How and How Not to Love Mankind
The article was written by Theodore Dalrymple. It is an exciting work that attempts to shed light on the aspects of the welfare and humanity behaviors. The article is an actual manifestation of how individuals who are brought up from the same period, life settings and running parallel aspects, could have diversity in behaviors and thoughts (Arandia and Marcos). In his work, Dalrymple brings two noble writers existing in the 19th century periods. The authors in this context are Karl marl and his counterpart Ivan Turgenev who have varied perspectives on individuals well beings and the notion of the human values. A critical review of this article suggests that Turgenev has special interests towards the humankind. He showcases his affection towards the welfare of individuals and put keen emphasis on humanity. On the other hand, Karl Marx though he was sharing some common interest with Turgenev towards the humankind affectionate, he seems to have significant interest for the system in people compared to that of the people (Dalrymple).
In essence, the author of this article attempts to make a succinct comparison on the two-known works by this renowned philosopher “Mumu” written by Turgenev as well as the “communist manifesto” done by mark. This is done so to present the existing contrast in the ideas of the two philosophers in as far as humanity is concerned.
The main writer argument in the article as mentioned earlier is individual claims allegations or believes to possess humanity welfare to the less fortunate people not always the case in real life situation (Arandia and Marcos). To this end, the welfare existing in the less fortunate or in humanity is not a matter of concern to everyone despite the usual utterance they make. In normal circumstance, there could arise some diversity in the way humanity service can be done. However, the one done willingly without expecting an incentiv...
No More Academic Problems! Place Your Order and Let the Pros Do It for You!