So, dreamers and creators? It happens to you that you create something, and then you are tormented: “Will someone like it? Will someone “pay” for my creation? If yes, then this post from the book “100 Ways to Change Your Life” is definitely for you! After it, your wings will grow and you will definitely understand: “I have the right!”
Malevich and his painting
Let's remember what Kazimir Malevich's "Black Square" looks like. The picture is also magnificent because it does not necessarily need to be inserted as an illustration into a book: it is very easy to imagine. This. Just. Black. square.
Let me remind you that “Black Square” is a picturesque manifesto of Suprematism and a painting that is estimated at $20 million. I would also like to remind you of a couple of facts. Malevich himself, in his Autobiography, called 1898 “the beginning of public exhibitions.” And he wrote “square” in 1915. That is, he had the idea of a square ripening for 17 years until it was finally born. For seventeen years he thought about the square and finally revealed it to the world.
What does this all mean?
I know little about art and therefore have no right to evaluate it. But I have common sense, and it conflicts with Malevich’s internal logic.
If he had come to me and asked what I thought about the “square,” I would have said: “Uh-uh... Kozya, I think you’re overheated.” Fortunately, he did not come to me and ask my opinion. If you are as far from art as I am, ask yourself: “Why is an ordinary black square valued at 20 million dollars?”
Think about it. There is an official version of why the “square” became one of the symbols art XXI century. It sounds like this: “Because Malevich was the first to come up with the idea that an ordinary square could be a manifesto of something very monumental and become classic work art."
And it’s unlikely that Malevich then thought: “It’s just a square. Well, isn't it stupid? What would Leonardo da Vinci say? What about my friends? Won't they think I'm crazy?
If you are working on something for many years, with all the passion, putting your soul into it, then it cannot be stupid. The main thing is that you yourself see the meaning in this. And then others will definitely see it too.
"Green Blob" for $1.6 million
By the way, if you think that there are no such precedents in modern art, then there are many of them. One of my favorite paintings is “The Green Blob” by Ellsworth Kelly. The picture is also easy to describe in words. This is a green blot. I love modern art.
Cute, isn't it? “It’s not a square, of course, but there’s something in it,” that’s probably what the person who bought the “blot” for $1.6 million thought.
And another simple way to make sure that you need to do what lights the fire in you, and everything else will follow, is to visit some exhibition contemporary art in London. One such exhibition recently featured furniture made from human hair and a chandelier made from dandelions. Everything was sold. Very expensive.
What's all this for?
Those who do something always have a lot of doubts and self-reflection. Will people like it? Is what I created too strange/banal/incomprehensible? Well, the classic question: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?”
We also often come up with “squares”, “green blots” - ideas that seem too simple, or stupid, or unworthy to us - and we become afraid that no one needs it or no one will appreciate it.
This is a mistake that can deprive us of the happiness of self-realization. Of course, a person comes up with a bunch of absurd things (“a square”, by the way, is not one of them) that you want to “unsee.” And my call is not to create strange things, ideas and works of art, but to not be afraid to put them out into the world if you truly believe in them.
Deeds with meaning
When I worked in a Moscow newspaper and wrote news about stars every day (“Lady Gaga came to the ceremony in a suit made of meat,” “Paris Hilton came up with a name for a new dog” and other dregs), I was constantly tormented by the feeling of the meaninglessness of what was happening. I didn’t understand why I was doing this. I didn't develop. This was not a “creation”: we simply translated news from foreign sites, and did not write our own. And it seemed to me that this was completely useless for the world.
Of course it was a sad time in my life. Internal resistance to what I was doing led to constant illness and problems. I felt like a person who gets down into the subway at rush hour and walks towards the crowd: it’s constantly being carried away, everyone is pushing me - it’s unclear why I went down into this damn metro at rush hour.
Disgusting. Every day, sitting in this newsroom, I felt like my real life passes by. There is no point.
I have many friends who feel the same meaninglessness while sitting in their office chairs. One of my friends works in a large agro-industrial company: let’s say, she monitors discipline. “If a person comes to work five minutes late, I ask him to write an explanatory note. And if a person is late at work for an hour, we, of course, do not ask him to write why this happened,” she says. When I heard the word “explanatory,” I almost fell out of my chair. Explanatory in the 21st century? Seriously? Frankly, it smacks of slavery and the Stone Age.
And I see how meaningless this work is for her. She sucks out all the juice, but her friend doesn’t leave because they “pay well” there. Why do we call people who have sex for money prostitutes, but for people who “sleep” with their work only because of money, we haven’t come up with anything? Probably because then half the world could be called “prostitutes.”
Exercise. "Deal with meaning"
Think about it: does your work have deep meaning to you? I am sure that only meaningful work can bring pleasure (the idea for the exercise below is borrowed from Barbara Sher’s book “It’s Not Harmful to Dream”).
Write down the names of people or jobs that you find meaningful on a piece of paper. Don’t look back at what society considers worthy, or what they tried to force on you as a child.
You must find your personal meaning. Personal source of inner clarity. Write down everything that comes to mind.
For example, at one of my master classes there was a girl who worked as a dentist, but at the same time she saw the greatest meaning in the work of... tattoo artists. And she became one of them! Here's what she said:
The first time I walked into a tattoo parlor, my knees shook. I felt how exactly here people get rid of society’s stereotypes and realize themselves in drawings on the body. For me, the philosophy of a tattoo is that it is a mark that a person makes for life. And this is an expression of his individuality. He can give himself a motto throughout his life that will support him in any situation.
It was with this mood that she began to work as a tattoo artist and succeeded very quickly. And all because it was something sacred, higher for her.
I'd be a lousy tattoo artist. I have great respect for everyone involved in this industry, but I don't see the point in putting designs on your body. However, this is my personal choice. And if my children ever tell me (after they reach adulthood, of course) that they want to get tattoos because it means something to them, then please.
I see deep meaning in the transfer of knowledge, my feelings from the world in words. And one of my relatives, a fireman, jokingly says to me during meetings: “Laura, are you scribbling something on your computer again?” What I do makes no sense to him. He thinks I'm just writing some words. But they make a lot of sense to me.
The world is perfectly organized: you can choose any job with meaning for yourself, become a Master, and there will definitely be a crowd of fans and people who will be ready to buy your Mastery. Even if you make furniture out of hair or paint the Green Blob.
Only those who follow their inner voice truly succeed. Only that which is filled with meaning for you personally will fill the emptiness in your heart.
#100 ways to change your life
"Crime and Punishment" is a novel created by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky in 1866.
The main character of the work is Rodion Raskolnikov. With his theory “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right,” he argues that humanity and man in itself are criminal, but there are crimes for evil, and there are crimes for good. Raskolnikov has a desire to help people, but he understands that he will have to act dishonestly. The main character takes a long time to decide to commit a crime, but seeing human suffering (Marmeladova, a letter from relatives, a drunk girl, etc.), he stops hesitating.
F.M. At the end of the novel, Dostoevsky “broke” Raskolnikov’s theory. Infidelity began to appear at the beginning of the work, when Rodion lost not only the old woman, but also Lizaveta (her sister), as well as the child she was carrying. But it was partly for her sake that the crime was committed. He begins to frantically hide things acquired as a result of the crime, not because of the search, but because he simply cannot use them like an honest person.
The author in Svidrigailov and Luzhin showed Raskolnikov his future if he does not leave this path. They all have different goals, but the means are the same. After talking with them main character understands that his path will only lead him to a dead end: “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself.”
Raskolnikov did good deeds: he helped his student friend financially, gave his last money to Marmeladov, took care of the young drunk girl etc. With the help of this, his human qualities “awaken”. After the death of Svidrigailov (he committed suicide), Raskolnikov completely abandoned his theory - crimes for good. Before his death, Svidrigailov tried to improve: he helped Katerina Ivanovna’s children, let Dunya go and asked her for love, because every person needs something good.
Dostoevsky shows by comparing Luzhin, Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov their similarity, although they have different means.
Rodion understands that he is “a louse like everyone else.” Sonya helps him get on the right path, calling him to repent. He sees that Sonya is in the dirt (forced to sell her body), but at the same time she is clean. These torments only elevate her soul. Raskolnikov's theory is contrasted with the suffering of Sonya, Dunya (marries an unloved person to help her family), Mikolka (takes upon herself the misdeeds of other people and suffers because of them). At this moment Rodion “resurrects” to life, he sees new world, filled with spiritual values, with the help of love for Sonya.
Thus, the main character’s theory “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right” is understood as either I am a louse in this world or I have the right to commit crimes for the good. But this theory has been proven to be completely wrong.
Several interesting essays
- Essay It is impossible to live in society and be free from society
Man is a social creature. Each of us has early childhood there are many friends, we are surrounded by relatives. First, we grow up in a family where our grandparents, mother, father, brothers and sisters take care of us.
- Woe from Wit Griboyedov - comedy or drama?
The playwright's play was received in different ways. Those who shared the writer’s opinion considered the work ideal, those who did not approve of Griboedov’s position, approached the work created critically.
- The image and characteristics of Shurochka in the story Kuprin's Duel essay
Sasha is the wife of Lieutenant Nikolaev. Officer Romashov serves with a lieutenant in the same military unit and is a devoted friend to his wife.
- The image and characterization of Lyubov Gordeevna Tortsova in the play Poverty is not a vice by Ostrovsky essay
One of the main characters in Ostrovsky’s play “Poverty is not a vice” is the beautiful Lyubov Gordeevna. Love is a rich girl who needs to be married off.
The school is developing more and more every year. Nowadays schooling very different from how our parents studied. Previously, schools did not have computer classes, media
“And do you really think that I didn’t know, for example, that if I had already begun to ask and interrogate myself: do I have the right to have power? - then, therefore, I have no right to have power. Or what if I ask the question: is a person a louse? - then, therefore, a person is no longer a louse for me, but a louse for someone who doesn’t even think about it and who goes straight ahead without asking questions... I simply killed; I killed for myself, for myself alone: and then whether I would have become someone’s benefactor or spent my whole life, like a spider, catching everyone in a web and sucking the living juices out of everyone, at that moment I still had to have it! And it wasn’t money that was most important to me, Sonya, when I killed; I didn’t need money so much as I needed something else... I needed to know something else, something else was pushing me under my arms: I needed to find out then, and quickly find out, whether I was a louse, like everyone else, or a human being? Will I be able to cross or not! Do I dare to bend down and take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...”
Raskolnikov, Crime and Punishment.
These lines are taken from immortal work the greatest Russian writer, author of 8 novels, 22 stories and short stories, 6 essays, as well as 9 poems known today, and who left a huge mark on the cultural history of Russia and the whole world - Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.
He is rightfully considered an unsurpassed realist artist, anatomist human soul, a passionate champion of the ideas of humanism and justice. His novels are distinguished by their keen interest in the intellectual life of the characters, revealing the complex and contradictory consciousness of man.
Despite the fame that Dostoevsky acquired at the end of his life, truly enduring, worldwide fame came to him after death. In particular, Friedrich Nietzsche recognized that Dostoevsky was the only psychologist from whom he could learn something.
Dostoevsky's work had a great influence on Russian and world culture. Literary heritage The writer is assessed differently both at home and abroad. In Russian criticism, the most positive assessment of Dostoevsky was given by religious philosophers. For example, the Russian religious thinker Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (January 16, 1853 - July 31, 1900) spoke about Fyodor Mikhailovich this way: “And he loved, first of all, the living human soul in everything and everywhere, and he believed that we are all the race of God, he believed into the infinite power of the human soul, triumphing over all external violence and over all internal failure. Having accepted into his soul all the malice of life, all the hardship and darkness of life and overcoming all this with the infinite power of love, Dostoevsky proclaimed this victory in all his creations. Having experienced the divine power in the soul, breaking through all human weakness, Dostoevsky came to the knowledge of God and the God-man. The reality of God and Christ was revealed to him in inner strength love and all-forgiveness, and he preached this same all-forgiving power of grace as the basis for the external realization on earth of that kingdom of truth, which he longed for and to which he strove all his life.”
At the same time, in the West, where Dostoevsky’s novels have been popular since the beginning of the twentieth century, his work has had an impact significant influence to such generally liberal-minded movements as existentialism, expressionism and surrealism. Many see him as the forerunner of existentialism literary critics. However, abroad Dostoevsky is usually assessed primarily as an outstanding writer and psychologist, while his ideology is ignored or almost completely rejected.
Dostoevsky's main works appeared in print in the last thirds of the XIX century, when a crisis of old moral and ethical principles emerged and the gap between rapidly changing life and traditional norms of life became obvious. It was in the last third of the 19th century that society started talking about a “revaluation of all values”, about changing the norms of traditional Christian morality and morality. And at the beginning of the twentieth century, this became practically the main issue among the creative intelligentsia. Dostoevsky was one of the first to see the danger of the coming revaluation and the accompanying “dehumanization of man.” He was the first to show the “devilishness” that was initially hidden in such attempts. This is what all of his main works are dedicated to and, of course, one of central novels- "Crime and Punishment."
F. M. Dostoevsky published this novel in 1866. The work is dedicated to the history of how long and difficult it was for the rushing human soul to comprehend the truth through suffering and mistakes.
Raskolnikov is the spiritual and compositional center of the novel. External action only reveals it internal struggle. He must go through a painful split in order to understand himself and the moral law, inextricably linked with human essence. The hero solves the riddle of his own personality and at the same time the riddle of human nature.
Dostoevsky is the most prominent representative of “ontological”, “reflective” poetics, which, unlike traditional, descriptive poetics, leaves the character in a sense free in his relationship with the text that describes him (that is, for him the world), which is manifested in the fact that he is aware of his relationship with him and acts based on it. Hence all the paradoxicality, inconsistency and inconsistency of Dostoevsky’s characters. If in traditional poetics the character always remains in the power of the author, always captured by the events happening to him (captured by the text), that is, remains entirely descriptive, fully included in the text, fully understandable, subordinate to causes and effects, the movement of the narrative, then in ontological poetics we are for the first time We are faced with a character who is trying to resist the textual elements, his subordination to the text, trying to “rewrite” it. With this approach, writing is not a description of a character in diverse situations and his positions in the world, but empathy for his tragedy - his willful reluctance to accept the text (the world), which is inescapably redundant in relation to him, potentially endless.
The writer took part in the comprehension of many philosophical and social ideas and teachings of his time - from the emergence of the first socialist ideas on Russian soil to the philosophy of unity of V. S. Solovyov.
Home philosophical problem for Dostoevsky there was a problem of man, the solution of which he struggled with all his life: “Man is a mystery. It must be solved..." The complexity, duality, and antinomianism of man, the writer noted, make it very difficult to clarify the real motives of his behavior. The reasons for human actions are usually much more complex and varied than we later explain. Often a person shows self-will because of his powerlessness to change anything, because of one disagreement with “inexorable laws,” like the hero of “Notes from Underground” (1864) by Dostoevsky.
Understanding the moral essence of a person, from his point of view, is an extremely complex and diverse task. Its complexity lies in the fact that a person has freedom and is free to make a choice between good and evil. Moreover, freedom, a free mind, “the outrage of a free mind” can become instruments of human misfortune, mutual destruction, and can “lead into such a jungle” from which there is no way out.
According to Dostoevsky, no high goal can justify the worthless means leading to its achievement. An individualistic rebellion against the order of life around us is doomed to failure. Only compassion, Christian empathy and unity with other people can make life better and happier.
That is, the ideas of Fyodor Dostoevsky show man as a unique being who managed to combine the animal principle and the human, mental, rational principle. It can be said that the individual himself is his own antagonist. It is this paradox of the dualism of the personality of the person himself that gives rise to the riddle of his knowledge. So what is a person - an animal or something higher, a certain essence close to God?
As such a response to this question No. More precisely, there are too many answers, and it is not possible to choose the right one, since each of them has some truth. The most rational solution to this paradox, or, more precisely, to the separation of man from animal, is the presence in nature itself of such a quality as “dignity”.
What is “dignity” anyway? IN explanatory dictionary it is said: “Dignity is a set of high moral qualities, as well as respect for these qualities in oneself.”
In general, we can say that dignity is a collective concept that characterizes all the positive moral qualities of a person. But the essence of the definition of “Dignity” also includes an objective assessment of the individual himself about his own positive moral characteristics. If an individual has some positive traits character, but at the same time he will overestimate them, then his dignity can smoothly turn into exorbitant pride - “pride”. But, on the other hand, if a person underestimates his own qualities, then dignity turns into some kind of complex, tightness.
Let us consider human behavior when overestimating and underestimating one’s own moral qualities.
When an individual overestimates himself, a process of loss of reference points occurs. further development and personal progress, because the individual believes that there is no need to develop further, since everything in him is already ideal, he is perfect. This is followed by a process of personality stagnation, and then regression occurs personal qualities. A person becomes like an animal, following only his vital needs and instincts.
When a person underestimates himself, stagnation also occurs, because the individual believes that there is absolutely no point in continuing his own development. As a result, a decline in personality follows, and the person simply loses himself in an attempt to fill the inner “emptiness”. He completely dissolves in the crowd, following the majority, replacing his own thoughts and needs with the ideas and needs that prevail in his environment. His life loses all color. Absolutely everything in his life becomes a heavy duty. It turns into a banal existence. Yes, he does not actively follow animal instincts - he leads the life of a vegetable without his own interests and thoughts.
It is the ability to stay on this fine line of objective assessment of oneself and the cultivation of conscientious qualities in oneself that can be called “dignity.”
But human nature is dualistic and contradictory in nature, because it combines the spiritual and the animal, moral and material, ideas and needs. It is the person who can harmonize these unity of principles within himself that can be equated to something higher. Let us turn to the Holy Scriptures:
“19 For the creation waits with hope for the revelation of the sons of God,
20 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not voluntarily, but by the will of him who subjected it, in hope,
21 that the creation itself will be freed from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now;
23 and not only [she], but we ourselves, having the firstfruits of the Spirit, and we groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
(Rom. 8:19-23).”
Based on the Bible, we can say that an animal that has realized and accepted some higher idea becomes closer to Eidos - the Ideal World (the prototype of things in God's thinking). And, as is known from biology, a person is considered an animal, to be more precise: the species is Homo Sapiens, the genus is Humans, the order is Primates. That is, we can say that a person who has accepted some higher idea, objectively evaluates it and has cultivated its basic principles in himself, which will later become a virtue, can be compared with a certain Higher Power. For example, in religious system views - with God.
So, it was proven above that man is a dual nature, combining a higher idea, represented by dignity, and something lower, subconscious, left to us from nature - animal instincts. It is precisely the ability to find the golden mean between these sides of the human soul and constantly maintain this fragile balance that makes a representative of a number of primates something more sublime, comparable to some Divine essence. In the thinking of representatives of Orthodoxy, this essence is the triune God.
The question of maintaining the balance of an individual’s essence today is more relevant than ever. In our time, when society has become post-industrial, and economic issues have become a priority over cultural issues, humanity has found itself “at a crossroads.” Moral laws and religious dogmas, left as a legacy after industrial society, have lost their relevance in modern world. But no new system moral norms and rules were not developed. Because of this, some confusion arises - on the one hand, we adhere to morality, like past generations. On the other hand, we adhere to them purely for show, “because it’s customary.” At the same time, more attention is paid to everyday problems - stocking up on food, living in comfort, reproducing and caring for offspring - one might say, animal instincts. In this bustle of everyday life, we completely forget that a person is distinguished from a monkey by the dignity of being and the combination of conscious - dignity, and unconscious - animal desire. Because of this uncertainty, the question arises in our mind: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...”. Each person will have their own answer...
Roman F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment" was created at a turning point, when Russia began to take on a capitalist appearance and theories multiplying to justify new methods of enrichment. The era presented for revision both moral values and the person himself.
Rodion Raskolnikov - the main character of "Crime and Punishment" - a law student; he was brought up on strong moral principles. At first glance, there is more positive in this hero: he loves his mother and sister, he is ready to do anything for them; capable of a bright feeling, sensitive to the troubles of others. But there is a dark spot in Raskolnikov’s “spiritual” biography: not so much the murder of the old woman as the terrifying theory that had arisen in his mind. F.M. Dostoevsky more than once prompts the reader to think that it is not so much the hero himself who is to blame for what is happening, but the hero himself. gloomy atmosphere in which he is forced to exist. Let us remember St. Petersburg, which “devours” the hero’s world: poverty (nothing to eat, nothing to pay for a room, nothing to wear - people are amazed by Rodion’s rags), a room that looks like a coffin, abandonment and devaluation of a person, and much more.
The result of this was Raskolnikov's "unhealthy" theory. But she was not the only one: remember, already on the pages of the novel we encounter another theory - Luzhin’s. The essence of Rodion's theory is a complete renunciation of eternal moral norms; It occurred to Raskolnikov “ become Napoleon“- a hero, the master of the world, so that he would not be subordinated, but obeyed. Moreover, the hero does not see anything bad in his concept; on the contrary, he is trying to try on the mask “ superman" Based on "authoritative" historical experience, Raskolnikov seeks to logically justify the right of the strong to dispose of other people's lives at their own discretion. In other words, the hero does not try to “rise” to the level of others; on the contrary, he strives to rise by “humiliating” these others. The theory forced Raskolnikov to see the previously colorful world in black and white, dividing the world into “higher” and “lower”.
But - with all his conviction in the theory of the superman - Raskolnikov categorically does not accept such heroes as Luzhin and Svidrigailov. In the eyes of the hero, they are scoundrels and scoundrels. And only later will Raskolnikov understand that they, in fact, have a lot in common: they all despised universal human morality.
The author accepts Raskolnikov’s revolt against oppression and trampling of man, but refuses the possibility of the existence of an inhuman theory subsumed under this rebellion. Hence the moral collapse of the hero - in the rejection of universal human laws and truths. In fact, Raskolnikov turned out to be noble and an honest man, which " crossed, but remained on this side", and hence the awareness of crime life position Luzhin and Svidrigailov, and his recent one. 
No matter how degraded a person Raskolnikov may be, the author saves him through repentance and atonement. Sonya Marmeladova becomes the hero’s savior and support, whose spiritual strength was enough to “resurrect” two people: she saves both herself and Raskolnikov pure love, the desire for self-sacrifice. The author calls the life of the saved Raskolnikov “ new history, the history of the gradual renewal of man, his gradual rebirth", which means that the entire image of the main character is intended to show descendants what consequences the weakening of the moral foundations of human existence can lead to.
Happy Literature Study!
blog.site, when copying material in full or in part, a link to the original source is required.