Every year FIPI reforms the demo version of the Unified State Exam in social studies. This time the requirements and essay assessment system (tasks 29) have changed somewhat. I suggest you understand the innovations!
Changes in social studies essay 2018
Here's what the task looked like in 2017.
What has changed in the assignment text?
Let's figure it out.
- Form: mini-essay, no changes.
- The word problem (which the author of the quote raises) has been replaced by idea. It is fundamentally? I think not anyway this is those thoughts that arise when comprehending the author’s quote!
- The requirement to write several ideas is more clearly formulated (in 2017 - if necessary...).
- They are also asked to rely on facts and examples from public life and personal social experience, examples from other academic subjects.
- Also assessed two examples from various sources.
- The requirement is more strictly formulated detailed example and its obvious connection with the idea.
That is, in essence, volume requirement changes (examples need to be expanded, you need to see several ideas!) and let's just say that the essay really moves away from the genre of an easy and transparent essay, when it is not necessary to meticulously write out an example, it is enough to voice the idea. To a cumbersome essay, where all thoughts are ponderous, extremely clear and voiced. Probably next year we will come to a word limit, as in other subjects, unfortunately
How is an essay checked now?
First of all, the number of criteria has changed. There are more of them 4 instead of the previous three.
Criteria for checking assignment 29 essays for the Unified State Exam 2017
Let us remind you that in general you could get 5 points (1-2-2) for a mini-essay. now this 6 The value of the essay continues to increase, learning to write it in order to get the most important Unified State Exam points is a must!
Let's look at the new changed criteria!
Essentially, it has not changed; this is also a disclosure of the meaning of the author’s quote. And also, for non-disclosure you will receive a 0 not only for this criterion, but for the entire essay.
So, you need to find in the quote an idea (? problem?) related to the course and highlight a thesis (your complete thought on this statement), which you will further substantiate with information from the course and examples from social practice.
To be honest, I don’t see anything new. Instead of the meaning of the author’s quote, you write...
Essentially the same, criterion 2. Theoretical justification of the idea (problem) from the standpoint of scientific social science. terms, concepts, theories, scientific conclusions on this idea
So, let's break it down new criteria...
“The defense of rights is the defense of the greatest social value.”
(P.A. Sorokin)
Criterion 1. Its disclosure is played here by:
The author addresses the problem protection of rights, especially relevant in modern society.
In his opinion protection of rights is very important for society.
I can’t help but agree with the author’s opinion, because Law plays an important role in the life of any state, society and every person.
And also get expert verification from us in our group
This quote echoes the statement of A. N. Leontiev: “One is not born as a person, one becomes a person.” I agree with the author’s point of view that a person’s personality is formed throughout his life.
Personality is a stable system of socially significant traits that characterize an individual as a member of a particular society.
At first, these words seem strange. Let's figure out what this opinion is based on. The probable cause is destructive human activity. From the point of view of aesthetics, the natural process of development of nature is considered beautiful in nature, and its violation is considered ugly.
In the course of history, few nations have survived in relative purity, avoiding mixing with other peoples. Let's remember the Jewish people. Interethnic marriages were rare among them, since the attitude towards them was very negative. As a result, this nation has changed relatively little over many centuries. Most people have among their ancestors representatives of different nationalities. What people do they belong to? What is a nation anyway?
Shevelev’s statement regarding the difference between patriotism and nationalism is absolutely correct. The feeling of patriotism is inherent to all of us to one degree or another. This is a delightful feeling in which pride and admiration for one’s people, respect for traditions and foundations, and, of course, love for the Motherland are intertwined.
The social structure of society, in addition to classes and other social groups, includes historically established communities of people: nations, nationalities and tribes. We will try to answer the question of what a nation is and what definition science gives to this concept. A nation is the most developed historical and cultural community of people, which has been formed over a long period of time as a result of the connection and interweaving of various nationalities and tribes. The properties of a nation are the common territory of residence, cultural characteristics, national economy and self-government.
To begin with, you always need to refer to the assessment criteria for the task that we are analyzing. Download it and continue reading:
Download the demo version of the Unified State Examination in Social Studies 201 7
Isolating the problem
So, let's look at the very last pages of the document that you downloaded and take a look at points K1-K3, trying to extract from this the formula for a good essay that will be evaluated by experts
First, you need to directly understand the statement: identify the problem, reveal its meaning and highlight aspects of the problem. A number of cliches will help you here, because the exam is traditionally built on templates and this helps in preparation
What are the problems in the exam? From my experience, I can identify 6 main “flanks” on which you need to try your aphorism:
- Essence problem...
- The problem of inconsistency...
- Role problem...
- Relationship problem...
- Relationship problem...
- The problem of unity...
What does it mean to reveal meaning? In general, I tell my students that the essay must be translated “from Russian into Russian”, in fact from a literary language to a scientific one, based on the block in which you are writing your work. You can end everything with a “reason for increasing your score”: looking at the problem from different angles. This will be the structure of the first part of the essay.
Theoretical argument
Now we move on to the second criterion, which involves argumentation based on theory. What does this mean and what parts should your essay include?
Naturally, these are terms. Hence, if you are an applicant preparing on your own, ALWAYS study this or that topic in the context of any concepts from the area that you are studying
You must also clearly, clearly and consistently formulate your statements and conclusions from what you stated in the thesis of your essay - this is a very important element, pay attention to it. In addition, it is necessary to cite various principles and approaches as examples, prove your position and reveal the causes and consequences of the events discussed in the formulation of the assignment
Factual Argumentation
As factual evidence, you must prove the theoretical material discussed above with the help of media reports, materials from educational subjects (usually humanities), facts from social experience and your own reasoning. The most interesting thing is that you need to provide 2 ARGUMENTS of a factual nature, both of which cannot be from media reports, or history, political life... This is important to understand, otherwise the expert will reduce your score
Well, in the end you make a qualitative conclusion based on the thesis, simply writing it in other words, with a “shade” of completeness. This is all you need to know from the theory of how to write the 29th task in social studies
Speech by T. Liskova - Features of solving the second part at the Unified State Exam-2017
A video of her performance is attached below.
Ready-made essays
Now let's look at the structure. Below I attach 4 of my students’ very first works on politics. I suggest you look through them, highlight the constituent elements, find errors, if any, and write about them in the comments
First essay
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” (J. Acton)
In his statement, the American historian and politician J. Acton raises the question of the influence of power on the behavior of the person who has it. This statement can be interpreted as follows: the more power a person is given, the more often he begins to go beyond the boundaries of what is permitted and act only in his own interests. This problem has not lost its relevance for many centuries and history knows many cases when the unlimited power of a ruler led a country to ruin.
Disclosure of the theoretical part
So what is power and why does it exist? Power is the opportunity and ability to influence people's behavior regardless of their desire to do so. In any state, power is primarily aimed at maintaining order and monitoring compliance with laws, but often the more limitless power becomes, the more it corrupts a person and ceases to be a guarantor of justice, which is why I fully support the opinion of J. Acton.
Examples for revealing K3
A ruler endowed with great power ceases to care about the welfare of the entire people and tries even more to strengthen his position. Let's take, for example, the first Russian Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible: striving for unlimited autocracy, he introduced oprichnina in the camp, which consisted of mass terror, violence, and the elimination of not only the dissatisfied boyars, but also any opposition. Thus, many innocent people were executed on suspicion of treason, which ultimately led the country to a crisis, the destruction of cities and the death of a huge number of people.
My family also faced the consequences of unlimited power during the reign of I.V. Stalin. During dispossession, my grandmother’s family was repressed, her father was sent to the Gulag, and six children were forced to live in a barracks with similarly repressed families. Stalin's policy was aimed at equalizing the population, but the number of those dispossessed during his reign significantly exceeded the number of real kulaks, which is a clear violation of human rights and freedoms.
Thus, we can come to the conclusion that unlimited power corrupts people and brings not so much benefit as ruin and a decline in the standard of living of the population. In modern society, absolute power no longer prevails in most countries, which makes their inhabitants more free and independent.
Second essay
“When a tyrant rules, the people are silent and the laws do not apply” (Saadi)
I see the meaning of Saadi’s statement in the fact that legality is the basis for building a democratic state, while tyranny opposes the public good and is aimed only at achieving its own interests. This statement expresses two aspects: the participation of citizens in the life of the state under different political regimes and the attitude of the government to generally accepted laws.
Disclosure of the theoretical part
Tyranny is often inherent in states with unlimited power of one ruler; for the most part, these are countries with totalitarian regimes. Its main difference from democracy, a political regime characterized by the equality of all people before the law and power belonging to the people, is the concentration of all power in the hands of one ruler (party) and control over all spheres of society. With unlimited power, the ruler can interpret laws in his own favor, or even rewrite them, and the people do not have the right to express their own opinion, which absolutely does not correspond to the principle of legality. One cannot but agree with Saadi’s opinion, and history knows many proofs of this.
Examples for revealing K3
An example of tyranny is Italy during the reign of B. Mussolini. Having suppressed rights and freedoms in the country, Mussolini established a totalitarian regime and applied political repression. Heading seven ministries and serving as prime minister at the same time, he eliminated virtually all restrictions on his power, thus building a police state.
A. Solzhenitsyn speaks about the lawlessness of the totalitarian regime in the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.” The work shows the life of a former soldier who, like many others, ended up in prison after the front. Solzhenitsyn described the situation of people during the reign of I.V. Stalin, when soldiers who managed to escape from German captivity were declared enemies of the people and, instead of getting to their relatives, were forced to work in a colony for decades.
Having considered these examples, we can come to the conclusion that under the rule of a tyrant, human rights have no weight, and the people do not have the right to openly express their opinions, since they are constantly in fear for their lives.
Third essay
In his statement, P. Sir expressed his attitude to the problem of the characteristic features and characteristics of power. The author argues that any decisions that a person in power will ever have to make must be carefully thought out and analyzed from all sides. These words can be considered from two points of view: the positive and negative influence of power on society.
Disclosure of the theoretical part
P. Sir's statement does not lose its relevance to this day, because all the time, rash actions led to bad consequences both for the leaders themselves and for those who subordinate to them. That is why I completely share the author’s point of view regarding this problem. In order to confirm its relevance, it is first worth considering it from a theoretical point of view.
It’s worth starting with the simplest thing: what is power? As we know, power is the ability to influence the actions and decisions of people against their wishes. This usually happens both through persuasion and propaganda, and through the use of violence. Power is an integral attribute of any organization and human group, because without it, order and organization simply cannot be formed. The main sources of power can be identified as the personal attitude of each subordinate to the leader, and the level of his authority, material condition, level of education and strength.
Examples for revealing K3
To confirm the relevance of P. Cyr's statement, we can give an example from history. The monetary reform carried out by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, which replaced silver money with copper, may act as ill-considered actions. Due to the shortage of coins made from the latter material in the treasury, it was silver coins that collected taxes, which soon led to the almost complete depreciation of copper coins. The reform, which did not foresee such a scenario, did not allow the situation to be corrected, which led to the Copper Riot of 1662. The result of the uprising was the withdrawal of copper coins from circulation. This example clearly illustrates the lack of thoughtfulness and logic in the actions of a politician who had to cancel the transformation he had carried out in order to calm the angry people.
As a second example, this time of successful and planned transformations, we can cite events from recent history. We are talking about the policy of the Russian Federation, pursued from the beginning of its existence. Thoughtful, systematic reforms were able to strengthen the disintegrated country. Also, the effect of these transformations was the strengthening of the state and its position in the international economic and political arena. This example shows us that a policy that does not involve sudden and thoughtless transformations, but structured and consistent reforms can lead to an improvement in the situation in the state.
To summarize, we can say that the problem of the characteristics of power and its characteristic features will never cease to be one of the most important issues, on the solution of which the fate of states depends and will continue to depend. Especially now, in the post-industrial age, which is characterized by globalization, incorrectly implemented reforms can have an impact not on individual countries, but on all powers together.
Fourth essay
“The state is something without which it is impossible to achieve either order, justice, or external security.” (M. Debre)
In his statement, M. Debre expressed his attitude towards the main functions of the state and their importance. According to the author, it is the state apparatus that plays a decisive role in the life of society, controlling the norms and rules of its behavior, regulating basic laws, and also being responsible for protecting the country’s borders and maintaining the safety of its population. This issue can be considered from two sides: the importance of the role of the state in the life of society and the ways in which the former influences the latter.
The words of M. Debre do not lose their relevance to this day, because regardless of the chronological period, the state has always played a key role in people's lives. That is why I completely share the author’s point of view. In order to confirm these words, it is first worth considering them from a theoretical point of view.
Disclosure of the theoretical part
What is the state itself? As we know from the course of political science, a state can be called any organization of political power that has a mechanism for managing society that ensures the normal functioning of the latter. The functions of the state are not limited to any one area of life, but affect their entirety. In addition to internal functions, there are also external ones, the most important of which is the process of ensuring the defense of the territory of the state and establishing international cooperation.
Examples for revealing K3
To give the first example, let us turn to ancient history. States among all peoples began to form for similar reasons, but in this case we will consider this process and its consequences using the example of the East Slavic tribes. One of the main prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state was the need for protection from an external enemy - the Khazar Kaganate. Scattered and warring tribes could not cope with the enemy alone, but after the formation of the state, victory over the nomads was only a matter of time. This clearly illustrates to us the effect of one of the most important functions of the state - defensive.
The following example illustrating the impact of the state on society can be cited from New History. As you know, in 1861 Alexander II carried out a peasant reform, the result of which was the abolition of serfdom. This phenomenon had a great impact on the lives of Russian people, because most of the population of the Russian Empire at that time were nothing more than serfs. By granting them freedom, the state significantly expanded the rights and responsibilities of the freed peasants. The consequence of the abolition of serfdom was the formation of a new social stratum, a change in the foundations and customs that had developed over several centuries. This example shows us the consequences of government reform, which affected the entire population of the country.
To summarize, we can say that the importance of the role of the state and the necessity of the functions it performs are time-tested. Without influencing, exerting any influence on the citizens of the country, the state apparatus simply cannot exist, and the changes it makes can be perceived differently by citizens
I hope the article helped you deal with a rather problematic exam question. Help spread the word in this article by clicking on the social media buttons and subscribing to blog updates to receive new articles in your email promptly. Bye everyone
Do you want to understand all the topics of the social studies course? Sign up to study at Ivan Nekrasov’s school with a legal guarantee of passing the exam with 80+ points!
“Without society, man would be miserable, lacking incentives to improve.” W. Godwin
“There is no absolute opposition between tradition and reason... Preservation of the old is a free attitude of man.” H.G. Gadamer
“Without a goal there is no activity, without interests there is no goal, and without activity there is no life.” V.G. Belinsky
“In married life, the united couple should form, as it were, a single moral personality.” I. Kant
“The great secret of any behavior is social behavior... I would not dare to say anything in the least about how a person will behave in a group.” F. Bartlett
“The great goal of education is not knowledge, but action” G. Spencer
“The greatness of a people is not at all calculated by its numbers, just as the greatness of a person is not calculated by its height.” V. Hugo
“The pinnacle of ourselves, the crown of our originality, is not our individuality, but our personality.” P. Teilhard de Chardin
“All marriages are successful. Difficulties begin when life together begins.” F. Sagan
“In disputes, the truth is forgotten. The smartest one stops the argument.” L. Tolstoy
“Look at my children. My former freshness is alive in them. They are the justification for my old age.” W. Shakespeare
“A woman, like a caryatid, supports the family hearth.” I.N. Shevelev
“Everyone wants to be the exception to the rule, and there is no exception to this rule.” M. Forbes
“The roots of nationalism are in the division of the population into indigenous and non-indigenous.” I.N. Shevelev
“A person’s personality is in no sense pre-existing in relation to his activity, just like his consciousness, it is generated by it.” A.N. Leontiev
“Personality is a person as a carrier of consciousness.” K.K. Platonov
“People are born only with a pure nature, and only then do their fathers make them Jews, Christians or fire-worshippers.” Saadi
"People exist for each other." M. Aurelius
“We should always try to look not for what separates us from other people, but for what we have in common with them.” D. Ruskin
“We need to stand on our own two feet and face the world... see the world as it is and not be afraid of it.” B. Russell
“We are shaped by the actions we take.” Aristotle
“Independence and free-thinking are the essence of creativity.” F. Mitterrand
“The same person, entering different teams, changing goals, can change - sometimes within very significant limits.” Yu.M. Lotman
“By submitting to the law of the crowd, we are returning to the Stone Age.” S. Parkinson
“When explaining any mental phenomena, the personality acts as a united set of internal conditions through which all external influences are refracted.” S.L. Rubinstein
“It’s easy to preach morality, but it’s difficult to justify it.”A. Schopenhauer
“The mere absence of vices does not imply the presence of virtue.” A. Machado
“The process of socialization is entering into the social environment, adapting to it, mastering certain roles and functions, which, following its predecessors, is repeated by each individual throughout the entire history of its formation and development.” B.D. Parygin
“To decipher a person means, in essence, to try to find out how the world was formed and how it should continue to be formed” P. Teilhard de Chardin
“A role is not a person, but ... an image behind which it is hidden.” A.N. Leontyev
“Children repay their debt to their parents to their children.” I.N.Shevelev
“Family interests almost always ruin public interests.” F. Bacon
"The family is more sacred than the state." Pius XI
“The family is the crystal of society.” V. Hugo
“The family is the primary womb of human culture.” I. Ilyin
“Nature creates man, but society develops and shapes him.” V.G. Belinsky
“By becoming part of an organized crowd, a person descends several steps lower on the ladder of civilization.” G. Lebon
“He who, turning to the old, is able to discover new things, is worthy of being a teacher.” Confucius
“Every nation, whether large or small, has its own unique crystal that must be illuminated.” I.N. Shevelev
“Learn to control yourself” A.S. Pushkin
“People become good more by exercise than by nature.” Democritus
“Man does what he is and becomes what he does.” R. Musil
“A person is unthinkable without contacts with the people around him.” A.M. Yakovlev
“A person simply exists, and he is not only what he imagines himself to be, but what he wants to become.” J.P. Sartre
“Man will become first of all what he is designed to be.” J.P. Sartre
“A person is a being who rushes towards the future and realizes that he is projecting himself into the future.” J.P. Sartre
“Human essence is evident only in communication, in the unity of man with man.” L. Feuerbach
“The higher a person’s position, the more strict should be the limits that restrain the self-will of his character.” G. Freytag
"I'm too proud of my country to be a nationalist." J. Wolfrom
Examples of essays on social studies for the Unified State Exam
Essay samples
“A child at the moment of birth is not a person, but only a candidate for a person” (A. Pieron).
It is necessary to understand what meaning A. Pieron put into the concept of man. At the moment of birth, the child is already a person. He is a representative of a special biological species, Homo Sapiens, who has the inherent specific features of this biological species: a large brain, upright posture, prehensile hands, etc. At the moment of birth, a child can be called an individual - a specific representative of the human race. From birth, he is endowed with individual traits and properties unique to him: eye color, body shape and structure, the design of his palm. This can already be defined as individuality. Why then does the author of the statement call the child only a candidate for a person? Apparently, the author had in mind the concept of “personality”. After all, man is a biosocial being. If a person is given biological traits from birth, then he acquires social ones only in a society of his own kind. And this happens in the process of socialization, when the child learns, through education and self-education, the values of a particular society. Gradually he turns into a personality, i.e. becomes a subject of conscious activity and has a set of socially significant traits that are in demand and useful in society. It is then that he can fully be called a human being. How can this assumption be confirmed? For example, on March 20, 1809, in Sorochintsy, a son was born into the family of the landowner Vasily Gogol - Yanovsky, baptized with the name Nikolai. This was one of the landowner's sons born on this day, named Nicholas, i.e. individual. If he had died on his birthday, he would have remained in the memory of his loved ones as an individual. The newborn was distinguished by characteristics characteristic only of him (height, hair color, eyes, body structure, etc.). According to the testimony of people who knew Gogol from birth, he was thin and weak. Later, he developed traits associated with growing up and an individual lifestyle - he began to read early, wrote poetry from the age of 5, studied diligently at the gymnasium, and became a writer whose work was followed by all of Russia. He showed a bright personality, i.e. those features and properties, signs that distinguished Gogol. Apparently, this is precisely the meaning that A. Pieron intended in his statement, and I completely agree with him. When a person is born, he must go through a long, thorny path in order to leave a mark on society, so that descendants will proudly say: “Yes, this man can be called great: our people can be proud of him.”
“The idea of freedom is connected with the true essence of man” (K. Jaspers)
What is freedom? Independence from the powers that be that money and fame can give? Lack of bars or overseer's whip? Freedom to think, write, create without regard to generally accepted canons and public tastes? This question can only be answered by trying to figure out what a person is. But here's the problem! Every culture, every era, every philosophical school gives its own answer to this question. Behind each answer is not only the level of a scientist who has comprehended the laws of the universe, the wisdom of a thinker who has penetrated the secrets of existence, the self-interest of a politician or the imagination of an artist, but there is also always hidden a certain position in life, a completely practical attitude towards the world. And yet. From all the various, contradictory ideas about man, one general conclusion follows: man is not free. He depends on anything: on the will of God or gods, on the laws of the Cosmos, the arrangement of stars and luminaries, on nature, society, but not on himself. But the meaning of Jaspers’s expression, in my opinion, is that a person cannot imagine freedom and happiness without preserving his personality, his unique, inimitable “I”. He does not want to “become everything,” but “wants to be himself in spite of the universe,” as the author of the famous “Mowgli” R. Kipling wrote. A person cannot be happy and free at the cost of trampling on his personality, renouncing his individuality. Truly ineradicable in man is the desire to create the world and himself, to discover something new, unknown to anyone, even if this is achieved at the cost of his own life. Becoming free is not an easy task. It requires from a person the maximum effort of all spiritual forces, deep thoughts about the fate of the world, people, about his own life; a critical attitude towards what is happening around and towards oneself; search for the ideal. The search for the meaning of freedom sometimes continues throughout life and is accompanied by internal struggle and conflicts with others. This is precisely where a person’s free will manifests itself, since from various life circumstances and options, he himself has to choose what to prefer and what to reject, what to do in this or that case. And the more complex the world around us, the more dramatic life is, the more effort is required from a person to determine his position and make this or that choice. This means that K. Jaspers was right in considering the idea of freedom to be the true essence of man. Freedom is a necessary condition for his activity. Freedom cannot be “gifted,” because unsought freedom turns out to be a heavy burden or turns into arbitrariness. Freedom, won in the fight against evil, vices and injustice in the name of affirming goodness, light, truth and beauty, can make every person free
“Science is merciless. She shamelessly refutes favorite and habitual misconceptions” (N.V. Karlov)
We can completely agree with this statement. After all, the main goal of scientific knowledge is the desire for objectivity, i.e. to study the world as it exists outside and independently of man. The result obtained should not depend on private opinions, preferences, or authorities. On the path to searching for objective truth, a person passes through relative truths and errors. There are many examples of this. Once upon a time, people were absolutely sure that the Earth was disk-shaped. But centuries passed, and the journey of Fernando Magellan refuted this misconception. People learned that the Earth is spherical. The geocentric system that existed for millennia was also a fallacy. The discovery of Copernicus debunked this myth. The heliocentric system he created explained to people that all the planets in our system revolve around the Sun. The Catholic Church forbade the recognition of this truth for more than two hundred years, but in this case, science really turned out to be merciless to people’s misconceptions. Thus, on the way to absolute truth, which is final and will not change over time, science passes through the stage of relative truths. At first, these relative truths seem final to people, but time passes and with the emergence of new opportunities for a person to study a particular area, absolute truth appears. It refutes previously acquired knowledge, forcing people to reconsider their previous views and discoveries.
“Progress only indicates the direction of movement, and it is indifferent to what awaits at the end of this path - good or evil” (J. Huizinga).
It is known that progress is the movement of the development of society from simple to complex, from lower to higher. But the long history of mankind proves that moving forward in one area leads to a rollback in another. For example, replacing an arrow with a firearm or a flintlock with an automatic rifle indicates the development of technology and related knowledge and science. The ability to kill a mass of people at once with deadly nuclear weapons is also unconditional evidence of the development of science and technology of the highest level. But can all this be called progress? And therefore, everything that has appeared in history as something positive can always be contrasted as something negative, and very much that is positive in one aspect can be said to be negative in another. So what is the point of the story? What is the direction of its movement? What is progress? Answering these questions is far from easy. The very abstract concept of progress, when trying to apply it to the assessment of certain events specifically - historically, will certainly contain an insoluble contradiction. This inconsistency is the drama of history. Is it inevitable? But the fact is that the main character of this historical drama is the man himself. Evil is, as it were, inevitable, because a person sometimes receives as a result something for which he did not strive at all, which was not his goal. And the objective fact is that practice is always richer, always exceeds the level of achieved knowledge, which gives rise to a person’s ability to use what has been achieved differently in other conditions. Evil, therefore, like a shadow, pursues good. Apparently this is what the author of this statement meant. But I would like to continue the discussion and encourage people, especially scientists, to think about their future discoveries. After all, to define what is truly progressive there is a concept developed throughout the history of mankind. Expressed by the word “humanism,” it denotes both the specific properties of human nature and the assessment of these properties as the highest principle of social life. What is progressive is what is combined with humanism, and not just combined, but contributes to its elevation.
“Revolution is the transition from untruth to truth, from lies to truth, from oppression to justice, from deception and suffering to straightforward honesty and happiness.”
(Robert Owen)
A revolution is often called a social explosion, which is why, in my opinion, a revolution does not completely solve the problems that have arisen in life.
In Russia's historical past, the most significant revolution was the October 1917 revolution. Its most important result was the beginning of the construction of communism, which meant a radical change in the life of the entire country. And if this is the same truth, justice and honesty that Owen speaks of, then why is Russia now trying with all its might to join the Western model of development and doing everything to become a capitalist country in the full sense of the word? And this despite the fact that in Soviet times Russia achieved a lot: it became a superpower, was the first to carry out a human flight into space, and won the Second World War. It turns out that the revolution did not lead our country to the truth. Moreover, by the end of 1991, Russia found itself on the brink of economic disaster and famine.
Is it necessary to talk about social revolutions, if even during the scientific and technological revolution in the modern world many questions arise. Among them are environmental problems, rising unemployment, and terrorism.
On the one hand, during the scientific and technological revolution, healthcare is improved, the most hopeless patients are saved from death by the efforts of doctors, and on the other hand, weapons of mass destruction, including bacteriological ones, are produced. The media daily cover millions of events taking place in all corners of the planet, informing and educating people, but at the same time, the media act as a manipulator of human consciousness, will, and reason.
Many more examples of revolutions can be cited, but the conclusion remains clear: a revolution is a multilateral and contradictory process, during which the problems being solved are replaced by others, often even more complex and confusing.
Religion is wisdom justified by reason
I completely agree with this statement and want to prove the truth of this saying using the example of famous BOOKS that contain such wisdom that humanity will always turn to.
New Testament. It is already 2 thousand years old. With his birth, he created an unprecedented, unprecedented excitement in hearts and minds, which has not calmed down to this day. And all this because it contains wisdom that teaches humanity kindness, humanism, and morality. This book, written simply and without any embellishment, captures the greatest mystery - the mystery of human salvation. People can only fulfill these Great Wisdoms: do not kill, do not steal, do not offend your neighbor, honor your parents. Is this bad wisdom? And when people forget to implement these wisdoms, misfortune awaits them. In our country, during the years of Soviet power, people were excommunicated from this book. All this led to the destruction of the spirituality of society, and therefore to lack of will. And even the communists, when drawing up their law - the Moral Code of the Communist, took as a basis the moral principles contained in the Bible. They just exposed them in a different form. This proves that the wisdom of this book is eternal.
Koran. This is the main book of Muslims. What is she calling for? Particular attention is paid to nobility, which, in turn, implies respect for parents. The Koran teaches Muslims to be firm in word and obligatory in deeds and actions. It condemns such base human qualities as lies, hypocrisy, cruelty, and pride. Is this bad wisdom? They are reasonable.
The given examples prove the correctness of the above statement. All world religions contain such wisdom that instructs people only to do good deeds. Showing people the way at the end of the tunnel.
Science reduces our experiences of fast-flowing life.
One cannot but agree with this statement. Indeed, with the advent of science, the progress of mankind began to accelerate, and the pace of life of human society is accelerating every day. All this happens thanks to science. Before its appearance, humanity moved rather slowly along the path of progress. It took millions of years for the wheel to appear, but it was only thanks to scientists who invented engines that the wheel could be driven at higher speeds. Human life has accelerated dramatically.
For thousands of years, humanity has had to look for answers to many seemingly unsolvable questions. Science did this: the discovery of new types of energy, the treatment of complex diseases, the conquest of outer space... With the beginning of the scientific and technological revolution in the 50-60s of the 20th century, the development of science became the main condition for the existence of human society. Time requires a person to quickly solve global problems on which the preservation of life on Earth will depend.
Science has now come to each of our homes. It serves people by truly reducing the experiences of fast-paced life: instead of washing by hand - an automatic washing machine, instead of a floor rag - a washing vacuum cleaner, instead of a typewriter - a computer. And what can we say about the means of communication that have made our globe so small: in one minute you can receive a message from places located on different ends of the world. The plane takes us in a few hours to the most remote corners of our planet. But just a hundred years ago it took many days and even months. This is the meaning of this statement.
Political strength is strong if and only if it is based on moral strength.
Of course, this statement is correct. Indeed, a politician must act based on moral laws. But for some reason, many people associate the word “power” with the opposite opinion. There are many confirming examples of this in history, ranging from ancient Roman tyrants (for example, Nero), to Hitler and Stalin. And modern rulers do not shine with examples of morality.
What's the matter? Why do deeply moral norms, such as honesty, conscience, commitment, truthfulness, in no way fit into political power?
Apparently, a lot has to do with the nature of power itself. When a person strives for power, he promises people to improve their lives, restore order, and establish fair laws. But as soon as he finds himself at the helm of power, the situation changes dramatically. Many promises are gradually forgotten. And the politician himself becomes different. He already lives by different standards, he has new views. Those to whom he promised are increasingly moving away from him. And others appear nearby who are always ready to be at the right moment: to advise, to suggest. But they no longer act in the interests of society, but in their own selfish interests. As people say, power spoils a person. Perhaps this is true. Or maybe there are other reasons? Coming to power, a politician understands that he is unable to cope with the burden of problems that the state faces: corruption, the shadow economy, organized crime. In such difficult conditions, there is a retreat from moral principles. We have to act tough. It seems to me that it is better to rephrase this statement as follows: “A political fortress is strong if and only if it is based on the force of law.” For politics, this makes the most sense. Only the laws must also be moral...