Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SOLZHENITSYN'S ADDRESS TO HARVARD: A World Split Apart (must-read ringing defense of conservatism)
UCLA ^ | Circa 1978

Posted on 10/26/2002 9:03:38 AM PDT by Liz

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
Some scholars say Harvard never recovered from the speech. Books (check your public library) are available on the speech with critiques by well-known commentators as Michael Novak and George Will.

BACKGROUND: Solzhenitsyn, expelled from Russia, lived for a time in Vermont, then repatriated only recently with the fall of Communism. He is the author of several monumental books as "The Gulag Archipelago" and "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," two of my favorites (check your public library).

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1970, gave the commencement address at Harvard in 1978.

Michael Novak has called it "the most important religious document of our time." Predictably the New York Times and other secular media have reviled it because: "He believes himself to be in possession of The Truth."

Solzhenitsyn traced the American "cult of material well-being" to the false "humanism" of an Enlightenment worldview which proclaimed "man—the master of this world" and "the center of all;" which denied "the existence of intrinsic evil in man;" and which failed to see "any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth".

He reminded his audience that "in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God's creature," and that "freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility".

Solzhenitsyn called for a renewal of personal discipline and "voluntary self-restraint," and "a new height of vision," concluding: "No one on earth has any way left but—upward".

1 posted on 10/26/2002 9:03:38 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Liz
Great post Liz. I have always admired Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and have many of his writings and speeches.

Michael Scammell, an English author wrote "Solzhenitsyn-a biography" (1984, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London) which is 1000 pages long but very readable.

2 posted on 10/26/2002 9:15:44 AM PDT by RipeforTruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz


A World Split Apart

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

A loss of 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 and of course in the United Nations.

Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice.

And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

When the modern western states were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free and to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration of Independence.)

Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades.

In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development.

The individual's independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?

Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.

Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad.

People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd.

One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Every-body operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses.

And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.

In today's western society, the inequality has been revealed of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; there are thousands of hasty and irresponsible critics around him, parliament and the press keep rebuffing him. As he moves ahead, he has to prove that each single step of his is well-founded and absolutely flawless. Actually an outstanding and particularly gifted person who has unusual and unexpect-ed initiatives in mind hardly gets a chance to assert himself; from the very beginning, dozens of traps will be set out for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy.

It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and, in fact, it has been drastically weakened in all western countries. The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases.

Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners in our camps who are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state resorting to means outside of a legal framework.)

The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media.) But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?

Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion.

What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history?

If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper?

No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.

Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers' memory.

How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification? The press can both simulate public opinion and mis-educate it.

Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one's nation's defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: "Everyone is entitled to know everything."

But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive, burdening flow of information.

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: By what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible?

In the communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification.

Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership, because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges.

Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development.

This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self--deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of a petrified armor around people's minds.

Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation.

However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.

I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it.

But should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present state as an ideal for the transformation of ours.

Through intense suffering our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life, which I have just mentioned are extremely saddening.

A fact, which cannot be disputed, is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of western experience. Life's complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper and more interesting characters than those generated by standardized western well-being.

Therefore, if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores.

It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have.

After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today's mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to observers from all the worlds of our planet. The western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are meaningful warnings which history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen.

There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc.

The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started.

The forces of evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

Very well-known representatives of your society, such as George Kennan, say: We cannot apply moral criteria to politics. Thus we mix good and evil, right and wrong and make space for the absolute triumph of absolute evil in the world.

On the contrary, only moral criteria can help the West against communism's well-planned world strategy. There are no other criteria. Practical or occasional considerations of any kind will inevitably be swept away by strategy. After a certain level of the problem has been reached, legalistic thinking induces paralysis, it prevents one from seeing the size and meaning of events.

In spite of the abundance of information, or maybe because of it, the West has difficulties in understanding reality such as it is. There have been naive predictions by some American experts who believed that Angola would become the Soviet Union's Vietnam or that Cuban expeditions in Africa would best be stopped by special U.S. courtesy to Cuba.

Kennan's advice to his own country - to begin unilateral disarmament- - belongs to the same category. If you only knew how the youngest of the Moscow Old Square officials laugh at your political wizards!

As to Fidel Castro, he frankly scorns the United States sending his troops to distant adventures from his country right next to yours.

However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam War. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity.

But members of the U.S. antiwar movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear?

The American intelligentsia lost its nerve, and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this.

Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundred-fold Vietnam now looms over you.

That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation's courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?

I have had occasion already to say that in the 20th century western democracy has not won any major war without help and protection from a powerful continental ally whose philosophy and ideology it did not question.

In World War II against Hitler, instead of winning that war with its own forces, which would certainly have been sufficient, Western democracy grew and cultivated another enemy who would prove worse and more powerful yet, as Hitler never had so many resources and so many people, nor did he offer any attractive ideas, or have such a large number of supporters in the West - a potential fifth column - as the Soviet Union.

At present, some western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world.

First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days.

And yet - no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being.

Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. Thus at the shameful Belgrade Conference free western diplomats in their weakness surrendered the line where enslaved members of Helsinki watch-groups are sacrificing their lives.

Western thinking has become conservative; the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes. This debilitating dream of a status quo is the symptom of a society which has come to the end of its development.

But one must be blind in order not to see that oceans no longer belong to the West, while land under its domination keeps shrinking. The two so-called world wars - they were by far not on a world scale, not yet - have meant internal self-destruction of the small progressive West which has thus prepared its own end. The next war - which does not have to be an atomic one and I do not believe it will - may well bury western civilization forever.

Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself?

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present sickness? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development?

It does not seem so. The West kept advancing socially in accordance with its proclaimed intentions, with the help of brilliant. technological progress. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness. This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries.

I refer to the prevailing western view of the world, which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man's physical nature in favor of the spiritual one.

Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth.

It based modern western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense.

That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones.

However, in early democracies, as in 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 50 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.

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement turned out to be not entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures, with a seemingly scientific approach.

This is typical of the Enlightenment in the 18th century and of Marxism. Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness.

At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes, which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.

In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.

Russian exile Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his commencement speech at Harvard, addressed the western world Publicly for only the second time since his expulsion from the Soviet Union in 1974. The Nobel Prize-winning author has come out from his seclusion in Vermont to take the podium and deliver a powerful warning to America.
While IMPRIMIS publishes only those papers that are delivered on the Hillsdale College campus, we think that this presentation is worthy of the widest possible distribution. Because of that, we commend Solzhenitsyn's words to your attention.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College. August 1978, Vol. 7, No. 8.


3 posted on 10/26/2002 9:17:31 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
The Gulag Archipelago is one of your favorite books? I've never heard anyone say that. Which volume?
4 posted on 10/26/2002 9:49:41 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Thanks again for reposting this landmark speech. Someone once referred t oSolzhenitsyn as 'the conscience of the Twentieth Century'. Lord knows it needed one.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?
I have a feeling that this low-frade cultural and spiritual war in which we have been engaged is about to run white-hot. What indeed, it the joy about?
5 posted on 10/26/2002 10:06:26 AM PDT by Noumenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Thanks Liz for this great post. I have never read The Gulag Archipelago but I recently bought both the paperback and hardback. I have read Harry Wu's books on his 19 years of hell in the Laogai--the Communist Chinese version of the Gulag that number in the thousands today with millions of poor souls producing the "cheap" goods found in Walmart and Kmart. Harry's books are "Troublemaker: One Man's Crusade Against China's Cruelty" and "Bitter Winds: A Memoir of My Years in China's Gulag." Great books.
6 posted on 10/26/2002 10:06:45 AM PDT by HighRoadToChina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Solzhenitsyn has always been one of my heroes, everyone should read his Gulag and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich - This was also made into a remarkably good film with Tom Courtney - hard to get though, I just saw a copy go for $58 on ebay - though I got one for twentysomething several months ago.
7 posted on 10/26/2002 10:15:42 AM PDT by Maigret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Hmm, a call for moral behavior and self restraint. To do what is right instead of what is allowed. An interesting read.
8 posted on 10/26/2002 10:22:23 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Light reading for the day.
9 posted on 10/26/2002 10:23:59 AM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black; HighRoadToChina; Noumenon; RipeforTruth
I once read that no civilized person can afford not to read at least part of this great work in three volumes (The Gulag Archipelago). It was an enormous achievment, and in fact, was acclaimed and achieved fame in the rest of the free world (and is monumental in its raison d'etre; Solzhenitsyn was kicked out of his country because of it).

It is certainly a look at a stark and bitter existence which was real. The free and easy life we lead is in sharp contrast. We need to read it not for enjoyment but to recognize what could happen elsewhere and to more highly value our freedoms in order to fight to safeguard them even more zealously.

10 posted on 10/26/2002 10:34:27 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Good speech, Liz. Thanks for posting.
11 posted on 10/26/2002 10:53:52 AM PDT by Z in Oregon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Thank you for making the effort to post this....
12 posted on 10/26/2002 10:55:39 AM PDT by LaBelleDameSansMerci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Liz
A decline in courage? (BJ Clinton.)

Legalistic Life? (Refined by our Trial Lawyers, and various activist judges and State Supreme Courts.)

Destructive and irresponsible freedom? (The Garbage put forward as "art" by our Hollywood Elites.)

The direction of the press? (Helen Thomas, Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous,...)

Socialism? (Tommy Dasshole, Dickie Gephardt, and Ted Kennedy's endless salesmanship of class envy.)

Humanism? (The "First Humanist", Hillary Rodham. She knows what's best for us... even better than God.)

I never read much about this guy, but I like him already. No wonder the Harvardies didn't like it. Too bad such a great speech was wasted on them. Good post Liz. Thanks.

13 posted on 10/26/2002 11:02:55 AM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
"The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but - upward." Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

This will be the opening of my next NSS club newsletter essay. Okay, as a Space Cadet I see space as the next step in our evolution and maybe the ultimate salvation of our civilization, (see the "High Frontier" or visit!)

14 posted on 10/26/2002 11:16:08 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Light reading for the day.

Indeed the prose is a bit thick for us dumbed down Americans. (Some time, take a look at the Lincoln-Douglas debates. We used to be able to listen and comprehend complex and subtle arguments. Alas, today, the soundbite rules.)

Interesting, this morning Mrs don-o and I were discussing whether we had heard of any comments that Solzhenitsyn had made about Russia's involvement in Chechnya.

Thanks for the post, Liz.

15 posted on 10/26/2002 11:24:53 AM PDT by don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Bump for later
16 posted on 10/26/2002 12:04:32 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEngineer
The speech wasn't entirely wasted. It gained enormous currency.......and lives on to this day via my post.

Thanks for your deconstruction.

17 posted on 10/26/2002 12:06:19 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Registered; Fracas; NYpeanut; texasbluebell; reformed_democrat; rintense; The Old Hoosier; ...
.......our post-Clinton freedoms in an interesting context.........
18 posted on 10/26/2002 12:11:25 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: don-o
We used to be able to listen and comprehend complex and subtle arguments.

Critical thinking is still useful.....but not taught.

19 posted on 10/26/2002 12:12:56 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
"The Gulag Archipelago (I & II)" are in my permanent library. I was devouring them when they came out three decades ago; between Solzhentisyn and Dostoyevsky I was launched into two decades' fascination with Russian authors (with one book by Turgenev as yet unfound).

Solzhenitsyn's "The First Circle" is on my list of favorites, along with "August 1914."

20 posted on 10/26/2002 1:01:53 PM PDT by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson