What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

A Look at Tolstoy's Traveler

DuskrayTroubador

Well-known member
Veteran
Good day to all, I recently found myself pondering Tolstoy's Traveler as it pertains to the meaning of life. For those who don't know the old Russian fable, it goes like this:

A young man is gleefully frolicking through a beautiful meadow; life is good. All of the sudden a beast (representing the responsibilities of life and society) comes bearing down on the man and chases him into a well. The man is now inside the well, hanging onto a root that is slowly being chewed by two revolving mice (one black and one white to represent day/night or time) and below him awaits a dragon, waiting to devour him the second he lets go or falls due to the mice chewing through the root. The beast remains at the top of the well guarding his only escape. On the root however, are little drops of sweet honey that come trickling down every so often, representing what Tolstoy considers the small moments of happiness in life.

Tolstoy's answer to this is faith in God, but I'm going to take a different approach. The main problem with being trapped in the well is being stripped of free will. Out in the meadow, the world is there to explore and you may do as you wish. In the well, your only choices are whether or not to commit suicide and if you want the occasional drop of honey. Now is there any way to make the beast more bearable, in the sense that it is no longer chasing the man out of the meadow?

Now I would say at one point, (and still today in a few cultures around the world) the beast was bearable for everyone. The example I'll give is the (now extinct or assimilated) Sn'goi mountain people of Malaysia. Robert Wolff (once a professor at the University of Hawaii) lived among these people and as I was reading his book, a memorable quote from one of the tribesmen was "The people down below have to get up at a specific time in the morning. They need money to get all of the things they need, and they need to do things for other people in order to get money. No we do not mind when they call us slaves." when asked how he felt about the Malaysian word for his people meaning "slave."

The Sn'goi wake up when they feel like it, get together and discuss their dreams, go out and do what they need to do, be it hunting or whatever, and they're resting in the shade by the time the midday heat rolls around. Hunting and gathering was easy not only due to their skills but also they had the bonus of being isolated in their own habitat, just how the entire human population hovered around 10 million for roughly 300,000 years and there wasn't much scarcity of food.

The point is, they don't live life with the beast bearing down on them. He's there (meaning they have to feed themselves) but they aren't locked down in the well all day and light like the majority of people in the world today.

A more renowned book I've read, The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, is a story all about pursuing one's dream, or "Personal Legend." Now when you're in the well 24/7, you can't do anything or go anywhere. You've got to get the beast off your back either by A)achieving financial freedom B)having an occupation or way of earning income that is the same as or enables you to and sustains you while you pursue your dream or Personal Legend or C)becoming self sufficient. When the beast is off your back and you're in the meadow, you again have free will and with that, you can pursue your dream and therein lies meaning. The Alchemist is a phenomenal book, NYT bestseller. I highly recommend it to all.

That being said, I felt the need to share this with the IC community, as I see many of you getting the beast off your back in a multitude of ways and for that I can commend you. If you're not one of those people (or you know people who are stuck in the well) I would stress the importance of finding something that you love to do rather than something that pays well. Money isn't meaning, only material (and shittily-made) honey. Pursuing what is is that you most desire to do though, that's fulfilling as fuck.

Thoughts?
 

Wiggs Dannyboy

Last Laugh Foundation
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Hmmmmmmmmm......that sure is a big question. I feel that your conclusion of "do what you love and the money (or happiness) will follow," is a smart way to live.

Free will is the biggest question, IMO, and what our modern biological science is telling us suggests the opposite. It seems to me, that we humans don't do very much at all by using free will. Our behavior is mostly all driven by the survival instinct, hormones, and brain chemistry...not to mention societal pressure to toe the line.

Here is an interesting article about how hormones and such fuck with us:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704672,00.html

I found the Alchemist interesting, but it had a bit too much of the God thing going on for my liking.

I don't feel like typing too much today, or I would add a few more comments. I'm certain others will chime in though.
 
Last edited:

Dislexus

the shit spoon
Veteran
Eerily perfect timing, thanks for posting. I think its an abstraction using metaphors, and the answer is unique to the person relating to it and their circumstances at that time. A handy tool of symbolic constructs you can use to scratch at the surface of your mind.
 

DuskrayTroubador

Well-known member
Veteran
Hmmmmmmmmm......that sure is a big question. I feel that your conclusion of "do what you love and the money (or happiness) will follow," is a smart way to live.

Free will is the biggest question, IMO, and what our modern biological science is telling us suggests the opposite. It seems to me, that we humans don't do very much at all by using free will. Our behavior is mostly all driven by the survival instinct, hormones, and brain chemistry...not to mention societal pressure to toe the line.

Here is an interesting article about how hormones and such fuck with us:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704672,00.html

I found the Alchemist interesting, but it had a bit too much of the God thing going on for my liking.

I don't feel like typing too much today, or I would add a few more comments. I'm certain others will chime in though.

I read through the article and gave it some consideration. I look at it like this though: these hormones may fuck with us and give us urges if you will, but people often see past them.

I think what it comes down to is whether or not you choose to give something thought. I see a lot of people who don't think about SHIT and just go about totally impulsively, and to me they're "forfeiting" their free will to their hormones and such. On the other hand, whenever you really analyze something and give it thought and come to a consensus and make a decision, you're making a free decision based on whatever logic you used, be it faulty or fool-proof. Rather than just move with the impulses, weighing the cons with the pros and putting things in perspective engages your free will and recaptures it in a sense from your hormones.

As far as self-preservation goes, I still see flaws in it. People have food in front of them and voluntarily go on hunger strikes all the time and would (and have) literally starve themselves to death. Also the ever altruistic act of self-sacrifice, i.e. a parent sacrificing themselves to save their child.

Social pressure to conform I think is a learned characteristic and can be overcome. It sucks that from infancy we're taught to be concerned with being "normal" so that everyone "likes" us and we'll have happy endings if we grasp and cling to normalcy and do everything we've been told and live our lives according to the go to the cookie-cutter plan. But hey, we're brought up being taught worse things, such as the idea that every human being is naturally and inherently in an unsaved state in need of salvation, that achieving salvation is the most important thing one can aspire to do, that our local place of worship has a method that guarantees success, and that if we don't go along with it we're fucked for eternity. If we can see through those shenanigans I think we can see that society isn't all it's cracked up to be.

As far as God in the Alchemist goes, I chose to see it as a metaphor. Perhaps the reason Coelho uses multiple religions and senses of spirituality is to convey that the specific religion itself isn't what's important, but that there is a "soul of the world."
 
im a huge tolstoy fan.....i say that only a bit....ya dig

im fam. w/ him because every single one of my idols in life was was a tolstoy fan...
...or said so

too much rhetoric for my reading tho.
 
im not sure where it came from but i wrote this down a few yrs ago and made it on the back of a notepad i had....

As soon as men live entirely in accord with the law of love natural to their hearts and now revealed to them, which excludes all resistance by violence, and therefore hold aloof from all participation in violence — as soon as this happens, not only will hundreds be unable to enslave millions, but not even millions will be able to enslave a single individual.
 

CosmicGiggle

Well-known member
Moderator
Veteran
Free will is the biggest question, IMO, and what our modern biological science is telling us suggests the opposite. It seems to me, that we humans don't do very much at all by using free will. Our behavior is mostly all driven by the survival instinct, hormones, and brain chemistry...not to mention societal pressure to toe the line.

The concept of Free Will is just an idea. In reality it only goes so far.

If you were to take away the twin scapegoats (The Well and The Best), and enter The Meadow, you would still be 'confined' by your SELF.

...... obviously, some would be more limited than others.;)

Tolstoy was an interesting guy and a great writer, but don't make a mistake and take it as a given that he had any answers to the Mystery of Life 'cause he didn't.:D
 

DuskrayTroubador

Well-known member
Veteran
The concept of Free Will is just an idea. In reality it only goes so far.

If you were to take away the twin scapegoats (The Well and The Best), and enter The Meadow, you would still be 'confined' by your SELF.

...... obviously, some would be more limited than others.;)

Tolstoy was an interesting guy and a great writer, but don't make a mistake and take it as a given that he had any answers to the Mystery of Life 'cause he didn't.:D

Allow me to clear up any misunderstanding: I simply used Tolstoy's fable as an illustration for the human condition. I reject his "answer" to the dilemma and consider it more of a cop-out.

Also, if you're 'confined' by yourself, then you're simply not choosing to act with or on your free will. Hormones may be urging a guy to go after the fit girl with the broad hips and large breasts, but he may decide he likes his odds better with the less fit girl who doesn't have as broad of hips or big of breasts (referencing the article posted above). His hormones urged him one way, but he engaged his free will and made a conscious decision to not listen to them.

So, in theory, everyone is fully capable of having total free will (and indeed they do) until they voluntarily forfeit it.
 
D

draco

sometimes i feel so lost - until i notice those fascinated by trinkets, frittering away their life for trifleing bits of nothing.

yeah, i too am in that group sometimes...

but all the while death is making a slow walk to our door.

we can have anything on the menu - but that's not freedom.




just another note: if you think you are free, stop eating.
 
G

greenmatter

free will? so what the hell is that exactly ?

reminds of a question the Tolstoy was asking about bees

(i think it was in the appendix of War and Peace, but my copy is buried )
 

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
Tolstoy's story represents more than you are seeing... the dragon in the well is death, as the mice/time will eventually lead you to it; once we leave the medows there's not turning back, as the beast that chased us into the well is lost of innocence.

The conclusion he draws (faith in God) reflects the understanding that we aren't in control, and the honey is beauty (read: aesthetics).

also, from Tolstoy to Cohelo, there's a very long road downwards (sp?),
as Cohelo's writting is pretty superficial in comparison, and even new age.

and on free-will, it is incompatible with the fact that we somehow 'reside' in physical mortal bodies full of need, as pointed out by greenmatter.
in any case, faith can lead us into the unveilment of the Soul, like in Plato's Phaedo, assuring us escape from death even though the dragon will still devour us.

my two cents.

peace
 

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
sorry, as pointed out by draco i.e: eating, regarding free will. could not edit it.
and the medows are innocence of course.
 

DuskrayTroubador

Well-known member
Veteran
The beast will always be there in the form of eating and such as a means of staying alive because eating would indeed be a responsibility. I'm saying society has made the beast much more vicious and enabled it to trap us in a well because now, in order to satisfy our needs, we have to work 8+ hours a day and when we're done we're tired. The time and effort spent at work limits our free will; we can't go out and live our life as we would like and go where we want to go because we have an office we have to be at tomorrow as compared to someone with financial freedom (or the homeless) who wakes up and the day is theirs to do as they choose. Therefore, the magnitude of the beasts viciousness is the difference between the beast's presence, and its insistence on chasing us into a well.

As far as free will goes, I would say that our bodily needs have nothing to do with it. You can choose to not eat (as those on hunger strikes do) and your body will die and you will (as far as we can speculate) cease to be. Regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife where you would continue to be, your free will is unaffected. You still had free will up until the point of your death as does everyone else, you simply died at an earlier point due to not eating. No longer being alive and not having free will are two different things. One can choose not to eat just as one can choose to jump off a cliff, one just considers the consequences and decides that dying is not a desirable consequence.

Free will is all about accepting the consequences of the choices we make. As Sarte would say, existence precedes essence; we become who we are through the free choices that we make, even if those choices make us dead.
 

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
matter is what offers resistance to the will. say you are very tired, yet wish to go somewhere, but you fall asleep. or you idealize hiking in mountains
because from ur house they look really pretty, but when u start your way up and see the difficulty in it your ideal meets the real, etc...
 

DuskrayTroubador

Well-known member
Veteran
matter is what offers resistance to the will. say you are very tired, yet wish to go somewhere, but you fall asleep. or you idealize hiking in mountains
because from ur house they look really pretty, but when u start your way up and see the difficulty in it your ideal meets the real, etc...

Good post, I had to ponder this one for a bit. These are true, and it seems the world itself has 'limitations' that it imposes on us, such as your examples or the fact that I want to walk right now but cannot because my leg is broken. In these cases, matter has obviously interfered with my will and eliminated some choices.

The only response I can think of at the moment is is that we always have at least some free will in any situation, even if it is limited to only free thought. In my case, I still have the free will to choose to try to walk, but it would not go very well and I would have to accept the consequences. Matter can offer limitations to free will, but free will itself always remains intact.

From an evolutionary and worldly standpoint, it only makes sense that laws of nature and physics apply to every species. If one species could simply will themselves to do anything the world would be a joke; not that it isn't one already.
 

theclearspot

Active member
Interesting topic. Yes we have free will and can make choices but these are limited by the epoch's we live in, Heidegger says as much in Being and Time. There is an existentialist freedom but it is more and more constrained by the period we live in. This , on a simple level, can be seen in the choices mentioned earlier: stay safe in the job or do something you are passionate about. Is this really an option for most people? I have this dilemma now; I want to start a business, am constrained by the fear of leaving a job but also cant choose between two business ideas- one is connected to my existing work, the other is connected to an interest.....err....not sure what the point is here like...but its new years eve.....happy new year everyone...
 
Top