The article “how and how not to love mankind”, written by Theodore Dalrymple, is about the humanity and welfare of humankind. The author talks about the two famous writers of the nineteenth century Ivan Turgenev and Karl Marx. Both being born and died at the same time, and living the lives paralleled to each other, however, came to view the human life and the sufferings with a different perspective.
Turgenev being subtler, had an intense love for the humankind. His love towards the humanity and welfare of the people be reflected in the article.But, Marx lies in the other side of the tunnel. His view of humanity is different from Turgenev. He seems to be interested in the people system than in people as the article states “Why study a man, when you know Men?”
The author talks about the humanity and welfare of people from the two different views. He supports by comparing the two famous writings from these philosophers, called “Mumu” by Turgenev and “Communist Manifesto” by Marx. Written by Russian writer in the 1800s, “Mumu” is an amazing experience of the spites of serfdom. The heart wrenching story of Gerasim, a deaf and dumb serf, who was living a life of poverty, with his heart to heart connection with Mumu,a rescued dog, grabbed great attention in the society. It is a great concern to people and received admiration for bringing this issue of cruelties of serfdom in Russian society. However, “communist manifesto” presents an analytical approach to the class struggle and the problems of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism’s potential future forms.
127 our experts are availableright now
The author’s main argument in this article is that,in human civilization, every individual think that they are entitled to have the welfare of humanity by heart, especially of the poor. It might not seem to be true all the time. Demanding that they are concerned aboutpeople do not necessarily mean they serve thetrue welfare of the humankind. Though, there can be different ways to serve the humanity, the one that comes within the heart is real welfare.
The writer supports the ancillary arguments with an example of the story of “Mumu”. It explains the social circumstances and how the people react with the stereotypes. A child is born in a society and grows up by learning about the stereotypes like the serf are the poor ones, and they must obey the orders given by their landowners. They are not allowed to go against them and are restricted from the right to freedom. It is displayed in the story of “Mumu” The poor Gerasim had his only friend, Mumu (the dog). But later as the proprietor feels like Mumu does not like her, she gives an order to destroy the dog.
The dog was trustworthy and the best friend to the poor serf, who could neither speak nor talk. In the story of “Mumu”, use of the phrases like, “noisiest day was still and soundless”, and “as not even the quietest night can be soundless for us” describes the bond between the poor boy and the dog, which provides more welfare to the humanity rather than the people who are around Gerasim are offering. In front of that dog, the characters of this story, like the other serfs,were mocking him because of his inabilities of hearing and speaking. So, it is shown that no humanity exists in the world of serfdom.
Likewise, in the article, Theodore mentions that Turgenev saw human beings as creatures bestowedwith awareness, realization, feelings, and capable of finding the difference right and wrong. They have their own moral strengths and weaknesses. While, Marx saw them always as “snowflakes in an avalanche, as instances of general forces, as not yet fully human because utterly conditioned by their circumstances” (Dalrymple, 2).Both philosophers grew up together, with same circumstances, same literary influence, and tastes but their way of looking at the people and their life was different.
Turgenev saw “men” but Marx saw “classes of men”and where Turgenev saw “people”, Marx saw “the People”. These two philosophers’ way of looking the word at that time has impacted us directly or indirectly, proposing the solutions to the pertaining social problems. According to Dalrymple, responses to these two philosophers from various aristocrats in Russiawas, despite their similarities of education, one had the compassion rooted in the sufferings of individuals and was real while the other had the abstract and general, which was unreal.
Conversely, Marx intents to provoke us to the violence. Moving from Turgenev to Marx, we enter a world of anger and rage of bitterness and hatred from the love, compassion, and sorrow. As the writer explains their philosophy towards life, Marx, unlike Turgenev, is on the side of the world, man with nothing, but spiritually.Shouting about injustice does not necessarily make a man in his dealings.Sometimes, even we have the right opinion about moral values does not make us a moral human being. It is because we always need to be focused on what we are doing and how is our society going to adopt it.
Similarly, the main insight that ispresented in this article is, not any welfare as the welfare for humanity is greater in this world. The title of the article itself is so clear on what is the article all about. One shows us how to love the humankind while the other is about how not to. It tries to show us the world from the two different viewpoints. It might not be true that he does not have the sympathy at all. It is shown that Marx does not care about the lives of an individual, but it might be affected by his way of thinking.
Overall, the article “how and how not to love mankind”, explains how two people being raised under the same circumstances can look at the humankind from different ways. Some have the good hearts and they understand the pain and feelings of the other hearts as well. While others do not have the capability to understand the love, compassion and sufferings by heart but tends to pretend like they do. That’s how the welfare of humanity is explained here. But, the real welfare comes from the very few, who understands humanity by heart.
Work Cited
- Dalrymple, Theodore. “How and How Not to Love Mankind.” City Journal.https://dcccd.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-12398997-dt-content-rid-52545480_1/courses/2017FA-PHIL-1301-71426/How%20and%20How%20Not%20to%20Love%20Mankind%281%29.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr. 2018.
