Mephisto Mephistopheles | Forum

This reminds me of the scene from one Polish patriotic novel. During the war with the Swedes, a soldier pledges unconditional loyalty to some noble man and swears that he will not leave him no matter what. Later on, the nobleman turns out to be a traitor. The soldier then faces an overwhelming moral dilemma; if he keeps his oath, he will betray his country, if he breaks it, he will face dishonor.

It's great if one thinks ahead and properly evaluates the deals one is going to commit oneself to but the situation can change and misjudgements happen. This is why I would avoid thinking in absolutes. Regularly breaking one's word, saying one thing and doing another is one form of spinelessness. But there is another and that is the inability to extricate oneself from some shitty condition for fear of losing face. 

And then, there is the Devil, the Father of Lies, the great manipulator, who doesn't give a shit about any absolute morality, posing as the patron of... truthfullness and keeping promises. It makes me scratch my head. Wait... actually, it doesn't.

That the Devil honors contracts and deals is well established in the folklore. He will take advantage of every loophole in the terms and conditions and every lack of due diligence on the part of his adversary, but when push comes to shove, if the letter of the law defeats him, he accepts defeat. He's everything people hate, but also what they respect, about lawyers.

The Devil and Daniel Webster

The Devil and Tom Walker

 

Also, Anna, I'll note that in everything I write, there is always an underlying assumption, often unstated, which counterbalances whatever proposition I happen to be articulating. This assumption is one of the highest Satanic principles. With regard to the current discussion, it counterbalances moral absolutism in the face of common sense. 

Incidentally, LaVey never proposed, and surely would not have endorsed, a truth-based ethos such as the one I live by. He was a con man. As such, truth-based ethics was the last thing he would have espoused. Of course he could have lied about being truthful, hence making truthfulness a part of his con, but there was something in LaVey that wanted Satanism to reflect as much of his real self as possible, so long as this principle didn't thwart his ability to sell his little red ID cards.

The above considerations are the reason I excluded Mephistopheles from my Neo-LaVeyan thread. Honoring one's word isn't neo-LaVeyan. It's post-LaVeyan.

Nevertheless, Mephistopheles can be inserted easily under my rubric of Leviathan, and more specifically, the Apostle Severity, whom I fictionalized as Genghis Khan resurrected and recruited to Satan's cause. Severity is precisely what Mephistopheles brings to bear when the contract or the deal permits him to or demands that he must. Also Mephistopheles as the avenging devil of word-keeping works beautifully as the lynchpin for cathartic ritual, which also is under my rubric of Leviathan. I would say Leviathan and Mephistopheles must surely be drinking buddies, enjoying a devilishly good cognac together, though Leviathan's snifter is a thousand times the size of Mephisto's.

One more thought: The reason my ethos consists entirely of honoring one's word is the fact that it sidesteps entirely all those pesky questions of objective versus subjective morality. By freely giving my word, I establish my own self as the Lawgiver, and the law in question is called into being by an empirically verifiable event that took place in space and time. This falls under my rubric of Belphegor, and more specifically, the Apostle Empiricism, whom I fictionalized as Galileo Galilei resurrected and recruited to Satan's cause. It also is on perfectly friendly terms with the Apostle Atheism (Charles Darwin) who also is under my rubric of Belphegor.

I do have a problem with being dishonest, and will not deceive for mere embellishments, but, WILL bend the truth from time to time for a more favorable outcome.

Honesty

 

@Wolfie,

Not sure if LaVey was a conman or some of his friends had unrealistic expectations of him. It's hard to say because none of us was around at that time and I would take the accounts of Aquino and company with a pinch of salt.

I usually keep my promises but I remember the few times I didn't. These were trifles. Like I told my former friends I would go somewhere with them but then I called and cancelled it. Of course, there were tantrums and hissy fits. In the end I terminated all the contact with them because the relationship seemed oppressive and I wasn't feeling comfortable. Perhaps, I should have been less indecisive and set clear boundaries earlier but I was young then. It was a long time ago, during and a couple of years after studies. I think I'm more assertive now but I know from my own experience that we can sometimes say we will do something only to reconsider it later. I prefer then not to keep my word than fulfill the promise and then regret it.

Sure, if a friend at work asks me to take her shift while she will take mine another day and I say "yes", then I don't call her next day saying I won't make it. If the superior asks me to take an additional shift and I say yes, then I don't change it later. If I can't make it, then I say it immediately so that she can find someone else.

I take into account the seriousness of the situation. I'm not tribal, I'm more of a loner and I don't like it if someone doesn't show understanding if I change my mind about some trifles. I grant the liberty to reconsider to other people too. If a friend calls me saying, for example, that she can't go with me to the cinema as promised and asks not to be offended, I reassure her that it's nothing, that I can go alone and that I'm not angry with her. 

Certainly, there are some crucial and serious circumstances when withdrawing the commitment can harm the person you care about but I prefer not to make rigid moral commandments for myself. Each situation is different and should be judged separately. Sometimes, it is misjudged and this is why the freedom to change one's mind seems quite important to me although I can agree that it shouldn't be used too often.