The responsibility taught to members by religions or collectives is not existential responsibility; it is the “performance of a role.” They appear to say, “Take responsibility for your life,” but in reality, they demand, “Fulfill your responsibilities according to the standards (precepts, doctrines, social values) we have set.” This is akin to telling an athlete sprinting on a fixed track to “enjoy the freedom of running with your own two legs.” While the energy to run belongs to the human, the direction and the finish line have already been determined by the system.
The Outsourcing of Responsibility and the Trap of “Proxy Duty”
The responsibility emphasized by the collective often functions as a “defense mechanism” that alleviates individual guilt. For example, one who strictly adheres to religious rules gains a sense of relief, thinking, “I have fulfilled my responsibility.” However, what is overlooked is the fundamental question of whether those rules themselves are right. The collective grants the individual the “responsibility to follow the rules,” but never the “responsibility to doubt the rules.”
True responsibility must entail the agony of deciding “What is good?” alone in a wilderness where no guidelines exist. Yet, responsibility within a collective is reduced to a “performance score”—how diligently one executed a pre-established “Good.” Ultimately, humans delude themselves into thinking they are taking responsibility for themselves, when they are actually just faithfully replicating the collective’s moral manual.
The Linguistic Magic of Translating Freedom into “Obedience”
Large organizations redefine the word “freedom” with extreme subtlety. The phrase “The truth shall set you free” is often reinterpreted through the logic that “True freedom is only attained when you obey the truth.” Here, freedom is no longer acting according to one’s own will; it becomes a state of aligning one’s will with the “Will of God” (or the goal of the collective).
This is an intelligent “castration of freedom.” By defining the conflict that arises when an individual’s will differs from the collective’s as an “abuse of freedom” or “sin,” they block the inherent possibility of human rebellion at its source. People want to believe, “I freely chose to obey,” but that choice is usually a coerced one, made within a sophisticated architecture of fear (hell, alienation) and reward (salvation, belonging).
Closing Thoughts
The reason the collective does not teach you to avoid responsibility is that the more responsible a member is, the more useful they are for maintaining the system. They place a heavy burden on your shoulders and label it a “divine blessing” or a “social mission.” You feel like a subjective human being as you endure that weight, but in fact, you are merely providing the power that turns the wheels of the system.
Intellect is the courage to move beyond the “imposed responsibility” granted by the group and ask about the “autonomous responsibility” created by the self. The moment you ask, “Is this the responsibility the group speaks of, or the responsibility my soul demands?”, you cease to be a part of a comfortable fleet and become once again a solitary individual in the vast, lonely sea.
The collective teaches you the responsibility of a “faithful slave,” but the intellect invites you into the anguish of a “dangerous free man.” Will you be the runner receiving applause on a permitted track, or will you be the stranger who leaves the track to walk his own path and faces condemnation? True salvation awaits you precisely “off the track.” For your freedom only begins at the point where the collective’s manual ends.
The Intellectual Property of Min Jinseong
From chronological traces to algorithmic artifacts.
Chronological Bundle: Weekly ($20) / Monthly ($60)
Leave a Reply