When the mind and heart are not in harmony (School essays). Topic: Unified State Examination essay. mind and feelings. “The mind and the heart are not in harmony” (A.S. Griboyedov) When the mind is with the heart

Razg. 1. with whom. Not in agreement, in a quarrel. [The blacksmith] had long been at odds with him (the devil) (Gogol. Terrible Revenge). 2. with what. In discord; inconsistent, disjointed. [Chatsky:] But if the mind and heart are not in harmony (Griboedov. Woe from Wit) ... Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Literary Language

LAD, a (y), about harmony, in harmony, plural. s, ov, husband. (colloquial). 1. more often units. Harmony, peace, order. There is no harmony in the family. In harmony or at odds with whom than n. (in complete agreement, on friendly terms). Live in harmony with anyone. He's not on good terms with him. The mind and heart are not in... ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

LAD, lada, oh lada, in lada, many. okay, husband 1. units only Harmony, peace, order (simple). “What’s the point of treasure when husband and wife get along well.” (last) “Let’s forget the past, let’s establish a common harmony.” Krylov. 2. Method, pattern, manner. "A novel in the old style." Pushkin... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

okay- In harmony or in harmony (colloquial) peacefully, amicably, in complete agreement; opposite out of tune, out of tune. The mind and heart are not in harmony. riboedov. In harmony with whomever in agreement, harmonious; according. Sing in tune. Move your shoulders in harmony. With its unclear... ... Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language

Boileau Narcejac (French Boileau Narcejac) is a creative tandem made up of two French writers Pierre Boileau (1906 1989) and Thomas Narcejac (1908 1998). Contents 1 Pierre Boileau 2 Pierre Robert ... Wikipedia

- (French Boileau Narcejac) creative tandem, which consisted of two French writers Pierre Boileau (1906 1989) and Thomas Narcejac (1908 1998). Contents 1 Pierre Boileau 2 ... Wikipedia

Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich- (1896 1934) Russian psychologist. Even in the pre-revolutionary period, V. wrote a treatise on Hamlet, which contains existential motifs about the eternal sorrow of existence. Since 1917 he has been a teacher in Gomel, being an uncompromising supporter... ... Who's who in Russian psychology

VYGOTSKY- Lev Semenovich (1896 1934) Russian psychologist who made a great scientific contribution to the field of general and educational psychology, philosophy and theory of psychology, developmental psychology, psychology of art, defectology. Author of cultural historical theory... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

"Bringing the mind into the heart"- the path of education of an integral harmonious personality through education in the unity of bodily, mental and spiritual principles in a person. Orthodoxy believes that the consciousness of modern man has become detached from the soul and spirit and acts autonomously. Wherein… … Fundamentals of spiritual culture (teacher's encyclopedic dictionary)

- - born on May 26, 1799 in Moscow, on Nemetskaya Street in Skvortsov’s house; died January 29, 1837 in St. Petersburg. On his father’s side, Pushkin belonged to an old noble family, descended, according to genealogies, from a descendant “from ... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Books

• Boileau-Narcejac. Complete works in 11 volumes (set of 11 books), Boileau-Narcejac. For the first time in Russian - all the novels, stories and collections of stories by P. Boileau and T. Narcejac, French writers - co-authors, internationally recognized masters of the detective genre. Refusing...
• Boileau-Narcejac. Set of 10 books, Boileau-Narcejac. For the first time in Russian - all the novels, stories and collections of stories by P. Boileau and T. Narcejac, French writers - co-authors, internationally recognized masters of the detective genre - in full...

Apr 21 2013

The fact of imposture is expressed in the forced function of retribution, performed not of their own free will by the heroes. They themselves do not expect such results, an everyday conflict develops into a picture of a revision of social mores, and the figures who initiate it and achieve similar results - a panoramic overview of vice - are marked by various qualities (intelligence and stupidity), which, as the conflict develops, undergo transformation into farcical declamations and feignedly innocent requests for a certain amount of loan. The endings of the works correspond in their own way, the characters leave the stage, and the world plunges into the familiarity of a ball or waiting for the arrival of an auditor. The equation of stupidity with intelligence undertaken by Griboyedov and Gogol plays on the traditional cultural motif of the discrepancy between the real and the apparent, which makes it so difficult to clarify the cardinal questions of the plays: who is the main character of The Inspector General and who is Chatsky’s main opponent?

The debatability of the proposed solutions and the controversial nature of unambiguous answers are caused by the historical and cultural movement of the conflict, its temporary saturation with new meanings. Before Gogol, it is unlikely that the problem of determining the dominant antagonistic couple in Griboyedov’s work was relevant. “The Inspector General” not only revised the traditional perception of the comedic collisions of its predecessors, but also introduced original interpretive accents into the reading of “Woe from Wit.” The tragicomic pathos of the plays destroys the usual principles of identifying situations, it is no coincidence that Griboyedov’s essentially comedic nature is perceived as drama, and the frankly tragic ending of “The Inspector General” is considered in the context of the farcical inertia of the plot.

The concept of mind-stupidity needs more clear justification and evidence; the baroque nature of the phenomenon cannot exhaust the essence of the problems addressed by culture. In “Dead Souls,” Gogol, for the first time in Russian, creates an example of a strange type of thinking, equating it with a specific, non-national manifestation of the mind. Gogol draws, whose motivational behavior is narrowed to specific pragmatic goals. Chichikov rationalizes the sphere of application of the mind, turns his numerous talents to amassing a fortune. The strategy of his activity is marked by the dream of a family and children, but the achievement of a blissful state is associated with the plot of buying “dead souls” that irritates literature.

The hero is punished; his rationalism contradicts the author’s ideal ideas about the future of Russia. After some time, Bazarov, the heir to the ideas of positivism, alien to Turgenev’s liberal sympathies, will die. Will also perish, embodying the idea of ​​mental comprehension of national existence. Porfiry Petrovich from Crime and Punishment, using the deductive method proven by Western culture, will be convinced of the limitations of the logical approach for analyzing the phantasmagoria of reality. Chekhov's zoologist von Koren will not feel satisfaction from his victory over the depraved and idle Laevsky.

Culture persistently proves the need to find extremely accurate tools for studying characters and situations, but specific textual cases indicate the inadequacy of logical constructs and categories of mind for revealing the motivating reasons for actions and dissecting circumstances. The predetermination of the conflict – “woe from mind” – demonstrates its inescapability in works of Russian literature. The heroes are quite educated, think independently, have a special mindset, that is, they express ideal forms in which rationality and feeling are harmoniously combined, however, burdened with a global idea, the characters begin to manifest themselves in plots that cast total doubt on irrespective truths.

It doesn’t even seem like an absolute value anymore. The instinct of self-preservation (“He didn’t want to try to shoot himself, thank God, but he completely lost interest in life...”) of Onegin, the search for dangerous adventures and Pechorin’s balancing on the edge of the inevitable did not allow the thought of consciously interrupting the tedium of existence. A thoughtful hero of the second half of the century, possessing sophisticated logic and independent theory, unexpectedly decides to die. In this gesture of despair, it is more common to see the loss of the idea of ​​God; an equally important circumstance is not at all religious reasons.

The development of philosophy and natural sciences, the preaching of materialistic views largely determined the specifics of solving the topic of the mind in literature. The theory of the chemical structure of organic bodies, formulated by A. M. Butlerov, the periodic law of chemical elements, created by D. I. Mendeleev, introduced new ideas into the substantial structure of the world, presented a spectacular picture, convincing by the orderliness of connections. Materialistic concepts completely erode idealistic ideas; God indirectly, present only as a metaphor in the culture of the first half of the century, is finally destroyed under the pressure of these phenomena. The characters discover complete freedom to express opinions and lack of accountability in action. The situation of emancipation from the fear of punishment actualizes the dominant role of individual consciousness.

The characters enthusiastically begin to exploit their independence from theological tradition. From the margins of the universe, they move to the center, feeling inhuman opportunities to control the fate of the world and their own. Violence becomes one of the forms of manifestation of the mind.

At first glance, the life of the humiliated and insulted in Dostoevsky’s novels is a derivative of the reigning chaos; this is a deceptive impression; the structure of society constantly manifests its maximum harmony, visible manifestations of imbalance are compensated even in the titles of the works of Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, which unite global antinomies in a single complex. Antagonism and violence do not seem to be a relapse of the elements, but become a rational way of harmonizing the social system and the philosophical and ethical concept of works. The nature of the humiliating and insulting is too large-scale to be limited to pressure on the world; it experiments on itself, first puts on the metaphorical pragmatics of philosophy, and then reveals the universality of its own functioning and self-destructs. The value of a person becomes insignificant when, from a semblance of an absolute principle, it turns into a rationalistic scheme, burdened by its ideological redundancy. Existence is no longer regulated by the institutions of religion or law; it is placed at the disposal of a person who is satiated with the ability to control other people’s lives and therefore strives from fatigue to self-restraint.

Death from the mind becomes a tragic theme in literature. Tolstoy’s moralistic counter-arguments – “Suicide is the most criminal of murders. Our life does not belong to us as property, but to God, who gave it... - are faced with a dramatic awareness of the burden assigned by God. Lermontov’s motif of being burdened with “knowledge and doubt” can no longer be resolved by an artistic statement of fact; the need for a radical metamorphosis is emerging.

The demonic protest against unshakable power in Dostoevsky’s novels develops into attacks on life; conscious withdrawal from the world is interpreted as the murder of God. In the October books of “A Writer’s Diary” for 1876, Dostoevsky wrote: “...the epidemic extermination of oneself, increasing in the intelligent classes, is too serious a thing, worthy of tireless observation and study.” depicts two types of departure: a child’s separation from God, explained by Dostoevsky himself - “it simply became impossible to live...

” and a conscious decision to reckon with life. There are five suicides in Crime and Punishment that reflect both types of decisions. The theme of grief from philosophizing is illustrated by the images of the cynic Svidrigailov and the philosophizing lackey Philip. The narrative captures the symbolic space most preferable to acts of self-violence. This is St. Petersburg.

“The mind and heart are not in harmony” (A.S. Griboyedov)

It is impossible to dispute the truth that a person experiences the world in two ways: through reason and feelings. The human mind is responsible for that knowledge of the world, which is characterized by stable goals, motives of activity, inclinations and interests. However, when cognizing reality, a person has a sensual attitude towards objects and phenomena surrounding him: things, events, other people, his personality. Some phenomena of reality make him happy, others sadden him, some cause admiration, others outrage him... Joy, sadness, admiration, indignation, anger - all these are different types of a person’s subjective attitude to reality, his experience of what affects him... But you cannot live only by feelings, “the head must educate the heart,” because sensations and perceptions reflect mainly individual aspects of phenomena, and the mind makes it possible to establish connections and relationships between objects in order to carry out rational activity.

And yet, in our lives it happens that we act either at the behest of our hearts or at the prompting of our minds, reaching a compromise only when we “get into trouble.” In this regard, an example from the comedy by A.S. Griboedov's "Woe from Wit", in particular, the image of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Note that it was after the conversation about intelligence and stupidity that took place between the maid Liza and Sophia, and a reminder that Sophia and Chatsky once had a warm relationship, that Chatsky appears on the stage. The characterization of the hero has already been given, and Chatsky corresponds to it throughout the entire action of the comedy. A man of extraordinary intelligence (he prefers to serve “the cause, not people”: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve”), strong convictions (you cannot say about him under any circumstances: “And a golden bag, and aspires to be a general”), he I succumbed to my feelings so much that I lost the ability to objectively perceive the environment. Neither Sophia's cold reception, nor her reaction to Molchalin's fall from his horse could open the hero's eyes to the obvious: Sophia's heart is occupied by someone else. In his mind, he understood that it was all over, there was no more former affection, Sophia had changed, now she was not the pure innocent girl she was before, but a worthy daughter of her unworthy father. But the heart... the heart does not want to believe it and clings to the last hope, like a drowning man clings to a straw.

And only the scene of the secret meeting between Molchalin and Sophia made it possible to be convinced that Sophia no longer had the same feelings. Chatsky finally comprehends what he should have understood from the first minutes of his stay in Famusov’s house: he is superfluous here. In his last monologue, he bitterly admits that his hopes were not justified: he hurried to Sophia, dreamed of finding his happiness with her, but, “Alas! Now those dreams have died in complete beauty...” (M. Lermontov) He blames Sophia for giving him false hope and not saying directly that their childhood love means nothing to her now. But he lived only with these feelings during all these three years of separation! His disappointment in Sophia is bitter; in Famusov, who chose a man for his daughter’s groom not according to his mind, but according to his wallet; in Moscow society, far from smart, insincere, cynical. But now he does not regret the breakup, as he realizes that there is no place for him in Famus society. He leaves Moscow.

The fate of Nastena, the heroine of V. Rasputin’s story “Live and Remember,” was even more tragic. It so happened that during the last war year, local resident Andrei Guskov secretly returned from the war to a distant village on the Angara. The deserter does not think that he will be greeted with open arms in his father’s house, but he believes in his wife’s understanding and is not deceived. Nastena did not marry for love, she was not happy in her marriage, but she was devoted to her husband and grateful for the fact that he freed her from her hard life as a worker with her aunt. The story says so: “Nastena threw herself into marriage like water - without too much thought, she’ll have to get out anyway, few people can do without it - why delay?” And now she is ready to steal food for Andrei, lie to her family, hide him from prying eyes in winter huts, because her heart dictates so. Intellectually, she understands that through complicity with her deserter husband she herself becomes a criminal, but it is not easy for her to cope with her feelings, and she gives herself over to them completely. A secret relationship with her husband makes her happy. And only at a village festival on the occasion of the Great Victory, unexpected anger suddenly overtakes her: “Because of him, because of him, she does not have the right, like everyone else, to rejoice in the victory.” Forced to hide her feelings, to restrain them, Nastena is increasingly exhausted, her fearlessness turns into risk, into feelings wasted in vain. This state pushes her towards suicide, here “her mind and heart are certainly not in harmony,” and in a fit of despair she rushes into the Angara. Andrei is not a murderer, not a traitor, he is just a deserter, but as an intelligent person, he should have realized what the ending of this story would be. He had to not only feel sorry for himself, but also worry about his parents, wife, and unborn child. However, even in this situation, “the mind and the heart were not in harmony.”

Of course, one can talk endlessly about reason and feelings as two of the most important components of a person’s inner world. But no matter how many examples we give (literary or real life), it becomes clear that they equally influence a person’s actions and should complement each other. Only in the unity of these two opposites is personal harmony possible. When reason and feeling come into conflict, an internal conflict of personality occurs, often leading to tragedy.

Option 1:

This is what they say if a person cannot cope with his feelings, he strives for what is impossible, realizing that this can harm himself and others. For example, it could be non-reciprocal love or love for an unfree person. The mind says that this will not lead to anything good, it may even end in disaster, but the heart desperately strives for the object of passion, regardless of any reasonable arguments.

This state most often brings a lot of suffering to a person, because he cannot get what he wants. Then he decides to take desperate actions. A good example of such dissonance between feelings and mind was shown by Pushkin in his work “Eugene Onegin”. A young provincial girl falls in love with the capital's rake and, realizing that this is humiliating, still writes him a letter declaring her love. In those days, such an act could disgrace a girl and leave an imprint on her reputation. Onegin laughed at her feelings and answered her in a rather rude manner, which caused great trauma.

We will find another example of the discord between the mind and feelings in Ostrovsky’s work “The Thunderstorm”. Katerina gets married and joins a new family. There her mother-in-law insults her, and her husband drinks. The family life of a young woman is not going well. Her soul longs for love and a storm of emotions. This pushes her to cheat on her husband, although her mind stubbornly insists that this is wrong. The story ends sadly: Katerina’s emotional nature cannot withstand the pressure and she decides to commit suicide.

Of course, it can be very difficult to subordinate feelings to reason, and sometimes it seems completely impossible. But from literary examples we can conclude that feelings must still be under the control of the mind. You always need to weigh your desires and what consequences they will entail. A person should not ruin his life and the lives of other people to please his own desires.

Option 2:

This happens when a person passionately desires something, but common sense contradicts it. For example, if a person is in love. At such moments it can be difficult to soberly assess the situation. If the heart comes into conflict with the mind, this causes suffering to a person, because harmony in feelings and sensations is necessary for a happy life.

Writers have raised this topic more than once in their works. Sometimes it set off the main storyline, adding drama, and sometimes it itself became the theme of the work. I think this is a win-win option, because similar experiences have happened to each of us at least once, so it will always be of interest.

The hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” E. Bazarov is a nihilist and completely denies any manifestations of love and tenderness, considering them fiction and stupidity. The more unexpected and difficult it is for him to love Odintsova. Whatever one may say, it is always difficult for a person to review and change his views and habits. Unfortunately, this love did not result in a happy family and ended in failure. But Bazarov managed to maintain his dignity and learn a lesson from this situation.

Another example is Chatsky from Woe from Wit. He loves Sophia, who is part of the society despised by Chatsky. He is sure that the girl should love him back, but she cannot accept his views and criticism of her environment. Sophia chooses Molchalin and attributes non-existent traits to him. Realizing what was happening, Chatsky leaves Moscow. But his feelings eventually submit to his mind and he saves face.

I think it is impossible to let feelings get out of control. After all, man differs from animals in that he is able to think and control his manifestations. Sometimes it is better to let go and forget than to succumb to a storm of emotions and ruin the life of yourself and those around you.

The topic I have chosen reveals the confrontation between the heart and the mind. feelings and mind. What is the mind and what are the feelings? Should they be inseparable or can they act separately? Which of the heroes of literary works relates to the statement given in the topic? These and other questions will help to fully reveal the essence of the problem and understand it. Reason is the ability to think logically and creatively. (Ozhegov’s explanatory dictionary). Feelings are the ability to feel, experience. perceive external influences. (Ozhegov’s explanatory dictionary). Most often it happens like this. that feelings and reason are not harmonized with each other. These two qualities fight in a person, and one of them wins. The topic of contrasting feelings and reason is one of the most important and...

relevant topics to this day, which is why many writers raise it in their works, including L. N. Tolstoy “War and Peace”, W. Shakespeare “Romeo and Juliet”, I. Goncharov “Oblomov”, I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" and "Asya", F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment", A. S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin".

I would like to dwell on the work of A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”. The author touches on this topic using the example of the relationship between Tatyana Larina and the main character, Eugene Onegin. Tatyana fell in love with Evgeniy immediately from the first meeting, but at first he did not reciprocate her feelings, and only a few years later he realized that he loved Tatyana, but it was too late. Tatyana was married. One evening, Onegin met Tatiana at a ball, and feelings for Eugene flared up in the girl’s heart again, but she did not indulge in them, because she could not cheat on her husband. Tatyana understands that she must act wisely and be faithful to her husband. In this case, reason won over Tatyana’s feelings, and she gave up love.

Another work that I would like to highlight is “War and Peace” by L. N. Tolstoy. Natasha Rostova loved Andrei Bolkonsky and was waiting for their imminent wedding, but it so happened that on her life’s path the girl met Anatoly Kuragin, for whom she also had strong feelings. The girl ran away from Bolkonsky to Kuragin, preferring feelings to reason. Sometimes, feelings can be so strong that a person does not notice how he is falling into the abyss. Natasha could have acted wisely and fairly if she had stayed with Andrei, because there was less than a year left before their wedding, but the girl still decided to give in to her feelings.

So, reason and feelings are completely opposite concepts. They are different from each other and, in most cases, they do not have one common opinion. The struggle between feelings and reason can end in different ways, and if feelings are actually real, then it is almost impossible to reconcile them with reason. On the one hand there is the desire to love, and on the other - devotion, fidelity and justice. A person either succumbs to strong, bright feelings and listens to his heart, or he reasons, compares all the pros and cons and makes a decision based on reasonable conclusions. This choice is very difficult, but still, you have to make a decision.

“There are feelings that replenish and darken the mind, and there is a mind that cools the movement of feelings” - Mikhail Mikhailovich Bulgakov.