Final Comments on War and Peace

Like much of the rest of the novel the final epilogue is long. But Tolstoy takes great pains to explain his final thoughts. The last section, as noted before, is about two issues. First, what are the causes of historical events? But second, what is the relationship between free will and as he refers to it as necessity?

In an earlier post I covered much of what he said on the first issue so this one is about the second question. If all things come because of some pre-ordained events or systems then there is no free will. At the same time, if free will is modified a bit by events then it is a bit less free. Tolstoy argues that there needs to be a balance. What I found most interesting is his linkages to the scientists of the day. Tolstoy clearly grappled with the issues of religion. And in this conclusion he argues that some of the laws being propounded by the scientists of the day might or might not influence the bigger issues of religion.

He also seems to have anticipated Hayek. In the mid-1950s Hayek wrote a book called the "Counter Revolution of Science" where Hayek argued that the use of numbers in economics would potentially create confusion in that numbers may imply a precision that is not real. Tolstoy argues that the seeming precision of the rules that the sciences create may not be as precise at they claim to be. In Econlog yesterday Bryan Caplan commented on the seemingly higher respect that Physicists get over Economists - based on the seeming higher level of precision in the former's theories. Ultimately what is the difference in accuracy between the effects of global warming and changes in the minimum wage. Tolstoy would argue, not much.

The book is a very long read - having started it in the summer. If you attempt it, I would recommend doing what I did and taking it in pieces. Sure there is a lot of swooning and reticules. And sure there is a lot of redundant prose. But after all that there is still a good story with a lot of insights about the human character.