What is humanism in works. The concept of humanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective preparation for the exam (all subjects) -

Dictionary of medical terms

humanism (lat. humanus human, humane)

a system of views that recognizes the value of a person as a person, characterized by the protection of his dignity and freedom of development, considering the good of a person as the main criterion for evaluation social institutions, and the principles of equality and justice

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

humanism

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

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

Enlightened philanthropy (obsolete).

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

humanism

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

The progressive movement of the Renaissance, aimed at the liberation of man from the ideological enslavement of the times of feudalism.

adj. humanistic, th, th.

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

humanism

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

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

humanism

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

Big Law Dictionary

humanism

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

Humanism

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

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

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

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

Socialist geography opposes abstract geography, which preaches "humanity in general" without connection with the struggle for the real liberation of man from all forms of exploitation. But within the framework of abstract G.'s ideas, two main tendencies can be distinguished. On the one hand, the ideas of abstract geography are used to disguise the anti-humanistic character of modern capitalism, to criticize socialism, to fight the communist worldview, and to falsify socialist geography. On the other hand, in bourgeois society there are layers and groups that stand on the positions of abstract geography. but are critical of capitalism, stand for peace and democracy, and are concerned about the future of mankind. The two world wars unleashed by imperialism, the misanthropic theory and practice of fascism, which openly trampled on the principles of geography, the ongoing rampant racism, militarism, the arms race, and the nuclear threat looming over the world pose the problems of geography very sharply before humanity. People who oppose imperialism from the standpoint of abstract geography and the social evil it engenders are, to a certain extent, allies of revolutionary socialist humanity in the struggle for the real happiness of man.

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

Lit .: Marx K., Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844, in the book: Marx K. and Engels F., From early works, M., 1956; Marx K., Toward a Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Law. Introduction, K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. , 2nd ed. , v. 1; Marx K. and Engels F., Manifesto of the Communist Party, ibid., vol. 4: Engels F., Development of socialism from utopia to science, ibid., vol. 19: Lenin V.I., State and revolution, ch. 5, Poly. coll. soch., 5th ed., v. 33; his, Tasks of the Youth Unions, ibid., vol. 41; Program of the CPSU (Adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU), M., 1969; On overcoming the cult of personality and its consequences. Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU, M., 1956; Gramsci A., Prison Notebooks, Selected. prod., vol. 3, trans. from Italian., M., 1959; Volgin V.P., Humanism and socialism, M., 1955; Fedoseev P. N., Socialism and humanism, M., 1958; Petrosyan M. I., Humanism, M., 1964; Kurochkin P.K., Orthodoxy and humanism, M., 1962; The construction of communism and the spiritual world of man, M., 1966; Konrad N. I., West and East, M., 1966; From Erasmus of Rotterdam to Bertrand Russell. Sat. Art., M., 1969: Ilyenkov E. V., On idols and ideals, M., 1968: Kurella A., Own and others, M., 1970; Simonyan E. A., Communism is real humanism, M., 1970.

V. J. Kelle. humanism.

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

In any case, it was precisely from the second half of the 1980s that sharp criticism of traditional American feminism began in the English-speaking world as a manifestation of bourgeois liberalism and humanism from such post-structuralist feminist theorists as Toril Moy, Chris Whedon, Rita Felsky, etc.

They embarked on a vicious path leading from humanism to animalism - the opposite way to what Mankind has done, stimulated by the greatest creative acts of the living history of the Universe.

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

In the fear of popular movements, in the misunderstanding of their progressive anti-feudal orientation, the historical limitations humanism as an essentially bourgeois enlightenment movement.

Lieutenant Baranovsky with his search for justice, persistent illusions of the abstract bourgeois humanism fell victim to its own contradictions, found itself under the wheels of history, inexorable in its course.

About the facts of the soullessness of Gusenitsin, I wrote a report three times and was beaten three times for my humanism.

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

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

In full accordance with the ideas of the romantic humanism hawthorne seen in individual consciousness a source of social evil and at the same time a tool to overcome it.

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

Proclaiming and affirming principles humanism, high morality and morality, singing and poeticizing nature, Fidler said with good reason that he was trying to be faithful in his work to the traditions of Henryk Sienkiewicz and Stefan Zeromsky - Polish classics, close to him in spirit.

Despite the fact that until very recently humanism catastrophically devalued by National Socialism, Heidegger now set out to sharply raise its current price.

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

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

... like a bell on a veche tower

In the days of celebrations and troubles of the people.

N.A. gave his lyre to the struggle for the happiness of the people, for their liberation from slavery and poverty. Nekrasov. Creation brilliant writers- Gogol and Saltykov-Shchedrin, Turgenev and Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chekhov - with all the difference in artistic form and ideological content of their works, united by a deep connection with the life of the people, a truthful depiction of reality, a sincere desire to serve the happiness of the motherland. The great Russian writers did not recognize "art for art's sake", they were the heralds of socially active art, art for the people. Revealing the moral greatness and spiritual wealth of the working people, they aroused in the reader sympathy for ordinary people, faith in the strength of the people, its future.

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

This is also Radishchev, who described the autocratic system of the era as "a monster oblo, mischievously, huge, stifled and barking."

This is Fonvizin, who put to shame the rude feudal lords of the Prostakovs and Skotinins type.

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

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

There is no need to enumerate all the names of Russian writers in order to prove the fidelity of our classical literature to the ideals of freedom.

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

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

At the same time, consciousness was growing in Russian literature that the "little man" should not be a passive object of pity, but a conscious fighter for human dignity. This idea was especially pronounced in satirical works Saltykov-Shchedrin and Chekhov, who condemned any manifestation of humility and obsequiousness.

A large place in Russian classical literature is given to moral problems. Despite the variety of interpretations moral ideal various writers, it is easy to see that all the positive heroes of Russian literature are characterized by dissatisfaction with the existing situation, a tireless search for truth, an aversion to vulgarity, a desire to actively participate in public life, and a readiness for self-sacrifice. By these features, the heroes of Russian literature differ significantly from the heroes of Western literature, whose actions for the most part driven by the pursuit of personal happiness, career, enrichment. The heroes of Russian literature, as a rule, cannot imagine personal happiness without the happiness of their homeland and people.

Russian writers asserted their bright ideals primarily with artistic images of people with warm hearts, an inquisitive mind, a rich soul (Chatsky, Tatyana Larina, Rudin, Katerina Kabanova, Andrei Bolkonsky, etc.)

Truthfully covering Russian reality, Russian writers did not lose faith in the bright future of their homeland. They believed that the Russian people "will pave a wide, clear breasted road for themselves ..."

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

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

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

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

Conclusion

Applications

Introduction

The whole world is going through difficult times today. The new political and economic situation could not but affect the culture. Her relationship with the authorities has changed radically. The common core of cultural life has disappeared - a centralized management system and a unified cultural policy. Identifying ways forward cultural development became the business of society itself and the subject of controversy. The absence of a unifying socio-cultural 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 by the beginning of the 21st century.

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

Humanism is traditionally defined as a system of views that recognize the value of a person as a person, his right to freedom, happiness and development, and declaring the principles of equality and humanity as the norm of relations between people. Among the values traditional culture the most important place was occupied by the values of humanism (kindness, justice, non-acquisitiveness, the 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. Ideas of possessiveness and self-sufficiency (the cult of money) were opposed to humanism. As an ideal, people were offered a "self-made man" - a person who made himself and did 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 in various countries of the world. Our society gradually began to turn into a nuclear society, when individual members of it began to withdraw within the framework of their homes and their own families.

The relevance of the topic I have chosen is due to the problem that has bothered humanity for thousands of years and worries now - the problem of philanthropy, tolerance, respect for one's neighbor, urgency discussion of this topic.

Through my research, I would like to show that the problem of humanism, which originated in the Renaissance, reflected both in the work of 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. The history of the development of humanism in English literature

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

New ideas find their most striking 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 basically secular, hostile to the purely theological interpretation of the world that prevailed 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 had so much hampered the development of human thought earlier. Humanists bowed before the human person, admired her as the highest creation of nature, the bearer of reason, high feelings and virtues; humanists, as it were, opposed the human creator to the blind power of divine providence. The humanistic worldview was characterized by individualism, which at the first stage of its history, in essence, acted as an instrument of ideological protest against the estate-corporate system of feudal society, which suppressed the human personality, 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 moderated by the active public interests of most of its leaders, and was far from the egoism inherent in the later developed forms of the bourgeois worldview.

Finally, the humanistic worldview was characterized by an avid interest in ancient culture in all its manifestations. Humanists sought to "revive", that is, to make a role model, the work of ancient writers, scientists, philosophers, artists, classical Latin, partly forgotten in the Middle Ages. And although already from the XII century. in medieval culture began to awaken interest in ancient heritage, only during the period of the emergence of a humanistic worldview, in the so-called Renaissance (Renaissance), this trend became dominant.

The rationalism of the humanists was based on idealism, which largely determined their idea of the world. As representatives of the then intelligentsia, the humanists were far from the people, and often openly hostile to them. But for all that humanistic outlook at the time of its heyday, it had a pronounced 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, humanistic consciousness. The philosophy of the Renaissance defines:

Aspiration to the person;

Belief in his great spiritual and physical potential;

Life-affirming and optimistic character.

In the second half of the XIV century. was discovered and then increased more and more over the next two centuries (reaching highest point especially in the 15th century) the tendency to give the study of humanistic literature the most great importance and count 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 known, in the relation in which it is to this past: it is the attitude to the culture of the past and to the past that clearly defines the essence of humanism. The 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 its time and its 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. Humanism does not distinguish between the discovery of the ancient world and the discovery of man, because they are all the same; discover ancient world as such, is to measure oneself with it, and separate and relate to it. Determine the time and memory, and the direction of human creation, and earthly affairs, and responsibility. It is no coincidence that the great humanists were for the most part statesmen, active people, whose free creativity in public life was in demand by their time.

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

Oxford University was the first center of humanistic culture in England. From here began to spread the light of a 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 had studied in Italy and had adopted there the foundations of a new philosophy and science. They were passionate admirers of antiquity. Having gone through the school of humanism in Italy, Oxford scholars did not confine themselves to popularizing the achievements of their Italian brethren. They grew up to be independent scientists.

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

The activities of the first English humanists were predominantly scientific and theoretical. They developed general issues religion, philosophy, social life and education. Early English humanism of the early 16th century found its fullest expression in the work of Thomas More.

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

Already among the first significant Russians poets of the XVIII centuries - Lomonosov and Derzhavin - one can find nationalism combined with humanism. No longer holy Rus', but Great Rus' inspires them; the national epic, the intoxication with the greatness of Russia relate wholly to the empirical existence of Russia without any historical and philosophical justification.

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

"Be the master of your passions,

Be on the throne man

This motif of pure humanism is increasingly becoming the crystallization core of the new ideology.

In the spiritual mobilization of the creative forces of Russia, Russian Freemasonry of the 18th and early 19th centuries played an enormous role. On the one hand, it attracted people who were looking for a counterbalance to the atheistic currents of the 18th century, and in this sense it was an expression of the religious demands 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 non-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 age. The 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 an essential role.

All the main features of the future "advanced" intelligentsia were also taking shape - and in the first place here was the consciousness of the duty to serve society, in general, practical idealism. It was the path of ideological life and active 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 equality. But is there a place for humanism in this equality?

What is a utopia?

“Utopia - (from the Greek u - no and topos - a place - that is, a place that does not exist; according to another version, from eu - good and topos - a place, that is, a blessed country), an image of an ideal social system, devoid of scientific justification; genre science fiction; designation for all compositions containing unrealistic plans social transformation.» (« Dictionary living Great Russian language "V. Dahl)

A similar term arose thanks to Thomas More himself.

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

Thomas More lived at the beginning of a new time (1478-1535), when a wave of humanism and the Renaissance swept over all of Europe. Most of More's literary and political works are already 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 brilliant in its design.

The book was written in the then popular genre of "traveler's story". Allegedly, a certain navigator Raphael Gitlodey visited the unknown island of Utopia, social structure whom he was so astounded that he told others about him.

Knowing well the social and moral life of his homeland, the English humanist, Thomas More, was imbued with sympathy for the misfortunes of her masses. These moods 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 prevent Soviet researchers from calling More almost the first communist.

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

Already these deep statements prompted More the main direction of projects and dreams in the second part of "Utopia". Numerous researchers of this work stated not only direct, but also indirect references to the texts and ideas of the Bible (primarily gospel ones), especially ancient and early Christian authors. Of all the works that had the greatest impact on More, Plato's "State" stands out. Many humanists saw Utopia as a long-awaited rival to this greatest creation political thought, a work that 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 the era of that time, Mora's "Utopia" arises, reflecting and originally comprehending the entire depth of the socio-political conflicts of the era of the decomposition of feudalism and the initial accumulation of capital.

After reading More's book, you are very surprised at how much the idea of \u200b\u200bwhat is good for a person and what is bad has changed since More's time. To the ordinary citizen of the 21st century, More's book, which laid the foundation for a whole "genre of utopias", does not at all seem to be a model of an ideal state. Rather, the opposite is true. I really would 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 after that you can be sent to the fields during the harvest. "All men and women have one common occupation - agriculture, from which no one is spared." But on the other hand, Utopians work strictly 6 hours a day, and slaves do all the dirty, hard and dangerous work. The mention of slavery makes you wonder if it's utopian this work? Are the inhabitants so equal in it?

Ideas about universal equality are slightly exaggerated. However, the slaves in “Utopia” do not work for the good of the master, but for the whole society as a whole (by the way, the same thing happened under Stalin, when millions of prisoners worked for free for the good of the Motherland). To become a slave, one must commit a serious crime (including treason or debauchery). Slaves are engaged in hard physical work until the end of their days, but in the case of diligent work they can even be pardoned.

Mora'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 change housing with other families by lot. This is not even a house, but rather a hostel in which many families live - small primary cells local government headed by elected leaders, syphogrants or philarchs. Conducted, of course, common household, eat together, all matters are resolved jointly. There are severe restrictions on freedom of movement, in the event of repeated unauthorized absences you will be punished - by making you a slave.

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

The attitude towards parasites here is very strict - every citizen either works on the land or must master a certain craft (moreover, a useful craft). Only a select few who have shown special abilities are exempt from physical labor and may become scientists or philosophers. Everyone wears the same, the 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 rough skins or skins. There are no frills, everything is just the essentials. Everyone shares the food equally, and all the surplus is given to others, and best products transferred to hospitals. There is no money, and 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, slop tubs, and also to create shameful chains and hoops that are hung on criminals as punishment. All this, according to More, should destroy the citizens' craving for money-grubbing.

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

The prudence and practicality of the author's view are striking. In many ways, he approaches social relations in the society he invented as an engineer who creates the most efficient mechanism. For example, the fact that utopians prefer not to fight, but to bribe their opponents. Or, for example, the custom when people choosing a mate for marriage are required to consider him or her naked.

Any progress in the life of Utopia does not make sense. There are no factors in society that force science and technology to develop, to change attitudes towards certain things. Life, as it is, suits citizens and some kind of deviation is simply not needed.

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

Communism is literally built on the island: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Everyone is obliged to work, being engaged in agriculture and handicrafts. The family is the basic unit of society. Its work is controlled by the state, and what is produced is donated to a common piggy bank. The family is considered a social workshop, and not necessarily based on consanguinity. If children don't like their parents' craft, they can move to another family. It is easy to imagine what kind of unrest this will result in in practice.

Utopians live boring and monotonous. Their whole life is regulated from the very beginning. Lunch, however, is allowed not only in the public dining room, but also in the family. Education is open 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.

More was especially praised by social theorists for the absence of private property on Utopia. In the words of More himself, "wherever there is private property, where everything is measured by money, it is hardly ever possible for the state to be governed justly or happily." And in general, "for public welfare there is only one way - to declare equality in everything."

Utopians strongly condemn the war. But even here this principle is not observed to the end. Naturally, Utopians fight when they defend their borders. But they also fight in the case “when they pity some people oppressed by tyranny.” In addition, “Utopians consider it the most just cause of war when a people does not use their own land, but owns it, as it were, in vain and in vain ". After examining these reasons for the war, we can conclude that the Utopians must fight constantly until they build communism and "peace in the world." Because there is always a reason. Moreover, “Utopia”, in fact, should be an eternal aggressor, because if rational, non-ideological states wage war when it is beneficial for them, then utopians always, 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 aspire?

On this note, I would like to turn to the work of E. Zamyatin “We”. humanism personality mor zamyatin

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

The work of E. Zamyatin is extremely diverse. He wrote a large number of stories and novels, among which the anti-utopia "We" occupies a special place. Dystopia is a genre that is also called negative utopia. This image of such a possible future, which frightens the writer, makes him worry about the fate of mankind, for 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 reports, work on the text continued into 1921). In 1929, the novel was used for massive criticism of E. Zamyatin, and the author was forced to defend himself, justify himself, explain himself, since the novel was regarded as his political mistake and “a manifestation of sabotage to the interests Soviet literature". After another study at the next meeting of the writers' community, E. Zamyatin announced his withdrawal 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 meaningless 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 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 inseparably linked as motion and speed...”. He sarcastically sees happiness in the restriction of freedom.

The narrative is a record-summary of the builder spaceship(in our time he would be called the chief designer). He talks about that period of his life, which he himself 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 see that usually the first sentences indicate the micro-theme of the chapter, and the last gives an outlet for its idea: “The bell. Mirror Sea. I burn forever”, “Yellow. 2D shadow. Incurable soul”, “Author's debt. Ice swells. The hardest love.

What alerts the reader right away? - not "I think", but "we think". The great scientist, a talented engineer, does not realize himself as a person, 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 wears a “number” - D-503. “No one is 'one', but 'one of'. Looking ahead, we can say that in the most bitter moment for him, he will think about his mother: for her, he would not be the Builder of the Integral, number D-503, but would be "a simple human piece - a piece of herself."

World United 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 overlooked streets, squares (“Cube Square. 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." Sterile clear planes of glass make the world of the United State even more lifeless, cold, unreal. The architecture is strictly functional, devoid of the slightest decorations, “unnecessities”, and this is a parody of the aesthetic utopias of the futurists of the early twentieth century, where glass and concrete were sung as new building materials of the technical future.

The inhabitants of the United State are so devoid of individuality that they differ only by index numbers. All life in the One State is based on mathematical, rational foundations: addition, subtraction, division, multiplication. Everyone is a happy arithmetic mean, impersonal, devoid of individuality. The appearance of geniuses is impossible, creative inspiration is perceived as an unknown kind 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 “neglected” builders of the “Integral”, who died while testing the ship, the purpose of which was to “integrate” the universe, is perceived indifferently by numbers.

Individual numbers that have shown a tendency to independent thinking are carried out by the Great Operation to remove fantasy, which kills the ability to think. The question mark - this is evidence of doubt - does not exist in the One State, but in abundance, of course, the exclamation mark.

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

The protagonist of the novel, D-503, cites the story of the "three scapegoats" well known to every schoolchild in the United State. This story is about how three numbers, in the form of experience, were released from work for a month. However, the unfortunate returned to their workplace and spent hours doing those movements that in certain time days were already the need of their body (sawed, planed air, etc.). On the tenth day, unable to stand it, they joined hands and entered the water to the sounds of the march, sinking 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 custodians-spies, has become a need:

"It's so nice to feel someone keen eye, lovingly protecting from the slightest mistake, from the slightest wrong step. Let it sound a little 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 materialized in our lives ... "

On the one hand, the human personality recognizes itself as equal to the whole world, and on the other hand, powerful dehumanizing factors appear and intensify, primarily a technical civilization that introduces a mechanistic, hostile to man the beginning, since the means of the impact of technical civilization on a person, the means of manipulating his consciousness are becoming more powerful, global.

One of critical issues that the author is trying to solve is the question of freedom of choice and freedom in general.

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

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

It is quite obvious that not only equality of rights and opportunities is 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 own kind (thus becoming unequal). But this is the natural desire of everyone.

No social utopia talks about specific people. Everywhere the masses or individual social groups are considered. The individual is nothing in these works. "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. As a result, complete equality is realized, but this is the equality of unfortunate people.

Is it possible for people to be happy in a utopia? Happiness from what? From victories? So they are done by everyone equally. Everyone is involved in it and, at the same time, no one. From lack of exploitation? Thus, in a utopia, it is replaced by social exploitation: a person is forced to work all his life, but not for the capitalist and not for himself, but for society. Moreover, this social exploitation is even more terrible, since here a person has no way out. If, working for a capitalist, you can quit, 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 in Utopia. There is no freedom to move, 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, they want change. But this is not feasible. The society of utopians 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 the development of society, proposed to us by Thomas More, seemed ideal only in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the future, with increasing attention to the individual, they lost all sense of implementation, because if we build a society of the future, then it should be a society of pronounced individuals, a society of strong personalities, and not mediocrities.

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. The ideas of ordering life were characteristic of all the literature of the early years. Soviet power. In our computerized, robotic era, when the “average” person becomes an appendage to the machine, is only able to press 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 danger threatening man and humanity from the hypertrophied power of machines and the power of the state - it doesn’t matter which one.

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. It is impossible to build the world only according to reason, forgetting that a person has a soul. The machine world should not exist without the world, the humane world.

Ideologically, the devices of the Unified State of Zamyatin and Mora's Utopia are very similar. Although there are no mechanisms in Mora's work, the rights and freedoms of people are also squeezed by the vise of certainty and predetermination.

Conclusion

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

Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote about what he saw with his own eyes. At the same time, the thoughts of More and Zamyatin for the most part are only 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, by making people compulsorily equal, denies the possibility of making them happy. After all, a happy person is someone who feels better in something, superior in something to others. He can be richer, smarter, prettier, kinder. Utopians, on the other hand, 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 after all, a person by nature strives for the best for himself. Utopian socialists proposed to punish any deviation from the norm set by the state, while simultaneously trying to change the mentality of a person. Make him an unambitious, obedient robot, a cog in the system.

Zamyatin's anti-utopia, in turn, shows what can happen if this “ideal” of society, proposed by 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, will 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 known the joy of doing what they want, who will bring down the entire system, the entire political system, which happened in our country in the early 90s.

What kind of society can rightfully be called ideal, given the achievements of modern sociological thought? Undoubtedly, it will be a society of complete equality. But equality in rights and opportunities. And it will be a society of complete freedom. Freedom of thought and speech, action and movement. Closest to the described ideal is modern Western society. It has many disadvantages, but it makes people happy. If society is truly ideal, how can there be no freedom in it?

List of used literature

1. http://humanism.ru

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

3. The World History in 10 volumes, V.4. M .: Institute of Social and Economic Literature, 1958.

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

5. Alekseev M.P. " Slavic sources Utopias by Thomas More, 1955

6. Varshavsky A.S. “Ahead of time. Thomas More. Essay on life and activity, 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 the 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/

Hosted on Allbest.ru

What is humanism in works. The concept of humanism

Dictionary of medical terms

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

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

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

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

Big Law Dictionary

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

Similar Documents