The purpose of this paper is to summarise the arguments presented by Theodore Dalrymple in his rather lengthy philosophical article and reflect on them, providing my own opinion. The author begins by mentioning how insignificant he feels in comparison to the shocking and devastating events that transpire regardless of his actions, overshadowing his life’s work. Theodore then promptly counters his doubt by recalling “Myra Hess playing Mozart in London’s National Gallery even as the bombs were falling during the Second World War” (Dalrymple). He remembers fondly how the nation saw this as a heroic deed, and through that, he presents his main argument.
From the author’s point of view, these concerts were an act of civilization daring to oppose the omnipresent barbarisms of the war. This argument is then expanded on by numerous examples from Dalrymple’s life and world history. In summary, the author is arguing that civilization and its products are substantially more fragile than most people regard them to be. Finally, he calls for intellectuals to begin to value human culture as high as they value life itself.
The author supports his main argument through personal stories that illustrate how he came to realize the smaller points, which constitute the main argument of the article. He tells the reader about his mother – a refugee from Nazi Germany. The drastic change in her life made him understand that any feeling of security is “illusory and even dangerous” (Dalrymple). Then, he describes the consequences of the many riots and revolts he saw during his travels. Of these examples that show how easily brutality can destroy civilization, the one from Liberia is the most powerful.
The country was in a state of civil war, and the effects of it were drastic. Theodore saw destroyed infrastructure, ruined buildings, dismantled hospitals, and vandalized library shelves – all examples of senseless aggression towards anything civilized. However, the most shocking image was that of the Steinway grand piano in Centennial hall, which had its legs sawn off and was left on the floor next to “little piles of human feces” (Dalrymple). The author also noted that the intellectuals he spoke with did not understand his views on the destruction of the musical instrument, and even sympathized with those who did it. That change from the values depicted in the first example must have contributed to Dalrymple’s shock in this situation.
Having read the article several times to gain a sufficient understanding of the author’s arguments and their underlying motivation, I came to the conclusion that I agree with his main point. As per one of Thomas Hobbes’s concepts, I believe that human beings are guided by selfish and cruel impulses. This concept is relevant to my analysis because it corresponds with Dalrymple’s vision of people’s inherent hatred for everything intellectual. Too often, we see cases of violence and destruction with no purpose but to rebel against civilization. It has been proven many times that the products of our culture are incredibly vulnerable in the face of the dangers created by people’s nature, so it should be every person’s duty to defend their humanity.
Work Cited
Dalrymple, Theodore. “What We Have to Lose: Our Civilization Is More Precious, and More Fragile, than Most People Suppose.” City Journal, 2001.