Tolstoy opens by attacking the scientific theory that justifies social inequality through a biological analogy: just as organisms have division of labor, societies have rulers and workers. He quotes this doctrine directly, then immediately undercuts it by noting that such theories gain popularity not because they are true, but because they 'winked at people’s weaknesses.' This sets the tone for a work that is less a systematic treatise and more a sustained polemic against intellectual fashions.

The essay’s voice is combative and personal. Tolstoy recalls his own youth when 'Hegelianism was the foundation of everything,' and he describes how suddenly the forties passed and a new orthodoxy replaced the old. The reader is plunged into a debate about method, authority, and the purpose of knowledge, with Tolstoy positioning himself as a critic of both the Hegelians and the positivists who succeeded them.

The Rhetoric of Polemic

Tolstoy’s argument proceeds not by patient reasoning but by sharp contrasts and satirical exaggeration. He reduces the positivist position to an absurdity: to understand yourself, you must 'look through microscopes at the movements of amœbæ' and ignore your own conscience. The target is not just a theory but the arrogance of a 'new caste of people' who declare all previous wisdom nonsense. The language is deliberately inflammatory—'all this is nonsense'—and the repetition of 'cells' and 'functional activity' mocks the jargon of the new science.

The pace quickens in these passages. Short, declarative sentences pile up: 'All at once, a new caste of people makes its appearance, and they say, “All this is nonsense; all this must be abandoned.”' The effect is of a speaker growing impatient, shifting from analysis to indignation. Tolstoy’s own voice becomes part of the drama, as he recalls how Hegelianism once 'floated in the air' and then vanished. This personal recollection gives the polemic a historical concreteness.

The Shifting Ground of Authority

Tolstoy traces how one intellectual system replaces another not through truth but through convenience. Hegelianism succeeded, he claims, because its deductions 'winked at people’s weaknesses'—it made everything seem reasonable and no one to blame. The same critique is then turned on positivism: it justifies the existing order by calling it a natural division of labor. The argument is circular, but Tolstoy’s point is about the sociology of knowledge, not logic.

The excerpts show a writer attentive to the rhythms of intellectual fashion. He lists philosophers—Descartes, Leibnitz, Fichte, Schopenhauer—as if to say that all systems are symmetrical and none has inherent superiority. What matters is the social function: a doctrine wins belief when it absolves the powerful. This insight gives the essay a critical edge that transcends its immediate targets. The reader is left to wonder whether Tolstoy’s own position might also be subject to the same critique, though he does not raise that question.

The Role of Art in Knowledge

Near the end of the excerpts, Tolstoy makes a striking claim: 'Where there has been true science, art has always been its exponent.' He defines art as the expression of knowledge about human destiny and welfare, and he asserts that such knowledge has always been conveyed by those 'peculiarly sensitive and responsive' to it. This is not a theory of aesthetics but a moral argument: art and science are not separate domains but two sides of the same human endeavor.

The tone here shifts from sarcasm to earnestness. The earlier mockery of microscopes and cells gives way to a more solemn register. Tolstoy is not merely attacking positivism; he is proposing an alternative vision in which knowledge is inseparable from conscience. The essay thus moves from negative critique to positive assertion, though the excerpts do not reveal how fully he develops this idea. The reader should note that this is a transitional passage, and the argument may take unexpected turns later.

This edition reproduces the text as it appeared in the 1887 collection What to Do?, translated by Isabel Florence Hapgood. Readers should be aware that the essay is a fragment of a larger work and that its polemical style may feel dated or overheated. The value lies not in its conclusions but in its demonstration of how intellectual authority is constructed and contested. Pay attention to Tolstoy’s shifts in tone—from sardonic to earnest—as they reveal the underlying moral passion that drives the argument.