First let me apologize. Allen, the 86 year old man who founded the charity I represent, went into the hospital and that took me away from everything for a few days as I ran the charity and arranged some legal protections for Camp Ponderosa. I'm back, Allen is on the mend, so let's get to it.
Boy, these chapters are getting DEEP. More and more, I'm seeing parallels.
Tolstoy, like the modern Church, confuses God's will with his own moral experience. He chooses to ignore any Scripture that disagrees ("Rescue those being led away to death; Hold back those stmubling towards the slaughter" with his viewpoint. He calls those parts "the old ways" or "superstitions", just like we do now. Moralists (as Tolstoys followers were called) disregarded and belittled any science or art that disagreed with thier worldview. This part really struck me because look at how the modern media and left treated things like Ivermectin or any evidence that refuted Climate Change.
These people, like the modern Church and left, see justice as intimidation (see the Papal stance on immigration enforcement).They viewed the suspects and accused as the victim and the police as "thugs". The reject law enforcement, money, big business, and inheritances. Man, does that sound familiar??
In yet another parallel, they saw patriotism and love of the homeland as silly. They felt that defense of the motherland was evil. Even though it was 100 years ago, they wanted no regard for race or nationality and to allow immigrants to freely settle, while providing assistance to them. History repeats or rhymes.
Their final point is that nothing is worht dying over or killing in the defense of.
Moralism, which we call liberalism today, requires pitying the suffering of all others, except your own suffering. It requires personal suffering, even to the point of death, rather than resisting and causing someone else to "suffer" as a result of your resistance.
These types posit that if suffering is evil, then inflicting suffering is evil, even it is meant to end someone else's suffering (for example, punching someone who is attacking someone else). A side effect of this is the feeling that not only should no suffer at the hands of others, but no should ever be offended. Boy, does that ring a bell? Therefore, violence as resistance is condemned for inflciting suffering on others.
Tolstoy & his "moralists" see love as the one true good, but their love is only surface-level, and never goes to love of spirit. The ultimate virtue is being weak-willed with unspiritual love of just outward facing things.
In evaluating violence, they do not separate the villains from the non-villains. This distorts the idea of good & evil. Weak and irresponsible men (like men who allow women to be attacked in their presence) and called heroic (stunning & brave). Heroic men with righteous anger are called shameful and base (in 1925, being "based" wasn't a good thing). This ends up leaving the adherents unspiritual, self-pitying, and indulgent.
According to Ilyin, one who walks in truth (carries the light, so to speak) finds a reason to live, struggle, and resist. They find "a jewel worth living & dying for".
The moralist approach leads to a corruption of the ideal of justice, national pride, and church. Instead of payback & venegeance, they forgive and pity the criminal. Just like today. In reality, the cirminal deserves outrage rather than pity.
The moralists preached that love is honoring someone else's animalism or vulgarity, while Ilyin says that true love is love for their spirit and wanted them to improve, rather than justifying their ways.
The chapter ended on something that really stuck with me, as I say this too all of the time. Ilyin said that the people were more worried about "not causing trouble" to their neighbors than advancing His Kingdom and doing His willl. Amen brother.
Discuss your thoughts below. I promise we'll get back to a couple of chapters a week.
