/lit/ - Literature

locked bugman

>>17256422
Howling demons tear him to pieces in hell for eternity.

Imagine experiencing pleasure and thinking it's good

>>17256422
>t. didn't understand de Sade

>>17256426
ressentiment.

>>17256422
t. man who at the end of his life was a grotesque, impotent, morbidly obese figure who perfectly incarnated the true image of the lifestyle he purported

>>17256441
Cope tranny

>>17256422
sheeit, ain't got nuthin' on hunter biden
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmQblFCMIT4

>>17256426
>>17256422
I don't believe in hell, but this man makes me wish I did

>>17256507
what did he do to make you seethe?

>>17256518
write a book about assfucking enslaved children to death

Why are anti-moralists and hedonists always so preachy? They treat it like it's a religion they have to convert you to.

>>17256520
not the letters!!

>>17256429
What is good then?

>>17256521
Because degenerates do the same and corrupt our communities. Hence why they have been persecuted since the dawn of civilization.

>>17256521
>>17256624
I read your post completely backwards. I’m an idiot. Don’t mind me.

>>17256624
>>17256633
moralist iq folks

Him and Stirner go together quite well

>>17256422
When are you raping kids in your dungeon. Ah yeah you're a moralfag after all.

>>17256422
I don't know who is he but your statement is correct.

>>17256426
>he did something i dont like therefore its bad and he must suffer!
and you wonder why nobody takes christcucks seriously

>>17256521
I'd argue its the other way around. Moralists and anti-hedonists are among the most preachy and bitchy of people. They tend to be super political, opinionated, and arrogant. They never shut the fuck up about their gods, their political causes when all I want to do is enjoy life before I did

>>17256778
You can enjoy your life, so long as you don’t transgress the Moral Law. Read Ecclesiastes.

>>17256424
lmfaoooo

>>17256778
Anti-moralists are just as preachy and feel the need to drag you into their degeneracy with them. If you don't they see it as a personal insult and not your own private choice. For example, for all the talk about sexual freedom, feminists lose their minds when they meet a woman who is a virgin by choice and will attempt to convert her while virgin men are shunned and ridiculed. Drug users become extremely offended if you refuse to do drugs with them and will attempt to convince you. Sade himself was a giant proselytizer for degeneracy and thought that in an ideal people who were not virgins past 15 should not have rights.

>>17256835
Feminists are not remotely anti-moralists. Nor are most drug users.
>Sade himself was a giant proselytizer for degeneracy and thought that in an ideal people who were not virgins past 15 should not have rights.
based

>>17256979
Yes they are. The thing about anti-moralists is that they want to tear down old values and replace them with their own twisted version of it.

>>17256835
>feel the need to drag you into their degeneracy with them.
They're not dragging you into "degeneracy" because such a thing is a nominal value. There is no "objective" degenerate behavior. And, even if there was, if you're dragged, duped into doing something because of someone else; if anything, that shows your lack of courage and weakness. Moralists are people who lack the self esteem to take conscious control of their lives; putting themselves into an involuntary servitude of fictions such as gods, or even worse mortal men

>>17256990
>putting themselves into an involuntary servitude of fictions such as gods

>>17256986
Then you might as well describe all moralists as "anti-moralists", since obviously all moralist are in competition with each other and, whenever they personally are not in power, want to tear down the values of the status quo and replace them with their own. Were the Christians "anti-moralists" because they wanted to subvert the values and religions of pagan Rome?

>>17256422
I agree, you should take everything which is within your reach. Might is right. Only seething poorfags and literal weak children will refute this.

>>17256648
Yes, of course. The idea that raping children is'nt a good thing is such a spook.

>>17256422
But higher than pleasure stands apathy, and the pleasure principle is indistinguishable from the death drive in Sade.

>>17256990
>There is no "objective" degenerate behavior.
Yeah man, saying raping kids in a dungeon is wrong is like their opinion or something. Dumb skydaddy believers, right?

>>17256998
>REPENT, REPENT I SMITE THEE

>>17257009
The age of consent was a recent invention, yes. Raping children was pretty fine for most of human history.

>>17257009
Yes, the bible is filled with justifications of rape; and it doesn't have an age of consent in it. Did you read it?

De Sade is the logical continuation of liberalism. Sadly liberals today are too ashamed to make the leap of reasoning and are more concerned about petty issues.

>>17256422
no, he was a degenerate satanist, fuck off retard

>>17257009
Whats always funny is how americans fail to see that their moral standards are not accepted everywhere. For example, age of consent in Germany is 14, a story like the one with callmecarlson would never be an issue because a 19yo fucking a 17yo is no big deal here. We have politicians who have said that they get turned on by five year old girls and they are still in office (eg Benedict Cohn). You have an idea of values that are true everywhere when they are not even shared inside your own cultural hemisphere.

>>17257070
Yes, there has been times when horrible things have been socially acceptable, such as sacrificing infants to Moloch in ancient Carthage. It does not follow that is good. Capisce?

>Christcucks unironically believe that following rules is more moral than defending the pure concept of liberty
kek
look at this dude lmao >>17256986

>>17257092
Being a slave to your lust is not liberty, coomer.

>>17257086
So who are you to decide whats good and whats bad?

>>17257098
Choosing your masters is a greater display of liberty than accepting existing rules. I have the freedom to coom or not to coom. One who decides is free, one who abides is not.

>>17257126
>I have the freedom to coom or not to coom
Yeah keep telling yourself that bud

>>17257126
>Choosing your masters is a greater display of liberty than accepting existing rules
By that same logic a moralist has the liberty to decide to obey God. See, your position is not intellectual; it is a biased, visceral rejection against that which forbids what you like to do: coom. You just rationalize your desires.

>>17257120
Are you 15?

> it is often here (She spreads wide Eugénie's buttocks and indicates the anus.) that the libertine seeks enjoyment

>>17256422
>>17256757
>>17256778
>>17256990
Deeply religious person here and I love de Sade and am fascinated by him. I think he was right in that Violence is the sacred and reigns over all. The funny thing is that without the institutions, without religion, morals and interditions, without the real sacred (the violence against violence, or controled violence) there is no possibility at all of pleasure. One can only be a hedonist when there is a formed, integral community with order and peace, otherwise all there is will be a dissipated, indifferentiated, omnipresent violence. Because these people incorporate violence (against their own lives, bodies, against the integrality of the community, against other people, against literally the human species) there is no better justification for the most abhorrent torture against these people than their own existence and their own behaviour. Why do you anti-moralists hedonists sadists complain about violence? You people incorporate and spread it. And violence is not something that is in one's favor, it only works for itself.

>>17257183
This was one of the most insightful things I have ever read on this site, and I have been coming since 2008. Have a (you) anon.

>>17257183
>One can only be a hedonist when there is a formed, integral community with order and peace, otherwise all there is will be a dissipated, undifferentiated, omnipresent violence.
The funny thing is people became hedonists because all life is in fact dissipated, undifferentiated, omnipresent violence. The theistic humanists attempt to delude you with sermons; the secular humanists delude you with "ethics" ,"reason" & "humility" The hedonists understand the world is simply an endless struggle of all against all until death dissolves us into the ground from which we came. We accept this, and do whatever can while we have time to enjoy life's conforms.
>Why do you anti-moralists hedonists sadists complain about violence?
We don't complain about it; we are different to do it; might we even enough it. Its the moralists who worry about the woes of the world; and the violence it causes; we just laugh in apathy knowing no god will ever punish us; and no man either because we outwit them at their own expense for our own self enjoyment

>>17257158
Are you incapable of describing how you arrive at your moral compass? Is it because you have no clue where your values come from?

>>17256422

-Marquis de Sade?
-Oui
>pic related

Howling demons tear him to pieces in hell for eternity.

>>17257225
Thanks, anon. Read Girard's Violence and the Sacred, changed my life.

>>17257227
>all life is in fact dissipated, undifferentiated, omnipresent violence
Yes, nature itself represents it. Are you not aware of that De Maistre's quote:
>In the whole vast domain of living nature there reigns an open violence, a kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom [...] The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end...
You are only affirming what I said.

>theistic humanists
Oxymoronic. As I said the sacred and religious have always been in an intimate, inseparable, relation with violence. Humanists preach an illusory human autonomy, as if the very order and controled violence the sacred/religious offered and offers to humanity could be rationalized in a reciprocal cycle of unending violence, that is: they are presupposing the founding unanimity that only violence will lead them to: the expiatory victim.

>secular humanists
Ironic for they rely precisely on the religious foundations of all interditions, prohibitions, customs, rites, ethics and morals, that is, all components of order.

>The hedonists understand the world is simply an endless struggle of all against all until death.
Yes, you people are life denying and are below animals since we find in the latter instincts that can make them spare the lives of their opponents, they kill, hurt other animals merely for survival purposes and, interestingly, this implies in communal integration.

>time to enjoy life's conforms.
Again: you people are below animals. Literal parasites drawing on order and the possibility of enjoyment for the illusion of its reality and permanence.

>we just laugh in apathy knowing no god will ever punish us.
Again as I said the very boomerang behaviour of violence is the tragic sense of the divine punishment. This is why the justice and the violence are always together.
Follow my advice to the other anon, read Girard.

>>17256422
It's easy being a meany. It's tough being a friend.

>>17257150
I will, thanks.

>>17256426
He cheated on his wife (and lovers), people turned him into a monster because they didn't like what he wrote.

>>17257751
Good, he was a bad writer.

>>17256422
What if u find pleasure thru religion and compassion for others?

>>17256424
>keyed/locked
sounds like some gay BDSM shit, who the fuck forced this meme?

>>17257327
>Read Girard's Violence and the Sacred, changed my life.
Thanks for the rec. I have been thinking lately about reading Girard, actually, and this is a confirmation I should.
God bless.

>>17257773
Discord trannies

>>17257768
Based and wholesome-pilled.

>>17257773
>>17257826
"b*sed" is the tranny normalfag word now

>>17257837
so it was forced by normalfags who don't think they're normalfags because they have twitter compilation images saved to their hard drives?

>>17257837
Forced meme from an impotent memer.

>>17257183
>>17257327
Hedonists and degenerates have never purged human beings on mass scales like those intoxicated by a righteous cause - whether it be God, Equality, Race or Reason.

>>17257903
Very interesting moralist take for someone who denies any moral value. However, the religious does not demand a mass scale genocide, actually it would unleash the violence from the religious reins, the unanimity would be lost and the violence would already be spread again. That is why sacrificial victims are very specific. Wars for Race/Nation and God will never be for ''rigtheous cause'' as if it were arbitrary, random, purely evil. It is for the preservation of the unity of the community, it is to keep violence outside of the nation, not to penetrate into it and dissolve all order attained AFTER OMNIPRESENT CHAOTIC VIOLENCE.
Those who act for their own causes are degenerates, are ''savages'', against the civilizational order and fecundity, they spread violence and they don't avoid practicing it indiscriminately. Greedy conquerers, radical ideologues have killed human beings on mass scales for their own causes destroying the cultural binds maintained for millenia.

>>17257903
>>17258023
Anyhow it is ironic that after being exposed as the literal malefic force that looms over civilizational order and peace you come with a sentimental moralism foreign to all anthropological-historical knowledge and reason and contradictory to your own destructive values. You are the scum and must feel your own violence back on yourself.

Some rather interesting views on sexuality to say the least. Very daring and provocative writer though. Took liberalism and pure freedom to its limit.

Read the intellectually superior conservative.

>>17258023
>>17258044
t. uncritically absorbs schizo ramblings and repeats them verbatim as if they correspond to anything real

his books seem almost satirical to me. like a satire of the aristocracy and political beliefs of the enlightement era

>>17258065
Based Burke made so many Enlightenment shills seethe back in his day.

>>17258065
>>17258096
Burke was not anti-Enlightenment contra what Isaiah Berlin claims

>>17258137
Still made the likes of Godwin and Wollstonecraft seethe.

>>17258058
>Took liberalism and pure freedom to its limit.
That's the real value of de Sade. He's a great critique against liberalism.

>>17256426
This, de Sade is in the 6th circle of Hell along with Epicurus, Marx and Nietzsche

>>17258071
And thus you perpetuate that violence that can only subsist from ingrained ignorance.

>>17258023
You're splitting hairs. Yes, it's the greed of radical ideologues that cause wars, but what caused that greed and radical ideology in the first place? Organized, institutionalized Jewish-derived fanatical religion did. Eastern religions don't have the same relation to genocidal conquerors like Western religions do.

spookbuster into weird sex shit
respect for his critique of religion though

>>17258208
psycho

>>17257158
Are YOU 15? He questions the existing order as an adult should and you sheep on.

>>17258568
An adult understands the importance of respect and reverence for authority. Rebelliousness is an adolescent trait.
Go check Burke as >>17258065 said
>”We fear God, we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility. Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected”

>>17258663
Nothing in his question implied rebelliousness. Cicero and the Academicians were sceptics about morals and metaphysics, as were Montaigne and Hume. Who are you to question their authority?

>>17258239
>what caused that greed and radical ideology in the first place?
>religionn!!!!
So you think the soviet cause was purely religious? The distinction between ideological cults which will inevitably close itself around a specific group in detriment to others is the same thing as a founding unanimity preserving the social, cultural, institutional pillars of a community not to count the whole human species?

>Eastern religions don't have the same relation to genocidal conquerors
NONE religion is in relation to mass genocidal conquerors because as I said the religious violence is controlled, unanimous and needs a very specific victim to expel the imminent and natural violence in human beings and nature. Any ''muh religious cultists are violent!!'' superficial false retort like that will show that it is not a violence of the religious but of the communal protection.

>>17258239
>>17258744
To add to my post and point your retardation once again:
>what caused that greed and radical ideology in the first place?
The inherent egoic greed, the libidinal, pleasure-seeking irrational force that is the violent inherent to humans. It is from this violence that chaotic, spread violence is unleashed. The religious is posterior to this uncontrolled violence, for AGAIN the religious is controlled.

>>17258137
Enlightenment shills were anti-Enlightenment though because they were sophists.

>>17258744
>So you think the soviet cause was purely religious?
I didn't say that all atrocities committed were religious, or that those that were religiously motivated were solely influenced by religion, but the greed and envy that can be seen behind many atrocities can and have been aggravated by religion. It's also worth questioning: were the atrocities like those committed by Stalin and Mao possible in the world prior to the widespread establishment of these religions, or did these religions help prepare and cultivate the species for such atrocities?

>>17258759
>The inherent egoic greed, the libidinal, pleasure-seeking irrational force that is the violent inherent to humans. It is from this violence that chaotic, spread violence is unleashed.
You're still splitting hairs. No shit that violence occurs outside and regardless of these religions, but it can be and historically has been aggravated by them. When the religion posits a single God and establishes a separate social class intended to serve as an authority on this God, there's inevitably going to be delusions of grandeur, manipulation, and aggravated violence. This seems obvious, doesn't it?

Institutionalization is always about enforcing the order of those at the top, isn't it? Class struggle is always the basis for war and genocide. It's dubious whether the species can be without class struggle entirely, or whether class struggle isn't also beneficial to it, but Western religions aggravate class struggles all the time, and often for very dumb reasons. At the very least, our class struggles should be based on something a bit more tangible and practical, not fanatical metaphysical hogwash that promotes delusions of grandeur and makes abstract the lives of millions so that atrocities can be mercilessly committed in its name.

>>17258860
>I didn't say that all atrocities committed were religious, or that those that were religiously motivated were solely influenced by religion, but the greed and envy that can be seen behind many atrocities can and have been aggravated by religion
First, there is absolutely no correlation between the religious and the ''aggravation'' of a inherent greed, both evidentially and logically. The fact that we can see violent greed, violent pursuit of power among many different people, that we can see selfless, compassive, caring, empathetic people be them religious or not shows no link to religion, but to human beings.
Second, repeating once again what I already said, the primordial, originary instantiation of religion was precisely a control, a appeasement of all the reciprocal, chaotic, individualistic/greedy violence and confrontation. It is the unanimity that the religious instatiates, without which there would be no control of violence and no society.

>were the atrocities like those committed by Stalin and Mao possible in the world prior to the widespread establishment of these religions, or did these religions help prepare and cultivate the species for such atrocities?
This is the dumbest question I could receive. Are you reading what I am posting? There was absolutely no control of violence before the religious unanimity. There would be no calculation, preparation for these genocides (calculations and plans that could only work within A ESTABLISHED PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT, ordered, delimitative, with no immanent, ceaseless menacing violence) but the atrocities would be certainly worse, there would be no human species surviving for millennia.
You have the archetypal modern mentality, you ignore all the events that preceeded the order and relative peace we have now in favor of an illusion, a sudden order coming out of nowhere, blaming the very institutions that warrant this peace and order the for the cause of any possible disruption (which is caused by the weakening of the sacrificial, religious customs and all its cultural consequences on which all civilizations have depended).

>>17257837
I can't believe I exist in the same planet as the person that made this image.

>>17258860
>but it can be and historically has been aggravated by them.
See what I posted above, you are repeating yourself and I refuse to do the same.

>When the religion posits a single God and establishes a separate social class intended to serve as an authority on this God, there's inevitably going to be delusions of grandeur, manipulation, and aggravated violence. This seems obvious, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't because it is a supposition of yours refuted by an actual understanding of the sacred. The social and cultural bound between the divinity and the community is more fundamental than you think. Again, your modern mentality impairs any real understanding of the sacred. Do you want book recommendations? I already cited a work in this thread, but if you want to keep speculating, repeating erroneous, not even superficial but blatantly false claims about religion you should be aware that as I said before, every violence would be justified to be exerted on you (for you yourself perpetuate an irrational, subversive, chaotic violence).

>Institutionalization is always about enforcing the order of those at the top, isn't it?
No. It is not about control of the ones within the same structure but control of the violence that will ALWAYS be dangerous and imminent to this very structure. Differentiation is DEMANDED, otherwise there would return to the indifferetiation inherent to the spread violence.

>not fanatical metaphysical hogwash
lmao I didn't even enter into the metaphysical. See? You have no idea about what you are talking, you are completely lost. Go read a book.

>>17256521
they need other people to join in their misery

>>17258860
>fanatical metaphysical hogwash that promotes delusions of grandeur and makes abstract the lives of millions so that atrocities can be mercilessly committed in its name.
you are literally brainwashed

>>17256729
>When are you raping kids in your dungeon
allegedly

>>17256478
You're the one coping, coward.

>>17256422
based de sade was highlighting the monstrosity that lurked if you followed the logic of liberal individualism to its end (though even he couldn't predict the trannies)

>>17256450
>leaving nothing for the reaper
holy fucking based

>>17257751
He was an awful writer and if I could drive his modern day counterparts to lead a life that would send them to hell, I would. Imagine John Green and Ernie Bugman, burning with him.

>>17256648
They really don't. You realize pleasure is a spook eventually and being drived by it is pathetic.

Choice 1:
>Live by >>17256422.
>Go farther and farther.
>Make your life a living hell.

Choice 2:
>Read the Upanishads.
>Try any practice they preach.
>Notice it works.
>Go farther.
>Attain Moksha.

You decide, anon.

Why is de Sade disliked now? larping migapedes? redditors? Justine is great no matter what you say.

>Normal people: "Eat shit, retard."
>Sade readers: "Hummmmmm, tasty..."

>>17261896
He wanted to fuck children. Everyone hates pedophiles.

>>17258239
Religion only accounts for 7% of wars fought between 3500 BC and 2000 AD.

>>17256422
Of course pleasure is the ultimate driving force of life. But a lot of people find pleasure in morality, compassion, religion and modesty.

>>17257028
>>17257070
>legalists
>recent invention
>its different not wrong!
i bet as soon as eating human flesh becomes "accepted" you would do it
you are the idiot people will have to tell to not jump off a bridge because their friends do it

>>17264620
>i bet as soon as eating human flesh becomes "accepted" you would do it
Isn't this true of everyone? You aren't causa sui. Your morality is derived from the social context you live in.

>>17262145
>everyone hates p.
define p.

>>17262145
But I'm a pedophile? Why would I hate myself?

>>17256422
ironic how these people who seek nothing but pleasure end up being depressed faggots

>>17261669
It's the same shit. Sade is an Aghori and a gnostic.

>>17265635
based take

>>17256424
>the most alpha standpoint in history is "bugman"
holy fucking cope

>>17256422
Hedonism is cringe. Simple as.

The human conceptual horizon is dominated by empire-wide conquests, by rocket-building and space conquest, by heroism and sacrifice. These are the stories we glorify and repeat endlessly. Not by deranged bacchanals acted on by coomers unable to control their own urges. Not by simple pleasure -- as if the goal of every Man is nothing but to scratch an itch.

The problem with Sade is that his fantasies are fundamentally weak and unimaginative. They have "no range".

>>17257837
KEYED
>>17257844
>>17257849
locked

>>17266731
>empire-wide conquests, rocket-building and space conquest, heroism and sacrifice

Is Juliette worth reading? I made it through Justine but it got repetitive after a while.

>>17256422
Le Coomere'

>>17267727
Le FSL

>>17266731
all of those things are still ultimately worthless unless you believe in religion, since they'll be forgotten either way when our civilization is eventually destroyed. what does it matter if you help humanity progress in a meaningful way and you're remembered for a longer amount of time or if you don't do that and are remembered for a shorter amount of time?

we don't glorify and repeat endlessly. we can't. it just seems endless. but it has to end at one point.

>>17268047
religion's solution to this is that since souls are thought to be everlasting in virtually all religions, those actions will actually be remembered and appreciated forever. and if you believe in heaven and hell on top of that, they will also have everlasting consequences in who ends up at heaven and who ends up at hell. THAT makes your conquests meaningful.

>>17257773
/tv/

>>17257837
Nobody forces us to use either.

>>17268065
if not for immortal souls and god, there's no guarantee even TIME ITSELF will remember any of your actions.

>>17268047
>>17268065
You're forgetting that all religion is false, which means people will eventually doubt it unless you literally continually brainwash them or preserve it through totalitarianism or any other oppressive method. Religion, like all lies, has short legs. You can't just pretend to keep civilization alive on lies, this is why postmodernism became a thing at all. You either kill and silence those who don't believe or the cat eventually comes out of the bag.

>>17268106
I don't think my religion is false, but if it is, yeah. There's no point in trying to keep together a lie that will eventually be revealed.

>>17268047
>all of those things are still ultimately worthless unless you believe in religion, since they'll be forgotten either way when our civilization is eventually destroyed. what does it matter if you help humanity progress in a meaningful way and you're remembered for a longer amount of time or if you don't do that and are remembered for a shorter amount of time?
Wrong, my friend. Violence will destroy what it itself built, hence why it is no different from the sacred. This will be remembered again in the same way it is now, through the symbolic and myths it itself demands (for the very protection from itself to come again).

>>17268106
>le religion is le fantasy
Read these:
>>17257183
>>17257327
>>17257903
>>17258023
>>17258044
>>17258744
>>17258759
>>17258860

Interesting how after stepping on you insects, you people insist on coming back with the same irrational, parasitic discurse. Like cockroaches.

>>17268115
I'm not against personal beliefs btw, everyone needs at least some metaphysical foundation to function in or at least just something to believe in. I don't mind religion, but I don't like this retarded "let's just force everyone back into religion it will totally work this time guys" utopian idea. It seems to be very popular here on /lit/ despite making no sense at all. If their argument is that humans necessarily need religion to survive and to maintain civilization then humans are literally fucked no matter what.
>>17268142
Yes it is, I'm glad your LARPing made you find peace but I have no interest in your specific delusion.

>>17268142
Oh yeah, I forgot, I totally shouldn't be on /lit/, I don't read and I have no idea what the sacred means. I don't even know who "Sade" is.

>>17256422
Is hedonism the most braindead dimwit philosophy? This thread is really convincing me, but I think anti-natalism still edges it out.