When religion teaches philanthropy (Agape), it is not an arithmetic command to distribute one’s energy equally to every person in $1/n$ portions. If philanthropy were defined as “allocating the same amount of time and providing the same intensity of service to everyone,” human physical and psychological resources would be depleted instantly; it would remain nothing more than an impossible hypothesis. The intellect interprets the philanthropy of doctrine not as the “quantitative distribution of emotion,” but as the “complete deletion of the grounds for discrimination.”
The Opposite of Partiality is Not Indifference, but “Unconditionality”
Our typical acts of love and service have “reasons.” We act because the other person is kind to us, because they are family, or because we deem them worthy of help. Here, “partiality” inevitably arises, and everything outside the boundaries of that partiality becomes a realm of total alienation.
The philanthropy required by doctrine is a command to remove these “reasons.” It means that one’s actions must be triggered solely by the single fact that the other is a “dignified being,” regardless of who they are, what they have done, or their relationship to us. In other words, philanthropy is not an “emotional coercion” to love everyone with equal intensity, but an intellectual decision to surrender the “authority of the judge” who selects the targets of one’s love and service.
The Impossibility of Service: Philanthropy as a “State,” Not an “Act”
It is physically impossible to serve everyone equally. However, the intellect pursuing philanthropy resolves this through the “openness of opportunity.” Philanthropy is the state of doing one’s best for the person currently standing before them, while remaining prepared to face whoever appears next with the exact same attitude.
What is required for philanthropy to exist is not “physical equality,” but “potential equality.” I cannot divide a single piece of bread equally among all the starving children in the world, but I can give that piece without discrimination to whichever child is within my reach. Philanthropy in service is not about the equality of the result, but about removing bias from the process of selecting the beneficiary.
Why Religion Demands This Impossible Concept: Curbing Human Ego-Inflation
The reason religion sets this unrealistic philanthropy as a goal is its awareness of how destructive “selective justice” and “selective love” can be. Humans divide sides in the name of love and feel a sense of superiority in the name of service.
The unreachable standard of philanthropy serves to break our vanity by posing a question before every act of love and service: “Are you not still excluding someone?” Philanthropy is not a “state” we can permanently achieve, but a point of orientation that allows us to maintain human dignity only through our constant striving toward it.
Closing Thoughts
Ultimately, what doctrine desires is not mechanical equality. It is a command to constantly build doors in the small fortress of your love—your family, your nation, your tastes—so that your love does not rot within those walls.
Philanthropy has not failed simply because you cannot serve everyone equally. Rather, the very act of reflecting on whether today’s service was limited to “people I like,” or whether one’s love was a tool to dominate the other, is already a step upon the path of philanthropy. Philanthropy is not the task of increasing the quantity of love; it is the painful alchemy of raising the qualitative purity of love until no conditions remain mixed within it. The process of challenging this impossibility is the moment the intellect comes closest to Divinity.
The Intellectual Property of Min Jinseong
From chronological traces to algorithmic artifacts.
Chronological Bundle: Weekly ($20) / Monthly ($60)
Leave a Reply