"If only people would realize that they are not the children of any nation or government, but the children of God, and therefore cannot be either slaves or enemies of other people; and those insane, now utterly useless, destructive institutions left over from antiquity — called governments — along with all the suffering, violence, humiliation, and crimes they entail, will destroy themselves."
I have already typed one of his distant relatives, a notable writer in his own right, but what about Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) himself? Here I will mostly rely on the arguments already made by Talanov, retelling them while also adding some of my own.
Tolstoy was definitely a socionical "ethical." The characters he creates are not simply stand-ins for an ideology or gears meant to advance the plot mechanism, they're distinct, memorable, have full interiority, and usually quite socionically typable themselves. Think of the awkward intellectual Pierre Bezukhov, of the warm, but narcissistic and careless Natasha Rostova, of the self-abnegating Princess Maria... On the Fi side, his diaries keep a constant moral ledger, cataloguing own faults, harshly morally judging himself and others, becoming more and more severe as time passed, to the point he denounced his own previous works as to serve a truly moral purpose. His arguments his arguments are less Russell-style constructions, and more moral assertions. He certainly had quite a high "questimic" individuality and highly disliked imperial collectivism to the point of having very negative associations with the word "patriotism" — his individualistic Qi was quite high. His anarchism is not the carefree "anything goes" flavor, nor is it the "burn a Walmart" type, it's very morally strict, even as it denounces state control. The state is illegitimate because it licenses what the moral law forbids. Every function the state performed by compulsion of an external system of laws and rules, the individual now has to perform out of conscience. He also had quite a strong sensory bodily drive (mowing alongside the peasants, hunting, riding...) Such sensory activities do point to the S pole, and his grumbling against theoretical scientists ("they'd better off growing bread") is typical for the ESI type.
What, then, explains the accent? First, it's the sheer intensity of his feelings, delivered at full volume with no interest in moderation. His rather cranky and explosive, demanding, even contemptuous, nature, from which his wife Sofia Berns suffered so much, also points to quite a high Qe. And leaving home at eighty-two in the middle of the night, dying at a railway station with the world's press outside — not sure how typical this is of ESI, but it can be interpreted as an EIE grand gesture. The whole prophetic-messianic role is also not really ESI material. In his famous novels, his ambitions are universal and global — even the name, "War and Peace" is telling, and this novel ends with a long digression where he pontificates about history as produced by global forces. The famous passages are the ones where the individual and the cosmic touch — Prince Andrei under the sky at Austerlitz, Ivan Ilyich at the very end. He's no Jane Austen in that regard — she has his attention to individual personalities, but not the global ambition. Unlike a typical EIE, though, he disliked photographers and interviewers — although could it be because he considered such characters to be beneath him?
It is possible that he was an intermediate type, with, as Talanov pointed out, highly distinct questimity and negativism. Such people do exist. The whole structure of his personality closely reminds me of William Gladstone, another moralistic public figure with self-flagellating diary who could be quite cranky personally — only the latter has more EIE qualities (the Midlothian campaign is a thing Tolstoy never did and likely couldn't have), to the point where EIE is a plasubile leading type, while Tolstoy I shall still categorize as the closest to ESI.
Comments
Post a Comment