The Tension Between Hegel’s Understanding of War and Tolstoy’s Critique of War

tarihinde gönderilmiş tarafından
10

In modern thought, war has been conceptualized sometimes as a necessary instrument of historical progress, and sometimes as the clearest manifestation of humanity’s moral bankruptcy. This contrast emerges as a distinct philosophical tension between G. W. F. Hegel and Lev Tolstoy. While Hegel positions war as a necessary moment in the dialectical workings of historical reason, Tolstoy exposes this kind of rationalization of war as a moral illusion.

I. War in Hegel: The Dialectical Moment of Historical Reason
Hegel’s understanding of war is directly based on his philosophy of history and theory of the state. According to Hegel, “reason reigns over history,” and history is the necessary progress of freedom (Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte, p. 28). This progress is inconceivable without conflict and contradiction.

  1. War and the Ethical Reality of the State
    In Principles of the Philosophy of Law, Hegel clearly articulates the meaning of war for the state:

“War preserves the ethical health of nations, just as the winds save lakes from decay.” (Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, §324, p. 361)

In this passage, war is presented not as a moral ideal, but as a historical necessity that breaks ethical stagnation. The private interests of the individual are subordinated to the universal interests of the state through war.

  1. Reason, Necessity, and Destruction
    Hegel does not deny the destructiveness of war; however, this destruction is part of the production of historical meaning:

“Nothing in history has ever happened without great passion.” (Hegel, Philosophy of History, p. 21)

War is the historical stage where these passions intensify. Individual suffering is considered the price of a higher form of freedom. At this point, in Hegel, ethics is subject to the immanent logic of history.

II. War in Tolstoy: The Moral Collapse of Historical Meaning
Tolstoy’s critique of war, especially in War and Peace, transforms into a systematic critique of the philosophy of history. Tolstoy radically rejects the fundamental premises of the Hegelian understanding of history—progress, necessity, and great individuals.

  1. The Illusion of Reason in History
    Tolstoy explicitly criticizes the idea that there is a rational plan or purpose in history:

“Those who are supposed to direct history are in fact the least aware of events.” (Tolstoy, War and Peace, Epilogue I, p. 1347)

This statement is a direct counter-argument to Hegel’s conception of the “world-historical individual.” Figures like Napoleon are not subjects of history in Tolstoy, but figures swept along in the flow of history.

  1. The Moral Nature of War
    For Tolstoy, war cannot be historically justified in any way:

“War is contrary to human nature, a denial of reason and conscience.”
(Tolstoy, War and Peace, Vol. III, Chapter 1, p. 829)

At this point, Tolstoy fundamentally diverges from Hegel. While in Hegel war produces historical meaning, in Tolstoy war is the suspension of meaning. History does not progress; it only produces more death.

III. The Philosophical Core of the Tension: Ethics or History?
The fundamental tension between Hegel and Tolstoy is concentrated in this question:
Is ethics a product of history, or should history be judged by ethical criteria?

Hegel places ethics within the historical process. Therefore, even if war is morally problematic, it is historically “rational.”
Tolstoy, on the other hand, places ethics above history. History, if it progresses through violence, is not progress but degeneration.
Tolstoy expresses this clearly:

“People legitimize the evils they commit under the name of ‘history.’” (Tolstoy, War and Peace, Epilogue II, p. 1392)

This sentence can be read as one of the harshest ethical criticisms directed at Hegelian philosophy of history.

***

While in Hegel, war gains meaning as a dialectical moment of historical reason; in Tolstoy, war is the most naked manifestation of humanity’s moral bankruptcy. While Hegel, as the philosopher of the modern state and historical necessity, places war within a rational framework, Tolstoy makes visible the destructive consequences of this framework on human life. This tension is not only a difference of opinion between the two thinkers; it is the philosophical expression of the unresolved conflict between progress and ethics in modernity.

Bibliography

  • Hegel, G. W. F. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986.
  • Hegel, G. W. F. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986.
  • Hegel, G. W. F. The Philosophy of History, çev. J. Sibree. New York: Dover, 1956.
  • Tolstoy, L. War and Peace. çev. Louise ve Aylmer Maude. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.