This review is written with a GPL 4.0 license and the rights contained therein shall supersede all TOS by any and all websites in regards to copying and sharing without proper authorization and permissions. Crossposted at WordPress & Blogspot by Bookstooge’s Exalted Permission
Title: A Confession
Series: (The Russians)
Author: Leo Tolstoy
Translator: Aylmer Maude
Rating: 3.5 of 5 Stars
Genre: Nonfiction
Pages: 83
Words: 25K
The synopsis from Wikipedia is filled with wild surmises and assumptions that I totally disagree with, especially all the crap about Tolstoy somehow viewing God from a pantheistic viewpoint. Someone with an axe to grind wrote that instead of someone who just wanted to factually write what the novella was about. This is why I don’t trust Wikipedia, it’s a damn cesspit. But it is easier to copy/paste that than to try to write out my own synopsis, so this is just a disclaimer that I’m using their synopsis, but under very loud and vociferous protest. But mainly because I’m lazy.
This was the journey of one man who went from a children’s belief in Christianity, to Unbelief, to Church Orthodoxy to his own belief in Jesus Christ.
Really, this was just a slightly updated version of the book of Ecclesiastes (from the Bible). In that, The Preacher (most people figure it is King Solomon) talks about his loss of faith and how useless life is and how he sets out to find the meaning of life. Tolstoy does the same thing, but in a very russian way.
My biggest issue with this was how he almost never references the Bible itself in his searchings. He goes to all these various teachers and dogmas, but not the Bible itself, which the teachings and dogmas are based on. Or if he does, he doesn’t mention it but it really doesn’t seem like he goes to the source. Another part is that I don’t have the same experience as him. I took my Christianity very seriously from the time I was twelve. By the time I was sixteen I knew that I wanted to follow Jesus Christ whole heartedly and by the time I was twenty-two I knew I was on the correct path. The last 20+ years have been my various trials, tribulations, rejoicings and victories as I’ve continued to trod that path. Tolstoy didn’t have the same foundation and thus had to travel a very different path from me. I suspect this novella might speak much louder to someone who is in the midst of their own doubts about the meaning of life.
The translator, Aylmer Maude, added several footnotes that I found very helpful. While I have no idea if his translation is correct or not (I would hope so, as he was translating some very complex theological ideas), the fact his footnotes were clear, concise, to the point and were actually helpful makes me think his translation was a good one.
To end, while I am not a subscriber to various catechisms, I do think they have their place. And in this regards, this particular catechist(?) is apropos:
What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever.
That folks, is the meaning of your life and the only way to do that is through the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
★★★✬☆
From Wikipedia.org
Click to Open
The book is a brief autobiographical story of the author’s struggle with a mid-life existential crisis. It describes his search for the answer to the ultimate philosophical question: “If God does not exist, since death is inevitable, what is the meaning of life?” Without the answer to this, for him, life had become “impossible”.
The story begins with the Eastern fable of the dragon in the well. A man is chased by a beast into a well, at the bottom of which is a dragon. The man clings to a branch that is being gnawed on by two mice (one black, one white, representing night and day and the relentless march of time). The man is able to lick two drops of honey (representing Tolstoy’s love of his family and his writing), but because death is inevitable, he no longer finds the honey sweet.
Tolstoy goes on to describe four possible attitudes towards this dilemma. The first is ignorance. If one is oblivious to the fact that death is approaching, life becomes bearable. The problem with this for him personally is that he is not ignorant. Having become conscious of the reality of death, there is no going back.
The second possibility is what Tolstoy describes as Epicureanism. Being fully aware that life is ephemeral, one can enjoy the time one has. Tolstoy’s problem with this is essentially moral. He states that Epicureanism may work fine and well for the minority who can afford to live “the good life,” but one would have to be morally empty to be able to ignore the fact that the vast majority of people do not have access to the wealth necessary to live this kind of life.
Tolstoy next states that the most intellectually honest response to the situation would be suicide. In the face of the inevitability of death and assuming that God does not exist, why wait? Why pretend that this vale of tears means anything when one can just cut to the chase? For himself, however, Tolstoy writes that he is “too cowardly” to follow through on this most “logically consistent” response.
Finally, Tolstoy says that the fourth option, the one he is taking, is the one of just holding on; living “despite the absurdity of it,” because he is not willing “or able” to do anything else. So it seems “utterly hopeless” – at least “without God”.
So Tolstoy turns to the question of God’s existence: After despairing of his attempts to find answers in classic philosophical arguments for the existence of God (e.g. the Cosmological Argument, which reasons that God must exist based on the need to ascribe an original cause to the universe), Tolstoy turns to a more mystical, intuitive affirmation of God’s presence. He states that as soon as he said “God is Life,” life was once again suffused with meaning. This faith could be interpreted as a Kierkegaardian leap, but Tolstoy actually seems to be describing a more Eastern approach to what God is. The identification of God with life suggests a more monistic (or panentheistic) metaphysic characteristic of Eastern religions, and this is why[citation needed] rational arguments ultimately fall short of establishing God’s existence. Tolstoy’s original title for this work indicates as much, and his own personal “conversion” is suggested by an epilogue that describes a dream he had some time after completing the body of the text, confirming that he had undergone a radical personal and spiritual transformation.
