Evangelization of Whom?
Come, let's argue then. You talk of schools, education and so forth; that is, you want to raise him (a peasant/serf) from his animal condition and awaken in him spiritual needs, while it seems to me that animal happiness is the only happiness possible, and that is just what you want to deprive him of. I envy him, but you want to make him what I am, without giving him my means. Then you say, 'lighten his toil.' But as I see it, physical labor is as essential to him, as much a condition of his existence, as mental activity is to you or me. You can't help thinking. I go to bed after two in the morning, thoughts come and I can't sleep but toss about till dawn, because I think and can't help thinking, just as he can't help plowing and mowing; if he didn't, he would go to the drink shop or fall ill. Just as I could not stand his terrible physical labor but should die of it in a week, so he could not stand my physical idleness, but would grow fat and die. (336; Bk V, Chpt 9)
This segment comes in the heart of the argument between Prince Andrew and Pierre, in which Prince Andrew argues for living for one's self, and Pierre for living for others. Overall, I found myself aligning with Pierre's argument, and it seemed to me Prince Andrew wanted to as well. Pierre's new-found Masonic outlook has many good points and at least in theory seems to be something worth believing in. However, in this portion of the argument I couldn't help but agree with what Prince Andrew is saying here, especially considering the view we got of Pierre's "help" to his serfs through his head serf. Am I wrong to agree with Prince Andrew, that knowledge is not something necessary or good for all people? I feel like this is a topic we've touched on often through PLS, especially in Sem 4, and now I am left uncertain of which way, if any, Tolstoy is trying to persuade us. Are we to assume that Pierre's whole argument is correct, and therefore Prince Andrew's account here is incorrect? Or does Prince Andrew have something here that we should take real consideration of, regardless of the rest of the argument? Or am I totally off or missing something?
1 comments:
Great passage to bring up, Matt. I wish I read your piece before I wrote my discussion question. But just to add to what you wrote, I think it would be important to look at the implications and consequences of this philosophical debate between Andrew and Pierre. It is so ironic to me that each seems to live out the other's philosophical position (i.e. Andrew liberates all his serfs and Pierre is tricked into thinking he improved the quality of life for these people). Just something else to think about...
Post a Comment