Culture of Death vs Culture of life

[Denny Crane!]

From the Blog Check Your Premises by Francois Tremblay, I think it gives a great deal to talk about:

The culture of death is a culture where death, both metaphorical and literal, is glorified and brought into effect everywhere, while the vital desires are suppressed or channeled for evil ends.

In a culture of death, religion would be centered around the concept of death as salvation, since sacrificing through death would be the only concept worth glorifying. Through death, everything is made anew. Death would be seen as something desirable, because it leads one to a world which is far better than this one, and for which a miserable life would be worth living (of course suicide would be discouraged, since that goes counter to the propagation of religion).

In a culture of death, war would be virtuous, as a deadly sacrifice. The exercise of mass death would be considered almost holy in itself. War rhetoric would portray the soldier as protector, in the same way that religious sacrifice through death protects the believer.

In a culture of death, entertainment would thoroughly desensitize people to the concept of humans being killed, programming them to not be repulsed by death sacrifice. In contrast, in such a culture, seeing the murder of a pet would lead to great outrage, but seeing dozens of people murdered would not be a problem at all.

In a culture of death, because of this constant desensitization process and dehumanization process, people would routinely call for brute violence to be done to their fellow citizens, even outright killing them, and this would be considered normal.

In a culture of death, everything that is good in children would have to be stomped out of them through incompetent parental child-raising and a schooling system that is little more than an indoctrination system. Otherwise they might grow up to be healthy adults who are repulsed by violence and sacrifice, which would be a disaster. Their minds would have to be deadened.

In a culture of death, children would have to learn that there is no such thing as right and wrong apart from orders from proper authorities, because ultimately they would have to learn that death, when properly ordered, is just.

In a culture of death, people would be motivated to have children instead of taking care of lives already existing. Since suffering and death would be ultimately positive, there would be little reason to try to relieve it. Having more children would be positive because it would provide more possible sacrifices.

In a culture of death, constant sub-divisions of society would be created so they could fight against each other and thus rely on some higher authority to bring their ideals to victory. The existence of this higher authority, which orders killings, would thereby be justified.

In a culture of death, people would be profoundly uneasy with suicide, since this would represent independently taking one’s life into one’s hands. Death would be a matter to be left in the hands of proper authorities.

In a culture of death, vital functions such as eating, sex, the desire for recognition, would all be reduced to the desire to control each other, dividing society further.

In short, a culture of death devalues human life and devalues the natural traits of healthy minds.

In a culture of life, religion would be centered around the joys of life. War would be considered a vice, and soldiers would be seen as killers. Entertainment would not peddle death as amusement. People would not call for violence or death to be inflicted on each other. The innate qualities of children would be preserved and cherished. Children would learn there is right and wrong, and that they are part of themselves. People would not be motivated to have children. People would rely on each other and deal with disagreements instead of appealing to higher authorities to suppress disagreeing parties. People would not be uneasy about suicide, and would simply accept it as freedom over one’s life. Vital functions would not lead people to try to control each other. Human life would be valued and the natural traits of healthy minds would be valued.

Cultures of death create societies based on control. Cultures of life create societies based on love. The choice between life and death is an ever-present choice. We make that choice with everything we do, think and say.

[Nietzsche]

In a culture of death, religion would be centered around the concept of death as salvation, since sacrificing through death would be the only concept worth glorifying. Through death, everything is made anew. Death would be seen as something desirable, because it leads one to a world which is far better than this one, and for which a miserable life would be worth living (of course suicide would be discouraged, since that goes counter to the propagation of religion).

This passage is dissonant. A culture of death suddenly became synonymous with religion, but suicide is discouraged? This is little more than a thinly veiled dig at Christianity and other religions with an afterlife (which incidentally do not celebrate death in the way the writer seems to infer both in this passage and later).

This list seems to be nothing more than a single person's idle pet peeves. It's easy to rail against consumerism, hatred, and fear. It's hard to provide satisfying alternatives. The author should spend a little more time elaborating on his finely tuned system rather than just pandering platitudes.

[Denny Crane!]

This passage is dissonant. A culture of death suddenly became synonymous with religion, but suicide is discouraged? This is little more than a thinly veiled dig at Christianity and other religions with an afterlife (which incidentally do not celebrate death in the way the writer seems to infer both in this passage and later).

This list seems to be nothing more than a single person's idle pet peeves. It's easy to rail against consumerism, hatred, and fear. It's hard to provide satisfying alternatives. The author should spend a little more time elaborating on his finely tuned system rather than just pandering platitudes.

It is certainly not the only religion that offers salvation after life and that life is just a preparation for death (islam for instance) and they do indeed spend their time focused on death and what happens after over the idea of living in the present. Even their system of morality is focused on what happens after death rather than why it is a good thing in life.

And to be fair the guy has a massive and substantial blog that is rather hugely fleshed out, this was more just a piece of prose that I rather liked. Only me ho hum.

[Helm]

Christianity and Islam are the only religions obsessed with the afterlife. Well and the ancient Egyptian religion. I suppose those three religions are what you would call death cults. The promise of immortality is a big draw for a religion though a bit of a red herring imo.

[Denny Crane!]

I was going to say egyptians of course but also pure Hindu Karmic reincarnation as well.

[Helm]

I was going to say egyptians of course but also pure Hindu Karmic reincarnation as well.

Not so much as those religions are seeking to ultimately avoid an afterlife. Not quite the same thing as "ceaseing to exist" as though that's something you can practically do.

[Copperknickers II]

So in other words, culture of death is the real world, and culture of life is a ridiculous creation of fantasy. In what way would prizing life and the joys therein aid with solving disagreements and teach right and wrong? Surely if believe you only have one lifetime on earth and your goal is to make the most of it, then you immediately think 'morality be damned, I'm gonna give myself the best darn 70 years on this planet I can, since I'm not going to be punished for it after I die.'

[Denny Crane!]

So in other words, culture of death is the real world, and culture of life is a ridiculous creation of fantasy. In what way would prizing life and the joys therein aid with solving disagreements and teach right and wrong? Surely if believe you only have one lifetime on earth and your goal is to make the most of it, then you immediately think 'morality be damned, I'm gonna give myself the best darn 70 years on this planet I can, since I'm not going to be punished for it after I die.'

Oh good lord you just went down the morality without God idea...so atheists think like this do they? Is that your hasty vague random judgement of us is it (hmm and buddhists and jain and a reasonable section of Hinduism)

[Copperknickers II]

Oh good lord you just went down the morality without God idea...so atheists think like this do they? Is that your hasty vague random judgement of us is it (hmm and buddhists and jain and a reasonable section of Hinduism)

Are you drunk? Let's do it this way: tell me which one of these is correct and maybe I'll know what on earth you are on about:

Oh good lord, you just went down the 'there is no morality without God' path...so Atheists think like that do we? That's your hasty vague random judgement of us is it (not just western Atheists but also atheist religious people such as buddhists, jainists, and a reasonable section of Hindus)?

Oh good lord you just went down the 'there is morality without God idea' path...so atheists think like that do you? Is that your hasty vague random judgement of religious people? (except buddhists, jainists and a reasonable section of Hindus who are Atheist).

[Denny Crane!]

Are you drunk? Let's do it this way: tell me which one of these is correct and maybe I'll know what on earth you are on about:

Go back and read your post and tell me what it infers.

[Taiji]

So in other words, culture of death is the real world, and culture of life is a ridiculous creation of fantasy. In what way would prizing life and the joys therein aid with solving disagreements and teach right and wrong? Surely if believe you only have one lifetime on earth and your goal is to make the most of it, then you immediately think 'morality be damned, I'm gonna give myself the best darn 70 years on this planet I can, since I'm not going to be punished for it after I die.'

You would? Well, that's pretty messed up of you.

No wonder some people say they need a theistic religion, according to them they're total psychos without it.

Prescribing it to a sane man is logically immoral then?

[Copperknickers II]

Go back and read your post and tell me what it infers.

It doesn't infer anything, seeing as it is a paragraph of writing and does not have a sentient mind. It might imply something however. My point was that the argument you posted makes baseless assertations that on their own make no sense.

You would? Well, that's pretty messed up of you.

I would not and do not think that Nihilistic selfishness is a good belief system. All I'm saying is that this article claims that by removing religion and the afterlife and focusing on mortal life, one sees the true value of life and a will to do good to others and live in peace and harmony suddenly floods over you. Perhaps this is true for some people, but it is NOT the logical conclusion to be drawn from irreligious Atheism.

There are good arguments for altruism in a godless material universe, but this article doesn't make any of them.

[Taiji]

I would not and do not think that Nihilistic selfishness is a good belief system. All I'm saying is that this article claims that by removing religion and the afterlife and focusing on mortal life, one sees the true value of life and a will to do good to others and live in peace and harmony suddenly floods over you. Perhaps this is true for some people, but it is NOT the logical conclusion to be drawn from irreligious Atheism.

There are good arguments for altruism in a godless material universe, but this article doesn't make any of them.

I would suggest that nothing you have ever done and will ever do is not selfishly driven. Whether you deluded yourself about the rewards or not is immaterial to that point, but is instead relevant to the question of what kinds of delusions are optimal. And that question only becomes appropriate to ask once you decide you are going to delude yourself. Which you might if you have no faith in the benefits of teamwork and empathy, and the rule of law, providing enough of an incentive for us to feel like looking after each other, or at least avoiding criminal behaviours towards one another, for our own selfish reasons.

[Dr. Croccer]

I don't really get this. The first sentence makes it clear that it refers to religions like Christianity, yet the following sentences refering to the ''culture of death'' have neither existed as cultural values historically, in either ''death religions'' nor any other society which could be labelled as having a ''death culture''. Some of these aren't logical or factual, like the one refering to a society in which killing people is considered normal. Not even societies like that of the Aztecs, in which death did play a considerable role, considered random murder acceptable. The entire thing reads increasingly dubiously as a jumbling combination of exaggerated elements which don't even make sense socially, logically or historically. Very few of these can even be considered ''cultural values'' at all.

[Ulyaoth]

What a load of crap. Hey let me put a bunch of nonrelated bs statements together in my absolute moral system and call everyone who disagrees with my hedonism a death worshipping moron. Basically what that list comes down to.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Hmm, this is very interesting. When I was being brainwashed as a child I was taught to understand christianity as a champion of a culture of life, mostly based on the stance of it being anti-abortion. This blog entry turns that idea on its head and puts the culture of death stigma on the Abrahamic religions and their theological glorification of death, abstinence, and fasting (things that are detrimental to human happiness and joy). I see more hypocrisy in Islam in this regard but I am much less educated about the details of Islam to comment much.

[Justice and Mercy]

I though you didn't like Objectivism, Denny. Perphaps I misunderstood you in other threads.

Mr. Tremblay stole this entire premise from Ayn Rand, and, as anarchists are likely to do, never gives credit. Further, elsewhere in his blog he subjects Rand to horrible treatment, namely by purveying the lies about Rand and Hickman. This is particularly sickening, considering that "check your premises," itself comes from Galt's speech.

Listen to the speech "Of Living Death" by Ayn Rand, which discusses the Papal Enyclical Humanae Vitae, and in other speeches (especially those about Ronald Reagan near her death) she mentions the very idea of the religionists as death-worshippers. In Atlas Shrugged, she portrays them in this light in Galt's speech.

EDIT: Found a few, both from Galt's speech.

"They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost—yet such is their image of man’s nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is non-existent, that only the unknowable exists."

And later: "As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind."

[Dr. Croccer]

My analysis of the first few sentences, might tackle the rest later.

The culture of death is a culture where death, both metaphorical and literal, is glorified and brought into effect everywhere, while the vital desires are suppressed or channeled for evil ends.

The first problem with this is the question of what does a culture of death mean. When I hear ''culture of death'', I think of civilizations like the Aztecs, Celts, Vikings, and so on, cultures which emphasised a lot on death, struggle, human sacrifice and the afterlife. These are certainly not uniform, and despite their emphasis on death, they were not obsessed by it. They were not gloomy, dehumanized societies with no element of joy or life about them.

In a culture of death, religion would be centered around the concept of death as salvation, since sacrificing through death would be the only concept worth glorifying. Through death, everything is made anew. Death would be seen as something desirable, because it leads one to a world which is far better than this one, and for which a miserable life would be worth living (of course suicide would be discouraged, since that goes counter to the propagation of religion).

This sentence throws my initial assumption off balance to start with. This happens a lot with this text. After one sentence you think you know what the author is trying to pinpoint, but the following immediately throws out those people which you considered to be part of the ''death culture'' and introduces new ones with some aspects that can be considered ''death cultured''.

This sentence makes it clear that the author is refering to religions which believe in one finite life and endless, rewarding afterlives, such as the Abrahamic religions. The problem is that he immediately makes the assumption that these religions are obsessed by death. He states that death would be seen as something desirable by these religions, though, as most people here are either followers of these religions or acquainted with them, they are clearly not. He then makes an illogical conclusion. He states that these religions treat death as glorious and that it is viewed as preferable to a miserable life, yet then states that suicide is not allowed, treating it as something that speaks for itself. It does not. Why shouldn't these religions encourage suicide by his reasoning? They don't, because whilst they believe in afterlives, these are based on good and evil. One is only rewarded if he has done good in life. This alone is a large reason for people to live life, as they want to live it as good and long as possible, in order to get the best afterlife. Similarly, those convinced that they will be punished could only live longer and enjoy what they have, or try to improve it.

There are indeed religions which emphasize on death and killing, such as that of the Aztecs and the northern european tribes, in which human sacrifice played a large role. Even so, this wasn't because death was bliss. It was to preserve life. The Aztecs sacrificed human beings to appease the gods. They believed the shedding of blood was necessary to empower Huitzilopochtli, the sun god, to battle the moon and stars daily. It wasn't a glorification of death, it was a desperate religious ritual to maintain their own lives. Similarly, human sacrifice in most cultures isn't to revel in death, it's to appease the gods, often in harsh times.

In a culture of death, war would be virtuous, as a deadly sacrifice. The exercise of mass death would be considered almost holy in itself. War rhetoric would portray the soldier as protector, in the same way that religious sacrifice through death protects the believer.

Again, we have a confusion. Death in combat and self-sacrifice have been viewed as favourable by many tribal peoples, who generally have a large focus on death, but death itself is not viewed as the most important thing. Dying honourably is. A Celtic or Germanic warrior would've considered it cowardly to kill oneself in combat. Death itself isn't the object, but victory. Honourable death is the soothing second prize for the warrior, who will live on amongst the Gods and forefathers, and will make him renowned in his own tribe. Other ''death civilizations'' like the Aztecs never had a great emphasis on self-sacrifice in battle either. They were more concerned with the sacrifice of others. The object of a warrior was not to die, his object was to capture as many enemies to sacrifice.

Self-sacrifice in combat as something glorious came into fashion in the 19th century, with nationalism and conscription riding high. With WWI, the notion of war as something glorious, and self-sacrifice as well, became common. However, this was not cultural. Nations like Britain had opposed conscription fiercely, yet they joined in as well. Furthermore, beyond military matters, there was nothing that could label the various diverse nations as ''death cultures''. Not even the USSR, Nazi Germany or Japan during WWII shared the other characteristics mentioned in this blog post.

Overall, I just don't get this. I know the author is trying to attack something, make some kind of point, but it's buried under his own inconsistencies and confusing illogical statements. If it's a criticism of Christianity or religion in general I don't know why he spent relatively little time on attacking it directly, wasting much more on exaggerated aspects or those which are just plainly unrelated aspects which no sane person would claim are aspects of religion. The entire ''culture of life'' is idiotic as well, antagonizing soldiers and presenting suicide as something commonly accepted, amongst other dubious things. Many of the aspects mentioned here of the ''culture of life'' and that of death are just socially and psychologically impossible. Suicide will always be viewed as horrible by those close to the perpetrator, and random killings will never be accepted by any society.

[Eofor]

The "culture of death" presented in the OP is a strawman, while the "culture of life" is an idealized fantasy. Both radically oversimplify how real societies are formed and function.
Edit-+rep to Croccer for explaining it more thoroughly than me.

[Denny Crane!]

I see you have problems with verbs: Infer. : Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

And I wasn't the only person to see it, it appears.