Each of us has often wondered what is the difference between victory and defeat? The answer is simple: victory makes you feel stronger, more confident in your intentions and goals. When we win, we feel satisfaction: what we aspired to finally gives a result, which means that the aspiration is not in vain. But defeat is the opposite: it makes us feel insecure, after numerous losses and miscalculations, we are afraid of a new failure. But, on the other hand, they give invaluable experience, gives an understanding of where the reason for the defeat lies. So after countless failures, seemingly hopeless losers become winners. This means that these extremes are interdependent: without defeats it is impossible to learn how to win. Is it so?
For example, let's take the work of F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment", where the author raises the main ones that have puzzled a person for more than a hundred years. The protagonist of the work, Rodion Raskolnikov, kills an old pawnbroker, wanting to use her money for the benefit of all the poor. The killer wants to decide for himself who he is: "a trembling creature" or "having the right." The hero wanted to keep his crime a secret, but in the end he told Sonya Marmeladova about it, and later the investigator. While in hard labor, Rodion admitted his guilt and repented. He realized that by killing the old woman, he became a "trembling creature" and an outcast of society. And when he went through this defeat, he realized all the mistakes, for the better. And we can assume that this is his personal victory.
Turgenev's work "Fathers and Sons" can also be cited as an example. The hero of this work, Yevgeny Bazarov, was and believed only in science. In many disputes, he defeated opponents with the power of his mind or the energy of his protest, in many cases he turned out to be the winner, helping people get rid of the disease. With the same zeal, he fought the love of a woman - a feeling that he considered unacceptable. When he met Anna Sergeevna and fell in love with her, he became hardened against himself, so as not to lose. However, after some time, he failed and confessed his feelings. Having revised his life principles, he became better and began to look at the world differently. And this is also his personal victory, although belated.
Thus, I come to the conclusion that a real (and not accidental) victory is impossible without defeats preceding it. Only by going through defeat, having considered your mistakes, can you learn to go all the way to the intended goal and gain the upper hand. The main thing is not to despair and understand the reasons for failures, and then use this knowledge in life.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!Very often a person, not controlling his emotions or under the influence of negative thinking, makes serious mistakes, makes fundamentally wrong, stupid decisions. Often we find it difficult to overcome ourselves. Therefore, if a person still managed to defeat himself and embark on the right path, then he accomplished the greatest feat.
A vivid example of this is the victory over oneself by Rodion Raskolnikov, who is the hero of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". Raskolnikov in this work admitted the inaccuracy of his theory. At the beginning of the novel, he believed that people are divided into heroes who can move mountains and do not stop at a crime for the sake of good, and insignificant creatures, suitable only for reproducing their own kind. Raskolnikov attributed himself to the first type. And he went to the crime for the sake of money, which will help to get rid of the suffering of many people. Raskolnikov killed the old pawnbroker, but did not stop there. Then he also killed her sister, who became a witness, and Raskolnikov hid the stolen valuables of the old woman. However, after the crime committed, Raskolnikov no longer feels free, remorse begins to torment him. For a long time he cannot get rid of this pain. In the end, he could not stand it and confessed why he was exiled to Siberia. Only there did he finally realize that his theory was fundamentally wrong - if each person, following his own theory, kills others, then there will be no people left on earth at all. Having rethought his life, schismatics changed, and the attitude of others towards him also changed. He awakened love for the faithful Sonya. He felt happy. And happiness brought him victory over himself. But he had to go to this victory for a very long time - it was not easy for him. However, he still managed to cope with his negative thinking, so I think he accomplished a feat.
Another example of the fact that the greatest victory is a victory over oneself is the victory of Nadezhda from I. A. Bunin's story "Dark Alleys" over her feelings. When Nikolai Alekseevich vilely abandoned her, she could not come to terms with this and even tried to commit suicide. However, she managed to overcome herself and remained alive. Then she achieved considerable success in life, became a good housewife, people respected her. Of course, it was very difficult for her. But she was able to cope with her pain, won a victory over herself, so she did not lose hope for happiness.
I fully agree with the statement that the greatest victory is the victory over yourself. Sometimes it can be very difficult to change your thinking or cope with emotions. However, if this thinking and emotions bring only suffering to a person, then the ability to overcome them is the greatest feat, since this gives us the opportunity to become happy.
Together with the article “An essay on the topic“ The greatest victory is a victory over oneself ”they read:
Share:Petersburg is one of the most beautiful and at the same time the most controversial cities in the world. The combination of the cold, perfect beauty of this Northern Palmyra and something gloomy, gloomy even in its very splendor allowed Dostoevsky to call Petersburg "the most fantastic city in the world." Often Petersburg in Russian literature of the 19th century is perceived as a dead or enchanted place where a person goes crazy or falls into the power of the Devil - this is exactly how this city is depicted in Dostoevsky's novel - a city that has transgressed the laws of humanity. The writer takes the reader not to Nevsky Prospekt or Palace Square, but to the quarters of the poor, where narrow streets and slop-drenched stairs, miserable dwellings that can hardly be called dwellings.
One of the main ideas of Russian literature is the idea of the House: The House is not just four walls, it is a special atmosphere of mutual understanding, security, human warmth, unity, but most of Dostoevsky's heroes are deprived of such a house. "Cage", "closet", "corner" - that's what they call where they live. Raskolnikov's closet "looked more like a closet than an apartment," the Marmeladovs lived in a passage room "ten paces long," Sonya's room looked like a barn. Such rooms that look like either a closet or a barn give rise to a feeling of depression, loss, and spiritual discomfort. "Without-Homeness" is an indicator that something in the world has been loosened, something has been displaced.
The urban landscape of St. Petersburg in the novel is striking in its fantastic gloominess and discomfort. What is the description of the city at the beginning of the novel worth: “The heat was terrible on the street, besides stuffiness, crush, everywhere lime, brick, dust.” The motive of stuffiness, lack of air becomes symbolic in the novel: as if from the St. Petersburg heat, Raskolnikov suffocates from the inhumanity of his theory, which crushes him, oppresses him, it is no accident that Porfiry Petrovich will say: “Now you only need air, air!”
In such a city, it seemed impossible to remain healthy both physically and morally. The morbidity of this world, manifesting itself outwards, paints both the walls of houses and the faces of people in an unhealthy, annoying yellow color: yellowish shabby wallpaper in the rooms of Raskolnikov, Sonya, Alena Ivanovna; a woman who threw herself into a ditch has a “yellow, oblong, exhausted face”; before the death of Katerina Ivanovna, "her pale yellow, withered face threw back."
The world of the novel "Crime and Punishment" is a world of constant, everyday and familiar tragedies. There is not a single death in the novel that could be called natural: the wheels of the master's carriage crushed Marmeladov, Katerina Ivanovna burned down from consumption, an unknown woman who threw herself into a ditch is trying to commit suicide, Raskolnikov's ax crushed two lives. All this is perceived by others as something everyday, familiar, and even providing a reason for a kind of entertainment. Curiosity, insulting, cynical, soulless, reveals how lonely a person is in the world of such Petersburg. In the cramped apartments, in the street crowd, a person finds himself alone with himself and with this cruel city. This peculiar "duel" of man and city almost always ends tragically for Dostoevsky's heroes.
Traditionally, literature has developed a view of St. Petersburg as a city that combines the real and the fantastic, the concrete and the symbolic. In Dostoevsky's novel, Petersburg becomes a monster city that devours its inhabitants, a fatal city that deprives people of all hope. Dark, insane forces take possession of the soul of a person in this city. Sometimes it seems that the very “city-infected” air gives rise to semi-real, semi-fantastic phenomena - that tradesman, for example, who seemed to have grown out of the ground and shouted to Raskolnikov: “Killer!” Dreams in this city become a continuation of reality and are indistinguishable from it, like, for example, Raskolnikov's dreams about a downtrodden horse or a laughing old woman. The very idea of the protagonist of Dostoevsky's novel appears as a phantom, born of the entire painful atmosphere of St. Petersburg, the city, which has transgressed the laws of humanity, becomes an accomplice in crime.
A person is not a “rag”, not a “louse”, not a “trembling creature”, but in that Petersburg, as Dostoevsky depicts it - a world of injustice and self-affirmation at the expense of the fates and lives of people, a person often turns into a “rag”. Dostoevsky's novel strikes with the cruel truth in the depiction of "humiliated and insulted", people driven to despair. All the misfortunes and humiliations that an unfairly arranged world brings to a person are combined in the history of the Marmeladov family. This poor drunken official who tells his story to Raskolnikov, it turns out, thinks in eternal categories of justice, compassion, forgiveness: “After all, it is necessary that every person should have at least one such place where he would be pitied!” Marmeladov is not only pathetic, but also tragic: he no longer has hope for the well-being of his earthly life, his only hope is in the heavenly Judge, who will be more merciful than earthly ones: “And the one who pitied everyone and who understood everyone and everything, he one, he is the judge." The author's ardent interest in man, his compassion for the "humiliated and offended" is the basis of Dostoevsky's humanism. Not to judge, but to forgive and understand a person - this is the moral ideal of Dostoevsky.
Raskolnikov's theory was formed by chance: he accidentally overheard a conversation in a pub, and a peculiar substantiation of this idea arose in his head, created in him by the exceptionally difficult circumstances of his life.
Raskolnikov's thought had already dwelled on the question of the relativity in life of the concepts of good and evil. In the midst of humanity, Raskolnikov separated a small group of people who, as it were, stood above questions of good and evil, above ethical assessments of actions and deeds, people who, due to their genius, their high usefulness for humanity, nothing can serve as an obstacle to whom everything is allowed. The rest, who do not leave the circle of mediocrity, the mass, the crowd, must obey the existing general norms and laws and serve as a means of high goals for the chosen people. Moral rules do not exist for the latter, they can break them, because their ends justify their means.
This is how Raskolnikov substantiates the right of an exceptional person to commit crimes in the name of not animals and selfish, but general and lofty goals. Raskolnikov understands that such a course of action must also correspond to the special mental structure of the personality of a person who is ready to “transgress” morality. For this he must be the owner of a strong will, iron endurance, and in him over feelings of fear, despair, timidity, only the consciousness of the set intellectual goals should rule. Having fallen into despair and longing, Raskolnikov needs to prove to himself that he is not a “trembling creature”, that he dares, maybe that he is destined to go through all his plans. “Power is given only to those who dare to bend down and take it. There is only one thing: you just have to dare!”
Thus, the planned murder attracts Raskolnikov not with the possibility of enrichment, but as a victory over himself, as a confirmation of his strength, as proof that he is not “material” for construction, but the builder himself. When contemplating a crime, Raskolnikov goes entirely into theorizing, into philosophical reflections, and he is much more interested in logical conclusions than in the results of an act. He remains a theoretician, a thinker even when he fulfills all his plans. And, despite the fact that, as it seemed, he foresaw and foresaw everything in advance, he could not foresee the most important thing precisely because he is a man of thought, not action.
Need and the humiliation and insults associated with it for the proud young man served as one of the first impetuses for making a decision. Pawning his belongings with the usurer, Raskolnikov experienced disgust and anger, caused in him by the appearance and the whole atmosphere of the sinister old woman. And when one day he managed to accidentally overhear in a beer conversation two students about the murder, the arguments of one of them were, as it were, an echo of the unconscious conviction of Raskolnikov himself.
Although the student who defended this point of view so ardently confessed that he himself could not confirm it by action and would not have gone to murder, this thought sunk into Raskolnikov’s head, and he thought about it a lot. He also dwelled on the practical consequences of the crime: the old woman's money would give him the opportunity to graduate from the university, help his mother and sister, and begin activities useful to society. But then he is completely captured by his own theory about genius and the crowd, about people of strength and will, about builders-strong loners - and the crowd as material for buildings.
It becomes necessary for Raskolnikov to prove to himself at all costs that he has the strength and determination to justify his bold theory in practice. Completely overwhelmed by the feverish and persistent work of thought, exhausted by hunger, he becomes a victim of his obsession and, as hypnotized, no longer has the strength to tear himself away from the intended path.
At first he struggled with himself, something in him protested against his decision, the thought of murder filled him with longing and disgust. But then he somehow mechanically obeyed his idea, no longer in control of himself, but as if fulfilling someone else's will. “As if,” the author says, “someone took him by the hand and pulled him along, irresistibly, blindly, with unnatural force, without objection. It was as if he had hit a piece of clothing in the wheel of a car, and he began to be drawn into it.
Random external circumstances prompt him to carry out his plan. Having foreseen some trifles, Raskolnikov thought that he had discovered a complete preparation for a new life according to his "new morality". But the circumstances that unfolded after the accomplishment of the murder showed the theoretician that immediate life and its events have their own special logic, which crushes all the arguments and arguments of an abstract theory into dust. From his own terrible experience, Raskolnikov was convinced of the mistakes he had made.
Roman F.M. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" is defined by genre as a socio-psychological novel, since the author is concerned about both the sharp social contradictions of society and the moral quest of the hero, who got lost among the philosophical theories of his time. The crime of Rodion Raskolnikov has material, social, and philosophical origins, but the struggle of ideas in Raskolnikov's soul plays a special role in further events. If the prudent and immoral egoism of Luzhin or the vulgar socialist ideas of Lebezyatnikov
The hero rejects immediately, then he had to choose between the cynical individualism of Svidrigailov and the Christian worldview of Sonechka in painful throwing. Svidrigailov's ideas, inspired by Nietzsche's teachings about the superiority of a strong man over the rest, attract the hero, but he is repelled by Svidrigailov's immorality revealed to him. Sonya's views both delight and annoy with the preaching of Christian humility and humility. And so, tormented and for the hundredth time asking himself the same questions, Rodion keeps coming to Sonya. He tells her that he came to her for crosses, ready to repent, but in private he admits to himself that he wanted to "look at a person." For him, Sonya is the only person worthy of admiration, while most of the people around him are no better than him. He goes to the Sennaya for public repentance, as Sonya considered necessary, and he comes to this thought unexpectedly for himself. The “hopeless longing and anxiety” became simply unbearable for Rodion, so that the feeling that suddenly gripped him made him fall to his knees and kiss the dirty earth “with pleasure and happiness.” But those around him laughed at him, considering him drunk. The misunderstanding of people did not give Raskolnikov the opportunity for public repentance. But when he saw Sonya hiding behind the houses, he felt that "Sonya is now with him forever and will follow him even to the ends of the world, wherever fate may take him." Going up to the office, he again doubts whether he should go, he is afraid of the future. After talking with Ilya Petrovich about trifles, he still hesitates when he hears the news of Svidrigailov's suicide. This news shocked Raskolnikov. He, like no one else, understands that this is suicide - Svidrigailov's confession of his defeat. Confused, he goes out into the yard and sees Sonya, pale and completely dead. She, of course, realized that the confession did not happen, and her desperate look forced Raskolnikov to return. He again goes up to the office and, pale, "with a fixed look," says what he intended - a confession to the murder of Lizaveta and her sister. This is the victory of Sonya, her worldview, the idea of atonement for sin through suffering. This cannot yet be called the moral resurrection of the hero, it will happen much later, in hard labor. But this is already a defeat for the inhuman theory of Raskolnikov, the bourgeois individualism of Svidrigailov, the idea of the cynical superiority of a strong man who has the right to "cross the blood."
The episode of Raskolnikov's confession is an expression of the humanistic position of the author, who shares Christian beliefs. This is a subtle analysis of the hero's state of mind, his inner struggle. An important role here is played by Raskolnikov's internal monologue, which reveals the author's artistic skill, his understanding of the character's psychology. Finally, this is the natural ending of the novel about the crime committed by the hero, and most importantly, about the most terrible punishment that he suffered - the pangs of his own conscience.
