is gone August 3, 2008, and the news of his death, Italy has slipped away almost unnoticed clamore.Eppure this grand old man, tormented by the look of someone who has seen too, was a figure era, one of those men who descend to earth, to give humanity a deeper understanding. Through his literary work, full of pain, complaint and passion revealed to the world the horrors of the gulag, the Soviet labor camps and canceled the communist utopia, unmasking the nature of totalitarian and bloody. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, he was exiled and lived far from his home in Germany, Switzerland and the United States. An incredible life through his story and his work bears witness to the freedom of every irreducible uomo.Ma also knew how to anticipate the "dark evil" of the West, he realized that when freedom becomes irresponsible falls each barrier against Deep decay umano.Nel 1978 at Harvard before a huge audience, he spoke lucidly of the drift of a company that makes every drive a right, and slowly you start to his autodistruzione.E fact after reading part of I found his speech very topical that I decided to remember him with this scritto.LIBERTÀ: irresponsibility? In accordance with its objectives, the Western society has chosen the form of existence that was more comfortable and I would call legal. The limits (very large) the rights and proper right of every man are defined by the system of laws. A force to abide by these laws, to move within them and juggle them in the thick warp Westerners were acquired on a large and solid expertise (but the laws are still so complex that the ordinary citizen is not able to raccapezzarcisi without the help of an expert). Each receives a legal solution to the conflict, and this is considered the highest. If a man is legally in their own right, one can not ask for anything more. Try to tell him, after the supreme legal sanction, which is not quite right, are proved to advise him to limit himself to his needs and to give up what rightfully, are proved to ask him to deal with a sacrifice or take a risk free ... you look like you look like an idiot. The restraint freely accepted is one thing that you almost never see: against all practice for the Auto Expand, carried to the extreme capacity of the law, until the legal framework are beginning to creak. (...) That I've spent my whole life under communism, I say that a society where there is a fair legal balance is awful. But even a company that has in all respects only the balance law can be truly worthy of man. A company that has been installed on the ground of the law, without wanting to go higher, it uses only slightly higher faculties of man. The law is too cold and too formal exercise a beneficial influence on society. When all life is permeated by the legal relations, it determines an atmosphere of spiritual mediocrity that stifles the best human impulses. And they will support the evidence that the Century prepares holding out on the only prop is legal for the first less and less possible. It is time to assert your duties. In Western society today is a noticeable imbalance between the freedom to do good and the freedom to do evil. A politician who wants to achieve in the interests of his country, some important work, is forced to undertake steps cautious and even timid, critics assailed by thousands of hasty (and irresponsible) and it is targeted by the press and Parliament. Must justify every step we make and demonstrate absolute integrity. In fact it is conceivable that a man out of the ordinary, a great man who promises to take action with unusual and unexpected, can never prove what he is capable of: receive many of those having to give up tripping from the outset. And so on the pretext of democratic control will ensure the triumph of mediocrity. On the other hand it is easy to undermine the authority of the Administration, and in all western countries the public authorities have been considerably weakened. The rights of the individual comes to such excesses that the same society is helpless in front of some of its members: the time has come definitely to the West not so much to affirm the rights of the people, as its doveri.Al opposite of freedom to do good, to destroy freedom, freedom of 'irresponsibility, saw vast fields opening up before them for action. The company has proved little defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the use of freedom to exert undue influence on youth: it is claimed that the fact of being able to bring the film full of pornography, crime or of Satanism constitutes too 'it is a freedom, which offset the theoretical freedom for young people not to go and see them. So based on the legal life shows itself incapable of even defending herself against evil and if it leaves gradually devour. And what about the dark spaces in which it moves real crime? The extent of the legal limits (especially in America) is for the individual not only an encouragement to exercise his freedom but also an incitement to commit certain crimes, as it offers the criminal the opportunity to escape punishment or to benefit from a ' undeserved indulgence, thanks to the support of perhaps a thousand voices will rise in its favor. And in a country where public authorities deal with the hardness and aim to eradicate terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses them of trampling on the civil rights of the bandits. The press, unrepentant guardonaAnche printing (I use the word "press" to describe all mass media) of course has the greatest freedom. But as I use it? We know already: good looking dall'oltrepassare the legal limits but without any real moral responsibility if distorting the facts and distorts the aspect ratio. A journalist and his newspaper are truly accountable to their readers or in front of the story? If providing false information or wrong conclusions, they happen to mislead the public or even to make a misstep in the whole state, you see them ever publicly declare his fault? No, of course, because that would be detrimental to sales. In such cases the State may also leave the pens. But the journalist comes out clean. In fact, you swear that you will write the opposite with renewed self-importance of what he said earlier. The need to give information immmediata and together influential forces appear to fill the gaps with conjecture, rumors and suppositions to report that as a result will never be denied and is intrinsic to the memory of the masses. How many hasty judgments, reckless, arrogant and wrong to confuse the brain every day readers and listeners and we will fix! The press has the power to forge public opinion and also that to pervert. Thus, we see the crown of laurel Herostratus terrorists, even reveal the secrets of the defense of his country, blatantly violating the privacy of celebrities to cry "Everyone has the right to know everything" (false slogan for a century of lies, because much beyond that right there is another, now lost: the right man for not knowing, not clutter up his divine soul of gossip, rumors, idle futility. Those who work really, who has life bridges, has no need of this river flood of information brutalizing). Journalists in whose name? Is occurring in the press, more than elsewhere, the superficiality and the fast that constitute the mental illness of the twentieth century. Penetrate deep into the problems is contraindicated, it is not in his nature, it is limited to catch anything on the fly effetto.E, with all this, the press has become the most disruptive force of Western states, it exceeds the power executive, legislative and judicial branches. But let us ask ourselves a moment under what law has been elected and who shall be accountable for its actions? If the communist East a journalist is clearly designated as from any other civil servant, who are the voters that Western journalists must instead take up the position of power? And for how long the deal? E with what mandate? HERE's speech in full As you can imagine in Italy Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was opposed and criticized the literary elite red branded him as a "nullalità in the arts" (Cassola), a "Dostoevsky from overwork" (Eco). But the attacks were not only on the literary, Moravia Espresso wrote that the Russian writer is a "nationalist Slavophile of the first water." In short, the usual movies we're used to now since the war. The left does not accept criticism, but is not above resorting to insults when no valid arguments to object. Needle
0 comments:
Post a Comment