How—and How Not—to Love Mankind by Theodore Dalrymple PDF

Preview

Summary

summary...

Description

5

Marcos Arandia Philosophy 1301 9 December 2018

How—and How Not—to Love Mankind by Theodore Dalrymple The understanding of human nature and interactions differ from one group to another. This diversity follows a phenomenon whereby some people will have a common understanding over a particular subject while others will always differ with it. This is the predicament presented in the infamous article “How and how not to love mankind” by Theodore Dalrymple. Here, Theodore explains the contrasting aspect of humanity in twofold. In the first instance, he presents arguments on the best way to love humankind. The second aspects he demonstrates how not to love humankind. Based on these two contrasts, Theodore does not give his position rather leave the readers to figure out. This paper, therefore, tries to analyze the main arguments presented by the author and the support he uses to back the claims. Additionally, the paper will make a substantive conclusion on the validity of Theodore premises. Claims and evidence Theodore raises an argument that in a societal setup, people claim to have the welfare of humanity at heart especially the poor. In addition, Theodore asserts that even the murderers in society claim they have cherished and uphold the interest of society at heart. The author supports the arguments by theorizing the renowned European philosophers Karl Marx and Ivan Turgenev. Whereas Turgenev views humans as individuals endowed with consciousness and moral obliga-

5 tions, Karl Marx sees views humans as subjugate, cruel and communists. Karl Max views human profile as general forces of classy people possessed with power and money. The experience of Karl Max and Turgenev Ivan men drives the points of the author home in many ways. The author first digs into the biography of the two men, which he finds intriguing and superfluous. He recognizes that both were raised from wealthy families thus lacked money related problems. The fact that Karl Marx and Turgenev Ivan shared nearly everything including education and experience adds strength to the author’s rigor. However, the point of departure as presented by the juxtaposition of both men lies on their sympathy with the poor and oppressed. The author presents two distinctive literal assertions about serfdom and communism or totalitarianism. Theodore argues that humans can sometimes acquire inhuman behavior under the influence of power. Power is a factor that differentiates the good from the bad and that it goes beyond the serfdom in Russia. He depicts humans as abusive and exorcists but empathetic by recalling Ivan Turgenev’s “Mumu” story (Dalrymple 5). The object lesson that the author wants the reader to filter from the predicament at Mumu’s door is the cruelty nature of humans insofar as it concerns human relations. The key concern of the author is the aspect of practising true love embodied with compassion, justice and restraint. He demonstrates the definition of love by intertwining the circumstance of Mumu and Gerasim with their feudal master. The author makes sensible concerns that the problems humans undergo especially the poor and wealthy people perpetuate the vulnerable persons in society. The oppressed persons have the free will and capacity to make choices rather being subjugated and subjected to the painful experience of the master. Theodore asserts that the cruel nature of humans is a winless battle that needs vigilance and the practice of sympathetic imaginations. Theoretically, Theodore tries to win his arguments by showing how people ought to love one another. In some instances, he criticizes the heart that the feudal master had over the

5 poor Gerasin (Dalrymple 4). He mentions that people ought to embrace each other by accepting their situations regardless of the position. On the other hand, Theodore argues that people presume the fact that they have humanity at heart even when they perpetrate murder. He bases his arguments on Karl Marx’s manifesto. In his consent, Marx illusions and philosophy assertions represent people that are hateful, contemptuous and murderers. Marx appeals to violence incitements as the mechanism of fulfilling human desires. The concept of Marx involves the proletariat and the communists’ desire that people become vulnerable based on the wealth they have. The wealth disparity is the main contentions point that Marx drives home. Based on Marx’s arguments, people with capital or money are regarded as independent while those who lack money are vulnerable. The degree of vulnerability increases the material with possessed. Marx is a typical example of people counts themselves ads human-friendly yet their behavior is incoherent with the religion. Theodore makes the premise that Marx relationship with his family was not good in the first place (Dalrymple 10). Two of her daughters committed suicide because of his consistent interference with their lives. Worse still, he subjected her wife to commercial works because he though money was the source of joy to humanity. Deductions The validity of Theodore’s claim can be linked to Aquinas natural laws. The proper understanding of Aquinas natural laws gives guidance in interpreting the contrasts presented by Theodore. According to Aquinas, “God has endorsed mankind with a determinant nature by virtue of which human beings exhibit certain basic inclination” (Arandia 59). The determinant nature granted to man freely should guide man on ways to survive, stay and dwell among fellow

5 humans. This simply means that God has sent a precedent that man ought to depend upon. The precedent involves “doing good and avoiding evil” (Arandia 59). In responses to Theodore’s claims, the appropriate way to love humans is to shun evil and to pursue the naturally inclined values. This argument does not rule Theodore’s claims completely rather advances the Aquinas natural inclination. As such, humans are to endeavor in engaging their and body and soul in selfpreservation and Knowing how to live in society. Significantly, Theodore’s second claim based on Marx theory is again approached from the perspective of doing good and shunning evil. In line with Hobbes thoughts, “Good and evil are therefore relative to an individual not absolute” (Arandia 69). It means that people perpetrate evil based on their judgment but lack the desire of humanity. Humanity requires genuine love, love that does not hurt nor destroys the physical body. Marx exposed his family to hardship in terms of finance generation that later led to their death. His behaviors were perceived as bad thus nobody attended his burial, unlike Ivan Turgenev death where people attended. It shows that people will always love the person who makes sense of their roles and significance in society despite their experience. Loving humanity, therefore, should follow the natural laws and the Hobbes assertions. Despite the difference in opinions, when the claims raised by Theodore are approached from the vantage point of view, an answer can be generated. Therefore, Theodore’s claim is coherent and valid based on the assertions of Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas.

5 References Arandia, Marcos. Philosophy and the Good Life. 2nd ed., Kendall Hunt Publishing, 2016. Dalrymple, Theodore. How—and How Not—to Love Mankind. (2001).1-13...