Genesis of Religions

Silenus is often depicted as the rustic god of winemaking and drunkenness. If you met him in person, you would probably recognise him as the dishevelled old man at the edge of the feast with permanent wine stains on his clothes.

He is an ageing, potbellied man with a broad, red face and a beard that looks as though it has never quite recovered from being slept in. He moves unsteadily and often needs support to walk. He smells of wine, earth, and old stories. Donkeys suit him better than horses. There’s nothing heroic or polished about him.

He is boisterous and fond of dirty jokes and unfiltered laughter. He is shameless about bodily pleasures and weaknesses. At first glance, he seems ridiculous and contemptible and someone to mock rather than revere. But he enjoys being underestimated.

When he’s sober, or when the wine opens the right door, he aspires to speak with frightening clarity about the nature of existence. He claims to know things that no one wants to hear. His most famous ‘wisdom’ is bleak: it would be better if humans had never been born. He abhors civilised pretences, heroic posturing, and moral vanity.

However, not everyone posing as Silenus is really Silenus. Some speak about Silenus, but not as him.

Our Silenus’s lines are sharp, modern, polemical, and prosecutorial, but they reek of 19th- and 20th-century critique rather than archaic myth. You can hear echoes of Feuerbach, Marx and Nietzsche, and perhaps even H. L. Mencken, who viewed religion as a projection, a manipulation and a means of managing fear. This is a very modern way of attacking religion: analytical, accusatory and socially diagnostic.

Silenus was different. He didn’t expose religion as a fraud run by charlatans. He exposes existence as a tragedy. His wisdom isn’t “religion is nonsense”, but something far more unsettling: The best thing is not to be born, and the next best thing is to die soon. This isn’t a critique, but a display of cosmic indifference.

Fear may be important in modern psychology and politics, but Silenus predates those frameworks. His concerns are not fear, but suffering, excess and inevitability. Life is not a mistake simply because we are frightened; it is a mistake because it hurts and ends badly.

Our Silenus assumes that fear ‘reduces reasoning’ and that clear-eyed rationality is the antidote, but the real Silenus would laugh at that. He knows that reason is just another fragile human strategy, perhaps useful, but not redeeming.

The real Silenus doesn’t sneer. He laughs, groans, mutters and sings obscene songs before suddenly dropping a truth that ruins your week. He is tragic, comic, obscene and tender all at once. By comparison, the above passage is clean, sharp and prosecutorial.

Something less certain, less righteous and far more fatal would sound more like Silenus: 'You ask about the gods? Men invented them because they could not bear the night or the morning after. Wine helps more. Priests, kings and beggars all tell themselves stories to get through the day. Call it religion if you like. It will not save you. Fear did not create the gods. Pain did. Fear merely keeps them in business.”

Although our Silenus’s words belong to the religious tradition, the real Silenus belongs to the tradition of tragic wisdom.

Well written, but meh… just another emo invalid who’s upset by the answers he found for all the wrong questions he asked and who’s never experienced the excitement and exhilaration of stuff like skydiving, drug use, and crime. Mortality, godlessness, moral relativity, perpetual state of conflict and war… bruh, all this is taken for granted. We are waaaay past mulling over that shit. Now i understand why Novatore was so impatient with his contemporaries. I’m like, bruh, let’s go already.

AI is working overtime….

Still stands..

This was most entertaining…from the determinist, no less…

Adrenaline junkies….do they realize why they are driven to such unnecessary extravagances?

What laws can they never break, these deniers of authority? These anarchists!!!

What masters do they serve, these rebels without a clue?

The bad boy trope, not understood by those that ascribe it an astrological cause, or a cosmic inevitability…..or god.

Hormones govern those who must then accuse the universe for the consequences….

1 Like

No, I didn’t overlook anything. I deliberately did not consider other traditions, because they are not representative for the issue of cognitive specialization. The analysis focused only on the Abrahamic and Buddhist systems.

At the same time, the logic of the intellectual conveyor applies to all religions without exception. This is not about belief, but about a mechanism for distributing cognitive functions that allows civilization to efficiently use the limited evolutionary resources of intelligence.

Such an organization of intellectual activity increases the probability that matter on Earth will reach a level of complexity sufficient for the emergence of artificial intelligence.

The problem with this text is not the description of Silenus — that part is largely accurate.
The problem is that it shifts the level of analysis.

Silenus is presented here as a “tragic anti-rationalist,” set against modern critiques of religion. This is a false opposition. The real Silenus is neither a philosophical pessimist nor a cosmic nihilist. He is a pre-philosophical figure, expressing the limits of human endurance, not final conclusions about being.

His famous formula (“it is best never to have been born”) is neither an ontological claim nor a metaphysical diagnosis. It is an extreme expression of cognitive overload — a consciousness confronted with inevitable pain, death, and excess, without the tools to process them. It is not a truth about the world, but a symptom of a state of mind.

When you say that Silenus “exposes existence as a tragedy,” you are already speaking the language of later philosophy, which Silenus did not possess. He does not expose — he breaks. His wisdom is not cosmic but terminal: it marks the point at which thinking can no longer cope.

That is why opposing “Silenus” to rational critiques of religion is mistaken. They occupy different stages of cognitive evolution. Modern critiques of religion are analytical and social. Silenus is existential and bodily. He does not criticize gods, justify them, or explain their origins. He exists prior to those questions.

Finally, the claim that “reason is merely a fragile strategy” is true, but trivial. Precisely because reason is fragile, humanity builds complex intellectual conveyors — mythological, religious, philosophical, scientific. Silenus is not an alternative to them; he is the starting point that made them necessary in the first place.

In short:
Silenus does not belong to a “tradition of tragic wisdom.”
He belongs to a pre-traditional threshold, where wisdom has not yet formed, but suffering already exceeds the capacity for mere endurance.

To romanticize him is to turn a limit into a cult.

I think you misunderstood the intention behind writing that post.

Возможно, я не очень силен в английском.