Leo Tolstoy about civilization. Tolstoy Leo Tolstoy wrote in an immoral society

Question 1. Find the definitions of the words "personality" and "society" in two or three dictionaries. Compare them. If there are differences in the definition of the same word, try to explain them.

Personality is a person as a social and natural being endowed with consciousness, speech, and creative possibilities.

Personality is a person as a subject of social relations and conscious activity.

Society - An aggregate of people united by the method of producing material goods at a certain stage of historical development, by certain production relations.

Society - A circle of people united by a common position, origin, interests, etc.

Question 3. Read the figurative definitions of society given by thinkers of different times and peoples: "Society is nothing more than the result of a mechanical balance of brute forces", "Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other", " Society is a balance beam that cannot raise some without lowering others. " Which of these definitions comes closest to the characterization of society outlined in this chapter? Give reasons for your choice.

"Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other." Because society in the broadest sense is a form of uniting people with common interests, values ​​and goals.

Question 4. Make, if possible, a complete list of various human qualities (a table of two columns: "Positive qualities", "Negative qualities"). Discuss it in class.

POSITIVE:

modest

frank

sincere

confident

decisive

purposeful

assembled

brave, brave

balanced

calm, cold-blooded

easy-going

generous, generous

resourceful, resourceful, quick-witted

prudent, judicious

sane, sane

compliant, compliant

hardworking

meek, gentle

caring, considerate of others

sympathetic

polite

selfless

merciful, compassionate

witty

cheerful, cheerful

serious

NEGATIVE:

smug, conceited

dishonest

deceitful, sneaky

cunning, cunning

insincere

unconfident,

indecisive

absent-minded

cowardly, cowardly

hot-tempered

unbalanced

evil, cruel

vindictive

stupid, stupid

unreasonable, reckless

cruel

selfish

indifferent, indifferent

rude, impolite

greedy

ruthless, merciless

gloomy, gloomy, gloomy

Question 5. LN Tolstoy wrote: "In an immoral society, all inventions that increase man's power over nature are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil."

How do you understand the words "immoral society"? Considering that the above thought was expressed more than 100 years ago, has it been confirmed in the development of society over the past century? Argument your answer using specific examples.

Immorality is a quality of a person who ignores moral laws in his life. This is a quality that is characterized by a tendency to fulfill the rules and norms of relations that are opposite, directly opposite to those adopted by humanity, a person in faith, in a particular society. Immorality is evil, deceit, theft, idleness, parasitism, debauchery, profanity, debauchery, drunkenness, shamelessness, self-will, etc. Immorality is a state of first of all mental depravity, and then physical, it is always lack of spirituality. The slightest manifestations of immorality in children should cause adults to need to improve the upbringing environment and educational work with them. Adult immorality is fraught with consequences for the entire society.

Question 1. Find the definitions of the words "personality" and "society" in two or three dictionaries. Compare them. If there are differences in the definition of the same word, try to explain them.

Personality is a person as a social and natural being endowed with consciousness, speech, and creative possibilities.

Personality is a person as a subject of social relations and conscious activity.

Society - An aggregate of people united by the method of producing material goods at a certain stage of historical development, by certain production relations.

Society - A circle of people united by a common position, origin, interests, etc.

Question 3. Read the figurative definitions of society given by thinkers of different times and peoples: "Society is nothing more than the result of a mechanical balance of brute forces", "Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other", " Society is a balance beam that cannot raise some without lowering others. " Which of these definitions comes closest to the characterization of society outlined in this chapter? Give reasons for your choice.

"Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other." Because society in the broadest sense is a form of uniting people with common interests, values ​​and goals.

Question 4. Make, if possible, a complete list of various human qualities (a table of two columns: "Positive qualities", "Negative qualities"). Discuss it in class.

POSITIVE:

modest

frank

sincere

confident

decisive

purposeful

assembled

brave, brave

balanced

calm, cold-blooded

easy-going

generous, generous

resourceful, resourceful, quick-witted

prudent, judicious

sane, sane

compliant, compliant

hardworking

meek, gentle

caring, considerate of others

sympathetic

polite

selfless

merciful, compassionate

witty

cheerful, cheerful

serious

NEGATIVE:

smug, conceited

dishonest

deceitful, sneaky

cunning, cunning

insincere

unconfident,

indecisive

absent-minded

cowardly, cowardly

hot-tempered

unbalanced

evil, cruel

vindictive

stupid, stupid

unreasonable, reckless

cruel

selfish

indifferent, indifferent

rude, impolite

greedy

ruthless, merciless

gloomy, gloomy, gloomy

Question 5. LN Tolstoy wrote: "In an immoral society, all inventions that increase man's power over nature are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil."

How do you understand the words "immoral society"? Considering that the above thought was expressed more than 100 years ago, has it been confirmed in the development of society over the past century? Argument your answer using specific examples.

Immorality is a quality of a person who ignores moral laws in his life. This is a quality that is characterized by a tendency to fulfill the rules and norms of relations that are opposite, directly opposite to those adopted by humanity, a person in faith, in a particular society. Immorality is evil, deceit, theft, idleness, parasitism, debauchery, profanity, debauchery, drunkenness, shamelessness, self-will, etc. Immorality is a state of first of all mental depravity, and then physical, it is always lack of spirituality. The slightest manifestations of immorality in children should cause adults to need to improve the upbringing environment and educational work with them. Adult immorality is fraught with consequences for the entire society.

Name any three traits that unite industrial and post-industrial societies.

Answer:

The American scientist F. Fukuyama in his work "The End of History" (1992) put forward the thesis that the history of mankind ended with the triumph of liberal democracy and market economy on a global scale: "Liberalism has no viable alternatives left." Express your attitude to this thesis and substantiate it with three arguments based on the facts of social life and knowledge of the social science course.

Answer:

A comment

In this informative section, knowledge of the most general concepts and problems of the social science course is tested: society, social relations, the systemic nature of society, problems of social progress, the current state and global problems of society. It is the significant degree of theoretical generalization that requires a high level of intellectual and communication skills that makes this material especially difficult.

Graduates experience the greatest difficulties in identifying signs of a systematic society and manifestations of the dynamism of social development. The identified problems can be associated with the nature of the educational material: the assimilation of philosophical categories of a high level of generalization requires serious time expenditures and causes serious difficulties, especially in a group of poorly trained students. It also seems possible to influence the prevailing teaching practice, which is characterized by weak integrative ties, which make it possible, on the basis of other subjects, to show the phenomenon of consistency and dynamism as one of the characteristics of systemic objects.

Let's consider some of the most problematic issues.

The tasks for the content unit “Society as a dynamic system”, with all their formal diversity, essentially boil down to three questions: What is the difference between broad and narrow definitions of society? What are the features of a systematic society? What are the signs of the dynamic nature of society? It is advisable to focus special attention on the consideration of these issues.

The experience of the Unified State Exam shows that the examinees experience the greatest difficulties when performing tasks to highlight the characteristics of society as a dynamic system. While practicing this problem, it is important to distinguish as clearly as possible the systemic features and signs of the dynamism of society: the presence and interconnection of structured elements characterize society as a system (and are inherent in any, including a static system), and the ability to change, self-development is an indicator of its dynamic nature ...

A certain difficulty is the understanding of the following relationship: SOCIETY + NATURE = MATERIAL WORLD. Usually, “nature” is understood as the natural habitat of man and society, which has a qualitative specificity in comparison with society. In the process of development, society has become isolated from nature, but has not lost its connection with it, and together they make up the material, i.e. real world.

The next "problematic" element of the content is "The relationship between the economic, social, political and spiritual spheres of society." The success of the assignments largely depends on the ability to identify the sphere of public life by manifestations. It should be noted that graduates, confidently performing the usual tasks to determine the sphere of public life by manifestation with one choice of answer out of four, find it difficult to analyze a number of manifestations and select several of them related to a certain subsystem of society. Difficulties are also caused by tasks aimed at identifying the relationship of subsystems of society, for example:

The public organization publishes a cultural and educational newspaper at its own expense, in which it criticizes the government's policy towards socially vulnerable groups of the population. What areas of public life are directly affected by this activity?

The algorithm for completing the task is simple - a specific situation (no matter how many spheres of society it has to be correlated) is "decomposed" into its components, it is determined which sphere each of them belongs to, the resulting list of interacting spheres correlates with the proposed one.

The next difficult element of the content is "The variety of ways and forms of social development." Even with the simplest tasks on this topic, about 60% of graduates cope, and in the group of subjects who received a satisfactory mark (“3”) according to the USE results, no more than 45% of the exam participants can identify the characteristic features (or manifestations) of a certain type of society.

In particular, the task that excluded an unnecessary component of the list turned out to be problematic: only 50% of the subjects were able to find a characteristic that did not correspond to the characteristics of a certain type of society. It can be assumed that such results are explained, firstly, by the insufficient time allotted for the study of this topic, and secondly, by the fragmentation of the material between the courses of history and social studies, the program of grades 10 and 11, the lack of proper interdisciplinary integration in the study of this issue, and also little attention to this material in the course of basic school.

To successfully complete tasks on the topic under consideration, it is necessary to clearly understand the characteristics of a traditional, industrial and post-industrial society, learn how to identify their manifestations, compare societies of different types, identifying features of similarity and differences.

As the practice of holding the Unified State Exam has shown, certain difficulties for graduates are presented by the topic "Global problems of our time", which seems to be comprehensively considered in various school courses. When working out this material, it is advisable to clearly define the essence of the concept of "global problems": they are characterized by the fact that they manifest themselves on a global scale; endanger the survival of humanity as a species; their acuteness can be removed by the efforts of all mankind. Further, one can fix the most important global problems (ecological crisis, the problem of preventing a world war, the problem of the "North" and "South", demographic, etc.), identify and concretize their signs using examples of public life. In addition, it is necessary to clearly understand the essence, directions and main manifestations of the globalization process, to be able to analyze the positive and negative consequences of this process.

Tasks for the section "Person"

Both human activity and animal behavior are characterized by

Answer: 2

What is inherent in humans as opposed to animals?

Answer: 4

The statement that a person is a product and subject of social and historical activity is a characteristic of his

Answer: 1

Both man and animal are capable of

Answer: 1

Man is a unity of three components: biological, psychological and social. The social component includes

Answer: 1

Man is a unity of three components: biological, psychological and social. Biologically determined

Answer: 1

Determining the possible consequences of the reform of preferential payments (monetization of benefits) is an activity

Answer: 4

The farmer cultivates the land using special equipment. The subject of this activity is

Tolstoy L.N. Tolstoy L.N.

Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich (1828 - 1910)
Russian writer Aphorisms, quotes - Tolstoy L.N. - biography
All thoughts that have huge consequences are always simple. Our good qualities harm us more in life than our bad ones. A person is like a fraction: in the denominator - what he thinks of himself, in the numerator - what he really is. The larger the denominator, the smaller the fraction. Happy is he who is happy at home. Vanity ... It must be a characteristic feature and a special disease of our century. We must always marry in the same way as we die, that is, only when it is impossible otherwise. Time passes, but the spoken word remains. Happiness is not always doing what you want, but always wanting what you do. Most men demand virtues from their wives that they themselves are not worth. All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Be truthful even in relation to the child: keep your promise, otherwise you will teach him to lie. If a teacher has only love for the work, he will be a good teacher. If a teacher has only love for a student, like a father, a mother, he will be better than the teacher who has read all the books, but has no love either for the work or for the students. If a teacher combines love for work and for students, he is a perfect teacher. All the troubles of people come not so much from the fact that they did not do what is needed, but from the fact that they do what they do not need to do. In an immoral society, all inventions that increase man's power over nature are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil. Labor is not a virtue, but an inevitable condition for a virtuous life. Your country breeds only moneybags. In the years before and after the Civil War, the spiritual life of your people flourished and bore fruit. Now you are miserable materialists. (1903, from conversation with American journalist James Creelman) The easier it is for a teacher to teach, the more difficult it is for students to learn. For the most part, it happens that you argue hotly only because you cannot understand in any way what the enemy wants to prove. Freeing oneself from labor is a crime. Say what you like, but the native language will always remain native. When you want to speak to your heart, not a single French word will enter your head, but if you want to shine, then it's another matter. America, I'm afraid, only believes in the almighty dollar. Not the teacher who receives the upbringing and education of a teacher, but the one who has the inner confidence that he is, should and cannot be otherwise. This confidence is rare and can only be proven by the sacrifices one makes to his calling. You can only hate life as a result of apathy and laziness. One girl was asked what is the most important person, what is the most important time and what is the most important thing? And she replied, thinking that the most important person is the one you are communicating with at the moment, the most important time is the one in which you live now, and the most important thing is to do good to the person with whom you are dealing at any given moment. " (the idea of ​​one story) The most common and widespread reason for lying is the desire to deceive not people, but themselves. One must live so as not to be afraid of death and not to desire it. A woman who tries to be like a man is as ugly as an effeminate man. A person's morality is visible in his attitude to the word. The undoubted sign of true science is the consciousness of the insignificance of what you know, in comparison with what is revealed. A slave, content with his position, is doubly a slave, because not only his body is in slavery, but also his soul. The fear of death is inversely proportional to the good life. We love people for the good that we have done to them, and we do not love for the evil that we have done to them. A cowardly friend is more terrible than an enemy, for you fear the enemy, but you rely on a friend. The word is the deed. Destroying each other in wars, we, like spiders in a bank, can not come to anything else but to destroy each other. If you are in doubt and do not know how to act, imagine that you will die by evening, and the doubt is immediately resolved: it is immediately clear that it is a matter of duty and that it is personal desires. The most pitiful slave is a person who gives up his mind into slavery and recognizes as truth what his mind does not recognize. The smarter and kinder a person is, the more he notices goodness in people. Women, like queens, hold nine-tenths of the human race captive in slavery and toil. And all because of the fact that they were humiliated, deprived of their equal rights with men. Destroy one vice and ten will disappear. Nothing confuses the concept of art so much as the recognition of authorities. All art has two deviations from the path: vulgarity and artificiality. If how many heads - so many minds, then how many hearts - so many kinds of love. The best proof that the fear of death is not the fear of death, but of a false life, is that often people kill themselves from the fear of death. A lot is needed for art, but the main thing is fire! Great objects of art are great only because they are accessible and understandable to everyone. The main property in any art is a sense of proportion. The ideal is a guiding star. Without it, there is no firm direction, and there is no direction - there is no life. It always seems that we are loved because we are good. And we do not realize that they love us because those who love us are good. To love is to live the life of the one you love. It is not shameful and harmful not to know, but it is shameful and harmful to pretend that you know what you do not know. Upbringing is a difficult task only as long as we want, without educating ourselves, to raise our children or anyone else. If you understand that we can educate others only through ourselves, then the question of upbringing is eliminated and one question remains: how should one live? Only then is it easy to live with a person when you do not consider yourself higher, better than him, or him higher and better than yourself. Previously, they feared that objects that corrupted people would be included in the number of art objects, and they forbade everything. Now they are only afraid of losing some of the pleasure that art gives, and they patronize everyone. I think that the latter delusion is much cruder than the first and that its consequences are much more harmful. Do not be afraid of ignorance, be afraid of false knowledge. From him all the evil of the world. There is a strange, deep-rooted misconception that cooking, sewing, washing, babysitting are exclusively women's business, that it is even a shame for a man to do this. Meanwhile, the opposite is insulting: it is a shame for a man, often unemployed, to spend time on trifles or do nothing while a tired, often weak, pregnant woman, through force, cooks, washes or nurses a sick child. A good actor can, it seems to me, perfectly play the most stupid things and thus increase their harmful influence. Stop talking as soon as you notice that you are annoyed yourself or the person you are talking to. The unspoken word is golden. If I were a king, I would have issued a law that a writer who uses a word whose meaning he cannot explain is deprived of the right to write and receives a hundred blows of the rods. It is not the quantity of knowledge that is important, but its quality. You can know a lot without knowing what you need to know. Knowledge is only knowledge when it is acquired by the efforts of one's own thought, and not by memory. __________ "War and Peace", volume 1 *), 1863 - 1869 He spoke that exquisite French language, which not only spoke, but also thought our grandfathers, and with those quiet, patronizing intonations that are characteristic of a significant person who has grown old in society and at court. - (about Prince Vasily Kuragin) Influence in the world is capital that must be protected so that it does not disappear. Prince Vasily knew this, and, once realizing that if he began to ask for everyone who asked him, then soon he would not be able to ask for himself, he rarely used his influence. - (Prince Vasily Kuragin) Living rooms, gossip, balls, vanity, insignificance - this is a vicious circle from which I cannot escape. [...] and Anna Pavlovna listens to me. And this is a stupid society, without which my wife cannot live, and these women ... If only you could know what all these women of a good society and women in general are all about! My father is right. Selfishness, vanity, stupidity, insignificance in everything - these are women when everything is shown as they are. You look at them in the light, it seems that there is something, but nothing, nothing, nothing! - (Prince Andrey Bolkonsky) Bilibin's conversation was constantly peppered with original, witty, complete phrases of common interest. These phrases were made in Bilibin's internal laboratory, as if on purpose, of a portable nature, so that insignificant secular people could conveniently memorize them and transfer them from living rooms to living rooms. The gentlemen who visited Bilibin, secular, young, rich and cheerful people, formed a separate circle both in Vienna and here, which Bilibin, who was the head of this circle, called ours, les nфtres. This circle, which consisted almost exclusively of diplomats, apparently had its own interests of high society, attitudes towards some women and the clerical side of the service, which had nothing to do with war and politics. Prince Vasily did not consider his plans. He even less thought to do evil to people in order to gain profit. He was only a secular person who succeeded in the world and made a habit out of this success. He constantly, depending on the circumstances, according to the rapprochement with people, various plans and considerations were drawn up, in which he himself did not give himself a good account, but which constituted the whole interest of his life. Not one or not two such plans and considerations were in use for him, but dozens of which some were just beginning to appear to him, others were achieved, and still others were destroyed. He did not say to himself, for example: "This man is now in power, I must acquire his trust and friendship and through him arrange a lump sum for myself," or he did not say to himself: "Here Pierre is rich, I must lure him into marrying my daughter and borrow the 40 thousand I need "; but a man in strength met him, and at the same moment instinct told him that this man could be useful, and Prince Vasily approached him and at the first opportunity, without preparation, by instinct, flattered, became familiar, talked about than necessary. For such a young girl and such tact, such a masterful self-control! It comes from the heart! Happy will be the one whose it will be! With her, the most unseemly husband will involuntarily occupy the most brilliant place in the world. (Anna Pavlovna to Pierre Bezukhov about Helen) Prince Andrew, like all people who grew up in the world, loved to meet in the world that which did not have a common secular imprint. And such was Natasha, with her surprise, joy and timidity, and even mistakes in French. He treated and talked to her especially tenderly and carefully. Sitting beside her, talking to her about the simplest and most insignificant subjects, Prince Andrey admired the joyful sparkle of her eyes and her smile, which was not related to the speeches being spoken, but to her inner happiness. Anna Pavlovna's drawing room began to fill up little by little. The highest nobility of St. Petersburg has arrived, people of the most heterogeneous age and character, but the same in society, in which they all lived [...] - Have you seen it yet? or: - are you not familiar with ma tante? (auntie) - Anna Pavlovna said to the visiting guests and very seriously led them to a little old woman in high bows, who swam out of the other room, as soon as guests began to arrive [...] All the guests performed the ceremony of greeting an unknown, uninteresting and unnecessary aunt to anyone. Anna Pavlovna with sad, solemn participation followed their greetings, silently approving them. Ma tante spoke to everyone in the same terms about his health, about her health and about the health of Her Majesty, which, thank God, was better today. All those who approached, out of decency without showing haste, with a sense of relief from the heavy duty they had fulfilled, left the old woman so that they would never come to her all evening. [...] Anna Pavlovna returned to her studies as a mistress of the house and continued to listen and look closely, ready to give help at the point where the conversation was weakening. As the owner of the spinning workshop, having seated the workers in their places, walks through the institution, noticing the immobility or the unusual, creaking, too loud sound of the spindle, hurrying, holding it back or setting it in a proper course, so Anna Pavlovna, walking around her living room, approached the silenced or a circle who spoke too much and, with one word or movement, again started a uniform, decent talking machine. [...] For Pierre, brought up abroad, this evening of Anna Pavlovna was the first that he saw in Russia. He knew that the entire intelligentsia of St. Petersburg was gathered here, and his eyes were dizzy like a child in a toy shop. He was all afraid to miss the clever talk he might hear. Looking at the confident and graceful expressions of the faces gathered here, he kept expecting something particularly clever. [...] Anna Pavlovna's evening was started. The spindles from different sides evenly and incessantly made noise. Except for ma tante, near which sat only one elderly lady with a tear-stained, thin face, somewhat stranger in this brilliant society, the society was divided into three circles. In one, more masculine, the center was the abbot; in another, young, the beautiful Princess Helene, the daughter of Prince Vasily, and the pretty, ruddy, too plump in her youth, little Princess Bolkonskaya. In the third, Mortemar and Anna Pavlovna. The Viscount was a handsome young man, with gentle features and methods, who obviously considered himself a celebrity, but, out of good manners, modestly left himself to be used by the society in which he found himself. Anna Pavlovna, obviously, treated her guests to them. Just as a good maître d'hotel serves as something supernaturally beautiful that piece of beef that you don't want to eat if you see it in a dirty kitchen, so this evening Anna Pavlovna served her guests first a viscount, then an abbot, as something supernaturally refined.

On the third day of the holidays, there was supposed to be one of those balls at Iogel's (dance teacher), which he gave on holidays to all his pupils and female students. [...] Iogel had the funniest balls in Moscow. Mothers said this, looking at their adolescentes (girls) practicing their newly learned steps; adolescentes and adolescents themselves said it (girls and boys) dancing until you drop; these adult girls and young people who came to these balls with the idea of ​​condescending to them and finding the best fun in them. In the same year, two marriages took place at these balls. Two pretty princesses Gorchakovs found suitors and got married, and all the more they let these balls into glory. What was special at these balls was that there was no host or hostess: there was, like a fluff flying, according to the rules of art, scuffling, good-natured Yogel, who accepted tickets for lessons from all his guests; was that only those who wanted to dance and have fun, as 13 and 14-year-old girls, who put on long dresses for the first time, still went to these balls. All, with rare exceptions, were or seemed pretty: so enthusiastically they all smiled and so flared up their eyes. Sometimes even the best students danced pas de ch? Le, of which the best was Natasha, who was distinguished by her gracefulness; but at this last ball only the Ecossaises, the Angleses and the mazurka, which was just becoming fashionable, were danced. The hall was taken by Yogel to the house of Bezukhov, and the ball was a great success, as everyone said. There were many pretty girls, and the Rostov girls were among the best. They were both especially happy and cheerful. That evening Sonya, proud of Dolokhov's proposal, her refusal and her explanation with Nikolai, was still spinning at home, not allowing the girl to dash her braids, and now she shone through and through with impetuous joy. Natasha, no less proud that she was in a long dress for the first time, at a real ball, was even happier. Both wore white muslin dresses with pink ribbons. Natasha became in love from the very minute she entered the ball. She was not in love with anyone in particular, but she was in love with everyone. She was in love with the one she was looking at the minute she looked. [...] They played the newly introduced mazurka; Nikolai could not refuse Iogel and invited Sonya. Denisov sat down with the old ladies and, leaning his elbows on his saber, stamping the beat, told something merrily and amused the old ladies, looking at the dancing youth. Iogel in the first pair danced with Natasha, his pride and best student. Softly, gently fingering his feet in shoes, Yogel was the first to fly across the hall with Natasha, who was timid but diligently making a pas. Denisov did not take his eyes off her and tapped time with his saber, with an air that clearly said that he himself did not dance only from what he didn’t want, and not from what he couldn’t. In the middle of the figure, he beckoned Rostov, who was passing by. - It's not that at all. Is this a Polish mazurka "ka? And he dances well.” “Knowing that Denisov was even famous in Poland for his skill in dancing the Polish mazurka, Nikolai ran up to Natasha:“ Go, choose Denisov. He’s dancing! A miracle! ”He said. When he came back again Natasha's turn, she got up and quickly fingering her shoes with bows, shyly, she ran alone across the hall to the corner where Denisov was sitting. [...] He came out from behind the chairs, firmly took his lady by the hand, lifted his head and put his leg Only on the horse and in the mazurka was Denisov's small stature not visible, and he seemed to be the same fellow as he felt himself. After waiting for the beat, he glanced at his lady from the side, victorious and playfully, unexpectedly tapped with one foot and, like a ball, resiliently bounced off the floor and flew along in a circle, dragging his lady along with him. snapping his spurs and spreading his legs, he stopped he stood there for a second, kicked his feet in one place with a crash of spurs, spun quickly and, clicking his right foot with his left foot, again flew in a circle. Natasha guessed what he intended to do, and, not knowing how, watched him - surrendering herself to him. Now he circled her, now on his right, now on his left hand, now falling to his knees, he drew her around him, and again jumped up and started forward with such impetuosity, as if he intended to run across all the rooms without catching his breath; then suddenly he stopped again and did again a new and unexpected knee. When he, briskly circling the lady in front of her place, snapped his spur, bowing before her, Natasha did not even sit down to him. She stared at him in bewilderment, smiling as if she did not recognize him. - What is it? she said. Despite the fact that Yogel did not recognize this mazurka as a real one, everyone was delighted with Denisov's skill, they constantly began to choose him, and the old people, smiling, began to talk about Poland and the good old days. Denisov, flushed from the mazurka and wiping himself with a handkerchief, sat down with Natasha and the whole ball did not leave her. "War and Peace", volume 4 *), 1863 - 1869 The science of law views the state and power, as the ancients viewed fire, as something absolutely existing. For history, the state and power are only phenomena, just as for the physics of our time, fire is not an element, but a phenomenon. It is from this fundamental difference between the views of history and the science of law that the science of law can tell in detail how, in its opinion, power should be arranged and what power is that exists motionless outside of time; but it cannot answer historical questions about the meaning of power, which changes over time. The life of nations does not fit into the life of several people, for the connection between these several people and nations has not been found. The theory that this connection is based on the transfer of the totality of wills to historical figures is a hypothesis that is not confirmed by the experience of history. *) Text "War and Peace", volume 1 - in the Library of Maxim Moshkov The text "War and Peace", volume 2 - in the Library of Maxim Moshkov The text "War and Peace", volume 3 - in the Library of Maxim Moshkov The text "War and Peace", volume 4 - in the Library of Maxim Moshkov "War and Peace", volume 3 *), 1863 - 1869 The actions of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose words depended, it seemed, whether the event would happen or not, were just as little arbitrary as the actions of every soldier who went on a campaign by lot or by recruitment. It could not be otherwise, because in order for the will of Napoleon and Alexander (those people on whom the event seemed to depend) to be fulfilled, the coincidence of countless circumstances was necessary, without one of which the event could not have happened. It was necessary that millions of people, in whose hands there was real power, the soldiers who fired, carried provisions and guns, it was necessary that they agree to fulfill this will of single and weak people and be led to this by countless complex, varied reasons. Fatalism in history is inevitable for explaining unreasonable phenomena (that is, those whose rationality we do not understand). The more we try to reasonably explain these phenomena in history, the more unreasonable and incomprehensible they become for us. Each person lives for himself, uses freedom to achieve his personal goals and feels with his whole being that he can now do or not do such and such an action; but as soon as he does it, this action, performed at a certain moment in time, becomes irreversible and becomes the property of history, in which it has not a free, but a predetermined meaning. There are two sides of life in every person: personal life, which is the more free, the more abstract its interests, and spontaneous, swarm life, where a person inevitably fulfills the laws prescribed to him. A person consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious instrument for achieving historical, universal human goals. A perfect deed is irreversible, and its action, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, acquires historical significance. The higher a person stands on the social ladder, the more people he is associated with, the more power he has over other people, the more obvious the predetermination and inevitability of his every action. When the apple is ripe and falls, why does it fall? Is it because it gravitates towards the earth, because the rod dries up, because it dries up by the sun, because it grows heavy, because the wind shakes it, because the boy standing below wants to eat it? Nothing is the reason. All this is just a coincidence of the conditions under which any vital, organic, spontaneous event takes place. And the botanist who finds that the apple falls because the fiber is decomposing and the like will be just as right and just as wrong as the child standing below who says that the apple fell because he wanted to eat him and that he prayed about it. Just as right and wrong will be the one who says that Napoleon went to Moscow because he wanted it, and because he died, because Alexander wanted his destruction: how right and wrong will be the one who says that the one that has fallen into a million poods the mountain that was dug fell because the last worker struck under it one last time with a pick. In historical events, the so-called great people are labels that give names to the event, which, like labels, have the least connection with the event itself. Each of their actions, which seems to them to be arbitrary for themselves, is in the historical sense involuntary, but is in connection with the entire course of history and is determined eternally. “I don’t understand what a skillful commander means,” said Prince Andrei with a sneer. - A skillful commander, well, the one who foresaw all accidents ... well, he guessed the thoughts of the enemy. - (Pierre Bezukhov)“Yes, it’s impossible,” said Prince Andrei, as if about a long-decided case. - However, they say that war is like a chess game. - (Pierre Bezukhov)- Yes, only with that small difference that in chess you can think as much as you like over every step, that you are there outside the conditions of time, and with the difference that a knight is always stronger than a pawn and two pawns are always stronger than one, and in war one the battalion is sometimes stronger than the division, and sometimes weaker than the company. The relative strength of the troops is unknown to anyone. Believe me, if what depended on the orders of the headquarters, then I would be there and make orders, and instead I have the honor to serve here in the regiment with these gentlemen, and I think that tomorrow will really depend on us, and not on them ... Success has never depended and will not depend either on position, or on weapons, or even on numbers; and least of all from the position. - (Prince Andrey Bolkonsky)- And from what? - From the feeling that is in me ... in every soldier. ... The battle will be won by the one who is determined to win it. Why did we lose the battle at Austerlitz? Our loss was almost equal to that of the French, but we told ourselves very early that we had lost the battle - and we lost. And we said this because we had no reason to fight there: we wanted to leave the battlefield as soon as possible. - (Prince Andrey Bolkonsky) War is not a courtesy, but the most disgusting thing in life, and one must understand this and not play war. This terrible necessity must be taken strictly and seriously. This is all: throw away the lie, and war is so war, not a toy. And then war is the favorite pastime of idle and frivolous people ... The military class is the most honorable. And what is war, what is needed for success in military affairs, what are the customs of a military society? The purpose of the war is murder, the weapons of war are espionage, treason and its encouragement, ruining the inhabitants, robbing them or stealing for the food of the army; deception and lies called military tricks; the morals of the military class - the absence of freedom, that is, discipline, indolence, ignorance, cruelty, debauchery, drunkenness. And despite the fact - this is the upper class, revered by all. All kings, except for the Chinese, wear a military uniform, and they give a great reward to the one who killed more people ... that they have beaten many people (of which the number is still being added), and they proclaim victory, believing that the more people are beaten, the greater the merit. How God looks from there and listens to them! - (Prince Andrey Bolkonsky) (Kutuzov) he listened to reports brought to him, gave orders when required by his subordinates; but, listening to the reports, he seemed not to be interested in the meaning of the words that were being told to him, but something else in the expression of the persons who reported in the tone of speech interested him. With many years of military experience, he knew and with his senile mind understood that it was impossible for one person to lead hundreds of thousands of people fighting death, and he knew that the fate of the battle was not decided by the orders of the commander-in-chief, not the place where the troops were stationed, not the number of guns and killed people, and that elusive force, called the spirit of the army, and he followed this force and led it, as far as it was in his power. The militiamen brought Prince Andrey to the forest, where the trucks were parked and where there was a dressing station. ... Around the tents, more than two tithes of space, lay, sat, stood bloody people in various clothes. ... Prince Andrey, as a regimental commander, walking through the unbound wounded, was carried closer to one of the tents and stopped, awaiting orders. ... One of the doctors ... came out of the tent. ... Having moved his head to the right and to the left for a while, he sighed and lowered his eyes. “Well, now,” he said to the words of the paramedic, who pointed out to him Prince Andrey, and ordered him to be carried to the tent. A murmur arose in the crowd of awaiting wounded. - It can be seen, and in the next world to live alone. Several tens of thousands of people lay dead in different positions and uniforms in the fields and meadows that belonged to the Davydovs and state-owned peasants, in those fields and meadows where for hundreds of years the peasants of the villages of Borodin, Gorki, Shevardin and Semenovsky had simultaneously harvested and grazed their livestock. At the dressing stations for the tithe of the place, the grass and earth were soaked in blood. ... Above the whole field, previously so cheerful and beautiful, with its glittering bayonets and smoke in the morning sun, there was now a haze of dampness and smoke and smelled of a strange acid of saltpeter and blood. Clouds gathered, and began to drizzle on the dead, on the wounded, on the frightened, and on the exhausted and doubting people. It was as if he was saying, "Enough, enough, people. Stop ... Come to your senses. What are you doing?" Exhausted, without food and without rest, people of both sides began to equally doubt whether they should still exterminate each other, and there was a noticeable hesitation on all faces, and the question was raised in every soul equally: “Why, for whom should I kill and be killed? Kill whoever you want, do what you want, but I don't want any more! " By the evening, this thought had matured equally in the soul of everyone. At any moment, all these people could be horrified at what they were doing, abandon everything and run anywhere. But although by the end of the battle people felt all the horror of their act, although they would have been glad to stop, some incomprehensible, mysterious force still continued to guide them, and, sweating, covered in gunpowder and blood, remaining one by three, the artillerymen, although stumbling and panting with fatigue, they brought charges, charged, directed, applied wicks; and the nuclei just as quickly and cruelly flew over from both sides and flattened the human body, and the terrible deed continued, which is not done at the will of people, but at the will of the one who leads people and worlds. "But whenever there were conquests, there were conquerors; whenever there were coups in the state, there were great people," history says. Indeed, whenever the conquerors appeared, there were wars, the human mind answers, but this does not prove that the conquerors were the causes of wars and that it was possible to find the laws of war in the personal activities of one person. Whenever I, looking at my watch, see that the hand has approached ten, I hear that the gospel begins in a neighboring church, but from the fact that every time that the hand comes at ten o'clock when the gospel begins, I I have no right to conclude that the position of the arrow is the reason for the movement of the bells. The activity of the commander has not the slightest resemblance to the activity that we imagine to ourselves, sitting freely in the office, sorting out some campaign on the map with a known number of troops, from one side and the other, and in a certain area, and starting our considerations with some famous moment. The commander-in-chief is never in those conditions of the beginning of an event, in which we always consider the event. The commander-in-chief is always in the middle of a moving series of events, and so that never, at any moment, is he in a position to ponder the entire meaning of the event taking place. The event is imperceptible, moment by moment, is carved into its meaning, and at every moment of this sequential, continuous cutting out of the event, the commander-in-chief is in the center of a complex game, intrigue, worries, dependence, power, projects, advice, threats, deceptions, is constantly in the need to answer to the innumerable number of questions offered to him, always contradicting one another. This event - the abandonment of Moscow and the burning of it - was as inevitable as the retreat of troops without a fight for Moscow after the Battle of Borodino. Every Russian person, not on the basis of inferences, but on the basis of the feeling that lies in us and lay in our fathers, could predict what happened. ... The consciousness that this will be so, and always will be so, lay and lies in the soul of the Russian person. And this consciousness and, moreover, the presentiment that Moscow would be taken, lay in the Russian Moscow society of the 12th year. Those who began to leave Moscow in July and early August showed that they were expecting this. ... "It's a shame to run from danger; only cowards run from Moscow," they were told. Rostopchin in his posters inspired them that it was shameful to leave Moscow. They were ashamed to receive the name of cowards, they were ashamed to go, but they still went, knowing that it was necessary. Why did they go? It cannot be assumed that Rostopchin frightened them with the horrors that Napoleon produced in the conquered lands. They left, and the first to leave were rich, educated people who knew very well that Vienna and Berlin remained intact and that there, during their occupation by Napoleon, the inhabitants had fun with the charming French, whom Russian men and especially ladies were so fond of at that time. They went because for the Russian people there could be no question: will it be good or bad under the control of the French in Moscow. It was impossible to be under the control of the French: it was the worst of all. The totality of the causes of phenomena is inaccessible to the human mind. But the need to look for reasons is embedded in the soul of man. And the human mind, not grasping the infinity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, of which each separately can be considered a cause, grabs the first, most understandable rapprochement and says: this is the reason. In historical events (where the subject of observation is the essence of the actions of people), the will of the gods is the most primitive rapprochement, then the will of those people who stand in the most prominent historical place - historical heroes. But one has only to delve into the essence of each historical event, that is, into the activities of the entire mass of people who participated in the event, in order to make sure that the will of the historical hero not only does not direct the actions of the masses, but is itself constantly guided. One of the most tangible and beneficial deviations from the so-called rules of war is the action of scattered people against people huddled together. This kind of action always manifests itself in a war that takes on a popular character. These actions consist in the fact that, instead of becoming crowd against crowd, people disperse, attack one by one and immediately flee when they are attacked by large forces, and then attack again when the opportunity presents itself. This was done by the guerillas in Spain; this was done by the highlanders in the Caucasus; the Russians did it in 1812. War of this kind was called partisan and it was believed that by calling it that, they explained its meaning. Meanwhile, this kind of war not only does not fit any rules, but is directly opposite to the well-known and recognized as an infallible tactical rule. This rule says that the attacker must concentrate his troops in order to be stronger than the enemy at the moment of battle. Guerrilla warfare (always successful, as history shows) is directly opposed to this rule. This contradiction arises from the fact that military science assumes the strength of troops to be identical with their number. Military science says that the more troops, the more strength. When it is no longer possible to stretch further such elastic threads of historical reasoning, when action is already clearly contrary to what all humanity calls good and even justice, historians have a salutary concept of greatness. Greatness seems to exclude the possibility of measuring good and bad. For the great, there is no evil. There is no horror that could be blamed on the great. "C" est grand! " (This is magnificent!) - say historians, and then there is no good or bad, but there are "grand" and "not grand". Grand is good, not grand is bad. Grand is the property, according to their concepts, of some special animals, which they call heroes. And Napoleon, getting home in a warm fur coat from the dying not only comrades, but (in his opinion) the people he brought here, feels que c "est grand, and his soul is at peace. ... And no one would think that recognition greatness, immeasurable by the measure of good and bad, is only the recognition of our insignificance and immeasurable smallness. For us, with the measure of good and bad given to us by Christ, there is no immeasurable. And there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth. When a person sees a dying animal , horror seizes him: what is he himself - his essence is obviously destroyed in his eyes - ceases to be. , which, like a physical wound, sometimes kills, sometimes heals, but always hurts and is afraid of external annoying touch. In the 12th and 13th years, Kutuzov was directly accused of mistakes. neda Apparently by the highest command, it is said that Kutuzov was a cunning court liar, afraid of the name of Napoleon and by his mistakes at Krasny and Berezina, deprived the Russian troops of glory - a complete victory over the French. This is not the fate of great people, not grand-homme, whom the Russian mind does not recognize, but the fate of those rare, always lonely people who, comprehending the will of Providence, subordinate their personal will to it. The hatred and contempt of the crowd punish these people for the enlightenment of the higher laws. For Russian historians - it is strange and scary to say - Napoleon is the most insignificant instrument of history - never and nowhere, even in exile, who did not show human dignity - Napoleon is an object of admiration and delight; he is grand. Kutuzov, the person who, from the beginning to the end of his activity in 1812, from Borodino to Vilna, never once by any action, not betrayed himself by a word, is an extraordinary example of selflessness and consciousness in the present of the future meaning of an event in history, - Kutuzov seems to them to be something vague and pathetic, and, speaking of Kutuzov and the 12th year, they always seem to be a little ashamed. And yet it is difficult to imagine a historical person whose activity would be so invariably constantly directed towards one and the same goal. It is difficult to imagine a goal more worthy and more in line with the will of the entire people. It is even more difficult to find another example in history, where the goal set by a historical person would be as completely achieved as the goal towards which all of Kutuzov's activities were directed in 1812. A simple, modest and therefore truly majestic figure, this (Kutuzov) I could not lie down in that deceitful form of the European hero, who supposedly ruled over people, which history had invented. For a lackey, there cannot be a great person, because a lackey has his own concept of greatness. If we assume, as historians do, that great people lead humanity to the achievement of certain goals, consisting either in the greatness of Russia or France, or in the equilibrium of Europe, or in spreading the ideas of revolution, or in general progress, or whatever, it is impossible to explain the phenomena of history without the concepts of chance and genius. ... "Chance made the situation; genius took advantage of it," history says. But what is the case? What is genius? The words chance and genius do not denote anything that really exists and therefore cannot be defined. These words only denote a certain degree of understanding of phenomena. I do not know why such and such a phenomenon is happening; I think I cannot know; therefore I don’t want to know and say: chance. I see a force that produces an action disproportionate to universal human properties; I don’t understand why this is happening, and I say: genius. For a herd of rams, that ram that every evening is driven away by the shepherd to a special stall to the stern and becomes twice as thick as the others must seem like a genius. And the fact that every evening this very ram does not end up in a common sheepfold, but in a special stall with oats, and that this very same ram, drenched in fat, is killed for meat, must seem to be an amazing combination of genius with a number of extraordinary accidents ... But the rams have only to stop thinking that everything that is done to them happens only to achieve their ram's goals; it is worth admitting that the events taking place with them may have goals that they do not understand, - and they will immediately see the unity, consistency in what happens to the fattening ram. If they don’t know for what purpose he was fattening, then at least they will know that everything that happened to the ram did not happen by accident, and they would no longer need the concept of either an incident or a genius. Only by renouncing the knowledge of a close, understandable goal and recognizing that the ultimate goal is inaccessible to us, will we see consistency and expediency in the lives of historical figures; we will discover the reason for the action they perform, disproportionate to the universal human properties, and we will not need the words chance and genius. Having renounced the knowledge of the ultimate goal, we will clearly understand that just as it is impossible to invent other colors and seeds more appropriate to it for any plant than those that it produces, just as it is impossible to invent two other people, with everything their past, which would correspond to such an extent, to such the smallest detail, to the purpose that they were to fulfill. The subject of history is the life of peoples and humanity. It seems impossible to directly catch and embrace with a word - to describe the life of not only humanity, but one people. All ancient historians used the same technique in order to describe and capture the seemingly elusive - the life of the people. They described the activities of individual people who rule over the people; and this activity expressed for them the activity of the whole people. The ancients answered the questions about how individual people forced the peoples to act according to their own will and how the will of these people was controlled: the first question was the recognition of the will of the deity, which subordinated the peoples to the will of one chosen person; and on the second question - by the recognition of the same deity who directed this will of the chosen one to the intended goal. For the ancients, these questions were resolved by faith in the direct participation of the deity in the affairs of mankind. Modern history in theory rejected both of these positions. It would seem that, having rejected the beliefs of the ancients about the subordination of people to deity and about a specific goal towards which the peoples are led, the new history should have studied not the manifestations of power, but the reasons that form it. But new history did not do this. Having rejected the views of the ancients in theory, she follows them in practice. Instead of people gifted with divine power and directly guided by the will of a deity, the new history has put either heroes gifted with extraordinary, inhuman abilities, or simply people of the most diverse properties, from monarchs to journalists, leading the masses. Instead of the previous, pleasing to the deity, goals of peoples: Jewish, Greek, Roman, which the ancients considered the goals of the movement of mankind, the new history set its own goals - the benefits of the French, Germanic, English and, in its highest abstraction, the goals of the benefit of civilization of all mankind, under which they usually mean the peoples occupying the small northwestern corner of the large continent. As long as the stories of individuals are written - whether they are Caesars, Alexandra or Luthera and Voltaire, and not the history of all, without one exception, all people taking part in the event - there is no way to describe the movement of mankind without a concept of the force that compels people to direct their activities towards one goal. And the only such concept known to historians is power. Power is the aggregate of the wills of the masses, transferred by expressed or tacit consent to the rulers elected by the masses. Historical science up to now in relation to the issues of mankind is similar to circulating money - bank notes and hard currency. Biographical and private folk stories are like banknotes. They can walk and turn, satisfying their purpose, without harm to anyone, and even with benefit, until the question arises of what they are provided with. One has only to forget about the question of how the will of the heroes produces events, and the stories of Thiers will be interesting, instructive and, moreover, will have a touch of poetry. But just as doubt about the true value of the pieces of paper arises either from the fact that since they are easy to make, they will start to make a lot of them, or from the fact that they want to take gold for them - in the same way, doubt arises about the true meaning of the stories. of this kind - either because there are too many of them, or because someone in the simplicity of his soul asks: by what power did Napoleon do this? that is, he wants to exchange a walking piece of paper for the pure gold of a real concept. General historians and historians of culture are like people who, recognizing the inconvenience of banknotes, would decide instead of a piece of paper to make a hard currency from a metal that does not have the density of gold. And the coin would really come out ringing, but only ringing. The piece of paper could still deceive those who do not know; and a coin that is clear, but not valuable, cannot deceive anyone. Just as gold is then only gold, when it can be used not for one exchange, but for business, so general historians will be gold only when they are able to answer the essential question of history: what is power? General historians answer this question in a contradictory way, while cultural historians dismiss it altogether, answering something completely different. And just as tokens similar to gold can only be used between a gathering of people who have agreed to recognize them as gold, and between those who do not know the properties of gold, so general historians and cultural historians, without answering the essential questions of mankind, for which then their goals serve as a walking coin to universities and a crowd of readers - hunters for serious books, as they call it. "War and Peace", volume 2 *), 1863 - 1869 On December 31, on the eve of the new year 1810, there was a ball at the Catherine's grandee. The ball was supposed to be a diplomatic corps and a sovereign. On the Promenade des Anglais, the famous house of the nobleman shone with countless illumination lights. At the lighted entrance with a red cloth stood the police, and not only gendarmes, but a police chief at the entrance and dozens of police officers. The carriages drove off, and all new ones arrived, with red footmen and footmen in feathers on their hats. Men in uniforms, stars and ribbons emerged from the carriages; ladies in satin and ermines cautiously walked down the noisy steps, and hurriedly and soundlessly walked along the cloth of the entrance. Almost every time a new carriage arrived, there was a whisper in the crowd and hats were taken off. - Sovereign? ... No, minister ... prince ... envoy ... Can't you see the feathers? ... - said from the crowd. One of the crowd, dressed better than the others, seemed to know everyone, and called by name the noblest nobles of that time. [...] Together with the Rostovs went to the ball Marya Ignatievna Peronskaya, a friend and relative of the Countess, a thin and yellow maid of honor of the old court, leading the provincial Rostovs in the highest Petersburg society. At 10 o'clock in the evening the Rostovs were supposed to pick up the maid of honor at the Tauride Garden; and meanwhile it was already five minutes to ten, and the young ladies were not yet dressed. Natasha went to the first big ball in her life. She got up that day at 8 o'clock in the morning and was in feverish anxiety and activity all day. All her forces, from the very morning, were directed to ensure that they all: she, mother, Sonya were dressed as best as possible. Sonya and the Countess vouched completely to her. The countess was supposed to be wearing a masaka velvet dress, they were wearing two white smoky dresses on pink, silk covers with roses in a bodice. Hair had to be combed a la grecque (in Greek) ... Everything essential had already been done: the legs, arms, neck, ears were already especially carefully, according to the ballroom, washed, perfumed and powdered; already shod were silk, fishnet stockings and white satin shoes with bows; the hairstyles were almost finished. Sonya finished dressing, and so did the Countess; but Natasha, who was busy with everyone, fell behind. She was still sitting in front of the mirror in a dressing-gown draped over her slender shoulders. Sonya, already dressed, stood in the middle of the room, pressing her small finger painfully, pinning the last ribbon squealing under the pin. [...] It was decided to be at the ball at half past ten, while Natasha still had to get dressed and stop by the Tauride Garden. [...] The matter was behind Natasha's skirt, which was too long; it was hemmed by two girls, hastily biting off the thread. The third, with pins in her lips and teeth, ran from the countess to Sonya; the fourth held the entire smoky dress on her high-raised hand. [...] - Excuse me, young lady, excuse me, - said the girl, kneeling, pulling off her dress and turning the pins with her tongue from one side of her mouth to the other. - Your will! - Sonya cried out with despair in her voice, looking at Natasha's dress, - your will, it's long again! Natasha walked away to look around in the pier glass. The dress was long. “By God, madam, nothing is long,” said Mavrusha, crawling along the floor behind the young lady. “Well, it’s long, so we’ll sweep it up, we’ll sweep it in one minute,” said resolute Dunyasha, taking out a needle from a handkerchief on her chest and again on the floor starting to work. [...] At quarter past ten, they finally got into the carriages and drove off. But I still had to stop by at the Tauride Garden. Peronskaya was already ready. Despite her old age and ugliness, she had exactly the same thing as the Rostovs, although not with such haste (for her it was a habitual thing), but it was also perfumed, washed, powdered old, ugly body, also carefully washed behind the ears , and even, and just like the Rostovs, the old maid admired with enthusiasm the attire of her mistress when she went into the living room in a yellow dress with a code. Peronskaya praised the Rostovs' toilets. The Rostovs praised her taste and dress, and, taking care of their hairstyles and dresses, at eleven o'clock settled in the carriages and drove off. Since the morning of that day, Natasha had not had a moment of freedom, and had never had time to think about what lay ahead for her. In the damp, cold air, in the cramped and incomplete darkness of the swaying carriage, for the first time she vividly imagined what awaited her there, at the ball, in the lighted halls - music, flowers, dances, the sovereign, all the brilliant youth of St. Petersburg. What awaited her was so beautiful that she did not even believe that it would be: it was so incongruous with the impression of the cold, cramped and dark carriage. She understood all that awaited her only when, walking along the red cloth of the entrance, she entered the entrance, took off her fur coat and walked alongside Sonya in front of her mother between the flowers along the illuminated staircase. Only then did she remember how she had to behave at the ball and tried to adopt that majestic manner, which she considered necessary for a girl at the ball. But fortunately for her, she felt that her eyes were scattering: she could not see anything clearly, her pulse beat a hundred times a minute, and the blood began to pound at her heart. She could not accept the manner that would make her ridiculous, and walked, dying with excitement and trying with all her might to only hide him. And this was the very manner that most of all went to her. In front and behind them, talking in the same quiet manner and in the same ball gowns, the guests entered. The mirrors on the stairs reflected ladies in white, blue, pink dresses, with diamonds and pearls on open arms and necks. Natasha looked in the mirrors and in the reflection could not distinguish herself from others. Everything blended into one brilliant procession. At the entrance to the first hall, the uniform hum of voices, steps, greetings - deafened Natasha; the light and brilliance blinded her even more. The owner and hostess, who had already stood at the front door for half an hour and said the same words to those who entered: "charm? De vous voir" (delighted to see you) , the Rostovs and Peronskaya met in the same way. Two girls in white dresses, with the same roses in black hair, sat down in the same way, but involuntarily the hostess stopped her eyes for a longer time at slender Natasha. She looked at her, and she alone smiled especially in addition to her master's smile. Looking at her, the hostess remembered, perhaps, her golden, irrevocable girlish time, and her first ball. The owner also watched Natasha with his eyes and asked the count, who is his daughter? - Charmante! he said, kissing the tips of his fingers. Guests were standing in the hall, crowding at the front door, waiting for the emperor. The Countess was at the forefront of this crowd. Natasha heard and felt that several voices asked about her and were looking at her. She realized that she was liked by those who paid attention to her, and this observation calmed her somewhat. "There are people like us, there are worse than us," she thought. Peronskaya named the countess the most significant persons who were at the ball. [...] All of a sudden, everything stirred, the crowd began to talk, moved, parted again, and between the two parted rows, with the sound of music playing, the sovereign entered. The owner and the hostess followed him. The emperor walked quickly, bowing to the right and left, as if trying to get rid of this first minute of the meeting as soon as possible. The musicians played Polskaya, known then for the words composed on him. These words began: "Alexander, Elizabeth, you delight us ..." The Emperor walked into the living room, the crowd rushed to the door; several faces with changed expressions hurried back and forth. The crowd again rushed away from the door of the drawing-room, in which the sovereign appeared, talking with the hostess. A young man with a bewildered look stepped on the ladies, asking them to step aside. Some ladies with faces expressing complete forgetfulness of all conditions of light, spoiling their toilets, crowded forward. The men began to approach the ladies and form in pairs of the Polish. Everything parted, and the emperor, smiling and not in time leading the mistress of the house by the hand, went out of the drawing-room door. The owner followed him with M.A. Naryshkina, then envoys, ministers, various generals, whom Peronskaya called incessantly. More than half of the ladies had cavaliers and went or were preparing to go to Polskaya. Natasha felt that she remained with her mother and Sonya among the minority of the ladies who were pushed back to the wall and were not taken to Polskaya. She stood with her slender arms lowered, and with a measuredly rising, slightly defined chest, holding her breath, gleaming, frightened eyes looked ahead of her, with an expression of readiness for the greatest joy and the greatest sorrow. She was not occupied either by the sovereign or by all the important persons to whom Peronskaya pointed out - she had one thought: "Can it be that no one will come up to me like that, really I won’t dance between the first, really, I won’t be noticed by all these men who now, it seems they don’t see me, but if they look at me, they look with such an expression as if they are saying: Ah! this is not her, there’s nothing to look at. No, it cannot be! ” she thought. "They should know how much I want to dance, how great I dance, and how much fun it will be for them to dance with me." The sounds of Polsky, which had been going on for quite a long time, were already beginning to sound sad - a memory in Natasha's ears. She wanted to cry. Peronskaya moved away from them. The count was at the other end of the room, the countess, Sonya and she stood alone as in a forest in this alien crowd, uninteresting and unnecessary to anyone. Prince Andrey walked past them with a lady, obviously not recognizing them. Handsome Anatol, smiling, was saying something to the lady he was leading, and looked at Natasha's face with the same look as one looks at the walls. Boris walked past them twice and turned away each time. Berg and his wife, who were not dancing, approached them. Natasha found this family closeness insulting here, at the ball, as if there was no other place for family conversations except at the ball. [...] Finally, the sovereign stopped beside his last lady (he danced with three), the music stopped; the preoccupied adjutant ran up to the Rostovs, asking them to move aside somewhere else, although they were standing against the wall, and the distinct, cautious and captivatingly measured sounds of a waltz were heard from the chorus. The Emperor looked at the hall with a smile. A minute has passed - no one has started yet. The adjutant-manager approached Countess Bezukhova and invited her. Smiling, she raised her hand and laid it, without looking at him, on the adjutant's shoulder. The adjutant-steward, a master of his craft, confidently, unhurriedly and measuredly, hugging his lady tightly, set off with her first a glide path, along the edge of the circle, at the corner of the hall grabbed her left hand, turned it, and because of all the accelerating sounds of music were heard only the measured clicks of the spurs of the adjutant's quick and dexterous legs, and every three bars at the turn the velvet dress of his lady flashed, as it were, fluttering. Natasha looked at them and was ready to cry that it was not she who was dancing this first round of the waltz. Prince Andrey, in his colonel's white (for cavalry) uniform, in stockings and shoes, lively and cheerful, stood in the first rows of the circle, not far from the Rostovs. [...] Prince Andrew watched these gentlemen and ladies, who were shy in the presence of the sovereign, who froze with desire to be invited. Pierre went up to Prince Andrew and grabbed his hand. - You always dance. There is my protege, young Rostova, invite her [...] - Where? Bolkonsky asked. “I’m sorry,” he said, addressing the baron, “we’ll bring this conversation to the end in another place, but we have to dance at the ball. - He stepped forward, in the direction that Pierre indicated to him. The desperate, dying face of Natasha caught the eye of Prince Andrey. He recognized her, guessed her feelings, realized that she was a beginner, remembered her conversation at the window and with a cheerful expression went up to Countess Rostova. “Let me introduce you to my daughter,” said the Countess, blushing. `` I have the pleasure of being familiar, if the countess remembers me, '' said Prince Andrei with a courteous and low bow, completely contrary to Peronskaya's remarks about his rudeness, going up to Natasha and raising his hand to hug her waist even before he finished the invitation to dance. He offered a waltz tour. That dying expression on Natasha's face, ready for despair and delight, suddenly lit up with a happy, grateful, childish smile. "I have been waiting for you for a long time," as if this frightened and happy girl said, with her smile that appeared because of ready tears, raising her hand on the shoulder of Prince Andrey. They were the second pair to enter the circle. Prince Andrey was one of the best dancers of his time. Natasha danced beautifully. Her legs in ballroom satin shoes quickly, easily and independently of her did their job, and her face shone with delight of happiness. Her bare neck and arms were thin and ugly. Compared to Helene's, her shoulders were thin, her breasts were indefinite, her arms were thin; but Helen was already as if varnish from all the thousands of glances gliding over her body, and Natasha seemed like a girl who had been naked for the first time, and who would have been very ashamed of it if she had not been assured that it was so necessary. Prince Andrew loved to dance, and wanting to quickly get rid of the political and intelligent conversations with which everyone turned to him, and wanting to quickly break this annoying circle of embarrassment resulting from the presence of the sovereign, he went to dance and chose Natasha, because Pierre had pointed out her to him. and because she was the first of the pretty women to catch his eye; but as soon as he embraced this slender, mobile camp, and she stirred so close to him and smiled so close to him, the wine of her delight hit him in his head: he felt revived and rejuvenated when, taking a breath and leaving her, he stopped and began to look on the dancers. After Prince Andrei, Boris approached Natasha, inviting her to dance, the dancer-adjutant who had started the ball, and other young people approached Natasha, and Natasha, passing her unnecessary gentlemen to Sonya, happy and flushed, did not stop dancing the whole evening. She did not notice or see anything that occupied everyone at this ball. She not only did not notice how the sovereign spoke for a long time with the French envoy, how he spoke especially graciously with such and such a lady, how the prince such and such did and said such and such, how Helene had great success and received special attention such and such; she did not even see the sovereign and noticed that he left only because after his departure the ball became more lively. One of the merry cotillions, before supper, Prince Andrey danced again with Natasha. [...] Natasha was as happy as never before in her life. She was at that highest stage of happiness when a person becomes completely trusting and does not believe in the possibility of evil, unhappiness and grief. [...] In Natasha's eyes, all those who were at the ball were equally kind, sweet, wonderful people who love each other: no one could offend each other, and therefore everyone should be happy. "Anna Karenina" *), 1873 - 1877 Respect was invented in order to hide the empty space where love should be. - (Anna Karenina to Vronsky) This is a Petersburg dandy, they are made by car, they all stand on one, and everything is rubbish. - (Prince Shtcherbatsky, Kitty's father, about Count Alexei Vronsky) St. Petersburg's highest circle, in fact, is one; everyone knows each other, they even visit each other. But this large circle has its own subdivisions. Anna Arkadyevna Karenina had friends and close ties in three different circles. One circle was the service, the official circle of her husband, consisting of his colleagues and subordinates, in the most varied and whimsical way connected and disconnected in social conditions. Anna could now hardly remember the feeling of almost pious respect which she at first had for these persons. Now she knew all of them, as they know each other in the county town; I knew who had what habits and weaknesses, who had which boot shaking his leg; knew their relationship to each other and to the main center; she knew who was holding on to whom and how and by what, and who, with whom and in what they converged and disagreed; but this circle of governmental, male interests never, despite the suggestions of Countess Lydia Ivanovna, could interest her, she avoided him. Another circle close to Anna was the one through which Alexey Alexandrovich made his career. The center of this circle was Countess Lidia Ivanovna. It was a circle of old, ugly, virtuous and pious women and intelligent, learned, ambitious men. One of the clever people belonging to this circle called him "the conscience of Petersburg society." Alexey Alexandrovich treasured this circle very much, and Anna, who was so able to get along with everyone, found friends for herself in this circle in the early days of her Petersburg life. Now, on her return from Moscow, this circle became unbearable to her. It seemed to her that she and all of them were pretending, and she felt so bored and embarrassed in this company that she went as little as possible to Countess Lidia Ivanovna. The third circle, finally, where she had connections, was the light itself - the light of balls, dinners, shiny toilets, the light that held onto the courtyard with one hand so as not to descend to the half-light, which the members of this circle thought they despised, but with which tastes he had not only similar, but the same ones. Her connection with this circle was kept through Princess Betsy of Tverskaya, the wife of her cousin, who had one hundred and twenty thousand in income and who, from the very appearance of Anna into the world, especially loved her, looked after her and drew her into her circle, laughing at the circle of Countess Lidia Ivanovna ... “When I’m old and ugly, I’ll become the same,” Betsy said, “but for you, for a young, pretty woman, it’s too early for this poorhouse. At first Anna avoided, as much as she could, this light of Princess Tverskaya, since he demanded expenditures above her means, and she preferred the former to her liking; but after the trip to Moscow, the opposite happened. She avoided her moral friends and went to the big world. There she met Vronsky and experienced exciting joy at these meetings. Mom is taking me to the ball: it seems to me that she only then takes me to marry me as soon as possible and get rid of me. I know that this is not true, but I cannot drive these thoughts away. I cannot see the so-called grooms. It seems to me that they are taking measurements from me. Before going somewhere in a ball gown was a simple pleasure for me, I admired myself; now I'm ashamed, embarrassed. - (Kitty)- So now when is the ball? - (Anna Karenina)- Next week, and a wonderful ball. One of those balls that are always fun. - (Kitty)- Are there those where it is always fun? - Anna said with tender mockery. - Strange, but there is. The Bobrishchevs always have fun, the Nikitins too, and the Meshkovs are always bored. Didn't you notice? "No, my dear, for me there are no such balls where it is fun," said Anna, and Kitty saw in her eyes that special world that was not open to her. - For me, there are those on which it is less difficult and boring ... - How can you be bored at the ball? - Why can't I be bored at the ball? Kitty noticed that Anna knew what the answer would be. - Because you are always the best. Anna had the ability to blush. She blushed and said: - First, never; and secondly, if it were, then why would I need it? - Will you go to this ball? Kitty asked. - I think that it will be impossible not to go. [...] - I will be very glad if you go - I would love to see you at the ball. - At least, if I have to go, I will console myself with the thought that it will make you happy ... [...] And I know why you are inviting me to the ball. You expect a lot from this ball, and you want everyone to be here, everyone to take part. [...] how good is your time. I remember and know this blue fog, like the one on the mountains in Switzerland. This fog that covers everything in the blissful time when childhood is about to end, and from this huge circle, happy, cheerful, the path is narrower and narrower, and it is fun and creepy to enter this suite, although it seems to be bright and lovely ... Who hasn't gone through this? *) The text "Anna Karenina" - in the Library of Maxim Moshkov The ball had just begun when Kitty and her mother entered a large staircase filled with flowers and footmen in powder and red caftans. From the hall came the uniform rustle of movement that stood in them, like in a beehive, and while they were straightening their hairstyles and dresses in front of the mirror on the platform between the trees, from the hall came the cautiously distinct sounds of the violins of the orchestra, which began the first waltz. An old civilian man, straightening his gray temples by another mirror and pouring out the smell of perfume from himself, bumped into them on the stairs and stepped aside, apparently admiring Kitty, whom he did not know. A beardless youth, one of those socialites whom the old prince Shtcherbatsky called tyutki, in an extremely open waistcoat, straightening his white tie as he walked, bowed to them and, running past, returned, inviting Kitty to a square dance. The first square dance had already been given to Vronsky, she had to give this young man the second. The soldier, buttoning up his glove, kept away from the door and, stroking his mustache, admired the pink Kitty. Despite the fact that the toilet, hairstyle and all the preparations for the ball cost Kitty a lot of work and consideration, she now, in her elaborate tulle dress on a pink cover, entered the ball so freely and simply, as if all these rosettes, lace, all the details the toilet did not cost her and her family a single minute of attention, as if she was born in this tulle, lace, with this high hairdo, with a rose and two leaves on top of it. When the old princess, in front of the entrance to the hall, tried to straighten the wrapped belt of her belt around it, Kitty leaned slightly. She felt that everything by itself should be good and graceful on her and that nothing needed to be corrected. Kitty was in one of her happy days. The dress did not press anywhere, the lace bertha did not descend anywhere, the rosettes did not crumple and did not come off; pink shoes with high curved heels did not sting, but amused the leg, Thick braids of blond hair kept like their own on a small head. The buttons of all three were fastened without breaking, on a high glove, which wrapped around her arm without changing its shape. The black velvet of the medallion encircled her neck especially tenderly. This velvet was lovely, and at home, looking at her neck in the mirror, Kitty felt that this velvet was talking. There could still be doubt about everything else, but the velvet was lovely. Kitty smiled even here at the ball, looking at her in the mirror. In her bare shoulders and arms Kitty felt a cold marbling, a feeling that she especially loved. The eyes glittered, and the ruddy lips could not help smiling at the realization of their attractiveness. No sooner had she entered the hall and reached the tulle-ribbon-lace-colored crowd of ladies who were waiting for an invitation to dance (Kitty never stood in this crowd), when she was invited to a waltz, and was invited by the best cavalier, the chief cavalier in the ballroom hierarchy, the famous conductor of balls, master of ceremonies, married, handsome and stately man Yegorushka Korsunsky. Having just left Countess Banina, with whom he had danced the first round of waltz, he, looking around his household, that is, several couples who had started to dance, saw Kitty come in and ran up to her with that peculiar, peculiar only to the conductors of balls, with a cheeky pace, and, bowing, did not even asking if she would like to, he raised his hand to hug her slender waist. She looked around to whom to give the fan, and the hostess, smiling at her, took it. “It's good that you arrived on time,” he told her, hugging her waist, “but what a way to be late. She put her left hand bent over his shoulder, and the little feet in pink shoes moved quickly, easily and regularly to the beat of the music on the slippery parquet floor. “You rest, waltzing with you,” he told her, starting the first slow steps of the waltz. “It’s lovely, what a lightness, precision,” he said to her what he said to almost all his good acquaintances. She smiled at his praise and continued to stare at the audience over his shoulder. She was not leaving again, where at the ball all faces merge into one magical impression; she was not a girl worn out at balls, to whom all the faces of the ball are so familiar that they were bored; but she was in the middle of these two — she was excited, and at the same time she possessed herself so much that she could observe. In the left corner of the room, she saw the color of society grouped together. There was an impossibly naked beauty Lidi, the wife of Korsunsky, there was a mistress, there Krivin shone with his bald head, always being where the flower of society is; the young men looked there, not daring to approach; and there she looked up to Steve and then saw the lovely figure and head of Anna in a black velvet dress. [...] - Well, another tour? You're not tired? said Korsunsky, slightly out of breath. - No, thank you. - Where can I take you? - Karenina is here, I think ... take me to her. - Wherever you order. And Korsunsky wallowed, moderating his step, right into the crowd in the left corner of the hall, saying: "Pardon, mesdames, pardon, pardon, mesdames" , so that her thin legs in fishnet stockings opened, and the train was blown by a fan and covered Krivin's knees with it. Korsunsky bowed, straightened his open chest and held out his hand to lead her to Anna Arkadyevna. Kitty, flushed, took off the train from Krivin's knees and, whirling a little, looked round, looking for Anna. Anna was not in purple, as Kitty certainly wanted, but in a black, low-cut velvet dress, which revealed her full shoulders and chest, chiseled like old ivory, and rounded arms with a thin, tiny brush. The entire dress was trimmed with Venetian guipure. On her head, in her own black hair, without any admixture, was a small garland of pansies and the same on a black ribbon of a belt between white lace. Her hair was invisible. Visible only, decorating her, these willful short rings of curly hair, always knocked out at the back of the head and temples. There was a string of pearls on a chiseled, strong neck. [...] Vronsky went up to Kitty, reminding her of the first square dance and regretting that all this time he had not had the pleasure of seeing her. Kitty looked, admiring, at Anna, who was waltzing, and listened to him. She expected that he would invite her to a waltz, but he did not, and she looked at him in surprise. He blushed and hastily invited to waltz, but he had just hugged her thin waist and took the first step, when suddenly the music stopped. Kitty looked at his face, which was at such a close distance from her, and for a long time later, several years later, this look, full of love, with which she then looked at him and to which he did not answer her, cut her heart with agonizing shame. - Pardon, pardon! Waltz, waltz! - Korsunsky shouted from the other side of the hall and, picking up the first young lady he came across, began to dance himself. Vronsky went on several waltz rounds with Kitty. After the waltz Kitty went up to her mother and barely had time to say a few words with Nordston when Vronsky had already come for her for the first quadrille. During the square dance, nothing significant was said. [...] Kitty did not expect more from the square dance. She waited with bated breath for the mazurka. It seemed to her that in the mazurka everything should be decided. The fact that he did not invite her to the mazurka during the quadrille did not disturb her. She was sure that she was dancing the mazurka with him, as at the previous balls, and five refused the mazurka, saying that she was dancing. The whole ball, down to the last square dance, was for Kitty a magical dream of joyful colors, sounds and movements. She didn’t dance until she felt too tired and asked for rest. But while dancing the last square dance with one of the boring youths who could not be denied, she happened to be vis-a-vis with Vronsky and Anna. She did not get along with Anna from the very arrival and then suddenly saw her again completely new and unexpected. She saw in her a trait of excitement from success so familiar to her. She saw that Anna was drunk with the wine of the admiration she aroused. She knew this feeling and knew its signs and saw them on Anna - she saw a trembling, flashing gleam in her eyes and a smile of happiness and excitement, involuntarily curving her lips, and a distinct grace, loyalty and ease of movement. [...] The whole ball, the whole world, everything was covered with fog in Kitty's soul. Only the strict school of upbringing that she passed supported her and forced her to do what was required of her, that is, dance, answer questions, speak, even smile. But before the start of the mazurka, when the chairs were already being arranged and some couples moved from the little ones to the large hall, a moment of despair and horror came over Kitty. She refused five and now did not dance mazurkas. There was not even a hope that she would be invited, precisely because she had too much success in the world, and it could not have occurred to anyone that she had not been invited until now. She had to tell her mother that she was sick and go home, but she did not have the strength to do so. She felt killed. She went into the back of the small living room and sank into an armchair. The airy skirt of the dress rose like a cloud around her slender waist; one naked, thin, gentle girlish hand, powerlessly lowered, sank in the folds of a pink tunic; in another she held a fan and with quick, short movements fanned her flushed face. But, in spite of this kind of butterfly, which had just clung to the grass and was about to flutter up to unfold its rainbow wings, a terrible despair ached in her heart. [..] Countess Nordston found Korsunsky, with whom she was dancing the mazurka, and told him to invite Kitty. Kitty danced in the first pair, and, fortunately, she didn’t have to speak, because Korsunsky was running all the time, managing his household. Vronsky and Anna sat almost opposite her. She saw them with her farsighted eyes, saw them up close when they collided in pairs, and the more she saw them, the more she became convinced that her misfortune had happened. She saw that they felt alone in this full room. And on Vronsky's face, always so firm and independent, she saw that expression of lostness and resignation that struck her, which struck her, similar to the expression of an intelligent dog when she is guilty. [...] Kitty felt crushed, and her face expressed this. When Vronsky saw her, having collided with her in the mazurka, he did not suddenly recognize her - so she changed. - Wonderful ball! - he told her to say something. “Yes,” she replied. In the middle of the mazurka, repeating the complex figure again invented by Korsunsky, Anna went to the middle of the circle, took two gentlemen and called one lady and Kitty over to her. Kitty looked at her fearfully as she approached. Anna, narrowing her eyes, looked at her and smiled, shaking her hand. But noticing that Kitty’s face only answered her smile with an expression of despair and surprise, she turned away from her and spoke merrily to the other lady. "After the ball" *), Yasnaya Polyana, 20 August 1903 On the last day of Shrovetide, I was at a ball with the governor of the province, a good-natured old man, a rich hospitable man and a chamberlain. His wife, who was just as good-natured as he was, received him in a velvet puff dress, in a diamond feronniere on her head and with open old, plump, white shoulders and breasts, like the portraits of Elizaveta Petrovna. The ball was wonderful; the hall is beautiful, with choirs, musicians - famous at that time serfs of the amateur landowner, a magnificent buffet and a poured sea of ​​champagne. Although I was a hunter before champagne, I did not drink, because without wine I was drunk with love, but I danced until I dropped, danced and quadrille, and waltzes, and polkas, of course, as far as possible, all with Varenka. She wore a white dress with a pink sash and white kid gloves that did not reach her thin, sharp elbows, and white satin shoes. The Mazurka was taken from me; disgusting engineer Anisimov [...] So I danced the mazurka not with her, but with one German girl, whom I courted a little before. But I am afraid that that evening I was very disrespectful to her, did not speak to her, did not look at her, but saw only a tall, slender figure in a white dress with a pink belt, her radiant, dimpled face and gentle, sweet eyes. I was not the only one, everyone looked at her and admired her, both men and women admired her, despite the fact that she eclipsed them all. It was impossible not to admire. By law, so to speak, I didn’t dance the mazurka with her, but in reality I danced almost all the time with the drink. She, without embarrassment, walked across the room straight to me, and I jumped up without waiting for an invitation, and she thanked me with a smile for my quick wit. When we were brought to her and she did not guess my quality, she, giving her hand not to me, shrugged her thin shoulders and, as a sign of regret and consolation, smiled at me. When they were doing the mazurka figures as a waltz, I waltzed with her for a long time, and she, breathing often, smiled and said to me: "Encore" (also - French)... And I waltzed more and more and did not feel my body. [...] I danced with her more and did not see how the time passed. The musicians, you know, with a kind of despair of fatigue, you know, as happens at the end of the ball, picked up the same motive of the mazurka, from the drawing rooms papa and mamma had already risen from the card tables, waiting for supper, the footmen more often ran around carrying something. It was three o'clock. It was necessary to use the last minutes. I once again chose her, and we walked along the hall for the hundredth time. [...] “Look, papa is asked to dance,” she said to me, pointing to the tall, stately figure of her father, a colonel with silver epaulets, who was standing in the doorway with the hostess and other ladies. - Varenka, come here, - we heard the loud voice of the hostess in a diamond feronniere and with Elizabethan shoulders. - Persuade, ma chere (dear - French), father walk with you. Well, please, Pyotr Vladislavich, - the hostess turned to the colonel. Varenka's father was a very handsome, stately, tall and fresh old man. [...] When we approached the door, the colonel refused, saying that he had forgotten how to dance, but nevertheless, smiling, throwing his hand on his left side, he took out the sword from the harness, gave it to the helpful young man and, pulling on a suede glove on right hand - "everything is necessary according to the law," he said, smiling, took his daughter's hand and began a quarter turn, waiting for the beat. Waiting for the start of the mazur motive, he briskly stamped with one foot, threw out the other, and his tall, heavy figure, now quietly and smoothly, now noisily and violently, with the stamping of soles and feet on foot, moved around the hall. Varenka's graceful figure floated beside him, imperceptibly, in time shortening or lengthening the steps of her little white satin legs. The entire audience followed every movement of the couple. I not only admired, but looked at them with enthusiastic affection. I was especially touched by his boots, covered with strips - good calf boots, but not fashionable, sharp ones, but old ones, with quadrangular toes and without heels. [...] It was evident that he had once danced beautifully, but now he was overweight, and his legs were no longer elastic enough for all those beautiful and fast steps that he tried to make. But he nevertheless cleverly completed two laps. When he, quickly spreading his legs, again brought them together and, although somewhat heavily, fell on one knee, and she, smiling and straightening her skirt, which he had hooked on, smoothly walked around him, everyone applauded loudly. With some effort, he raised himself, gently, sweetly, grabbed his daughter by the ears and, kissing her forehead, brought her to me, thinking that I was dancing with her. I said that I was not her boyfriend. “Well, anyway, go for a walk with her now,” he said, smiling affectionately and slipping his sword into his belt. [...] The Mazurka was over, the hosts asked the guests for supper, but Colonel B. refused, saying that he had to get up early tomorrow, and said goodbye to the hosts. I was afraid that they would take her away too, but she stayed with her mother. After supper I danced the promised square dance with her, and, despite the fact that I seemed to be infinitely happy, my happiness grew and grew. We didn't say anything about love. I didn't even ask her or myself if she loved me. It was enough for me that I loved her. And I was afraid of only one thing, lest something spoil my happiness. [...] I left the ball at five o'clock. *) The text "After the ball" - in the Library of Maxim Moshkov

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910). Artist I. E. Repin. 1887 g.

The famous Russian theater director and creator of the acting system Konstantin Stanislavsky wrote in his book "My Life in Art" that in the difficult years of the first revolutions, when despair gripped people, many recalled that at the same time Leo Tolstoy lived with them. And it became easier on my soul. He was the conscience of humanity. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Tolstoy became the spokesman for the thoughts and hopes of millions of people. He was the moral support for many. It was read and listened to not only by Russia, but also by Europe, America and Asia.

True, at the same time, many contemporaries and subsequent researchers of Leo Tolstoy's work noted that outside of his works of art he was in many respects contradictory. His greatness as a thinker manifested itself in the creation of broad canvases dedicated to the moral state of society, in the search for a way out of the impasse. But he was petty picky, moralizing in search of the meaning of the life of an individual. And the older he got, the more actively he criticized the vices of society, looking for his own special moral path.

The Norwegian writer Knut Hamsun noted this feature of Tolstoy's character. According to him, in his youth, Tolstoy allowed many excesses - he played cards, dragged after the young ladies, drank wine, behaved like a typical bourgeois, and in adulthood he suddenly changed, became a devout righteous man and branded himself and the whole society with shame for vulgar and immoral acts ... It was not by chance that he had a conflict with his own family, whose members could not understand his duality, his dissatisfaction and throwing

Leo Tolstoy was a hereditary aristocrat. Mother - Princess Volkonskaya, one paternal grandmother - Princess Gorchakova, the second - Princess Trubetskaya. In his Yasnaya Polyana estate there were portraits of his relatives, high-born titled persons. In addition to the title of count, he inherited a ruined economy from his parents, his upbringing was taken over by his relatives, and home teachers, including a German and a Frenchman, took care of him. Then he studied at Kazan University. First he studied oriental languages, then legal sciences. Neither one nor the other satisfied him, and he left the 3rd year.

At 23, Lev lost a lot at cards and had to repay the debt, but he did not ask for money from anyone, but went as an officer to the Caucasus to earn money and gain impressions. He liked it there - exotic nature, mountains, hunting in local forests, participation in battles against the mountaineers. There he first took up the pen. But he began to write not about his impressions, but about his childhood.

The manuscript, titled Childhood, was sent by Tolstoy to the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, where it was published in 1852, praising the young author. Inspired by luck, he wrote the stories "The Morning of the Landowner", "The Case", the story "Boyhood", "Sevastopol Stories." A new talent entered Russian literature, powerful in reflecting reality, in creating types, in reflecting the inner world of heroes.

Tolstoy arrived in St. Petersburg in 1855. The count, the hero of Sevastopol, he was already a famous writer, he had money that he earned through literary work. He was received in the best houses, the editorial office of Otechestvennye zapiski was also expected to meet with him. But he was disappointed with secular life, and among the writers he did not find a person close to him in spirit. He was tired of the dreary life in wet Petersburg, and he went to his place in Yasnaya Polyana. And in 1857 he went abroad to scatter and look at another life.

Tolstoy visited France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, was interested in the life of local peasants, the system of public education. But he didn’t like Europe. He saw idle rich and well-fed people, saw the poverty of the poor. A blatant injustice wounded him in the very heart, an unspoken protest arose in his soul. Six months later, he returned to Yasnaya Polyana and opened a school for peasant children. After a second trip abroad, he secured the opening of more than 20 schools in the surrounding villages.

Tolstoy published the pedagogical journal Yasnaya Polyana, wrote books for children, and taught them himself. But for complete well-being, he lacked a loved one who would share with him all the joys and hardships. At 34, he finally married 18-year-old Sophia Bers and became happy. He felt like a zealous owner, bought land, experimented on it, and in his free time he wrote the epoch-making novel "War and Peace", which began to be published in the "Russian Bulletin". Later, critics abroad recognized this work as the greatest, which became a significant phenomenon in new European literature.

Following Tolstoy wrote the novel "Anna Karenina", dedicated to the tragic love of the woman of light Anna and the fate of the nobleman Konstantin Levin. Using the example of his heroine, he tried to answer the question: who is a woman - a person who demands respect, or just the keeper of the family hearth? After these two novels, he felt a kind of breakdown in himself. He wrote about the moral essence of other people and began to peer into his soul.

His views on life changed, he began to admit many sins in himself and taught others, spoke about non-resistance to evil by violence - they hit you on one cheek, turn the other. This is the only way to change the world for the better. Many people were under his influence, they were called "Tolstoyans", they did not resist evil, they wished good to their neighbors. Among them were famous writers Maxim Gorky and Ivan Bunin.

During the 1880s, Tolstoy began to create small stories: The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Kholstomer, The Kreutzer Sonata, Father Sergius. In them, as an experienced psychologist, he showed the inner world of an ordinary person, a willingness to submit to fate. Along with these works, he worked on a large novel about the fate of a sinful woman and the attitude of those around her.

Resurrection "was published in 1899 and amazed the reading public with a sharp topic and author's subtext. The novel was recognized as a classic, it was immediately translated into the main European languages. The success was complete. In this novel, Tolstoy for the first time with such frankness showed the deformities of the state system, the abomination and complete indifference of those in power to the pressing problems of people. In it, he criticized the Russian Orthodox Church, which did nothing to rectify the situation, did nothing to facilitate the existence of the fallen and miserable people. A serious conflict broke out. The Russian Orthodox Church saw blasphemy in this harsh criticism. Tolstoy's views were recognized as extremely erroneous, his position was anti-Christian, he was anathematized and excommunicated.

But Tolstoy did not repent. He remained faithful to his ideals, his church. However, his rebellious nature rebelled against the abominations of not only the surrounding reality, but also the lordly way of life of his own family. He was burdened by his well-being, the position of a well-to-do landowner. He wanted to give up everything, go to the righteous in order to purify his soul in a new environment. And left. His secret departure from the family was tragic. On the way, he caught a cold and fell ill with pneumonia. He could not recover from this illness.

-) Money is not only a blessing, but also a huge disaster for humanity.
-) Competition arises where and when there is a deficit in something.
-) Trade was born when the exchange took the form of money.
-) The economy arises only when people need to rationally distribute rare goods, and the market is invented as the most rational and effective method to obtain such goods.
-) Simple commodity production existed both in the era of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs and in the era of Soviet leaders

Urgently! Help!) Answer at least something)

Read an excerpt from the pedagogical works of the outstanding Russian teacher PF Kapterev.

About a truly educated person:

This is the kind of person who owns not only different things
outside knowledge, but also the ability to dispose of it, which
ry is not only knowledgeable, but also quick-witted, who has
king in the head, unity in thoughts; who knows not only
to think, to act, but also to work physically, and enjoy
be given the beauty of nature and art.

This is the kind of person who feels alive and
an active member of the modern cultural society,
takes a close connection of his personality with humanity, with
their native people, with all the former workers on
a field of culture that moves a person to the best of his ability
culture forward.

This is the kind of person who feels open in
to himself all his abilities and properties and does not suffer from internal
early disharmony of their aspirations.

This person is physically developed, with healthy organs.
mi body, with a keen interest in exercise,
sensitive to the joys of the body. Answer the questions: 1) What does it mean to be able to use your knowledge? 2) What does it mean to be "a living and active member of a modern cultural society", to the extent of possible to move forward human culture? 3) Why is it necessary to develop all your abilities? 4) Expand the connection between health, physical development and education of a person.

From the work of the modern Russian scientist, academician I. N. Moiseev (reflections on the place of Russia in civilized development).

Today Russia is a bridge between two oceans, two centers of economic power. By the will of fate, we saddled the path "from the English to the Japanese", as in the old days the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks." We got a bridge between two civilizations, and we have the opportunity to draw on the best that is on both banks - if we have a mind, as our ancestors got it from the Byzantines, and from the Varangians - a sword. This is a circumstance given to us by nature and history; it can become one of the most important sources of our prosperity and stability. And our niche in the world society. The fact is that this bridge is needed not only for us - everyone needs it. Not only Russia, but also the European Peninsula and the developing Pacific region, and even America. This bridge is needed by the whole planet! Here lies our niche, traced by fate - the north of the Eurasian supercontinent. This niche does not divide, but connects peoples, does not oppose anyone and does not threaten anyone. Our great national goal is not to assert our ambitions in Europe, not to implement Eurasian doctrines and utopias in the spirit that the Eurasians of the 1920s preached, but to transform the north of the Eurasian supercontinent, this bridge between oceans and different civilizations, into a super-strong, reliably working structure.
Questions and tasks to the document
1. Determine how the author of the text relates to globalization.
2. How do you understand the words of N. N. Moiseev about "the opportunity to draw the best that is on both banks"?
3. Why do you think the scientist considers the position of Russia "between ... two centers of economic power" one of the sources of its prosperity?

what we see and perceive comes to us colored by expectations and predispositions. They are based on our culture: we see the world through glasses colored by our culture. The vast majority of people use these glasses without even knowing about their existence. The predispositions induced by invisible glasses act all the more strongly because the "cultural glasses" remain invisible. What people do directly depends on what they believe in, and their beliefs, in turn, depend on a culturally colored vision of themselves and the world around them ... In the course of historical development, great cultures of mankind have arisen and created their own vision of the world. At the dawn of history, the world was seen as atavistic: not only people, but also animals and plants had souls - everything in nature was alive. A spring in the savannah inspired awe of the spirits and forces of nature, as well as of the souls of the dead; a deer, finding itself in the middle of a human settlement, was identified with the spirit of an ancestor who came to visit relatives; thunder was considered a sign given by the progenitor - the Mother or the almighty Father. Throughout written history, traditional cultures have been overwhelmed by tales of sensory perceptions of invisible creatures that are located in a symbolic hierarchy. The classical cultures of Ancient Greece replaced the myth-based view of the world with speculative concepts, although the latter were rarely tested by experimentation and observation. Since biblical times in the West and for several millennia in the East, the prescriptions and images of religion (or other accepted belief systems) have dominated the views of people. This influence weakened significantly in the 16th and 17th centuries, when experimental science arose in Europe. Over the past three centuries, scientific and technological culture began to dominate the mythological and religious views of the Middle Ages, although it did not completely replace them. In the XX century. the scientific and technological culture of the West has spread throughout the globe. Non-Western cultures now face a dilemma: whether to open up to Western culture or to withdraw and continue to follow traditional paths, preserving their usual way of life, occupations and cults. (E. Laszlo)

Culture is a powerful factor in human activity: it is present in everything that we see and feel. "Immaculate perception" does not exist - everything,

what we see and perceive comes to us colored by expectations and predispositions. They are based on our culture: we see the world through glasses colored by our culture. The vast majority of people use these glasses without even knowing about their existence. The predispositions induced by invisible glasses act all the more strongly because the "cultural glasses" remain invisible. What people do directly depends on what they believe in, and their beliefs, in turn, depend on a culturally colored vision of themselves and the world around them ... In the course of historical development, great cultures of mankind have arisen and created their own vision of the world. At the dawn of history, the world was seen as atavistic: not only people, but also animals and plants had souls - everything in nature was alive. A spring in the savannah inspired awe of the spirits and forces of nature, as well as of the souls of the dead; a deer, finding itself in the middle of a human settlement, was identified with the spirit of an ancestor who came to visit relatives; thunder was considered a sign given by the progenitor - the Mother or the almighty Father. Throughout written history, traditional cultures have been overwhelmed by tales of sensory perceptions of invisible creatures that are located in a symbolic hierarchy. The classical cultures of Ancient Greece replaced the myth-based view of the world with speculative concepts, although the latter were rarely tested by experimentation and observation. Since biblical times in the West and for several millennia in the East, the prescriptions and images of religion (or other accepted belief systems) have dominated the views of people. This influence weakened significantly in the 16th and 17th centuries, when experimental science arose in Europe. Over the past three centuries, scientific and technological culture began to dominate the mythological and religious views of the Middle Ages, although it did not completely replace them. In the XX century. the scientific and technological culture of the West has spread throughout the globe. Non-Western cultures now face a dilemma: whether to open up to Western culture or to withdraw and continue to follow traditional paths, preserving their usual way of life, occupations and cults. (E. Laszlo) C1. What does the author call "cultural glasses"? How do they affect people's lives? C2. Name the stages in the development of culture that the author highlighted, and select in the text a brief description of each of them. C3. Based on the text, course knowledge and personal social experience, provide three explanations for the author's thought: "Culture is present in everything we see and feel." C4. The author has mentioned the dilemma facing contemporary non-Western cultures. List one positive and one negative consequence of each choice.

Example essay (mini-essay)

Man has always tried to put the laws of nature at his service. Science is the most important form of spiritual culture today. The role of natural science is especially great - physics, chemistry, biology. However, in the 20th century, the voices of those who call science to social responsibility resounded loudly.

For example, based on knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics, man invented the internal combustion engine. The invention became the most important prerequisite for the scientific and technological revolution. This, in turn, led to widespread industrialization, the construction of factories, the development of transport links, and the growth of cities. But at the same time, natural resources were mercilessly destroyed, the environment was polluted, at the same time the processes in society became more complicated - the number of urban residents increased, villages were emptied, and social instability grew. So human greed and consumer attitude towards nature and other people questioned the good that scientific knowledge brings.

Or another example. In search of an inexhaustible source of energy, scientists discovered a thermonuclear reaction. But this knowledge about nature served to create the atomic bomb, which threatens the life of all mankind today. The lust for power, the desire to prevail in the arms race, the lack of compassion for people turned a useful invention into a source of suffering.

Therefore, it is difficult to disagree with the statement of Lev Nikolaevich. After all, spiritual culture is not limited to sciences. L.N. Tolstoy gives priority to morality. Ethical attitudes should, in his opinion, precede any other knowledge. This is the only way to find harmony with nature and with yourself.

Morality is a set of universally significant values ​​and norms formed on the basis of such categories as "good" and "evil", "love for all living things", "compassion", "conscience" and "responsibility", "non-covetousness", "moderation" , "Humility". Of course, this is often not enough for those who implement the results of scientific progress. Standing on the brink of an environmental catastrophe, reaping the fruits of abuse in the production of weapons, political technologies, and excessive consumption, a modern person needs to learn to be guided by moral principles, to finally understand the importance of morality, which L.N. Tolstoy.

1. Find the definitions of the words "personality" and "society" in two or three dictionaries. Compare them. If there are differences in the definition of the same word, try to explain them.

2. From the passed part of the history course, select an event that interests you especially. Using the knowledge gained in this chapter of social science, formulate questions aimed at analyzing a historical event (for example: "What was the society like before this event?", Etc.). Try to find the answer to them in the history textbook. In case of difficulty, contact your teacher.

3. Read the figurative definitions of society given by thinkers of different times and peoples: "Society is nothing more than the result of a mechanical balance of brute forces", "Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other", "Society - this is a balance beam that cannot raise some without lowering others. " Which of these definitions comes closest to the characterization of society outlined in this chapter? Give reasons for your choice.

4. Make a list as complete as possible of the various human qualities (a table of two columns: "Positive qualities", "Negative qualities"). Discuss it in class.

5. LN Tolstoy wrote: "In an immoral society, all inventions that increase man's power over nature are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil."

6. In the collective work of Russian philosophers, the inherent features of people are presented in the following context: “In whatever region of the globe we find ourselves, we will meet there human beings, about whom it is legitimate to assert, at least, the following:

They know how to make tools with tools and use them as a means of producing material goods;

They know the simplest moral prohibitions and the absolute opposite of good and evil;

They have needs, sensory perceptions, and mental skills that have evolved historically;

They can neither form nor exist outside of society;

The individual qualities and dignities they recognize are social definitions that correspond to one or another type of objective relationship;

Their life activity is not initially programmed, but a conscious-volitional character, as a result of which they are creatures who have the ability to self-coercion, conscience and consciousness of responsibility. "

Find in the studied chapter of the textbook and cite those provisions that characterize each of the properties inherent in a person named in the above passage. Are there any of these properties that you met for the first time in this text? Which of the following properties do you consider the most important and why? How do you understand the words "foundation of humanity"? What other human qualities would you build on this foundation? If any of these signs are not entirely clear to you, ask the teacher to explain it.

7. Expand the meaning of the Arabic proverb "People are more like their time than their fathers." Think about how the life of society in our time differs from what it was at the time when your parents were leaving school. Discuss these issues with your parents. Together with them, determine how the generation of your parents, who were at your age, differed from your generation.

Discuss in class the new traits of young people today.

8. After consulting with teachers, collect information about the graduates of your school who have chosen various professions. Find the most successful ones. Prepare a stand with materials about their work activities.

LEADING: Lev Nikolaevich, what is “patriotism” for you?

THICK: Patriotism is an immoral feeling because instead of recognizing himself as the son of God, as Christianity teaches us, or at least as a free man guided by his own reason, every person, under the influence of patriotism, recognizes himself as the son of his fatherland, a slave of his government and performs acts contrary to his reason and your conscience. Patriotism in its simplest, clear and undoubted meaning is nothing else for the rulers, as a tool to achieve power-hungry and selfish goals, and for the ruled, it is a renunciation of human dignity, reason, conscience and slavish submission of oneself to those in power. This is how he is preached everywhere.

LEADING: Do you really think that there can be no modern positive patriotism?

THICK: Patriotism cannot be good. Why do people not say that egoism cannot be good, although this could rather be argued, because egoism is a natural feeling with which a person is born, and patriotism is an unnatural feeling, artificially instilled in him. So, for example, in Russia, where patriotism in the form of love and devotion to the faith, the tsar and the fatherland with extraordinary tension with all the tools in the hands of the government: church, school, press and all solemnity, is instilled in the people, the Russian working man is one hundred million of the Russian people Despite the undeserved reputation that they have made him, as a people especially devoted to their faith, the tsar and the fatherland, there is a people most free from the deception of patriotism. For the most part he does not know his faith, that Orthodox, state, to which he is allegedly so devoted, but as soon as he finds out, he abandons it and becomes a rationalist; to his king, in spite of the incessant, intensified suggestions in this direction, he treats as to all the authorities in charge - if not with condemnation, then with complete indifference; his fatherland, if you do not understand by this his village, parish, he either does not know at all, or, if he does, then he does not make any distinction between him and other states.

LEADING: So you think that the feeling of patriotism in people is not necessary to educate ?!

THICK: Several times I already had to express the thought that patriotism in our time is an unnatural, unreasonable, harmful feeling, causing a large share of the calamities from which humanity suffers, and that therefore this feeling should not be educated, as is done now - on the contrary, it is suppressed and destroyed by all means depending on reasonable people.

(In the edition there is panic, bugs in the ears of the presenters are straining ...)

HOST: Well, you know ... We are not ... You ... at least you would wear a beautiful suit !!

THICK: But the amazing thing is, despite the undeniable and obvious dependence only on this feeling of universal armaments and destructive wars ruining the people, all my arguments about the backwardness, untimeliness and dangers of patriotism have met and are still encountered either by silence, or deliberate misunderstanding, or always by the same the same strange objection: it is said that only bad patriotism, jingoism, chauvinism are harmful, but that real, good patriotism is a very lofty moral feeling, to condemn which is not only unreasonable, but also criminal. About the same, in which this real, good patriotism consists, is either not said at all, or pompous pompous phrases are uttered instead of an explanation, or something is presented under the concept of patriotism that has nothing to do with the patriotism that we all know and from which everyone we suffer so cruelly.

... MODERATOR: We have one minute left, and I would like all the participants in the discussion to formulate literally in two or three words - what is patriotism?

THICK: Patriotism is slavery.

Quotes from Leo Tolstoy's articles "Christianity and Patriotism" (1894), "Patriotism or Peace?" (1896), "Patriotism and Government" (1900). Note, the time is quiet and prosperous; The Russo-Japanese War, the First World War and the rest of the twentieth century are still ahead ... However, that's why Tolstoy is a genius.)

Leo Tolstoy about civilization
14.11.2012

Selection of Maxim Orlov,
village Gorval, Gomel region (Belarus).

I watched ants. They crawled up and down the tree. I don't know what they could have taken there? But only those that crawl up have a small, ordinary abdomen, while those that go down have a thick, heavy abdomen. Apparently, they were gaining something inside themselves. And so he crawls, only knows his path. On the tree - irregularities, growths, he bypasses them and crawls on ... In old age it is somehow especially surprising for me when I look at ants, at trees. And what do all airplanes mean before that? So it's all rude, lurid! .. 1

I went for a walk. Wonderful autumn morning, quiet, warm, green, the smell of a leaf. And people instead of this wonderful nature, with fields, forests, water, birds, animals, arrange for themselves in cities a different, artificial nature, with factory pipes, palaces, locomotives, phonographs ... It's terrible, and you can't fix it ... 2

Nature is better than man. There is no dichotomy in it, it is always consistent. She should be loved everywhere, for she is beautiful everywhere and always and always works. (...)

A person, however, knows how to spoil everything, and Rousseau is quite right when he says that everything that came out of the hands of the creator is beautiful, and everything that comes out of the hands of a person is useless. There is no wholeness in a person at all. 3

You need to see and understand what truth and beauty are, and everything you say and think, all your desires for happiness, both for me and for yourself, will scatter to dust. Happiness is being with nature, seeing it, talking to it. 4

We destroy millions of flowers in order to erect palaces, theaters with electric lighting, and one burdock color is more expensive than thousands of palaces. 5

I picked the flower and threw it away. There are so many of them that it is not a pity. We do not appreciate this inimitable beauty of living beings and we destroy them, not sparing them - not only plants, but animals and people. There are so many of them. Culture * - civilization is nothing but the destruction of these beauties and their replacement. With what? Tavern, theater ... 6

Instead of learning to live a love life, people learn to fly. They fly very badly, but they stop learning the love life, just to learn how to fly somehow. It is as if the birds stopped flying and learned to run or build and ride bicycles. 7

It is a big mistake to think that all inventions that increase the power of people over nature in agriculture, in the extraction and chemical combination of substances, and the possibility of a great influence of people on each other, as ways and means of communication, printing, telegraph, telephone, phonograph, are good. Both the power over nature and the increase in the possibility of people influencing each other will be good only when people's activities are guided by love, the desire for the good of others, and will be evil when it is guided by selfishness, the desire for the good only for oneself. Excavated metals can go to the conveniences of human life or to guns, the consequence of an increase in the fertility of the earth can provide secure food for people and can be the reason for the increased spread and consumption of opium, vodka, ways of communication and means of communicating thoughts can carry good and evil influences. And therefore, in an immoral society (...) all inventions that increase man's power over nature, and the means of communication are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil. eight

They say, and I say, that printing did not contribute to the welfare of people. This is not enough. Nothing that increases the possibility of people influencing each other: railways, telegraphs, backgrounds, ships, cannons, all military devices, explosives and everything that is called "culture" in our time did not contribute to the welfare of people, but on the contrary. It could not be otherwise among people, most of whom live an irreligious, immoral life. If the majority are immoral, then the means of influence will obviously only contribute to the spread of immorality.

The means of influence of culture can be beneficial only when the majority, albeit small, are religious and moral. It is desirable that the relationship of morality and culture is such that culture develops only simultaneously and slightly behind the moral movement. When culture overtakes, as it is now, then this is a great calamity. Perhaps, and even I think, it is a temporary calamity, that due to the excess of culture over morality, although there must be temporary suffering, the backwardness of morality will cause suffering, as a result of which culture will be delayed and the movement of morality will be accelerated, and the correct attitude will be restored. 9

Usually, the progress of mankind is measured by its technical, scientific success, believing that civilization leads to good. This is not true. And Rousseau, and everyone who admires the wild, patriarchal state, is just as right or just as wrong as those who admire civilization. The blessing of people living and using the highest, most sophisticated civilization, culture, and people of the most primitive, wild are exactly the same. It is just as impossible to increase the welfare of people by science, civilization, culture, as it is to make the water in one place stand higher on a water plane than in others. An increase in the welfare of people only from an increase in love, which by its nature equals all people; scientific, technical successes are a matter of age, and civilized people are just as little superior to the uncivilized in their well-being as an adult is superior to a non-adult in his well-being. It is good only from an increase in love. 10

When people's life is immoral and their relationships are based not on love, but on selfishness, then all technical improvements, an increase in man's power over nature: steam, electricity, telegraphs, all kinds of cars, gunpowder, dynamites, robulites - give the impression of dangerous toys that are given in hands to children. eleven

In our age, there is a terrible superstition that we enthusiastically accept any invention that reduces labor, and consider it necessary to use it without asking ourselves whether this invention that reduces labor increases our happiness, whether it violates beauty. ... We are, like a woman, through strength eating up beef, because she got it, although she does not want to eat, and the food will probably harm her. Railways instead of walking, cars instead of horses, hosiery instead of knitting needles. 12

The civilized and the wild are equal. Humanity moves forward only in love, and there is no progress from technical improvement and cannot be. thirteen

If the Russian people are uncivilized barbarians, then we have a future. Western peoples are civilized barbarians, and they have nothing to wait for. We imitate the Western peoples as much as a healthy, hard-working, unspoiled fellow envy the Parisian bald young rich man sitting in his hotel. Ah, que je m "embete! **

Not to envy and imitate, but to regret. 14

Western peoples are far ahead of us, but ahead of us on the wrong path. In order for them to follow the true path, they have to go a long way back. We only need to deviate a little from the false path on which we have just entered and along which the Western peoples are returning to meet us. 15

We often look at the ancients as children. And we are children before the ancients, before their deep, serious, uncluttered understanding of life. sixteen

How easy it is to assimilate what is called civilization, a real civilization, both by individuals and nations! Pass the university, clean your nails, use the services of a tailor and a hairdresser, go abroad, and the most civilized person is ready. And for the peoples: more railways, academies, factories, dreadnoughts, fortresses, newspapers, books, parties, parliaments - and the most civilized people are ready. It is from this that people grab for civilization, and not for enlightenment - both individuals and nations. The former is easy, effortless, and approving; the second, on the contrary, requires a strenuous effort and not only does not arouse approval, but is always despised, hated by the majority, because it exposes the lies of civilization. 17

They compare me to Rousseau. I owe and love Russo a lot, but there is a big difference. The difference is that Rousseau denies any civilization, while I deny false Christian. What is called civilization is the growth of humanity. Growth is necessary, you cannot talk about it, whether it is good or bad. This is - there is life in it. Like the growth of a tree. But the bitch or life forces growing into a bitch are wrong, harmful if they absorb all the growth power. This is with our false civilization. eighteen

Psychiatrists know that when a person begins to talk a lot, talk without ceasing, about everything in the world, without thinking about anything and only in a hurry to say as many words as possible in the shortest possible time, they know that this is a bad and sure sign of an incipient or already developed mental illness ... When, at the same time, the patient is quite sure that he knows everything better than anyone, that he can and must teach his wisdom, then the signs of mental illness are already beyond doubt. Our so-called civilized world is in this dangerous and wretched position. And I think - is already very close to the same destruction that the previous civilizations have undergone. nineteen

External movement is empty, only by internal work a person is freed. Belief in progress, that someday it will be good and until then we can, at random, unwisely arrange life for ourselves and others, is superstition. twenty

* Reading the works of N.K. Roerich, we are accustomed to understanding Culture as “reverence for the light”, as a building, inviting moral force. In the above quotations by Leo Tolstoy, here and below the word "culture", as we can see, is used in the meaning of "civilization".

** Oh, how I am mad with boredom! (French)

... We are all carried away into the distance on the same planet - we are the crew of the same ship. Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Without the belief that nature is subject to laws, there can be no science. Norbert Wiener

Good nature has taken care of everything in such a way that everywhere you find something to learn. Leonardo da Vinci

The closest thing to the Divine in this world is nature. Astolphe de Custine

The wind is the breath of nature. Kozma Prutkov

In an immoral society, all inventions that increase man's power over nature are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil. Lev Tolstoy

In undeveloped countries it is deadly to drink water, in developed countries it is deadly to breathe air. Jonathan Reiban

In nature, everything is connected with one another, and there is nothing accidental in it. And if a random phenomenon comes out, look for a human hand in it. Mikhail Prishvin

There are both grains and dust in nature. William Shakespeare

In nature, nothing is lost, except for nature itself. Andrey Kryzhanovsky

Time destroys false opinions, and confirms the judgments of nature. Mark Cicero

In its own hour, poetry is in nature. John Keats

All the best in nature belongs to all together. Petronius

All living things are afraid of torture, all living things are afraid of death; know yourself not only in man, but in every living being, do not kill and do not cause suffering and death. Buddhist wisdom

In all areas of nature ... a certain pattern dominates, independent of the existence of thinking humanity. Max Planck

In his tools, man has power over external nature, while for his purposes he is rather subordinate to it. Georg Hegel

In the old days, the richest countries were those whose nature was the most abundant; the richest countries today are those in which man is most active. Henry Buckle

Every thing in nature is either a cause directed at you, or a consequence that comes from us. Marsilio Ficino

Until people listen to the common sense of nature, they will be forced to obey either dictators or the opinion of the people. Wilhelm Schwebel

A fool is he who is not satisfied with what is happening according to the laws of nature. Epictetus

They say that one swallow does not make spring; But really, because one swallow does not make spring, the swallow, which already feels spring, should not fly, but wait. So then every bud and grass must wait, and there will be no spring. Lev Tolstoy

Great things are done with great means. Nature alone makes great gifts. Alexander Ivanovich Herzen

Even in his most beautiful dreams, man cannot imagine anything more beautiful than nature. Alphonse de Lamartine

Even the smallest pleasure given to us by nature is a mystery, incomprehensible to the mind. Luc de Vauvenargue

The ideal of human nature lies in orthobiosis, i.e. in the development of a person in order to achieve a long, active and vigorous old age, leading in the final period to the development of a sense of satiety with life. Ilya Mechnikov

The search for goals in nature has its source in ignorance. Benedict Spinoza

He who does not love nature does not love man either - that is a bad citizen. Fedor Dostoevsky

He who superficially examines nature is easily lost in the infinite "Everything", but who hears more deeply to its miracles, he is constantly led to God, the Master of the world. Karl de Geer

Our callousness, our selfishness prompts us to look at nature with envy, but she herself will envy us when we recover from ailments. Ralph Emerson

There is nothing more resourceful than nature. Mark Cicero

But why change the processes of nature? There may be a deeper philosophy, which we never dreamed of - a philosophy that reveals the secrets of nature, but does not change its course by penetrating into it. Edward Bulwer-Lytton

One of the most difficult tasks of our time is the problem of slowing down the process of destruction of wildlife ... Archie Carr

The main law of nature is the preservation of humanity. John Locke

Let us thank the wise nature for making the necessary easy and the heavy unnecessary. Epicurus

Until people know the laws of nature, they blindly obey them, and since they have learned them, then the forces of nature obey people. Georgy Plekhanov

Nature will always take its toll. William Shakespeare

Nature is a house in which a person lives. Dmitry Likhachev

Nature is dispassionate towards man; she is not an enemy and not a friend to him; it is now a convenient, now an uncomfortable field for his activities. Nikolay Chernyshevsky

Nature is an eternal example of art; and the greatest and noblest thing in nature is man. Vissarion Belinsky

Nature has invested in every kind heart a noble feeling, by virtue of which it itself cannot be happy, but must seek its happiness in others. Johann Goethe

Nature has put in a person some innate instincts, such as: hunger, sexual feelings, etc., and one of the strongest feelings of this order is the sense of ownership. Pyotr Stolypin

Nature is always stronger than principles. David Hume

Nature is one, and there is nothing equal to it: the mother and daughter of herself, she is the Deity of the gods. Consider only her, Nature, and leave the rest to the commoners. Pythagoras

Nature is, in a sense, the Gospel, proclaiming loudly the creative power, wisdom and all the greatness of God. And not only heaven, but also the bowels of the earth preach the glory of God. Mikhail Lomonosov

Nature is the cause of everything, it exists due to itself; it will exist and act forever ... Paul Holbach

Nature, which endowed every animal with the means of subsistence, gave astronomy as an assistant and ally astrology. Johannes Kepler

Nature scoffs at the decisions and commands of princes, emperors and monarchs, and at their request, she would not change one iota of her laws. Galileo Galilei

Nature does not make people, people make themselves. Merab Mamardashvili

Nature knows no stoppage in her movement and puts an end to all inactivity. Johann Goethe

Nature does not presuppose any goals for itself ... All ultimate causes are only human inventions. Benedict Spinoza

Nature does not accept jokes, she is always truthful, always serious, always strict; she is always right; mistakes and delusions come from people. Johann Goethe

Patience is most reminiscent of the way nature creates its creations. Honore de Balzac

That which is contrary to nature never leads to good. Friedrich Schiller

A person has quite enough objective reasons to strive to preserve wildlife. But, ultimately, only his love can save nature. Jean Dorst

Good taste prompted a good society that getting in touch with nature is the very last word of science, reason, and common sense. Fedor Dostoevsky

Man does not become master of nature until he becomes master of himself. Georg Hegel

Humanity - without ennobling it with animals and plants - will perish, become impoverished, fall into the anger of despair, like a lonely one in solitude. Andrey Platonov

The more they delve into the deeds of nature, the more visible becomes the simplicity of the laws that it follows in its deeds. Alexander Radishchev

Question 1. Find the definitions of the words "personality" and "society" in two or three dictionaries. Compare them. If there are differences in the definition of the same word, try to explain them.

Personality is a person as a social and natural being endowed with consciousness, speech, and creative possibilities.

Personality is a person as a subject of social relations and conscious activity.

Society - An aggregate of people united by the method of producing material goods at a certain stage of historical development, by certain production relations.

Society - A circle of people united by a common position, origin, interests, etc.

Question 3. Read the figurative definitions of society given by thinkers of different times and peoples: "Society is nothing more than the result of a mechanical balance of brute forces", "Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other", " Society is a balance beam that cannot raise some without lowering others. " Which of these definitions comes closest to the characterization of society outlined in this chapter? Give reasons for your choice.

"Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other." Because society in the broadest sense is a form of uniting people with common interests, values ​​and goals.

Question 4. Make, if possible, a complete list of various human qualities (a table of two columns: "Positive qualities", "Negative qualities"). Discuss it in class.

POSITIVE:

modest

frank

sincere

confident

decisive

purposeful

assembled

brave, brave

balanced

calm, cold-blooded

easy-going

generous, generous

resourceful, resourceful, quick-witted

prudent, judicious

sane, sane

compliant, compliant

hardworking

meek, gentle

caring, considerate of others

sympathetic

polite

selfless

merciful, compassionate

witty

cheerful, cheerful

serious

NEGATIVE:

smug, conceited

dishonest

deceitful, sneaky

cunning, cunning

insincere

unconfident,

indecisive

absent-minded

cowardly, cowardly

hot-tempered

unbalanced

evil, cruel

vindictive

stupid, stupid

unreasonable, reckless

cruel

selfish

indifferent, indifferent

rude, impolite

greedy

ruthless, merciless

gloomy, gloomy, gloomy

Question 5. LN Tolstoy wrote: "In an immoral society, all inventions that increase man's power over nature are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil."

How do you understand the words "immoral society"? Considering that the above thought was expressed more than 100 years ago, has it been confirmed in the development of society over the past century? Argument your answer using specific examples.

Immorality is a quality of a person who ignores moral laws in his life. This is a quality that is characterized by a tendency to fulfill the rules and norms of relations that are opposite, directly opposite to those adopted by humanity, a person in faith, in a particular society. Immorality is evil, deceit, theft, idleness, parasitism, debauchery, profanity, debauchery, drunkenness, shamelessness, self-will, etc. Immorality is a state of first of all mental depravity, and then physical, it is always lack of spirituality. The slightest manifestations of immorality in children should cause adults to need to improve the upbringing environment and educational work with them. Adult immorality is fraught with consequences for the entire society.

Question 1. Find the definitions of the words "personality" and "society" in two or three dictionaries. Compare them. If there are differences in the definition of the same word, try to explain them.

Personality is a person as a social and natural being endowed with consciousness, speech, and creative possibilities.

Personality is a person as a subject of social relations and conscious activity.

Society - An aggregate of people united by the method of producing material goods at a certain stage of historical development, by certain production relations.

Society - A circle of people united by a common position, origin, interests, etc.

Question 3. Read the figurative definitions of society given by thinkers of different times and peoples: "Society is nothing more than the result of a mechanical balance of brute forces", "Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other", " Society is a balance beam that cannot raise some without lowering others. " Which of these definitions comes closest to the characterization of society outlined in this chapter? Give reasons for your choice.

"Society is a vault of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other." Because society in the broadest sense is a form of uniting people with common interests, values ​​and goals.

Question 4. Make, if possible, a complete list of various human qualities (a table of two columns: "Positive qualities", "Negative qualities"). Discuss it in class.

POSITIVE:

modest

frank

sincere

confident

decisive

purposeful

assembled

brave, brave

balanced

calm, cold-blooded

easy-going

generous, generous

resourceful, resourceful, quick-witted

prudent, judicious

sane, sane

compliant, compliant

hardworking

meek, gentle

caring, considerate of others

sympathetic

polite

selfless

merciful, compassionate

witty

cheerful, cheerful

serious

NEGATIVE:

smug, conceited

dishonest

deceitful, sneaky

cunning, cunning

insincere

unconfident,

indecisive

absent-minded

cowardly, cowardly

hot-tempered

unbalanced

evil, cruel

vindictive

stupid, stupid

unreasonable, reckless

cruel

selfish

indifferent, indifferent

rude, impolite

greedy

ruthless, merciless

gloomy, gloomy, gloomy

Question 5. LN Tolstoy wrote: "In an immoral society, all inventions that increase man's power over nature are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil."

How do you understand the words "immoral society"? Considering that the above thought was expressed more than 100 years ago, has it been confirmed in the development of society over the past century? Argument your answer using specific examples.

Immorality is a quality of a person who ignores moral laws in his life. This is a quality that is characterized by a tendency to fulfill the rules and norms of relations that are opposite, directly opposite to those adopted by humanity, a person in faith, in a particular society. Immorality is evil, deceit, theft, idleness, parasitism, debauchery, profanity, debauchery, drunkenness, shamelessness, self-will, etc. Immorality is a state of first of all mental depravity, and then physical, it is always lack of spirituality. The slightest manifestations of immorality in children should cause adults to need to improve the upbringing environment and educational work with them. Adult immorality is fraught with consequences for the entire society.

LEADING: Lev Nikolaevich, what is “patriotism” for you?

THICK: Patriotism is an immoral feeling because instead of recognizing himself as the son of God, as Christianity teaches us, or at least as a free man guided by his own reason, every person, under the influence of patriotism, recognizes himself as the son of his fatherland, a slave of his government and performs acts contrary to his reason and your conscience. Patriotism in its simplest, clear and undoubted meaning is nothing else for the rulers, as a tool to achieve power-hungry and selfish goals, and for the ruled, it is a renunciation of human dignity, reason, conscience and slavish submission of oneself to those in power. This is how he is preached everywhere.

LEADING: Do you really think that there can be no modern positive patriotism?

THICK: Patriotism cannot be good. Why do people not say that egoism cannot be good, although this could rather be argued, because egoism is a natural feeling with which a person is born, and patriotism is an unnatural feeling, artificially instilled in him. So, for example, in Russia, where patriotism in the form of love and devotion to the faith, the tsar and the fatherland with extraordinary tension with all the tools in the hands of the government: church, school, press and all solemnity, is instilled in the people, the Russian working man is one hundred million of the Russian people Despite the undeserved reputation that they have made him, as a people especially devoted to their faith, the tsar and the fatherland, there is a people most free from the deception of patriotism. For the most part he does not know his faith, that Orthodox, state, to which he is allegedly so devoted, but as soon as he finds out, he abandons it and becomes a rationalist; to his king, in spite of the incessant, intensified suggestions in this direction, he treats as to all the authorities in charge - if not with condemnation, then with complete indifference; his fatherland, if you do not understand by this his village, parish, he either does not know at all, or, if he does, then he does not make any distinction between him and other states.

LEADING: So you think that the feeling of patriotism in people is not necessary to educate ?!

THICK: Several times I already had to express the thought that patriotism in our time is an unnatural, unreasonable, harmful feeling, causing a large share of the calamities from which humanity suffers, and that therefore this feeling should not be educated, as is done now - on the contrary, it is suppressed and destroyed by all means depending on reasonable people.

(In the edition there is panic, bugs in the ears of the presenters are straining ...)

HOST: Well, you know ... We are not ... You ... at least you would wear a beautiful suit !!

THICK: But the amazing thing is, despite the undeniable and obvious dependence only on this feeling of universal armaments and destructive wars ruining the people, all my arguments about the backwardness, untimeliness and dangers of patriotism have met and are still encountered either by silence, or deliberate misunderstanding, or always by the same the same strange objection: it is said that only bad patriotism, jingoism, chauvinism are harmful, but that real, good patriotism is a very lofty moral feeling, to condemn which is not only unreasonable, but also criminal. About the same, in which this real, good patriotism consists, is either not said at all, or pompous pompous phrases are uttered instead of an explanation, or something is presented under the concept of patriotism that has nothing to do with the patriotism that we all know and from which everyone we suffer so cruelly.

... MODERATOR: We have one minute left, and I would like all the participants in the discussion to formulate literally in two or three words - what is patriotism?

THICK: Patriotism is slavery.

Quotes from Leo Tolstoy's articles "Christianity and Patriotism" (1894), "Patriotism or Peace?" (1896), "Patriotism and Government" (1900). Note, the time is quiet and prosperous; The Russo-Japanese War, the First World War and the rest of the twentieth century are still ahead ... However, that's why Tolstoy is a genius.)

Leo Tolstoy about civilization
14.11.2012

Selection of Maxim Orlov,
village Gorval, Gomel region (Belarus).

I watched ants. They crawled up and down the tree. I don't know what they could have taken there? But only those that crawl up have a small, ordinary abdomen, while those that go down have a thick, heavy abdomen. Apparently, they were gaining something inside themselves. And so he crawls, only knows his path. On the tree - irregularities, growths, he bypasses them and crawls on ... In old age it is somehow especially surprising for me when I look at ants, at trees. And what do all airplanes mean before that? So it's all rude, lurid! .. 1

I went for a walk. Wonderful autumn morning, quiet, warm, green, the smell of a leaf. And people instead of this wonderful nature, with fields, forests, water, birds, animals, arrange for themselves in cities a different, artificial nature, with factory pipes, palaces, locomotives, phonographs ... It's terrible, and you can't fix it ... 2

Nature is better than man. There is no dichotomy in it, it is always consistent. She should be loved everywhere, for she is beautiful everywhere and always and always works. (...)

A person, however, knows how to spoil everything, and Rousseau is quite right when he says that everything that came out of the hands of the creator is beautiful, and everything that comes out of the hands of a person is useless. There is no wholeness in a person at all. 3

You need to see and understand what truth and beauty are, and everything you say and think, all your desires for happiness, both for me and for yourself, will scatter to dust. Happiness is being with nature, seeing it, talking to it. 4

We destroy millions of flowers in order to erect palaces, theaters with electric lighting, and one burdock color is more expensive than thousands of palaces. 5

I picked the flower and threw it away. There are so many of them that it is not a pity. We do not appreciate this inimitable beauty of living beings and we destroy them, not sparing them - not only plants, but animals and people. There are so many of them. Culture * - civilization is nothing but the destruction of these beauties and their replacement. With what? Tavern, theater ... 6

Instead of learning to live a love life, people learn to fly. They fly very badly, but they stop learning the love life, just to learn how to fly somehow. It is as if the birds stopped flying and learned to run or build and ride bicycles. 7

It is a big mistake to think that all inventions that increase the power of people over nature in agriculture, in the extraction and chemical combination of substances, and the possibility of a great influence of people on each other, as ways and means of communication, printing, telegraph, telephone, phonograph, are good. Both the power over nature and the increase in the possibility of people influencing each other will be good only when people's activities are guided by love, the desire for the good of others, and will be evil when it is guided by selfishness, the desire for the good only for oneself. Excavated metals can go to the conveniences of human life or to guns, the consequence of an increase in the fertility of the earth can provide secure food for people and can be the reason for the increased spread and consumption of opium, vodka, ways of communication and means of communicating thoughts can carry good and evil influences. And therefore, in an immoral society (...) all inventions that increase man's power over nature, and the means of communication are not only not good, but an undoubted and obvious evil. eight

They say, and I say, that printing did not contribute to the welfare of people. This is not enough. Nothing that increases the possibility of people influencing each other: railways, telegraphs, backgrounds, ships, cannons, all military devices, explosives and everything that is called "culture" in our time did not contribute to the welfare of people, but on the contrary. It could not be otherwise among people, most of whom live an irreligious, immoral life. If the majority are immoral, then the means of influence will obviously only contribute to the spread of immorality.

The means of influence of culture can be beneficial only when the majority, albeit small, are religious and moral. It is desirable that the relationship of morality and culture is such that culture develops only simultaneously and slightly behind the moral movement. When culture overtakes, as it is now, then this is a great calamity. Perhaps, and even I think, it is a temporary calamity, that due to the excess of culture over morality, although there must be temporary suffering, the backwardness of morality will cause suffering, as a result of which culture will be delayed and the movement of morality will be accelerated, and the correct attitude will be restored. 9

Usually, the progress of mankind is measured by its technical, scientific success, believing that civilization leads to good. This is not true. And Rousseau, and everyone who admires the wild, patriarchal state, is just as right or just as wrong as those who admire civilization. The blessing of people living and using the highest, most sophisticated civilization, culture, and people of the most primitive, wild are exactly the same. It is just as impossible to increase the welfare of people by science, civilization, culture, as it is to make the water in one place stand higher on a water plane than in others. An increase in the welfare of people only from an increase in love, which by its nature equals all people; scientific, technical successes are a matter of age, and civilized people are just as little superior to the uncivilized in their well-being as an adult is superior to a non-adult in his well-being. It is good only from an increase in love. 10

When people's life is immoral and their relationships are based not on love, but on selfishness, then all technical improvements, an increase in man's power over nature: steam, electricity, telegraphs, all kinds of cars, gunpowder, dynamites, robulites - give the impression of dangerous toys that are given in hands to children. eleven

In our age, there is a terrible superstition that we enthusiastically accept any invention that reduces labor, and consider it necessary to use it without asking ourselves whether this invention that reduces labor increases our happiness, whether it violates beauty. ... We are, like a woman, through strength eating up beef, because she got it, although she does not want to eat, and the food will probably harm her. Railways instead of walking, cars instead of horses, hosiery instead of knitting needles. 12

The civilized and the wild are equal. Humanity moves forward only in love, and there is no progress from technical improvement and cannot be. thirteen

If the Russian people are uncivilized barbarians, then we have a future. Western peoples are civilized barbarians, and they have nothing to wait for. We imitate the Western peoples as much as a healthy, hard-working, unspoiled fellow envy the Parisian bald young rich man sitting in his hotel. Ah, que je m "embete! **

Not to envy and imitate, but to regret. 14

Western peoples are far ahead of us, but ahead of us on the wrong path. In order for them to follow the true path, they have to go a long way back. We only need to deviate a little from the false path on which we have just entered and along which the Western peoples are returning to meet us. 15

We often look at the ancients as children. And we are children before the ancients, before their deep, serious, uncluttered understanding of life. sixteen

How easy it is to assimilate what is called civilization, a real civilization, both by individuals and nations! Pass the university, clean your nails, use the services of a tailor and a hairdresser, go abroad, and the most civilized person is ready. And for the peoples: more railways, academies, factories, dreadnoughts, fortresses, newspapers, books, parties, parliaments - and the most civilized people are ready. It is from this that people grab for civilization, and not for enlightenment - both individuals and nations. The former is easy, effortless, and approving; the second, on the contrary, requires a strenuous effort and not only does not arouse approval, but is always despised, hated by the majority, because it exposes the lies of civilization. 17

They compare me to Rousseau. I owe and love Russo a lot, but there is a big difference. The difference is that Rousseau denies any civilization, while I deny false Christian. What is called civilization is the growth of humanity. Growth is necessary, you cannot talk about it, whether it is good or bad. This is - there is life in it. Like the growth of a tree. But the bitch or life forces growing into a bitch are wrong, harmful if they absorb all the growth power. This is with our false civilization. eighteen

Psychiatrists know that when a person begins to talk a lot, talk without ceasing, about everything in the world, without thinking about anything and only in a hurry to say as many words as possible in the shortest possible time, they know that this is a bad and sure sign of an incipient or already developed mental illness ... When, at the same time, the patient is quite sure that he knows everything better than anyone, that he can and must teach his wisdom, then the signs of mental illness are already beyond doubt. Our so-called civilized world is in this dangerous and wretched position. And I think - is already very close to the same destruction that the previous civilizations have undergone. nineteen

External movement is empty, only by internal work a person is freed. Belief in progress, that someday it will be good and until then we can, at random, unwisely arrange life for ourselves and others, is superstition. twenty

* Reading the works of N.K. Roerich, we are accustomed to understanding Culture as “reverence for the light”, as a building, inviting moral force. In the above quotations by Leo Tolstoy, here and below the word "culture", as we can see, is used in the meaning of "civilization".

** Oh, how I am mad with boredom! (French)

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910). Artist I. E. Repin. 1887 g.

The famous Russian theater director and creator of the acting system Konstantin Stanislavsky wrote in his book "My Life in Art" that in the difficult years of the first revolutions, when despair gripped people, many recalled that at the same time Leo Tolstoy lived with them. And it became easier on my soul. He was the conscience of humanity. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Tolstoy became the spokesman for the thoughts and hopes of millions of people. He was the moral support for many. It was read and listened to not only by Russia, but also by Europe, America and Asia.

True, at the same time, many contemporaries and subsequent researchers of Leo Tolstoy's work noted that outside of his works of art he was in many respects contradictory. His greatness as a thinker manifested itself in the creation of broad canvases dedicated to the moral state of society, in the search for a way out of the impasse. But he was petty picky, moralizing in search of the meaning of the life of an individual. And the older he got, the more actively he criticized the vices of society, looking for his own special moral path.

The Norwegian writer Knut Hamsun noted this feature of Tolstoy's character. According to him, in his youth, Tolstoy allowed many excesses - he played cards, dragged after the young ladies, drank wine, behaved like a typical bourgeois, and in adulthood he suddenly changed, became a devout righteous man and branded himself and the whole society with shame for vulgar and immoral acts ... It was not by chance that he had a conflict with his own family, whose members could not understand his duality, his dissatisfaction and throwing

Leo Tolstoy was a hereditary aristocrat. Mother - Princess Volkonskaya, one paternal grandmother - Princess Gorchakova, the second - Princess Trubetskaya. In his Yasnaya Polyana estate there were portraits of his relatives, high-born titled persons. In addition to the title of count, he inherited a ruined economy from his parents, his upbringing was taken over by his relatives, and home teachers, including a German and a Frenchman, took care of him. Then he studied at Kazan University. First he studied oriental languages, then legal sciences. Neither one nor the other satisfied him, and he left the 3rd year.

At 23, Lev lost a lot at cards and had to repay the debt, but he did not ask for money from anyone, but went as an officer to the Caucasus to earn money and gain impressions. He liked it there - exotic nature, mountains, hunting in local forests, participation in battles against the mountaineers. There he first took up the pen. But he began to write not about his impressions, but about his childhood.

The manuscript, titled Childhood, was sent by Tolstoy to the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, where it was published in 1852, praising the young author. Inspired by luck, he wrote the stories "The Morning of the Landowner", "The Case", the story "Boyhood", "Sevastopol Stories." A new talent entered Russian literature, powerful in reflecting reality, in creating types, in reflecting the inner world of heroes.

Tolstoy arrived in St. Petersburg in 1855. The count, the hero of Sevastopol, he was already a famous writer, he had money that he earned through literary work. He was received in the best houses, the editorial office of Otechestvennye zapiski was also expected to meet with him. But he was disappointed with secular life, and among the writers he did not find a person close to him in spirit. He was tired of the dreary life in wet Petersburg, and he went to his place in Yasnaya Polyana. And in 1857 he went abroad to scatter and look at another life.

Tolstoy visited France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, was interested in the life of local peasants, the system of public education. But he didn’t like Europe. He saw idle rich and well-fed people, saw the poverty of the poor. A blatant injustice wounded him in the very heart, an unspoken protest arose in his soul. Six months later, he returned to Yasnaya Polyana and opened a school for peasant children. After a second trip abroad, he secured the opening of more than 20 schools in the surrounding villages.

Tolstoy published the pedagogical journal Yasnaya Polyana, wrote books for children, and taught them himself. But for complete well-being, he lacked a loved one who would share with him all the joys and hardships. At 34, he finally married 18-year-old Sophia Bers and became happy. He felt like a zealous owner, bought land, experimented on it, and in his free time he wrote the epoch-making novel "War and Peace", which began to be published in the "Russian Bulletin". Later, critics abroad recognized this work as the greatest, which became a significant phenomenon in new European literature.

Following Tolstoy wrote the novel "Anna Karenina", dedicated to the tragic love of the woman of light Anna and the fate of the nobleman Konstantin Levin. Using the example of his heroine, he tried to answer the question: who is a woman - a person who demands respect, or just the keeper of the family hearth? After these two novels, he felt a kind of breakdown in himself. He wrote about the moral essence of other people and began to peer into his soul.

His views on life changed, he began to admit many sins in himself and taught others, spoke about non-resistance to evil by violence - they hit you on one cheek, turn the other. This is the only way to change the world for the better. Many people were under his influence, they were called "Tolstoyans", they did not resist evil, they wished good to their neighbors. Among them were famous writers Maxim Gorky and Ivan Bunin.

During the 1880s, Tolstoy began to create small stories: The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Kholstomer, The Kreutzer Sonata, Father Sergius. In them, as an experienced psychologist, he showed the inner world of an ordinary person, a willingness to submit to fate. Along with these works, he worked on a large novel about the fate of a sinful woman and the attitude of those around her.

Resurrection "was published in 1899 and amazed the reading public with a sharp topic and author's subtext. The novel was recognized as a classic, it was immediately translated into the main European languages. The success was complete. In this novel, Tolstoy for the first time with such frankness showed the deformities of the state system, the abomination and complete indifference of those in power to the pressing problems of people. In it, he criticized the Russian Orthodox Church, which did nothing to rectify the situation, did nothing to facilitate the existence of the fallen and miserable people. A serious conflict broke out. The Russian Orthodox Church saw blasphemy in this harsh criticism. Tolstoy's views were recognized as extremely erroneous, his position was anti-Christian, he was anathematized and excommunicated.

But Tolstoy did not repent. He remained faithful to his ideals, his church. However, his rebellious nature rebelled against the abominations of not only the surrounding reality, but also the lordly way of life of his own family. He was burdened by his well-being, the position of a well-to-do landowner. He wanted to give up everything, go to the righteous in order to purify his soul in a new environment. And left. His secret departure from the family was tragic. On the way, he caught a cold and fell ill with pneumonia. He could not recover from this illness.

-) Money is not only a blessing, but also a huge disaster for humanity.
-) Competition arises where and when there is a deficit in something.
-) Trade was born when the exchange took the form of money.
-) The economy arises only when people need to rationally distribute rare goods, and the market is invented as the most rational and effective method to obtain such goods.
-) Simple commodity production existed both in the era of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs and in the era of Soviet leaders

Urgently! Help!) Answer at least something)

Read an excerpt from the pedagogical works of the outstanding Russian teacher PF Kapterev.

About a truly educated person:

This is the kind of person who owns not only different things
outside knowledge, but also the ability to dispose of it, which
ry is not only knowledgeable, but also quick-witted, who has
king in the head, unity in thoughts; who knows not only
to think, to act, but also to work physically, and enjoy
be given the beauty of nature and art.

This is the kind of person who feels alive and
an active member of the modern cultural society,
takes a close connection of his personality with humanity, with
their native people, with all the former workers on
a field of culture that moves a person to the best of his ability
culture forward.

This is the kind of person who feels open in
to himself all his abilities and properties and does not suffer from internal
early disharmony of their aspirations.

This person is physically developed, with healthy organs.
mi body, with a keen interest in exercise,
sensitive to the joys of the body. Answer the questions: 1) What does it mean to be able to use your knowledge? 2) What does it mean to be "a living and active member of a modern cultural society", to the extent of possible to move forward human culture? 3) Why is it necessary to develop all your abilities? 4) Expand the connection between health, physical development and education of a person.

From the work of the modern Russian scientist, academician I. N. Moiseev (reflections on the place of Russia in civilized development).

Today Russia is a bridge between two oceans, two centers of economic power. By the will of fate, we saddled the path "from the English to the Japanese", as in the old days the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks." We got a bridge between two civilizations, and we have the opportunity to draw on the best that is on both banks - if we have a mind, as our ancestors got it from the Byzantines, and from the Varangians - a sword. This is a circumstance given to us by nature and history; it can become one of the most important sources of our prosperity and stability. And our niche in the world society. The fact is that this bridge is needed not only for us - everyone needs it. Not only Russia, but also the European Peninsula and the developing Pacific region, and even America. This bridge is needed by the whole planet! Here lies our niche, traced by fate - the north of the Eurasian supercontinent. This niche does not divide, but connects peoples, does not oppose anyone and does not threaten anyone. Our great national goal is not to assert our ambitions in Europe, not to implement Eurasian doctrines and utopias in the spirit that the Eurasians of the 1920s preached, but to transform the north of the Eurasian supercontinent, this bridge between oceans and different civilizations, into a super-strong, reliably working structure.
Questions and tasks to the document
1. Determine how the author of the text relates to globalization.
2. How do you understand the words of N. N. Moiseev about "the opportunity to draw the best that is on both banks"?
3. Why do you think the scientist considers the position of Russia "between ... two centers of economic power" one of the sources of its prosperity?

what we see and perceive comes to us colored by expectations and predispositions. They are based on our culture: we see the world through glasses colored by our culture. The vast majority of people use these glasses without even knowing about their existence. The predispositions induced by invisible glasses act all the more strongly because the "cultural glasses" remain invisible. What people do directly depends on what they believe in, and their beliefs, in turn, depend on a culturally colored vision of themselves and the world around them ... In the course of historical development, great cultures of mankind have arisen and created their own vision of the world. At the dawn of history, the world was seen as atavistic: not only people, but also animals and plants had souls - everything in nature was alive. A spring in the savannah inspired awe of the spirits and forces of nature, as well as of the souls of the dead; a deer, finding itself in the middle of a human settlement, was identified with the spirit of an ancestor who came to visit relatives; thunder was considered a sign given by the progenitor - the Mother or the almighty Father. Throughout written history, traditional cultures have been overwhelmed by tales of sensory perceptions of invisible creatures that are located in a symbolic hierarchy. The classical cultures of Ancient Greece replaced the myth-based view of the world with speculative concepts, although the latter were rarely tested by experimentation and observation. Since biblical times in the West and for several millennia in the East, the prescriptions and images of religion (or other accepted belief systems) have dominated the views of people. This influence weakened significantly in the 16th and 17th centuries, when experimental science arose in Europe. Over the past three centuries, scientific and technological culture began to dominate the mythological and religious views of the Middle Ages, although it did not completely replace them. In the XX century. the scientific and technological culture of the West has spread throughout the globe. Non-Western cultures now face a dilemma: whether to open up to Western culture or to withdraw and continue to follow traditional paths, preserving their usual way of life, occupations and cults. (E. Laszlo)

Culture is a powerful factor in human activity: it is present in everything that we see and feel. "Immaculate perception" does not exist - everything,

what we see and perceive comes to us colored by expectations and predispositions. They are based on our culture: we see the world through glasses colored by our culture. The vast majority of people use these glasses without even knowing about their existence. The predispositions induced by invisible glasses act all the more strongly because the "cultural glasses" remain invisible. What people do directly depends on what they believe in, and their beliefs, in turn, depend on a culturally colored vision of themselves and the world around them ... In the course of historical development, great cultures of mankind have arisen and created their own vision of the world. At the dawn of history, the world was seen as atavistic: not only people, but also animals and plants had souls - everything in nature was alive. A spring in the savannah inspired awe of the spirits and forces of nature, as well as of the souls of the dead; a deer, finding itself in the middle of a human settlement, was identified with the spirit of an ancestor who came to visit relatives; thunder was considered a sign given by the progenitor - the Mother or the almighty Father. Throughout written history, traditional cultures have been overwhelmed by tales of sensory perceptions of invisible creatures that are located in a symbolic hierarchy. The classical cultures of Ancient Greece replaced the myth-based view of the world with speculative concepts, although the latter were rarely tested by experimentation and observation. Since biblical times in the West and for several millennia in the East, the prescriptions and images of religion (or other accepted belief systems) have dominated the views of people. This influence weakened significantly in the 16th and 17th centuries, when experimental science arose in Europe. Over the past three centuries, scientific and technological culture began to dominate the mythological and religious views of the Middle Ages, although it did not completely replace them. In the XX century. the scientific and technological culture of the West has spread throughout the globe. Non-Western cultures now face a dilemma: whether to open up to Western culture or to withdraw and continue to follow traditional paths, preserving their usual way of life, occupations and cults. (E. Laszlo) C1. What does the author call "cultural glasses"? How do they affect people's lives? C2. Name the stages in the development of culture that the author highlighted, and select in the text a brief description of each of them. C3. Based on the text, course knowledge and personal social experience, provide three explanations for the author's thought: "Culture is present in everything we see and feel." C4. The author has mentioned the dilemma facing contemporary non-Western cultures. List one positive and one negative consequence of each choice.