The only irrelevant reaction of a person to reality is seen by the heroes of Chekhov as an involuntary, unconscious, reflex way of feeling, different from reflection, reflections, full of doubts, absolutized by literature. The system of compromises that constitutes the essence of the suffering character of the first half of the century, psychological introspection, conflicting self-assessments are rejected by the naturalness of the embodiment of the cause-and-effect relationships of the world in unadorned emotions: “I respond to pain with screams and tears, meanness with indignation, disgust with disgust.”

The plot finale of Chatsky is the demand of the carriage, personifying the desire to change places, away from those who do not want to listen to his revolutionary lectures. Pushkin deprives Onegin of the last word, which could become a metaphorical sign of a certain type of existential well-being, which was the final of Tatyana's rebuke or Pechorin's confession of a possible death somewhere on the road. Bazarov, at the end of his life, utters the most absurd phrase about the burdock and the peasant's white hut. Saying goodbye to the world, Andrei Bolkonsky comprehends the nature of the highest feeling (“... divine love cannot change ... It is the essence of the soul”), refuses the delusions of the mind. Chekhov Andrey Efimych grows cold in motionless silence, having solved the dilemma of life for himself: "I don't care...". The idea of ​​reason, which is outlined as an instrument for analyzing a contradictory universe, is becoming obsolete, leaving along with its bearers, mythologizing with the Tyutchev formula “Russia cannot be understood with the mind ...” the ways of self-determination of characters and culture.

An assortment of obscure emblems is put forward as a counterargument to the ratio, among which a significant place is occupied by the "strange love" of the lyrical hero Lermontov, Turgenev's motive of humility before the power of nature, Dostoevsky's "positively beautiful" man, Tolstoy's desire to "return the world to the world", Chekhov's metaphilosophical conclusions, embodied in the worldview positions of hero-ideologists. Other, more spectacular forms of the moral and ethical ideal of Russian literature are personified in the female character. It is customary to find its genesis in Pushkin's Tatyana, erected to Yaroslavna; poor Liza Karamzina and Sofya Famusova traditionally belong to aesthetically biased heroines and therefore are not taken into account in the ethical typology of literature. The vagueness of the characters of Liza and Sophia alienates them from the sphere of feeling and behavior mythologized throughout the 19th century. But in the context of the "intellectual" problems of culture, the image of Sophia, perhaps, should lead the female theme: the heroine is well-read, proud, wayward, the lack of insight is compensated in her character by determination. It is Sophia who intuitively finds a way to neutralize Chatsky's aggressive attacks, saying out loud, assuming that "he is out of his mind." The selflessness with which she defends her lover in many ways precedes the theme of self-sacrifice, expressed in Tatiana Larina. Pushkin, creating a portrait of the heroine, refuses classical exemplary models, overcomes the principles of character construction, known from the enlightenment novel. Elements of romanticism, decorated with national colors, practically exhaust the image, although the narrator notes Tatyana's dissimilarity to Olga, the favorite heroine of romantic art; sisters Larina - illustrations of various roles of Byronic natures - hypocritical beauty and sacrificial mystery. One can speak about the realism of character only conditionally, taking into account not so much the behavioral pattern of the character, but the aesthetics of the artistic organization of character portrayal.

The motive of the mind turns out to be redundant and illogical in the author's attestations of the heroine. Therefore, Pushkin in the exposition of the story about the “savage woman” notes: “Thoughtfulness, her friend ... the course of rural leisure adorned her with dreams.” Griboedov proposed a similar solution to the image: Sophia's thoughtfulness, passion for novels led to an out-of-class feeling. Oddly enough, Tatyana, who read the same books (such an assumption is justified - the girlish library of Russian literature was exhausted by the "deceptions" of "Richardson and Rousseau"), did not fall in love with the Christmas guessed Agathon, but chose Onegin. The author explains this preference by the fact that “the time has come”, the names of potential suitors are listed, reminiscent of Fonvizin’s characters and not possessing Onegin’s rhetorical talents. An illustrative detail in Tatyana's letter: the image of the word passes as a leitmotif in it (“just to hear your speeches, you say a word ...”, “your voice was heard in my soul ...”, “I heard you ...”, “words whispered hope to me"), which caused the defeat of the ornate Chatsky. The attitude towards the rhetoric of promising chosen ones - a love pursuer (Chatsky), a mysterious chosen one (Onegin) - becomes the difference between Sophia and Tatyana. Griboyedov's hero utters monologues not intended for the ladies' ear, but focused on the understanding of the reader, for which he is punished by the unfulfillment of love claims. Onegin, it can be assumed, quotes the heroes of fashionable novels, which voiced the text once silently read by the girl. The plot of seduction outlined by "Eugene Onegin" will become the richest legacy of the heroes of Lermontov and Turgenev. The materialization of the word-deed by Pechorin, Rudin will evoke an unequivocal reaction of the heroines prepared for the favorable and enthusiastic acceptance of the “hero of the century”.

Lermontov will try to create an ideal image of smart Mary, but the young beauty will lose against the backdrop of Vera's wisely submitting inevitability. The author of "A Hero of Our Time" compensates for the gap in Pushkin's description of secular charmers, witty and proud, with natural intuition, used as a weapon of seduction and verbal play. The creation of the plot couple Mary-Vera will be artistically interpreted by Turgenev in "Fathers and Sons" in indirect comparisons of the Odintsov sisters. Age will delimit female characters into impulsive, categorical, but not devoid of common sense youth and wise maturity, hiding behind the coldness of treatment and a touch of skepticism the knowledge of people achieved by the experience of loss and disappointment. Odintsova embodies the idea of ​​a maternal mind, the bearer of which in "Eugene Onegin" was a nanny, and in "Hero" - a paternal version of spiritual compassion - Maxim Maksimych. Maternal understanding, existential wisdom will be unclaimed by the younger generation of Turgenev's heroines, who independently arrange their happiness.

The weakened influence of the parental principle, which is expressed, as a rule, in compassionate (Maxim Maksimych), advisory (nanny), intellectually edifying (Mary's mother) functions, leads to a catastrophic love choice of the heroines, whom the authors refuse to control the mind. For example, Turgenev writes about Liza Kalitina: “She studied ... well, that is, diligently: God did not reward her with especially brilliant abilities, a great mind: nothing was given to her without difficulty ...”. This is followed by a very strange remark for the cultural tradition - “She read a little; She didn't have her own words, but she had her own thoughts. Following this passage, the father's motif appears: "It was not for nothing that she looked like her father: he also did not ask others what to do." The theme of the lack of words required to form a thought, that is, the picture of Tatyana Larina's psychological state, is also inherited by Lisa. As a result, the choice of love here also turns out to be random and unpromising. Another character development is considered by the writer on the example of the image of Elena Stakhova, who develops the plot of the hypothetical relationship between Sophia and Chatsky as much as possible. Turgenev finds a completely non-girlish use for Elena's mind, which, however, corresponds to the moral and ideological fashion of the era. Giftedness of nature, mind, feeling are exported beyond the borders of the Fatherland - into a plot so exotic and distant that a dramatic denouement is inevitable, as well as the unnatural decision of the author to transfer Elena's natural and intellectual talents into the sphere of revolutionary struggle. Endless experiments with the female mind in Russian literature culminate in unacceptable grotesque forms of self-incarnation of the heroines. Writers are at a loss, not knowing how to use the gift that male characters successfully spend on salon discussions, seduction, or dying.

I. I. Murzak, A. L. Yastrebov.

In the mental situation of the XVII-XVIII centuries. a paradox is revealed: culture admires the uniqueness of the individual, manifests the idea of ​​self-sufficiency of an inquisitive creative mind, but at the same time operates with global categories that do not even leave hope for an individual to penetrate their secret. Artists, philosophers, describing the world, create large-scale pictures, frightened by the infinity of the opening universe. The intensity with which research practice begins to flow indicates the emancipation of individualistic consciousness from the medieval hierarchy of values, however, attitudes towards specific personal behavior, striving for a unique way of self-realization contradictorily coexist with the urge to become part of the general, an element of a specific cultural and social system - a microcosm equal in structure of the macrocosm. "Petrov's Nest Chicks" is a spectacular metaphor for sociopolitical unity, applicable to all levels of social coexistence. University circles, secret societies, wandering around Russia, flight to Europe are signs of a single phenomenon that became widespread in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. People are guided by the desire to join some organized unity, to make its laws their own rules, while maintaining internal independence.

The strangeness of such behavior is explained by the fact that the cultural tradition, declaring the inherent value of the individual, did not leave enough space for the individual to embody his own ideas, since it did not develop convincing cultural grounds for confirming the phenomenon of a person who can trust only private aspirations. Well-known historical events prepared the ground on which a new consciousness was formed, liberated from the dictates of a transpersonal pattern. Romanticism absolutized the thirst for an experimental comprehension of fate, an exit from the order of the universe, the most catastrophic realization of an unprecedented individuality. Great changes give rise to characters that question shaky authorities, choosing a special scale of action to match the boundless will.

Griboyedov is one of the brightest figures of Russian culture at the beginning of the 19th century; his personality and fate embody phenomena common in the European Renaissance. A connoisseur of languages, a diplomat, a comedian, a composer - a synthesis of qualities that indicate the versatility of the artistic nature, the graceful ease of transition from one type of activity to another. The influence of oppositional ideas on the formation of the views of the author of Woe from Wit should not be absolutized. The well-known progressive remarks of Chatsky can also be interpreted in the context of the classical theme of fathers and children, when the invectives of the romantics who rebelled against tradition involve in their plots the most spectacular details of the condemned life.

In the image of Chatsky, for the first time in Russian literature, a type of hero is presented, inspired by original ideas, protesting against outdated dogmas. The monologue behavior of the hero develops a new look at social relations, his bold slogans fit perfectly into the tragic genre, but the comedic conflict opens up more opportunities for the author. Chatsky's speech is fundamentally impromptu, the punctuation marks in his monologues reveal not only the increased expression of the accuser, but also the disorder of thought, a previously unspoken emotion. Each scene in which the character is forced to break out with yet another accusation against the “past century” is shaped by the motive of chance and develops as an unplanned attack, initiated by an excessive desire to demonstrate knowledge of some truth that is inaccessible to the understanding of others. This is the comedy of the situation. Chatsky pathetically proclaims a way of thinking that comes into conflict with the traditions of social collective behavior, marked by an orientation towards patriarchal norms. The lofty philosophical note set by Chatsky contrasts with Famusov's position, which, for all its cultural unacceptability, remains a model of the science of living in society, following that conditional convention that has not changed from antiquity to the present day. The collective concept of the mind as morality, "the ability to live" develops into recommendations that are grotesque, from the point of view of a high impulse, but convincing by their loyalty to the logic of everyday life. Here is an allegory of social recognition (“I ate not on silver, on gold”), and examples of socio-romantic daydreaming (“I just wish I could become a general”), and evidence of matrimonial pragmatism (“Baron von Klotz was aiming for ministers, And I son-in-law").

According to these practical guidelines, Chatsky's desire to see crime in the behavior of other members of society who are not inclined to share the pathos of crushing ideas is assessed. They call him an eccentric, a strange person, then - just a madman. "Well? Can't you see that he's gone mad? - Famusov says with complete confidence. The replies of the characters contrast the thesis of Chatsky, who affirms as the highest value "the mind that is hungry for knowledge", a no less convincing, but not so categorical concept of rational behavior. Famusov praises Madame Rosier, considers it necessary to emphasize that she "was smart, her temper was quiet, she had rare rules." Sophia, recommending her chosen one to her father, notices that he is "both insinuating and smart." The textbook emblem of Famusov's limitations - a well-known phrase -

Learning is the plague, learning is the cause

What is now more than ever

Crazy divorced people, and deeds, and opinions ... -

indirectly expresses enlightening criticism of romantic ideas, whose apologists propagandized a catastrophic type of self-incarnation. Chatsky's eccentric way of accusing and denying is farcically straightforward. But the social world cannot be reduced to a single, even the most progressive doctrine, it is more diverse. Sophia says with sentimental naivety: “Oh, if someone loves whom, why look for the mind and travel so far?” Molchalin's value orientations illustrate his commitment to the precepts of the service hierarchy - "after all, one must depend on others." The destructive power of speeches begins to disturb the hero himself, who feels that in himself "mind and heart are not in harmony." The rivalry between rational and sensual principles in the character of the hero is expressed in the increased expressiveness of his position and in an attempt to generalize such different phenomena of the exposed system of life rules.

At the end of the comedy, Chatsky expresses an idea that indicates a change in categorical guidelines. Experiencing grief from his mind, he suddenly confesses to completely different motives: the hero sets off "... to search the world where there is a corner for an offended feeling." This recognition points to a new sense of the world, comprehended by the character. The pragmatic approach, coupled with the enthusiasm of the romantic, contradicts the original predestination of its cultural function. The tragedy of the hero lies in the fact that the feeling initiated the denunciations, although the parameters of the situation did not imply such an application of emotion. The hero is not able to find a figure of balance, ordering enlightenment indignation and romantic passion. The final remark indicates the ideological exhaustion of the character, his awareness of the doom of trying to convince everyone of the undoubted truth of his views. The "corner" for "offended feelings" is presented as an alternative to public polemical behavior and becomes one of the variants of the central model of Russian literature, which will form the ritual of the character's speech position in the plot of a love explanation. The tragicomic experience of a mentor of society, considered in Woe from Wit, will appear for Russian writers as a model of outright tendentiousness, which should be avoided.

Enlightenment doctrines, reinforced by sentimental-romantic pathos, in Chatsky's monologues sounded like a belated remark of an era enthusiastically striving to synthesize a private impulse with an image of superhuman being. The polemic of reasoning with the established world order cannot but end in a fictitious denouement; the exchange of monologues leads to a declaration of positions and does not imply a hint of compromise or the triumph of one of the ideological doctrines. The enthusiastic rhetoric of the hero genetically goes back in content to the romantic type of behavior, and in form it inherits the ornate moods of Baroque Enlightenment experiments. As a result, the radicalism of Chatsky's moods will become an example, a topic for the analysis of socio-critical thought, but will cause invariable skepticism of authors who doubt the existential perspective of the image of the parlor holy fool.

The disease of the enlightening mind, widespread in the literature of the early 19th century, will evoke a rebuke from Pushkin, who will choose “Russian melancholy” as a priority characteristic of his character. The author's diagnosis implies the intimization of the conflict of personal aspirations and established structures of existence. It is impossible to imagine Onegin in the pose of an accuser and a subversive, his mind is more practical than focused on the proclamation of abstract ideas supported by dramatic facts. Griboedov's allusions to the hero's education - "he writes and translates well" - reflecting the trends of the times, the widespread ideas of Karamzinists about poetry as a measure of progress, are subjected to pejorative irony by Pushkin. Onegin is “smart and very nice” on the grounds that “he could speak and write in French perfectly; he danced the mazurka with ease and bowed without restraint...”. Knowledge of piquant incidents “from Romulus to the present day” certainly does not compensate for the gap in education (“He could not distinguish an iambic from a chorea, no matter how hard we fought”), but certifies Onegin as an interesting secular interlocutor, not as tiring as his literary predecessor. Chatsky himself would have found many caustic remarks about the socially uninitiative Onegin, a hidden polemic with the hero of Woe from Wit is also found in Pushkin's novel. Chapter VII enumerates the range of literary predilections of the character, indicates "two or three novels that reflect the century and modern man", gives a laconic description of the "immoral" soul, "selfish and dry", "immeasurably betrayed by a dream". The stanza ends with an eloquent couplet, a formula of disagreement with "an embittered mind, seething empty in action." In the draft version of the work, this idea sounds more categorical: "With a rebellious gloomy mind - Pouring cold poison all around." Here, the semantics of the philosophical child is more clearly outlined, revealing the principles of the artistic organization of Griboedov's character.

Option 1:

So they say, if a person cannot control his feelings, strives for what is impossible, realizing that this can harm himself and others. For example, it can 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 yearns for the object of passion, regardless of any reasonable arguments.

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

Another example of discord between the mind and feelings can be found in Ostrovsky's The Thunderstorm. Katerina gets married and gets into a new family. There her mother-in-law offends 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 betray her husband, although the mind stubbornly insists that this is wrong. The story ends sadly: Katerina's emotional nature cannot withstand 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 should 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 own life and the lives of other people for the sake of his own desires.

Option 2:

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

This topic has been repeatedly raised by writers in their works. Sometimes she set off the main storyline, giving drama, and sometimes she herself became the theme of the work. I think this is a win-win option, because such 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 harder for him is love for Odintsova. Like it or not, it is always difficult for a person to revise 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 in return, but she cannot accept his views and criticism of her surroundings. Sophia chooses Molchalin and attributes non-existent features to him. Realizing what is happening, Chatsky leaves Moscow. But his feelings in the end still obey the mind and he saves face.

I don't think you can let your 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 others.

Literature lesson in 11th grade. Preparation for the final essay.

"When the mind and heart are not in harmony"

GoalsLesson topic: Preparation for the examination essay in literature. Essay on the thematic direction "Mind and feeling".

Lesson type: speech development lesson

Activity goal:

Formation of students' activity abilities to select and structure material on a given topic and to write an essay.

Content Purpose:

Preparation for the final certification in literature, expanding the conceptual base of students.

Lesson objectives:

subject

to form the ability to develop approaches to writing a final essay on literature;

to form the ability to build a statement according to the proposed literary blocks

regulatory

to form the ability to set a goal, plan their activities, predict the result, perform control, correction, evaluate their work

communicative

develop the ability to express one's thoughts with sufficient accuracy and completeness in accordance with the tasks and conditions of communication

personal

to form a culture of speech;

to cultivate the ability of moral and ethical orientation in the flow of literary works.

Methods:

by the nature of cognitive activity

partial search

according to the degree of activity of students

productive;

creative

stimulation and motivation

cognitive;

emotional

intellectual

comparisons

material classification

organization of activities:

individual

frontal

Equipment: Clip with the performance of the poem, printed didactic material.

I . Organizational (motivational) stage

Target: inclusion of students in activities at a personally significant level

Teacher's word.

Greetings.

Today we continue to work on preparing for the final essay on literature.

Actualization of students' personal comprehension of activities in the lesson

II . Formulating the topic of the lesson and setting the goal and objectives of the lesson.

Target: motivationstudents.

Teacher's word.

Today the purpose of our lesson is to develop approaches and selection of literary material for an essay in the direction of "Mind and Feelings".

Our goal is to make a plan for the lesson and understand what should be written in which part. And you will write the essay itself at home.

This essay will need to be written with the involvement of one literary source - the poem by Marina Tsvetaeva "Longing for the Motherland"

Understanding the relevance of this work.

III .Knowledge update

Target: verification of theoretical knowledge about the algorithm for writing an essay in literature.

Planning.

Remember what you know about the conditions for writing this essay.

Terms of writing?

Check criteria?

Destinations this year?

How many will be given to you? What might a theme look like?

Let's remember what type of activity an essay represents.

How many parts of the plan should there be? What are they about?

How should the introduction to the topic “When the mind and heart are not in harmony” look like? What should be discussed? How many words should be in the introduction?

If the topic is “When the mind and heart are not in harmony”, then what should be written about in the introduction?

Students have a memo (appendix 1)

Student answers on the memo:

5 topics

Subject question

Subject Judgment

Theme concept

The essay consists of 3 parts: 1. Introduction, 2. Main part with arguments.

3. Conclusion.

The introduction is approximately 50 words.

Oral composition of the introduction

IV . The author of the poem

Target: approach the understanding of the text through the biography of the poet

To write an essay, we use a poetic text. Poem by Marina Tsvetaeva. To better understand the poem, let's recall what you know about this poet.

When did she live? Date of Birth? Did you belong to any literary movement? Remember what milestones from her biography do you know? How many years did she spend abroad? How did she live there?

Look at the date under the poem. Where was Zhila Tsvetaeva in 1934?

Answers on questions

Immersion in the topic through emotional perception

Target: Emotional inclusion and perception of the text

Let's watch a short clip with a wonderful performance of this poem by Alisa Freindlich.

The students are listening

Work with text. Finding arguments.

Purpose: To learn how to select arguments for the stated positions: Reason and feeling

So what is this poem about?

Which lines show this?

Who is the poet talking to? To whom is she telling all this?

What is the composition of the poem? How many stanzas does it have?

What does Tsvetaeva talk about in each stanza? What words are repeated?

In addition to the word “motherland”, are there any words with the same root that remind you of it?

What's the other topic?

In what words?

Is there an opposition here? To whom does Tsvetaeva oppose herself?

Why does Tsvetaeva oppose herself to readers?

Why does the poet use opposition

Who is the poet talking to? Why does Tsvetaeva say all this to herself? What speaks in it - reason or feeling?

Why is it so often repeated that she "doesn't care"?

Let's select a group of verbs that we will use in the text of the essay so as not to repeat the word "says"

And the same row, so as not to repeat the word "Tsvetaeva"

What does the feeling say?

How do the last two lines and the first line echo?

(Students have a text. Appendix 2)

About homesickness

Answers by text

By myself with myself

10 stanzas

The words “I don’t care”, “I don’t care”, “Everyone is equal to me”, “I don’t care”, “everything is one”.

"native language"

"more dearer than the former", "birthmark"

Loneliness.

“Totally lonely”, “to be forced out of the human environment”

"into oneself, in the unity of feelings." The log left from the alley.

She is a captive lion that bristles

Kamchatka bear without an ice floe.

"The twentieth century - he - and I until every century."

Because the reader is "a swallower of newspaper tons, a milker of gossip." He is not interested in poetry.

The opposition reinforces the impression of loneliness.

Reason says she doesn't care where she lives.

She tries to convince herself (with reason)

Assures, insists, affirms...

That she yearns for her homeland.

This feeling cannot (or is difficult) to describe in words.

Inclusion of new knowledge in the system of concepts of students

Target: Top upbase of theoretical knowledge of students.

Look at the text of the poem, do you think the author had a desire to somehow embellish the text, make it more poetic?

And yet, I would like to draw your attention to one means of expression. Take a look at the following lines:

Where is perfect lonely

To be on what stones home
Walk with a market purse

I do not care, which among
persons bristle captured
lion from which human environment

So the edge did not save me
My, that the most vigilant detective

In addition to inversion, there is another feature in these verses:

Phrase break. Transferring part of a phrase from one line, sometimes to another line, and sometimes to another stanza.

This approach is called "enjambement"

The most organic poetic form for Tsvetaeva is a passionate and therefore confused, nervous monologue. Accordingly, the verse itself is for the most part discontinuous, uneven, replete with sudden accelerations and decelerations, pauses and abrupt interruptions.

Usually in poetry, a pause occurs at the end of a line, while in Tsvetaeva's, the pause is usually shifted, quite often it falls in the middle of a line or at the beginning of the next. Therefore, the verse, as it were, “stumbles” on countless “enjambements” (enjambements), that is, “transfers”, marking the discrepancy between metric andarticulations of verse speech.

What is the use of hyphens?

No, the text of the poem is more like a sincere conversation with oneself.

Inversion

This technique creates the impression of a direct, confused speech of a person who is worried.

Work on the logic of text construction

Target: understand the logic of constructing the text of the essay

Review what you will write about in the introduction. How now logically to pass to arguments? Where will the bridge be located?

How, according to what logic will further reflections go?

Is it necessary to tell the story of the creation of the poem, so that it is clear why there is such homesickness? (By the age of 34, Tsvetaeva has been living in exile for 12 years. In the 20s she lived in Prague, and in the early thirties the family moved to Paris).

What should be written in conclusion? What sentence - "bridge" can begin the conclusion?

In the introduction, discussions about how the mind and feelings coexist in a person.

At the beginning of the second paragraph, the sentence is "bridge".

An approximate sentence for the transition: “An example of how feelings and reason can fight in a person can be M. Tsvetaeva’s poem“ Homesickness ”.

Write when and how this poem was written.

What she says to herself, trying to convince herself that she doesn't care.

List the things she doesn't care about.

Write what images the poetess used. (see above)

Write what words she says about loneliness and to whom she opposes herself.

How the last lines overturn all previous assurances.

That mind and reason can contradict each other. And which of them is stronger and wins more often?

Summary of the lesson.

Target: primary control over mastering the technique of writing an essay

Now we have an idea of ​​what to write in the introduction, in the main part and in the conclusion.

Repetition by students of information about the composition of the final essay.

Homework.

At home, you must write an essay on the topic “When the mind is out of tune with the heart”, using the text of Tsvetaeva’s poem.

Reflection.

Target: students' awareness of their learning activities, self-assessment of the results of their own and the entire team's activities.

Teacher's word.

Have we achieved the lesson objectives? Any questions left?

Can you write an essay on your own?

Thanks everyone for the lesson!

Hope everything works out for you!

You have probably heard more than once about the fact that men often fall in love with some, but marry completely different, or, being married, they can fall in love with another, but they will never leave their wife? And about women, for sure, they heard many times that they often fall in love with scum, but if their head is on their shoulders, they marry for convenience, and not for love.

Many women are very afraid to turn out to be such a wife of convenience, who will be considered convenient for marriage, but they will love others. And even more than this, men are afraid, they are afraid of becoming such alternate airfields, where a woman is ready to land if she is not given a warm welcome at all other airfields. In nightmares, men see that they will be used as earners, and dream about others or even sleep with others, and even worse, they will bring them someone else's child and say "your". And women in nightmares see how her husband will grumble at her for a poorly ironed shirt, while at the same time he likes familiar and unfamiliar beauties on social networks. In a word, that women, that men, are very negative about the fact that they can marry not for love.

But the problem of dissonance between falling in love and the desire to marry is much broader, and concerns not only mercantile considerations. I will try to tell where, in principle, this problem comes from, what it is connected with and what its dynamics are.

I have already raised similar topics more than once (for example,), describing that most people lack integration in order for duty and pleasure to coincide. We can say that people are divided into 4 types, in proportion to their level of maturity (although the 3rd stage is completely optional, sometimes the 4th comes after the 2nd, and the 3rd is often just a deviation on the way to the 4th):

1. People for whom there is no "must", but only "want".

2. People who have a "need" and it often doesn't match the "want", and they make difficult choices.

3. People who have "I want" and "I need", but "I need" is always more important than "I want".

4. People who have a "want" and it coincides with a "must".

For people of the 1st type, “must” is stupid morality, some kind of alien norms that society and parents are trying to impose on them. Occasionally they have to give in, but only when it is otherwise impossible to get what they want. In all other cases, they prefer to do only what they want, and this “want” almost never coincides with what society “imposes” on them. Therefore, there is a conflict between such people and society. They are always victims of the system, and the system is always an exploiter who tries to devour them. But if you pay attention to what such people want, it turns out that they themselves want to exploit others and they sincerely consider it their right, or simply do not notice that blessings do not fall from the sky, but are earned by other people.

For people of the 2nd type, "must" is still external norms, many of which seem superfluous to them, but they agree that there is a certain amount of reasonableness in this, everyone should try to comply with them, in the future they are sometimes useful, but most often it's just a duty that many manage to avoid if they are "well settled" and people of the 2nd type dream of getting settled in the same way. There is a certain agreement between such people and society, which they sometimes try to observe, sometimes violate, but violate only when it does not incur too many losses, that is, they already agree that "necessary" is not someone's naked arbitrariness, and to some extent - an objective necessity, although tedious.

For people of the 3rd type, “must” is something that must be done, no matter how difficult it is, no matter what the cost, because if you don’t do it, it is fraught with future problems, obligatory regret and pangs of conscience, as well as condemnation or even people's contempt. No matter how much you want to give in to your “I want”, which often diverges from this “must”, you cannot give in, because momentary pleasure will be replaced by many days, or even years of retribution. Any impudent “I want” for such people is an enemy and a tempter who tries to fool their heads so that later they would regret for a long time how they went on about their weakness and betrayed “themselves”. That is, such people already consider “themselves” a certain duty, and not pleasure, and this duty of theirs coincides with what is objectively considered good in society, that is, it coincides with basic ethical standards.

For people of the 4th type, “necessary” coincides with “want”, that is, everything that is objectively useful gives them both momentary pleasure and bodily joy. Harmful and destructive things are not seductive for them, they are also repulsive on a sensual level, as a cloying and greasy margarine cream on a cake repels a person accustomed to a healthy diet, his receptors recognize this as "tasteless", or as for a person accustomed to physical exertion, fail the whole day in a stuffy room on the couch - torment, not joy, his body does not react to idleness as a rest, unlike someone who does not like sports. The same applies to other aspects of life. An integrated personality (and people of type 4 is it) everything that seems harmful and unpleasant, she does not overcome herself, like people of type 3, when she needs to choose between pleasant and useful or profitable and ethical, for her it is pleasant what is useful, but profitable seems to be ethical. She does not want to deceive someone, but not because she is afraid of retribution or condemnation or pangs of conscience, and the very fact of deception does not seem beneficial to her, since she is associated with everything bad. In a word, such a person does not have any gap between “I want” and “need”.

And now let's see which of the 4 types of people is able to fall in love, but refuse to associate life with this person (not because the first one rejected, but himself)? Which of the 4 types of people has "the mind is at odds with the heart", that is, the heart wants one thing, and the mind wants another?

In type 1, the mind and heart are in harmony. His mind agrees with his heart and always tries to protect him from other people's attempts to impose some rules on him. He rejects any other people's rules, his only rule is "I want it that way."

Types 2 and 3 people, on the other hand, can go against their feelings if their hearts and minds argue, and this is not uncommon for Types 2 and 3 people. A Type 2 person will make choices with difficulty, he will doubt all the time and may rush about, trying to reconcile heart and mind. And a person of the 3rd type, most likely, will not even doubt, he will make a choice right away and then will courageously (and even with some pleasure) suffer until his heart is whining.

That is, if a person of the 2nd type, for example, a woman, and she fell in love with an alcoholic or a criminal, or just a person who, for all reasonable reasons, can bring a lot of problems into her life, she will worry and rush about, making a difficult choice between the arguments of reason and the attraction of the heart, will try to prove to her mind that an alcoholic can stop drinking, and a criminal can reform, and she can, in the end, choose what her heart calls for, or she can still obey reason, but this choice will be for it is ambiguous.

If such a woman belongs to the 3rd type, she knows from the very beginning that her love is an obsession with which she must cope, she is not going to "break her life" and she will not even take risks. She feels her duty to her parents, to her future children, for whom she is obliged to provide normal conditions, she feels her duty to herself, perceiving herself a little apart from her "I want" and firmly believing that passion will gradually pass, but even if it remains, she should not follow her lead, that is, it is a type 3 person who is most likely to marry or marry not the one he is in love with, if his lover contradicts some of his plans or what he considers his duty (to himself or to significant loved ones, it doesn't matter)

A Type 4 person will always marry only someone he loves, but he will never fall in love with someone who, for some reason, is not worth marrying. But a person of the 3rd type, and especially of the 2nd type, often fall in love with such people.

The most common such example of the 3rd type is a man in love with a very bright, but very eccentric and windy woman. She can stun him, captivate, even completely "demolish the roof" with her emotionality and sexuality. But he will try to pull himself together and part with her, because she does not suit him as a wife. He will tell her “I love you, but I don’t see my future wife like that at all, I want to have a reliable rear, I want to have children, I don’t want to live on a powder keg and spend my life only on passion.” A woman may believe that he is lying about love or that he will regret a hundred times, in fact, he may not lie and may never regret if this is a type 3 person (he may regret type 2, because so to the end and does not know what is more important - the heart or the mind).

Is it good to choose what the mind says when the heart argues with it like that?

It all depends on how stupid a person's heart is. A very stupid heart is characteristic of people with strong self-destructive tendencies, and such tendencies are people who have very weak own resources and do not have any right authorities. That is, for example, if this is a teenager, then he will most likely have very weak resources (there are exceptions, some teenagers develop their personality early, but this is rare), but if at the same time he has normal ideals and authorities , he will form in a relatively healthy way, and if he gets involved with a very bad company, then self-destructive tendencies will quickly take over him. And then his heart can become very stupid and listening to such a heart is evil.

In all other cases, when there are no obvious self-destructive tendencies, one must listen to the heart. But to listen does not mean to obey unquestioningly, it means to reckon with him and respect him, because otherwise you can strangle yourself to frustration and depression. What a person calls "heart", referring to a certain center of inclinations and desires, is an energy center. And the mind only helps to develop it correctly, and ideally, at some point, it should integrate into this heart when the heart develops sufficiently.

People of the 2nd type, who stepped on their desire on the throat, choosing what their mind wants (also, by the way, not too smart, because a really smart mind is looking for a balance between “need” and “want”) very often live a gray, low-energy life , complain about artificiality, demotivation, uselessness of everything and vanity.

People of the 3rd type can claim that there is a sense in their life, that “you need to live not for joy, but for conscience”, but they often die of heart attacks (one of the reasons for common male heart attacks at 40 is this desire push themselves) or break down mentally (begin to drink or otherwise show depression). With people of the 3rd type, this happens quickly and abruptly, yesterday he was pleased and suddenly realized that he was a machine and did not want to live (or went to war, for example).

In a word, while “I need” and “I want” are not united, and there is a conflict between them, you need to listen very carefully to both, try to move in the direction of “I need”, but be sure to respect and “I want”, sometimes choose it , in those cases where it does not completely cancel "should".

Returning to what the post began with, we can say that it’s still worth getting married only for love, if you don’t want to deprive yourself of energy. But the opposite is not always true: not every love is worthy of marrying a person, sometimes love is like a disease that is better to get rid of. But you always need to remember about the mass of possible side effects (in order to track and mitigate them), and that you can only treat yourself for love with the most delicate means, and not just chop with an ax and etch from your soul. It's like comparing the work of a neurosurgeon and a butcher. The second is not suitable for the treatment of love.