[Mr. K]

""If humanism were right in declaring that man is born only to be happy, he would not be born to die"

Huh?

This guy was way overrated. He was only a hero because he was anti-russia during the cold war

to knee-jerkers: I am not saying he was WRONG, I just did not like his writing that much Maybe it loses something in the translation, but I thought it was bland trivialities- like that example above

[CondoleezzaProtege]

I also appreciated this excerpt:

However, in early democracies, as in the American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were -- State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the 20th century's moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the 19th Century.

[Carley]

Go back and read First Circle.

Then come here and tell me that this man was over rated.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

This guy was way overrated. He was only a hero because he was anti-russia during the cold war

Kind of like Ayn Eand. But I'd rate Solzhenitsyn higher than 100 Ayn Rands. I can't see any of Rand's fictional supermen lasting a week in the Gulag.

[Woebama]

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century . . .

: )

[MosesKnows]

I just did not like his writing that much

Liking someone's writing is often not the point of the exercise. The writer provides an opportunity for the reader to reflect on the writers observations. Liking, enjoying, or agreeing is not the point.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle

[Noumenon]

Have you read the entire speech referenced here - "A World Split Apart?" Do so if you haven't.

Solzhenitsyn was arguably one of the great minds of the 20th century. He spoke of truths that many did not wish to hear. He experienced - and survived with his humanity intact - precisely what we're headed for here if we don't take the drastic and unpleasant steps necessary to stop it.

[sasportas]

“A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party…
Should one point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?”

Would you call this excerpt from Solzhenitsyn’s speech “bland trivialities.” I think not, in my opinion, he hit the nail on the head. It’s going to demand more courage from us conservatives than any of us realize to rescue this country from it’s current Orwellian nightmare.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

Maybe it loses something in the translation, but I thought it was bland trivialities- like that example above

Solzhenitsyn was speaking of man’s spirit and morality. Never took him for a lightweight. Some folks find this kind of talk unsettling. He was a thinking and moral man. God bless him.

[zorro8987]

quoting Alexander S - “If humanism were right in declaring that man is born only to be happy, he would not be born to die” —

To me this is certainly _not_ a bland triviality. There are people I know who are blatantly hedonistic and have declared that they are making pleasure their goal in life. Alexander’s point is that we were made for a higher spiritual goal, a serious and earnest ideal. He’s a philosophic writer. When we consider that we will die in about 100 years or less from the time of our birth, that should put a more serious perspective on things.

[SunkenCiv]

I wholeheartedly agree — and would add, like all Russian novelists, he had an exaggerated sense of his own importance and was long-winded.