Post by Helen on Nov 16, 2003 17:42:47 GMT -5
I noticed that over on the other board there was a discussion on whether or not Philosophical Satanism was just Humanism except with a 'cooler' label.
The discussion got diverted and I decided not to join it for that reason, but instead I thought I'd post up my views on this here.
It is said that Humanism can be defined as Satanism without the sorcery/magic.
La Vey said that humanism does not involve ritual and involved no ceremony or dogma. He said that this is what made it not a religion. Not what made it not Satanism. As far as I see he wasn't implying that he was a humanist but that because he practised magic that made him a satanist.
There are bigger differences between Humanism and Satanism than that.
Humanism is philanthropic. Humanists believe that we should be concerned about humankind in general, treat each other humanely, respect each other, be concerned for the state of the human race and the state of the planet for the benefit of everyone and for future generations. So the Humanist is concerned with the greater good.
The Satanist does not share this view. The Satanist is only concerned with what is in it for them and the Satanist only is concerned with the welfare of him/herself and those he or she considers worthy.
This is a difference so fundamental that it makes Humanism and Satanism very different at the core.
I want to move towards a full understanding of 'ritual' here because too often I'm seeing that people seem to think that the only kind there is is the magical kind.
How to define 'ritual' is something that academics are still arguing about to this day but I'll tell you what I think which is to the best of my current knowledge: a ritual is an event, action or ceremony which aims to achieve change or transmit knowledge and when performed regularly serves to reinforce or preserve that knowledge or the effects of that change. And the difference between ritual action and an everyday task is that ritual involves action, movement or objects which serve no inherent purpose in being utilized, other than that which those performing the ritual ascribe to them.
I do not practice magic and and I don't really believe in the supernatural but that does not mean I don't perform ritual. For La Vey magic was changing situations or events in accordance with one's will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable. There is nothing in my rituals which could not be achieved using 'normally accepted' methods. I just find that the normally accepted methods do not work for me, because it is the unique and ritualistic way in which I do what I do which makes it work. It involves objects, actions and movements which have no real reason to be involved other than because I feel they help. And it is performed regularly. The change I go for is only ever a change in me , never the world around me. I feel that once I've changed in the way I want then all changes in the world around me will happen through direct action. I don't believe I can change the world purely by will power. I change it because will power gives me the strength to do and say things which make change. My rituals are personal will-power building exercises, as well as self-celebrations (get your mind out of the gutter it's not necessarily what you think). It isn't magic. Me and La Vey would differ here, because he would say it was magic. Lesser magic perhaps. But there is a difference in what I do and in magic and this difference is that it could be achieved by more accepted means. I just choose not to use them because my rituals work better. And there is no utilising or belief in the supernatural.
As some of you know Satanism is a label I haven't been too keen to adopt although for the purposes of some debates on the old board I used the label because it saved time explaining. And it has definitey always been part of what I believe. And I wondered about the validity of non-magical satanism. But I think as long as you have the ritual, ceremony and dogma then the magic doesn't matter. It is that which moves it away from a philosophy and moves it closer to being a religion.
Could this come to be what Philosophical Satanism means? It could be non-magical Satanism. 'Philosophical' because higher emphasis is placed on philosophy and 'Satanism' because it requires ritual, ceremony and dogma.
But this is not Humanism because of the fundamental philsophical differences between Humanism and Satanism. A humanist could perform my rituals and not be a Satanist because they would disagree with Satanic philosophy.
Anyway what does everything else think, can there ever be non-magical Satanism?
The discussion got diverted and I decided not to join it for that reason, but instead I thought I'd post up my views on this here.
It is said that Humanism can be defined as Satanism without the sorcery/magic.
La Vey said that humanism does not involve ritual and involved no ceremony or dogma. He said that this is what made it not a religion. Not what made it not Satanism. As far as I see he wasn't implying that he was a humanist but that because he practised magic that made him a satanist.
There are bigger differences between Humanism and Satanism than that.
Humanism is philanthropic. Humanists believe that we should be concerned about humankind in general, treat each other humanely, respect each other, be concerned for the state of the human race and the state of the planet for the benefit of everyone and for future generations. So the Humanist is concerned with the greater good.
The Satanist does not share this view. The Satanist is only concerned with what is in it for them and the Satanist only is concerned with the welfare of him/herself and those he or she considers worthy.
This is a difference so fundamental that it makes Humanism and Satanism very different at the core.
I want to move towards a full understanding of 'ritual' here because too often I'm seeing that people seem to think that the only kind there is is the magical kind.
How to define 'ritual' is something that academics are still arguing about to this day but I'll tell you what I think which is to the best of my current knowledge: a ritual is an event, action or ceremony which aims to achieve change or transmit knowledge and when performed regularly serves to reinforce or preserve that knowledge or the effects of that change. And the difference between ritual action and an everyday task is that ritual involves action, movement or objects which serve no inherent purpose in being utilized, other than that which those performing the ritual ascribe to them.
I do not practice magic and and I don't really believe in the supernatural but that does not mean I don't perform ritual. For La Vey magic was changing situations or events in accordance with one's will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable. There is nothing in my rituals which could not be achieved using 'normally accepted' methods. I just find that the normally accepted methods do not work for me, because it is the unique and ritualistic way in which I do what I do which makes it work. It involves objects, actions and movements which have no real reason to be involved other than because I feel they help. And it is performed regularly. The change I go for is only ever a change in me , never the world around me. I feel that once I've changed in the way I want then all changes in the world around me will happen through direct action. I don't believe I can change the world purely by will power. I change it because will power gives me the strength to do and say things which make change. My rituals are personal will-power building exercises, as well as self-celebrations (get your mind out of the gutter it's not necessarily what you think). It isn't magic. Me and La Vey would differ here, because he would say it was magic. Lesser magic perhaps. But there is a difference in what I do and in magic and this difference is that it could be achieved by more accepted means. I just choose not to use them because my rituals work better. And there is no utilising or belief in the supernatural.
As some of you know Satanism is a label I haven't been too keen to adopt although for the purposes of some debates on the old board I used the label because it saved time explaining. And it has definitey always been part of what I believe. And I wondered about the validity of non-magical satanism. But I think as long as you have the ritual, ceremony and dogma then the magic doesn't matter. It is that which moves it away from a philosophy and moves it closer to being a religion.
Could this come to be what Philosophical Satanism means? It could be non-magical Satanism. 'Philosophical' because higher emphasis is placed on philosophy and 'Satanism' because it requires ritual, ceremony and dogma.
But this is not Humanism because of the fundamental philsophical differences between Humanism and Satanism. A humanist could perform my rituals and not be a Satanist because they would disagree with Satanic philosophy.
Anyway what does everything else think, can there ever be non-magical Satanism?