Page 4 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#31996 - 11/20/09 10:40 AM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: CJB]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Hmm..."Reason". Hume can shed some light on this, I believe:

 Quote:
Take any action allow’d to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but ’tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it.


Satanism is much more Humean and anti-rationalist than it is dependent on Reason for guidance...I mean, if you want to be an Objectivist then go straight ahead, but what precisely it has to do with Satanism is unclear to me. I suppose if one had a poor enough understanding of free marketeers, one could argue that the free market "forces" responsibility on others, etc. And that's fine, but something altogether different from Rand's body (shudder) of thought.

 Quote:
A lot of the ethics in Objectivism are complementary to Satanism, as well. Satanism does advocate "might makes right," while Objectivism is more into protecting those less mighty from abuse by the mighty.


"Might makes right" is what we're left with when we clear the air of all the ethical/moral fog...once we realize that "God is dead", so to speak, we become free to engage in a revaluation of values, but primarily for ourselves. And even then, our intuition is just as valid a source of moral judgment as our so-called reason...i.e. "might makes right" doesn't reduce us to accepting 'might' solutions to resolve ethical dilemmas; I just watched part of the Zeena LaVey interview w/Bob Larson, and his incessant nagging about the Holocaust makes for a good point here. Zeena and the Werewolf never made it explicit that just because ethical labels are reduced to "Boo" and "Hurray" does not mean others should feel some kind of obligation not to involve themselves. But neither do those who wish to get involved to stop something they find intuitively wrong require some sort of logical syllogism to do so...just do!

This is kind of the crux of the LaVey-Nietzsche connection...whereas the theist and the so-called RHPers are defined by a "care for this world", are spurred into action by bad conscience and ressentiment, the real Overman transcends both the Master and the Slave. The Master embodies these aristocratic values that Nietzsche generally applauds (but on the whole, finds boring) precisely because he is detached from this world...consider the fact that the old aristocrats did not work for a living, divorced from the most base human drama of 'the herd', living very much in the moment by pursuing little pleasures and indulging in certain aspects of life. But, on the whole, a rather stuffy lot still very much attached to notions of duty, responsibility, etc.

What's the relevance of all this nonsense? To be an Overman, you have to get Over it. Move beyond "care for this world" and turn it inwards, direct it at yourself, those you love, and the things you love (remember: the 'blond beast' falls between the beast of burden and the creative child. We need to stop being so stuck in the middle!). Why should Satanists be so attached to a political philosophy largely composed of the antithesis of many Satanic beliefs, and espoused by a deeply embittered and resentful, ugly little woman? Why involve onself so deeply "in this world" by posturing as an Objectivist; why commit your emotions to an ultimately meaningless, impossible struggle, that will just cause you frustration and angst throughout your journey?

Of course, you're more than welcome to...if this is your passion then so be it, but if anything is deserving of critical inquiry it's the deification of Reason and its bastard offspring.


Edited by ballbreaker (11/20/09 11:16 AM)

Top
#31997 - 11/20/09 11:20 AM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: CJB]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: CJB
I'm not as well-versed in other philosophical systems (as of yet...I usually stop studying one after I find some core tenet I strongly disagree with), so other philosophical systems may round out Satanism as well or better than Objectivism.


I just want to add briefly here...the only other philosophies that will go nicely with Satanism are the ones that are unconcerned with talk of ethics. Many postmodernists actually fit the bill here; while they're generally caught up studying power relations, they don't believe there's anything significant they can say about 'ethics' and are only happy to criticize yours.

Top
#32006 - 11/20/09 03:36 PM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: ballbreaker]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Not gonna really (try to) argue (discuss) too much with you too much, mostly because of infamiliarity with the subject matter: I haven't read too much Hume, as unfortunately most texts dealing with him are dry as hell, and just haven't gotten around to reading much Nietzsche yet, but I'll probably rectify that in the future.
And...if you think I'm an idiot, and just reading a bit on the relevant philosophies and I'll understand (if not agree) where you're coming from, that's fine, too.

 Originally Posted By: ballbreaker

Satanism is much more Humean and anti-rationalist than it is dependent on Reason for guidance...


So...where do you get guidance from then, if not reason? Our intuition? "I've got a bad feeling about this" doesn't tell me how to get out of the bad situation. Don't get me wrong, intuition is an important part of the whole, but it shouldn't just be used by itself.
I've always seen the main premise or Satanic morality as similar to the main premise of Objectivism: rational selfishness. I'm pressed for time right now, but I think LaVey himself once said something along those lines.

I do have (what I think, anyway) reasons on why not to randomly murder people, or commit genocide, or whatever...I do not know what contribution to society (and therefore, me) a person will make in the future. Odds are that he's not going to do something to tragically reverse the flow of human advancement, and it's more likely that he'll do something beneficial to me (even if the likelihood of that versus he'll do nothing for me or against me are still slim).
Now, another reason I don't murder is because I don't want to go to jail, but if you take away that, there are exceptions to the rule: people I would nod doubt like to kill (or at least harm greatly). Usually they're big assholes, and while I don't know if they'll make the fucking Flux Capacitor in the future, I do know they're hurting me now, so fuck them.

The "problem" with "might makes right" is that A) I know I piss some other people off, too and B) some of these other people are "mightier" than me in many respects. That's why I like laws: it gives me an upper hand. So long as I'm not breaking any laws, the law is on my side, and the law is pretty fuckin' mighty.

 Quote:

What's the relevance of all this nonsense? To be an Overman, you have to get Over it. Move beyond "care for this world" and turn it inwards, direct it at yourself, those you love, and the things you love (remember: the 'blond beast' falls between the beast of burden and the creative child. We need to stop being so stuck in the middle!).


I'm not advocating putting the world ahead of yourself, but why wouldn't you want to care about where you live? Yourself, those you love, and the things you love are all part of this world...so the statement is a bit self-contradictory. Maybe don't care about anything in this world...except the things you care about?

Yeah, I'll probably have to read Nietzsche to even attempt to understand where you're coming from here.

And, just out of curiosity, do you think there's a political system that defines Satanism? Or is it that (from what the Overman bit sounds like) a Satanist just shouldn't give a shit about any of it?
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32042 - 11/21/09 10:31 AM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: CJB]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: CJB
So...where do you get guidance from then, if not reason? Our intuition? "I've got a bad feeling about this" doesn't tell me how to get out of the bad situation.


Well that quote from Hume is with regards to ethics in specific. It is really just saying that when we label things 'right/good' and 'wrong/evil', we are doing nothing more than giving voice to our emotional reactions to certain acts. The "reason" comes afterwards; i.e. we "rationalize" our feelings.

Like I said, this anti-rationalism doesn't mean that Hume's emotions led him by the nose for his life...reason and passion work together, we couldn't separe them if we tried. In fact, the separation of reason and passion is a false dichotomy, and Hume's quote should really help to show us that the two work dialectically.

So just because, say, your Gaydar is going off, doesn't mean you're 'correct', or that you should follow it to the letter. You could of course, but as far as making life choices in actual scenarios is concerned, Hume doesn't expect anyone to just "go with the flow" (if comics are your thing, a good example of this is the Joker in the Arkham Asylum graphic novel...his mind is incapable of giving order to all the chaos he picks up with his senses, and so he is unable to give meaning to anything, simply 'going with the flow', a polite clown one day and a murderous lunatic the next instant).

So back to the point...ethics and morality are highly emotional issues. When you keep questioning why you hold particular beliefs over others, ultimately it is because you feel like it. Every philosophical system out there possesses an astounding degree of internal logic; i.e. once we get past a given philosophy's axioms or 'starting point', they generally tend to be sound in the logic dept. Marxism is only "wrong", for example, if we presuppose certain concepts, frameworks, etc. that aren't already part of Marx's system.

To give a concrete example to this...imagine Ayn Rand having a debate w/Karl Marx. Well, the respective philosophers' epistemological and ontological presuppositions means that they are effectively speaking at one another in radically different languages. Similar words might pop up, but they take on different meanings because of the philosophical context they're placed in by each thinker. If we wanted to place judgment on some philosophy for being correct or incorrect, only by situating ourselves within this context can we have meaningful discussion....this is why debates within a particular philosophical camp is full of much more content and communication than two different camps having at one another (imagine engaging in conversation with a classical liberal and saying you don't care for equality before the law as a principle, or freedom is a joke....well, the two of you are now reduced to talking about what your favorite movies are, since you've pretty much abolished the foundations for philosophical discussion of liberalism).

So what does this imply, in sum? Well, if we can't truly grasp a given philosophy without disposing of our presuppositions and emersing ourselves within a 'discourse', and most philosophies possess 'internal' logic (i.e. we can't look at, say, one particular conclusion reached by a thinker and pick away at it, since it does nothing to deal w/the premises), then we only opt into particular philosophies over others because of emotional attachments. In this sense, theology does not differ from most philosophy, since at some point it requires not only a leap of faith, but some emotional disposition towards one language over another.

Does this make sense?

 Quote:
I've always seen the main premise or Satanic morality as similar to the main premise of Objectivism: rational selfishness.


Actually, I believe rational selfishness is a converging conclusion of each system, but not a premise. I.e. because of certain realties, we should behave as rational, self-interested actors. In one case, we need not obey any law beyond ourselves (which makes Satanism a bit of a special case in this sense), in another, we need to obey the principle of self-ownership and its discontents.

 Quote:
I do have (what I think, anyway) reasons on why not to randomly murder people, or commit genocide


Well you don't need reasons not to...you don't need a logical syllogism to tell you that killing is 'wrong' if you feel it is. But primarily I'd say you aren't doing any killing because you're either 'never in the mood' or, if you were, the reality of law enforcement cools you down. But what I was alluding to earlier was not 'rational restraint' but reason's role in ethics.

 Quote:
I'm not advocating putting the world ahead of yourself, but why wouldn't you want to care about where you live? Yourself, those you love, and the things you love are all part of this world


I don't think we're in disagreement here. My point is that you don't need some consciously adopted ethical framework to be able to care for the things that matter in this world. It was a mistake to use the term "care for this world", it has its own sort of meaning detached from what it literally appears to be (i.e. of course everyone should care for the things in the world, we're in the world! lol but that isn't precisely what it means, my mistake).

 Quote:
And, just out of curiosity, do you think there's a political system that defines Satanism? Or is it that (from what the Overman bit sounds like) a Satanist just shouldn't give a shit about any of it?


Well we live in a democratic system (most of us on the board, anyways). Cursing daily that we're not in some weird meritocracy with Lex Talionis as the legal standard for burglars is wishful thinking. You will never have a political party (successfully) espousing Satanic values and taking elections, so the best you can hope to do is throw your miniscule electoral weight behind a party that you believe will institute Satanic values (if you even give a shit about 'Satanic' policies at all...I don't care). If you want certain policies to apply to everyone, then go ahead and vote for a party that will do it, and vice versa (you know what I mean). But beyond that there's no political system that necessarily applies to an amoral person; if you are able to detach yourself from the meaningless bits of real life, and you're defined by a lack of care for what happens in the political arena, then why should you do anything? For example...imagine that because we've been reading the Satanic Bible too much and internalizing this idea of 'responsibility', welfare now makes us really mad...this is a good example of not "caring for this world"...what impact does this actually have on your life? Is it worth your emotional investment? I can't tell you you're right or wrong to care...but I think that a comfortable amoral person is defined by a lack of care except in special circumstances. If you have good reason to believe welfare is causing a spike in crime in your neighborhood, then this might be a better reason to wish to reduce. I.e. when we've rejected ethics, all we have left is 'function' and 'instrumentalism'.

If, on the other hand, the local evangelicals taking over town council somehow represents a direct assault on your well being, then go do something about it. It's a case by case thing; I think a Satanist could have equally valid reasons for desiring a Scandinavian-style welfare state as he might an anarcho-capitalist polity. This is because Satanism to me doesn't represent a political philosophy but a personal one...and once we accept the philosophy's underlying principles (or perhaps my interpretation of it's underlying principles) it should be clear that there is no moral imperative (no moral imperatives at all, really) to 'do' anything but enjoy this world to its fullest, free from mental cages.


Edited by ballbreaker (11/21/09 11:05 AM)

Top
#32577 - 12/06/09 10:32 AM Roman Polanski [Re: Macumba]
BFranklin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/27/09
Posts: 33
Loc: Boston
Roman Polanski is a known child molester. He also did the deed in another person's home and, assuming the host (Jack Nicholson) was not privvy to the crime taking place in his own home, that was a swipe at the host. Then, Polanski ran away from the consequences of his actions. I admit that I am new to the religion and still researching it, but that sure doesn't seem to mesh with the Satanic statements in my opinion.
_________________________
"Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-B Franklin

Top
#32578 - 12/06/09 11:17 AM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: BFranklin]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
To the best of my knowledge, neither Roman Polanski nor Jack Nicholson are Satanists. I never saw their names on any of the paperwork that I was privy to. So, what THEY did would hardly be an issue to what a Satanist who was following the Satanic Statements might be expected to do. For a Satanist who DOES, there would definitely be a disconnect.

And I think you must be confusin the Nine Satanic Statements with The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.

The Nine Satanic Statements are:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!


The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth are:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#32579 - 12/06/09 11:55 AM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: Jake999]
BFranklin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/27/09
Posts: 33
Loc: Boston
Yes, I confused the TITLES of the two lists - sorry. That's a good lesson for myself in sloppiness. But, the principles of not harming children, and showing a person respect in his own home, are there just the same.

I'm not sure how "paperwork" fits into this, though? The person I was responding to was giving Polanski as an example of someone who lived up to the Satanic IDEAL, and I attempted to refute that. I think the issue of whether or not a person is an example of a given ideal depends on how that ideal is defined, regardless of whether they sign up for anything or not.

Anyway, maybe I was hasty. I'll keep reading and lurk some more before I post anything else.
_________________________
"Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-B Franklin

Top
#32580 - 12/06/09 11:56 AM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: Jake999]
BFranklin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/27/09
Posts: 33
Loc: Boston
..and thank you.
_________________________
"Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-B Franklin

Top
#32581 - 12/06/09 12:08 PM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: BFranklin]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
A person could very well live a "satanic" lifestyle in some parts of his/her life, but be far from an example of a Satanist. Simple hedonism is hedonism. Simple greed is simple greed. Nothing cues a specific psychological trait as being inherently Satanic.

I've noticed that most often, given one's natural selection of options, most people will select one that most suits their own needs, which could be seen as "satanic," but in reality, is most closely associated with simply being instinctual behavior. Where we as humans tend to muddle things is when we begin to think of things as strictly "satanic" or some other coloration of philosophy. I live in dread of the time I hear people start saying, "Why, that was mighty Satanic of you," much as they now say, "That was mighty Christian of you."

Poldanski was simply a child molester who got caught and couldn't do the time for the crime. He'd be sleaze if he was a Satanist or a Buddhist.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#32603 - 12/06/09 10:21 PM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: BFranklin]
Thomas Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/06/09
Posts: 23
Aside from his criminalistic endeavors....
My favorite Roman Polanski movie would have to be The Ninth Gate.


Here in this site you can make your own book. \:\)
The Nine Gates to the Kingdom of Shadows
_________________________
Delete this profile.

Top
#32605 - 12/06/09 11:57 PM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: Thomas]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
The Ninth Gate was very interesting. I enjoyed the forlorn striving of the Faustian bargain, and it's end result. All you self-serving atheistic satanists should be right there with me on that. Kisses. ;\)

Edited by GillesdeRais (12/07/09 12:05 AM)
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#33865 - 01/11/10 10:00 PM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: ballbreaker]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: ballbreaker
So while it looks like LaVey is aping Rand at certain moments, I don't think it is anything more than a similarity of style and prose; nowhere in LaVey do I see the puritanical influences of Rand's natural rights/law leanings, or any of the more central tenets of objectivism. Rand isn't espousing anything like 'might is right'; even her fierce support for, say, Israel against the Palestinians is a little more nuanced than simply showering the guy w/the bigger guns w/praise.


Ayn Rand was a big influence on me. I only broke with her philosophy when I broke with good and evil, something she never did.

She was an empiricist, a materialist, and an Atheist, all of which I heartily endorese. She also saw rightly that altruism is a lie. What she didn't see is that all morality is a lie. As a result she never became what I would call a Satanist, although she had her hand on Hell's doorknob.

She thought she had to incorporate moral right and wrong into her system, so as to provide a fully functioning compass by which to navigate life. I came to see this as a mistake. Moral right and wrong are plot threads in an epic fantasy of which humanity has been the author and the audience for several thousand years at least. Fantasy is a poor compass needle for navigating reality. Better by far than the false dichotomy of moral right and wrong are the real, practical, and potent dichotomies of wanted and unwanted, smart and stupid, brave and cowardly, and disciplined and lazy. Identifying the left hand of each pair in any situation is all the compass anyone ever needs.

Having said all that, I still find much in Ayn Rand to admire and emulate. My favorite of her books has always been, and still is, The Fountainhead, in which we bask in the afternoon sun of Howard Roark's long, loud Fuck You to social pressure. All one needs to do is take this a step further, and make it a Fuck You to internalized social pressure, which is the Superego, and one's foot will have crossed the threshold into Hell, that place that sits beyond good and evil, and whose cloven-footed denizens breathe the fresh air of mental liberation.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33917 - 01/13/10 03:15 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Volvagia]
Miss May Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/27/09
Posts: 66
Loc: sebastopol, CA
Even those who follow a delusion can be satanic in theory. They may follow the philosophy of Satanism without even knowing it. Some people are just born as satanists.
Top
#33921 - 01/13/10 03:29 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Miss May]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
There is absolutely NOTHING Satanic about entertaining delusions. No matter how comfortable that delusion might be.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#33978 - 01/14/10 12:50 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: FromGehenna]
Master Magick Offline
pledge


Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 63
Loc: New York, USA
This is an old post, but it's still being replied to so I'll add my thoughts...

If you don't know the answer to your question as you are writing it then you don't really understand or want to know anything about Satanism.

What Satanist anywhere on this planet would "come out" to thier own benefit? There is almost no situation where this would further your cause. I have been Satanic and successful virtually all my life. I'm not Spielberg or Obama successful but I do Ok. Would proclaiming I am a Satanist help me at all in my endeavors? Probably not. Wake up and smell the coffee. There's nothing wrong with working within the confines of the situation as long as it serves me and my desires. If you want to play for the "winning team", find another belief system.
_________________________
Magick

Top
Page 4 of 5 <12345>


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

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.