Hancock on Solzhenitsyn and morality in politics

In a recent post, Ralph Hancock writes about Solzhenitsyn, morality in politics, and natural law.

“In his 1993 speech to the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn argues that, under the spell of the notion of “Progress,” we moderns have succumbed to the illusion that more is always better. This illusion has caused us to lose our “moral compass” and has made us oblivious to “something pure, elevated, and fragile;” that is, to the question of purpose. To recover some sense of purpose requires listening to the voice of “conscience,” a voice that directly contradicts the false promise of boundless progress by counseling above all “self-limitation.” This fundamental moral disposition of self-limitation is inseparable from “the awareness of a Whole and Higher Authority above us,” from an attitude of “humility before this entity.””

— Ralph Hancock

"Politics and the Soul" in Solzhenitsyn

Just posted, for the Spring issue of Modern Age: a probing essay by Daniel J. Mahoney on “politics and the soul” in Solzhenitsyn’s writings.

“As “The Soul and Barbed Wire” demonstrates above all, The Gulag Archipelago “is about the ascent of the human spirit, about its struggle with evil,” to quote Natalia Solzhenitsyn yet again. The two spiritual possibilities, the ascent of the human soul and the struggle with evil, are inseparable for Solzhenitsyn. He is not a Stoic sage who upholds self-contained “apathy,” a spiritual serenity independent of all external circumstances. That is surely inhuman and un-Christian. As we shall see, the great Russian writer believes that radical evil must be confronted, with force if necessary, in order to defend the liberty and the dignity of the human person. In his historical novel cycle The Red Wheel and elsewhere, he contests Tolstoy’s pacifism, which conflates love with sentimentality and abandons the weak and innocent to the degradation of inhuman tyranny. Solzhenitsyn never opposed military service and honored those who served their country (but not those who served Communist ideology).”

“As we rapidly move along in the twenty-first century, Solzhenitsyn, chronicler of the fate of the soul under both ideological despotism and, increasingly, a soft and relativistic democracy, very much remains our contemporary: a true friend of “liberty and human dignity,” as Tocqueville put it, and a partisan of the human soul imparted to us by a just and merciful God. His courage remains an inspiration for all. While fearlessly slaying the dragon of ideology and ideological despotism, he taught us deep and enduring truths about the drama of good and evil in the human soul. He thus remains our permanent contemporary.”

Claremont Review on Between Two Millstones, Book 1

A thoughful review of Between Two Millstones, Book 1 by James Pontuso for the Claremont Review of Books.

“Far from being a political extremist, Solzhenitsyn showed extraordinary prescience when analyzing what later would be called the post-Communist world. He predicted that Sakharov’s dream of establishing a peaceful global community was not feasible and that globalization would eventually create nationalist movements. He worried that the collapse of Communism would rekindle ethnic hatreds long kept in check under Communist tyranny. He feared that the collapse of the Soviet Union might result in a war between Ukraine and Russia. He foresaw that nations emerging from Communist rule would have long, difficult transitions to functioning civil societies. Free and democratic government depends on citizens’ voluntarily obeying the rule of law, but citizens did nothing freely under Communism.”

— James F. Pontuso