Summary of Tolstoy's argument, A Confession

This is an illustration of the outline I offered in class for describing arguments. Remember that in describing we are putting off (except for moments when we cannot help it) passing judgments on whether the argument is a good one or not. That's evluation; that comes after we have done this work.

First of all, this is not the only way to read this little book, and not the only thing in the book. This way of reading it is a product of our work on the philosophical problem, "What's the meaning of life?" and while Tolstoy is certainly engaging that problem, he's doing some other things as well. We are going to put off all those considerations for now.

Issue: What's the meaning of life?

First of all, Tolstoy spends some time on matters which help make the question more clear.

How's it arise? Tolstoy spends a lot of time accounting for how this question arises in his own life. All the background about his family and childhood and young adulthood, his religious upbringing and the falling away of his beliefs as soon as he questioned them along with the similar pattern shown by many of his friends-all this is part of how the question arises in his life, even though it does not really arise until much later. The account of his successes is also a part, and its role is odd-it has the status of an although-clause: "Although I had everything I could want and so you might expect the question would not arise, it did." That the question is unexpected and hard to explain is perhaps part of the reason the question arises in such a dissociative way-as a question voiced by someone not himself. It shows up as a transient and easily dismissed question at first, and gradually gets more and more insistent, carrying with it such urgency that he feels suicide is the only alternative to finding an answer.

What are possible answers? Tolstoy goes over some of the answers. Some of these overlap. Some of these he does not take seriously, some very seriously: Religious faith. Progress: Striving after and achieving perfection; nothing at all; Being Happy; Taking Care of Family; Science or Truth; Theology/philosophy; Service; Life is dirty trick played on us;

What's at stake? Most serious is the idea that one can find out one has been living a lie, living for something which is senseless and silly and futile and stupid, and only believed in by fooling yourself. This operates with a double edge-for example, if you have religious faith but it's false, then you can give your life to something which has no more status than a joke. But if you have no faith and some faith is true, then you can miss what might have made your life meaningful. What's at stake also changes depending on which answers we are considering. If you think you have to construct your own meaning but in fact your best efforts are just hiding from yourself the fact that life don't mean shit, then all that effort might as well have gone into something easier and more satisfying. If you think being happy is it, then you might as well look for the easiest way to do that. Again, particular answers come with their own sets of stakes. If service is a path to a meaningful life, then your own happiness becomes less the big deal. And so on.

What are related issues? We've looked at some of these. Can the answer be found by way of science? Etc. To what extent is some form of faith necessary? If there's no answer, have we any alternative to suicide?

Those are all material for helping clarify the question. Now onto the other items in our four questions for describing arguments.

Position: Faith in Russian Orthodox Church, simplicity (for its access to honesty), work.. Note that his argument can be read as a strong argument for some kind of faith, left open as to which particular, and that he has a more specific faith, but the choice among faiths is not supported, leaving open a criticism that this is not much better than where he started and no help to us or anyone else in choosing among churches though some violently disagree with others and so they cannot all be right.

Support:: Here there are several crucial parts and then appeal to evidence in the lives of the peasants and his own resolution and calmness at the end.

Science answers some other question (What is the world? How's it work?).

Philosophy yields up bogus answers (like dying is the meaning of life) or concedes it's incomprehensible and we too are inconprehensible. We don't know. So Philosophy won't work to answer.

Rationality is incapable of dealing with infinity, and the question transcends the boundary of what exists because it asks WHY it exists.

Those who have faith can endure otherwise impossible lives and do so with good grace and humor and love.

My own case is a small bit of evidence-seeking answer was leading toward destruction until I came to have faith, and then my life got to be okay.

Point of view: Tolstoy is someone who has to have an answer. He takes the possibility of living without having reason to continue living very seriously. He's worried about the possibility of being only no more than a grain of sand with no meaning, and finds that intolerable. The work he does exploring alternatives winds up being an important part of his background as he argues, a kind of expertise.