>Solzhenitsyn reminded people that having the right to do something does not make it right. What troubled him most was that elites trivialized the civilizational struggle between freedom and tyranny.
>Under despotism, Solzhenitsyn could readily spot an informant or a self-seeking careerist. In the West, where almost everyone seemed forthright and earnest, he put his faith in people who let him down or took advantage of his inexperience.
Wow this actually hits close to home.
I've certainly been a more naive type, and sadly fallen for the same kind of thing even growing up here.
There are some good people, but I think we're falling apart without enough of them and it is hard to talk about this.
Reading a bit more about this guy he seems to have some interesting views. He points to Atheism as a key reason for the death of 60 million people under the Soviets, and states that America capitulated too early in the Vietnam war.
I think though that the interpretation of religious tenets and the character of decrees by religious authorities change over time. Evangelists in America claim God told them they ought to buy private jets. As a result I don't think Materialism is incompatible with religion. I don't think Materialism is atheistic or religious in character.
>He points to Atheism as a key reason for the death of 60 million people under the Soviets
Not very far off. In their fervor, the soviets replaced a millennia old in their parts known quantity religion, with an atheist cult of "communism", the all-known "party", and the "new man". That strand of militant atheism operated the same way, and worse, than actual religion.
One could e.g. murder people and let go of compassion, as that was a "christian" thing. What supposedly mattered were the end results (the building of communism). Heck, they even made mummies and pilgrimages of their supreme leaders...
Dostoyevsky had already said pretty much the same (e.g. in the Possessed, and in Crime and Punishment), regarding the new revolutionary fervor in Russia and where Russia was headed, 100 years before Solzenyntsin.
His point was that the kind of revolutionary mania emerging in Russia was bad, and a kind of atheist substitute of religion (which, in its fervor and conviction lacks its controls and subtlety).
Capitulating too early is a somewhat obtuse observation, without offering authentic insight. Put another way, of course such a capitulation is too early, since it seldom isn't premature for any instance in which it's not already too late. The U.S. was wealthy enough to keep going, and could have forced victory if any sort of victory at all costs would have been acceptable.
Suppose, this author sees it another way: perhaps non-pyrrhic in its sacrifices, perhaps less barbaric. It seems his view takes the total reverse of such sentiments.
Really, the thrust of the commencement speech seems to imply that he viewed Americans as not prepared to lay down their lives for the war's cause. He seems to miss the point: Viet Nam wasn't even the kind of fight the people in charge were interested in winning. They just needed a free fire zone and guinea pigs for some science experiments and alcohol induce navel gazing about limited war in the nuclear age.
Philosophical as he seems to be, Solzhenitsyn also glosses over what he really means by: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
He doesn't clarify precisely why this might imperil perhaps 60 million souls. Was it simple minded orthodox superstition?
Left unstated, we have no way of know if he harbored a fear of divine consequences and an afterlife. This is laughable though. If he were to let on that it were a deeply held belief in fairy tales, it might be dispelled open handed. Because we know that superstition can be used to embolden suicide attacks just as easily as it can rationalize meekness.
More likely, it was the outward observance of a fearfulness, culturally instilled in prior generations, and that a lack of consideration for others leads to bold impetuousness and hubris. Anyone can see this without leaning on the crutch of "godlessness" but still he saw fit to beat the dead horse of spirituality.
How else can we interpret this? Either he saw religions promises as suitably manipulative to create fear among simpleton peasants, or he preferred the easy comfort of deferring his own agency to an almighty consequence instead of permitting the chance that perhaps atheism doesn't preclude the capacity to rationalize against libertine abandon.
A conscientiousness that died with the old values, since dispelled by the new social norms that fast emerging technological shifts had produced.
Growing up in Russia, Solzhenitsyn was one of my childhood heroes and still is. But I value him mostly as a reporter. The Gulag Archipelago was a success of reporting. I'm less excited about his work as a writer (in the moralistic Russian tradition which was always boring to me) or as a teacher (why did he try to teach the West from a position of inexperience?)
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is one of my all time favourite books, it is as meaningful with words as the best works of Chekhov and shows the power of the human spirit.
>Under despotism, Solzhenitsyn could readily spot an informant or a self-seeking careerist. In the West, where almost everyone seemed forthright and earnest, he put his faith in people who let him down or took advantage of his inexperience.
Wow this actually hits close to home.
I've certainly been a more naive type, and sadly fallen for the same kind of thing even growing up here.
There are some good people, but I think we're falling apart without enough of them and it is hard to talk about this.
So I wouldn't say too few good people, just that they aren't in position to do anything.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/219822.Warning_to_the_We...
Afaik he said to not abandon it entirely. He thought we had a sort of new religion in each world, materialism in the west.
Not very far off. In their fervor, the soviets replaced a millennia old in their parts known quantity religion, with an atheist cult of "communism", the all-known "party", and the "new man". That strand of militant atheism operated the same way, and worse, than actual religion.
One could e.g. murder people and let go of compassion, as that was a "christian" thing. What supposedly mattered were the end results (the building of communism). Heck, they even made mummies and pilgrimages of their supreme leaders...
Dostoyevsky had already said pretty much the same (e.g. in the Possessed, and in Crime and Punishment), regarding the new revolutionary fervor in Russia and where Russia was headed, 100 years before Solzenyntsin.
Wasn't Dostoyevsky also religious?
His point was that the kind of revolutionary mania emerging in Russia was bad, and a kind of atheist substitute of religion (which, in its fervor and conviction lacks its controls and subtlety).
Capitulating too early is a somewhat obtuse observation, without offering authentic insight. Put another way, of course such a capitulation is too early, since it seldom isn't premature for any instance in which it's not already too late. The U.S. was wealthy enough to keep going, and could have forced victory if any sort of victory at all costs would have been acceptable.
Suppose, this author sees it another way: perhaps non-pyrrhic in its sacrifices, perhaps less barbaric. It seems his view takes the total reverse of such sentiments.
Really, the thrust of the commencement speech seems to imply that he viewed Americans as not prepared to lay down their lives for the war's cause. He seems to miss the point: Viet Nam wasn't even the kind of fight the people in charge were interested in winning. They just needed a free fire zone and guinea pigs for some science experiments and alcohol induce navel gazing about limited war in the nuclear age.
Philosophical as he seems to be, Solzhenitsyn also glosses over what he really means by: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
He doesn't clarify precisely why this might imperil perhaps 60 million souls. Was it simple minded orthodox superstition?
Left unstated, we have no way of know if he harbored a fear of divine consequences and an afterlife. This is laughable though. If he were to let on that it were a deeply held belief in fairy tales, it might be dispelled open handed. Because we know that superstition can be used to embolden suicide attacks just as easily as it can rationalize meekness.
More likely, it was the outward observance of a fearfulness, culturally instilled in prior generations, and that a lack of consideration for others leads to bold impetuousness and hubris. Anyone can see this without leaning on the crutch of "godlessness" but still he saw fit to beat the dead horse of spirituality.
How else can we interpret this? Either he saw religions promises as suitably manipulative to create fear among simpleton peasants, or he preferred the easy comfort of deferring his own agency to an almighty consequence instead of permitting the chance that perhaps atheism doesn't preclude the capacity to rationalize against libertine abandon.
A conscientiousness that died with the old values, since dispelled by the new social norms that fast emerging technological shifts had produced.
>He decided not to settle farther north because he thought Canadians were too nice and lacked spirit.
This request was blocked by the security rules
Does anyone have an alt link?
Edit: here it is: https://outline.com/NbS3kF