It may come as no surprise that I frequent the elegant prose delivered at Bad Science.
A recent article put forth an interesting idea for discussion - how satisfying is revenge, really?
The result (of this admittedly very preliminary study) was, in short, "not very":
Asked how they would feel about punishing their adversaries, students said they thought it would make them feel better. They were wrong. The participants who were offered – and took – the opportunity to exact revenge actually felt worse afterwards than the ones who had no such opportunity.
Well then... what the hell? I mean, I always figured I was a pretty soft touch, so while aware of my own distaste for vengeance, I didn't really think that other people would feel the same way.
Now obviously, you can't put too much stock in a study like this - the most we can conclusively draw from it is that further studies are probably worth doing. But this, in itself, is pretty exciting for me, since I've never felt strongly about questioning the idea of immediate emotional payoff for the avenger.
Since I like hammering largely helpless and tiny religious sects, let's relate this back to our friendly LaVeyan Satanists. What does LaVey have to say on the topic of revenge?
If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him on the other!
He goes on to coin this quaint little adage: "Be as a lion on the path - be dangerous even in defeat".
This concept is actually pretty appealing to a testosterone spiking male - Why the hell wouldn't you smack a dude back? Also, let's roar and beat our chests afterward!
Well, okay, I expressed disdain for this attitude last time I addressed LaVeyanism, citing how helpful the culture of vengeance had been in Gaza et al.
Okay, so if following the instinct to trade blow-for-blow isn't the right way to live, what is?
What is the "humanist" (or whatever) approach?
Surely the first question should be, "Why did a man smite me on the cheek?"
Certainly, it's possible that someone might attack you entirely unprovoked, but honestly, you're convincing neither me or the teacher on duty in the playground. Here's an opportunity to learn and develop as a human being, instead of regressing into one of the animals LaVey seems to hold in such high regard.
Would LaVey honestly put forth such a simple teaching, given how counter-productive it is upon inspection?
Well, ignoring the fact that, yes, he has, I'll concede that probably he doesn't mean it - it's just poorly expressed, and pretty poorly interpreted by the people who aim to follow his writings. Apparently, it's hard to accurately discern "religious" work from 60 years ago, 1500 years ago and 2000 years ago. Go figure.
(I'm guessing this is why mystics spend all their time talking in riddles - at least it gives people from other/future societies the wiggle room to think for themselves without worrying about "letting down the holy person")
But I can't just pick on LaVeyans - why not be even handed and tackle some of the Christians who've managed to miss the point of their teachings?
Well, actually, I don't need to - it's already been done.
The "Church of Satan" (which is a hilariously confused and contradictory term - I honestly can't help thinking of the people who take this shit seriously as being 14 and really angry) apparently acknowledges that non-members can still practice Satanism.
I wonder if that pastor recognises that what he's doing has nothing to do with Christ and everything to do with Anton LaVey.
