Why did Professor Preobrazhensky turn Sharikov back into a dog?
Why did I come to the conclusion that it is impossible to raise a full-fledged member of society out of it?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
However, for the professor, Sharikov was not originally a person, but was the result of a scientific experiment, so he considered himself entitled to finish his experiment as he wanted.
But the moral of this work is not whether the professor had the right to such an end to the experiment. The main conclusion is that a person is not a God and has no rights to any experiments on remaking living beings, no matter what good intentions he is guided by.
In the body of a dog, although he has no benefit, but the harm is less than from a human Sharikov. Dogs are kinder than humans. If there is no person, there is no problem.
The comments once again confirm Balaev's statement: “fools are not allowed to read M. A. Bulgakov, because they can choose Preobrazhensky and Margarita as their role models.”
Bulgakov felt and described the reaction of “educated” people to the revolution, when the power of people who put their education as a justification for their privileged position was replaced by” cooks ” who run the state, which everyone owes because of their oppressed position in the past. Shulgin wrote that when he first saw the Duma members selected from the “lower ranks”, ” he wanted machine guns for them. Such was the gulf in education between the “upper classes”and the” lower classes.” The old government itself dug this abyss and, in particular, because of this, it died. Hence the theory of socially close (thieves) and socially distant (representatives of old managers) criminals, the former can be corrected-re-educated, the latter-incorrigible enemies. Hence the origin of the “deprived” – people of the “old regime” were not allowed to participate in politics, but also their children were actually not allowed to enter higher education – the class principle is the opposite. Stalin, after reading the Heart of a Dog, wrote “bastard” on the text. Bulgakov was forbidden to publish-Stalin understood what the story was about. But Stalin appreciated Bulgakov's flair as a writer(positioning him as an enemy), especially the White Guard, and revised its productions. He allowed Bulgakov to work as a director. When Bulgakov became terminally ill, Stalin allocated money for a trip abroad for treatment, but it was not required. This is also a paradox: Stalin was not an intelligent person, he was ” educated”, that is, from the same category as Shvonder, but he valued culture. Shvonder and Co. hate Preobrazhensky as an intellectual. It is impossible to pretend to be an intellectual, that is, for them his level is unattainable, as for Sharikov. Bismarck said “ ” The more I get to know people, the more I love dogs.” The dog is not able to betray, goes to self-sacrifice for the sake of the owner, is betrayed to death, but at the same time it does not understand the sense of humor. For Sharikov, the level of an intellectual is unattainable; as it is written in the story, it is “more joyful” for him to be a devoted dog than a subhuman. Genetics was banned as a manifestation of the fascist theory, according to the Bolshevik tradition, it was customary to think that anyone can achieve “everything”. When Prince Trubetskoy went to prison, the thugs made (in the time of hunger) him look around the kitchen, they knew that they would not steal. I think that if Stalin had been among the thieves (this is his “suit”), he would have done the same.
I will ask a counter question: why did Preobrazhensky make Sharikov out of a dog? The unfortunate animal finds itself in conditions that are downright paradisiacal compared to the previous life. Making a human out of such a test subject, the professor hoped that Sharikov would appreciate the difference and, while retaining the innate dog's ingenuity and ability to learn quickly, would be able to develop into a full-fledged member of society (how often we regret that a dog cannot become a human, although it surpasses some people in intelligence and loyalty). A whim of genius! But the result was exactly the opposite: Sharikov showed all the negative qualities of the animal in human form. The depth of Bulgakov's philosophical thought here is simply cosmic, and the uncompromising nature of the idea lies on the surface, one has only to think about it. Both Sharikov and the similar Sharikovs are by definition unworthy of the title of a human being, and even a dog has, in comparison with them, better mental qualities. That is why the professor corrected his mistake.
See the answer in the movie, read the original. Who is Sharikov? Klim Chugunkin, education 0, interests 0, education in the deep red. As the Americans say, “the mission to turn Sharikov into a full-fledged member of society is impossible”
Sharikov hated cats, so he could not become a full-fledged person and had to be returned to the animal state. And he was made a dog because other animals did not work out in any way.
Professor Preobrazhensky did not come to the conclusion that Sharikov could not be made a “member of society.” He did not want to do this categorically and did not do anything in this direction. I didn't do anything. Why? Well, rather, this is not his profile at all, he does not need it, is not interesting and is alien. To such an extent that he risked committing a crime – making Sharikov a dog again.
To answer this question, you need to understand Bulgakov, in his works there is always a second, and even a third meaning, well, as in our hymn-who was nothing-that will become everything, but it is obvious that after all, who was nothing-that will remain nothing, so it's better to be a dog
The professor worked for a new system run by Shvonders – inefficient managers. Shvonders are based on Ball bearings. After completing the professor's experiment, Bulgakov predicts the end of the system.
You can't force a good outcome: a dog won't make a real person, and a revolution won't make people happy. The devastation in the minds is still in our country.
Professor Preobrazhensky made the decision to turn Sharikov back into a dog after reading Sharikov's denunciation to the relevant authorities from his former patient. In accordance with this denunciation ,the professor was threatened with very serious consequences. In addition, the professor understood that after what Sharikov did with cats, the time would come for him to do with people. Because of this, he made Sharikov a dog again. Very true story. M. Bulgakov – – – genius!!! With respect.
The whole story of Sharikov's dog origin is an image and a metaphor. Vivisection is a fashionable idea of science fiction writers a century ago. They inflated the idea of implanting animal organs to humans to an eternal plot about the artificial creation of an intelligent being. (homunculi, Golem, Frankenstein's monster, etc.)
Wells describes such a situation tragically and sympathetically in relation to living beings who are not able to finally become people, rejected and used. It is worth adding that in Russian literature this plot is perfectly developed by S. Gansovsky (“The Day of Wrath”).
Bulgakov's situation is much worse. Sharikov is not a half-beast at all, he is a human being. With a well-defined social background. In Bulgakov's story, the fantastic component is an absolute literary device that seems to be an unnecessary and unnecessary part of the plot. You can also say that this is just a sharp detail that attracts the reader's attention, an intriguing plot of the story and nothing more.
If not for the complexity and ambiguity of Bulgakov's text. According to Bulgakov, Chugunkin is worse than Sharik. The dog's internal monologue (another author's convention, a subtle and precise adaptation of the animal's emotions and feelings for human understanding) – differs from Sharikov's actions like heaven from earth.
In The Heart of a Dog, Bulgakov is more misanthropic and anthropophobic than ever.
The finale of the story unfolds the classic plot about the transformation of an animal into a person in the opposite direction and completely destroys this idea. In the most literal way: the return of Sharikov to the dog's state is an unambiguous and undoubted benefit not only for others but also for himself.
Sharikov's story is a vicious circle, but what does it give Pereobrazhensky to understand his mistake? The paradox of the situation is that Preobrazhensky is not at all a creator and not a transformer, his creation is accidental and his negative experience will not teach anyone anything. No matter how you treat the heroes of Bulgakov's work, it is impossible not to admit that Bulgakov describes a rather hopeless situation. In the fairy-tale part of the plot, everything is fine – the dog remains a dog and never becomes a person. The problem is
that the Bulgakov model has nothing to do with reality, the author talks a lot about mistakes but does not offer any realistic solutions.
It's very simple: Sharikov was in the way. Ruined the professor's life and work. And you can't kick him out, he's registered. And you can't kill him, they'll put him in jail, he's a human being.
And Sharikov felt his impunity. In the end, Preobrazhensky, in a state of passion, released the inner killer and transformed Sharikov into the form of a dog, as if killing a man and giving birth to a dog. At the same time, he hid the evidence, presenting everything as a natural reverse process.
It is necessary to understand the general context of the story. M. A. Bulgakov liked to mystify the reader. He often does not have a positive hero in his works at all. Naturally, the late Soviet dissident intelligentsia stubbornly sees Bulgakov's heroes where they don't exist. “The Heart of a Dog” is actually a story about people losing their human form. And the professor and Bormental are the first to lose it. They begin to experiment on the animal, and this is described in the most disgusting terms: “Philip Philipovich's lips tightened, his eyes acquired a sharp, prickly shine, and, waving a knife, he accurately and longly stretched a wound across Sharik's stomach. The skin immediately parted, and blood spurted out in different directions. Bormental pounced savagely, began to crush Sharikov's wound with lumps of cotton wool, then with small, sugar-like tweezers pinched its edges, and it dried up. Sweat broke out on Bormental's forehead. Philip Philipovich slashed a second time, and the two of them began to tear apart Sharik's body with hooks, scissors, and some brackets.: “The knife! Philip Philipovich shouted. The knife jumped into his hands as if by itself, after which Philip Philipovich's face became terrible. He bared his porcelain and gold crowns…Philip Philipovich glared at him savagely, grunted something, and plunged even deeper. Bormental broke the glass ampoule with a crunch, pumped it into a syringe, and cunningly stabbed Sharik somewhere near the heart.”
Sharikov later began to threaten the professor and Bormental, threatening that he had found a human face, even if it was Lumpen's. And then they killed him (the second time), the first time they killed him as a dog, now they killed him as a human. This is a story about how people are turned into animals by power over nature or over other people. It's funny, but even in the film, Professor Preobrazhensky methodically and consistently denies Sharikov-1) in his own name, 2) in the right to housing, etc. It's played comically, but it's played. If you remove the comic from there, then why does “Polygraph Polygraphovich” cause such a rage that you need to burn the book with names? Because Sharikov claims his rights to the sacred-to the professor's property, to 7 of his rooms.
Because it is necessary to bring up while the child is lying across the bench. Then it's too late. Klim Chugunkin won out of the two creatures in the chimera that Professor Slyapal had created, all that remained of the good dog was a pathological dislike of cats. As for the arguments about personalities, murder (actually repeated) and so on-the professor began the experiment with a corpse and a dog, and they also ended. There was no Klim. It flashed again and disappeared. I feel sorry for the dog. So mock the poor animal… Klim Chugunkin no longer took place as a member of the society and died. What's the point of re-educating him?
It is necessary to understand the figurative essence of information. And who really hides behind the image of the professor, Bormental, Sharikov and Shvonder. This is an experiment on energy, explaining the reason for the revolution in Russia. The goal was (as always) to manage popular anger and direct it in the right (manageable) direction. To continue to keep the people in subjection. The energy of righteous anger (the dog) is taken and instilled in the lower consciousness (and not the higher one, by which it is generated). Because higher consciousness is very difficult to control. And the lower consciousness – lumpens, have no idea what to do with this anger, because it is not theirs and was not born in their minds. So they throw themselves at everyone. And first of all, cats are a symbol of self-love. That is, they begin to destroy themselves.
As always, it ends up releasing the monster into the wild, it is no longer controlled by the owner. And it will devour him first. And so you have to destroy it almost immediately. A very often recurring story in crowd management.
1. There was no original goal to raise a full-fledged member of society. The true goal is to manage society by managing its anger.
2. Instilling someone else's consciousness does not change the essence. This consciousness must mature in him by itself.