Satanic Virtues | Forum

Hmm, this is an interesting topic. You do have a good point - we are too often defined negatively, which is never very good.

Realism over Delusion

Clarity of Thought over Clouded Thinking

Visceral Experience over Empty Existence

Practicality over Idealism

Relativity over Absolutes

Individuality over Blind Adherence

Skepticism over Faith

What about courage? It's hard to achieve anything if one is cowardly.

Almost any of the Christian virtues work for me. I recognize their value in social situations, and use them as a means of strategic maneuvering to put myself in a more advantageous position.

James,

Firstly, Adversity is not synonymous with negativity.  I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions about Satanism.  We require adversity to survive, as has been observed in numerous fields of study. I would question the paradigm that led you to draw such a conclusion.

Secondly, I think you're confusing duality in regards to psychology and duality in regards to philosophy.  I'll assume based on your context that you meant it in the philosophical sense.
Satanism is intrinsically amoral, in that personal conduct and limitations are set by the self, rather than an external imposition or religious codification.  Unless you "believe in Satanism as defined by Anton LaVey".  In that case, it's whatever he decides works for you.
There are plenty of things we might all collectively agree are Satanic virtues, but there will always be many we disagree on.  Agreement isn't something we do well, or easily.  For example:

Quote from Khandnalie

Realism over Delusion

Clarity of Thought over Clouded Thinking

Visceral Experience over Empty Existence

Practicality over Idealism

Relativity over Absolutes

Individuality over Blind Adherence

Skepticism over Faith

These would sit well with the majority of Atheistic Satanists, and to some degree I tend to agree; however, when jabbed at with scrutiny (as we mean ol' Satanists have a habit of doing) I would argue many.

"Realism over Delusion"If the core of this premise is living as you are, and not as you wish you were, I completely agree; however, if this is an assertion of complete understanding of the nature of reality, I see many problems.
"Clarity of Thought over Clouded Thinking"Everyone has influences that lead to conclusions, often times subconsciously, but not always to the extent of conditioning.  This goes back to the problem of Free-Will still being philosophically and scientifically inconclusive.
"Visceral Experience over Empty Existence"Is this to mean that experience trumps imagination?  It's been shown that masturbation is often more psychologically gratifying than sex with a partner.  I see where you're going with this statement, though it's not true in all, or even most cases in regards to human satisfaction.
"Practicality over Idealism"I've got nothing.  That's a good one.
"Relativity over Absolutes"Again, spot on.  Absolutes are the dumbest idea since cockrings.  Unfortunately for my popularity, this view to me extends to Science as well. 
"Individuality over Blind Adherence"I think I'd need a more in depth definition of Blind Adherence to pick at this one.  Individuality again goes back to the problem of Free-Will.  I would say we should be very cautious of what we allow to influence our Individuality.
"Skepticism over Faith"I would have phrased this as Merit over Incompetence.  Do you investigate a fast-food burger inside and out before you take a bite, or do you have faith that there's not spit inside of it?  I personally prefer a burger fresh off the backyard grill made by my own hands.


If I had to fathom a universal Satanic virtue, it would be more of an analogy:Cutting the fat off the steak to feed the self with only the finest.

Jasin,

Firstly:

I am talking about reinforcement theory within the field of behavioral psychology, where the terms "positive reinforcement", "negative reinforcement", and "punishment" are standardized.

Secondly:

My statement about right-and-wrong (IE good-and-bad) being the core of psychological duality is in regard to the psychological mechanics involved in moral psychology, specifically in the subfield of Jungian analytical value theory. There is of course some philosophical overlap. Let's not split hairs.

"Satanism" is a very nebulous term. However, I feel that the majority of adherents of Satanism(s) can agree on the cornerstone principle of selfism in one form or another. Traditionally, "Left-Hand Path" (in the vamacharic sense) is to place the core of metaphysical growth on the exaltation of the self.

Within this framework, a sense of "Satanic morality" does exist. In a way, it can be said that "Satanic morality" is synonymous with "natural good" rather than Judeo-Christian "moral good". EG, "good" can be defined as that which is beneficial to the individual organism.

---

Johnny,

Of the seven Christian virtues, four are of Platonic origin. IMO, there is value in those four. The other three "religious virtues" are designed to enslave Man, not empower him.

One of the ideas I would like to throw into the mix is the “double standard”.

Many moralist see the double standard as hypocrisy and little more yet if broken down a person would find many of these double standards in their ways. The simple version is I have one standard for the people I actually care about and another for those I don't.

I find the care factor is the foundation of many basics placed in this thread. Lacking care factor allows a person to tend towards amoral yet very few would be classed as fully amoral.

Although I find some strengths in reinforcement theory I also find it fails if not coupled with the cold hard slap of reality.

To me stupidity is the greatest anti human weakness. I say this because of the vast majority who reject the scientific progress because of ethical concerns. I am not arguing against informed ethics. I have concerns that if we don't develop fast then the stupidly of the majority will stop us from getting to the stars

You're right nikey69,  that stupidity could take us back to the dark and ice religious ages where the official thinkers used to define good and evil,  good morals and inmorals, they were so stupid that called good to evil , and evil to good, they even used to teach that virtue was a kind of healing spiritual power that came out of the saints to heal the sick people. 

I find the Good and Evil an over statement of simple ideas that ended up enforced. Good and evil is nothing more than points of view, like or dislike, agree or disagree, love or hate. Depending on the user's point of view is where changes can be found.

So basically if a person follows another person or church's point of view with good and evil being the magic words then it becomes easier to control with less words.

If someone has their own ideas then then good and evil are better stated with other wordings (unless you want to have fun with it).

The most virtuous thing a person can do is be true to who they are. Don't follow any rules written down in a book, even a Satanic book.