Objectivism and Satanism


Recommended Posts

Let me say first that if there is concern about this parallel scaring away potential readers before they have a chance to read about Objectivism for real, feel free to move it to a different forum.

I was recently talking to a friend of mine who I politely describe as someone who has "gone down the wrong path". By this I mean she is completely irrational and idiotic about everything. However, recently when I talked to her she seemed to be more...sane...and actually agreed with me on some stuff. I was wondering what was up until she finally told me that she was considering becoming a satanist. At first I laughed at her jokingly saying "you can't be a satanist and an atheist at the same time, satan is a god in his own right". However, upon reading up on Satanism, as she asked me to do, I found that Satanism is not only Atheist and only uses Satan as a representative of what they believe, they are rational egoists, and share many of the same things true as does Objectivism.

I would describe Satanism as blind Objectivism. They know that they don't like Christianity, they know that many of the Christian morals are not that great after all. They do not, it seems to me, quite know why they are rebelling and are also making a show of their rebellion. It's almost like Satanism is to Objectivism as Islam is to Christianity. Many in Satanism (the more extreme) seem to advocate violence. I can't quite get a good read on them either way.

It's also came to my attention that Anton LeVey actually plagiarized off of Ayn Rand. The main problems I see with Satanism is that they use HUGE amounts of propoganda. Objectivists usually tell it like it is without huge amounts of embellishments or rants on the evils of religion and stuff like:

So to strength we must look. We need a symbol of strength to inspire us towards a new recuperation. We need to take the logical positiveness of Humanism and bring it to full power against the mistakes of the past. We need a symbol that revitalizes our ego. There has never before been a religion of the ego! A religion of the flesh! O, what a healthy religion this would be! To put flesh back on to the bones of humanity! How sweetly it would smell when compared to the rank condemnations of those who consider it a sin that we are imperfect! For imperfection is no sin, it is human nature, and to reclaim the health of mankind we need a religion to put us back amongst the animals.
It's not that they're wrong, it's just that their zeal overflows and makes them seem rediculous at times. Also they tend towards not caring to much about how they are percieved. Half the time I can't make heads or tails of who they're attacking or revering. It's really an interesting religion/system of beliefs if you want to call it that.

I'm kind of adding edits and stuff as I read here, but I've gotten the idea that when the website named says "Evil" it's referring to things that are considered evil. This is probably why they come off so weird.

Here is the link to a Satanist website.

Any thoughts?

Edited by Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me say first that if there is concern about this parallel scaring away potential readers before they have a chance to read about Objectivism for real, feel free to move it to a different forum.

I was recently talking to a friend of mine who I politely describe as someone who has "gone down the wrong path". By this I mean she is completely irrational and idiotic about everything. However, recently when I talked to her she seemed to be more...sane...and actually agreed with me on some stuff. I was wondering what was up until she finally told me that she was considering becoming a satanist. At first I laughed at her jokingly saying "you can't be a satanist and an atheist at the same time, satan is a god in his own right". However, upon reading up on Satanism, as she asked me to do, I found that Satanism is not only Atheist and only uses Satan as a representative of what they believe, they are rational egoists, and share many of the same things true as does Objectivism.

I would describe Satanism as blind Objectivism. They know that they don't like Christianity, they know that many of the Christian morals are not that great after all. They do not, it seems to me, quite know why they are rebelling and are also making a show of their rebellion. It's almost like Satanism is to Objectivism as Islam is to Christianity. Many in Satanism (the more extreme) seem to advocate violence. I can't quite get a good read on them either way.

It's also came to my attention that Anton LeVey actually plagiarized off of Ayn Rand. The main problems I see with Satanism is that they use HUGE amounts of propoganda. Objectivists usually tell it like it is without huge amounts of embellishments or rants on the evils of religion and stuff like:

So to strength we must look. We need a symbol of strength to inspire us towards a new recuperation. We need to take the logical positiveness of Humanism and bring it to full power against the mistakes of the past. We need a symbol that revitalizes our ego. There has never before been a religion of the ego! A religion of the flesh! O, what a healthy religion this would be! To put flesh back on to the bones of humanity! How sweetly it would smell when compared to the rank condemnations of those who consider it a sin that we are imperfect! For imperfection is no sin, it is human nature, and to reclaim the health of mankind we need a religion to put us back amongst the animals.
It's not that they're wrong, it's just that their zeal overflows and makes them seem rediculous at times. Also they tend towards not caring to much about how they are percieved. Half the time I can't make heads or tails of who they're attacking or revering. It's really an interesting religion/system of beliefs if you want to call it that.

I'm kind of adding edits and stuff as I read here, but I've gotten the idea that when the website named says "Evil" it's referring to things that are considered evil. This is probably why they come off so weird.

Here is the link to a Satanist website.

Any thoughts?

I simply have a very hard time accepting that you are 16 years old. You are writing on the level of a graduate student. If you are 16 that's a compliment. If you are a graduate student you are doing research. True prodigies in what may be described as the "social sciences" are extremely rare, much rarer than in the hard sciences. I do appreciate that Internet culture can accelerate learning, but it's difficult for me to get my mind around in regard to young persons since it's a history I don't share with them.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain, Victor. Perdy please.

Yes, Kori dear.

The problem of Dan’s [Danneskjold] statement has much to do with muddle-headed integration and a confusion of philosophic identification and I see him being lost in a sea of perplexing concepts and differing shades of similar—yet radically different--“isms.” Look, he is taking non-essential characteristics of Satanism, for example, and lumping it in with Objectivism—as if they were almost one and the same. Put it this way: It’s as if to observe the “atheism” of communism and to then say, “See, Objectivism is communistic because both are atheistic.” [!!]

To a certain degree, I can’t blame him because he is very young and because of the modern age we live in--which Rand charterized as an "epistemological jungle". Let’s look at that modern age: The "old school" religion has lost its luster for many people. As a result, many disillusioned believers have turned to “fringe” religions that seem more in tune with an era of Star Wars and microchips. We live in a world that, in spite of appearances, is still fundamentally religious—it is, as Schopenhauer describes it, a “folk metaphysics.” The huge rise in popularity of cults associated with UFOs, ESP, spirit contacts, scientology, transcendental meditation and other technology-based beliefs testifies to the continued persuasiveness of faith and dogma in a superficial rational and scientific society. And now in hot vogue is Satanism and other whacko systems. It is not accidental that pantheism is often taken to be a view inherently sympathetic to the ecological faith.

We live in an age seeking alternatives. The so-called Wicca witches and Satan worshippers are, for the most part, PANTHEISTS---and this is, I believe, the source of all the confusion with Dan. Why? Pantheism is considered as an alternative to theism as it involves a denial of at least one, and usually both, central theistic claims. Theism is, just to repeat, the belief in a "personal" God which in some sense is separate from (transcends) the world; it is “supernatural.” Pantheists usually deny the existence of a personal God. That is, they deny the existence of a "minded" Being that possesses the characteristic properties of a "person," such as having the capacities to make decisions and demand the worship of human beings. They deny that God is "totally other" than the world or ontologically distinct from it.

Here is the problem I have: Dan takes this Wicca and Satanism business as being atheistic and associates an atheistic philosophy like Objectivism along with it!! In a nutshell, that is what it boils down to. This is foolish, because it is a definition or association by NON ESSENTIALS!

One more source of confusion: With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic. It is a form of non-theistic monotheism, or even non-personal theism. It is the belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but pantheists (generally) do not believe God is a person or anything like a person. The fact that pantheism clearly is not atheistic, and is an explicit denial of atheism, is argued by some. The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person--whereas Wicca witches [and other Pantheists] "believe in spells, they worship the earth, mother nature, praying, etc," as Angie observes.

Dan said: I would describe Satanism as blind Objectivism. They know that they don't like Christianity, they know that many of the Christian morals are not that great after all.

You see, here is an example of linking the two systems---Satanism and Objectivism--by non-essentials. Both Satanism and Christianity “don’t like Christian morals” so that makes them bed partners. Yeah, I see. So I suppose that means that green and red is the same thing—because there are green jackets and red pants, and both are “clothes” you see. It comes down to identification and integration. It comes down to a well functioning epistemology. You can take that to the bank.

-Bad ass--

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't read very far into my post did you? For one, the Anton LeVey, a prominent Satanist often referred to as the "Father of American Satanism" plagiarized much of his work of Ayn Rand. Also, Satanism follows in rational egoism, no God (look under Satan and who he is), man being a heroic being (look under religion of the flesh), and rational self-interest (look under Happiness). I couldn't find one for man as heroic being because it won't let me follow the links. In any case, these are all major tenets of both systems of belief. Satanism is atheistic because in their view "Satan" is a representative of all the morals that they don't like about Christianity.

The major difference I have seen is that Satanists think that all morals are subjective (Look under epistemology). In Objectivism what is moral is decided by why is logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danneskjold,

You might want to read this from Michael Prescott's blog:

That ol' black magic

Please keep in mind that Objectivism has strongly influenced modern Satanism, but Satanism has never influenced Objectivism to my knowledge.

Normally, all publicity is good publicity, but in this case I'm not so sure since the influence is both positive and lopsided in the downward direction.

Here is an funny quote from Prescott's article:

(Amusingly enough, on another site a budding Satanist says he was feeling pretty good about the First Satanic Church -- until he saw that they linked to Ayn Rand! This may be the first time that someone has regarded Ayn Rand as actually worse than Satan.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael; A thought I had is that Ayn Rand being a real person has the potenial to be more evil. Satan like God does not exist. I don't like comparisons between Objectivism and Satanism. I hope this does not get into the culture.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I echo Brant's sentiment about the writing level; warm, smart, and no fat.

Of course there can be similarities between focused disciplines. We tend to see only the not-pretty ones, for one reason or another.

It's very easy for those not entirely versed in, uh, "alternative religions" to lump Satanism in with the goddess- or earth-based religions. It is not, but there is a bloodline there for sure.

I'm a Unitarian Universalist, so my take on this is maybe a little different, and hopefully a little more informed in some ways. I know a ton of Wiccans, Goths, Druids and other folk who also belong to the UU church.

But you don't see Satanists there. At least I never have. In the UU church, we hear a lot of weird stuff piped at us. Things like "You believe in everything." Well, no, no we don't. For instance, you wouldn't be welcome in that community were you a skinhead. That's because skinheads like to beat up people and preach hatred, along with other ancillary activities. Skinheads just don't play into core things like reason, reverence, tolerance, or freedom.

Satanists are a different breed of cat. I'm not saying they're all mentally inept; some of them are very nimble, brain-wise. That's not the main problem, to my eyes.

The problem is that Satanists are kind of hyper-serious and dorky. It's like "ooooh, scary scary, look at the Satanist!"

They remind me of guys in martial arts that get too much into the Ninja and Dim Mak stuff. You know, like what you used to see in the seventies in the back of kung fu magazines-- deadly secrets. And here, the main secret is that there are no secrets.

You will hear brilliant defenses out of Satanists, mostly leveraged on the idea that you just don't understand the breadth and depth. Rightio.

Satanists are sort of culty-freakos. Some of them wear black turtlenecks an awful lot. In general, I suspect chronic self-esteem issues, because they're really into this trippy empowerment thing. They become Satan's Little Bitch, in return for some kind of nebulous super-powers. It's all very silly, and there are a lot of them on the west coast.

It's very difficult to listen to them hold forth, I find it headache-inducing and, in the end, tedious.

But again, I can see the ominous parallels, heh.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael; A thought I had is that Ayn Rand being a real person has the potenial to be more evil. Satan like God does not exist. I don't like comparisons between Objectivism and Satanism. I hope this does not get into the culture.

Chris,

Unfortunately it has gotten into the culture.

When Michael Prescott Googled "Ayn Rand" and "Satanism" he got 95,900 hits. I just did it and got 24,400 hits (in 0.11 seconds). I attribute this difference to the changes in Google's crawling standards and other refinements over the last year.

For the record, "Objectivism" and "Satanism" just got 19,600 hits (in 0.18 seconds). "Atlas Shrugged" and "Satanism" got 54,500 hits (in 0.21 seconds).

The reason for this is that Rand was cited in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey as a source of inspiration. Here is the Wikipedia article: The Satanic Bible.

Here is an article on the Church of Satan web page describing the differences between the philosophies from their perspective: Satanism and Objectivism.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anton LaVey, ugh, there's a piece of work for you.

Take a LaVey, add a half ounce of LaRouche extract. Lightly sprinkle Aleister Crowley ashes over top.

Combine, let set, serve with egg nog.

Happy Holidays!

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, guy was a piece of work from what I can see. The problem is really that satanism is a misnomer for the philosophy due to the fact that the people who join it are really only there to kick up dust and spit in the faces of whoever pisses seems to piss them off. I see a lot of the "misunderstood" youth going there. Although I understand them completely, they want to show how twisted they are, and that's really all there is to it. In any case, many of the tenets are similar, not the same. That would be to passive for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shortly after Columbine High School shootings I became aware that one of the killers was an admirer of Ayn Rand. Newsweek reported that Kevin Harris quoted and recited passages from The Fountainhead. I pictured some reporter ten years down the road going to a file and finding this fact. This seem not to have happened but I still hope that a connection with Objectivism and Satanism will not be an item some reporter will pick up about Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, the reason that this may be more good for Objectivism than it is bad is because all the connections between Objectivism and Satanism are by Satanists. Objectivism/Objectivists, the major figures at least, have never talked well about Satanism. This is because the Satanist philosophy is more based off anger than just about anything. However, there are some very intelligent people who go down the road of satanism. These are mainly high-school social misfits. As they grow, however, if they become more passive Objectivism becomes a far better option. Of course I see this from a high-school perspective. But it could possibly benefit Objectivism due to the acquisition of participants in our theory rather than hurt it because of any connections that are attempted by Satanists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least that makes me feel a little better about Biddle wanting to destroy mosques...

Hey, you can take anything strong and associate with a-hole behavior. But you do bring up that good point. How does something that beautiful get so misinterpreted?

I think that over-association with anything causes pathology. Metaphysics don't work that way.

On the other hand, there is virtually always, in the case of high achievers, a time where they "model" or associate with a hero. Rand was a hero.

So I don't fault Rand for anything, never did, never will. Actually, if you read her, she clearly says things much to the contrary of idolatry.

But that hasn't stopped everyone. I guess some people just don't notice that aspect of her work, key though it is.

rde

Thumbs up on Angelina Jolie as Dagny. A: total hottie B: she can pull it off C: she actually read Atlas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I submit the following regarding Satanism and Objectivism:

Satanism and Objectivism

An Objectivist Response

by Andrew Russell

This article refers to "Satanism and Objectivism," written by Nemo and published at http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html. The founder of the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey, described Satanism as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" (http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/mjr/lewis2.html), but is this correct? Nemo, thankfully, takes the view that Satanism and Objectivism have "vital differences" and this will not be contested. However, Nemo attempts to say that regardless of the vital differences, "Satanism has far more in common with Objectivism than with any other religion or philosophy." Nemo attempts to portray Objectivism and Satanism as if they were brother and sister philosophies.

This essay takes the position that Satanism and Objectivism are not brother and sister. Indeed, the differences between the two philosophies are extremely fundamental in nature, and that Satanism, like Neitzscheanism, shares little with Objectivism apart from an aesthetic reverence for individualism. Otherwise, Satanism is fundamentally opposed to Objectivism.

In the article, Nemo writes: "First, Objectivism holds that metaphysics, that branch of philosophy which concerns itself with the nature of reality, determines the nature of epistemology as well as ethics, politics and art. Current philosophical disagreement on this issue still continues. It is, in fact, an unproven assertion by Rand that one's metaphysical assumptions determine one's ethics" (italics mine). Nemo disputes two links between the fields of philosophy: the first link is metaphysics to epistemology, the second is epistemology to ethics. The first link is simple to demonstrate: Epistemology is concerned with acquiring knowlege, knowlege of what? What does one know when one claims to know something? Simply put, when one claims to know something, one claims to know that something is true, i.e. something is real, i.e. that something is an existent. Without a philosophy of existence (a Metaphysics), one cannot have a philosophy of knowlege (an Epistemology). To attempt to construct a Metaphysics without an Epistemology is to attempt to construct a method of knowing without anything to know about. In short, an Epistemology without a Metaphysics is a stolen concept fallacy. The second link, Epistemology to Ethics, is also simple to demonstrate. Ethics is a field of enquiry, and hence, it requires a means of enquiry. It requires a theory of a moral Epistemology. Without an Epistemology, there is no way to answer ethical questions.

Nemo's second point about the differences between Satanism and Objectivism is as follows: "Satanists see that Objectivism has enthroned reason above the individual as opposed to utilizing this sole means to knowledge as a tool to achieve a purpose. Satanism enthrones the individual as a whole, not reason, as the supreme standard to determine the value of actions." In other words, Nemo accuses Objectivism of being a philosophy that enforces a mind-body dichotomy. Rand argued against this dichotomy vigorously, most famously in her theory of sex. In reality, it is Satanism that is dichotomising humans into 'reason' and 'the flesh.' It is Satanism that sees the individual as seperate from reason. To an Objectivist, to speak of 'reason' as if it were apart from 'the individual' makes absolutely no sense. Nemo's quote, however, displays the Satanic concept of reason as being some sort of Rationalist intution that provides truth that is superior to sensory evidence. What does Nemo mean when he talks about the 'individual as a whole' as the standard of value? It seems that Nemo is referring to some sort of metaphysical subjectivism.

Nemo then states that "The Satanic view sees as ethical the reality of domination of the weak by the strong. The assertion in Objectivism is that the use of force to cause others to submit to the will of the stronger or cleverer individual is "wrong" for the individual. This is a second major assertion which Satanism finds unproven by the Objectivists." The issue here is human nature. Satanism explicitly endorses the view that humans are just another kind of animal, interacting in pack-like heirarchies of predator-prey, wheras Objectivism sees humans as heroic beings living independently by their own production and trade. The Satanic concept of human nature, as a result, is one of a Hobbesian bloodbath: Satanism does not comprehend the concept of benevolent coexistence, rather it assumes someone is going to be dragged off to the altar of sacrifice and the only question is 'whom?'. As a result, Satanism promotes a morality of cannibalism, where the 'strong' survive parasitically off the 'weak.' Objectivism sees this kind of survival as being improper to man's nature as a rational being and this is why Objectivism considers 'Neitzschean reverse-altruism' (Moral Cannibalism) to be detrimental to the predators as well as the prey. The Satanic world will be, like the Christian one, an orgy of sacrifice.

Finally, Nemo states that "the Satanist is far more flexible in the choice of actions available than is the Objectivist who cannot simply accept his personal needs as absolutely reliable to determine the best course of action in any circumstance." Again, this is a product of the mind-body dichotomy that Satanists hold. Objectivists believe that ones needs are determined by ones nature (i.e. what kind of entity one is), and hence form the basis of Objectivist ethics. However, needs do not automatically tell you how to satisfy them (i.e. they are not a guide to ones actions). Satanists seem to believe that need-satisfaction is a simple instinctual process, whereby they do not have to put effort into producing food. Again, this goes back to issues of human nature, with Satanists seeing humans as animals with a capacity to make tools, and Objectivists seeing humans as beings with the capacity to reason, volitionally. Do instincts create skyscrapers? Do they alleviate poverty? Do instincts tell man how to grow food?

In conclusion, Satanism and Objectivism are extremely dissimilar. Wheras Objectivism promotes a mutually beneficial, benevolent coexistence between rational beings with equal rights, Satanism envisions a world of moral cannibalism where pack animals tear eachother to pieces for a scrap of meat.

POST SCRIPT

For fellow travellers in IOS-Trichotomy Land, we can see Satanism is of the "S" variety, completely missing the "O." Satanism is obviously reserved for concrete-bound fifteen year olds trying to piss off their parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ya, I actually stumbled upon it because my friend is a concrete bound (or maybe she's just stoned) 16 year old trying to piss off her parents.

Other than that, I quickly deduced that that is what satanism was and didn't look to much into it past the makeup/surface. I probably should have looked further.

Edited by Jeff Kremer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

NEW AND IMPROVED VERSION!!!!!! To Be Posted in Articles As Well!

"Satanism and Objectivism"

An Objectivist Response

By Andrew Russell

This article presents an Objectivist response to the article "Satanism and Objectivism" by Nemo. The article is published at http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html. Nemo, manifestly a LaVeyan Satanist, claims that Satanism is similar to Objectivism in a multitude of different ways, yet have 'vital differences.' Regardless of these differences, Nemo appears to consider Satanism and Objectivism to be brother and sister philosophies. This article will take the position that Satanism and Objectivism are not brother and sister philosophies at all and that LaVeyan Satanism is not an "Objective" philosophy (understood with Ayn Rand's philosophic trichotomies) but a "Subjective" philosophy. This issue will be discussed later in the essay. First, I wish to look at some of the allegations Nemo raises in his article.

"It is, in fact, an unproven assertion by Rand that one's metaphysical assumptions determine one's ethics." (Nemo 1997)

Nemo alleges that Rand held, as an assertion she did not prove, that metaphysics determines ethics. First, the idea that metaphysics eventually determines ethics is not new: it has existed since Plato. Plato attempted, like Rand, to build a fully consistent philosophic system that encompassed metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. Immanuel Kant, Aristotle and Descartes were all system builders. The idea that metaphysics eventually determines ethics is in no way a radical one! If the assertion is unproven, then it has been unproven since Plato. What Nemo is attempting to deny is the fact that knowlege, especially philosophical knowlege, is heirarchial in structure: certain ideas logically depend upon the correctness of other ideas. Finally, the link between metaphysics and ethics is simple to demonstrate. The two fields are linked via epistemology. Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowlege. Knowlege of what? What is one knowing when one knows "X is true"? What one knows is that X is a feature of existence, or reality. It can be seen that epistemology hence depends on the conclusions of metaphysics. For example, if a metaphysics stated (regardless of the contradiction involved) that there is no reality, then there can be nothing to know, and therefore no epistemology is possible. If a metaphysics stated that reality is beyond our understanding, no epistemology could ever be correct. A method of knowlege depends upon the nature of that which is to be known. It follows from here that if one has a valid method of knowing, then one can apply this method to ethical questions in order to yield moral knowlege.

"Second, Satanism does not hold that “a life appropriate to a rational being” is the sole standard of ethical right as does Objectivism. If anything, Satanism holds that indulgence in life or “fun” as perceived by the individual is the highest standard of ethics. Satanists see that Objectivism has enthroned reason above the individual as opposed to utilizing this sole means to knowledge as a tool to achieve a purpose. Satanism enthrones the individual as a whole, not reason, as the supreme standard to determine the value of actions (ethics)." (Nemo 1997)

Nemo is correct in recognizing that Satanism and Objectivism, both promoting standard-based ethical theories, support different standards. However, it should be clarified that Objectivism considers pleasure, fun and joy to all be fundamental requirements of a life proper to rational beings such as humans. Nemo alleges that Objectivism enthrones reason above the individual as the standard of value. This is not true. Reason is not the standard of value, but a means to attain knowlege about that which is valuable. That which is valuable to an individual is that which advances the individual's life on a level proper to that individual's nature.

The second problem with Nemo's allegation is his insistence on using 'the individual as a whole' as the supreme standard of value. What does this mean? In light of his definition of the Satanic standard of value as "fun as perceived by the individual," there appears to be a strong current of subjectivism in the Satanic ethics. Satanism claims to be a life-loving philosophy: what if one individual considered torture-murder fun? Does that make his torture-murders moral? If the answer is yes, then Satanic ethics boils down to 'anything goes' and if the answer is no, then fun cannot be the absolute standard of ethics.

The third problem with Nemo's paragraph is that it alleges Objectivists seperate the individual from their rational faculty. In short, Nemo is proclaiming that Objectivism commits the mind-body dichotomy. Rand argued strongly against such a dichotomy, seeing it as a horriffic fallacy that underpins such mockeries of ethics like the religious concept of Original Sin. To Objectivism, one cannot seperate the rational faculty from the individual without defying the law of identity.

"Third, Rand's philosophy rejects as ethical accepting the sacrifice of another to one's self (to paraphrase the end of Galt's oath from Atlas Shrugged). The Satanic view sees as ethical the reality of domination of the weak by the strong. The assertion in Objectivism is that the use of force to cause others to submit to the will of the stronger or cleverer individual is "wrong" for the individual. This is a second major assertion which Satanism finds unproven by the Objectivists. Consequently, the Satanist is far more flexible in the choice of actions available than is the Objectivist who cannot simply accept his personal needs as absolutely reliable to determine the best course of action in any circumstance." (Nemo 1997)

This paragraph is actually two propositions in one. The latter proposition, that Objectivists cannot accept his personal needs as absolutely reliable to determine the best course of action in any circumstance, will be dealt with first. Technically speaking, this proposition is true of Objectivism. Objectivists do not consider ones needs to be the sole determinant of the best means. Objectivism considers needs to be the determinants of the ends of specific courses of action, which can influence the means (in that some ends require specific means), but ultimately one's needs (evaluated by the standard of value) only determine ends directly (means indirectly, and often in concert with the nature of reality). The fact is that a need alone cannot be absolutely reliable to determine the best course of action. A need will tell you what you must aim for, but how you get there is based on many things such as personal circumstances. One must rationally decide the most efficient means to achieve their ends. Hunger does not grow wheat, boredom does not build a toy factory and thirst does not cause rain. The only situation in which needs can be satisfied merely by needing them, without any action to do so, would be a universe of pure metaphysical subjectivism; where rivers run with milk and honey at the command of whim.

The first proposition is that Objectivism is against the subjugation of the weak, wheras Satanism considers it moral and inevitable, and that Satanism considers this unproven by the Objectivists. It is correct that Objectivism considers the sacrifice of the weak to the strong immoral; indeed Objectivism considers any sacrifice of any person; weak or strong, to any other (or others). Fundamentally speaking, Objectivism is against sacrifice as an ethical principle. What is the fundamental cause of this difference? It is the views that both philosophies take on human nature. Satanism and Objectivism are both anthropocentrically-oriented philosophies. Therefore, it can be expected that both of their views on ethics will be inexorably influenced by their respective views on human nature. Satanism views human nature as, according to the Seventh Satanic Statement, "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!" (LaVey, 1969). In other words, humans are just another animal. Does free will or the rational faculty figure prominently in this statement? Except for the sarcastic mention of "intellectual development," nothing at all alludes to it. What is alluded to is that humans are allegedly the "most vicious animal of all." What does LaVey mean by vicious? Vice-ridden? Sinful? Evil? All of these are surprisingly moralistic implications. In light of Nemo's references to 'weak' and 'strong,' and LaVey's references to man as an animal, it seems that viciousness to LaVey and Satanism refer to predator-prey style animalistic pack behavior. This is certainly consistent with the 'sacrifice of the weak to the strong.' In short, it seems that the Satanic conception of human nature is akin to that of a pack of wolves where the weak are subjected to the whim of the strong.

Objectivism rejects this view of human nature entirely. To Objectivism, we may be animals, but we are rational animals. This faculty to reason, which operates volitionally, gives humans a unique reward; the manipulation of our environment to our ends, rather than the animal situation of adapting to the environment. Using our reason to understand our world and guide our actions, humans can reshape the world in the image of their values. We can produce for our needs, exchange values for mutual benefit, coexist benevolently neither sacrificing ourselves to others nor others to ourselves. In short, human reason renders human sacrifice obsolete. In short, the Objectivist conception of human nature is that of a heroic being that is neither a predator-parasite or prey-victim, but is a being of dignity with the potential for happiness and joy in life.

From these radically different views of human nature evolve the respective ethics of Satanism and Objectivism. It is now apparrent why Objectivism considers any form of coercion or sacrifice of the weak to the strong to be evil: it is subhuman. Humans should not have to lower themselves to moral cannibalism. Not only that, but for any alleged 'strong' to sacrifice the weak is a contradiction: if someone needs the sufferring others for sustenance, that person is in no way strong, but a selfless parasite.

Satanism's Place In The Objectivist Trichotomies

Ayn Rand was notorious for the rejection of false dichotomies. In her innovative solution to the Problem of Universals, Rand argued that two schools of thought reigned: Intrinsicism, which believed that the immediate referent of concepts was mind external (such as a Platonic form or an Aristotelian 'essence' that existed as a seperate property of something (i.e. roses had the property of 'roseness' independently of their scent, colors etc)) and Subjectivism, which believed that the immediate referent of concepts was arbitrary and need not have any relationship to reality. The error that each of these theories have is in that they have an incomplete picture of the relationship between reality and consciousness. Intrinsicism believed our consciousness plays no active part in the perception of reality and that no work was required beyond opening our mental eyes. Subjectivism believed that our consciousness governs the way we think and perceive to such an extent that we cannot be sure of its efficacy, even to the point where we cannot know we exist. Intrinsicism believed in reality unperceived by consciousness, wheras Subjectivism offered the alternative of consciousness that doesn't perceive reality. Ayn Rand rejected this false alternative, proposing her concept of Objectivity as consciousness actively perceiving and integrating the data from concrete reality, then forming concepts by integrating and differentiating groups of entities based on their empirical similarities and differences. The result was an original solution to the problem of universals, treating the immediate referent of concepts as a mental creation based on empirical observation; hence it was neither an intrinsic essence nor a subjective invention.

This IOS Trichotomy has profound implications. In Epistemology, Intrinsicism can result in demands for faith over reason, demands for apriori deduction over empirical evidence, and standards of truth that are shockingly akin to divine revelation. Subjectivism on the other hand can result in perpetual skepticism, a denial of truth, and in extreme cases outright epistemic nihilism. Objectivism, on the other hand, offers empirically-grounded logic, an understanding of context, and within-context certainty. In Ethics, Intrinsicism offers commandments, categorical imperatives and authoritarianism. Subjectivism responds with moral skepticism, moral relativism, and at worst moral nihilism. Objectivism offers rational standards, practical values, and human flourishing.

In addition to this Dichotomy, Rand attacked another popular dichotomy: the mind-body dichotomy. In contrast to the so-called "spiritualists" who claimed man is fundamentally a creature of spirit, not of this world, called to a higher realm, and the so-called "materialists" who claimed man is a passive product of worldly forces, Rand argued that humans are integrated organisms, that posess a mind and free will, yet are natural beings. Rand demonstrated that both sides of the dichotomy attacked the concept of a rational man: spiritualists saying that thought was not of reality and materialists saying reality controls thought. This false-dichotomy on human nature is a monumentally-damaging fallacy. The spiritualists are the religious, reality-denying, mystics and hippies and fundamentalists, who claim consciousness is not of this earth. They are fundamentally mystics of spirit, that surrender reason to the supernatural. The materialists are the Marxists, pseudoscientific, Behaviorist, reductivist determinists, who claim the mind is a superstition and consciousness is the slave of natural forces. They are the mystics of muscle, who subjugate reason to an aspect of concrete reality like Operant Conditioning or Dialectical Materialism. The Mystics of Spirit wanted mind without body. The Mystics of Muscle wanted body without mind. A ghost and a zombie as their symbols of humanity.

Moral philosophy has also been a victim of Randian dichotomy-demolition. Her rejection of the ethical false alternative between self-sacrifice and sacrifice of others to self, or rejection of Comte vs. Neitzsche, is her most infamous dichotomy-rejection. The false-alternative, she realized, was based on a view of sacrifice as a moral primary: someone is to be sacrificed, who? Rand, believing sacrifice to be the behavior of cannibals, rejected it in favor of principled egoism free of sacrifices.

In light of these two busted dichotomies, where does LaVeyan Satanism fit? First, LaVeyan Satanism does not have a developed epistemological or metaphysical theory. As such, I will confine this analysis to ethics. It is manifest that the Church of Satan is, in terms of the IOS Trichotomy, Subjectivist, and in terms of the Spirit-Muscle-Integrated Trichotomy, Satanists are Mystics of Muscles. Morally, Satanism is obviously a defender of the cannibal morality, demanding the sacrifice of others, "the weak," to self, "the strong." The position of Satanism in the third trichotomy is conceded by Nemo in the previously quoted paragraph. What about the second trichotomy? This assessment seems implied by the animalistic view of human nature promoted by LaVey. If we are merely animals, with no acknowleged free will or capacity for higher thought (except as a means of becoming 'alpha wolf'), then that view of human nature certainly subjugates reason to something else (instinct, maybe?). As for the designation of Satanism as Subjectivist, this seems implied by the denial of a relationship between ethics and epistemology/metaphysics (as if we do not need something to know or a way to know to reach moral knowlege!) as well as the statement that Satanism enthrones the whole individual, rather than 'just reason' as the authority in ethics.

Therefore, Nemo, who states "Satanism has far more in common with Objectivism than with any other religion or philosophy" (Nemo 1997) is mistaken. Satanism is fundamentally opposed to Objectivism in significant respects. Satanists, however, often enjoy Rand's writings. Could Satanists potentially have an Objectivist-Compatible Sense Of Life? If they do, it would imply that (possibly owing to the lack of metaphysical and epistemological philosophy within Satanism) that most Satanists do not swallow the full implications of their ethical theory and maybe they are closer to Objectivism than an analysis of their beliefs would entail. To those Satanists, who find Ayn Rand's depiction of the individual standing on his own judgement against the herd to be beautiful and inspirational, I implore them to read more Rand, to take some courses in philosophy generally, and explore some Objectivist literature. If they compare the totality of Objectivism to what LaVeyan Satanism fully implies, I am convinced that some of them will find out that they belong with us, rather than the vicious wolf-pack of Satanism.

References

Nemo (1997) "Satanism and Objectivism," http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html

LaVey, A (1969) "The 9 Satanic Statements" http://churchofsatan.com (see Theory/Practice)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

In my early studies of Religion and the occults I studied Lavey and Satanism in depth. Let me add that Books I through V is a complete plagiarized version of Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard and he did not give any citation to the original author. I would post it but you can just read it here:

The satanic Bible: www.freewebs.com/.../The%20Satanic%20Bible%20(Underground%20E...

Might is Right: http://archive.org/details/MightIsRightByRagnarRedbeard

Nemo here states that "Satanism has far more in common with Objectivism than with any other religion or philosophy". I would imagine so since he took Might is Right and Rand through them in a cup and what came out is the Laveyan point of view of Satanism. This not to say he didn't have a idea and capitalize on it. But come on... don't take entire chapters of another individuals work and duplicate it without citation. Within the Satanic community most like Rand and Objectivism. Some hate it for whatever reason.

Also for your own research about Lavey himself and the truth:

http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anton LaVey was a conman and an operator. If we're going to make comparisons, L. Ron Hubbard is a much closer fit, although Hubbard was far more prolific and in terms of manipulating people, much more clever and successful, as witness the ever-growing list of books on the dangers of scientology. Both LaVey and Hubbard studied the "works" of Aleister Crowley, who was much more skillful in packaging his mystical "Satanic" bullshit, but did not have the organizational skill that Hubbard exhibited.

Back in the late nineteen sixties, LaVey's "The Satanic Bible" was issued as a pulp paperback and was, surprisingly, on many paperback newsstands. Perusing its pages as I did out of curiosity, it was quite clear, early on in his text, that he himself, did not even believe in Satan as an actual living being, or even as a spirit, but rather as the mythological Lucifer (the bringer of light). After describing his own belief system as atheistic, he suddenly drops that pose and offers a collection of ceremonies and "spells" which sounded like something he cooked up under the influence of a couple of sixpacks (at least).

Typical of a conman, LaVey tried to exploit any idea or movement that he thought might lend him some publicity and some support. He had some success with the media - who are always on the lookout for something sensational that they think will increase their circulation or readership,- particularly in California, and among certain Hollywood circles, such as movie director, Roman Polanski. But discussing LaVey as .a serious intellectual or even a religious figure, is absurd. LaVey has zero respectability or recognition, and deservedly so. Comparing Objectivism to LaVey's Satanism is only useful insofar as a study in contrasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Yeah, um, I think the description of "satanism as blind Objectivism" is completely accurate.

There are many big differences, to be sure; mainly the primacy of consciousness (and however many times they call themselves atheists, levayans believe in magick). But satanism considers faith and humility profoundly evil- which is a prerequisite for ever properly grasping Oism.

And in my experience satanists are motivated by profound hatred for- guess what? Evasion and self sacrifice.

There's some highly superficial pettiness in this thread.

Satanists are different from Oists (and wrong) because they believe in magick, just like, hmm. . . Every single altruistic religion in the entire world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now