The theme of humanism in literature. The best examples of humanity from life

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 at the beginning of the 21st 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 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 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 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 active public interests Most of its figures were 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 despite all that humanistic worldview at the time of its heyday, it had a pronounced progressive character, was a banner of the fight 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. a tendency emerged and then increasingly increased over the next two centuries (reaching its highest point especially in the 15th century) to attach the greatest importance to the study of humanistic literature and to consider classical Latin and Greek antiquity the only example and model for everything related to 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 public, active people, whose free creativity in 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 began to spread new science and a new worldview, 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. 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; national epic, the rapture of the greatness of Russia relates 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.

Russian Freemasonry of the 18th and early 19th centuries played a huge role in the spiritual mobilization of the creative forces of 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; science fiction genre; designation of all works containing unrealistic plans for social transformation." (" Dictionary 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, 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 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 social development era of that time, More's “Utopia” arises, which reflected and originally comprehended the entire 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, heavy and dangerous work performed 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 a serious crime (including treason or lasciviousness). 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.

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, 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 concept of collective farms driven to a frenzy.

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

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 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 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 question: 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”.

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 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 diary entries 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 the fact that he does not have his 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 his most bitter moment 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 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 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 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 considered masses, or individual social groups. 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, the 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. 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?..

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"Utopias" by Thomas More", 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.

1. The concept of humanism.
2. Pushkin as a herald of humanity.
3. Examples of humanistic works.
4. The writer’s works teach you to be human.

...By reading his works, you can perfectly educate the person within you...
V. G. Belinsky

In dictionary literary terms you can find the following definition of the term “humanism”: “humanism, humanity - love for a person, humanity, compassion for a person in trouble, in oppression, the desire to help him.”

Humanism arose as a certain trend of advanced social thought, which raised the struggle for the rights of the human person, against church ideology, the oppression of scholasticism, during the Renaissance in the struggle of the bourgeoisie against feudalism and became one of the main features of advanced bourgeois literature and art.

The work of such Russian writers who reflected the liberation struggle of the people as A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, I. S. Turgenev, N. V. Gogol, L. N. Tolstoy, A. P. Chekhov is imbued with humanism.

A. S. Pushkin is a humanist writer, but what does this mean in practice? This means that for Pushkin the principle of humanity is of great importance, that is, in his works the writer preaches truly Christian virtues: mercy, understanding, compassion. In each main character one can find traits of humanism, be it Onegin, Grinev or an unnamed Caucasian prisoner. However, for each hero the concept of humanism changes. The content of this term also changes depending on the periods of creativity of the great Russian writer.

At the very beginning of the writer’s creative career, the word “humanism” was often understood as a person’s internal freedom of choice. It is no coincidence that at a time when the poet himself was in southern exile, his work was enriched with a new type of hero, romantic, strong, but not free. Two Caucasian poems - "Prisoner of the Caucasus" and "Gypsies" - bright that confirmation. The nameless hero, captured and held captive, however, turns out to be freer than Aleko, choosing life with the nomadic people. The idea of ​​individual freedom occupied the author’s thoughts during this period and received an original, non-standard interpretation. Thus, the defining character trait of Aleko - egoism - becomes a force that completely steals a person’s inner freedom, while the hero of “Prisoner of the Caucasus,” although limited in movement, is internally free. This is precisely what helps him make a fateful but conscious choice. Aleko craves freedom only for himself. Therefore, the love story between him and the gypsy Zemfira, who is completely free spiritually, turns out to be sad - the main character kills his beloved, who has stopped loving him. The poem “Gypsies” shows the tragedy of modern individualism, and in the main character - the character of an extraordinary personality, which was first outlined in “ Caucasian prisoner"and was finally recreated in "Eugene Onegin".

The next period of creativity gives a new interpretation of humanism and new heroes. “Boris Godunov” and “Eugene Onegin,” written between 1823 and 1831, give us new food for thought: what is philanthropy for a poet? This period of creativity is represented by more complex, but at the same time integral characters of the main characters. Both Boris and Evgeniy - each of them faces a certain moral choice, the acceptance or non-acceptance of which depends entirely on their character. Both individuals are tragic, each of them deserves pity and understanding.

The pinnacle of humanism in Pushkin’s works was the closing period of his work and such works as “Belkin’s Tales”, “Little Tragedies”, “The Captain’s Daughter”. Now humanism and humanity become truly complex concepts and include many different characteristics. This includes the free will and personality of the hero, honor and conscience, the ability to sympathize and empathize and, most importantly, the ability to love. The hero must love not only man, but also the world around him, nature and art, in order to become truly interesting to Pushkin the humanist. These works are also characterized by the punishment of inhumanity, in which the author’s position is clearly visible. If previously the hero’s tragedy depended on external circumstances, now it is determined by the internal capacity for humanity. Anyone who meaningfully leaves the bright path of philanthropy is doomed to severe punishment. An antihero is a bearer of one of the types of passions. The Baron from “The Stingy Knight” is not just a stingy guy, he is the bearer of the passion for enrichment and power. Salieri longs for fame; he is also oppressed by envy of his friend, who is luckier in talent. Don Guan, the hero of The Stone Guest, is the bearer of sensual passions, and the inhabitants of the city, destroyed by the plague, find themselves in the grip of the passion of intoxication. Each of them gets what he deserves, each of them is punished.

In this regard, the most significant works for revealing the concept of humanism are “Belkin’s Tales” and “The Captain’s Daughter”. "Belkin's Tales" - special phenomenon in the writer’s work, consisting of five prose works, united by a single concept: “The Station Agent”, “The Shot”, “The Peasant Young Lady”, “The Blizzard”, “The Undertaker”. Each of the short stories is dedicated to the hardships and suffering that befell one of the main classes - the small landowner, peasant, official or artisan. Each of the stories teaches us compassion, understanding of universal human values ​​and their acceptance. Indeed, despite the difference in the perception of happiness by each class, we understand the undertaker’s nightmare, the experiences of the loving daughter of a small landowner, and the recklessness of army officials.

The crowning achievement of Pushkin's humanistic works is The Captain's Daughter. Here we see the author’s already matured, formed thought concerning universal human passions and problems. Through compassion for the main character, the reader, along with him, goes through the path of becoming a strong, strong-willed personality who knows firsthand what honor is. Over and over again, the reader, together with the main character, makes a moral choice on which life, honor and freedom depend. Thanks to this, the reader grows with the hero and learns to be human.

V. G. Belinsky said about Pushkin: “...By reading his works, you can excellently educate a person within yourself...”. Indeed, Pushkin’s works are so full of humanism, philanthropy and attention to enduring universal human values: mercy, compassion and love, that from them, as from a textbook, you can learn to make important decisions, take care of honor, love and hate - learn to be human.

Humanism– (from lat. humanitas – humanity, humanus – humane) – 1) worldview, in the center of which lies the idea of ​​a person, concern for his rights to freedom, equality, personal development (etc.); 2) an ethical position that implies concern for a person and his well-being as the highest value; 3) a system of social order, within which the life and well-being of a person is recognized as the highest value (example: the Renaissance is often called the era of Humanism); 4) philanthropy, humanity, respect for people, etc.

Humanism took shape in Western Europe during the Renaissance, in contrast to the preceding Catholic ideology of asceticism, which affirmed the idea of ​​the insignificance of human needs in front of the demands of Divine nature, fostered contempt for “temporary goods” and “carnal pleasures.”
The parents of humanism, being Christians, did not put man at the head of the universe, but only reminded of his interests as a god-like personality, and denounced their contemporary society for sins against humanity (love for man). In their treatises, they argued that Christian teaching in their contemporary society did not extend to the fullness of human nature, that disrespect, lies, theft, envy and hatred towards a person are: neglect of his education, health, creativity, the right to choose a spouse, profession , lifestyle, country of residence and much more.
Humanism did not become an ethical, philosophical or theological system (see about this in the article Humanism, or Renaissance philosophical dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron), but, despite its theological dubiousness and philosophical uncertainty, the most conservative Christians are currently enjoying its fruits. And, on the contrary, it is rare that one of the most “right-wing” Christians is not horrified by the attitude towards the human person that is accepted in communities where veneration of the One is combined with a lack of humanism.
However, over time, a substitution occurred in the humanistic worldview: God ceased to be perceived as the center of the universe, and man became the center of the universe. Thus, in accordance with where humanism places its system-forming center, we can talk about two types of humanism. The original one is theistic humanism (John Reuchlin, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Ulrich von Huten, etc.), which affirms the possibility and necessity of God’s providence for the world and man. “God in this case is not only transcendental to the world, but also immanent to it,” so that God for man is in this case the center of the universe.
In the widely spread deistic humanistic worldview (Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire), God is completely “transcendental to man, i.e. absolutely incomprehensible and inaccessible to him,” therefore, man becomes the center of the universe for himself, and God is only “taken into account.”
Currently, the vast majority of humanitarian workers believe that humanism autonomous, because his ideas cannot be derived from religious, historical or ideological premises, and depend entirely on accumulated human experience on the implementation of intercultural norms of living together: cooperation, benevolence, honesty, loyalty and tolerance towards others, following the law, etc. Therefore, humanism universal, that is, it is applicable to all people and any social systems, which is reflected in the right of all people to life, love, education, moral and intellectual freedom, etc. In fact, this opinion asserts the identity of the modern concept of “humanism” with the concept of “natural moral law”, used in Christian theology (see here and below “Pedagogical proof ..."). The Christian concept of “natural moral law” differs from the generally accepted concept of “humanism” only in its assumed nature, that is, in the fact that humanism is considered a socially conditioned phenomenon generated by social experience, and the natural moral law is considered to be initially embedded in the soul of every person, the desire for order and all sorts of things. good. Since, from a Christian point of view, the insufficiency of the natural moral law for achieving the Christian standard of human morality is obvious, then the insufficiency of “humanism” as the basis of the humanitarian sphere, that is, the sphere human relations And human existence.
The following fact confirms the abstractness of the concept of humanism. Since natural morality and the concept of love for a person are characteristic, in one form or another, of any human community, the concept of humanism is adopted by almost all existing ideological teachings, thanks to which such concepts as socialist, communist, nationalist exist, for example. , Islamic, atheistic, integral, etc. humanisms.
In essence, humanism can be called that part of any teaching that teaches to love a person in accordance with this ideology’s understanding of love for a person and methods of achieving it.

Notes:

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 man; the demand for ideas of humanism is associated with internal needs 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 the emergence in the sphere of production, political life, and culture of a new type of personalities 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 who came from different social circles (urban, church, feudal) and represented 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 large number 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. “New people” were also those established in Italian cities rulers-lords, 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 demand in highest degree, as evidenced by the cultural policy 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 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, 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, Bessarion, 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 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, he continued his earthly life indefinitely.
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 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 flourishing during this period and became most important achievement throughout the 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 upbringing; the role of a “living example” (father, teacher, virtuous person).
Humanists consciously introduced such an ideal of education into society, affirming the purposeful nature of education, unbreakable connection 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 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 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 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 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 (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 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 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 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 public relations, which allowed a person to be moral and realize his potential, as humanists understood them. Formulated in a humanistic spirit the main task Utopian states that provide a person with a 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, according to the humanist, a 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. There was strong criticism in humanistic writings on education 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 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

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

Good work to the site">

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 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 at the beginning of the 21st 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 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 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 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 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. a tendency emerged and then increasingly increased over the next two centuries (reaching its highest point especially in the 15th century) to attach the greatest importance to the study of humanistic literature and to consider classical Latin and Greek antiquity as the only example and model for everything related to 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 public, active people, whose free creativity in 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 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. 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 the man on the throne"

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

Russian Freemasonry of the 18th and early 19th centuries played a huge role in the spiritual mobilization of the creative forces of 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 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, 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 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 a serious crime (including treason or lasciviousness). 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.

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, 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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”. 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 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 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", "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 the fact that he does not have his 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, 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, the 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, 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 as a 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 works: the meaning of the title, problems, 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 " extra person"in Russian literature in the 18th century. The image of the "superfluous man" in M.Yu. Lermontov's novel "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 a separate genre, the 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 rituals. 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.