Introduction 3

Chapter 1. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy 5

1.1. Spiritual quest of Lev Nikolaevich…………………………….5

Chapter 2. The difference between Lev Nikolaevich’s religious views and

official Orthodoxy……………………………………………. 8

2.1. What is my faith……………………………..…… …………………...8

Conclusion 13

List of used literature 14

Introduction

Relevance of the topic test work is that at present Tolstoy’s religious views from official Orthodoxy are poorly studied. The Church is trying to distort the writer’s opinion, giving a not always correct assessment of Lev Nikolaevich’s thinking, persuading people to its side.

In our time, after the country lived in atheism for 70 years, and the Orthodox religion again began to prevail in the hearts of people, many began to think about God. The correctness of the Orthodox religion is this: main meaning Tolstoy's spiritual quest. Lev Nikolaevich describes very well the shortcomings of the Orthodox religion. He seeks the true God and is engaged in translating the original Gospels. His religious works should be read by every person, especially those who consider themselves a Christian.

If it is still possible not to think about church dogmas (since dogma is a decree, the provisions of the doctrine approved by the highest church authorities, presented by the church as an immutable truth and not subject to criticism), then it is impossible to calmly talk about the many shortcomings intertwined by religion and society that the writer discovers. If you analyze Tolstoy’s religious works, you can draw a parallel between the times of the Orthodox Church and understand that many things remain unchanged today.

The degree of knowledge of the topic. The religious and philosophical views of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy were well presented by A. V. Men. 1

Goal of the work: consider the religious views of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy, find the main differences between the writer’s religious views and official Orthodoxy.

Tasks:

1. Analyze the spiritual quest of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy
2. To study the differences between the religious views of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy and the Orthodox religion.

Work structure: the test consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

Chapter 1. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy

1. Spiritual quests of Lev Nikolaevich

The history of Lev Nikolaevich’s spiritual quest is the history of his generation, not just one, but even several. The writer lived a long life, and Tolstoy's influence on his contemporaries was colossal. However, today's readers have a vague idea of ​​what the meaning of his teaching was and what the tragedy of the great writer was. When talking about Tolstoy, they primarily mean the writer, the authors of novels, but they forget that he is also a thinker. The thinker, who created his own philosophy, was dissatisfied with Christian dogmas and criticized the Orthodox Church.

Lev Nikolaevich early began to think about the meaning of life, analyze his actions, and think about the ethical aspects of human existence. Also early on, he thought about God, about the Orthodox faith and wrote in the religious work “Confession”: “I was baptized and raised in the Orthodox Christian faith. I was taught it from childhood, and throughout my adolescence and youth. But when I left the second year of university at the age of 18, I no longer believed in anything that they taught me” 2. But one should not take this statement of Tolstoy literally; he had faith, but only vaguely in the form of deism. He looked for the meaning of life in family, work, in what people call happiness.

“War and Peace” is a novel where Lev Nikolaevich believes in fate, which leads a person to where he does not want to go. For him, Napoleon appears to be some kind of historical figure, and a mass of people moves like ants according to some mysterious laws. Tolstoy also believes in the reunification of man with nature. Prince Andrei internally talks to the oak tree. The oak is an endless symbol of nature, to which the hero’s soul strives. The spiritual search of Pierre Bezukhov, who becomes a Freemason by performing their rituals (blindfolding and repeating words), is in vain. It is strange that the heroes of the novel do not even think of following the Christian path. Blame for everything that has spread to XVIII century deism, i.e. the dogmas of deism, which denies Revelation, the Incarnation, and the personality of Jesus Christ as the Revelation of God on earth, and represents Him only as a teacher and prophet.

“Anna Karenina” is a tragic novel that shows moral ruin Anna. The writer describes the story of a woman’s life, how evil rock, fate, and the mysterious God deals with a sinner. And so Leo Tolstoy began his novel with words from the Bible, the words of God: “Vengeance is Mine, and I will repay.” 3 Tolstoy interpreted these words as fate, that is, God, takes revenge on a person for sin, punishes.

Anathema overtook Lev Nikolaevich when, in his novel “Resurrection,” he wrote about the main sacrament of the faith of Christ, the Eucharist, the following words: “taking a gilded cup in his hands, he went out with it through the middle door and invited those who wanted to also eat the body and blood of God that were in the cup " 4

You can call Tolstoy a spiritual dissident, or a dissident. He was looking for answers to religious questions that the Holy Scriptures and the Orthodox Church could not always explain. Simple and intelligent people told him about faith, but he could not understand their faith and stubbornly sought his own.

Many people argue that a person finds God within himself in difficult times, but if you look at Lev Nikolaevich, you cannot say that he experienced difficulties. He had everything for his own happiness: talent, family, wealth. But he pauses, thinks and asks questions: “What will come of what I do today, what will I do tomorrow, what will come of my whole life? Why should I live, why should I desire anything, why should I do anything? Is there such a meaning in my life that would not be destroyed by the inevitable death that awaits me? In search of answers to the question of life, the writer experienced the same feeling that overcomes a lost man in the forest. 5

Chapter 2. The difference between the religious views of L. Tolstoy and official Orthodoxy

1. What is my faith

Tolstoy's disagreement with Orthodox Church started very early. Being an erudite man, he knew a lot and considered it wrong to be a Christian and not fulfill the provision of non-resistance to evil. From childhood, the writer was taught that Christ is God and his teaching is Divine, but they were also taught to respect institutions that use violence to ensure safety from evil, and were taught to consider these institutions sacred. Lev Nikolayevich was taught to resist evil and was taught that it was humiliating to submit to evil, and that it was commendable to repel evil. Then Tolstoy was taught to fight, i.e. to oppose the evil by murder, and the army of which he was a member was called the Christ-loving army; and this activity was sanctified with Christian blessing. Moreover, from childhood to manhood he was taught to respect that which is directly contrary to the law of Christ. To fight back the offender, to take revenge with violence for the insult; Not only did they not deny all this, but they also inspired Tolstoy that all this was wonderful and did not contradict the law of Christ. After all this, Lev Nikolaevich became deluded. It arose from confessing Christ in words and denying him in deeds. “Everyone understands the teachings of Christ in the most varied ways, but not in that straightforwardly simple sense that inevitably follows from His words,” 6 says Lev Nikolaevich. People have organized their whole lives on the basis that Jesus denies, and no one wants to understand the teachings of Christ in its truest sense. The law of Christ is unusual for human nature; it consists in throwing away from oneself this dreamy teaching of people about non-resistance to evil, unusual for human nature, which makes their life miserable. The world, not the one that God gave for the joy of man, but the world that was created by people for their destruction, is a dream, and the wildest, most terrible dream, the delirium of a madman, from which you only have to wake up once and never return to it terrible dream. People have forgotten what Christ taught, what he told us about our lives - that we must not be angry, kill, we must not defend ourselves, but we must turn our cheek to the offender, that we must love our enemies. Jesus could not imagine that those who believed in his teachings of love and humility could calmly kill their brothers.

Lev Nikolaevich gives the example of a young peasant who refused military service on the basis of the Gospel. Church teachers instilled in the young man his delusion, but since he believed not them, but Christ, he was put in prison and kept there until the young man renounced Christ. And this happened after 1800 years, when Christians were given the commandment: “Do not consider people of other nations as your enemies, but consider all people as brothers and treat everyone the same way you treat people of your own people, and therefore not only do not kill those whom you call your enemies, but love them and do good to them.” 7

Public opinion, religion, science, everyone says that humanity is leading a wrong life, but how to become better and make life better - this teaching is impossible. Religion explains this by saying that Adam fell and the world lies in evil. Science says the same thing, but in different words, the dogma of original sin and atonement. In the doctrine of atonement there are two points on which everything rests: 1) legal human life is a blessed life, while worldly life here is a bad life, which cannot be corrected by human efforts, and 2) salvation from this life is in faith. These two points became the basis for believers and non-believers of pseudo-Christian societies. From the second point the church and its institutions emerged, and from the first point philosophical and social opinions arise.

The distortion of the meaning of life has distorted all rational human activity. The dogma of man's fall and redemption closed him off from people and excluded all knowledge so that man could understand what he needed for a better life. Philosophy and science are hostile to pseudo-Christianity and proud of it. Philosophy and science talk about everything, but not about how to make life better than it is.

The teaching of Jesus Christ is the teaching about the Son of Man, in order for people to do good and strive for a better way of being. We need to understand Christ's teaching about eternal life in God. Jesus himself did not say a word about his resurrection, but as theologians teach, the basis of the faith of Christ is that Jesus was resurrected, knowing that the main dogma of faith will consist precisely in the resurrection. But Christ never mentioned this in the Gospel; he exalts the son of man, i.e. The essence of human life is to recognize oneself as the son of God. Jesus says: although he will be tortured and killed, the Son of Man, who recognized himself as the son of God, will still be restored and triumph over everything. And these words are interpreted as a prediction of his resurrection. 8

Chinese, Hindus, Jews and all the people in the world who do not believe in the dogma of the fall of man and his redemption, life is life as it is. A person is born, lives, has children, raises them, grows old and dies. His children continue life, which continues from generation to generation. Our church says that human life is the highest good; it seems to us a small particle of that life that is hidden from us for a while. Our life is bad and fallen, a mockery of the real one, of the one that for some reason we imagine that God should have given us. The purpose of our life is not to live it the way God wants, not to make it eternal in generations of people, like the Jews, or to merge it with the will of the Father, as Christ taught, but to believe that after mortal life the real one will begin. Jesus was not talking about our imaginary life, but which God should have given, but did not. Christ did not know about the fall of Adam and eternal life in paradise and the immortal soul breathed into Adam by God, and he did not mention this anywhere. Jesus taught about life as it is and always will be. We mean that imaginary life that never existed.

There is a very old misconception that it is better for a person to withdraw from the world than to give in to temptations. Long before Christ, a story was written against this misconception about the prophet Jonah. The idea in the story is the same: Jonah is a prophet who alone wants to be righteous and leaves immoral people. But God tells him that - he is a prophet who must tell the lost people the truth, and therefore he must be near people, and not leave them. Jonah disdains the corrupt Ninevites and flees from them. But no matter how the prophet runs away from his destination, God still brings him to the Ninevites and through Jonah they accept the teachings of God and their lives become better. But Jonah is not happy that he is an instrument of the will of God, he is annoyed and jealous of God for the Ninevites - he alone wanted to be good and reasonable. The prophet goes into the desert, cries and complains about God. After this, a pumpkin grows over Jonah in one night, which saves him from the sun, and on another night a worm eats the pumpkin. Jonah complains even more to God because the pumpkin is missing. Then God says to the prophet: you regret that the pumpkin that you considered yours was lost, but didn’t I feel sorry for the huge people who perished, living like animals, not being able to distinguish right hand from the left. Your knowledge of the truth was needed to convey it to those who did not know it. 9

The Church teaches that Christ is the God-man who gave us an example of life. The entire life of Jesus as we know it takes place in the center of events: with harlots, tax collectors, and Pharisees. The main commandments of Christ are love for one’s neighbor and preaching his teachings to people, and this requires unbreakable communication with the world. The conclusion is that according to the teachings of Christ, you need to get away from everyone, get away from the world. It turns out that you need to do the exact opposite of what Jesus taught and what he did. The church teaches secular and monastic people not the teaching about life - how to make it better for oneself and for others, but the teaching about what a secular person needs to believe in order to live incorrectly and still be saved in the next world, and for monastics, make life even worse than it already is. But Christ did not teach this. Jesus taught the truth, but if the truth is abstract, then this truth will be the truth in reality. If life in God is an inseparable true life, blessed in itself, then it is true, here on earth, under all possible circumstances in life. If life here did not confirm Christ’s teachings about life, then this teaching would not be true. 10 2.1. What is my faith……………………………..………………………...8
Conclusion 13
References 14

L.N. Tolstoy thought a lot about philosophical questions, tried to find answers to eternal and rhetorical questions. In his youth, Tolstoy wrote many works about the meaning of life, about the role of the material and spiritual principles, about free will, about causality and chance.

L.N. From a philosophical point of view, Tolstoy shared the position of idealism; he denied with all his being that material aspects play an important role in the development of society. In “Lucerne” 1857, Tolstoy sharply criticizes the foundations and morals of the bourgeoisie. For Tolstoy, there is only God, who has the right to establish laws and decide the destinies of people. Tolstoy's philosophical idealistic and fatalistic views on the course of history are clearly visible in his outstanding epic “War and Peace” (60s). Tolstoy argued that people are controlled not by power and officials, but by the Almighty, and all historical events are predestined. He explained the plight of Christian peoples, first of all, by the lack of a common meaning of life for all of them. He believed that people's consciousness is completely independent of the external environment. Tolstoy, seeing the helpless complaints of the peasants, believed that the problem of unhappy people was in themselves, and that one must look for the root of evil in oneself, and not blame other people or the abstract state or government for all one’s troubles.

Sometimes Tolstoy deviated from idealistic views towards materialistic ones. From this point of view, he said that the material world is something real, physical and that there is no mystical background here. However, such thoughts did not stay in his head for long. After some time, Tolstoy again turned off the materialistic path and returned to the old familiar idealistic views. At the same time, he again began to criticize materialism in a rather harsh form. Then in 1904, Tolstoy, being in captivity of idealistic thinking, expressed a completely utopian idea that the material world is nothing more than consciousness, people themselves created this world, there will be no consciousness - the world will cease to exist.

Tolstoy's philosophical idealism intertwined his religious views, removal from politics, religious views, preaching personal self-improvement and non-resistance to evil through violence. Tolstoy believed that violence begets violence.

Tolstoy also said a lot about human free will. Tolstoy's views on human freedom permeate his entire pedagogical theory and activity. He believed that initially a person is not free, and that only a person himself can free himself from mental constraint. Tolstoy's teaching on human free will is purely individual. According to the philosopher, a free person should not worry about improving the social world, should not be an owner, since his own business, his own property is evil, entailing the vices and temptations of the earthly world. A free person does not depend on the conditions of existence, he is simply above them. The reasons for mental lack of freedom lie, as Tolstoy believed, in the person himself, and not in the living conditions of this or that person.

Tolstoy's problem of human free will is of an idealistic nature, as is his entire philosophical teaching. However, Tolstoy's strong idealism was combined with sober realism, merciless, harsh, passionate criticism of the exploiter, whose true faces Tolstoy showed when he exposed all the ulcers and contradictions of the capitalist system.

L.N. Tolstoy was a believer and devout man. The denial of dogmatic Orthodoxy and the church in his youth, however, did not lead Tolstoy to the denial of religion in general and the church. Tolstoy was never an atheist, he always believed in God and prayed to him. However, he sharply criticized all the deceit of the church and the way religion covered up the exploiters and the cruelty of the capitalist regime.

According to Tolstoy, religion should be clean from all state dirt. He saw Christianity as such a religion. He believed that religion determines how a person approaches everything. Tolstoy believed that people cannot and should not live without religion, and that it is religion that should become the basis of the worldview and the basis of the life of every person.

Tolstoy's teaching on morality is closely related to his religious views. The essence of these views is that Tolstoy wanted all people to be free and to love each other, to strive for unity and brotherhood, to limit their needs, to mutual understanding, support, and respect. It's all perfect. But life at that time was not ideal at all. People fought against the evil and cruelty of capitalists, and it is quite obvious that the preaching of universal love and calls for non-resistance to evil through violence played a reactionary role.

In Tolstoy's views on the progress of society one can see his conservatism. Tolstoy considered it bad to create new things and improve people's lives with various scientific discoveries. Seeing that only educated and rich people benefit from the achievements of science, and that science works for war, Tolstoy called for stopping and returning to a simple communal, uncivilized style of life, where, in his opinion, freedom and kindness of people would reign.

Tolstoy's attitude towards art is interesting. He believed that the poor contemporary art was created only for high society, and that ordinary people did not have access to it. Art, according to Tolstoy, became arrogantly empty, it was replaced by cheap fakes. In his criticisms against Pushkin, Shakespeare, Beethoven, and even against his own works, Tolstoy took the position of a simple patriarchal peasant and clearly underestimated the significance of the works of past authors.

Tolstoy saw true art as ideological, sincere, embracing with its influence all people, the people, and not a certain group of intellectuals. He also believed that art should be based on religion in the spirit of universal Christian love and brotherhood. Tolstoy called for the closure of artistic higher schools, created for rich boys and girls. Reducing the role special schools, Tolstoy believed that knowledge acquired in primary schools, quite enough to be able to draw or play a musical instrument.

Pedagogical views of L.N. Tolstoy's works were formed as a result of vigorous activity and went through mistakes and blunders. Tolstoy's views are filled with sincere feelings, anxiety and criticism. Tolstoy sharply criticized bourgeois pedagogy, which did not allow children's ingenuity and freedom to develop. Traveling around Europe, he spoke unflatteringly about that teaching. He said that children in distant countries are also tortured and squeezed. Humiliation of children, fear of the teacher, cramming incomprehensible words and definitions from a textbook, children’s worship of the ruling class - this is what appeared before the eyes of L.N. Tolstoy during his travels through European developed countries.

Pedagogical views of L.N. Tolstoy's name changed several times throughout his life. The main thing in them is to provide freedom to the child and develop his creativity. There are many contradictions in Tolstoy's pedagogical views. Wanting to give the child freedom of thought and action, he immediately forced him to study religion and be a believer.

In the first period, Tolstoy believed that in school it was enough to teach children only the simplest things: reading, writing, arithmetic, and the law of God. According to Tolstoy, no other subjects that develop the child need to be taught at school. What an ordinary person knows, a child should also know a little. No more.

Then, after several years, Tolstoy’s views changed: now the interest of students became the criterion that determines the content of education and the scope of academic subjects. In total, Tolstoy counted twelve academic subjects at school, but Tolstoy admitted that their volume and timing could be changed at the request of the children.

When the time came to open public schools, Tolstoy narrowed the criterion determining the content of education. Now he believed that when drawing up a training plan, it was necessary to take into account not children's interests, but the interests of the patriarchal peasantry. At the same time, he believed that the interests of the patriarchal peasantry were equivalent to the needs of the entire peasantry as a whole. Folk school, Tolstoy now believed, should give children only knowledge of Russian and Slavic literacy, teach counting and the law of God. In every peasant child he saw a genius, a creator and called on people to give free rein to the thoughts of each child.

Finally, in last years In his life, Tolstoy again changed his mind on this issue. Now Lev Nikolaevich considered religious and moral education based on real, pure Christianity to be the most important thing in education. Tolstoy called an empty school where they taught only reading, writing, grammar and other general subjects, but did not touch on moral and religious issues.

L.N. Tolstoy did not share for himself the concepts of training and education. According to Tolstoy, all learning has an educational effect on the child, and knowledge cannot be passed on without educating. In his youth, Tolstoy made a distinction between education and training, but then he himself criticized his previous views, saying that he made this distinction artificially. Having come to the conclusion that all learning is educational, L.N. Tolstoy in his articles began to demand that “the basis for upbringing and education should be the religious and moral teachings of forgiveness, humility, non-resistance to evil by violence, etc. ”

Regarding the teaching methodology of L.N. Tolstoy spoke very interestingly, and many of his ideas are worthy of implementation. The great teacher argued that only the teaching method is good if the students themselves are satisfied. From his diaries it is clear how a method that was ideal for a teacher was completely inaccessible to children. Tolstoy also said that one method in teaching is not enough. There is no method that has universal qualities and is suitable for all occasions. Realizing this, Tolstoy advised teachers to use a variety of teaching methods, experiment and find new ways to transfer knowledge. When a teacher is creative in his or her practice pedagogical activity, his school automatically becomes a pedagogical laboratory. These are exactly the kind of schools that L.N. wanted to see. Tolstoy in every corner of his homeland.

Among various teaching methods, Tolstoy especially emphasized the living word of the teacher. According to famous writer, the story of a talented teacher will give the child much more knowledge than dry data in a textbook. Tolstoy urged teachers to have casual conversations with children on various topics, since a friendly atmosphere in the classroom has a beneficial effect on children. Tolstoy also paid special attention to the development of children's creativity. He recommended giving children independent essays on various topics. Moreover, Tolstoy pointed out that topics like “How I spent my summer” are the most effective. It is easier for a child to write about events that left a mark on his soul, phenomena, than about a vase that stood right in front of his eyes. This is all interesting and described in detail in the famous pedagogical articles of L.N. Tolstoy.

Tolstoy called for teaching the lesson so that all students succeed. For learning to be successful and effective, it is necessary, according to Tolstoy, to observe the following rules: there is no need to tell the child about what he does not know and does not understand, as well as about what he is already so familiar with; necessary where children learn to avoid unusual objects and persons; it is necessary to ensure that the child is not ashamed of his classmates, but maintains simple friendly relations with them. It is strictly forbidden to punish children for misdeeds and misunderstandings. Tolstoy was convinced from his own experience that punishment only aggravates the child’s aggression. Therefore, he was a fierce opponent of punishment in school, while the caning method reigned everywhere in schools. Tolstoy also argued that for a successful lesson, there is no need to overtire the child, it is necessary to ensure that the lesson is not too difficult for the child, since he will lose hope of completing the task and give up, and at the same time, ensure that the lesson is not was too easy, since here the child would have no incentive to continue further. You need to try to keep the child completely absorbed in the lesson, give tasks that allow you to think creatively and learn something new. Speaking about the rules, L.N. Tolstoy urged teachers not to give rules immediately in the first lesson new topic, but to learn the rules consciously. Students must deduce the rules themselves, using the acquired knowledge and skillfully operating with it. As Tolstoy rightly believed, in this case, knowledge and its systematic expression will remain in the child’s head for many years.

Tolstoy's attitude to the principle of clarity in teaching was ambiguous. On the one hand, he called for conducting numerous experiments, excursions, and shows with children. Tolstoy wanted to instill observation skills in children and practiced this quite widely in his school. But at the same time, he rather sharply criticized “subject lessons” in Germany, where children were taught from pictures and tortured by demanding a smart answer to a stupid question. Tolstoy was also sharply critical of the sound method of teaching literacy, which was recommended by the best Russian teachers, such as Ushinsky, Bunakov and many others. Tolstoy, in contrast, said that “a consonant without a vowel could not be pronounced.”

A check carried out by the Moscow Literacy Committee, on the initiative of L.N. Tolstoy, showed Tolstoy’s teaching method and sound method do not in any way change the level of knowledge of the children of the two schools being tested. The literacy level of those students and students of L.N. Tolstoy was the same.

Tolstoy's views on communicating new concepts to children also underwent changes. At first, Tolstoy believed that there was no need to explain new words and new terms to a child. The teacher will still do it incorrectly and a subjective idea will remain in the child’s head. This, according to the writer, contradicts the inner freedom of the student. Tolstoy argued that children can acquire new knowledge on their own and “... only in an unconscious way.” The school, in his opinion, should only classify and put in order the concepts unconsciously acquired in life. Tolstoy attached great importance to the practical experience of children and even overestimated children's abilities. School should not and cannot give children new concepts, Tolstoy argued. However, his own pedagogical activity runs counter to these thoughts. In his Yasnaya Polyana school, Tolstoy, relying on life experience children and their impressions received from the outside, gave the children more and more new knowledge and concepts. In the 70s he changed his mind on this issue. Now he considered it quite acceptable to communicate new definitions and concepts to children if the students were sufficiently prepared to understand and assimilate them.

Tolstoy spoke very eloquently about the freedom of the child. He represented freedom in pedagogy in allowing a child to spontaneously reveal high moral qualities, the child’s free expression of feelings and thoughts, in allowing a child to go or not go to classes, to engage or not to engage in this or that activity. However, he did not deny the possibility of pedagogical influence on children. Here Tolstoy does not question the study of religion in school. But the promotion of religion, as well as the imposition of anything, is simply unacceptable in schools where free education is practiced. It must be admitted that Tolstoy, while defending to the end the theory of free education, speaking out against any violence against a child, demanding the development of children’s creativity, still contradicted himself, since religious education puts pressure on the child’s personality and often enslaves his consciousness.

L. N. Tolstoy (1828-1910) is an outstanding figure of Russian and world culture, a brilliant humanist writer, moral thinker, who influenced and continues to influence the minds and hearts of people.

L. Tolstoy, except works of art, owns a number of works containing philosophical, religious-philosophical, ethical and aesthetic problems that characterize his worldview.

Here it is necessary to name: “On the purpose of philosophy”, “Philosophical remarks on the speech of J.-J. Rousseau", "War and Peace" (philosophical digressions), "Confession", "What is my faith", "What is art?", "So what should we do?", "Criticism of dogmatic theology", "The path of truth", “About Life”, etc.

At the very beginning of life and creative path L. Tolstoy is occupied with philosophical questions about meaning and purpose human life. “The purpose of human life is to contribute in every possible way to comprehensive development of all existing... humanity." Interest in philosophical and social problems is noticeable in the philosophical sketch “On the Purpose of Philosophy,” where we read: “Man strives, that is, man is active. – Where is this activity directed? How to make this activity free? - is the goal of philosophy in true meaning. In other words, philosophy is the science of life. In order to more accurately define science itself, it is necessary to define the aspiration that gives us the concept of it.

The desire that is found in everything that exists in a person is the consciousness of life and the desire to preserve and strengthen it. So, the purpose of philosophy is to show how a person should educate himself. But man is not alone: ​​he lives in society, therefore, philosophy must determine a person’s attitude towards other people.” Noteworthy is the passage “Philosophical remarks on the speech of J.-J. Rousseau”, containing the idea that “... science in general and philosophy in particular, which Rousseau attacks so much, are not only not useless, but even necessary, and not for Socrates alone, but for all.”

The writer was deeply concerned and occupied with questions of the philosophy of history, which found its most vivid expression in his main novel “War and Peace.” Freedom and necessity, causes and goals in history, the relationship between the active and the conscious, the role of the individual and the masses - these and many other problems of the socio-historical existence of man received an original and in many ways correct solution in Tolstoy’s work. Despite the elements of fatalism and providentialism, L. N. Tolstoy made great progress in the scientific development of history.

The Russian thinker argued that history should explore “the life of the people and humanity,” that it reveals the laws underlying this life. Objecting to previous historians, he wrote: “To study the laws of history, we must completely change the subject of observation, leave kings, ministers and generals alone, and study the homogeneous, infinitesimal elements that lead the masses... Obviously, this path only lies the possibility of grasping historical laws...”

The writer denied the decisive role of “deity”, “individual” individuals ruling nations, and denied the decisive historical role of “great” people. It is not power, not kings and other rulers that are the driving force social development, and the people are the creator of all material wealth, the creator and custodian of spiritual values. According to Tolstoy, it is not Napoleon, not Alexander I, not Rostopchin and other notable historical figures that determine the course of history. It is driven by an ordinary person - a soldier, a peasant, a “commoner” in general, who, for the most part, through their ordinary and imperceptible activities, jointly create life and create history.

Tolstoy’s desire to understand the historical “action” and to grasp its cause-and-effect relationships leads the writer to the conclusion: “The only concept by which the movement of peoples can be explained is the concept of a force equal to the entire movement of peoples.” According to Tolstoy, when explaining a particular phenomenon, it is necessary to take into account the actions of “all people taking part in the event”: the life of the people will not interfere with the life of several so-called “great” outstanding people. In this regard, L. Tolstoy makes successful attempts to explain the role of the individual in history when he talks about the importance of the environment and circumstances that influence its formation and character. The personality and activity of M.I. Kutuzov expresses and generalizes the desires and actions of the masses. He is the bearer of folk traditions and the national spirit, possessed the power of “insight”, and was able to comprehend the “will of providence”. Reflecting on history, the writer inevitably explores the problem of the relationship and interaction of freedom and necessity.

L. Tolstoy writes: “If the will of every person was free, that is, if everyone could do as he wanted, then all history is a series of incoherent accidents. If even one person out of millions in a thousand-year period of time has the opportunity to act freely, that is, as he wanted, then it is obvious that one free act of this person, contrary to the laws, destroys the possibility of the existence of any laws for all of humanity . If there is at least one law governing the actions of people, then there cannot be free will, because then the will of people must be subject to this law.” The above judgment, with all the categoricalness of its form - either “free will” or “law” - is nothing more than the writer’s reflection, his posing the question of the dialectic of freedom and necessity in history. Answering it, L. Tolstoy argues that looking at a person “as an object of observation,” we find that he, like everything that exists, is subject to the law of necessity; looking at it “out of ourselves, as if we feel free.” Experience and reasoning clearly indicate that man “as an object of observation” is subject to known laws, but the same experience and reasoning show him that “complete freedom” is impossible, although man strives for freedom: “All aspirations of people, all motivations are only desire for increased freedom. Wealth - poverty, fame - obscurity, power - subject, strength - weakness, health - illness, education - ignorance, work - leisure, satiety - hunger, virtues - vice are greater or lesser degrees of freedom."

Each historical event, in which people take part, “appears partly free, partly necessary.” Every human action is a certain connection, interpenetration and mutual transformation of freedom and necessity. “And always, the more freedom we see in any action, the less necessity, and the more necessity, the less freedom.” Thus, Tolstoy keenly felt the dialectic, the contradictory nature of the unity of freedom, the goal-setting activity of people and the necessity determined by the objective laws of socio-historical reality. “Expression of will” is determined by “external circumstances”, freedom depends on them, but life is created as a result of free action. By affirming the freedom of man in his mind, in his consciousness and action, the writer does not at all take the point of view of voluntarism. He denies "absolute freedom." For historical views L. Tolstoy is characterized by a dialectical understanding of the contradictions and clashes of various social forces. The struggle between “old” and “new”, the clash of “good” and “evil” acts as a kind of pattern. The course of events, the successes and defeats of various trends depend on the “great multitude,” on the “crowd of those who do not think,” and there are “thousands and thousands of them.”

In Tolstoy's philosophy, the stories are perhaps most clearly manifested strengths his epistemological position, the writer’s successes in understanding socio-historical development. The writer attaches enormous importance to “feelings,” “experiences,” and the moral consciousness of people, emphasizes the great importance of their “mind,” figuratively and clearly shows and affirms the reliability in the great meaning of a person’s “experience,” real actions of people, the significance of “good and useful” deeds .

L. Tolstoy was distinguished by his deep penetration into the psychology of people, highly appreciating the “word” - a great human “gift” that is important for human cognition and has the ability to connect and separate people, to serve love, enmity and hatred. All these are materialistic elements that characterize the features of his theoretical-cognitive positions, revealed in his views on nature, society and its history, in his judgments about people and their lives. They are obvious and are confirmed in his realism, in his teachings and theories.

L. Tolstoy deeply experienced the social and spiritual life of his time. The position and fate of the noble-landowner class, the life of the numerous peasantry of Russia, the working and living conditions of factory and railway workers, the urban lower classes - nothing escaped his close gaze. Seeing social inequality, sharp contradictions between the rich and working people, the writer thought about methods and means of changing social life. Social-humanistic, moral and metaphysical problems worried the writer at the very beginning of his life and creative path. Characterizing his youthful dreams and aspirations for the ideal, he later wrote: “All humanity lives and develops on the basis of spiritual principles and ideals that guide them. These ideals are expressed in religions, in science, art, forms of statehood, these ideals are becoming higher and higher, and humanity is moving towards the highest good. I am a part of humanity, and therefore my calling is to promote the consciousness and implementation of the ideals of humanity.” Subsequently, when in the 70–80s. XIX century Tolstoy experienced a spiritual crisis, switched to the position of the patriarchal peasantry and at the same time realized in himself a social calling to condemn social evil and preach the ideas of goodness and fair relations between people, his socio-philosophical views acquired clearer outlines, the reality of his contemporary era penetrated deeper and deeper into his views , reality was reflected more and more diversely, deeply and truthfully. The feudal-landlord and capitalist system of that time was subjected to especially severe criticism. The humanity of Tolstoy's social quest lay in the fact that he clearly asserted that working people, accustomed to work and hardship, who have the ability to overcome the obstacles encountered on their way, can overcome all difficulties, contradictions, negative sides social existence. “Strength,” Tolstoy asserted, “lies in the working people.” “Everything that is outside and around me, all this is the fruit of their knowledge of life. The very tools of thought with which I discuss life and condemn it, all this was not made by me, but by them, I myself was born, raised, grew up thanks to them, they dug up iron, taught me how to cut wood, tamed cows, horses, taught me how to sow, taught me how to live. together, they streamlined our lives: they taught me to think and speak.” Labor activity is an essential source of development and movement of social life. Reflecting on the ways and means of human development, the writer comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to eliminate private property, especially land ownership. The liberation of the people “can only be achieved by the abolition of land ownership and the recognition of the land as common property, something that has long been the sincere desire of the Russian people...”: the implementation of this people’s dream “will place the Russian people at a high degree of independence, bliss and contentment” .

The writer’s idea about the need to transform land into public property was a reflection of the needs and requirements of millions of land-poor and landless peasants, meant a condemnation of large private landowners and capitalist landownership and had a revolutionary orientation.

Justifying his dream of improving social forms of life, the idea of ​​​​unifying the peoples of the whole Earth, L. Tolstoy turns to those signs in the development of civilization that gave hope for its implementation cherished desires. “Unconsciously, this truth is confirmed by the establishment of communications, telegraphs, the press, the increasing availability of the goods of this world to all people, and consciously by the destruction of superstitions that divide people, the dissemination of the truths of knowledge, the expression of the ideals of the brotherhood of man...”.

“Everything we live by, what we are proud of, what makes us happy, from railway, opera and celestial mechanics to the good life of people - if it is not entirely a product of this activity, then it is still a consequence of the transmission of science and the arts in a broad sense. If it were not for the knowledge passed down from generation to generation how to forge, weld, harden and separate iron into strips, screws, sheets, etc., there would be no railway; without the art of expressing feelings through sounds, words and pictures, passed down from generation to generation, there would be no opera; Without the knowledge of geometry as relationships of magnitude, also passed on from generation to generation, there would be no celestial mechanics. And also, without the transfer of knowledge about what is and is not characteristic of human nature and human society, there would be no good life for people; without science and art, there would be no human life.”

From Tolstoy’s point of view, “true science and true art have always existed and will always exist like all other types of human activity, and it is useless to dispute or prove their necessity.”

Among the criteria for the authenticity of science and art, L. Tolstoy named humanism and democracy. Other qualities of true culture for Tolstoy are the accessibility and intelligibility of its achievements. Art should be understandable to the most ordinary person among the people - this is one of the most important provisions of the artist’s aesthetic code. Speaking against the principles of aestheticism, Tolstoy writes: “... To say that a work of art is good, but is incomprehensible, is the same as saying about some food that it is very good, but people cannot eat it... perverted art may be incomprehensible to people, but good art is understandable to everyone.” For Tolstoy, art can and should replace “lower feelings, less kind and less necessary for the good of people, with kinder ones, more necessary for this good.” Therefore, it must be popular and exist for the people. Entrusting art with a great socially transformative mission, the writer tried to formulate his ideas about the art of the future. From his point of view, it should be the art of not just one circle of people, not one class, not one nationality, it should convey the feelings that unite people, attracting them to fraternal unity. “Only this art will be highlighted, tolerated, approved, distributed.” In communication and unity of people, a great role belongs to the word. “The word is a great thing. It’s a great cause because it is the most powerful means of uniting people.” With the help of words, speech, we express our thoughts. “The expression of thoughts is one of the most important matters in life.” How great humanist and an educator, he spoke and fought with the art of his words and his thoughts against the unfair use of the achievements of material and spiritual culture. The development of science and technology, art and literature, all achievements of the human mind should be focused on all people living in society, on the development and preservation of human life itself. The fruits of culture in all its forms should promote fraternal unity, love and respect among people, increase their knowledge and power, and contribute to the mastery of the elemental forces of nature. The words of the great thinker sound relevant when he condemns the use of scientific achievements and technical inventions - everything created by the minds and hands of people - “for the enrichment of capitalists who produce luxury goods or weapons of human destruction.”

In Tolstoy's worldview, environmental motives are clearly heard. He persistently defended the purity of nature, plant and animal world and everything alive. He demanded a loving and moral attitude towards the natural reality around us. The tendency he noted toward the destruction of people's natural habitat caused his concern and alarm. Speaking of ideal happy life, L. Tolstoy wrote: “One of the first and universally recognized conditions of happiness is a life in which the connection between man and nature is not broken, that is, life under open air, at fresh air, communication with the earth, plants, animals...”

Dreaming of social transformations, Tolstoy believed that in order to realize them it was necessary to elevate the importance and role of the human mind. Adhering to the theory of “non-resistance to evil through violence”, following the idea of ​​“moral” improvement, condemning “violence”, the thinker considered the decisive and determining means social progress moral, ethical and specifically understood religious activity. All this gave his social quest features of idealism and utopianism; his ideals were largely oriented towards the past and in this sense were reactionary in nature. The writer’s ideals of a new way of life were formed in the process of distinguishing between the Russian autocratic-serf state, European bourgeois-democratic states and eastern despotisms, up to the denial of “all power”, all statehood. “The transition from state violence to a free, rational life cannot happen suddenly; Just as state life took thousands of years to develop, so, perhaps, it will take millennia to be dismantled.”

Changes leading to the elimination of statehood must, in his opinion, follow the path of democratization of management: “If people bring government to the point where all people participate in management, then there will be no management - people will each govern themselves.” L. Tolstoy thought about many other social issues. He saw the contrast between working conditions in the city and the countryside, between the city and the village, between mental and physical labor.

The great humanist paid great attention to issues of militarism and war. Violence, armed struggle, the history of military conflicts between peoples and countries were a constant subject of his thoughts. As a result of studying military conflicts, L. Tolstoy came to the conclusion that it was necessary to eliminate wars as phenomena contrary to reason and human nature. L. Tolstoy sought to penetrate into the causes of the wars that had taken place and are still ongoing; he saw them in social inequality, in the desire for enrichment, in the interest and selfish motives of people. The ruling exploiting classes, the organizers and ideologists of the war are subjected to crushing criticism. Expansionist, chauvinistic, national-racial doctrines are assessed as anti-human, hostile to the interests of working people. In a number of cases, L. Tolstoy takes militant and anti-war positions. It is necessary to arrange the life of humanity so that the rights and equality of all countries and peoples are recognized. “The people are the same everywhere,” all people crave constant calm and peace, they can and should not argue and destroy each other, but mutually respect and develop comprehensive connections and relationships among themselves. The time has come when the consciousness of the brotherhood of people of all nationalities has formed and people can live “in peaceful, mutually beneficial, friendly, trade, industrial, moral relations, which they have no sense or need to violate.” L. Tolstoy’s thoughts are in tune with the aspirations of modern humanity: “Whoever you are,” he wrote, “a Frenchman, a Russian, a Pole, an Englishman, an Irishman, a German, a Czech, understand that all our real human interests, whatever they may be, are agricultural, industrial, commercial, artistic or scientific, all interests, as well as pleasures and joys, do not in any way contradict the interests of other peoples and states, and that you are bound by mutual assistance, exchange of services, the joy of broad fraternal communication, exchange of not only goods , but also thoughts and feelings with people of other nations.” L. Tolstoy was optimistic about the future. He emphasized: “... the system of militarism must be destroyed and replaced by disarmament and arbitration.”

Tolstoy said a lot about man, the goals and meaning of his life, which makes a significant contribution to the development of humanistic thought, to the enrichment of the moral experience of mankind. The writer by no means denied the “biological” or, as he put it, “animal” nature of man, but brought to the fore the “spiritual”, “reasonable” and “good” inherent in the human being, its ability for creative activity. Although Tolstoy's philosophy of man sometimes appears in an abstract idealistic form, many of his thoughts and judgments about man and his life are distinguished by deep productivity and truth. “Life, whatever it may be, is a good, beyond which there is nothing. If we say that life is evil, then we say this only in comparison with another, imaginary, better life, but we do not know and cannot know any other better life, and therefore life, whatever it may be, is the highest good available to us."

Rejecting “disbelief” in life, Tolstoy resolutely defends human life in the real objective world, as opposed to theological myths about afterlife and other worlds. “This world is not a joke, not a vale of testing and transition to a better, eternal world, but this world is the one in which we now live, this is one of the eternal worlds, which is beautiful, joyful and which we not only can, but must make through our efforts more beautiful and joyful for those who live with us and for everyone who will live in it after us.”

Tolstoy's search for the meaning of life, not free from religious vestments, is of certain interest: he speaks entirely about life at work. This is the main thing in a person’s life and his moral character, “The dignity of man, his sacred duty and obligation to use the hands and feet given to him for what they were given, and the food he eats for the labor that produces this food.” Only by working tirelessly and creating everything necessary for life will people become real people; then their highest human properties will manifest themselves and they will master the forces of nature; new social order should be a working community of people, where everyone will work for themselves and their loved ones. “When a new, smarter, more intelligent warehouse comes public life, people will be surprised that being forced to work was considered an evil, and idleness a good. Then, if there had been a punishment then, deprivation of work would have been a punishment.”

The above judgments of the writer are genealogically connected with the experience of social behavior, as it was developed in the people's environment, where work and the working person, his activity act as the highest value. This is how life is done: people, through their efforts, create all the diversity and beauty of life. And this activity is the meaning of people’s lives - this idea permeates many pages of his creative heritage. Man in Tolstoy's works appears in all the contradictions of his social existence. The writer passionately denounced the possessive world, the world of violence and stupid, self-sufficient philistinism, contrasting this world with his humanistic idea of ​​​​man as the creator of material life and high spirit. He must always be on the move, never stop growing spiritually, improving his ability to understand and sympathize, act and call on others. A person must engage in creative activities to achieve the greatest prosperity of all mankind.

The analysis shows that the search for answers to questions about the purpose, meaning, and value of life was not limited to religious ones, but led Tolstoy to deep thoughts about the most important human problems that worried him throughout his life.

Creative heritage L. Tolstoy is complex and contradictory. It reflects the concepts, feelings and sentiments of the patriarchal peasantry, the ideology of the largest productive class of pre- and post-reform Russia. L. Tolstoy's worldview contains both peasant revolutionary democracy and reactionary religious preaching of passivity. But L. Tolstoy created a vivid and truthful picture of his era. As a thinker, he was distinguished by his active search for social justice and high citizenship. He raised important “sick” and “damned” questions, questioning the foundations of the political and social structure of his time. It is necessary to preserve and increase the valuable ideas of the writer’s spiritual heritage that have stood the test of time. L. Tolstoy will always be dear to progressive humanity as a supporter and defender of life and work, as a great humanist who actively sought ways to universal happiness on our planet.

Right there. T. 64. P. 94.

Tolstoy L.N. Complete. collection op. T. 30. P. 108.

Right there. T. 30. P. 179.

Right there. T. 81. P. 120.

Right there. T. 78. P. 373.

Tolstoy L.N. Complete. collection op. T. 23. P. 418.

Right there. T. 23. P. 441.

Right there. T. 55. P. 172.

Tolstoy L.N. Complete. collection op. T. 55. P. 239.

Tolstoy L.N. Complete. collection op. T. 90. P. 429.

Right there. T. 90. P. 443.

Right there. T. 68. P. 54.

Right there. T. 45. P. 480.

Tolstoy L.N. Complete. collection op. T. 45. P. 481.

Right there. T. 25. P. 396.

1. Formation of creative views of L.N. Tolstoy

2. Treatise on art

3. Artistic criteria

1. FORMATION OF CREATIVE VIEWS L.N. TOLSTOY

L.N. Tolstoy was born in 1828 and died in 1910. Thus, Tolstoy acts as a link between Russian classical and new literature. Tolstoy left a huge literary legacy: three major novels, dozens of novellas, hundreds of short stories, several folk dramas, a treatise on art, many journalistic literary-critical articles, thousands of letters, volumes of diaries.

Tolstoy appeared in literature at the very beginning of the sixties of the last century. During 1852-1855, his stories appeared on the pages of Sovremennik: “Childhood”, “Adolescence” and short stories. Already the first works of Tolstoy aroused passionate interest among his contemporaries. Critics unanimously spoke about the outstanding artistic merits of his first stories, noted the novelty and integrity of the poetic perception of reality, and put the young writer on a par with the famous representatives of contemporary literature - Turgenev and Goncharov. The criticism noted that Tolstoy, with his stories, opened up to readers a completely new world, hitherto unknown to them, that his works, distinguished by deep and genuine poetry, are “a heart-rending and happy innovation in the description of military scenes.” Thus, Tolstoy entered Russian literature not as a “militant archaist,” as was proven in special “scientific” literature, but as an innovative artist. That is why the young writer and his works already in the mid-fifties became the object of a struggle between revolutionary-democratic and liberal-noble criticism.

As the preparations for the “peasant” reform began, a sharp political division occurred among the writers united around the most advanced organ of the era, Sovremennik. The deepening of the class struggle in the country is manifested in literature in the form of an intensifying socio-political and literary-critical struggle revolutionary democrats with liberals. A group of liberals led by A.V. Druzhinin, V.P. Botkin, P.V. Annenkov is losing its former influence in literature. The leadership of Sovremennik passes into the hands of outstanding representatives of the revolutionary democratic movement Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov.

In contrast to democratic criticism, which called for the fight against the autocratic-serf system, for the implementation of high liberation ideals, Druzhinin advocated openly reactionary literature, trying to instill ideas of reconciliation with reality.

This struggle between the two camps could not but affect Tolstoy and his work. Theorists and defenders of “pure art” tried to interpret Tolstoy’s works in such a way as to convince him of the regularity and vital necessity of his arrival in “pure art”, where artists of words should reflect in their works “a bright view of things, a good-natured attitude towards reality.”

Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov understood how destructive this path was for Tolstoy. Chernyshevsky sought by all means to influence the writer, to gain some power over him - and this would be good for both him and Sovremennik, to convince Tolstoy of the need further development his work in a realistic direction.

Nekrasov, in turn, warmly welcoming the appearance of Tolstoy in literature, wrote: “I love... in you the great hope of Russian literature, for which you have already done a lot, for which you will do even more when you understand that in your fatherland the role of the writer is, first In all, the role of a teacher and, if possible, an intercessor for the voiceless and humiliated.”

Nekrasov correctly guessed many features of Tolstoy’s talent. However, a more holistic description of the artist’s original talent is contained in Chernyshevsky’s statements. Already in the first article, devoted to “Childhood”, “Adolescence” and “War Stories”, the great critic gave a subtle interpretation of the deep originality of Tolstoy’s talent, putting it in connection with the development of Russian literature and determining the degree of his innovation. He masterfully characterized Tolstoy's intense psychologism, rightly believing that psychological analysis gives additional strength to the writer's talent. Many artists before him limited themselves to only depicting the beginning and end of the mental process, without showing the very process of the birth of a thought or feeling. Their psychological analysis, therefore, was “effective” in nature. Tolstoy surpasses these artists by the very nature of his talent, which allows him to penetrate into those areas of human life that his predecessors did not touch.

Chernyshevsky correctly noted that a writer capable of subjecting to such a merciless analysis the actions, thoughts, and experiences of other people had to go through a huge school of introspection and introspection. “Whoever has not studied man in himself will never achieve a deep knowledge of people.” Tolstoy's mental life, even before he became a writer, was indeed characterized by the deepest introspection, which did not leave him in subsequent years.

Unlike other writers, Tolstoy is most interested in “the most mental process, its forms, its laws - the dialectic of the soul, to express it in a definitive term.” “Another strength” of the writer’s talent, which gives him extraordinary freshness, is the “purity of moral feeling.” High moral ideas, moral and ethical pathos are inherent in all wonderful works of Russian literature and, to the greatest extent, in the works of Tolstoy. Chernyshevsky foresees that his talent in its further development will reveal new facets, but “these two features - deep knowledge of the secret movements of mental life and the immediate purity of moral feeling” - will remain in him forever.

In its aesthetic ideas, Chernyshevsky's article was deeply polemical. Defenders of “pure art,” pursuing the goal of seducing Tolstoy, declared him a “pure artist.” They were the first to write about the peculiarities of his talent, about artistic originality his works. Chernyshevsky gave them battle on their own chosen bridgehead, that is, he also spoke mainly about the nature of Tolstoy’s talent, but he spoke in such a way that everything said before him by liberals turned out to be insignificant and secondary. Exposing all the inconsistency of the claims of the supporters of “pure art”, all the narrowness of their aesthetic norms, which violate the conditions of true artistry, he concluded his polemical passage with a scathing sarcastic remark: “And people who make such narrow demands talk about freedom of creativity!”

Chernyshevsky's critical speech became a milestone in the study of Tolstoy's work. The critic deeply believed in the mighty power of his talent; he saw in the new writer the “wonderful hope” of Russian literature, and in everything that he created were only “guarantees” of what he would accomplish later. Each new work of Tolstoy revealed new aspects of his talent. Along with the expansion of the circle of life that fell into the sphere of the writer’s creative attention, “his very outlook on life gradually develops.”

The break with the democratic trend in literature and the passion - albeit short-term - for the ideas of “art for art’s sake” had a negative impact on Tolstoy’s work. The works he wrote in 1857-1859 are distinguished by a significant depletion of themes; these main images explained the complete failure of his “cute” tales and short stories. The reactionary ideas of “pure art” could not fertilize the creative thought of Tolstoy, as, indeed, of any true artist.

Such works of the writer as “Youth”, “Albert”, “Family Happiness” remained almost unnoticed by critics. For three years (1858-1860) no special critical articles appeared about Tolstoy. Only in the little-known magazine “Rassvet” was a review of the young Pisarev about the story “Three Deaths” published, written under the undoubted influence of Chernyshevsky’s articles.

The writer had a hard time experiencing his creative failures. He painfully freed himself from the burden of dilapidated aesthetics and developed new concepts about literature and its meaning in life. In the early sixties, Tolstoy, leaving literature, turned to teaching. After the “peasant reform”, he took the position of world mediator and, at the same time, throughout 1862 he published the pedagogical magazine “Yasnaya Polyana”.

All these activities contributed to Tolstoy’s rapprochement with the people. IN ideological development writer, in his movement towards a deep understanding of the interests of the Russian patriarchal peasantry, the years played a huge role. They marked the beginning of his spiritual drama. Having a deeply negative attitude towards revolutionary methods of transforming reality, Tolstoy in all his constructions proceeded from the fact that he considered the patriarchal peasant to be the embodiment of the highest moral ideal, the most integral and organic person, living in full accordance with the laws of nature. The intelligentsia, according to the writer, cannot teach this man, but must learn from him, she must comprehend the foundations of his “moral life” and then take the path of simplification.

These views of the writer were reflected in his pedagogical articles. According to Tolstoy, the entire system of education and upbringing should be built on the basis of the needs of the people, not to force certain knowledge on the people, but to follow their spiritual needs. This is one of Tolstoy's main pedagogical ideas. The writer is convinced that educated people, intellectuals do not know what to teach and how to teach the people. This idea permeates many of his statements. Particularly sensational was Tolstoy’s article “Who should learn to write from whom: the peasant children from us, or us from the peasant children?” The writer recognizes the advantage of peasant children in the direct perception of life and works of art. There is no doubt that Tolstoy’s pedagogical views are to a certain extent imbued with democratic ideas; many of his statements were sharply directed against the civilization of the masters, but at the same time they also contained moments of reactionary ideology.