Leo Tolstoy's Theory of History 

Why would the family saga be considered trashy? 0:20 Its insight into the subtleties of the human condition, its stunning language, and its ability to create a story that mimics the depth and flow of memory is astounding. If anyone shares this gentleman's opinion, I'd be glad to hear an elaboration of it

In the book, Kutuzov seemed to understand his own insignificance and by doing so allowed Napoleon to defeat himself by hurling his army against Russia. Brave men like Volkonsky, Bezhukov and Dolokhov were thus unhindered by orders given by those who didn't understand the situation. Maybe that's Tolstoy's philosophy, the need to renounce egoism and stop following the "great men" who try to control everything. I think that's an underlying theme of the book, the need for humility, individual and national.

Very interesting commentary. Tolstoy had a serious issue, in my opinion, with internal dissent -- he had philosophies and viewpoints even he couldn't completely buy into. In a parallel example, Anna Karenina boldly declares in its first line that there is one route to happiness, but by the end of the novel, Tolstoy can't even convince himself of this anymore, and both Vronsky and Levin, moral foils, are suicidal. Interesting. Passed the museum of Borodino the other day- will have to visit.

I am sorry that put you off but I didn't mean it to be taken too seriously. I suppose I was trying to say I found the plot and characterisation a bit sentimental and superficial when comparing it with someone like Mikhail Sholokhov.

"trashy"?? "sentimental"," superficial" ???? ?????? Tolstoi was sentimental himself and LOVES Rostov family.... But your speech is brilliant!

Trashy family saga: agree. Thought I was binge watching "The wives of Atlanta, Hollywood, etc." His "ordinary people" are trivial, vacuous, unthinking people ruined by too much money and "social standing." This, I am told is one of Count Tolstoy's stylistic genius moves, to show people doing whatever they do without "moral comment." My little studies of Tolstoy himself lead me to believe he was "writing what he knew" because the Count himself was a trivial, vacuous, dilettante, drunk until after his war experience, and still knew nothing of women's lives and ruined the health of his MUCH younger arm candy trophy wife with the birth of 13 children. One of his main characters in W&P becomes suicidal after the beautiful young wife he treated hatefully for no reason dies in childbirth but immediately comes out of this depression when his cock responds to the view a vivacious 16-year-old girl. No surprise there, a return to utter selfishness. Furthermore, it appears, Tolstoy abandoned the mother of his 13 children when she was no longer fresh and nubile and began to lecture on the sins of sex. Sounds like a guy who likes to learn at the expense of others. I do, however agree with aspects of his Great Philosophy.

Excellent exposition.

There is no swarm without the 'specimen' - and it is the fateful association of like minded individuals that make a movement. Though few explore and comprehend their driving interests - especially when reducing man to reason - alignment is a decision, ushering in a new era once critical mass is reached. Hence the efforts to dominate customs and ceremony, public discourse and social engineering - not that a political culture can be perpetuated, indefinitely, but shifting a balance of power, it can.

Tolstoy was an army officer and a veteran of active service in the Caucasus and during the Crimean War. Given the ineptitude of higher command during the latter, it is easy to see why Tolstoy would have written the account of Borodino in the fashion that he did. And that battle certainly lends itself to his theories given Bonaparte's health and age related lassitude (which increasingly affected his performance as a commander after 1807) and Kutusov's apparent disengagement before and during the battle.

That's a presentation of Tolstoy's view of history. Whether it's convincing is another matter. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn opposed Tolstoy's view, which doesn't stand up to Russian history. Minorities filled with implacable purpose have been far too potent. Resignation to the flow of history as imposed by enemies is immoral complacency, and itself a contribution to the disasters it pretends are unavoidable. Tolstoy's genius showed best in the depiction of family life. In the philosophy of history he was a bad guide with a vast ability to be persuasive in support of his wrong views.

at the end of the video some of the background sounds remind me of some sounds in the movie Kin Dza Dza

His lineage can be traced to khazaria whose dynasty was far superior that of rothschilds, Tolstoy himself was born into aristocratic family and his writings can be attributed to his experience in peasant russia at that time

I agree -- very perceptive.

Why isn't Hegel mentioned?

Excellent! Very smart guy! I like him.....

Nice job!

If Tolstoy's account of the conduct of French soldiers in occupied Moscow is at all accurate, it is difficult to see Napoleon as the great military leader he is usually portrayed as. The French army at that point seemed a joke - undisciplined, greedy, and rapacious. (Of course, Tolstoy is also quite critical of most of the Russian generals, seeing them as shallow men pursuing fame.) The point about lag time in the field for military intelligence and orders is of interest; I have always suspected that in the days before radio communications success in battles must frequently have depended on a certain amount of luck. Also, it is interesting to compare Dostoevsky. With Raskolnikov, it seems that to become a Napoleon, one must have hubris and a sort of narcissism, but lack of spiritual and intellectual depth may be the most important requirement. The commonplace distinction between doers, like Napoleon, and thinkers, like Raskolnikov or Ivan Karamazov, comes to mind.

Good stuff!

Thankyou ...that was interesting.

This is a real trip. I think they have a statue of Napoleon at Boredino. I always found this odd, a statue of someone who is trying to conquer your country? Nietzsche thought just the opposite of Tolstoy. He thought that the leaders were the real ones who shaped history. Nietzsche loved Napoleon and Cesar also. I always thought this was crazy. I think Tolstoy is a more correct in how history works.

Giviing it a closer thougt, I don't think you should have said something about Hegel, but sooner something about the whole context of thougt at the time.

Excellent points.

I'm afraid I have never seen it. I guess it focuses on the narrative rather than the theoretical history so would not be of all that much interest to me. What do you think of it? And yes I read Frank Herbert's Dune as a teenager. Why do you ask?

@amaxamon Thank you. I remember being fascinated by Dune. The "Litany against fear" was interesting. No doubt I absorbed some of Herbert's thinking but have long ago forgotten where it came from.

Um, what should I have said about Hegel?

He disliked Shakespeare, claimed it wasn't real , Wittgenstein agreed.

They wanted to burn Luther at the stake... Why did the prince ignore the church? To avoid the nuanced condemnation of a middle class that agreed theologically with Luther? Very much doubt it

He lost me too...

so smart:)

You don’t win the most battles in history by pure luck . Of course napoleon had a massive impact .

He lost me when he called the family drama "trashy."

Annales

Did he just throw those books on the ground!! Disrespectful.

Kings are slaves of history. Tolstoy’s views are not that different from those found in eastern spirituality.

Tolstoy was an exceptional novelist. Not a particularly good historical theorist unfortunately.

What is the jerk really saying? Why the choice to orate from a winter landscape other than trite melodrama? The Russian winter? Lose the hat Ivan!

I AM REVELATION 12 wo to man for sin against woman .no matter whether man is at war or at peace and no matter whom are his enermies nor how vile man is to man he will join together if woman were to get into womans hands thus mans only purpose evil or good man must oppress woman and place obstacles in her path priory over all other things so mans only will to power is solely to put himself above woman and slave her for his ways and never allow her to have her ways . skeatesy new christ son of man

There are two kinds of snob. The social snob and the intellectual snob. I am an intellectual snob.