I read this book in high school. The reason for the one star is that it serves at least some positive use in that it corrects some Christians belief about what "philosophical Satanism" entails. LaVey doesn't believe in anything like the biblical concept of Satan. It's meant to be something like the antithesis of Christian morality. So whereas Jesus says "Turn the other cheek" LaVey says, "If a man smite you on the cheek, smite him twice as hard on the other." LaVey obviously never bothered to consult any standard commentaries on that verse, showing his rather ubiquitous ignorance of all things Christian.LaVey holds to some kind of ethical egoism. But one wonders why he tries to advocate for that thesis.If one has a good moral theory, it seems that it should be pronounced. Taught to others. Publicized. But if Ethical Egoism is true, it would seem that its adherents, those who have grasped and understood its truth, shouldn't teach it to others. It would seem that if most people were taught the ethics of altruism, this would be the best situation for the egoist. Thus it would seem that if Ethical Egoism were true, its adherents should teach that it is false and that Altruistic Ethics is the correct theory. But this seems to undermine a feature of morality. Moral principles serve as action guides that inform us how to act in situations. Moral precepts should be teachable. Teach others how to act (this would be a necessary but not sufficient feature, character/virtue ethics and teleological ethics would also need to be included). Publicized so that others are morally informed agents. But if Ethical Egoism were true, not only would it be unwise for me to teach it, it just might be immoral for me to teach it. Teaching others to be egoists could easily turn out to be not in our best interest. And, principles should be taught since moral principles serve as action-guides to help resolve (among other things) interpersonal conflict. Furthermore, since Ethical Egoism isn't so crass as to say that we should do what benefits us in the here and now, but is a long-term plan, spanning across all of our future selves, it might not be in our best interest, considering all our selves, to promulgate Ethical Egoism to ourselves. Thus we shouldn't teach Ethical Egoism to ourselves. And, if we should, what is the morally relevant reason that allows us to discriminate between ourselves and others? This is one reason why ethicist Russ Shafer-Landau has pointed out the Ethical Egoism seems to imply that we should discriminate against people. Treat ourselves as special over against other humans. But this radical prejudice seems unfounded. If a moral principle P cannot be universalized, then I shouldn't teach it to myself even. If it can't be universalized, it doesn't even seem like a moral principle.But of course LaVey dislikes altruism. But we can quickly see the moral problems that pop up real quick:Mr. Smith: "Thanks for saving my life, good friend, I almost drowned out there."Anton LaVey: "Don't mention it. I did it for myself. After all, my life would suck if you weren't in it, and there's that matter of the 1,000 dollars you owe me. It wouldn't be beneficial for me to lose out on that. So, you're welcome, friend."Who out there, if you were in Smith's shoes, would think this act of LaVey's was a good, moral, and altruistic act? Not many, I'd wager.But, don't those adhering to ethical egoism say that they can account for "altruism?" That helping and saving others is actually good, for them? That their system doesn't do away with our moral responsibility to help others, for the sake of helping others?But, isn't this a trick? Doesn't this, in fact, fail to distinguish between pseudo and genuine altruism? The latter has, as its goal, purpose, and intrinsic value, the benefit of another irrespective of benefit to one's self? (And, as an aside, that there may be personal payoffs and side effects does not logically entail that the moral action was done for egoistic reasons as its basis. Sure it is nice to have your friend around and to collect on the 1,000, but an altruistic act is done solely for the sake of the other; even though there might very well be side effects and outcomes that are good for you, personally.)Of course egoists like LaVey try to make altruistic acts ft within their moral philosophy. But above I've pointed out that the cost is to defend pseudo altruism over against genuine altruism. And, the argument from side effects does not imply ethical egoism. Indeed, most of us, including Smith, might rightly look down on LaVey's actions. Speaking to intention, altruistic acts, done on and for egoism's premises, are morally repugnant acts. There's plenty other dubious ethical statements. For instance: "Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal." And of course with no philosophical discussion of what the rather vague and ambiguous term 'mating signal' means, he's opened the door to rape.And he also seems a bit arbitrary. For example, he says: "Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food." What about human animals? Apparently we can kill them, after all, at one place he writes, " If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy." He also advocates injustice. For example, he claims: "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him." But what is the content of this "bothering?" Why does it deserve a "destroying?" There's also that comment about "smiting twice as hard." Obviously LaVey doesn't believe the punishment should fit the crime. LaVey fails with regard to having a just ethical system.LaVey also makes suspect metaphysical claims, and that's putting it mildly. We could call it sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores!He advocates practicing magic and advocating it's power.Puh-leaseI probably would have rated it 5 stars in high school because I was a big tough-guy who had a superority complex, just like LaVey. Oh yeah, I was unregenerate too.
For my 666th review I couldn't think of a more appropriate book than The Satanic Bible!I bought this about 25 years ago and just now got around to reading it. Thanks for the motivation, Good Reads!Why did I buy The Satanic Bible way back when I was a teenager? Well, it's like this...Rock music has always been seen by some as a source of evil and there's a history of musicians who supposedly sold their souls to the devil.There were rock & roll "gods" like my hero Jimmy Page, who it is rumored followed occultist Aleister Crowley. As a guitar playing teen I idolized them and wanted to be them to the point of buying a book like this. I wondered, was there magic within? Would the devil make me a rock god, too? Or just getting me laid would be cool...I expected sex, blood, magic, horror, demons, and more sex and way more magic.Then I read it and what I got was more like...(Just to the left of the clock I believe is George Bush #2 and that's pretty satanic in and of itself.)Honestly, this book is just not as exciting as I'd hoped. I'm sure it would scandalize a churchy type, but it didn't do much for me. It didn't start well. Right up front you learn that Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, was a carny. A carny who gets his panties in a bunch because he sees men being pious hypocrites, so he shaves himself bald and starts a cult, no sir, that is not a good start to a new religion.There's a foreword by a journalist, who describes meeting and getting to know LaVey. I thought this was a nice touch. It showed a more human side to the story. I'm one of those people that believe journalists should be unbiased, people who you can rely on to give you the facts, just the facts. But then you learn this particular journalist became a high priest in the Church of Satan, and well, that kind of crushed his unbiased credibility. Moving on to LaVey's theories and ideas, we see some ridiculousness and some common sense. On the one hand, I very much doubt LaVey would want to live in the world of chaos that his vision would create. "Do whatever you want" sounds fun, and certainly some people do need to lighten up, but when you live in a world of chaos (I spent sometime living in a house run by anarchist punks, so I got a taste of what that'd be like) you learn the value of a few basic societal rules. LaVey's militant eye-for-an-eye-and-then-some (Meaning he believes you strike down those who offend you with even greater force) outlook coupled with a world of chaos would've put LaVey himself in harm's way very quickly.The first half of the book expounds upon his theories. This section is much more relaxed than I expected. He speaks off the cuff, using slang and humor. It's an interesting approach to the writing of a religious text. Definitely a relief from the stuffy Holy Bible. By the way, any Satanists reading this can relax. Yes, I'm bagging on your boy a bit here, but I also think Christians are ridiculous, too. I'm one of those people who has faith in themselves, that they will do the right thing. So far I'm doing all right. Haven't murdered any one yet!Later The Satanic Bible gets into the whole "spell casting" thing, the reason I bought the damned book in the first place. Much is made of sex, blood essence, speaking accursed names aloud and none of it was as cool as I'd hoped. I did like that LaVey calls out the people who sacrifice animals as cowards for not having the balls to draw their own blood for these rituals. The last half of the book is a very short, quick read. There's barely more than a dozen lines on some of the last hundred or so pages. Sometimes it's just a title page or one simple sentence and blank space on the back side. This was done for aesthetics and it's a big waste of paper. The book would be a lot smaller otherwise.All in all, I think Christians get their panties in a bunch over nothing much here. And as LaVey says, they need Satan. It's the Yin and Yang. God, Jesus and the other goodie goodies have to have a counter point. The good guys need the bad guys.
What do You think about The Satanic Bible (1976)?
This book definitely deserves a review.I read this book when I was 18, and it does deserve a 5 star rating for one reason:This book is the book that actually killed god in my head.I had despised hypocritical christians more and more for a few years leading up to me reading this book, but I still thought that god existed, but that his followers were mainly authoritarian morons.But this book made me see through the entire religion itself, ridiculing the christian bible for what it is: a crock of shit.But satanism is still a religion (even apparantly recognized by the U.S. Military), and all religions are a joke.LaVey is a self-identified misogynist as well as a charlatan. He says that people shouldn't let others take advantage of them, but yet he charged $100 to join the "Church of Satan", he gives you magic spells in the back of the book, but in his next book he says that the spells we're exactly meant to work literally.But like any other writer, I may like some of what they say and discard what I don't like.And I do like some of his humor, and definitely agree that the ego in us need to be fulfilled. People do not take what they want seriously most of the time. We end up sacrificing and compromising too much of ourselves, and in the end, hardly anyone is happy.Not to mention, that is usually the reason religions are created, to keep the rest of the population in line. You can degrade and starve them all you want on earth, just tell them everything will be better for them the more they suffer, once they get to the after-life.Not to mention LaVey is definitely an eccentric individual and has written some crazy stuff that a wingnut like myself takes a liking to. Such as, since he was such a shut in, he ended up making friends out of mannequins because he despised people so much! Also not to mention writing about how he will not bathe until he offends himself, not caring about what others think.
—j to the muthafuckin R
Hmmm... Ona jest chyba dokładnie taka jak opisał ją w przedmowie:"W tej książce znajdziesz prawdę - i fantazję. Obie są sobie niezbędne, ale każda musi być poznana jako to, czym w istocie jest."Bo fantazji to tam też jest sporo.Filozofia jest ok. Wszystko jasne, zrozumiałe i w większości ma sens i się zgadzam z większością. I to nie jest zła książka, ani satanizm nie jest niczym złym. Stanista zazwyczaj będzie dobrym człowiekiem... dopóki ktoś go nie wkurzy [wkurzasz ludzi? sam jesteś sobie winien! ;) ] wtedy bez wyrzutów sumienia się zemści. Ale czy większość ludzi tak się nie zachowa? Czy to nie katolicy często krzyczą: "TAK dla kary śmierci!"? Otóż niczym się nie różnią od satanistów... no może tylko jedym (o tym też jest mowa): oszukują sami siebie.Może kilka cytacików:"(...) religia przez cały czas głosi to samo, ale jej zwolennicy nie praktykują już właściwych dla niej nauk, to dlaczego wciąż określają siebie nazwa odnoszącą się do wyznawców tej religii?Jeżeli nie wierzysz w to, czego naucza cię twoja religia, po co trwać przy wierze sprzecznej z twoimi odczuciami."Każdy powinien się nad tym zastanowić.Ale znowu to:" Każdego; kto udaje, że interesuje się magią lub okultyzmem z innego powodu niż chęci powiększenia własnej siły i możliwości, należy uznać za najgorszego z możliwych hipokrytów."To jest bzdura. To że np. interesuję się astonomią nie oznacza, że chcę być astronautą.LaVey ma też rację pisząc o grzechu - wiele rzeczy grzechem nie jest, a tylko jakieś błędne wpojenie ludziom tego jako grzech pokutuje nadal.I jeszcze coś:"Satanizm toleruje wszystkie rodzaje zachowań seksualnych, które należycie zaspokajają twoje indywidualne żądze - możesz być heteroseksualny, homoseksualny, biseksualny lub nawet aseksualny, jeżeli tak wybrałeś. Satanizm sankcjonuje również każdy fetysz i dewiację, które wzbogacą twoje życie seksualne" dopóki biorą w tym udział osoby, które same mają na to ochotę."I tak powinno być! :)Przeczytana z e-booka na komórce. Dostępna na wielu stronach internetowych. Myślę, że przeczytać warto, chociażby tylko Księgę Lucyfera, bo reszta to jest nudna i jak dla mnie to ta fantazja."Książka ta pokazuje, że satanizm nie jest wiarą pełną brutalności i krwi, lecz oddaniem się pokusie cielesności (...)"- to wyjaśnienie mi się podoba [za wikipedią
—L.L.
The nine Satanic sins are stupidity, pretentiousness, solipsism, self-deceit, herd conformity, lack of perspective, forgetfulness of past orthodoxies, counterproductive pride, and a lack of aesthetics. The astonishing thing about The Satanic Bible is that it commits every single one of these sins. Not just once or twice each, but over and over again. It's especially guilty of pretentiousness, solipsism, lack of perspective, and a lack of aesthetics. Still, there's something kind of weirdly admirable about The Satanic Bible as a counterculture product (which is what this is, completely and entirely; as most people know there's really nothing occult about this form of Satanism. Being a LaVeyan Satanist is like being a pissed off hippie with no weed to mellow her out). This stuff isn't always smart, but it sort of can be, sometimes, in an odd way. It's not an admirable way of life, but it has great appeal as pretty much an atheistic but sorta religious codification of your core beliefs as a teenager. It's also honestly way saner at times than some actual religious stuff. What I really took away from reading this was respect for this odd work of consistent, yet probably unintentional irony. If we ignore LaVey as a personality, and take this book to be parody or satire, it's maybe some kind of pomo masterpiece: a decidedly non-Biblical Bible that constantly undermines its own doctrines and potential as a way of life, showing them and it to be as vacuous and hypocritical as the doctrines and ways of life suggested by the non-Satanic Bible.
—Adam
