Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#34366 - 01/22/10 12:22 AM Re: Virtu [Re: Baron dHolbach]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
 Quote:
"In its earliest Greek expressions, "virtue" denoted the superlative prowess of the heroic warrior..."

Early, but not perfected. I think Aristotle successfully changed that tune for the better...Though I'll readily admit, your Nietzschean musings have me intrigued. Did Nietzsche ever even try to define virtue? I'll admit that I read some of his stuff a long time ago, but I wouldn't admit that I 'got it', it was way to subtle for me when I was in college. Please, enlighten me...! \:\)
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#34369 - 01/22/10 02:29 AM Nietzsche in a Nutshell [Re: GillesdeRais]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: GillesdeRais
Did Nietzsche ever even try to define virtue? I'll admit that I read some of his stuff a long time ago, but I wouldn't admit that I 'got it', it was way to subtle for me when I was in college. Please, enlighten me...! \:\)

From my 1984 summary in the Ruby Tablet of Set:

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) completed and published his major theoretical works Also Sprach Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil ca. 1885. He was an Atheist and a materialist, insisting that the universe [or world] of appearances is the only true one. He carries this principle into his assessment of humanity by denying any “dual existence” within the body (i.e. soul vs. physical body). Man is a unified, material being. Nietzsche defines the Will to Power as the inherent compulsion of any being to create and control its environment and interactions with other beings. Its ultimate expression in society is the creation of values by which other beings will live and be governed.

Nietzsche attacks the Hegelian view of rational history, asserting that it is full of “blindness, madness, and injustice”. By attacking “history as God”, of course, Nietzsche attacks any demonstrations of God which are justified by a “rational, logical” historical dialectic. Past events, says Nietzsche, are valuable to the extent that they serve as monumental models of past greatness, antiquarian mementos of tradition, and objects for critical analysis leading to the destruction of erroneous values in favor of the construction of better ones. Abuse of the first leads to the mistaken idea that the past can or will come again; abuse of the second leads to detachment from the present; abuse of the third leads to a pessimism wherein one sees only the failures of things, unconsciously neglecting their positive legacy.

Nietzsche interprets Hegel as saying that history had now reached its perfection in the contemporary German state system. Nietzsche sees danger in this because it would lead to lassitude on the part of modern man, who would feel “there is nothing more to be done”.

Man differs from other animals, says Nietzsche, in that he has the power to “create horizons” - to construct visions, ideas, and ultimately philosophical systems. These horizons are meaningful to him unless he perceives them as artificial constructs. In that case he either destroys them in favor of newer, larger horizons or degrades himself by an artificial, hypocritical self-limitation to a horizon he knows is false.

Plato is wrong, says Nietzsche, in assuming there to be absolute values (the Theory of the Forms). It is rather the case that all truths are situational and relative. Hence the great virtues are supra-rational. They cannot be explained by logic, as Nietzsche accuses Socrates of trying to do. [Nietzsche is wrong; the Platonic Dialogues provide for nœtic apprehension of the Forms, not logical construction or analysis of them. Moreover a Form is not a static concept.]

Nietzsche’s attack on Hegel and Plato leaves his man in a very “naked” and self-dependent position. He has no gods, no values, no progressive history - nothing external to help him. Thus disillusioned, he is strongly tempted to abandon all aspirations and live only for self-gratification and comfort. This is Nietzsche’s “last man”. He seeks neither power nor social inequalities; he wants society “leveled” - everyone the same. “‘We have invented happiness,’ say the last men, and they blink.” [Nietzsche considered Marx to be the prophet of the “last man” ideology.]

Nietzsche lashes out at the states of his time because he feels that they are tending towards the “last man” condition. This is also his essential objection to Christianity and democracy: They destroy man’s creative powers and opportunities to distinguish himself in society.

As the democratic world becomes more cynical of governments and disillusioned by religion, it will gradually polarize into the haves (bourgeoisie) and have-nots (socialists). There is no justification for the acquisitions and possessions of the bourgeoisie; they result from petty self-gratification. What the bourgeoisie actually fear from socialist movements is that they will take the acquisitions and possessions. Nietzsche has comparable contempt for the socialists/radical left because they insist on ignoring “the actual inequality of man”. Hence the ideal socialist state is simply a tyranny of the most inferior and the most stupid.

Since all ideals, all horizons have been shown to be false, the creative individual reacts against this intolerable movement towards the “last man” with an impulse of nihilism. Nihilism as Nietzsche conceives it is a psychological sickness, a tendency towards self-destruction born of resentment of one’s perceived impotence in the face of a terrible, degenerate, yet seemingly inevitable future. This nihilism, continues Nietzsche, is false and unnecessary. It is caused by moral training [in particular Christianity] which suggests that we must be forgiven for existing, that life is a burden, that self-love is sinful. One must wrench oneself free of this “Spirit of Gravity” and unleash one’s creative capability: the Will to Power. He who successfully accomplishes this is Nietzsche’s “superman”. The superman is not necessarily a political leader or despot, though he will be the architect of values by which society lives. He is a “horizon maker”, a supremely creative artist. He is not the product of any particular country or race, but rather of a purely mental evolution.

Nietzsche considers war to be an energizing, revitalizing influence in politics, deterring the otherwise sluggish descent towards the “last man”. “For the present, wars provide the greatest agitation of the imagination after all Christian raptures and horrors have grown stale.” But Nietzsche does not love war for its destructiveness. He says: “And perhaps a great day will come when a people, distinguished through war and victories, voluntarily proclaims: ‘We break the sword.’ Disarming oneself, from an intensity of feeling, while one is the best armed: That is the means to real peace.”

Yet Nietzsche does not hold out much hope for a rescue of humanity by his supermen. Around him he sees only the march towards the “last man”, leading to a “succession of several martial centuries that have no equal in history … We have entered the classical age of war on the largest scale, the age of scientific war with popular national support.” Looking ahead he sees “Signs of the next (20th) century: The entrance of Russia into culture. A grandiose goal. The proximity of barbarism. Awakening of the arts, magnanimity of youth, and fantastic madness.”
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34372 - 01/22/10 04:03 AM Re: Nietzsche in a Nutshell [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
 Quote:
he sees only the march towards the “last man”

Gosh, sounds a lot like the end of Clarke's 'Childhood's End' to me. I really hope Karellen isn't the light at the end of the metaphysical tunnel, so to speak. Perhaps I'm too stuck up on Aristotelian virtue to understand the nihilistic GERMANIC world view of Nietzsche. Beyond Good and Evil? Enjoy!


Edited by GillesdeRais (01/22/10 04:05 AM)
Edit Reason: to vs too oops :)
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#34374 - 01/22/10 04:42 AM Re: Nietzsche in a Nutshell [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Nietzsche’s attack on Hegel and Plato leaves his man in a very “naked” and self-dependent position. He has no gods, no values, no progressive history - nothing external to help him. Thus disillusioned, he is strongly tempted to abandon all aspirations and live only for self-gratification and comfort. This is Nietzsche’s “last man”. He seeks neither power nor social inequalities; he wants society “leveled” - everyone the same. “‘We have invented happiness,’ say the last men, and they blink.” [Nietzsche considered Marx to be the prophet of the “last man” ideology.]

Nietzsche lashes out at the states of his time because he feels that they are tending towards the “last man” condition. This is also his essential objection to Christianity and democracy: They destroy man’s creative powers and opportunities to distinguish himself in society.


Thank you for posting those two paragraphs. I am composing a post attacking my own proposed ethical stance, and a lot of my intuition aligns with the above. In the end, Eudemonic Aretaic Consequentialism isn't Nietzschean enough for me, and the above provides a good prologue into what I will be saying.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34375 - 01/22/10 05:49 AM Re: (Ethics) Eudemonic Aretaic Consequentialism [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
Satanic vice: Any attribute of yours that produces unhappiness for you in this life.

So now let this stand as my Satanic Ethics:

Eudemonic Aretaic Consequentialism: (1) Cultivate your Satanic virtues; (2) Exterminate your Satanic vices; (3) Look for signs of both in your life; (4) Experiment with whatever you think could become a Satanic virtue for you.


I will now attack my own proposed ethical stance from the standpoint of five objections, the first one ultimately falling away as unimportant in my view, but the remaining four being too telling to ignore from my perspective.

I am abbreviating Eudemonic Aretaic Consequentialism as EAC.

Objection 1: EAC could be adopted by serial killers and cleptomaniacs without any logical inconsistency.

Objection 2: EAC assumes falsely that happiness is the highest aim of Satanism.

Objection 3: EAC isn't self-reverential enough.

Objection 4: EAC isn't self-overcoming enough.

Objection 5: EAC doesn't sufficiently support and encourage the will to power.


 Quote:
Objection 1: EAC could be adopted by serial killers and cleptomaniacs without any logical inconsistency.


The first objection states a fact. Nothing in EAC will dissuade the abovementioned personality types. Still, I don't think a Satanic ethics needs to do that, or even to try, for reasons that I will summarize as the following:

The Four Realistic Expectations
1. Ethics are irrelevant to psychopaths.

2. Satanism is the last philosophy any ruling elite would ever publicly endorse, so there will never be a Satanic legislature, which means Satanic ethics are irrelevant to lawmaking.

3. Satanic parents will teach their children the happiness that comes of pounding bullies and thieves into the dirt.

4. The Satanic community, such as it is, will be very unhappy if one of its members becomes a liability due to ill-considered behavior.

Therefore I think a Satanic ethics should err on the side of possibly excess individualism, even potential anarchy, rather than trying to offer prohibitions that would in the end be too limiting to any who take the Devil as self-image.

 Quote:
Objection 2: EAC assumes falsely that happiness is the highest aim of Satanism.


This one is foreshadowed by my post immediately previous on this thread, wherein I thank Doctor Aquino for posting two particular paragraphs on the topic of Nietzsche. I think there are things that a Satanist may logically and passionately be willing to sacrifice happiness for. The remaining three objections, discussed below, rise up directly out of this one. Self-reverence, self-overcoming, and the will to power are all worth enough to such as I, and perhaps to such as you, to make unhappiness an acceptable bargain.

One of the best treatments of the above insight that I have ever read is Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead, which is far and away my favorite of all her writings. In it, Howard Roark spends considerable amounts of time in a condition I could only call unhappy, yet he does it willingly, proudly, fiercely, out of an uncompromising commitment to self-reverence, self-overcoming, and the will to power, in his case the power to design architectural triumphs.

 Quote:
Objection 3: EAC isn't self-reverential enough.


There is some self-reverence in EAC. Aiming constantly at one's own happiness surely affirms the self as valuable, important, even sacred. But it doesn't rise to the level of autotheism, or, to use my preferred word, autodemonolatry. There is no consciousness of innate superiority in it, no elitism, no celebration of vanity, no delight in one's own sophistication or one's own strength. This is a fatal flaw, in my view.

 Quote:
Objection 4: EAC isn't self-overcoming enough.


There is some self-overcoming in EAC. One who embraces EAC is taking complete ownership of (1) one's own happiness; (2) one's own unhappiness; and (3) the need to personally overcome absolutely anything in oneself that gets in the way of the first or perpetuates the second. Planting new seeds in oneself and pruning dead branches in oneself are acts of self-overcoming. But I want more in any ethics I would personally embrace. I don't want self-overcoming to merely be implied, or to merely be the means to other ends. I don't want self-overcoming to serve happiness, but rather, if need be, I want happiness to serve, even to be sacrificed for, self-overcoming. My Devil has too much Howard Roark in him for me to commit to anything less.

 Quote:
Objection 5: EAC doesn't sufficiently support and encourage the will to power.


This is the most damning of all. EAC leaves utterly unasked any question of what in fact it is that makes you happy. Sure, if you happen to be motivated by the will to power, then EAC will lead you to actualize that will. But if you haven't awakened the will to power in yourself, or it hasn't been awakened by circumstance, then EAC will never point you in that direction. What good is a Devil with no will to power? Fooey.

So there you have it. I would say I need to go back to the drawing board, but actually this post has already established three principles that any Satanic ethics worthy of the name must honor above all else, namely, self-reverence, self-overcoming, and the will to power. So the chalk is already in my hand and the blackboard already has writing on it. There's more to say, but some things worth saying have been said.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34377 - 01/22/10 06:38 AM Re: (Ethics) Eudemonic Aretaic Consequentialism [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
The below is a quote from part of the introduction to the little book I wrote. It is mostly a matter of uncommon common sense. I don't think you have to mentally masturbate in order to make Satanism suit you. It either fits or it doesn't.

"You have to learn more, focus more, and drive yourself harder so that when you look in the mirror, you know who you are, and what you have accomplished. It is the matter of creating a legacy that you can be proud of. One that shows who you are, what you feel, and what you are inside.

It is taking responsibility for your choices and drives. Understanding and accepting responsibility for your personal choices. Realizing that your actions have consequences in the real world, and accepting them. Knowing what you want, and what you have to do to get it. Knowing that if you settle, you only hold yourself back.

If you are not happy with a given situation, Fucking Change It. Stop whining and complaining, your Life is in your own hands and no great spirit from beyond is going to rescue you from your own stupidity. It's about accepting nothing less than everything you desire, as long as you are willing to work for it.

It's about challenging your mental, physical, and emotional limits, and pushing beyond it. You are only as stupid as you allow yourself to be. You are only as weak as you want to be. No one can make you a victim except yourself. You stand up for what you believe in and are strong/smart enough to support it. You set various goals, and work to achieve them. If that’s too fucking hard to do, then maybe you should put this book down now, and go read porn."


In it, I also mention how "As a Satanist it is the internal Force of Will to succeed that counts most."


Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#34419 - 01/23/10 06:07 AM Re: (Ethics) Satan's Trident [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
Point 1: The term Satan's trident will denote Satanism's three defining virtues, namely, self-reverence, self-overcoming, and the will to power.

Point 2: The born Satanist instinctively grasps/affirms/defends/incarnates Satan's trident whereas other human beings do not.

Point 3: Any philosophy can be evaluated as to its affinity with Satanism by evaluating its position or lack thereof with respect to Satan's trident.

Point 4: Nietzsche's philosophy consistently and adamantly affirmed and defended Satan's trident and that is why the born Satanaist finds a kindred spirit in Nietzsche.

Point 5: The born Satanist will wield Satan's trident even if the consequences may be harsh or even dire, and so Satanism isn't consequentialist; furthermore, the born Satanist will wield Satan's trident without any need for arguments as to why doing so fulfills some imagined obligation or imagined directive, and so Satanism isn't deontological; therefore, Satanism is the simplest and purest example of the aretaic.

Point 6: Satan's trident has survival value, as each of its three tines yields a survival advantage: (a) self-reverence compels a focus on one's own strategic and tactical position; (b) self-overcoming cultivates strengths and exterminates weaknesses; (c) the will to power aims at the bullseye in any natural selection game of darts, for that bullseye is always power, so long as power is understood broadly enough, such that a rabbit's speed and a chameleon's camouflage are powers.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34434 - 01/23/10 03:52 PM Re: (Ethics) Satan's Trident [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I hate to have to be the one to point this out, but Satanism is really in no need of either redefinition or step by step clarification. It's good that you are figuring things out but don't pretend to be speaking for anyone besides yourself.

Satanism is autodeification. Rule your subjective universe as you see fit, and use your Satanic might to shape your situation to your will. It's that simple, and those that get it already know this, deep down, without having to have it be spelled out. Those that do need it spelled out will never get it anyway. You can't learn to be a Satanist.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34443 - 01/23/10 06:42 PM Re: (Ethics) Satan's Trident [Re: Dan_Dread]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
I hate to have to be the one to point this out, but Satanism is really in no need of either redefinition or step by step clarification. It's good that you are figuring things out but don't pretend to be speaking for anyone besides yourself.


How would anyone here pretend to be speaking for anyone else? I suppose someone could pretend to be the leader of some organization. But aside from something like that, it seems obvious to me that each of us speaks only for the self. We all certainly get plenty of pushback whenever soneone disagrees with something we said. \:\)

 Quote:
Satanism is autodeification. Rule your subjective universe as you see fit, and use your Satanic might to shape your situation to your will. It's that simple, and those that get it already know this, deep down, without having to have it be spelled out. Those that do need it spelled out will never get it anyway. You can't learn to be a Satanist.


Well said. But couldn't I now complain that you just pretended to speak for me and others? \:\)

More seriously, I'll explain something. In much of what I write, I'm not trying to figure things out, but rather, I am trying to express things, to articulate, to be coherent on a topic. It's a creative exercise, a literary challenge. Some posts on this very thread depict my struggles to find the right words and use them properly. Much of philosophy is just that, a striving to say "what oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd," to quote the poet Alexander Pope.

_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34468 - 01/24/10 01:10 PM Re: (Ethics) Satan's Trident [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
What Dan, Maw, and myself were trying to explain, was just summed up neatly by Dan. Satanism is really in no need of either redefinition or step by step clarification.

"More seriously, I'll explain something. In much of what I write, I'm not trying to figure things out, but rather, I am trying to express things, to articulate, to be coherent on a topic. It's a creative exercise, a literary challenge."

That may be all well and good, but it does come across as a bunch of mental masturbation.

Oh, and then according to your defacto trident, Hitler and any number of despots fit the role of Satanist. As does the pope, and dead mother theresa.

M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#34469 - 01/24/10 01:24 PM Re: (Ethics) Satan's Trident [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well here's the thing..I've known I was a Satanist for nigh on 20 years, which has given me a lot of time to introspect as to what that really means. In that time I have seem scores of intellectuals such as yourself come and go. Generally people will think it sounds cool for a while, then move to something else when either the novelty wears thin or they realize this really isn't for them after all.

When someone comes along, discovers Satanism and 15 minutes later fancys themselves some sort of authority (to the point of say, trying to matter of factly break Satanism into 3 rather arbitrary points) it just rubs me against my fur.

I know what Satanism is, because I have explored every nook and cranny, exposed it to years and years of the hot and merciless fires of scrutiny, and taken inventory of what remains.
I do not speak for others because I don't have to. Those that get it will get it, it's all spelled out quite clearly within the pages of TSB and the works that contributed to that tome.

You on the other hand are quite plainly trying to create something new, whether you want to call it 'atheistic paganism', "Eudemonic Aretaic Consequentialism" or 'the points of satans trident' doesn't really matter. You are obviously quite bright, create what you will, but don't pretend to be clarifying something that is no need of clarification.

Or to use a metaphor based on something you are familiar with, I see a white belt trying to start his own dojo.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34488 - 01/24/10 06:17 PM "Do ya walk the walk?" [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
When someone comes along, discovers Satanism and 15 minutes later fancys themselves some sort of authority (to the point of say, trying to matter of factly break Satanism into 3 rather arbitrary points) it just rubs me against my fur.

Woo hooo ... Baron, I do believe you've been put in your place.

I've found all of the new & creative concepts of the S-word to be one of the more stimulating aspects of the 600C. That's to be expected, since it is the door to who you are.

"We shall never cease from exploration,
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34511 - 01/25/10 04:55 AM Re: "Do ya walk the walk?" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I've found all of the new & creative concepts of the S-word to be one of the more stimulating aspects of the 600C.


Yes. Me too. They also help produce clarity.

I see clarity as a form of power, so that the will to power is in part the will to clarity. I view that insight, in turn, as prerequisitie knowledge for the ritual magician, who must learn to swing clarity like a sharp sword, hence the various symbolic meanings of the Tarot deck's Ace of Swords.

 Quote:

"We shall never cease from exploration,
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."


T. S. Elliott's quote is a favorite of mine, and helps illuminate the fact that a Satanist is both born and self-made, for we become more perfectly and more forcefully what we were at the start.

Strongly resonant with all of that, I think, are the Temple of Set's public writings on the Word Xeper, such as are found here:
http://www.xeper.org/pub/lib/xp_FS_lib.htm

Such writings have been clarifiers for me, informing my grasp and use of Nietzsche's concept of self-overcoming; and indeed, so much of self-overcoming is the rising and advancing of clarity.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#39793 - 07/02/10 03:46 AM Re: Virtu [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Dakota Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 12/23/09
Posts: 60
Loc: Michigan
My happiness, does not exist at this present state of my life. I love who I am, but I am depress because I am not wealthy in material nor success.

What makes me happy though is music, and imagining my future life. If it comes true, then I am a very happy person since I been through the longest depression of my life.

I have only one virtue, which is not exactly Satanic. But I live my life believing my decision at the given moment.

"Have no regrets"

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 27 queries. Zlib compression disabled.