Progymnasmata IV – Common Place

A TIME TO GIVE

(PROLOGUE)

Since love for humanity is philanthropy and since fulfillment cannot be gained unless one is giving, then it is only right for one to live outward focused and actively engage in philanthropy related activities. 

(CONTRARY)

Philanthropy can also be used contrary to its inherent nature and as ploy to be socially recognized by peers as a good Samaritan. The intention or motive of the philanthropist would be a good indication on whether or not they were doing this for the public good or just as a public image motivator. Philanthropy is also assumed to bea way that the wealthy can realize tax relief for their humanitarian ways. This may be another questionable act regarding the motives of ones charitable nature. Some critics have formed fixed beliefs around the rich and what their true “agenda” may be.

(EXPOSITION)

However, examining the large class of individuals that appear to give for the purpose of assisting humanity. It would seem hard to believe that an inferior motive existed when the news releases statements like: “A band of 40 billionaires have just pledged to donate half of their fortunes to charity  ”. This one philanthropy-connected initiative will produce an estimated $600 Billion in charitable donations, not to mention the more than 90% dedication by Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates.

(COMPARISON)

The ones not giving have more to worry about then the motives behind the people that do give. If the net effect of giving regardless of the motive is something that creates positivity then can that be enough?

The critics who knock on their wealthier superiors and are against the concept  “love for humanity leads to self-actualization” may be bitter for reasons different from that than what they might tell. Criticizing others and molding them in to a position of evil-will sometimes makes that person of a critical mindset actually feel better. Which consequently develops into a false sense of emotion and deceitfully exhibits information about their higher foe that may be false on all accounts. Would saying that Bill Gates is a monster because he’s one of the Richest men in the world be appropriate just to make someone’s own situation seem better?

(INTENTION)

A philanthropist is someone that can come from all classes and they do not have to be a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. In fact it’s the inherent nature of giving of ones self to another that really makes up this definition of philanthropy. It does not matter if you are a twenty something year-old or 75 there are no age limit on being a giver.

(DIGRESSION/REJECTION OF PITY)

You may at one time had the burst inside you that wanted to give but then quickly quieted down by your own idle mind chatter telling you reasons why it wasn’t a good idea or that next time you will. Well the reality is there is not a next time! We live in an eternal nowmoment, in other words we can see who we are by what we do. If we want to shift into a humanitarian, abundant, mindset then the decisiveness to give must be there now.

If it is known that Good comes to those who give, then it will follow that those will be rewarded.

(LEGALITY)

Given that numerous accounts of “universal rewards” can be made, it should follow that people should join this movement.

(JUSTICE)

If everyone is a giver than it is inevitable that everyone will be a receiver as well. So just as important as being a giver is, it is equally important that you are open to let other people be a giver by receiving.

(ADVANTAGE)

The thought of a state where the exchange of wealth and commodities was done so in the spirit of giving rather than taking is an interesting thought. It is quite possible that this world would be the Utopia. Where commerce didn’t form us or drive us out of character. Where we actually spent our time enjoying life and living Full-filled. For men like William Gates this is more than idea but rather an action he is committed to pursuing.