It is surprising that the Christian commend of loving your neighbor is not conjoined with the requirement of thinking of him, in spite of the power of thinking to move us to the reality we think.
The recommended care for others and the forms of charity do not equate with the act of thinking. Though these recommended acts presuppose that your neighbor is the object of your preoccupations, you are in fact responsible only for a transitory exit from your own space of preoccupations. Because you are always turn back to you by confessing that you execute what is your duty as a man devoted to God.
Differently, the act of thinking requires an irreversible moving out from yourself to the object of thought. As we know from the need of objectivity, the advancement in thinking an object should be confirmed by the impossibility of claiming that such an object can be understood or known only by us.
When we seriously think of someone, he will be gradually deprived of any feature that makes us to believe that he belongs to us. He will be revealed as a sheer human being that lives in its irreducible individuality as any other animal exemplar. And though it is simple to utter that ‘Man is an animal’, it is in fact a long process of thinking until to accept this truth, since all the men are constantly viewed by us behind a complex set of features.
Finally, in each case, we have to know that our neighbor cannot be related to us, or to any divine realm, since he or she is an animal living only for itself. If we think insufficiently to others, they can be abandoned in the name of such a truth about their animality.
But when we think more, it can be discovered that such an animality makes us as responsive to others’ needs, as we are when we are pressed by our own natural needs. The persistent and spontaneous care for our body in need can be also applied to others. Obviously, such a spontaneous care will never lead to a moral theory.