Favorite Philosophers/Thinkers?
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
Kenneth R.
Cináed
and you don't think american society is backwards and failing? i'm sure if more of them knew LaVey's philosophies they would eagerly follow because its easy for them. american society is a good example of what is wrong with his work.speed said:
SunMontage
Member
Silent Song said:
No, I'm not really at liberty to note the "flaws" in any system of philosophy. I'm not a Christian and my beliefs are not static. Philosophies are more or less dead information which require humans to animate them with belief and action. Sadly, a large majority of humans that adopt a particular philosophy are complete shitfaces and do more to fuck up the systems they adhere to than to advance them. And stuff...
Kenneth R.
Cináed
so you find yourself unfit to critique philosophical works? then why post on this forum?
further, one does not have to be Christian to debate this topic, nor hold static or dynamic beliefs. those are all extraneous.
the topic at hand has already been discussed then, if you have nothing further to add, i await Speed's reply.
further, one does not have to be Christian to debate this topic, nor hold static or dynamic beliefs. those are all extraneous.
the topic at hand has already been discussed then, if you have nothing further to add, i await Speed's reply.
Silent Song said:
Why should they follow LEvay's immature philosophy when they can follow the life path set by the corporations who want everyone to bathe in feel good me-me materialism; or perhaps they can follow the destructive ultra-individualism of Ayn Rand, the Republican party, or one of those ever-present improve your-self and your dreams books? So, yes, I agre with you SS.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
SunMontage
Member
Silent Song said:
I'm not unfit to critique anything. I could critique your poor understanding of Satanism for example...
Silent Song said:
Who was talking about someone having to be something to debate this topic?
Are you sure you've posted that comment in the right thread?
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
I recently saw something on the history channel examining how the concept of satan has progressed throughout history. Towards the end of the show some high priest from the Church of Satan came on and discussed their philosophy a little bit...and to say it was the biggest pile of simple minded horseshit I've ever heard would be an understatement.
Disclaimer: I read the Satanic Bible quite a few times when I was a grim/kvlt teenager so I don't want to see any retorts claiming that I don't understand satanism.
Disclaimer: I read the Satanic Bible quite a few times when I was a grim/kvlt teenager so I don't want to see any retorts claiming that I don't understand satanism.
yeah I caught that program too. Its a shame the beautiful satanism of Milton, Baudelair and Huysmanns; the frightening ever-present Satanism of the middle ages has been reduced to an nerdy adolescent religion of kitsch rituals, and pop philosophy.
But lets not be too harsh on Sun Montage; there are some interesting and valid ideas and principles raised by Satanism, that are no more ridiculous than any other system or religion.
But lets not be too harsh on Sun Montage; there are some interesting and valid ideas and principles raised by Satanism, that are no more ridiculous than any other system or religion.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
i was scorning him for his argument, not his supposed views.speed said:
i would however disagree that Satanism holds valid ideas and principles, for reasons stated above briefly.
SunMontage
Member
Silent Song said:
Uh...can you read? I'm pretty well aware of the language that I used in the paragraph I wrote. If you want to spin it a little then go ahead...but I know I never said someone had to be something or think a certain way to debate this topic. This is why I hate so called "debates" because people don't know how to fucking read...
Silent Song said:i was scorning him for his argument, not his supposed views.
i would however disagree that Satanism holds valid ideas and principles, for reasons stated above briefly.
Read the principles and laws of satanism link sunmontage posted. Many of the principles and laws are valid and workable. others are a bit ridiculous; one could say the same thing for your beloved christianity.
NeverIsForever
Member
Regarding Satanism, I agree with Silent Song. Yes, it would be a perfect belief system for the degenerate and materialistic mess that is modern America, but that doesn't make it right.
My honest opinion of Satanism is this: it was created out of the desire to be shocking, and some people actually took it seriously. It seems to me to be the perfect religion for the angsty "goth" types you see hanging around Hot Topic, but that's about it.
That said, I believe that this (as all belief systems) raises some valid points, such as avoidance of self-deceit.
However, its sensible ideas are easily outweighed by the...less sensible...ideas. There is something to be said for a religion that encourages non-conformity, but isn't adhering to that faith then a form of conformity?
The "do unto others as they do unto you" also seems completely idiotic to me. Whatever happened to taking the moral high ground and leading by example as opposed to sinking to the level of those with whom you disagree? Also, not everyone is coming from the same place in choosing their course of action. If a five-year-old throws a mud pie at you, according to the Satanist philosophy you are well within your rights (and possibly encouraged) to throw one back. However, you don't have the excuse of being a five-year-old and lacking the maturity that should theoretically come with age. (This was a stupid example, but I believe my point is visible as a result.)
Therefore I disagree with the blanket statement of doing unto others as they do unto me, with no caveats/disclaimers/etc. Even if you subscribe to such a petty form of behavior, allowances may be necessary depending on where the person is coming from with their actions.
On the original topic, I haven't really read any philosophers beyond excerpts in history textbooks, etc. Then again I'm just now out of high school, so I haven't been exposed to much 'deep' reading, just the pretentious crap like Hesse's Siddhartha.
I'm not sure Thoreau would be considered a philosopher per se, but I did agree with much of what he had to say about discarding the material in favor of getting back to nature. I'd like nothing better than to go live by myself in the wild for a few weeks or maybe longer. That's probably a pretty weird sentiment coming from a modern-day 17-year-old girl, but I really do hate the way we've come to be so dependent on technology, with such utter lack of regard for nature and our fellow living things.
My honest opinion of Satanism is this: it was created out of the desire to be shocking, and some people actually took it seriously. It seems to me to be the perfect religion for the angsty "goth" types you see hanging around Hot Topic, but that's about it.
That said, I believe that this (as all belief systems) raises some valid points, such as avoidance of self-deceit.
However, its sensible ideas are easily outweighed by the...less sensible...ideas. There is something to be said for a religion that encourages non-conformity, but isn't adhering to that faith then a form of conformity?
The "do unto others as they do unto you" also seems completely idiotic to me. Whatever happened to taking the moral high ground and leading by example as opposed to sinking to the level of those with whom you disagree? Also, not everyone is coming from the same place in choosing their course of action. If a five-year-old throws a mud pie at you, according to the Satanist philosophy you are well within your rights (and possibly encouraged) to throw one back. However, you don't have the excuse of being a five-year-old and lacking the maturity that should theoretically come with age. (This was a stupid example, but I believe my point is visible as a result.)
Therefore I disagree with the blanket statement of doing unto others as they do unto me, with no caveats/disclaimers/etc. Even if you subscribe to such a petty form of behavior, allowances may be necessary depending on where the person is coming from with their actions.
On the original topic, I haven't really read any philosophers beyond excerpts in history textbooks, etc. Then again I'm just now out of high school, so I haven't been exposed to much 'deep' reading, just the pretentious crap like Hesse's Siddhartha.
I'm not sure Thoreau would be considered a philosopher per se, but I did agree with much of what he had to say about discarding the material in favor of getting back to nature. I'd like nothing better than to go live by myself in the wild for a few weeks or maybe longer. That's probably a pretty weird sentiment coming from a modern-day 17-year-old girl, but I really do hate the way we've come to be so dependent on technology, with such utter lack of regard for nature and our fellow living things.
The Devil's Steed
Member
NeverIsForever said:
I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant to be taken that literally (take revenge no matter what the circumstances). Not to mention, you can preach about taking the moral high ground and not sinking to their level if you choose, however, sometimes doing something about it when someone harms you is the better thing to do, and possibly the best for everyone.
NeverIsForever
Member
In which case the principle should be phrased as you have stated it, using the key word "sometimes," rather than a universal "do to them what they've done to you..."
The Devil's Steed
Member
I'm pretty sure it's meant to be the reverse of the Christian ideal "Do unto others as you want them to do unto you". Adding in that extra bit would take the point away. And that aside, I'm pretty sure that people will take that in context, anyway.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
NeverIsForever said:
Yeah Thoreau is great. Have you read Walden yet? I highly recomend it, sometimes the writing is a little long-winded without reason to be so, but when he hits one of his strong points the work is very effective. He really does an excellent job of showing how much of modern culture is not only unessasary, but even detrimental to the induvidual.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
now now, that is a bit condescending. the so called "rediculous" parts of christianity, if there are any to be seen as such, are not connected to the absolute core values as they are with levay satanism. while one can argue various facets of christianity, it is far simpler to show inherent logical (and not so much philosophical) flaws that levay outlines in his core points of what satanists should think like.speed said:
NeverIsForever
Member
Yep, I've read it. As you pointed out, he gets long-winded at times but makes some very good points nonetheless...crimsonfloyd said:
