Anatasp Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 What do Objectionists think of the Church of Satan? Input from those who have an understanding of the CoS's philosophy and practices only, thank you. From my limited knowledge of Objectionism, I do not see many differences, though I know there are some major ones (Use of ritual, primarily.). Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 It's "Objectivism" not "Objectionism" See http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...c=1555&hl=Satan Next time, try searching the forum before you post a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatasp Posted March 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 It's "Objectivism" not "Objectionism" See http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...c=1555&hl=Satan Next time, try searching the forum before you post a question. My apologies: Both for the typo and not thinking to use the search feature. Objectivists, Objectivists, Objectivists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenriz Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 What do Objectionists think of the Church of Satan? Input from those who have an understanding of the CoS's philosophy and practices only, thank you. From my limited knowledge of Objectionism, I do not see many differences, though I know there are some major ones (Use of ritual, primarily.). Thanks in advance. In my own personal opinion, LaVey was nothing more than a moderately interesting, if somewhat kitschy, performance artist who started a "satanic church" as a good way to get laid and make a little bit of scratch. His writings were interesting and humorous, particularly "The Devil's Notebook", but he was not a significant philosopher. Here's a particularly interesting link of information compiled by LaVey's daughter Zeena which debunks much of her father's legend: Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 What do Objectionists think of the Church of Satan? We don't. Assuming you meant Objectivists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cole Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 It's "Objectivism" not "Objectionism" My apologies: Both for the typo and not thinking to use the search feature. Objectivists, Objectivists, Objectivists. I think that point has been made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iakeo Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 What do Objectionists think of the Church of Satan? Input from those who have an understanding of the CoS's philosophy and practices only, thank you. From my limited knowledge of Objectionism, I do not see many differences, though I know there are some major ones (Use of ritual, primarily.). Thanks in advance. Philosophies don't base themselves on other philosophies. If they do, they have no basis whatsoever, and should be looked upon as "cults" or other frauds. One of the basic tenets of objectivism is to "do your own work", and not to base your thinking (mental work related to being human) on simply accepting, untested, the thinking of others. If "Fnargmoosism" bases itself on objectivism, then perverts it with various irrationalities, it's no longer based on objectivism. If you can't see the many differences between the CoS and objectivism, then you are, to be VERY kind, simply not conscious. -Iakeo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatasp Posted March 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 (edited) Philosophies don't base themselves on other philosophies. If they do, they have no basis whatsoever, and should be looked upon as "cults" or other frauds. One of the basic tenets of objectivism is to "do your own work", and not to base your thinking (mental work related to being human) on simply accepting, untested, the thinking of others. If "Fnargmoosism" bases itself on objectivism, then perverts it with various irrationalities, it's no longer based on objectivism. If you can't see the many differences between the CoS and objectivism, then you are, to be VERY kind, simply not conscious. -Iakeo I was referring to the personal philosophies (Both Objectivism and Satanism state that a person should live such and such a way because of this, etc.), not academic philosophy. Both stress the importance of individuality, rational self-interest, and the like. I am well aware that Satanism and Objectivism hold different metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. Edited March 16, 2005 by Anatasp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 I was referring to the personal philosophies (Both Objectivism and Satanism state that a person should live such and such a way because of this, etc.), not academic philosophy. Both stress the importance of individuality, rational self-interest, and the like. I am well aware that Satanism and Objectivism hold different metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. Objectivism is both our personal and our "academic" philosophy. This is true because it is good in both theory and in practice. If it wasn't what good would it be? The moral is the practical. By the way any form of Satanism must be a form of Christianity. This topic reminds me of when I was a kid and other kids would ask me if I "believed" in the devil. My answer was always no. Then they would say well if you believe in god you must believe in the devil. What I guess they couldn't comprehend is that I had no "belief" in either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cole Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 This is the obligatory "LaVey Satanists don't literally believe in the Devil" post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iakeo Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I was referring to the personal philosophies (Both Objectivism and Satanism state that a person should live such and such a way because of this, etc.), not academic philosophy. Both stress the importance of individuality, rational self-interest, and the like. I am well aware that Satanism and Objectivism hold different metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. I keep seeing this wacky distinction (that is no distinction in reality) between "academic" and "personal" philosophy. That's like having a "personal" and "academic" view of quadrapedal critters. In my personal view, bears are horses, because they both don't have horns,.. but in my academic view this black horse-like thing isn't a horse because all horses have to be non-black. Anyone care to explain this "distinction" to this befuddled non-academic? Sheesh.... -Iakeo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I keep seeing this wacky distinction (that is no distinction in reality) between "academic" and "personal" philosophy. That's like having a "personal" and "academic" view of quadrapedal critters. In my personal view, bears are horses, because they both don't have horns,.. but in my academic view this black horse-like thing isn't a horse because all horses have to be non-black. Anyone care to explain this "distinction" to this befuddled non-academic? Sheesh.... -Iakeo There is none like I stated in my previous post here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) I think the best explanation and refutation of that "distinction" is Leonard Peikoff's essay "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy" published in _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_. It's very clearly written and accessible to those without an academic background in philosophy. (And it will explain a LOT of goofy philosophies of similar nature). Anyone care to explain this "distinction" to this befuddled non-academic? Sheesh.... -Iakeo Edited March 17, 2005 by Bold Standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iakeo Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) I think the best explanation and refutation of that "distinction" is Leonard Peikoff's essay "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy" published in _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_. It's very clearly written and accessible to those without an academic background in philosophy. (And it will explain a LOT of goofy philosophies of similar nature). Thank you much..! That's not in Piekoff's "Objectivism", is it? Probably not, as that's not "Piekoff's: Intro to Epistemology" is it. The bizarre "academic/personal" split seems to be a continual issue on these forums, and it seems any time "philosophy" is discussed anywhere, actually. It is apparently inherent in the education of students these days (or for however long this weird feature has been prevalent). Therefore,.. I blame the "teachers of academics"..! Nothing new here either, right? Right... Silly collectivists. -Iakeo Edited March 17, 2005 by Iakeo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.