Summary of a lesson on literature on the topic "L.N. Tolstoy. The main character of the story "Childhood", his actions and the spiritual world" (7th grade)

Introduction

1. The concept of conscience

1.1 Conscience and shame

1.2 Types of conscience according to Fromm

2.1 The task of conscience

2.2 Functions of conscience

3. Imperativeness of morality

4. The importance of conscience in pedagogy

5. Functioning of conscience

Conclusion

Bibliography

IN conducting

Conscience is a person’s ability to critically evaluate his actions, thoughts, and desires. At the same time, a person realizes and worries about an unfulfilled duty, unworthy behavior, which he “assesses” himself, and feels guilty.

Conscience is a person’s internal controller.

Moral values ​​guide a person in his behavior. This turns out to be possible not because it is beneficial or pleasant for a person to take them into account in his decisions and actions. These values ​​function in such a way that they influence the will of a person.

Moral values ​​are always proclaimed in a form that indicates the need for their practical implementation in actions. Following moral values ​​is perceived by a person as a duty.

If a person is calm when he fails to fulfill his duty, he is immoral, he is called “unscrupulous” - he has not learned, the most important moral guidelines have not been accepted by his soul. An unscrupulous person is restrained only by external control, otherwise he will harm others. Such people show their boundless malignity: they steal, lie, mock others without a twinge of conscience.

Psychologists have discovered: in families where there is hard external control and harsh punishments, there is a greater chance of raising an unscrupulous person. He will go towards his goal, neglecting all moral principles, not paying attention to the suffering of others. At the same time, families where trusting relationships prevail raise conscientious children who have a high level of internal self-control and moral reflection.

People who grow up in an atmosphere of attention and affection deeply internalize moral norms and ideals, they sympathize with others, perceive their suffering as their own and strive not to do evil.

1. The concept of conscience

Conscience is a person’s moral consciousness, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, prompting a person to make a conscious choice in favor of good.

When they talk about freedom of conscience, they mean the right of a person to profess any religion or not to profess any. The concept of conscience reflects the close connection between ethics and psychology.

Conscience is a trait of a person’s spiritual appearance, expressing his ability to internally evaluate his behavior, his feelings, as well as the actions and opinions of other people from the standpoint of good and evil.

Poor development of conscience in a person who, realizing that he has caused material or moral damage to someone, does not blame himself for this, does not feel shame, dissatisfaction with himself and the desire to improve the matter.

Conscience presupposes an individual's awareness of his duty and responsibility to himself and other people. In a difficult situation, conscience forces a person to behave in such a way as not to deserve reproach from loved ones and the entire people.

Conscience is an emotional phenomenon; it manifests itself through deep negative experiences, self-reproaches, reproaches, through a person’s anxiety and concern about the morality and humanity of his behavior.

Conscience is ours inner voice, which either accuses us from within and oppresses us, or gives us a feeling of joy and satisfaction for what we have done. This is our internal controller and judge, incorruptible and impartial. We cannot convince ourselves that we acted well and correctly when our conscience denounces us that we acted badly.

Famous Russian philologist D.N. Ushakov in his dictionary describes the concept of “conscience” as follows: conscience - internal assessment, internal consciousness of the morality of one’s actions, a sense of moral responsibility for one’s behavior. And in the dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron: conscience - moral consciousness a person, expressed in the assessment of one’s own and others’ actions, based on a certain criterion of good and evil.

According to V. Dahl: conscience is moral consciousness, moral sense or feeling in a person; inner consciousness of good and evil; the secret place of the soul, in which approval or condemnation of every action is echoed; the ability to recognize the quality of an action; a feeling that encourages truth and goodness, turning away from lies and evil; involuntary love for good and truth; innate truth, in varying degrees of development.

So, we have found out that conscience is a certain substance that is capable of appealing to our feelings and emotions, will and reason, encouraging us to act in accordance with what we consider good and right.

1.1 Conscience and shame

Indeed, the experience of shame and the feeling of conscience are related, but they should be distinguished.

A conscientious person, as he improves himself, places increasingly higher demands on himself. A clear conscience is the normal state of a person fulfilling a moral duty; it is a reward for moral efforts. Domestic scientist of the 20th century. G. Bandzeladze, believes that without clear conscience virtue would lose all value.

Conscience is intuitive, it perceives what is not yet there, therefore it must “work” before committing an act. Experiences after an offense will already be a shame. Conscience is activated only when a person knows moral standards. If he does not know them and is “morally innocent,” then his conscience cannot speak.

A person’s conscience is essentially independent of the opinions of others. In this, conscience differs from another internal control mechanism of consciousness - shame . Shame and conscience are generally quite close.

Conscience is called " moral principle"or "the structure of internal discipline." One can support T. Florenskaya’s position in the difference between shame and conscience: shame is before another for oneself, conscience is based on compassion for another because of oneself, as the culprit of suffering.

Shame also reflects a person’s awareness of his (as well as those close to and involved in him) inconsistency with some accepted norms or expectations of others and, therefore, guilt. However, shame is completely focused on the opinions of other people who can express their condemnation of the violation of norms, and the experience of shame is stronger, the more important and meaningful these people are for a person. Therefore, an individual may experience shame - even for random, unforeseen results of actions or for actions that seem normal to him, but which, as he knows, are not recognized as such by the environment. The logic of shame is something like this: “They think this way about me. They are wrong. And yet I am ashamed because they think so about me.”

Shame is emotional condition or a deep human experience that arises as a result of the discrepancy between one’s behavior and accepted norms and the person’s awareness that he acted dishonestly or ridiculously (the traditional interpretation of dictionaries and reference books).

The logic of conscience is different. Conscience is called a "moral principle" or a "structure of internal discipline." One can support T. Florenskaya’s position in the difference between shame and conscience: shame is before another for oneself, conscience is based on compassion for another because of oneself, as the culprit of suffering.

And this was understood historically quite early.

Democritus, who lived at the turn of the 5th and 4th centuries. BC does not yet know the special word “conscience”. But he demands a new understanding of the shameful: “Do not say or do anything bad, even if you are alone. learn to be much more ashamed of yourself than of others.” And in another place: “You should be ashamed of yourself as of others, and equally not do anything bad, whether it remains unknown to anyone or everyone knows about it. But most of all one should be ashamed of oneself, and the law should be inscribed in every soul: “Do not do anything indecent.”

Conscience is intuitive, and a person who “has it” knows how to feel it and relies on it in his choices. Such a person always acts thoughtfully, honestly, without causing harm to himself or the world around him.

We say about him “a conscientious person”, “lives according to his conscience”.

Conscience cannot be taught. Conscience is personal experience mature person. In the process of raising a child, we give him only the prerequisites for feeling his conscience. Each person, growing up, goes through his own path of improvement.

1.2 Types of conscience according to E. Fromm

Psychoanalyst E. Fromm believes that there are two types of conscience - authoritarian and humanistic.

Authoritarian conscience expresses our submission to external authority. With an authoritarian conscience, we uncritically accept the commands of some external force, religious or social, and carry out its will because we are afraid. Submitting to an authoritarian conscience out of fear of punishment, a person follows commands that are far from his own interests.

The authorities pursue their own selfish goals and use individuals only as a means, forcing them into submission through the formation of mechanisms of authoritarian conscience. If a person deviates from the orders of the authorities, he feels guilty before it and suffers, fearing subsequent punishment. But as soon as people understand that power has lost its power and cannot harm them in any way, they immediately lose their authoritarian conscience and no longer submit to what they were timid and bowed to yesterday.

Humanistic conscience according to Fromm is the voice of the person himself, better start in him, capable of self-development. Humanistic conscience does not allow people to be slaves, to meekly submit to other people's interests, or to waste their lives in vain. She calls for self-realization, for embodying the best of your strengths and capabilities in order to build your life in harmony with other people. Sometimes the voice of conscience sounds indirectly through the fear of old age or death, when a person suddenly realizes that he has failed and has not fulfilled his duty to himself.

Essay on the topic “Are you ever merciless to yourself? tell us about one of these cases"

Ruthlessness - strong feeling, which consists in not sparing yourself, but on the contrary, being very critical of your personality and not making the slightest mistakes.
Most likely for different people this feeling can have both a positive and negative direction. For example, if a person has conceived a dream and is ready to go towards it no matter what, he must be merciless to himself. To achieve the dream of your whole life, you need to work hard, not be distracted by anything extraneous and boldly go towards your goal no matter what. If in this case, you give yourself some slack and relax, then nothing good will come of it. Ruthlessness towards yourself will act as an additional incentive. But if a person has weak character, then additional nagging and soul-searching, on the contrary, can lead to deep mental disorders and depression.
In my opinion, being merciless to yourself means too much self-examination, some kind of unreasonable nagging and a strong desire to do something perfectly. The only time I am merciless with myself is when I am preparing for final exams. I really want to go to one prestigious university. And for this I must prepare well and write the Unified State Examination high scores. It’s not easy at all, but if I give myself some slack and tell myself internally that I’ll stop working so hard and it’ll do, then my dream will never come true. Sometimes even my mother notices this and tells me to take a little break and rest. But I will rest when I pass the Unified State Exam with high scores.
In other cases, I am less merciless and demanding of myself. Of course, I try to be responsive and kind, always come to the aid of my comrades and provide various assistance. But here it seems to me that you need to know when to stop. Otherwise, you risk becoming very intrusive and all your help will be of no use.

I believe that an adult woman is physiologically polygamous but emotionally monogamous, while an adult man is emotionally polygamous but physiologically monogamous. (Alan Brian)

If something doesn’t go well with your husband, try to evaluate yourself critically: are you always right, have you always been a good wife and lifelong friend for your husband? Or maybe it’s worth giving in, forgiving, tempering your pride?

If you made a mistake in choosing a husband, then it is only your fault and no one else's. Maybe your mother didn’t advise you to get married so early or specifically to him, but you did it your way. If you had enough strength of character to insist on your own, then there is no point in blaming fate for the fact that you “got a bad husband.” He wasn't always like this. There was probably a lot in it positive qualities, which were decisive for your decision to connect your destiny with him. So where did all the good things you used to like about him go? Most likely, you missed something in your relationship that has changed your husband for the worse.

Or maybe your spouse is not so “bad”, but you just want him to be the way you see the ideal husband or the life partner of your friend? Do you yourself look like this friend and treat your spouse in exactly the same way as she does?

Maybe you yourself have changed during this time, and everything positive that attracted your life partner to you and led him to the decision to link his destiny with yours has also been lost, and he is also dissatisfied with you, just as you are with him? Think about this calmly and sensibly, without offense or ambition.

Look at how happily married couples behave - the same as you and your husband or is it different? Perhaps you should learn from them how to behave correctly in your family?

Raising a child is work, isn't it? Daily and systematic, throughout the entire time until he becomes independent (although your child will seem to you to be dependent until gray hair, and you will always try to interfere in his life). In the same way, “raising” your other half is also work, and also daily and systematic.

Parents raise their children not with words, but more with personal example. If they tell him: “Never lie, be honest, truthful, treat people well, don’t quarrel with your peers, don’t fight, respect girls,” and at the same time they lie to each other (sometimes involving their child in this: “ Don’t tell mom (dad) about this!”), they quarrel, make scandals, and act dishonestly towards them. to someone, then the child perceives not the words of the parents, but the stereotype of their relationships and behavior. I always tell my patients: “U good parents good kids". And this is indeed true.

By the way, this simple truth is an epiphany for many.

I once talked to a woman who complained about her children: her son, in her opinion, was completely out of control, didn’t listen to her, did everything in defiance, as if out of spite, and her daughter had become secretive, didn’t tell her anything, everything free time spends with her boyfriend.

My interlocutor is worthy of respect in all respects - she is a calm, reasonable woman, has achieved a lot in life, leads a large team, earns good money, a good relationship with husband. He respects and appreciates her, and she does him too. The only thing that bothered her was the children.

Having heard from me that good parents have good children, at first my interlocutor stared at me in amazement, and then her facial expression changed: “But really... I just cling to them. Apparently, I want them to correspond to my ideas of what they should be. But in fact, there is nothing to cling to them... Both are good students, the son has already chosen his profession, he is independent, although it seemed to me that he was too independent. But I imposed my opinion on him... And he already has his own. At his age, I also strived for independence. And my daughter is the same as I was at her age. I also quarreled with my parents when they forbade me to go out with the boys.”

There is more stupidity in the world than fools - due to the smart ones who don't get along. (V. Borisov)

This woman changed her vision and attitude towards children. She realized that they were the same as she herself was at their age, and they took after her in character. My interlocutor has achieved a lot thanks to her independent character, why can’t children follow her path?! They are not at all obstinate and disobedient - they simply want to be independent.

She stopped nagging them and “instructing them on the right path,” and as a result, peace was restored: both son and daughter became more open, seeing in her not a strict mother, but an interlocutor with whom they could talk as equals, openly and confidentially. All they needed to do was change their perspective on the problem, look at themselves from the outside, remember what they were like at their age and admit that they were wrong.

If you are not reciprocated, reciprocate. (A Breiter)

Hence Feedback: bad children means that they have bad parents. If you are not satisfied with something in your child, look at yourself from the outside: have you always been an example for him, worthy of emulation? Or did you tell him one thing and do something else?

Is the moral clear, dear readers? The principle: “Scolds the cat so that the daughter-in-law can hear” is also applicable to adults.

I don’t know whether women really have as much sense as men, but I know for sure that they have much less unreasonableness. (Johann Seime.)

Take a look at yourself and answer the following questions:

Do you often discuss with your husband not material, household matters or problems with children, but some abstract topics that are interesting to both of you?

Do you know what your husband's hobbies are?

Do you treat his hobbies with understanding, even if it is football, hockey, fishing or his car?

Do you often talk about topics that interest your husband?

Do you know how to carry on a conversation, and are other people interested in talking to you?

Do you know about modern problems societies other than material ones?

Are you an interesting person to talk to?

Do you have own opinion to problems not related to your work, mutual friends, relatives and household chores?

Are you sure that your husband is not bored with you and has nothing to talk to you about except “municipal” problems?

Do you read serious books (detectives and romance novels doesn't count)?

Do you watch news, serious programs and good films(talk shows, romance dramas and television series do not count)?

Would you say that you are open-minded and interested in global issues?

Does it happen that you often call your friend to show off your new acquisition or excitedly discuss purely women's problems?

Try to answer these questions impartially, and if you get many more “no” answers than “yes”, maybe then it will become clear to you why your husband is in Lately stopped talking to you, except for discussing pressing everyday issues. Or maybe he is bored with you, and he does not take into account your opinion, because he considers you limited?

“Municipal and everyday” topics are of little interest to men, but they are forced to talk about them when the wife constantly complains about her difficulties. But it doesn’t give my husband any pleasure.

Women are better at understanding trifles, and men are better at understanding nonsense. (E. Panteleev)

Looking at yourself objectively is not harmful for husbands either. “My wife and I are not interested, there is nothing to talk about,” some grimace. Is his wife interested in him? What can he tell her, besides the usual chatter in a male company, which for some reason the stronger sex calls “male talk”?

“My wife no longer worries me sexually,” some husbands explain their infidelities. “She’s old and fat.” Has he himself become younger and prettier over the years? If a man has a bald head and a substantial paunch, and he himself is not young for a long time, then an attractive young predator may be excited by his wallet (if it is full enough), but unlikely by him.

Let's say a man is more interested in a woman's appearance, and he would like his life partner to meet his requirements. However, women also have their own requirements, first of all, to personal qualities - that the husband be a real man, decisive and strong, that he become her real support, many decided important issues. But if the husband does not meet these requirements, then does he have the moral right to demand from the woman that she meet his ideas of attractiveness?..

Left a reply Guest

Nikolai Petrovich Irtenyev is the main character of L.N. Tolstoy’s story “Childhood,” a ten-year-old boy from a noble family. This is a cheerful, kind and well-mannered boy who grows up in love and care. Not only his parents take part in his upbringing, but also his nanny Natalya Savishna and teacher Karl Ivanovich. He loves his parents very much and is proud of them. In his eyes these are the most beautiful and sincere loving people. For him, his mother is the source of everything beautiful. When he thinks about her, he always imagines her kind smile and the sweet sounds of her voice. Nikolenka’s love for her mother was akin to love for God.

Feelings for other people occupy special place in his life. The boy's good disposition also manifests itself when playing with the neighboring children. He sympathizes with the sickly Ilenko Grap from a poor family. In the village he treats Katenka with love, in Moscow he is literally in love with Sonechka Valakhina. He likes to meet new children, for example, the Ivins' relatives. Nikolenka Irtenyev is a peculiar boy, even an extraordinary one. He learned early to distinguish falsehood and does not like deception. He is contradictory and observant by nature. He wrote poems for his grandmother's birthday and was very excited when they were read out loud.

He remembers the happy time spent in the village with both longing and a smile. Nikolenka's childhood ended with the death of her mother. Having lost the most beloved person in the world, he stopped being small. The Irtenyev family moved to Moscow, but every time he was in the village, he visited his mother’s grave.

Mama

Mama is the mother of the main character of L. N. Tolstoy’s story “Childhood”. Nikolenka Irtenev remembers his mother with endless love and gratitude. She was the source of everything beautiful for him. Every morning Nikolenka went down to the living room to say hello to his mother, and it seemed to him that there was no more beautiful and kinder person in the world than this woman. He also treated his father well and he was an indisputable authority for the boy. However, his feelings for his mother overwhelmed him, which is why he saw in her only a kind smile and caring eyes. She always addressed Nikolenka with emphatic affection, using expressions such as “my darling”, “my angel”.

Like any mother, she wanted her children to remember her love. When Nikolenka and her brother left for Moscow, after a while their mother caught a bad cold and fell ill. The father urgently brought the boys back to the village so they could see their mother. There they learned the bitter truth about their mother's condition. She could not get up for six days, and her eyes could no longer see her. This was a huge shock for Nikolenka. After his mother's death, it was as if he grew up in one day. The boy's childhood ended overnight. Mama was buried in the village, not far from her kind and devoted nanny Natalya Savishna.

Natalya Savishna

Natalya Savishna is a minor character in Tolstoy’s story “Childhood”, who played an important role in developing the character of the main character, ten-year-old Nikolenka, as well as in revealing his attitude towards other people. Natalya Savishna served in the Irtenyevs' house from time immemorial. She was responsible for the keys to the pantry and was a domineering woman by nature, so the servants in the house were afraid of her.

In her youth, Natasha, on the contrary, was meek and diligent. It was for these qualities that she was chosen to play the role of nanny for little Natalya Nikolaevna, Nikolenka’s mother. Soon the heroine fell in love with the lively waiter Foku and, without the blessing of the owners, married him, for which she was banished to the barnyard. However, the house quickly realized that they could not find a similar replacement for the role of nanny and brought her back. Natasha repented, said that she would not do this in the future, and transferred all her supply of love to the little young lady.

When she assumed the position of governess, she received the keys to the pantry. From then on, everyone called her Natalya Savishna and she walked around with a cap on her head. In gratitude for her devoted love, Nikolenka’s mother, when she got married, took her with her. At the same time, she presented her with a freestyle, but left the choice to Natalya Savishna herself. At first she didn’t like this document at all. She decided that the gentlemen wanted to get rid of her in this way. However, Natalya Nikolaevna personally asked her to stay, because without her the house was not a home.

The heroine did not like to talk much about herself. All her thoughts were aimed at creating comfort for those around her. Her selfless love for people made them kinder, more humane. She loved Natalya Nikolaevna’s children as if they were her own. Although she once got seriously angry with Nikolenka for spilling kvass on the tablecloth and even beat her with a wet tablecloth. However, seeing how upset he was, she herself asked him for forgiveness. To the boy, the old woman’s kindness seemed endless, he even burst into tears, but “not from anger, but from love and shame.”