ConanTheKing said:
Corneliusthederelict said:
Just read Ayn Rand. Lavey stated his religion was basically her philosophy with rituals.
If you want a summary of Ayn Rand, it's an evil rationalization of selfishness and egotism
That is not what it is about, she is an anti communist after the Russian government forcibly took control oh her father's pharmacy. Communism was crippling the country, it wouldn't allow people to shine and make the country advance. So her philosophy was based that people have aright to do what they want with their money and their businesses and the government should be a limited government.
I have met a satanist and it is very different and infact a real eye opener. The thing was that as a Christian I enjoyed talking to her because her religion was basically one of self worship, it wasn't about killing or the stereotypes people claim. I have my own religious views but she respected mine and never questioned mine and vice versa.
I learnt a lot from her on what satanism truly is and while I don't agree with it I was happy to learn more about it and understand just what it was.
There are various schools of thought when it comes to Harmless Satanism. Most of them like what your describing are mostly people sticking the "Satan" name onto it to seem edgy and get attention even if they deny it.
Though arguably if you say it's all about self service or inherantly fighting any kind of authority, that comes down in the "bad" catagory. It might be okay for the individual when they are within a society to hold them up, but in the end think of what the world would be like if everyone followed that philsophy. A hellish world of no infrastructure, nothing lasting ever being made, and the strong barbarically preying on the weak? Sounds pretty bad to me.
Viewed in a "part way" context as in a person living in a society made and held up by others and simply "exploiting the sheep for one's own benefit, using their morality as a weaknesss" well that's also pretty bad, and arguably worse. When you get down to it, that is where a lot of the self-serving satanist stuff goes, and while not illegal "We run around killing babies" stuff I can't quite say that it's positive.
The "ultimate rebel" thing (as Satan rebelled against god, so should we rebel against authority) goes the same way. Humans are social creatures, and it comes down to either exploiting people ruthlessly as they hold up the society that still sustains you, OR
looking to see everything collapse back to misery and barbarism.
-
When it comes to Ayn Rand, I have mixed opinions about her philsophy. I personally don't think "Bioshock" got it quite right. I've heard it defined as fancy talk for the strong preying on the weak and exploiting their inferiors, to simple individualism.
Like many people espousing a philsophy she seemed to change in some of the details over time so I don't think you can find 100% consistincy in what she's said. The fact that she frames her examples in fiction doesn't help much either.
For the most part however, her idea basically seems to be one of self-sufficiency, and neither asking nor granting charity to support anyone else. Individual abillity developing a sort of pecking order, but in the end nobody who survives is going to be baggage.
I do not think her philsophy is workable outside of a textbook (much like Communism) but it does have some good points along with the bad.
For example, today we have the medical technology to understand mental retardation far better than in the past. We can recognize conditions, and realize which ones are going to lead to what level of mental capability.
The big reason why we keep retarded children alive today as opposed to requiring they be put down humanely (as many other society's have done throughout history) is that "they might one day turn into an Einstein who was a retard" or something similar (pick your favorite example). That arguement held weight before we knew more about it, but now we can pretty much tell when that is even a remote possibility, and when someone is just going to be a drooling drain on society.
So basically in cases like that I more or less agree with Ayn that someone who in no way could ever contribute to society shouldn't be maintained at society's expense.
Unlike her I have a differant opinion of those who become disabled (for obvious reasons), and think far less of a cold blooded social pecking order.
Ayn's system ultimatly seems like the kind of thing that sounds really great if you assume your going to be at the top of the totem pole (which I get the impression Ayn felt she would). Sort of like how a dictatorship is absolutly wonderful if your the dictator, and Facism rocks hard when it's your group that's in power.
Enough rambling, basically the point is that she's a mixed bag. She both very good and very bad ideas.
