Brent and I went to a book sale at the public library yesterday. We bought 6 new books each. They were all a dollar, which I initially thought was a little pricey, but some of the books I ended up getting had to have cost around 30 dollars new. This was my stash:
'Handbook of Modern Sociology' -Modern is a relative term as this book was published in 1964.
Volumes 1 and 2 of the 'Survey of Social Science' -This means I only will know Sociology things starting with the letters A-H.
'A Sense of Sociology' by Lee Braude- The back says it will tell me what the career-paths of Sociologists are... something I have been dying to find out.
'Philanthropy: Voluntary Action for the Common Good' by Robert L Payton- This is basically an in-depth look at philanthropy in America.
'Me: Stories of My Life' by Katharine Hepburn
Anyways, I am pretty happy with what I picked out. Not a lot of books for light reading, but I'm trying to start my own reference library for when I do research next semester.
I've been thinking a lot about Philanthropy lately. I looked online for the actual definition:"loving mankind," from
phil- "loving" +
anthropos "mankind."
I've been wondering if this is actually possible, to love all of mankind.
Soren Kierkegaard said that when it comes to love, the particular is higher than the universal. Isn't this true? Is it possible to love everyone as much as you love your family? Are there different levels of love, a top tier for those special few and on down the rungs until you hit mankind? I don't think love works like that. I feel like if you love someone, that you group them in the category with all others that you love.
Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." You know how much America loves a poster child. On commercials asking us to donate money to starving kids in Africa, they always introduce you to one child and tell you his story. They know people won't donate based on the love of all people in a continent, but people will donate thinking, 'That's so sad, I want to help that boy.' Can we love only an individual? Do we have to know the person, and their specific story in order to love them? I agree you can feel pity or compassion for all mankind, but that's different from love, isn't it?
Marx loved the workers and hated the owners of the means of production. He was all about dividing people into two specific groups. I've often wondered if his love of the Proles had only to do with their situation. If they had a coup and took over the means of production, would Marx then have loved the new Proles, the guys he hated yesterday? Majorities turn into minorities all the time. Can we actually love a whole group of people just because of their situation in life? Is this really love, or something else? In order to be a true Philanthropist wouldn't you also have to love the new majority, the new oppressors?
There are lots of jerks who are oppressed. Are we supposed to ignore their jerkiness because of their state? In this way I guess not knowing the individual is actually helpful in loving them. If I knew that the man we were donating money to was a wife beater, it would seriously inhibit my ability to love him. This actually happens to me all the time at football games and amusement parks; I love mankind more before I meet them.
I guess I'm starting to believe that true Philanthropy is impossible. I think that I believe compassion for large groups of people is possible, but I don't agree that you could love the whole world. I don't even think I could love all of my University, or all of my professors or all of my friends.
I was a little depressed about this before, because the idea of loving all of mankind is so romantic and selfless.
Now, I'm beginning to think that love is something too special for the whole world. I think this helps me appreciate those I do know and love because I'm aware that I can only be so big, and know and love a finite number of people.
