The hero's life philosophy. Couple: Why can’t Pechorin find the meaning of life? AND

Human life is nothing more than movement in time: its beginning is birth, death is its end. Even someone who apparently remains motionless, for example, a prisoner in a prison, still moves through life towards its end. This movement does not depend on our desire or unwillingness, it is objective. The ancients said: “Volentem ducunt fata, nolentem trahunt; tertium non datur” (Fate leads the one who wants, and drags the unwilling; but the third is not given).
And they were absolutely right.
We have no choice: to go or not to go.
The choice is different: whether to walk freely (remembering that freedom is just a conscious necessity) or to be dragged along like a stubborn donkey.
These two options demonstrate conscious and unconscious approaches to life; there really is no third option.
If you ask any person about his choice, he, of course, will say that he chooses conscious, that is, free movement.
He will also be surprised: would anyone willingly wish to be dragged? It is no coincidence that people have assigned their biological species the proud title: “Homo sapiens” - “Homo sapiens”!
But don't rush to conclusions.
Ask another question: what does he see as the purpose of the movement, the meaning of life? Everyone will answer this question in their own way.
One will say that his goal is to raise a child, another - to build a house, a third - to become famous, a fourth - to make a discovery, a fifth - to provide for his old age, and so on ad infinitum...
Stop, stop!
Can one road have so many ends?
What would you think if ten people gave you ten different answers to a simple question: where does the road lead?
You'll either think they're liars, or crazy, or decide that none of them know the right answer, right?
This is exactly the situation with choosing a way to go through life: it turns out that none of those you asked knows the real goal, no one walks consciously, they are all “dragged” by fate!
The road of life is the same for everyone, since it has the same beginning and the same end. Only the way to walk along it can be different.
So, do all people wander through life unconsciously?
No, and such a conclusion would be hasty.
If two choices are possible, then both of them must be implemented.
The only question is how many people will choose the first and how many will choose the second.
If you want to establish the ratio of the number of people walking consciously to the number of people dragging, keep asking about the purpose of life until you hear the correct answer. The required ratio will be defined as the ratio of one correct answer to as many incorrect ones. It's very simple.
How? It turns out that you yourself don’t know which answer is considered correct?
Try a tried and tested method: analogies.
Imagine that you have a companion on the road leading to Rome.
You ask him where he is going.
If he says that he is going to Baghdad or Lisbon, then he is mistaken, but if he calls Rome his goal, then he really knows where he is going.
Similarly, when asked about the goal life path the correct answer would be: “I live in order to die.” The one who answers you like this really knows where he is going.
Are there many people like that?

What is the reason that people prefer to be “dragged” through life instead of consciously walking through it?
Maybe they don't know the end point of life?

No, the reason is that in order to do something consciously, you need to have consciousness, and this is precisely what people lack.
This may seem strange and offensive to people, but it is true: an ordinary person is not conscious, he is not even aware of himself.
But what about the loud title of “Homo sapiens”?
Alas, this is just a chimera.
A person by nature can be reasonable, and should be reasonable, and he calls himself reasonable, but... in reality he is not.
He tends to have a rather different property: wishful thinking.
If you tell people about this, they will never agree with you and will provide dozens of proofs of their rationality (try to find evidence yourself sometime in your spare time).
People will never agree to consider themselves unreasonable, and this is evidence of their actual unreason, evidence that they do not want to become reasonable.
The ancients said: “He who does not know, but thinks he knows, is sick. He who does not know, but knows that he does not know, recovers.”
In order to be cured, you must first admit that you are sick.
Recognition of one's unreasonableness is the first glimpse of reason; the one who considers himself reasonable is mistaken.
This suggests that people are dishonest with themselves, they deceive themselves.
Moreover, they insist on their deception even when they feel this deception.
Why?
Yes, because if they are honest with themselves, they will have to admit that they are not at all what they think they are.
Besides, you have to face the truth. And the truth, as we know, is that the result of life is death.
This is one of the reasons for the lies that people pile up around themselves and do not want to give up.
This reason is fear, fear of the truth.
They invent all sorts of things, all sorts of excuses, to disguise the fear of death!
Fame, wealth, pleasure, public good, and other fictitious things cannot actually be the goal of life, because you cannot take any of this with you to the grave.
All these inventions are like bright paper flowers that are used to cover up the unpleasant reality of death.
They can also be likened to drugs, deliberately used to lull the mind and hide fear away.
Because of this fear, people do not want to become intelligent, and the best way not to acquire this or that quality is to convince yourself and others that you already possess it.
Thus, the effect closes with the cause and a vicious circle is formed, within which it is useless to seek the truth.
You can talk as much as you like about progress, development, moving forward - but all this is nothing more than wandering in a vicious circle. From the point of view real life, man today is in the same state as he was thousands of years ago; only the external forms of illusions with which he surrounds himself change.
If all people were the same and equally unwilling to lose their illusions and become rational, they should be left alone.
Forcibly awakening reason in people is as futile as it is thankless.
After all, are there really very few non-intelligent living organisms on our planet? Bees, termites and ants even create entire civilizations - and are quite happy with their unconscious instinctive existence.
However, among people, although not often, there are individuals who prefer the truth, even bitter, to elevating deception.
And if one should not forcibly open the eyes of those who do not want to see, then it is cruel to refuse help to those who are trying to take the first step towards the truth.
After all, it is these people who give value to the entire human species, because of them the existence of this species on earth means more than other species that appear and disappear, for only among people are there truly thinking beings.
Knowledge is not only a privilege, but also a serious duty and responsibility.
What should someone do who wants to become intelligent, but is inside a vicious circle of illusions, fear and mental laziness? The only way to escape the circle is to blow it up! You need to break through the constricting shell, just like a chicken does when it hatches from an egg. At the same time, the comfort of life that exists inside the egg will also be destroyed, you need to be prepared for this. Is it worth regretting about this: after all, this is the comfort of a blind, unreasonable creature incapable of action!
How can you break a vicious circle? You need to admit to yourself that you do not have consciousness, will, that your life proceeds unconsciously.
It must be understood that there is not, and cannot be, any reasonable evidence of unreasonableness for someone who is unreasonable. You just need to admit to yourself your unreasonableness.
When a person admits to himself that he is unreasonable, that is, he makes a diagnosis of his illness, he can begin to look for remedies.
“I know that I know nothing” is the first real knowledge that can be acquired.
The task of finding means or methods of treating a disease is an extremely difficult task and is beyond the power of one individual. After all, you have to act by trial and error, and this method requires working out each of the many possible versions.
If you start this work from scratch, neither the person himself, nor his successors, nor the successors of his successors will yet achieve the goal.
Fortunately, efforts in this direction have been made for many thousands of years and there is no need to start from scratch: it is enough to use existing experience.
In order to rise high, it is enough to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Over thousands of years of searching, people have found three different ways liberation.
Let's call them the way of acting, the way of emotions and the way of thinking.
Why are there three of these methods?
Apparently this is no coincidence.
In order to understand this, you need to get at least the most superficial understanding of the human being.
In the most general form in human body Three active centers can be distinguished: motor, emotional and intellectual. Let us take this statement as an axiom, especially since the presence of these three centers guiding the work of a human being seems obvious and can hardly be questioned. We are not talking about the localization of these centers, nor about their origin, nor about interaction: now we only need to understand that they really exist and govern all human functions. It is obvious that the cognitive function is carried out through these three centers.
Now let us assume that in different people the development of these centers may be unequal and one of the centers may predominate over the others. After all, people differ from each other in height, obesity, hair color; why not admit that they differ in terms of the development of centers. Moreover, among people there are really groups that have the same development, such as athletes, people of art and intellectuals: it is difficult not to admit that in the first the leading role is played by the motor center, in the second - the emotional, in the third - the intellectual. Other people obviously combine various combinations of these three abilities.
You can try to assume the existence of some fourth group of people, not reducible to these three: this experiment will prove that three are quite enough.
So, if people can be conditionally divided into those in whom the motor center predominates, then into those in whom the emotional center is better developed, as well as into those in whom both of these centers are inferior to the intellectual, then it would be quite logical to assume that each of These three groups of people may have their own special way of overcoming the path of life and their own special way of transitioning from a “dragged” state to a free one. It follows from this that there must be three main ways of liberation, which are usually called the three paths.
We can indeed find these three trends among all the diversity in the history of human thought, and this confirms the correctness of our reasoning.

The first path is the path of action. This is the way to improve the body and physical exercise, with the help of which a person acquires the ability to control his being by establishing control over the motor center. These exercises allow you to subjugate your body, that is, learn to voluntarily contract muscles, increase or decrease your heart rate, control your breathing, become insensitive to pain, etc. We find complexes of such exercises in Hatha yoga, in various schools of the so-called eastern martial arts. Their original meaning is to achieve liberation by establishing control over the motor center, i.e. over 1/3 of a human being. Control of the body is thus not a goal, but a means of liberation.
The second path is the path of emotions, which is also called the path of feelings. Its essence is to “extinguish” feelings and desires, to establish control over emotions. This path is reflected in the Vedas; the classical teaching on the path of the senses is contained in the Bhagavad Gita. This path is also practiced in orthodox Christianity, especially in the monastic movement.
The third path, or the path of reflection, involves establishing control over the intellectual center, achieving special states of consciousness in which penetration into the inner essence of things is possible.
The main method on this path is deep concentration. By concentrating your thought on any object or phenomenon, you can experience what is called illumination, insight, enlightenment, which changes the very being of a person. Classic expression We find this path in Buddhism, in the teachings of Yajna Yoga. Its elements are present in all religions and occult teachings. In Eastern Christianity, this path is known as hesychasm, and the concentrated state of thought is called mental prayer.
These three methods were invented by human wisdom to improve human nature.

To choose one of these three paths that is right for you, and to follow it to the best of your strength and abilities, and ultimately achieve liberation - this is the goal of human life.

Pechorin is a secular young man, an officer, exiled to the Caucasus after “the sensational story in St. Petersburg.” From the story about his life, which Pechorin shared with Maxim Maksimych, we learn that Pechorin, as soon as he left the care of his “relatives,” began to enjoy “mad pleasures,” which soon became “repulsive” to him. Then he “entered the big world,” but he soon became tired of secular society. The love of secular beauties did not satisfy him either. He studied and read, but science did not fully reveal him. He got bored. When he was transferred to the Caucasus, he thought that “boredom does not live under Chechen bullets,” but he soon got used to the buzzing of bullets, and he became more bored than before.

So, in his early youth, Pechorin quickly became fed up with secular pleasures and tries to find the meaning of life in reading books, which also quickly bore him. Pechorin searches for the meaning of life, becomes disappointed and suffers deeply. Pechorin's fate and mood are determined by the dark era in which he lives. After the defeat of Decembrism in Russia, the dark time of the Nikolaev reaction came. Any social activities has become even more inaccessible to a cultured person. Any manifestation of living, free thought was persecuted. People endowed with intelligence, abilities, people with serious interests could not find use for their spiritual powers... At the same time, an empty social life did not satisfy them. The realization of the complete impossibility of finding a use for their strength was especially painful for people of the 30s and 40s because after the defeat of the uprising on December 14, they had no hope of an imminent change for the better.

Pechorin is an intelligent, gifted, courageous, cultured person, critical of the surrounding society, loving and sensitive to nature.
He understands people well, gives them accurate and accurate characteristics. He understood Grushnitsky and Dr. Werner very well. He knows in advance how Princess Mary will behave in this or that case.

Pechorin is very brave and has exceptional self-control. During the duel, only by his feverish pulse was Doctor Werner able to make sure that Pechorin was worried. Knowing that there is no bullet in his pistol, while his opponent fired from a loaded one, Pechorin does not reveal to his enemies that he knows their “cunning” (“Princess Mary”). He boldly rushes into the hut, where with a pistol in his hand Vulich’s killer sits, ready to kill everyone who dares to touch him (“Fatalist”).

In Pechorin’s “Journal” (diary) we find, by the way, quotes from the classical works of Griboyedov, Pushkin, the names of writers, titles of works, names of heroes of Russian and foreign works. All this testifies not only to Pechorin’s erudition, but also to his deep knowledge of literature.

Cursory remarks by the author of the “Journal” to the representatives noble society give a devastating description of the pathetic and vulgar people surrounding Pechorin.
Pechorin's sharply critical attitude towards himself evokes sympathy. We see that the bad deeds he commits cause suffering, first of all, to himself.
Pechorin deeply feels and understands nature. Communication with nature has a beneficial effect on Pechorin. “No matter what grief lies in the heart, no matter what anxiety torments the thought, everything will dissipate in a minute, the soul will become light, the fatigue of the body will overcome the anxiety of the mind.”

On the eve of the duel, Pechorin reflects on himself with sadness and bitterness. He is sure that he was born for a high purpose, because, he writes, “I feel immense strength in my soul. But I did not guess this purpose, but was carried away by the lures of empty and ungrateful passions...”

And such a spiritually gifted person, “born for a high purpose,” is forced to live in inaction, in search of adventure, wasting his “immense strength” on trifles. He seeks pleasure in female love, but love brings him only disappointment and grief. With whomever Pechorin connects his fate, this connection, no matter how short-lived it may be, brings grief (and sometimes death) to both him and other people. His love brought the death of Bela; his love made Vera, devoted to him, unhappy; his relationship with Princess Mary ended tragically - the wound inflicted by Pechorin on the sensitive, tender, sincere Mary will not heal for a long time in the heart of the young girl; with his appearance, Pechorin destroyed the peaceful life of “honest smugglers” (“Taman”). Pechorin killed Grushnitsky, Pechorin deeply upset the kind Maxim Maksimych, who sincerely considered him his friend.
A deep and terrible contradiction: smart, capable of a hot impulse, able to appreciate people, brave, strong Pechorin finds himself out of work in life, and closeness with him only causes misfortune to other people! Who is to blame for this? Is it Pechorin himself? And is it his fault that he “didn’t guess” his high purpose?

No, he is not to blame for his misfortune. The contradiction of his nature is explained by the fact that in Pechorin’s time gifted people, seekers, people with deep interests, with serious needs, not content with the empty, meaningless life that they were forced to lead, did not find use for their “immense powers” ​​and “grew old in inaction.” " An intelligent, gifted person, deprived of a living, exciting thing, inevitably turns to his inner world. He, as they say, “delves into himself,” analyzes his every action, every emotional movement.

This is how Pechorin behaves. He says about himself: “I have long lived not with my heart, but with my head. I weigh and examine my own actions and passions with strict curiosity, but without participation. There are two people in me, one lives in in every sense of this word, another thinks and judges it..."
With all my positive qualities Pechorin cannot be perceived as goodie. The very word “hero” in the title of the novel, when applied to Pechorin, sounds ironic. Pechorin is a representative of the generation ridiculed in the Duma. Not only does he lack the ability to act, he lacks faith, effective love for people, and the willingness to sacrifice himself for them; Pechorin is burdened by inaction, but mainly because it makes him suffer, and not because he cannot bring relief to the people suffering around him... He is, in Herzen’s words, “smart uselessness.” A man living during the years of the Nikolaev reaction, he does not belong to those people of the 40s about whom Herzen proudly spoke: “I have never met such a circle of people, talented, versatile and pure, anywhere else...”

In order to better understand Pechorin, Lermontov shows him in different settings, and different conditions, in clashes with different people.
A detailed description of his appearance (“Maksim Maksimych”) is of great importance. Pechorin’s external appearance reflects his character. Pechorin's internal contradictions are emphasized in his portrait.
On the one hand, “a slender, thin figure and broad shoulders...”

On the other hand, “... the position of his entire body depicted some kind of nervous weakness.” Another strange feature is highlighted by Lermontov in the portrait of the hero: Pechorin’s eyes “did not laugh when he laughed.” This, according to the author, is “a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness.” When all parts of the novel are read, this feature of Pechorin becomes clear.

• - We examined the image of Pechorin when meeting with danger. Further, in the hero’s reasoning, his life philosophy emerges.
• - What does he consider to be perhaps the only pleasure in life?
• ("...my first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me; to arouse for myself a feeling of love, devotion and fear - isn't this the first sign and the greatest triumph of power...")
• - What assessment does he give of himself in his diary?
• (Pechorin does not spare himself, first of all it is honesty with himself, self-criticism, but at the same time he does not strive to change anything.)
• - Reflecting on the eternal question, what is happiness, what answer does the hero offer?
• ("What is happiness? Saturated pride?")
• - What does pride nurtured in a person lead to?
• (There will be no real friends nearby who understand people.)
• - What is friendship in Pechorin’s understanding?
• ("... I am not capable of friendship: of two friends, one is always the slave of the other; I cannot be a slave, and in this case, commanding is tedious work..." Pechorin has no real friends.)
• - What can pride and lack of friends lead to?
• (Of course, to loneliness. Pechorin seems to us not just a hero of his time, but a tragic hero.")
• - A few days before the duel, the hero is occupied with the question of the meaning of life. What does he see as the purpose of his own existence?
• ("... why did I live? For what purpose was I born? And, it is true, it existed, and, it is true, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul... But I did not guess this purpose, I was carried away by the lures of passions empty and ungrateful; from their crucible I came out hard and cold as iron, but I lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations - the best color of life." Noble aspirations, according to the hero, are the most significant thing in a person’s life.)
• - Why can’t Pechorin find meaning in life?
• (“This man does not indifferently, not apathetically, bear his suffering: he madly chases after life, looking for it everywhere; he bitterly accuses himself of his delusions. Internal questions are incessantly heard within him, they disturb him, torment him, and in reflection he seeks their resolution : spies every movement of his heart, examines his every thought,” notes V. G. Belinsky. An extraordinary personality, endowed with intelligence and willpower, the desire for active work, cannot manifest itself in the surrounding life. Pechorin cannot be happy and cannot give happiness to anyone. This is his tragedy.)
• - What are such people called in literature?
• (Pechorin can be called an “extra” person. He has a lot vital energy, the need for action, the desire to fight and win. Under favorable conditions, these qualities of his could have been socially useful, but life itself prevented this. Pechorin is the hero of the post-December, tragic era. Reality did not offer him real business; people like Pechorin were “seething in empty action.”)
• - This is a hero of that time, what would we take in our time? What character traits are necessary for a hero of our time?

When setting goals, a person strives with all his might to achieve them, sometimes forgetting that not all means are good for obtaining the desired result. Often the result does not justify the effort invested in it, and sometimes the methods used are too petty and cruel. One way or another, the question of how these two categories relate in the consciousness and actions of people has been of concern to many writers since ancient times, one of whom is M.Yu. Lermontov. We will bring literary argument in the direction of “Goals and Means” from the novel “A Hero of Our Time”.

1. One of the main problems of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” and its characters is the choice of decoys and their relationship with inner world heroes. Grigory Pechorin spends his entire life in desperate attempts to understand the main goal own life, in the search and acquisition of which he hopes to know happiness. However, a restless, idle existence with its momentary achievements and victories makes him extra person unable to find true joy. Wanting to relieve boredom, he unwittingly, and sometimes intentionally, torments and destroys other people. Using all possible means, he, as a rule, quickly achieves what he wants, but later completely loses interest in the dream. The tragedy of Grigory Alexandrovich lies in his inability to distinguish a real goal from a false one, which leads to disappointment and suffering of the hero himself and those who are close to him.
2. In the chapter “Princess Mary” we meet Grushnitsky, a friend of Pechorin. The cadet passionately dreams of advancing in his career by ingratiating himself with secular society. The hero is vain and painfully proud, so his main goal is to gain recognition in the eyes of other people. He longs for a promotion to impress the heart of the girl he is in love with. But even such a goal ultimately becomes in vain, since it convinces the reader of the impossibility of winning love with status and high position. Grushnitsky is disappointed and angry with Pechorin, since he became the unwitting cause of his love defeat. The hero decides to take revenge on his friend, but even here he makes a mistake in choosing the means, turning out to be a victim and not a winner. Not all methods can help a person achieve a goal, and no goal is worth committing a vile and base act.
3. Sometimes the reasons for human actions are impulsive, explained by the thirst for possession of something, not associated with the achievement of external benefits or internal spiritual search. This is Kazbich, one of the heroes of the novel. Courage and bravery coexist in him with vindictiveness and cruelty. He is stingy with expressions of feelings. His only true friend is the horse Karagyoz, of whom Kazbich is proud and highly values ​​him. So high that he does not agree to exchange it even for the love of a beautiful Circassian woman. Deceived by Pechorin and Azamat, Kazbich sets himself the goal of restoring his violated dignity and taking revenge on his offenders. Kazbich considers the murder of Bela, Pechorin’s beloved, to be a completely fair price for the stolen horse. The hero’s goal can be explained by the desire for revenge for an unfair insult, but the death of an innocent girl is too harsh a means of restoring justice.
4. Azamat is another hero of the novel, whose goal turns out to be incomparable with the means used to achieve it. Passionately wanting to get the horse Kazbich, the young man is ready to give a lot to get it, including kidnapping his sister, giving her to the first person he meets. The selfish goal of acquiring what he wants forces the boy to commit a treacherous act, disgrace his family, and run away from home. To achieve such an insignificant goal, betrayal turns out to be an unacceptable means, because Azamat loses the most precious thing he has, while gaining little in return.
5. A truly high goal cannot have unworthy means, because sincere impulses are born only in a noble and compassionate heart. Bela is the heroine of the novel, a young Circassian woman living according to the laws of the natural world that is familiar to her, alien to meanness and betrayal. Kidnapped by Pechorin, she sincerely falls in love with the hero, thereby abandoning her former carefree life, everything familiar and homely. For Bela, staying with Grigory means losing her family, home, friends, devoting her entire life to her beloved. The girl boldly trusts herself and her future to Pechorin, because she is confident in her feelings for him. Fear is alien to her, she is ready to be with the hero on any terms in order to ensure his happiness. Her goal is love and creating comfort for her beloved. Giving joy, giving without demanding anything in return is Bela’s main need, in which she reveals herself as a highly moral woman, capable of genuine feeling, devoid of selfishness.

>Essays based on the work Hero of Our Time

Purpose in life

Reading Mikhail Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time,” we get acquainted with the protagonist’s travel notes and learn several episodes from his life. Pechorin's notes are full of reflections on the meaning of life, relationships in society, the role of man on earth, etc. We see that this hero is in constant search for the meaning of his existence and all living beings. His goal is to understand where he is going and why. Unfortunately, he never finds answers to these eternal questions, but discovers a lot of new things while staying in the Caucasus.

It seems to me that in his late novel the author wanted to show secrets and complex sides human soul. At the same time, when describing the image of Pechorin, he meant not one person, but a whole generation of vices. Despite the fact that the novel was written in the 19th century, its relevance is not lost today, because people like Pechorin can be found anywhere. Although it would be wrong to say that there are many of them. This is a deep, closed and contradictory person. He has his own morals about any life issues. He is quite perceptive and any human vices immediately catch his eye. Is it not because he himself is deeply flawed? He does not proclaim his exclusivity, but openly says that he is ruled by evil.

Pechorin often asks questions: “Why did I live? For what purpose was I born? He understands that time has been lost, and he has not done anything significant. He understands perfectly well that he is responsible for his actions: for the deaths of Bela and Grushnitsky, for Vera’s worsening illness, for Mary’s nervous breakdown, for the sadness of the old man Maxim Maksimych, but he is angry that he cannot change anything. Having gone through so much grief, he involuntarily begins to think about his mistakes and misdeeds.

IN last chapter he draws attention to the predetermination of fate. It’s not called “Fatalist” for nothing. While serving in Cossack village, he witnesses the death of one of the officers, who randomly shot himself in the temple and survived, and the next morning he was found hacked to death with the officer’s saber. The most amazing thing is that Pechorin saw on the face of this unfortunate officer (his name was