How has your idea of Satan changed over time?

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: How has your idea of Satan changed over time?

Postby Insanus » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:10 pm

For me Satan has always been interesting as an object of devotion, not as a character in mythology. The difference being, I was not so much into pondering what Satan's function was in the traditional christian framework, but what was the intention & passion behind Satan worship that seemed to me to be the most absurd, premature and stupid philosophy to follow. Power is a lived discourse and religious passion is a strong fuel for the fire. For a while I thought it was self-destructive pride, but the pride was somehow out of place, being too focused on the ego. I thought it was destructive will, a necrophilous passion, but then again there's no religion necessary in that. I thought it was devotion to evil in some spiritual-moral sense, but the concept of evil was never pure. I thought it was romantic rebellion against the world, some kind of liberation and individualism - but wouldn't individualism be stronger if it denied all religious "illusions" and stood alone? These are some of the ways of trying to express the satanic inspiration, reflections and the angles through which my idea/genius of Satan has revealed itself. I experience them as one thing that I've tried to attribute to Heidegger's "nothing" and "being-towards-death", but still I feel like the vocabulary is not enough. There definitely is a Word for it, I just haven't found it yet. Perhaps the love of incompleteness, diversity and the One seeking the Many.
Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
GreenandBlackDragon
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 2:33 am

Re: How has your idea of Satan changed over time?

Postby GreenandBlackDragon » Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:37 am

I grew up in a complex home, my mom being a spiritual "atheist" and my dad (as well as his whole family) being a catholic.
My first thought of Satan was that he was nothing more than a troublemakwr out to harm anyone, but overtime my view began to shift: first, I believed Satan had an important role and was working with God, then as I studied more on Satan as a being, God suddenly felt more like a malicious entity unlike Satan, who firstly rebelled again God and exposed his real intentions (which was to make humankind a slave race serving him).
Soon I came to the conclusiin that Satan is a god himself who was on humanity's side this whole time unlike what many scriptures howled about him, and it wasn't long until I dedicated myself to him out of admiration, and through 4 years of working with him I still don't regret walking his crooked, unwinding path! Thank you Satan for shining your black light upon me and my path! Ave.
Upon which Leviathan awakens doth man's soul arouse ftrom slumber!
Alfalfa

Re: How has your idea of Satan changed over time?

Postby Alfalfa » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:51 pm

Insanus wrote: wouldn't individualism be stronger if it denied all religious "illusions" and stood alone? These are some of the ways of trying to express the satanic inspiration, reflections and the angles through which my idea/genius of Satan has revealed itself. I experience them as one thing that I've tried to attribute to Heidegger's "nothing" and "being-towards-death", but still I feel like the vocabulary is not enough. There definitely is a Word for it, I just haven't found it yet. Perhaps the love of incompleteness, diversity and the One seeking the Many.
There is such denial of “illusion” in Nietzsche, although Heidegger, for whom philosophy has rather even less “illusions”, was Nietzsche's greatest opponent. Nietzsche remained in the opposition of this “illusion” in a way which prevented him from seeing how the turning upside-down of platonism was still tangled up in with it. Nietzsche only rarely and closer to an instinct, than lucid understanding, came near disillusionement in Heidegger's sense, which justifies Heidegger calling Nietzsche the last metaphysician, i.e. the last one to think metaphysics to it's end, while still remaining in this end, without going over it. The certain opposition between Heidegger's and Nietzsche's thinking — in relation to future modes of thinking they quite correctly predicted — has come even prevalent since “their“ time. The spiritual desert of “last man“ of Nietzsche has become widerspread without the “overman“, which in turn could be overcome in future, as Nietsche wanted. We can see this devastation of man especially in the anglo-american universities' “spiritual“ culture, i.e. rather the lack of it. They're so confused they have a long way still to understand itself as such and even longer the why of this confusion. As the fate of “overman“ is not for everyone, the culture of the past will keep on going alongside the current spreading of nihilism, even more so with the coming over of this last metaphysics — the over which would be preserved in the overcoming of Nietzsche's overman.
User avatar
Cerastes
Soror
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:31 pm

Re: How has your idea of Satan changed over time?

Postby Cerastes » Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:57 pm

Alfalfa wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:51 pm

There is such denial of “illusion” in Nietzsche, although Heidegger, for whom philosophy has rather even less “illusions”, was Nietzsche's greatest opponent. Nietzsche remained in the opposition of this “illusion” in a way which prevented him from seeing how the turning upside-down of platonism was still tangled up in with it. Nietzsche only rarely and closer to an instinct, than lucid understanding, came near disillusionement in Heidegger's sense, which justifies Heidegger calling Nietzsche the last metaphysician, i.e. the last one to think metaphysics to it's end, while still remaining in this end, without going over it. The certain opposition between Heidegger's and Nietzsche's thinking — in relation to future modes of thinking they quite correctly predicted — has come even prevalent since “their“ time. The spiritual desert of “last man“ of Nietzsche has become widerspread without the “overman“, which in turn could be overcome in future, as Nietsche wanted. We can see this devastation of man especially in the anglo-american universities' “spiritual“ culture, i.e. rather the lack of it. They're so confused they have a long way still to understand itself as such and even longer the why of this confusion. As the fate of “overman“ is not for everyone, the culture of the past will keep on going alongside the current spreading of nihilism, even more so with the coming over of this last metaphysics — the over which would be preserved in the overcoming of Nietzsche's overman.
At this point I can’t empathize too much with Nietzsche- at least if I understood him right. I’m not sure about it because is not discussed very often here since everyone gets hysterical about the term Übermensch very too fast.

The denial of all illusion in in a way an illusion itself. Since we are unable to see the whole picture, there will always be illusions as a necessity. If we cut out religious illusions there will be other illusion to take their place. At present the illusory substitute is quite often ideological instead of religious which of course causes a spiritual vacuum. It’s not only visible at anglo-american universities, you could also take Berlin for an example. This is the reason why I see the concept of Nietzsches overman critical. A lot of famous philosophers turned out to be a little megalomaniac at some point- same goes for Nietzsche. Maybe the illusion of having no illusion played a part in this.

Nice profile picture, by the way. It is even more silly than mine. :D
“Granny Weatherwax was not lost. She wasn't the kind of person who ever became lost. It was just that, at the moment, while she knew exactly where SHE was, she didn't know the position of anywhere else.”
(Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)
Alfalfa

Re: How has your idea of Satan changed over time?

Postby Alfalfa » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:37 am

Red Bird wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:57 pm
At this point I can’t empathize too much with Nietzsche- at least if I understood him right. I’m not sure about it because is not discussed very often here since everyone gets hysterical about the term Übermensch very too fast. The denial of all illusion in in a way an illusion itself. Since we are unable to see the whole picture, there will always be illusions as a necessity. If we cut out religious illusions there will be other illusion to take their place. At present the illusory substitute is quite often ideological instead of religious which of course causes a spiritual vacuum. It’s not only visible at anglo-american universities, you could also take Berlin for an example. This is the reason why I see the concept of Nietzsches overman critical. A lot of famous philosophers turned out to be a little megalomaniac at some point- same goes for Nietzsche. Maybe the illusion of having no illusion played a part in this.
The meaning of “illusion“ is for Nietzsche mainly a sort of platonism or christianism, which rather have a little do with Plato or Christ, though Nietzsche doesn't make such a difference. It's not like he's merely saying this in reference to certain common interpretations about Plato and Christ. For Nietzsche, the “death of God“ means the modern situation in history, when common forms of “platonism“ and “christianity“ have lost their credibility and fail to satisfy the modern man. He interprets that Plato and Christ are both talking about an otherworldly afterlife and since this isn't anymore philosophically plausible, it's an illusion Instead of rightfulness in an otherworld, Nietzsche bases his “philosophy“ on Hegel's concept of a heroic artist. Otherwordly rigtheousness is discovered as an illusion, which has merely been used as an instrument for power — e.g. priests as a ruling class. Nietzsche thinks, that when man frees himself of these illusions, he has a twofold possibility: the last man and the over man. “Last man“ stands in the vacuum left by the outdated forms of power mentioned — last man is a nihilist, because he based his highest ideals in an otherworld, which turned out to be an illusion.This man is essentially a part of the fate of western man. Eventually the common rubble shall understand otherworld as an illusion and achieve the nihilistic destiny of western man. Last man is the worst man, since even a priest in the middle-ages had an understanding of power and used it, even though it was a fable — this is why Nietzsche says, that truth is less valuable than an illusion. “Truth“ is here truth about this illusion, which leaves man in his western nihilism. It's not that Nietzsche thought there was no truth, or that illusion were the highest value. This means, that even an illusion which empowers man is for Nietzsche better than a weakening truth. Even so, Nietzsche didn't think that platonism and christianity were true because they empower in some degree. They're illusions, but truth is western man's fate, which eventually leads to a new form of weakness, which is even worse than christianity or platonism. This process is essentially irreversible: western man can't forget the “death of God“ and pretend to believe at the cost of truth. Nietzsche thought that there was an escape from this supposed historical destiny: the over man, who creates new values, because his will is one with power. Overman creates better values than the outdated ones. Overman doesn't merely repeat old fables, but creates new values, which don't need pretending. In this Nietzsche is even better than “original“ Plato and Christ. This overman is an artist, who has shaken off the old illusions, but hasn't fallen to nihilism. Nihilism makes sore play of everything — overman is earnest in his joy. Hence overman overcomes the nihilistic vacuum left by the truth about older values, which were based on an otherworld. Overman's earnest joy is in this temporal life — an absolute value.
User avatar
RPSTOVAL
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 am

Re: How has your idea of Satan changed over time?

Postby RPSTOVAL » Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:24 am

RPSTOVAL wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:30 am
But in other areas, more analytically from a literature point of view (with the Bible). From the continence of the Bible itself, Yahweh appears a much more "evil" character than Satan (compared to traditional depictions of Satan, it's quite amusing :lol: )
About a year on and I come across this thread completely confused to why I would've typed this.
Christianity in it's most fundimentalist forms completely ruined Jesus and made of mess of the Jewish Bible.

It requires you to think like a Fundimentalist to get the interpretation that Yahweh (YHWH) is "evil". Textually, it takes an idiot to assert that there is such a thing as "Satan" according to the Bible text itself. Post-Catholic trauma has created this and various denominations have followed suit with.
The text most of all that people refer to, is the Christian Book Of Revelation but it was a late edition and if analysed via the "old testament", shows obvious signs of copying from there.
Chief adviser and magister templi at the Golden Apple Corps

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest