Good and evil in literature. Essay on the topic “The problem of good and evil in literature The faces of good and evil in literature

30.10.2019

1. Features of the interaction of good and evil in folk tales.
2. Changing the approach to the relationship between heroes and antagonists.
3. Differences in the relationship between positive and negative characters.
4. Blurring the boundaries between concepts.

Despite the apparent diversity artistic images and characters, fundamental categories have always existed and will exist in world literature, the opposition of which, on the one hand, is main reason development storyline, and on the other hand, encourages the development of moral criteria in the individual. The vast majority of heroes of world literature can easily be classified into one of two camps: defenders of Good and adherents of Evil. These abstract concepts can be embodied in visible, living images.

The significance of the categories of Good and Evil in culture and human life no doubt. A clear definition of these concepts allows an individual to establish himself in life, evaluating his own and other people’s actions from the point of view of what should and should not be done. Many philosophical and religious systems based on the idea of opposition between two principles. So is it any wonder that characters in fairy tales and legends embody opposite traits? However, it should be noted that if the idea of the behavior of heroes embodying the evil principle changed little over time, then the idea of what the response to their actions by representatives of Good should be did not remain unchanged. Let us first consider how victorious heroes dealt with their evil opponents in fairy tales.

For example, the fairy tale “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”. The evil stepmother, using witchcraft, tries to destroy her stepdaughter, jealous of her beauty, but all the machinations of the witch turn out to be in vain. Good triumphs. Snow White not only remains alive, but also marries Prince Charming. However, what does the victorious Good do with the losing Evil? The ending of the tale seems to have been taken from a narrative about the activities of the Inquisition: “But iron shoes had already been placed on the burning coals for her, they were brought, held with tongs, and placed in front of her. And she had to step her feet into red-hot shoes and dance in them until she finally fell, dead, to the ground.”

A similar attitude towards a defeated enemy is typical of many fairy tales. But it should be noted right away that the point here is not the increased aggressiveness and cruelty of Good, but the peculiarities of the understanding of justice in ancient times, because the plots of most fairy tales were formed a very long time ago. “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” - this is the ancient formula of retribution. Moreover, heroes who embody the traits of Good not only have the right to brutally deal with a defeated enemy, but must do so, because revenge is a duty assigned to man by the gods.

However, the concept gradually changed under the influence of Christianity. A. S. Pushkin in “The Tale of dead princess and about the seven heroes" used a plot almost identical to "Snow White". And in Pushkin’s text, the evil stepmother did not escape punishment - but how is it carried out?

Then sadness took over her,
And the queen died.

Inevitable retribution does not occur as the arbitrariness of mortal victors: it is the judgment of God. In Pushkin’s tale there is no medieval fanaticism, the description of which involuntarily makes the reader shiver; the author's humanism and goodies only emphasizes the greatness of God (even if He is not mentioned directly), the highest justice.

The “longing” that “took” the queen—isn’t it conscience, which the ancient sages called “the Eye of God in man”?

So, in the ancient, pagan understanding, representatives of Good differ from representatives of Evil in the ways of achieving their goals and the undoubted right to something that their enemies are trying to take away - but not at all by a kinder, more humane attitude towards the defeated enemy.

In the works of writers who have absorbed Christian traditions, the unconditional right of positive heroes to carry out merciless reprisals against those who could not withstand the temptation and took the side of Evil is questioned: “And count those who should live, but they are dead. Can you resurrect them? But no, don’t rush to condemn anyone to death. For even the wisest are not given to foresee everything” (D. Tolkien “The Lord of the Rings”). “Now he is fallen, but it is not for us to judge him: who knows, maybe he will still become great,” says Frodo, main character Tolkien's epics. This work raises the problem of the ambiguity of Good. Yes, representatives bright side may share mistrust and even fear, moreover, no matter how wise, courageous and kind you are, there is always the possibility that you can lose these virtues and join the camp of villains (perhaps without consciously wanting this). A similar transformation occurs with the magician Saruman, whose original mission was to fight Evil, embodied in the person of Sauron. It threatens anyone who wishes to possess the One Ring. However, Tolkien does not even hint at Sauron's possible reformation. Although Evil is also not monolithic and ambiguous, it is to a greater extent is an irreversible condition.

The works of writers who continued the tradition of Tolkien present different views on what and which of Tolkien's characters should be considered Good and Evil. Currently, you can find works in which Sauron and his teacher Melkor, a kind of Lucifer of Middle-earth, do not act as negative heroes. Their struggle with other creators of the World is not so much a conflict of two opposite principles, but rather the result of misunderstanding and rejection of Melkor’s non-standard decisions.

In fantasy, which was formed on the basis of fairy tales and legends, clear boundaries between Good and Evil are gradually blurring. Everything is relative: Good is again not so humane (as it was in ancient tradition), but Evil is far from black - rather, it is denigrated by enemies. The literature reflects the processes of rethinking previous values, the real embodiment of which is often far from ideal, and the tendency towards an ambiguous understanding of the multifaceted phenomena of existence. However, it should be remembered that in the worldview of every person, the categories of Good and Evil should still have a fairly clear structure. Moses, Christ and other great teachers said long ago about what is considered real Evil. Evil is the violation of the great commandments that should determine human behavior.

Good and evil in Russian literature

Good and evil, as we know, exist only in symbiosis. IN modern world good and evil have practically no clear boundaries. All this has been repeatedly proven by many writers and philosophers.

Good and evil relate to philosophical, “eternal” topics. Good is quite broad concept, which includes both the qualities of an object (kind, good, gentle, capable of love, etc.) and manifestations of qualitative individual characteristics (merciful, kind-hearted, sympathetic).

Note 1

Unlike good, evil is a relative concept. WITH philosophical point In our view, evil is the absence of good and its manifestations; “evil” itself is an emptiness that arises where there is no kindness, justice, or sympathy. Any absence of something is inevitably filled with its opposite, one such example is evil.

What are “evil” and “good” in Russian literature? What are their manifestations and distinctive characteristics? To understand this issue, let’s analyze several works of Russian classics:

First, let's look at the theme of good and evil in Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky's work "Crime and Punishment." Each of the main characters in this work contains both good and evil. Evil is presented in the characters as a spiritual and moral failure, with which they struggle throughout the novel. Thus, evil can manifest itself not only as obvious cruelty, thirst for blood, revenge, and so on, but also as a complex with good, which in a particular hero can overcome this evil.
Secondly, goodness can be presented not only as mercy, but also as sympathy. This is especially true in military works.
Thirdly, evil can be presented as malice or anger, hatred. The exception is anger that motivates a person or can inspire creativity. An example of this is the work of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy “War and Peace”.

So, we found out that in various works good and evil can be presented not only as their obvious manifestations, but also as their symbioses. Topics related to good and evil are always relevant, despite the time, because they belong to the rank of “eternal” topics and problems.

Ideas about good and evil may also differ among different characters. The hero of each work carries his own ideology, he has his own concepts of good and evil, morality and ethics, cynicism and mercy.

Thus, we can come to the conclusion that good and evil are quite subjective concepts that, in their essence, are religious and philosophical. Good and evil can be presented differently in different works. Also, this idea may depend on the author’s concept of good and evil. Characters in one work can also contain different ideas, and mixed concepts about what is good and where evil lies.

The meaning of good and evil in Russian literature

In what good and evil are and what they are characteristic features, we figured it out. What significance does such a religious and philosophical theme as the theme of good and evil have in Russian literature? Let's start with the fact that almost all works contain the theme of good and evil. What significance does this topic have in Russian literature? Naturally, big.

Firstly, in such works not only the theme of good or evil is raised, but also other important philosophical problems deriving from these topics. Thus, the whole world can be considered as a collection of good and evil deeds in various proportions, which implies the importance and significance of such topics.

Secondly, such works are timeless, always relevant for different generations, since in them one can find answers to many questions of interest from a religious, philosophical and social point of view.

Thirdly, these works glorify the most best qualities human soul: kindness, honor, friendliness, love, tenderness, sympathy, etc. They also reflect the most noble qualities that contribute to a high moral and ethical perception of the work. Thus, works containing the theme of good and evil are the most common and carry deep moral overtones.

Fourthly, often works containing the theme of evil and cruelty are satirical or ironic. They ridicule the vices of man and society, creating a separate atmosphere for the work.

Fifthly, they are of enormous importance for all literature as a whole, often determining the direction and development of various literary trends and genres. Such works “set the tone” for all literature and are the founders of certain trends and genres.

Note 2

So, we found out that works of Russian literature with “eternal” themes of good and evil carry deep moral overtones, glorifying the best qualities of the human soul and ridiculing and denouncing the worst.

Thus, we can come to the conclusion that works of Russian literature containing themes of “good” and “evil” are “eternal” and do not lose their relevance, and are also of great importance in Russian literature as a whole.

Thanks to good and evil, Russian literature stood out even more among others, since the above-mentioned themes in it were, in part, of a social nature. All this, of course, played a huge role in the formation of Russian literature as a phenomenon, as well as in determining the direction of its further development.

Thus, from all of the above we can conclude that Russian literature owes a lot to this topic; that good and evil had a significant influence on the formation of its styles and genres.

Human creative activity can be directed for good or evil, depending on the worldview and moral principles of each individual. What should I devote my life to? Creation or destruction - this is the classic question of being or not being human.

The end result of any creativity is a created object, a work of art, a product, i.e. then the last link in creative activity, which performs a function planned even before its creation to meet the needs of the customer, buyer or consumer. Even if you create something for yourself, the author and the consumer-customer merge into one person. The criterion for assessing creative activity is the purpose of the created object.

In the patent legislation of countries around the world there is a special article that prohibits even the consideration of applications for inventions that do not comply with the standards of morality and humanity. However, although no one patents, many inhumane developments are ordered and used - this is a paradox that has political roots, and politics is impersonal and immoral.

The reason for creating something may be partly humane, but the ultimate purpose is main criterion the humanity of the work. For example, the author of the guillotine wanted to eliminate the suffering of people during execution, guaranteeing instant death without pain.

If you look into ancient times, when people first appeared, then everything that they created was aimed at survival in the animal world. The goal was noble and the tools created and weapons for defense were one and the same. A stone knife or axe, spear or arrow was used for killing and butchering animals. But a line arose when it was necessary to defend ourselves from our own kind - attacking neighboring tribes. Murder assumed legal status and was not punished, but encouraged, because the goal was the same - survival, but man became a predator, a beast, killing his own kind not for food, but for the sake of achieving political the goals of enslaving other tribes and seizing living space occupied by competitors. This is a milestone, the line that separated man from the animal world, which for millions of years lived according to the laws of nature, very fair and humane, where the strongest won, but without cruelty, malice and hatred. In the animal world, generosity and nobility are still preserved in fights for territory or for females. For example, if two leaders wolf packs enter into a duel for power over the pack, then, having given all his strength to achieve victory, the weaker one admits himself defeated, lying on his back and opening his neck. This is where the fight ends and the loser leaves the pack. No one is finishing off or bullying anyone. Predators never kill excessively, i.e. more than they can eat due to physiological natural needs. The principle of minimal necessity and sufficiency in the animal world is impeccably observed. The man became proud and denied him.

Only a person developed greed and cruelty, obviously as a developmental pathology, unexpected side effect. Since then, specialized weapons have emerged for killing people by people, designed to fulfill ambitions, greed and cruelty leaders, who later became known as politicians. The era of wars without “rules of the game” began, the goal of which was the destruction of people and their places of residence. Entire cities were wiped off the face of the earth along with their cultural heritage, knowledge and skills. To increase the productivity of destruction, weapons of destruction, sophisticated methods and tools for killing people began to be created and improved. This process is still ongoing, the apogee of which was the creation and use of nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons, and “conventional” types of weapons have become very advanced and effective in use. Consequently, humanity has lost humanity, morality and humanity in constant wars among themselves. Political ambitions have become priorities in decision-making of national importance, and people have become expendable in achieving political goals through military means. The trade in arms and their use has become very profitable business. This is a fact. Who will challenge?

Against this background, let's look at the topic of creativity. It would seem that creativity is creation for the benefit and prosperity of humanity, but every type of activity has two sides of the coin. The law of unity and struggle of opposites is universal and manifests itself in everything material. Man is dual by nature and his activity is dual by the facts of the final results. The creativity of creation and destruction has a common basis - novelty is created from thoughts and the mechanisms of creativity are the same, and the technology for creating innovations in different fields of activity is the same. What are the differences, especially the opposites, in creativity?

Firstly, in the worldview of the creators, in their moral principles, principles, views, i.e. in the subjective factor.

Secondly, in the goals pursued and civic position.

Thirdly, in a sense of belonging to humanity and responsibility for the results of creative activity on a global scale.

Fourthly, in the “selfishness” of interests.

The opposite is that in creative activity aimed at creation, the material and spiritual values of humanity are multiplied and accumulated, which leads to prosperity and prosperity, strengthening and development of each person and humanity as a whole - everyone becomes richer. Culture is the world of created values. Wars eradicate culture.

In creative activity aimed at destruction and destruction, material and spiritual values are removed from the possession, use and disposal of each person and society as a whole - everyone becomes poorer, but a separate group of politicians and those in power become richer, because for them war is profitable business. They hire creators and pay them to create inhumane and immoral products, ordering research and development aimed at destroying life and culture.

In all states scientific discoveries and developments are censored and all achievements of scientific and technological progress are first assessed from the point of view of the possibility of being used in the sphere of the military-industrial complex for the production of weapons or at least for political blackmail of states and the public, and what is unsuitable for these purposes is allowed to be used for civilian use sphere of activity for so-called peaceful purposes. Hence the whole secrecy regime and a colossal diversion of the intellectual and material resources of humanity, which, in addition to the direct extermination of people in military conflicts, actually robs all of humanity, creating a shortage of resources for people’s lives. This is the main cause of mass poverty on earth.

As a result of competition, the latest research and development results quickly become outdated and the loss of resources becomes irreplaceable and thrown away. The stupidity becomes obvious. Despite the understanding that natural resources The lands are exhaustible and irreplaceable, a crazy arms race continues due to the fault of individual, powerful politicians, super-rich people who turn politics into business. To satisfy the ambitions of this handful of people, millions of creators and high professionals are hired quite deliberately to work at enterprises and institutions of the military-industrial complex in any country, because the most favorable conditions for creative activity are created there, which allows creators to realize themselves and have a livelihood. Creators are faced with a choice: to work for good, but at the same time be poor with a high moral level, or to work for evil, prospering materially, but degrading spiritually, because... drowning out the voice of conscience, spiritual development becomes impossible.

A person has free will and the right to choose who to be and what to do.

Human duality creates a paradox in creativity. It is impossible to create and destroy at the same time - you can go crazy trying to find a compromise. For example, Nobel invented dynamite for mining and excavation, but the military used it for destruction and murder. Here it is appropriate to give a harsh but convincing allegory: after the birth of a child, parents raise and raise him in order to kill him. However, absurd comedy is popular among modern politicians.

Good and evil in creativity is a philosophical and inexhaustible topic, but is the problem solvable in principle?

Homework and the topic of the essay for the module test:

Topic 1. “My understanding of creativity of creation and creativity of destruction.”

Topic 2. “Can politicians be creators?”

Topic 3. “Can there be destroyers in humanitarian creativity or is this phenomenon inherent only in technical creativity?”

Topic 4. “Is it possible to creatively kill or creatively destroy?”

Topic 5. “Can creativity be neutral, and the creator indifferent?”

Topic 6. “Can a creator be an executioner?”

Despite the apparent diversity of artistic images and characters, fundamental categories have always existed and will exist in world literature, the opposition of which, on the one hand, is the main reason for the development of the storyline, and on the other, encourages the development of moral criteria in the individual. The vast majority of heroes of world literature can easily be classified into one of two camps: defenders of Good and adherents of Evil. These abstract concepts can be embodied in visible, living images.

The significance of the categories of Good and Evil in culture and human life is undeniable. A clear definition of these concepts allows an individual to establish himself in life, evaluating his own and others’ actions from the point of view of what should and should not be done. Many philosophical and religious systems are based on the idea of opposition between two principles. So is it any wonder that characters in fairy tales and legends embody opposite traits? However, it should be noted that if the idea of the behavior of heroes embodying the evil principle changed little over time, then the idea of what the response to their actions by representatives of Good should be did not remain unchanged. Let us first consider how victorious heroes dealt with their evil opponents in fairy tales.

However, the concept gradually changed under the influence of Christianity. A. S. Pushkin in “The Tale of the Dead Princess and the Seven Knights” used a plot almost identical to “Snow White”. And in Pushkin’s text, the evil stepmother did not escape punishment - but how is it carried out?

Then sadness took over her,
And the queen died.

Inevitable retribution does not occur as the arbitrariness of mortal victors: it is the judgment of God. In Pushkin’s tale there is no medieval fanaticism, the description of which involuntarily makes the reader shiver; the humanism of the author and positive characters only emphasizes the greatness of God (even if He is not mentioned directly), the highest justice.

The “longing” that “took” the queen—isn’t it conscience, which the ancient sages called “the Eye of God in man”?

In the works of writers who have absorbed Christian traditions, the unconditional right of positive heroes to carry out merciless reprisals against those who could not withstand the temptation and took the side of Evil is questioned: “And count those who should live, but they are dead. Can you resurrect them? But no, don’t rush to condemn anyone to death. For even the wisest are not given to foresee everything” (D. Tolkien “The Lord of the Rings”). “Now he is fallen, but it’s not for us to judge him: who knows, maybe he will rise again,” says Frodo, the main character of Tolkien’s epic. This work raises the problem of the ambiguity of Good. Thus, representatives of the light side can be divided by mistrust and even fear; moreover, no matter how wise, courageous and kind you are, there is always the possibility that you can lose these virtues and join the camp of villains (perhaps without consciously wanting this ). A similar transformation occurs with the magician Saruman, whose original mission was to fight Evil, embodied in the person of Sauron. It threatens anyone who wishes to possess the One Ring. However, Tolkien does not even hint at Sauron's possible reformation. Although Evil is also not monolithic and ambiguous, it is, to a greater extent, an irreversible state.

In fantasy, which was formed on the basis of fairy tales and legends, clear boundaries between Good and Evil are gradually blurring. Everything is relative: Good is again not so humane (as it was in the ancient tradition), but Evil is far from black - rather, it is denigrated by enemies. The literature reflects the processes of rethinking previous values, the real embodiment of which is often far from ideal, and the tendency towards an ambiguous understanding of the multifaceted phenomena of existence. However, it should be remembered that in the worldview of every person, the categories of Good and Evil should still have a fairly clear structure. Moses, Christ and other great teachers said long ago about what is considered real Evil. Evil is the violation of the great commandments that should determine human behavior.