Between Necessity and Freedom: Tolstoy’s and Spinoza’s Determinism in War and Peace

Tolstoy’s critique of free will, developed in War and Peace , shares a strong intellectual kinship with Spinoza’s doctrine of necessity, one of the most radical models of determinism in modern philosophy . Both thinkers consider free will an illusion of consciousness stemming from a lack of knowledge of the true causes of human actions . However, Tolstoy develops this idea not through a systematic philosophical text, but through the form of a novel and historical narrative. This chapter aims to demonstrate why free will becomes “problematic” in both thinkers by comparing Tolstoy’s historical determinism with Spinoza’s metaphysical determinism developed in Ethica .

1. Determinism in Spinoza: The Ontology of Necessity

According to Spinoza, nothing in the universe is accidental . Every being and every action occurs within a chain of necessary causes determined by God-nature (Deus sive Natura):

“People think they are free because they are conscious of their actions but do not know the causes that determine them.”(Spinoza, Ethica , II, Proposition 35, Scholium)

In this approach, free will is metaphysically impossible. Human will is not exempt from the general necessity of nature. For Spinoza, “freedom” is not liberation from causality, but the rational understanding of causality . Therefore, freedom is based not on will, but on knowledge .

2. Historical Determinism in Tolstoy: The Narrative of Causality

The determinism that Tolstoy advocates in War and Peace is not ontological, as in Spinoza, but historical and social determinism. However, the result is the same: the claim of individual free will loses its validity. Tolstoy vehemently rejects explaining historical events through singular wills.

“To attribute the outcome of a war to the will of a single commander is like trying to explain the tides with a single wave.”(Tolstoy, War and Peace , p. 1096)

Here, Tolstoy’s method differs from Spinoza’s: while Spinoza establishes a geometric system of necessity, Tolstoy distributes causality through narrative multiplicity . Yet, in both thinkers, man is not the subject but the carrier of causes .

3. The Illusion of Freedom: Will as Ignorance

Spinoza’s formula “freedom = ignorance” finds an almost verbatim counterpart in Tolstoy’s novel. Tolstoy makes this illusion visible, particularly through the figure of Napoleon:

“Napoleon thought he was giving orders; but nothing happened that thousands of people didn’t want.”(Tolstoy, War and Peace , p. 734)

This passage brings Spinoza’s critique of free will to the historical stage. Napoleon’s sense of freedom, like the man described by Spinoza, stems from an ignorance of causes . Therefore, in Tolstoy, free will, just as in Spinoza, is a phenomenological but not ontological reality.

4. Ethical Consequences: Acceptance or Consciousness?

The most important difference between the two thinkers lies in the ethical consequences of determinism. In Spinoza, the understanding of necessity leads the individual to intellectual freedom :

“He who understands necessity is freed from being a slave to his passions.”(Spinoza, Ethica , V, Proposition 3)

In Tolstoy, however, this understanding gives rise to more of a sense of humility and moral limitations . Pierre Bezuhov’s transformation clearly demonstrates this difference:

“Pierre had realized that he should no longer try to change things, but rather to try to understand them.”(Tolstoy, War and Peace , p. 952)

While Spinoza’s ethical freedom is active and rational, Tolstoy’s ethical stance involves more of a passive acceptance and a humility closer to Christian morality.

5. Free Will: An Impossible Concept in Spinoza, a Necessary One in Tolstoy

While Spinoza completely rejects free will philosophically, Tolstoy preserves it as a social and moral necessity . According to Tolstoy, people must believe in free will; otherwise, history cannot be written, and moral judgments cannot be made.

“Man is forced to live as if he were free, even though he is not.”(Tolstoy, War and Peace , p. 1308)

At this point, Tolstoy diverges from Spinoza, positioning free will not as an ontological fable but as an ethical necessity .

In summary;

Spinoza and Tolstoy, despite drawing from different disciplines, arrive at a common conclusion regarding free will: humans are not the absolute agents of their actions. Spinoza grounds this conclusion in metaphysical necessity, while Tolstoy makes it visible through historical and narrative multiplicity. However, unlike Spinoza, Tolstoy, even while acknowledging that free will is an illusion, preserves its moral and social function . Therefore , War and Peace can be read as a paradoxical text that undermines free will but simultaneously demonstrates that life cannot be lived without it.

Source

Spinoza, Benedictus de. Ethica . Translated by Aziz Yardımlı. Istanbul: İdea Yayınları, 2011.

Tolstoy, Lev. War and Peace . Translated by Ayşe Hacıhasanoğlu. Istanbul: Can Yayınları, 2018.

Berlin, Isaiah. The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History . London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1953.

Deleuze, Gilles. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy . San Francisco: City Lights, 1988.