How—and How Not—to Love Mankind

Started by zarus tathra, December 27, 2013, 03:00:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

zarus tathra

link

QuoteAlmost every intellectual claims to have the welfare of humanity, and particularly the welfare of the poor, at heart: but since no mass murder takes place without its perpetrators alleging that they are acting for the good of mankind, philanthropic sentiment can plainly take a multiplicity of forms.

Two great European writers of the nineteenth century, Ivan Turgenev and Karl Marx, illustrate this diversity with vivid clarity. Both were born in 1818 and died in 1883, and their lives paralleled each other almost preternaturally in many other respects as well. They nevertheless came to view human life and suffering in very different, indeed irreconcilable, ways—through different ends of the telescope, as it were. Turgenev saw human beings as individuals always endowed with consciousness, character, feelings, and moral strengths and weaknesses; 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. Where Turgenev saw men, Marx saw classes of men; where Turgenev saw people, Marx saw the People. These two ways of looking at the world persist into our own time and profoundly affect, for better or for worse, the solutions we propose to our social problems.

...

In making his general point, Turgenev does not suggest that his characters are anything but individuals, with their own personal characteristics. He does not see them just as members of a group or class, caused by oppression to act in predetermined ways like trams along their rails: and his careful observation of even the humblest of them is the most powerful testimony possible to his belief in their humanity. Grand aristocrat that he was, and acquainted with the greatest minds of Europe, he did not disdain to take seriously the humblest peasant, who could not hear or speak. Turgenev's oppressed peasants were fully human beings, endowed with free will and capable of moral choice.

...

Turning from Turgenev to Marx (although the Manifesto appears under the names of both Marx and Engels, it was almost entirely Marx's work), we enter a world of infinite bile—of rancor, hatred, and contempt—rather than of sorrow or compassion. It is true that Marx, like Turgenev, is on the side of the underdog, of the man with nothing, but in a wholly disembodied way. Where Turgenev hopes to lead us to behave humanly, Marx aims to incite us to violence. Moreover, Marx brooked no competitors in the philanthropic market. He was notoriously scathing about all would-be practical reformers: if lower class, they lacked the philosophic training necessary to penetrate to the causes of misery; if upper class, they were hypocritically trying to preserve "the system." Only he knew the secret of turning the nightmare into a dream.

?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

aitm

Certainly education will play a role in future assessments. However, humanity must always be seen as a composite of the individual and as his role as a member of the society. There are great differences between the two. For while most as individuals may exhibit more compassion or contempt, whatever they share as a collective becomes multiplied. As a society we may exhibit more compassion due to peer pressure than we would not have as an individual, this is easy to see. But equally we are never as cruel singularly as we are as a collective judging by history. This is the pack mentality that is both our curse and our "grace".
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

stromboli

Just got done reading all the science stuff on Reddit. Mankind is fucked in the ass. Have a beer. Anybody know where I can pick up a cheap 30-06?

Franklin

The natural unit for people is the tribe.  When one lives in a culture where the tribal unit is broken, one gets confused and focuses on the wrong thing, like individuals or all of humanity.  So I disagree equally with Turgenev and Marx.

aitm

Quote from: "Franklin"The natural unit for people is the tribe.  When one lives in a culture where the tribal unit is broken, one gets confused and focuses on the wrong thing, like individuals or all of humanity.  So I disagree equally with Turgenev and Marx.

I think that the "natural unit being a tribe" is probably right, for about 90%. But history certainly shows us a healthy percentage of people who like to go it alone, and I think that that percentage grows slowly.

As for,
QuoteWhen one lives in a culture where the tribal unit is broken, one gets confused and focuses on the wrong thing, like individuals or all of humanity
I think it has been proven to go the other way. The tribe can function and prosper but it also has a habit of humanitarian disfunction.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Jack89

Quote from: "Franklin"The natural unit for people is the tribe.  When one lives in a culture where the tribal unit is broken, one gets confused and focuses on the wrong thing, like individuals or all of humanity.  So I disagree equally with Turgenev and Marx.
Oh, I definitely agree, but establishing what a "tribe" is gets a little awkward.  I personally think that family, friends, and select close relationships are your "tribe".  After that it gets fuzzy and relationships dissipate the further out they go.  Concentric circle type stuff.

"Mankind" is an idea, an abstract conception of a shitload of people who I've never met.  How can I empathize with and show compassion for someone who I've never met?  If I can't empathize, I can't love.  Loving "mankind" is loving an idea, not people.  If I have direct contact with someone we can start establishing a relationship and I can start giving a shit.  Other than that, it's CNN or Sally Struthers fucking with your emotions by showing touching video footage.  Obfuscation at its best.

Franklin

Quote from: "Jack89"Oh, I definitely agree, but establishing what a "tribe" is gets a little awkward.  I personally think that family, friends, and select close relationships are your "tribe".  After that it gets fuzzy and relationships dissipate the further out they go.  Concentric circle type stuff.
What you describe is closer to a clan than to a tribe.  A tribe is a larger unit based on shared loyalty to the community.  The closest thing we have today to a tribe is a local religious group like a church.

Quote"Mankind" is an idea, an abstract conception of a shitload of people who I've never met.  How can I empathize with and show compassion for someone who I've never met?  If I can't empathize, I can't love.  Loving "mankind" is loving an idea, not people.  If I have direct contact with someone we can start establishing a relationship and I can start giving a shit.  Other than that, it's CNN or Sally Struthers fucking with your emotions by showing touching video footage.  Obfuscation at its best.
I agree that mankind is too abstract.  But a group that establishes loyalty based on a shared values makes sense, and this isn't based on personal relationships.  Religions do this, often by personifying values as gods.  This is why I strongly favor religion.

aitm

Quote from: "Franklin"But a group that establishes loyalty based on a shared values makes sense, and this isn't based on personal relationships.  Religions do this, often by personifying values as gods.  This is why I strongly favor religion.

This also makes it much easier to kill other groups whose values may actually be better but different than the first group. The majority loves your thoughts as long as they agree with theirs. The others who choose to live apart of the group and face elimination if they do not assimilate? Not so much.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

stromboli

My take is that clans and tribes do not have the meaning they once had. Because of our relatively recent ability to reach out and communicate over distance and across culture, we can relate to a much more disparate group than previously. A clan is based primarily on blood relationship, a tribe on shared survival needs. Where those things no are longer primary, the focus changes.

I feel a closer kinship as an atheist to this group of people I will never likely meet than to my own family, because of shared interests. I have no immediate need to provide for people who are related because the necessity is no longer there. Remove the survival aspect and the scenario alters.