[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 325 KB, 1444x1441, marquis de Sade.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15615541 No.15615541 [Reply] [Original]

Reading Justine, he has some brilliant takes about atheism regarding evil: how doing evil is easier and more beneficial than doing good, how virtue without God is just obeying your nature like an animal, how being an outlaw would be justified without morals... After that, reading in the wiki how this guy lived, everything starts making sense, he coherently embraced his worship of the nothing becoming a criminal and a pervert. But the problem is that his atheist philosophy is perfectly logical, it's the natural conclusion of atheism. So, are common atheists hypocrite faggots by living in a bubble of fake religious-inspired virtue? Was Sade the only coherent (therefore worthy of respect) atheist?

>> No.15615554

The antinatalists are the most coherent atheists.

>> No.15615568

>>15615541
>doing evil is easier and more beneficial than doing good
Actually false and makes no sense in terms of evolution.

>> No.15615569

>>15615554
antinatalists are moral, atheism is by definition a-moral.

>> No.15615570

>>15615541
>Atheist
>Coherent
honestly, pick one

>> No.15615581

>>15615569
wrong on many levels

>> No.15615615

>>15615568
Well, who cares about evolution.

>> No.15615663

Thank you Thrasymachus, very cool!

>> No.15615730

>>15615541
>So, are common atheists hypocrite faggots by living in a bubble of fake religious-inspired virtue?
If you do not fear divine punishment that will be inflicted upon you after death for your actions during your mortal life, why would you ever do what is morally correct and follow the rule of law?

>> No.15615759

>>15615730
Free will is literally nonexistent. You can’t choose your ‘wants’ and ‘desires’ therefore you don’t really choose your action. A psychopath isn’t doing anything wrong if he is killing people because he has no free will. Same for a moral person.

>> No.15615768

>>15615541
Sounds like something an edgelord would write.

>> No.15615806

>>15615759
there is freedom in the sense that you have agency for your actions. You my not control your desires but the acting upon them is under your control.

>> No.15615929

>>15615541
Yes and no, if we take coherence to be taken to its limits of incoherence. Critics have noted that Sade's reasoning, despite its aspirations of a pure atheistic rationalism, is itself contradictory. But in a way that's the point: not a proof, but the excessive repetition of perversion in logical, classical form. In any case, yes, he far surpasses a simple rational and moral atheism—that of the Enlightenment philosophes, or of Sade's early work, the "Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man"—and moves to something more inhuman. The essays on Sade by Maurice Blanchot and Pierre Klossowski are also interesting in this regard.

>> No.15615987

>>15615806
Alright. So let’s say you want to steal from a shop. Then you act upon it, and then let’s say in another universe you didn’t.

You did not have the freedom to act in either universe. In the first universe you did not have the fear to act. Your desire to steal overpowered any desire to remain in the law, that was not your choice, that was your own desire that simply occurred in your brain.

In the second universe, your desire to remain in the law surpassed your desire to steal. You did not have the will to act, because your will dictated you wanted to remain in the law and you would be scared of stealing.

Thus, you have no control over your actions, your desires already dictate how you will act.

>> No.15615995

>>15615759
If free will is literally non-existent, you can choose to do whatever you want that it would have no repercussions in your conscience. If you kill someone, you are innocent of that crime, because being guilty requires having the ability to choose. Atheism AGAIN is just intellectual niggerism.

>> No.15616006

>>15615929
>itself contradictory
How? Has anyone refuted each one of these philosophical reflections in his novels?

>> No.15616018

>>15615987
Worthless hypothetical

>> No.15616019

>>15615995
You will do whatever your will dictates. Whether you are a calm person who stays on the side of the law, or a bloodthirsty psychopath.

>> No.15616032

>>15616018
Hahah, you have no counterpoint. Thus dopamine has been released into my brain by winning this argument on this Vietnamese breadbasket forum. Hahaha

>> No.15616057

>>15615987
It's not so simple. There's a tremendous distance between desire (or will) and action

>> No.15616074

>>15616032
read Kant

>> No.15616076

>>15616057
Is there? Explain. I am quite happy to hear your argument.

>> No.15616079

>>15616019
So why are we jailing criminals? They just do what everyone does: follow their instincts. Who are we to stop them?

>> No.15616106

>>15616079
We are hailing criminals because people at the top WANT to enforce law and order because they like order because it gives them POWER. It also benefits me because the criminals are not out on the street and thus I am far less likely to be killed by a murderer. Morality is a spook, it doesn’t exist, it’s simply your will dictating what you do. Criminals aren’t at fault, they were falling their desires, no one is at fault. But they can remain in their prisons because if they were out of their prisons I would be more likely to be killed

>> No.15616107 [DELETED] 

>>15615759
>Same for a moral person.
Wrong. I have wants and desires that i have to consciously suppress since i fear for my salvation if i were to act out on them.
This is my choice though, at any point in time i could give in by my self and just hope that comitting these sins will be forgiven.
Your wants and desires do not dictate your actions.
You can act in a way that goes strongly against them.

>> No.15616114

>>15615987

But if in nature, right and wrong don’t exist, we can’t base our action upon that?

>> No.15616121

>>15615541
Religion and morality have nothing to do with each other.

>> No.15616126

>>15616107
So... wait a minute. You do not follow your desires because you desire to go to heaven... bahahaa

You are literally following your desire though, you just admitted it.

>> No.15616127

>>15615581
it's not. haven't you ever thought it was suspicious that atheist morals inevitably tend towards post-christian middle class values?

>> No.15616136

>>15615541
>Was Sade the only coherent (therefore worthy of respect) atheist?
Look up some early 20th century egoist-anarchists. They also walked the walk, so to speak. Used to rob banks and shoot up cops, things like that. Absolute mad lads.

>> No.15616145

>>15615759
try telling his victim's families that their deep anger at his actions aren't in their control so what happened isn't wrong

>> No.15616147

>>15615569
Atheism is defined as disbelief in god(s). How does that imply amorality?

>> No.15616152

>>15616074
Ditto.

>> No.15616154

>>15616145
Nah, I’m alright. I would look like an asshole, and I have no DESIRE to do something that would make me feel bad. I’m simply following my nature mi hombre. But it’s the truth, no one is at fault when free will is nonexistent.

>> No.15616157

>>15616145
If I tell them that, it will be because the laws of physics compel me to do so.

>> No.15616161

>>15616079
We are ones to stop them not to be the victims of their crimes, dumbass.

>> No.15616166 [DELETED] 

>>15616126
You said that since you can not choose your wants and desires, so therefore you can not choose your actions, and that this applies to a moral person as well.
This is wrong. You can very much choose your actions since you can have confliction desires of equal value to you, so you have to choose which desire to follow.
This is not the stronger desire because you have chosen to act on it.
It is like a crossroads of 2 ways with no apparent advantages over one another, you just pick one and go with it.

>> No.15616168

>>15615569
No, the opposite. Morality is impossible if you're a theist. One cannot have two masters.

>> No.15616177
File: 35 KB, 657x527, 1591020781592.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15616177

>Reading through Justine
>Don't give a fuck about the philosophical babble, just feel a constant, raging erection
What does that say about me?

>> No.15616219

>>15616161
Would you punish a tiger for being a tiger?

>> No.15616225

>>15616166
Ah, so you believe your desires have equal strength and that YOU personally choose them.

But let’s have a look at what you desire. So you have two desired.

1) Go to heaven
2) Jerk off, eat like shit and sin a lot

Alright, and you believe you made the conscious decision to pick the first. But why did you pick the first one, let’s see. You would be able to live forever and you would avoid hell. But why would you prefer to live in salvation instead of jerking off and going to hell? I mean, we could pick apart every single bit of reasoning, but at the end of it all, it would come down to basically ‘because I want that’ and you cannot make any decision to want something as we have cleared up. So at the end of the day, your desire to go heaven overpowered your desire to jerk off, not because you made that decision, but because the first option was more desirable to you. And why was it more desirable to you? Because it just was.

>> No.15616251
File: 36 KB, 750x445, kek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15616251

>>15616168
>Morality is impossible if you're a theist.
>immediatly paraphrases a known theist.
HAHAHAHA. Only in 4chan.

>> No.15616255

>>15615541
Yes OP, I've thought about this as well. A full century before Nietzsche he took atheistic materialism to its full logical conclusion. If we're all just atoms and nothing more, doing what feels good (regardless of the suffering of others) becomes the only logical thing to do.

>> No.15616266

>>15615541
If justice is no more than domination of the strong then egalitarianism and humanitarianism are just because the strongest masses of humanity are all in agreeement to them.

>> No.15616299

>>15616251
Lol. I like to speak to people in their own language.

>> No.15616310

>>15616255
Morality is only possible in an atheistic universe.

>> No.15616329

>>15616255
If we're all just bits of spacetime, the whole idea of distinct persons with distinct feelings is exposed as the artifice it is. We are all one, and should act like it.

>> No.15616344

>>15615541
>i found a book that makes me and other people believe that atheists are evil
>haha have i did /lit/? haha

>> No.15616377

I should say that de Sade was not really a philosopher as much as a provocateur who wanted to take Enlightenment philosophy to its limits. Just like Hume wrote, after carefully showing how we know nothing at all, will put down the pen and go have his dinner as normal, de Sade probably didn't completely embody his own philosophy (he sure tried though). His work should be seen as a provocation and thought experiment, and certainly not as a prescriptive moral doctrine. (At least that's my opinion.)

>>15616266
There is no "justice" and no "injustice" in de Sade's worldview, because you're just an arrangement of matter. De Sade does away with the "ought" in the is/ought problem. Nothing matters and being a degenerate philanderer feels good so what's stopping me? If I hit you with a whip, I don't feel your pain yet I feel my own pleasure. So what's stopping me? There's no "the strong *should* rule over the weak" in de Sade. There are no "oughts."

>>15616310
"Morality" does not exist in a purely materialistic universe, which is what de Sade explores in his works. Cf. Steinerian "spooks". Morality is a concept, it's empty, it has no ontological status. Only matter exists.

>>15616329
Only if you have empathy. De Sade doesn't so he chases his own pleasure even at the cost of others. Besides, from "we're all one" it does not logically follow that "you should be nice and caring." It might be preferable but it's not a logical consequence.

>> No.15616389

>>15616377
It is better to suffer injustice than to inflict it.

>> No.15616394

>>15616377
>Steinerian
Stinerian* ofc

>> No.15616406

>>15616394
Fuck it, you know what I meant.

>>15616389
That's a vague unsupported "ought" de Sade would dismiss out of hand. "Injustice" is not even a thing since it presupposes a moral order, the entire concept of which is absent in de Sade

>> No.15616410

>>15616377
>"Morality" does not exist in a purely materialistic universe
Nonsense. That's like saying "Rationality" doesn't exist in a purely materialistic universe. Norms address how things ought to be, not how things are.

>> No.15616450

>>15616410
>Norms address how things ought to be
The whole point is that there is no "ought", the entire concept of an "ought" is bullshit. There is just the material world and nothing besides, by daydreaming about oughts you're just mentally masturbating yourself. In effect, De Sade's whole body of work is an outright attack on the most basic and simple moral rule: "you should be nice". De Sade first asks "why?" and then shows how Enlightenment philosophy cannot answer.

>> No.15616464

>>15615987
The problem in this argument is the assumption of time as a linear flat predestined line, one could easily argue that will and consciousness serve as ripples in time (of sorts) and transcend to a further mental plane of existence; one being able to effect the other, not vice vice versa. In this world of free will, one may either argue that judgements are in some part random or in other entirely logically founded; either way this view is still the same. So in this view the person/s in the universes did indeed have free will to choose those actions and chose not to exercise it; one could also argue that multiple universes don’t exist and that the analogy is entirely meaningless.

TLDR: Kant

>> No.15616527

>>15616450
That doesn't make any sense. How does materialism have anything to say about the possibility of practical reason? A materialist can't believe that "If you want to live a long life, you ought not jump in front of a train"? Why not? Whether the world is made of atoms or dreams and smiles, questions of "ought" will always be there.

>> No.15616556

>>15616145
You argue like a woman retard

>> No.15616585

>>15616527
In Kant's term, the example you posted is hypothetical imperative which is different from his more famous (and relevant to ethics) categorical imperative. Of course a materialist need not necessarily deny cause and effect or hypothetical imperatives. But implicit in moral ought-statements is the hidden premisse "if you want to be good". Such as when you say "[if you want to be good] you should be compassionate." "Good" does not correspond to a material reality in the same way as "a long life" does in your example. "The Good" does not exist, it's a Platonic ideal (so to speak) not a material thing. And since de Sade says only material things are real, it follows there is no "good"

>> No.15616714

>>15616585
All 'ought' statement have normative premises, including hypothetical imperatives. Inductive reasoning is inherently normative. Deductive reasoning is inherently normative. Practical reasoning is inherently normative. The statement that "one ought not develop a heroin habit" is not merely a statement of cause and effect. It depends on a whole range of hidden normative premises like "you ought to care about what happens to your future self; suffering is bad; etc" Even the notion of "the self" is a fictional artifice that is not just given to us by a materialistic worldview. If anything, a materialistic outlook would support a more robust morality since it does not honor the distinctions between "you" and "me" that form the conceptual basis of egoism.

>> No.15616774

>>15615541
Was he right about most atheists being hypocritical religious doctrinairians in disguise? yes. But recognising this doesn't make hedonistic, nihilistic atheism coherent.

>> No.15616810

>>15615541
I also consider Stirner to be a coherent atheist. All the rest of them are just coping.

>> No.15616821

>>15616714
>Practical reasoning is inherently normative.
But it's not prescriptive as it relates to a concept of "good" which simply does not exist in Sade's ontology. The self does exist by virtue of you feeling pleasure, that's a good enough reason to engage in hedonism. The you=me stuff I address in an earlier post in more detail

>> No.15616863

>>15615554
>atheist are also ahumanists
makes sense

>> No.15616901

>>15616821
If Pedro has 2 apples and Alice has 2 apples, then (IF YOU CARE ABOUT ARITHMETIC TRUTH) you ought to infer that together they have 4 apples. That is a normative statement. Materialism is a statement about the nature of the world. The material world doesn't care about what inferences we ought to make, it just is. Normativity is imposed on the world by us, along with all sorts of extra structure that facilitates our interactions with it.

>> No.15616917

>>15616901
Yes, and there is also no such thing as "the good" in the platonic sense. There is no objective secular morality, this is as true now as it was in Sade's time.

>> No.15616962

>>15616917
"Goodness" exists in the same way "Truth" or "Rationality" exist. They are normative concepts we impose on the world. That doesn't make them 'subjective'. Nor does normativity have any relationship to theism or materialism. Whatever the world is made of, whatever supernatural entities exist, normative questions will always arise.

>> No.15617035

>>15616962
>"Goodness" exists in the same way "Truth" or "Rationality" exist.
No, this is the entire point of de Sade. Except maybe for rationality but that's only in the goal-rational sense i.e. "what is the optimal way for me to get my kicks". Like I said, de Sade must be read as a thought experiment against the Enlightenment. In the old Greek/Christian paradigm there is an objective order of Good and Truth, but with the Enlightenment that basis was done away with so the concepts become empty

>> No.15617106

>>15615568
>and makes no sense in terms of evolution

Well, at least according to the "just so" stories conjured up by armchair evolutionists to explain human psychology.

>> No.15617115

>>15617035
De Sade's twisted belief system and debauched behavioral proclivities were what they were. I wouldn't read any philosophical depth into them. My point is simply that morality is only possible in an atheistic universe, and that moral questions arise regardless of the metaphysical constitution of reality (materialism, etc.).

>> No.15617127

>>15615541
coherent atheism is an oxymoron. a truly “coherent” person doesn’t need to belong to any -ism

>> No.15617176

>>15617127
Your post is certainly incoherent.

>> No.15617403

>>15615569
nihilism is amoral, atheism is moral

>> No.15617405

>>15615759
>You can’t choose your ‘wants’ and ‘desires’
citation needed

>> No.15617411

>>15617405
>citation needed
You can't choose your needs, either.

>> No.15617424
File: 558 KB, 1200x1800, 1200px-Emaciated_Siddhartha_Fasting_Gautama_Buddha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15617424

>>15617411
But you can choose not to act on them

>> No.15617746

>>15615541
Even as atheist bait, this is pretty pathetic.

>> No.15617815

Denis Diderot is the only coherent materialist

>> No.15617942

>>15616079
We are just following our instincts, we can't help jailing them.

>> No.15618151

>>15615541
Any government that would allow a man like this to sit on its deliberative bodies ought to be extinguished for all time. It hardly matters whether he meant what he said or whether it is the real conclusion to enlightenment philosophy - he said it, and he committed enough crimes of that nature to take him as the embodiment of that strain of thought. Thank God for Napoleon

>> No.15618220

>>15616177
That you appreciate literature for what truly is: entertainment.

>> No.15618266

>>15615995
How does God change that calculation? Either we act due to our nature, itself determined by our biology and our environment, or we act with an element of randomness. There's no space for a moral choice that is both meaningful and not predetermined from the perspective of perfect knowledge. Our choices are meaningful, but either we choose according to a coin flip or we choose as our character compels us to.

>> No.15618334

>During the French Revolution, he was an elected delegate to the National Convention.
Lmao of course he was. Fucking frog faggots.

>> No.15618710

>>15615541
Grow up
Morality has nothing to do with religion
There has been no end of religious amoral assholes, just as there have been no end of moral non-religious people
De Sade is obvious satire of how people actually behave vs the huge systems they build to excuse their behavior as "rational"
Sorry it went over your head

>> No.15618885

>>15615541
>Was Sade the only coherent (therefore worthy of respect) atheist?
Yes. Athiesm fundamentally means coprophilia. Even Stirner maintained the "God tells me not to eat shit therefore I won't" spook. Only de Sade had the courage of convictions to know the only thing standing between man and a bowl of feces was God, and to act on it.

>> No.15618909

>>15618710
>Sade is obvious satire
Cope. He lived how he wrote. de Sade was an honest shiteating whoremongering sodomaniacal womanbeater.