Reply With QuoteWhy would anyone be a Satanist? Satan does not exist and LaVayen Satanism is just atheism with a big heaping dose of ego masturbation and a pinch of Randian objectivism.
Because Satanism, at least Biblical Satanism, is pretty dumb.
I mean, it would pretty much mean that you believe in God, but you choose to worship a weaker, evil being.
If you're on about LeVayanism, then sure go for it.
Why would anyone be a Satanist? Satan does not exist and LaVayen Satanism is just atheism with a big heaping dose of ego masturbation and a pinch of Randian objectivism.
That's pretty much my opinion, yeah.
I so totally didn't spend an entire Summer preaching to my mates about how awesome and not-culty Levayanism is.
Yes, LeVayan.If you're on about LeVayanism, then sure go for it.
If you have a problem with it, that's really just too bad. There are rituals that are not so ego-centric. Objectivisim, sure. That's something I legitimately can say I believe in.Why would anyone be a Satanist? Satan does not exist and LaVayen Satanism is just atheism with a big heaping dose of ego masturbation and a pinch of Randian objectivism
Quite frankly, I didn't either. In fact, I don't even participate in the rituals because, that's where I draw the line.I so totally didn't spend an entire Summer preaching to my mates about how awesome and not-culty Levayanism is
How do you react to this: Rand claims that humans use logic as their tool of survival and that not serving logic is not serving the survival instinct and yet she fails to defend the survival instinct as a legitimate source of ethical behaviour. She goes on to accuse those who coerce, threaten, or harm others to get their way of being morally unjustified and 'no better than animals' yet she does not take into account situations where the survival instinct clashes against the survival instincts of others: for example in a situation where one must either kill and eat another human or die themselves. The logical course of action for one's own survival is clearly to kill and eat the other person, yet Rand would forbid this by claiming it interferes with the other individual's right to make a choice. If survival is on the line and we are forced to either restrict another's ability to make a choice or ourselves die, then Rand's philosophy is just as suicidal as the altruism she condemns.Originally Posted by PWhit
TL;DR: Rand was an insane sociopath.
I personally don't follow Rand word for word. However, in this particular situation of life and death there are only two options presented when in reality there are more than two. You can go about this in many ways.
*Starve (presented as illogical)
*Cannibalize (presented as logical)
*Reason and ally with the other person in efforts to gather food (not presented)
*Use the environment to satisfy your hunger/thirst and leave the other alone. (not presented)
*Drink your own urine for a small source of protein and nutritional satiation for the time being. (not presented)
*Hunt an animal nearby. (not presented)
*Fill up on water. (not presented)
and so on.
While you choose these options, the other can do the same. So they will make the choice anyway; whether it is executed is a different matter. If you choose any of the not presented matters, you are following moral egoism.
Also, if the person lacks self-respect or gives himself or herself no reason to live, then they will starve, subtracting the egoism.
And if the person cannibalizes, they are subtracting moralism.
Even so, I never stated that I followed her word for word and word, so most likely if the only two choices were available, I would cannibalize anyway and be guilty later. Rand doesn't seem to cross me as an insane person to me. Maybe I am insane along with a fair part of the world that also agrees with her?
Well, I mean, when you bring it to 'he die or you die, mofo', pretty much all morality goes out the window.
And I agree of course, but it doesn't mean you can't find other options.
Then why call yourself an objectivist, other than for convenience? If you only broadly agree with Rand then you're just an individualist (which I can agree with; individualism makes infinitely more sense than collectivism in both theory and practice).
Well, what is society and law but collective insanity?
EDIT: If you're wondering what moral system I follow, broadly speaking I hang somewhere between atheistic existentialism and absurdism, and I believe the only way an ideal and universal ethical, legal, or political system can be created is through transhumanism.
Last edited by Delphinus; 02-06-2011 at 05:19 PM.
Well then let me put it this way then. I am an objectivist to a certain extent. I believe in it but not fully enough to call myself a true objectivist. I hope it makes a little more sense because I never side 100% with one philosophy.Then why call yourself an objectivist, other than for convenience? If you only broadly agree with Rand then you're just an individualist (which I can agree with; individualism makes infinitely more sense than collectivism in both theory and practice).
Bookmarks