Live data from Hacker News

Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

brainpickings.org

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read Pinker's book, but I've read Tolstoy recently. Tolstoy doesn't present any data or historical evidence, just shares his deep intuitive wisdom. He predicted the rise of communism and the world wars, but also inspired Ghandi and Martin Luther King and many others... . And at times it's really scary how much similarity there exists between the popular ideas back then (which he discusses) and the ideas of…

>deep intuitive wisdom. aka he pulled it out of thin air. The sooner we base long term plans on verified data instead of intuition the sooner we'll reduce needless suffering.

Long term plans need (a) vision.

A great thinker like this can't be replaced by something quantifiable.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#42
post #28
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not consistent with what Tolstoy said (or at least what the author says of what Tolstoy said -- I haven't actually read Tolstoy). The author says that Tolstoy "advocates for a return to our most natural, basic state, which is the law of love." [Emphasis added.] Mankind can't return to this state because mankind has never been in this state. We may some day in the future be in this state (I hope so) but we have…

Well, I get that. To be as blunt as possible for comprehension - Tolstoy and the like, when they are busy living "the law of love," are actually dissociating themselves from the savage instincts (while identifying with the tender ones), which gives rise to the delusion that their newfound identification is somehow our "most natura, basic state" that other people need to return to . This is the same old Spiritual nons…

I like your comment because it is a good antidote for people who suffer from a naive and dull sort of adoration for saintly, detached love. But there is also a detachment which comes from embracing and surrendering to human nature. This is the difference between the saint and his admirers.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#43
post #28
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not consistent with what Tolstoy said (or at least what the author says of what Tolstoy said -- I haven't actually read Tolstoy). The author says that Tolstoy "advocates for a return to our most natural, basic state, which is the law of love." [Emphasis added.] Mankind can't return to this state because mankind has never been in this state. We may some day in the future be in this state (I hope so) but we have…

Well, I get that. To be as blunt as possible for comprehension - Tolstoy and the like, when they are busy living "the law of love," are actually dissociating themselves from the savage instincts (while identifying with the tender ones), which gives rise to the delusion that their newfound identification is somehow our "most natura, basic state" that other people need to return to . This is the same old Spiritual nons…

For the record, Zen Masters were often violent, and they do not seem to have believed in returning to a natural state of peace and love.

"Original face" is a mysterious phrase used by Huineng, an early patriarch, in a story where he's chased by an angry monk and when they stop and talk, the patriarch tells him to suspend all thoughts of right and wrong and then asks him about his "face before you were born." This provokes an insight for the monk.

These masters did talk about being ordinary, ordinary mind, mind that doesn't cling to delusions, mind that's relaxed and in some sense carefree. But they also denounced "mind pacification" and sitting cross-legged.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#44
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is Tolstoy's method of protecting the weak from the strong without some analogue of police?

He says the weak should just deal with it. And he isn't really coming up with this himself, but pretty much just saying what the New Testament actually reads. His point is that if everyone 'does not resist violence' then the world will be perfect. This seems like a recipe for disaster, but it worked for Gandhi and the other thing Tolstoy advocates is not supporting any entity that does violence. So yeah, thugs could…

> but it worked for Gandhi

Non-violent movements needs an audience with influence to succeed. You need an influential gallery to play to. Gandhi had that. Not everyone does, for example Palestinians dont

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#45

Almost by accident I started reading 'The kingdom of God is within you' by Tolstoy a couple of months ago. I haven't read anything by Tolstoy before. And boy, was I in for a surprise. It was a very powerful and inspiring book. Being very fond of the counterculture, the hippy movement, free society, open source, tech anarchy, etc - I was very surprised to see him talking about these concepts with such clarity back the…

For what it's worth, the apostle Paul thought that turning Christianity into a secular philosophy (as opposed to supernatural theology) would be a mistake.

1 Corinthians 15, ESV

  Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead,
  how can some of you say that there is no resurrection
  of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the
  dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if
  Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is
  in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found
  to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about
  God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if
  it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the
  dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is
  futile and you are still in your sins. Then those
  also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
  If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are
  of all people most to be pitied.
I think a lot of people are correct that there is a powerful philosophy in Christianity, but to ignore the existence of God and Jesus, specifically the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, is to ignore the main (constantly reiterated) point of the Bible. And the Bible says Christians are pitiful and Christianity pointless if Jesus isn't God.

Of course, apologies if you do believe in the resurrection and the Bible, but it wasn't apparent from your post. In that case, I'm positive others here have not heard this aspect of Christian philosophy.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#46
post #17

> a return to our most natural, basic state, which is the law of love I'm sorry, but this is hopelessly naive. All living things are the products of evolution, and hence competition and the drawing of boundaries between "us" and "them" (i.e. between the phenotype of the reproducing genome and the environment that is used to provide the resources to reproduce) is an inherent part of all life. To be sure, cooperation c…

> and hence competition

I don't think you understand evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with competition. If the environment is setup such that all beings get 'the prize', which is possible in environments of abundance, then there really is no competition.

We as humans have advanced such that we typically can survive every environment. And this is because of technology AND society. We have created for ourselves an environment of abundance. We are just not smart enough yet to realize it.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#47

Almost by accident I started reading 'The kingdom of God is within you' by Tolstoy a couple of months ago. I haven't read anything by Tolstoy before. And boy, was I in for a surprise. It was a very powerful and inspiring book. Being very fond of the counterculture, the hippy movement, free society, open source, tech anarchy, etc - I was very surprised to see him talking about these concepts with such clarity back the…

+1 thanks, I just bought "The kingdom of God is Within You" for a dollar (kindle version). I am into spirituality, not religion. Reading your summary of Tolstoy's philosophy and the comments on amazon convinced me to move this to the top of my reading list.

A little off topic: I agree with Tolstoy that love is the foundation for what society should be, and I beieve that there is much more love, cooperation, and people doing good things in the word than anyone would imagine after exposing themselves to corporate news media.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#48

Tangential, I'm reading "War and Peace" right now for my book club, very difficult to slog through; just curious for peeps who've read either "War and Peace" or "Anna Karenina," what is so special about Tolstoy's novels, that makes it different than say their Western counterparts like say "Les Miserables" or "Pride and Prejudice"?

What sets Tolstoy apart is the unmatched description of the human psyche. The characters in Tolstoy's novels are excruciatingly complex. The only author IMHO who has described the human psyche at the same level of depth, adding more drama though, is Dostojevski.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#49
post #17

> a return to our most natural, basic state, which is the law of love I'm sorry, but this is hopelessly naive. All living things are the products of evolution, and hence competition and the drawing of boundaries between "us" and "them" (i.e. between the phenotype of the reproducing genome and the environment that is used to provide the resources to reproduce) is an inherent part of all life. To be sure, cooperation c…

> Peaceful coexistence is hard precisely because it is NOT our most natural, basic state.

It depends on what you mean by saying "our".

It's "not natural" for an aggressive chemical reaction called "life" that consumes all the resources it can find.

But it's a basic state of the Universe. Ever heard people saying "God is Love", "we are all one" or "nirvana"? That's it.

Re: Why We Hurt Each Other: Tolstoy’s Letters to Gandhi

#50
post #17

> a return to our most natural, basic state, which is the law of love I'm sorry, but this is hopelessly naive. All living things are the products of evolution, and hence competition and the drawing of boundaries between "us" and "them" (i.e. between the phenotype of the reproducing genome and the environment that is used to provide the resources to reproduce) is an inherent part of all life. To be sure, cooperation c…

> Peaceful coexistence is hard precisely because it is NOT our most natural, basic state. It depends on what you mean by saying "our". It's "not natural" for an aggressive chemical reaction called "life" that consumes all the resources it can find. But it's a basic state of the Universe. Ever heard people saying "God is Love", "we are all one" or "nirvana"? That's it.

> It depends on what you mean by saying "our".

By "our" I mean "humans", though it is actually true of all living things.

> Ever heard people saying "God is Love", "we are all one" or "nirvana"? That's it.

Of course I've heard people say it. I've also heard people say that humans are not the cause of climate change. Just because people say something doesn't mean it's true.

Nirvana is not a natural state that humans have abandoned (and thus can "return" to.) It is an artificial state that humans have invented. We don't "return" to Nirvana, we have to make Nirvana. We have to design it and build it and maintain it. And that requires work. Simply reciting empty platitudes won't do it.

Post reply on HN