Compare and contrast the meaning of life messages from Allen's God and Tolstoy's Ivan. What is it that each author is saying about the meaning of life? Where are they in agreement and where do they differ? How would our philosophers critique Allen's and Tolstoy's messages? What conclusions does either author persuade you of and why?  

             It has been a quest of humanity throughout its recorded history to attach some sort of deeper meaning to the life it finds itself immersed in. Something beyond the obvious primal realities of biological needs and impulses; some quality which transcends those baser ones we share with the other animals. Entering an existence that we do not select for ourselves, but which instead comes to each individual through choices (or random chance) of the generations preceding, as humans we appear to be unique in our self-awareness, and our ability to remember the past or anticipate the future.

            This ability to think outside of the present moment, and to even imagine alternate realities, is what sets us apart. Homo sapiens has been able to evolve complex languages, invent technologies, devise methods of social organization, and even develop forms of artistic expression. Some of these innovations, it might be argued, have counterparts in nature– birds communicate, bees have division of labor; but it is in the latter category of Art where it can truly be stated that man is unique. No other species, at least that we know of, creates fictions regarding life and the universe they might happen in.

            One of the more accessible means of art is literature. Beginning in ancient times as a spoken form (storytelling) and now for quite a few centuries via the printed word, through language humanity has been able to examine the meanings of life from myriad perspectives. The two pieces of literature I will be exploring in this paper have little in common. Published in different centuries and on different continents, Leo Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886/Russia) and Woody Allen’s God/A Play (1975/USA) do however share one palpable theme: the absurdity of life when it is examined too closely. From a tragic and comic slant respectively, these two works ask “does anything matter?”

            Tolstoy’s protagonist Ivan Ilyich is a man situated in nineteenth-century Russia, whose life from a very young age has centered on the superficial. He strives to be successful in the eyes of his family, friends, and associates by moving up through the ranks of a profession in the judicial system. It is a progression that came naturally to Ivan, as Tolstoy writes:

           “when he was at the School of Law he was just what he remained for the rest of his life: a capable, cheerful, good natured, and sociable man, though strict in the fulfillment of what he considered to be his duty…from early youth was by nature attracted to people of high station as a fly is drawn to the light” (8).

           The novella begins with Ilyich’s death, at age forty-five, through the eyes of his family and acquaintances, and it soon becomes evident that the latter could hardly be considered true friends. Even as his business partners first learn of the demise, their thoughts quickly go toward how his “vacancy” might present opportunities; and we learn that they view attending his wake mostly as an inconvenience. This deftly foreshadows Tolstoy’s exposition of a life lacking in significance.

            The story then regresses in time, through flashback, to supply the rather mundane details of Ivan Ilyich’s trajectory– success in school, rising through the ranks of the law profession, a marriage and children which quickly become a burden, and a focus on material things. While attempting to hang curtains in a new home, he falls and injures his side. The internal complications from this event gradually cause Ivan chronic pain, ill health, and even worse a feeling of despair and meaninglessness in his life. His decline is rapid; he becomes more and more irritable toward his family and career, while growing ever more doubtful that his life has contained any merit. In a later moment of extreme pathos, Ivan exclaims, “It really is so! I lost my life over that curtain as I might have done when storming a fort. Is that possible? How terrible and how stupid. It can't be true! It can't, but it is" (29).

            Tolstoy’s message, for me, is that one cannot find true life meaning in the various trappings many of us equate with success. At the end of such a shallow existence, those lucky enough to even receive such an epiphany realize the absurdity of such pursuits. Although most of the essayists from the modules provide relevant insights, Thomas Nagel’s “The Absurd” seems the most parallel: “Take a moment and ponder the many things which in your daily life you take great seriousness and significance worrying about, which are very likely insignificant and arbitrary.” This statement truly encapsulates Ivan Ilyich’s dilemma. In his last months, everything that he built his life upon crumbles underneath him. Only in his last moments, when death finally comes, does he find relief.

            Within just the first few pages of Woody Allen’s God (The Play) it becomes apparent that a decidedly more light-hearted excursion into absurdity is under way. Although God is a play, a piece of theater; it breaks all the rules. It breaches the fourth wall and addresses the audience directly, even interacts with it, and later implies that those within the audience are also fictional. I was highly impressed with the many devices, twists, and jokes built into this farcical drama. (“Diabetes” and “Hepatitis” as Greek names is both inane and brilliant).

            Whereas Tolstoy hits hard with his philosophical questions, in such miserable company as disease, death, and disillusionment– Allen poses some equally provocative challenges to the meaning of life through comedy and semantics. The play both begins and ends with the two main characters

 (Writer and Actor) discussing the drama they are working on:

ACTOR: Meaningless. It's empty.

WRITER: The ending.

ACTOR: Of course. What are we discussing? We're discussing the ending.

WRITER: We're always discussing the ending.

ACTOR: Because it's hopeless.

WRITER: I admit it's unsatisfying. (1)

             I see this exchange as Allen’s clever reference to Death; his way of saying that the “ending” of life is meaningless or unsatisfying, couched in a dialogue about a play (within this play, and perhaps within yet another play). There is a surrealist undercurrent at work which I found fascinating. The integrity of this drama’s “reality” keeps getting chipped away at, beginning with our double-take when Writer has called Actor by the name “Diabetes.” Gradually, as they begin addressing the audience, interjecting anachronisms (i.e. a Sardis reference in 500 B.C), incorporating audience members (and the playwright Himself) into the drama, and eventually making the audience fictional as well… one begins to wonder what could possibly happen next. And for most of us who are mentally adept enough to read “between the dialogue” comes the punchline: Our real-life existences are, in their own way, equally absurd and open to skepticism as those in this play’s characterizations and setting. Descartes would be impressed:

WRITER: “It's bizarre, isn't it? We're two ancient Greeks in Athens and we're about to see a play I wrote and you're acting in, and they're from Queens or some terrible place like that and they're watching us in someone else's play. What if they're characters in another play? And someone's watching them? Or what if nothing exists and we're all in somebody's dream? Or, what's worse, what if only that fat guy in the third row exists?” (4).

God (The Play) correlates especially well with the “Skepticism Exercise” in the module. While I can be reasonably sure that I am indeed sitting here on my bed, typing out this assignment; that it is a sunny and green afternoon outside presently (although we woke to snow on the ground); and that my homemade chicken & dumplings turned out so well that I may soon have a third bowl… I cannot be absolutely certain that it’s not all a dream or hallucination. I have had vivid dreams where I am in an alternate universe which I am already familiar with, and the action involves a much longer span than the dream’s duration. There is a wonderful episode of Star Trek/TNG called “The Inner Light” (considered by most critics as the best show in the entire franchise) where Captain Picard, through alien influence, lives an entire decades-long lifetime– in what is only twenty minutes to the crew observing him as he lies in a coma. Who can say definitively that this would be impossible? No one, if we’re honest. We are likely just as blind to the true reality as those who once thought the world is flat.

            I thoroughly enjoyed both of these offerings, neither of which I had read before. From Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich my main take-away is the futility of life’s accoutrements; the social and financial status which some would have us buy into, and the material items that we are led to believe we must acquire.

            And from Woody Allen’s irreverent yet brilliant comedic play comes what I think is the underlying message: Life is absurd. Therefore embrace that, and see the humor in it. There’s nothing that is truly sacred (God “dies” in the play, a nod to Nietzsche) so don’t get so hung up on such concepts.

            My favorite essayist from Modules 1 and 2 has been David Schmidtz, whose idea of keeping a more Eastern approach to philosophy, “sage” rather than “seeker” resonates with me. Overthinking and over-attachment to concepts or material goods leads to such existential meltdowns as occurred to Ivan Ilyich. Finding the meaning in much smaller increments of time (minute-to-minute or day-to-day), and in those things freely available within our environment (communion with nature) offers release from such crises of consciousness.

            “Get a good, strong ending, and then write backwards” says Diabetes to Hepatitis at the ending (and the beginning) of God (The Play). This is less absurd than they pronounce it to be. Knowing that we all are going to die, staying aware of this fact, and accepting such without fear or bitterness; this is about as strong an ending as we can hope for. If we can “write” that ending for ourselves in advance, the rest will fall into place. Or maybe not. But it will not matter…

Works Cited

Allen, Woody. God (The Play). 1975.

Nagel, Thomas. “The Absurd.” 2003.

Tolstoy, Leo. The Death of Ivan Ilyich. 1886.