Aşkın Yasası Şiddetin Yasası

by Leo Tolstoy, Pelin Arda (Translator)

İsevi öğretiyi insanlık için bir kurtuluş olarak gören Tolstoy, Birinci
Dünya Savaşı arifesinde kaleme aldığı bu kitapta, bu öğretiye yüz çevirmiş
ulusların “şiddet” eğilimlerinin bir analizini yapmakta. “İnsan hayatının en
yüce sabit yasası” olarak nitelendirdiği “aşk”tan uzaklaşıldığında
cinayetlerin, katliamların nasıl hızla çoğaldığını; düşmanlık,
tahammülsüzlük gibi insanlara artık “sıradan” gelen alışkanlıkların ne gibi
facialara neden olabileceğini anlatıyor.

Gandhi ve Martin Luther King JR. başta olmak üzere birçok öncüye ilham veren
bu eser, okuyucuya sadece bir dönem analizini değil, günümüze kadar uzanan
katliam ve cinayetlerin bir izleğini sunuyor.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Classics, Russian Literature

112 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1909

About the author

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; most appropriately used Liev Tolstoy; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider Tolstoy to have been one of the world's greatest novelists. Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.

His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reviews

[Nyra · Rating 1 out of 5]

واقعاً نسبت به این کتاب چیز خاصی نمی‌شه گفت جز اینکه افکار یک شخص سنتی و قدیمی رو در اون می‌خونید.
تولستوی گفته همه باید مسیحی بشن و جامعه‌ای که مسیح رو قبول نداره، کم‌کم به سمت فروپاشی می‌ره — مثل همیشه، حرف کسی که متعصب و مذهبیه.
و خب من نمی‌تونم قبول کنم تولستوی نصف کتاب مذهبشون رو قبول داره و نصف دیگه‌شو نه؛ بعد هم می‌گه می‌شه روی قسمت‌های منفی و قضاوت‌گرش تمرکز نکرد؟ نه، واقعاً نمی‌شه آقای تولستوی. وقتی یه دین و مذهب و کتاب مذهبی رو قبول دارین، یعنی کلش رو قبول دارین، نه فقط تیکه‌هایی که خودتون خوش‌تون میاد و بعد بگین «خب مسیحیت یعنی این، نه اون چیزی که بقیه می‌گن». شما عملاً یه دین دیگه ساختین، و کاملاً مشخصه که خیلی‌ها رو هم بردین توی توهم اینکه واقعاً همه باید دین مسیحیت رو بپرستن.
من به‌شدت با این افکار تولستوی مخالفم. در همه‌ی ادیان آیه‌هایی کاملاً زن‌ستیزانه وجود داره که موافق خشونت علیه زن و برده گرفتن زن هست. خارج از زن‌ستیزی هم، برده‌داری و قضاوت‌های مزخرف دیگه‌ای وجود داره که نمی‌شه از ادیان حذف‌شون کرد و گفت «نه خب بیاین فقط بخش‌های خوب رو در نظر بگیریم». خیر، به هیچ عنوان نمی‌تونم قبول کنم. اگر دینی رو قبول دارین، باید با تمام بخش‌هاش کنار بیاین، اگر نه، دینی رو برای خودتون و بقیه بزرگ جلوه ندین.
تولستوی عملاً فقط با بخش صلح مسیحیت موافق بود و با این حال خودش رو مسیحی می‌دونست — واقعاً چرا؟ خب، زمان قدیم بوده و نمی‌شه زیاد بهشون خرده گرفت. البته همین بخش صلح ماجرا هم با کلی قانون و بند و شرط همراهه که اگر همه‌شون رو کنار هم بذارین، نتیجه می‌شه: «جنگ کنید، جنگ خوبه!»
اگر می‌خواین با افکار تولستوی آشنا بشین، این کتاب رو بخونید. در غیر این صورت، اگر مقاله دوست ندارین، اصلاً سمتش نیاین. من خودم هم نمی‌دونستم مقاله‌ست، ولی خب خوب شد خوندمش تا بدونم افکار این نویسنده چی بوده.

[Donovan Richards · Rating 5 out of 5]

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” represents the most influential document from my undergraduate years. Read in conjunction with an ethics class, King’s words resonated in ways I had previously never felt. Penning the words behind iron bars, King urged his disciples to stand against injustice through non-violent resistance. He claimed people ought to speak against immoral laws and perhaps even break those laws in order to illustrate injustice. But, he argued, people must break those laws nonviolently, and must also accept the consequences of the laws they’ve broken. To fight evil with evil is to lose the principles you fight for.

King’s principles of nonviolent resistance trace back to the famed Mahatma Gandhi. Even though Gandhi receives justified attention for his philosophies of non-violent civil disobedience, his views trace back to the writing of Leo Tolstoy. Similar to tracing modern guitar players to the nimble fingers of blues musician Lead Belly, I am intrigued to trace the roots of an idea to its source.

Christian Anarchy: Love Instead of Violence

With The Law of Love and the Law of Violence, Tolstoy promotes a society where love replaces violence. To be clear, Tolstoy views violence as an all-encompassing word. Violence certainly means bloodshed, but it also refers to any source of conflict occurring by force. Tolstoy observes a world specialized in violence:

“The mistake of all political doctrines, from the most conservative to the most advanced, which has brought men to their present lamentable condition, is the same: to keep men in society by the aid of violence so as to make them accept the present social organization and the rule of conduct that it imposes” (18).

For Tolstoy, no part of society escapes the rot of selfishness. Whether the Church, the marketplace, or government, society seeks violence to approve the way of life.

The law of violence has governed society for centuries, according to Tolstoy. Historically, humanity never ventures far from yet another war. Interestingly, Tolstoy points to the printing press as the foundation for a potentially pivotal change in society. He writes,

“In proportion as education has spread, as printing has replaced writing, the Scriptures have become more accessible. Men cannot help but perceive the striking contradiction between the order of existing things upheld by the Church, and the evangelistic doctrine that it acknowledges as being holy. Read and understood as it is, the Scriptures appear to be a frank and explicit denial of both the State and the Church” (26).

Finding accessibility to the written Word, the individual congregant uncovers alternative doctrines to the established Church. With the rise of Protestantism comes competing claims to the truth of Scripture. Because the Church no longer carries the exclusive right to biblical interpretation, the theological foundations for absolute love found in Scripture become known to the masses.

By properly understanding Scripture, Christians can challenge the status quo. Where violence surrounded Christian doctrine in the institution of the Church, the Gospel urges Christians to reconsider.

“The Christian doctrine, the real significance of which we are grasping more and more, teaches that man’s mission is to manifest ever better and better the Rule of all; and it is love that proves the presence of this Rule in us” (32).

Love: The Basis for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience

Tolstoy purports if love becomes the singular governing rule, the relationship with society must fundamentally change. No longer can we operate businesses under mendacious principles; no longer can we seek warfare as a mode of justice; no longer can we seek change in light of injustice by replacing violence with violence.

Therefore, a Christian guided by love seeks to right injustice through non-violent means. Recognizing the consequences of non-violent disobedience, a Christian will gladly accept the injustice of jail time for the sake of exposing violence in the system.

Does such an example work? It is hard to say. Jesus willingly accepted the injustice of the Cross and the gospel found completion in the resurrection. The work of Martin Luther King resonates deeply in the American psyche. Yet, many Christians adhere to the long-standing tradition of just war theory. As for me, I align with King, Gandhi, and Tolstoy. Fight violence with love and courageously accept the consequences. If you are interested in non-violent disobedience as an ethical stance, I suggest reading The Law of Love and the Law of Violence.

Originally published at http://www.wherepenmeetspaper.com

[Karl · Rating 5 out of 5]

The impact of this book is likely impossible to calculate, as its ideas have permeated the ethics and ideologies of some of the world's most influential thinkers

and now I'm on that list.

[Caner Sahin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tolstoy, Hristiyan alemi için genellemiş olsa da imandan, sevgiden uzak kaldıkça şiddetin, savaşın, kötülüklerin çoğaldığını söylemekte. Kitap kısa ama çok vurucu, tam isabetli paragraflar barındırmakta.

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Understand then, all of you, that you were born neither slaves nor masters, that you are all free; but you are so only when you have observed the supreme law of life...This law is love, and happiness is found in its observance. Understand that and you will become really free; you will acquire everything that today you are vainly seeking to obtain by the complicated means suggested to you by corrupted men."

[Nur · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hristiyanlara nasihatler vermek amacıyla yazılmış bir kitap olsa da evrensel anlamda mesajlar da taşıyor. Her şeyin temelinin sevgi olduğuna dikkat çekiyor. Fikirlerinin yarısına hak verdim diğer yarısına ise katılmıyorum.

[Ezgi Çakın · Rating 5 out of 5]

I mean it's Tolstoy. It couldn't be bad anyways. Really recommend it.

[Ostap Bender · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tolstoy was an extraordinary writer, but just as importantly, he was an extraordinary human being. Late in life, after writing novels that are true masterpieces, he critically examined morality and his life. At the age of 56, he wrote ‘What I Believe’, which outlined his beliefs in pacifism and non-violence, heavily influenced by The Sermon on the Mount. The following year, he would become a vegetarian in a single afternoon, following a conversation with a friend. In the decades that followed until his death at 82, he was a pillar of idealism and love, speaking out against religious hypocrisy and the violence perpetuated by governments, including his own, greatly influencing Gandhi and later Martin Luther King, Jr.

In this book, most of which was written at the age of 80, Tolstoy wished to communicate his deepest thoughts to the world before dying. While idealistic, his comments on humanity and the ways of the world are challenging, thought-provoking, and profound, all while remaining rooted in benevolence. He may repeat the concepts a bit, but he gets them across in different ways, and one is humbled while reading. It was also fantastic to see his letter to Gandhi in South Africa at the end of this edition, written just two and half months before he died, as both men are personal heroes to me.

Tolstoy’s main points:

- Christianity, as practiced for the past 1900 years, is “pseudo-Christianity”, because it violates the fundamental teachings of Christ, who was non-violent, pacifist, and a socialist/communist. Turning the other cheek, not accumulating wealth, and loving one’s enemy are very real to Tolstoy, and he believed the real meaning of the Gospels allowed for no exceptions. He believed that the intelligentsia and rich had known of this contradiction for centuries, but hypocritically did nothing because they wished to preserve their wealth and the existing order. Some portion of the masses had also known it, but continued to follow the age-old customs and norms.

- Governmental power and the warfare which results is maintained willingly by the masses, but could be overturned through non-compliance. He quotes the French writer Étienne de La Boétie’s “Voluntary Slavery” as saying that a ruler over a great nation may have only 6 who are steadfastly loyal to them, but they in turn have 600 in their power, who in turn have 6,000, and so on, with each step in the pyramid maintained as small tyrants under a great tyrant. He believed that the masses could reject this scheme and everything that comes with it (taxes, conscription, forced labor), and just live in peace. Far from fearing anarchy, he embraced it, and in the case conscientious objection, believed that there is a spiritual basis and higher moral right to do so.

- Violence can never be condoned. Neither can the use of force over another group, or coercing them into something they oppose, because it will harden their resolve and lead to violence from them in turn, continuing the cycle. Tolstoy refers to wars as “international mass-murders”, criticizes the ‘Great Powers’ of the day for their imperialism, and the Papacy for trying to stifle Protestantism. He believed that “the admission of the necessity of resisting evil by violence is nothing but a justification by men of their habitual and favorite crimes: revenge, cupidity, envy, ambition, love of power, pride, and anger.”

- Love is the answer. Tolstoy believed this was best articulated by Christ, but recognized that all religions and philosophies had elements of mercy, brotherhood, and the Golden Rule. He lamented that those who are fundamentally good and acknowledged a moral law sometimes “regard the teaching of love, which rejects all violence (and especially the doctrine of not repaying evil with evil which flows from that teaching) as something fantastical, impossible, and quite inapplicable to life.” He believed that first and foremost, people needed to turn within and perfect themselves, rather than attempt to force others to believe differently or wage war on them.

Pretty impressive, and explosive stuff. He was in favor of non-violently overturning both Church and State, the most powerful institutions. He was not only an idealist, but also an optimist. He believed that humanity was just around the corner from taking real steps towards enlightenment, and that in the end Love must win out. He would die in 1910, and not see the century of warfare and violence which would follow on a horrific scale. It’s hard to know what his position in the face of genocide and concentration camps would be, or how optimistic he would have remained. However, what is clear, at least to me, is that his teachings and moral rectitude are a beacon of light in a dark world, that whether the absolute ideal of non-violence can ever be achieved it must become the strict default, and that humanity desperately needs this voice.

[Zeynab Gholizad · Rating 4 out of 5]

هیچگاه تولستوی را تا به این حد جدی ، صاحب نظر در عرفان عملی مسیحیت و صریح ندیده بودم. 
تولستوی در این کتاب پرنکته که از نظر خودش چون در دو قدمی مرگ است و نمیتواند ساکت بماند به رشته ی تحریر آورده است در وهله ی اول جامعه ی مسیحیت ،انقلابی ها و در کل مردم هم عصر و هم کیش و هم وطن خویش را مخاطب قرار می دهد اما قابلیت انطباق با ادیان و ادوار دیگر را نیز دارد. . 
او از عشق سخن میگوید اما نه به عنوان یک حس خوشایند به یک نفر خاص بلکه از عشق اصیل الهی که بی قید است و به همه ی انسان ها به واسطه ی روح الهی که در آنها هست هدیه داده میشود و با این نظر بار دیگر اثبات می کند که پر بیراه نگفته اند او را پیامبری در میان نویسندگان نامیده اند .
او از عمق فلاکت و بی فکری زندگی جامعه ی مسیحیت میگوید که کلیسای تحریف شده مسبب آن است چرا که معنایی از زندگی را برای آنها به ارمغان آورده که بسیار با عادت هایشان(زندگی انسان عادی) در تعارض بوده تا جایی که مردمان دنیای مسیحیت خود را از اعتقاد به تعالیم تحریف شده ی مسیحیت رها ساخته و به جایی رسیدند که هیچ درک یا نگرشی درباره ی معنی زندگی ندارند. 
او نظرات عدیده ای را در موضوعات مختلف بیان میکند که مجال بهتری برای گفت وگو میطلبد 
اما عجالتا آنکه او خشونت را به هر طریقی تقبیح میکند و معتقد است که اصلا تفکر سازمان دادن گروهی از مردم وقتی رشد فردی ودرونی در افراد شکل نگرفته است کاری اشتباه و قبیح است چه رسد به آنکه از طریق اعمال خشونت باشد (حتی خشونت قانونی) فی المثل پادشاهی را در نظر بگیرید که به هیچ جایگاهی از معرفت نفس نرسیده و میخواهد مردم سرزمینی را نجات دهد از نظر او این امر محال است و همان بهتر حکومتی نباشد و صواب آن است که تمرکز را در رشد فردی افراد گذاشت تا اعمال قانون و خشونت و امثالهم ...(کمال گرایی بالای او را اثبات میکند قطعا چنین شرایطی جز در زمان ظهور منجی محقق نخواهد شد و تغییر در تک تک افراد جامعه را میطلبد) 
تولستوی هرگونه جنگ را نیز تقبیح میکند البته ناگفته نماند که او در ادامه مینویسد اگر مسیر خدا را یافتی از هیچ چیزی مضایقه نکن این هم برا آنکه سخنان او را تا حد بیانات ضد جنگ تنزل درجه ندهید حال سوال این است آن گروهی از جوامع بین الملل که به جنگ مفهومی حقوقی اعطا کرده اند چه کسانی هستند.
در کل جان کلام آنکه تغییرات اصلی بشر در درجه ی اول در قلمرو غیرقابل رویت آگاهی دینی رخ می دهد . 
سخن بسیار است و شرایط بیان محدود اما بخوانید و بیندیشید فقط سعی کنید دچار التقاط در اندیشه نشوید . 
قطعا برای بار دوم یا حتی سوم هم آن را خواهم خواند.

[Simon A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This small yet difficult book is an examination of the relations and conflicts within and among nations, in which Tolstoy proposes a remedy based on "the true Christian doctrine": love, as the supreme law of life at all levels - personal, social, national and international.
Written in 1908, and predicting WWI, it articulates Tolstoy's principle that it is morally superior to suffer violence than to do violence, a philosophy that inspired the fathers of nonviolence like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

The book is a difficult read: long complicated sentences, and repetitive statements of same ideas. To that, we add the counter-intuitive difficult to grasp and swallow stands of Tolstoy for the total and complete ban of violence including self-defense.

The treatise of the book would have been more convincing and better defended by a different rhetoric, based on simplicity, and a fresh poetic style.

Keywords: Pacifism, Resistance, Government, Love, Doctrine

[Kent Hawbaker · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed the book. Tolstoy effectively argues that Christianity using violence for any reason is a contradiction. Tolstoy is great, I would love to spend an afternoon with him but his weakness is that he's an extreme rationalist. Rational formulas are helpful, but not the only lens in which to understand the universe and our place with it.

Quotes:

"The true meaning of Christ's teaching consists in the recognition of love
as the supreme law of life, and therefore not admitting any exceptions.
Christianity (i.e. the law of love not admitting any exceptions) that does
permit the use of violence in the name of other laws, presents an inner
Contradiction resembling cold fire or hot ice.

"Reason is often the slave of sin; it strives to justify it."

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm always initially amused when I see the convergence of Christianity and anarchy, just because of the popular associations with anarchy (lawlessness, violence, winner-takes-all-and-kills-everyone-else). Tolstoy writes sparsely in an attempt to convince his reader that the "law of love" associated with a true understanding of Christianity means that violence is on the way out. I have trouble with his assumption that nonviolence and anarchy are natural partners, but I clearly don't trust humanity the way Tolstoy does.

[Hope Erin Phillips · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tolstoy can you just stop toting around Christianity and just say everyone obey the law of love and fuck cares whether Jesus told you to or not... So much of this resonated with me in regards to deconstruction of state, non-violent resistance, harmlessness, etc. (and especially their relation to anarcho-communism/socialism, that made me happy, tell 'em Tolstoy!) but slapping on the labels of 'true Christianity', 'false Christianity' and 'Paganism' rubs one the wrong way. Is my crotchety PC contemporary context blinding me to the essential ideas of this work? Perhaps.

[Sarah Steeley]

I want to like Tolstoy, but I just do not. His arguments are not well enough fleshed out, but the beginnings of his ideas are obviously stemming from intellectual thought. Read this book as a jumping-off point for your own intellectual meditations.

[Nima Eghtedari · Rating 5 out of 5]

«من این مطالب را فقط برای این می‌نویسم که لب گور ایستاد‌ه‌ام و نمی‌توانم ساکت بمانم. چون می‌دانم تنها راه نجات مردم از رنج‌های جسمی و معنوی‌شان چیست»
.
لئو تولستوی، رمان‌نویس بزرگ روس دو سال پیش از مرگش در سال 1910 قانون عشق و قانون خشونت را نوشت و در آن از ضرورت محبت و پرهیز از خشونت سخن گفت. به عقیده‌ی او، قانون عشق اساس زندگی انسان است اما به سبب تحریف تعالیم الهی و سوءاستفاده از آن‌ها برای حفظ قدرت به هر قیمت، به‌جای عشق، خشونت قبول عام یافت. تولستوی بر آن است که اکنون پس از قرن‌ها، پیامدهای هولناک خشونت و کشتار معلوم شده و افراد بیش از گذشته درک می‌کنند که باید محبت بی‌شائبه را جایگزین خشونت کنند و با اصلاح خود به اصلاح جامعه و تمدن بشری یاری برسانند. قانون عشق و قانون خشونت گوهری ارزشمند از این نویسنده‌ی بزرگ است.
.

تولستوی همانطور که در این کتاب بیان شده بارها طی نامه هایی به تزار ،اورا به پرهیز از خشونت دعوت کرده بود و با هشدار نسبت به استبدادگری هایش سرنگونی او را پیش بینی کرده بود.اما تزار این نامه ها را نادیده می گیرد تا اینکه لنین رهبر بلشویک ها سالها بعد تزار و خانواده اش را بخاطر تمام سرکوبها و اقداماتشان می کشد. لنین با نظر به اینکه تولستوی به شدت منتقد تزار و کلیسا بود و عقیده داشت آنها نظم موجود را با خشونت و دروغ حفظ می کنند خود را وامدار تولستوی می دانست. البته او تمام نظریات تولستوی را قبول نداشت و برخلاف تولستوی دست به اقدامات خشونت آمیز زد.
.
تولستوی مخالف خشونت علیه بی عدالتی ها بود و نمی توانست بپذیرد که هدف وسیله را توجیه می کند و عقیده داشت یک تغییر انقلابی خشونت بار صرفا به جابجایی در شکل استبداد منجر می شود و محکوم به شکست است. او آگاه بود که بهره کشی ، ددمنشی و بی عدالتی ها که به نام یک ایدئولوژی خاص انجام می شود هیچ فرقی با همین شرارتی که به نام تزار و سرمایه دارها انجام می شود ، ندارد.
.
یکی از ماندگارترین تاثیرات تولستوی در هند بود او و گاندی در نخستین سالهای قرن بیستم مکاتباتی را با هم شروع کردند. گاندی خود را پیرو متواضع تولستوی می شمارد و بسیاری از اعتقاداتشان مثل نظریه پرهیز از خشونت مشابتهای نزدیکی بهم دارد.

[Michael Setford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite the optimistic tone of this essay, I could not help feeling utterly destroyed after setting it down. To know that after Tolstoy finished this work the October Revolution, WWI, and WW2 (and countless other conflicts including those occurring today) resulted in unprecedented suffering and death, fills me with immense grief. I wonder what kind of horror he would experience bearing witness to the atrocities humanity has managed since his death.

The lesson he shares with his readers is one we already know—love thy neighbor (especially thine enemies). Although common sense, this philosophy is both deceptively complex and incredibly difficult to practice. Tolstoy suggests that, if instead of governments humanity relied on the individual to bolster civilization—since, hypothetically that individual practices the law of love rather than of violence—then life would be more pleasant and we would feel satisfaction through our kind treatment of one another. But with our modern, and therefore retrospective opinion, informed by the onslaught of violence we have inflicted upon each other over the past one hundred and twenty years since Tolstoy wrote his essay, how can we truly believe we are capable of a civilization like this? Depressingly, I feel like it has only proven the opposite and that we are savage creatures destined for self destruction.

Honestly, though, I will try, as I hope anyone would who stumbles across this beautiful essay, to do as Tolstoy reminds us is the right thing to do—love instead of hate, do good instead of evil, and do no violence in return for violence done unto you.

[Dedo]

Sanırım ana öğretiye katılıyorum. Geçtiğimiz dönemde çok yakından arkadaş olduğuma inandığım bir kişi gelip bana hayatının anlamını aradığını, asıl amacını bilmediğini ve hayatını nasıl geçirmesi gerektiği üzerine düşünüp araştırmalar yaptığını anlatmıştı. Ardından ben de aynı şeyleri düşünmeye itildim ve manevi olarak hayatımda hiçbir arayışa girmediğimi fark ettim. Bu kitap beni bu arayış konusunda küçük de olsa doyurabilecek yerlere itebilecek içeriğe sahip. Aynı zamanda benim bir seküler müslüman olarak bilmediğim asıl isa öğretisinin ana konu olması da cabası. Buna sebep ise aynı arkadaşımın bana hayat felsefesinin sevgi ve herkesi sevmek olduğunu bunun hristiyanlığın ana öğretisi ve isanın yaşamının merkezi olduğunu söylemesi ve benim buna hala bugüne değin farkında olmadan şüpheyle yaklaşmammış. Tolstoy bu noktayı her vurgulandığında aklıma arkadaşımla olan o sohbetim geldi.

Bu kitabı north quaddaki dil öğrenme merkezinde bulunca mutlu olmuştum. Beni north quadla ve belli ki hristiyanlığın ana öğretisi ile de tanıştıran arkadaşımın aynı kişi olması bu kitabın içeriğiyle beraber benim için hoş bir tesadüf oldu.

Ayrıca apertaifkitap’tan okudum ve maalesef çeviri konusundaki yetersizlik ve yazım hataları gibi sıkıntılar nedeniyle yazarın düşünce akışını düzgün bir şekilde takip edip kitaptan zevk almaya fırsatım olmadı.

[Alireza Khan · Rating 4 out of 5]

این کتاب با نگاهی تحلیلی و فلسفی، دو نیروی بنیادین حاکم
بر روابط انسانی و اجتماعی را بررسی می‌کند:
عشق به‌عنوان پیوند داوطلبانه و خشونت به‌عنوان ابزار اجبار.
نویسنده نشان می‌دهد هر جا عشق ناتوان یا سرکوب می‌شود، خشونت جای آن را می‌گیرد و نظم اجتماعی بر پایه ترس شکل می‌گیرد، نه اخلاق .

نقاط قوت:
• طرح مسئله‌ای عمیق و جهان‌شمول درباره
قدرت، اخلاق و رابطه انسان‌ها
• زبان نسبتاً روشن برای موضوعی نظری
• پیوند دادن تجربه فردی با ساختارهای اجتماعی و سیاسی

نقاط ضعف:
• گاهی دچار کلی‌گویی و ساده‌سازی
تقابل عشق/خشونت می‌شود
• مثال‌های عینی و تاریخی می‌توانست پررنگ‌تر باشد
• برای خواننده‌ای که دنبال روایت یا داستان است، ممکن است خشک به نظر برسد

جمع‌بندی:
«قانون عشق و قانون خشونت» کتابی تأمل‌برانگیز است
که خواننده را به بازاندیشی در شیوه
اداره روابط فردی و جمعی دعوت می‌کند.
اثری مناسب برای علاقه‌مندان به فلسفه اجتماعی و اخلاق،
نه خوانندگان رمان و ادبیات داستانی .

[Everett Egginton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Love and violence are at the opposite end of a continuum. And for Tolstoy, there is no middle ground. Love in its purest Christian interpretation is the fundamental tenet of life. To allow any thing, person or institution, to interfere in Christ’s love “commandment” is to be open and supportive of “violence.” And this means literally any and every institution-inclusive of any form of government, organized religions and their places of worship, participation in war (or condoning any kind of murder/killing). Food for thought, certainly; pathway to anarchy, perhaps.

[Monty Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tolstoy; contemplating his final days, emphasizes the struggles between religion and humanities innate nature, hence violence.
He acknowledges god in us, spiritual manifestation, albeit inferring its downfall and contradictions, thus only acknowledging human nature.
The social and psychological issues described centuries ago are a mirror representation of modern worldly social systems and human disposition inclusive of all social classes and platforms.
The book, a mere 100 pages, is a fast read.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

It gets better the more you read it. At first it seemed to be a blame fest about what is wrong with all the Christian denominations and the Catholics always seem to be at the top of the list. I know little of Tolstoy and am surprised that he was a Christian. He believes that all true Christians should refuse war service, as killing for whatever reasons is not Christian and gives several examples of people doing this in the book.

[Elif Gönenç · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kitap güzel bir kitap aslında, zaten Tolstoy'dan kötüsü beklenemez ancak çeviri o kadar kötü ki, yarısında bırakmak zorunda kalıyorum. Başta kitabın dilinin öyle olduğunu düşündüm ama sonra cümlelerin yarım bırakıldığını farkettim ve zorla gelebildiğim 41. sayfada, başka bir çevirisini bulup okumak için yarım bırakıyorum. Kimsenin emeğine de saygısızlık etmek istemiyorum ama Babil'den aldığım e-kitabı Calibro'da okudum. Belki bu durumla ilintilidir, ne kadar öyle olduğunu düşünmesem de.

[Ralf · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had forgotten how influential Tolstoy was on Gandhi, and also on Martin Luther King. This is a radical reading of Christian ethics of love as the primary duty we have. Which means: we must not use violence against our enemies, and we must not participate in a state that uses violence. All of this built on a rereading of the life and death of Christ.

[Gökhan Kara · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tolstoy hayranı olarak başladığım ama hayal kırıklığına uğradığım, hristiyanlık-din propagandası yapan bir kitap.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not even a Christian and this is so beautiful and thought provoking, I think if everyone has read this, the world would be a much better place.

[Nitara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting. still applicable

[sophia · Rating 4 out of 5]

idealistic but maybe that’s the point. Love Ur Haters.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found a hardcover copy of this book in a used bookstore and bought it mostly for the vanilla sweet smell of decay it gave off -- old book smell, and the reptilian, weirdly embossed yellow cover.

Once I cracked and started reading it, though, I was hooked. I'm not a particularly religious person (I'm Jewish by birth and semi-seasonal practice), but Tolstoy's vision of Christianity distorted and humiliated by nationalism, dogmatism and church hierarchy is so captivating, I read it through in a few sittings. And it's sat with me ever since.

Tolstoy came to this project late in life and apparently, reluctantly. The book seems to be the result of an invitation he received from some German(?) socialists and a performance they'd written outlining the values of an egalitarian, socialist society and the need for revolution to put it in place. Tolstoy's response: there's only way to change the world, and it's through love, not violence.

That might sound simple enough (even corny), but he makes it clear that he's no lover of the church, nor of individual nations. His politics run clearly humanistic, if not anarchistic, and Tolstoy is no cornball. The struggle is real, daily and intense.

Jesus' call for pacifism is not negotiable in Tolstoy's view. And any individual or country who doesn't turn the other cheek — in any circumstance — is not Christian. That, he suggests, is the radical divergence in Christianity from other religions and the main way — aside from acting always with love — that Jesus distinguished it from from other ways of living. The golden rule is a red herring:

"'He is a murderer, he is a thief, he does not observe the rule of not doing unto others what you would not have them do unto you', say the same people who go on killing in war, forcing nations to prepare for carnage, and who steal from and despoil their own, as well as foreign nations."

The purpose of Christianity, he continues, is individual. Without personal change, without committing to pacifism on a personal level, without agreeing to abide by love in all circumstances, Christianity is pointless. In fact, it's worse: It's corrupt. No matter whether you're fighting for for greed, for national pride, for revolution or personal safety — once an individual turns away from turning the other cheek, s/he's turned away from Jesus' teachings. Such is the state of the church hierarchy and modern nations. It's left a little unclear wither a hierarchy of any sort, in Tolstoy's view, could be anything but unChristian. For him, religion is a difficult and deeply personal practice.

It's hard not to be inspired by Tolstoy's writing, which feels a little like an early industrial-era epistle, introduced by Biblical quotes and sayings from his own notebook.

[John Hicks · Rating 4 out of 5]

At my age few books can still turn my world upside down. This did. Do you know why the early Christians (the Jesus movement, more accurately) were martyred by the Romans, and thrown into the arena to be slaughtered as a spectacle? I don't know why I never thought to ask that question, much less answer it. The reason, says Tolstoy, is that the Roman Empire had begun to collapse and the people of the Jesus movement refused to serve in the army, or collect or pay taxes, or serve on juries, or in any way participate in the life of the state. "You won't fight?" thought the emperors. "Let's just see about that." What we call Christianity bears little resemblance to the Jesus movement. The Roman Empire reworked the teachings of Jesus to better serve the purposes of empire. Constantine (who cooked up the Nicean Council and the Apostle's Creed) proclaimed that only Christians could serve in the Roman army. Clever trick, eh? Now you could have it both ways. Except no, you couldn't, says Tolstoy. And the teachings began to be lost under the layers of Romanized Christianity. Simply put, the laws of the state are laws of violence. Refuse to benefit by in any way from that violence. Have no dealings with the kingdoms of this world. The Kingdom of God is Within You. Only there. In our day the maybe the Quakers come closest to the early Jesus movement. They are conscientious objectors not just to war but also to law and the civil order. But where do you find a Quaker today? Maybe the Amish. The teachings of Jesus are largely lost now, replaced by words put in his mouth later for purposes unlike his.

[Mohamad Jaber · Rating 4 out of 5]

A beautiful message from a great mind as he says goodbye to this world summarizing all the wisdom of his years. This book, along with a confession and resurrection, is one that I enjoyed reading unlike some of his more famous works like war and peace which frankly I found entertaining but void of meaning. The motif of this small book is that true Christianity as it was revealed in the New Testament offers a solution to a world filed with violence and transgression on the eve of the First World War when Tolstoy was writing. This solution is in the practice of the supreme law of love which at the same time that it benefits society, proved happiness for the person living it.