Argumentation of your own opinion on the problem.
What is an argument?
In the essay, you must express your opinion on the formulated problem, agreeing or disagreeing with the position of the author, as written in the assignment of part C. In your answer, you must give two arguments, based on knowledge, life or reading experience.
note
It is not enough to just formally state your opinion: I agree (disagree) with the author. Your position, even if it coincides with the author’s, must be formulated in a separate sentence.
For example: Thus, the author seeks to convey to the reader the idea that nature has long been in need of the help of each of us. I completely agree with the author and also believe that humanity should reconsider its consumer attitude towards nature.
Your position must then be supported by two arguments. In this part of the work, you must strictly follow the rules for constructing a reasoning text. Argumentation is the presentation of evidence, explanations, examples to substantiate any idea in front of listeners (readers) or an interlocutor.
Arguments are evidence given in support of a thesis: facts, examples, statements, explanations - in a word, everything that can confirm the thesis.
Illustrating the argument
An important element of argumentation is illustrations, i.e. examples that support the argument.
Argument collection:
Arguments worth two points
Types of arguments
There are different classifications of arguments. For example, there are logical arguments - these are arguments that appeal to human reason, to reason (scientific axioms, laws of nature, statistical data, examples from life and literature), and psychological arguments - arguments that evoke certain feelings, emotions in the addressee and form a certain attitude towards the person, object, phenomenon being described (the emotional conviction of the writer, appeal to universal human values, etc.).
The main thing that the essay writer should know is that the arguments you use “have different weights,” that is, they are assessed with different points.
Some arguments are worth one point, while others are worth two.
Please note that arguments worth two points always include a reference to the author and title of the work. In addition, when talking about a literary text, it is not enough to simply mention the author and the title of the work ( L.N. Tolstoy reflects on the problem of patriotism in the novel “War and Peace”), you must also indicate specific characters, their actions, words, thoughts that demonstrate the connection of the work of art you mention with the problem discussed in the source text.
For example: M. Gorky wrote very emotionally and expressively about the problem of humanism in his story “The Old Woman Izergil.” Danko, the hero of one of the legends, sacrificed his life to save his people. He appeared just when people needed help, and led them, desperate and embittered, through the forest to freedom. The feat of Danko, who tore his heart out of his chest to illuminate the path to freedom, is a stunning example of true humanism and boundless love for people.
Proverbs, sayings, and aphorisms can be considered as an argument, worth 2 points, but only if they are accompanied by explanations and your reflections on their content. For example: It is no coincidence that folk wisdom affirms the unconditional value of friendship: “Do not have a hundred rubles, but have a hundred friends”; “An old friend is better than two new ones”, “Look for a friend, and if you find him, take care of him”... Indeed, true friends are ready to share grief and joy with you, to come to the rescue in difficult times. It is friends who make us understand that we are not alone in this world.
It must be said that any example from fiction, scientific or journalistic literature should be “framed” by your reasoning, emphasizing the connection of the given example with the problem you are considering.
When giving an example from journalistic literature, also do not forget, in addition to the author’s surname, to indicate the title of the note, article, essay and, if possible, the name of the publication in which this material was published.
TV journalist Oleg Ptashkin reflects on the problem of the influence of television on modern Russian society in his article “Trash-TV”, published on the website www.gazeta.ru. According to the author, modern television in Russia is experiencing an acute crisis - a crisis of ideas and meaning. Those who create television programs do not think at all about the public benefit. The journalist is concerned that modern media propagate lack of spirituality and immorality, teaching people the idea that a normal life for the sake of family, children, and success at work is the lot of losers. The author is convinced that the main task of modern television is education: it should teach people to honor family, parents, and cultural traditions. Only then will television contribute to the revival of spirituality.
Everything that was said earlier also applies to examples from the scientific literature.
People who do not give in to life's difficulties, who boldly face the truth, are the masters of their destiny. Historian Lev Gumilyov in his work “Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth” called such people passionaries. Among them are many great historical figures, famous military leaders, fighters for freedom and human rights, and each of them contributed to the development of society.
In search of compelling arguments, some students boldly come up with the names of “famous publicists” or the titles of non-existent works, sometimes attributing them to famous writers. For example: In one of his works, “Nature,” the Russian writer I. S. Turgenev reflects on the relationship between nature and man.
The critic Belinsky in his article “On Humanity” wrote that people should help each other.
You can also cite as an example the story of A. Pristavkin “The War of Russians and Chechens.”
Rest assured: all such “opuses” will be classified as factual errors, which means that you will not only not earn points for argumentation, but will also lose 1 point for violating factual accuracy.
Arguments worth one point
Arguments rated 1 point are, as a rule, easier to select, and therefore their “specific weight” is lower. Most of them in one way or another rely on our life experience, our observations of our lives, the lives of other people or society as a whole.
Examples from life. Despite the fact that the graduate’s life experience is not yet very great, in his life or the lives of others you can find examples of good or bad deeds, manifestations of friendly feelings, honesty, kindness or callousness, selfishness.
Be careful with this type of argument because, in our experience of checking essays, most of them are simply made up by students and the persuasiveness of such arguments is highly questionable. For example:
I have seen from my own experience the dangers of cheap literature. After one of these books, I got a severe headache. This a book about a failed thief. Terrible nonsense! Indeed, I was afraid that I would get brain cancer after reading this book. Terrible feeling!
Let me give you an example from my personal life: people are sitting on the street without shelter, without food, absolutely without anything. They sit and ask for money for some food.
Unfortunately, my limited life experience does not allow me to express my broad opinion on this issue.
Especially often in such grief-arguments, various relatives, friends and acquaintances appear, with whom extremely instructive stories happen. For example:
I know one person who ignored (?!) the illness and death of his father. Now his children are not helping him.
My grandfather told me that his dad was in the detachment in 1812 (?!) when troops under the command of Napoleon began to attack Moscow.
A good example of the problem with this text are some of my classmates. Obviously, they were raised too little, and they were not accustomed to work from childhood, so they do nothing.
Much less common are examples from life that can be considered suitable arguments:
I became convinced that there are not only indifferent people. Two years ago, trouble came to our family - there was a fire. Relatives, neighbors, acquaintances and even just people who knew about our misfortune helped us as best they could. I am very grateful to everyone who did not remain indifferent and helped me and my family in difficult times.
Observations of the lives of people and society as a whole look more convincing, since individual facts in such examples are generalized and drawn up in the form of certain conclusions:
I believe that empathy and compassion are instilled in people from childhood. If a child was surrounded by care and affection, then, as he grows up, he will give this goodness to others.
However, arguments of this type may look curious and not the most convincing:
Probably all mothers and grandmothers are fond of women's novels. Women read all sorts of books, and then suffer from why theirs is not the same as in the book.
Speculative examples are thoughts about what might happen under certain conditions:
I can’t imagine my life without books: without textbooks that help us understand the world, without fiction, revealing the secrets of human relationships and forming moral values. Such a life would be incredibly poor and boring.
“Blind faith has evil eyes,” the Polish writer Stanislaw Jerzy Lec once accurately remarked.
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky reflected on the essence of literary talent: “Talent is the ability to say or express well where mediocrity will say and express poorly.” “For others, nature is firewood, coal, ore, or a dacha, or just a landscape. For me, nature is the environment from which, like flowers, all our human talents grew,” wrote Mikhail Prishvin.
Remember that the persons whose statements you refer to must actually be authorities in a particular field. For example, the Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza generally doubted the significance of such arguments and believed that “a reference to authority is not an argument.”
At their core, proverbs and sayings are a type of reference to authority. The strength of these arguments lies in the fact that we appeal to the authority of folk wisdom. Remember that a simple mention of proverbs, sayings, and catchwords, not accompanied by your reflections on their content, is scored 1 point.
It is no coincidence that Russian proverbs affirm the value of the experience of older generations: “A parent’s word is not spoken to the wind; He who honors his parents will never perish.”
References to films, which have recently been frequently found in essays, most often indicate a narrow outlook and little reading experience. We are convinced that examples of friendship, humane treatment of people or heroic deeds can always be found not only in the films “Avatar” or “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” but also on the pages of works of art.
It seems to me that the fate of the heroine of V. Menshov’s film “Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears” can serve as an excellent confirmation of the author’s idea that a person should strive to realize his dreams. Katerina worked in a factory, raised a child herself, graduated from college in absentia and, as a result, achieved success - she became director of the plant. Thus, each of us has the power to achieve our dreams. It is only necessary to bring its implementation closer with every step, with every action.
(It may be noted that confirmation of the author’s thoughts could be found in the fate of Alexander Grigoriev, the hero of V. Kaverin’s novel “Two Captains”, or cite the example of Alexei Meresyev from the work of B. Polevoy “The Tale of a Real Man”, or recall Assol from story of the same name by A. Green.)
Argument structure
When writing an essay, you should remember that between the thesis and two arguments confirming your position, there should be a clear connection, which is usually expressed by so-called “logical transitions” - statements connecting known information in the text with new information. In addition, each argument is accompanied by a “micro-conclusion” - a statement that sums up some thoughts.
Failure to comply with this structure (in essence, any paragraph of coherent text is built according to this scheme) often leads to logical errors.
Typical Argumentation Errors
What does the expert check?
The expert highlights that part of the essay text that performs the function of argumentation. Then he establishes the correspondence of the argument to the asserted (the argument must prove exactly what is asserted), assesses the degree of persuasiveness, which can manifest itself both in strict logic and in emotional evaluation and figurative expression.
The expert determines the number of arguments, as well as the correspondence of the argument to the semantic function: the given example should not just act as a vivid narrative or descriptive microtext, but prove or disprove this or that statement.
The maximum score (3) for criterion K4 is given for work in which the examinee expressed his opinion on the problem he formulated (agreeing or disagreeing with the position of the author), gave reasons for it (gave at least 2 arguments, one of which is taken from fiction, journalistic or scientific literature).
Argumentation strategies:
The most difficult stage is selection of arguments. The construction of an argument can be based on two principles: on affirming one’s own thesis and on refuting the opponent’s thesis (the latter is easier, because the opponent takes on the work of generating new ideas, and you can only criticize his ideas).
With the confirmation strategy, a person gives arguments that confirm his thesis (we do not take the kindergarten situation, when the thesis is simply repeated many times, but without a single piece of evidence).
Direct confirmation of the thesis.
Thesis: squirrels are dangerous animals.
Argument: because they attack people.
It still happens indirect confirmation, when another position is deduced from a thesis, its truth is proven and then the truth of the first thesis is proven.
Thesis: Squirrels are dangerous animals.
Additional thesis: Bites from dangerous animals require medical supervision.
Argument: Indeed, after being bitten by a squirrel, you will have to visit the emergency room and get a rabies vaccination. This proves that squirrels are dangerous.
Refutation strategy:
direct refutation :
Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.
Refuting the counterthesis: Squirrels spoil their habitat, i.e. they are not harmless.
It also happens indirect refutation. Then the person himself deduces certain provisions from the counterthesis (thesis of the opponent), refutes them, and thus refutes the counterthesis itself.
Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.
Additional counterpoint:Harmless animals are kept at home.
Refutation of the counterthesis: No one keeps squirrels at home, only fans , which means that proteins are not harmless and unsafe.
Another good way to fight an opponent is refutation of arguments, which leads to the recognition of the unfoundedness of the counterthesis and to the reinforcement of the thesis.
Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.
Argument: These are small animals compared to humans.
Refutation of the argument: Viruses are also small, but they can cause enormous harm to humans. So size doesn't matter here.
Another way to refute is refutation of the demonstration, i.e. proof that valid arguments in themselves do not involve a counterthesis.
Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.
Argument: Squirrels are beautiful and graceful.
Demonstration rebuttal: Yes, squirrels are beautiful and graceful, but this does not affect their safety in any way. Jaguars are also beautiful and graceful, but would anyone agree to meet one-on-one with a hungry jaguar at night?
Argument types:
The arguments are divided into:
1. natural evidence: arguments to the obvious(eyewitness accounts, documents, examination data, scientific experiment - “tangible” evidence)
2. artificial evidence(other)
Artificial evidence :
- logical (arguments to logos)
There are two types logical proofs: syllogism(particularity is proved using general statements) and guidance(the general statement is proved on the basis of particulars).
This corresponds to two methods of drawing conclusions: deduction(from the general to the specific) and induction(from the particulars a conclusion about the general is drawn). Sherlock Holmes, who always shouted about the deductive method, actually used the inductive method (derived the whole from particulars). Induction can fail, because from several particular facts we can draw some conclusion, and then one fact will take it and refute it (for example, we decide on the basis of observations that all pigeons are blue, and then some white scoundrel will fly in and that’s all will spoil).
Examples of syllogisms :
A syllogism usually includes two premises and a conclusion.
The premises and conclusion are propositions.
There are four types of judgments: general affirmative (all objects that have a certain property also have another property);
All people are mortal
private affirmative (some objects that have a certain property also have another property);
Some people are men
general negative(not a single object that has a certain property has another property); No man is a plant
partial negative (some objects that have a certain property do not have another property)
Some people are not children
A judgment is divided into a subject (what is said) and a predicate (what is new that is reported about the subject).
All professors (M) have an academic degree (P)(includes a conclusion predicate: major premise).
Panteley Prokofich Kryndylyabrov (S) – professor (M) (includes the subject of the conclusion: small premise).
Panteley Prokofich ( S ) has an academic degree (P).
All professors are the subject of a statement. Have an academic degree - a predicate.
Panteley Prokofich is a subject. Professor is a predicate.
Panteley Prokofich is again a subject. Has an academic degree – predicate.
There must be a coincidence of subjects and predicates, otherwise the syllogism will be meaningless (we equated the subject of the first premise with the subject of the second, after which the predicate of the first premise turned out to be a predicate for the second).
There are large (P), small ( S ) and the middle (M) member of the syllogism. The middle member acts as a mediator and does not appear in the conclusion (in our case, this is the professor). Large penis - in this case it means “having an advanced degree.” Small member - Panteley Prokofich.
Not all syllogisms are equally correct (not all yoghurts are equally healthy).
The conscious construction of an incorrect syllogism results in sophistry (“People eat bread.Pigs eat bread.Therefore, people are pigs."). There are syllogisms in which the error was made unintentionally.
For example: Many candidates of science are associate professors. Pasha Zyabkin – PhD. Pasha Zyabkin – associate professor.
In fact, Pasha Zyabkin may or may not be an associate professor: not all candidates of science are also associate professors, these are two partially intersecting sets, and Pasha Zyabkin can either be part of both sets or belong to one of them, i.e. e. many candidates.
There are multi-story syllogisms (complex).
Men like Angelina Jolie.
Men like beautiful women.
If men like Angelina Jolie, then she is a beautiful woman.
Women who look like Angelina Jolie are also beautiful.
Dunya looks like Angelina Jolie, which means Dunya is also beautiful.
Guidance(inductive method)
It often leads to errors because it forces one to accept as truth a conclusion that concerns only part of the phenomena.
For example: I saw only rock pigeons on the streets of the city. Pigeons are only gray.
Close to induction is analogy(the properties of one object known to us are transferred to another). Unlike induction, we are talking about a single object about which we know something, and the transfer is also carried out to a single object, and not to a class of beings/substances.
For example: I'll take a red apple. I don’t want to take the green one - it’s for sure sour. Yesterday I ate a green apple and it was terribly sour.
This physical analogy . Within its framework, similar or identical objects are compared.
Is there some more figurative analogy. It allows you to pair distant objects.
For example: A good marriage is everything equals what comfortable house slippers.
- arguments for ethos (mores)/ethical arguments (reliance on the collective experience of society)
arguments for empathy (mention of qualities that are positioned as praiseworthy in society)
a) direct attacks on a person (my opponent is a cretin)
b) indirect attack (my opponent is interested in the results of the discussion, so his opinion cannot be considered objective)
c) an indication that the person has previously said or done something different
- arguments for pathos(passions)/emotional arguments (reliance on a person’s individual experience)
The author evokes certain, pre-programmed emotions (positive or negative) in the audience. In this case, arguments can be directed at the audience itself, at the speaker (certain feelings should arise towards him) or at third parties (feelings towards them)
a) arguments for the promise (promises)
b) arguments for threat (intimidation of the audience)
reasons to trust
If we are talking about logical proof, the argument for trust is that, along with logical reasoning, the person to whom this reasoning belongs is indicated, and, as a rule, a characteristic of this person is given that corresponds to the “logos” spirit, such as “the great thinker of antiquity ", "famous logician of the twentieth century", "Chinese sage", etc.Sometimes names speak for themselves, and then the usual way of introducing them is as follows: “Even Socrates believed that...”, “Aristotle himself, the father of logic, believed that...”. As a third party when bringing logical proof experts may speak.
A reference to authority in an argument to ethos most often contains a characterization of authority (from the “ethos” side) and an indication of the addressee of the speech. Her usual scheme is as follows: “So-and-so, and he knows a lot about this, said that we often forget about so-and-so.”
A reference to authority in an argument for pathos also usually contains a characterization of the authority itself. This can be not only an authority in the proper meaning of the word, but also a little-known person who has become an authority as a person who has experienced what is stated in the threat or promise. Moreover, in the latter case, the third party can be called generically: “Every American will tell you that...”, “There is no need to explain to those who experienced the horrors of war that...”, “Those who lived under socialism remember perfectly well how...”.
d gadflies to mistrust
Distrust in an argument about logos is created by the fact that a deliberately incorrect statement is given, belonging to a person whose logical abilities the author doubts. In this case, the “expert in not his field” effect is also often used.
Distrust in the argument for ethos is created by the fact that some person is qualified as not knowing people (most often very specific people, a given social or age group), not understanding their ethical principles. For example: “So-and-so speaks with great feeling about the problems of young people. But he apparently forgot how young people live. And he simply has no idea about today’s youth, their thoughts and feelings.”
Distrust when arguing for pathos (a threat or promise) is created in a similar way: it is shown that the person appealing to pathos does not know the people to whom he is appealing well. For example: “He promises hungry old people Snickers and discos! He invites them to enjoy the sounds of heavy metal, but they need free medical care!” Or: “Is he threatening the rebels with war? People who have been carrying weapons with them for forty years! Yes...It’s unlikely that this politician will be able to control people!”
Argument selection strategy:
When choosing arguments, you need to consider the following:
Strong arguments are natural evidence:
Judgments based on precisely established facts, documented
Experimental results
Testimony of disinterested and competent eyewitnesses
Expert opinions
Statistical calculations
And:
Quotes from statutes, laws, regulations, etc.
However, even with such arguments you can fight (if you really need it):
Facts may be accurate, but they can be interpreted in your own way (for example, doubt the chain of cause and effect)
The opinions of experts and authorities can be challenged by calling into question their right to conduct an examination, their validity as specialists, their disinterest in the results, and you can also clarify whether the experts’ opinion concerned this particular situation or whether this opinion was simply far-fetched
Witnesses can be suspected of being interested and that they were unable to soberly assess the situation/amnesia
Statistical calculations can be accused of being unrepresentative (are you sure you surveyed the entire population of the globe?)
Weak arguments admit:
Conclusions from questionable statistics (five people interviewed in a nightclub)
Reasoning with incorrect use of the syllogism scheme
Sophistry, reasoning with a deliberate logical error (“Horns”)
Contrived analogies (the analogy between playing basketball and driving a car)
One-sidedly selected aphorisms and sayings
Generalizations
Assumptions based on personal experience
Insolventthe following arguments:
Conclusions based on manipulated facts
- speculation
Advance promises not supported by deeds, personal assurances (I guarantee you..., I assure you as a specialist..., I ask you to just take it on faith...)
You should not give too many arguments: a large number of arguments, especially arguments of different sizes, leads to a loss of persuasiveness, to the devaluation of each specific argument.
Individual arguments should not be abandoned if all together they create a convincing picture (a situation where only the sum of the arguments can be convincing, but not each of the arguments separately). Let's say we're trying to justify a murder charge against the son of a dead man. We do not have direct evidence, but we can show with the help of a sum of arguments that it was the son who was most interested in the death of his father and had the best opportunities for murder.
You should not use arguments that the opposite side can use to their advantage. The destructive power of your own argument, used by your enemies, increases many times over.
Argumentation errors are:
1) mistakes related to thesis
Substitution of the thesis– in the process of argumentation, the author begins to prove a different thesis, not the one he outlined at the beginning. This can be done on purpose, or it can be done accidentally.
Proof of absurd theses .
2) errors related to arguments
Use of false premises (a good driver never gets into an accident).
3) demo related errors
As arguments, premises that are not related to the thesis are used (first a company of four people came to the cafe, then a company of three, the next visitors will be a couple).
Does a person who loves only himself have a conscience? How does this love manifest itself in his actions? These and other questions are asked by the Russian Soviet writer E.A. Permyak.
This text raises the problem of selfishness and pride. In it, three brothers received happy hours, thereby gaining the opportunity to manage their time, which could only be obtained by helping and paying attention to others. However, they did not do this and continued to live for their own pleasure, subsequently completely losing the time given to them. “What can he say if he also has no conscience left to start a happy watch with?” This problem is relevant. Nowadays, selfishness has become widespread. People stopped seeing the world around us, they often began to think only about themselves, their work is aimed only at transforming and improving their own lives. “It’s not for nothing that one wise man said: “A man is learned through work.”
All his work, all his deeds and thoughts are aimed at creating a better future for himself.
This problem is found in a large amount of fiction. For example, in N.V. Gogol’s work “Dead Souls” one can see a large number of selfish landowners. One of them is the main character, the landowner Chichikov. From early childhood it was instilled in him that he had to live richly. This gave rise to feelings of pride in him. Chichikov, despite the great big problems of society, poverty and hunger of the peasants, continued to increase his own financial condition. Other landowners did the same. They all worked only for the good of their own lives.
If you turn to B. Vasiliev’s work “My Horses Are Flying,” you can see a completely opposite picture. Dr. Jansen was a sincere and sympathetic person. He was always in a hurry to visit his sick patients, but never in a hurry to leave them. Jansen wanted to help everyone with all his heart. This was shown by his last act. When the little boys fell into a sewer well, Jansen, without thinking about the consequences for himself, rushed to their aid; he understood that he himself was about to die, but this did not stop him. Soon the boys were saved, but Dr. Jansen gave his life for this.
There is no present behind egoism, which means there is no future. Such love does not carry anything valuable; on the contrary, it has a great negative impact on the world as a whole.
Updated: 2018-05-17
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
- Heartlessness manifests itself even towards very close people
- The thirst for profit often leads to heartlessness and dishonorable acts.
- A person’s spiritual callousness complicates his life in society
- The reasons for a heartless attitude towards others lie in upbringing
- The problem of heartlessness and mental callousness can be characteristic not only of an individual, but also of society as a whole.
- Difficult life circumstances can make a person heartless
- Often, spiritual callousness manifests itself in relation to moral, worthy people
- A person admits that he was heartless when nothing can be changed
- Mental callousness does not make a person truly happy
- The consequences of a callous attitude towards people are often irreversible
Arguments
A.S. Pushkin “Dubrovsky”. The conflict between Andrei Dubrovsky and Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov ended tragically due to the callousness and heartlessness on the part of the latter. The words spoken by Dubrovsky, although they were offensive to Troekurov, were certainly not worth the abuse, dishonest trial and death of the hero. Kirill Petrovich did not spare his friend, although in the past they had a lot of good things in common. The landowner was driven by heartlessness and a desire for revenge, which led to the death of Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. The consequences of what happened were terrible: officials burned, people were left without their real master, Vladimir Dubrovsky became a robber. The manifestation of the spiritual callousness of just one person made the lives of many people miserable.
A.S. Pushkin “The Queen of Spades”. Hermann, the protagonist of the work, is driven to act heartlessly by the desire to get rich. To achieve his goal, he presents himself as an admirer of Lizaveta, although in fact he does not have feelings for her. He gives the girl false hopes. Penetrating into the countess's house with the help of Lizaveta, Hermann asks the old woman to tell him the secret of the three cards, and after her refusal, he takes out an unloaded pistol. Graphia, very frightened, dies. The deceased old woman comes to him a few days later and reveals the secret on the condition that Hermann will not play more than one card per day, in the future will not play at all and will marry Lizaveta. But the hero does not have a happy future: his heartless actions serve as a reason for retribution. After two wins, Hermann loses, which causes him to go crazy.
M. Gorky “At the Bottom”. Vasilisa Kostyleva does not feel any feelings for her husband except hatred and complete indifference. Wanting to inherit at least a small fortune, she very easily decides to persuade the thief Vaska Pepel to kill her husband. It's hard to imagine how heartless a person would have to be to come up with such a plan. The fact that Vasilisa was not married out of love does not in the least justify her action. A person must remain a person in any situation.
I.A. Bunin “Mr. from San Francisco”. The theme of the death of human civilization is one of the main ones in this work. The manifestation of the spiritual degradation of people lies, among other things, in their spiritual callousness, heartlessness, and indifference towards each other. The sudden death of the gentleman from San Francisco evokes not compassion, but disgust. During his life, he is loved for his money, and after his death, they heartlessly put him in the worst room, so as not to spoil the reputation of the establishment. They cannot even make a normal coffin for a person who dies in a foreign country. People have lost true spiritual values, which have been replaced by a thirst for material gain.
K.G. Paustovsky “Telegram”. A life full of activities and events captivates Nastya so much that she forgets about the only person truly close to her - her old mother Katerina Petrovna. The girl, receiving letters from her, is glad that her mother is alive, but does not think about anything else. Nastya doesn’t even read and perceive the telegram from Tikhon about Katerina Petrovna’s poor condition right away: at first she doesn’t understand at all who they are talking about. Later, the girl realizes how heartless her attitude towards her loved one was. Nastya goes to Katerina Petrovna, but does not find her alive. She feels guilty before her mother, who loved her so much.
A.I. Solzhenitsyn “Matrenin’s Dvor”. Matryona is a person you rarely meet. Without thinking about herself, she never refused to help strangers and treated everyone with kindness and compassion. People didn't answer her in kind. After the tragic death of Matryona, Thaddeus thought only about how to win back part of the hut. Almost all relatives came to cry over the woman’s coffin only as an obligation. They did not remember Matryona during her lifetime, but after her death they began to lay claim to the inheritance. This situation shows how callous and indifferent human souls have become.
F.M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment”. Rodion Raskolnikov's heartlessness was expressed by his desire to test his terrible theory. Having killed the old pawnbroker, he tried to find out who he belonged to: “trembling creatures” or “those with the right.” The hero failed to maintain composure, to accept what he did as right, which means that he is not characterized by absolute spiritual callousness. The spiritual resurrection of Rodion Raskolnikov confirms that a person has a chance for correction.
Y. Yakovlev “He killed my dog.” The boy, showing compassion and mercy, brings a stray dog into his apartment. His father doesn’t like this: the man demands that the animal be thrown back onto the street. The hero cannot do this, because “she was already kicked out.” The father, acting completely indifferent and indifferent, calls the dog to him and shoots him in the ear. The child cannot understand why an innocent animal was killed. Together with the dog, the father kills the child’s faith in the justice of this world.
ON THE. Nekrasov “Reflections at the front entrance.” The poem depicts the harsh reality of that time. The life of ordinary men and officials who spend their lives only in pleasure are contrasted. High-ranking people are heartless because they are indifferent to the problems of ordinary people. And for an ordinary person, the solution of even the most insignificant issue by an official can be salvation.
V. Zheleznikov “Scarecrow”. Lena Bessoltseva voluntarily took responsibility for a very bad act to which she had nothing to do. Because of this, she was forced to endure humiliation and bullying from her classmates. One of the most difficult tests for the girl was loneliness, because being an outcast is difficult at any age, and even more so in childhood. The boy who actually committed this act did not have the courage to confess. Two classmates who learned the truth also decided not to interfere in the situation. The indifference and heartlessness of those around him made the man suffer.
