The new commandments

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Typical christian behavior?

Nope. Please don't fall into easy stereotyping of Christians. You're too smart to be doing that.

On the commandment: Won't work. If we're commanded to do what feels good..... no one will get any work done.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by cupper3

It seems to me that his "will to power" was manifested in all sorts of relationships, not just the political ones, and certainly not necessarily physical. There appears no mitigation, which the second part of construct has.




We interpret Crowley very differently; I see a direct call to the occult. And agreed, again the do no harm principle is missing. It is an intregal part of the construct, so one can't compare Crowley to it.

The important part is not to concentrate on the first part of the construct, but recognize that the second part is integral to the whole.

Yes, I think neither Nietzsche or Crowley could said to have embodied the 2nd principle, but were merely milestones on the way to Lavey. Judging from many of the things Crowley wrote concerning magic and the occult, and his way of offering more realistic alternatives to occultic practices to achieve goals, I think he viewed occultism as a means to an end and would have adopted alternative methods of ritual if they had suited his purpose. But you may be correct - he may have unwittingly "called" people to the occult, and trusted too much that the discerning would understand the carnival.

My main intention was to show that the same principle (do what you want; do no harm to others/yourself) is representative of advanced ethical Hedonism, with an example of how 3 schools of thought contributed in a chain of influences to produce what became a very important and influential maxim in the 1970s, as another poster noted in passing. Only the last school of thought contained both maxims together, however. That this expression of Hedonism was important to Americans beginning in the late 60s, early 70s can be demonstrated from a number of studies on both the culture of the time and Satanism.

Interestingly, Hedonism has a long history. It's been a while since I studied philosophy, but I do vaguely recall that some Indian schools before the time of Buddha were hedonistic, and the Greek Aristippus. On the Wikipedia page for Hedonism, they give an interesting history that goes all the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh. I found the Egyptian text they quote especially interesting.

An ancient parallel to your model, however, can apparently be found all the way back with Epicurianism. It would be difficult to sum up his nuanced views of Hedonism, but according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Epicurus’ ethics starts from the Aristotelian commonplace that the highest good is what is valued for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else, and Epicurus agrees with Aristotle that happiness is the highest good. However, he disagrees with Aristotle by identifying happiness with pleasure.....

Epicurus is one of the first philosophers to give a well-developed contractarian theory of justice. Epicurus says that justice is an agreement “neither to harm nor be harmed,” and that we have a preconception of justice as “what is useful in mutual associations.”
(Tim O'Keefe - "Epicurus - 341-271 B.C.E.", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Epicurus*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy])

Anyways, I wasn't trying to rain on your parade or anything - I actually think there is merit to some of this school of thought -, I was just pointing out an interesting parallel to your "new" commandments from the last century or so, and I'll let Qoheleth give my other reason. As good ol' Qoheleth wrote, when he realized that nothing in the world ever changed and everything kept going round and round and round and round, and how life-crushingly boring this all was:

Whatever has happened - that is what will happen;
what has been done - that is what will be done.
There is nothing new under the sun.
If there is a thing of which one might say,"See this one, it is new!" -
already it existed long ago, the ages that were before us had it.
(Qhoheleth/Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, AB Seow)

God I love how depressed Qoheleth makes me!

[TRANSPONDER]

Whopps "Yes, I think neither Nietzsche or Crowley could said to have embodied the 2nd principle,"

I have to admit that I haven't read much Nietsche. I found a few problems with his 'Superman' ethic. I don't doubt that if you asked him where he was on the pile - "[surprise] why right on the top, of course. Because of the privileged social position my superior intellect gives me." and Crowley did harm, at times. It is probably true that there were some Doops who let him exploit them, but then reasoning and skepticism were in their early days.

The dictum or principle of 'do no harm' is however sound enough, as a starting point - the 'commentary' (let alone practical application) is a LOT harder - and really the shortcomings of those who have used the term does not alter that.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Whopps "Yes, I think neither Nietzsche or Crowley could said to have embodied the 2nd principle,"

I have to admit that I haven't read much Nietsche. I found a few problems with his 'Superman' ethic. I don't doubt that if you asked him where he was on the pile - "[surprise] why right on the top, of course. Because of the privileged social position my superior intellect gives me." and Crowley did harm, at times. It is probably true that there were some Doops who let him exploit them, but then reasoning and skepticism were in their early days.

The dictum or principle of 'do no harm' is however sound enough, as a starting point - the 'commentary' (let alone practical application) is a LOT harder - and really the shortcomings of those who have used the term does not alter that.

Yes indeed, I agree.

Nietzsche especially spoke of the "Superman" who trampled the world heh heh! Many of the hedonistic schools of thought, while embodying the idea that personal pleasure and happiness is the supreme goal, eventually tempered their philosophy with ideas of ethical and social obligations to others. In fact, their very definition of pleasure and happiness included the idea that others should be happy as well. A good principle to have, methinks!

And yeh, Crowley was not the best of men (just ask the women who he famously bit when he took their hands hee hee) and his philosophy is far from desirable.


The "commentary" would probably have to adopt the principle of social obligation, I think. Along with that would come the hairy problem of whether harm can be done via inaction, and what one's role would be expected to be in such a situation. Honestly, that rabbit hole could go on forever until one is expected to be everywhere at once. Perhaps this is where many critiques of theodicy place too much expectations of divine power over the world on the deity?




TANGENT:
Not to go off on a tangent (but I DO love theodicy), James L. Crenshaw summed up how the ancients, and eventually many people today, view God as a supreme being with ultimate power:

Like their neighbors in Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia, the early Israelites believed that supreme power resided with the deity. As creator of everything that was, YHWH controlled the universe in every detail, from the rising of the sun to the nocturnal prowling of the lion and everything in between. Rains came, and harvest, at the creator’s bidding, as did famine and pestilence. Nothing took place under the sun that was remotely contrary to the divine will. Even social and political events were thought to be dictated by the deity, so firm was the ancients’ belief in divine sovereignty. This heightened sense of God’s power left minimal responsibility to humans, turning individuals into mere puppets manipulated by divine hands.

(James L. Crenshaw - Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil, Oxford: 2005, p. 75)

This vision of an all-powerful God is one of the key problems of theodicy, of course: if God is all-good then he want to prevent the suffering of the innocent, if he is all-knowing then he will be able to see the suffering of the innocent, and if he is all-powerful then he will be able to rectify such evil. However we define "evil", through his stewardship it still exists - no matter when "evil" first occurred.*

The prophets did not much care for the Deuteronomic theology of Retributive Justice, for it could clearly be demonstrated that it did not work - despite what the good did, they suffered. That is when the philosophy of corporate punishment became popular. People suffered, the nation suffered, because collectively the people had lapsed from the what the prophets perceived was the "proper" way to worship God. This removed one of the major problems of Isaiah's monumental monotheism: a supremely powerful god - GOD - of all the Universe could no longer excuse evil as resulting from external causes. He had to own it as part of his will, as Isaiah wrote:

I am Yahweh, and there is no other; besides me there is no god; I have armed you [Cyrus], and you did not know me,

That they may know from the east and from the west that there is none besides me,
I am Yahweh, and there is no other.

I form light, and I create darkness; I produce well-being, and I create evil;
I Yahweh do all these things.
(Isaiah 45:5-7, AB McKenzie)

With such supreme responsibility for good and evil, the prophets had to come up with a way of explaining away the supposed suffering of the innocent and the existence of evil. So they blamed people. And we have been doing so ever since, apparently.


*When evil arose according to P.
There are many theories of when evil arose in the Biblical narrative, but I do like the possible theory from the Priestly Creation Myth that it pre-existed in the form of Chaos - the darkness and the Deep, both potent symbols of chaos and evil in the Ancient Near East. While this may act as an apology for God's allowance of evil by removing his culpability, it fits in with the older combat myths of the ANE and removes creatio ex nihilo from the picture. Through God's separative and creative acts in Genesis 1, he brought the chaotic waters and darkness under his control - just as other deities did in their own combat myths against Chaos. See Gregory Mobley's excellent The Return of the Chaos Monsters - And Other Backstories of the Bible (Eerdmans: 2012). The Book of Job especially reveals that God is involved in creatio continua and must continually hold back the forces of Chaos from Creation, lest they swallow order back into disorder again. It is this monumental task that Yahweh demands Job undertake before he even presumes to question the justice of God and how he handles the Universe.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx

Well, it's not that it could be argued, I did argue it and have yet to hear any sort of refute.

Here's a refutation:

The 2nd commandment says that if it does harm to yourself or to others ....

Generally speaking, any rational person being a voyeur would feel rather guilty about doing it. Deliberately subjecting oneself to guilt could be easily construed as emotional harm.

The biggest glitch in these two commandments is that it doesn't necessarily cover the mentally ill. Thus a person with some kind of compulsion to be a voyeur would understand the immorality of his actions but would be powerless to stop committing them - hence a horrific, almost haunting guilt.

Though no system can really adequately address the ramifications of committing immoral acts due to mental aberrations that the sufferer cannot control.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The dictum or principle of 'do no harm' is however sound enough, as a starting point - the 'commentary' (let alone practical application) is a LOT harder - and really the shortcomings of those who have used the term does not alter that.

And THIS is what the detractors fail to grasp and it is what it is ALL about.