322
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
322 points (95.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43942 readers
457 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Western culture is (as is every other culture) indeed infused with religion. There are lots of good things that come from it. Are we to throw them away because they are "tainted" by some religious element in their origin or development?
We've ended up in a very culturally poor place because in moving away from religion we throw so much out. Babies with bath water, as it were.
We've moved to a rationalist mentality without a good understanding of how man is an inherently cultural animal. And culture until recently was very hard to separate from religious aspects.
Note that I am an atheist myself, not brought up religious, and I don't have answers to how to resolve this awkward place we have gotten to. But I'm quite sure that avoiding cultural elements simply because there is a religious taint is not helpful. Are we to throw away all of Bach's music?
I would never suggest doing away with Bach's or any other sacred music or art. They can and should be appreciated in their proper historical context.
I don't think it's at all fair to say we have ended up in a "culturally poor" place. People are still producing all kinds of cultural contributions without religion. If anything, it is capitalism that has commodified culture causing some of the decline we see today.
I agree that capitalism is a big part of the decline. And I am not saying we need to embrace religion to embrace culture, or that lack of religion is the cause of a decline in culture. I am saying that all our cultural heritage, tends to have influences from religion, and that this is not a reason to reject it. You don't have to take the religious elements, just don't throw out the whole thing because a cultural aspect of a practice or an artifact has elements in its history you find unsavory.
Enjoy the music of Bach and you don't even need to care about the "proper historical context." Enjoy Christmas and ignore the Christian elements, if you like, or view then as a quaint part of its rich history (as Christians did the pagan elements). All cultural threads have always changed throughout history as people have adapted them to their current worldviews and needs. Hand-wringing about historical accuracy and taints from aspects of history we don't like is a modern disease.
As to being in a culturally poor place, the difficulty with that discussion is that the word "culture" covers a lot of ground. We are rich with certain types of culture (yes all the kinds that can be sold to us). We are poor in other kinds, particularly kinds that build community. Capitalism favors the short term, the trend of the day, and that which divides us into manipulatable markets.