What does honor mean more than life? Honor and dishonor. Several interesting essays

"Honor more valuable than life" - Friedrich Schiller

Honor is self-esteem, moral principles that a person is ready to defend in any situation, even sacrificing his own own life. It is very easy to lose honor, for example, by saying the wrong word or doing a rash act. But honor is very difficult to maintain. And few people are able to do this. Many people would rather be dishonest because it’s easier to live that way, but a person who always stands up for his honor, even in situations where he has to look death in the eye, will be proud of himself and will deserve the respect of others. Maintaining honor in some situations can be more difficult than just living. But still, honor is both a person’s personal dignity and courage. That is why honor is valued more than life. Let us prove this with examples from literary works.

In the work of A.S. Pushkin " Captain's daughter“There are many deeds that were performed with honor. Pyotr Grinev finds himself in such situations several times. The first time Grinev acted honorably was when a duel took place with Shvabrin. He was not afraid and came to this duel, he understood that he could die in this duel, but he still preferred to remain a man of honor than a cowardly person, even risking his own life. The second time Peter acts honorably, when he defends his Motherland, he does not betray it, like Shvabrin. Grinev also understands that he could be killed during the Pugachev riot. But he again looks death in the eye and remains a man of honor. Using the example of two actions of Grinev, we can say that for him honor is more valuable than life. Despite all these difficulties, he shows that honor is very difficult to maintain, but it cannot fall below one’s own life.

V. Bykov in his work “Sotnikov” also shows where heroes sacrifice their lives for the sake of honor. As an example, we can take the main character of Sotnikov’s work, who, being captured by the Germans, does not tell them anything, he does not accept any price for the opportunity of life, he remains faithful to his Motherland. Thus, he acts according to honor. In the end, Sotnikov is killed in captivity. And this proves that honor is more valuable than life. Sotnikov himself understands that he would rather die, remaining a man of honor, than betray his Motherland and lose respect for himself.

Thus, I agree with Friedrich Schiller's statement. And using the example of two works, we can say that honor is still more valuable than life. It is easy to live without honor, it is much more difficult to live according to honor, and it is better to die than to lose honor. And along with the honor, you will lose dignity, courage, and the respect of other people. People who always act with honor can be called strong and worthy people.

Completed essay for the second direction.

In childhood and youth, did we really think about the meaning of the words “honest”, “honest”? More likely no than yes. More often we said the phrase “it’s not fair” if one of our peers acted badly towards us. This is our relationship with meaning of this word were ending. But life more and more often reminds us that there are people who “have honor”, and there are those who are ready to sell their homeland to save their own skin. Where is the line that turns a person into a slave of his flesh and destroys the person in him? Why doesn’t that bell ring, about which Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, an expert on all the dark corners of the human soul, wrote? I ask myself these and other questions, among which one is still the main one: is honor really more valuable than life? To answer this question, I turn to literary works, because, according to academician D.S. Likhachev, literature is the main textbook of life, it (literature) helps us understand the characters of people, reveals eras, and on its pages we will find a great many examples of the ups and downs of human life. There I can find the answer to my main question.

I associate the fall and, what is even worse, betrayal with the Fisherman, the hero of V. Bykov’s story “Sotnikov.” Why strong man who initially made only a positive impression, became a traitor? And Sotnikov... I had a strange impression of this hero: for some reason he irritated me, and the reason for this feeling was not his illness, but the fact that he constantly created problems while performing an important task. I openly admired the fisherman: what a resourceful, decisive and courageous person! I don't think he was trying to impress. And who is Sotnikov for him to go out of his way for him?! No. He was just a man and did human actions until his life was in danger. But as soon as he tasted fear, it was as if he had been replaced: the instinct of self-preservation killed the man in him, and he sold his soul, and with it his honor. The betrayal of his homeland, the murder of Sotnikov, and an animal existence turned out to be more valuable to him than honor.

Analyzing Rybak’s action, I cannot help but ask myself the question: does it always happen that a person acts dishonorably if his life is in danger? Can he commit a dishonorable act for the benefit of another? And again I turn for an answer to a literary work, this time to E. Zamyatin’s story “The Cave” about besieged Leningrad, where in a grotesque form the author talks about the survival of people in an ice cave, gradually driven into its smallest corner, where the center of the universe is a rusty and red-haired god, a cast-iron stove that consumed first firewood, then furniture, then... books. In one such corner, the heart of one person is torn with grief: Masha is dying, already for a long time Martin Martinich’s beloved wife, who never got out of bed. This will happen tomorrow, and today she really wants it to be hot tomorrow, her birthday, and then she might be able to get out of bed. Warmth and a piece of bread became a symbol of life for cavemen. But there is neither one nor the other. But the neighbors on the floor below, the Obertyshevs, have them. They have everything, having lost their conscience and turned into females, into wraps.

...What won’t you do for your beloved wife?! The intelligent Martin Martinych goes to bow to the non-humans: there is gluttony and heat, but the soul does not live there. And Martin Martinych, having received a (kindly, sympathetic) refusal, decides to take a desperate step: he steals firewood for Masha. Everything will happen tomorrow! God will dance, Masha will stand up, letters will be read - things that were impossible to burn. And he will... drink poison, because Martin Martinych will not be able to live with this sin. Why does this happen? The strong and courageous Rybak, who killed Sotnikov and betrayed his homeland, remained to live and serve the policemen, and the intelligent Martin Martinych, who, living in someone else’s apartment, did not dare to touch someone else’s furniture in order to survive, but was able to step over himself in order to save a person dear to him , dies.

Everything comes from a person and is focused on a person, and the main thing in him is a soul that is pure, honest and open to compassion and help. I can’t help but turn to one more example, because this hero of the story “Bread for the Dog” by V. Tendryakov is still a child. A ten-year-old boy, Tenkov, secretly from his parents fed the “kurkuls” - his enemies. Did the child risk his life? Yes, because he fed the enemies of the people. But his conscience did not allow him to eat calmly and in abundance what his mother put on the table. So the boy’s soul suffers. A little later, the hero, with his childish heart, will understand that a person can help a person, but who, in a terrible time of hunger, when people are dying on the road, will give bread for a dog. “Nobody,” logic dictates. “I,” the child’s soul understands. From people like this hero come the Sotnikovs, Vaskovs, Iskras and other heroes for whom honor is more valuable than life.

I have given only a few examples from the world of literature, proving that conscience has always, at all times, been and will be honored. It is this quality that will not allow a person to commit an act the price of which is loss of honor. Such heroes, in whose hearts there lives honesty, nobility, in works and in real life, fortunately, a lot.

The value of human life is undeniable. Most of us agree that life is an amazing gift, because everything that is dear and close to us, we learned once we were born into this world... Reflecting on this, you involuntarily wonder if there is at least something more valuable than life?

To answer this question, you need to look into your heart. There, many of us will find something for which we can accept death without a second thought. Someone will give their life to save their loved one. Some are ready to die heroically fighting for their country. And someone, faced with a choice: to live without honor or to die with honor, will choose the latter.

Yes, I think that honor can be more valuable than life. Despite the fact that there are quite a lot of definitions of the word “honor,” they all agree on one thing. A man of honor has the best moral qualities, which are always highly valued in society: self-esteem, honesty, kindness, truthfulness, decency. For a person who values his reputation and good name, loss of honor is worse than death...

This point of view was close to A.S. Pushkin. In his novel “The Captain's Daughter,” the writer shows that the ability to preserve one’s honor is the main moral criterion of a person. Alexei Shvabrin, to whom life is more valuable than noble and officer honor, easily becomes a traitor, going over to the side of the rebel Pugachev. And Pyotr Grinev is ready to die with honor, but not to refuse the oath to the Empress. For Pushkin himself, protecting his wife’s honor also turned out to be more important than life. Having received a mortal wound in a duel with Dantes, Alexander Sergeevich washed away the dishonest slander from his family with his blood.

A century later, M.A. Sholokhov, in his story “The Fate of a Man,” will create the image of a real Russian warrior - Andrei Sokolov. This simple Soviet driver will face many trials at the front, but the hero always remains true to himself and his code of honor. Sokolov’s steely character is especially clearly demonstrated in the scene with Muller. When Andrei refuses to drink German weapons to the victory, he realizes that he will be shot. But the loss of honor of a Russian soldier frightens a man more than death. Sokolov's fortitude evokes respect even from his enemy, so Muller abandons the idea of killing the fearless captive.

Why are people, for whom the concept of “honor” is not an empty phrase, ready to die for it? They probably understand that human life- this is not only an amazing gift, but also a gift that is given to us for a short time. Therefore, it is so important to manage our lives in such a way that subsequent generations will remember us with respect and gratitude.

“You can kill a man, but you cannot take away his honor.”

Honor, dignity, consciousness of one’s personality, strength of spirit and will - these are the main indicators of a truly persistent and strong, strong-willed person. He is confident in himself, has own opinion and is not afraid to express it, even if it does not coincide with the opinion of the majority. It is difficult, if not impossible, to break him, to subjugate him, to make him a slave. Such a person is invulnerable, he is a person. He can be killed, deprived of his life, but it is impossible to deprive him of his honor. Honor in this case turns out to be stronger than death.

Let us turn to Mikhail Sholokhov’s story “The Fate of a Man.” It shows the story of a simple Russian soldier, even his name is common - Andrei Sokolov. By this the author makes it clear that the hero of the story is the most ordinary person, who had the misfortune of living during the Great Patriotic War. The story of Andrei Sokolov is typical, but how many hardships and trials he had to endure! However, he endured all the hardships with honor and fortitude, without losing his courage and dignity. The author emphasizes that Andrei Sokolov is the most ordinary Russian person, precisely by this showing that honor and dignity are integral features of the Russian character. Let us remember Andrei’s behavior in German captivity. When the Germans, wanting to have fun, forced an exhausted and hungry prisoner to drink a whole glass of schnapps, Andrei did it. When asked to have a snack, he courageously replied that Russians never have a snack after the first one. Then the Germans poured him a second glass, and after drinking it, he responded in the same way, despite the tormenting hunger. And after the third glass, Andrei refused the snack. And then the German commandant respectfully told him: “You are a real Russian soldier. You are a brave soldier! I respect worthy opponents." With these words, the German gave Andrey bread and lard. And he shared these treats equally with his comrades. Here is an example demonstrating courage and honor, which even in the face of death the Russian people did not lose.

Let us remember Vasily Bykov’s story “The Crane Cry”. The youngest fighter in the battalion, Vasily Glechik, was the only survivor against an entire detachment of Germans. However, the enemies did not know this and were preparing to strike, gathering their best forces. Glechik understood that death was inevitable, but not for a second did he allow the thought of escape, desertion or surrender. The honor of a Russian soldier, a Russian person, is something that cannot be killed. He was ready to defend himself until his last breath, despite his thirst to live, because he was only 19 years old. Suddenly he heard the cry of cranes, looked into the sky, boundless, boundless, piercingly alive, and followed with a sad look at these free, happy birds. He desperately wanted to live. Even in such hell as war, but live! And suddenly he heard a plaintive purr, looked up again and saw a wounded crane, who was trying to catch up with his flock, but could not. He was doomed. Anger took possession of the hero, an inexpressible desire for life. But he clutched a single grenade in his hand and prepared for his last battle. The above arguments eloquently confirm the postulate stated in our topic - even in the face of imminent death, it is impossible to take away the honor and dignity of a Russian person.

3. "Victory and defeat". Direction allows you to reflect on victory and defeat in different aspects: socio-historical, moral-philosophical, psychological. Reasoning can be associated both with external conflict events in the life of a person, country, world, and with internal struggle a person with himself, its causes and results.

IN literary works the ambiguity and relativity of the concepts of “victory” and “defeat” are often shown in different historical conditions and life situations.

Lesson on the topic "Preparing for an essay"
download from link

Victory and defeat

ESSAY TOPICS

o E. Hemingway “The Old Man and the Sea”,

o B.L. Vasiliev “Not on the lists”

o EM. Remarque "All Quiet on the Western Front"

o V.P. Astafiev "Tsar Fish"

o "The Tale of Igor's Campaign."

o A.S. Pushkin “The Battle of Poltava”; "Eugene Onegin".

o I. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons.”

o F. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment.”

o L.N. Tolstoy “Sevastopol Stories”; “War and Peace”; "Anna Karenina".

o A. Ostrovsky “Thunderstorm”.

o A. Kuprin “Duel”; " Garnet bracelet"; "Olesya."

o M. Bulgakov " Heart of a Dog»; « Fatal eggs»; « White Guard"; "The Master and Margarita". E. Zamyatin “We”; "Cave".

o V. Kurochkin “In war as in war.”

o B. Vasiliev “And the dawns here are quiet”; "Don't shoot white swans."

o Yu. Bondarev “Hot Snow”; "The battalions are asking for fire."

o V. Tokareva “I am. You exist. He is."

o M. Ageev “Romance with Cocaine.”

o N. Dumbadze “Me, Grandma, Iliko and Illarion”

o . V. Dudintsev “White clothes”.

"Victory and Defeat"

Very good presentation
download from link

Official comment:
The direction allows you to think about victory and defeat in different aspects: socio-historical, moral-philosophical, psychological. The reasoning may be related both with external conflict events in the life of a person, country, world, and with a person’s internal struggle with himself, its causes and results.
In literary works The ambiguity and relativity of the concepts of “victory” and “defeat” are often shown in different historical conditions and life situations.
Methodical recommendations:
The contrast between the concepts of “victory” and “defeat” is already inherent in their interpretation.
At Ozhegov's we read: “Victory is success in battle, war, complete defeat of the enemy.” That is, the victory of one implies the complete defeat of the other. However, both history and literature give us examples of how victory turns out to be defeat, and defeat turns out to be victory. It is about the relativity of these concepts that graduates are invited to speculate, based on their reading experience. Of course, it is impossible to limit ourselves to the concept of victory as the defeat of the enemy in battle. Therefore, it is advisable to consider this thematic direction in different aspects. Aphorisms and sayings famous people:
· - - Greatest Victory- victory over oneself. Cicero
· The possibility that we may be defeated in battle should not prevent us from fighting for a cause that we believe is just. A.Lincoln
· Man was not created to suffer defeat... Man can be destroyed, but he cannot be defeated. E. Hemingway
· Be proud only of the victories you have won over yourself. Tungsten
Socio-historical aspect Here we will talk about external conflict social groups, states, about military actions and political struggle.
Peru A. de Saint-Exupéry belongs to a paradoxical, at first glance, statement: “Victory weakens the people - defeat awakens new strength in them...”.
We find confirmation of the correctness of this idea in Russian literature. "The Tale of Igor's Campaign"– famous monument literature Ancient Rus'. The plot is based on the unsuccessful campaign of the Russian princes against the Polovtsians, organized by the Novgorod-Seversk prince Igor Svyatoslavich in 1185. Main idea- the idea of the unity of the Russian land. Princely civil strife, weakening the Russian land and leading to the ruin of its enemies, makes the author bitterly sadden and lament; victory over his enemies fills his soul with ardent delight. However, this work is about defeat, not victory. ancient Russian literature, because it is defeat that contributes to rethinking previous behavior and gaining a new view of the world and oneself. That is, defeat stimulates Russian soldiers to victories and exploits. The author of the Lay addresses all the Russian princes in turn, as if calling them to account and demandingly reminding them of their duty to their homeland. He calls on them to defend the Russian land, to “block the gates of the field” with their sharp arrows. And therefore, although the author writes about defeat, there is not a shadow of despondency in the Lay. The “Word” is as laconic and terse as Igor’s addresses to his squad. This is the call before battle. The whole poem seems to be addressed to the future, permeated with concern for this future. A poem about victory would be a poem of triumph and joy. Victory is the end of the battle, but defeat for the author of the Lay is only the beginning of the battle. The battle with the steppe enemy is not over yet. Defeat should unite the Russians. The author of the Lay does not call for a feast of triumph, but for a feast of battle. D.S. writes about this in the article “The Tale of the Campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich.” Likhachev. The “Lay” ends joyfully - with Igor’s return to the Russian land and the singing of his glory upon entering Kyiv. So, despite the fact that the Lay is dedicated to the defeat of Igor, it is full of confidence in the power of the Russians, full of faith in the glorious future of the Russian land, in victory over the enemy. The history of mankind consists of victories and defeats in wars.
In the novel “War and Peace” L.N. Tolstoy describes the participation of Russia and Austria in the war against Napoleon. Drawing the events of 1805-1807, Tolstoy shows that this war was imposed on the people. Russian soldiers, being far from their homeland, do not understand the purpose of this war and do not want to waste their lives senselessly. Kutuzov understands better than many that this campaign is unnecessary for Russia. He sees the indifference of the allies, the desire of Austria to fight with the wrong hands. Kutuzov protects his troops in every possible way and delays their advance to the borders of France. This is explained not by distrust of the military skill and heroism of the Russians, but by the desire to protect them from senseless slaughter. When the battle turned out to be inevitable, the Russian soldiers showed their always readiness to help the allies and take the main blow. For example, a detachment of four thousand under the command of Bagration near the village of Shengraben held back the onslaught of an enemy “eight times” outnumbered. This made it possible for the main forces to advance. The unit of officer Timokhin showed miracles of heroism. It not only did not retreat, but struck back, which saved the flanking units of the army. The real hero of the Battle of Shengraben turned out to be the courageous, decisive, but modest captain Tushin before his superiors. So, largely thanks to the Russian troops, the Battle of Schöngraben was won, and this gave strength and inspiration to the sovereigns of Russia and Austria. Blinded by victories, occupied mainly with narcissism, holding military parades and balls, these two men led their armies to defeat at Austerlitz. So it turned out that one of the reasons for the defeat of the Russian troops under the skies of Austerlitz was the victory at Schöngraben, which did not allow objective assessment balance of power. The entire senselessness of the campaign is shown by the writer in the preparation of the top generals for the battle of Austerlitz. So, the military council before Battle of Austerlitz resembles not a council, but an exhibition of vanities, all disputes were conducted not with the goal of achieving a better and correct solution, but, as Tolstoy writes, “... it was obvious that the goal... of the objections was primarily the desire to make General Weyrother feel as self-confident as schoolchildren - to the students who read his disposition, that he was dealing not only with fools, but with people who could teach him in military affairs.” And yet main reason we see the victories and defeats of the Russian troops in the confrontation with Napoleon when comparing Austerlitz and Borodin. Speaking with Pierre about the upcoming Battle of Borodino, Andrei Bolkonsky recalls the reason for the defeat at Austerlitz: “The battle is won by the one who is determined to win it. Why did we lose the battle at Austerlitz?.. We told ourselves very early that we lost the battle - and we lost. And we said this because we had no need to fight: we wanted to leave the battlefield as quickly as possible. “If you lose, then run away!” So we ran. If we hadn’t said this until the evening, God knows what would have happened. And tomorrow we won’t say this.” L. Tolstoy shows a significant difference between the two campaigns: 1805-1807 and 1812. The fate of Russia was decided on the Borodino field. Here the Russian people had no desire to save themselves, no indifference to what was happening. Here, as Lermontov said, “we promised to die, and we kept the oath of allegiance in the Battle of Borodino.” Another opportunity to speculate on how victory in one battle can turn into defeat in a war is provided by the outcome of the Battle of Borodino, in which Russian troops won a moral victory over the French. The moral defeat of Napoleon's troops near Moscow was the beginning of the defeat of his army. The Civil War turned out to be such a significant event in the history of Russia that it could not help but be reflected in fiction.
The basis for graduates’ reasoning can be "Don Stories", " Quiet Don» M.A. Sholokhov. When one country goes to war with another, terrible events occur: hatred and the desire to defend themselves forces people to kill their own kind, women and the elderly are left alone, children grow up orphans, cultural and material assets, cities are being destroyed. But the warring parties have a goal - to defeat the enemy at any cost. And any war has a result - victory or defeat. Victory is sweet and immediately justifies all losses, defeat is tragic and sad, but it is the starting point for some other life. But "in civil war every victory is defeat" (Lucian). Life story central character epic novel by M. Sholokhov “Quiet Don” by Grigory Melekhov, which reflected the dramatic nature of destinies Don Cossacks, confirms this idea. War cripples from the inside and destroys all the most precious things that people have. It forces the heroes to take a fresh look at the problems of duty and justice, to look for the truth and not find it in any of the warring camps. Once among the Reds, Gregory sees the same cruelty, intransigence, and thirst for the blood of his enemies as the Whites. Melekhov rushes between the two warring sides. Everywhere he encounters violence and cruelty, which he cannot accept, and therefore cannot take one side. The result is logical: “Like a steppe scorched by fires, Gregory’s life became black...”. Moral-philosophical and psychological aspects Victory is not only about success in battle. To win, according to the dictionary of synonyms, is to overcome, overcome, overcome. And often not so much the enemy as yourself. Let us consider a number of works from this point of view.
A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". The conflict of the play represents the unity of two principles: public and personal. Being an honest, noble, progressive-minded, freedom-loving person, main character Chatsky opposes Famus society. He condemns the inhumanity of serfdom, recalling “Nestor of the noble scoundrels,” who exchanged his faithful servants for three greyhounds; he is disgusted by the lack of freedom of thought in noble society: “And who in Moscow hasn’t had their mouths shut at lunches, dinners and dances?” He does not recognize veneration and sycophancy: “For those who need it, they are arrogant, they lie in the dust, and for those who are higher, they wove flattery like lace.” Chatsky is full of sincere patriotism: “Will we ever be resurrected from the foreign power of fashion? So that our smart, cheerful people, even by language, do not consider us to be Germans.” He strives to serve the “cause”, and not individuals; he “would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” Society is offended and, in defense, declares Chatsky crazy. His drama is aggravated by a feeling of ardent but unrequited love for Famusov’s daughter Sophia. Chatsky makes no attempt to understand Sophia; it is difficult for him to understand why Sophia does not love him, because his love for her speeds up “every beat of his heart,” although “to him the whole world seemed like dust and vanity.” Chatsky can be justified by his blindness by passion: his “mind and heart are not in harmony.” Psychological conflict turns into social conflict. Society unanimously comes to the conclusion: “crazy in everything...”. Society is not afraid of a madman. Chatsky decides to “search the world where there is a corner for an offended feeling.” I.A. Goncharov assessed the ending of the play this way: “Chatsky is broken by the number old power, inflicting a fatal blow on her with the quality of the new force.” Chatsky does not give up his ideals, he only frees himself from illusions. Chatsky’s stay in Famusov’s house shook the inviolability of foundations Famusov society. Sophia says: “I’m ashamed of myself, the walls!” Therefore, Chatsky’s defeat is only a temporary defeat and only his personal drama. On a social scale, “the victory of the Chatskys is inevitable.” The “past century” will be replaced by the “present century”, and the views of the hero of Griboyedov’s comedy will win. ]
A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm". Graduates may ponder the question of whether Katherine's death is a victory or a defeat. It is difficult to give a definite answer to this question. Too many reasons led to the terrible ending. The playwright sees the tragedy of Katerina’s situation in the fact that she comes into conflict not only with Kalinov’s family morals, but also with herself. The straightforwardness of Ostrovsky's heroine is one of the sources of her tragedy. Katerina is pure in soul - lies and debauchery are alien and disgusting to her. She understands that by falling in love with Boris, she violated the moral law. “Oh, Varya,” she complains, “sin is on my mind! How much I, poor thing, cried, no matter what I did to myself! I can't escape this sin. Can't go anywhere. After all, this is not good, this is a terrible sin, Varenka, why do I love someone else?” Throughout the entire play there is a painful struggle in Katerina’s consciousness between the understanding of her wrongness, her sinfulness and a vague, but increasingly powerful sense of her right to human life. But the play ends with Katerina’s moral victory over the dark forces that torment her. She atones for her guilt immensely, and escapes from captivity and humiliation through the only path that was revealed to her. Her decision to die, rather than remain a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, “the need of the emerging movement of Russian life.” And this decision comes to Katerina along with internal self-justification. She dies because she considers death the only worthy outcome, the only opportunity to preserve that highest thing that lived in her. The idea that Katerina’s death is in fact a moral victory, a triumph of the real Russian soul over the forces of the “dark kingdom” of the Dikikhs and Kabanovs, is also strengthened by the reaction to her death of the other characters in the play. For example, Tikhon, Katerina’s husband, for the first time in his life expressed his own opinion, for the first time decided to protest against the stifling foundations of his family, entering (even if only for a moment) into the fight against “ dark kingdom" “You ruined her, you, you...” he exclaims, turning to his mother, before whom he trembled all his life.
I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". The writer shows in his novel the struggle between the worldviews of two political directions. The plot of the novel is based on the contrast between the views of Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov and Evgeny Bazarov, who are prominent representatives two generations who cannot find mutual understanding. Disagreements on various issues have always existed between youth and elders. So here, the representative of the younger generation Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov cannot, and does not want to understand the “fathers”, their life credo, principles. He is convinced that their views on the world, on life, on relationships between people are hopelessly outdated. “Yes, I will spoil them... After all, this is all pride, lionish habits, foppishness...” In his opinion, the main purpose of life is to work, to produce something material. That is why Bazarov disrespects art and sciences that do not have a practical basis. He believes that it is much more useful to deny what, from his point of view, deserves denial, than to watch indifferently from the outside, not daring to do anything. “At the present time, the most useful thing is denial - we deny,” says Bazarov. And Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is sure that there are things that cannot be doubted (“Aristocracy... liberalism, progress, principles... art..."). He values habits and traditions more and does not want to notice the changes taking place in society. Bazarov is a tragic figure. It cannot be said that he defeats Kirsanov in an argument. Even when Pavel Petrovich is ready to admit defeat, Bazarov suddenly loses faith in his teaching and doubts his personal need for society. “Does Russia need me? No, apparently I don’t,” he reflects. Of course, most of all a person manifests himself not in conversations, but in deeds and in his life. Therefore, Turgenev seems to lead his heroes through various trials. And the strongest of them is the test of love. After all, it is in love that a person’s soul reveals itself fully and sincerely. And then Bazarov’s hot and passionate nature swept away all his theories. He fell in love with a woman whom he valued highly. “In conversations with Anna Sergeevna, he expressed his indifferent contempt for everything romantic even more than before, and when left alone, he was indignantly aware of the romanticism in himself.” The hero is experiencing severe mental discord. “... Something... took possession of him, which he never allowed, which he always mocked, which outraged all his pride.” Anna Sergeevna Odintsova rejected him. But Bazarov found the strength to accept defeat with honor, without losing his dignity. So, did the nihilist Bazarov win or lose? It seems that Bazarov is defeated in the test of love. Firstly, his feelings and he himself are rejected. Secondly, he falls into the power of aspects of life that he himself denies, loses ground under his feet, and begins to doubt his views on life. His life position turns out to be a pose in which, however, he sincerely believed. Bazarov begins to lose the meaning of life, and soon loses life itself. But this is also a victory: love forced Bazarov to look at himself and at the world differently, he begins to understand that in no way does life want to fit into a nihilistic scheme. And Anna Sergeevna formally remains among the winners. She was able to cope with her feelings, which strengthened her self-confidence. In the future, she will find a good home for her sister, and she herself will marry successfully. But will she be happy? F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". Crime and Punishment is an ideological novel in which non-human theory collides with human feelings. Dostoevsky, a great expert on human psychology, a sensitive and attentive artist, tried to understand modern reality, to determine the extent of the influence of the ideas of revolutionary reorganization of life and individualistic theories that were popular at that time on a person. Entering into polemics with democrats and socialists, the writer sought to show in his novel how the delusion of fragile minds leads to murder, shedding of blood, maiming and breaking young lives. Raskolnikov's ideas were generated by abnormal, humiliating living conditions. In addition, the post-reform disruption destroyed the age-old foundations of society, depriving human individuality of connection with ancient cultural traditions society, historical memory. Raskolnikov sees violations of universal moral norms at every step. It is impossible to feed a family with honest work, so the petty official Marmeladov finally becomes an alcoholic, and his daughter Sonechka is forced to sell herself, because otherwise her family will die of starvation. If unbearable living conditions push a person to violate moral principles, then these principles are nonsense, that is, they can be ignored. Raskolnikov comes to approximately this conclusion when a theory is born in his fevered brain, according to which he divides all of humanity into two unequal parts. On the one hand, this strong personalities, “super-humans” like Mohammed and Napoleon, and on the other – a gray, faceless and submissive crowd, which the hero rewards with the contemptuous name – “trembling creature” and “anthill”. The correctness of any theory must be confirmed by practice. And Rodion Raskolnikov conceives and carries out a murder, removing the moral prohibition from himself. His life after the murder turns into real hell. A painful suspicion develops in Rodion, which gradually turns into a feeling of loneliness and isolation from everyone. The writer finds a surprisingly accurate expression characterizing internal state Raskolnikov: it was “as if he had cut himself off from everyone and everything with scissors.” The hero is disappointed in himself, believing that he did not pass the test of being a ruler, which means, alas, he belongs to the “trembling creatures.” Surprisingly, Raskolnikov himself would not want to be the winner now. After all, to win means to die morally, to remain with your spiritual chaos forever, to lose faith in people, yourself and life. Raskolnikov's defeat became his victory - a victory over himself, over his theory, over the Devil, who took possession of his soul, but failed to forever displace God in it.
M.A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita". This novel is too complex and multifaceted; the writer touched on many topics and problems in it. One of them is the problem of the struggle between good and evil. In The Master and Margarita, the two main forces of good and evil, which, according to Bulgakov, should be in balance on Earth, are embodied in the images of Yeshua Ha-Notsri from Yershalaim and Woland - Satan in human form. Apparently, Bulgakov, in order to show that good and evil exist outside of time and that people have lived according to their laws for thousands of years, placed Yeshua at the beginning of modern times, in the fictional masterpiece of the Master, and Woland, as the arbiter of cruel justice, in Moscow in the 30s. XX century. The latter came to Earth to restore harmony where it had been broken in favor of evil, which included lies, stupidity, hypocrisy and, finally, betrayal, which filled Moscow. Good and evil in this world are surprisingly closely intertwined, especially in human souls. When Woland, in a scene in a variety show, tests the audience for cruelty and beheads the entertainer, and compassionate women demand to put her in her place, the great magician says: “Well... they are people like people... Well, frivolous... well, well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people... – and loudly orders: “Put on your head.” And then we see people fighting over the ducats that fell on their heads. The novel “The Master and Margarita” is about man’s responsibility for the good and evil that happens on earth, for his own choice life paths leading to truth and freedom or to slavery, betrayal and inhumanity. It is about all-conquering love and creativity, elevating the soul to the heights of true humanity. The author wanted to proclaim: the victory of evil over good cannot be the end result of social and moral confrontation. This, according to Bulgakov, is not accepted by human nature itself, and the entire course of civilization should not allow it. Of course, the range of works in which the thematic direction of “Victory and Defeat” is revealed is much wider. The main thing is to see the principle, to understand that victory and defeat are relative concepts. R. Bach wrote about this in the book “Bridge over Eternity”: “The important thing is not whether we lose in the game, but what matters is how we lose and how we will change thanks to this, what new things we will learn for ourselves, how we can apply this in other games . In a strange way, defeat turns out to be victory."

Few people can voluntarily decide to take an action that will lead to taking their own lives, because, as you know, we do not decide when to call it a day. But if you put the question bluntly, what should you choose - live your life with the awareness that you acted dishonestly or act according to your conscience, maintaining your honor, but die? The answer should be sought in fiction, which has many examples of similar life situations.

When it comes to honor, I immediately remember the hero of the poem by A.S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin” - Vladimir Lensky. The issue of honor was raised by the author when Onegin came to a name day, where a friend invited him, but the hero begins to be irritated by everything: the crowd of people (Pustyakovs, Skotinins, Buyanovs and others), Tatyana’s behavior, and so on. He blames the one who invited him to the celebration for all this. In retaliation, Evgeniy invites Lensky's fiancée Olga to a dance at an afternoon ball and flirts with her. Vladimir is unable to tolerate such an insult and challenges Evgeniy to a duel, which will end in the death of one of them. Vladimir Lensky dies in a duel; he was only eighteen years old. He died early, but defended his and Olga’s honor, not allowing anyone to doubt the purity and sincerity of his feelings towards the daughter of the Larin family. While Onegin has to live his life with a heavy burden - to be the killer of a friend.

In the poem “Mtsyri” by M.Yu. Lermontov's main character also puts honor above life, but from a different perspective. As we begin to read the poem, we learn that as a child he was abandoned in a monastery by those who captivated him. The young man got used to captivity and seemed to have forgotten about the call of his father’s land. On the day of the solemn event, he disappeared, a three-day search led to nothing, and only after some time strangers They accidentally found an exhausted Mtsyri. When asked to eat and accept repentance, he refuses, because he does not repent, but on the contrary is proud that he lived in freedom, like his ancestors, that he entered into a duel with a leopard and won. Only one thing weighs on his soul - breaking the promise he made to himself - to be free and find his native lands. Physically he was free, but the prison remained in his heart, and he could not fulfill his vow. He decides to die, realizing that he cannot be a slave. Thus, Mtsyri chooses honor over life. For him, honor is to be a worthy mountaineer, and not a slave, to become part of nature, which accepted him, but which he could not accept.

Each of us is responsible for the chosen path, just as we ourselves give the answer to the question posed above. For myself, I decided that I always need to act in such a way that later I would not be ashamed to live with the awareness of my decisions. But you shouldn’t create situations in which the question of the value of life in relation to honor can be raised, because life is priceless and you need to do your best to fill it with harmony and kindness, of which honest attitude to others.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

Yes, I think that honor can be more valuable than life. Despite the fact that there are quite a lot of definitions of the word “honor,” they all agree on one thing. A person of honor has the best moral qualities, which are always highly valued in society: self-esteem, honesty, kindness, truthfulness, decency. For a person who values his reputation and good name, loss of honor is worse than death.

This point of view was close to A.S. Pushkin. In his novel, the writer shows that the ability to preserve one’s honor is the main moral criterion of an individual. Alexei Shvabrin, to whom life is more valuable than noble and officer honor, easily becomes a traitor, going over to the side of the rebel Pugachev. And Pyotr Grinev is ready to die with honor, but not to refuse the oath to the Empress. For Pushkin himself, protecting his wife’s honor also turned out to be more important than life. Having received a mortal wound in a duel with Dantes, Alexander Sergeevich washed away the dishonest slander from his family with his blood.

A century later, M.A. Sholokhov in his story will create the image of a real Russian warrior - Andrei Sokolov. This simple Soviet driver will face many trials at the front, but the hero always remains true to himself and his code of honor. Sokolov’s steely character is especially clearly demonstrated in the scene with Muller. When Andrei refuses to drink German weapons to the victory, he realizes that he will be shot. But the loss of honor of a Russian soldier frightens a man more than death. Sokolov's fortitude evokes respect even from his enemy, so Muller abandons the idea of killing the fearless captive.

Why are people, for whom the concept of “honor” is not an empty phrase, ready to die for it? They probably understand that human life is not only an amazing gift, but also a gift that is given to us for a short time. Therefore, it is so important to manage our lives in such a way that subsequent generations will remember us with respect and gratitude.

The material was prepared by the creator of the online school “SAMARUS”.