Human beings are inherently trapped within a “solipsistic prison” of self-centeredness. The pain we feel for another is not the direct agony occurring in their nervous system, but rather my own pain simulated by my brain upon witnessing their state. Therefore, the teaching to treat others as an “extension of the self” may increase cognitive efficiency, but it easily falls into the error of confining the Other within the frame of the “Me.” The tragedy of forcing what I deem good upon another while calling it “love” usually begins with this arrogance of identification.
Violence in the Name of Love: The Act of Self-Projection
Philanthropy based on identification is dangerous. The idea—I need bread when I am hungry, so I will give you bread—is simple and clear, but if the other person craves freedom rather than bread, my “good deed” becomes an act of trampling their agency. When we view others only as “beings like me,” we erase their unique “Otherness.” Love that fails to contemplate how different the other person is, or what kind of abyss they harbor that I can never fathom, is ultimately nothing more than a variation of ego-inflation.
The “Stranger Love” the Intellect Should Pursue: Acceptance of Otherness
The point a true intellect must reach is not identifying the Other with the self, but poignantly acknowledging the fact that the Other is “completely different” from me. As emphasized by philosophers like Emmanuel Levinas, love is not dragging the other person into the range of my understanding; it is standing humbly before the mystery of the Other, whom I can never fully grasp.
When we accept “Ignorance”—the fact that I cannot fully know the Other—the real questions for the Other begin: “What do you need?” “Who are you?” These questions are the first steps of true love that respects the territory of the Other rather than expanding the self. Without the metacognitive humility to admit that my senses and reasoning could be wrong, philanthropy degenerates into a sophisticated form of self-gratification.
Closing Thoughts
We can never escape the physical limitations of the self until the day we die. However, a vast river flows between acknowledging those limits and being unaware of them. Only those who remain vigilant about the fact that their reach toward the Other is merely a projection of themselves can truly listen to the Other’s real voice.
The final stage of philanthropy described by religion should not be loving the Other exactly like oneself; it should be recognizing that the Other is a “separate universe” as precious as one’s own and respecting that distance. Love is not about eliminating distance, but the politeness of cautiously approaching while affirming the other’s existence despite that vast distance. When we become aware of our own cognitive prison, paradoxically, the light of the “Other” begins to seep through the bars of that prison. That is the most difficult and sacred form of love that the intellect can encounter.
The Intellectual Property of Min Jinseong
From chronological traces to algorithmic artifacts.
Chronological Bundle: Weekly ($20) / Monthly ($60)
Leave a Reply