|
|
In The Satanic Bible Dr. LaVey shows that the Satanist is an egoistical and rational being.
Being egoistical is merely serving your own best interest. How then can the Xtoid conceptions of egoism be egoism. It cannot, of course.
The Xtoid conception of egoism is a strawman which will fall apart if inspected. Very often the "Xtoid egoist" (often actually a Xtian) acts in his self-interest in the short run, but in the long run (not necessarily more than a few weeks) acts contrary to his own self-interest; e.g. if he cheats on his friends now, he may very well not have any friends in a month or two to help him out of his next predicament. The "Xtoid egoism" simply cannot be egoism as it contradicts the very definition of the term.
How about rationality then? Well, in my field -- business economics -- there is often talk of enlightened or rational self-interest, but these fancy terms are no more than euphemisms for egoism/selfishness in order to sneak them in the back door (which economists have done very successfully). There are a multitude of conceptions of rationality, but what I talk about is the following: One part of rationality is a calculative, logical faculty which ensures consistency, completeness of preferences, transitivity and so on. We could call this internal consistency requirements. However, it is quite possible to observe apparent self-contradictory behaviour on the part of an individual even though this requirement is met. Consistency can often be obtained, however, by appealing to something outside the choice itself, namely by asking what the person in question is trying to do. Economists have traditionally said that a person tries to maximize his utility; less euphemistically: he is selfish, he acts egoistically. We could call this external consistency requirements. Often we just say that rationality serves to maximize the needs of a person. Basically the same thing.
So egoism and rationality is intimately connected. Insofar as rationality is a faculty of the human mind which helps to cleverly reach the goals man sets for himself, one could say that is is implicit in the term "egoism". That rationality is a best strategy for a person I take for granted, though I'm aware of certain rigged paradoxes -- such as the Toxin Puzzle(*) -- which question the efficacy of rationality, but they are negligible in my view.
(*) See Robert Sugden, "Rational Choice: A Survey of Contributions from Economics and Philosophy", The Economic Journal, 101 (July 1991), pp. 751-785
How about this dichotomy then: Rationality vs. feelings. IMO it is a severe misunderstanding and a lie, and I never understood how the misconception came about in the first place. But why do so many people see this as a valid dichotomy?
I've been inclined to think it was because they were uninformed or because they were unable or unwilling to accept the truth because it would damage their belief system (their Xtian belief). But it may be worse than that. The reason why they insist on making the "rationality vs. feelings" comparison is because they are dualists, and as Tani Jantsang has shown they are braindamaged. They are not whole and there exists a gulf between reasoning/the mind and the body. This means they cannot unite and synthesize data. therefore: Anything they can think, can conceive of -- no matter how disjunct or out-of-context -- becomes equally valid choices in their diseased minds. This results in two conclusions:
1. This is the reason for their sins and commandmends: Because they have no body-map, they do not feel the constraints normal animals do, hence they have to have rules to constrain behaviour. They are walking heads with thoughts, thoughts, thoughs. They fear that all the others will commit heinous acts, like rape children, because it is a "valid" and likely course of action in their own minds.
2. That is also why rationality does not work for them. To do anything, to act, to not completely fuck up their lives they have to "trust their feelings too". This is nonsense (even though we should be glad some of the klippoths at least try). No animal, no Naga, even have a clue to what dualists talk about, because mind/rationality/calculus and feelings/preferences/enjoyment are completely synthesized. There is no split.
If they're klippoth and try to act "rationally self-interested", egoistically, they are doomed to fail. It is clear why they fail: they have all these choices, but no yardstick to measure them agains, no life to guide them. They are the embodiment of thanatos. The dead walk the earth and because they're dead, they cannot ever live (they should do everybody a favor and kill themselves).
Why don't they live? Why can't they get a life? Because them that has gets
!