Searches for the meaning of life by heroes of Russian literature. Search for the meaning of life, moral quest of literary heroes (Essay on a free topic)

Full text search:

Home > Abstract >Literature and Russian language

Research

"The Search for the Meaning of Life by Literary Characters."

Work completed

10th grade student "B"

GOU gymnasium No. 107

Nedelko Ekaterina

Teacher: Musatova E.E.

Gymnasium address

Vyborgskaya st., 3

Tel.542-08-23

St. Petersburg - 2009.

Introduction.

Relevance of the topic.

The meaning of life from the point of view of the philosopher S. L. Frank.

Study.

Part one: And Goncharov “Oblomov”. Oblomov and Stolz.

Part two: A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin.” Onegin is a “reluctant egoist.”

Part three: M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of our time.” Pechorin - “a strong soul, but callous” .

Bibliography.

Introduction.

Relevance of the topic.

To write my essay, I chose the topic “Search for the meaning of life by literary characters.” Conducting research on this topic, I set myself a goal: to show how literary characters understand the meaning of existence in this world, the meaning of life.

Based on this, I set myself the following tasks:

Follow life literary heroes I.I. Oblomov, A.I. Stolts, E. Onegin, G.A. Pechorina

Define life positions these heroes and thereby reveal the meaning and purpose of their lives.

Compare the views, values of the characters, lifestyle and their environment, interests and preferences.

Draw a conclusion about the characters’ understanding of goals in life and their implementation; compare their destinies and achievements.

Draw a parallel between the lives of literary heroes and the lives of people in real world, compare and determine the meaning of existence of both.

Research methods:

comparison
generalization

The meaning of life from the point of view of the philosopher S. L. Frank.

« Where did we come from? Where are we going on our way?
What is the meaning of our life? - He is incomprehensible to us.
How many different souls are under the fatal wheel
Burns to ashes, to dust. Where, tell me, is the smoke?»

Omar Khayyam

“Does life have any meaning at all, and if so, what kind of meaning? What's the point

Life? Or is life simply nonsense, a meaningless, worthless process of the natural birth, flowering, maturation, withering and death of a person, like any other organic being? Those dreams about goodness and truth, about spiritual significance and meaningfulness of life, which already from adolescence excite our soul and make us think that we were not born “for nothing”, that we are called to accomplish something great and decisive in the world. thereby to realize ourselves, to give a creative outcome to the spiritual forces dormant in us, hidden from prying eyes, but persistently demanding their discovery, forming, as it were, the true being of our “I” - are these dreams justified in any way objectively, do they have any reasonable basis, and if so, what? Or are they simply lights of blind passion, flaring up in a living being according to the natural laws of its nature, like spontaneous attractions and yearnings, with the help of which indifferent nature accomplishes through our mediation, deceiving and luring us with illusions, its meaningless, repeating task of preserving animal life in eternal monotony in generational change? The human thirst for love and happiness, tears of tenderness before beauty, the trembling thought of the bright joy that illuminates and warms life, or rather, for the first time realizing true life, is there any solid ground for this in human existence, or is this just a reflection in the inflamed human consciousness of that blind and vague passion that owns insects, which deceives us, using them as tools for preserving the same meaningless prose of animal life and dooming us for a brief dream about the highest joy and spiritual fullness to pay with the vulgarity, boredom and tedious need of a narrow, everyday, philistine existence? And the thirst for achievement, selfless service to good, the thirst for death in the name of a great and bright cause - is this something greater and more meaningful than the mysterious but meaningless force that drives a butterfly into the fire? These, as they usually say, “damned” questions or, rather, this single question “about the meaning of life” excites and torments in the depths of the soul of every person. A person can completely forget about it for a while, and even for a very long time, and plunge headlong into everyday interests. today, into material concerns about preserving life, about wealth, contentment and earthly success, or into any super-personal passions and “affairs” - into politics, the struggle of parties, etc. - but life is already so arranged that completely and forever Even the dumbest, fattest, or spiritually sleeping person cannot brush it aside: the ineradicable fact of its approach of death and its inevitable harbingers - aging and illness, the fact of dying, transient disappearance, immersion in the irrevocable past of our entire earthly life with all the illusory significance of its interests - this fact is for every person a formidable and persistent reminder of the unresolved, put aside question of the meaning of life. This question is not a “theoretical question”, not a subject of idle mental games; this question is a question of life itself, it is just as terrible, and, in fact, even much more terrible than, in dire need, the question of a piece of bread to satisfy hunger. Truly, this is a question of bread that would nourish us and water that would quench our thirst. Chekhov describes a man who, all his life living with everyday interests in a provincial town, like all other people, lied and pretended, “played a role” in “society”, was busy with “affairs”, immersed in petty intrigues and worries - and suddenly, unexpectedly , one night, wakes up with a heavy heartbeat and in a cold sweat. What's happened? Something terrible happened - life has passed, and there was no life, because there was and is no meaning in it! Let’s try first of all to think about what it means to “find the meaning of life,” or rather, what We are actually looking for what meaning we put into the very concept of “meaning of life” and under what conditions would we consider it realized? By “meaning” we mean roughly the same thing as “reasonableness”. “Reasonable”, in a relative sense, we call everything that is expedient, everything that correctly leads to a goal or helps to realize it. Reasonable behavior is that which is consistent with the set goal and leads to its implementation; reasonable or meaningful use of the means that helps us achieve the goal. But all this is only relatively reasonable - precisely on the condition that the goal itself is undeniably reasonable or meaningful. We can call “reasonable” in a relative sense, for example, the behavior of a person who knows how to adapt to life, earn money, make a career for himself - on the assumption that we recognize the very success in life, wealth, high social position as indisputable in this sense." reasonable" benefits. If we, having become disillusioned with life, having seen its “meaninglessness,” at least in view of the brevity, precariousness of all these blessings, or in view of the fact that they do not give our soul true satisfaction, recognized the very purpose of these aspirations as controversial, the same behavior, being relatively, i.e. with regard to his goals, reasonable and meaningful, will seem absolutely unreasonable and meaningless to us. So this is true in relation to the predominant content of ordinary human life. We see that most people devote most of their energy and time to a series of completely expedient actions, that they are constantly concerned about achieving some goals and act correctly to achieve them, i.e. for the most part they act quite “reasonably”; and at the same time, since either these goals themselves are “meaningless”, or, at least, remains unresolved and controversial issue about their “meaningfulness” - all human life takes on the character of a meaningless whirling, like a squirrel whirling in a wheel, a set of meaningless actions that unexpectedly, without any relation to these goals set by a person, and therefore also completely meaningless, end in death. Consequently, the condition for genuine, and not just relative rationality of life is not only that it rationally realizes any goals, but that these goals themselves, in turn, are reasonable. But what does "reasonable goal" mean? A means is reasonable when it leads to an end. But the goal - if it is a genuine, final goal, and not just a means for something else - no longer leads to anything, and therefore cannot be assessed from the point of view of its expediency. She must be reasonable in herself, as such. But what does this mean and how is it possible? This difficulty - turning it into absolute unsolvability - is the basis of the sophism with the help of which it is often proved that life is necessarily meaningless, or that the very question of the meaning of life is illegitimate. They say: “Every action is meaningful when it serves a purpose”; but the goal or - which seems to be the same thing - life as a whole no longer has any goal outside of itself: “life was given to me for life.” Therefore, either we must once and for all come to terms with the fatal “meaninglessness” of life, which follows from the logic of things, or - what is more correct - we must admit that the very statement about the meaning of life is illegal, that this question is one of those that cannot be answered simply due to its own internal absurdity. The question of the “meaning” of something always has relative value , it presupposes a “meaning” for something, expediency in achieving a certain goal. Life as a whole does not have any purpose, and therefore the question of its “meaning” cannot be raised. No matter how convincing this reasoning may be at first glance, our heart instinctively protests against it first of all; we feel that the question of the meaning of life is in itself not a meaningless question, and, no matter how painful its insolubility or unresolved nature may be for us, reasoning about the illegality of the question itself does not reassure us. We can brush this question aside for a while and drive it away from ourselves, but in the next moment it is not “we” and not our “mind” that poses it, but it itself persistently stands before us, and our soul, often with mortal torment, asks: "Why live?" It is obvious that our life, the simple spontaneous process of living it out, being in the world and being aware of this fact, is not at all an “end in itself” for us. It cannot be an end in itself, firstly, because, in general, suffering and burdens prevail in it over joys and pleasures and, despite all the strength of the animal instinct of self-preservation, we often wonder why we should pull this heavy burden. But regardless of this, it cannot be an end in itself because life, in its very essence, is not motionless abiding in oneself, self-sufficient peace, but doing something or striving for something; We experience the moment in which we are free from any activity or aspiration as a painfully melancholy state of emptiness and dissatisfaction. We cannot live for life; We always - whether we want it or not - live for something. But only in most cases this “something”, being the goal towards which we strive, in its content is in turn a means, and, moreover, a means for preserving life. This results in that painful vicious circle, which most acutely makes us feel the meaninglessness of life and gives rise to longing for its comprehension: we live in order to work on something, strive for something, and we work, care and strive in order to live . And, exhausted by this circling in the squirrel wheel, we are looking for the “meaning of life” - we are looking for aspirations and deeds that would not be aimed at simply preserving life, and life that would not be spent on the hard work of preserving it. We thus return back to the question posed. Our life is meaningful when it serves some reasonable purpose, the content of which cannot simply be this empirical life itself. But what is its content, and, above all, under what conditions can we recognize the final goal as “reasonable”? If its rationality does not consist in the fact that it is a means for something else, otherwise it would not be a genuine, final goal, then it can only consist in the fact that this goal is such an indisputable, self-sufficient value, which is no longer meaningful. ask the question: “why?” To be meaningful, our life - contrary to the assurances of fans of “life for the sake of life” and in accordance with the clear demand of our soul - must be a service to the highest and absolute good ». Based on the article, the meaning of life and life itself is that same “vicious circle: to live in order to work, and to work in order to live”? It is unlikely that many will agree with this statement. Then, how can we understand what the real meaning of our existence is? To solve this problem, I propose to turn to literature, perhaps it is in the works that we can find answers to the question that worries us, thereby we will try to find out and understand what is the meaning of the existence of certain literary heroes and we will be able to compare the life imagined by writers and real life. Namely, we will try to understand the fates of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, Andrei Ivanovich Stolts, Evgeny Onegin and Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, we will try to find out why they live and what goals they pursue.

Part one: I. Goncharov “Oblomov”.

State budget

educational institution

Gymnasium No. 397

Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg

them. G.V. Starovoitova

ABSTRACT

on the topic: “The search for the meaning of life by heroes literature of the 19th century century"

Performed: Raskopina Maria

pupil 10 B class.

Scientific supervisors:

Shilkova M.A., Bashekina E.Yu.

Saint Petersburg

Meaning of life. Reflection. Reflective Hero 4

A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin". 6

M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time” 11

I.A. Goncharov “Oblomov”. 14

L.N. Tolstoy “War and Peace” 16

Conclusion 21

List of used literature 22

Introduction

The calling of every person in spiritual activity is a constant search for the truth and meaning of life.

A.P. Chekhov

Sooner or later he faces the problem of finding the meaning of life great amount thinking and reflective people. Time never stops for a second endless stream business makes people think about why they exist.

The desire for self-realization, to bring it to life is inherent in many literary heroes. I decided to analyze the thoughts and experiences of the heroes of Russian literature of the 19th century, since the morals of that time were in many ways different from those of today, but searching for an answer to the question “Why am I living?” makes these people similar to our contemporaries.

To find out the answer to this eternal question, I decided to analyze the course and result of the searches of Onegin, Pechorin, Oblomov, Bolkonsky and Bezukhov - those who throughout their lives are looking for what will become the meaning of their lives.

The purpose of my research is to analyze the thoughts, feelings and actions of each individual character. After all, it is they who influence the resolution of the question of how to fill this empty and barren existence.

“It has long been noticed that all the heroes of the most wonderful Russian stories and novels suffer because they do not see a goal in life and do not find decent activities for themselves. As a result, they feel bored and disgusted with any activity.A…" 1

Meaning of life. Reflection. Reflective Hero

Our century There is century consciousness, philosophizing spirit, reflection, “reflection”.

V.G. Belinsky

Before starting to study individual works, it is necessary to clarify what the meaning of life is as a concept:

"Meaning of life - More or less conscious experience intentional focus and effectiveness own life, its criterion subjective assessment and a source of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life.” 2

Based on the information in the article, we can conclude that the meaning of life is nothing more than a person’s choice of such judgments, according to which he will evaluate all the events occurring in his life and determine whether they have a positive or negative impact on a person’s life.

In literature, to introduce the hero to those seeking an answer to the question: “Why am I living?” the concept is used "reflective hero" In order to understand the meaning of this phrase, you need to turn to the word that is the original, that is, to "reflections":

Reflection

Reflection (from Late Latin reflexio - turning back, reflection) - a form of theoretical human activity aimed at understanding one’s own own actions and their laws; the activity of self-knowledge, revealing the specifics of the spiritual world of man. The content of reflection is determined by objective-sensory activity: reflection is ultimately awareness practices, the objective world of culture. In this sense, reflection is a method of philosophy, and dialectics is a reflection of reason. 3

Reflection - a type of philosophical thinking aimed at understanding and justifying one’s own premises, requiring turning consciousness towards oneself. In philosophy, reflection is fundamental basis both philosophizing itself and a prerequisite for attempts to constructively overcome it 4 .

Research
on the topic of:
"The Search for the Meaning of Life by Literary Characters."

Work completed

10th grade student "B"

GOU gymnasium No. 107

Nedelko Ekaterina

Teacher: Musatova E.E.

Vyborgskaya st., 3

Tel.542-08-23

St. Petersburg - 2009.

Content.

Relevance of the topic.

The meaning of life from the point of view of the philosopher S. L. Frank.

Part one: And Goncharov “Oblomov”. Oblomov and Stolz.

Part two: A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”. Onegin is a “reluctant egoist.”

Part three: M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of our time.” Pechorin - “a strong soul, but callous” .

Bibliography.

Introduction.

Relevance of the topic.

Based on this, I set myself the following tasks:

Follow the life of literary heroes I.I. Oblomov, A.I. Stolts, E. Onegin, G.A. Pechorina

Determine the life positions of these heroes and, thereby, identify the meaning and purpose of their lives.

Compare the views, values of the characters, lifestyle and their environment, interests and preferences.

Draw a conclusion about the characters’ understanding of goals in life and their implementation; compare their destinies and achievements.

Draw a parallel between the lives of literary heroes and the lives of people in the real world, compare and determine the meanings of existence of both.

Research methods:

The meaning of life from the point of view of the philosopher S. L. Frank.

Omar Khayyam

Meaning of life. What is it? How to find it? Why do we live? Most people ask these questions at least once in their lives, but do they get answers to them? It takes many years to figure this out. By the meaning of life we understand the awareness of the basic content of our life activity, both past and present, and future, which determines our place and significance in the life of society. But for each individual person the meaning will still lie in something different and it is impossible to give one definite and accurate answer. You can talk about this topic for a very long time and ultimately not even find an answer to the questions posed. To understand at least a little, let us turn to the works of the Russian philosopher, religious thinker and psychologist Semyon Lyudvigovich Frank, article “The Meaning of Life”:
“Does life have any meaning at all, and if so, what kind of meaning? What's the point

life? Or is life just nonsense, a meaningless, worthless process?
natural birth, flowering, maturation, withering and death of a person,
like any other organic being? Those dreams of goodness and truth, oh
spiritual significance and meaningfulness of life, which already from adolescence
stir our souls and make us think that we were not born “for nothing”, that
we are called to accomplish something great and decisive in the world and thereby
realize ourselves, give a creative outcome to those dormant in us, hidden from
prying eyes, but persistently demanding to be discovered by the spiritual
forces that form, as it were, the true being of our “I” - these dreams are justified
whether in any objective way, whether they have any reasonable basis, and if so -
which one? Or are they just lights of blind passion flashing in the living
being according to the natural laws of his nature, as spontaneous instincts and
yearnings, with the help of which indifferent nature accomplishes through our
medium, deceiving and luring us with illusions, its meaningless, in the eternal
monotony, the repeated business of preserving animal life through successive generations?
Human thirst for love and happiness, tears of tenderness before beauty, reverent
the thought of bright joy illuminating and warming life, or rather, for the first time
realizing authentic life, is there any solid ground for this in
human existence, or is this only a reflection in the inflamed human
consciousness of that blind and vague passion that owns the insect that
deceives us, using us as tools to preserve the same
meaningless prose of animal life and dooming us for a brief dream of a higher
joy and spiritual fullness to pay with vulgarity, boredom and tedious
the need of a narrow, everyday, philistine existence? And the thirst for achievement,
selfless service to good, thirst for death in the name of the great and bright
business - is it something bigger and more meaningful than the mysterious, but
the senseless force that drives the butterfly into the fire?

These, as they usually say, “damned” questions, or rather, this single
The question “about the meaning of life” worries and torments in the depths of the soul of every person.
A person can completely forget about him for a while, and even for a very long time,
plunge headlong into the everyday interests of today, into
material concerns about preserving life, about wealth, contentment and earthly
successes, or in any super-personal passions and “affairs” - in politics, struggle
parties, etc. - but life is already arranged in such a way that completely and forever
even the dumbest person, fat or spiritually, cannot brush it off
sleeping man: the irreducible fact of approach of death and its inevitable
harbingers - aging and disease, the fact of dying, transient
disappearance, immersion in the irrevocable past of our entire earthly life with
with all the illusory significance of her interests - this fact is for everyone
a person, a formidable and persistent reminder of the unresolved, put aside
question about the meaning of life. This question is not a “theoretical question”, not a subject
idle mental games; this question is a question of life itself, it is also
terrible, and, in fact, even much more terrible than during a serious
need, a question about a piece of bread to satisfy hunger. Verily, this is a question about
bread to nourish us and water to quench our thirst. Chekhov
describes a person who, all his life living with everyday interests in
in a provincial town, like all other people, he lied and pretended, “played a role”
in "society", was busy with "business", immersed in petty intrigues and worries - and
suddenly, unexpectedly, one night, he wakes up with a heavy heartbeat and
cold sweat. What's happened? Something terrible happened - life has passed And
there was no life because there was and is no meaning in it!
Let's try first of all to think about what it means to "find the meaning
life", more precisely, what we are actually looking for what meaning we put into the very
the concept of “meaning of life” and under what conditions we would honor it
accomplished?

By “meaning” we mean roughly the same thing as “reasonableness”.
“Reasonable”, in a relative sense, we call everything expedient, everything
correctly leading to a goal or helping to achieve it. It makes sense
behavior that is consistent with the goal and leads to it
implementation, reasonable or meaningful use of a means that
helps us achieve our goal. But all this is only relatively reasonable -
precisely on the condition that the goal itself is undeniably reasonable or meaningful. We can
to call in a relative sense “reasonable”, for example, human behavior,
who knows how to adapt to life, earn money, make himself
career - on the assumption that success in life itself, wealth, high
We recognize social position as indisputable and in this sense “reasonable”
benefits. If we, having become disillusioned with life and seeing its “meaninglessness,”
at least in view of the brevity, precariousness of all these benefits, or in view of the fact that they
do not give our soul true satisfaction, the very purpose of these
aspirations, the same behavior, being relative, i.e. with regard to his
purpose, reasonable and meaningful, will seem to us absolutely unreasonable and
meaningless. So this is true in relation to the prevailing content
ordinary human life. We see that most people devote
spend most of their energy and time on a series of completely expedient actions, which
they are constantly concerned about achieving certain goals and act correctly to
their achievements, i.e. for the most part they act quite “reasonably”; and together with
those, since either these goals themselves are “meaningless”, or, at least,
the question of their “meaningfulness” remains unresolved and controversial - the whole
human life takes on the character of a meaningless whirling, like
a squirrel circling in a wheel, a set of meaningless actions that unexpectedly
outside of any relation to these goals set by man, and therefore also
completely meaningless, ending in death.

Consequently, the condition of genuine, and not just relative rationality
life is not only so that it intelligently achieves any goals, but
so that these goals themselves, in turn, are reasonable.

But what does "reasonable goal" mean? A means is reasonable when it leads to
goals. But the goal - if it is a genuine, final goal, and not just
a means for something else - no longer leads to anything, and therefore cannot
be assessed from the point of view of its feasibility. She must be reasonable
in itself, as such. But what does this mean and how is it possible? To this difficulty
- turning it into absolute undecidability - that sophistry is based, with the help
which is often proven that life is necessarily meaningless, or that
The very question about the meaning of life is illegal. They say: "Every action is meaningful,
when it serves a purpose"; but the purpose or - which seems to be the same thing - life in its
as a whole, no longer has any purpose outside itself: “life has been given to me for the sake of living.”
Therefore, either we must once and for all come to terms with the fatal, from the logic of things
the resulting "meaninglessness" of life, or - which is more correct - it is necessary
admit that the very question of the meaning of life is illegal, that this question
belongs to those who do not find permission simply because
your own inner absurdity. The question of the "meaning" of something has
always relative meaning, it presupposes a "meaning" for something,
expediency in achieving a certain goal. Life in general is no good
has no purpose, and therefore the “meaning” of it cannot be questioned.

No matter how convincing, at first glance, this reasoning is, against it
First of all, our heart instinctively protests; we feel that the question is about
the meaning of life is in itself not a meaningless question, and, as it were,
no matter how painful it was for us, its indecisiveness or unresolvedness, reasoning
the illegality of the question itself does not reassure us. We can for a while
brush this question aside, drive it away from you, but the next
moment it is not “we” and not our “mind” that sets him up, but he himself persistently stands in front of
by us, and our soul, often with mortal torment, asks: “Why live?”

It is obvious that our life, a simple spontaneous process of living it out,
being in the world and being aware of this fact is not at all for us
"end in itself". It cannot be an end in itself, firstly, because in general
suffering and burdens prevail in her over joys and pleasures and,
despite all the strength of the animal instinct of self-preservation, we often
we wonder why we have to pull this heavy burden. But also regardless
this is why it cannot be an end in itself and because life, by its very nature,
essence, there is not motionless abiding in oneself, self-sufficient peace, but
doing something or striving for something; the moment in which we are free from
We experience every task or aspiration as painfully melancholy.
a state of emptiness and dissatisfaction. We cannot live for life; We
We always, whether we want it or not, live for something. But only in
in most cases, this is “something”, being the goal towards which we strive, according to
its content is in turn a means, and moreover a means for
saving life. This results in that painful vicious circle,
which most acutely makes us feel the meaninglessness of life and gives rise to
longing for its comprehension: we live to work on something, to strive for
something, but we work, care and strive - in order to live. AND,
exhausted by this whirling in the squirrel wheel, we are looking for the “meaning of life” - we are looking for
aspirations and deeds that would not be aimed at simply preserving
life, and life that would not be spent on the hard work of preserving it.
We thus return back to the question posed. Life
ours is meaningful when it serves some reasonable purpose, content
which simply cannot be this empirical life itself. But what
its content, and, above all, under what conditions we can recognize
the ultimate goal of "reasonable"?
If its rationality does not consist in the fact that it is a means for
anything else, otherwise it would not be the true, ultimate goal, then it
can only be that this goal is so indisputable,
self-sufficient value, about which it is already pointless to raise the question: “for
what?" To be meaningful, our life - contrary to the assurances of fans
"life for life" and in accordance with the clear demand of our soul - there must be
serving the highest and absolute good ».

Based on the article, the meaning of life and life itself is that same “vicious circle: to live in order to work, and to work in order to live”? It is unlikely that many will agree with this statement. Then, how can we understand what the real meaning of our existence is? To solve this problem, I propose to turn to literature, perhaps it is in the works that we can find answers to the question that worries us, thereby we will try to find out and understand what is the meaning of the existence of certain literary heroes and we will be able to compare the life imagined by writers and real life. Namely, we will try to understand the fates of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, Andrei Ivanovich Stolts, Evgeny Onegin and Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, we will try to find out why they live and what goals they pursue.

Part one: I. Goncharov “Oblomov”.
I. I. Oblomov and A. I. Stolts.

The novel tells about the Russian landowner Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, who lives in St. Petersburg with his servant Zakhar in a rented apartment on Gorokhovaya Street.
“The first part describes one day in Oblomov’s life: the hero lies on the sofa; in the second part he goes to the Ilyinskys and falls in love with Olga, and she with him (as it seems to her at first); in the third part she sees that she was mistaken in Oblomov, they separate; in the fourth, Olga marries Oblomov’s friend Stolz, and Oblomov marries the mistress of the house. A few years later he dies of a heart attack,” this is how critic N.A. retold the plot of the novel in one sentence. Dobrolyubov.
Oblomov - “a man about thirty-two or three years old,” “of average height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, any concentration in his facial features... Thought walked like a free bird across his face, fluttered in eyes...then it completely disappeared.” 1 . He lives only on the income he receives from his estate. All he does is lie on the sofa all day long in a robe, which has already “lost its original freshness.” He has no interests or aspirations, he constantly sits at home, all the time thinking about the necessary transformations in the estate. The only thing that remains is dreams. This is a man with a kind, pure heart and an open soul, with a rich inner world, but “no one has ever seen this inner life Ilya Ilyich: everyone thought that Oblomov was so-so, just lying there and eating for his health, and that there was nothing more to be expected from him; that he could hardly even think of thoughts in his head” 2. In fact, he is a man of thought, he is full of ideas and aspirations, but only while they are in his head; as soon as he even thinks about bringing everything he has thought up to life, he immediately gives up and loses all desire to act. “Stolz knew in detail about his abilities, about this internal volcanic work of an ardent head, a humane heart,” which, as we learn from the text, will awaken, or at least try to awaken, our sleeping hero.
Oblomov needs an incentive, a goal for the sake of which he will leave his usual way of life and come to life. Such a target for a time will be Olga Ilyinskaya, the hero’s beloved, who “understood Oblomov closer than Stolz understood him, closer than all the people devoted to him. She saw in him innate tenderness, and purity of character, and Russian gentleness, and a knightly capacity for devotion, and a decisive inability to do any unclean deed, and finally - which should not be forgotten - she saw in him an original person, funny, but pure and not at all despised in its originality” 3. This means we can safely say that Oblomov is not completely overwhelmed by laziness and apathy, he can live, and moreover, live in a way that no one else can, to the fullest of his strength and emotions. But why doesn't it work out that way? He lives with feelings the whole summer, by autumn doubts arise about the necessity of such a life, and ultimately he again falls into hibernation, returning to his usual state: he again sits at home all day long, lying on the sofa; everything ceases to interest him.
Why did this happen? Does he really not want to live a full, rich life? No, he wants to live this way, but he cannot overcome himself and the “Oblomovism” that will forever be with him and, even, in him. In order to finally understand the reason for this outcome, it is necessary to find out and understand what else young Oblomov wanted, what he was striving for. What did you see as your life and the meaning of existence in this world?
Little Oblomov did not like and did not want to study at all, but still received an education together with his friend Andrei Stolts in the village of Verkhlev. Having matured, he was full of energy and ideas, “to serve until he has strength, because Russia needs hands and heads to develop inexhaustible sources; to work in order to rest more sweetly, and to rest means to live the other, artistic, graceful side of life, the life of artists, poets,” he argued that “all life is thought and work, work, although unknown, dark, but continuous, and to die with consciousness , that he did his job” 4. Based on these words of his, we understand that he was ready to create, create and improve himself and the world. This means there was a meaning, there was a goal, but there was no ally who would lead him along, who would not let him drown in the abyss of laziness and apathy. Stolz was organizing his life at that time and did not think that Oblomov would sink and wither like that.
Now the hero has matured, he has not brought to life anything that he planned in his youth. And what is he aiming for now? What does he want? In my opinion, his whole life has lost its meaning, I can’t call it any other way. He lies all day long, quarrels with Zakhar, dreams and draws up a plan that will never be fulfilled. But one day Stolz arrives, he becomes something fresh and new for the sleeping Oblomov, he wakes him up and brings him back to life. It was then that Ilya Ilyich admitted the hopelessness of his situation: “I know everything, I understand everything, but there is no willpower” 5. He “painfully felt that some good, bright beginning was buried in him, as if in a grave, perhaps now dead, or it lay like gold in the depths of a mountain, and it was high time for this to be a walking coin. But the treasure is deeply and heavily littered with rubbish, alluvial debris.”6 It turns out that Oblomov understands his situation, which means he is not as hopeless as he seems. I think that realizing the problem and admitting it is already taking a step towards a solution, but, unfortunately, this step was very small and indecisive, and it did not help Oblomov return to life. The hero remained just a dreamer and thinker; he never turned into a doer, which is what readers were waiting for.
N. A. Dobrolyubov in his article “What is Oblomovism?” incredibly accurately, in my opinion, he gave a description of Oblomov’s entire life, it is with this quote that I would like to end the conversation about Ilya Ilyich: “It is clear that Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person, also something about searching in his life, thinking about something. But the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not through his own efforts, but from others, developed in him apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery. This slavery is so intertwined with Oblomov’s lordship, so they mutually penetrate each other and are determined by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any boundary between them. This moral slavery of Oblomov constitutes perhaps the most curious side of his personality and his entire history.”

Now I would like to talk about the man who tried so hard and for a long time to awaken Ilya Ilyich - Andrei Ivanovich Stolts. As mentioned above, he received his education in the village of Verkhlevo together with Oblomov, but his further fate was much different from the fate of his friend. He constantly went somewhere, did something and calculated, looked for something and ultimately found it. He always achieved his goal, no matter what the cost. Stolz is the complete opposite of Oblomov, “He is constantly on the move: society will need to send to Belgium or England
agent - they send him; need to write some project or adapt
a new idea for a business - they choose it. Meanwhile, he goes out into the world and reads:
when he has time, God knows" 7 . He lives like this and doesn’t know any other way, and doesn’t want to. The meaning of his existence is constant movement, without which he cannot imagine himself. But Stolz is completely devoid of feelings and emotions, he is driven only by cold reason and prudence. He does not recognize love, suppresses at times the surging daydreaming or mystery, his emotions are always under control, unlike Ilya Ilyich Oblomov.
Ivan Goncharov, the author of the novel, constantly contrasts these two heroes, two friends. Yes, they are completely different, but is there something that will unite them? Is there something connecting them? And this “something” is friendship, friendship from childhood until the death of one of the heroes separated them.
If you analyze the lives of Oblomov and Stolz, you can still note that they are similar. They are united by a deep sleep, and yes, a dream. Let it be applicable in the literal sense for Oblomov’s life, but figuratively for Stolz, but still applicable. Yes, this may seem strange, but if you still understand the fate and character of Andrei Ivanovich, you can note that he is sleeping in his stormy and rich life. For him, there is nothing that can touch the quick, touch the soul and heart so that everything will fade in comparison and lose meaning. Based on this, we can safely say that this Andrei Stolz is sleeping spiritually, despite very active image life.
So what is the conclusion? What is the meaning of life for both heroes? Many can say that Oblomov has no meaning at all, that he disappeared in his youth, along with all his ideas and dreams. No, I am sure that the meaning was and remained until the end, only it is carefully hidden under apathy and laziness, living only in the dreams and dreams of Ilya Ilyich. If we judge the purpose of Andrei Ivanovich’s existence, then just one phrase will be enough: “movement is life,” which was the main thing for Stolz.

Part two: A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”.
Onegin is a “reluctant egoist.”

A vain gift, a random gift,
Life, why were you given to me?
Or why fate is a secret
Are you sentenced to death?

There is no goal in front of me:
The heart is empty, the mind is idle,
And it makes me sad
The monotonous noise of life.

A. S. Pushkin.

And A.S. Pushkin in his poem “A Vain Gift, an Accidental Gift” asks the question: why was life given? What is its purpose? And again, we cannot give unambiguous answers to these questions. Having examined the fates of Oblomov and Stolz, it is still difficult to draw any conclusions. Both heroes are representatives of different types of people, each with their own characteristics, advantages and disadvantages.
Eugene Onegin is another literary hero - a nobleman and a secular dandy. This is a young man of twenty-six years old living in St. Petersburg. He received home education, thanks to the tutors whom the parents hired: “He could express himself perfectly in French and wrote,” “He knew enough Latin to understand epigraphs” 8 - from these lines one can judge that his education was not brilliant, but quite good.
Onegin's life in St. Petersburg is eventful and full of love affairs and various amusements. He goes to balls and theaters, does not miss a single social event, but all this is an empty, aimless and meaningless life and he quickly gets tired of it. Tired of being bored in St. Petersburg, Onegin goes to the village to be bored. And here his life is not distinguished by a wealth of events: swimming in the river, horseback riding and walking, reading magazines, no serious interests, no work. Only at first, having arrived in the village, Onegin tried to take up farming and eased the situation of the peasants: “He replaced the ancient corvée with a light quitrent.” But this did not occupy him for long, and Onegin took up this only out of idleness. He was overcome by blues. He stopped living by feelings, lost faith in them, and his soul grew cold. Fate sends him true friendship and love, but he does not appreciate it and rejects both. He does not accept Tatyana's sincere feelings, inflicting a heart wound on her with his indifference. Of course, he cannot be blamed for not falling in love. The hero’s spiritual callousness manifested itself at the girl’s name day. He knew that Tatyana loved him, but did not spare her feelings. While caring for Olga, he made not only Tatyana suffer, but also Vladimir Lensky. Onegin is an egoist, cold, rational person. That's why he failed the test of love and friendship
etc.................