War and Peace
Second part

The second part of the epilogue contains Tolstoy's critique of all existing forms of mainstream history. The 19th-century Great Man Theory claims that historical events are the result of the actions of "heroes" and other great individuals; Tolstoy argues that this is impossible because of how rarely these actions result in great historical events. Rather, he argues, great historical events are the result of many smaller events driven by the thousands of individuals involved (a summation which he earlier, in Part III chapter 1, compared to calculus, and the sum of infinitesimals). He then goes on to argue that these smaller events are the result of an inverse relationship between necessity and free will, necessity being based on reason and therefore explicable through historical analysis, and free will being based on consciousness and therefore inherently unpredictable. Tolstoy also ridicules newly emerging Darwinism as overly simplistic, comparing it to plasterers covering over the windows, icons, and scaffolding with plaster, impressed with the smooth result. He wrestles with the tension between our consciousness of freedom and the apparent need for necessity to develop laws of science and history, saying at times that the first is as real as the second, and yet that its reality would destroy the second. He concludes that just as astronomy had to adopt the Copernican hypothesis of the earth's movement, not because it fits our immediate perceptions, but to avoid absurdities, so too must historical science accept some conception of necessary laws of human action, even though we feel free in our ordinary lives. In an appendix, he tries to further resolve the tension with the suggestion that we are most free, or feel most free, in arbitrary acts affecting us alone, but less free in acts affecting other people, where moral or other principles force or forbid certain responses.
combination:repeat_prompt