Society is a complex and constantly evolving system in which all elements are somehow connected with each other. Society has a huge impact on a person, participates in his upbringing.

Public opinion is the opinion of the majority. It is not surprising that it has a great influence on a person. It is believed that if many adhere to a position, then it is correct. But is it really so? Sometimes public opinion regarding some case, phenomenon, person can be erroneous. People tend to make mistakes and jump to conclusions.

In Russian fiction there are many examples of wrong public opinion.

As the first argument, consider Yakovlev's story "Ledum", which tells about the boy Kostya. Teachers and classmates considered him strange, treated him with distrust.

Kostya yawned in class, and after the last lesson he immediately ran away from school.

One day, the teacher Zhenya (as the guys called her) decided to find out what was the reason for such an unusual behavior of her student. She discreetly accompanied him after school. Zhenechka was amazed that the strange and withdrawn boy turned out to be a very kind, sympathetic, noble person. Every day Kostya walked the dogs of those owners who could not do it on their own. The boy also took care of the dog, the owner of which died. The teacher and classmates were wrong: they jumped to conclusions.

As a second argument, let us analyze Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. An important character in this work is Sonya Marmeladova. She earned by selling her own body. Society considered her an immoral girl, a sinner. However, no one knew why she lived like this.

The former official Marmeladov, Sonya's father, lost his job due to addiction to alcohol, his wife Katerina Ivanovna was ill with consumption, the children were too small to work. Sonya was forced to provide for her family. She "went on a yellow ticket", sacrificed her honor and reputation in order to save her relatives from poverty and hunger.

Sonya Marmeladova helps not only her loved ones: she does not leave Rodion Raskolnikov, who suffers because of the murder he committed. The girl makes him admit his guilt and goes with him to hard labor in Siberia.

Sonya Marmeladova - the moral ideal of Dostoevsky because of his positive qualities. Knowing the history of her life, it is difficult to say that she is a sinner. Sonya is a kind, merciful, honest girl.

So public opinion can be wrong. People did not know Kostya and Sonya, what personalities they were, what qualities they possessed, and, probably, therefore, they assumed the worst. Society has drawn conclusions based only on part of the truth and its own conjectures. It did not see nobility and responsiveness in Sonya and Kostya.

08.12.2017 08:36

On December 6, 2017, the final essay (statement) was held on the territory of the Vologda Oblast. In the Cherepovets municipal district, the final essay was written by 63 eleventh-graders from 8 schools.

Essay topics became known 15 minutes before the start of the exam:

· When can cheating be forgiven?(This topic was chosen by 13 people (20%) from the Cherepovets region).

· What actions of a person indicate his responsiveness?(An essay on this topic was written by 32 people (50%).

· Is happiness built on the unhappiness of others?(This topic was chosen by 4 people (6%).

· How is courage different from recklessness?(An essay on this topic was written by 12 people (19%)

· Is public opinion wrong?(An essay on this topic was written by 2 people (3%)

According to the requirements - the volume of the essay should be at least 250 words. When writing an essay, participants were allowed to use a spelling dictionary. The committee will review and evaluate the work. educational organization, on the basis of which the final essay was written according to the following criteria: relevance to the topic, argumentation and attraction of literary material, composition and logic of reasoning, quality of written speech, literacy. The composition of the expert commission includes teachers of the Russian language and literature of the school where the exam is taking place. Original essays and presentations are sent to the regional information processing center.

The students will know the results of the final essay and presentation in a week. Graduates who are dissatisfied with the result have the right to apply in writing for re-examination of their essay (statement) by a commission from another school. If the graduate received a "failure" or did not come to the exam for a good reason, you can write the final essay (statement) on February 7 and May 16.

The term of validity of the final essay as admission to the state final certification is indefinite. The result of the final essay, if submitted upon admission to undergraduate and specialist programs, is valid for four years following the year of obtaining such a result.

Graduates of past years can participate in writing the final essay, including if they have valid results of the final essay of previous years, while the result of the final essay of the previous year is canceled.

Loyal and devoted people are valued at all times. But it often happens that the one from whom you do not expect betrayal will change. What brings a person to a fatal point? What allows him to stumble? Can this offense be forgiven? I'll try to figure this out.

In my opinion, in a situation of danger, a person can sometimes behave unpredictably. During hostilities, when there is a threat to life, moral stamina and fearlessness are tested. The one in whom there is no inner strength is able to betray his own, forget about honor and military duty. I think that this kind of betrayal is impossible to forgive.

In the novel by A.S. Pushkin " Captain's daughter"The image of a person is given, whose actions there is nothing to justify - this is Shvabrin Alexei Ivanovich. It would seem that he dared, sent to Belogorsk fortress for "death" during a duel, but in a moment of danger, seeing that Pugachev is strong, he goes over to his side. What brings him to this decision? In my opinion, Shvabrin is capable of any meanness: to slander Marya Ivanovna in the eyes of Grinev, to write to Petrusha's parents about the duel. Even before the capture of the fortress by Pugachev, it was clear that such a person would not talk about what was honest and noble, and what was vile and dishonorable. The lack of moral guidelines leads to treason. It is difficult to forgive such a person, his actions cause only contempt.

You can change not only in times of upheaval, but also in ordinary family life. What leads to such an act of one of the spouses? I think that the reason is the lack of mutual feelings of love and respect. Is forgiveness possible in this situation?

In the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" main character Katerina, a married woman, is cheating on her husband Tikhon. Her character is completely different from that of Shvabrin. She is sincere, sincere, open nature. Why is it capable of change? I think that it was more honest for Katerina to show feelings for Boris than to pretend that she loves Tikhon, whom there is nothing to even respect for. Katerina's betrayal of her husband is not perceived as a vile act, but, on the contrary, as a manifestation of her strength and ability to protest. This step was prompted by Tikhon's inattention, the oppression of Kabanikhi, the constant feeling of lack of freedom. Katerina's act is justified from a moral point of view, which means that she deserves forgiveness. After her death, Tikhon will also exclaim to Kabanikh: “It was you who ruined her! You!" He does not hold a grudge against her, he understands the inevitability of what happened. Such a betrayal can be forgiven.

In whatever situation a person finds himself, the choice of how to act remains with him. In my opinion, forgiveness is only worthy of one in whom the reason for betrayal was not inner weakness, but strength of mind and a sincere conviction that he was right.

What actions of a person indicate his responsiveness?

The ability to respond to someone else's pain, caring for your neighbor - these qualities are not inherent in everyone. How to distinguish a sympathetic person from an indifferent one? What actions will be characteristic of people with this quality?

The very concept of "responsiveness" includes thoughts about others, a willingness to give, not to take. A responsive person will strive to make the world around him a better place.

This is exactly how we see the heroine of the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" Olga Ilyinskaya. She wants to save Ilya Ilyich from eternal sleep, dreams of how to fill his life with movement, meaning, return him to conscious activity, perform a miracle. It is thanks to her efforts that Ilya Ilyich gets up early, reads books, walks, there is not a trace of sleep or fatigue on his face. And all this beneficial effect Olga. Is this not a manifestation of responsiveness? Another thing is that Oblomov only for a while rose from his sleep and died out again. The heroine tried to change Ilya Ilyich, but she could not do it.

Responsiveness can manifest itself in relation to different people who need help to those in need.

In the story of Maxim Gorky "Childhood", an example of a person who cares about others is grandmother Akulina Ivanovna. The entire Kashirin family rests on her spiritual attitude to everything around. During a fire that happened to them, she worries that the fire does not spread to a neighboring house. For her, the well-being of her neighbor is important. It is distinguished by a disinterested love for the world, pity for people, sensitivity to someone else's insult and pain. She tries to help everyone, support, cares for the sick, treats children, sorts out family disputes and quarrels. It is the grandmother who helps the blind master Gregory, gives him alms. And for Alyosha, she becomes the closest and dearest person.

The ability to think about who needs support, about who needs participation, is inherent, in my opinion, in sympathetic people. It is necessary not to pass by someone else's pain, not to isolate yourself in your own world, but to respond to misfortune and, if possible, try to help.

Is happiness built on the unhappiness of others?

The desire for happiness and spiritual harmony is characteristic, perhaps, of all people. Each of us wants to bring our life closer to a certain ideal. What means can be chosen to achieve personal goals? Is it possible to build happiness on the unhappiness of others? Let's try to figure this out.

In my opinion, caring only about their own good, forgetting about others, a person makes himself unhappy. Achieving imaginary happiness, he remains dissatisfied with the result, comes to the realization of the meaninglessness of his actions.

In the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time", we are presented with the image of such a person - Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, thirsting for life, looking for it everywhere and involuntarily bringing misfortune to everyone around. Pechorin, in pursuit of revealing the secrets of the smugglers, destroys their well-established course of life. Love for the savage Bella also does not bring him the expected happiness. She sincerely was able to fall in love with Pechorin, but he quickly lost interest in her, became the unwitting culprit of her death. Princess Mary also becomes a victim of his selfishness and inability to change his life. Pechorin himself will say about himself: "... My love did not bring happiness to anyone, because I did not sacrifice anything for those whom I loved."

Striving for happiness at any cost, a person does not achieve it himself and brings only trouble to others.

The hero of the novel by A.S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter" Alexei Ivanovich Shvabrin is in love with Marya Ivanovna, wants to force her to marry him, forces her to do so. In a letter to Pyotr Grinev, Marya Ivanovna will write about Shvabrin's cruel attitude towards her, who keeps her under guard, on bread and water, hoping for the possibility of personal happiness. But, bringing her only torment, Shvabrin is not able to achieve what he wants.

It turns out that you really cannot build your happiness on someone else's misfortune. It is necessary to carefully choose the means to achieve your goals, without making those around you suffer.

How is courage different from recklessness?

Courage is the quality that manifests itself in moments of danger. But someone can, without hesitation, risk his life without realizing the possible consequences, and someone, having carefully weighed everything, will commit a heroic deed.

It is in the ability to soberly assess the situation, to understand how dangerous the situation is, that the difference between courage and recklessness is. L.N. Tolstoy makes us think about this in the novel “War and Peace”.

His heroes are able to show the best human qualities in moments of danger. Dared Captain Tushin, who found himself in the thick of things, without reinforcements. He does not experience "the slightest unpleasant feeling of fear", on the contrary, he becomes "more and more cheerful." He skillfully fights, imagining himself as a powerful, huge man who can handle everything. Tushin's sincerity, his simplicity, concern for the soldiers, modesty and, of course, courage command respect.

If a person is driven only by feeling, instead of courage comes recklessness, an unjustified risk of one's own life.

Such is the young Petya Rostov, possessed by a thirst for achievement, "without a moment's hesitation, he galloped to the place where the shots were heard and the powder smoke was thicker." Petya dies while still a child. He did not calculate the situation, he so wanted to be in the thick of things, to become a real hero. The absurd death of Petya helps us understand that reasonable courage is needed, and not a heroic impulse.

Whether this or that person is bold or reckless depends on what is more developed in him: reason or feeling.

In N.V. Gogol's story "Taras Bulba", Ostap and Andriy behave differently in battle. Ostap can calmly assess the situation, in him "the inclinations of the future leader" are noticeable. Andriy, on the other hand, plunges "into the charming music of bullets", without measuring anything in advance, sees "frantic bliss and ecstasy" in the battle.

During difficult trials, people show fearlessness. In my opinion, reasonable courage is more important in battle than stupid recklessness. The winner is not the one who, in a fit of feelings, rushes towards danger, but the one who is able to calculate the convenient moment and achieve the result. This is the difference between courage and recklessness.

Is public opinion wrong?

A person lives in society throughout his life. It would seem that it is not difficult for any of us to find a response to our spiritual experiences. Unfortunately, it is not. And, revolving in society, being an active person, one can remain misunderstood and even rejected. Public opinion is often wrong. When can this happen?

In my opinion, those whose beliefs are progressive and ahead of their time are not accepted by the majority. In the works of the Russian classical literature there are examples of this type of people.

In A.S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”, Chatsky is rejected by the “famus” society. This is an advanced person of his time, who understands that career advancement should be due to merit and concrete deeds, and not the ability to please superiors. He appreciates Russian culture, criticizes the dominance of the foreign, the inveterate morals, cringing and bribery. Chatsky is educated, smart, progressive, but lonely both in society and in love. None of the heroes of the comedy shares his views, Sophia spreads the rumor about his madness. Oddly enough, everyone willingly believes this gossip, because this is the only way to explain why Chatsky thinks differently than all those who ended up in Famusov's house. The hero is lonely from misunderstanding, his views are different from the opinion of the majority - this is the reason for such an attitude towards him. Opinion " Famus Society» about Chatsky is wrong because he was ahead of his time.

But not only the bearer of progressive views may not be accepted in society, but also the one who is strong in spirit, who is better than his numerous surroundings.

So, in the story of M. Gorky "Old Woman Izergil" there is a legend about Danko. This hero saved all people from certain death, he led them through impenetrable forests. The path was difficult, people were exhausted and blamed everything on Danko, the man who walked ahead of them. They reproached him for his inability to manage them. Danko tore out his heart and lit the way with it, saved people at the cost of his life, but his death went unnoticed. He made a feat in the name of saving people. The accusations against Danko were unfair.

When can public opinion be wrong? I think that this happens if a person is ahead of his time in terms of views, worldview, understanding of life, or turns out to be brighter, stronger, more courageous than those who surround him.

PUBLIC OPINION/REALITY.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF ERRORSPUBLIC OPINION

Detect the error statements of the public can, as is known, and without going beyond the analysis of recorded judgments, by simply comparing them, in particular by detecting contradictions in their content. Suppose, in response to the question: “What, in your opinion, is more characteristic of your peers: purposefulness or lack of purpose?” - 85.3 percent of the respondents opted for the first part of the alternative, 11 percent - for the second, and 3.7 percent did not give a definite answer. This opinion would be deliberately false if, say, in response to another question of the questionnaire: “Do you personally have a goal in life?” - the majority of respondents would answer in the negative - a representation of the population that contradicts the actual characteristics of the units that make up the population cannot be recognized as correct. Just in order to determine the degree of truth of statements, mutually controlling each other questions are introduced into the questionnaire, a correlation analysis of opinions is carried out.

Another thing - the nature of fallibility public statements. In most cases, its definition turns out to be impossible within the scope of consideration of fixed judgments alone. Searching for the answer to the question “why?” force us to turn to the sphere of opinion formation.

If we approach the question in general, truth andfalsity of statements public depend beforeeverything from the reasoning subject himself, as well as the sourcenicknames from which he draws knowledge. In particular, with regard to the first, it is known that different social environments are characterized by different “signs”: depending on their objective position in relation to sources and media, they are more or less informed on certain issues; depending on the level of culture - a greater or lesser ability to perceive and assimilate incoming information; finally, depending on the correlation of the interests of the given environment and the general tendencies of social development, a greater or lesser interest in accepting objective information. The same must be said about the sources of information: they can carry the truth or lies, depending on the degree of their competence, on the nature of their social interests (profitable or disadvantageous), etc. In essence, consider the problem of forming public opinionoznaconsider the role of all these factors in the complex “behavior” of the subject of the utterance and the source of information.

As is known, as a baseopinions can act: first, gossip, rumours,gossip; Secondly, personal experience individual, accumulating in the process of practical activity; Thirdly, collectiveexperience“other” people, which is made into information coming to the individual. In the real process of forming opinions, the importance of information sources is unequal. Of course, the most important role is collectiveexperience, because it includes such elements as the mass media and the social environment of the individual (the experience of “small groups”). In addition, these sources in most cases "work" not on their own, not directly, but refracted through the experience of the social environment, the action of official sources of information. But from the point of view of the interests of the analysis, the proposed sequence of consideration seems appropriate, and an isolated, “pure” consideration of each of these sources is not only desirable, but also necessary.

Answer left Guru

Society is a complex and constantly evolving system in which all elements are somehow connected with each other. Society has a huge impact on a person, participates in his upbringing. Public opinion is the opinion of the majority. It is not surprising that it has a great influence on a person. It is believed that if many adhere to a position, then it is correct. But is it really so? Sometimes public opinion regarding some case, phenomenon, person can be erroneous. People tend to make mistakes and jump to conclusions. There are many examples of erroneous public opinion in Russian fiction. As the first argument, consider Yakovlev's story "Ledum", which tells about the boy Kostya. Teachers and classmates considered him strange, treated him with distrust. Costa yawned in class, and after the last class, he immediately ran away from school. One day, the teacher Zhenya (as the guys called her) decided to find out what was the reason for such an unusual behavior of her student. She discreetly accompanied him after school. Zhenechka was amazed that the strange and withdrawn boy turned out to be a very kind, sympathetic, noble person. Every day, Costa walked the dogs of those owners who could not do it on their own. The boy also took care of the dog, the owner of which died. The teacher and classmates were wrong: they jumped to conclusions. As a second argument, let us analyze Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. An important character in this work is Sonya Marmeladova. She earned by selling her own body. Society considered her an immoral girl, a sinner. However, no one knew why she lived like this. The former official Marmeladov, Sonya's father, lost his job due to addiction to alcohol, his wife Katerina Ivanovna was ill with consumption, the children were too small to work. Sonya was forced to provide for her family. She "went on a yellow ticket", sacrificed her honor and reputation in order to save her relatives from poverty and hunger. Sonya Marmeladova helps not only her loved ones: she does not leave Rodion Raskolnikov, who suffers because of the murder he committed. The girl makes him admit his guilt and goes with him to hard labor in Siberia. Sonya Marmeladova is the moral ideal of Dostoevsky because of his positive qualities. Knowing the history of her life, it is difficult to say that she is a sinner. Sonya is a kind, merciful, honest girl. So public opinion can be wrong. People did not know Costa and Sonya, what kind of personalities they were, what qualities they possessed, and, probably, therefore, they assumed the worst. Society has drawn conclusions based only on part of the truth and its own conjectures. It did not see nobility and responsiveness in Sonya and Kostya.