--- **Μεφιστοφιλές (Mephistophilēs)**: from Greek **μέφῐς** (“to destroy”) + **φιλέω** (“to love”) – “*He who loves destruction.*” **The tempter who promises liberation** - Offering freedom, proudly through destruction, in flames, rather than construction. The temptation to unmake what we cannot remake. ![[Alexandre_Cabanel_-_Fallen_Angel-1847.jpg]] ## The Faustian Bargain At the heart of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's masterwork "Faust" is Μεφιστοφιλές, the very incarnation of disorder manifest, who wages a war on Being. Μεφιστοφιλές finds its roots in ancient cosmogonies where chaos precedes order. In Greek mythology, figures like Erebus (primordial darkness) and entities from the void represent forces that resist the cosmos, necessary counterbalances rather than moral adversaries. >"I am *the spirit which negates.* And rightly so, for *all that comes into being, deserves a wretched destruction;* Better yet, nothing would emerge. Thus everything you deem sin, Destruction, evil represent — That is my proper element." - _Μεφιστοφιλές_ *Note: This was one of Marx's Favourite quotes, which you have to contextualize in his Hegelian beliefs.* The Christian conception of Satan evolved from a mere adversary (as in Job) to become increasingly associated with destruction for its own sake. Μεφιστοφιλές emerges from this concept during the Renaissance, appearing in the original Faust chapbooks before Goethe's definitive treatment. Unlike earlier devil figures concerned with collecting souls, Μεφιστοφιλές reveals a deeper metaphysical opposition to the created order itself. Μεφιστοφιλές objects to existence, not merely out of malice, but through an ethical framework that views the suffering inherent in our finite existence as so unconscionable that non-existence would be preferable. If humanities undying will, is our smile in the face of a [[The Punishment of Sisyphus - Σίσυφος|sisyphean]] task, than Μεφιστοφιλές is the boulder, praying for us to stop, to end our pitiful existence for our own good, the antithesis to our will. When we are met with suffering, specifically the kind which serves as an [[The Nature of Representation, Symbolism & Meaning#Dissonance and Depression|unreconcilable evidence against our worldview,]] and by extension our identity, we must choose a path of reconciliation. Either accept that our world view, and our very perception of who we are is wrong, leading to a metaphorical death of self, or take the faustian bargain. This bargain, seductive specifically to an ego archetypal of a luciferian intellect, is a rationalization which prioritizes the "correctness" and preservation of self ([[The Nature of Ego & Identity|the ego,]]) over the external material reality, by asserting that said reality is fundamentally flawed and therefore the only way to "save" it, is in it's destruction. This psychological pattern appears in various forms: 1. The nihilistic impulse that rejects meaning-making as a response to suffering 2. Revolutionary idealism that prioritizes destruction over incremental reform 3. Apocalyptic religious traditions that yearn for the end of the current world 4. Modern anti-natalist philosophies that view birth itself as an ethical harm The most potent of which, that I have reference throughout, is the combination of absolute idealism with the Hegelian dialectic. A faustian so tempting, it lead [Marx](https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/34159#:~:text=3.2.%20Younger%20Members-,Karl%20Marx,-Another%20Young%20Hegelian) to [Communism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectical-materialism) *[(dialectic materialism)]( https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/dialectical-materialism#:~:text=Dialectical%20Materialism%20is%20defined%20as,without%20absolute%20boundaries%20in%20nature.)* and arguably Hitler to [Fascism](https://mises.org/mises-wire/mises-versus-rand-origins-nazism?utm_source=chatgpt.com) *[(Sittlichkeit.)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sittlichkeit)* > “The State is the march of God through the world.” - [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - The Heretic|G.W.F. Hegel,]] _Philosophy of Law_ *Note: Hegel wasn't a self proclaimed fascist, but the connection here, which many prominent German thinkers and political figures were influenced by is: [[Hermeticism → Hegelianism → Collectivism → Nationalism → Fascism]]* ![[Martin,_John_-_Satan_presiding_at_the_Infernal_Council_-_1824.jpeg]] --- ### Anthropological Significance The Mephistophelean archetype stems from narrative and circumstance. When our narratives become too enticing, too attractive to our ego, in time our identities follow. Tell yourself a story about the world for long enough, and you'll begin to believe it. Believe it for long enough, and you will begin to act it out. Act it out for long enough, and it becomes apart of the chronos of actions which form your identity, your soul, which forms the information that creates your very perception of self. However, [[The Nature of Representation, Symbolism & Meaning#Dissonance and Depression|when circumstance conflicts with narrative,]] it creates a dissonance which threatens to shatter your self. Faust, in the legend, traded his soul to Μεφιστοφιλές in exchange for knowledge of truth. This parallels to Hegel, who believed in a narrative that reason can progressively come to know not only truth, but the culmination of truth, the Absolute. Our perspective, which Hegel refers to as the mind, is a derivative of the spirit of collective human reason (*geist*) formed from (*zeit*), history. In more concrete terms, our perspective, which we use to interpret the material reality, is formed from the current state of "knowing," in relation to this [[The Nature of Representation, Symbolism & Meaning#The Tetragrammaton as Protected Vector|dialectic progression towards absolute truth.]] > “The owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the falling of dusk.” Hegel saw this philosophy as the literal pinnacle of not only human philosophical thought, but of inevitable historical development, with of course, himself, the seer of reality's truth at the top. This fact is often downplayed and muddled, but to fully understand Hegel and [[11HE – Gun, Globe & Cross – (1,000–2,000 CE)|modern historical developments,]] the narrative that Hegel himself had fully bought into must be understood. Hegel, in reconciliation of [[Friedrich Nietzsche - Prophet of Fracture#"God is dead"|the death of god,]] killed by human hand and his son of science, chose to believe that his philosophy, the he himself, had reached the point where God could be known rationally. The question is, for this Absolute Idealism, this faustian, what must he have traded? The answer is the unknown. For Hegel to believe that he could embody, reflect, and come to know god, he also had to believe that there exists nothing which cannot be known. A denial of reality. Hegel, in achieving full philosophical knowledge of the Absolute and in denial of reality, believed a narrative in which he was not just _talking_ about God but somehow *participating in God’s self-revelation.* *Note: This denial is made clear by [computational](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility) and [quantum theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#:~:text=The%20uncertainty%20principle%2C%20also%20known,momentum%2C%20can%20be%20simultaneously%20known.) of reality. Hegel's ideas themselves are still valuable and applicable even in a reality which acknowledges [[Νὴ τὸν Ἄγνωστος Θεός|the Unknown.]] Furthermore, this Mephistophelean characterization of Hegel is more illustrative of desire's lure, the underlying mechanics of the archetype, and a warning towards intellectual hubris.* ![[John_Martin_Le_Pandemonium_Louvre-1841.jpeg]] --- ## The Antichrist *These notes are adapted from Peter's lectures on the Antichrist. Transcribed by [Kshitij Kulkarni.](https://www.kskulk.com/)* #TODO Lectures 2-4 --- ### Lecture 1: Knowledge Shall Be Increased  *The Preaching of the Antichrist by Luca Signorelli* #### The Question of the Antichrist > _But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased._ - Daniel 12:4 The Biblical historian Daniel foresaw an increase in knowledge toward the end of time. As knowledge increased, apocalyptic fears would mount, leaving room for a tyrant to rise. In late modernity, such worries are unfashionable and the Antichrist is a forgotten figure. Our universities tell us that fears of the apocalypse are irrational, and that the world is simply getting better. And yet, our news tells us otherwise; we are worried about existential risks from AI, bioweapons, and nuclear war. How can we understand our apocalyptic time? _Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only._ — **Matthew 24:35-36** The apocalypse is not a fixed date on a calendar. Attempts to predict it have ended in disappointment. The Millerites set 1843 as the date of the Second Coming of Christ. Josef Pieper's _The End of Time_ (1950) also could not escape the paradox: we sense an end, but the exact moment is sealed. Still, if the day and hour remain hidden, perhaps we may at least suspect the century. If we are to take the Antichrist seriously, we can at least ask four questions: 1. **What is the Antichrist's relationship to Armageddon?**  He is imagined as the tyrant of the last empire, the Beast of the sea heading a world government, the final antagonist before the revelation of Christ. 2. **When will he arrive?**  He comes after Christ but through many forerunners. 2 Thessalonians 2:6 reminds us that something is holding back his arrival: "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time." 3. **What is his relationship to Christ?**  He deceives even the elect, performs false miracles, and appears "more Christian than Christ". 4. **Who is the Antichrist?**  A single tyrant, a system, or a type that repeats across history? #### The University Studied the Universe If any institution might have taken history as a whole, it would have been the modern university, heir to the Enlightenment. The end of time would be naturally interesting as a matter of history. But today, the university is fragmented. Where Bacon or Goethe could grasp the totality of knowledge in a single lifetime, we now live in Adam Smith's pin factory: ever smaller cogs in an ever larger machine. We must try to integrate history, theology, politics, and technology into one coherent picture. Here, the Christian revelation stands apart. Classical thought saw only cycles: for Thucydides, Athens vs. Sparta, Germany vs. Britain, and China vs. America were one and the same. They were just steps in an eternal recurrence. But Daniel is the first real historian, because he foresaw a one-time sequence of world empires. Their end would be the end of the world. Christianity is therefore progressive: the New Testament supersedes the Old, not only because it is truer, but because it is new. Revelation unfolds forward. <div style="margin:48px 0;font:600 14px system-ui,Segoe UI,Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:var(--text-normal)"> <div style="display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:32px;justify-content:space-between"> <div style="min-width:200px;flex:1;text-align:center"> <h4 style="margin:24px 0 16px">Classical Cycles</h4> <svg viewBox="0 0 300 200" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="width:300px;height:200px;max-width:100%;font:11px system-ui,sans-serif;color:var(--text-muted)"> <line x1="30" y1="170" x2="270" y2="170" stroke="currentColor"/> <line x1="30" y1="170" x2="30" y2="30" stroke="currentColor"/> <path d="M30 100Q60 50 90 100T150 100T210 100T270 100" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" style="color:var(--interactive-accent)"/> <text x="150" y="190" text-anchor="middle" fill="currentColor">Time</text> <text x="15" y="100" text-anchor="middle" transform="rotate(-90 15 100)" fill="currentColor">Knowledge</text> </svg> </div> <div style="min-width:200px;flex:1;text-align:center"> <h4 style="margin:24px 0 16px">Progressive Revelation</h4> <svg viewBox="0 0 300 200" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="width:300px;height:200px;max-width:100%;font:11px system-ui,sans-serif;color:var(--text-muted)"> <line x1="30" y1="170" x2="270" y2="170" stroke="currentColor"/> <line x1="30" y1="170" x2="30" y2="30" stroke="currentColor"/> <line x1="30" y1="160" x2="270" y2="40" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" style="color:var(--interactive-accent)"/> <text x="150" y="190" text-anchor="middle" fill="currentColor">Time</text> <text x="15" y="100" text-anchor="middle" transform="rotate(-90 15 100)" fill="currentColor">Knowledge</text> </svg> </div> </div> </div> For this reason, it seems inconceivable that we could unlearn what we have discovered. Knowledge increases, and once revealed, it is difficult to seal away again. Even if our universities cannot grasp the whole, knowledge has a way of seeping out. History is moving forward. #### Late Modernity _In those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them._ — **Revelation 9:6** From 1750 to the early 1900s, technology accelerated at a pace that defies comprehension. In the 20th century, lifespans doubled. We moved faster physically: steam engines led to automobiles and jet airplanes. In the 21st century, technology only means information technology; progress in all other fields has halted. The question naturally arises: is the singularity in the past or in the future? <div style="margin:48px 0;font:600 14px system-ui,Segoe UI,Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:var(--text-normal)"> <div style="display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:32px;justify-content:space-between"> <div style="min-width:200px;flex:1;text-align:center"> <h4 style="margin:24px 0 16px">In the Past</h4> <svg viewBox="0 0 300 200" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="width:300px;height:200px;max-width:100%;font:11px system-ui,sans-serif;color:var(--text-muted)"> <line x1="30" y1="170" x2="270" y2="170" stroke="currentColor"/> <line x1="30" y1="170" x2="30" y2="30" stroke="currentColor"/> <path d="M30 165C50 164 70 162 90 155C110 145 130 125 150 100C170 75 190 55 210 45C230 38 250 35 270 35" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" style="color:var(--interactive-accent)"/> <text x="150" y="190" text-anchor="middle" fill="currentColor">Time</text> <text x="15" y="100" text-anchor="middle" transform="rotate(-90 15 100)" fill="currentColor">Knowledge</text> </svg> </div> <div style="min-width:200px;flex:1;text-align:center"> <h4 style="margin:24px 0 16px">In the Future</h4> <svg viewBox="0 0 300 200" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="width:300px;height:200px;max-width:100%;font:11px system-ui,sans-serif;color:var(--text-muted)"> <line x1="30" y1="170" x2="270" y2="170" stroke="currentColor"/> <line x1="30" y1="170" x2="30" y2="30" stroke="currentColor"/> <path d="M30 160C70 158 110 150 150 135C190 110 220 70 250 40C260 30 265 25 270 20" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" style="color:var(--interactive-accent)"/> <text x="150" y="190" text-anchor="middle" fill="currentColor">Time</text> <text x="15" y="100" text-anchor="middle" transform="rotate(-90 15 100)" fill="currentColor">Knowledge</text> </svg> </div> </div> </div> But the modern university cannot answer this question. Measured by inputs, science is growing. Derek de Solla Price, in _Science Since Babylon_, noted that the number of PhDs was doubling roughly every fifteen years. Has scientific output grown correspondingly? The evidence suggests diminishing returns. Nobel laureate Bob Laughlin tried to measure scientific productivity at Stanford; he was promptly defunded. Outputs are worse than inputs. The NSA is managed worse than the DMV or the post office not because it lacks resources, but because it is less comprehensible. We should expect the same for string theory. The world feels stuck. We are running a "red queen's race": working harder, running faster, yet standing still. Wages have stagnated, health is plateauing, and optimism is fading. Nixon declared a "war on cancer" in 1971, promising victory by the bicentennial in 1976. No president today would dare declare war on Alzheimer's. Science once promised radical life extension; today, the closest we come to mastery over death is legalized euthanasia. #### Our Imagined Futures Scare Us The Baconian science project ended at Los Alamos with the development of the atomic bomb. Technology itself became apocalyptic. In 1945, the National Committee on Atomic Information published _One World or None_, starting the era of apocalyptic war films. Coincidentally, this is also when the Catholic Church stopped giving apocalyptic sermons. Humanity faced a new dual-use problem: the same physics that could power civilization could also end it. Since then, secular apocalyptic fears have multiplied: - Bioweapons - Nuclear war - Artificial intelligence - Fertility collapse If we are to make this list complete, however, we should add the risk of the Biblical Antichrist, manifesting as a one world government. Here the secular maps neatly onto the theological: the "one world state" of the Antichrist on the one hand, and the "no world" of Armageddon. We should at least suspect that the apocalypse in our newspaper headlines is the apocalypse of the Bible. This is not mysticism but simple extrapolation of human nature. Wisdom has not increased, even if information has. The one point on which the atheist and fundamentalist agree is that violence comes from God. The Christian, however, knows it comes from man. #### Antichrist and Armageddon _For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape._ — **1 Thessalonians 5:3** Matthew 24:6–13 warns of wars and rumors of wars. If we are headed for war or Armageddon, is it unreasonable to fear the rise of an Antichrist who will promise peace and safety? The two major Antichrist novels of the early 20th century, Vladimir Solovyov's _War, Progress, and the End of History_ and Robert Hugh Benson's _Lord of the World_, both prophesied his rise to lead a world government. However, they share a plot hole: how does the Antichrist actually seize power? In late modernity, we finally have the answer: by talking constantly of Armageddon (or in secular terms, of existential risk). He rides the wave of apocalyptic anxiety. Oppenheimer lamented, "We need new knowledge like we need a hole in the head." Nick Bostrom has proposed "preventative policing" and "global compute governance" in his Vulnerable World Hypothesis. Eliezer Yudkowsky's latest book is _If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies_. | | **War** | **Peace** | | ---------- | ------- | ------------ | | **Just** | WWII | Cold War | | **Unjust** | WWI | Cold War II? | This has geopolitical consequences. If there was ever a just war, it was World War II, and if there was ever an unjust war, it was World War I. The peace of the Cold War was largely a just one; the United States and the Soviet Union remained decoupled. There is a cost to choosing "peace at any price". A bad peace may prove worse than war. The risks of Antichrist and Armageddon are not contradictions but complements: false peace on one side, destruction on the other. #### Reason and Revelation Reason tells us that we should be worried about existential risks. Its framing is binary: "one world or none". Naturally, one world sounds like the rational option. But the Christian revelation reframes the choice: "Antichrist or Armageddon". Here, the answer is neither. We must find a third path. Philosophy leaves us with insanity. Theology insists on a third way. History is not fated. It is not locked into cycles, nor is it a prewritten play. Daniel's book was sealed, but we are given the tools to understand it. Jonah preached to Nineveh and saved it. In the garden of Gethsemane, Christ told his disciples to pray. Had they not fallen asleep, perhaps even Christ might have been spared the crucifixion. There is freedom in history. Knowledge shall be increased, but how we use it is not preordained. #### Q&A with Peter Robinson **Q:** Daniel 12:4 is an ancient text. Why should anyone still care about it today? It matters because Christianity gave the world the very concept of history as a linear unfolding. In the classical world, history was often seen as cyclical, an endless recurrence of events. Given that Daniel's prophecy predicts a series of kingdoms culminating in the Antichrist, we should at least suspect that our history is the one he foresaw. **Q:** The West emphasizes linear history, while much of Asia sees history as cyclical. Who is right? There is a linearity to science and technology that cannot be ignored. Once a truth is discovered, it cannot be undiscovered. In that sense, history moves forward, not in circles. **Q:** Is the Antichrist an individual person, or an institution? Early Christians thought it was Nero. Lutherans and Anglicans pointed to the Pope. But until the modern age, humanity lacked the power to destroy itself. That has changed. Because our era uniquely possesses this destructive capacity, the Antichrist today can only be understood as an individual, not merely an institution. **Q:** Cardinal Newman wrote on the Antichrist in 1835. What was his view? In _The Patristical Idea of Antichrist_, Newman argued that Christ's return would be preceded by widespread apostasy and the appearance of Christ's great enemy. In the Middle Ages, obsession with the Antichrist ran high, understandably due to the Reformation's schisms. But those fears faded after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, when Europe settled into relative peace. The Enlightenment that followed was, in many ways, a slumber from worries about the Antichrist and religious questions. By 1945, after the Second World War, most churches had stopped preaching end-time sermons altogether. Today, all we can talk about is Armageddon, so we should be even more suspicious of the Antichrist. **Q:** But isn't there a "plot hole"? How would the Antichrist actually rise to power? The major Antichrist books were written pre-World War I and Cardinal Newman was speaking in the 19th century. Today, the answer is obvious: he would rise through the crises of modernity, leveraging the fear of technology and the constant talk of apocalypse. **Q:** How do you view Silicon Valley's "Techno-Optimist Manifesto"? It represents a kind of corporate utopianism. In the 1990s, there was a broad cultural optimism that technology would solve everything. But by 2025, that optimism has shrunk. Today's visions are narrower, less inclusive, and far less confident. The grand, utopian projects have given way to incremental gains, overshadowed by fears of collapse. **Q:** Can we expect a leader, political or technological, to solve everything? No leader can bear that burden. Oppenheimer could not solve all scientific problems, just as Trump, or any politician, cannot solve all political ones. No human figure can deliver a final solution for all time. That expectation belongs to messianic hope, not politics.