Religious and philosophical views of Leo Tolstoy. Pedagogical ideas and views of Leo Tolstoy

Definition 1

Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich ($1828 - $1910) Russian writer, thinker.

The characteristic nature of Russian philosophy, its close connection with the flourishing of Russian literature, has been noted more than once.

Remark 1

Leo Tolstoy occupies a special place in the history of national philosophy. In addition to his genius as an artist, writer, he was an outstanding philosopher, albeit one-sided. But his strength and expressiveness, with which he developed his own ideas and thoughts, cannot be compared with anything. His words are filled with simplicity, but at the same time, they have extraordinary depth and fiery power. Together with other Russian philosophers, Tolstoy emphasizes morality, but from his position this is real “panmoralism”, and not “the primacy of practical reason”. His impatience for ideas that did not fit into the framework of his own philosophy only speaks of how excited he was by the thought and truth that he expressed in his works.

Philosophical ideas

The search for the meaning of life is perhaps the most expressive and unsurpassed heroic quest, presented in a passionate struggle with centuries-old traditions. He opposed the “spirit of this age”, which takes him beyond the scope of exclusively Russian philosophy and puts him on a par with other outstanding thinkers and philosophers of the era. Tolstoy is a world phenomenon, but completely positioning himself as a typical Russian, not thinking of himself outside of Russian life.

In the $70s of the year, Tolstoy is experiencing a deep spiritual crisis, which he expressed in his work “ Confession».

Confession is a genre of religious literature. Helping God is an act of prayer. This is meditation before God. Prayer sets a person up to sincerity. Prayer at the end as gratitude.

The meaning of confession is to recognize your sins. The confessor is a sinner. But Tolstoy meant a different meaning of confession. He confesses to himself. Through denying God we will come to God. And if God is denied, then he is not the truth. Doubt everything. Doubt in faith. It's coming to nonsense. Denial of meaning, lack of meaning in life.

Search for the meaning of life. It is impossible to live without the meaning of life. The problem of death arises, which Tolstoy is painfully experiencing at this moment, this is the tragedy of the inevitability of death, which brings him to the idea of ​​suicide. This crisis leads Tolstov to break off relations with the secular world. He draws close to "believers from the poor, simple, unlearned people," as he writes in "Confessions." Exactly at ordinary people Tolstoy finds for himself a faith that gave them meaning in life. With his inherent passion, Tolstoy longs to be filled with this faith, to enter the world of faith. At this moment, he is fully aware of his break with the church, with church interpretation Christ, Christianity, and embarks on the path of "self-humiliation and humility." In a simplified form, theological rationalism occupies his thinking. This leads to the fact that Tolstoy formulates his own metaphysics on certain provisions of Christianity. His understanding of Christianity includes the denial of the divinity of Christ and his Resurrection, a modified text of the Gospel with an emphasis on those points that, in his opinion, Christ proclaimed to the world.

Tolstov's works during this period include 4 volumes

• "Critique of dogmatic theology",
• "What is my faith"
• "About life".

This is his most significant thought-philosophical stage.

Mystical immanentism

Tolstoy creates his own system of mystical immanentism, which was close to the ideas of modern rationalism, that is, the denial of everything transcendent. However, this is a mystical teaching about life and man, which extremely significantly separated it from modern philosophy. Tolstoy thus severed his relations with both the church and the world. The key themes of Tolstov's philosophy have always been in the focus of his ethical quest. This can be described as "panmoralism". This desire to subdue

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy(1828 - 1910) was born on September 9 in the estate of Yasnaya Polyana, Tula province. At the age of 16 he entered Kazan University. During these years, he became interested in philosophy, read Hegel, Voltaire, Rousseau. The views of Zh.Zh. Rousseau, whose philosophy was consistent with his own thoughts about the world. Leaving the university in 1847 due to the need for "mental independent work", L.N. Tolstoy returned to his beloved small homeland - to Yasnaya Polyana. Here he decided to improve the life of the peasants, for whose children in 1849 he opened a school. Since that time, L.N. Tolstoy throughout his long life constantly returned to school and pedagogy. In 1851 - 1855. L.N. Tolstoy was enrolled in military service and was initially in the Caucasus, later participated in the defense of Sevastopol. In 1859 L.N. Tolstoy again began to study with peasant children at school.

L.N. Tolstoy had a great influence on domestic and foreign philosophical and pedagogical thought. He proposed a new philosophical and pedagogical solution to educational problems as a phenomenon of culture, childhood as a special world, proved the inefficiency of education built on the forced transfer of knowledge and the formation of a worldview.

L.N. Tolstoy belongs to the development of the theoretical and practical foundations of free education and upbringing. In the world, according to him, everything is organically interconnected and a person needs to realize himself as an equivalent part of the world, where “everything is connected with everything”, and where a person can find himself only by realizing his spiritual and moral potential.

L.N. Tolstoy created his theory of humanistic education, the core of which is the doctrine of the continuous moral self-improvement of a person throughout his life. L.N. Tolstoy defended the freedom, independence of the child, the inherent value of his educational and social interests. He recognized only that education, which is based on own experience student and comes from real life and not only prepares it for the future. The main component of the essence of a person is his spiritual principle, which was originally laid down in him, as it were, in a “folded form”. The pedagogical process should help a person in his discovery and implementation in life. Education acts as the main factor in the development of culture and the harmonization of life.

The evolution of the views of L.N. Tolstoy can be traced when considering his pedagogical activity, in which three periods can be conditionally distinguished.

First period pedagogical activity of L.N. Tolstoy (1859 - 1862) is striking in its richness. He studies the pedagogical writings of Ya.A. Comenius, Zh.Zh. Russo, K.D. Ushinsky, books on the history of pedagogy (he even made his own plan for this course), the work of contemporaries-methodists, compilers of textbooks, conducts a lively correspondence with some of them.

In 1859 - 1862. he officially formalized the existence of the Yasnaya Polyana school, opened by him privately. Educational activity among the peasants, in his opinion, is the fulfillment by educated people of their duty to the people.

The Yasnaya Polyana school was a teacher's creative laboratory, at the same time the theoretical and practical foundations of education were determined. Teachers and students actively participated in determining the content and methods of school work, developing and improving it. Education at the school was free.

L.N. Tolstoy organized the school on the basis of love for children, faith in their creative abilities, and the absence of pressure on the personality of the child. At the Yasnaya Polyana school, home lessons were not assigned. Traditional lessons were replaced by teacher's captivating figurative artistic stories, students' individual and joint creative writings, lively conversations. There was a schedule, but it wasn't followed. The student had the right not to come to class and not listen to the teacher. In turn, the teacher was free to not let the student into the classroom. The order and the training program were coordinated with the children. Teachers made a weekly plan for school subjects (reading, writing, calligraphy, grammar, sacred history, Russian history, mathematics, talks on natural science, drawing, drawing, singing). Plans could be adjusted at the request of the students. The spirit of equality was maintained in the lessons. L.N. himself Tolstoy taught mathematics and history in the senior class, conducted physical experiments. Classes at the school were structured in such a way that learning would become joyful and desirable for children, awaken curiosity, independent thinking and depth of feelings.

The Yasnaya Polyana school became an example in the organization of other schools in the county.

In 1860 L.N. Tolstoy made a long journey through the schools of Europe: Germany, France, England, Italy, Belgium. What he saw depressed him: everywhere the monotony of teaching methods, formalism, regulation of the whole thing. The writer returns from abroad, firmly convinced that Russia should not imitate the West, should abandon education and upbringing that suppresses the personality of the child.

Since 1862 L.N. Tolstoy (he is both an author and editor) publishes the Yasnaya Polyana magazine. 12 issues were released. The magazine was distinguished by extraordinary poetry in its coverage of the child's soul, its freshness and purity, which could not be found in other pedagogical magazines. In his articles during these years, Tolstoy seeks to answer questions about the goals, content and methods of teaching, about the relationship between teachers and children, based on naturalness. During these years, he comes to the conclusion that the main, leading idea of ​​all pedagogy is the development of activity, creativity, and the individuality of each student and teacher. Freedom is a necessary condition for development. The conviction was strengthened thanks to the embodiment of this idea in the practice of the Yasnaya Polyana school, the experience of which was covered in the journal.

Free education was represented by L.N. Tolstoy as a process of spontaneous disclosure of high moral qualities inherent in children - with the careful help of a teacher. He did not, like Rousseau, consider it necessary to hide the child from civilization, to artificially create freedom for him, to educate the child not at school, but at home. He believed that at school, in the classroom, with special teaching methods, it is possible to realize free education. The main thing at the same time is not to create a “compulsory spirit of an educational institution”, but to strive to ensure that the school becomes a source of joy, learning new things, familiarizing with the world.

On May 12, 1862, he left Yasnaya Polyana for the Samara province in the Bashkir nomad camp, for rest and treatment. During his absence, by order of the authorities, a search was carried out in Yasnaya Polyana: they were looking for a secret printing house, illegal literature. The unceremonious intervention of the gendarmes shocked L.N. Tolstoy. Search, constant censorship nit-picking during the publication of the magazine, circumstances personal life, the beginning of work on the novel "War and Peace" - all this led to L.N. Tolstoy in 1862 stopped his work at the Yasnaya Polyana school.

Second period pedagogical activity of L.N. Tolstoy (1870 - 1876) - just as intense. During these years, he resumes classes with peasant children; writes and publishes his textbooks "ABC" And "New alphabet"; appears in the press with pedagogical articles; makes an attempt to open pedagogical courses for the training of folk teachers in Yasnaya Polyana - "university in bast shoes"; as a member of the school council of the Krapivensky zemstvo council, he is engaged in the opening of new schools and the improvement of school affairs; is engaged in supplying schools in the county with textbooks, readers, slates, pencils, copybooks, etc.

Published in 1872 "ABC" L.N. Tolstoy - a set of books for the initial teaching of reading, writing, grammar, Old Church Slavonic and arithmetic - only four books. The first included a primer, texts for reading, Slavic texts, materials for learning to count, guidelines for the teacher. The next three books contained fiction and popular science stories on history, geography, physics, and natural science. Each of them contained texts for the study of the Church Slavonic language and materials on arithmetic, which gradually became more complicated. Concepts from physics, chemistry, botany, and zoology were popularly expounded. The ABC was noticeably different from the manuals that existed at that time. The material was printed in different fonts, texts for reading consisted of three or four sentences at first, then became more complicated. It was a kind of encyclopedia of knowledge for the initial stage of training. L.N. Tolstoy wrote that he put more work into it than into everything he did in life.

The first reviewers of the ABC, noting the outstanding merits of stories for children, criticized L.N. Tolstoy, the methodology of teaching literacy and considered the arithmetic section unsuccessful. The Ministry of Public Education to recommend the "ABC" L.N. Tolstoy for schools refused.

L.H. Tolstoy wrote a short and accessible manual for children - "New alphabet", - published in 1875 and significantly different from the previous "ABC". What was new in the methodology was that she offered the teacher to use the various ways literacy: auditory, sound, subjunctive and the method of whole words. If in the "ABC" the primer was only the first part of the complex of educational books, then the "New ABC" became an independent textbook. Texts written by L.N. Thick for the ABCs, set out in a simple and clear language, accessible to children. The remaining parts of the "ABC" were reworked into separate textbooks: "Arithmetic" and world renowned "Russian books for reading".

The "new alphabet", having received wide recognition, was approved by the Ministry of Education and recommended "for all educational institutions where it begins with the alphabet." The book began to spread rapidly, withstood 30 reprints (28 - during the life of Tolstoy), its total circulation amounted to 2 million copies. Many works written or revised by L.N. Tolstoy for the "New ABC", entered the circle children's reading are read by children in our time.

Third period pedagogical activity of L.N. Tolstoy (late 80s - 1910) coincides with the development of religious and moral teachings. This doctrine is based on the recognition that a person carries God “in himself”, universal love for people, forgiveness, humility, non-resistance to evil by violence, a sharply negative attitude towards ritual, church religion.

The central pedagogical issue for Tolstoy during this period was the question of moral education. In the religious and moral teachings of L.N. Tolstoy, the central place was occupied by the idea of ​​the spiritual growth of man. The formation of the personality of L.N. Tolstoy understood how the formation of its moral sphere in various types activities. He linked the problems of goals, content, methods of training and education with the development of a person's responsibility in relation to himself.

L.N. Tolstoy developed new ideas for Russia about the school, based on the recognition of the children's right to activity, creativity, independence and the development of moral convictions. A necessary condition for their manifestation is freedom, which denies coercion. Pedagogical activity, based on love for the child, awakens all the best that is in him from birth. Freedom as an opportunity for creativity lies at the heart of the teacher's activity. Only he, together with his students, determines the order of teaching, teaching methods, based on the interest of children, their right to freedom of choice. According to L.N. Tolstoy, freedom of expression of the will of the population is necessary when solving pedagogical issues (how to organize a school, what to teach in it).

And Tolstoy of our day put the separation of Good and Beauty as the basis of his entire assessment of art.

Another great religious question, another terrible metaphysical riddle, was raised by Tolstoy with his life.

Tolstoy not only rebelled against beauty. We all know that he is not only insensitive to culture, but downright hostile to it. Namely - culture, and not just "civilization", Shakespeare and Goethe and the whole modern science and technology, and not just cinematography and aviation Why does "culture" win and subordinate everything dear to it, "simple", "peasant"? Tolstoy understood that it was not a matter of simple external violence, that the root of evil lay deeper. He understood that culture is strength. But Tolstoy, as a religious thinker, does not have the slightest inclination and reverence for the human Strength. He sees nothing divine in her. For him, Strength, like Beauty, is an evil principle, the devilish Good, and God for him is completely exhausted and absorbed by the principle of Love, and the principle of Strength, as a positive principle, has no place in his religion, as well as the principle of Beauty. Strength for him, in the moral sense, completely merges with violence, which is the crude, frank coercion of one person in relation to another. Force, if not identical, is equivalent to violence.

In this respect a whole gulf lies between Tolstoy and the great English moralists of the nineteenth century, Carlyle and Ruskin. Fighters against the "petty-bourgeois" spirit and "petty-bourgeois" morality, both Carlyle and Ruskin passionately loved culture and clearly saw in it the creative work of a religious principle.

The disagreement between Tolstoy and the great English moralists is not only a disagreement in the evaluation of culture. His grip is much wider. Carlyle and Ruskin loved the Force in culture . Hence their preaching of discipline and authority, the defense of state power and war.

This is the deepest moral disagreement, resting against the metaphysical disagreement. Moreover, there are directly different, even antagonistic attitudes, a different religion.

Is Strength, or rather superiority in strength, simply a fact, or does it point to something basic, metaphysical, and therefore of great moral significance? It is quite clear what significance this question has for the moral evaluation of all modern culture, and how a different evaluation of this culture follows from a different attitude towards the Force.

How is good related to strength? Negative or positive? The moral problem of strength is, as it were, that mysterious metaphysical abyss into which, before an inquisitive philosophical eye, all the ultimate problems of modernity expand: socialism (equality of unequal forces!), eternal peace (renunciation of war!), the national question (is there national self-affirmation? moral truth or, conversely, untruth?) and whole line other burning issues of concern modern man. Ultimately, all these questions are fraught with the problem of the Force.

The great religious significance of Tolstoy lies precisely in the fact that with his personality and life he, with the power of genius, confronted modern humanity with two basic problems of world and human existence: problems beauty And Forces.

And no matter how we decide, no matter how humanity in its collective life, which, in the words of Tolstoy himself, is a "clash of innumerable arbitrariness," solves these problems, Tolstoy, in his severity and straightforwardness, gave us great lessons in such consistency and honesty of thought. from which mankind has almost lost the habit.

He subjected to his judgment not particulars and conclusions, but the foundations and premises of all modern culture and culture in general. In this respect, and not only in this respect, Tolstoy is the true restorer of Christianity. Like Christianity, it brought "not peace, but a sword" to the moral and religious consciousness of mankind. And the insult to the memory of Tolstoy will not consist in the fact that we courageously and consciously reject his "sword", but in the fact that out of admiration for his personality, out of moral flabbiness and mental cowardice, we will begin to blunt Tolstoy's "sword" and turn this terrible weapon moral dissection and spiritual clarification into a harmless toy that serves for the miserable reconciliation of the irreconcilable and, worse than that, to hypocritically obscure the true sharpness of the mysteries of our moral and social existence.

Tolstoy's morality is so meager because Tolstoy is too much of a moralist, that the whole riddle of the world is resolved for him into the moral problem of complete obedience to the moral command of God.

And precisely because he is too moralistic and a narrow dogmatist in his morality, he cannot rise above the moral world in the same way that richer and deeper religious natures have risen. His morality does not contain that smile of condescension and forgiveness that illuminates the face of Christ. Nor does he have that deep and reconciling insight into the irreducible contradictions and squalor of human nature, which is so characteristic of Pascal's religion born out of skepticism.

Why couldn't Tolstoy become a great reformer? In order to be such, one needs either great personal holiness or a great effect on people.

Was there a personal feat in Tolstoy's rebellion against beauty and art and the struggle of injustice against this beauty and art? Objectively it was the greatest feat, the greatest sacrifice that such a man could make. Only the renunciation of secular science by a scientist like Pascal can be compared with this sacrifice. But subjectively in the coup that took place with Tolstoy, there was no or almost no element of personal achievement or sacrifice. This revolution undoubtedly cost him great efforts of thought, but no effort of will is visible. Tolstoy didn't tear his soul away from art and beauty, but he simply did not have a taste for them. He came to religion, not hating beauty and art, but from a depressing consciousness of the emptiness of life, which was filled with them. Great man, he was never a great sinner and could not become great righteous. BUT born he was never a righteous man; he never had that holiness that is given without struggle and asceticism, which a born saint receives from himself. In general, Tolstoy's moral personality did not stand on the level of his preaching, it was smaller and weaker than hers.

Inaccessible to Tolstoy was that religious action, which, even without personal holiness, can make a person a great religious reformer. For such a religious action, Tolstoy was still too much of a writer and master. For such a role, a different upbringing and a different nature were needed, more effective and at the same time more flexible, more powerful and at the same time more plastic.

Nevertheless, Tolstoy occupies a very special place in the history and psychology of politics. It is precisely the absence of poetry in his reforms, the positive sobriety of his religious spirit, that is something peculiar and remarkable. The penetration of religion, religious "conversions" are very often combined with an ecstatic, "pathological" state of mind. Voltaire considered Pascal's religiosity to be madness; in our time they speak of his hereditary neurasthenia. And in general, a tendency based on well-known indisputable facts is often noticeable - to consider the religious direction of thought and feelings as an expression of mental imbalance, as an essentially abnormal and painful phenomenon in a person who has become at the level of the latest culture. From this point of view, Tolstoy's example is highly instructive. Since he gave himself up to religion, he lives only by it: no motives extraneous to religion are mixed with his religiosity. And at the same time, he gave himself up to religion in a state of complete physical and mental health. His "turning" to God cannot be explained by any "physical" causes, by any "physiology" or "pathology". It is a matter of pure spirit, a moral or "spiritual" fact in the truest and most positive sense of the word. It is this character of Tolstoy's appeal to God that gives it a special and deep political significance, and the people who know the merits and torments of Tolstoy in this regard devoted themselves completely to Tolstoy's thoughts and ideas.

Without being a great religious reformer - is such a thing even possible in our time? - Tolstoy is a huge force in the cultural and social development of our time.

Without a doubt, many people under his influence looked back at themselves, subjected themselves to internal judgment, sharpened their conscience and changed their behavior in one way or another. In the sexual question, his influence was especially strong. But such is the fate of every one-sided morality, every preaching imbued with the despotic spirit of absolutism, every unconditional command that their influence, no matter how great, weakens with the passage of time in relation to the same persons. The same thing happened with Tolstoy's morality. Many have passed through it, but very few have remained in it. But the trace it leaves is very deep. The influence of Tolstoy morality on the generation for which it was a new word and which took shape in the 80s. and entered into life in the 90s, it was indelible and very great.

Tolstoy's ideal society

By their own social Tolstoy's ideas in relation to the existing society great revolutionary. His rejection of all coercive power and at the same time of all violence makes him the only consistent anarchist, faithful to the beginning of an absolutely voluntary relationship and unification of people. For he is the only anarchist who recognizes the denial of violence not only as a principle existence ideal human society, but also the principle of its implementation. There is a whole practical and, above all, moral-religious gulf in this difference between the peaceful anarchism of Tolstoy and the violent anarchism of other anarchists. This abyss is so great that to call Tolstoy an anarchist without reservations or explanations would be to obscure the very essence of his moral and social teaching.

As a preacher of equality, economic and political equality, as a denier of private property. Tolstoy undoubtedly belongs to the socialists. But even here the position he occupies is quite special, drawing a sharp line between him and the majority of socialists. This difference stems from religiosity Tolstoy.

Modern socialism is often called a religion. Since by religion is meant only a particular state of mind, characterized by a passion for a certain task, reaching the point of absorbing the entire spiritual personality of a person, many modern socialists can be called religious. Since religion is understood as the totality of aspirations and ideals that have for a given person or for a given group of people the significance of the highest values, to which all other things and relations are tried, socialism for many people is a religion. But the truth must be told: in this sense, even betting and beagle dogs can be an object of religion, and every sport in a true athlete excites a "religious" attitude.

Obviously, such a purely formal psychological understanding of religion does not explain anything in its ideological essence. Religion cannot be just a hobby, no matter what. Religion is inseparable from the idea of ​​the Divine, and its content is the relation of man to the supernatural, world-powerful Being. But this is not enough for modern man. Once religion has ceased to be the worship of a Being that inspires fear, once the Deity or that idea that replaces the Deity evokes love, the center of religion becomes the free and active service to the Deity, based on a sense of personal responsibility, on the conviction that my realization of the Good and my salvation , no matter how it is conceived, requires the tension of all my strength and above all depends on me. There is no feeling and idea more essential for religion, which has risen above the feelings of deaf dependence and dark fear, than the feeling and idea of ​​a person's responsibility for himself and for the world.

What is the attitude of socialism towards this idea?

Socialism grew up on the soil of that mechanical moral-philosophical outlook which was prepared in the 18th century. and reached its highest peak in Bentham. If Bentham himself were not entirely the offspring of all the philosophy that preceded him, if he did not stand on the shoulders of Hume, Helvetius and Holbach, then one could say that Bentham, this bourgeois thinker ridiculed by Marx, is the true philosophical father of socialism. And in order to be convinced to what extent the spirit of Bentham hovers over the latest socialism, it is enough to look into the most remarkable English socialist treatise of the beginning of the 19th century. - in the work of Bentham's student William Thompson "An inquiry into the principles of the distribution of wealth" "(1824). Thompson was not only a student of Bentham, he was also a student of Godwin, the author of Political Justice and Aries. Both Godwin and Aries - both grew up and matured in the same spiritual atmosphere as Bentham.Aries, a man of one idea, perhaps brighter than any other writer and socialist figure, revealed his moral and philosophical essence. "Only with the greatest resistance and after a long spiritual struggle, - he says in his "Autobiography", - I was forced to renounce my original and deeply rooted Christian convictions, but, having renounced faith in the Christian doctrine, I was also forced to reject all other creeds.

Tolstoy's view of public political life and the position of a person in it is diametrically opposed to this cardinal idea of ​​socialism, which is not only its theoretical basis, but - more importantly - its moral and philosophical leitmotif. In the old so-called utopian or rather rationalistic socialism, which believed in the power of reason and reason-based education and legislation, the denial of personal responsibility was paralyzed by the great role attributed to reason in the re-education of man and the transformation of society. Godwin and Aries, denying the personal responsibility of man, assigned an immeasurably enormous task to the human mind. The historical thinking of the 19th century, rooted almost psychologically in a conservative reaction against the revolutionary rationalism of the preceding epoch, advanced against it the view of society and its forms as an organic product of spontaneous, irrational creativity. This direction was philosophically admirably reconciled with the denial of personal responsibility, personal achievement, personal creativity. In Marxism, the mechanical rationalism of the eighteenth century merged with the organic historicism of the 19th century, and in this merger the idea of ​​a person's personal responsibility for himself and for the world was finally drowned. Socialism - in the face of Marxism - has abandoned morality and reason. All of modern socialism is thoroughly imbued with the worldview of Marx, which is an amalgam of the mechanical rationalism of the eighteenth century. and organic historicism of the 19th century. Both elements of this amalgam are essentially equally hostile to the idea of ​​a person's personal responsibility, which underlies the moral teachings of Christianity and Leo Tolstoy in particular.

Now the question is: does socialism need the idea of ​​personal responsibility of man, and what is the general significance of this idea for the improvement of man and society?

What philosophical essence socialism? One thing is certain - the basis of socialism is the idea of ​​complete rationalization of all processes taking place in society. This is the great difficulty of socialism. According to the idea of ​​socialism, the spontaneous economic and social interaction of people should be completely replaced by their planned, rational cooperation and subordination. Socialism requires not a partial rationalization, but one that would fundamentally cover the entire field public life. This is the main difficulty of socialism, for it is obvious that neither the individual nor the collective mind is able to cover such a vast field and is not capable of subordinating all the processes taking place on it to one plan. This follows from the essence of the matter, and hence it is clear that from a realistic point of view, we can only talk about the partial implementation of the tasks of socialism, and not about the complete solution of the problem of socialism.

Socialism is unthinkable when the feeling and idea of ​​personal responsibility are weakened, and thus this idea and its strength in man is a necessary (though, in all likelihood, not sufficient) condition for the realization of socialism. Meanwhile, we already know that philosophically socialism proceeds from the rejection of this idea. In the doctrine of the class struggle, it also completely disappears; it is absolutely alien to the philosophy of syndicalism (if the view of the theoreticians of syndicalism in general deserves the name of philosophy). Thus, socialism has undermined and is undermining one of those ideas, without the strengthening of which its implementation is impossible. This is one of the interesting contradictions of modern socialism, signifying its ideological bankruptcy and foreshadowing its real downfall.

However, the problem we have touched upon has an even broader and more general significance than the question of the fate of socialism and Leo Tolstoy's attitude towards socialism.

And this meaning gives reason to emphasize the philosophical meaning and cultural value of Leo Tolstoy's moral preaching. This sermon vigorously emphasizes the importance of personal improvement, it encourages a person to see in himself, in his own spiritual movements, actions and qualities, the most important and decisive for him and for others. Contrasting and comparing the "internal" and "external" reform of man would not, perhaps, be necessary at all, if precisely those views that still enjoy the greatest credit in the "public" both here and in the West, including and socialism, were not set off constantly, consciously or unconsciously, from the understanding of human progress as the improvement of "external" forms of life. If at all it is permissible to divide human life into these two areas, then, it seems to me, the religious point of view, which Tolstoy stands on this issue and which puts forward the “internal” reform of mankind, is practically more fruitful and much more scientific than opposite anti-religious "positive" view. The development of this thought would lead me too far. I will only say that a positive study of the economy and its development, in my opinion, proves in the clearest way that not mythological " productive forces"that control man, and man and precisely his religious nature are of decisive importance for economic "progress." It often happens that non-scientific minds are on a scientifically more correct path than scientific minds. In his religious outlook on the course of human development, Tolstoy is much closer to scientific truth than what is, or at least has hitherto been, recognized as "science".

But even if this is debatable, in any case, the point of view underlying Tolstoy's preaching cannot but be of great benefit to the practical improvement of public opinion. All the great political events and changes we have experienced in recent years have been, as it were, a grandiose psychological experiment on this subject. Many illusions turned out to be dispelled, many buildings collapsed, because under them there was not that foundation on which alone great and small human deeds can firmly hold: the moral education of man. Let Tolstoy as a moralist narrow down human nature, let him believe too much in the power of preaching, and therefore too simply imagine the process of education (or, rather, self-education) of mankind - he has the great merit that he pushes the thought of mankind in the direction of the true light.

Conclusion

Speaking about the significance of Tolstoy for our time, one should not forget that he is wholly, both as an artist and as a thinker, but more than anything as an individual, stands, as it were, above time. The struggle of such a great artist with art and beauty is an enormous fact in itself, regardless of any practical consequences it may have for society. political life, and has a timeless meaning.

But Tolstoy's activity connected with this fact undoubtedly had and still has enormous practical consequences. First of all - political. Tolstoy is one of the most powerful destroyers of our old order. Indifferent to politics in the narrow sense, he preached such general ideas and expressed such thoughts on particular issues that were of great political significance, and all the power that genius and the authority of a genius gave was inherent in this sermon. Among the ideological preachers of individual freedom in Russia, Tolstoy was the most powerful and most influential.

Bibliography

1. Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Volume 3. M.: 1987.

2. Guseynov A. A. Great moralists. M., Republic, 1995.

3. Linkov V., Saakyants A. “Leo Tolstoy. Life and work” ed. “Russian language” - 1979

4. Lomunov K. N. “Leo Tolstoy. Essay on life and creativity” - M., 1984.

5. Tolstoy L. N . Full composition of writings. - M.: 1958. T. 18.

6. Tolstoy LN Collection of articles. - M., 1955.

Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1821 - 1910) is great both as a writer and as a thinker. He is the founder of the concept of non-violence. His teaching was called Tolstoyism. The essence of this doctrine was reflected in many of his works. Tolstoy also has his own philosophical writings: “Confession”, “What is my faith?”, “The Way of Life”, etc.

Tolstoy, with great force of moral condemnation, criticized state institutions, the courts, and the economy. However, this criticism has been controversial. He denied the revolution as a method of solving social issues. Historians of philosophy believe that “containing some elements of socialism (the desire to create a hostel of free and equal peasants on the site of landownership and a police-class state), Tolstoy’s teaching, at the same time, idealized the patriarchal way of life and considered historical process from the point of view of the “eternal”, “original” concepts of the moral and religious consciousness of mankind”.

Tolstoy believed that getting rid of violence, which keeps modern world, possibly on the path of non-resistance to evil by violence, on the basis of a complete rejection of any struggle, as well as on the basis of the moral self-improvement of each individual person. He emphasized: “Only non-resistance to evil by violence leads mankind to replace the law of violence with the law of love.”

Considering power to be evil, Tolstoy came to the denial of the state. But the abolition of the state, in his opinion, should not be carried out through violence, but through the peaceful and passive avoidance of members of society from any state duties and positions, from participation in political activities. Tolstoy's ideas had a wide circulation. They were simultaneously criticized from the right and from the left. On the right, Tolstoy was criticized for his criticism of the church. On the left - for the propaganda of patient obedience to the authorities. Criticizing L. N. Tolstoy from the left, V. I. Lenin found “screaming” contradictions in the writer’s philosophy. Thus, in the work “Leo Tolstoy as a Mirror of the Russian Revolution”, Lenin notes that Tolstoy “On the one hand, merciless criticism of capitalist exploitation, poverty, savagery and torment of the working masses; on the other hand, the foolish preaching of “non-resistance to evil” by violence”.

Tolstoy's ideas during the revolution were condemned by the revolutionaries, since they were addressed to all people, including themselves. At the same time, while manifesting revolutionary violence in relation to those who resisted revolutionary transformations, the revolutionaries themselves, stained with foreign blood, wished that violence would not be manifested in relation to themselves. In this regard, it is not surprising that less than ten years after the revolution, the publication of the complete works of Leo Tolstoy was undertaken. Objectively, Tolstoy's ideas contributed to the disarmament of those who were subjected to revolutionary violence.

However, it is hardly legitimate to condemn the writer for this. Many people have experienced the beneficial influence of Tolstoy's ideas. Among the followers of the teachings of the writer-philosopher was Mahatma Gandhi. Among the admirers of his talent was the American writer W. E. Howells, who wrote: “Tolstoy - greatest writer of all times, if only because his work, more than others, is imbued with the spirit of goodness, and he himself never denies the unity of his conscience and his art.
Is this suitable???

When we talk about Tolstoy, we first of all mean a writer, author of novels, short stories, but we forget that he is also a thinker. Can we call him a great thinker? He was big man, he was great person. And even if we cannot accept his philosophy, almost every one of us is grateful to him for some joyful moments that we experienced when we read his stories, his works of art. There are few people who would not like his work at all. In different epochs of our own life, Tolstoy suddenly opens up to us from some new, unexpected sides.

The religious and philosophical searches of Leo Tolstoy were associated with the experience and comprehension of a wide variety of philosophical and religious teachings. On the basis of which the worldview system was formed, which was distinguished by a consistent desire for certainty and clarity (to a large extent - at the level of common sense). When explaining fundamental philosophical and religious problems and, accordingly, in a peculiar confessional-preaching style of expressing one's own creed, at the same time, a critical attitude towards Tolstoy precisely as a thinker is widely represented in the Russian intellectual tradition. The fact that Tolstoy was a brilliant artist, but a "bad thinker" was written in different years V.S. Solovyov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, G.V. Florovsky, G.V. Plekhanov, I.A. Ilyin and others. However, no matter how serious the arguments of the critics of Tolstoy's teaching sometimes may be, it undoubtedly occupies its unique place in the history of Russian thought, reflecting the spiritual path of the great writer, his personal philosophical experience of answering the "last", metaphysical questions.

Deep and retained its significance in subsequent years was the influence on the young Tolstoy of the ideas of J.Zh. Rousseau. The critical attitude of the writer to civilization, the preaching of "naturalness", which in the late L. Tolstoy resulted in a direct denial of the significance of cultural creativity, including his own, in many respects go back precisely to the ideas of the French enlightener.

Later influences include the moral philosophy of A. Schopenhauer ("the most brilliant of men," according to the Russian writer) and Eastern (primarily Buddhist) motifs in Schopenhauer's doctrine of "the world as will and representation." However, later, in the 1980s, Tolstoy's attitude to Schopenhauer's ideas became more critical, which was not least due to his high appreciation of I. Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason" (whom he characterized as "a great religious teacher"). However, it should be recognized that Kant's transcendentalism, the ethics of duty, and in particular the understanding of history, do not play any significant role in the religious and philosophical preaching of the late Tolstoy, with its specific anti-historicism, the rejection of state, social and cultural forms of life as exclusively "external", personifying the false historical choice of mankind, leading the latter away from solving its main and only task - the task of moral self-improvement. V.V. Zenkovsky quite rightly wrote about the "panmoralism" of L. Tolstoy's teachings. The ethical doctrine of the writer was largely syncretic, incomplete in nature. But this thinker, far from any kind of orthodoxy, considered Christian, evangelical morality to be the foundation of his own religious and moral teaching. In fact, the main meaning of Tolstoy's religious philosophizing consisted in the experience of a kind of ethicization of Christianity, reducing this religion to the sum of certain ethical principles, moreover, principles that allow rational and accessible not only to the philosophical mind, but also to ordinary common sense justification.

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy was not a philosopher, a theologian in the full sense of the word. And today we will dwell on it in our interesting and difficult journey through a region that has long been hidden from people interested in Russian religious thought.

In the center of religious and philosophical searches L.N. Tolstoy faces questions of understanding God, the meaning of life, the relationship between good and evil, freedom and moral perfection of man. He criticized official theology, church dogma, sought to substantiate the need for social restructuring on the principles of mutual understanding and mutual love people and non-resistance to evil by violence.

The main religious and philosophical works of Tolstoy include "Confession", "What is my faith?", "The Way of Life", "The Kingdom of God is within us", "Criticism of dogmatic theology". The spiritual world of Tolstoy is characterized by ethical quests that have developed into a whole system of "panmoralism". The moral principle in the assessment of all aspects of human life permeates all of Tolstoy's work. His religious and moral teaching reflects his peculiar understanding of God.

Tolstoy believed that getting rid of violence, on which the modern world is based, is possible on the path of non-resistance to evil by violence, on the basis of a complete rejection of any kind of struggle, and also on the basis of the moral self-improvement of each individual person. He emphasized: “Only non-resistance to evil by violence leads mankind to replace the law of violence with the law of love.”

Considering power to be evil, Tolstoy came to the denial of the state. But the abolition of the state, in his opinion, should not be carried out through violence, but through the peaceful and passive avoidance of members of society from any state duties and positions, from participation in political activities. Tolstoy's ideas had a wide circulation. They were simultaneously criticized from the right and from the left. On the right, Tolstoy was criticized for his criticism of the church. On the left - for the propaganda of patient obedience to the authorities. Criticizing L.N. Tolstoy on the left, V.I. Lenin found "screaming" contradictions in the writer's philosophy. Thus, in the work “Leo Tolstoy as a Mirror of the Russian Revolution”, Lenin notes that Tolstoy “On the one hand, merciless criticism of capitalist exploitation, poverty, savagery and torment of the working masses; on the other hand, the foolish preaching of “non-resistance to evil” by violence”.

Tolstoy's ideas during the revolution were condemned by the revolutionaries, since they were addressed to all people, including themselves. At the same time, while manifesting revolutionary violence in relation to those who resisted revolutionary transformations, the revolutionaries themselves, stained with foreign blood, wished that violence would not be manifested in relation to themselves. In this regard, it is not surprising that less than ten years after the revolution, the publication of the complete works of L.N. Tolstoy. Objectively, Tolstoy's ideas contributed to the disarmament of those who were subjected to revolutionary violence.

However, it is hardly legitimate to condemn the writer for this. Many people have experienced the beneficial influence of Tolstoy's ideas. Among the followers of the teachings of the writer-philosopher was Mahatma Gandhi. Among the admirers of his talent was the American writer W.E. Howells, who wrote: “Tolstoy is the greatest writer of all time, if only because his work is more than others imbued with the spirit of goodness, and he himself never denies the unity of his conscience and his art.”

About 90 years ago Dmitry Sergeevich Merezhkovsky wrote the book "Leo Tolstoy and Dostoevsky". He wanted to present Tolstoy (and rightly so) as a full-blooded giant, as a rock man, as some kind of great pagan.

A man who had been a preacher of evangelical ethics for most of his life, and devoted the last 30 years of his life to preaching the Christian doctrine (as he understood it), found himself in conflict with the Christian Church and was ultimately excommunicated from it. The man who preached non-resistance was a militant fighter who, with the bitterness of Stepan Razin or Pugachev, attacked the whole culture, tearing it to smithereens. A man who stands in culture as a phenomenon (he can only be compared with Goethe, if we take Western Europe), a universal genius who, no matter what he undertakes - whether plays, journalism, novels or short stories - this power is everywhere! And this man ridiculed art, crossed it out, and in the end opposed his fellow Shakespeare, believing that Shakespeare wrote his works in vain. Leo Tolstoy - the greatest phenomenon of culture - was and greatest enemy culture.

In War and Peace, carried away by the great immortal picture of the movement of history, Tolstoy does not appear as a man without faith. He believes in fate. He believes in some mysterious force that steadily leads people to where they don't want to go. The ancient Stoics said: “Fate leads the consonant. Fate drags the one who opposes. It is this destiny that operates in his works. No matter how much we love War and Peace, it is always surprising how Tolstoy, such great personality, did not feel the significance of the individual in history. For him, Napoleon is only a pawn, and the mass of people, basically, acts like ants that move according to some mysterious laws. And when Tolstoy tries to explain these laws, his deviations, historical inserts, seem much weaker than the full-blooded, powerful, multifaceted picture of the events taking place - on the battlefield, or in the salon of the maid of honor, or in the room where one of the heroes sits.

What other faith is there, except for the mysterious fate. The belief that it is possible to merge with nature is again Olenin's dream. Let us recall Prince Andrei, how he internally talks with an oak tree. What is this oak, just an old familiar tree? No, it is at the same time a symbol, a symbol of eternal nature, towards which the hero's soul aspires. The search for Pierre Bezukhov. Everything is also meaningless... Of course, none of Tolstoy's heroes even think of finding a truly Christian path. Why is it so? because the best people In the 19th century, after the catastrophes of the 18th century, they found themselves, one way or another, cut off from the great Christian tradition. Both the Church and society suffered tragically from this. The consequences of this split came in the 20th century. - as a formidable event that almost destroyed the entire civilization of our country.

So, the development of Russian philosophy in general, its religious line in particular, confirms that in order to understand Russian history, the Russian people and its spiritual world, it is important for his soul to get acquainted with the philosophical searches of the Russian mind. This is due to the fact that the central problems of these searches were questions about the spiritual essence of man, about faith, about the meaning of life, about death and immortality, about freedom and responsibility, the relationship between good and evil, about the destiny of Russia, and many others. Russian religious philosophy actively contributes not only to bringing people closer to the paths of moral perfection, but also to familiarizing them with the riches of the spiritual life of mankind.