About the Author - Paul Rezendes is a lawyer by profession and a philosopher and musician by choice. As this dialogue proves, he is also a father. In addition, Paul is an associate editor of The Examined Life.

Discuss this Article

Submit a Rebuttal

Recommend this site

 

Search The Web

Philosophy Humanities History Classics Science Math

Social Sciences Literature Art Education Linguistics Religion

Free! Examined Life Philosophy Resource Browser

Free! Philosophy Quotations Program

Worldwide Philosophy Events Database

Philosophy Resource Search Engine

 

Click here for Printer Friendly Format

Page [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]

Friend: I can see it coming now. That was quite an invitation to you, wasn't it?
Dad: I only did what I was invited to do. I pushed my way to the front and said, "Lestat, I see why your sponsor here has such high expectations for you. That was a wonderful speech. But I wonder if you have treated your audience fairly?"
"Of course I have, my friend." He extended his hand to me. "And your name is?" As I took his hand, I introduced myself. He continued, "How have I not been fair? Have tried to mislead them? Was I not saying what I truly believe? There is nothing a Satanist hates more than a hypocrite. I spoke the truth as I saw it."
"Well," I answered, "that's just the thing. During your speech you mentioned such things as reality, reason and truth. Am I correct that you think that these are things worth pursuing, whether because they lead to greater pleasure or for some other reason?"
"Of course, and you are right, they are the basis for obtaining the greatest pleasure."
"And am I also right that your love of knowledge and truth are the reasons why you despise hypocrites so much?"
"Absolutely."
"Well, let's see if we agree on something else, then. If, in doing philosophy you are searching for the truth, the real, then you are looking for something stable, something that you can point to yesterday, and today and tomorrow and mean the same thing by it. Or are Satanism and hedonistic egoism some one thing today, and then something else tomorrow?"
"No, if I said that, then what sense would there be in my trying to find the basis for Satanism in traditional western philosophy?"
"And you agree, then, that there is some one truth that you describe as Satanism, and find its basis and reason in a history traceable through the years?"
"Absolutely."
"And, furthermore, if I have read the Satanic Bible correctly, it is one of LaVey's notions that what Satanism is can be traced not only through pagan religions, but also through the very things which Christianity rejects. That is, LaVey and the Church of Satan treat as some one thing this body of beliefs which can be identified through history in pagan belief and in the notion of 'sin'?"
"You are right again."
"Then I should expect that a Satanist, because he grasps the truth, would be firm in his belief, not jumping from here to there?"
"Yes, and that's what you will find. We're stubborn because we know we are right."
"Well, that remains to be seen. But let's take this a little further. Your sponsor here, Mr. DeLuciforo, has great hopes for you as someone who will bring Satanism into the mainstream. And I can see why he thinks so; but that expresses the hope that you will not just bring Satanism to people's attention, but, I would understand, also that you would make people Satanists. Or am I mistaken?"
"No, I think you are right."
"And because you are going to make them Satanists, you are going to show them the truth?"
"Yes."
"And by showing them the truth, you are going to give them beliefs which will last and not change back and forth?"
"That's right, because once you have the truth, you can't be shaken."
"Well, that's why I said that you have not treated your audience fairly. You made a fine speech, but I don't think you gave your audience the truth you promised them. "
"And why not?"
"Because I am not convinced that you have yet put them into a position where their beliefs will stay put. Because you haven't, you cannot have been giving them truth, and therefore have not been telling the truth."
"But I have, and I would be glad to argue with you about it."
"So would I, but the question is not how well you can do. It is whether you have given your audience the truth. If they are not yet able to keep their beliefs in place, they can't yet have hit on the truth. At least they will not know the truth, even if they believe it."
"Well, maybe you are more sophisticated than me; how can you believe the truth and not have knowledge?"
"That, Lestat, is a long story, and I don't think I'm ready to go into it with you yet. Let me just give you one example to make my point. Suppose that my watch has stopped, right when it says five o'clock, but I don't know it. I happen to glance at the watch when it happens to be five o'clock. As a result of looking at the watch, I believe that it is five o'clock. But would you want to say that, in fact, I know that it is five o'clock? Or would you instead say that I believed it, but just happened to be lucky, but not possessed of knowledge?"
"No, I see your point."
"So, again, I say that you have not been fair to your audience. Perhaps they believe what you call the truth, but they don't yet know it. Even more, I would hesitate to say that you have given them any truth at all if they cannot hold it in one place when it gets pushed even just a bit. Because, as we agreed, the truth is something stable."
"Perhaps we agreed to that. But so far all I have heard is a lot of accusation. Talk is cheap, idle talk that is. What is your point?"
"You're right, idle talk is cheap. Let me show you what I mean."

At this point I turned towards where my son and his friend had been standing. It looked to me like Aaron wanted to crawl into a hole. His friend Noah, however, seemed interested in the discussion and I knew him to come from a good family that enjoyed debating difficult issues. So I pointed to him, saying "Noah, did you find what this fellow said to be true?"
"I thought it made a lot of sense."
"You are a bright guy, and not one to accept things too easily. Have you thought about these issues for yourself? Talked about them with friends?"
"A bit."
"And you agree with Lestat, here, that people have a right to look out for themselves and pursue their own good?"
"If they don't, who else will?"
"I think that might be a little different issue, Noah, but you agree with the basic point?"
"Yes."
"And you also agree that the good a person is entitled to pursue is pleasure?"
"I think you can dress it up in a lot of different ways, and call it different things. But in the end people are doing what they do because they like it. So, yes, they are pursuing their own pleasure."
"And do you agree further that each person is entitled to lay down what is right and good for themselves?"
"Yes, I do. How can anyone tell me what I enjoy? Only I know that for certain."
"Your mother is a good cook, isn't she?"
"I think so."
"And she sometimes lets you help her cook, doesn't she?"
"Yes."
"Does she let you throw in any spices whatsoever, or does she exercise some control over what goes into the cooking pot?"
"She exercises some control."
"And do you agree that when you pay attention to her guidance, you enjoy the cooking more than if you just went about cooking any which way?"
"Yes, that's true."
"Your father plays guitar, doesn't he?"
"Yeah."
"Does he ever let you play his guitar?"
"Yes, he does."
"And when he does, does he let you play just anything whatsoever, or does he guide you to play in a way that will let you enjoy what you are playing?"
"He guides me."
"And you enjoy the playing more for the guidance?"
"Yes."
"Do you sometimes play sports?"
"Yes."
"What is the first sport that you can recall playing?"
"Basketball."
"And when you started playing, did you enjoy it more when you did not know how to play, or after you had received some guidance from someone who knew better than you how to play?"
"Obviously, after I had been taught."
"You also practice martial arts, don't you?"
"Yes, I do."
"Do you enjoy them more now, after being taught and forced to practice your stances and moves, or did you enjoy it more when you were a mere child mimicking the moves of Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris?"
"No, I enjoy it more now that I have learned about it and do it right."
"And in whatever field you like, isn't it true that when we start off, we enjoy more when our activity has been guided by someone with superior knowledge, because of their superior knowledge?"
"Yes, that's true."
"And in all of these examples, wasn't it true that what was right or wrong in the activity was not something we knew for ourselves all by ourselves, but instead something shown to us, taught to us, and because of knowledge?"
"Yes, I guess so."
"But try to put this together with what you said before, and you'll see that they don't go together at all. We started out saying that each person was right to pursue their own pleasure, and to lay down what was right for them. But now, when we stop talking in generalities, and instead talk about specifics, we find that that is not true, don't we?"
"I guess so. But I still don't see that anybody can tell me what I enjoy. If I don't like the taste of lemons, I don't. Nobody has to teach me to like it or not like it."

"I am not so sure that you can put aside everything we just said like that, Noah. But let's follow your thinking to see where it leads us. There are some people who have a sweet tooth, who just can't get enough sweets, aren't there?"
"There sure are, and I think your son Aaron is one of them."
"Those people who can't get enough sweets, they think that they are pursuing pleasure by eating sweets, right?"
"Right."
"But we also know that if you eat too many sweets, you can get fat?"
"Of course."
"And if you get fat, you can get clogged arteries, and have a heart attack?"
"Yes."
"So, some of these people, when they pursue pleasure are actually pursuing pain, aren't they?"
"They aren't pursuing it because they don't want it."
"But I'm not talking about what they think they are doing, I am talking about what in fact they are doing. They think they are pursuing pleasure, but in fact they are pursuing and can end up catching a good deal of pain. Isn't that so?"
"I have to agree with that."
"And what about heroin addicts? Don't they do the same thing? They think they are pursuing pleasure, but in fact they are pursuing a path that will bring them pain and suffering?"
"That's right."
"And isn't that the case with many different kinds of pleasures; people think that they are pursuing them, but in fact they end up chasing pain and suffering?"
"Yes, they do."
"And in each case, it turns out that they are not the judges of pleasure or pain, but someone else has to step in and point them in the right direction, just like your mother telling you how to spice the food, or your father telling you how to play something on the guitar, or your karate teacher telling you how to throw a kick or a punch?"
"I can see your point."

Let's take this a little further. If I heard Lestat correctly, then he was saying something that was also said by another Satanist, Alistair Crowley, just like the fellow said at the start. Crowley said, if I remember correctly, that the whole of the law should be 'do what thou wilt.' Have you ever heard that before tonight, Noah?"
"Yes, and if I hadn't heard it myself, Aaron would have made sure that I did, because he has been quoting it all the time."
"But think a bit about the things that we just said. If you had wanted to add too much salt to soup, would the right thing be for you to do what you wanted, or to do what your mother, based on superior knowledge, told you to do?"
"What superior knowledge told me to do."
"The same is true with playing the guitar?"
"Yes, and with karate, too."
"And when it comes to the right things to eat, it is not what thou wilt, but what is healthy, what the superior knowledge of nutrition and medicine says?"
"I guess so."
"Now, look at each of these things and tell me truthfully ... is what is right completely unlimited except by the size of a person's desire, or is there instead some right measure that is involved in the right and the wrong?"
"What do you mean?"
"I mean something very simple. When you eat, it can be a pleasure until you eat too much; then it can become discomfort or pain?"
"Yes"
"And when you play the guitar, it is the proper measure of notes and harmony that produces music?"
"I'm not sure everyone would agree with that."
"There is no difference at all between sound and music? I mean, even creators of industrial music use metric patterns. And I don't know of any music that totally does away with tones - measured sound - rather than toneless noise."
"I suppose not."
"In karate, not just every move will do, but only that move which is controlled by the proper balance and the measure of force applied properly?"
"True."
"And in basketball, not every move is right, but only the moves which are properly measured to result in dribbling and shooting, or blocking and jumping?"
"I see your point."
"Then don't you see it as I do, that what is right is related in some way to measure and proportion, and without that sense of measure and proportion it really doesn't even make sense to talk about 'right' or 'wrong' at all?"
"I think you are right there."
"But all by itself does either the will or desire know limit or measure?"
"What do you mean?"
"I mean that want is a compelling force that is not concerned with measure. When the baby wants its bottle, it wants it now, immediately and completely. Desire is like that, too. Desire itself does not put any limits on the satisfaction it desires - it wants to be satisfied, that's all. Desire doesn't know a limit - it does not seek this much and only so much. It seeks to be satisfied, and if desire could continue endlessly, it would continue to ask for satisfaction as long as it exists."
"I suppose it couldn't be desire if it didn't continue to want."
"So, if what is right looks to a measure, a limit, a proportion, and desire and will do not, then can you say that the right thing to do is 'what thou wilt' or what you desire?"
"Not if, as you say, right has to observe some limit or measure."

"Then let's review what we've agreed to so far. We have agreed that the right thing to do appears to be, not just what you want or what anyone wants, but rather what superior knowledge says is the right thing. We agreed that what you want is often a mistake - that what I want might be harmful to me, and it can be a mistake to pursue it. And finally, we agreed that what is right more resembles limit and control, and that because will and desire lack these, they cannot be what is right. Having agreed to these, can you continue to insist that Lestat here is correct, and that the right thing to do is whatever you want, that 'what thou wilt' should be the whole of the law?"
"No, I guess I can't."

At this point, I turned back to Lestat and said "So, you can see why I say that you haven't been fair to your audience. Here was Noah quite taken with what you said, in total agreement. But then when he looked carefully at what he thought about these issues, his thoughts moved around. He hadn't yet found that truth, that reality which fixed his beliefs which you promised him. So how can you say that you've been fair to him or to anyone else here?"
During my discussion with Noah, I had noticed Lestat getting somewhat agitated and DeLuciforo moving to restrain him. To his credit, Lestat did manage control and only let loose when directly invited. "That was wonderful, Paul, and if I wanted to recommend a 'Cliff's Notes' for some of the arguments from the first book of Plato's Republic, I'd recommend you for study. But there's one error that runs through all of your arguments. You always got Noah's agreement to non-anarchic results. You are a real law-and-order man. The example from cooking was interesting: should Noah always cook the way his mother wants, or should he be free to try a new recipe? Suppose he thinks that he could make a new and better buffalo wing, and has the courage to try, and it turns out delicious. The anarchic result is the better result. Progress is measured by breaking rules, not by following them. So I would not concede that doing the right thing is always surrendering to someone else's authority." This response earned Lestat applause from the crowd, and he continued. "In fact, your argument ignores one of the key notions of Satanism. You always want to talk of people as obeying directions or commands. You are a 'thou shalt' kind of guy. Satanism says 'whoever says thou shalt is my enemy.'"
"I know that Satanism says that, Lestat," I countered. "and I wondered whether that makes 'Satanism' a confused belief. You agree with me that Satanism praises some things and condemns others?"
"Yes."
"And it also rejects any 'thou shalts'?"
"Yes."
"When it praises some things and condemns others, Satanism is suggesting to its followers that they follow one path of conduct and not another?"
"Yes."
"And you agree with me that if people are capable of acting or not acting as Satanists, then when you suggest to them a path to follow, you are not simply describing the way the world is?"
"Why so?"
"Because there are people who act as Satanists and others who do not, right?"
"Right."
"And so if you say 'Satanism is a better path', the word 'better' does not mean 'the only one that exists or that you are capable of following?'"
"The fact is that we all are really Satanists, when you get down to it."
"But there are differences between the way Satanists and non-Satanists behave, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to convince anyone of anything. True?"
"True."
"And non-Satanists' behavior, even if subject to criticism, really exists?"
"Of course."
"So, when you say that Satanism is 'better' you are not identifying what does or doesn't exist, but what should exist?"
"Yes, the world would be better without hypocrites."
"And because you are talking to people about this subject, then whatever else you might be saying or doing, you are saying that people 'should be' honest and 'should not be' hypocrites?"
"That's right."
"But what difference do you think there is between saying that people 'should not be hypocrites' and saying 'Thou shalt'?"

"The two are totally different," he said. "When I say you shouldn't be a hypocrite, I am not telling you what you have to be. I am just saying what you may not be, what I don't have to permit you to be."
"So you think that you are entitled to stop others from doing something to you?"
"Yes."
"But you are also delivering a message to others, aren't you?"
"Yes."
"And you are telling them the right way to act?"
"How not to act."
"But don't you also say that Satanists are entitled to act in their own interest?"
"Yes."
"And therefore entitled to stop others from interfering with their interests?"
"Yes."
"And you find people praiseworthy to the extent they do this?"
"Absolutely."
"And you find blameworthy and subject to criticism those who do not?"
"Yes, we despise them," he nearly spat.
"Tell, me, doesn't Satanism say that kindness is for those who deserve it?"
"Yes."
"And it also recommends taking vengeance on one's enemies? Returning injury with interest, but only in the case of injury?"
"Correct."
"And it urges you to indulge your desires?"
"Yes."
"Do you have any doubt that Satanism, in saying these things, has in mind a certain kind of person that it believes you should try to be?"
"Yes, a very clear picture."
"But just as clearly it has in mind that people who are not like this deserve criticism?"
"Yes."
"And especially more so if they do not even try?"
"Yes."
"Then maybe you could explain to me how your Satanism is any different from a 'thou shalt' when it has in mind the kind of person you should try to be, and if you are subject to criticism if you don't try?"
"Well, I think I would need time to think about that," he said.

"But, let's go a little farther," I continued. "If Satanism has in mind both what one should try to be, and what one should avoid, it has defined at least two classes of human conduct, hasn't it? I mean, it sets aside in one group, that which is desired, separate from the rest of behavior. And it also sets aside another set of behavior, that which is to be avoided, separate from that which is desired, true?"
"Yes, I have to grant you that."
"And to set aside these classes, doesn't Satanism have to put limits on human behavior? I mean, this and no more go in this class, but that and no more go into that one? And behavior should be limited to the one class and not the other?"
"Yes, that's right."
"To do that, don't you have to have a description or definition, or some idea of what goes in one class, and what in another?"
"Yes, you do."
"Then, once again, Satanism recognizes limits, and it is not the chaotic or anarchic force you seem to want it to be."
"I guess in some way you are right."

"Let's think about it a different way," I suggested. "The idea of Satanism is that the only thing worth pursuing is pleasure?"
"Yes."
"And it follows, doesn't it, that the happiest person is one who enjoys the most pleasure?"
"Yes, and doesn't that make the most sense?"
"I don't know, let's see. I suppose it makes sense that my life is better if I have some pleasure rather than none?"
"Obviously, yes," he said.
"And more pleasure, rather than less?"
He agreed again.
"If pleasure were the only good, then the perfect life would be one of all pleasure?"
"Yes."
"And if someone had invented a machine that could maintain the human psyche in the orgasm state, he could truly advertise a perpetual pleasure machine?"
"Yes."
"And for that reason, a perpetual happiness machine?"
"Yes."
"And suppose this state of happiness could be maintained in the brain only?"
"If so?"
"Then it wouldn't matter to my happiness one way or the other if I still had my right leg, would it?"
"Not if my happiness in that situation was based solely on my pleasure."
"And so if I had contracted to be kept 'permanently happy,' the keeper of my body could take just about all but my brain and not be in breach or have committed any wrong?"
Lestat put his hand to his chin pensively. A moment passed and he did not speak, then another and another.

Finally, DeLuciforo spoke up. "Paul, you are some piece of work. First, your words entangle this young man, Noah, who deserves a closer brush with truth than you can supply. Then, faced with a competent opponent, you pull out all the stops to win. Rather than taking off for the moon with talk about 'limits' and 'classes,' why can't you talk about what is right in front of your face? People do things for themselves, because they get pleasure from them or are trying to avoid pain. We are no better than animals, and Satanists celebrate this. Satanism is consistent with the way the world is, it lets us live more comfortably in the world and enjoy it. It casts off all of the myths and lies offered to justify the self-denial demanded by religion. Now, talk all you like about Satanism really being a 'thou shalt,' because as you admitted, talk is cheap."
"Is that what Lestat meant when he said that we are all Satanists 'when you get down to it'?" I asked. "You are making the same old speech to us: 'we, the Satanists are just acting the way you would if you could.' Hitler said the same to the rest of Europe about his treatment of the Jews."
"There is no reason for name-calling here. We Satanists are not Nazis or neo-Nazis."
"You tell me that," I said, "but isn't it true that you celebrate the 'darker side' of human nature?"
"Absolutely."
"You both recognize and celebrate the urges which in the past have been called 'evil?'"
"That's right."
"By readily calling these urges 'evil' or 'satanic,' you also acknowledge that most other people would say that they are prohibited or harmful, or in some way subject to social control?"
"Correct."
"So why don't you expect the same sort of reception as Nazis? You say that you want to allow people to give in to their desires. There's a desire to stomp the face of an outsider when things aren't well at home -- why not give in, just as the Nazis did?"
"The Nazis were stupid. Our creed may be licentiousness, but not a stupid one. The Nazis gave in too readily to the urges themselves forgetting that the urges were only a path to pleasure. The goal is to maximize pleasure, overall. That might require suppressing the urge for an immediate pleasure in favor of a better one later."
"So the true Satanist does not merely indulge, but engages in a calculated pursuit of pleasure and satisfaction?"
"Correct." "That calculation isn't exactly like doing mathematics, is it?"
"Explain what you mean."
"When performing a mathematical calculation, the numbers are already laid out. Four times three is five, and ten is greater than nine. But in deciding which pleasure to purse, we don't just compare two numbers. We have to decide which is bigger, or better, worth pursuing or not worth the effort, correct?"
"That's right."
"And the Satanist will sometimes have to compare pleasures, and ask which of two different pleasures is worth pursuing?"
"Absolutely."
"And it is not just the fact that something is pleasurable that makes it the object of choice, but something else which makes is worthy of choice, one pleasure over another?"
"Well, perhaps it is the intensity of the pleasure or some other feature."
"Are you saying that if the pleasure were intense enough, the best life would be life as a brain in a vat?"
"No, not at all."
"You would agree with Noah, then, that there is something of proper measure and limit involved in Satanism's pursuit of pleasure?"
"Yes, that is correct."
"And you would agree that the statement 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' is not really to be taken literally, it is not advice to just run off and do whatever you want whenever you want it. It has a special meaning, involving measure and calculation, something you wouldn't necessarily think of when first hearing 'Do what thou wilt' because you should not just do what you will, like the Nazi brown shirts did when they dragged Jews around in carts, but only what you will after some thought about it. Right?"
"That's right, I agree."
"And if I hear you correctly, you think that the thought you need to give to the matter of measuring pleasures also has to encompass possible negative reaction by other people?"
"Yes, it should."
"And that might include asking yourself whether 'what you wilt' will break a law, or cause suspicion in your neighbors, or make you a social outcast unable to manipulate people to your desires because they will have little to do with you?"
"Yes, it does."
"So, one of the skills a Satanist might have to develop to make his magic more powerful and successful, is the ability to deny urges and turn down pleasures?"
"That's right."
"And sometimes the Satanist will have to learn to do so for the purpose of getting along, mixing in, or else his magic won't be very effective after all?"
"That's very true."
"So the master Satanist will be masterful at appearing to be good, and kind and just, pious and cooperative when that suits his purpose?"
"Absolutely."
"And what do you see to be the difference between that and the Christian or Jew, who you say is hypocritical because he is attempting to act good when really his own desires are driving his behavior? Isn't the Satanist equally hypocritical?"
"Not at all! The Satanist doesn't pretend to serve a god whose existence can't be proved, and whose works suggest little by way of care for us humans! The Satanist is honest about serving his own interests!"
"Do you think that everyone who believes in the 'white' religions like Christianity or Judaism actually believes that God doesn't exist and that they are pretending to act for God when they in fact are acting for themselves? Or do you instead believe that they are in fact acting for themselves when they mistakenly believe that they are acting for God?"
"As much one as the other."
"But you criticize each, don't you?"
"Of course."
"And you think the Satanist lives a better life then either?"
"Absolutely."
"And you think the Satanist a better person than either?"
"Without a doubt."
"Always and in every way?"
"Yes."
"So the Satanist is better than the person who knows there is no god, but acts as if there is, but also is superior to the misguided person who still believes in god?"
"Absolutely."
"And both of them are misguided hypocrites because, according to you, they refuse to recognize their animal nature and act according to it?"
"That's right."
"But consider what the Satanist will be if he is careful to follow the advice you gave before. Because you admitted that the Satanist might have to dissemble about being good and kind and just and pious; so the Satanist is at times the consummate fraud."
"Well put! That is part of his black magic!"
"Well, then, I wonder what kind of criticism you can mean by saying that white religions are hypocritical? I always thought that the unintentional wrongdoer was worse than the intentional wrongdoer. But, according to what you say, if there is a difference between a Satanist and one who follows the 'white' religions, it appears to be this: that the Satanist is the consummate fraud and in being such he is intentionally so. But the believer in white religion, in being a hypocrite, is often merely a misguided soul. Yet the Satanist is better than this unintentional wrongdoer always and in every way. Do you really expect these people to believe that it is better to be an intentional fraud than it is to be unintentionally misled?"

"Once again, you are good with words, but what you say makes little sense. I say that the people who follow white religions are hypocrites because they do not acknowledge their animal nature. You try to show I'm wrong by using moral notions like 'better' or 'worse,' but I'm telling you that that is just a mistake. The person who follows Satanism is happier for it; that is all that matters, not your moral notions of right and wrong."
"Then, I suppose, when you Satanists say that white religions are hypocritical, this is not moral condemnation. It is not that hypocrisy is itself wrong. Perhaps a Satanist would be well served by being a hypocrite if that gets him his desires. No, you are saying they are hypocrites meaning to criticize them for not seeing the truth as you see it, and for denying themselves pleasure for what you consider to be bad reasons when they are in any event destined to seek their own pleasure. Do I understand you correctly?"
"Now you are getting to the point!"
"Well, let's see if I am. I will not try to argue with you about whether there is a god or not. I will not try to argue about whether the notions of good and bad, right and wrong make any sense aside from the notion of pleasure, although I think that one thing we have seen already is that pleasure alone cannot be good and bad, but instead we need some other standard to determine what is a good or bad pleasure. No, instead I want to ask you some questions about what you think is the truth about human nature. First of all, you assert that man, I mean mankind, man and woman alike, is an animal, and acts according to animal instincts and desires?"
"Yes."
"And the most basic of these desires, I take you to argue, is a desire for self-preservation and the pursuit of pleasure?"
"Yes, and I would love to see you try to argue out of that without talking religious nonsense about god and the angels!"
"But, you must have heard the stories of people who act in ways that appear to be contrary to their own interest, who act selflessly and for the sake of others?"
"Sure, I have, but these can be explained."
"Well, let's talk about a few. A man rushes into a house to save a child, putting his life at risk. Another man goes into a tunnel filled with toxic fumes to save the life of a co-worker, risking death or permanent illness. There are such cases, we know this. Were they acting just for themselves, in their own interest and for their own pleasure?"
"I say that they were. They calculated that by risking small danger, they could reap large pleasure later."
"And do you say that because you think that they were looking for fame or glory or recognition by the newspapers?"
"I do."
"And on what basis do you say that? Do you know each of these people, and so well that you can say what their motivations are?"
"It seems clear enough to me; people just don't do things unless they see something in it for themselves."
"It is possible that you are right, sir, but your saying that selfless acts are done out of self interest because everyone acts out of self interest is pretty poor proof that everyone acts out of self interest. By the same token, I could say that Anton LaVey started the Church of Satan only because he saw himself making a lot of money by taking advantage of gullible adolescents, and wanted to obtain the tax-free status that goes with being a religion; it had nothing to do with whether or not what he said was the truth. Such arguments are at best speculation and don't get us closer to truth. We need some other proof of your theory. But let's take this a step further. Don't some people actually sacrifice their own lives to save others? Aren't there stories, and true stories, about soldiers throwing themselves onto hand grenades to save their comrades, who commit acts of bravery in wartime or in peacetime giving their lives to save others? What about those six firefighters who died in Worcester? And if this is true, which we know it is, then you cannot say that these people are risking some small harm in order to gather greater rewards. They have simply acted for the sake of others. Heroic, selfless behavior is a fact; saying that it must have been motivated by self-interest is simply repeating your point and not proving it. And so your theory about human nature is just not true, and the believers in white religions may not be hypocrites about human nature after all."

"Ha! You think these tear-jerking stories prove anything? Those people are the most fooled by the white religions. They expect a great reward - in the hereafter! That's why they do these things, to make themselves a place in heaven. In fact, that is what is the most hypocritical about Christianity - it tries to convince people to be selfless by appealing to their self interest concerning the non-existent hereafter!"
"Well, sir, we agreed before that hypocrisy is no criticism at all except to the extent it suggests ignorance. And once again I think you cannot simply reduce every act of self-sacrifice to a bargain with god for a greater reward. You are only saying that it must be so because people always act in their own interest - which is the very point you need to prove. But our inquiry is far from done. You agree with me, don't you, that people's behavior can be modified by their beliefs or otherwise?" "Of course."
"And so, whatever you think might be the natural behavior of people, it nevertheless can be changed?"
"Yes."
"And that means that we have a choice as to how people should behave; we can just let them act any old way, or we can train them in the way we want?"
"Yes, we have that choice."
"And I think you have already admitted that some training is appropriate; children want to grab at the first pleasure they see, and we have to train them in the art of measuring and choosing the pleasures they pursue in the manner you suggested, don't we?"
"Yes, that's certainly true."
"So, by what standard do you decide whether and how behavior will be changed? Why is what is natural what is best, and remember that you cannot appeal to what is good or what is right because you have forbidden that as nonsense requiring more nonsense about god and the angels."
"I would think that you had got it by now - what is more pleasurable. What produces more pleasure."
"But not just any kind of pleasure, but instead the correctly measured and chosen pleasure?"
"Yes"
"And what makes that the correct choice?"
"Isn't it obvious?"
"How so? Some people choose to deny themselves pleasure; they consciously choose an unnatural state; on what basis do you criticize them?"

"Because they are denying their own nature as animals, that's why. It is unhealthy; it is unnatural, and it only leads to suffering."
"Now I think we are at the point, Mr. DeLuciforo. Because I want to ask you if you are aware of some facts about animals, the things you say that people are and which they should gladly be, and call themselves Satanists. You see, I think that Satanists make the wrong move when they talk about man being an animal. They think that this drags man down to some lower level, which Satanism claims to adore. But I think that that kind of thinking is old school, and a remnant of the same kind of nature-hating that Satanists accuse the Christians of believing. It's an old criticism, and Nietzsche wasn't the first to level it. So, let me ask you some questions. Have you ever read much about ants?"
"No, of course not. Why should that concern me?"
"Well, I haven't either, but I do know this about them. They do not live and act solely for themselves. They live and act for their colony and their queen. They will fight hopeless battles against overwhelming odds, giving up their lives for others. That is one of the ways of nature, and of animals. When you say that man is an animal, did you mean that they are like ants, because that would not support your view at all."

"As if when I said that man is an animal I meant an insect! Why don't you look a little higher up on the evolutionary chain?"
"I'd be happy to. I suppose that you would like to look at some more attractive creature, something strong and noble like a lion?"
"That's a beautiful beast."
"Don't you know that lions don't live for themselves, either? Females hunt in groups, and when they bring down the kill, the male gets to eat first. Females will even attempt to bring down water buffalo, usually far too strong to consider as prey, if they are starving and the pride is at risk. But, and I think this is the most important, the male lions do not live for themselves, either. It is their job to protect the pride and to fight off other males. They will risk their lives for the right to breed. So they do not just live for themselves, but instead for their gene pool or, in less scientific terms, for the future of their species. There are more examples that I could trot out - dolphins protecting humans against sharks; adult male gorillas risking their lives to protect their tribe; and don't forget all of the stories of faithful dogs who have risked their lives to protect their masters. Even more surprising is the evidence we now have about dinosaurs and some reptiles. Not only is there evidence that some dinosaurs lived in herds and cared for their young, but there is also evidence that the great carnivores cared for their injured. There is evidence if the healing of leg fractures in Tyrannosaurus Rex which could not have occurred unless the injured had been cared for by another. And we now know that crocodiles take care of their young! So, sir, the point is this: you want to say that everything man does he does in his own interest and for his own pleasure. You cannot prove your case by appealing to human psychology because there appears to be evidence against you, so you turn to your theory that man is an animal, and that the natural thing to do is to act in your own interest. But the fact is, sir, that even animals do not always and everywhere act in their own individual interest, but instead sometimes act for the sake of others - their pride, their pack, their herd, their tribe and not just the present tribe, but the future, as well. So, tell me, what evidence do you really have about why your Satanism is the correct choice for humans? It is not the honest choice, because consummate Satanists are also consummate frauds. It is not the obvious choice, because when you say that we should pursue pleasure, you leave unanswered the question of how we choose and measure the pleasures we should be pursuing. And it is not the natural choice, because nature does not provide for the pursuit of unrestrained self-interest or pleasure; it also engineers its creatures for behavior that benefits others. So please, tell me again, because I do not think either you or your protégé Lestat here has shown me, why should we consider Satanism to be the truth?"

"Do you realize how you and your kind disgust me," he answered. "Blue smoke and mirrors, that's all you have and that's what you use. Look, whatever you just said doesn't matter. And that's because you have forgotten the basic law of the jungle: the strong survive. That is what I mean by saying that people are animals, and that people should act like they are animals. Anything else is just self-delusion. Survival of the fittest; that is reality. And by now it should be clear that the weakling white religions are not survival of the fittest. That is why they are in decline across the world. So wake up, stop playing with words, and either get on board with the religion that is destined to rule, or get out of our way."
A wave of laughter and applause rolled out of the surrounding audience, and I felt as if I were drowning. But, treading water, I gathered my strength and plunged ahead. "This is another one of those 'truths' that I have heard often, Mr. DeLuciforo, and considering how much importance you and your followers here put in it, I would like to look at it a little more closely if you don't mind. First, you have said two things, and I wonder if you mean the same thing by both. When you say that the strong survive, do you mean the same thing as, or something different from what you say when you say that the law of the jungle is survival of the fittest?"
"They are the same."
"But when it comes to playing basketball, it is not the strongest, but the most fast and agile that survive competition, isn't it?"
"Yes."
"And when a diamond cutter cuts diamonds, it is the most patient and careful who succeeds and survives competition with other diamond cutters, isn't it?"
""That's true."
"In a race, it is the fastest, not the strongest, who wins and survives the competition, isn't it?" "Well, yes,..."
"And in a war of words, it is not the strongest, but the quickest wit and the sharpest tongue who most often survives the verbal combat, correct?"
"Yes..."
"Now, I suspect that you're thinking something like this: 'but these are all human activities governed by artificial rules and conventions; I am talking about laws of nature, not convention,' do I anticipate you correctly?"
"Yes, you do."
"Well, let's look at cockroaches for a second. They sure aren't the strongest insect, but they have survived for millions of years, haven't they?"
"Yes."
"And the cheetah has survived and succeeded in the competition for food, but it is not the strongest of the wild cats, but instead the fastest, isn't it?"
"Yes."
"Are butterflies strong?"
"Compared to other bugs, they are."
"But there are stronger bugs than it is, yet it survives and succeeds in natural competition, doesn't it?"
"If you say so."
"It is not just that I say so, just as it is not just that I say so, but a fact, that chimpanzees are not stronger than gorillas, but they survive, and baboons are not as strong as elephants, but they survive. In all of these instances I have suggested, it is not strength alone that is the reason for survival. There is something else to look for. So if you want to hold onto the notion that the fittest are the ones who survive, then fitness is not the same as strength, is it?"
"Let's say so, for the sake of the argument. I want to see where you think you are going with this."
"It is not just where I want to go, but the truth I want to get to. And it seems to me that we have already seen quite clearly that strength is not the key - or the only key -- to survival. So if your belief that only the fittest survive is to retain any truth, we have to find something other than strength to explain what it means to be the 'fittest'. Now, let's think about what we talked about before. We said that the fastest and most agile won the basketball competition, and that has to be because that player was fittest for the game of basketball, right?"
"Of course."
"And the diamond cutter who was patient and careful was most successful because that made him or her most fit for cutting diamonds?"
"Of course, again."
"The cockroach has survived all these years because it was most fit for living on garbage and refuse that most other creatures didn't want. Do you agree?"
"I do."
"And the cheetah survives because it became the fittest at running down game that was too fast for bigger and stronger, but slower, predators, right?"
"Right."
"Baboons survive, even though they are not individually as strong as elephants, because they have learned how to act as a cooperative group to find food and defend against competitors, and made themselves fit for social cooperation for the purpose of obtaining food and the necessities of life, don't you agree?"
"Yes"
"And in each of these instances, the question is not strength, but fitness for some appropriate purpose, isn't that so?"
"Yes."
"So it is not just that the "fit" survive, because saying that makes us ask the next question, 'fit for what?' Instead, those who find an appropriate purpose and adapt themselves to it are the ones who survive, don't you agree?"
"Yes."
"So, then, tell me, what do you think the purpose is which humans have found, and which Satanism adapts them best for?"

"For gaining their own pleasure. Isn't that obvious by now?"
"Well, but that brings us right back to the beginning, doesn't it? Once again, we have to talk about measuring and choosing pleasures, and which ones are appropriate. We have to ask which ones are worth pursuing, which means that we have to ask which pleasures humans are fit to pursue. Because consider this: eating is a pleasure, isn't it?"
"It can be."
"Then why isn't the happiest and best man one who, because of a large and well-padded behind, can sit immobile all day long, doing nothing but eating, sitting on a combination chair and toilet so that he doesn't have to get up from his table, with a distended belly that allows him to consume vast quantities and a rapid digestive system that allows him to process the food quickly so that he can keep eating? Would you agree that that is not the kind of man Satanism has in mind?"
"Of course not! How could someone like that enjoy sex, for instance?"
"But that does not matter if the fitness is the fitness for pleasure - it is only if you add something to pleasure - like 'pleasure appropriate for humans' - that you can rule out such grotesque freaks from your notion of 'fitness.' So tell me, please, what is this notion of fitness, and fit for what? You can't tell me fit for competing, because we saw before that there had to be some specific type of competition, and for some purpose. We have just seen that the purpose cannot be simply 'pleasure,' and I haven't yet heard what you offer in its place. What I want to know is: what kind of creature do you think we ought to try to be, and if we are to compete, what should our competition be like, and for what purpose? I suppose that we could learn to survive as the lowest form of life if we learned to limit our pleasures to eating garbage and having sex with filthy partners in back alleys, but I don't think that is what you have in mind. These are the kinds of things which you need to answer, but you don't."

I do not remember the specifics of DeLuciforo's response at that point. He said something about how obvious it was, that my words couldn't hide the fact that people pursued their own pleasure and their own interest. But when I agreed that quite often people do pursue their own interest, but that this doesn't mean that we should, or that it is the only truth about how people behaved, Aaron grabbed me by the arm and dragged me away, telling me that I was making a fool out of myself. So, at that point, I excused myself, and Aaron, Noah and I left.

Click here for Printer Friendly Format