Happy? This is too short
definition, without nuance.
I. Nemirovsky

The general definition of happiness given above covers different types of happiness. Just as, for example, the concept of “man” includes white and black, good and evil, the concept of happiness embraces greater and lesser happiness, characteristic of more and less successful destinies. But, like any general concept, it narrows when used, that is, in each specific case a certain meaning is taken, and due to this, different options are formed. The main types of the concept of happiness are as follows.

1. Happiness in a concrete meaning and an abstract meaning. When we talk about happiness, we often mean the happiness of a specific person, a specific happy life with its vicissitudes and experiences. But abstract happiness is understood differently - as a set of traits common to all happy people. In the first sense, the happiness of one person may be very different from the happiness of another, while, according to the second, there is only one happiness, for the word “happiness” covers only the characteristics common to all happy people.

The Polish language has completely different words to denote abstract concepts and concrete ones. In concreto it is said, for example, about a “just act”, and in abstracto - about “justice”. However, when we talk about “happiness” we use the same word. The presence of an abstract meaning in the word “happiness” is confirmed by the fact that we are reluctant to use it in plural. number, and this happens precisely with abstract terms. A similar feature is characteristic of some other concepts, for example, the concepts of good or truth: truth can mean a true sentence, but it can also mean the truth of a sentence. This ambiguity is formal, but it influences the understanding of happiness, since it creates the impression that there is supposedly only one way to achieve and experience happiness.

2. Happiness in objective and subjective meaning. In colloquial speech, the meaning of the word “happiness” comes down to either a purely objective meaning (luck) or a purely subjective meaning (intense joy); in the concept defined above, both of its meanings are combined: there is no happiness without a feeling of satisfaction, but there is no happiness even when satisfaction is unfounded. But among those who use this concept, some focus on subjective elements, others on objective ones. And this creates two variants of the concept.

You can use the word “happiness” in both meanings, but you must avoid using them in the same sentence, because when the same word is taken in different meanings, paradoxes may arise: this happens, for example, when we assert, that “happiness does not lie in the fact that someone is “lucky”” (“lucky”).
This duality of the concept of happiness goes deeper, up to the rupture of both elements, objective and subjective: in one case, awareness of it is sufficient for happiness, and in the other, awareness of happiness is not required. In our own understanding of the word “happiness,” awareness of happiness is always its necessary condition. To be happy, you need to know it, feel it, be sure of it. This idea was expressed by Seneca: “ Unhappy is the one who does not consider himself happy» (Seneca L.A. Moral letters to Lucilius. M., 1977.). In modern times, the same thing was confirmed by S. Johnson: “ No one can enjoy happiness without realizing that he is enjoying it" And among Polish authors of the 18th century, Gruschinsky said about it: “ Happy is he who understands his happiness» (See: Gruszczyński W. Ekonomia dobrych obyczaiów, 1717.) The same idea, but only in existentialist terminology, is expressed by the modern mirror of reflection, that is, when it is not only “in itself”, but also “for itself» (Jankélévitch V. L"aventure, l"ennui, le sérieux, 1963, p. 87.). Sometimes the only criterion for happiness was confidence in it.

La Rochefoucauld reasoned completely differently. He claimed that " a person is never as happy or as unhappy as he seems to himself» (Francois de La Rochefoucauld. Memoirs. Maxims. L., 1971, pp. 154, 198.). We find the same in Shakespeare: “ If I could express how happy I am, I wouldn't be happy» (Shakespeare V. Much ado about nothing. - Complete collected works in 8 volumes, vol. 4. M., 1919, p. 523.). In this case, conviction of happiness is not proof of it, and may even indicate the opposite.

The Old English author Taverner is sometimes quoted as sharing this view and going even further in his statement: “ Happy is the one who doesn't know about it» (See: Taverner R. Proverbs, 1539). Therefore, awareness of happiness excludes happiness. This opinion is fundamentally opposed to the views of Seneca. One of the modern writers A. Suarez says: “ A person does not realize himself in happiness» (See: Taverner R. Proverbs, 1539) however, his thought apparently means something else: happiness is accompanied by its awareness, but the person himself does not realize he is happy. But even here we are no closer to Seneca and Johnson.

Both such different points of view have a certain justification. A happy person realizes his own happiness only when he thinks about it. If you understand Seneca this way, then he is right. However, constant thinking about one’s happiness and about oneself is not only unnecessary for a happy person, but has a destructive effect on happiness, as Toverner correctly noted.

This state of affairs leads to two different interpretations of happiness: according to one, happiness is a certain state of human consciousness (regardless of whether this state has a real basis in his life); according to the second, it is a certain way of life of a person (regardless of his awareness).

3. Happiness as a moment and as a long-term state. A person who is satisfied with his life feels much more satisfied at certain moments than at others. And he calls “happiness” both his life and moments of strong satisfaction. But happy moments are one thing, a happy life is another. Against the background of this ambiguity, paradoxes arise, like Voltaire’s: “ You can know happiness without being happy» ( Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts, des métiers, t, VI. R., 1751, b. 465, art. "Félicité") .

4. Real happiness and ideal happiness. This has also already been discussed. In order for us to call life happy, positive aspects must predominate in it; but it is difficult to find a life in which, along with the positive aspects, there would be no negative ones. However, the natural process of idealization that occurs in human thinking creates the ideal of a happy life consisting of only positive aspects. And having constructed such an ideal, we tend to give the name happiness to it alone. " Happy I consider those who enjoy all kinds of good without any admixture of evil."- wrote Cicero (Cicero. Disputationes Tusculanae. V, 10, 28. (In Russian translation, see: Tusculan conversations to M. Brutus, books 1-5, K., 1888-1889, - Ed.). Then, along with the broad meaning of happiness, a second, more exclusive one arises. Some talk about happiness in a broad sense, others in a narrow sense, but the majority are those who mean one thing or another.

Happiness in the first meaning is not happiness in the second. For in the first meaning, happiness is a life where positive aspects predominate, and in the second, it is one that consists exclusively of positive aspects. The first is real happiness, actually achieved by some people, the second is a mental construct. The first is imperfect, the second is perfect. The first differs in degrees, the second does not. The first is “human happiness”, and the second is “the happiness of the gods”, as Epicurus called it. A person sometimes finds the first, but he desires the second. In other words: the first is present or past happiness, the second is future, the first is known from experience, the second is mainly from dreams and hopes for the future.

Even those who agree that happiness is satisfaction with life may oscillate between different interpretations of this satisfaction, concrete and abstract, objective and subjective, real and ideal, broad and narrow. These fluctuations are the source of disagreement in views on happiness. And when the concept is polysemantic, it cannot be otherwise. People use a common word, but talk about different things. For example, what is true about a happy moment is not true about a happy life. And as long as the word “happiness” is used in several meanings at the same time, one can express the most paradoxical thoughts about happiness like: “the most unhappy are happy” (we find the same in Seneca: “...brevem tibi formulam dabo: infellicissimos esse felices” ) (“... I’ll give you a short rule... the luckiest are the most unfortunate.” (Seneca L. A. Moral letters to Lucilius. Letter CXXIV, p. 323.) , until then, in matters of happiness, you can prove whatever you want. When, on the contrary, the ambiguity of the term disappears, then a significant part of the disagreements in people's views on happiness will disappear.

Let's look at a few basic issues regarding happiness.
1. Does happiness exist? The answer to this question depends primarily on how happiness is understood, empirically or ideally (due to the duality indicated above in point 4): empirical happiness exists, ideal happiness does not.

Another duality in the concept of happiness also leads to a pessimistic answer: momentary and long-term happiness (see point 3). Some, looking at their lives sequentially, moment by moment, do not find happiness in any of them and conclude that they were not happy. The condition for happiness in this case was also duration, so, naturally, it could not be discovered either one of the individual moments. That is they look for happiness where it cannot be, and, not finding it, they say that it does not exist.

And finally, the duality of the concept of “fullness of happiness” (see point 6) has its influence: one cannot be completely satisfied with life, since it always has certain shortcomings. Meanwhile, with a different understanding, these shortcomings do not become an obstacle to happiness; it is evidenced only by the satisfaction resting in the depths of consciousness.

2. Is happiness a good thing? Eudaimonists argue that it is the highest good. But they use the ambiguous concept of “good”, and therefore their theory is not correct in all its meanings; it is easiest to defend it with the objective understanding of happiness used in ancient times. If happiness is the possession of the most valuable thing in life, then it is, of course, the highest good. But it is not such if it is only satisfaction.
If Spengler identified happiness with peace, then he could and should have argued that happiness is not one of the highest human needs. If Stendhal considered happiness to be calmness and satiety, then he could and should have argued that there are people who despise happiness - such happiness. If happiness, as J. Eliot wrote, is possible only for egoists, if it is “dangerous indifference to the sorrows of others,” then, of course, it is something morally negative. But this does not apply to all happiness; it does not apply to happiness in the usual, broad sense (the ambiguity noted in paragraph 8).

The situation is exactly the same with the specific question: what is the relationship between happiness and moral goodness? Should anyone who wants to live happily have to take morals into account? And should someone who wants to live morally renounce happiness or should he just fight for it? The answer to this question depends on how you understand happiness. Everything that has been said fully applies to the question: should happiness be the ultimate goal of education? If happiness is understood as a happy fate, then it is absurd to make a pedagogical idea out of it, because fate does not depend on us. At the same time, the question makes sense if happiness is understood as a state that we ourselves can achieve (the ambiguity noted in paragraph 7). It is doubtful whether happy moments can be the goal of education, But these doubts disappear if we understand happiness as a happy life (the ambiguity noted in paragraph 3). Happiness is not the goal of education if it consists of satisfying only material needs and not spiritual ones (the ambiguity noted in paragraph 5).

3. How can you achieve happiness? Among the existing theories, one says that the surest way to achieve it is to renounce what is most desired: pleasures, dignity, external goods. This theory is not isolated; it was proclaimed by sages of different times and peoples. At the same time, most people consider it an obvious lie, because they would like the happiness that comes without effort, thanks to a happy fate; the sages are looking for ways to achieve it, because they know that one cannot hope for chance (the ambiguity noted in paragraph 7).

Naturally, one cannot count on the fact that by overcoming the polysemy of the term “happiness” all disputes will subside and all differences in opinions will be smoothed out. But many theoretical disagreements are rooted precisely in it, and they would be reduced if one meaning, for example, the one proposed in this book, was accepted.
The differences of opinion about happiness are great. Some, for example, see happiness in having power, others - in living away from people; Some people consider material wealth to be happiness, while others consider it to be the rejection of temporary goods. But these disagreements relate not to the concept of happiness, but to the methods of achieving it. Those who find happiness in the possession of power or in the accumulation of wealth have a different "theory" of happiness, a different view of the means of achieving it, than those who find it in reclusion; but this does not mean that they have different concepts of happiness. They all understand happiness as satisfaction with life.

Not only individual people, but entire societies and eras had their own theories of happiness, which narrowed the concept of happiness. In certain periods, the theory that happiness consisted in good living conditions, peace, carelessness, and for this one needed, first of all, material well-being and health, was especially widespread in certain classes and strata of society. This theory is especially characteristic of the 19th century: an ordinary European understood happiness this way, it was normal, familiar.

Well-being, health, and peace were inextricably linked in people's minds with happiness. And at that time, satisfaction with life was considered happiness, but it seemed that there could be no satisfaction without prosperity, health and peace, they were considered necessary conditions for happiness, and the necessary conditions for happiness were identified with happiness itself. Those who lived in abundance and carefree considered themselves happy. But he could say about himself, repeating the words of A. Fredro: “How unhappy I am because I am happy.” For prosperity and carelessness did not actually bring happiness to everyone. They could just make a person unhappy. It is not necessary that everyone’s happiness be the way it is generally imagined: some people find happiness precisely in restlessness, difficulties, struggle; their happiness is not an idyll of peace and prosperity, but a life full of drama, danger, tension and risk. The main thing is this: happiness depends not only on living conditions, but much more on a person’s attitude towards them.

The concept of “family happiness” is not limited to one or two mercantile factors, and is not limited to family concerns or the relationship of spouses. This gives reason to believe that the idea of ​​a happy family life for most people is inseparable from the concept of a full-fledged, comprehensively developed personality. It is not for nothing that the family as a social phenomenon in classical definitions is called a “cell of society” in the sense that it reflects in its ideal the socially valuable ideals of human relationships, a comprehensively and harmoniously developed personality.

In people's minds, the concept of “family happiness” is not an abstract set of symbols, not a list of distant prospects, values, it is “materialized.” For family happiness, according to the majority, a good foundation is required, laid in the practice of communication between spouses, this is expressed in the need for mutual understanding; a material basis for existence is also necessary, according to which people point to the need for financial wealth and good living conditions; In addition, the materialized basis for the implementation of marital relations between spouses is the birth of children. In such consistency and objectivity of judgments about family happiness, it is easy to see that this type of moral relationship exists not only as an element of consciousness, but also as a practical relationship, as everyday practice.

In turn, ideas about family happiness are always formed on the basis of material social relations, specific conditions of existence, and as derivatives of them. Like any moral category, the category of social relations “family happiness” is a social and historical concept.

The vast majority of people consider mutual understanding and harmony in family relationships to be a necessary basis for family happiness. The concept of “mutual understanding” in the context of family relationships is very capacious in its socio-psychological content. Mutual understanding between spouses presupposes a commonality of emotional experiences, conscious and unconscious attitudes, motives for actions in relation to each other, some degree of similarity of views, adequacy of perception of reality, mutual compliance, readiness to sacrifice personal interests for the sake of the family and children , marriage partner. Mutual understanding is possible subject to observance of social norms and norms of family life accepted by spouses by mutual agreement, and most importantly, subject to foreseeing the behavior of the marriage partner.

Mutual understanding can manifest itself in a wide range of socio-psychological states and processes that characterize the communication of close people: from forced or indifferent agreement to logically found agreement; from intuitive anticipation of the reactions and actions of a marriage partner to deep empathy (i.e., mutual penetration into each other’s psychology, understanding of needs, motives for actions, recognition of the slightest shades of mental states). Here is intimate trust, caused by the need to find participation and sympathy in another person, and a conscious desire to receive support and advice, turning to the spouse as one’s own conscience, the ideal of decency, justice, honesty. It is also necessary to understand each other’s habits, interests, beliefs, and to completely share their views on life and spiritual values.

What is everyone striving for and what are they chasing? What do people usually wish for on holidays? What is the concept that everyone knows as the most positive, but no one knows exactly what it is? The answer to these and similar questions is a person’s happiness! Yes, it is precisely this that attracts everyone and makes them strive for it. Happiness is worth living in the world for. What is it like? Do you know? I think not really.

Oddly enough, this human concept (human happiness) is very vague, conditional, and abstract. In principle, everyone has their own, although some of its facets may be somewhat similar. If you ask a certain number of people what they think about human happiness and what exactly it means to them, the answers of the majority will be the same.

For most people, ordinary human happiness means the health of oneself, family and friends, their well-being and well-being, wide opportunities (financial independence and prosperity), and if we reduce these points to one denominator, then we can get the following - the maximum possible state of positivity and pleasure (it should be noted that the absence of “bad” is also a criterion for “good”).

Note that health and well-being are universal positive “wants” of people. But everyone knows cases when something gives pleasure to one person, but for another it is something bad and negative. This is explained by simple psychological characteristics of the human psyche. In general, a person’s happiness is a positive state of his soul, which, first of all, depends on his individual attitude towards others, and towards the world as a whole.

19. Place punctuation marks: indicate all the numbers in their place

V sentences must contain commas.

When we lived in Koktebel (1) my father devoted all his time to drawing (2) and (3) when the weather allowed (4) he spent whole days with an easel on the shore.

Answer: ___________________________.

Read the text and complete tasks 20–25.

(1) Most people imagine happiness very specifically: two rooms are happiness, three are more happiness, four are just a dream. (2) Or beautiful appearance: although everyone knows about “don’t be born beautiful...”, however, deep down in our souls we firmly believe that with a different ratio of waist and hip volumes, our life could have turned out differently.

(3) Wishes can come true. (4) There is always hope, if not for slender hips, then at least for an extra room, and if you are very lucky, then for a house overlooking the sea. (5) But what if our houses and figure have nothing to do with the feeling of complete bliss? (6) What if each of us has a greater or lesser ability for happiness from birth - an ear for music or mathematical abilities?

(7) This is exactly the conclusion that psychologist Robert McCray came to after a ten-year study he conducted, covering about 5,000 people. (8) At the beginning and end of the experiment, participants were asked to talk about the events of their lives and characterize themselves. (9) Are they smiling or gloomy? (10) Do they see the glass as half full or half empty?

(11) Amazingly, the degree of satisfaction with one’s own life was almost the same at the beginning and end of the study, regardless of what was happening in the lives of its participants. (12) People rejoiced, were upset, and mourned, but as time passed, they returned to their starting point. (13) The level of happiness of each person was associated mainly with his personality, and not with the circumstances of his life.

(14) Then they decided to measure this elusive constant. (15)Psychologist Richard Davidson used special technology - positron emission tomography- for measuring n neurally nd brain activity in different states. (16) It turned out that people who are naturally energetic, enthusiastic and optimistic have high activity in a certain area of ​​the cerebral cortex - the left prefrontal zone, which is associated with positive emotions. (17) The activity of this zone is a surprisingly constant indicator: scientists carried out measurements at intervals of up to 7 years, and the level of activity remained the same. (18) This means that some people are literally born happy. (19) Their wishes come true more often, and even if this does not happen, they do not dwell on failures, but find the bright side in the situation.

(20) But what about those whose left prefrontal zone is not so active? (21) It’s a shame to live and know that even a crystal palace on a tropical island will not bring you happiness! (22) Why then all the effort? (23) Why make a career and build houses, go on a diet and sew clothes, if the amount of happiness is measured out to you at birth and will not change not one iota?

(According to K. Korshunova)

20 . Which of the statements correspond to the content of the text? Please provide answer numbers.

Beginning of the form

End of form

Beginning of the form

End of form

Beginning of the form

End of form

Beginning of the form

End of form

Beginning of the form

21. Which of the following statements are true? Please provide answer numbers.

1) Sentences 1-2 contain a narrative.

2) Sentences 7-13 contain the answer to the questions in sentences 5-7.

3) Sentence 8 explains the content of sentence 7.

4) Sentence 11 contains the answer to the questions in sentences 9 and 10.

5) Propositions 20-23 contain reasoning.

Answer: ___________________________.

22. From sentences 3-6, write down antonyms (antonymous pair).

Answer: ___________________________.

23 Among sentences 15-17, find one that is related to the previous one

using lexical repetition and demonstrative pronoun.. Write the number

this proposal.

Answer: ___________________________.

Read a fragment of a review based on the text that you analyzed while completing tasks 20–23.

This fragment examines the linguistic features of the text.

Some terms used in the review are missing. Insert into the blanks (A, B, C, D) the numbers corresponding to the numbers of the terms from the list. Write down the corresponding number in the table under each letter.

Write down the sequence of numbers in ANSWER FORM No. 1 to the right of

task numbers 24, starting from the first cell, without spaces, commas

And other additional characters.

Write each number in accordance with those given in the form.

Samples.

K. Korshunova reflects on an issue that worries many people, and does it emotionally and at the same time convincingly. The use of such a syntactic device in sentences 1-2 as (A) ______________ attracts the reader’s attention, just like the use of another syntactic device B) __________________ (sentences 5-7, 9-10). The text can be attributed to a scientific-journalistic style, which, along with other techniques, is facilitated by the use of such lexical means as (B) ________________ (positron emission tomography - sentence 15, prefrontal zone - sentence 16) and book expression (D) ___________________ “not one iota” (sentence 23).

List of terms:

C list of terms

1) terms

3) parcellation

4) colloquial vocabulary

5) anaphora

6) interrogative sentences

7) introductory word

8) phraseological turn

9) comparative turnover

Do not forget to transfer all answers to answer form No. 1 in accordance with the instructions for completing the work. End of form

Part 2

To answer this task, use ANSWER FORM No. 2.

25. Write an essay based on the text you read.

State one of the problems delivered author of the text.

Comment on the formulated problem. Turn on

comment two examples-illustrations from the text read, which,

in your opinion, are important for understanding the problem of the source text

(avoid excessive quoting).

Why. Justify your opinion based primarily on

reading experience, as well as knowledge and life observations

(the first two arguments are taken into account).

The volume of the essay is at least 150 words.

A work written without relying on the text read (not based on this

text) is not evaluated. If the essay is a retelling

or a completely rewritten source text without any

comments, then such work is scored zero points.

Write an essay carefully, legible handwriting.

Text information

Main problems	Author's position:
1) The problem of understanding happiness. (Is happiness an abstract or concrete concept? What is the content of this concept? Is it achievable?)	1) People imagine happiness specifically, so a person always has hope that his wishes will come true and he will achieve happiness
2) The problem of being happy. (Is every person capable of being happy? Or does it need to be learned? Is the ability to be happy innate, like any other? Is it possible to develop the ability to feel happiness? And is each of us capable of this?)	2) Experiments by scientists prove that there is an innate ability to be happy; If we consider that there is a gene for happiness, it is doubtful that every person can be happy.

Other texts about happiness

(1) “Happiness for everyone, freely, and let no one leave offended!”

(2) With these words, already so textbook for us, it ends

novel by the Strugatsky brothers "Roadside Picnic". (3) The main character, almost

having reached the Golden Ball, which fulfills any desires, there is no way

cannot understand what he needs to be happy. (4) What to ask for?

(5) Material goods? (6) Glory? (7) Love? (8) Talented children?

(9) What miracle must happen for you to feel as if you were captivated?

Does happiness sprout with a joyful feeling in the soul, like a spring flower?

(10) What do you need to become happy? (11)Try it

ask your friends this question - they will be embarrassed and begin to joke, hinting at

the inappropriateness of such a “childish” question, coming from somewhere

fairy world. (12) It will seem absurd to them to seriously discuss and

reflect on the topic of happiness, since even the concept is akin to a lie for them

and fiction.

(13) But in fact, we have all already reached our Golden Ball.

(14) Our Golden Ball is life. (15) Just that moment when we

we determine our path and look for the doors that we are going to open, not

separated into a separate episode, not marked in our life calendar

in red. (16) Our choice occurs spontaneously, imperceptibly;

consciously or not, we are all attracted to what we think will make

us happy.

(17) But since we do not clearly formulate either the goals or the meaning that

put into the concept of happiness, then we move towards it, as if in a fog,

semi-consciously, convincing ourselves that our thoughtless, blind path, how

birds return home after wintering - this is the road to happiness.

(18) Someone thinks that there is no happiness. (19) There is perpetual motion,

achieving the next goal, and then short minutes of peace, and again - in

path. (20) Maybe this is the problem - not feeling happy

moments of rest, always rushing forward, thinking: but there, behind

next turn, I'll finally be happy! (21) This is where it is located

a trap, a crafty choice that has caught us in a trap. (22) That's why

modern man lives<…>: born - kindergarten; then - school; Then -

university; then - work. (23) Life is laid in a Procrustean bed, life

the path is marked, the paths of life are already paved, there are

signs, traffic controllers waving their sticks - you won’t get lost.

(24) Moving along this road, a person achieves something - then he

called successful; if he doesn't have a well-paid job, he

considered a failure. (25) But pay attention: they call him, he

believe... (26) Society’s opinion and fashion determine a person’s path to

luckily. (27) But if someone considers success in life to be synonymous with happiness,

this does not mean at all that someone else should think the same way. (28) Who

said that my happiness is a villa among orange groves or

A silver Cadillac? (29) I have my happiness, what mine wants

soul... (30) What does she want? (31) And what I’m ready to give for the present,

genuine, eternal happiness? (32) Someone else’s life, as Redrick did

Shewhart for the opportunity to ask the Golden Ball for any wish?

(33) Or just a piece of conscience, as some do, substituting

neighbors for the sake of career advancement?

(34) For some reason, people communicate little with themselves. (35) My own self

(36) We consider the most important values ​​to be those recognized by society. (37) And then

We ask ourselves in disappointment: “So what? (38) Well, I achieved that

another... (39) Where is the happiness? (40) This question most often appears not

because we need more and more, but because we need something...

something else. (41) Maybe something that is very close. (42) But we,

lifting our heads up, we don’t see that it’s nearby. (43) Remember, from Bunin: “A

happiness is everywhere..." (44) But we, blinded by the unattainable, go into the distance and

we remember, like wildflowers, what is right under our feet, completely

(According to N.V. Agafonov*)

* Nikolai Viktorovich Agafonov(born in 1956) – modern writer-

publicist.__

Text information

Approximate range of problems 1. The problem of happiness. (What makes a person happy?) 2. The problem of moral choice. (Is it possible to break the laws of morality for the sake of achieving happiness and success in life?) 3. The problem of the influence of public opinion on ideas about happiness. (Does public opinion about happiness always coincide with what a person needs?) 4. The problem of finding happiness. (What is happiness? Where to look for it?) 5. The problem of the difficulty of finding happiness. (Why is it difficult to find happiness?)

Author's position 1. Life, its diversity, the opportunity to choose your own path - all this makes a person happy. 2. The author does not give a direct answer to the question posed, but the author’s position is clear. You cannot give up a “piece of conscience” for the sake of achieving your own well-being, “happiness”; you cannot break the laws of morality in order to achieve your own goals. The opinion of society and fashion should not be decisive factors in the formation of a person’s moral principles and his life path. 3. Often public opinion about happiness does not coincide with what a person really needs. 4. Each person solves this problem in his own way. It is important not to miss your happiness, which may be very close. 5. The difficulties of finding happiness are due to the fact that the moment when we determine the path of life is not isolated as a separate episode; the choice always happens spontaneously, imperceptibly.

(1) Near the wide steppe road, called the big road, a flock of sheep spent the night. (2) Two shepherds guarded her. (3) One was an old man of about eighty, toothless, with a trembling face, lying on his stomach near the road, with his elbows on the dusty plantain leaves. (4) The other was a young guy, with thick black eyebrows and no mustache, dressed in a line from which cheap bags are sewn. (5) He lay on his back and, putting his hands under his head, looked up at the sky, where the Milky Way stretched just above his face and the stars were dozing. (6) In the sleepy, frozen air there was a monotonous noise, without which a steppe summer night cannot do. (7) Grasshoppers were constantly chattering, quails were singing, and a mile away from the flock, in a gully in which a stream ran and

willows, young nightingales whistled lazily.

(8) Suddenly the old shepherd broke the silence:

- (9) Sanka, are you sleeping or what?

“(10) No, grandfather,” the young man did not immediately respond.

“(11) There are a lot of treasures in these places,” the old man sighed. - (12) By all appearances, there is, but, brother, there is no one to dig them.

(13) The young shepherd crawled two steps towards the old man and, resting his head on his fists, fixed his motionless gaze on him. (14) An infantile expression of fear and curiosity shone in his dark eyes and, as it seemed in the twilight, stretched and flattened the large features of his young,

“(16) And the scriptures say that there are many treasures here,” the old man continued. - (17) And treasure is happiness for a person! (18) One old Novopavlovsk soldier in Ivanovka was shown a map, and in that map it was printed about the place, and even how many pounds of gold, and in what container. (19) He would have gotten the treasure from this map a long time ago, but he couldn’t approach the enchanted treasure.

- (20) Why, grandfather, don’t you come up to me? - asked the young man.

- (21) There must be a reason, the soldier did not say. (22) Spellbound... (23) A talisman is needed.

(24) The old man spoke with enthusiasm, as if he was pouring out his soul. (25) He had a nasal voice from the lack of habit of speaking a lot and quickly, stuttered and, feeling such a deficiency in his speech, tried to brighten it up by gesticulating his head, hands and skinny shoulders. (26) With each such gesture, his canvas shirt wrinkled into folds, crawled towards his shoulders and exposed his back, black from tanning and age.

(27) He pulled her off, and she immediately climbed up again. (28) Finally, the old man, as if driven out of patience by this disobedient shirt, jumped up and spoke bitterly:

- (29) Happiness is nearby, but what’s the use of it if it’s buried in the ground? (30) So it goes to waste, without any benefit, like sheep dung! (31) But there is a lot of happiness, so much, boy, that there would be enough of it for the whole district! (32) May not a single soul see him!

- (33) Grandfather, what will you do with this happiness if you find it?

- (34) Me? – the old man grinned. - (35) If only I could find it, otherwise... I would show everyone Kuzka’s mother... (36) Hm!.. (37) I know what to do... (38) And the old man was unable to answer what he would do with happiness if will find him. (39) In his entire life, this question presented itself to him that morning, probably for the first time and, judging by the expression on his face, frivolous and indifferent, it did not seem important to him and worthy of reflection.

(40) Surrounded by a slight haze, a huge crimson sun appeared. (41) It was quickly getting lighter around. (42) Wide stripes of light, still cold, bathing in the dewy grass, stretching and looking cheerful, as if trying to show that they were not tired of it, began to lie down on the ground. (43) Silver wormwood, blue cornflowers, yellow colza - all this is joyful and carefree

dappled, mistaking the light of the sun for her own smile.

(44) The old man and Sanka dispersed to the edges of the flock. (45) Then both stood up like pillars, without moving, looking at the ground and thinking. (46) The first was haunted by thoughts about treasures, while the second was thinking about what was said at night. (47) Sanka was not interested in the treasures themselves, which he did not need, but in the fantastic nature and unrealizability of human happiness.

(According to A.P. Chekhov*)

* Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860 – 1904) – Russian writer, playwright, public figure.

Materials for the essay

I want to live, I want sadness

And finally you will see

Proverbs about happiness

Our happiness is water in delirium. (proverbs about happiness)

Happiness is a free bird: it sat where it wanted. (proverbs about happiness)

Happiness is like a wolf: it deceives and goes into the forest. (proverbs about happiness)

Happiness does not float in the air, but is achieved by hand. (proverbs about happiness)

Happiness is not sought, but made. (proverbs about happiness)

Happiness is not a horse: you cannot bridle it. (proverbs about happiness)

Happiness is not a bird: it will not fly by itself. (proverbs about happiness)

Happiness is not a fish: you can’t catch it with a fishing rod. (proverbs about happiness)

Happiness serves few. (proverbs about happiness)

In L.N. Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”:

Our happiness is water in delirium: if you pull, it swells, if you pull, there is nothing.

Thoughts of wise people about happiness

No man is happy until he considers himself happy.

Marcus Aurelius

Happiness is not in happiness, but only in its achievement.

F.I.Dostoevsky

“Happiness is only a dream...” Voltaire

You have to believe in the possibility of happiness in order to be happy. L. Tolstoy

To be happy, you need to constantly strive for this happiness and understand it. it depends not on circumstances, but on oneself. L. Tolstoy

Leo Tolstoy about happiness

Invested in a person need for happiness; therefore it is legal.

“While you are young, strong, vigorous, do not get tired of doing good! There is no happiness and there should not be any, and if there is meaning and purpose in life, then this meaning and purpose is not at all in our happiness, but in something more reasonable and greater. Do good!”

A. P. Chekhov

Examples from literature

All Russian classical literature of the 19th century is devoted to the search for happiness. All the heroes of our literature seek and do not find happiness, starting with the heroes of Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” and ending with the characters of A.P. Chekhov. This theme sounds most vividly in...

1. “Eugene Onegin” by A. S. Pushkin

“And happiness was so possible...”

2. Poem by N. A. Nekrasov “Who Lives Well in Rus'”

Russian literature has always been very wary of happiness.

There is no happiness in the world, but there is peace and will... (A. S. Pushkin)
I want to live, I want sadness
Love and happiness in spite... (M. Yu. Lermontov)
Where is the happiness? Not here, in a wretched environment... (A. A. Fet)
And finally you will see
That there was no need for happiness... (A. A. Blok)

A habit has been given to us from above: It is a substitute for happiness. A. S. Pushkin

Foolish heart, don't beat!

We are all deceived by happiness,

The beggar only asks for participation...

Foolish heart, don't beat.

Month yellow spell

They pour over the chestnuts into the clearing.

Lale leaning on his shalwars,

I will hide under the veil.

Foolish heart, don't beat.

We are all like children at times.

We often laugh and cry:

We fell into the world

Joys and failures.

Foolish heart, don't beat.

I have seen many countries.

I looked for happiness everywhere

Only the desired destiny

I won't search anymore.

Foolish heart, don't beat.

Life hasn't completely deceived me.

Let's drink in new strength.

Heart, at least you could fall asleep

Here, on my darling's lap.

Life hasn't completely deceived me.

Maybe he'll mark us too

Rock that flows like an avalanche,

And love will be answered

The song of a nightingale.

Foolish heart, don't beat.

Sergey Yesenin. Poems and poems.
Moscow, "Children's Literature", 1969.

http://www.berestovitskaya.ru/articles-review-1-33.htm

From student essays:

1. It seems to me that first of all you need to find yourself, believe in yourself, make sure that you will turn out to be a person, and only then will you be able to find your place in life, your happiness. What is happiness?

Happiness is simple and complex. Happiness is being a necessary, necessary person, loving life, people, your future profession. Happiness is a bird that you want to catch, but it doesn’t come, it flies away, rises higher and higher. You can make mistakes, stumble, fall. But the main thing is to be in motion. My biggest dream is not to be mediocre in life. I don't agree with being mediocre. I want to choose a profession I like so that the work brings me joy. I see happiness in this. Each person has his own idea of ​​happiness. What is happiness for me? It's knowing that I'm loved. Time passes, a lot changes. We are growing up. We are moving towards life. We go into life with our dreams, ideals, desires. And love lives in my soul.

2. Nekrasov: The main problem of the poem is the problem of national happiness.

The question of happiness is the main problem of N. A. Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'”

One of the heroes of the poem, Yakim Nagoy, saves expensive pictures during a fire, and his wife saves icons; we see how spiritual values ​​are more valuable to the common people than material well-being, which Yakim has completely forgotten about.

Still, the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” does not answer this question, and the global philosophical problem of national happiness remains unresolved.

About Chekhov's story

In the summer of 1887, Chekhov’s story entitled “Happiness” appeared in the St. Petersburg newspaper “Novoye Vremya.” A story about how three people talk about happiness in the steppe at night. An old shepherd talks about treasures with countless treasures buried in the steppe. No one knows where they are hidden, and happiness, which seems to be very close, is not given to anyone. Each of the three has his own attitude to what is commonly called happiness. The old man, talking about treasures, is going to try his luck again, although he himself does not know why he needs it. The young shepherd is interested not so much in happiness as in the fabulous mystery of the stories he hears. In the words of the third person, the sad note that dominates the story sounds: “Yes, you will die this way, without having seen happiness as it is... Those who are younger may wait, but for us it’s time to give up thinking.” Against the backdrop of the endless night steppe, living its own special life, separate from humans, the dream of happiness seems completely unrealizable.

Sample essay

Happiness…Who among us has not thought about what this concept includes, whether happiness is achievable. It seems to me that these are the questions posed by A.P. Chekhov in his story.

I catch myself thinking that not everything in Chekhov’s story is immediately clear to me. His characters, an old man of about eighty and a young guy, reflect on happiness. The first one believes that “treasure is a person’s happiness,” there is a lot of it, “enough for the whole district,” but it goes to waste because “it’s buried in the ground.” When Sanka asks him what he will do with happiness if he finds it, the old man cannot answer this question, it does not seem to him “important and worthy of thought.” His interlocutor is young, and if after this conversation the first one keeps thinking about treasures, then the second one “was interested ... not in the treasures themselves, which he did not need, but in the fantasticness and unrealizability of human happiness.”

Let me suggest that both the heroes of his story and the author himself believe that human happiness is fantastic and unrealizable, you can’t approach it like a charmed treasure, there is a lot of it, “there would be enough for the whole district.” These thoughts are also suggested by the beautiful picture of the steppe, living its own life, separate from humans. Against the backdrop of a wonderful night and a majestic morning, the dream of happiness seems completely unrealizable.

Oh, how I don’t want to agree with such a sad conclusion, with such a unique vision of the problem. I’m still seventeen, I, like every other person, dream of happiness... Is it “fantastic and unrealizable”?

There are many proverbs about happiness. Let us remember: “Our happiness is water in delirium.” And people also say: “Happiness is like a wolf: it deceives and goes into the forest.” Alas, these proverbs confirm the thoughts of Chekhov’s heroes...

Works of Russian classical literature of the 19th century, in my opinion, are books about the search for happiness, and the heroes of many of them are looking for happiness, but, alas, they do not find it...

Already the title of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy contains the antonym to the word happiness - grief. The heroes of the comedy Sofya Famusova and Alexander Andreevich Chatsky are looking for happiness and do not find it. Sophia does not understand Chatsky’s lofty soul, invents a hero for herself, attributing to Molchalin the traits of the heroes of the books she has read, and is deeply unhappy when she recognizes his vile and petty nature. Chatsky does not find happiness either in love or in the field of public life. Both main characters of the comedy are unhappy.

There are no happy people in the novel “Eugene Onegin”. No one doubts that the main character Onegin is unhappy. Neither origin, nor wealth, nor natural talent can make a person happy. Evgeny has all this. “The heir of all his relatives,” belonging to the highest St. Petersburg society, endowed with such qualities as a “sharp, cool mind” and a “happy talent” for communication, Onegin is deprived of something important, necessary for happiness.

Vladimir Lensky seems happy, but his happiness will be destroyed by the callousness of Eugene Onegin: Lensky is killed by Onegin in a duel.

Tatyana Larina finds brief happiness in dreams of love, but she quickly realizes that Onegin “cannot... give her happiness.” When at the end of the novel Onegin confesses his love to her, an already married woman, she turns out to be wiser and taller than him, accepting Onegin “without anger,” not hiding her tears, speaking openly about her love and giving up happiness for the sake of honor and duty. The words of Pushkin’s heroine sound bitter:

And happiness was so possible

So close….

The main problem of N. A. Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” is the problem of happiness, as the title of the work speaks about this. Seven men from Nekrasov's poem are looking for and do not find a happy person in Rus'. Neither those in power, nor especially the peasants, consider themselves happy. We say that Nekrasov wanted to show the people’s intercessor Grisha Dobrosklonov happy, but it’s hard to believe in the happiness of the person to whom

...fate was preparing

The path is glorious

Big name

People's Defender,
Consumption and Siberia.

Probably, it was not only death that interrupted Nekrasov’s work on the poem: he searched and did not find a happy person in Rus'.

Yes, we came to sad conclusions when thinking about the impossibility of happiness in a person’s life... But let’s remember that literature is a textbook of life, that writers only warn us against possible mistakes. Let's think about the fact that life is multifaceted, it has both happy moments and hardships. “Happiness does not float in the air, but is achieved with your hands,” says a Russian proverb. And we also say: “Man is the architect of his own happiness.” Let's look for the buried and “charmed” treasure - happiness, make your life happy!

The majority of Russians (77 percent) felt happy a year ago, VTsIOM reported. Do we feel happy today? About what happiness is, how to measure it and whether it is possible to be happy on the barricades, our conversation with Andrei Yurevich, Deputy Director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Andrey Vladislavovich, is it possible to be happy against the backdrop of the events that are happening now?

Andrey Yurevich: There are people who feel happy even at the front. But still, most people need peace and security, and the events that are happening now form a negative background against which it is difficult to feel happy.

When it comes to happiness, for some reason I immediately remember “We’ll Live Until Monday,” one of the most accurate definitions: “Happiness is when you are understood.” Have modern scientists developed a common understanding of happiness?

Andrey Yurevich: I also remembered this phrase. She is an example of reducing happiness to one thing, in this case to understanding. There is still no common understanding of happiness, but scientists studying this phenomenon agree that one thing is not enough for happiness. At the same time, when a person is acutely lacking in something very important to him, it often seems to him that if the corresponding need is satisfied, he will become happy. This may be the need for a piece of bread, and for understanding, and for recognition, and much more.

How do psychologists understand happiness?

Andrey Yurevich: Like a fairly stable feeling of deep satisfaction with life. Pay attention to three key points. The first is the stability of this feeling. If a person feels happy for 10 minutes or half an hour, he cannot be called happy. The second is deep satisfaction. If a person is only more or less satisfied with his life, again he cannot be considered happy. And the third is satisfaction with life in general, which implies satisfaction with its various aspects: with oneself, relationships with friends, family, work, etc.

Why did economists become interested in happiness when they deal not with abstract concepts, but with real numbers?

Andrey Yurevich: This is due, in particular, to phenomena that were discovered precisely by economists. For example, the so-called Easterlin paradox, which consists in the fact that happiness grows with income level, but only up to a certain point, no further. People can live better lives, but still not feel happier. For example, residents of Western countries are now, on average, 4 times better off financially than 40 years ago, but their level of subjective well-being has remained virtually unchanged, and 37 percent of wealthy Americans have below-average happiness scores. The Easterlin Paradox is usually explained by the principle of the hedonic wheel: people live better, but at the same time their expectations rise even faster than their standard of living, as a result they often feel worse than when they were poorer. As one of the most famous happiness researchers, Michael Argyle, writes, “if people used to dream of owning a bicycle, now they already need two cars.” Social comparisons also play a big role. Let's say a person saved some money and bought himself a TV. And during this time his neighbor built his own house. He compares himself with his neighbor and feels that he is deprived of life. In general, as a rule, we determine the subjective quality of our life by comparing ourselves with reference people from our circle.

Why is it so important for us to compare ourselves with someone?

Andrey Yurevich: This is inherent in human psychology. How, for example, can you answer the question: is a million a lot or a little? Any assessment presupposes a reference point, and it appears as a result of comparison. Methods of comparison can be very different, say, comparing your present with your past. For example, it is very typical for our society to compare its current state with Soviet times.

Can happiness be measured? Compared to other countries, are we happier or not?

Andrey Yurevich: Various indices are used to measure happiness, for example, the so-called Happy Planet Index. According to this indicator, the first five places in the world are occupied by Costa Rica, Vietnam, Colombia, Belize and El Salvador. And our country ranks 122 out of 151 possible, between Congo and Bulgaria. But the economically prosperous United States and European countries occupy very modest places. These results are partly due to the way happiness is calculated, and partly due to the fact that different countries have very different ideas about it. Where people are constantly undernourished, happiness lies in the opportunity to eat well. In some countries, when a person buys a car, he also feels happy. But in richer countries the starting point is much higher, and their citizens need much more to feel happy.

Remember another quote: “Happiness is such a difficult thing...”, and this “difficult thing” is becoming one of the economic and political guidelines today? Isn't this a joke?

Andrey Yurevich: And not vice versa? Doesn't focusing on purely economic indicators look like a mockery? In the 1990s, all of our policies were focused on indicators such as GDP volume, ruble exchange rate, per capita income, etc. Of course, these are very important indicators, but can a country where GDP is growing and the population is dying out be considered prosperous? It’s good that our powers that be finally understood this - not without the help of demographers who sounded the alarm. Now in many countries, happiness indices are considered very important indicators. For example, the king of Bhutan proclaimed the happiness of the population as the main guideline, more important than the volume of GDP, etc. And this is not a mockery, but the logic of the development of modern civilization. In countries where basic economic problems have been largely solved, other goals, such as making citizens happy, come to the fore.

Are you a happy person? Have you met very happy or deeply unhappy people?

Andrey Yurevich: I can't call myself happy. In general, in a troubled country, where various problems constantly arise, only a complete egoist, who does not care what happens around him, can probably be happy. But if we consider happiness and unhappiness as two poles of the scale (which is not entirely true), most people are somewhere in the middle part of it. And extremes - deeply unhappy and very happy people - are quite rare.