Men are cruel, but Man is kind.
-- Stray Birds (219) by Rabindranath Tagore
What is the meaning of men and man in that sentence?
Men are cruel, but Man is kind.
-- Stray Birds (219) by Rabindranath Tagore
What is the meaning of men and man in that sentence?
Opinions about this quote vary (here's one thread, for example), but the gist of the interpretations follow a common theme.
NOAD offers a hint:
man (n.)
1 an adult human male.
2 a human being of either sex; a person
• (also Man) [in sing.] human beings in general; the human race
I'd paraphrase it like this:
People are cruel, but the human race is still compassionate.
Whether that's a correct interpretation is off-topic (we don't do literary critiques of poetry here). However, the fact that the words man and men can be used to describe:
is indeed a matter for the English learner.
I believe the first word is capitalized because it's at the beginning of the sentence; the second capitalized word is being used as shown in NOAD, where Man = the human race.
As for your original question, I don't believe the word "Men" refers to "two men", but to an unspecified number of men.
What is the meaning of men and man in that sentence?
This is a fascinating question on many levels.
I believe it means, individuals can be arrogant and ruthless, while the general nature of humans is much more compassionate in nature. A good example of this is the way strangers pull together in time of crisis or disaster.
The author is gone so I believe that precisely what constitutes each group can't be decided from this single verse, and that everyone needs to read the entire poem and discern the author's intent. When I read the poem the author seems to have a great respect for people as individuals.
My guess is that the verse is referring to the fact that man has a dual nature. Neither all good nor all bad.
Men
on the net are Mankind
, Many people are cruel
. However, many English understood of Men
are single people
.
Commented
Sep 22, 2013 at 13:21
Men = individuals
Man = mankind/humankind
So, humans as a species/group are generally kind, though there are individuals who are cruel.
It's making the same distinction as in Neil Armstrong's famous quote: "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind"
The "maleness" is not relevant. It used to be common to refer to people as "men", and all people as "mankind", but today we prefer to use gender-neutral language, eg, "people" and "humans/humankind".
It is possible that the author meant it the other way around though:
"Men" = all people
"Man" = an individual
although this is less likely, if the translator can be trusted. One would have to look at the original-language text to be sure.
Frankly, I interpret this differently than the other answers.
"Men" is a collective noun - a group. A class. Men, as a class, are cruel. We see this in sociological discussions on mob mentality. People act differently in mobs than they would feel free to act as individuals - it is something to do with abdication of responsibility.
"Man" is an architype - the ideal man. The typical man. It is generally more difficult to be cruel one-on-one, when one is looking his victim in the eyes. When there is a personal connection, individual humans tend to be kind. Even very cruel men, like Adolph Hitler, were reputed to be kind on an individual level. I remember viewing a documentary featuring an interview with an elderly woman who became part of Hitler's personal household staff when she was quite young (she was a chambermaid or some such at Kehlsteinhaus) and she spoke of Hitler's kindness and generosity toward her and other household staff.
So, I read the above as: Men (as a class) are cruel, but the typical Man is kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
https://drwendyjames.com/the-psychology-of-mob-mentality-and-violence/
What is the meaning of "two young men who are riffs on gangsters-films archetypes"