History and Happiness Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace is about two things: “War” and “Peace”. The “War” in the title refers specifically to the War of 1812, which is the one where Napoleon invades Russia with an army of over half a million soldiers. He wins every battle and conquers Moscow. But then he is forced to abandon the city for lack of supplies, and makes a 1,500 mile trek home. He arrives with only 10,000 able-bodied men.
“He had learned that as there is no condition in which man can be happy and entirely free, so there is no condition in which he need be unhappy and lack freedom.”
What’s the syllogism? From the first part of the sentence:
If happy -> ~free
(If free-> ~happy)
But then he says so there’s no condition in which he need be unhappy and lack freedom
If ~happy -> ~free
(If free->happy)
I dunno….this seems logically faulty? Like the two parts of the sentence don’t fit. Maybe it’s not supposed to be a perfect syllogism or maybe I’m just messing it up.
good point. it's probably not supposed to be a syllogism. I think it's more like an argument from symmetry. This is not a logical proof, but more a suggestive argument. Adding the word "just" before as makes this interpretation more natural..."just as there is no condition..."
I think its partly a renunciation of idealism. We always exist in a state that is partially determined and partially free. If we are only happy when we are fully free we will never be happy.
Thank you, fantastic material to think through.
“He had learned that as there is no condition in which man can be happy and entirely free, so there is no condition in which he need be unhappy and lack freedom.”
What’s the syllogism? From the first part of the sentence:
If happy -> ~free
(If free-> ~happy)
But then he says so there’s no condition in which he need be unhappy and lack freedom
If ~happy -> ~free
(If free->happy)
I dunno….this seems logically faulty? Like the two parts of the sentence don’t fit. Maybe it’s not supposed to be a perfect syllogism or maybe I’m just messing it up.
What do you make of it?
good point. it's probably not supposed to be a syllogism. I think it's more like an argument from symmetry. This is not a logical proof, but more a suggestive argument. Adding the word "just" before as makes this interpretation more natural..."just as there is no condition..."
I think its partly a renunciation of idealism. We always exist in a state that is partially determined and partially free. If we are only happy when we are fully free we will never be happy.