1 of 1

Write now Article Tools

I was recently remembering a discussion I had with other Open University students, after enjoying a tutoring session that discussed the finder points of Kantian ethics (absurd, but interesting nonetheless).

In the pub afterwards, it's amazing how many of these topics go into a proper discussion, without the curse of a tutor trying to tell you how you should be viewing what a certain person once said. The question of ethics and Satanism came up and I found myself discussing certain ethical viewpoints and how they related to Satanism, whether directly or indirectly. As the discussion wore on, one of the group (who had recently gotten into Beyond Good and Evil by you know who) mused that most philosophers seemed to have spent a lot of time proving their own ethical viewpoints correct. As oppose to actually going into their beliefs and assessing through the medium of genuine abstract thought, refining and altering as appropriate, most philosophers took their base beliefs and worked a system round about them. The question, as you can no doubt guess, was obvious:

Did Anton LaVey design a system that was philosophically consistent and logical, or did he just intellectually validate his own natural instincts?

Because I was dealing with a passenger of philosophical thought and, of course, someone who couldn't have been a Satanist even if he wanted to, I had to then explain the idea of the Satanic Third Side. And in this case, the answer was simple.

He did both!

Most philosophers in the past (Kant included) have come across the same basic flaw that had ruined their philosophical outlook. While they can intellectually defend their own viewpoint after hours, days, weeks and years of pointless pondering, there is still a fundamental flaw that causes each and every one of them to fall flat on their faces, with their "ideas" being shown for the card towers they are.

They all based their original idea on indoctrinated fallacy.

Because most philosophers who comment on right or wrong are discussing what they were told was right or wrong in the first place, they can only build their houses on sand. If they "believed" something was right, it was invariably because their parents (or some other, equally mediocre medium) had told them so. After this, they spent the best years of their life trying to validate the viewpoint of someone else.

Of course, you could argue that the same could be said of Dr. LaVey; but this is the viewpoint of those with little understanding of human nature.

Dr. LaVey chose to understand his own nature FIRST, before ever entering into the realms of ethics. After his own idiosyncrasies told him what his heart, body and mind wanted and believed, he had a fundamental understanding of what humanity wanted. In lieu of the direct oppression that many have to put up with because of such thoughts, he was free to explore his own natural predisposition with nigh on impunity. And, therefore, as a direct result, he became fully aware of the very real responsibility that a person acting in such a way must shoulder hence, "Responsibility to the responsible."

To put it bluntly, the good Dr may well have validated his own belief system through the application of abstract and critical thought. The point to take from this, however, is that he built his philosophical house on stone as it was purely based on his (and humanity in general) most basic instincts. This also goes a long way to explain why his writings and thoughts are beyond intelligent refute.

As for what he did with his talent and knowledge

http://www.churchofsa tan.com

Learn more about this author, Christopher Cranmer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Anton LaVey and philosophy?
We want to hear your view. Write now!