Philosophy

Running Head: PHILOSOPHY

Khanal 1

Maunata Khanal

Philosophy-1301-73051

Mark Arandia

March 21st 2019

1 How and How Not to Love Mankind

2 1) What is the author’s main argument?

The main argument in the essay, How and how not to love mankind is about how alike, yet how different Ivan Turgenev and Karl Marx are (Dalrymple 83-89). They were both brought into the world that year in 1818, and they both passed away that year in 1883, and they were both European authors too. They examined similar things, went to a similar college, and expounded on similar subjects despite the fact that they both had diverse identities and unmistakable convictions likewise extraordinary perspectives on their general surroundings, particularly in people. Their perspectives are somehow different. 3 While Turgenev saw a man, Marx saw classes of man, and while Turgenev saw persons, Marx saw the persons.

Suspected Entry: 66% match

Uploaded – Philosophy11.edited.docx

While Turgenev saw a man, Marx saw classes of man, and while Turgenev saw persons, Marx saw the persons

Source – Another student’s paper

Whereas Turgenev saw men Marx saw the classes of men, and where Turgenev saw people Marx saw the people

They both were alike yet different in so many different ways. The creator contends their disparities regardless of how similar they are. 4 Also while portraying the story “mumu”

Suspected Entry: 64% match

Uploaded – Philosophy11.edited.docx

Also while portraying the story “mumu”

Source – Another student’s paper

The story “Mumu”

it demonstrates how a human Turgenev is contrasted with Marx, which is simply the principle contention in the story (Fiske 10). The creator contends how Turgenev has to a greater extent a delicate, warm and adoring kind of heart; he is enthusiastic and more human than Marx. Marx is not as human; neither does he care to show he’s feeling or his love and compassion. Or either he does not have any.

5 Written by Dalrymple Theodore, the article “How and How not to love mankind” is an inspirational piece of work which attempt to describe the welfare and humanity to human beings.

Suspected Entry: 68% match

Uploaded – Philosophy11.edited.docx

Written by Dalrymple Theodore, the article “How and How not to love mankind” is an inspirational piece of work which attempt to describe the welfare and humanity to human beings

Source – Another student’s paper

An article “How and How not to love mankind” is written by Theodore Dalrymple

6 The article explains the way two individuals born in the same period, lived similar lives, with the same careers, and majorly have everything parallel may be different from each other with behaviors and thoughts.

Suspected Entry: 65% match

Uploaded – Philosophy11.edited.docx

The article explains the way two individuals born in the same period, lived similar lives, with the same careers, and majorly have everything parallel may be different from each other with behaviors and thoughts

Source – Another student’s paper

The article shows how two people born in the same era, with same careers, lived similar lives, and mostly have everything parallel can be completely different from one another with thought and behavior

The article is about Karl Marx and Ivan Turgenev, two popular writers of the 19th C and the way they see humanity and mankind in diverse ways (Fiske 15). Ivan Turgenev appears to love human beings and treat them with a lot of dignity and respect. 7 The writer demonstrates his love for the welfare of mankind and humanity.  Karl Marx seems to have more interests in the systems of people than in mankind but claims to love people. The writer also compares two popular philosophers, Karl Marx, and Ivan Turgenev with the “Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and the famous thinker, “Mumu” published by the Turgenev in contrasting the philosophies of the philosophers toward the humanity and mankind.

2 2) How does he support his main argument (evidence, ancillary arguments, etc.)?

6 Writer’s main argument in the article is, people claim to have the welfare to humanity by heart especially to the poor, but it is not always true (Dalrymple 83-89).  7 The welfare of humanity or poor is not up to everyone even they claim they do it.  There can be different ways to serve mankind, but the one that is done with the great heart is real welfare to humanity.  8 Just asserting that he/she is keen on individuals isn’t genuine welfare to humanity.  The essayists attempt to elucidate his point with the case of Turgenev and Karl Marx.

The creator underpins his primary contention by giving proof to the story and depicting how Turgenev is an individual who has emotions as a person does, while Marx does not demonstrate those inclination and affections. The author gives the evidence saying “Turgenev sees mankind as people, continually gifted with weaknesses, consciousness, character, moral strengths and feelings” quotes (Theodore 5) and he described Marx as “Marx sees human beings as snows in avalanches, as examples of universal powers.

7 In human society, people tend to have different definitions of good and bad (Dalrymple 83-89).

Suspected Entry: 82% match

Uploaded – Philosophy11.edited.docx

In human society, people tend to have different definitions of good and bad (Dalrymple 83-89)

Source – Another student’s paper

In the human society, people tend to have different definitions of good and bad

9 People have diverse perspectives to various issues which would be quite difficult to come into agreement.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – Philosophy11.edited.docx

People have diverse perspectives to various issues which would be quite difficult to come into agreement

Source – Another student’s paper

People have diverse perspectives to various issues which would be quite difficult to come into agreement

7 Dalrymple in his article wrote that every person in the society claims they consider the welfare of humanity especially that of the poor.  Even when committing wrongful acts such as mass murder, the perpetrators shall argue that they also consider the welfare of humanity and their actions have all the interests of the people at heart.  However, the different forms of love expressed towards human’s raises different reactions among them because of the way they view life.  9 Dalrymple presents an argument on both sides;

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – Philosophy11.edited.docx

Dalrymple presents an argument on both sides

Source – Another student’s paper

Dalrymple presents an argument on both sides

7 how to love mankind and how not to love mankind.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – Philosophy11.edited.docx

how to love mankind and how not to love mankind

Source – Another student’s paper

how to love mankind and how not to love mankind

However, he does not say which side he supports or thinks is the best.  He leaves that to his readers.  9 Therefore, the paper shall be discussing the argument of Dalrymple in his essay, “How and How Not to Love Mankind.”

7 Turgenev always portrayed positivity, and many people attended his funeral while Marx who reflected the negativity in terms of societal oppression had very few people in his burial (Fiske, 20).  3Humans may have different perspectives, but they shall support those ideas that associate with them in terms of the benefits, happiness and hope that adds to their life.

2 3) Do you agree or disagree with him?  Why or why not?

I agree with the author because almost every intellectual argument has humanity welfare and specifically, the well-being of the less fortunate at heart. But because no mass murders occur without their offenders asserting that they are a stand-in for the mankind good, charitable sentiments can simply take a diversity of forms. Both philosophers were renowned for their compassion with the oppressed and downtrodden. But for all their resemblances of experiences and education, the compassion for the superiority of each man couldn’t have been more diverse: for a while ones, based on the misery of people, was real, others, general and intangible, were not.

Works Cited

Dalrymple, T. 10 “How-and How Not-to Love Mankind.”  9 CITY JOURNAL 11.3 (2001): 83-89.

9 Fiske, Susan T.  Envy up, scorn down:  How status divides us.  Russell Sage Foundation, 2011.