0 votes

Christianity is not the same as the doctrine of love for humanity or the doctrine of Communism.

Scientific men teach in theory that the only good and rational life is that which is devoted to the service of the whole of humanity. That is for them the importance of the Christian doctrine, and to that they reduce Christ’s teaching. They seek confirmation of their own doctrine in the Gospel, on the supposition that the two doctrines are really the same.
This idea is an absolutely mistaken one. The Christian doctrine has nothing in common with the doctrine of the Positivists, Communists, and all the apostles of the universal brotherhood of mankind, based on the general advantage of such a brotherhood. They differ from one another especially in Christianity’s having a firm and clear basis in the human soul, while love for humanity is only a theoretical deduction from analogy.
The doctrine of love for humanity alone is based on the social conception of life.
The essence of the social conception of life consists in the transference of the aim of the individual life to the life of societies of individuals: family, clan, tribe, or state. This transference is accomplished easily and naturally in its earliest forms, in the transference of the aim of life from the individual to the family and the clan. The transference to the tribe or the nation is more difficult and requires special training. And the transference of the sentiment to the state is the furthest limit that the process can reach.
To love one’s self is natural to everyone, and no one needs any encouragement to do so. To love one’s clan who support and protect one, to love one’s wife, the joy and help of one’s existence, one’s children, the hope and consolation of one’s life, and one’s parents, who have given one life and education, is natural. And such love, though far from being so strong as love of self, is met with pretty often.
To love – for one’s own sake, through personal pride – one’s tribe, one’s nation, though not so natural, is nevertheless common. Love of one’s own people who are of the same blood, the same tongue, and the same religion as one’s self is possible, though far from being so strong as love of self, or even love of family or clan. But love for a state, such as Turkey, Germany, England, Austria, or Russia is a thing almost impossible. And though it is zealously inculcated, it is only an imagined sentiment; it has no existence in reality. And at that limit man’s power of transferring his interest ceases, and he cannot feel any direct sentiment for that fictitious entity. The Positivists, however, and all the apostles of fraternity on scientific principles, without taking into consideration the weakening of sentiment in proportion to the extension of its object, draw further deductions in theory in the same direction. “Since,” they say, “it was for the advantage of the individual to extend his personal interest to the family, the tribe, and subsequently to the nation and the state, it would be still more advantageous to extend his interest in societies of men to the whole of mankind, and so all to live for humanity just as men live for the family or the state.”
Leo Tolstoy
Page 44-45

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Also if you read the whole

Also if you read the whole book you will see that Tolstoy is completely against the idea of paying taxes to a government or state, so eventhough he may preach a Christian style of collectivism, it is far different from the collectivism promoted by a government or state. We happen to live in a collectivist country and to some extent even the Constitution in it's basic form with it's power to raise taxes and armies operates through collectivism. Collectivism isn't really the problem, the problem is when collectivism extends to far, which allows a government, state or church to own everything or gives them the authority to tax everything including our income, this is when collectivism becomes tyranny.
People working collectively, freely trading their services and goods for other services or goods, doesn't mean that everyone has the right to an equal share of the product establish by the community, but will extract from the community according to the amount of effort they put into the community, this is what Tolstoy proposed.

I think a lot of people

I think a lot of people confuse Tolstoy's critisism of Scientific men with critisism of the scientific method. He does not.
Secondly I believe you misread the article, cause he is pointing out that "they say" it was fro the advantage of the individual to extend his personal interest to nation and state...
He is pointing out that the nation and state encourage the love for people of the same blood or language.
Perhaps this clip of his book isn't clear on this point, but if you are interested you will discover so by reading the whole book, it is only 161 pages, unlike his masterpiece "War and Peace".

I like Tolstoy

Fortune Favors the Bold

but I have a couple of bones to pick.

First off, science is a method of determining the universally obervable truth about the physical universe. It doesn't "teach" anything about morality in and of itself. People can apply science in a myriad of ways, for any purpose that suits their interest.

Secondly, although I agree with you as far as nature goes, I don't personally see self-interest extended to one's nationality or ethnic identity as a positive thing at all but rather as a form of collectivism.

I think there is merit in recognizing that every individual, regardless of their ethnicity, kinship, or nation of origin is an individual, and thus should be judged as such, with the same unalienable rights as all other human beings.

Fortune Favors the Bold