It was written in the spring of 1968 in the corresponding international situation (reforms in the Czech Republic, youth riots and labor strikes in France and the USA).
Below is a summary with long excerpts. Following Sakharov’s “scientific” style, I write in the style of “remarks on a dissertation,” that is, with abundant citation of the author.
To summarize: the text is not anti-Soviet; on the contrary, it is intended to promote the USSR and Soviet values in the West. The program for creating a world socialist government put forward in the text is simply Trotskyist; demagoguery about freedom and democracy, by the way, was quite typical for both Trotsky and Lenin; he himself here quotes Lenin talking about freedom. In fact, if you squeeze out the husk, it is proposed to suppress all non-Trotskyist forces in the USSR, after which a world revolution will be carried out (both in developed and developing countries), after which supposedly maximum freedom and scientific development with “smoothing out national contradictions” (that is, they will make Muscovites out of everyone, ban all nations).
No matter how much you teach a person to love people, he nods and nods his head and goes back to the old ways. He goes out into the street and can’t hold back. And most importantly, the argument will be most logical - “Don’t you see what they are like? And what are they doing?
We see. And we do not encourage anyone to fraternize with something that is unpleasant to fraternize with. It is impossible to love people, looking at the earth with earthly eyes. It will be a lie. And you know, you can study life-affirming videos on a service like YouTube as much as you want - this will not help us overcome the main punishment of existence - disunity, the isolation of people from each other.
So what can be done to overcome this curse of the descendants of Adam, the curse of original sin?
(Just in case, I’ll explain to the Meticulous Reader - I’m not engaged in religious propaganda. It’s just very convenient for me to express myself in the terminology of the Abrahamic religions. This is the mythology of our civilization, our language, images understandable to everyone. The same thing with ancient quotes. When a historian and archaeologist Sir Mortimer Wheeler writes the phrase " Clio rarely gives us such symmetrical episodes in history.“, we, of course, do not think that he “believes” in the existence of the muse Clio, dictating to historians their works. But we think that he has an excellent command of a slightly old-fashioned journalistic style... When the Christian Hellenes said at the market: “I swear by Zeus!”, slapping themselves on the knees, it was nothing more than a strong market word, and not a creed uttered aloud).
So, on earth, in the earthly dimension, it is difficult to love people. We are condemned to disunity. But this same fact is the reason for all the spiritual hardships of a person. Philosophers call this feature their own term - “existential melancholy”, the feeling of being “thrown” into this incomprehensible world. The Orthodox speak in this case about “gracelessness.” Jews about "galut".
But without unity, neither love nor the feeling that you are not alone at all is possible. Without experiencing, at least occasionally, moments of unity, a person will not be happy. And for this you need an extraterrestrial dimension, an unusual feeling. We need an altered state of consciousness—changed from the usual, everyday one, forcing us to notice only its shortcomings in creation. The one who causes us to blindly not see behind the flesh is the languid Spirit.
We need meditation. Whatever you want, meditation is present in any religion; it is a mistake to believe that meditation is something purely Eastern.
What happens to the human mind during meditation? Why is it so valuable? Let's figure it out.
When a person meditates, his mind ceases to be separate, is freed from the prison of the body and merges with other minds. He dissolves into the Collective Unconscious, which can be verbally likened to the ocean. Our mind is a thin stream. In meditation, a stream-drop connects with the World Ocean, experiencing bliss. Sufi mystics say this: “Break your jug. Allow the water contained in it to unite with other waters.” “An explosion of the mind,” say Zen Buddhists.
There is a great Zen koan, a parable about meditation, that will explain once and for all what it is and what it is not.
How to fill a sieve with water?
The teacher ordered his novices to fill the sieve with water and show him the result. But no matter how hard the students tried, all the water poured out through the large cells, immediately leaving the sieve empty...
Each student held tightly in his hands an empty vessel, or rather, a mockery of the vessel, for it was full of holes.
Then the teacher went knee-deep into the water and threw his sieve into the ocean. It immediately sank and lay neatly on the sandy bottom.
« Now, said the teacher, it will always be filled with water».
When we are not immersed in an altered state of consciousness, we cannot fill ourselves with wisdom, grace, or love for the Universe. No matter how many sermons and wise words we scoop up, everything will pour out through the holes. And we will go out into the street as devastated as we came.
You shouldn’t reproach yourself for this - it’s a normal process.
What you need to do is drown your “sieve” in the ocean, get what meditation gives - unity with the Universe and all its creations.
Anyone who has returned from such a trip retains the memory that unity, in principle, is possible and this makes it softer, more tolerant, kinder, and all because it is happier.
Church, art and meditation
As we have already found out, meditation is bringing your mind to a state in which, overcoming earthly obstacles, it feels Unity. I'll add a small detail. If this is the “correct” unity, then the result of such unity will be the awareness of the principle of A-HIMSA, the principle of NON-VIOLENCE towards EVERYTHING. After all, how can you harm something with which you just felt like one - the Universe?
Therefore, unity means discord. If the unification of people leads to an act of violence, then this is a wrong unity.
Church in Greek is “ecclesia”. Eklessia means not only “church,” but also “assembly.” That is, what is the church? This is the place where that very gathering of the disconnected should take place, the unification, where people should begin to see their non-loneliness.
How is this achieved in the church? Not due to the formal gathering of a large crowd in one place? No. Due to the atmosphere created by: architecture, visuals, music, singing, measured reading of texts that have a special, rhythmic organization.
When the church wants to achieve the same thing that can be achieved in solitary meditation, but by other means, it calls for help... Art, Music... Without them, the church is just another bureaucratic body to keep the masses in line.
You can listen to Bach in a concert hall or in a church while contemplating the Crucifixion. You can master Eastern techniques for immersing yourself in a trance, in particular, reading the “Jesus Prayer” bequeathed to us by the Hesychasts.
You don't have to listen to Bach at all or sit on a yoga mat in the lotus position. Instead, you will put yourself into a trance in some other, personal way. For example, contemplate Nature.
The main thing is to do it.
With this statement, Russian scientist A.D. Sakharov raises the problem of strengthening and danger global problems humanity. The author believes that only cooperation can prevent the loss of life.
Our experts can check your essay using Unified State Exam criteria
Experts from the site Kritika24.ru
Teachers of leading schools and current experts of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.
For example, the emergence of global problems. Global problems - series serious problems threatening all of humanity. They appeared in the second half of the twentieth century. Global problems have a number of features. For example, they cannot be solved by an individual alone. They need to be resolved by the whole world. Also, one cannot help but say that all these problems are interconnected. Examples of global problems are the problem of overpopulation, the problem of wars, world terrorism, a number of environmental problems, the problem of poverty.
I completely agree with the author’s opinion and want to prove his point of view with the help of theoretical principles. Not long ago, in a history lesson, we studied Soviet discoveries of the twentieth century and looked at an example that clearly illustrates the academician’s statement. In the 20th century, Sakharov created the hydrogen bomb. The government highly appreciated his contribution to science, although the scientist himself later greatly regretted it, because he realized the consequences of its improper use. With the help of such a bomb, you can destroy all of humanity. That is why treaties were subsequently adopted between countries banning the use of bombs in order to protect humanity from disaster. But without cooperation and a common understanding of the seriousness of the threat, it was impossible to protect humanity from destruction.
Not long ago, the website of the online publication Mediazona published an article about the latest terrorist attacks and how to avoid them. The article covers the events of the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, which occurred in 2017. Also the terrorist attack that took place in Manchester. Both of these events did not remain without casualties and claimed the lives of many people. Terrorism, while a global problem, is a global problem that is difficult to prevent or predict. Terrorists are usually people from eastern countries with a low standard of living. These segments of the population are most easily attracted to terrorist activities. That is why developed countries need to gather all their strength and direct them to eliminate poverty and misery in other, less developed countries.
To summarize all of the above, we can once again say that global problems threaten not individual individuals, but the whole world, and this again suggests the importance of combining the intellectual and power resources of all countries in order to ensure a peaceful and bright life on Earth.
Updated: 2018-12-25
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefits to the project and other readers.
“The disunity of humanity threatens its destruction. In the face of danger, any action that increases the disunity of humanity, any preaching of the incompatibility of world ideologies and nations is madness, a crime.” - wrote Sakharov. It was in this work that the deep and very important idea for Sakharov was first formulated that, in the name of the future of humanity, the socialist and capitalist systems should come closer to each other and this process should be accompanied by the democratization and demilitarization of society.
“Moving back from the brink of global catastrophe, preserving civilization and life itself on the planet is an urgent need modern stage world history. This, I am convinced, is possible only as a result of profound geopolitical, socio-economic and ideological changes in the direction of rapprochement (convergence) of the capitalist and socialist systems and the openness of society... We need new thinking of humanity! – wrote A.D. Sakharov.
In the Soviet Union, Sakharov's work was distributed illegally as "samizdat". Abroad, it was translated into several languages, published in huge numbers and caused a flood of responses in the press of many countries. The Soviet leadership reacted very painfully to this speech by Sakharov. Although there was nothing anti-Soviet in his book, the very fact that he allowed himself to “interfere” and tell the party leadership about his mistakes in managing the economy, about miscalculations in his internal and foreign policy, caused great irritation. That same year, Sakharov was removed from secret work.
June 3rd coup
Taking into account the defectiveness of the resulting electoral legislation, the limited rights of the Russian parliament and the contradictions within the liberals, it can be stated that their strong positions in the Dumas could not fully compensate for the narrowness of their mass base and the relative weakness of their influence in society as a whole. Russia never became...
The Eastern Crisis and the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878
In the 70s XIX century The eastern question became aggravated again. The disintegration of the feudal system in Ottoman Empire was accompanied by an increase in its dependence on Western European countries. The penetration of capitalist relations was accompanied by the strengthening of crude forms of feudal exploitation, combined with harsh national and religious oppression of the Balkans...
The beginning of the reign of Alexander II and the prerequisites for reform activities. Biography of Alexander II
Alexander II Nikolaevich Romanov was born on April 17, 1818 in the Moscow Kremlin and died of wounds on March 1, 1881 in the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. On March 15, his body was buried in the imperial tomb of the Peter and Paul Cathedral. He went down in Russian history as great reformer and liberator of serfs. It's official Alex...
1. Address to the virtual 2nd International Sakharov Congress "Peace, Progress, Human Rights", 2001
Why don't we remember the man in whose name this Congress is being made? What did Andrei Dmitrievich himself say about many of the topics raised here? What is his position on the issue of interaction, cooperation, partnership, if you like, between human rights activists themselves, and not just between society and the authorities.
Unfortunately or fortunately, I did not find in the works of A.D. assessment of internal problems of the human rights movement. It was not the time then.
But you can try to remember A.D.’s lifestyle, his public speeches, books and articles.
I have never publicly recalled an incident of his instant reaction to direct everyday evil.
In '88 I complained bitterlyElena Georgievna, that one of the prominent human rights activists, a former political prisoner, opened a “public reception” right in the apartment of another political prisoner (we had all just been released then). The reception of the population took place on the first floor of a five-story residential building. There was a crowd in two rooms and on the stairs from morning to night, and there was drinking in the evening. Neighbors filed a lawsuit against the irresponsible owner of the apartment. Things were moving quickly toward eviction. All my persuasion and begging of the organizer to stop all this disgrace, to save the apartment, were met with his bewilderment: we must help people!
I was telling all this in the kitchen, in Sakharov’s apartment, when A.D. came in. and heard a snippet of our conversation. And, suddenly, he became so angry and angry that I got scared. It wasn’t enough for me to burden him with such problems, I thought sadly. Yes, and E.G. flashed lightning with her eyes. But it was too late. HELL. perceived this, in general, everyday story about people practically unknown to him, as if it were about a gross imbalance in the balance of strategic weapons or the revival of totalitarianism in the USSR. His assessments were not only accurate, as usual, but extremely emotional, which I certainly did not expect.
The next day I called the organizer of the reception and gave him, as accurately as I could, A.D.’s assessment. The fellow human rights activist understood everything and pretty soon moved his “reception room” to a more suitable location. The apartment was saved! We won the case.
Here is a clear example of direct, head-on work by A.D. on specific people, on an individual person, and not on “human rights” in general. Here is an example of his adequate (I emphasize this word!) reaction, now lost by many.
We don’t have a person now who is influential enough to not only hear, but immediately understand the problem and be able to correct it just as quickly. No S.V. Kalistratova, no G.S. Podyapolsky, no P.G. Grigorenko – relatives of A.D. people whose opinion could pacify, calm down the crazy actions and reasoning of the so-called. “heirs” of A.D., people involved in the continuation and development of his affairs and ideas. Former political prisoners can be sent far and long, both at the Memorial and at the Sakharov Museum and Center. A completely obscene trash can be made from the Sakharov Congress (see the “guest” book on the first page of the Congress website). In the MHG, in front of the eyes and with the tacit approval of its member, an Orthodox priest, for a wad of money they can agree with Scientologists-Hubbardists to publish a book about freedom of conscience (!). Etc. etc.
“Wonderful are your works, O Lord!” A lot of evil is happening, and the author himself, of course, is not without sin.
Only from memory can I cite another case when, in one of his dying interviews, A.D. answered a question about the possible future of the human rights movement (I don’t know the exact quote, but I can vouch for the meaning): “Probably,” Sakharov said, “some form of unification is needed.”
I thought about these words for almost a year. And in 1992, with the approval of the MHG, he created a “collective farm” - he pulled our first human rights organizations out of the kitchens (the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, “Prison Reform”, the Association of Disabled People, etc., 15 in total). I planted them all in the premises of the former Komsomol Central Committee, called them the Center for Human Rights, looked at it and thought it was good... It seemed to me that I had found some form of unification.
It was difficult to stand against the nearby presidential administration, against the owners of the building - former Komsomol members. But the most terrible blow came, as always, in the back - I did not at all expect the fierce and cruel attack that fell on me and the Center from a completely unexpected direction - from fellow human rights activists (see the chapter “Center” on this site).
Why did this happen?
Maybe this article will clarify something?
4. I have long been convinced that democrats and human rights activists, and indeed all normal people, need to unite. For evil is strength, and alone we are weak.
It is with bitterness that I observe the increasing separation of human rights organizations, and human rights activists themselves, from each other. We see with sadness the speculations of human rights demagogues on the topic of “society versus government.” Whether grants and money are to blame for this, or ambitions: I’m cooler than others, I’m an elite - it doesn’t matter.
Moreover, we need to unite or, as they accurately say in the West, partner. We must involve the same advisers, commissions and human rights ombudsmen in the study of all our external and internal problems public organizations, who know these newly minted commissioners and commissioners well. For these latter, no matter how they pretend, are flesh of the flesh of that very Soviet state who killed human rights activists.
They did not repent, because we did not have repentance akin to the post-war German or Japanese. Old sins prevail.
And to cope with them, to teach them something sensible - it is possible only together, together, without sucking up, without applying to their wishes and terminology.
I tell everyone this, but they are not in a hurry to partner.
A kind of uneradicated early perestroika individualism.
Or – calculation?
I risk involving Andrei Dmitrievich in theoretical debates about the problems of the human rights movement.
So what did Sakharov say about HOW we should act?
It is extremely important to remind many of our human rights activists (especially new ones, post-perestroika) what AD said about human rights; it is important to try to apply his approaches and considerations to modern times.
The main thing that I understood from his works, in this context, is that not only the whole world needs to overcome disunity, but also we, human rights activists.
In addition, our cause is human rights - not politics and moral values should be in the first place in our work.
In words, no one is against it, but who reads and remembers Sakharov now? ...
All that remains is to find the original sources.
The best place is on the Internet. This makes it easier to select quotes.
I searched the entire Internet in search of A.D.’s works posted there.
Strange thing - there are almost none there! I went to the Memorial website (maybe they preserved the memory?), was on the website of the Samodurov House-Museum, went to the American Sakharov Foundation...
Nowhere! Only from this very foreign Foundation did I find a link to the website... of Yabloko, where there were several AD articles. I left a bewildered review, but what’s the point, they won’t answer anyway, they won’t react - Sakharov’s style has been lost.
I took the books and began to retype them by hand.
Read, envy... Everything that A.D. Sakharov writes about humanity and the dangers in its development, which is also applicable to our society. Including for that social phenomenon called the “human rights movement.” It is also part of humanity
Let us apply Sakharov’s thoughts to the current moment, to ourselves:
1. Reflections on progress, peaceful coexistence
and intellectual freedom
“...The disunity of humanity threatens it with death...
In the face of danger, any action that increases the disunity of humanity, any preaching of the incompatibility of world ideologies and nations is madness, a crime. Only worldwide cooperation in conditions intellectual freedom, the high moral ideals of socialism and labor, with the elimination of the factors of dogmatism and the pressure of the hidden interests of the ruling classes, meets the interests of preserving civilization...
(* The reader understands that we are not talking about an ideological world with those fanatical, sectarian and extremist ideologies that deny any possibility of rapprochement with them, discussion and compromise, for example with the ideologies of fascist, racist, militaristic or Maoist demagoguery).. .
...For humanity to move away from the edge of the abyss means to overcome disunity.
A necessary step on this path is revision traditional method in international politics, which can be called “empirical-conjunctural”. Simply, it is a method of maximizing one’s position wherever possible, and at the same time a method of causing maximum trouble to opposing forces without taking into account the common good and common interests.
If politics is a game of two players, then this is the only possible method. But what does this method lead to in today’s unprecedented situation?..
...International policy must be entirely imbued with scientific methodology and the democratic spirit, with the desire to fearlessly take into account all facts, views and theories, with maximum publicity of precisely formulated main and intermediate goals, with principled consistency...”
2. The world in half a century
“...I consider it especially important to overcome the disintegration of the world into antagonistic groups of states, the process of rapprochement...
...The role of international organizations - the UN, UNESCO, etc. - should be very important.
... the “ultimate task” of human institutions ... is not only to protect all born people from unnecessary suffering and premature death, but also to preserve everything human in humanity...
...And in any case, progress that saves people from hunger and disease cannot contradict the preservation of the principle of active good, which is the most humane thing in man...”
3. About the country and the world
“...The world needs demilitarization, national altruism and internationalism, freedom of information exchange and movement of people, transparency, international protection of social and civil human rights. The countries of the “third world” must receive comprehensive assistance and, for their part, fully assume their share of responsibility for the future of the world, pay more attention to the development of material production, and stop speculation in oil...
...All of this is an indispensable condition for overcoming the disunity of humanity, saving it from the danger of thermonuclear death, hunger, environmental disaster, and dehumanization.”
One of the international dangers of current trends is the loss of Western unity and a clear understanding of the enduring global threat from totalitarian countries. The West must under no circumstances allow its positions to weaken in the face of totalitarianism. The internal (for each country) danger is a “slipping” towards state capitalist totalitarian socialism...”
4. Nobel Lecture “Peace, Progress, Human Rights”
“...I am convinced that international trust, mutual understanding, disarmament and international security are unthinkable without open society, freedom of information, freedom of opinion, transparency, freedom of travel and choice of country of residence. I am also convinced that freedom of opinion, along with other civil liberties, is the basis of scientific and technological progress and a guarantee against the use of its achievements to the detriment of humanity, thereby the basis of economic and social progress, and is also a political guarantee of opportunity effective protection social rights. Thus, I defend the thesis about the primary, determining significance of civil and political rights in shaping the destinies of mankind...
...The final act of the meeting in Helsinki particularly attracts our attention because it for the first time officially reflects that comprehensive approach to solving problems international security, which seems to be the only possible one; The act contains profound language about the connection between international security and the protection of human rights...
... the protection of human rights is declared by the UN Universal Declaration to be an international, not an internal, matter. For the sake of this great goal, one cannot spare any effort, no matter how long the path...
... In an effort to protect the rights of people, we must act, in my opinion, first of all as defenders of the innocent victims existing in different countries regimes, without demanding crushing and total condemnation of these regimes. We need reforms, not revolutions. What is needed is a flexible, pluralistic and tolerant society that embodies the spirit of inquiry, discussion and free, non-dogmatic use of the achievements of all social systems. What is this - discharge? convergence? - it’s not a matter of words, but of our determination to create a better, kinder society, a better world order.
5. Anxiety and hope
“...The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Human Rights Covenants, which now have the force of international law, and the Helsinki Final Act are the legal and political basis for combating intolerable violations
I welcome... the position of US President D. Carter. Carter, with the full force of his authority, based on the will of the American people, proclaimed that the protection of human rights throughout the world is based on the highest moral obligations...
I am convinced that we can and should go further and accept the work for human rights around the world as an essential part of all international relations, a guarantee of their moral strength and practical, lasting success...
…The defense of human rights is not political in nature. It is entirely based on moral principles and its connection with the protective peace on Earth. Therefore, all people of good will, regardless of their “right” or “left” political beliefs, can and should take part in it...
...The concept of active international protection of human rights, which forms the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... and many other international documents... is now acquiring the significance of an international ideology..."
6. Anxious times
“...The unification of all forces is one of the advantages of totalitarianism in its global offensive...
…Insufficient unity Western countries– this is the flip side of democratic pluralism...
...Decades of total terror, old and new prejudices... - all this has deeply disfigured the consciousness of the broadest masses of the population. The ideology of the Soviet tradesman... consists of several simple ideas
1. Cult of the state...
2. Selfish desire to ensure the well-being of oneself and one’s family, “living like everyone else,” through cronyism, theft... and obligatory hypocrisy
3. The idea of national superiority..
...People in the country, of course, are to some extent disoriented and intimidated, but conscious self-deception and selfish self-removal from difficult problems are also very significant..
...But from the same people came defenders of human rights, standing up against deception, hypocrisy and dumbness, armed only with fountain pens, with a readiness for sacrifice and without the relieving belief in quick and effective success. And they said their word, it will not be forgotten, they have moral strength and logic behind them historical development... Their activities will continue in one form or another, in one way or another. The point here is not arithmetic, but the qualitative fact of breaking through the psychological barrier of silence."
7. Responsibility of scientists
“...What I am writing about... is not a struggle for power and therefore not politics. This is a struggle for the preservation of peace and moral values developed by the entire development of civilization...”
8. The danger of thermonuclear war. Open letter Dr. Sydney Drell.
“... I once again emphasize how important it is for everyone to understand the absolute inadmissibility of nuclear war - the collective suicide of humanity. A nuclear war cannot be won. It is necessary to systematically - albeit cautiously - strive for complete nuclear disarmament on the basis of a strategic balance of conventional weapons. As long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, there must be a strategic balance of nuclear forces in which neither side can decide on a limited or regional nuclear war. True security is possible only on the basis of stabilization of international relations, renunciation of the policy of expansion, strengthening of international trust, openness and pluralization..., respect for human rights throughout the world,..."
9. Election platform
“...Openness of salary data. Mandatory regular (at least once a year) publication of financial reports of all public funds, including employee salaries, entertainment expenses, travel ... "