Ask a Satanist

[gib]

This has probably been asked already, but I get impatient with long threads and I don’t usually read through the whole thing: I’ve always wondered, why cling to the label ‘satanist’? Doesn’t that betray something of a desire to be seen as a bad-ass or rebel? I mean, most satanists in my encounters describe their way-of-life (if that’s an apropriate term) as the practice of self-determination, self-interest, self-gratification over and above everyone else. But the word ‘satanism’ seems to imply a bit more than that - namely, a taste for ‘evil’.

Have I got this wrong or is this something you readily admit?

[Dr.Satanical]

@gib

This has probably been asked already, but I get impatient with long threads and I don’t usually read through the whole thing: I’ve always wondered, why cling to the label ‘satanist’? Doesn’t that betray something of a desire to be seen as a bad-ass or rebel? I mean, most satanists in my encounters describe their way-of-life (if that’s an apropriate term) as the practice of self-determination, self-interest, self-gratification over and above everyone else. But the word ‘satanism’ seems to imply a bit more than that - namely, a taste for ‘evil’.

Have I got this wrong or is this something you readily admit?

Yes, this has been answered. No, I am not going to answer it again. If you can’t be bothered to read what is already here, tough cookies.

[gib]

@Dr.Satanical

Yes, this has been answered. No, I am not going to answer it again. If you can’t be bothered to read what is already here, tough cookies.

Very well. At least now I know I won’t be wasting my time reading through it.

[north]

Kreator of Chaos wrote:
I’m just going to die in the end, why should I treat myself as a god? If I ascribe that much value to my life, there’s even more reason to dread death.

In the words of laVey “Life is like a party. Nobody wants to leave a good party” With that said, even if one is to choose to milk this life for all it is worth, I see no reason to dread death.

I don’t remember any sort of discomfort or unpleasantness before I was conceived, and I expect more of the same once I am gone.

neither do I

Value, on the other hand, is always internally and subjectively manufactured. People value all sorts of things that are mutually exclusive to each other. You can choose to project this highest sense of value onto a screen, and name it god, allah, humanity, or government, but it remains an external projection of an internal manifestation.

I chose the value of Humanity , for regardless how you look at yourself , and the path of thought you chose to take , you are still Human

therefore if Humanity fell where would you be exactly ?

you wouldn’t exist

Realizing this, you can choose how much value, or none at all, to give to your own self. From the Satanic point of view, the world springs forth from phenomenal experience, and at the primacy of this is always the self.

but on what basis is this true ?

inorder to have a " phenomenal " experience the being must exist first , Human being

[Blaze]

Another multi pages of raving on one another!

Don’t war, eat banana!

[statiktech]

Wouldn’t you consider ‘adversarial manifestation’ validating that which you oppose in much the same way that an insult is a form of flattery? In other words, you give credence to the presence/effect of Christianity in any attempt to specifically oppose it.

I’m sorry but when I see “adversarial manifestation”, I can’t help but think of a kid who has seen too many monster movies imagining himself as Superman to sleep through the night.

[Gobbo]

Satanism is inherently autotheistic, meaning it is recognized within Satanism that god concepts are manufactured internally.

This could be said of some theistic religions.

‘I’m Christian: I believe I create the Christian God in my mind.’

I’m sure a gifted theologian could twist authotheism into any branch of theism.

[gib]

Okay, I read through the whole thread (finally) and I think the spirit of my question remains unaddressed. I will have to rephrase it in order to bring out the particulars which I believe have yet to be addressed.

Most pertenant are your definition of the practice of Satanism and your views on morality (to wit: your replies to TPT vis-a-vis the relativity/subjectivity of morality):

You called Satanism “autodeification through adversarial manifestation” - sounds pretty straight forward, so I won’t ask what this means.

In your discussion with TPT, you argued:

@Dr.Satanical

Well, in a sense, yes! If you define evil as those things our collective masters tell us we MUST NOT DO, the devil is certainly an apt representative of freeing oneself from those mental chains. Who decides what evil is. You? Me? Allah? Who decides ultimately, if not the self?

And why should any healthy person not value their own life as primary? Self preservation is the highest law, after all.

which tells me that you’re not so much interested in ‘being evil’ as you are taking what is considered evil (by the establishment, by religion, by the powers that be, etc.) and showing how it can be turned around and made into ‘good’ (or at least shown to be devoid of any moral character at all).

From these two points, I gather that you mean to live your life as an adversary without necessarily embracing (and perhaps even resisting) the label ‘evil’.

But then I must ask: to whom are you an adversary? Is it the Judao-Christian tradition in particular? Is it religion in general? Is it society in general? Is it any establishment whatever? Is it only those establishments that happen to limit your freedom to engage in your own self-interest, self-determination, and self-gratification? Would it matter whether you found yourself under one of those establishments, burdened by it, enslaved by it, or would you continue to rage in the name of “adversarial manifestation” if you were somehow freed of it (say living peacefully on some island away from civilization)?

I also want to ask: is this “adversarial manifestation” a cause in itself (i.e. manifesting adversarially just for the sake of manifesting adversarially) or do you do it because it happens to be necessary given that society, by and large, tends to resist your (or anyone’s) attempts at autodeification?

These two lines of questions can probably be answer in one go, but I ask them separately because I think the differences are as important as they are subtle.

[omar]

Hello Dr. Satanical

— First, a belief is anything you hold to be true.
O- Yes. An “ism” is a systematic belief set.

— Not all beliefs need be based on faith.
O- An assumption questioned by countless philosophers. Beliefs about the world “out-there” will eact some form of belief, even if just belief that you are not a brain in a vat or that your senses are accurate indicators of the world. Sure, we react to informative stimuli, but because we have faith in our sources.

— (note - belief without evidence, not trust…lets avoid equivocation)
O- Evidence is just an interpretation. It comes inevitably with every stimuli. For those who want to believe in something, even Satanism, there is evidence.

— Religious systems that hold concepts such as deity, or other unprovables as core are bound by faith, but I don’t think that is really true of Satanism. Satanism is inherently autotheistic, meaning it is recognized within Satanism that god concepts are manufactured internally. The only brotherhood is of one, the only loyalty to the self and the empowerment of same.
O- “it is recognized within Satanism”, to me, means the same as “we, satanists (note the plural, the brotherhood), systematically believe that…”. Sure, every belief is relative to the person, the individual, but belief that this is so puts you in a brotherhood. The only way out of this is to NOT be a Satanist. If you are a Satanist, that is a label that franchises you to many, NOT just yourself, not just the one.

— As to your closing question, I find the label to be accurate, so I use it. Satanism isn’t prescriptive, it is descriptive.
O- So you believe as well as many, many others, thus the label was created to synthetine, generalise, summarize the feelings of not just one person, you, for you did not create the label- you simply JOINED the association, the herd, the group, the brotherhood.

— A tree would still exist if there was no word for it, but it would be difficult to describe to others.
O- Exactly. That is the gist of the matter. Beliefs are not individual events. A tree exists, yes, along with countless others. There is not just ONE tree, one individual, for then you would not invent the word “tree” for it but call it “Brian” or some other personal name to designate the individual and unique occurrence. Could you then communicate “Brian” to others? Not without systematizing “Brian” into a concept that is relatable to those that never saw “Brian”. Concepts emerge because of the need we all have to relate the inner world to the outer world. These concepts are what binds the community, the brotherhood. It is not the existence of the tree that is the issue but the existence of the word for it. A word is always a facsimili of whatever is out there.
I know, to you, saying that you’re a Satanist is a matter of convenience. But my point is that if you go under the label, then you’ve lost your individuality, even if blessed by the brotherhood…see what I mean?

One more thing from your second response:

— The distinction lies in whether divinity is internalized, or externalized.
O- I think that the distinction is invalid and that either individual seeks his or hers power, expansion of it and dominion over others. But let me regress. First off, what is “divinity”? And what is the difference between internal versus external? More important and close to the issue, what decides with? Isn’t it the same person, the same individual in either case? Isn’t each option just an interpretation, another mediation, projection and so on? Especially because “divinity” (pending you definition of it) is not something you or I can point to.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@gib

You called Satanism “autodeification through adversarial manifestation” - sounds pretty straight forward, so I won’t ask what this means.

‘Adversarial manifestation’ isn’t apparent to me at all. It says you contend, but not why. Just because he puts himself as number one (which I do and I think most people do a well), that doesn’t mean we’re all not #1s as the due of our inherent rights.

In your discussion with TPT, you argued:

@Dr.Satanical

Well, in a sense, yes! If you define evil as those things our collective masters tell us we MUST NOT DO, the devil is certainly an apt representative of freeing oneself from those mental chains. Who decides what evil is. You? Me? Allah? Who decides ultimately, if not the self?

And why should any healthy person not value their own life as primary? Self preservation is the highest law, after all.

which tells me that you’re not so much interested in ‘being evil’ as you are taking what is considered evil (by the establishment, by religion, by the powers that be, etc.) and showing how it can be turned around and made into ‘good’ (or at least shown to be devoid of any moral character at all).

I think he’s on the right track but doesn’t know why. He rebels against what our collective masters (of religion and politics) have added to the category of morality but actually don’t belong there. Those additions aren’t issues of good and evil, but rather of individually determined subjective virtues. His emphasis is on the negative anti-powers-that-be instead of the positive pursuit of determining what’s actually good, evil or neither. That emphasis on the negative to the detriment of the positive is the core outlook, and problem, with Satanism–that and the association with the symbolic incarnation of evil.

But most Satanists are much more concerned with image and shtick than having anything to do with philosophical substance. Thus the decent into the use of the cover of psycho-babble (e.g. “autodeification through adversarial manifestation”).

From these two points, I gather that you mean to live your life as an adversary without necessarily embracing (and perhaps even resisting) the label ‘evil’.

But then I must ask: to whom are you an adversary?

Good question. Most Satanists I’ve dealt with are anarchists, rebels-without-a-cause or “autointransigents” if you will. Contention is the objective.

[gib]

@The Paineful Truth

‘Adversarial manifestation’ isn’t apparent to me at all. It says you contend, but not why.

I’m with you here, TPT, and if you read my post further down, you’ll see I do bring this into question.

@The Paineful Truth

I think he’s on the right track but doesn’t know why. He rebels against what our collective masters (of religion and politics) have added to the category of morality but actually don’t belong there. Those additions aren’t issues of good and evil, but rather of individually determined subjective virtues. His emphasis is on the negative anti-powers-that-be instead of the positive pursuit of determining what’s actually good, evil or neither. That emphasis on the negative to the detriment of the positive is the core outlook, and problem, with Satanism–that and the association with the symbolic incarnation of evil.

Just out of curiocity, then (and perhaps to provoke a discussion), what do you consider to be an objective morality (what our ‘collective masters’ haven’t added)?

@The Paineful Truth

But most Satanists are much more concerned with image and shtick than having anything to do with philosophical substance. Thus the decent into the use of the cover of psycho-babble (e.g. “autodeification through adversarial manifestation”).

…

Good question. Most Satanists I’ve dealt with are anarchists, rebels-without-a-cause or “autointransigents” if you will. Contention is the objective.

I’m inclined to agree. This is my purpose in asking the good Doctor (or evil Doctor?) whether his manifesting adversarially is just for the sake of manifesting adversarially - being a bad-ass just to be a bad-ass - or is it in the name of some other (perhaps misunderstood) cause. I suspect the former, but getting this out of him is, I fear, a lost cause (not the least of reasons being that he seems to have abandoned this thread).

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@gib

Just out of curiocity, then (and perhaps to provoke a discussion), what do you consider to be an objective morality (what our ‘collective masters’ haven’t added)?

Morality is maintaining the equality of each individual’s rights in our interactions with each other–those being the rights to life, liberty and property, free from violation through force or fraud. All other limits on behavior are personal virtues. These are somewhat forced definitions since they don’t go exactly by the book, but it’s either that or go the near impossible route of coining new words. Confusing morality and virtue, as I’ve defined them, is the source our our confusion that’s been brought on and exploited by religion (while politics which must legislate morality and should do no more).

I’m inclined to agree. This is my purpose in asking the good Doctor (or evil Doctor?) whether his manifesting adversarially is just for the sake of manifesting adversarially - being a bad-ass just to be a bad-ass - or is it in the name of some other (perhaps misunderstood) cause. I suspect the former, but getting this out of him is, I fear, a lost cause (not the least of reasons being that he seems to have abandoned this thread).

Precisely.

[gib]

Okay, what you have here is meta-ethics - the analysis of what ‘morality’ means (as opposed to what is moral and immoral). And if the definitions you supply must be forced, I wonder how objective they can be. On the other hand, I suppose that things could remain somewhat subjective on the meta-ethical level but objective on the level of ethics. That is to say, if we grant that morality is the maintanence of equality of individual rights, then it’s a straight forwardly objective matter whether certain ethical standards have or haven’t been violated (though there will always be some minute level of uncertainty in anything).

But the subjectivity on the meta-ethical level might pose a problem. I could reject your definitions in favor of something more utilitarian. Good is that which brings pleasure, bad that which brings pain. From there we could go on to make objective moral assessments: so-and-so is in pain, that’s bad. We need to stop it.

I could define morality in terms of the law of nature: survival of the fittest, might makes right. If you’ve got the means to out do your competition in the game of survival, you have a right to do so.

I could lean towards psychology: morality is just those human sentiments, hard-wired into our brains, that we all have in common, the ones that tell us (in our gut) what’s right and what’s wrong.

I could go religious on you: morality is whatever God says is right.

The list is endless.

Do you have a way of rising above the subjectivity at the meta-ethical level?

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@gib

Do you have a way of rising above the subjectivity at the meta-ethical level?

I use an assumption, that human life is of value. It may be an assumption, but it’s a starting point for using reason to pursue good order as a goal, which is better than basing a moral code on defining “morality in terms of the law of nature: survival of the fittest, might makes right.” That may be a natural law, but using it as a moral code results in chaos. You can’t reason what’s right and wrong from that because it’s a coin toss. We get our ability to formulate a moral code because we are self-aware sentients who are the only ones that can look past our former animal innocence with empathetic eyes.

[gib]

@The Paineful Truth

@gib

Do you have a way of rising above the subjectivity at the meta-ethical level?

I use an assumption, that human life is of value. It may be an assumption, but it’s a starting point for using reason to pursue good order as a goal, which is better than basing a moral code on defining “morality in terms of the law of nature: survival of the fittest, might makes right.” That may be a natural law, but using it as a moral code results in chaos. You can’t reason what’s right and wrong from that because it’s a coin toss. We get our ability to formulate a moral code because we are self-aware sentients who are the only ones that can look past our former animal innocence with empathetic eyes.

Well, you do have something objective there (kind of): the drive towards survival (what you describe as the value of human life). It’s an objective fact (or maybe quasi-objective) that we all have this drive (most of us anyway) and therefore value our own lives (and perhaps those of our closest kin as well). You might even make an objective case that to value life is to esteme it as ‘good’ and therefore bearing a ‘moral imperative’. From there, the philosophical floor is yours.

One challenge you might encounter though is relativism: it isn’t that we value life in general but our own lives (and, like I said, those of our kin). Therefore, if one can’t say that life is of moral import, then at least one must say that one’s own life is of moral import, and of import only to himself.

Another challenge: when it comes to normative questions, as those found in meta-ethics, what we really want to get at is what we mean by certain terms and phrases - in this case ‘morality’. What you’ve touched on - our valuing life - is not so much what we mean by ‘morality’ as it is an example of a moral imperative. In other things, you may argue a good case for the moral worth of life, but there are bound to be other things - many things - besides.

I think you’re on the right track, TPT, but you have much headway to make.

[Lucis_Trust]

People can be such Trolls. I suspect most people are critcizing you emotively and not rationally, but I’m sure you’re more than accustomed to that. Christians and even non Christians are offended by Satan and what he represents.

I can understand why you choose to be a Satanist and not merely a nihilist, hedonist, materialist, or social darwinist as others have suggested. Satanism embodies a broad range of seemingly complementary philosophies, not just one or two.

What do you think of this? If Satanists can be Satanists without being theists, can Muslims, Christians and Jews be Muslims, Christians and Jews without being theists? If Satan represents reason, indulgence, individualism, science and progress and Yahweh represents the polar opposite, could Yahwehists be Yahwehists symbolically for what he represents and not for what he is? I don’t see why not. Then we would have two diametrically opposed atheist philosophies. A union between the two archetypes may emerge, and they’ll be worshipped or admired in the same temple. Afterall, it’s a little imbalanced to say the least to only acknowledge and develop one half of the human psyche, don’t you think?

[matthatter]

I am a Satanist, in the tradition of Anton LaVey (albeit not completely loyal to the man or his vision), which means I view Satan as a metaphorical force of nature, the adversarial current to top down paradigms(such as theistic constructs).

Satanism can be roughly defined as Autotheism through adversarial manifestation.

I am not a devil worshipper, as ‘we’ tend to put all faith based believers in the same camp, whether that belief be in the devil, allah, or karma.

This thread is meant to be as a brisk jog to my rhetorical skills. Ask me anything Satanism related.

I’m curious why you call yourself a Satanist, rather than other very similar things…atheist, skeptic, or simply NOT identify yourself with any of them. Is it the distinction about viewing, and thinking and living by, this "metaphorical adversarial force of nature? As in your “being” is not simply a lack of belief in these theistic constructs (“soft atheism”, I guess), nor merely an active denial of them (“hard atheism”), etc., but rather the active opposition, going against them (which I suppose would involve regularly condemning them, or taking other “counter-actions”, rather than just not identifying with them and not seeing them as an integral facet, theme, of your existence)?

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@gib

One challenge you might encounter though is relativism: it isn’t that we value life in general but our own lives (and, like I said, those of our kin). Therefore, if one can’t say that life is of moral import, then at least one must say that one’s own life is of moral import, and of import only to himself.

Relativism, moral relativism, is the enemy of good order, as exemplified by the pedophile down the street to Hitler’s Germany. Everyone but anarchists and tyrants benefits from good order. And the rest of us promote good order through the principle of enlightened self-interest, which is protecting the rights of others as equal to our own which encourages and leads (most) others by example to respond in kind for the same reason, good order.

Another challenge: when it comes to normative questions, as those found in meta-ethics, what we really want to get at is what we mean by certain terms and phrases - in this case ‘morality’. What you’ve touched on - our valuing life - is not so much what we mean by ‘morality’ as it is an example of a moral imperative.

Moral imperative leads to morality. My assumption is the imperative; equal rights for all sentient beings is the moral code that comes from following that imperative.

In other things, you may argue a good case for the moral worth of life, but there are bound to be other things - many things - besides.

I’m not arguing for the moral worth of life, I’m saying that our self-awareness (sentience) gives us the ability to reason that we benefit as individuals and as a whole when we pursue good order over chaos. When we kill a bison to eat it, it isn’t a big deal in the scheme of things. The bison doesn’t know it’s alive nor does it understand death even though it may have witnessed it often before. But when we kill another human to take his bison away from him, we exemplify chaos which others will follow–and we can’t justify it to ourselves except to say that what I want is more important than his life… my vanity is justified.

Animals fight each other due to instinct. We fight each other (at least one of us in a fight does) in order to establish a double standard, the ascendancy of one’s rights over another.

[gib]

@The Paineful Truth

Relativism, moral relativism, is the enemy of good order, as exemplified by the pedophile down the street to Hitler’s Germany. Everyone but anarchists and tyrants benefits from good order. And the rest of us promote good order through the principle of enlightened self-interest, which is protecting the rights of others as equal to our own which encourages and leads (most) others by example to respond in kind for the same reason, good order.

I don’t know if relativism is the enemy of good order - I do agree that it shouldn’t be held up as the exclusive standard by which all moral decisions everywhere and for all times are made - but I do think it has a place and a context in which it can prove useful and perhaps even the best option. I think this could be said of any moral paradigm.

@The Paineful Truth

I’m not arguing for the moral worth of life, I’m saying that our self-awareness (sentience) gives us the ability to reason that we benefit as individuals and as a whole when we pursue good order over chaos.

Oh, I see what you mean now. So the role of objectivity in your thinking is in our reasoning out how to, and why we should, pursue good order. I suppose I see no reason why objectivity couldn’t be applied to this purpose, although I’m not as sure that you can argue (objectively) that ‘good order’ is morally worthwhile - desirable I can see, useful perhaps - but arguing that it is a morally proper state for a society to exist in will inevitably lead back to meta-ethics wherein we have to decide how to define morality, and then I’m less certain that such a definition as ‘good order’ is indubitably objective.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@gib

I don’t know if relativism is the enemy of good order - I do agree that it shouldn’t be held up as the exclusive standard by which all moral decisions everywhere and for all times are made - but I do think it has a place and a context in which it can prove useful and perhaps even the best option. I think this could be said of any moral paradigm.

Could you give an example? I can’t think of any where relative morality would not end up justifying anything at all.

@The Paineful Truth

I’m not arguing for the moral worth of life, I’m saying that our self-awareness (sentience) gives us the ability to reason that we benefit as individuals and as a whole when we pursue good order over chaos.

Oh, I see what you mean now. So the role of objectivity in your thinking is in our reasoning out how to, and why we should, pursue good order. I suppose I see no reason why objectivity couldn’t be applied to this purpose, although I’m not as sure that you can argue (objectively) that ‘good order’ is morally worthwhile - desirable I can see, useful perhaps - but arguing that it is a morally proper state for a society to exist in will inevitably lead back to meta-ethics wherein we have to decide how to define morality, and then I’m less certain that such a definition as ‘good order’ is indubitably objective.

How is my definition of morality not objective since it is equally and universally applicable; and anything else or more would be subjective and would lead to chaos?