Page 1 of 7 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#113322 - 07/02/17 04:46 PM Satanism v. Christian Atheism
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
It is casually assumed that Satanism (as per the 1966-75 Church of Satan) arose as a counterpoint to the slave religion of Judæo/Christianity. Certainly the imagery and rhetoric in the Satanic Bible suggests that.

One of the things that fascinated me during the Church's existence, however, was how mainstream J/C not only tolerated but indeed enjoyed us as an exotic accent to events, debates, etc. - not a deadly enemy.

The assumed explanation was that the Church of Satan was so small and outré as not to be taken seriously. But this has always seemed to me as too pat an answer.

I am now thinking that the real explanation was "hidden in plain sight": that J/C did and still does not exist in the USA as a bona-fide religion, but simply as a propaganda device [as per its description as a PSYCON in my MindWar.

In short, the USA is not and never has been an authentically religious culture, bur rather a de facto Atheist one, using J/C only as a PSYCON to deceive and control the more stupid and uneducated sectors of society. The governing elite's use of prayers, innovations, holidays, etc. is just for show.

This explains, among other things, why the "J/C West" has been so confounded by the very literal beliefs and motivated actions of Muslims. It is inconceivable that someone could take "religion" that seriously.

Carrying this premise a bit further: Many 600Cers have argued that [post-1975] Satanism is not a metaphysical religion, bur merely psychodramatic Atheism. This would imply that the "contest" with J/C is actually just between two atheisms using different imagery for their propaganda purposes.

Thus the actual contest is simply between such social values and priorities as may exist: something like a "Satanic" Ayn Randism vs. a J/C socialism. There is no metaphysical dimension to this: it's just one more street-fight over turf, money, women, or etc.

Retrospectively, one of the things that made the 1966-75 Church of Satan so exciting was precisely that it did take itself seriously and literally - in contrast just just to J/C ideology, but to its bankrupt hypocrisy. Post-1975 the "Church" became just a flip-side of the same coin.

Interpreted thus: What confronts 600C is the choice between merely continuing the street-fight or returning the Satanic side of the coin to an altogether higher metaphysical posture of principle.

The Temple of Set preserved the original Church's authenticity subsequent to 1975. but simultaneously removed it entirely from the "theater" of Abrahamic religious iconography. In an arena which wishes to maintain the Church's Satanic themes per se, a different sort of decision would be needed.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113323 - 07/02/17 05:10 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
Look,

Not to tread on anyone here, I think Satanism has its own thing to offer, but let's be real.

This is all based on the volumes of work by Frederick Nietzsche. I've been reading it. You want a Satanic library of your own, just line up his books on your shelf.

Its all based on Nietzsche, even LaVey himself admits as much in an interview somewhere.

I normally get bored reading philosophy, but Nietzsche is thought provoking to say the least.

This 'street fight' has been going on for sometime, long before Satanism.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#113327 - 07/03/17 11:26 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: MA
Interpreted thus: What confronts 600C is the choice between merely continuing the street-fight or returning the Satanic side of the coin to an altogether higher metaphysical posture of principle.


I can't account for what Hippy-Dippy shit you people were into in the 60's and 70's. I can only speak to the reason I personally adopted 'Satanism' as a descriptor for what I was already doing.

Your persistence with this argument speaks of something you long for or lack, not mine. Your personal interpretations of what Satanism is and does is irrelevant to my own.

I think the only issue that confronts users of the 600c is what this method attains in their own lives.

If there is a street fight, it's only on matters such as these where some person presumes to tell the individual to jump in some group think mindset. A refusal to accept your interpretation isn't based on a subscription to Atheism but rather their own personal experiences in relation to world.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113329 - 07/03/17 09:33 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
CCB Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/24/17
Posts: 11
Loc: United States
 Quote:
The assumed explanation was that the Church of Satan was so small and outré as not to be taken seriously. But this has always seemed to me as too pat an answer.


You might also consider the extent of Church's theatrics. It never seems to me, no matter how hard they try, that the Church of Satan can present itself as entirely serious. How is a christian demagogue to look at Anton, dressed like a fucking vampire, and preach about how despicable he is without bursting into laughter? This is especially true considering that LaVeyan Satanism defies christian expectations by not being a cult of devil worship as would be originally suspected, which is disarming.

 Quote:
I am now thinking that the real explanation was "hidden in plain sight": that J/C did and still does not exist in the USA as a bona-fide religion, but simply as a propaganda device [as per its description as a PSYCON in my MindWar.



The U.S's lack of an "authentic" religious culture does not indicate an actual lack of religious conviction, just an erosion of original religious values in favor of more secular ones, which are nonetheless held candidly. Even if powerful people are only pretending not to be atheists, this has no effect on the content of the viewpoints they emulate or the honesty of the culture below them. Even if J/C did exist as a propaganda device, I don't see how this leads to the expectation that opposing viewpoints (Satanism) would be treated with more respect. I would think the opposite, that if some overlord wanted to influence the opinion of the masses via religion, it would do its best to crush any of the alternatives.

Most people in the United States and elsewhere hold a more secular and tolerant version of christianity which they do not take very seriously, and so find it difficult to rouse much hatred against an equally unserious (or better put, theatrical) adversary. This is probably useful to some people, but it doesn't imply a pervasive propaganda scheme enacted for the sole purpose of social control, and if it did, the use of propaganda for whatever purpose would not negate the propaganda itself or cast doubt upon the way it was received. I assume you know as well as anyone that most people, I'd say including the governing elite, are variable in their goals, and also most of the time have no idea what they're doing.

 Quote:
Interpreted thus: What confronts 600C is the choice between merely continuing the street-fight or returning the Satanic side of the coin to an altogether higher metaphysical posture of principle.


Is that really an irreconcilable question, for Satanists?


Edited by CCB (07/03/17 09:37 PM)

Top
#113330 - 07/03/17 09:42 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
This is all based on the volumes of work by Frederick Nietzsche.

No. Nietzsche denounced Judæo-Christianity, but as an Existentialist, not as a Satanist.

It is fashionable among avowed Existentialists to not define “Existentialism” on the grounds that it is inherently descriptive, not prescriptive of human behavior, and that, not being systematic, it varies completely from individual to individual. Hence it can be observed, and the term assigned, only descriptively after-the-fact; and no conclusions governing others can be drawn from it.

Thus Existentialism is not so much a philosophy as an anti-philosophy: a rejection of academic philosophy as being too abstract and non-experience-based as to be real and relevant to humanity.

The Existentialist therefore does not begin with an intellectual definition of humanity generally or himself individually. Rather he interacts with situations and circumstances in which he finds himself, and gradually builds up a self-image based upon his impressions and actions. This is the meaning of the Existentialist slogan that “existence precedes essence”.

Taoism begins with perception and acceptance of individual consciousness, followed by deliberate rejection and abandonment of it in order to reduce the individual to a completely-compliant aspect of natural law: a being governed by instinct rather than intellect.

The Existentialist has the same de facto goal, but goes the Taoist one better by denying that he has an intellect to be destroyed in the first place. For him the intellect is a mere illusion, an insane conceit. He insists that the metaphysical genius, the “philosophical individual”, never really existed at all, and that “authenticity” results from realizing this and resigning oneself to a mere stimulus/response-reactive machine.

Such passionate self-denial and -destruction is not only counter-intuitive, but emotionally-torturous. The stress reduced Existentialists like Nietzsche to incoherence, and others like Sartre to compulsive horror (“nausea”) at the “obscenity” of existence generally.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113331 - 07/03/17 09:58 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
I can't account for what Hippy-Dippy shit you people were into in the 60's and 70's. I can only speak to the reason I personally adopted 'Satanism' as a descriptor for what I was already doing.

Satanism as a religion posits a metaphysical as well as a physical reality. That was intentionally the premise of the original Church of Satan.

What I'm seeing today is mostly a denial of metaphysics, in favor of a mere description of one's hedonistic lifestyle, in which "Satan" is merely a hood ornament.

As detailed above, that would place you more as an Existentialist than a Satanist. This is meant descruptively, not insultingly.

The objection that I've most often encountered here is that "everyone can design and define 'Satanism' to suit himself". Once a term is reduced to personal whim, if ceases to have meaning in discussion.

I might add that insistence upon complete self-definition is also characteristic of Existentialism. There is no "Existentialist Bible" or other consensus. That's what makes it so difficult to define except behaviorally.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113332 - 07/03/17 10:27 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: CCB]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: CCB
You might also consider the extent of Church's theatrics.

You're quite correct on two grounds:

(1) The Church "backed into" its full identity; it did not have a pre-organizational cohesive philosophy. This initial amateurishness resulted in some antics that Anton and the rest of us regarded with good-humored embarrassment later on.

(2) The CoS did not know just how hostile its reception might be, especially outside of crazy San Francisco. So there was some intentional effort to appear non-threatening.


 Quote:
The U.S's lack of an "authentic" religious culture does not indicate an actual lack of religious conviction.

Again, the less-intelligent & -educated the humans, the more literal belief in the slave religion. in this case Protestant Christianity. The Founding Fathers were Deists who couldn't have cared less:

Most importantly, of course, the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbade Congress to create or in any way provide for an establishment of religion. During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to pray collectively was voted down. Benjamin Franklin noted that there were only two or three besides himself who wanted to open with prayers.

Ironically Franklin himself, during his time in England, had been a member of Sir Francis Dashwood's infamous Hell-Fire Club, summarized by Daniel Mannix as "an association dedicated to Black Magic, sexual orgies, and political conspiracies." Adds Mannix: "Franklin was able to meet the Hell-Fire Club on its own ground. As far as any abhorrence of the Black Mass went, Ben announced that he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and he considered evil permissible, since God had created all things and so had presumably created evil also. Even when he was an old man of 84, Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, saying that he doubted the divinity of Christ although he believed in his moral teachings."

George Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or to kneel in church. Pictures showing him kneeling at Valley Forge have nothing more than artists' imagination behind them. [Deists believe that God created the laws of nature but exercised no control over the subsequent evolution of those laws, including the appearance of humanity.]

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity," said John Adams, who became a Unitarian.

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson made the Founders' concept of the First Amendment even more explicit, writing that its intent was to build "a wall of separation between church and state", adding that "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a Thanksgiving proclamation. "I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises," he explained in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Miller.

Said James Madison: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Nor did the Founding Fathers put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. "Under God" was added to the Pledge by an act of Congress in 1954, during the McCarthy era. "In God We Trust" began appearing on coins in 1864 and became the official motto of the United States only in 1956. [The motto conceived by the Founding Fathers was "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One).]

O.K/ - Given the subject matter and the date:

"May the Fourth be With You!" \:D
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113334 - 07/04/17 12:54 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
I understand, Dr. Aquino. The fact is Satanism follows along the heels of Existentialism. Self devotion, scorn of common morality, embracing one's own earthly experience.

 Originally Posted By: MAA
“authenticity” results from realizing this and resigning oneself to a mere stimulus/response-reactive machine.

Such passionate self-denial and -destruction is not only counter-intuitive, but emotionally-torturous.


And let me guess, The Devil, what with his firey spirit and rejection of heavenly comforts is no such thing?

Life is torture, right along-side joy. I don't have exact page numbers, but Nietzsche says something about how the bow of the spirit might be strong and tight. Point is, no pain no gain.

 Quote:
What I'm seeing today is mostly a denial of metaphysics, in favor of a mere description of one's hedonistic lifestyle, in which "Satan" is merely a hood ornament.


So what's it going to be, the emotional tribulation or the hooded ornament?

What good is a philosophy if it can't be applied? I don't think Nietzsche denies the intellectual outright, but that it isn't applicable or useful if not validated through experience. One might call Nietzsche an intellectual. The importance is how one becomes such a thing. What is often termed as an 'intellectual' man is a goofy character in the eyes of Nietzsche.

Consider this:

Two men:

One sits by his fireplace in his nice warm study reading quotes from the Greeks. Lost in his own thought he allows himself to be seen as above other men believing himself great, since he lives up to what he's been told, that the ideal man rejects his brute animal nature.

Another man sits in the jungle, thirsty and hot, bitten by a bullet ant, exhausted, yet confident. He embraces the pain. He doesn't warship, but pays homage to his teachers: The Crane, The Mantis, The Monkey, The Tiger... The Snake.

He respects their beauty and ferocity. He empowers himself as animal, flesh muscle bone and mind. He lives his life in a way the first man could not do, let alone consider.

The Mountain Lion will always be a Devil to the house cat.

I'm still fairly new to Nietzsche, but I think what he's pointing out is that intellect in and of itself is not to be revered, but the experience and actions leading to it.

*Something recently caught my eye, in which he says that when passion is applied to the mud of a man's spirits, it becomes woe.

I've come to think maybe its better to apply passion to the coal. I'd rather have cinder than muck.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#113335 - 07/04/17 09:50 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
Two men:

Having been both men at various times in my Special Ops & academic careers, I'd opt for the first one. \:\)

The great classical philosophies can indeed be applied where they are intended as such where they are so intended; the greater problem is attmpted application by the inept instead of the adept.

Some philosophies, of course, are metaphilosophical, metaphysical, etc. and are intended to refine and exercise consciousness rather than be Boy Scout knives. There is ample room for both.

My cats' idea of the Devil is a vacuum cleaner.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113344 - 07/04/17 10:44 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
Interesting observations Dr. Aquino. I also impressed that you have said some of this is now coming to you, instead of being dishonest and saying, "eh, I knew this secret all along but just waited to say it."

Having just finished reading your CoS book and now into the appendixes of it, here is an observation about you, Sir:

You're mistake, was that you believed the LaVey's and never saw it coming. When you did, I think that it shattered you because you thought so highly of them and you knew that there was more to things based upon some of your own experiences and perhaps there is a part of you that has not recovered from that betrayal. I allow that I could be wrong, but that is what I got a sense of.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A. Aquino
This explains, among other things, why the "J/C West" has been so confounded by the very literal beliefs and motivated actions of Muslims. It is inconceivable that someone could take "religion" that seriously.


I have been saying this since 2003, when I had a letter to Playboy to this effect. The part of the United States that is it's saving grace is that while quite a few folks pay lip service to J/C there is also quite a bit of healthy doubt. This is something that a majority of the Muslim community doesn't have the luxury to employ.

Being in the military yourself, maybe you could answer this question for me: For years, I have wondered where our propaganda machines have been by way of exploiting their religious beliefs? I mean, stop and consider it, it isn't as though we haven't had hypocritical Christian radicals who haven't sat back and led others to do their bidding....it is just that we laugh at them for the most part. Now, why would I make the comparison? Because, something that I have also said for years: If your guys like bin Laden (for example) believed his own garbage, he wouldn't have been alive to tell the tale. He would have strapped a bomb to himself ages ago. So, much like our culture, I don't think that most of their preachers believe an ounce of the bullshit that they peddle either. They let the faithful flock believe.

Finally, and I couldn't help but laugh at this one,

 Originally Posted By: Michael A. Aquino
What I'm seeing today is mostly a denial of metaphysics, in favor of a mere description of one's hedonistic lifestyle, in which "Satan" is merely a hood ornament.


From everything that I have seen most of the members of the CoS are pretty g-rated. Hell, for the most part even the altars wear nipple pasties. Hedonism to them would be more along the lines of a bunch of loose fat women who likely couldn't get attention anywhere else.

Top
#113345 - 07/05/17 09:56 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Satanism as a religion posits a metaphysical as well as a physical reality. That was intentionally the premise of the original Church of Satan.


Meta, only insofar as there has always been a percentage of the population (albeit small) that have bucked the status quo, and rebel against anyone or anything that attempts to break their natural spirit. Satanism does not require the Church of Satan. Never has, Never Will.

 Quote:

What I'm seeing today is mostly a denial of metaphysics, in favor of a mere description of one's hedonistic lifestyle, in which "Satan" is merely a hood ornament.


Hood ornaments are useful. When you treat the thing representing your ideas as the idea itself, something has gone awry.

 Quote:

As detailed above, that would place you more as an Existentialist than a Satanist. This is meant descruptively, not insultingly.


I've never experienced existential crisis in my entire history. I don't foresee having one in the future either. I've always been astutely aware of my surroundings, including the people in it trying to sell me a line of bullshit. I've never cared for assigned roles, especially that of 'elders'. They don't always know best, their experiences are irrelevant to my own and I don't need them directing the course my life should take. Coming from dysfunction has taught me much. Especially what examples not to follow if I wanted to attain the things I wanted and live a happy life. It's worked out to my advantage thus far. The conflict and violence along that path is just par for the course.

 Quote:
The objection that I've most often encountered here is that "everyone can design and define 'Satanism' to suit himself". Once a term is reduced to personal whim, if ceases to have meaning in discussion.


I take issue with inaccurate meaning as well but that doesn't necessarily mean that I accept yours. The core of the thing remains stagnate, the static has always been *how* because no two lives are identical.

 Quote:
I might add that insistence upon complete self-definition is also characteristic of Existentialism. There is no "Existentialist Bible" or other consensus. That's what makes it so difficult to define except behaviorally.


In my observation, what you describe as "self-definition" isn't the sort I'd take issue with, it's the way you appear to want an Orthodox Practice that doesn't make much sense from where I'm sitting. Plenty of people can read up on any given method and still fail at life. In fact, over the decades I've seen plenty of people tow the party line of "I know what it means!" and live quite the opposite. It's then just a mask for their failures at attainment.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113353 - 07/06/17 03:37 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1159
Loc: San Diego, CA
 Quote:
I am now thinking that the real explanation was "hidden in plain sight": that J/C did and still does not exist in the USA as a bona-fide religion, but simply as a propaganda device [as per its description as a PSYCON


No shit. There were these "evil people" called Soviets, the OG terrorists. So how do you indoctrinate the nation? White Nationalism. The third Reich was carried over as an opposition to communism.

Yet, instead of "Master Race", America took the "Manifest destiny" route and chose, "One Nation" and added "Under God". Then made made every kid say it at the beginning of the day, just like a Hitler Youth.

Thus: the seeds of Jesus in Post WWII America was forged. The righteousness of America's godly "morally superior" way of life was then forced as the stated antithesis of those godless communists. 

 Quote:
What confronts 600C is the choice between merely continuing the street-fight or returning the Satanic side of the coin to an altogether higher metaphysical posture of principle.


The satanic side IS the street fight. "Higher metaphysical principles" is another way to be a passive fag and justify conflict aversion. Usually through some Nietzschian, "I am beyond your petty squabbles, and I know it's the nature of the world that makes you behave how you do. As a ______, I am above this!

The go to of Sci-fi nerds and traditional Buddhists alike...
_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#113357 - 07/06/17 07:55 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: CanisMachina42]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
I've never experienced existential crisis in my entire history.


I know it goes against the idea of 'gnosis,' but do you need to have such a crisis event to understand Nietzsche?

I agree that many people go wild over how 'absurd' life is, but as you have said before, only in comparison to something else.

Life is what it is, personally I've only been human once. How much do we really know?

 Originally Posted By: CM
another way to be a passive fag and justify conflict aversion. Usually through some Nietzschian, "I am beyond your petty squabbles, and I know it's the nature of the world that makes you behave how you do. As a ______, I am above this!

The go to of Sci-fi nerds and traditional Buddhists alike...


Don't forget to add all Satanic/adversarial orders to that list.

Like I said, street fights have been going on through recorded history. What's really changed? If you ask me, just the hood ornaments. Even those 'action based' are no different.

Some people avoid the conflict altogether because they have experience, or they simply haven't observed a reasonable outcome. Just because you take action or seek 'gnosis' doesn't mean you're going to be better off in the long run. The norm exists because action is taken. Stupidity is a consequence of it. Point being, those who live their lives pissed at society for its unjust/stupid behaviour seldom reveal anything unique.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#113358 - 07/06/17 09:21 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1159
Loc: San Diego, CA
 Quote:
Don't forget to add all Satanic/adversarial orders to that list.


To a point, but that comes later after you've faught your battles.

 If Satanism is about learning the ways of your own mind, transending your own behavior, and always using rationale to find the path the is best for you, regardless of what other people say or do: Then it all goes out the window when you get pushed on principle. Satanism speaks more to the drive to keep a position even when beaten into a corner holding it.

 Quote:
Like I said, street fights have been going on through recorded history. What's really changed? If you ask me, just the hood ornaments. Even those 'action based' are no different.


It's what drives the fight, in my opinion. It's heavily personalized. There are no "hood ornaments" because it's special order. 

Principled rebellion, like Lucifer.

 Quote:
Some people avoid the conflict altogether because they have experience, or they simply haven't observed a reasonable outcome. Just because you take action or seek 'gnosis' doesn't mean you're going to be better off in the long run.


I'm willing to speculate a truly combative (incited by something) core Satanist is not really thinking in terms of consequence. So fucking what if the position becomes more adverse?  Principles matter more than prosperity, wealth, and happiness. And sometimes that leads to your "reward cookie" being crumbled into tiny pieces.

 Quote:
The norm exists because action is taken. Stupidity is a consequence of it. Point being, those who live their lives pissed at society for its unjust/stupid behaviour seldom reveal anything unique.


Unless it is the ONLY path to inner attainment and peace.  In those cases it's rarely society but a single sticking point that draws the need for that response. Like being told what you should place value in. How that resonates in terms of originality is irrelevant.

*Like a band throwing away a record deal with a major label over "creative control" to moonlight at their weekly bar gig instead.

Integrity doesn't necessarily equate to prosperity.
_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#113359 - 07/06/17 10:39 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
I've never experienced existential crisis in my entire history.

I know it goes against the idea of 'gnosis,' but do you need to have such a crisis event to understand Nietzsche?

It's not necessary to have a "crisis" in order to be an Existentialist, nor of course to grok Freddy N.

Presumably the "crisis" theme is the result of Sartre's Nausea, in which the protagonist goes bananas once he realizes that he exists.

You don't have to be wacko to be a Satanist either, but it helps. \:\/
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 1 of 7 12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.