How do we see? Terrorism and its origins in the Russian Empire.

Churchness is the totality of the spiritually grace-filled life of the Church, her breath, her manifestation in the world and in the human soul, her witness and preaching. Churchness is the language that expresses the essence of the Church itself. Without assimilation of the grace-filled spirit of the Church, church life cannot exist. And all types of church art: architecture, icon painting, monumental painting, applied and jewelry art - give in visible images and symbols an idea of ​​the spiritual invisible heavenly world. But a natural question arises: how can one talk about the invisible world and try to express it?

Christ himself says about the unknowability of God and His works: “No one knows the Son, only the Father; no one knows the Father, only the Son, and if the Son wills, open it to Him” (Matt. 11:27). The Lord Himself gradually raises the human race to the height of the knowledge of God and to the height of the concept of Him through the ability of man to cognize the visible world. In this case, God calls to know Himself through faith itself and trust in Him. In addition to this knowledge of God by faith (supernatural revelation), there is a natural knowledge of God through the knowledge of the world He created, man and all things. Natural knowledge serves in many ways only as a preparation for the knowledge of the invisible God by faith. The Apostle Paul says about this: “For Him who is invisible, from the foundation of the world, is conceived by the creatures; In the book of the Acts of the Apostles, this idea is continued as follows : “He created the whole language of man from the same blood, to live all over the face of the earth, setting the predetermined times and the limits of their village; Seek the Lord, so that they will not touch Him, and will reveal Him, as if we are not far from the only one of us that exists” (Acts 17: 26-27).

Gradually observing and studying the diversity, beauty, harmony and expediency of the world, a person comes to the knowledge of God and, knowing Him, tries to express invisible images by means possible for a person. But the invisible God is revealed only to those who spend their lives in faith and purity of heart, for "wisdom does not enter into an evil soul, but dwells below in a body guilty of sin" (Wisdom 1:4).

The most important thing in the Church is the sacrament of the Eucharist established by the Savior Himself - the center of the spiritual life of the Church, the pinnacle of worship. The entire liturgy is deeply symbolic; rich symbolic language serves to express the depth of its content.

Like the whole system of liturgical life, everything that is in the temple, and the temple itself, have their own canon (typikon) established by time. All church architecture, monumental painting, iconography are united in a special pictorial canon. Sacred images cover all the main moments in the history of mankind, the entire circle of the church year and church life, express the fullness of the Christian faith and teaching.

In the art of the Church, two sides can be conditionally distinguished: internal and external, meaning-forming and meaning-making. The main one, of course, is the inner one, which contains all the spiritual and dogmatic meaning of what is represented by the outer side in visible conditional, pictorial (architectural, pictorial) forms. Proceeding from this, the main thing is always to open the veil over the invisible essence and to convey it to every person in conditional understandable forms of the visible world.

The art of the Church is akin to secular art, has a connection with it, and has largely grown on its historical soil. But, using and to a certain extent growing on the experience of secular art, from ancient times the Church introduced spirituality into her art, filling it with high content, creating symbols and images of unique depth and originality. Beauty in the Christian understanding is a purely ontological category, it is inextricably linked with the meaning of being. The basis of beauty and harmony originates from God Himself, and all earthly beauty is only an image that more or less reflects the Primary Source.

At its core, ecclesiastical art is fundamentally different from secular (worldly) art, which is based on external aesthetic perception. It is to this that all the power of the embodiment of technical artistic and ideological means is directed. For such art, the criteria are external beauty, sophistication, and sometimes extravagance of forms. The criterion of church art has always been and is hesychasm, which underlies the understanding of the entire perception of the world.

The word "hesychasm" itself comes from the Greek word ήσυχία - "silence, silence." The Hesychasts taught that the ineffable and indescribable Logos, the Word of God, is comprehended in silence. Contemplative prayer, the rejection of verbosity, the comprehension of the Word in its depths - this is the way of knowing God, which is professed by the teachers of hesychasm. Of great importance for hesychast practice is the contemplation of the Light of Tabor - that uncreated light that the apostles saw during the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor. Having comprehended the invisible depths of the heavenly world through inner spiritual work, hesychasm brought into the inner spiritual life of every believer and into the outer forms of Christian art the knowledge of the incomprehensible divine world.

If ecclesiastical art in its essence and basis is a reflection of a person's prayer experience, then secular art is completely permeated with a sensual-aesthetic spirit. In this case, it is not so important what ideas or ideology the expressive form of such art is filled with - the basis remains the same. The Church, throughout its entire existence, has always fought, first of all, not for the artistic sophistication of its works, but for their authenticity, not for external beauty, but for internal truth.

Speaking of ecclesiastical art, it must be remembered that it includes the art of the Orthodox Eastern Church and the art of the Western Church. Their basics are the same, but in the course historical development their features acquired a fundamental difference. If Eastern Christian art was able to preserve and in many ways increase the ancient traditions based on symbolism and a deep understanding of the fundamental tasks of salvation, then Western Christian art quickly fell under the influence of secular art and dissolved in it, passing into the sensual-aesthetic line. However, both of these trends did not develop separately, and often, especially in the recent period of history, the penetration of ideas and images of Western art into Eastern art is very tangible and influenced Eastern Christian art as a whole. The Orthodox Church, with the voice of its Councils, hierarchs and believing laity, has always opposed such influences, which can lead to only one thing - the gradual secularization of church art and, at the same time, a gradual removal from the invisible spiritual world.

The ancient icon of the Orthodox Church is a special phenomenon in the world of fine arts. For many, to this day, the Orthodox image remains a mystery, much in it causes misunderstanding, and what is written seems closer and more attractive, “as if alive.”

A few centuries before the birth of Christ, artists of various ancient cultures skillfully created beautiful monuments of all kinds of arts, which still amaze us with their skill. With the advent of the God-man on the earth, on the basis of pagan culture, a sprout of new Christian art arose, which grew and turned out to be alien both to the pagan soil that nurtured it, and to everything that surrounds it.

The icon is not some independent phenomenon of life, it is a part of the life of the Church of Christ. Christ, the Head of the Church, said of Himself: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), and the Church of Christ is not of this world, its nature is different from that of the earthly world. The essence of the Church is spiritual, sublime, her life and breath is the Head of the Church, the Lord. Its mission is to continue the work of Christ, to save the world and prepare it for the coming Kingdom of God. The “transcendence” of the essence of the Church gave many external manifestations of her life special forms, different from the forms and images of the world, starting with the appearance of churches, which differ sharply from other buildings, and ending with the smallest items of church use. In the temple, everything is in accordance with the "supra-worldly" nature of the Church, and everything in concert serves her ultimate goal of existence on earth - the salvation of man. The high significance of an Orthodox church lies in the expression in architectural forms of the essence of the Church - to be a place worthy for the celebration of the Divine Eucharist and all the sacraments. An Orthodox church, its structure, murals, icons, and utensils bear a special stamp of the grace of God, and the stamp of this grace is indelible. From the moment of its consecration, the temple (the house of God) becomes a special place for the presence of God.

Both the art of the Church and, in particular, the visual arts have their own special purpose and visual forms. In the art of the Church, the external expressive form is determined by the internal doctrinal content. Already by this feature of its external expressive forms, together with everything else, the Church carries a saving sermon to the world. The uniqueness of everything that greets those who come to the temple - in sacred rites, in singing and images - alarms, awakens the question, makes you think about eternity.

So, the ancient icon is part of the life of the Church. In order to feel the difference between the foundations of secular and ecclesiastical art, let us first pay attention to what and how secular art lives and “feeds”.

In order for a painting on any topic to gain the power of life and the ability to impress the viewer (which is fundamentally important), the artist must go through a difficult path. First of all, he must master the techniques and methods of depicting what he sees, and learn to see correctly and carefully. Usually we, who have normal vision, in contact with the same objects, do not notice either their structure or color, and if we notice, then only in passing. As observation develops, a sharper, more subtle artistic vision begins to develop. Gradually, the ability to penetrate beyond the outer side of the visible object appears. people character, the content of the nature of different seasons, the mood gradually become accessible to understanding. The artist learns not only to see, but also to convey these sensations in images and colors. The artist's experiences enter the picture, and through the images (of the real world) they become obvious to the viewer. In other words, through the appearance of the picture, through its form, we learn what mood was laid down by the artist. However, it is known that mood is a very fickle, unstable thing, therefore, how many moods, so many external forms of its expression can be, and therefore, they can be different.

The master's work reflects his soul with all inclinations, tastes, moods, likes and dislikes. The visible and surrounding world is an inexhaustible and necessary source of impressions for the artist, from where he draws his images, even if they are devoid of reality.

Through the visual impression, "hotly inspired", the master has a certain image of the future painting. A creative search begins with the involvement of natural sketches, previously visible images and events. The artist is completely immersed in the creative process. During such work, the master, depending on his temperament, sometimes even looks like an obsessed person - according to the enthusiasm, passion with which he thinks, imagines and experiences everything.

The famous Russian artist I.N. Kramskoy, according to his memoirs, while working on the painting “Christ in the Desert”, there were even visual hallucinations, so he was absorbed by this hard work. He saw the figure of Christ he created and even walked around it. Such emotional burning is the inner lever of the artist's creativity; without this fire, no works of art arise. But we perceive this beautiful canvas of the great Russian painter as his vision of the religious plot chosen by him. In this work, we see Christ the way the painter tried to see Him and capture in paints (talent, skill, feelings).

Work on the creation of a picture sometimes takes many years and is associated with many technical and psychological difficulties. What, in fact, is the true content of such art?

The theme, of course, is included in the concept of content, because it is it that divides all artistic images into “genres” - types: portrait, landscape, still life, etc. However, the theme does not exhaust the concept of content. After all, the same theme can be understood and developed differently by different artists. This art does not set any limits for the master, he is relatively free in solving the task set for himself, arbitrarily solving it either as a secular or religious one, interpreting it either in his perception or in the aspect in which he was asked to solve.

The true, real content of the picture is the mood of the author, his soul, and the theme sometimes fades into the background. At the same time, each master has his own methods and manners of writing. One writes smoothly, the other, on the contrary, saves each stroke separately. One writes out a lot of details, the other writes widely, with large plans, etc. The individuality of the author, "his face" is manifested in everything. This is probably the most valuable thing in secular art.

But is it possible to imagine that an artist with sharpened eyesight would be infallible in his understanding, in his judgments, in his vision of the surrounding world? Undoubtedly, he can be mistaken in many ways and show the image in a one-sided, narrow, primitive way. What, for example, and how can he write in a portrait if he hates his model or, conversely, if he sympathizes with her? This is just a subjective perception of the creator - and nothing more. Therefore, each picture must be signed by the author, which is natural, because it reflects his personal understanding of what is depicted.

From the outside, every picture is a window into the material world around us: spatial, with well-known images, objects, nature, faces, so “alive”, impressive, delighting, touching. And we, looking at the pictures, experience aesthetic pleasure, we experience the same feelings that its author experienced. This creative contemplation simultaneously expresses our spirituality, which is constantly seething, carried away, restless without end, passionate, searching, completely unable to be satisfied with anything. Having comprehended one, she is already looking for another; catching new target, soon leaves her, strives forward - to new artistic tasks ... And so on without end. What is our life, fussy, passionate, changeable, carried away, such, in fact, is secular art - its mirror.

The life of the Church, like her art, is transcendent, flows above everything earthly, restless, changeable, wayward. The spiritual world is immaterial, invisible and not always accessible to ordinary perception, although it surrounds us. A worldly person can neither penetrate into its mysterious region, nor, moreover, draw any images from it. Meanwhile, the visual arts here remain based on vision: as for an ordinary artist, for an icon painter it is necessary, first of all, to learn how to see correctly, to see the spiritual realms. The Gospel says: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8). Purity of heart is humility of heart. The greatest example of the image of humility is given to us in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, everyone is called to follow Him. Achieving this purity is a matter of life. You can't learn it from words or books. In following Christ, in prayer, crying out for help with concentrated attention to everything you do and think about, day after day, year after year, bit by bit, experience in spiritual life is imperceptibly accumulated. Without such personal experience, the spiritual world is incomprehensible. You can philosophize about it, you can even call yourself a Christian, but still remain blind in it. If the spiritual direction is chosen correctly, then a person, first of all, begins to recognize himself, his face in all its internal ugliness. This is the beginning of the enlightenment of spiritual vision.

Knowing oneself, humbling, purifying oneself as one progresses, a person attracts the grace of God, which opens spiritual eyes, gives the gift of spiritual vision. The history of the Church is replete with many examples high degrees spiritual enlightenment (St. Mary of Egypt, St. Andrew, Fool-for-Christ, and many others). The ability to see the sacred is given to a person only for the purity of the heart.

The VII Ecumenical Council recognizes the holy fathers of the Church as true icon painters, for they followed the Gospel experimentally, received enlightenment in spirit and could contemplate the “subject” of sacred images. Those who only own a brush, the Cathedral attributed to performers, masters of their craft, artisans, or icon painters, as they were called in Russia.

The icon painter, having painted the icon, brought it to the consideration of the primates of the Church; only after approval was the name of the depicted put on it, by which it was consecrated and assimilated to this saint.

Thus, in contrast to the worldly picture, the ancient icon was born not according to the imagination and excited fantasy of the artist, not on personal perception and arbitrary interpretation of the innermost divine truths, but on the God-enlightened mind of the holy fathers, in obedience to the voice of the Church. Through obedience, the icon painter shared the experience of the Church, the spiritual experience of all previous generations of holy fathers, up to the apostles. The true content of the ancient icon is the teaching of the Church, Orthodox theology, the patristic spiritual feat of the teachers of the Church and the ascetics of piety, based on prayer, inextricably linked with worship. The content, as noted, suggests the form in which it must be given. This special form, different from everything that we see around us, the form is constant, unified, solid - the canon; and it should not be the mood of the artist - something earthly, but a single, unshakable divine truth, as the mind of the Church fixed under the grace-filled cover of the Holy Spirit acting in it.

Such a canon has been given by the Church to all artists who would wish to bring their talent to her service; in fact, it is the tradition of the holy fathers of the Church to icon painters. Holyly following their testament and Holy Tradition, reverent before the height and depth of the sacred image of the Church, the icon painter forgets his personal interests and embodies the spiritual beauty of Orthodoxy in the image with “the joy of joy”. And not one of them dared to sign his name on the icon he created, because he did not consider anything personal in it: neither form nor content.

How does an icon painter prepare to paint an icon? Through intense fasting and prayer, through obedience to one's spiritual leader, through self-sacrifice - so that his human, spiritual, passionate nature would not interfere in his work and distort God's truth. To himself, as far as possible, approach the world that he has to touch with a brush.

The Monk Alipiy, the first Russian icon painter, constantly labored, painting icons for all people and for all churches that needed them. At night, he practiced prayer, and during the day, with great humility, fasting, love and contemplation, he was engaged in this needlework. And by the grace of God (as the life tells), he visibly reproduced, as it were, the most spiritual image of virtue. We know a host of similar icon painters-ascetics of the Russian Church.

Let's pay more attention to the external form of the image. It should be noted that in order to depict what the eye did not see, the ear did not hear, and what did not come to the heart of a person (cf.: 1 Cor. 2: 9), there are no exact words or images in human language. Therefore, the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, gave the church image only a semblance (symbol), on the one hand, of the visible world, on the other, of the invisible world.

Church fine art creates in the sacred image not the Truth itself, but only its image. Using the images of the earthly world, he removes these images from their rough materiality, materiality, purely earthly beauty, from the completely inappropriate passion of the artist’s mood (his soulfulness) and brings them to the unshakable, unshakable peace of eternity, dispassion, filling, at the same time, with the depth of heavenly secrets . In terms of external form, this image is infinitely simple: plane, line and colors. But the image of the Divine Founder of the Church is also infinitely simple. Before the earthly beauty of this inaccessible Image, everything that had previously been considered wise, powerful, noble and beautiful fell to dust. So, before the simplicity of the church image, all the sophistication and sensual beauty of secular fine art fell.

We see that the deeper and sincere the knowledge of God by man in his infinite simplicity and love, the more He is revealed to man. Such knowledge is accumulated by the experience of many generations and is carefully stored in the depths of the Church of Christ, passed on by inheritance and exists as the most important connecting principle. However, modern man, tempted by many "benefits" of the world, is not accustomed to believe, he is more accustomed to know, and he teaches knowledge not by experience, but theoretically and virtually. Such knowledge of the world largely forms in human wide, but superficial knowledge makes him a hostage to other people's formulas and imaginary ideals.

With all the contradictions of the modern world, with all the external openness and imaginary truth, the great depths of wisdom and knowledge about God continue to excite a person. It is quite obvious from the example of modern church life that interest in the icon and all church art is increasing many times over. And this happens because, as always, a person needs God, which means that he is looking for those images created by a great feat of seeking God that will tell him about the invisible heavenly world. For those who enter the Church, the icon - the best teacher, which reveals the content of dogmas in a figurative and symbolic language, makes them simple and understandable to the heart of every person, and at the same time reveals the great mystery of God the Word.

Lines the posterior wall of the eyeball and occupies 72% of its inner surface area. It is called RETINA. The retina is shaped like a plate about a quarter of a millimeter thick and consists of 10 layers.

By its origin, the retina is an advanced part of the brain: during the development of the embryo, the retina is formed from the eye bubbles, which are protrusions of the anterior wall of the primary brain bubble. The main of its layers is a layer of light-sensitive cells - PHOTORECEPTORS. They are of two types: STICKS and CONES. They got such names due to their shape:

There are about 125-130 million rods in each eye. They are characterized by high sensitivity to light and work in low light, that is, they are responsible for twilight vision. However, rods are not able to distinguish colors, and with their help we see in black and white. They contain visual pigment RHODOPSIN.

Rods are located throughout the retina, except for the very center, therefore, thanks to them, objects on the periphery of the visual field are detected.

There are much fewer cones than rods - about 6-7 million in the retina of each eye. Cones provide color vision, but they are 100 times less sensitive to light than rods. Therefore, color vision is daytime, and in the dark, when only sticks work, a person cannot distinguish colors. Cones are much better than rods at picking up fast movements.

The cone pigment to which we owe color vision is called IODOPSIN. Rods are "blue", "green", and "red", depending on the wavelength of light they preferentially absorb.

Cones are located mainly in the center of the retina, in the so-called YELLOW SPOT(also called MACULA). In this place, the thickness of the retina is minimal (0.05-0.08 mm) and all layers are absent, except for the layer of cones. The macula is yellow in color due to the high content of yellow pigment. A person sees best with a yellow spot: all light information that falls on this area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe retina is transmitted most fully and without distortion, with maximum clarity.

The human retina is arranged in an unusual way: it is, as it were, turned upside down. The layer of the retina with photosensitive cells is not located in front, on the side of the vitreous body, as one might expect, but behind, on the side of the choroid. To get to the rods and cones, light must first make its way through the other 9 layers of the retina.

Between the retina and the choroid is a pigment layer containing a black pigment - melanin. This pigment absorbs light passing through the retina and prevents it from being reflected back, scattered inside the eye. In albinos - people with a congenital absence of melanin in all cells of the body - in high light, the light inside the eyeball is reflected in all directions by the surfaces of the retina. As a result, a single discrete spot of light that would normally excite only a few rods or cones is reflected everywhere and excites many receptors. Therefore, in albinos, visual acuity is rarely higher than 0.2-0.1 at a rate of 1.0.

Under the influence of light rays in the photoreceptors, a photochemical reaction occurs - the disintegration of visual pigments. As a result of this reaction, energy is released. This energy in the form of an electrical signal is transmitted to intermediate cells - BIPOLARS(they are also called interneurons or interneurons), and then on GANGLIONIC CELLS, which generate nerve impulses and send them along the nerve fibers to the brain.

Each cone is connected via a bipolar cell to one ganglion cell. But the rod signals going to the ganglion cells undergo the so-called convergence: several rods are connected to one bipolar cell, it sums up their signals and transmits them to one ganglion cell. Convergence allows increasing the light sensitivity of the eye, as well as the sensitivity of peripheral vision to movements, while in the case of cones, the absence of summation allows increasing visual acuity, but the sensitivity of "cone" vision is reduced.

Through the optic nerve, information about the image from the retina enters the brain and is processed there in such a way that we see the final picture of the surrounding world.

Read more: brain part of the visual system (visual analyzer)

The structure of the human visual apparatus
1 - retina,
2 - uncrossed fibers of the optic nerve,
3 - crossed fibers of the optic nerve,
4 - optic tract,
5 - outer cranked body,
6 - visual radiance,
7 - visual cortex
8 - oculomotor nerve
9 - superior tubercles of the quadrigemina

In humans and higher apes, half of the fibers of each optic nerve of the right and left sides intersect (the so-called optic chiasm, or CHIASMA). In the chiasm, only those fibers that transmit a signal from the inner half of the retina of the eye cross over. And this means that the vision of the left half of the image of each eye is directed to the left hemisphere, and the vision of the right half of each eye is directed to the right!

After passing through the chiasm, the fibers of each optic nerve form the optic tract. The visual tracts run along the base of the brain and reach the subcortical visual centers - external cranked bodies. The processes of nerve cells located in these centers form the visual radiation, which forms most of the white matter of the temporal lobe of the brain, as well as the parietal and occipital lobes.

Ultimately, all visual information is transmitted in the form of nerve impulses to the brain, its highest instance - the cortex, where the visual image is formed.

The visual cortex is located - imagine! - in the occipital lobe of the brain.

At present, much is already known about the mechanisms of the visual system, but it must be honestly admitted that modern science still does not fully know how the brain copes with the complex task of converting the electrical signals of the retina into the visual scene as we perceive it - from all sides. complexity of forms, depth, movement and color. But the study of this issue does not stand still, and, hopefully, science in the future will unravel all the secrets of the visual analyzer and be able to use them in practice - in medicine, cybernetics and other fields.

Educational video:
The structure and operation of the visual analyzer

The official state Internet portal "" distinguished itself by the fact that it described the most important periods of Russia with the blackest colors. Children are told about the "bloody USSR". And Ivan the Terrible, in the opinion of its creators, wanted to "seize half the world, rule over all countries", so all his life he waged "cruel wars with neighboring countries and took away their lands."

The Bolsheviks conspired “with our enemies, received money from them and staged a revolution. Tsar Nicholas II was deprived of power, imprisoned, and then killed. The Russian army was destroyed. The best people of our country were killed or expelled from Russia. They seized power, began to rob the people, offend the weak, and destroy everything that was good in Russia. As a result, "a terrible Bolshevik power reigned over our country - a merciless power, a bloody power."

Thus, we see vivid manifestations of a number of black myths that were created by pro-Western, liberal circles and that cause great damage to Russian self-consciousness and historical memory. This is a real information war against the Russian superethnos and civilization. Which in the future leads to the destruction of the Russian statehood and civilization itself, since the “Russians”, who lead the history of “free Russia” only since 1991, when “the people were liberated from the bloody Bolsheviks”, become ordinary ethnographic material in the hands of the masters of the West and East.

At the same time, the information portal “is an official state information resource, formed under the control of the Heraldic Council under the President of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation, designed to accumulate information about the official symbols that exist in Russia, in all the variety of forms of its modern existence and modern development ". That is, we see the official position of a part of the Russian elite, determined to bring de-Sovietization in the Russian Federation to its logical end. What this led to in Little Russia (Ukraine) - part of the Russian world (civilization), we know well. This is the revelry of the Nazis, crime, the oligarchy, which brought the people to poverty, extinction and civil war with the collapse of Little Russia into parts, and the “bright” prospect of the final collapse in the interests of the “new world order”.

Children especially got it, who are the easiest to “process” in the right direction, since adults still have a certain amount of knowledge and life experience. The consciousness of children is a "blank slate" on which you can "write" anything. We see the result in history. In the Third Reich, appropriate upbringing and education in line with the division of people into "chosen" and "subhuman" led to the fact that a terrible world massacre began, in which the lives of tens of millions of people burned down. In the USSR, a society of service and creation was created. As a result, the USSR became a superpower, won the most terrible world war, became the leader of mankind in the most advanced spheres of life (atom, space, military technologies, etc.), whole generations of heroes, workers, teachers, creators and creators were brought up in the country. In Little Russia, since the 1990s, they have glorified the traitors-Bandera, Hitler's henchmen, created a false history of "Great Ukraine", which allegedly always opposed the hostile "Asian" Muscovy. The younger generations were “zombified” accordingly. The result is terrible - the war of Russians with Russians, poverty and blood, a corrupt and degenerate "elite" ready to sell the remnants of the inheritance of the Ukrainian SSR to the rulers of the West and East, the extinction of the once prosperous region of Great Russia (USSR). The mental breakdown of the whole core of the super-ethnos of the Rus - Little Russians (Southern Rus), who were brought up as enemies of other Russian Rus, servants of the local corrupt oligarchy, capital and masters from the West. We see how the information war against the Little Russians-Russians led them to a "mutation", they became Ivans who do not remember kinship, who fiercely hate everything Russian and Soviet (which is also Russian).

In this spirit, the creators of the site "Russian Symbols" have worked. In the section on changing the Russian coat of arms, there is a separate subsection “Essay on the history of the Russian coat of arms for children”, which gives the younger generation a very emotional excursion into our history and actually repeats several fundamental black myths aimed at discrediting, spitting and distorting the history of Russia, destroying the historical memory of the Russian people.

"Bloody Tyrant" Ivan the Terrible

In particular, the creators of the site repeated the black myth created by the external enemies of Russia-Russia about one of the greatest rulers of Russia - the myth of the "bloody tyrant" Ivan the Terrible ( ; ). Children are told in the form of a clumsy fairy tale that the Russian sovereign was a cruel conqueror and: “Ivan IV received Russia big and strong from his father and grandfather, but this was not enough for him. Ivan IV wanted to capture half the world, to rule over all countries. All his life Ivan IV waged cruel wars with neighboring countries and took away their land. So many lands were seized and annexed to our country by Ivan IV, as no other Russian sovereign, either before him or after, could.

Thus, the Russian tsar allegedly wanted to "rule over all countries." This is a confirmation of the eternal Western myth "about the Russian threat and aggression." And he allegedly "took away" land from neighboring countries. Here we see the myth of "Russian aggressors and colonizers", which is actively cultivated both in the West and in the former Soviet republics: in Georgia, Central Asia, Ukraine and the Baltics. At the same time, things come to the point that the "Russian colonizers and invaders" are regularly required to "compensate for the losses" of the allegedly injured peoples. Although in reality the Russian Empire and the USSR actively developed the outskirts, even to the detriment of the indigenous Russian regions, creating all the foundations of the economic, social and cultural infrastructure there. At the same time, gradually freeing the outlying regions from the archaic (like slavery), introducing them to the higher spiritual and material culture of the Russian people.

Further on the site it is noted that “Ivan IV was cruel, stern and domineering. He did not tolerate disobedience to his will from anyone. And if someone did not want to obey him, or did not follow his orders, Ivan IV executed them without mercy with terrible executions. That is, the myth of the “bloody Russian Tsar” is repeated again, although if we compare it with what happened in the same historical period in European countries - England, France, Spain, Holland, in Germany, etc., then it turns out that that Ivan IV was one of the most humane rulers of that cruel era. During the long reign of Ivan Vasilyevich in Russia, only a few thousand people were repressed. In France, during one St. Bartholomew's night alone, the massacre of the French Huguenots, which was perpetrated by the French Catholics, killed more people than during the entire reign of the Russian sovereign.

It is worth noting that Ivan Vasilievich became one of the most effective managers of Russian civilization. Ivan Vasilyevich actually restored the Russian Empire, which was created by the first Rurikovichs, but then was destroyed by the efforts of the "elite" - the princes and boyars, who pulled Russia apart among the destinies and estates, began to be sold to the then West. Ivan the Terrible completed the process of creating a centralized Russian state, a powerful empire capable of resisting both the West, the South and the East. Also, Moscow became the successor not only of the fallen Byzantine Empire, but of the disintegrated Horde Empire (annexation of Kazan, Astrakhan and Western Siberia), uniting the imperial traditions of the West and East. Russia again became an independent world center of power.

And on the official state information resource they write that “almost all the troubles brought to Russia by Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Ivan the Terrible waged wars with neighboring countries all his life, insatiably took away their cities and lands. The neighboring countries endured for a long time, but finally they could not stand it. They all joined together and as soon as Ivan the Terrible died, they attacked our country from all sides. Here is the statement! It turns out that due to the fact that Russia "insatiably" took away cities and lands from its neighbors, they united and attacked us. There is only one step to the need to "repent" for past "sins" and pay off "debts", including "cities and lands" that the Russians allegedly "insatiably" captured.

Ivan Vasilyevich is accused of leading Russia to the Time of Troubles. He not only “offended” neighbors by seizing their lands. But he also "expelled all his assistants from his anger - whom he executed, whom he imprisoned, whom he expelled to foreign countries." They say that there was no one to choose a new tsar, Ivan IV “exhausted” everyone.

"Bloody Bolsheviks"

The Soviet project, which turned Russia-USSR into the leader of mankind, a superpower, also suffered greatly. The Soviet civilization, the most advanced on Earth and giving hope to mankind for an alternative brighter future than the Western project of a slave civilization, was described literally in.

A black cross was put on the entire Soviet period in the history of Russia: “For many centuries the Russian state stood. For many centuries our country was ruled by kings and emperors. And for many centuries Russia proudly carried its coat of arms - the double-headed eagle. But now, almost a hundred years ago, a great misfortune came to our land again. At that time, Tsar Nicholas II ruled our country. He was a good sovereign, did not want to believe that there is in the world evil people that they want to do meanness, that they are ready for cruelty and betrayal. This is how Nicholas the Bloody became a "good sovereign."

And further: “But people were like that. They were called revolutionaries or Bolsheviks. Nothing was dear to them - neither our country, nor our people. They wanted only one thing - to overthrow the king and begin to rule themselves. And so, at the time when our country was waging a difficult war, when Tsar Nicholas II worked at the front, commanded the troops, the revolutionaries conspired with our enemies, received money and weapons from them and staged a revolution. Tsar Nicholas II was deprived of power, imprisoned, and then killed. The Russian army was destroyed. The best people of our country were killed or expelled from Russia. They seized power, began to rob the people, offend the weak, and destroy everything that was good in Russia. Our people did not reconcile themselves to the power of the Bolsheviks, rebelled against them, and a terrible Civil War began. But the revolutionaries won. And they won because they were as cruel as no one had ever been anywhere in the world. The revolutionaries spared no one, they killed children, women, and the elderly, they destroyed entire cities, entire regions, entire nations. All those who resisted, who did not want to obey them at least in some way, were exterminated by the Bolsheviks to the last. And the terrible power of the Bolsheviks reigned over our country - a merciless power, a bloody power.

Here we see a number of anti-Russian myths. And about the "good" sovereign, although it was his reign that led to the most severe crisis and the revolutionary situation in the Russian Empire. And that the "great misfortune" was brought to Russia by "evil people - the Bolsheviks." Although in reality the systemic crisis in the Russia of the Romanovs took centuries to develop. They were the fault of the ruling elite, the elite of "old Russia", which followed the path of Westernization (Europeanization) of Russia, turning Russian civilization into the cultural and economic (raw materials) periphery of Western Europe. There is also a myth that "the revolutionaries conspired with our enemies, received money and weapons from them and staged a revolution." If there were no internal contradictions in Russia, Russia would be a healthy organism, no revolutionaries and external enemies could do anything. In addition, it was the ruling “elite” of the Russian Empire, the Februaryists-Westerners, who crushed the autocracy, the imperial army and the empire. The tsar was overthrown not by the Bolsheviks, the Red Guards and the proletariat, but by the quite prosperous and prosperous liberal-bourgeois, capitalist and even aristocratic elite of the Russian Empire, which the autocracy prevented from completing the triumph of the Western matrix in Russia.

We also see the myths that the Bolsheviks " the best people our country was destroyed or expelled from Russia, ... they began to rob the people, offend the weak, destroy everything that was good in Russia, ”unleashed civil war and terror. At the same time, they won only thanks to extreme, infernal cruelty, having exterminated "everyone" (!), Who resisted. As a result, "a terrible Bolshevik power reigned over our country - a merciless power, a bloody power." “The Bolsheviks ruled our country for a long time, they harassed Russia for a long time. But our country did not perish, the Russians did not exhaust themselves. The time has come - and the power of the Bolsheviks collapsed. And Russia has become a free, honest, kind country again.”

It turns out that there was nothing good during the reign of the Bolsheviks. They only "harassed Russia." And Russia became a “free, honest and kind country” only in 1991. The entire Soviet period is anathema, in the "best" tradition of the 1990s, when anti-Soviet, "white" and liberal ideas about Russia's past flourished.

What Russia will come to if such tendencies (and supported from above) prevail, we see on the example of Little Russia (Ukraine), where de-Sovietization and the destruction of the common Russian and Soviet foundation was in full swing and was not restrained. Eventually we see how the collapse of the project "Ukraine" is happening: complete subordination of Kyiv to the West; deindustrialization and dismantling of the Soviet heritage (in fact, the destruction of all economic, social and cultural foundations), which leads to accelerated recycling of the entire country; the onset of wild archaism in the form of cave nationalism, the criminalization of public life; large-scale theft and corruption on the principle of "after us, even a flood"; the beginning of the war between Russians and Russians with the full support of Western "partners"; total de-Russification with the denial of their roots, with wild hatred for those Russians who have not yet forgotten their name; socio-economic, cultural and linguistic genocide of the South Russian people with the full support of the West (IMF and other structures), as a result, the extinction of the southern Rus-Little Russians, the exodus of young people to the West or to Russia, the transformation of part of the Russian superethnos into ethnographic material for the Western " melting pot” (“Global Babylon” project), etc., etc.

Thus, we see how the thousand-year information war against the Russian civilization and people continues. The destruction of the historical memory of the Russian people and the "inoculation" of false values ​​​​(materialism - the ideology of the "golden calf") and false ideas about their native history and country are in full swing. Soviet Union, whose successor is Russian Federation, is anathematized. Although it is in the history of the Union that we still have a common ideological foundation that unites and reconciles the “reds” and “whites”, left and right, monarchists, nationalists and socialists. This is a victory in the Great Patriotic war, the heroic feat of the Soviet (Russian) people at the front and in the rear, the creation of a great country - National economy, science and education, great achievements and victories in space. The creation of a nuclear potential and armed forces, which allows us to still live without the aggression of the West (NATO), does not allow Western "partners" to bomb and dismember Great Russia, following the example of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Syria. This is the creation of the world Yalta-Potsdam system and the Helsinki Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe, that is, a global political system that made it possible to avoid a new big war, and so on. That is, the entire foundation on which modern Russia still rests.

Where does such “education” of the rising generations lead to? Look at neighboring Ukraine, a bleeding part of Russian civilization... You can also pay attention to the active participation of young people in the latest unrest in Russia. New generations of “brainwashed” Russians are entering the arena, brought up entirely on Western standards and values, which easily become a tool in the hands of experienced manipulators and political technologists.

There is a saying: "Money does not bring happiness". Many people in modern society may disagree with this statement. For such, material well-being is better, having money is more important than spiritual development. But there are also people who believe that money and luxury are all just something superficial, transient, because at some point you can simply lose it all. According to such people, being rich spiritually is much more important than being financially secure. So which one of these people is right? What values ​​are more important: spiritual or material? It is this problem that Yuri Nagibin considers in the text proposed for analysis.

The story is told in the first person. During a creative trip to Italy, he met a wealthy Italian who was fond of poetry, wrote poetry and even published a small collection of his works for friends. The first example illustrating this problem is the narrator's reasoning contained in sentences 28-32. The Italian - the owner of a large factory that brings huge incomes, who has everything you could wish for, rejoiced at the attention to his poems of a random person who met him for the first time: "Where did the satiated, indifferent master of life go? ... But we belong to the same brotherhood pain ... "Both the narrator and the rich Italian loved poetry, neither of them cared about the size of the other's wealth. And this proves that spiritual values, development are more important than the amount of money and material well-being. As a second example, confirming that for many people spiritual values ​​are more important, is the statement of a wealthy Italian contained in sentences 38-39: "This is the only thing worth living for!" And he was not talking about his factory or other riches. Poems, poetry - that's what, according to the Italian, is really worth existing. After all, it is spiritual values ​​that help to find the meaning of life.

I agree with the position of the author. Of course, you need to develop and live not only with thoughts about material values. If people think that spiritual development is secondary, they can only be pitied. These people have a poor inner world, they are mercantile, since money, real estate, business are a priority for them. And in vain, because spiritual values ​​help people discover something new for themselves, learn something new about the world around them.

As the first example from fiction, proving that material values ​​are less important than spiritual ones, one can cite A.P. Chekhov's story "Ionych". Main character- Dmitry Ionych Startsev, who arrived in the city of S., where he met the Turkin family, known for their talents. There he first met Ekaterina Ivanovna (at home, Kotik), with whom he fell in love. But the girl did not reciprocate the young doctor, laughed at him, refused Startsev when he proposed to her. And this refusal then turned the world of the protagonist upside down. After this plot, Chekhov describes the events that took place a few years later: Startsev had a lot of practice, he gained weight, became addicted to card game. Everything annoyed him, everything seemed boring and uninteresting. Startsev has changed a lot. Previously, he had a lofty goal - to serve people, to create a family. But he exchanged all this for a game of screw, money, a club. The light in Startsev's soul went out. Dmitry Ionych became the same philistine as the inhabitants of the city of S. He lived alone, he was bored, nothing seemed interesting. This is the result of a person's choice, the choice of his values ​​in life.

As a second example from the literature, one can cite the work of N.V. Gogol "Portrait". The protagonist is a young artist Andrei Chartkov, a rather talented but poor man. Once, at the Shchukin Yard, the artist, unexpectedly for himself, bought a portrait of an old man of Asian appearance, in the frame of which he later found a bundle of gold coins. And Chartkov began to think what he should do with them. At first, he wanted to buy various paints and objects for painting, lock himself up for three years, work hard to become a great artist. But in the end, Chartkov spent the money on luxury: he bought fashionable clothes, rented an expensive apartment, in general, he did everything that another careless young man in his place did. In the future, Chartkov served wealthy clients, whose desires and whims made him a fashionable painter, drawing according to a template and receiving a lot of money for it. Chartkov completely forgot about his dreams and aspirations, he simply lost his talent in pursuit of money. For him, unfortunately, material values ​​were more important than spiritual development and the dream of becoming a real artist.

In conclusion, I would like to say that you do not need to chase money, fame and luxury all your life, while forgetting about what is really important: spiritual values ​​and enrichment of the inner world. This can help us find real friends and learn something new, in general, make our lives much better.

Essay 2 is about happiness.

Probably, it is impossible to give an unambiguous definition of happiness. Each person has a different idea of ​​this feeling. Someone, in order to find happiness, needs to buy a beautiful thing, someone needs to help another person. And then the question arises: what is happiness? How to get it? These problems are considered in her text by Lyudmila Ulitskaya.

Reflecting on these issues, the author talks about the unfortunate boy Gene, to whom life presented many difficulties. He did not feel in himself such a feeling as happiness. For example, he did not like the surname of the Pirap pilots: "His surname was written so ridiculously that since he learned to read, he felt it as a humiliation." He also had problems with his legs, and his nose was always stuffy. At his birthday party, he did not want to see anyone, because he considered his acquaintances irreconcilable enemies, but Genya's mother invited everyone herself. Everything turned out differently at the holiday: acquaintances became interested in Genya's paper fakes, took them for themselves, thanked him, and the boy was happy: "He only experienced such a feeling in a dream." Thus, L. Ulitskaya shows readers examples of an unfortunate and, conversely, a happy person.

The author believes that a person can be happy if he understands that someone is needed, not indifferent. It does not take much effort to make a person happy, it is enough just to show attention, kindness and respect.

As the first example from fiction, one can cite the work of M. Sholokhov "The Fate of a Man". From the main character, Andrei Sokolov, the war took away everything: loved ones, home. But the little boy Vanya, who also lost all his relatives, helped Sokolov cope with life's difficulties. The realization that this boy needed him made the main character live on. Vanya became for him not only a son, but also happiness.

As another example from the literature, one can cite the story of A.S. Pushkin "The Stationmaster". For the main character, Samson Vyrin, his only daughter Dunya was happiness. After she left, got married and forgot about her father, the caretaker's house was empty, and Samson himself was very old. He lost his happiness, the meaning of life, that's why he died. What did he need to be happy? Just so that her daughter would remember him, visit and write letters. Then it would be much easier for Vyrin to live, he would not exist, tormented by longing for his daughter.

Thus, we can conclude that happiness does not need something supernatural, it lies in the little things. If people make even the slightest effort to make anyone happy, the world will surely be a better place.

Essay 3 is about happiness.

At all times, people have asked the question: what does a person need to be happy? But no one can give a definite answer. Some say that people need money and real estate, others disagree with them and argue that the main thing is to love your job so that it satisfies you. Still others believe that a person's happiness is impossible if his life is ordinary and boring. Which of these opinions is correct? It is the problem of what a person needs for happiness that Bondarev raises in his text.

The story is told from the perspective of a woman left without a husband. Her parents helped her raise her son. Once she was with them, she could not sleep at night. She went into the kitchen and saw her father there. She thought he was pale and tired. The woman told him that they were unhappy. The father's rebuttal is contained in sentences 15-22. This is the first example of this problem. He told his daughter that in fact he was happy, because all his relatives were alive, all at home, there was no war. Then the woman understood what real happiness means. Thus, we see that the main thing in life for a person is his family, it is the basis of his happiness. This is followed by an episode of farewell to the parents. It is the second example to this problem and is contained in sentences 23-24. Her father and mother cried and waved their hands as they walked her home. This warmed her heart. Thus, we see that each person needs the support of loved ones. If she is, then he feels needed and is able to survive any adversity.

The author's position is contained in the last sentence of the test. “How much and how little a person needs for happiness!” The writer believes that it is difficult to achieve it, because the war and the well-being of each family member are circumstances that do not depend on a person. However, these are very real conditions.

I agree with the author that people can be happy only when their relatives are doing well, because the family is the main support in life, it is to relatives that a person turns for help to help him, and also talks about his successes. They share his joy with him. Thus, a person feels that he is not alone and he has support, and this is the most important thing.

Examples of this problem can be found in fiction. The first work is "Mad Evdokia" by Aleksin. The girl Olya grew up selfish, as her parents indulged her in everything. One day while camping with her class, she ran away alone at night to get to her destination first. When everyone realized that Olya was gone, they began to look for her. The parents were informed about the disappearance, after which they became very nervous, because the daughter did not even call them. After a while Olya returned, but it was too late. Her mother couldn't take it nervous tension and went crazy. Thus, we see that the girl's family broke up, the mother ended up in a mental hospital. And this means that she and her father will not be happy until the family is restored.

The second work illustrating this problem is "The Captain's Daughter" by A.S. Pushkin. In the first chapter, before Peter's departure, his father gives him instructions, which Grinev adhered to throughout his life. This suggests that he honored his father and believed: happiness is possible only when there is agreement in the family. Masha Mironova thought the same. When Grinev invited her to get married without the consent of his parents, she flatly refused, because she believed that in this case happy life she will not be with Peter. Masha waited until Grinev's father agreed to the marriage. In this way. We see that for the heroes the family was the main pillar of life, to go against it meant never to be happy. Masha Mironova and Pyotr Grinev believed that their fate depended on the well-being of the family.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that the family is the main source of human happiness. Only with the support of relatives do people realize they are needed. This motivates them to achieve, they strive to justify the hopes of their loved ones placed on them. If everything is not well in a person’s family, then things fall out of his hands. He looks depressed and unhappy. Therefore, I want to advise people to take care of their families: our well-being depends on them.

Essay 4 - about the desire to live for show.

All people have different goals in life: someone is trying to achieve success in a career, someone is trying to build a strong family, and someone is trying to live for show. But what underlies the desire to live better than a friend and not “like everyone else”? This is the question that worries I.Vasiliev.

Reflecting on this problem, the author narrates in the first person. He talks about how one day he came to the store for a sweatshirt. The hero involuntarily drew attention to the hands of the packer, who was in no hurry to give the goods. She had eight rings on her hands, and the narrator was struck by the woman’s demeanor: “It can be seen that she lives for show, they say, not like everyone else.” This case is an illustration of the problem stated in the text. It reveals the behavior of people living for show. Another story that the narrator remembered was about a friend of his who wanted to have a hundred shirts. He already had sixty, but he wanted more to show his superiority over others. And in the second example, the author reveals the motives of people: "Today, the fashion is not for cut, but for quantity." The writer explores various aspects of life for show and at the end gives an analysis of the causes of this phenomenon.

I. Vasiliev is sure that egoism lies at the heart of such a life. The author emphasizes that such a person is incapable of feeling another. He writes: “He can listen to you, even seem to understand, even help, but he has already lost the ability to feel you, your condition, your pain.” From this I. Vasiliev draws the following conclusion: most of these people are lonely.

I fully agree with the position of the author. Indeed, such people are very lonely and selfish. In addition, when they succumb to the desire to "live for show", their goals in life become very primitive. And this is dangerous, since they focus only on acquiring a certain number of things, as a result of which they stop developing spiritually and begin to degrade as individuals.

Confirmation of the author's position can be found in works of art. In the story "Portrait" N.V. Gogol tells about the young artist Chartkov, who was a modest man who deeply loved art. But once in his hands was a large amount of money. At first he wanted to spend it on buying everything necessary for creativity, lock himself in a room and write, but the desire for fame and fortune got the better of him: he rented a luxurious apartment, bought expensive clothes and began to lead a secular life. Now he had only one goal - to "live for show", which gradually ruined him. Over time, the artist became a fashionable painter and exchanged talent for money, without realizing it. Once Chartkov was invited to an exhibition of an artist who had come from Italy. When he saw his ingenious picture, he wanted to draw something similar, but nothing came of it. The artist realized that he had ruined his talent, and out of grief he went mad and died. Thus, the author shows that life for show distracts from the development of talent, and this can end in failure.

As another work, one can cite the work of A.P. Chekhov "Ionych". Zemsky doctor comes to the city with a good goal - to help people. He falls in love with Ekaterina Ivanovna and proposes to her, but is refused. After that, a collapse occurs in his life, he becomes greedy and selfish. His main goal in life is to make money. The doctor bought two houses for himself and looks after the third one, besides, he no longer walks, but rides in a troika with bells, by the sound of which he is immediately recognized. He has a lot of work, but greed for profit does not allow him to reduce the practice. In the end, he appears lonely and unhappy. So, A.P. Chekhov shows how a person changes when he focuses only on himself.

In conclusion, I would like to say that life for show does not bring anything but harm, as a person begins to degrade and becomes lonely. Therefore, you need to set yourself worthy goals in life, strive for self-development, and not for the accumulation of wealth.

Essay 5 is about self-restraint.

Older people remember that in the second half of the last century there was a total shortage, there were few goods in stores. In order to somehow survive, people limited themselves in everything, saved as much as they could. Now there is plenty of everything, the shops are not empty, the shelves in them are even bursting with an abundance of goods. And over time, people forgot how to limit themselves. They buy everything at once large quantities. It would seem that life has become better, but it turns out that unlimited consumption of something leads to other problems: a person's weight increases, debts appear and grow. If, for example, there is no self-restraint at the state level, then environmental pollution occurs. And then the question arises: what is the role of self-restraint? Is it really necessary? A. Solzhenitsyn reflects on these questions in the above text.

The author discusses such a phenomenon as self-restraint in different aspects. As a first example illustrating this problem, we can cite the description by the author of the conference different countries, which for the sake of "momentary internal interest" reduce the requirements of any international agreement on environmental protection. And at the same time, there are countries that do not fulfill even some light reduced requirements, do not control the level of environmental pollution. Thus, we can conclude that self-restraint is required even for large states that can pollute and destroy the entire planet. As another example, one can cite the author’s reasoning that even a small personal restriction of consumers of goods “will indelibly reverberate somewhere on producers”, therefore Solzhenitsyn concludes that although people understand the need for self-restraint, they may not be ready for him, so you need to be careful when it comes to such a thing as limiting oneself.

The author believes that self-restraint is necessary for everyone: and at the level ordinary person and at the state level. If people do not start limiting themselves, then "humanity will simply tear itself apart." According to Solzhenitsyn, people need to learn to define firm boundaries for themselves, otherwise all the worst that is in the world will come out and everything will turn upside down.

I agree with the author. Indeed, self-restraint is indispensable. It helps a person stop in time in some of his actions, for example, indulging bad habits which can lead to negative consequences. Without self-restraint, a person will lose a sense of proportion, he will develop negative character traits, such as permissiveness, irresponsibility and arrogance, and this should never be the case.

As the first example from fiction, confirming the importance of self-restraint in people's lives, is the work of N.V. Gogol "Portrait". The protagonist, a young and talented, but poor artist Andrei Chartkov, bought an old man's rubbish in the market, in the frame of which he found a bundle of gold coins. But this money did not bring him happiness. Of course, Chartkov became rich, he lived without limiting himself in anything: he bought a lot of unnecessary luxury items, rented an expensive apartment, but at the same time ruined his talent, drawing works according to a template, thinking that this is how one should live. But one day Chartkov was invited to an exhibition where he saw the work of a Russian artist who improved his skills in Italy, limiting himself in everything in order to develop his talent. His painting on a religious theme was so beautiful that it struck Chartkov to the core, and he wanted to paint something similar. Later, in his workshop, Chartkov tried to depict a fallen angel, but his hands did not obey, they painted according to the template. Then the artist realized that he had ruined his talent. This shock was so strong that it brought the artist to death. If Chartkov from the very beginning had limited himself and worked, would not have spent time and money on luxury and lead a secular life, everything would have been different. Thus, we understand that in this case, the lack of self-restraint harmed the person.

As a second example from the literature, one can cite A.P. Chekhov's story "Ionych". The main character is Dmitry Ionych Startsev, who arrived in the city of S., where he met the Turkin family, known for their "talents". There he first met Ekaterina Ivanovna (at home, Kotik), with whom he fell in love. But the girl did not reciprocate the young doctor, joked with him, refused Startsev when he proposed to her. And this refusal then turned the world of Dmitry Startsev upside down. Not receiving any emotions from life, having ceased to develop spiritually, becoming a layman, Startsev became even more obnoxious, he forgot about his noble goal - to save people's lives. Having ceased to limit himself, he took all the material goods from life: excellent food, money, cards, houses. But each subsequent wad of money did not bring him happiness, because he was alone. No one communicated with Startsev, his life was very boring. Perhaps if Dmitry Ionych had limited himself even a little, if he had not forgotten about his goal, everything would have been different. And again, we see that the lack of self-restraint has harmed the person.

In conclusion, I would like to say that such a phenomenon as self-limitation is very important for a person. If all people in the world adhere to the principle of self-restraint even a little bit, then the world will undoubtedly become a better place.

Essay 6 - about the horizons of man.

There are disputes about the horizons of man. Some people believe that you need to know about almost everything, without particularly delving into any area of ​​\u200b\u200bscience. But others do not agree with this. These people believe that it is better to know everything about one area than to know everything superficially. Which of them is right? What is a limited person? What should be the outlook of a person? What is more useful for its development: a large amount of specific knowledge or the breadth and clarity of ideas about the outside world? V.A. Soloukhin thinks about these questions in the above text.

The author proposes to consider the concept of limitedness of people on the examples of two imaginary miners. The first example is a miner who works only in a mine, he is limited by "thicknesses of impenetrable black stone." He did not see the white light, there is always work before his eyes, but at the same time he is experienced, knows everything about his business. The author calls it limited, because this miner is deep only in his work. Soloukhin also cites as an example another miner, less experienced than the first, but he was on the Black Sea, he saw the world around him. And the author concludes that both of these miners are limited people, but each in his own way.

According to the author, there are two types of limited people in the world: for example, you can meet a person who has a large stock of scientific information, but with a narrow outlook. At the same time, there are people who do not have such a volume of knowledge, but their horizons are broad and clear. And the second type of people, according to the author, is much better.

I agree with the author. Indeed, a person should have a variety of interests and a store of knowledge in various fields. Inertia, intolerance or suspicion towards everything new comes precisely from the narrowness of the outlook. If a person does not expand his horizons, it will become boring to communicate with him, and then he may remain lonely.

As the first example from fiction, confirming the importance of having a broad outlook, one can cite A.P. Chekhov's work "The Man in a Case". The protagonist of the story, teacher Belikov, is a man with a very narrow range of interests, limited, afraid of everything that is possible, trying to isolate himself from the outside world, "thinking only about the Greek language." And it would seem that he is a teacher, an intellectual. His life is boring, gray, monotonous, he does not have a broad outlook, so he can safely be considered a limited person.

As a second example from the literature, one can cite the work of F.A. Iskander "Authority". The protagonist, physicist Georgy Andreevich, was a man, of course, educated, with a broad outlook. From childhood, reading gave him great pleasure, he felt literature very subtly, got to know the world around him and people through books, adopted life values ​​and guidelines. Reading helped him scientific activity. Georgy Andreevich understood that books broaden his horizons and help move through life, since a book is the best teacher, so he could not come to terms with the fact that a computer and TV replaced books in his son, and tried to instill in him a love of reading.

In conclusion, I would like to say that a person should expand his horizons. The world around us is unique and amazing, so you need to read, develop yourself and at the same time remember that a broad outlook is needed in order to keep up with life. If all this is observed, then the world will become much more educated and happy people.

Essay 7 is about honor.

A sense of honor is a purely personal moral feeling that distinguishes a noble person from others. This concept today has the same meaning that has been invested in it since the most ancient times: it characterizes the degree of reliability of a word given by a person and his fidelity to his principles. And yet can the concept of honor become obsolete? This problem is raised by D. Granin in his text.

This question belongs to the category of eternal. Drawing the reader's attention to it, the author recalls various episodes of history. The first example illustrating this problem is contained in sentences 7-14. The narrator recalls an incident from the life of A.P. Chekhov. After the writer learned that the government had annulled the election of Maxim Gorky to honorary academicians, Chekhov also renounced his title, because the decision to elect was made by his colleagues and himself, and by supporting the government's decision, he actually recognized the falsity of the election. The Russian writer could not do this, but he could not reconcile his conscience with such a contradiction. Thus, although Chekhov lived at the end of the 19th century, he adhered to life principles early 19th century. The second example illustrating this problem is contained in sentences 15-22. After the story that happened with A.P. Chekhov, the author tells the reader that there is such a thing as a word, given by man. The narrator believes that it is not always observed, since it is not fixed by any document. As an example, the author cites a case during a repair, when a worker did not do it on time, although he promised. Thus, for such people there is no concept of honor and the ability to keep one's word at all, which means that no one wants to deal with them.

The author is convinced that the concept of honor cannot become obsolete and be replaced by any other word. “How can a sense of honor, a sense of self-worth, a purely personal moral sense become obsolete?” - D. Granin asks a rhetorical question.

After reading this text, I remembered the work of A.S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter" The protagonist of the novel, Pyotr Grinev, received a good upbringing. “Take care of the dress again, and honor from a young age,” his father told him. Peter respected his parent, so he forever remembered his words and followed them. Proof of this is the case in the Belogorsk fortress, when Grinev was among the hostages of Pugachev and was sentenced to death. Peter still refused to swear allegiance to the robber, but Savelich saved him, saying that for young man will give you a good ransom. However, Grinev showed the resilience of his character. Thus, Peter fulfilled the order of his father: he retained his honor from a young age, and as a result, his life turned out well, which means that the concept of honor cannot become obsolete.

The work of L. Panteleev "Honest Word" is also recalled. The little boy gave his word of honor to his playmates to stand guard as sentry until he was relieved, and continued to stand even when he realized that the change would not come. But the power of his word was so great that he could not leave his post. The narrator, passing by, was forced to call for a military officer, a man who, in the boy's opinion, had the right to remove him from his post and release him from his word. Thus, this boy kept his word, which was not secured by any document, which means that the concept of honor is not outdated.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the problem of preserving honor remains one of the most significant and relevant to this day. Honor is a concept that should remain important at all times, because it is one of the most important qualities of a person.

Essay 8 is about the rational use of time.

In youth, people live as if they have an unlimited amount of time ahead and do not think about its transience. But in adulthood, this problem worries absolutely everyone. A person looks back at the past and understands: he did not have time to do much of what he wanted. Then people begin to think about how you can find time for everything you have planned. It is the problem of rational use of time that Zharikov and Kruzhelnitsky raise in their text.

First, the authors discuss its properties. The writers' reflections are contained in sentences 1-8. As an example, they cite the saying of Seneca. The philosopher says that time eludes a person, so you can’t waste it in vain. Thus, we see that this problem has been and remains urgent for people. Another important property time is that it flows for everyone at different speeds. And there are people who do not care about this issue at all. But still I want to ask: what is our time spent on? Seneca claims that we spend most of it on mistakes, bad deeds and idleness. Then the question arises: how can we save time? As an answer and a second example to this problem, one should cite the advice of the scientist and poet Gastev (proposal 18). He proposes to do three simple steps: develop a daily routine, make a plan and follow it clearly. Thus, we see that good discipline and self-control are needed to solve this problem.

The author's position is contained in the last 2 paragraphs of the text. The writer believes that time is fleeting, and therefore it can easily elude people. He says that he cannot be returned. So, it must be protected as the most valuable resource that a person has.

I agree with the author that it is necessary to save time, because life is not limitless, and if a person wastes it, in the end he will be very disappointed that he did not have time to do anything, so you need to be responsible for spending time.

Examples of this problem can be found in the literature. The first work is The Cherry Orchard by A.P. Chekhov. Gaev and Ranevskaya were landowners who lived too richly for their modest incomes. As a result, the garden they loved so much had to be sold for debt. They had 2 months to find the money and thus save the garden. But they wasted that time, and paid the price. The estate was sold to the merchant Lopakhin, who was going to cut down the garden. Thus, we see that Gaev and Ranevskaya failed to properly manage their time. That is the reason they lost the cherry orchard. Lopakhin, on the other hand, worked hard and therefore had the funds for this purchase. Here are some results that the rational use of time can lead to.

The second example illustrating this problem is A. Green's Green Lamp. John Eve is an unfortunate poor man who does not have shelter and enough food. Once on the streets of London, Stilton, a rich man, approached him and made a strange proposal - to sit every evening in a room with a lamp lit on the windowsill and not talk to anyone. This made it possible for Yves to live without needing money. Stilton's calculation was that John would either drink himself out of boredom or lose his mind. But Yves was not a bum, he needed something to do. One day he found a reference book on anatomy. Medicine interested him, for a long time he worked hard and eventually achieved that he became a doctor. Stilton, on the other hand, went bankrupt and became a beggar. Thus, we see that a lot depends on how we use the time we have, sometimes even the fate of a person. Anyone who knows how to properly manage their watches will always be able to take their rightful place in society: Yves, for example, became a doctor.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that people should be able to rationally use their time, because this is the main factor in a person's success. The one who thinks that he has a lot of this resource and does not need to be protected will inevitably find himself in a difficult situation. Fate does not favor people who do not value the time they have. Therefore, I would like to advise people to use it rationally.

Essay 9 is about selfless help.

People always need help, but they receive it either disinterestedly or for a fee. Nowadays, the second option is more common, but then help becomes paid service. K. Paustovsky in his text raises the problem of selfless help, emphasizing its importance.

This passage is narrated in the first person. The author writes about the life of Gaidar. The first example illustrating the problem is found in sentences 3-33. It says that the narrator's son was seriously ill and needed a rare medicine, and then Arkady Petrovich decided to help him free of charge. He gathered the guys from the yard and asked them to go around as many pharmacies as possible in order to find the right medicine. They managed to do this, and the child was saved, but Gaidar did not demand any gratitude in return. Thus, the author shows how gratuitous assistance can save a person's life. In addition, sentences 36-48 present a second example of this problem. Paustovsky tells how Gaidar once, walking down the street with the narrator, saw that a pipe had burst in the garden, and from there water began to whip strongly onto the plants. He ran up to her, squeezed her with his palms and did not let go until the pipe was blocked. His face showed that he was in pain, but he continued to hold back the pressure of the water to save the plants. It should be noted that no one asked him about it. By this, the author shows that people who do gratuitous deeds help make the world a better place.

The position of the author is expressed through Gaidar's attitude to gratitude. Paustovsky writes: “He considered helping a person the same thing as, say, greeting. No one is thanked for saying hello to you.” The author believes that selfless help should be the norm of people's lives.

It is difficult to disagree with the position of the author. Indeed, if a person helps others disinterestedly, without demanding anything in return, then people will treat him with kindness and responsiveness. Such a person will never be alone and can always count on someone else's help.

Confirmation of the author's position can be found in fiction. In the work "Mimosa" A. Aleksin talks about Andrei, who was thinking what to give his wife Klava on March 8th. He wanted to present something special to her, because she always gave him the necessary and useful things. Andrei remembered that Klava loved mimosa, but on the eve of the holiday it was very difficult to get them. He was in the flower shop near the institute, and on the square near the station, and near the drama theater. There were no mimosas anywhere, they were all sold out. Then Andrei told the old salesman a story about how he tried to find a worthwhile gift for his wife. Then the merchant gave him a bouquet, which he hid for his daughter. It was absolutely kind and gratuitous help. The old man just felt sorry for Andrei, and he wanted him to be able to make a pleasant surprise for his wife. Thus, the author shows how a noble and disinterested act can help save a family.

As a second argument, one can cite another work by A. Aleksin - “Can you hear me?” In it, the author tells about a geologist who was on an expedition, but came to the village to get through to his wife by telegraph, but no one answered his call. He knew that on the other end of the line they should have answered him, because it was his birthday and they agreed to call. The telephone operator saw the experiences of the geologist and decided to help him. She violated her authority: she left her workplace and ran to the next room where the letters were kept. The girl found a telegram for the geologist, in which it was written that his wife was urgently sent on a business trip and she congratulated him on his birthday. The geologist was happy that his wife remembered him. So, A. Aleksin showed how gratuitous help can restore peace to a person.

Thus, from all of the above, we can conclude the following: selfless help is needed. Without it, it will be very difficult for a person to survive in modern world where most problems are solved with money. But, unfortunately or fortunately, not all.