studiodekadent

Michael, Thanks for the warm welcome.

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.

I have some problems with Szasz. He is somewhat Freudian. However, I believe his conclusion that psychiatry should be totally voluntary is correct except possibly in some extremely exceptional circumstances. He attacks the reductive physicalism that is currently poisoning psychiatry and he points out that a lot of psychiatry is based on values rather than actual objective science. He is also a great writer and speaker.

Suicide Commando, Front Line Assembly, :wumpscut:, Icon of Coil, Decoded Feedback, Hocico, VNV Nation, Velvet Acid Christ, [:SITD:] and pretty much the whole genre of Electro-Industrial from Futurepop to old-school EBM to Dark Electro and all shades and variations of. Although my personal work leans towards the sample-strewn and sonically complex, so Im not as minimalistic as some of the bands I mention.

I just refer to it as "Lenny's Cult."

Thanks Kori! I agree, this place is a remarkably friendly one. Its like what would happen if you put everyone at Objectivism Online (aka Rationalist Randroid Central) on Xanax (lol). Actually, its much more intellectual than that, but the joke still stands I intend to share my music at a later date. I have a number of composed songs, I just need to get my MIDI interface and make the tracks with my synthesizers and samplers. But I promise Ill share them later. I hope you like your music dark and angry!

Hi there, As can be inferred from the title, Im a new member. My name is Andrew, and I am an Objectivist from Australia and an economics student (the theory I work with is Austrian, Misesian-Hayekian branch). I like the attitude on this forum. Im a frequent poster on the TOC board and I back Dr Kelley in the split. I like the new scholarship coming out of this branch of the movement, it is really turning Objectivism into a school of thought. My own interests, intellectually, are in Objectivist Ethics, Objectivism and Austrian Economics (with some lean towards von Hayek and Objectivism; I think Rand's treatment of von Hayek was unfair), Objectivism and Evolutionary Economics, as well as Objectivist Feminism. Im also a political activist in Australia's Liberal Democratic Party (the equivalent of the US Libertarians, albiet a moderate version (most of the people in it are rather hardcore, we just don't want to frighten the electorate)). Im also a musician. I make electro-industrial music. I look foward to some enjoyable discussions here.