The problem of humanism (Unified State Examination in Russian). Humanistic traditions of literature of the 19th century in prose of the early 20th

Dictionary of medical terms

humanism (lat. humanus human, humane)

a system of views that recognizes the value of man as an individual, characterized by the protection of his dignity and freedom of development, which considers the well-being of man as the main criterion for evaluating social institutions, and the principles of equality and justice

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. D.N. Ushakov

humanism

humanism, many no, m. (from Latin humanus - human) (book).

The ideological movement of the Renaissance, aimed at liberating the human personality and thought from the shackles of feudalism and Catholicism (historical).

Enlightened philanthropy (obsolete).

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. S.I.Ozhegov, N.Yu.Shvedova.

humanism

Humanity, humanity in social activities, in relation to people.

The progressive movement of the Renaissance, aimed at liberating people from the ideological enslavement of feudal times.

adj. humanistic, -aya, -oe.

New explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.

humanism

1. A historically changing system of views that recognizes the value of a person as an individual, his right to freedom, happiness, development and manifestation of his abilities, which considers the well-being of a person as a criterion for assessing social relations.

m. The ideological and cultural movement of the Renaissance, which contrasted scholasticism and the spiritual domination of the church with the principle of free all-round development of the human personality.

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

humanism

HUMANISM (from Latin humanus - human, humane) recognition of the value of man as an individual, his right to free development and manifestation of his abilities, affirmation of the good of man as a criterion for assessing social relations. In a narrower sense, the secular freethinking of the Renaissance, which opposed scholasticism and the spiritual dominance of the church, is associated with the study of the newly discovered works of classical antiquity.

Large legal dictionary

humanism

(humanism principle) - one of the principles of law in a democratic state. IN in a broad sense means a historically changing system of views on society and man, imbued with respect for the individual. The principle of G. is enshrined in Art. 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: “Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value,” as well as in Art. 7 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 8 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR and other legislative acts. In criminal law it means that punishment and other measures of a criminal legal nature applied to a person who has committed a crime cannot cause physical suffering or humiliate human dignity.

Humanism

(from Latin humanus ≈ human, humane), a historically changing system of views that recognizes the value of a person as an individual, his right to freedom, happiness, development and manifestation of his abilities, considering the well-being of a person as a criterion for evaluating social institutions, and the principles of equality, justice, humanity the desired norm of relations between people.

G.'s ideas have a long history. Motives of humanity, philanthropy, dreams of happiness and justice can be found in works of oral folk art, in literature, moral, philosophical and religious concepts of various peoples since ancient times. But G.'s system of views was first formed during the Renaissance. G. emerged at this time as a broad current of social thought, covering philosophy, philology, literature, art and imprinted in the consciousness of the era. Georgia was formed in the struggle against feudal ideology, religious dogma, and the spiritual dictatorship of the church. Humanists, having revived many literary monuments of classical antiquity, used them to develop secular culture and education. They contrasted theological-scholastic knowledge with secular knowledge, religious asceticism with the enjoyment of life, and the humiliation of man with the ideal of a free, comprehensively developed personality. In the 14th-15th centuries. the center of humanistic thought was Italy (F. Petrarch, G. Boccaccio, Lorenzo Balla, Picodella Mirandola, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo, etc.), then it spread to other countries European countries simultaneously with the Reformation movement. Many great thinkers and artists of that time contributed to the development of G. ≈ M. Montaigne, F. Rabelais (France), W. Shakespeare, F. Bacon (England), L. Vives, M. Cervantes (Spain), W. Hutten, A. Dürer (Germany), Erasmus of Rotterdam and others. The history of the Renaissance was one of the main expressions of the revolution in culture and worldview that reflected the beginning of the formation of capitalist relations. The further development of G.'s ideas is connected with the social thought of the period of bourgeois revolutions (17th - early 19th centuries). The ideologists of the emerging bourgeoisie developed the ideas of “natural rights” of man, put forward its correspondence to the abstract “human nature” as a criterion for the suitability of a social structure, tried to find ways to combine the good of the individual and public interests, relying on the theory of “reasonable egoism”, correctly understood personal interest, the French enlighteners of the 18th century P. Holbach, A. K. Helvetius, D. Diderot, and others clearly connected geology with materialism and atheism. A number of principles of philosophy were developed in German classical philosophy. I. Kant put forward the idea of ​​eternal peace and formulated a position that expresses the essence of humanity: a person can only be an end for another person, but not a means. True, the implementation of these principles was attributed by Kant to an indefinite future.

The system of humanistic views created under the conditions of rising capitalism was a great achievement of social thought. At the same time, it was internally contradictory and historically limited, because it was based on an individualistic concept of personality, on an abstract understanding of man. This inconsistency of abstract geography was clearly revealed with the establishment of capitalism - a system where, in direct contrast to the ideals of geography, a person turns into a means of production of capital, submits to the domination of elemental social forces and laws alien to him, the capitalist division of labor, which disfigures the personality and makes it one-sided. The dominance of private property and division of labor gives rise to various types of human alienation. This proves that, on the basis of private property, the principles of government cannot become the norms of relations between people. Criticizing private property, T. More, T. Campanella, Morelli and G. Mably believed that only by replacing it with community property, humanity could achieve happiness and prosperity. These ideas were developed by the great utopian socialists A. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, and R. Owen, who saw the contradictions of the already established capitalist system and, inspired by the ideals of Germany, developed projects for reforming society on the principles of socialism. However, they could not find real ways to create a socialist society, and in their ideas about the future, along with brilliant guesses, there was a lot of fantastic stuff. The humanistic tradition in the social thought of Russia in the 19th century. were represented by revolutionary democrats ≈ A. I. Herzen, V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, A. N. Dobrolyubov, T. G. Shevchenko and others. G.’s ideas inspired the classics of great Russian literature of the 19th century.

A new stage in the development of humanity began with the emergence of Marxism, which rejected the abstract, ahistorical interpretation of “human nature” only as a biological “generic essence” and approved its scientific, concrete historical understanding, showing that “... the essence of man... is the totality of all social relations” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 3). Marxism abandoned the abstract, supra-class approach to the problems of humanity and put them on a real historical basis, formulated a new concept of humanity - proletarian, or socialist, humanity, which absorbed the best achievements of humanistic thought of the past. K. Marx was the first to identify real ways to implement the ideals of government, linking it with the scientific theory of social development, with revolutionary movement proletariat, with the struggle for communism. Communism eliminates private property and exploitation of man by man, national oppression and racial discrimination, social antagonism and war, eliminates all forms of alienation, puts the achievements of science and culture at the service of man, creates material, social and spiritual prerequisites for the harmonious and comprehensive development of a free human personality. Under communism, labor turns from a means of subsistence into the first need of life, and the highest goal of society becomes the development of man himself. Therefore, Marx called communism real, practical G. (see K. Marx and F. Engels, From Early Works, 1956, p. 637). Opponents of communism deny the humanistic character of Marxism on the grounds that it is based on materialism and includes the theory of class struggle. This criticism is untenable, because materialism, recognizing the value of earthly life, focuses on its transformation in the interests of man, and the Marxist theory of class struggle as an indispensable means of solving social problems during the transition to socialism is not at all an apology for violence. It justifies the forced use of revolutionary violence to suppress the resistance of the minority in the interests of the majority, in conditions where without it it becomes impossible to solve pressing social problems. The Marxist worldview is revolutionary-critical and humanistic at the same time. The ideas of Marxist capitalism received further concretization in the works of V.I. Lenin, who studied the new era of development of capitalism, the revolutionary processes of this era, as well as the beginning of the era of transition from capitalism to socialism, when these ideas began to be practically implemented.

Socialist G. is opposed to abstract G., which preaches “humanity in general”, without connection with the struggle for the real liberation of man from all types of exploitation. But within the framework of the ideas of abstract geometry, two main trends can be distinguished. On the one hand, the ideas of abstract geography are used to disguise the anti-humanistic nature of modern capitalism, to criticize socialism, to fight the communist worldview, and to falsify socialist geography. On the other hand, in bourgeois society there are layers and groups that take the position of abstract geography. , but are critical of capitalism, advocate peace and democracy, and are concerned about the future of humanity. The two world wars unleashed by imperialism, the misanthropic theory and practice of fascism, which openly violated the principles of democracy, the continuing rampant racism, militarism, the arms race, and the nuclear threat hanging over the world, pose the problems of democracy to humanity very acutely. People who speak out from the position of abstract government against imperialism and the social evil it generates, are to a certain extent allies of the revolutionary socialist state in the struggle for real human happiness.

The principles of Marxist and socialist Georgia are distorted by right-wing and “left-wing” revisionists. Both of them essentially identify socialist geography with abstract geography. But if the former see in abstract humanistic principles the essence of Marxism in general, then the latter reject any geography as a bourgeois concept. In fact, life proves the correctness of the principles of socialist government. With the victory of socialism, first in the USSR and then in other countries of the socialist community, the ideas of Marxist government received real practical reinforcement in the humanistic achievements of the new social system, which chose the humanistic principle as the motto for its further development: “Everything.” in the name of man, for the good of man."

Lit.: Marx K., Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844, in the book: Marx K. and Engels F., From early works, M., 1956; Marx K., Towards a critique of Hegel's philosophy of law. Introduction, Marx K. and Engels F., Op. , 2nd ed. , vol. 1; Marx K. and Engels F., Manifesto of the Communist Party, ibid., vol. 4: Engels F., Development of socialism from utopia to science, ibid., vol. 19: Lenin V.I., State and Revolution, ch. 5, Poly. collection cit., 5th ed., vol. 33; him, Tasks of youth unions, ibid., vol. 41; CPSU Program (Adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU), M., 1969; About overcoming the cult of personality and its consequences. Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee, M., 1956; Gramsci A., Prison notebooks, Izbr. proizv., vol. 3, trans. from Italian, M., 1959; Volgin V.P., Humanism and Socialism, M., 1955; Fedoseev P.N., Socialism and Humanism, M., 1958; Petrosyan M.I., Humanism, M., 1964; Kurochkin P.K., Orthodoxy and humanism, M., 1962; Construction of communism and the spiritual world of man, M., 1966; Konrad N.I., West and East, M., 1966; From Erasmus of Rotterdam to Bertrand Russell. Sat. Art., M., 1969: Ilyenkov E.V., About idols and ideals, M., 1968: Kurella A., One’s own and someone else’s, M., 1970; Simonyan E. A., Communism is real humanism, M., 1970.

V. J. Kelle. humanism.

Utopias fell under the pressure of the world's waves humanism, pacifism, international socialism, international anarchism, etc.

In any case, it was from the second half of the 80s that sharp criticism of traditional American feminism as a manifestation of bourgeois liberalism and humanism by such poststructuralist feminist theorists as Toril Moy, Chris Weedon, Rita Felski, etc.

They took the vicious path leading from humanism to animalism - the path opposite to that taken by Humanity, stimulated by the greatest creative acts of the living history of the Universe.

The idea of ​​internal unity of ethics and culture, the requirement to make humanism And moral development personality criteria of cultural progress, defense of the principle of equality of all people on earth without distinction of the color of their skin, adamant anti-militarism and anti-fascism in beliefs and practical activities - all these are features of his appearance that give you reason to characterize Schweitzer as an outstanding moral phenomenon in the life of bourgeois society in the era deep crisis of his culture.

The fear of popular movements and lack of understanding of their progressive anti-feudal orientation reflected historical limitations humanism as an essentially bourgeois educational movement.

Second Lieutenant Baranovsky with his search for justice, the never-eradicated illusions of the abstract bourgeois humanism fell victim to his own contradictions, found himself under the wheels of history, inexorable in its course.

I wrote reports three times about the facts of Gusenitsin’s callousness and was beaten three times for my humanism.

Well, if humanism- so with forgiveness, if justice - then instantly, immediately and to everyone.

And there was a vague one there humanism and the dreamy vanity of Tsar Alexander, the shocked Habsburgs of Austria, the angry Hohenzollerns of Prussia, the aristocratic traditions of Britain, still trembling with fear of revolution, on whose conscience was the slave labor of children in factories and the right to vote stolen from ordinary people.

In full accordance with the ideas of the romantic humanism Hawthorne saw in individual consciousness the source of social evil and at the same time a tool for overcoming it.

This is what your policy has led to, - shouted Dessalines, - this is the result of your humanism.

Proclaiming and affirming principles humanism, high morality and morality, glorifying and poetizing nature, Fiedler rightly said that he was trying to be faithful in his work to the traditions of Henryk Sienkiewicz and Stefan Żeromski - Polish classics close to him in spirit.

Despite the fact that just recently humanism was catastrophically devalued by National Socialism, Heidegger now intended to sharply increase its current price.

Hating wars and politics, Deira did not force Kai to change his beliefs and, together with her, devote himself to serving the ideals humanism.

HUMANISM (from Latin humanus human) ideological and ideological movement that arose in European countries during the Renaissance (14th - first half of the 17th century) and became the ideology of the Renaissance. At the center of humanism is a person; the demand for the ideas of humanism is connected with the internal needs of the development of European society. The growing secularization of European life contributed to the recognition of the value of earthly existence, awareness of the importance of man as a being not only spiritual, but also physical, and the importance of his physical existence. The destruction of medieval corporate structures in society as a result of shifts in the economy and social life led to separation in the sphere of production, political life, a culture of personalities of a new type, who acted independently and independently, did not rely on familiar connections and moral norms and needed to develop new ones. Hence the interest in man as a person and as an individual, his place in society and in the divine universe.
The ideas and teachings of humanism were developed by people coming from different social circles (urban, church, feudal) and representing different professions (school teachers and university teachers, secretaries of the papal curia, royal chancellors and chancellors of urban republics and seigneuries). By their existence, they destroyed the medieval corporate principle of organizing public life and represented a new spiritual unity - a humanistic intelligentsia united by a commonality of goals and objectives. Humanists proclaimed the idea of ​​self-affirmation and developed concepts and teachings in which the role of moral improvement, the creative and transformative power of knowledge and culture was high.
Italy became the birthplace of humanism. A feature of its development was polycentrism, the presence in the country of a large number of cities with a level of production, trade and finance that far exceeded the medieval one, with a high level of educational development. “New people” appeared in the cities: energetic and enterprising figures, mainly from the popolan (trade and craft) environment, who were cramped within the framework of corporations and medieval norms of life and who felt their connection with the world, society and other people in a new way. The new socio-psychological climate in cities was more wide scope distribution than the environment that gave rise to it. The “new people” were also humanists who transformed on a higher level theoretical level consciousness, socio-psychological impulses in teachings and theories. The “new people” were also the rulers-signoras established in Italian cities, often coming from ignoble families, from bastards, from condottieri of rootless origin, but interested in establishing a person in society according to his deeds, and not his birth. In this environment, the work of humanists was in high demand, as evidenced by the cultural policies of rulers from the Medici, Este, Montefeltro, Gonzaga, Sforza and others dynasties.
The ideological and cultural sources of humanism were ancient culture, early Christian heritage and medieval writings; the proportion of each of these sources varied in different European countries. Unlike Italy, other European countries did not have their own ancient heritage, and therefore the European humanists of these countries borrowed material from their medieval history more widely than the Italians. But constant connections with Italy, the training there of humanists from other European countries, translations of ancient texts, and book publishing activities contributed to acquaintance with antiquity in other regions of Europe. The development of the reformation movement in European countries led to greater interest in early Christian literature than in Italy (where there was practically no Reformation) and led to the emergence of the “Christian humanism” movement there.
Francesco Petrarch is considered the first humanist. The “discovery” of man and the human world is associated with it. Petrarch sharply criticized scholasticism, which, in his opinion, was occupied with useless things; he rejected religious metaphysics and proclaimed paramount interest in man. Having formulated human knowledge as the main task of science and philosophy, he redefined the method of its research: not speculation and logical reasoning, but self-knowledge. On this path, human-oriented sciences (moral philosophy, rhetoric, poetry, history) are important, which help to understand the meaning own existence, become morally superior. By highlighting these disciplines, Petrarch laid the foundations of the studia humanitatis program of humanistic education, which Coluccio Salutati would later develop and which most humanists would follow.
Petrarch, a poet and philosopher, learned about man through himself. His My Secret is an interesting experience in the psychological analysis of one’s own personality with all its contradictions, as is his Book of Songs, where the main character is the personality of the poet with his emotional movements and impulses, and his beloved Laura acts as the object of the poet’s experiences. Petrarch's correspondence also provides remarkable examples of introspection and self-evaluation. He clearly expressed his interest in man in his historical and biographical essay On Outstanding People.
Petrarch saw man according to Christian tradition as a contradictory creature, he recognized the consequences of original sin (the frailty and mortality of man), in his approach to the body he was influenced by medieval asceticism, and negatively perceived passions. But he also positively assessed nature (“the mother of all things,” “the most holy mother”) and everything natural, and reduced the consequences of original sin to the laws of nature. In his work (On remedies against a happy and unhappy fate), he raised a number of fundamentally important ideas (nobility as a person’s place in society, determined by one’s own merits, dignity as a person’s high position in the hierarchy of divine creations, etc.), which will be developed in the future humanism. Petrarch highly valued the importance of intellectual work, showed its features, goals and objectives, the conditions necessary for it, separated people engaged in it from those engaged in other matters (in his treatise On the Solitary Life). Not liking school work, he nevertheless managed to have his say in pedagogy, putting moral education in the forefront in the education system, assessing the mission of the teacher primarily as an educator, proposing some methods of education taking into account the diversity of characters in children, emphasizing the role of self-education, as well as examples and travel.
Petrarch showed interest in ancient culture and was one of the first to search for and collect ancient manuscripts, sometimes rewriting them with his own hand. He perceived books as his friends, talked with them and their authors. He wrote letters to the past to their author (Cicero, Quintilian, Homer, Titus Livy), thereby awakening readers' interest in antiquity in society. Italian humanists of the 15th century. (Poggio Bracciolini and others) continued the work of Petrarch, organizing a wide search for books (in monasteries, city offices) not only Latin, but also Greek. They were followed by Giovanni Aurispa, Guarino da Verona, Francesco Filelfo and others to Byzantium. The collection of Greek books, the value of which was already realized even by Petrarch and Boccaccio, who did not truly know the Greek language, entailed the need to study it and invite a Byzantine scholar and public and church figure Manuel Chrysolor, who taught in 13961399 in Florence. The first translators from Greek came from his school, the best of whom was Leonardo Bruni, who translated the works of Plato and Aristotle. Interest in Greek culture increased with the move to Italy of Greeks from Byzantium besieged by the Turks (Theodore of Gaza, George of Trebizond, Vissarion, etc.), and the arrival of Gemistus Pliphon at the Ferrara-Florentine Cathedral. Greek and Latin manuscripts were copied and preserved in the libraries that emerged during this period, the largest of which were the papal, the Medici library, Federigo Montefeltro in Urbino, Niccolo Niccoli, Vissarion, who became a cardinal of the Roman church.
Thus, an extensive fund of ancient classics and early Christian authors was created, necessary for the development humanistic ideas and exercises.
15th century was the heyday of Italian humanism. Humanists of the first half of the century, occupied with practical issues of life, had not yet revised the foundations of traditional views. The most common philosophical basis for their ideas was nature, the requirements of which were recommended to be followed. Nature was called divine (“or god”, “that is, god”), but humanists did not have developed ideas of pantheism. Understanding nature as “good” led to the justification of human nature, the recognition of good nature and man himself. This displaced the idea of ​​the “sinfulness” of nature and led to a rethinking of ideas about original sin. Man began to be perceived in the unity of soul and body; the contradictory understanding of this unity, characteristic of early humanism, was replaced by the idea of ​​harmony. To the high appreciation of the body that appeared in humanism (Lorenzo Valla, Gianozzo Manetti, etc.), a positive perception of the emotional and sensory sphere departing from asceticism was added (Salutati, Valla, etc.). Feelings were recognized as necessary for life, knowledge and moral activity. They should not be killed, but transformed by reason into virtuous actions; directing them to good deeds with the help of will and reason is a titanic effort, akin to the exploits of Hercules (Salyutati).
A radical revision in humanism of the traditional attitude to issues of emotional and volitional life helped to establish the image of a strong-willed person, deeply attached to the world. This created a new psychological orientation for man, not medieval in spirit. Attuning the psyche to an active and positive attitude towards the world affected the general feeling of life, the understanding of the meaning of human activity, and ethical teachings. The idea of ​​life, death and immortality changed. The value of life (and the value of time) increased, death was perceived more acutely, and immortality, a topic that became widely discussed in humanism, was understood as memory and glory on earth and as eternal bliss in paradise with restoration human body. Attempts at a philosophical substantiation of immortality were accompanied by fantastic descriptions of pictures of heavenly bliss (Bartolomeo Fazio, Valla, Manetti), while the humanistic paradise preserved the whole person, made earthly pleasures more perfect and refined, including those of an intellectual nature (speaking all languages, mastering any science and any art), that is, continued ad infinitum earthly life.
But the main thing for humanists was the affirmation of the earthly purpose of human life. She thought differently. This includes the maximum perception of the goods of the world (Valla’s teaching on pleasure) and its creative development (Leon Batista Alberti, Manetti), and civil service (Salutati, Bruni, Matteo Palmieri).
The main area of ​​interest of humanists of this period were issues of practical life behavior, which were reflected in the development by humanists of ethical and related political ideas and teachings, as well as educational ideas.
The paths of ethical searches of humanists differed depending on the following of one or another ancient author and on public demands. A civic ideology has developed in the city-republics. Civil humanism (Bruni, Palmieri, Donato Acciaiuoli, etc.) was an ethical and at the same time socio-political movement, the main ideas of which were considered the principles of the common good, freedom, justice, legal equality, and the best state system is a republic, where all these principles can be implemented in the best possible way. The criterion of moral behavior in civil humanism was service to the common good; in the spirit of such service to society, a person was brought up, subordinating all his actions and deeds to the good of the fatherland.
If the Aristotelian-Ciceronian orientation was dominant in civil humanism, then the appeal to Epicurus gave rise to the ethical teachings of Valla, Cosimo Raimondi and others, in which the principle of personal good was the moral criterion. It was derived from nature, from the natural desire of every person for pleasure and avoidance of suffering, and the desire for pleasure became at the same time a desire for one’s own benefit; but this desire for Valla did not conflict with the good and benefit of other people, for its regulator was right choice greater good (and not less), and they were given love, respect, trust of neighbors, more important for a person than the satisfaction of transitory personal material interests. The attempts observed in Valla to reconcile Epicurean principles with Christian ones testified to the humanist’s desire to root the ideas of individual good and pleasure in contemporary life.
The principles of stoicism that attracted humanists served as the basis for the internal strengthening of the individual, her ability to endure everything and achieve everything. The inner core of personality was virtue, which served as a moral criterion and reward in Stoicism. Virtue, a very common concept in the ethics of humanism, was interpreted broadly, meaning both a set of high moral qualities and a good deed.
So ethics discussed the norms of behavior demanded by society, which needed both strong individuals and the protection of their interests, as well as the protection of civil interests (in city-republics).
The political ideas of humanism were associated with ethical ones and, to a certain extent, were subordinated to them. In civil humanism, the priority among the forms of government of the republic was based on the best protection by this state system of the ideas of the common good, freedom, justice, etc. Some humanists (Salutati) offered these principles and the experience of the republic as a guide to action even for monarchs. And among the humanist defenders of autocracy (Giovanni Conversini da Ravenna, Guarino da Verona, Piero Paolo Vergerio, Titus Livius Frulovisi, Giovanni Pontano, etc.), the sovereign appeared as the focus of humanistic virtues. Instructing people in proper behavior, showing what humane states should be, making their well-being dependent on the personality of the humanistic ruler and on compliance with a number of principles of an ethical and legal nature in the republics, the humanism of this time was essentially a great pedagogy.
Pedagogical ideas themselves received an unusual flowering during this period and became the most important achievement of the entire Renaissance. Based on the ideas of Quintilian, Pseudo-Plutarch and other ancient thinkers, having adopted their medieval predecessors, humanists (Vergerio, Bruni, Palmieri, Alberti, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, Maffeo Veggio) developed a number of pedagogical principles, which together represented a single concept of education. Famous teachers The revivalists Vittorino da Feltre, Guarino da Verona and others put these ideas into practice.
Humanistic education was considered secular, socially open, it did not pursue professional goals, but taught “the craft of man” (E. Garin). The individual was instilled with hard work, a desire for praise and glory, a sense of self-esteem, and a desire for self-knowledge and improvement. Brought up in the spirit of humanistic harmony, a person had to receive a diverse education (but based on ancient culture), acquire high moral qualities, physical and mental fortitude and courage. He must be able to choose any business in life and achieve public recognition. The process of education by humanists was understood as voluntary, conscious and joyful; associated with it were the methods of a “soft hand”, the use of encouragement and praise, and the rejection or limitation of corporal punishment. Were taken into account natural inclinations and the characteristics of the children’s character, with which the methods of education were adapted. The family was given serious importance in education; the role of a “living example” (father, teacher, virtuous person) was highly valued.
Humanists consciously introduced such an ideal of education into society, affirming the purposeful nature of education, the inextricable connection between education and upbringing and the priority of educational tasks, subordinating education to social goals.
The logic of the development of humanism, associated with the deepening of its ideological foundations, led to the development in it of questions relating to the relationship to the world and God, to the understanding of man’s place in the hierarchy of divine creations. Humanism as a worldview seemed to be built to the top, now capturing not only vital and practical spheres (ethico-political, pedagogical), but also issues of an ontological nature. The development of these issues began with Bartolomeo Fazio and Manetti in their writings, where the topic of human dignity was discussed. In this theme, posed back in Christianity, dignity was expressed in the image and likeness of God. Petrarch was the first of the humanists to develop this idea, give it a secular character, highlighting the reason that allowed a person, despite all negative consequences the fall (weakness of the body, illness, mortality, etc.) to successfully arrange his life on earth, conquering and putting animals into his service, inventing things that help him live, overcome bodily weakness. Manetti went even further, in his treatise On the Dignity and Superiority of Man, he consistently discusses the excellent properties of the human body and its purposeful structure, the high creative properties of his soul (and above all the rational ability) and the dignity of man as a physical-spiritual unity as a whole. Based on a holistic understanding of man, he formulated his main task on earth - to cognize and act, which constitutes his dignity. Manetti initially acted as a collaborator with God, who created the earth in its original form, while man cultivated it, decorated it with arable land and cities. Carrying out his task on earth, through this man simultaneously comes to know God. There is no sense of traditional dualism in the treatise: Manetti’s world is beautiful, man acts intelligently in it, making it even better. But the humanist only touched on ontological problems, raising the question of the world and God. He did not revise the foundations of the traditional worldview.
The humanists of the Florentine Platonic Academy, Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, approached these issues more radically. Florentine Neoplatonism became logical development previous humanism, which needed a philosophical justification for its ideas, built mainly on the old ontology. Now dealing with the problems of the relationship between the world and God, God and man, humanists entered into areas hitherto unknown, which were the subject of attention of theologians. With the help of the ideas of Plato and the Neoplatonists, they moved away from the ideas of the creation of the world from nothing and the traditional ideas of dualism (world matter, God spirit) and began to interpret general philosophical issues differently. Ficino understood the emergence of the world as the emanation (outflow) of the One (God) into the world, which led to its pantheistic interpretation. Filled with the light of divinity, which imparts unity and beauty to the world, it is beautiful and harmonious, animated and warmed by the heat emanating from light - the love that permeates the world. Through deification the world receives its highest justification and exaltation. At the same time, the person who receives his place in this world is elevated and deified. Based on the ancient ideas of the microcosm, humanists expressed thoughts about the universality of human nature as a connection between everything created or about its participation in everything created by God. Ficino in the essay Plato's Theology on the Immortality of the Soul defined man through the soul and spoke of his divinity, which constitutes the dignity of man and is expressed in his immortality. In Pico della Mirandola's Oration on the Dignity of Man, the universal human nature, which gives him superiority over all created things, serves as the basis for free choice, which constitutes the dignity of man and is his destiny. Free choice, carried out by the free will given to a person by God, is the choice of one’s own nature, place and destination, it occurs with the help of moral and natural philosophy and theology and helps a person to find happiness both in earthly life and after death.
Florentine Neoplatonism gave man and the world the highest justification, although it lost the sensory perception of the world and the harmonious understanding of man as a bodily-spiritual unity characteristic of previous humanism. He brought to its logical conclusion and philosophically substantiated the tendency towards the elevation and justification of man and the world contained in previous humanism.
In an effort to reconcile Neoplatonism and Christianity, Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola developed thoughts about a “universal religion”, inherent in humanity from time immemorial and identical with universal wisdom; Christianity was thought of as private, although highest manifestation her. Such ideas, contrary to revealed religion, led to the development of religious tolerance.
Florentine Neoplatonism, whose influence on the humanistic and natural philosophical thought and art of Italy and all of Europe was very strong, did not exhaust all humanistic quests. Humanists (such as Filippo Beroaldo, Antonio Urceo (Codrus), Galeotto Marzio, Bartolomeo Platina, Giovanni Pontano and others) were also interested in the natural consideration of man, which they included within the framework of natural laws. In man, they studied what was amenable to natural comprehension - the body and its physiology, bodily properties, health, quality of life, nutrition, etc. Instead of admiring the boundlessness of human knowledge, they talked about the difficult path of searching for truth, fraught with errors and misconceptions. The role of non-moral values ​​(work and ingenuity, healthy image life, etc.); the question was raised about the development of human civilization, about the role of labor in the movement of humanity towards a more perfect life (Pandolfo Collenuccio, Pontano). Man was not raised to heaven, remembering his mortality, while the awareness of the finitude of existence led to new assessments of life and death, and a weak interest in the life of the soul. There was no glorification of man; they saw both good and bad sides in life; both man and life were often perceived dialectically. Humanists, especially university ones, focused mainly on Aristotle and considered him as a representative of ancient natural science, showing interest in natural philosophy, medicine, astrology and using the data of these sciences in the study of man.
The diversity of humanistic searches shows that humanistic thought tried to cover all areas human existence and study them, relying on various ideological sources Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, Seneca, etc. In general, Italian humanism of the 15th century. had a positive assessment of man and his existence in the world. A number of humanists (Valla, Manetti, etc.) are characterized by an optimistic view of life and man, others looked at it more soberly (Alberti) and although the original qualities of a person were considered excellent, but comparing them with the practice of life, they exposed human vices. Still others continued to be influenced by the traditional idea of ​​miseria (the miserable fate of man in the world), deriving from it all troubles and misfortunes.
16th century turned out to be a time of difficult trials for humanism. The Italian wars, the threat of the Turkish invasion, the movement of trade routes to the West due to the fall of Byzantium and the decline in trade and economic activity in Italy influenced the moral and psychological climate in the country and reduced its vitality. Deception, betrayal, hypocrisy, self-interest, which had spread in society, did not allow the former hymns to be composed for a person whose life impulses turned out to be baser than previously imagined. At the same time, an increasing discrepancy between reality and humanistic ideals, their utopianism and bookishness was revealed. Faith in man was questioned, his nature was rethought as absolutely good and a more sober understanding of the essence of man arose, and the departure from abstract sublime ideas was accompanied by an appeal to the experience of life. There was a need to consider the existing order of things, on the basis of a new understanding of man (real, not imaginary), formed and changing under the influence of life practice. Thus, with the help of a new method, Machiavelli’s political teaching was built, which diverged from the previous ideas of his humanist predecessors. Machiavelli's ruler is not the embodiment of humanistic virtues, he acts, showing or not showing, depending on the circumstances, good qualities, for his action must be successful (and not virtuous). Machiavelli saw strong rulers as a guarantee of ordering social life for the common good.
Traditional ideas and approaches (anthropocentrism, the idea of ​​dignity, the good nature of man, etc.) continued to be discussed in humanism, sometimes retaining their attractiveness (Galeazzo Capra, Giambattista Gelli). But from now on they were not indisputable and were discussed with reference to the practice of life, with the desire to give high ideas a concrete and purely earthly expression (discussion in B. Castiglione and G. Capra of the topic of dignity in men and women). These approaches were combined with attempts to move away from the anthropocentric vision of man, both with the help of Neoplatonism (the rejection of the anthropomorphic understanding of God and the recognition of higher forms of life in space compared to human ones in Marcellus Palingenius in the Zodiac of Life), and by comparing man with animals and doubting justice human dimension of values ​​(Machiavelli in The Golden Ass, Gelli in Circe). This meant that humanism was deprived of its main ideas and positions, its core. In the 16th century Along with humanism, actively influencing it, science (Leonardo da Vinci and others) and natural philosophy (Bernardino Telesio, Pietro Pomponazzi, Giordano Bruno, etc.) are developing, in which the subject of discussion increasingly became topics considered humanistic (problems of man, ethics, social structure of the world, etc.). Gradually giving way to these areas of knowledge, humanism as an independent phenomenon left the historical stage, turning into philology, archeology, aesthetics, and utopian thought.
In other European countries, humanism developed from the end of the 15th century. until the beginning of the 17th century. He was able to perceive a number of ideas Italian culture, as well as fruitfully using the ancient heritage discovered by the Italians. The life conflicts of that time (wars, the Reformation, Great geographical discoveries, the tension of social life) had a strong influence on the formation of the ideas of humanism and its features. The worldview of humanism turned out to be more closely connected with the problems of national life; humanists were concerned about the problems of the political unification of the country (Ulrich von Hutten) and the preservation of state unity and strong autocracy (Jean Bodin); they began to respond to social problems poverty, deprivation of producers of the means of production (Thomas More, Juan Luis Vives). Sharply criticizing the Catholic Church and publishing works of early Christian literature, humanists contributed to the preparation of the Reformation. The influence of Christianity on humanism in the rest of Europe was stronger than in Italy, which led to the formation of “Christian humanism” (John Colet, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Thomas More, etc. .). It was an ethical teaching, which was based on love for one's neighbor and the active transformation of society on the basis of the teachings of Christ, and which was not in conflict with the requirements of nature and was not alien to ancient culture.
Humanism was characterized by a critical attitude not only to the Catholic Church, but also to society, public institutions, the state and its policies (Mohr, Francois Rabelais, Sebastian Brant, Erasmus, etc.); in addition to moral vices - the object of constant humanistic criticism (especially in Germany in the literature about fools), humanists denounced new and hitherto unprecedented vices that appeared during the period of acute religious struggle and wars, such as fanaticism, intolerance, cruelty, hatred of man, etc. (Erasmus, Montaigne). It is no coincidence that it was during this period that the ideas of tolerance (Louis Leroy, Montaigne) and pacifism (Erasmus) began to be developed.
Interested in the development of society, the humanists of that time, unlike the early ones who considered human improvement and moral progress to be the basis for the development of society, paid more attention to science and production, believing them to be the main engine of human development (Bodin, Leroy, Francis Bacon). Man now appeared not so much in his moral quality, but in the omnipotence of thought and creation, and in this there were, along with gains, losses - the loss of morality from the sphere of progress.
The view of man also underwent changes. His idealization and exaltation, characteristic of early humanism, disappeared. Man began to be perceived as a complex, constantly changing, contradictory creature (Montaigne, William Shakespeare), and the idea of ​​the goodness of human nature was also questioned. Some humanists tried to view man through the prism of social relations. Even Machiavelli considered laws, the state and power to be factors that could curb people’s desire to satisfy their own interests and ensure their normal life in society. Now More, observing the order in contemporary England, raised the question of the influence of social relations and state policy on a person. He believed that by depriving the producer of the means of production, the state thereby forced him to steal, and then sent him to the gallows for theft, so for him a thief, a tramp, a robber is a product of a poorly structured state, certain relations in society. Among the Utopians, More's fantasy created such social relations that allowed a person to be moral and realize his potential, as humanists understood them. The main task of the Utopian state, ensuring a happy life for a person, was formulated in a humanistic spirit: to provide citizens with the greatest amount of time after physical labor (“bodily slavery”) for spiritual freedom and education.
Thus, starting from man and placing on him responsibility for the structure of social life, humanists came to a state responsible for man.
By including man in society, humanists even more actively included him in nature, which was facilitated by natural philosophy and Florentine Neoplatonism. The French humanist Charles de Beauvel called man the consciousness of the world; the world looks into his mind in order to find in it the meaning of his existence; knowledge of man is inseparable from knowledge of the world, and in order to know man, one must begin with the world. And Paracelsus argued that man (microcosm) consists in all its parts of the same elements as the natural world (macrocosm), being part of the macrocosm, it is known through it. At the same time, Paracelsus spoke about the power of man, his ability to influence the macrocosm, but human power was asserted not along the path of the development of science, but on magical-mystical paths. And although humanists did not develop a method of understanding man through nature, the inclusion of man in nature led to radical conclusions. Michel Montaigne, in his Experiments, deeply questioned the idea of ​​man's privileged place in nature; he did not recognize the subjective, purely human standard, according to which a person ascribed to animals such qualities as he wanted. Man is not the king of the Universe; he has no advantages over animals, which have the same skills and properties as humans. According to Montaigne, in nature, where there is no hierarchy, everyone is equal, a person is neither higher nor lower than others. Thus, Montaigne, by denying man the high title of King of the Universe, crushed anthropocentrism. He continued the line of criticism of anthropocentrism outlined by Machiavelli, Palingenia, Gelli, but did it more consistently and reasonedly. His position was comparable to the ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus and Bruno, who deprived the Earth of its central place in the Universe.
Disagreeing with both Christian anthropocentrism and the humanistic elevation of man to God, Montaigne included man in nature, life in accordance with which does not humiliate man, being, in the opinion of the humanist, truly human life. The ability to live humanly, simply and naturally, without fanaticism, dogmatism, intolerance and hatred constitutes the true dignity of a person. Montaigne’s position, preserving the primary interest in man inherent in humanism and at the same time breaking with his exorbitant and unlawful exaltation, including man in nature, turned out to be at the level of problems of both his time and subsequent eras.
Subjecting a revaluation of man, humanists of the 16th century. retain faith in the power of knowledge, in the high mission of education, in reason. They inherited the most fruitful ideas of Italian principles of education: the priority of educational tasks, the connection between knowledge and morality, the ideas of harmonious development. The peculiarities that emerged in their pedagogy were associated both with the new conditions in which humanism developed, and with the revaluation of man. In humanistic writings on education, there was a strong criticism of family education and parents, as well as schools and teachers (Erasmus, Rabelais, Montaigne); thoughts appeared about a school under the control of society to exclude all cases of cruelty and violence against the individual (Erasmus, Vives). The main path of education, according to humanists, lay through learning, which was enriched by them with the concept of “game”, clarity (Erasmus, Rabelais), observation of natural phenomena and familiarity with various crafts and arts (Rabelais, Eliot), through communication with people and travel (Montaigne). The understanding of knowledge has expanded, which includes various natural disciplines and the works of humanists themselves. Ancient languages ​​continued to be the main tools of education, but at the same time knowledge of the Greek language deepened. Some humanists criticized teachers (“pedants”) and schools, where the study of the classical heritage became an end in itself and the educational nature of education was lost (Montaigne). Interest in studying the native language grew (Vives, Eliot, Esham); some humanists proposed teaching in it (More, Montaigne). The specifics of childhood and the peculiarities of child psychology were comprehended more deeply, taking into account which Erasmus, for example, explained the game used in teaching. Erasmus and Vives spoke about the need to improve the education and upbringing of women.
Although humanism of the 16th century. became more mature, and the writings of significant humanists (Machiavelli, Montaigne) paved the way for the next era, humanism as a whole, due to the rapid development of production and technical progress, gave way to science and new philosophy. Having fulfilled his mission, he gradually left the historical stage as an integral and independent teaching. There is no doubt about the value of the humanistic experience of a comprehensive study of man, who for the first time became an independent object of attention for researchers. The approach to man as a generic being, as a simple person, and not a member of a corporation, not a Christian or a pagan, independent or free, opened the way to new times with its ideas about rights and freedoms. Interest in personality and ideas about human capabilities, actively introduced by humanists into people’s consciousness, instilled faith in human creativity and transformative activity and contributed to this. The fight against scholasticism and the discovery of antiquity, coupled with the education in humanistic schools of educated and creative people thinking people created the prerequisites for the development of science.
Humanism itself gave rise to a whole series of sciences: ethics, history, archeology, philology and linguistics, aesthetics, political teachings, etc. The emergence of the first intelligentsia as a certain layer of the population is also associated with humanism. Self-affirming, the intelligentsia substantiated its importance through high spiritual values ​​and consciously and purposefully asserting them in life, did not allow the society of beginning entrepreneurship and initial accumulation of capital to descend into the abyss of greed and the pursuit of profit.
Nina Revyakina

The problem of violence and humanism in Russian literature of the 20th century

Thus, in the bitter, mortal hour of the civil war, many writers of the 20th century raised the problem of violence and humanism in their works. This can be seen especially clearly in I. Babel’s “Cavalry Army”, and in M. Sholokhov’s “Don Stories”.

The stories of the heroes in these stories show the incompatibility of the terrible destructive power of war and violence with human happiness, human nature itself.

The twentieth century is fraught with such cataclysms that disrupted the music of people's life.

In the deadly battle of the civil war, people living in the same country, in the same village, often related by blood, collided in an extremely acute class struggle. The theme of violence in a fratricidal war, where a brother killed his brother, a son killed his father, only because their views differed in ideological beliefs, became more and more clear. Relatives who had lived side by side for decades, sharing the last piece of bread with each other, brutally killed each other, destroying the way of life that had developed over centuries.

The Civil War forced everyone to choose which side you were on; it left no other choice.

The theme of violence between relatives and blood is especially acute in I. Babel’s “Cavalry” in the short story “Letter”. In this work, the son writes a letter to his mother, where he describes his life in the Red Army, how he is both hungry and cold, “every day I go to rest without eating and without any clothes, so it’s very cold.” Further, Vasily Kurdyukov describes to his mother about his father, how he killed their son Fyodor Timofeevich, not understanding what grief a woman could experience when reading about how “the father began to cut Fedya, saying - skin, red dog, son of a bitch.” Then the guy describes how, now his other brother Senka, “they began to whip dad” and kill him.

This is where the tragedy of the cruel, merciless war, relatives and closest people destroyed each other “And I think that if I get caught by yours, then there will be no mercy for me. And now, daddy, we will finish you...”

Along with the theme of violence, writers of the 20th century also showed romantic plots in their works, where they glorified folk (universal) values. We can trace this from M. Sholokhov’s stories “The Foal” in “Don Stories”. In this work, a small foal, just born, awakens in people petrified by mortal battles, human qualities“a heart of stone turns into a washcloth...”, “I look at it, and my hand trembles... I can’t chop.”

Peaceful labor, procreation, the unity of man with nature - these are Sholokhov’s ideals, according to which, like a tuning fork, history should be tuned. Any deviation from this centuries-old life, from the people's experience, threatens with unpredictable consequences and can lead to a tragedy of the people, a tragedy of man.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

2.1 Humanism in the works of Thomas More “Utopia” and Evgeny Zamyatin “We”

Conclusion

Applications

Introduction

Today the whole world is going through difficult times. The new political and economic situation could not but affect culture. Her relationship with the authorities has changed dramatically. The common core of cultural life - the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy - has disappeared. Determining the way forward cultural development became a matter for society itself and a point of contention. The absence of a unifying sociocultural idea and the retreat of society from the ideas of humanism led to a deep crisis in which the culture of all mankind found itself at the beginning of the 21st century.

Humanism (from Lat. humanitas - humanity, Lat. humanus - humane, Lat. homo - man) is a worldview in the center of which is the idea of ​​man as highest value; arose as a philosophical movement during the Renaissance.

Humanism is traditionally defined as a system of views that recognizes the value of man as an individual, his right to freedom, happiness and development, and declares the principles of equality and humanity to be the norm for relations between people. Among the values ​​of traditional culture, the most important place was occupied by the values ​​of humanism (goodness, justice, non-acquisitiveness, search for truth), which is reflected in the classical literature of any country, including England.

Over the past 15 years, these values ​​have experienced a certain crisis. The ideas of possessiveness and self-sufficiency (cult of money) were opposed to humanism. As an ideal, people were offered a “self-made man” - a person who made himself and does not need any external support. The ideas of justice and equality - the basis of humanism - have lost their former attractiveness and are now not even included in the program documents of most parties and governments of various countries in the world. Our society gradually began to turn into a nuclear one, when its individual members began to isolate themselves within the confines of their home and their own family.

The relevance of the topic I have chosen is due to a problem that has bothered humanity for thousands of years and is troubling us now - the problem of humanity, tolerance, respect for one's neighbor, the urgent need to discuss this topic.

With my research I would like to show that the problem of humanism, which originated in the Renaissance, which was reflected in the works of both English and Russian writers, remains relevant to this day.

And to begin with, I would like to return to the origins of humanism, considering its appearance in England.

1.1 The emergence of humanism in England. History of the development of humanism in English literature

The emergence of new historical thought dates back to the late Middle Ages, when in the most advanced countries of Western Europe the process of disintegration of feudal relations was actively underway and a new capitalist mode of production was emerging. This was a transitional period when centralized states took shape everywhere in the form of absolute monarchies on the scale of entire countries or individual territories, prerequisites for the formation of bourgeois nations arose, and an extreme intensification of social struggle occurred. The bourgeoisie emerging among the urban elite was then a new, progressive layer and acted in its ideological struggle with the ruling class of feudal lords as a representative of all lower strata of society.

New ideas find their most vivid expression in the humanistic worldview, which has had a very significant impact on all areas of culture and scientific knowledge this transition period. The new worldview was fundamentally secular, hostile to the purely theological interpretation of the world that dominated in the Middle Ages. He was characterized by the desire to explain all phenomena in nature and society from the point of view of reason (rationalism), to reject the blind authority of faith, which previously so strongly constrained the development of human thought. Humanists worshiped the human personality, admired it as the highest creation of nature, the bearer of reason, high feelings and virtues; Humanists seemed to contrast the human creator with the blind power of divine providence. The humanistic worldview was characterized by individualism, which at the first stage of its history essentially acted as a weapon of ideological protest against the estate-corporate system of feudal society, which suppressed the human personality, and against church ascetic morality, which served as one of the means of this suppression. At that time, the individualism of the humanistic worldview was still tempered by the active social interests of the majority of its leaders, and was far from the egoism characteristic of later developed forms of the bourgeois worldview.

Finally, the humanistic worldview was characterized by a greedy interest in ancient culture in all its manifestations. Humanists sought to “revive”, that is, to make as a role model, the work of ancient writers, scientists, philosophers, artists, classical Latin, partly forgotten in the Middle Ages. And although already from the 12th century. In medieval culture, interest in the ancient heritage began to awaken; only during the period of the emergence of the humanistic worldview, in the so-called Renaissance, did this trend become dominant.

The rationalism of the humanists was based on idealism, which largely determined their understanding of the world. As representatives of the intelligentsia of that time, the humanists were far from the people, and often openly hostile to them. But for all that, the humanistic worldview at the time of its heyday had a pronounced progressive character, was the banner of the struggle against feudal ideology, and was imbued with humane treatment to people. On the basis of this new ideological trend in Western Europe, the free development of scientific knowledge, previously hampered by the dominance of theological thinking, became possible.

The revival is associated with the process of formation of secular culture and humanistic consciousness. The philosophy of the Renaissance is defined by:

Focus on people;

Belief in his great spiritual and physical potential;

Life-affirming and optimistic character.

In the second half of the 14th century. a tendency emerged and then increasingly increased over the next two centuries (reaching its highest point especially in the 15th century) to give the study of humanistic literature the most great importance and consider classical Latin and Greek antiquity as the only example and model for everything that concerns spiritual and cultural activities. The essence of humanism lies not in the fact that it turned to the past, but in the way in which it is cognized, in the relationship in which it is to this past: it is the attitude to the culture of the past and to the past that clearly determines the essence of humanism. Humanists discover the classics because they separate, without mixing, their own from the Latin. It was humanism that really discovered antiquity, the same Virgil or Aristotle, although they were known in the Middle Ages, because it returned Virgil to his time and his world, and sought to explain Aristotle within the framework of the problems and within the framework of the knowledge of Athens of the 4th century BC. In humanism there is no distinction between the discovery of the ancient world and the discovery of man, because they are all one; to discover the ancient world as such means to measure oneself against it, and to separate oneself, and to establish a relationship with it. Determine time and memory, and the direction of human creation, and earthly affairs, and responsibility. It is no coincidence that the great humanists were for the most part public, active people, whose free creativity in public life was in demand by their time.

Literature English Renaissance developed in close connection with the literature of pan-European humanism. England, later than other countries, took the path of developing a humanistic culture. English humanists learned from continental humanists. Particularly significant was the influence of Italian humanism, which dates back in its beginnings to the 14th and 15th centuries. Italian literature, from Petrarch to Tasso, was, in essence, a school for English humanists, an inexhaustible source of advanced political, philosophical and scientific ideas, a rich treasury of artistic images, plots and forms, from which all English humanists, from Thomas More to Bacon, drew their ideas and Shakespeare. Acquaintance with Italy, its culture, art and literature was one of the first and main principles of any education in general in Renaissance England. Many Englishmen traveled to Italy to personally come into contact with the life of this advanced country of what was then Europe.

The first center of humanistic culture in England was Oxford University. From here the light of a new science and a new worldview began to spread, which fertilized the entire English culture and gave impetus to the development of humanistic literature. Here, at the university, a group of scientists appeared who fought against the ideology of the Middle Ages. These were people who studied in Italy and adopted the foundations of the new philosophy and science there. They were passionate admirers of antiquity. Having studied at the school of humanism in Italy, Oxford scholars did not limit themselves to popularizing the achievements of their Italian brethren. They grew into independent scientists.

English humanists adopted from their Italian teachers an admiration for the philosophy and poetry of the ancient world.

The activities of the first English humanists were predominantly scientific and theoretical in nature. They developed general issues of religion, philosophy, social life and education. The most complete expression of early English humanism beginning of the 16th century received in the work of Thomas More.

1.2 The emergence of humanism in Russia. History of the development of humanism in Russian literature

Already in the first significant Russian poets of the 18th century - Lomonosov and Derzhavin - one can find nationalism combined with humanism. It is no longer Holy Rus', but Great Rus' that inspires them; the national epic, the rapture of the greatness of Russia relate entirely to the empirical existence of Russia, without any historical and philosophical justification.

Derzhavin, the true “singer of Russian glory,” defends human freedom and dignity. In poems written for the birth of Catherine II’s grandson (the future Emperor Alexander I), he exclaims:

“Be the master of your passions,

Be the man on the throne"

This motive of pure humanism is increasingly becoming the crystallizing core of the new ideology.

In spiritual mobilization creative forces Russian Freemasonry of the 18th and early 19th centuries played a huge role in Russia. On the one hand, it attracted people who were looking for a counterbalance to the atheistic movements of the 18th century, and in this sense it was an expression of the religious needs of the Russian people of that time. On the other hand, Freemasonry, captivating with its idealism and noble humanistic dreams of serving humanity, was itself a phenomenon of extra-church religiosity, free from any church authority. Capturing significant sections of Russian society, Freemasonry undoubtedly raised creative movements in the soul, was a school of humanism, and at the same time awakened intellectual interests.

At the heart of this humanism was a reaction against the one-sided intellectualism of the era. The favorite formula here was the idea that “enlightenment without moral ideal carries poison." In Russian humanism associated with Freemasonry, moral motives played a significant role.

All the main features of the future “advanced” intelligentsia were also being formed - and in the first place here was the consciousness of duty to serve society, and practical idealism in general. This was the path of ideological life and effective service to the ideal.

2.1. Humanism in the works “Utopia” by Thomas More and “We” by Evgeny Zamyatin

Thomas More in his work “Utopia” speaks of universal human equality. But is there a place for humanism in this equality?

What is utopia?

“Utopia - (from the Greek u - no and topos - place - i.e. a place that does not exist; according to another version, from eu - good and topos - place, i.e. blessed country), an image of an ideal social system, lacking scientific justification; science fiction genre; designation of all works containing unrealistic plans for social transformation." (“Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V. Dahl)

A similar term arose thanks to Thomas More himself.

Simply put, utopia is a fictional picture of an ideal life arrangement.

Thomas More lived at the beginning of modern times (1478-1535), when the wave of humanism and the Renaissance swept across Europe. Most of More's literary and political works are of historical interest to us. Only “Utopia” (published in 1516) has retained its significance for our time - not only as a talented novel, but also as a work of socialist thought that is brilliant in its design.

The book is written in the “traveler's story” genre, popular at that time. Allegedly, a certain navigator Raphael Hythloday visited the unknown island of Utopia, social order which amazed him so much that he tells others about it.

Knowing well the social and moral life of his homeland, the English humanist, Thomas More, was imbued with sympathy for the misfortunes of its people. These sentiments of his were reflected in the famous work with a long title in the spirit of that time - “A very useful, as well as entertaining, truly golden book about the best device state and about the new island of Utopia...” This work instantly gained great popularity in humanistic circles, which did not prevent Soviet researchers from calling More almost the first communist.

The humanistic worldview of the author of "Utopia" led him to conclusions of great social relevance and significance, especially in the first part of this work. The author's insight was by no means limited to stating the terrible picture of social disasters, emphasizing at the very end of his work that upon careful observation of the life of not only England, but also “all states,” they represent “nothing but some kind of conspiracy of the rich, under the pretext and under in the name of the state, thinking about their own benefits."

Already these deep observations suggested to More the main direction of projects and dreams in the second part of Utopia. Numerous researchers of this work have noted not only direct, but also indirect references to the texts and ideas of the Bible (primarily the Gospels), especially ancient and early Christian authors. Of all the works that had the greatest impact on More, Plato's Republic stands out. Many humanists saw in Utopia a long-awaited rival to this greatest creation of political thought, a work that had existed by that time for almost two millennia.

In line with humanistic quests that creatively synthesized the ideological heritage of antiquity and the Middle Ages and boldly rationalistically compared political and ethnic theories with the social development of that era, More’s “Utopia” emerged, which reflected and originally comprehended the full depth of socio-political conflicts of the era of the decomposition of feudalism and the primitive accumulation of capital.

After reading More's book, you are very surprised at how much the idea of ​​what is good for a person and what is bad has changed since More's time. To the average resident of the 21st century, More’s book, which laid the foundation for the whole “genre of utopias,” no longer seems at all like a model of an ideal state. Quite the contrary. I would really not want to live in the society described by More. Euthanasia for the sick and decrepit, forced labor service, according to which you must work as a farmer for at least 2 years, and even after that you can be sent to the fields during harvesting. "All men and women have one common occupation - agriculture, from which no one is exempt." But on the other hand, the Utopians work strictly 6 hours a day, and all the dirty, hard and dangerous work is done by slaves. The mention of slavery makes you wonder if this work is so utopian? Are ordinary people equal in it?

Ideas about universal equality are slightly exaggerated. However, slaves in “Utopia” work not for the benefit of the master, but for the entire society as a whole (the same thing, by the way, happened under Stalin, when millions of prisoners worked for free for the benefit of the Motherland). To become a slave, you must commit serious crime(including adultery or debauchery). Slaves spend the rest of their days doing hard physical work, but if they work diligently they can even be pardoned.

More's utopia is not even a state in the usual sense of the word, but a human anthill. You will live in standard houses, and after ten years, you will exchange housing with other families by lot. This is not even a house, but rather a hostel in which many families live - small primary units of local government, headed by elected leaders, siphogrants or phylarchs. Naturally, there is a common household, they eat together, all matters are decided together. There are strict restrictions on freedom of movement; in case of repeated unauthorized absence, you will be punished by being made a slave.

Implemented in Utopia and the idea iron curtain: She lives in complete isolation from the outside world.

The attitude towards parasites here is very strict - every citizen either works on the land or must master a certain craft (moreover, a useful craft). Only a select few who have demonstrated special abilities are exempt from physical labor and can become scientists or philosophers. Everyone wears the same, simplest clothes made of coarse cloth, and while doing business, a person takes off his clothes so as not to wear them out, and puts on coarse skins or skins. There are no frills, just the essentials. Everyone shares the food equally, with any surplus given to others, and the best food donated to hospitals. There is no money, but the wealth accumulated by the state is kept in the form of debt obligations in other countries. The same reserves of gold and silver that are in Utopia itself are used to make chamber pots, cesspools, as well as to create shameful chains and hoops that are hung on criminals as punishment. All this, according to More, should destroy the citizens’ desire for money-grubbing.

It seems to me that the island described by More is some kind of frenzied concept of collective farms.

The reasonableness and practicality of the author’s view is striking. In many ways, to social relations in the society he has invented, he fits in as an engineer who creates the most efficient mechanism. For example, the fact that the Utopians prefer not to fight, but to bribe their opponents. Or, for example, the custom when people choosing a partner for marriage are obliged to view him or her naked.

Any progress in the life of Utopia makes no sense. There are no factors in society that force science and technology to develop or change attitudes towards certain things. Life as it is suits citizens and any deviation is simply not necessary.

Utopian society is limited on all sides. There is practically no freedom in anything. The power of equals over equals is not equality. A state in which there is no power cannot exist - otherwise it is anarchy. Well, once there is power, there can no longer be equality. A person who controls the lives of others is always in a privileged position.

Communism was literally built on the island: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Everyone is obliged to work, doing agriculture and craft. The family is the basic unit of society. Its work is controlled by the state, and what it produces is donated to a common treasury. The family is considered a social workshop, and not necessarily based on blood relationships. If children do not like their parents' craft, they may move to another family. It is not difficult to imagine what kind of unrest this will lead to in practice.

Utopians live a boring and monotonous life. Their whole life is regulated from the very beginning. However, dining is allowed not only in the public canteen, but also in the family. Education is accessible to all and is based on a combination of theory and practical work. That is, children are given a standard set of knowledge, and at the same time they are taught to work.

Social theorists especially praised More for the absence of private property on Utopia. In More's own words, "wherever there is private property, where everything is measured by money, it is hardly ever possible for the state to be governed fairly or happily." And in general, "there is only one way for public well-being - to declare equality in everything."

The Utopians strongly condemn war. But even here this principle is not fully observed. Naturally, the Utopians fight when they defend their borders. But they also fight “when they feel sorry for some people oppressed by tyranny.” In addition, “the Utopians consider the most just cause of war when some people themselves do not use their land, but own it as if in vain and in vain " Having studied these reasons for the war, we can conclude that the Utopians must fight constantly until they build communism and “world peace.” Because there will always be a reason. Moreover, “Utopia”, in fact, must be an eternal aggressor, because if rational, non-ideological states wage war when it is beneficial for them, then the Utopians always do so if there are reasons for it. After all, they cannot remain indifferent for ideological reasons.

All these facts, one way or another, suggest the thought: was Utopia a utopia in in every sense this word? Was it the ideal system to which one would like to strive?

On this note, I would like to turn to E. Zamyatin’s work “We”. humanism personality Mor Zamyatin

It should be noted that Evgeniy Ivanovich Zamyatin (1884-1937), who was a rebel by nature and worldview, was not a contemporary of Thomas More, but lived during the creation of the USSR. The author is almost unknown to a wide circle of Russian readers, since the works he wrote back in the 20s were published only in the late 80s. The writer spent the last years of his life in France, where he died in 1937, but he never considered himself an emigrant - he lived in Paris with a Soviet passport.

E. Zamyatin's creativity is extremely diverse. He has written a large number of stories and novels, among which the dystopia “We” occupies a special place. Dystopia is a genre that is also called negative utopia. This is an image of such a possible future, which frightens the writer, makes him worry about the fate of humanity, about the soul of an individual, a future in which the problem of humanism and freedom is acute.

The novel “We” was created shortly after the author returned from England to revolutionary Russia in 1920 (according to some sources, work on the text continued in 1921). In 1929, the novel was used for massive criticism of E. Zamyatin, and the author was forced to defend himself, justify himself, and explain himself, since the novel was regarded as his political mistake and “a manifestation of sabotage to the interests of Soviet literature.” After another study at the next meeting of the writing community, E. Zamyatin announced his resignation from the All-Russian Union of Writers. The discussion of Zamyatin’s “case” was a signal for a tightening of the party’s policy in the field of literature: the year was 1929—the year of the Great Turning Point, the onset of Stalinism. It became pointless and impossible for Zamyatin to work as a writer in Russia and, with the permission of the government, he went abroad in 1931.

E. Zamyatin creates the novel “We” in the form of diary entries of one of the “lucky ones”. The city-state of the future is filled with the bright rays of the gentle sun. Universal equality is repeatedly confirmed by the hero-narrator himself. He derives a mathematical formula, proving to himself and to us, the readers, that “freedom and crime are as inextricably linked as movement and speed...”. He sarcastically sees happiness in restricting freedom.

The narration is a summary of the builder of the spaceship (in our time he would be called the chief designer). He talks about that period of his life, which he later defines as an illness. Each entry (there are 40 of them in the novel) has its own title, consisting of several sentences. It is interesting to note that usually the first sentences indicate the micro-theme of the chapter, and the last gives access to its idea: “Bell. Mirror sea. I will always burn”, “Yellow. 2D shadow. Incurable Soul", "Copyright's debt. The ice is swelling. The hardest love."

What immediately alarms the reader? - not “I think”, but “we think”. A great scientist, a talented engineer, does not recognize himself as an individual, does not think about what he does not have own name and, like the rest of the inhabitants of the Great State, he bears the “number” - D-503. “No one is “one,” but “one of.” Looking ahead, we can say that in the most bitter moment for him, he will think about his mother: for her, he would not be the Builder of the Integral, number D-503, but would be “a simple human piece - a piece of herself.”

The world of the United State, of course, is something strictly rationalized, geometrically ordered, mathematically verified, with the dominant aesthetics of cubism: rectangular glass boxes of houses where numbered people live (“divine parallelepipeds of transparent dwellings”), straight visible streets, squares (“Square Cuba. Sixty-six powerful concentric circles: stands. And sixty-six rows: quiet lamps of faces..."). People in this geometrized world are an integral part of it, they bear the stamp of this world: “Round, smooth balls of heads floated past - and turned around.” The sterile clean planes of glass make the world of the United State even more lifeless, cold, and unreal. The architecture is strictly functional, devoid of the slightest decoration, “unnecessary things,” and in this one can discern a parody of the aesthetic utopias of the futurists of the early twentieth century, where glass and concrete were glorified as new building materials of the technical future.

Residents of the United State are so devoid of individuality that they differ only by index numbers. All life in the United State is based on mathematical, rational principles: addition, subtraction, division, multiplication. Everyone is a happy arithmetic mean, impersonal, devoid of individuality. The emergence of geniuses is impossible; creative inspiration is perceived as an unknown type of epilepsy.

This or that number (resident of the United State) does not have any value in the eyes of others and is easily replaceable. Thus, the death of several “gazeless” builders of the “Integral”, who died while testing the ship, the purpose of whose construction was to “integrate” the universe, is indifferently perceived by the numbers.

Individual numbers who have shown a tendency to think independently are subjected to the Great Operation to remove fantasy, which kills the ability to think. A question mark - this evidence of doubt - does not exist in the United State, but, of course, there is an exclamation mark in abundance.

Not only does the state regard any personal manifestation as a crime, but numbers do not feel the need to be a person, a human individual with their own unique world.

The main character of the novel D-503 tells the story of the “three freedmen”, well known to every schoolchild in the United State. This story is about how three numbers, as an experience, were released from work for a month. However, the unfortunate ones returned to their workplace and spent hours at a time performing those movements that at a certain time of the day were already a need for their body (sawing, planing the air, etc.). On the tenth day, unable to bear it, they held hands and entered the water to the sounds of a march, plunging deeper and deeper until the water stopped their torment. For the numbers, the guiding hand of the Benefactor, complete submission to the control of the guardian spies, became a necessity:

“It’s so nice to feel someone’s watchful eye, lovingly protecting you from the slightest mistake, from the slightest wrong step. This may sound somewhat sentimental, but the same analogy comes to my mind again: the guardian angels that the ancients dreamed of. How much of what they only dreamed of has materialized in our lives...”

On the one hand, the human personality realizes itself as equal to the whole world, and on the other hand, powerful dehumanizing factors appear and intensify, primarily technical civilization, which introduces a mechanistic, hostile principle to man, since the means of influence of technical civilization on man, the means of manipulating his consciousness, become increasingly powerful and global.

One of the most important issues that the author is trying to solve is the issue of freedom of choice and freedom in general.

Both Mora and Zamyatin have forced equality. People cannot differ in any way from their own kind.

Modern researchers determine the main difference between dystopia and utopia is that “utopians are looking for ways to create an ideal world that will be based on a synthesis of the postulates of goodness, justice, happiness and prosperity, wealth and harmony. And dystopians strive to understand how the human person will feel in this exemplary atmosphere.”

Not only equality of rights and opportunities is clearly expressed, but also forced material equality. And all this is combined with total control and restriction of freedoms. This control is needed to maintain material equality: people are not allowed to stand out, do more, surpass their peers (thus becoming unequal). But this is everyone’s natural desire.

Not a single social utopia talks about specific people. Everywhere the masses or individual social groups are considered. The individual in these works is nothing. “One is zero, one is nonsense!” The problem with utopian socialists is that they think about the people as a whole, and not about specific people. The result is complete equality, but this is the equality of unhappy people.

Is happiness possible for people in a utopia? Happiness from what? From victories? Thus they are performed by everyone equally. Everyone is involved in it and, at the same time, no one. From lack of exploitation? So, in a utopia, it is replaced by social exploitation: a person is forced to work all his life, but not for the capitalist or for himself, but for society. Moreover, this social exploitation is even more terrible, since here a person has no way out. If you can quit working for a capitalist, then it is impossible to hide from society. Yes, and moving anywhere is prohibited.

It is difficult to name at least one freedom that is respected on Utopia. There is no freedom of movement, no freedom to choose how to live. A person driven into a corner by society without the right to choose is deeply unhappy. He has no hope for change. He feels like a slave locked in a cage. People cannot live in a cage, either material or social. Claustrophobia sets in and they want change. But this is not feasible. The Utopian society is a society of deeply unhappy, depressed people. People with depressed consciousness and lack of willpower.

Therefore, it should be recognized that the model of social development proposed to us by Thomas More seemed ideal only in the 16th and 17th centuries. Subsequently, with increasing attention to the individual, it lost any sense of implementation, because if we are to build a society of the future, then it must be a society of expressed individualities, a society strong personalities, not mediocrity.

Considering the novel “We”, first of all it is necessary to indicate that it is closely connected with Soviet history, the history of Soviet literature. Ideas of ordering life were characteristic of all literature of the first years Soviet power. In our computerized, robotic era, when the “average” person becomes an appendage to a machine, capable only of pressing buttons, ceasing to be a creator, a thinker, the novel is becoming more and more relevant.

E. Zamyatin himself noted his novel as a signal of the danger threatening man and humanity from the hypertrophied power of machines and the power of the state - no matter what.

In my opinion, with his novel E. Zamyatin affirms the idea that the right to choose is always inseparable from a person. The refraction of “I” into “we” cannot be natural. If a person succumbs to the influence of an inhumane totalitarian system, then he ceases to be a person. You cannot build the world only by reason, forgetting that man has a soul. The machine world should not exist without peace, a humane world.

The ideological devices of Zamyatin’s Unified State and More’s Utopia are very similar. In More's work, although there are no mechanisms, the rights and freedoms of people are also squeezed by the grip of certainty and predetermination.

Conclusion

In his book, Thomas More tried to find the features that an ideal society should have. Reflections on the best political system took place against the backdrop of cruel morals, inequality and social contradictions Europe 16-17 centuries.

Evgeniy Zamyatin wrote about the prerequisites for which he saw with his own eyes. At the same time, the thoughts of Mora and Zamyatin for the most part are just hypotheses, a subjective vision of the world.

More's ideas were certainly progressive for their time, but they did not take into account one important detail, without which Utopia is a society without a future. Utopian socialists did not take into account the psychology of people. The fact is that any Utopia, making people forcibly equal, denies the possibility of making them happy. After all, a happy person is someone who feels better in something, superior to others in something. He may be richer, smarter, more beautiful, kinder. Utopians deny any possibility for such a person to stand out. He must dress like everyone else, study like everyone else, have exactly as much property as everyone else. But man by nature strives for the best for himself. Utopian socialists proposed punishing any deviation from the norm set by the state, while at the same time trying to change the human mentality. Make him an unambitious, obedient robot, a cog in the system.

Zamyatin’s dystopia, in turn, shows what could happen if this “ideal” of society proposed by the utopians is achieved. But it is impossible to completely isolate people from the outside world. There will always be those who, at least out of the corner of their eye, know the joy of freedom. And it will no longer be possible to drive such people into the framework of totalitarian suppression of individuality. And in the end, it is precisely such people, who have learned the joy of doing what they want, who will bring down the entire system, the entire political system, which is what happened in our country in the early 90s.

What kind of society can rightfully be called ideal, taking into account the achievements of modern sociological thought? Of course, this will be a society of complete equality. But equality in rights and opportunities. And this will be a society of complete freedom. Freedom of thought and speech, action and movement. Modern Western society is closest to the described ideal. It has many disadvantages, but it makes people happy. If society is truly ideal, how can there not be freedom in it?

List of used literature

1. http://humanism.ru

2. Anthology of world political science thought. In 5 volumes. T.1. - M.: Mysl, 1997.

3. World history in 10 volumes, T.4. M.: Institute of Socio-Economic Literature, 1958.

4. More T. Utopia. M., 1978.

5. Alekseev M.P. "Slavic Sources of Thomas More's Utopia", 1955

6. Varshavsky A.S. “Ahead of its time. Thomas More. Essay on life and work", 1967.

7. Volodin A.I. "Utopia and History", 1976

8. Zastenker N.E. "Utopian Socialism", 1973

9. Kautsky K. “Thomas More and His Utopia”, 1924

10. Bak D.P., E.A. Shklovsky, A.N., Arkhangelsky. "All the heroes of works of Russian literature." - M.: AST, 1997.-448 p.

11. Pavlovets M.G. "E.I. Zamyatin. "We"

12. Pavlovets T.V. "Text analysis. Main content. Works." - M.: Bustard, 2000. - 123 p.

13. http://student.km.ru/

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The broken life of Jean-Paul Sartre - one of the most controversial and mysterious figures of the twentieth century. Sartre's development of humanism - a system of views that recognizes the value of man as an individual, his right to freedom. Human freedom from the words of Sartre and Berdyaev.

course work, added 04/10/2011


Utopia in the works of ancient poets. Reasons for creating utopia. Utopia like literary genre. "Utopia" by Thomas More. Man in Utopia. Boratynsky's poem " The last death". Dystopia as an independent genre.

abstract, added 07/13/2003


Definition of the genre of utopia and dystopia in Russian literature. The work of Yevgeny Zamyatin during the writing of the novel "We". Artistic analysis of the work: the meaning of the title, issues, theme and storyline. Features of the dystopian genre in the novel "We".

course work, added 05/20/2011


The origin and development of the theme of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature in the 18th century. The image of the “superfluous person” in the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". The problem of the relationship between the individual and society. The appearance of the first national tragedies and comedies.

abstract, added 07/23/2013


Dystopia as a literary genre. The origin and development of dystopian traditions in the literary works of E. Zamyatin “We”, J. Orwell “1984”, T. Tolstoy “Kys”. Opposition to totalitarian consciousness and a society built without respect for the individual.

abstract, added 11/02/2010


Zamyatin as an objective observer of revolutionary changes in Russia. Assessment of reality in the novel “We” through the genre of fantastic dystopia. The contrast between the totalitarian essence of society and the individual, the idea of ​​​​the incompatibility of totalitarianism and life.

presentation, added 11/11/2010


The origins of realism in English literature of the early 19th century. Analysis of the works of Charles Dickens. Money as a theme most important for the art of the 19th century. The main periods in the work of W. Thackeray. A brief biographical account of the life of Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle.

abstract, added 01/26/2013


Dystopia as a separate literary genre, its history and main features. A classic dystopian novel and the problems of the novel. Inhumane totalitarianism as separate genre, roots of antiquity. Problems of realism and utopian ideals in literature.

course work, added 09/14/2011


Similarities between Rabelais' novel and Utopia. Utopia and Thelema Abbey. More's ideal social order presupposes universal equality and joint labor. Rabelais creates a society of people who are beautiful physically and spiritually.

abstract, added 06/06/2005


Analysis of motifs and images of flowers in Russian literature and painting of the 19th-20th centuries. The role of flowers in ancient cults and religious rites. Folklore and biblical traditions as a source of motifs and images of flowers in literature. Flowers in the fate and creativity of the people of Russia.

Main source artistic power Russian classical literature - its close connection with the people; Russian literature saw the main meaning of its existence in serving the people. “To burn the hearts of people with a verb” called on the poets A.S. Pushkin. M.Yu. Lermontov wrote that the mighty words of poetry should sound

...like a bell on the veche tower

On days of national celebrations and troubles.

N.A. gave his lyre to the struggle for the happiness of the people, for their liberation from slavery and poverty. Nekrasov. The work of brilliant writers - Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin, Turgenev and Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chekhov - despite all the differences in artistic form and ideological content of their works, is united by a deep connection with the life of the people, a truthful depiction of reality, and a sincere desire to serve the happiness of the homeland. The great Russian writers did not recognize “art for art’s sake”; they were heralds of socially active art, art for the people. Revealing Moral Greatness and Spiritual Richness working people, they aroused the reader's sympathy ordinary people, faith in the strength of the people, their future.

Since the 18th century, Russian literature has waged a passionate struggle for the liberation of the people from the oppression of serfdom and autocracy.

This is Radishchev, who depicted the autocratic system of the era as “a monster, mischievous, huge, grinning and barking.”

This is Fonvizin, who brought to shame the rude serf-owners like the Prostakovs and Skotinins.

This is Pushkin, who considered the most important merit that in “his cruel age he glorified freedom.”

This is Lermontov, who was exiled by the government to the Caucasus and found his premature death there.

There is no need to list all the names of Russian writers to prove the loyalty of our classical literature to the ideals of freedom.

Along with the severity of the social problems that characterize Russian literature, it is necessary to point out the depth and breadth of its formulation of moral problems.

Russian literature has always tried to awaken “good feelings” in the reader and protested against any injustice. Pushkin and Gogol first raised their voices in defense of the “little man,” the humble worker; after them, Grigorovich, Turgenev, Dostoevsky took under the protection of the “humiliated and insulted”. Nekrasov. Tolstoy, Korolenko.

At the same time, in Russian literature there was a growing awareness that the “little man” should not be a passive object of pity, but a conscious fighter for human dignity. This idea was especially clearly manifested in the satirical works of Saltykov-Shchedrin and Chekhov, who condemned any manifestation of obedience and servility.

A large place in Russian classical literature is given to moral problems. With all the diversity of interpretation of the moral ideal by various writers, it is easy to notice that for all goodies Russian literature is characterized by dissatisfaction with the existing situation, a tireless search for truth, an aversion to vulgarity, a desire to actively participate in public life, and a readiness for self-sacrifice. These features make the heroes of Russian literature significantly different from the heroes of Western literature, whose actions are mostly guided by the pursuit of personal happiness, a career, and enrichment. Heroes of Russian literature, as a rule, cannot imagine personal happiness without the happiness of their homeland and people.

Russian writers asserted their bright ideals primarily through artistic images of people with warm hearts, inquisitive minds, and rich souls (Chatsky, Tatyana Larina, Rudin, Katerina Kabanova, Andrei Bolkonsky, etc.)

While truthfully covering Russian reality, Russian writers did not lose faith in the bright future of their homeland. They believed that the Russian people would “pave a wide, clear path for themselves...”