Paste your essay in here… “How and How-not-to Love Mankind”, an encouraging, promising article, written by a famous psychiatrist, Theodore Dalrymple, explains two different aspects of humanity and well-being to mankind. Throughout the article, Theodore uncovers and demonstrates two different mindsets of two individuals who were born in the same era and pursue the same profession, yet so different for visualizing and understanding humanity. Someone like Turgenev who seems to like mankind and someone like Karl Marx who seems to be more interested in people's’ mind and thinking could impact our world’s beliefs today.
Just like any other philosopher, Turgenev adores mankind and identifies people as individuals, giving them credibility for who they portray themselves, those who accept their flaws & mistakes. From his beliefs, he seems to be attentive towards humans, not claiming to have found a grand system for giving classification, and being able to see all type of qualities in humans. On one hand, Turgenev is impressed of people’s consciousness. On the other hand, Max is impressed of the idea of systems, even to the expense of people.
Unlike Turgenev, Marx does not believe that there is no reason behind the idea the human nature, meaning not every human could exhibits any type of emotions or interest in one another. In contrast, he beings with the concept that “man as being man” is a recognizable and capable of being discovered; that human can be defined as humans not only biologically and physiologically, but also psychologically. From his perspectives, every one to your relation to human must be a specific expression corresponding to the object of your will, of your own individual life. For example, if you love without awakening the idea of receiving love in return, then your love is a impotent and forgotten. As reading the article, Marx claimed to have “well-being” of humans at heart, yet he does not seem to be intrigued in humans behaviors after all. Instead, he seems to be quite devised a very unloving, heartless way of describing, ignoring the delicacy of the human nature, which soon leads the way to anti-human terror of communist.
Throughout the article, Theodore had use many examples to state his point of views and ideas. Let’s say for an example, the Mumu story presents the “What happens if ?” question to their audience. What happens if human treat each other as useless objects and become careless about their feelings? Leaving them drown in their misery, perhaps? The Mumu story was based upon a deaf and mute serf, Gerasim, whose life of poverty had bought a connection with Mumu, a rescued dog, which had bought a greater amount of attention to the cruelty of serfdom in the society. The landowner destroyed Gerasim’s feelings,which brought her to feeling guilty for her mistake, yet so arrogant for asking for forgiveness. Why is that so? Perhaps, our consciousness? Sooner than later, Marx says, “There is no need for other parties.”, meaning anything that goes against a system is going against the interests of proletariat. Later on, he defeats the idea of individualism and promotes enforcement though Communism. The Mumu story demonstrates the idea of Turgenev being able to sympathise with the most unfortunate humans in the world , in a warm, genuine way. Knowing that humans’ misfortunate is not connected to our “society” or “culture” but to our human conditions. Sooner than later, Marx had written the story, displaying the fact that he would have attributed everything towards the society and culture, which is called quite “inhumanly”.
In Theodore’s article, he writes about how every person in our society “claims” or “accepts” the idea of owning the welfare of humanity, especially those of the poor. But do they really? Throughout the article, his argument depended on the idea of whether to love humanity and demonstrates his own affection towards the humanity, giving some of his personal insights. Within his argument, he argued that human claim to have happiness, love, and wellbeing among each other, unintentionally, but could be selfish at times. Explaining the idea of not every human being adore one another in the same exact way or claim that “they do”. Just because someone claim their interest doesn’t mean actual welfare exist in the relationship. There are plenty ways of offering and serving mankind, but some affection are self-absorbed , while some are affectional. Theodore tries to clarify his point to his audience’s attention with example such as Mark Karx’s and Turgenev’s theories. In Theodore’s article, he presents an argument on both sides; how and how not to love mankind. However, he didn’t quite say which side he supports and leave the best choice to his audience.
One of the most foremost allegories given us to humankind is the “Plato’s Allegory of the Cave”, which explains and describes the our condition in failure and success. In a short version, human could live within the darkness in the cave or outside in the real world, gaining some knowledge and ideas. The Allegory of the Cave is all about the existence of two different worlds, achieving experience and two radically states is consciousness and awareness. Within every single human being, we yearns for is happiness, comfort, and stability. Plato himself suggested the birth of philosophy beings at the stage of cousiness, the state where the sense of awe and wonder present their true colors. Questions such as “Who am I?” or “What is my purpose here?” These two questions vanish away the idea of religion and philosophy itself. Another chapter that could contributed itself would be “Plato Euthyphro”,which explains the true meaning of pious and impious. According to Socrates, the mighty Gods were benefited and becoming a better version of themselves. Therefore, pious is the knowledge of how to please and benefit the Gods. Every human have the needs to please one another because of conflict issue or the voice within them. Just like in “Plato’s Allegory of the Cave” (Chapter 1) and “Plato Euthyphro” (Chapter 2) humans are expressed as innocent, vulnerable, and in need of love.
Personally as a teen audience, I agree with the author’s argument about loving humanity. In society, people tend to have diverse meaning of “good” and “evil”. Everyone can have different perspectives, which makes it difficult to come to a conclusion or agreement. In my point of view, humans are born with consciousness , a heart filled with compassion, love, and affection. These qualities define men. Us humans must love humankind because humankind is our true identity.