Felix Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Here are some books I liked before Objectivism (and still like): Nietzsche: Thus spoke Zarathustra Nietzsche was a brilliant man. He understood that christian values are man-made and he understood that values are to be pursued for self-interest. He just got that thing with reason wrong. Max Stirner: The one and his property ('Der Einzige und sein Eigentum' I don't know if I translated this one correctly) Very interesting thoughts on ownership and freedom. LaVey: The satanic bible The first part of the book. The rest is 'magical rituals' - I never read it. It champions reason and life on earth. Before discovering Rand this was the most brilliant treatment of philosophy I have read. It did not deal with philosophy, more with religion. What I liked about all of these books was the sense of life, seeing the self and happiness on earth as something positive and it is very very hard to find such a feeling embodied in philosophical literature. That's what striked me about these books and since they are well-written I still read them once in a while just for the fun of it. Yes they made mistakes, but they are still way ahead of the rest of philosophy I have read. I hope to receive some similar recommendations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 What does Lavey mean by "reason"? How does he integrate "magical rituals" with reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted November 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 (edited) What does Lavey mean by "reason"? How does he integrate "magical rituals" with reason? Good question. Satanism holds that man needs reason to survive. It holds that you have certain needs that need to be fulfilled and that claiming them to be evil is - well, evil. They think that you have to live on earth by reason. But he thinks that man needs some sort of dogma and since reason is opposed to dogma, reason alone doesn't suffice. So he invented his own dogma/religion based on what he calls "self-worship" as some sort of shield against christianity and anyone who thinks that self-sacrifice is a good idea. To get some position in the satanic church he has founded, you must have made it in the real world first. You must be already successful to actually become a satanic priest. But as far as I have read about him, he started believing in his own inventions. He claimed that he had put a curse on someone and that this was the reason this man died in a car accident. Edited November 5, 2005 by Felix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctrl y Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 (edited) As bizarre as this is going to sound to an Objectivist audience, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Moreland and Craig is a really good work of philosophy. It introduces one to the issues and vocabulary of modern philosophy in some depth and is written very clearly. Speaking for myself, the fact that I knew from the beginning that I would end up disagreeing with the authors made me think more carefully about what they were saying. Edited May 27, 2010 by ctrl y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 7, 2010 Report Share Posted June 7, 2010 As bizarre as this is going to sound to an Objectivist audience, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Moreland and Craig is a really good work of philosophy. It introduces one to the issues and vocabulary of modern philosophy in some depth and is written very clearly. Speaking for myself, the fact that I knew from the beginning that I would end up disagreeing with the authors made me think more carefully about what they were saying. I spend a great deal of time revisiting the works of the Stoics. Zeno, Epictetus, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Focus Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 I know that this may not be hot among some here, but I enjoy reading stuff that challenges my views. I enjoy reading Kant and even Eastern "philosophy" because they ask fun questions I reject what they both say, but their works address questions that are fun to think about. Eastern philosophy has a poetic aspect to it, which I really enjoy. Alan Watts is a pretty funny guy if you are willing to get past the mysticism. With that said, I am currently reading The Metaphysics by Aristotle and I love it. I couldn't really explain what "metaphysics" really was, so I decided I would look at its beginning. Aristotle is hard to read, and you have to take your time, but it really pays off in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsjames Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 I know that this may not be hot among some here, but I enjoy reading stuff that challenges my views. I enjoy reading Kant and even Eastern "philosophy" because they ask fun questions I reject what they both say, but their works address questions that are fun to think about. Eastern philosophy has a poetic aspect to it, which I really enjoy. Alan Watts is a pretty funny guy if you are willing to get past the mysticism. I tried reading some of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, but I honestly couldn't even get through the introduction (or whatever the opening chapter by Kant was). I was straining my mind just trying to grasp the definitions for all the non-objective concepts he was using. Do you skip around when you read him, or do you read it straight through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 I enjoy reading Kant and even Eastern "philosophy" because they ask fun questions I reject what they both say, but their works address questions that are fun to think about. Why did you put "philosophy" in quotation marks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Focus Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 (edited) I tried reading some of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, but I honestly couldn't even get through the introduction (or whatever the opening chapter by Kant was). I was straining my mind just trying to grasp the definitions for all the non-objective concepts he was using. Do you skip around when you read him, or do you read it straight through? I haven't read his critiques yet. I have read Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Prolegomena for Future Metaphysics, and a bit of Religion Within the Bounds of Reason Alone. Kant is hard work to read, and I understand that it is even harder if you don't start with his introductions. Both Groundwork and Prolegomena are great places to start with Kant. They were made with accessibility in mind, but they are still a lot of work to read through. When I read Kant, I need to read slow. I can only digest so much before my head feels like it is about to explode. At this point it is best to stop because I probably won't take in anything more. I usually play around with the concepts during this time to make sure I have a full grasp. When I feel I am ready, I move on. Why did you put "philosophy" in quotation marks? Eastern philosophy is more like poetry. I wouldn't call Yates philosophy, though I think that he does philosophize. I apply the same principle to Eastern philosophy, where the majority of it is poetry. Edited June 20, 2010 by Focus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 There isn't that much of value to take in from Kant. I'd suggest some better brain-food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuff Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 Good question. Satanism holds that man needs reason to survive. It holds that you have certain needs that need to be fulfilled and that claiming them to be evil is - well, evil. They think that you have to live on earth by reason. But he thinks that man needs some sort of dogma and since reason is opposed to dogma, reason alone doesn't suffice. So he invented his own dogma/religion based on what he calls "self-worship" as some sort of shield against christianity and anyone who thinks that self-sacrifice is a good idea. To get some position in the satanic church he has founded, you must have made it in the real world first. You must be already successful to actually become a satanic priest. But as far as I have read about him, he started believing in his own inventions. He claimed that he had put a curse on someone and that this was the reason this man died in a car accident. LaVey read Ayn Rand before writing that. He was not impressed with it standing alone, and took on and included "Might Is Right" by a Ragnar Redbeard. LaVey's plagiarism from her and other sources is well established; after a search for it you should be able to find examples of line-by-line borrowings. Another part of it was that he found that people respond on a profound level to symbols, which is what made him believe so strongly that rituals were required. 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.