Truth and lunacy
By Serge Kreutz
The most basic philosophical concepts for human life are biological. The idea of avoiding death is present at the very root of life. The success of avoiding death at least temporarily does not need consciousness, and not even internal control.
From the very existence of the first forms of life, those lived and procreated that, accidentally, “behaved” in a manner that avoided death.
When humans gained limited consciousness, the idea of non-existence after death was difficult to accept. It contradicts the meaningfulness of what we are genetically programmed to do: avoiding death.
Religions tried a metaphysical answer, but scientific self-cognition has allowed us to recognize that all religions are just wild fantasies.
There is nothing to be afraid of after dying, because after it occurred (in accordance to reason and science), there simply is nothing.
On the other hand, to be afraid of dying is in accordance with how we are biologically programmed. Dying can indeed be a horrifying experience, for example when one burns to death, or drowns, or, possibly the worst, is tortured to death by humans whose intention it is to make one’s dying as painful and prolonged as possible. But even in non-aggravated circumstances, the plain consciousness of dying can easily result in death avoidance panic.
We do not have to be overly concerned about what happens after death. It’s the wrong focus, emphasized by propagators of religions who are, without exception, wrong.
On the other hand, addressing the topic of dying agrees with all dictates of reason. We have a collective interest to make our dying as gentle as possible.
Current societies do not reflect this simple truth, and previous progressive (mostly Marxist) societies were wrong not to teach it in school, which is why they only succeeded partially in eradicating religions.
The approach of most people nowadays is either to better not to think about it, or to trust religious institutions who preach that if people just follow their rules, they actually won’t be dead after having died.
There is another biological truth that current societies do not sufficiently address. This is that before we die, each of us is biologically primed to seek sexual satisfaction. Apart from death avoidance, sexual satisfaction is our only interest that is totally at the root of our existence.
Using divide-and-rule tactics, religions (especially those drawing on Abraham), have thought those under their influence that one has to curtail sexual satisfaction in order to satisfy one’s interest in avoiding death.
I can easily imagine that a society that has a high awareness of what was stated so far will be much better to live in and to die in than societies shaped by the teachings of religions. Persistent religious lunacy, furthermore, is the principal obstacle to establishing societies based on the acceptance of everybody’s most elementary interests, a comfortable death and before that, optimal sexual satisfaction.
I do not think that those who have a high awareness of what was stated so far should wait until the correctness of these assumptions is democratically accepted. Anyway, religious lunatics themselves have, throughout history, not waited until their versions of explaining the world were democratically accepted. Rather, religions typically became majority religions when those who were in power, or came to power, were a religion’s disciples. Subsequent generations were then easily educated to accept the teachings of these religions as fact.
In the interest of a better world, it is justified that an intellectual avant-garde (an elitist political party) assumes power over a society by any means, democratic or not. Subsequent generations will easily be educated philosophically and politically in a way that assures majority acceptance of the new standards.
The failure of Marxism in many countries where it was tried (and implemented by an intellectual avant-garde) can be directly attributed to the fact that, in spite of negating religious lunacy, Marxism never gave people answers on questions about the meaning of their individual lives.
A political concept for establishing a better society with more personal, and sexual, freedom in as safe an environment as ever possible, must firmly be rooted in a philosophical understanding of the meaning of every person’s individual life.