What is humanism in literature. Essay on the topic: “Problems of humanism in literature about the civil war”

What place do moral qualities occupy in the life of each of us? What do they mean to us? It is about the importance of humanity and mercy that V.P. reflects in his text. Astafiev.

One of the problems raised by the author is the problem of the need to develop humanism, mercy and humanity in each individual and the significance of the influence of these qualities on moral analysis our own actions, carried out by each of us, as well as manifestations of humanism in our lives.

The young man who shot his first prey while hunting does not feel joy because he killed a living creature, although there was no need for it, as evidenced by the words “and he seemed to have no use for the bird.” The lyrical hero, reflecting, comes to the conclusion that this young man already has feelings of humanity and mercy, which he himself did not have lyrical hero at such a young age, as evidenced by his remark “pain and remorse came to me when I was already gray-haired and echoed in a young guy, almost still a boy.”

In world literature there are many examples of the manifestation of humanism and humanity. For example, in the story by A.P. Platonov's "Yushka" the main character deprived himself of a lot in order to raise money for his adopted daughter, for which he can be called a kind and humane person. The people who took out their anger on him and offended him were angry and cruel, and repentance came to them only after Yushka’s death, that is, too late, like the hero of the text V.P. Astafiev, to whom this pain of repentance came “to the gray-haired one.”

Speaking about the humanity and humanity of people, one cannot help but recall the heroine of the novel by M.A. Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita", who selflessly asks Woland to have mercy on the unfortunate Frida, and does not ask about the fate of the Master, although she sacrificed herself only for this.

Thus, the development of moral qualities helps a person to develop as a person in which there is no place for cruelty and unjustified anger.

Reading the text of the Russian Soviet writer V.P. Astafieva, I remembered the statement of the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras of Samos, who once said: “As long as people continue to kill animals en masse, they will kill each other. He who sows the seeds of murder and pain will not reap joy and love.” It is about the meaning of killing living beings and their impact on the human psyche, as well as the need for moral education of humanity in each of us, that the author of the text we read talks about.

Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) -

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

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 has disappeared - centralized system management and unified cultural policy. Determining the paths of further cultural development became a matter for society itself and a subject of disagreement. 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 beginning of XXI century.

Humanism (from Lat. humanitas - humanity, Lat. humanus - humane, Lat. homo - man) is a worldview centered on the idea of ​​man as the highest value; arose as 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 traditional culture the most important place was occupied by the values ​​of humanism (goodness, justice, non-acquisitiveness, search for truth), which was 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-mademan” - 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 philanthropy, 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 late Middle Ages, when in the most advanced countries of Western Europe the process of decomposition 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 had a very significant impact on all areas of culture and scientific knowledge of 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 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. V 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 clearly progressive character, was the banner of the struggle against feudal ideology, and was imbued with a humane attitude towards 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. appeared and then increased more and more over the next two centuries (reaching highest point especially in the 15th century) the tendency to give the study of humanistic literature the most great importance and to regard classical Latin and Greek antiquity as the sole example and model for all that concerns spiritual and cultural activity.

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 statesmen, active people, whose free creativity public life was in demand by their time.

The literature of the 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 artistic images, plots and forms, from which all English humanists, from Thomas More to Bacon and Shakespeare, drew their ideas. 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 learned the basics there new philosophy and science. 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. Early English humanism of the early 16th century received its fullest expression 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 a 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. A favorite formula here was the idea that “enlightenment without a moral ideal carries poison in itself.” In Russian humanism associated with Freemasonry, moral motives played a significant role.

All the main features of the future “advanced” intelligentsia were also 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; genre science fiction; designation of all works containing unrealistic plans for social transformation." (“Explanatory Dictionary of Living Great Russian language"V. Dalia)

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, whose social structure 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 structure of the state and about the new island of Utopia...”. This work instantly gained great popularity in humanistic circles, which did not stop Soviet researchers from calling Mora 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 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 it's so utopian this work? 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 a serious crime (including treason or lasciviousness). Slaves do hard work until the end of their days physical work, however, in case of diligent work they may 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.

The idea of ​​the Iron Curtain is also implemented in Utopia: 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, and all the surplus is given to others, and best products transferred 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 concept of collective farms driven to a frenzy.

The reasonableness and practicality of the author’s view is striking. In many ways, he approaches social relations in the society he invented like an engineer creating 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

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, engaged in agriculture and crafts. 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 standard set 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 scarcely ever possible for a state to be governed justly or happily." And in general, “there is only one way for social 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 are fighting

also in the case “when they feel sorry for some people oppressed

tyranny." In addition, “the Utopians consider the most just

the cause of war is when some people do not use their own 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 the full sense of the 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”.

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 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 information, 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 toughening 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", "Author'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.”

World One State, of course, is something strictly rationalized, geometrically ordered, mathematically verified, with the dominant aesthetics of cubism: rectangular glass boxes of houses where people-numbers live (“divine parallelepipeds of transparent dwellings”), straight visible streets, squares (“Cube Square. Sixty six powerful concentric circles: tribunes. 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 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 numbers perceive with indifference 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.

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 individuals, human individuality with its 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 unfortunates returned to their workplace and spent hours performing the movements that certain time days were already a need of their body (sawed, planed 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 keen eye, lovingly protecting 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 in any social utopia It doesn't talk 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 utopia it is replaced by public

exploitation: a person is forced to work all his life, but not for the capitalist and not

on oneself, but on society. Moreover, this social exploitation is even more terrible, since

How can a person have no way out? If you can quit working for a capitalist, then it is impossible to hide from society. Yes, and move somewhere else

forbidden.

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, they lost all meaning of implementation, because if we are to build a society of the future, then it should be a society of expressed individualities, a society of strong personalities, and not mediocrity.

Considering the novel “We”, first of all it is necessary to indicate that it is closely connected with Soviet history, history of Soviet literature. Ideas of ordering life were characteristic of all literature in the first years of 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 in Europe in the 16th and 17th 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 happy man- this 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. The closest to the described ideal is modern Western society. It has many disadvantages, but it makes people happy.

If society is truly ideal, how can there not be freedom in it?..

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

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

More T. Utopia. M., 1978.

Alekseev M.P. “Slavic sources of Thomas More’s Utopia,” 1955.

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

Volodin A.I. “Utopia and History”, 1976

Zastenker N.E. "Utopian Socialism", 1973

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

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

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

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

The concept of “humanism” was introduced into use by scientists of the 19th century. It comes from the Latin humanitas (human nature, spiritual culture) and humanus (human), and denotes an ideology directed towards man. In the Middle Ages there was a religious and feudal ideology. Scholasticism dominated in philosophy. The medieval school of thought belittled the role of man in nature, presenting God as the highest ideal. The Church instilled fear of God, called for humility, submission, and instilled the idea of ​​the helplessness and insignificance of man. Humanists began to view man differently, raising the role of himself, and the role of his mind and creative abilities.

During the Renaissance, there was a departure from feudal-church ideology, ideas of emancipation of the individual, the affirmation of the high dignity of man as a free creator of earthly happiness appeared. Ideas became decisive in the development of culture as a whole, influenced the development of art, literature, music, science, and were reflected in politics. Humanism is a worldview of a secular nature, anti-dogmatic and anti-scholastic. The development of humanism begins in the 14th century, in the works of great humanists: Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio; and little-known ones: Pico della Mirandola and others. In the 16th century, the process of development of a new worldview slowed down due to the impact of the feudal-Catholic reaction. It is replaced by the Reformation.

Renaissance literature in general

Speaking about the Renaissance, we are talking directly about Italy, as the bearer of the main part of ancient culture, and about the so-called Northern Renaissance, which took place in the countries of northern Europe: France, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.

The literature of the Renaissance is characterized by the above-mentioned humanistic ideals. This era is associated with the emergence of new genres and with the formation of early realism, which is called “Renaissance realism” (or Renaissance), in contrast to the later stages, educational, critical, socialist.

The works of such authors as Petrarch, Rabelais, Shakespeare, Cervantes express a new understanding of life as a person who rejects the slavish obedience preached by the church. They represent man as the highest creation of nature, trying to reveal the beauty of his physical appearance and the richness of his soul and mind. Renaissance realism is characterized by large-scale images (Hamlet, King Lear), poeticization of the image, the ability to great feeling and at the same time high intensity tragic conflict(“Romeo and Juliet”), reflecting the clash of a person with forces hostile to him.

Renaissance literature is characterized by various genres. But certain literary forms prevailed. The most popular genre was the short story, which is called Renaissance novella. In poetry, the sonnet (a stanza of 14 lines with a specific rhyme) becomes the most characteristic form. Great development receives dramaturgy. The most prominent playwrights of the Renaissance are Lope de Vega in Spain and Shakespeare in England.

Journalism and philosophical prose are widespread. In Italy, Giordano Bruno denounces the church in his works and creates his own new philosophical concepts. In England, Thomas More expresses the ideas of utopian communism in his book Utopia. Authors such as Michel de Montaigne (“Experiments”) and Erasmus of Rotterdam (“In Praise of Folly”) are also widely known.

Among the writers of that time were crowned heads. Duke Lorenzo de' Medici writes poetry, and Margaret of Navarre, sister of King Francis I of France, is known as the author of the collection Heptameron.

The true founder of the Renaissance in literature is considered to be the Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), who truly revealed the essence of the people of that time in his work called "Comedy", which would later be called " Divine Comedy" With this name, descendants showed their admiration for Dante’s grandiose creation. The literature of the Renaissance most fully expressed the humanistic ideals of the era, the glorification of a harmonious, free, creative, comprehensively developed personality. The love sonnets of Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374) revealed the depth inner world man, the richness of his emotional life. In the XIV-XVI centuries, Italian literature experienced a heyday - the lyrics of Petrarch, the short stories of Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375), the political treatises of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), the poems of Ludovico Ariosto (1474-1533) and Torquato Tasso (1544-1595) brought it forward among the “classical” (along with ancient Greek and Roman) literatures for other countries.

Renaissance literature drew on two traditions: folk poetry and “book” ancient literature, therefore the rational principle was often combined in it with poetic fantasy, and comic genres gained great popularity. This was manifested in the most significant literary monuments of the era: Boccaccio's Decameron, Cervantes' Don Quixote, and Francois Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel. The emergence of national literatures is associated with the Renaissance - in contrast to the literature of the Middle Ages, which was created mainly in Latin. Theater and drama became widespread. The most famous playwrights this time became William Shakespeare (1564-1616, England) and Lope de Vega (1562-1635, Spain)

23. ITALY (turn of the XIII–XIV centuries),

Peculiarities:

1. The most early, basic And "exemplary" version European Renaissance, which influenced other national models (especially French)

2. Greatest manifold, thoroughness and complexity artistic forms, creative individuals

3. The earliest crisis and transformation in the art of the Renaissance. The emergence is fundamental new, subsequently defining the New Age of forms, styles, movements (the origin and development in the 2nd half of the 16th century of mannerism, the basic norms of classicism, etc.)

4. The most striking forms in literature - poetic: from small forms (for example, a sonnet) to large ones (the genre of a poem);

development dramas, short prose ( short story),

genres " scientific literature"(treatise).

Periodization Italian Renaissance:

Pre-Renaissance in Italy - the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries.

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 changes in the economy and social life led to the emergence of a new type of personalities in the sphere of production, political life, and culture, who acted independently and independently, did not rely on the usual 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 found a wider scope than the environment that gave birth to it. The “new people” were also humanists who transformed socio-psychological impulses into teachings and theories at a higher theoretical level of consciousness. 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 of one’s own existence and become morally higher. 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, in accordance with the 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 perceived passions negatively. But he also had a positive assessment of nature (“the mother of all things,” “ 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, placing it at the forefront in the education system moral education, 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 Pletho 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 of humanistic ideas and teachings.
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 the restoration of the 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 him more perfect and refined earthly pleasures, including intellectual properties (speak all languages, master any science and any art), that is, he continued earthly life indefinitely.
But the main thing for humanists was the affirmation of an earthly goal human life. She thought differently. This is 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 may be carried out the best 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.
Actually pedagogical ideas received an unusual flourishing 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. The famous Renaissance teachers 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. The natural inclinations and character traits of the children were taken into account, and the methods of education were adapted to them. 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, unbreakable connection education and upbringing and priority 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 man, despite all the negative consequences of 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 to help him live and 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 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 a particular, although the highest, manifestation of it. 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 variety of humanistic searches shows that humanistic thought tried to embrace all spheres of 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 him more soberly (Alberti) and although the original qualities of a person were considered excellent, but comparing them with the practice of life, they denounced 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 peace, etc.). Gradually giving way to these areas of knowledge, humanism as an independent phenomenon left with historical scene, turning into philology, archeology, aesthetics, 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 of Italian culture, as well as fruitfully use 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 capable of curbing people’s desire to satisfy their own interests and ensuring them 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 public relations, which allowed a person to be moral and realize his potential, as humanists understood them. The main task of the Utopian state was formulated in a humanistic spirit, providing people happy life: 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 education, which was enriched by them with the concept of “game”, visualization (Erasmus, Rabelais), observation natural phenomena and acquaintance 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). More deeply comprehended the specifics childhood and the features of child psychology, 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 affirming 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 “Horse 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: “the heart of stone turns into a washcloth...”, “I look at him, 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 life established for centuries, from people's experience threatens with unpredictable consequences, can lead to a tragedy of the people, a tragedy of man.