Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#43770 - 10/23/10 02:48 PM The Founding Fathers of (LaVeyan) Satanism
SubtleSatanist Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/10/10
Posts: 12
Loc: Ontario, Canada
I used to browse this forum often, but I rarely post. So forgive me if I was too stupid to find the thread where I found this (I did try the search tab, but to no avail, and my time is very limited) but I recall once reading someone mention four philosophers whom (s)he considered the "founding fathers" of Satanism, among them Nietzsche and Epicurus. I sent this facebook message to my best friend, his roommate, and my girlfriend.

 Quote:
Hi everyone,

Please take a moment to scroll down and read to regrettably longer than usual message directed to each of you. Thank you for your time.

Note:
/b/ = bold
/i/ = italicized
/u/ = underlined

(So as to emphasize cited excerpts in a formatted matter)

For more information on the "subject," feel free to look at this essay (or just the intro, as Gilmore suggests. However, I don't think it's that reading more than that is that big of a deal, really.): http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Feared.html

Jori,

because you overheard Marco and I talking about Satanism, and I don't want you to think I'm a complete lunatic, I am sending you this video, as promised. It features a short interview between Peter Gilmore, the current High Priest of the Church of Satan, and George Stroumboulopoulos, host of CBC's "The Hour." I'm sorry you had to hear that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4SraX4inJw

Marco, in response to your question as to whether or not Satanism represents uncontrollable selfishness, I quote this excerpt from The Satanic Bible (TSB).

I repeat: you can't spell Epicurus without EPIC. lol

"It is unnatural not to have the desire to gain things for yourself. Satanism represents a form of controlled selfishness. This does not mean that you can never do anything for anyone else. If you do something to make someone for whom you care happy, his happiness will give you a sense of gratification. Satanism advocates practicing a modified form of the Golden Rule. Our interpretation of this rule is: 'Do unto others as they do unto you'; because if you 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' and they, in turn, treat you badly, it goes against human nature to continue to treat them with consideration .You should do unto others as you should have them do unto you, but if your courtesy is not returned, they should be treated with the wrath they deserve."

Allana, my love:

You are the most fabulous women I have ever met. I love you with all my heart. I want you too, to understand that am not, never was, and never will be a murderous psychopath. Consequently, I offered to send you this message as well, and you accepted. This too, is an excerpt form the Satanic Bible:

"Satanism has been thought of as being synonymous with cruelty and brutality. This is so only because people are afraid to face the truth - and the truth is that human beings are not all benign or all loving. Just because the Satanist admits he is capable of both love /i/and/i/ hate, he is considered hateful. On the contrary, because he is able to give vent to his hatred through ritualized expression, he is far /i/more/i/ capable of love - the deepest kind of love. By honestly recognizing and admitting to both the hate and the love he feels, there is no confusing one emotion with the other. Without being able to experience one of these emotions, you cannot /i/fully/i/ experience the other.

Yours Truly,
Trevor

Lavey, Anton. /u/The Satanic Bible./u/ New York: HarperCollins, 1969.


My friend Marco then replied:

 Quote:
I guess you could call Satanism (Modern Epicureanism)
Lol, funny the way certain ideas evolve


and my girlfriend:

 Quote:
oh... uh... yeah...
pshh i was TOTALLY thinking that too. :P


I would like to reply along the lines of

 Quote:
I believe that Nietzsche, Epicurus, ________ and _________ are considered to be the four founding fathers of Satanism.


(Ayn Rand, Mencken, Twain perhaps?) Thank you for the time you spent reading this post.

Regards,

TSS
_________________________
Veritas > Unitas > Caritas.

Top
#43772 - 10/23/10 10:59 PM Re: The Founding Fathers of (LaVeyan) Satanism [Re: SubtleSatanist]
mountaingoat Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 471
Loc: Colorado
I am certainly in no position to advise anyone, but if you can't recall 50% of the message that you want to pass on you might not want to advocate for Satanism or anything else. Learn what you need to before you start trying to educate people. Misinformation comes from both the outside and the inside. Read. It is not hidden from anyone.

Edited by mountaingoat (10/23/10 10:59 PM)
_________________________
“The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."

-John Fowles

Top
#43773 - 10/24/10 12:18 AM Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: SubtleSatanist]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Methinks we have discussed Nietzsche at length elsewhere in the 600C; a search should bring up the various threads.

In terms of its behavioral philosophy, the 1966-75 Church of Satan had an outer, public face, most akin to "basic" hedonism; and among the Priesthood a much more considered atmosphere, indeed closer to Epicureanism as summarized here:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., Ruby Tablet of Set, 10/1/84
Epicureanism was a philosophy of hedonistic ethics that considered calmness untroubled by mental or emotional disquiet the highest good, held intellectual pleasures superior to others, and advocated the renunciation of momentary gratification in favor of more permanent pleasures. It was introduced by [and named after] Epicurus of Samos (341-270 BCE), and it enjoyed considerable influence among the Greek civilizations of the Asiatic coasts.

Epicurus, a pantheist who rejected conventional religion, felt that the aim of philosophy should be to free humanity from fear of the gods, who, if they exist, are too remote to concern themselves with human fortunes. He rejected metaphysics, holding that humans can know nothing of the suprasensual world. Reason, he said, must accept the evidence of the senses. Epicurus considered mankind a completely natural product - and mind only another kind of matter. The soul can feel or act only by means of the body, he maintained, and it dies with the body's death.

Accordingly Epicurus considered virtue to be not an end in itself, but rather the means toward happiness. He recommended the simple, non-envious life of the country peasant. “Everything natural is easily procured, and only the useless is costly.” “Desires may be ignored when our failure to accomplish them will not really cause us pain.”

Epicureanism thinks of happiness in a negative fashion, i.e. freedom from pain. It thinks of wisdom as an escape from the hazards and problems of life. It is a nice philosophy for one able to pursue it, but few are. An entire polis of Epicureans, to be sure, would cease to function.

You can probably see the beginnings of later Roman Stoicism here, which incorporated a concern for and responsibility to the polis/state.

Note also Epicurus' disinterest in metaphysics. This is also a distinction from the original C/S, in which Satan & the Powers of Darkness were quite real and accessible. But Epicureanism was significant, as noted, for its human-behavioral prescription based upon tangible expressions & actions of virtue. The more you introduce metaphysics into your philosophy, the more your E&A may be inspired by the intangible.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#43786 - 10/24/10 10:19 PM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



This is an interesting thread I think.

I understand that Dr. LaVey’s Word is Indulgence and I feel that gaining an appreciation of the philosophical meaning of Indulgence means studying Epicureanism.

I am wondering what role Ragnar Redbeard’s work has here as I would regard him as one of the “fathers” of Satanism, along with Rand, Nietzsche, and Epicurus etc.

Why did Dr. LaVey choose Redbeard and how does this choice affect the overall architecture or structure of Satanism? Dr. LaVey included portions of Redbeard’s work in The Satanic Bible and Redbeard’s work gives that book and Satanism itself a hard edge and tends to highlight the harsh or brutal side of the religion.

Can or does Satanism somehow exist apart from this harsh or brutal side? What place did this part of The Satanic Bible have in the 1966-1975 Church?

The Book of Satan is such a key part of The Satanic Bible and seems to give Satanism a great deal of balance and depth.

I think a lot of the so called darkness exists in the law of the jungle.

Top
#43787 - 10/24/10 10:28 PM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: ]
mountaingoat Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 471
Loc: Colorado
I think that Redbeard's words used in The Satanic Bible serve the purpose of showing an extreme contrast to the servile doctrine of Christianity. His philosophy is so diametrically opposed to "Turn the other cheek" that it points out how man's bestial nature is incongruous to the Christian doctrine. I'm just poorly paraphrasing The Satanic Bible, but that's my two cents.
_________________________
“The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."

-John Fowles

Top
#43822 - 10/26/10 04:54 AM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: mountaingoat]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I think mountaingoat is right in the analysis that the Redbeard part of TSB is there as a contrast to Christian worldview and values. I also think that it probably has its place in a religion like Satanism that after all has takes the name from the supposed evil guy in Christian religion.

I also think this is a big problem for Satanism. So often public Satanists seem to define themselves not from an active point of view but everything seems to be a reaction against Christianity. This can of course be a good tool if one was brought up Christian and needs a process to get rid of some of the perceived chains he or she might have to that religion. But to be truly active and dynamic and constructive I believe that one needs to go away from this worldview.

Satanists often have a huge will to break free from Christianity but often only go half of the way. They may reject Christianity but still stay in a position where they actively define their own thoughts against the Christian religion. I think this is something that has to go away eventually. And to be fair it has happened more and more over the past few years but I think the reactive view of the world still is given to much space. Im sure in part because such a huge portion of TSB is built on this (you can find it almost anywhere you look) and also that some take TSB as a holy scripture of sorts (something that doesn’t need improvement and something you have to agree with to rightly call yourself a Satanist).

Top
#43985 - 11/03/10 11:24 PM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: TheInsane]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Attacking Christianity is a pointless game. Christianity will fade away due to its own incompetence and its own continuing irrelevance.

However, a point needs to be made I think: people define themselves by what they are and most importantly by what they are not - they define themselves in opposition to something or someone else.

Satan and Satanism carry a meaning or definition for people. The definition or meaning of Satan and Satanism may differ because of individual experience and understanding. It may also differ because of the meanings derived from talking to other people and reading the books of other people etc.

Satanism gains its own definition and meaning by its absolute opposition to Christianity – this is a fundamental point for me.

Satanism, in my opinion, will always hold definition and meaning as a result of its opposition to Christianity and any attempt to move beyond that opposition to Christianity, would water down Satanism’s meaning or change it in unacceptable ways.

I would make a number of claims about Satanism, which I believe are substantiated by the core texts (TSB and Might is Right) and which firmly place Satanism in absolute opposition to Christianity.

• The opposition between Satanism and the Judeo-Christian system is not merely an opposition between one system of belief and another system of belief. The opposition is between a system of belief (Judeo-Christian) and a system which repudiates belief altogether (Satanism). The opposition is so deep that it reaches into the cosmological or metaphysical.

• Human beings are completely carnal and continue to prey upon each other and upon other animals in order to survive, to gain pleasure and power. War, dressed up as either violence, or politics, or business is still the main mode for human relations.

• There is nothing natural or universal in the doctrines of egalitarianism, natural rights democracy, or Christian moral and religious imperatives. Satanism is a religion which recognises the fundamental inequalities between human animals and supports extreme individualism, elitism, Social Darwinism, meritocracy and stratification. It supports the rights of the strong over the weak and the intelligent and productive over the stupid and useless.

There are many other large differences between the two religions, but these would suffice for now.

My own studies and thinking are moving into what I regard as the so called darkest regions of Satanism. I have always had an interest in political and social organisation, the creation of necessary illusions, and the philosophy of power, but I am also developing a deeper appreciation for evolution, biology, race, gender and the philosophy of war.

Top
#43996 - 11/04/10 04:53 PM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: ]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
Attacking Christianity is a pointless game. Christianity will fade away due to its own incompetence and its own continuing irrelevance
[ snip ]
I have always had an interest in political and social organisation, the creation of necessary illusions, and the philosophy of power, but I am also developing a deeper appreciation for evolution, biology, race, gender and the philosophy of war.


Actually, I would disagree with that. I, too, have started to roll around in my head the evolutionary and biological underpinnings of organization and behavior, and I'd offer a counter-proposal (purely from a social point of view).

Humans evolved as social, tribal animals, meaning there are leaders and followers. Most people are followers, which is completely natural for them. Since Christianity is so aligned with submission and followership (my spellchecker says that's not a word ), it will continue to be relevant for that mindset (again, more from a social point of view than a religious. I'm almost convinced the latter is derived from the former, rather than vice versa).

Those who are or choose to be leaders are much more free to select values, morals, ethics, behaviors, et al. Where Satanism comes in, in my opinion anyway, is that it's the framework that's closest to reality: nature (including most of human society) is really built on competition/survival of the fittest/law of the jungle; humans are carnal animals, acting and reacting in predictable ways (once you accept that); etc.

I would say both are necessary (or some form of both), because humans will always be leaders or followers. It's not exactly "two sides of the same coin", but more like Yin and Yang ...

Hrm, I should write this down. Has anyone put together a scientific, strictly biologically-based derivation for Satanism (or Epicureanism, or any of the LHP-isms)?
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#43999 - 11/04/10 11:58 PM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
Has anyone put together a scientific, strictly biologically-based derivation for Satanism (or Epicureanism, or any of the LHP-isms)?

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44010 - 11/05/10 09:47 AM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Hi Dr. Aquino,

It took me a bit to lace my head up around that diagram. In general, I like it. What I'm having trouble understanding is the last sentence in the 1966 - Church of Satan block where it says Satanism is flawed due to a lack of compatibility with (c) (GBM).

Isn't this what Satanic magic is all about?

Or does the problem perceived by the diagram refer to there being no defined system (for lack of a better word) beyond the acknowledgment of a 'balancing force in nature' (as opposed to the Set mythos)?

Autodidact,
Not sure how you'd approach a biologically based derivation for Satanism, but I'd love to see it if you choose to undertake it.


Edited by Fnord (11/05/10 09:48 AM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#44013 - 11/05/10 02:59 PM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: Fnord]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2512
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
It took me a bit to lace my head up around that diagram. In general, I like it. What I'm having trouble understanding is the last sentence in the 1966 - Church of Satan block where it says Satanism is flawed due to a lack of compatibility with (c) (GBM).

Isn't this what Satanic magic is all about?

Well, we're talking about GBM specifically here, and my comment is to the effect that GBM in the original Church of Satan was not approached, say, as a quest for Plato's Agathon; it was not intended to accelerate the Satanist into a superman or saint.

The C/S was weirdly "unresolved" about this. One one hand we were supposed to be hedonistic & unconstrained by all tired & silly moralities. On the other hand we had, and aspired to, an impeccable standard of truth, ethics, and honor. We were the standard-bearer of anti-hypocrisy, remember? So in a strange sort of way, becoming a Satanic Priest was much like becoming an Eagle Scout. But ultimately we had to evolve past the limiting Judæo-Christian context of "Satan=bad" to really resolve this.

FYI I sketched out that diagram about 20 years ago for Black Magic, but it's not in the current edition because I don't know that I'm completely satisfied with it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44019 - 11/06/10 06:08 AM Re: Epicureanism & Satanism [Re: Autodidact]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To Autodidact,

Thanks for the useful comments.

I think we need to distinguish between two different forms of “Christianity” in order to bring a bit more clarity to this and gain a stronger sense of the meaning of the failure and the continued incompetence of this particular religion.

On the one hand, the meaning of Christianity can be found in the bible, in the gospel, in the letters of the apostles. At this level we are talking about a religion, which virtually nobody can follow and which very few people even understand or accept. This Christianity is deeply flawed and its incompetence is determined by its lack of genuine meaning and use in people’s lives. It simply does not marry with the real nature of human animals and hence cannot be followed and used as is, in its entirety.

On the other hand, there is a more convenient, selective and comfortable “Christianity” which many people follow nowadays. It is the sort of Christianity, which does not insist that you give away all your wealth and property and pick up your cross and follow Christ; nor do you have to spend a great deal of your time making disciples; nor do you have to become a stranger to your family, particularly your parents as a show of proof that Christ in fact does come first in your life. Or turn the other cheek at all times etc. etc.

In fact I would argue that it is this version of convenient, selective and comfortable Christianity, which is the one which has prevailed at all times and been used by most people.

You mention the division of people between masters and followers. This sounds good to me, but one needs to keep in mind that many of the leaders regarded themselves as Christians and still do, even though they amass fortunes and order other peoples deaths and revel in the flesh etc.

And the followers: well they have a wide and varied choice of soma at their disposal if they so wish. There is of course TV, the workplace, sport and other forms of circus and carnivals etc. I mean basically the watered down and convenient form of Christianity around nowadays is just one choice among many as far as social control of followers goes.

So at this level you have something, which really isn’t Christianity at all losing more and more influence all the time, because there are so many other options available, which not only act as forms of control, but further have more pizzazz to them and also are more responsive to human beings carnal needs. At this level “Christianity” is incompetent as far as I’m concerned.

I can’t see any future for either form of Christianity. At some stage in the future some rather harsh decisions are going to have to be made (in my opinion) and I don’t think either form of Christianity is going to be able to provide the philosophical/religious framework required for those decisions to be thought and taken. Then again who knows?

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 25 queries. Zlib compression disabled.