Continuing from a Previous Post Leo Tolstoy and his book “The Kingdom of God is Within You” . . . .
From a previous post: Theoretically it follows, indeed, having extended the love and interest for the personality to the family, the tribe and thence to the nation and the state, it would be still more advantageous to extend interest in societies to the whole of mankind, and so to live for humanity just as parents for the family or the state, (continuing. . . . ) it would be perfectly logical for us to save ourselves the strife and calamities which result in the division of mankind into nations and state by extending their love to the whole of humanity. This would be most logical, and theoretically nothing would appear more natural to its advocates, who do not observe that love is a sentiment which may or may not be felt, but which it is useless to advocate, and moreover, that love must have an object, and that humanity is not an object. It is nothing but fiction.
The family, the tribe, even the state were not invented by men, but formed themselves spontaneously, like anthills or swarms of bees, and have a real existence. The man/woman, who for the sake of his own animal personality, loves his family, knows whom he loves: Anna, Dolly, John, Peter and so on. Those who love their tribe and take pride in it, know that he loves them all; those who love the state knows he loves France bounded by the Rhine and the Pyrenees, and its principle city Paris, and its history and so on. But those who love humanity —what do they love? There is such a thing as a state, a nation; there is the abstract conception of man; but humanity as a concrete idea does not, and cannot exist.
Humanity! Where is the definition of humanity? Where does it end and where does it begin? Does humanity end with the savage, the idiot, the dip-somatic, or the madman? If we draw a line excluding its lowest representatives, where are we to draw the line? Shall we exclude other races or religions than us?
We know nothing of humanity as an eternal object, and we know nothing of its limits. Humanity is fiction and it is impossible to love it. It would be very advantageous if we could love humanity, as Communists advocate, to replace the competitive, individualistic organization of our activity by a social universal organization, so that each would be for all and all would be for each. Only there are no motives for us to do that. The Positivists, the Communists, and all the apostles of fraternity on scientific principles advocate the extension to the whole of humanity of the love they feel for themselves, their family, and their state. They forget that the love for that which they are discussing is a personal love, which might expand in a rarefied form to embrace an artificial state such as Austria, England, or Turkey, and which we cannot even conceive of in relation to all humanity, an absolutely mystic conception.
A man/woman loves self (the animal personality), he/she loves family, and even loves her/his native country. Why should we not love humanity? That would be such an excellent thing. And, by the way, it is precisely what is taught in Christianity.” So thank the advocates of Positivist, Communistic, or Socialistic fraternity. It would indeed be an excellent thing. But it can never be, for the love that is based on personal or conception of life, can never rise beyond love for the state.
The fallacy of the argument lies in the fact that the social conception of life, on which love for nation, or family and nation is founded, rests itself on the love of self, and that love grows weaker and weaker as it is extended from self to family, tribe, nationality, and state; and it is in the state we reach the furthest limit beyond which cannot go.
The necessity of extending the sphere of love is beyond dispute. But in reality the possibility of love is destroyed by the necessity of extending its object indefinitely. And thus the insufficiency of personal love is made manifest.
And here the advocates of Positivist, Communistic, Socialistic fraternity proposes to draw upon Christian love to make up the default of this bankrupt human love; but Christian love only is in its results, not in its foundations. They propose love for humanity alone apart from love for God.
This social conception of life has led by natural transition from self and then family, tribe, nation and state to a consciousness of the necessity of love for humanity, a conception which has no definite limits and extends to all living things. And the necessity of love of what awakens no kind of sentiment in us is a contradiction which cannot be solved by the social theory of life.
Christian doctrine in its full significance can alone solve it, by giving new meaning to life. Christianity recognizes love of self, of family, of nation and not only of humanity, but of everything living, everything existing; it recognizes the necessity of an infinite extension of the sphere of love. But the object of this love is not found outside self in societies of individuals, nor in the external world, but within self, in the divine self whose essence is that very love which the animal self is brought to feel the need through its consciousness of its own perishable nature.~~~ Leo Tolstoy, “The Kingdom of God is Within You“. p. 77-79
–and you will attain the very aim to which you are striving when you subject your eternal self.” ~~~Leo Tolstoy
For the first post of this series, click “The Kingdom of God is Within You”
