I have approached the prospect of taking on Tolstoy’s major works, and was fascinated when I learned more of his philosophical intention with War and Peace. It surprises me that I hadn’t heard about it earlier as it is quite extraordinary. My fascination led me to read Berlin’s extended essay on Tolstoy’s philosophy of history. This book is well-known in learned circles for taking an ancient roman proverb (attributed to Archilochus) and expanding it to an argument to classifying intellectual figures into two categories – hedgehogs and foxes. The first category is said to know one thing well, the second a little of everything. It is basically the same argument that is rehashed every now and then about specialization in the academy and liberal arts education and “intellectuals” who go outside their “area of expertise”. I have a long history of following debates of this kind, and for that reason should have already read this by now. Anyway.
Shakespeare, for instance, is said to be a fox. Dostoevsky however is a hedgehog. Berlin proposes the theory that Tolstoy is a hedgehog who poses as a fox. Or holds the fox as an ideal. I don’t know really how seriously to take this game, and I’m more interested in the main argument, the one about Tolstoy’s view of history. It is informed by the views of Arthur Schopenhauer, and takes in the notion of zeitgeist in a novel way. Tolstoy finds sociology to be a laughable endeavour, because history is not governed by laws in that sense. Why is that never mentioned in sociology classes? New names to me are those of Kareev, Görres, Danilevsky, Wackenroder – all 19th century thinkers that are unknown today.
Skip to content
Kinship of all Species 