September 4, 2003

THE WORLD'S STILL SPLIT APART (via Paul Cella):

The Last Prophet: Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Ian Hunter, July/August 2003, Touchstone)

Who has been the most influential person of the last half-century? A tough question, that. I asked several of my acquaintances; interestingly enough, their immediate and unanimous response was: "Oh, Pope John Paul II, of course." Other names mentioned were Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mother Teresa, Bill Gates, Billy Graham, and--for sheer evil--Osama bin Laden.

As it happens, my vote (though I am not a Roman Catholic) would also go to Pope John Paul II, who has stood astride our age like a colossus. But a case could be made for another man, one whose name was not mentioned by a single one of my respondents: Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn. [...]

And what of the future? Is it possible that Russians might slow down, think, perhaps even pray, change directions? With God, anything is possible—but even Solzhenitsyn considers it unlikely. He told Pearce: "The characteristics of modernity, the psychological illness of the twentieth century, is this hurriedness, hurrying, scurrying, this fitfulness—fitfulness and superficiality. Technological successes have been tremendous but without a spiritual component mankind will not only be unable to develop further but cannot even preserve himself."

In his last public appearance in Moscow, Solzhenitsyn said that one defining characteristic of contemporary humanity is "the loss of the ability to answer the principal problem of life and death. People are prepared to stuff their heads with anything, and to talk of any subject, but only to block off the contemplation of this subject."

Will Solzhenitsyn’s powerful voice be heeded? Not in the West, certainly, where he is a forgotten man. In Russia, then? It seems unlikely. The Russian writer Alexander Genis was probably correct in describing Solzhenitsyn as "the last remaining prophet in the abandoned temple of absolute truth."

Of course it is a common fate of prophets to be ignored, even ridiculed, in their own time and generation, yet to be appreciated, occasionally even heeded, by posterity. It may prove to be so with Solzhenitsyn. If Russia is to find a path out of its quagmire, it will perforce have to consider his critique of how it got there; and if Russia hears about its past from him, it is not beyond all hope that it might hear him when he speaks of its future.


Indeed, what other towering figure from the 20th Century struggle against the ism's--Nazism, Communism, Socialism, etc.--continues to speak so powerfully to the condition in which we find ourselves today? What's may be most remarkable is that, were it not for George W. Bush--were Howard Dean president, for example--Mr. Solzhenitsyn could deliver most of his notorious 1978 Harvard Commencement address again now. Consider just this passage:
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 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?


Take a look at the UN, France, Germany, Canada, the Democrats, etc., and ask yourself how much things have really changed in the intervening 25 years.

Posted by orrinj at September 4, 2003 9:14 PM
Comments

If a Russian, why not Sakharov?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 4, 2003 9:26 PM

I will always remember a Russian history class at Penn State, when our professor told us that George Kennan knew more about the Soviet Union than Solzhenitsyn. I about fell out of my chair, and actually asked him to repeat himself. This was in 1982, when people here knew about Solzhenitsyn. Sakharov is OK, but he did not destroy the foundation the way Solzhenitsyn did. Nor was he ever in the Gulag.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 4, 2003 9:48 PM

Harry:

Sakharov is ultimately a tragic figure, what we might think of as anti-Stalin without being anti-Lenin. When he died he was collaborating with Gorbachev to try and reform the USSR, something it is impossible to envision Solzhenitsyn doing.

Posted by: oj at September 4, 2003 11:55 PM

Please check some information on poker tables, casino on line, online casino 888, gambling bet, blackjack statistics, roulette wager, gamble stake, internet casino web, slot machine bonuses, online casino bonus online, online gamble rules, casino gambling 8888, casino game casions, las vegas web, video poker software, roulette online casinos, slot statistics, blackjack online rule, blackjack betting rule, poker casinos, gambling on net casino, blackjack cards, poker casino on net, casino on line, casino tip, gambling cards. ...

Posted by: blackjack betting at January 12, 2004 5:57 PM
« NO-LIMIT POKER, AND NO ONE'S FOLDING: | Main | WOT THE?: »