moralist

Satan needs love too...

Recommended Posts

Is it just me, or is LaVey's Church of Satan have a lot in common with Objectivism? Atheism, individuality, etc.

It is definitely not just you, Makiaveli. Have a gander at a Michael Prescott blog entry from October, 2005, That ol' black magic, in which he scratched an itch to see what possible connections he could find on the web.

See also a couple of topic threads on this forum, including an essay by our Andrew Russell: "Satanism and Objectivism" – An Objectivist's Response, which went up like a lead balloon -- and a more engaging discussion under Objectivism and Satanism.

Finally, an hilarious, creepy and wrong-headed christophile column at First Things, by Joe Carter: The Fountainhead Of Satanism. An excerpt ...

Perhaps most are unaware of the connection, though LaVey wasn’t shy about admitting his debt to his inspiration. “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings,” he once told the Washington Post . On another occasion he acknowledged that his brand of Satanism was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Indeed, the influence is so apparent that LaVey has been accused of plagiarizing part of his “Nine Satanic Statements” from the John Galt speech in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged .

Devotees of Rand may object to my outlining the association between the two. They will say I am proposing “guilt by association,” a form of the ad hominem fallacy . But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy . LaVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic.

Booooinggg,

(there is also, of course, the Archbishop and Grand Poobah of orthodox Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff. He puts forward ex cathedra what Objectivism is and is not, and is most categorical ...

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . .

Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.

Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.

-- from the catechism: The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 2)

PS -- the internets are a wild and wonderful thing. Here is a Youtube video featuring Nixon-era lovely Chuck Colson. This should kill this thread dead.

PPS -- Rand speaking in the video, "I am against God ... I don't approve of religion ... It is a sign of psychological weakness ,,, I regard it as evil ..."

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. There is no Objectivist atheism. Objectivism is a positive construct and anything negative is what can't fit in 100 percent positively. It would be the equivalent of saying the moon is not made of green cheese is part of Objectivism. True individuality is core Objectivism.

Heck, Brant... I'm not even an Objectivist and I totally like that.

You have The Voice.

(skip to 1:45)

"Usul no longer needs the weirding module." :wink:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Objectivist catechism embraces atheism, but Objectivism is not suppose to have a catechism. That's a contradiction. The philosophy of Ayn Rand does, but that's Objectivism because that's the label she supplied for it. The way to resolve this best is to differentiate the philosophy from what is consonant with it. Atheism is consonant with Objectivism, but it isn't Objectivism. The scientific method is consonant with Objectivism, but it isn't Objectivism. If Ayn Rand said or wrote it--that depends; it may or may not be consonant with Objectivism, but we are most free--completely free--to say it is consonant with Ayn Rand and very likely in turn to be consonant with the philosophy of Ayn Rand called Objectivism, for she didn't do all that much self-contradicting. I'm not talking about what she said or wrote as a young woman compared to the one who intellectually matured writing two great novels and again the non-fiction post-Atlas writer. Those are three big blocks of development with the last being the cashing in. So it's within each block.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superficial points of commonality don't count. And atheism is not part of Objectivism simply because it's only a consequence of being rational. There is no Objectivist atheism. Objectivism is a positive construct and anything negative is what can't fit in 100 percent positively. It would be the equivalent of saying the moon is not made of green cheese is part of Objectivism. True individuality is core Objectivism. There are four basic principles of Objectivism and the first two are the metaphysics and the epistemology and are 100% individualistic because the thinking, rational mind is a one-man or woman enterprise. When you go into the ethics and politics it's still off that core base, but what's "off" is the elaboration on human social existence.

"Etc." What's "etc."?

--Brant

Granted I only glanced at LaVey's site, but I think there is more than superficial resemblances as pointed out by william.

ETC is short et cetera

et cet·er·a
et ˈsedərə/
adverb
adverb: etcetera
  1. used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included.
    "we're trying to resolve problems of obtaining equipment, drugs, et cetera"
    synonyms: and so on, and so forth, and the rest, and/or the like, and suchlike,among others, et al., etc.; More
    • indicating that a list is too tedious or clichéd to give in full.
      "we've all got to do our duty, pull our weight, et cetera, et cetera"

Those are three big blocks of development with the last being the cashing in. So it's within each block.

--Brant

Cashing in as in wrapping it up, or simply trying to make money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superficial points of commonality don't count. And atheism is not part of Objectivism simply because it's only a consequence of being rational. There is no Objectivist atheism. Objectivism is a positive construct and anything negative is what can't fit in 100 percent positively. It would be the equivalent of saying the moon is not made of green cheese is part of Objectivism. True individuality is core Objectivism. There are four basic principles of Objectivism and the first two are the metaphysics and the epistemology and are 100% individualistic because the thinking, rational mind is a one-man or woman enterprise. When you go into the ethics and politics it's still off that core base, but what's "off" is the elaboration on human social existence.

"Etc." What's "etc."?

--Brant

Granted I only glanced at LaVey's site, but I think there is more than superficial resemblances as pointed out by william.

ETC is short et cetera

et cet·er·a
et ˈsedərə/
adverb
adverb: etcetera
  1. used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included.
    "we're trying to resolve problems of obtaining equipment, drugs, et cetera"
    synonyms: and so on, and so forth, and the rest, and/or the like, and suchlike,among others, et al., etc.; More
    • indicating that a list is too tedious or clichéd to give in full.
      "we've all got to do our duty, pull our weight, et cetera, et cetera"

Those are three big blocks of development with the last being the cashing in. So it's within each block.

--Brant

Cashing in as in wrapping it up, or simply trying to make money?

I wondered that too.

But if I were to hazard a guess, Brant might mean cashing in as yielding a profit to your own character.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superficial points of commonality don't count. And atheism is not part of Objectivism simply because it's only a consequence of being rational. There is no Objectivist atheism. Objectivism is a positive construct and anything negative is what can't fit in 100 percent positively. It would be the equivalent of saying the moon is not made of green cheese is part of Objectivism. True individuality is core Objectivism. There are four basic principles of Objectivism and the first two are the metaphysics and the epistemology and are 100% individualistic because the thinking, rational mind is a one-man or woman enterprise. When you go into the ethics and politics it's still off that core base, but what's "off" is the elaboration on human social existence.

"Etc." What's "etc."?

--Brant

Granted I only glanced at LaVey's site, but I think there is more than superficial resemblances as pointed out by william.

ETC is short et cetera

et cet·er·a
et ˈsedərə/
adverb
adverb: etcetera
  1. used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included.
    "we're trying to resolve problems of obtaining equipment, drugs, et cetera"
    synonyms: and so on, and so forth, and the rest, and/or the like, and suchlike,among others, et al., etc.; More
    • indicating that a list is too tedious or clichéd to give in full.
      "we've all got to do our duty, pull our weight, et cetera, et cetera"

Those are three big blocks of development with the last being the cashing in. So it's within each block.

--Brant

Cashing in as in wrapping it up, or simply trying to make money?

Cashing in intellectually on a lifetime of work and thinking that resulted in her magnum opus and the non-fiction writing that essentially wrapped up her career in the 1960s. As for--re Greg--"character," sure, so she wasn't going to mess everything up with a public extra-marital affair or any expression of imperfection she could avoid. She got confused about art and life and ended up stuck inside her novel. Fortunately, she had a hell of a lot of counterbalancing positives. (Note that I've reduced the three blocks to two blocks rather than go back and make three blocks with somewhat different parameters. That only depends on where you stick Galt's Speech, which belongs both to the novel and her non-fiction. She wrote it when her relationship with Nathaniel Branden was at its fervid peak--romantically, sexually and intellectually--and whether or not Objectivism was her "gift" to him, he certainly picked up that ball and ran with it.)

As for "etc."--very funny. I wondered what you were thinking of substantially as I couldn't image it.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cashing in intellectually on a lifetime of work and thinking that resulted in her magnum opus and the non-fiction writing that essentially wrapped up her career in the 1960s. As for--re Greg--"character," sure, so she wasn't going to mess everything up with a public extra-marital affair or any expression of imperfection she could avoid. She got confused about art and life and ended up stuck inside her novel. Fortunately, she had a hell of a lot of counterbalancing positives. (Note that I've reduced the three blocks to two blocks rather than go back and make three blocks with somewhat different parameters. That only depends on where you stick Galt's Speech, which belongs both to the novel and her non-fiction. She wrote it when her relationship with Nathaniel Branden was at its fervid peak--romantically, sexually and intellectually--and whether or not Objectivism was her "gift" to him, he certainly picked up that ball and ran with it.)

As for "etc."--very funny. I wondered what you were thinking of substantially as I couldn't image it.

--Brant

So I take it you're not an Objectivist or just not a fan of hers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cashing in intellectually on a lifetime of work and thinking that resulted in her magnum opus and the non-fiction writing that essentially wrapped up her career in the 1960s. As for--re Greg--"character," sure, so she wasn't going to mess everything up with a public extra-marital affair or any expression of imperfection she could avoid. She got confused about art and life and ended up stuck inside her novel. Fortunately, she had a hell of a lot of counterbalancing positives. (Note that I've reduced the three blocks to two blocks rather than go back and make three blocks with somewhat different parameters. That only depends on where you stick Galt's Speech, which belongs both to the novel and her non-fiction. She wrote it when her relationship with Nathaniel Branden was at its fervid peak--romantically, sexually and intellectually--and whether or not Objectivism was her "gift" to him, he certainly picked up that ball and ran with it.)

As for "etc."--very funny. I wondered what you were thinking of substantially as I couldn't image it.

--Brant

So I take it you're not an Objectivist or just not a fan of hers?

The world wants to know?

You could read my signature line.

And, still, what were you thinking of when you said "etc."?

I'll just be blunt: if you want to know what I am stick around; you haven't been here long enough; this is adult-land, not an intellectual nursery.

--Brant

a hot stove

a huge fan (freebie)--but you can't know what I'm talking about and no one here knows half of it yet, but what they do know they figured out for themselves; you see, I-DID-NOT-TELL-THEM-AND-THEY-DID-NOT-ASK-NOR-DID-I-EVER-ASK-THEM-IF-THEY-WERE-AN-AYN-RAND-FAN-OR-HOW-BIG-EITHER-BECAUSE-NO-ONE-HERE-CARES-THAT-MUCH-JUST-AS-YOU-DON'T-CARE-AT-ALL-SO-WHY-DID-YOU-ASK-THE-QUESTION? (I do know the answer: you want to put me into a neat little category and put me out with the trash so you'll stay clean and, as you know, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness." Oh? "Cleanliness is next to nothing!" [The Miracle Worker--know the reference?])

(Are you still on the Merry-Go-Round or did you get spun off yet? [it can go faster, but not by me; I'll be a little nicer--or try to be--from now on for I've saturated my interest in this approach])

If you've survived this, welcome to OL ("OL is a blast furnace, not a bridge.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

I have the impression this poster is seeking an environment where people are devoted to a movement and one can call them out on their party affiliation and/or ideological purity.

In case he reads this and in the event this is a misunderstanding, let me repeat what I have said innumerable times elsewhere.

OL is not a site where Objectiviem is an end point. People don't come here to learn how to be good Objectivists and form their lives around it like with a religion.

People come here to work their way through their own independent thinking. Interest in Objectivism is the starting point. The end point will be wherever the person's best thinking leads him or her.

Respect for individuals of good will, trust in them to do their own thinking to the best of their abilities, and the freedom to express themselves without peer pressure (although some Homeric disagreements ensue), are at the heart of this approach--not adherence to, and compliance with, a body of ideas.

OL is a gathering of diverse individuals interested in Rand, not a collective of people who line up behind her.

This result in a messy process and many people are uncomfortable with it. They prefer more structured ideological frames with some kind of intellectual enforcement.

The only enforcement around here is about behavior, specifically bullying, trolling, spamming and the like.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After posting #35 I discovered that the story I linked was shortened from the original. It did not include the part about the firefly cemetery. But the rest of the story is here and the next page. Search for "unholy cigar" to locate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

I have the impression this poster is seeking an environment where people are devoted to a movement and one can call them out on their party affiliation and/or ideological purity.

In case he reads this and in the event this is a misunderstanding, let me repeat what I have said innumerable times elsewhere.

OL is not a site where Objectiviem is an end point. People don't come here to learn how to be good Objectivists and form their lives around it like with a religion.

People come here to work their way through their own independent thinking. Interest in Objectivism is the starting point. The end point will be wherever the person's best thinking leads him or her.

Respect for individuals of good will, trust in them to do their own thinking to the best of their abilities, and the freedom to express themselves without peer pressure (although some Homeric disagreements ensue), are at the heart of this approach--not adherence to, and compliance with, a body of ideas.

OL is a gathering of diverse individuals interested in Rand, not a collective of people who line up behind her.

This result in a messy process and many people are uncomfortable with it. They prefer more structured ideological frames with some kind of intellectual enforcement.

The only enforcement around here is about behavior, specifically bullying, trolling, spamming and the like.

Michael

Well, Nathaniel Branden once hurt my feelings, but I don't talk about it because of the posting guidelines. (Joke alert!)

All the guy has to do is be honest and write about what he knows off his personal base. He knows so little about Objectivism--its principals and its history and its context over the decades, it hurts to read him. Unfortunately, in a few more decades all the adults will be gone and the children will have taken over.

Maybe I should write a book for them et al.? Hard to imagine so little use of my brain.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,what our interloper needs to do--I don't think he knew what he was barging into here--is go away for three years and read and study everything of interest to him, then come back. I went through a version of what he's going through, just like most people who have gotten involved with Rand and Objectivism. There's a yearning for a social existence. On OL it's social and intellectual but the latter trumps the former. Sparks fly. I'm 52 years into this, this summer precisely. Who is going to arm-wrestle me about Objectivism? Or anything? It's a vain calling. Arm wrestling is a game. I don't play games. My ego has gotten so gigantic no one, not even me, can see any more than a small part of it, creating the illusion of modesty. Hey, Brant doesn't have a big ego. Look. It's actually quite small.

--Brant

on my way to world domination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...