In times past that accounted for successive generations over the period, there relatively has been a connection between the 'way to life' and 'characteristic of group persons' who constitute or make up every society.
These invariably which are both captured in the concepts of 'philosophy' and 'psychology', no doubt derive their source from the association of such interpreted modes.
An accurate definitive account, however, might help substantiate the value of such claim, as I shall try to expostulate its truth by a further reference to dictionary definitions of the word Philosophy.
The Oxford dictionary defines philosophy in two ways:
1a. "The search for knowledge and understanding of the nature and meaning of the universe and of human life." This strikes an advanced description of my choice definition and unfortunately lacks the intended grip to grasp the claim, and sadly leaves me the option of descending the stairs of my already embarked diction inquiry.
1b. "A particular set or system of beliefs resulting from the search for knowledge." Still, this lacks my intended quotient from definition.
2. "A set of beliefs or an attitude to life (which best fits my description of way to life) that is a guiding principle for behaviour."
Satanism as a religion, I think, utilizes within its philosophy the tool of practicality in its entirety, and to understand this as to why it does, we must pry into the meaning of the word “pragmatism.”
In philosophy, it is a method and theory of truth. As a method, it resolves metaphysical disputes by requesting practical consequences of any suggested idea.
As a theory of truth, it holds or maintains that ideas are true, so long as they are satisfactory; they are satisfactory so long as they are consistent with other ideas, can conform to facts, and can be subjected to the test of practice and experience.
To students of philosophy, such origin of pragmatism is attributed to Charles Sanders Pierce, who conceived this idea after an exposure to the philosophical writings and works of Immanuel Kant – a German philosopher – particularly in his 'Metaphysics of morals'. Pierce held that “the whole meaning of an idea is determined by its conceivable practical bearings and possible sense effects.” William James when emphasizing the reality of particular sensible experience made a further elaboration on Pierce's philosophy.
Similarly, John Dewey accounted an addition to this school of thought by postulating that the proper use of intelligence is to liberate and liberalize action for the satisfaction of needs. Schiller, emphasized that “philosophy as a theory of life is practical, and not a speculative affair, and that the philosophical method should be scientific and based on experience.” (History of philosophy eastern and western, vol.II, p.336-353. George Allen and Unwin. London.1953. See frank Magill, masterpieces of world philosophy in summary form, p. 779-787. George Allen and Unwin. London.1953).
In further expounding his ideas of pragmatism, Dewey identified concepts and theories as instruments, which he identified as “mental modes of adaptation to reality.” How then does Satanism in its Philosophy adapt to Reality?
To corroborate the philosophical worldview on pragmatism, the ontological perspective of anthropomorphism is nullified and subsequently deemed a fallacy given its inconsistency and non-conforming mode to reality bothering around its principle and system of validation.
Also, Satanism identifies with the concept of non-anthropomorphism as a mental mode and instrument that adapts and conforms to practical reality, when it implies and interprets Satan as being an exteriorized and amplified identity of the dark potential permeated by the individual Satanist. This, indeed, a fact intended specifically to be conveyed in clarification of the 'Satanic Statement', “Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams”, and to be found in the 'Nine Satanic Statements' as codified by Sir Dr. A. Szandor Lavey. (See the nine Satanic Statements).
In essence, every religious view within its scope of deification that ascribes and advocates a metaphysical explanation for whatsoever entity it bears as its symbol of worship, unfortunately tours the contingent, introspective and speculative path of anthropomorphism. It is at this point very necessary to indicate a differentiation between 'Satanism' and 'Devil worship', given that the latter integrates and incorporates the idea of Satan as “an entity” within its practices, and absolutely not a system aligned with Satanism granted such contrasting overview of dogma. The Satanist can thus be said a symbol of practical existence marked with the ultimate significance bestowed deification on individuality.
Without wasting time, I shall then now proceed to expound on Satanism's philosophical foundations duly engraved in its 'basic tenets', for most of its philosophical positions and dogmatic assertions derive grounds principally from the secure and sure strength of its firm foothold.
The philosophy of Individualism in Satanism, I think, is one that shares a basic and acquiescent psychological perspective accounted for in the variations on psychologism, methodological individualism, and transindividualism. Wherein the difference comes is but for the subsequent acquaintance of its interpretation to accommodate a religious philosophy whose implication reduces all aspect of action and responsibility to its individual members. Here, the notion 'action' is linked in way with 'responsibility'.
In cases with references to action, it is in direction of accounting for behaviour in terms of man's desires, intentions and purposes, to which only he is held liable. In synch, such behavioural trends are equally traceable and channelled in line to the generality of interests which derive their source from a composition of individual responsibilities, since it is deemed a dangerous fallacy to attribute to a group a purpose or responsibility of its own which is not that of its individual members.
Individualism on the other hand some have argued, accounts for diversity which is reflective of a dissonance than harmony; a stance which unfortunately amounts to being the reverse as Satanism demonstrates. But then again, how can its truth be illustrated?
A recap of principles employed by philosophers of the pre-Socratic era upon which past and present civilizations take their toll show this in fragments which are translations from Diels and Kranz, Die Fragmente der vorsokratiker.
Heraclitus: the flowing philosophy
8. “What is in opposition is useful, and from different things is the fairest harmony” (and all things arise from strife.) (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics viii.1.1155a4.)
51. They do not grasp how what is at variance with itself is in accord: harmony is stretched tension, like that of the bow and lyre. (Hippolytus of Rome, Refutatio omnium Haeresium ix.9.1.)
111. Disease makes health pleasant and good, hunger satiety, weariness rest (lbid.iii.1.177.)
Heraclitus found no fixed unchanging character for being, as opposed to the Ecleatics who sought the principle in unity, but held that all things are in a flux in which opposites are united – “strife is the father of all things” – and unity is constituted by conflict and contradiction.
Also, the Pythagoreans of the time who found the principle of things in numbers, held that the principle of nature are numbers, which they conceived as sensible entities rather than abstractions, whose elements and therefore of all things are basic contraries like odd and mean, limited and unlimited, one and many. Another was Anaxagoras who reverted from both finite and infinite sensible principles and a single intelligible principle to seek infinite sensible principles. Democritus also sought the infinite principles in the atoms, which move and congregate into larger composites, and collide with each other in the void. The Sophists on the other hand placed thought in the phenomenal framework of the experience of man subsequently conditioned by his perspective and emotion, which lead them to express scepticism concerning changeless being, eternal truths, and in general what is figured to transcend experience. (See western psychology. G & L. Murphy.)
From such adequate account, it therefore can be posited thus that 'harmony' is simply a blend or composition of Opposites or variances. This is in tone with that reflected of a system manned by individualism, bringing to attention a pertinent issue as 'proselytizing' which Satanism disapproves, and subsequently a standpoint which derives its footings from within such conclusive and inseparable role of harmony, duly emphasized in the ninth Satanic Statement “Satan has been the best friend of the church for it has kept it in business over the years.” This stands a fact that needs no changing whatsoever given such frontier views and conventions. Now, is it thus not vivid as to why the aspect of “group hugs” not being a part of the repertoire, or the refutation of the “Evil” status a question which interferes with the swift backstage act of Satanism.
Individualism, I think, further, is the first response assumed in direction of the pronunciatum “I am, I exist” or if you like it plainly the Descartes' way, 'Cogito ergo sum', translated as “I think I am, therefore I think I exist.” Meaning, if we must come to grips with the philosophy of nature and its reality, we then must accommodate a psychology whose constructs are structured after principles upon which confident assertions are given based on one's own existence.
This desire to further devise such confident assertions reside basically on sound observations and reasonable deductions of the reality of itself, figuratively assumed to be the “I”, a denotation of the first individual (person) singular – a path way to “GREATER MAGIC.”
Such thoughts as they exist possess an endearing conscious process which in turn yields and proves the existence of enduring substances as the Ego, Self, the first individual (person) singular that subsequently remains unchanged. In other words, while “Individualism” has going for it a Self-reliant psychology, the philosophy of Satanism bestows it the confidence of vital existence.
To further proceed, philosophers and scientists – Stoics and Epicureans – of the Hellenistic age, a period after the death of Alexander the great, devoted much attention to seeking foundations for inquiries in preliminary determination of standards by which truth and probability are ascertained and thus certified. Such philosophic inquiry whose problems are reflected along new lines, such as the problems of moral and ethics, led to a reorientation and expansion of inquiries into the nature of the passions and emotions. Conception for the Stoic on the function of the mind labeled the passions “perturbations” and the study of these a necessary subordinate of a moral system in which the influence of the perturbations of the mind is controlled or eliminated by reason and duty.
The seventeenth century saw Descartes in his 'treatise on the passions' apply the scientific method to the passions. Though distinct the procedures were of coming to such fulfillment, it must not be ignored that such inspirations are derived from elaboration of Stoic schematisms for the classification and enumeration of the passions.
In retrospect, the Epicureans on the other hand bore the conviction of virtue being in accordance with man's own nature. This objective can be obtained if fear and ignorance – particularly fear of the gods and ignorance of the nature of the world – were reduced or eliminated, since man would then act in response to natural forces rather than to the suppressive and inhibitive whims of anxiety and superstition. For them, the object of such achievement and criterion of success was indulgence. (See THE STOICS AND THE EPICUREANS: THE WAY TO LIVE. R.P. Mckeon.)
Despite these historical accounts, it is observed to this day that many still bear cuffs of ignorance and fear whose influence extends to acts and responses which go way beyond individual apprehension, and mostly monitored by the enslaving grip of abstinence promoted by traditional belief systems.
Indulgence as a Satanic virtue, I think, is a standard patterned after the Phantasia kataleptike of the individual whose lustful cravings are aimed at physical, mental upliftment or emotional gratification duly extolled by a submission of will in distinctions marked of a subtle mind. Its process is simply an apprehension of natural presentations – an aspect aligned with “LESSER MAGIC” - that reflect “fancy” coined from impressions which are cast subsequently by the spontaneity of imagination.
At this point, if we are to recall properly the principle of social Darwinism in the religious play of Satanism, one which aligns with the principle of societal transition taking it source of explanation from the scientific and evolutionary principle of the transmutation of species, implies an agreement with the maxim (though some might want to pass it for paradoxical which is not so the case) of “man being just another animal on all fours.” This in accord with the seventh Satanic Statement sees man as possessing the animal propensity from attachment to cravings that duly need to be exercised to fulfil his carnal desires; and none that Satanism denies or interferes with when codifying the Satanic Statement “Satan represents indulgence not abstinence!”
If we agree to, and accept the explanations and constructs of social Darwinism, then we may as well play along and see man just as another animal. If man is then another animal, this endows him with innate cravings and desires that must be satisfied by virtue of indulgence. If we are to accept the premises, then must we embrace the conclusion!
