and does his best to reach them in his last hours. By acknowledging the dragon and deciding to enjoy the honey as much as possible, people like Solomon found “happiness.”

The last two options are the options, according to Tolstoy, of strength or of weakness. The strong end their lives, they understand that life is evil and seek to end it, and do. The weak stay depressed and are unable to kill themselves. Tolstoy puts himself into this category, this why he does not kill himself.

There is yet another reason Tolstoy does not kill himself. The reason is reason. Tolstoy holds reason in extremely high regard, and recognizes that reason does not exist without life. Since he reasoned that life is evil, but reason comes from life, how could his reasoning be correct? Killing himself would destroy his reason, thus killing something good. This terrible contradiction plagued Tolstoy greatly. In the end, Tolstoy realized that he had to turn away from reason in order to truly live. This meant turning to God, and to faith.

Tolstoy came to this conclusion after searching for the meaning of life with the simple folk. Among them, he did not find the contempt for life that he saw with the people of his class. These people had answers for life, and though they were not ground in reason, the people were happy, and they had God. They also had one critical thing that opened Tolstoy’s eyes- self sufficiency. To Tolstoy, providing for oneself became a critical aspect in the meaning of life. He observed the nobility, the parasites, and saw how they weren’t happy in relation to the simple folk who provided for themselves. He brings forth a great image of a man hired to pull a level up and down, and he is shown how the lever works to pump water. This man knows what he is doing has meaning, and is thus content. In the image, there are more men in the room looking at the pump watching it go up and down and don’t understand what it does. These men will come to the conclusion that they are useless and kill themselves. Tolstoy compares his class to these men in the room.

In the end, Tolstoy found the meaning of life in God and faith. He reflected back on his previous views of life being evil, and discovered that the life he was living was evil, and therefore he had assumed all life is evil. God made life worth living for Tolstoy, and even though it took decades to find the answer Tolstoy was still able to live a happy life in the end.