I read a play by M. Gorky<<На дне>>...What can a person on the lowest rung of society think about? What is the meaning of its existence, to what moral ideal he can strive, and in general, does he want to live for the sake of a brighter future, for the sake of his life idea? What is this world for him?
Just a dark corner of a shabby room, a dim candle on a dirty table, a bottle of "bitter"... His thoughts are focused on one thing - how to live another ridiculous day...
A person becomes a philosopher when he realizes that he cannot change anything in his life, which sometimes becomes worthless. And he begins to think freely, trying to understand what the essence of his existence is. Often he comes to such a state under the influence of the surrounding world, which puts pressure on the human soul, breaks life. Society always changes a person, leaving an imprint of cynicism and selfishness on him. But even at the very bottom, there can always be a person who still continues to believe in his ideal, trying to find the truth in this crazy world. An example of this is Satin, a character in the play "At the Bottom".
This play, it seems to me, should be considered as a socio-philosophical, as a life drama of crushed souls... The people in it live by themselves, they are indifferent and selfish. They carry the weight of their life problems which is by no means easy. And what are their aspirations, what do they want from their lives? These people, the inhabitants of Kostylev's rooming house, are no longer trying to get out of this "bottom" - they have already become an integral part of it. They were driven there social problems- poverty, hunger... Their lives were pulled down by the whirlpool of social upheavals, and they sank to the very bottom, into the abyss. Their philosophy is different - some believe in romantic ideals, into work, into human greatness, while others tend to go into the shadows, hide in a dark corner from future problems and upheavals, so as not to change their lives again. They live in their past, remembering their old days, forever lost.
Sometimes the burden of life becomes simply unbearable, and then only a bitter memory and pity for the one so mediocrely ruined by this crazy world remains from a person. human life. This, of course, primarily applies to the Actor.
It is possible to single out two varieties of the vital humanism of the drama, and, accordingly, two characters - the bearers of this humanism. The first is Luke, who professes a humanism based on compassion and pity for man, who calls on us to come to terms with existing conditions. Luka was able to calm Anna's suffering soul, who, perhaps, in the end, received at least some help for the first time in long years. Her last days become happier than the previous few painful years of life.
Luka has a fierce opponent - Satin. He based his life philosophy faith in man, in man with capital letter. He talks about the benefits of labor, about the high destiny of man. But in all this we can see one big contradiction. Yes, the heroes talk about work, work, human soul, but they themselves have long lost their human appearance and have ceased to appreciate even life itself. Maybe the heroes are guided in their philosophy by high life principles, but in the social sense they ceased to exist as individuals. It is very good to answer those philosophical questions of human existence that Gorky posed in the play, unambiguously.
Thus, one can be convinced that "At the Bottom" is a drama, a socio-philosophical drama. It raises many questions concerning society and human life. These two problems are connected to each other by invisible threads that break at the moment when people lose faith in themselves. I want a person to be a Human not only in words...

At the "bottom" of society: outcasts, parasites or fallen angels? April 9th, 2013

Much and often talk about social justice and welfare state. About the welfare society, equality and socialism. The words are pronounced correct and beautiful, but often too generalized, idealistic. Let's take a specific problem - parasitism, asociality and alcoholism, vagrancy, drug addiction, gopnichestvo, etc., which go hand in hand with them. The so-called "bottom" of society.

At one time, on the wave of revolutionary socialist ideas, the opinion reigned that the unfortunate fate of those who had sunk to the "bottom" was solely to blame environment- an indifferent, disgusting and vicious society. So they said: "Wednesday stuck." That is, the blame was entirely placed on the shoulders of the entire society, and the "bottom" was declared almost holy. And in order to change the life of the “donors”, it was necessary to give them everything for nothing, taking away the “surplus” from the rest, and creating ideal greenhouse conditions for the “newly elected”. "Whoever was nothing will become everything", "the last will be the first" - the Bolsheviks proclaimed, borrowing a well-known biblical phrase and replacing its meaning. The heroes of the play "At the bottom" became the heroes of the time. And all this on the wave of unprecedented enthusiasm and faith in man as such, godless and godlike.

However, almost immediately it became clear that the "bottom" is heterogeneous and ambiguous: along with the talents and heroes who came out of the mud, into which circumstances and an unjust society really trampled them in many ways, along with the pearls of the Russian land, acquired thanks to the revolution new life who gave their Motherland grandiose discoveries and phenomenal achievements, at the "bottom" it turned out to be full of such people, who are commonly called "ball". People who are the "bottom" of society are not social status and financial prosperity, but in lifestyle, behavior and psychology. These were the most fallen angels in the biblical sense. Creatures of God who accepted sin and immorality as the norm of behavior. And the point is not only in the notorious environment (although, of course, children are born innocent and blameless), but also in some internal spiritual flaws that lie outside social circumstances. Communism, which perceived everything purely materially and extremely simplified, did not understand and did not accept this. The early Soviet ideology, based on the assertion of the absolute equality of everyone and everything and on the primacy of matter,made a bet on the active and tough re-education of parasites and downtrodden.

In the first decades of Soviet power, a titanic attempt was made, which has yet to be comprehended in the future. When, on the one hand, the personality of a person was subordinated to the public in a commanding way, and thus the true harmony of the cathedral personality was distorted, but on the other hand, albeit by force, they tried to pull each person to a higher level. Despite the cold and hunger, the new government and ideology made it possible for tens of millions of grimy boys and girls to touch the beautiful and great, to find a grandiose dream and goal (albeit only earthly) and to accomplish a social and personal feat. To burn with the soul, and not to burn through your life or to become assholes. You can laugh as much as you like at the attempt to stretch the “bottom”, elevate the “ball” ones to Pushkin, ignite them with the greatness of the cosmos and the idea of ​​​​the superman, you can blame the early Soviet power in violence against the individual and in the unwillingness to leave every individual alone, even if she was mired in sin, but this was a great tension of the Soviet idea, a great desire to change the world for the better, a grandiose experiment that led people up, for the better.

It's a disaster, of course. Such an attitude is fundamentally criminal, no matter how beautifully it is presented in the wrapper of a consumer society, and gives full right call liberalism fascism. However, having put an end to such an attitude towards a parasitic person, having rejected social Darwinism in any form (liberalism or socialism), it is still important to understand and decide what to do with people who are at the "bottom". What to do with such a social misfortune, with such people, their souls and personalities. Leave them to chance? try to pull to the better and brighter? and if you pull, then where is it, this light, and how to pull towards it? Equalizing everyone under the same brush? To build cunning schemes for the fair distribution of resources in society? How and what to do with the "bottom" of society - uh that, it seems to me, is one of the most important problems in creating a just society.

Let's take a very common and frequent story as an example. Two children in equally difficult and even terrible social conditions - alcoholic parents or orphanhood in general, no prospects, the most insignificant meanings and values, oppression of creativity and personality, dirt and stench, both physical and spiritual. But one retains the image of God in himself and strives upward, while the other slides into hell.Or: both live in excellent conditions, before them all the possibilities - but one is cattle, and the other is a decent person. And how to be? how to assess the relationship between the environment and man? How to shout about the fact that the "environment is stuck" if the modern rich representative of the middle "creative" class has, if not everything, then a lot? Moreover, as life shows, sometimes the better social conditions the more prosperous that same "environment", the greater the percentage of the fallen and "extinct" in such a society. One has only to look at the West prospering with iridescent pederasts.

Meanwhile, there is a way out, but it is not simple, not linear and does not promise heaven on earth. Paradise is in heaven, and this must finally be mastered by all sorts of ideological fighters and socialist metaphysicians. However, it is necessary to strive to approach the ideal, and not only is it necessary, but it is the only way to preserve man as the image of God and resist the forces of destruction. The craving for the ideal is the only condition for development. It is development, and not progress, invented by the technological West and perverted the original meaning. Development is the moral (and not technological or, say, biological) improvement of a person and society, the joint co-creation of oneself in line with what the Supreme Creator intended for you, overcoming temptations and outright stupidities on this path. Moral standards must proceed from the ideal of the people, their thousands of years of creative work and experience. It cannot be some idea hanging in the void, without deep roots and a history of struggle. The spiritual values ​​of the people, their preservation and development, must be proclaimed as the most important thing in the life of the state, country and individual.

At the same time, based on the fact that not all people find the strength in themselves for self-improvement and spiritual development, the state is forced to establish mandatory for all moral guidelines, values ​​and even laws. Morality should be the measure social behavior man as his guide. moral development must be opposed to the immoral, and the latter is reduced to a minimum, outlawed. And at the same time, every person should be given the freedom of choice - to live according to moral laws country and society, or be outside the law. To forcibly draw a fallen person to a high, to an ideal, by official instructions or physical pressure, to make a connoisseur of beauty and a guardian of morality out of a gopnik is an empty occupation and can only lead to the opposite effect. Only the Word with Love and personal example can touch the heart of the fallen and change his motivation. What is low and bestial is always more accessible and therefore, at first glance, more attractive to a person who has not been “infected” with high and eternal meanings. Therefore, it is possible to build a system of a moral state only on clearly stated values ​​and ideals, as well as on the personal example of service and love of those who take responsibility in such a society. On the example of leaders.

Reflections on Man in M. Gorky's play "At the Bottom"

The leading role in M. Gorky's play "At the Bottom" is played by an ideological conflict, a deep confrontation between the moral, aesthetic, social, and philosophical views of the characters. The author draws their heated debate. In this regard, the play "At the Bottom" is considered a play-dispute!

The play "At the Bottom" is a socio-philosophical one. It is based on a dispute about a person, about his appointment, position in society and attitude towards him. Almost all the inhabitants of the rooming house take part in it. Gorky's attention is focused not on the fate of individuals, but on the course of life of all the characters as a whole. Showing their life, the playwright draws attention to the experiences, feelings, thoughts and aspirations of the characters, trying to look to the very bottom of the human soul.

The inhabitants of the rooming house strive to escape from it to freedom, to finally leave the notorious bottom of life. However, these people reveal their complete impotence in the face of the constipation of the Kostylev cave, which gives rise to an absolute sense of hopelessness in them. The tramps painted by Gorky have long lost themselves and the meaning of life. They lead an empty existence. Fate and inhuman living conditions deprive them and devastate them morally. Gorky tramps are people without a future. Not all of them have a past either. They brag about only the former baron, the former telegraph operator, former actor provincial theater, "thief, son of thieves".

Excites the life of the "bottom" the appearance of Luke. It is with his image that the problem of man is connected in the play. This is the hardest controversial image in the play, which raises the main philosophical question. M. Gorky argued: “The main question I wanted to pose is what is better, truth or compassion? What is more needed? Is it necessary to bring compassion to the point of using lies, like Luke?

Luke's philosophy boils down to the statement: "A person can do anything if he is helped to believe in it, if he is made to want it." In the role of a certain sorcerer, casting a "golden dream", Luke acts. The old man is deeply convinced that a person must be able to pity, warm, reassure, listen, especially when it is hard for him, that you need to bring him compassion. Luke believes that people are afraid and do not need the true truth of life, since it is too harsh and merciless. In order to alleviate the situation of the disadvantaged, it is necessary to embellish their life with a beautiful word, bring a fairy tale, illusion, deceit, a pink dream into it, give hope. Luke tells various parables that clearly and eloquently illustrate his philosophy, and tell the tramps about the old man's truth in an accessible way. He is affectionate with them, calls them "darling", "dove", "baby". Pepel asks Luka: “Why are you lying all the time?”, and he replies: “And what do you really need, think about it? She’s right, yes, maybe she’ll swell for you. ”

Based on this, the mysterious wanderer tells the dying Anna about a happy afterlife, soothes her with stories about the blissful silence after death, about the long-awaited deliverance from all ailments and troubles. Pepl Luka announces the wonderful country of Siberia, free and free, where he can finally find a use for himself. The old man entertains the actor with a tale of a free clinic with marble floors, where he will be relieved of his addiction to alcohol, after which he will certainly return to former life. The actor and Anna listen to Luke during their first conversation. Former artist feels that something good and forgotten is awakening in his soul, he remembers his name, his favorite poem.

Luke's idea is to save by deceiving. He generously sows words of comfort and hope. People easily trust him, because he is condescending to their weaknesses and vices, tolerant of sins, responsive to a request for help, shows genuine interest in their already indifferent nature, in their fate. The old man knows how to listen.

This choice of the name of this hero is not accidental. It explains a lot about his character. Luke - means crafty, cunning, smart, secretive, deceiver, good-natured, playful. The name of the hero reveals a connection with the Gospel, with the apostle, who also brings his teaching to the world. And Luka Gorky is a bearer of wisdom, giving away his truth to people. He is a truth seeker, walked the earth a lot, learned a lot and saw a lot. The Stranger sincerely loves people, sincerely wishes them well, every person is needed and important for him, and by this he warms the inhabitants of the rooming house. Luke preaches: "A person can teach goodness very simply."

The playwright does not draw Luka's past, but the absence of a passport testifies to many difficulties in his life. The old man has a great worldly experience, he is observant, loves to conduct instructive conversations, in which there are notes of humility (“Everything, sweetheart endure”), and guiding judgments (“Whoever wants it hard will find it”).

The arrival of Luke lit up the rooming house with a sudden light. A ray of kindness and affection, attention and desire to help appeared in the life of the inhabitants of the Kostylevo cave. Relationships in the rooming house with the arrival of Luka became a little more humane, the forgotten began to awaken, the past was remembered, in which everyone had not nicknames, but real ones, human names, the belief in the possibility of living better has strengthened, the first steps have appeared towards the return of the human "I".

Luke's position is highly controversial and controversial. Discussions about a person are aggravated in a rooming house in connection with the sudden disappearance of an old man. The evaluation of the wanderer's personality by the roomers is ambiguous. Nastya says that "the old man was a good man," Kleshch, that "he was compassionate." Satine calls Luca "a crumb for the toothless", "a plaster for abscesses". His lie gave the roommates the strength to live, to resist the evil lot, to hope for the best. But she only brought peace for a while, muffling the heavy reality. When Luke disappeared real life The Actor was horrified, and he hanged himself, and Nastya fell into despair from hopelessness, while Vaska Pepel went to prison.

The hopes awakened in the souls of the heroes turned out to be too fragile and soon faded away. Willy-nilly, they had to return to prosaic and harsh reality. They called the old man who disappeared without a trace the culprit of their heavy sobering up. Dreams and dreams were suddenly dispelled and bitter disappointment inevitably set in. Instead of rest and peace, dramatic events unfold in the Kostylevsky rooming house. Luka really managed to plant a spark of hope in the heart of every tramp, to give him a dream, but after his departure, it only became harder for all the roommates. They are weak-willed, weak and cannot change anything in their fate. The old man beckoned, but did not show the way. The overnight stays show an absolute unwillingness to do anything to make their dreams come true. The hope given by Luke could not find support in the characters of the tramps.

Luka is the ideologist of passive consciousness, which Gorky always rejected. Such a psychology, the playwright believed, can only reconcile a person with his position, but it will never push him to change this position.

Satine's monologue is a lively reaction to Luke's philosophy. Satine is Luke's opponent in a dispute about a man. This image is complex, contradictory, ambiguous Satin promotes the need for respect for a person, and not pity for him. Pity, according to Satin, humiliates a person. He believes that a person needs to be taught to use freedom, he needs to open his eyes. At the heart of Satin's words lies a deep faith in man, in his unlimited possibilities and exceptional powers. “What is a man? the hero asks. - It's huge! What is some truth? Man - that's the truth ... There is only a man, everything else is the work of his hands and his brain. The playwright puts his own innermost thoughts into the mouth of Sateen.

Genuine humanism, according to the writer, affirms the high purpose of man, compassionate humanism, calling only to pity him, is passive and false. Preachers like Luka are unacceptable to Gorky because they reconcile a person with an unacceptable reality.

Satin understands that Luka was lying not out of self-interest, but out of pity for people. He says that Luka "fermented" the inhabitants, and "acted on him ... like sour on a rusty coin." But in his monologue, he nevertheless proclaims a different attitude towards man. The comforting lie of Luke is called by him the religion of slaves and masters. Satin expresses the opinion that it is necessary not to reconcile a person with reality, but to force it to serve a person. He talks about high self-worth human personality. Man, according to Sati-nu, is the creator, owner and changer of life. “Only man exists, everything else is the work of his hands and brain,” sounds from his lips. He boldly affirms the equality of people regardless of their social status and nationality. Sateen's words were spoken in a moment of deep spiritual uplift, and this indicates that not everything has died in his soul, since the hero continues to reflect on life and the place of man in it. Satin's speech is the main moment in the development of the disputes of the roomers about truth and man.

It is impossible not to say about Bubnov, who proclaims the truth of the fact. Bubnov's position is unpretentious. He believes that one should not try to change something in life, one must come to terms with everything, accept everything as it should be, including evil. According to Satin, a person should go with the flow without hesitation. “People all live .... like chips floating in the river,” he says. This position is incorrect. It undermines a person's desire for the best, deprives him of hope, makes faith meaningless. The bearer of such a position becomes passive, cruel and heartless. Evidence of this is the words of Bubnov, thrown to the dying Anna: "The noise of death is not a hindrance." Baron, perhaps, held views similar to Bubnov. He was meaningless all his life, but he went with the flow (floated down!). As a result, from a nobleman, he turned into a tramp. He is an example of a person - chips.

In one of his letters, Gorky wrote “... my task is to arouse in a person pride in himself, to tell him that in life he is the best, most significant, most expensive, most sacred, and that there is nothing besides him worthy of attention" These words give a vivid picture of the playwright's response to main question plays.

"Freedom at all costs .." (Based on the play by M. Gorky "At the Bottom")

A notable phenomenon in Russian literature at the beginning of the 20th century was Gorky's play "At the Bottom". What explains its exceptional success? Strong impression on the viewer produced a combination of extremely realistic image people who have reached the last degree of misery, despair and lack of rights, with the glorification of Man and his truth. Before the eyes of the public for the first time appeared hitherto unseen world of thieves, tramps, cheaters, that is, people who have sunk to the "bottom" of life. And in it, as in an overturned mirror, the world from which these people were thrown was reflected. M. Gorky's play was imbued with a protest against the social unrest of capitalist society and a passionate call for a just and peaceful life. "Freedom at all costs - that's its spiritual essence," - this is how K. S. Stanislavsky defined the idea of ​​the play, who staged it on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater.

The gloomy life of the Kostylevo rooming house is depicted by Gorky as the embodiment of social evil. The fate of the inhabitants of the "bottom" is a formidable indictment against the unjust social order. The people living in this cave-like basement are the victims of an ugly and cruel order in which a person ceases to be a person, turning into a powerless creature, doomed to drag out a miserable existence. The inhabitants of the "bottom" are thrown out of normal life due to the wolf laws that reign in society. Man is left to himself. If he stumbled, got out of a rut, then he faces imminent moral, and often physical death. Disbelief in justice made Satine himself take revenge on the villain who killed his sister. This revenge landed him in the prison that defined him. further fate. Bubnov is forced to leave home, leaving the workshop to his wife and her lover, as he did not hope for protection from the representatives of the law. Of course, the people who ended up in Kostylev's rooming house are not at all ideal. They make mistakes, do stupid things, but they don't deserve to be thrown to the "bottom" of life by society without any support. Vaska Pepel, the son of a thief, born in prison, is doomed to follow in the footsteps of his parent, for a different path is ordered for him. The industriousness and perseverance of Tick, who does not want to accept the fate of a rooming house, did not help him rise from the "bottom" of life.

Turning to the image of the life of the urban lower classes, the playwright touched actual problem modernity: what is the way out of the current situation, what is the salvation of the people of the "bottom"? According to Gorky himself, the main question of the play

Which is better: truth or compassion? Is it necessary to use lies like Luke? Will the passive-compassionate humanism of a comforting lie be healing for the inhabitants of the rooming house? Its bearer, pitying and consoling people, is the wanderer Luke in the play. He sincerely sympathizes with the victims of life, humiliated and offended people, disinterestedly seeks to alleviate their suffering, to help them. He promises dying Anna after death life in paradise, where she will rest from earthly suffering. The old man advises Ash and Natasha to start a new life in the golden country of Siberia. He tells the actor about a free hospital for alcoholics, the address of which he has forgotten, but he will definitely remember, giving this drunk person hope for a return to his former life.

Luke's position is the idea of ​​compassion for the person, the idea of ​​"sublime deceit" that allows a person to bear the burden " low truths"meeting on his thorny path. Luke himself formulates his position. Turning to Ash, he says: "... why do you really need it painfully?., think about it, the truth, maybe it will blow up for you." Then he talks about the "righteous land". Luke didn't bring her back, he knows she's gone. He is too short-sighted to see this land that Satine foresees. Luke is ready to welcome any idea, if it is capable of comforting a person, alleviating his suffering even for a minute. He does not think about the consequences of a lie that will sooner or later be revealed. In an effort to protect a person, Luka at the same time does not believe in him, for him all people are insignificant, weak, pitiful, in need of consolation: “I don’t care! I respect crooks, in my opinion, not a single flea is bad: all black, everyone is jumping."

Thus, the main feature of Luke's ideology is the feature of slavery. And here Luka echoes Kostylev, the philosophy of patience - with the philosophy of oppression, the point of view of a slave

From the owner's point of view. Gorky puts this thought into the mouth of Satin: “He who is weak in soul and who lives on other people’s juices needs a lie ... Some of them support it, others hide behind it ... And who is his own master, who is independent and does not take someone else’s - why should he False?" Luke's humanism is based on passive compassion, which, bringing momentary relief, deepens the gap between a person's dream of happiness and his real hopeless situation. This gap could not be endured by the Actor, who learned that the old man had lied and there was no hospital, which means there was no hope for the future. There is only one way out - suicide instead happy life in Siberia, which Luke promised Pepel, he ends up in hard labor for the murder of Kostylev. This means that Luke's consoling lie only worsens the situation of the outcasts.

Luke's lies lead the roommates into a world of illusion that deprives them of last strength to fight social evil, social injustice, because of which there are Kostylevskie bunkhouses. The antipode of Luke Satin verbally refutes the philosophy of consoling lies: "Lie is the religion of slaves and masters", "Truth is the god of a free man." He believes in man, in his ability to endure the truth, no matter how bitter it may be. "Man - that's the truth," says the hero. Unlike Luke, Satin is demanding of a person and believes that a person can do everything, since everything depends on his deeds and ideas. He does not need to be comforted by lies born of pity. To pity a person means to humiliate him with disbelief in the ability to achieve one's happiness, it means to seek support in all kinds of deceit and lies that will replace the missing will to live. Under the dark and gloomy vaults of the doss-house, among miserable, unfortunate, homeless vagabonds, solemn hymn words about Man, about his vocation, strength and beauty. "Man - this is true! Everything is in a person, everything is for a person! There is only a person, everything else is the work of his hands and brain! Man! This is magnificent! It sounds ... proud!"

Man himself is the creator of his own destiny, in him are hidden forces with the help of which he is able to overcome the most cruel hardships, the treachery of fate, the injustice of the world, his mistakes and the social troubles of society. Pity and compassion are wonderful, very necessary qualities for all of us, but only a truthful, adequate understanding of one's mistakes and opportunities can give a person a chance to overcome the evil fate and become truly free and happy.

A man in M. Gorky's play "At the bottom".
Human! It's great!
It sounds... proud! Human!
M. Gorky
M. Gorky's play "At the Bottom" was written in 1902. It was a huge success and was staged not only in Russian but also in European theaters. The interest in it is primarily due to the fact that the writer depicted in detail and reliably the life of people who found themselves at the "bottom". Previously, on the pages of Russian classics, people who belonged to high society. Now the floor was given to those who were usually not only not listened to, but also not noticed.
Gorky in his work encourages his contemporaries to reflect on what is better for a person of the "bottom": bitter truth or sweet lie? The characters of the play talk about truth and lies. A person and his destiny occupy almost the main place in the conversations of overnight stays.
In his drama, the writer condemns the existing system, the victims of which were ordinary people. Kostylev, the owner of the flophouse, brazenly sucks out the last pennies of the inhabitants of this "hole" for one night spent here. Before us is a world of outcasts who have been deprived of faith in better life, human dignity trampled into the dirt" the mighty of the world However, according to Satin, a person is the master of his own destiny, and they themselves are to blame for the fact that the shelters were in such a distress. If the Actor had not started drinking, he would not have lost his job and would not have stooped to such a degree .
Among the people of the "bottom" it is difficult to meet someone who is ready and capable not of death, but of life. From Luke's point of view, there are "people" and there are "humans", just as there is land that is inconvenient for sowing ... and there is fertile land. "All the inhabitants of the rooming house are just people, therefore the only grace that will be granted to them is death. That is why Luke convinces Anna to meet death as a long-awaited deliverance from a painful existence.Only Natasha and Pepel find the meaning of life in each other.They are still young and can escape from the power of circumstances.According to Luke, they are able to gain faith in God, which means , worthy of hope and grace.The rest of the inhabitants of the rooming house deserve only pity.And Luka pities them, not realizing that his deceit has a detrimental effect on everyone.
In my opinion, the antipode of Luke in relation to a person is Satin. He declares that man is the sole legislator who determines his own destiny. Everyone's will is strong. Man is free in his actions. He is able to achieve grace on his own, you just need to believe in yourself, and not in God, not in " righteous land", not into anything else. It is pointless to feel sorry for yourself or someone else, since no one but the person himself is to blame for his sorrows. Is it possible to feel sorry for the one who realized own will? If for the believer Luke "blessed are the poor in spirit", then for the atheist Sateen "blessed are the strong in spirit".
At the same time, Sateen has a dream of free life, clean, honest, bright, but he does not want to work, realizing that in the existing exploitative society it is impossible to live by honest work. That's why he laughs when Tick, in a fit of despair and powerlessness, declares that he will break out of the "bottom" of life and become a normal person, you just need to work. Satine hates and despises people who "care too much about being full". He convicts Luka of a lie, but understands that the old man was "a crumb for the toothless", he understands that a comforting lie is similar to the lies of the owners. Therefore, he says: "Falsehood is the religion of slaves and masters. Truth is the god of a free man."
However, in critical moment comforter Luka disappeared, fled, discrediting himself and his idea. And this is not the only plot move that allows us to judge the author's position, to believe that the author himself is on the side of Satin.
A person tortured by life can lose all faith. This is what happens to the Actor, who, having lost faith in the mercy of God and not relying on himself, commits suicide. But it seems to me that suicide is one of the manifestations of free will. The death of the Actor means for Gorky the victory of the satin view of man. That is why Satin reacts so calmly to the terrible news. In his opinion, the Actor has gained real faith in himself.
The play "At the Bottom" is strong not so much for its answers as for the questions that arise from the very thick of life, from the most pressing human needs. This is where the main motive of the play is the contradiction between the lie of the owner and the freedom of Man. And this question sounded like hope for those who despaired and resigned themselves to their situation.