Arguments for an essay for the Unified State Examination in the Russian language by topic. OGE: arguments for the essay “What are life values

Argumentation strategies:

The most difficult stage is selection of arguments. The construction of an argument can be based on two principles: on affirming one’s own thesis and on refuting the opponent’s thesis (the latter is easier, because the opponent takes on the work of generating new ideas, and you can only criticize his ideas).

With the confirmation strategy, a person gives arguments that confirm his thesis (we do not take the kindergarten situation, when the thesis is simply repeated many times, but without a single piece of evidence).

Direct confirmation of the thesis.

Thesis: squirrels are dangerous animals.

Argument: because they attack people.

It still happens indirect confirmation, when another position is deduced from a thesis, its truth is proven and then the truth of the first thesis is proven.

Thesis: Squirrels are dangerous animals.

Additional thesis: Bites from dangerous animals require medical supervision.

Argument: Indeed, after being bitten by a squirrel, you will have to visit the emergency room and get a rabies vaccination. This proves that squirrels are dangerous.

Refutation strategy:

direct refutation :

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Refuting the counterthesis: Squirrels spoil their habitat, i.e. they are not harmless.

It also happens indirect refutation. Then the person himself deduces certain provisions from the counterthesis (thesis of the opponent), refutes them, and thus refutes the counterthesis itself.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Additional counterpoint:Harmless animals are kept at home.

Refutation of the counterthesis: No one keeps squirrels at home, only fans , which means that proteins are not harmless and unsafe.

Another good way to fight an opponent is refutation of arguments, which leads to the recognition of the unfoundedness of the counterthesis and to the reinforcement of the thesis.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Argument: These are small animals compared to humans.

Refutation of the argument: Viruses are also small, but they can cause enormous harm to humans. So size doesn't matter here.

Another way to refute is refutation of the demonstration, i.e. proof that valid arguments in themselves do not involve a counterthesis.

Counterthesis: Proteins are harmless.

Argument: Squirrels are beautiful and graceful.

Demonstration rebuttal: Yes, squirrels are beautiful and graceful, but this does not affect their safety in any way. Jaguars are also beautiful and graceful, but would anyone agree to meet one-on-one with a hungry jaguar at night?

Argument types:

The arguments are divided into:

1. natural evidence: arguments to the obvious(eyewitness accounts, documents, examination data, scientific experiment - “tangible” evidence)

2. artificial evidence(other)

Artificial evidence :

- logical (arguments to logos)

There are two types logical proofs: syllogism(particularity is proved using general statements) and guidance(the general statement is proved on the basis of particulars).

This corresponds to two methods of drawing conclusions: deduction(from the general to the specific) and induction(from the particulars a conclusion about the general is drawn). Sherlock Holmes, who kept shouting about deductive method, in fact, he used inductive (from particulars he deduced the whole). Induction can fail, because from several particular facts we can draw some conclusion, and then one fact will take it and refute it (for example, we decide on the basis of observations that all pigeons are gray, and then some white scoundrel will fly in and that’s all will spoil).

Examples of syllogisms :

A syllogism usually includes two premises and a conclusion.

The premises and conclusion are propositions.

There are four types of judgments: general affirmative (all objects that have a certain property also have another property);

All people are mortal

private affirmative (some objects that have a certain property also have another property);

Some people are men

general negative(not a single object that has a certain property has another property); No man is a plant

partial negative (some objects that have a certain property do not have another property)

Some people are not children

A judgment is divided into a subject (what is said) and a predicate (what is new that is reported about the subject).

All professors (M) have an academic degree (P)(includes a conclusion predicate: major premise).

Panteley Prokofich Kryndylyabrov (S) – professor (M) (includes the subject of the conclusion: small premise).

Panteley Prokofich ( S ) has an academic degree (P).

All professors are the subject of a statement. Have an academic degree - a predicate.

Panteley Prokofich is a subject. Professor is a predicate.

Panteley Prokofich is again a subject. Has an academic degree – predicate.

There must be a coincidence of subjects and predicates, otherwise the syllogism will be meaningless (we equated the subject of the first premise with the subject of the second, after which the predicate of the first premise turned out to be a predicate for the second).

There are large (P), small ( S ) and the middle (M) member of the syllogism. The middle member acts as a mediator and does not appear in the conclusion (in our case, this is the professor). Large penis - in this case it means “having an advanced degree.” Small member - Panteley Prokofich.

Not all syllogisms are equally correct (not all yoghurts are equally healthy).

The conscious construction of an incorrect syllogism results in sophistry (“People eat bread.Pigs eat bread.Therefore, people are pigs."). There are syllogisms in which the error was made unintentionally.

For example: Many candidates of science are associate professors. Pasha Zyabkin – PhD. Pasha Zyabkin – associate professor.

In fact, Pasha Zyabkin may or may not be an associate professor: not all candidates of science are also associate professors, these are two partially intersecting sets, and Pasha Zyabkin can either be part of both sets or belong to one of them, i.e. e. many candidates.

There are multi-story syllogisms (complex).

Men like Angelina Jolie.

Men like beautiful women.

If men like Angelina Jolie, then she is a beautiful woman.

Women who look like Angelina Jolie are also beautiful.

Dunya looks like Angelina Jolie, which means Dunya is also beautiful.

Guidance(inductive method)

It often leads to errors because it forces one to accept as truth a conclusion that concerns only part of the phenomena.

For example: I saw only rock pigeons on the streets of the city. Pigeons are only gray.

Close to induction is analogy(the properties of one object known to us are transferred to another). Unlike induction, we are talking about a single object about which we know something, and the transfer is also carried out to a single object, and not to a class of beings/substances.

For example: I'll take a red apple. I don’t want to take the green one - it’s for sure sour. Yesterday I ate a green apple and it was terribly sour.

This physical analogy . Within its framework, similar or identical objects are compared.

Is there some more figurative analogy. It allows you to pair distant objects.

For example: A good marriage is everything equals what comfortable house slippers.

- arguments for ethos (mores)/ethical arguments (reliance on the collective experience of society)

arguments for empathy (mention of qualities that are positioned as praiseworthy in society)

a) direct attacks on a person (my opponent is a cretin)

b) indirect attack (my opponent is interested in the results of the discussion, so his opinion cannot be considered objective)

c) an indication that the person has previously said or done something different

- arguments for pathos(passions)/emotional arguments (reliance on a person’s individual experience)

The author evokes certain, pre-programmed emotions (positive or negative) in the audience. In this case, arguments can be directed at the audience itself, at the speaker (certain feelings towards him should arise) or at third parties (feelings towards them)

a) arguments for the promise (promises)

b) arguments for threat (intimidation of the audience)

reasons to trust

If we are talking about logical proof, the argument for trust is that, along with logical reasoning, the person to whom this reasoning belongs is indicated, and, as a rule, a characteristic of this person is given that corresponds to the “logos” spirit, such as “the great thinker of antiquity ", "famous logician of the twentieth century", "Chinese sage", etc.Sometimes the names speak for themselves, and then the usual way their introduction is as follows: “Even Socrates believed that...”, “Aristotle himself, the father of logic, believed that...”. As a third party when bringing logical proof experts may speak.

A reference to authority in an argument to ethos most often contains a characterization of authority (from the “ethos” side) and an indication of the addressee of the speech. Her usual scheme is as follows: “So-and-so, and he knows a lot about this, said that we often forget about so-and-so.”

A reference to authority in an argument for pathos also usually contains a characterization of the authority itself. This can be not only authority in the proper meaning of the word, but also little-known person, who has become an authority as a person who has experienced what is stated in the threat or promise. Moreover, in the latter case the third party can be called generically: “Every American will tell you that...”, “There is no need to explain to those who experienced the horrors of war that...”, “Those who lived under socialism remember perfectly well how...”.

d gadflies to mistrust

Distrust in an argument about logos is created by the fact that a deliberately incorrect statement is given, belonging to a person whose logical abilities the author doubts. In this case, the “expert in not his field” effect is also often used.

Distrust in the argument for ethos is created by the fact that some person is qualified as not knowing people (most often very specific people, a given social or age group), not understanding their ethical principles. For example: “So-and-so speaks with great feeling about the problems of young people. But he apparently forgot how young people live. And he simply has no idea about today’s youth, their thoughts and feelings.”

Distrust when arguing for pathos (a threat or promise) is created in a similar way: it is shown that the person appealing to pathos does not know the people to whom he is appealing well. For example: “He promises hungry old people Snickers and discos! He invites them to enjoy the sounds heavy metal, and they need free medical care!” Or: “Is he threatening the rebels with war? People who have been carrying weapons with them for forty years! Yes...It’s unlikely that this politician will be able to control people!”

Argument selection strategy:

When choosing arguments, you need to consider the following:

Strong arguments are natural evidence:

Judgments based on precisely established facts, documented

Experimental results

Testimony of disinterested and competent eyewitnesses

Expert opinions

Statistical calculations

And:

Quotes from statutes, laws, regulations, etc.

However, even with such arguments you can fight (if you really need it):

Facts may be accurate, but they can be interpreted in your own way (for example, doubt the chain of cause and effect)

The opinions of experts and authorities can be challenged by calling into question their right to conduct an examination, their validity as specialists, their disinterest in the results, and you can also clarify whether the experts’ opinion concerned this particular situation or whether this opinion was simply far-fetched

Witnesses can be suspected of being interested and that they were unable to soberly assess the situation/amnesia

Statistical calculations can be accused of being unrepresentative (are you sure you surveyed the entire population of the globe?)

Weak arguments admit:

Conclusions from questionable statistics (five people interviewed in a nightclub)

Reasoning with misuse syllogism diagrams

Sophistry, reasoning with a deliberate logical error (“Horns”)

Contrived analogies (the analogy between playing basketball and driving a car)

One-sidedly selected aphorisms and sayings

Generalizations

Assumptions based on personal experience

Insolventthe following arguments:

Conclusions based on manipulated facts

- speculation

Advance promises not supported by deeds, personal assurances (I guarantee you..., I assure you as a specialist..., I ask you to just take it on faith...)

You should not give too many arguments: a large number of arguments, especially arguments of different sizes, leads to a loss of persuasiveness, to the devaluation of each specific argument.

Individual arguments should not be abandoned if all together they create a convincing picture (a situation where only the sum of the arguments can be convincing, but not each of the arguments separately). Let's say we're trying to justify a murder charge against the son of a dead man. We do not have direct evidence, but we can show with the help of a sum of arguments that it was the son who was most interested in the death of his father and had the best opportunities for murder.

You should not use arguments that the opposite side can use to their advantage. The destructive power of your own argument, used by your enemies, increases many times over.

Argumentation errors are:

1) mistakes related to thesis

Substitution of the thesis– in the process of argumentation, the author begins to prove a different thesis, not the one he outlined at the beginning. This can be done on purpose, or it can be done accidentally.

Proof of absurd theses .

2) errors related to arguments

Use of false premises (a good driver never gets into an accident).

3) demo related errors

As arguments, premises that are not related to the thesis are used (first a company of four people came to the cafe, then a company of three, the next visitors will be a couple).

The problem of spirituality, a spiritual person is one of eternal problems Russian and world literature

Ivan Alekseevich Bunin(1870 -- 1953) - Russian writer and poet, first laureate Nobel Prize on literature

In the story "Mr. from San Francisco" Bunin criticizes bourgeois reality. This story is symbolic already by its title. This symbolism is embodied in the image of the main character, who is a collective image of the American bourgeois, a man without a name, called by the author simply a gentleman from San Francisco. The hero’s lack of a name is a symbol of his inner lack of spirituality and emptiness. The thought arises that the hero does not live in the full sense of the word, but only exists physiologically. He understands only the material side of life. This idea is emphasized by the symbolic composition of this story, its symmetry. While “he was quite generous on the way and therefore fully believed in the care of all those who fed and watered him, served him from morning to evening, preventing his slightest desire, guarding his purity and peace...”.

And after sudden “death,” the body of the dead old man from San Francisco returned home, to his grave, to the shores of the New World. Having experienced a lot of humiliation, a lot of human inattention, having wandered from one port shed to another for a week, it finally ended up again on the same famous ship on which so recently, with such honor, it was transported to the Old World.” The ship "Atlantis" sails in the opposite direction, only carrying the rich man already in a soda box, "but now hiding him from the living - they lowered him deep into the black hold." And on the ship there is still the same luxury, prosperity, balls, music, a fake couple playing at love.

It turns out that everything he has accumulated has no meaning in front of that eternal law to which everyone, without exception, is subject. It is obvious that the meaning of life is not in the acquisition of wealth, but in something that cannot be assessed in monetary terms - worldly wisdom, kindness, spirituality.

Spirituality is not equal to education and intelligence and does not depend on it.

Alexander Isaevich (Isaakievich) Solzhenitsyn(1918-- 2008) - Soviet and Russian writer, playwright, publicist, poet, public and political figure, who lived and worked in the USSR, Switzerland, USA and Russia. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature (1970). A dissident who for several decades (1960s - 1980s) actively opposed communist ideas, political system The USSR and the policies of its authorities.

A. Solzhenitsyn showed this well in the story "Matryonin's Dvor". Everyone mercilessly took advantage of Matryona’s kindness and simplicity - and unanimously condemned her for it. Matryona, apart from her kindness and conscience, did not accumulate any other wealth. She is used to living according to the laws of humanity, respect and honesty. And only death revealed the majestic and tragic image of Matryona to people. The narrator bows his head before a man of great selfless soul, but absolutely unrequited and defenseless. With the departure of Matryona, something valuable and important leaves life...

Of course, the germs of spirituality are inherent in every person. And its development depends on upbringing, and on the circumstances in which a person lives, on his environment. However, self-education, our work on ourselves, plays a decisive role. Our ability to look into ourselves, question our conscience and not be disingenuous in front of ourselves.

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov(1891--- 1940) - Russian writer, playwright, theater director and actor. Written in 1925, first published in 1968. The story was first published in the USSR in 1987

The problem of lack of spirituality in the story M. A. Bulgakova “Heart of a Dog”

Mikhail Afanasyevich shows in the story that humanity turns out to be powerless in the fight against the lack of spirituality that arises in people. At the center of it is the incredible case of a dog turning into a human. The fantastic plot is based on the depiction of the experiment of the brilliant medical scientist Preobrazhensky. Having transplanted the seminal glands and pituitary gland of the brain of the thief and drunkard Klim Chugunkin into the dog, Preobrazhensky, to everyone’s amazement, gets a man out of the dog.

Homeless Sharik turns into Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. However, he still has the dog habits and bad habits of Klim Chugunkin. The professor, together with Dr. Bormenthal, is trying to educate him, but all efforts are in vain. Therefore, the professor returns the dog to its original state. The fantastic incident ends idyllically: Preobrazhensky goes about his direct business, and the subdued dog lies on the carpet and indulges in sweet thoughts.

Bulgakov expands the biography of Sharikov to the level of social generalization. The writer gives a picture of modern reality, revealing its imperfect structure. This is the story not only of Sharikov’s transformations, but, above all, the story of a society developing according to absurd, irrational laws. If the fantastic plan of the story is completed in plot, then the moral and philosophical one remains open: the Sharikovs continue to breed, multiply and establish themselves in life, which means that the “monstrous history” of society continues. It is precisely such people who know neither pity, nor sorrow, nor sympathy. They are uncultured and stupid. They have dog hearts from birth, although not all dogs have the same hearts.
Outwardly, the Sharikovs are no different from people, but they are always among us. Their inhuman nature is just waiting to emerge. And then the judge, in the interests of his career and the implementation of the plan to solve crimes, condemns the innocent, the doctor turns away from the patient, the mother abandons her child, various officials, for whom bribes have become the order of the day, drop their mask and show their true essence. Everything that is lofty and sacred turns into its opposite, because the inhuman has awakened in these people. When they come to power, they try to dehumanize everyone around them, because non-humans are easier to control, and for them all human feelings are replaced by the instinct of self-preservation.
In our country, after the revolution, all conditions were created for the appearance of a huge number of ballpoint dog hearts. The totalitarian system greatly contributes to this. Probably due to the fact that these monsters have penetrated into all areas of life, Russia is still going through difficult times

Boris Vasiliev's story "Don't shoot white swans"

Boris Vasiliev tells us about the lack of spirituality, indifference and cruelty of people in the story “Don’t Shoot White Swans.” Tourists burned a huge anthill so as not to feel inconvenience from it, “they watched the giant structure, the patient work of millions of tiny creatures, melt before their eyes.” They looked at the fireworks with admiration and exclaimed: “Victory salute! Man is the king of nature."

Winter evening. Highway. Comfortable car. It is warm and cozy, with music playing, occasionally interrupted by the announcer's voice. Two happy, intelligent couples are going to the theater - a meeting with the beautiful lies ahead. Don't let this wonderful moment of life get away! And suddenly the headlights pick out in the darkness, right on the road, the figure of a woman “with a child wrapped in a blanket.” "Crazy!" - the driver screams. And that's it - darkness! There is no former feeling of happiness from the fact that your loved one is sitting next to you, that very soon you will find yourself in a soft chair in the stalls and will be spellbound to watch the performance.

It would seem a trivial situation: they refused to give a ride to a woman with a child. Where? For what? And there is no space in the car. However, the evening is hopelessly ruined. A “déjà vu” situation, as if it had already happened, the heroine of A. Mass’s story flashes through her mind. Of course, it happened - and more than once. Indifference to the misfortune of others, detachment, isolation from everyone and everything - phenomena are not so rare in our society. It is this problem that writer Anna Mass raises in one of her stories in the “Vakhtangov Children” series. In this situation, she is an eyewitness to what happened on the road. After all, that woman needed help, otherwise she would not have thrown herself under the wheels of the car. Most likely, she had a sick child; he had to be taken to the nearest hospital. But their own interests turned out to be higher than the manifestation of mercy. And how disgusting it is to feel powerless in such a situation, you can only imagine yourself in the place of this woman, when “people happy with themselves in comfortable cars rush past.” I think the pangs of conscience will torment the soul of the heroine of this story for a long time: “I was silent and hated myself for this silence.”

“People satisfied with themselves”, accustomed to comfort, people with petty proprietary interests are the same Chekhov's heroes, "people in cases." This is Doctor Startsev in “Ionych”, and teacher Belikov in “The Man in a Case”. Let us remember how plump, red Dmitry Ionych Startsev rides “in a troika with bells”, and his coachman Panteleimon, “also plump and red,” shouts: "Keep it up!" “Keep the law” - this is, after all, detachment from human troubles and problems. There should be no obstacles on their prosperous path of life. And in Belikov’s “no matter what happens,” we hear the sharp exclamation of Lyudmila Mikhailovna, a character in the same story by A. Mass: “What if this child is contagious? We also have children, by the way!” The spiritual impoverishment of these heroes is obvious. And they are not intellectuals, but simply philistines, ordinary people who imagine themselves to be “masters of life.”

“Truth is born in dispute!” - We are all familiar with this statement. But in order for this truth to appear, it is necessary to use a sufficient number of arguments and facts. A fact is a unit of philosophy that does not require proof. And this meaning is familiar to many. What is an argument?

Philosophy

An argument represents the basis of evidence or that part of it on which reality is based or in which the main evidentiary power is contained.

Depending on the purpose pursued in proving, the argument can be of several types:

1. Argument ad hominem (calculated on prejudices). Here, the basis of evidence is personal premises and beliefs, as well as statements.

2. Argument ad veritatem (declaration of truth). Here the proof comes from a statement tested by science, society and objectivity.

3. Argument e consensus gentium. In this case, the proof is what has been believed from time immemorial.

4. Argument a tuto. The proof is decisive in case of insufficiency of other arguments; it is based on the judgment that if it does not help, it will not harm.

5. Argument a baculo (last argument). In this case, if all arguments have been exhausted, the last argument in the dispute is the use of physical force.

Logics

Let's look at what an argument is in logic. Here this concept is a set of judgments that can be used to substantiate the truth of a theory or other judgment. For example, there is a saying: “Iron can be melted.” To prove this, two arguments can be used: “All metals can be melted” and “Iron is a metal.” From these two judgments one can logically deduce the opinion being proved, thereby justifying its truth. Or, for example, the judgment “What is happiness?” The following arguments can be used: “Happiness is different for everyone”, “A person himself determines the criteria by which he classifies himself as a happy or unhappy person.”

Rules

Arguments (A), which are used in the process of proving the truth of a judgment, must be subject to certain rules:

a) arguments must be true opinions and judgments;

b) they must be those judgments whose truth can be established in any case, regardless of opinion;

c) arguments must be the basis of a proven opinion.

If any of the rules are violated, it will lead to logical errors that will make the proof incorrect.

What is an argument in a dispute?

Arguments that are used in a dispute or discussion are divided into several types:

1. To the merits of the matter. In this case, the argument relates to the issue being discussed and aims to justify the truth of the evidence. The basic principles of any theories can be applied here, scientific concepts and judgments, previously established facts, proven provisions, etc.

If these arguments satisfy all the rules, then the proof in which they are used will be logically correct. In this case, the so-called ironclad argument will be used.

2. To a person. Such arguments are used only when there is a need to win an argument or discussion. They are directed to the opponent’s personality and affect his beliefs.

From a logical point of view, such arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute where participants are trying to find the truth.

Types of arguments “to the person”

The most common types of arguments “to a person” are the following:

1. To authority. Here, in the discussion, the opinions and statements of writers, scientists, public figures, and so on are used as arguments. Such arguments may well exist, but they are incorrect. This is due to the fact that a person who has achieved success in a certain area cannot be an authority in other areas, so his opinion here may turn out to be erroneous.

An argument to authority can be applied using the authority of the audience, public opinion, the enemy, and even one’s own. Sometimes a person can invent authority or attribute judgments to people who never expressed them.

2. To the public. Here the person refers to the mood and feelings of the listener. In a dispute, he addresses himself not to his opponent, but to the audience, random listeners, in order to attract them to his side, thus exerting psychological pressure on his opponent. The use of arguments to the public is especially effective when its material interests are affected. So, if one opponent proves that the opponent’s opinion affects those present, then he will win their sympathy.

3. Towards the individual. The arguments are based on the personal characteristics of the opponent, on his shortcomings and advantages, tastes and appearance. If such an argument is used, then the subject of the dispute becomes the identity of the opponent in a negative light. There are also arguments that reveal the merits of the opponent. This technique is often used in courts when defending the accused.

4. To vanity. D This method consists of expressing a large number of praises and compliments to the opponent in order to touch him so that he becomes more flexible and softer.

5. To strength. In this case, one of the opponents threatens to use force or coercion. This is especially true for a person endowed with power or who has a weapon.

6. To pity. What an argument for pity is is quite clear. This is evoking pity and empathy in the enemy. Such arguments are often used by many people who constantly complain about the severity of life and difficulties in the hope of awakening sympathy and a desire to help in their opponent.

7. To ignorance. In this case, one of the opponents uses facts that are unknown to the opponent. Often people are unable to admit that they don’t know something because they believe that doing so will make them lose their dignity. That is why, in a dispute with such people, the argument of ignorance works ironclad.

All of the above arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute. But practice shows the opposite. Most people skillfully use them to achieve their goals. If a person is noticed using one of these arguments, he should point out that they are incorrect and the person is not confident in his position.

Algebra

Let's look at what an argument is in algebra. In mathematics, this concept refers to an independent variable. So, when talking about tables where the value of a function from an independent variable is located, they mean that they are located by a certain argument. For example, in a table of logarithms, where the value of the function log x is indicated, the number x is the argument of the table. Thus, answering the question of what a function argument is, we must say that this is the independent variable on which the value of the function depends.

Argument Increment

In mathematics, there is the concept of “increment of a function and argument.” We already know the concept of “function argument”; let’s look at what argument increment is. So, each argument has some meaning. The difference between its two values ​​(old and new) is the increment. In mathematics this is denoted as follows: Dx:Dx = x 1 -x 0.

Theology

In theology, the concept of “argument” has its own meaning. Here the true proof is the divinity of Christianity, which comes from the prophecies and parables of the wise men, as well as from the miracles performed by Christ. The inextricable connection between thinking and being, as well as the belief that God is the most perfect reality, existing not only in thoughts, but also in the real world, also serves as evidence in the dispute.

Astronomy

In astronomy, the concept of the pericent argument is used. Thus, it represents a certain quantity that determines the orientation of the orbit of a certain celestial body in relation to the equatorial plane of some other celestial body. The latitude argument, used in astronomy, is a certain value that determines the position of a certain celestial body in orbit.

As you can see, it is impossible to give a definite answer to the question of what an argument is, since this concept has several meanings that depend on the area in which it is used. this concept. Whatever argument a person uses to prove the truth in a discussion or dispute, it must have logical premises and be based on proven facts. Only in this case will the dispute be correct and true. In any other case, the dispute will be incorrect, and the opponent who uses such arguments will not be sure that he is right.

The complexity of the arguments that are used to prove the truth of beliefs, as well as the entire process of justification, is called argumentation, the main goal of which is to attract the opponent to one’s side in the discussion of a certain problem.

• Heartlessness manifests itself even towards very close people
• The thirst for profit often leads to heartlessness and dishonorable acts.
• A person’s spiritual callousness complicates his life in society
• The reasons for a heartless attitude towards others lie in upbringing
• The problem of heartlessness and mental callousness can be characteristic not only of an individual, but also of society as a whole.
• Difficult life circumstances can make a person heartless
• Often, spiritual callousness manifests itself in relation to moral, worthy people
• A person admits that he was heartless when nothing can be changed
• Mental callousness does not make a person truly happy
• The consequences of a callous attitude towards people are often irreversible

Arguments

A.S. Pushkin “Dubrovsky”. The conflict between Andrei Dubrovsky and Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov ended tragically due to the callousness and heartlessness on the part of the latter. The words spoken by Dubrovsky, although they were offensive to Troekurov, were certainly not worth the abuse, dishonest trial and death of the hero. Kirill Petrovich did not spare his friend, although in the past they had a lot of good things in common. The landowner was driven by heartlessness and a desire for revenge, which led to the death of Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. The consequences of what happened were terrible: officials burned, people were left without their real master, Vladimir Dubrovsky became a robber. The manifestation of the spiritual callousness of just one person made the lives of many people miserable.

A.S. Pushkin “The Queen of Spades”. Hermann, the protagonist of the work, is driven to act heartlessly by the desire to get rich. To achieve his goal, he presents himself as an admirer of Lizaveta, although in fact he does not have feelings for her. He gives the girl false hopes. Penetrating into the countess's house with the help of Lizaveta, Hermann asks the old woman to tell him the secret of the three cards, and after her refusal, he takes out an unloaded pistol. Graphia, very frightened, dies. The deceased old woman comes to him a few days later and reveals the secret on the condition that Hermann will not play more than one card per day, in the future will not play at all and will marry Lizaveta. But the hero does not have a happy future: his heartless actions serve as a reason for retribution. After two wins, Hermann loses, which causes him to go crazy.

M. Gorky “At the Bottom”. Vasilisa Kostyleva does not feel any feelings for her husband except hatred and complete indifference. Wanting to inherit at least a small fortune, she very easily decides to persuade the thief Vaska Pepel to kill her husband. It's hard to imagine how heartless a person would have to be to come up with such a plan. The fact that Vasilisa was not married out of love does not in the least justify her action. A person must remain a person in any situation.

I.A. Bunin “Mr. from San Francisco”. Theme of doom human civilization is one of the main ones in this work. The manifestation of the spiritual degradation of people lies, among other things, in their spiritual callousness, heartlessness, and indifference towards each other. The sudden death of the gentleman from San Francisco evokes not compassion, but disgust. During his life, he is loved for his money, and after his death, they heartlessly put him in the worst room, so as not to spoil the reputation of the establishment. They cannot even make a normal coffin for a person who dies in a foreign country. People have lost true spiritual values, which have been replaced by a thirst for material gain.

K.G. Paustovsky “Telegram”. A life full of activities and events captivates Nastya so much that she forgets about the only person truly close to her - her old mother Katerina Petrovna. The girl, receiving letters from her, is glad that her mother is alive, but does not think about anything else. Nastya doesn’t even read and perceive the telegram from Tikhon about Katerina Petrovna’s poor condition right away: at first she doesn’t understand at all who they are talking about. Later, the girl realizes how heartless her attitude towards her loved one was. Nastya goes to Katerina Petrovna, but does not find her alive. She feels guilty before her mother, who loved her so much.

A.I. Solzhenitsyn “Matrenin’s Dvor”. Matryona is a person you rarely meet. Without thinking about herself, she never refused to help strangers and treated everyone with kindness and compassion. People didn't answer her in kind. After the tragic death of Matryona, Thaddeus thought only about how to win back part of the hut. Almost all relatives came to cry over the woman’s coffin only as an obligation. They did not remember Matryona during her lifetime, but after her death they began to lay claim to the inheritance. This situation shows how callous and indifferent human souls have become.

F.M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment”. Rodion Raskolnikov's heartlessness was expressed by his desire to test his terrible theory. Having killed the old pawnbroker, he tried to find out who he belonged to: “trembling creatures” or “those with the right.” The hero failed to maintain composure, to accept what he did as right, which means that he is not characterized by absolute spiritual callousness. The spiritual resurrection of Rodion Raskolnikov confirms that a person has a chance for correction.

Y. Yakovlev “He killed my dog.” The boy, showing compassion and mercy, brings a stray dog ​​into his apartment. His father doesn’t like this: the man demands that the animal be thrown back onto the street. The hero cannot do this, because “she was already kicked out.” The father, acting completely indifferent and indifferent, calls the dog to him and shoots him in the ear. The child cannot understand why an innocent animal was killed. Together with the dog, the father kills the child’s faith in the justice of this world.

ON THE. Nekrasov “Reflections at the front entrance.” The poem depicts the harsh reality of that time. The life of ordinary men and officials who spend their lives only in pleasure are contrasted. High-ranking people are heartless because they are indifferent to the problems of ordinary people. And for an ordinary person, the solution of even the most insignificant issue by an official can be salvation.

V. Zheleznikov “Scarecrow”. Lena Bessoltseva voluntarily took responsibility for a very bad act to which she had nothing to do. Because of this, she was forced to endure humiliation and bullying from her classmates. One of the most difficult tests for the girl was loneliness, because being an outcast is difficult at any age, and even more so in childhood. The boy who actually committed this act did not have the courage to confess. Two classmates who learned the truth also decided not to interfere in the situation. The indifference and heartlessness of those around him made the man suffer.

Does a person who loves only himself have a conscience? How does this love manifest itself in his actions? These and other questions are asked by the Russian Soviet writer E.A. Permyak.

This text raises the problem of selfishness and pride. In it, three brothers received happy hours, thereby gaining the opportunity to manage their time, which could only be obtained by helping and paying attention to others. However, they did not do this and continued to live for their own pleasure, subsequently completely losing the time given to them. “What can he say if he also has no conscience left to start a happy watch with?” This problem is urgent. Nowadays, selfishness has become widespread. People stopped seeing the world around us, they often began to think only about themselves, their work is aimed only at transforming and improving their own lives. “It’s not for nothing that one wise man said: “A man is learned through work.”

All his work, all his deeds and thoughts are aimed at creating a better future for himself.

This problem occurs in large numbers fiction. For example, in N.V. Gogol’s work “Dead Souls” one can see a large number of selfish landowners. One of them is the main character, the landowner Chichikov. From early childhood it was instilled in him that he had to live richly. This gave rise to feelings of pride in him. Chichikov, despite the great big problems of society, poverty and hunger of the peasants, continued to increase his own financial condition. Other landowners did the same. They all worked only for the good of their own lives.

If you turn to B. Vasiliev’s work “My Horses Are Flying,” you can see a completely opposite picture. Dr. Jansen was a sincere and sympathetic person. He was always in a hurry to visit his sick patients, but never in a hurry to leave them. Jansen wanted to help everyone with all his heart. This was shown by his last act. When the little boys got into sewer well, Jansen, without thinking about the consequences for himself, rushed to their aid, he understood that he himself was about to die, but this did not stop him. Soon the boys were saved, but Dr. Jansen gave his life for this.

There is no present behind egoism, which means there is no future. Such love does not carry anything valuable; on the contrary, it has a great negative impact on the world as a whole.

Updated: 2018-05-17

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.