[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 26 KB, 232x235, Sade.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4687200 No.4687200[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Dear /lit/,

Sade is the truest. Seriously. He's an amoralist materalist perfectly adapted to modern science without a shred of cognitive dissonance. Nietzsche and Stirner were late to the party. The Marquis solved it all.

Why aren't you a Sadean libertine?

Are you clueless? It's okay, II'd gladly recommend you some works.

Why aren't you a libertine?

>> No.4687214

waaaanker

>> No.4687219

Because Marx.

>> No.4687224

>The Marquis solved it all.
Do tell.

>> No.4687231
File: 33 KB, 558x418, 13007240868938395572.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4687231

>>4687200
>Late to the party
>Cyrenaicism

>> No.4687240

Silly, dumb, bourgeoisie scum.

>> No.4687249

>>4687240
>Using bourgeois as an insult

>> No.4687260

>>4687200
It never ceases to amaze me that a man who took so much delight in perversion and vice could make it so boring and cataloged.

Truly an edgefather. Likewise beloved of continentals and other swine.

>> No.4687275

>>4687240
>marquis
>bourgeoisie
Someone hasn't been doing his homework lately.

>>4687260
He was a hysterical smasher of common morality, the final extension of his Enlightenment contemporaries. His excesses never cease to amuse me.

You'd have to agree he's pretty seminal though (if you allow me this). You'd be hard-presser to find earlier example of someone so methodically and so emphatically going against the values of his time. Edgefather indeed. And some of his sons were actually good writers, so he still deserves some credit (although in a derivative way).

>> No.4687300

>>4687200
Because I don't have autism.

>>4687260
Exactly.

>> No.4687305

>>4687200
>modern science
stooped reading there

>>4687240
>2014
>picking "bourgeois" up from your trendy friends rather than through studying
>using it incorrectly

>> No.4687317

>>4687214
Sure is.
>>4687224
I'd suggest you'd suggest something he didn't solve and i'd be glad to help.
>>4687231
Butterlips, I'd bite down tenderly on the throb but you have a point, still, the Marquis was the first to reconcile hedonism with modern materialism, which is worth something on its own, a post-sceptic pragmatism like, let's make it happen, I'll feed you the silken girls for a non-monetary fee. He'd be your homeboy, you, our dear jani, obsessed with the Epicure and with the Sci, he'd be your kind of man, woman likes, truly, let me recommend.
>>4687240
Le ignoramus facade.
>>4687275
This man knows a bit, but yet, he fails to pay proper homage. Have you been to the walls mate? Have you liked the Marquis' wall? astis drunk? Touched it with your tongue? A little bit?

Who on /lit/ has caressed the wall?

>> No.4687327

>>4687317
I'd suggest you explain what you even like about the man to begin with other than his apparent adherence to a cold scientific outlook

>> No.4687328

>>4687275
>implying morality/values = bad.

He was indeed, seminal, quite unfortunately, he proved to be the prototype for centuries of insipid hacks who's work has resulted in a flowering of artistic
>inb4 /pol/
degeneracy.

His work may have had novelty value at the time, but seeing as it has become a celebrated standard, it is now the value of our time that sorely requires going against. It's only value now is anthropologic, as it is of the caliber of the Pompeian grafitti, giving us but one glimpse into the sexual mindset of an era.

Sade's contribution to the debasement of art is twofold, for on one side he provides a template of blandness and unoriginality to provocateurs while exhorting tasteless reactionaries to seek out a hidebound standard as a refuge.

>> No.4687334

>>4687327
This is hard for me mate, what's not to like? I'm not being a smug cunt, I'm seriously curious.

>> No.4687340

>>4687334
Holy shit are you serious

`whats not to like about hitler, im serious m8 tell me whats wrong with him'

>> No.4687342

>>4687328
I don't know if he was super deep, but his philosophy is interesting and there is definitely an artistic quality to his imagination, morose than with graffiti, and especially for his time. All of his work is worthwhile today, except maybe 120 Days

>> No.4687347

>>4687340
Name one thing wrong with the Sade, breh.

>> No.4687355

>>4687340
What's not to like about Godwin?

Sade refused to sit in as council judging people for death during the Revolution because he said it was "barbaric". Despite that, he was one of the few members of the aristocracy who was granted Citizen status under the First Republic.

>> No.4687357

>>4687342
I certainly agree his work is worthwhile today, as a diagnostic example of everything that went wrong and what needs to be fixed. A contemporary De Sade would write of monogamy, heteronormativity, or if he were truly depraved, sexual continence, and that's part of De Sade's ill effect.

>> No.4687358

>>4687328
>implying morality/values = bad.

Never did I quite imply that.

>he proved to be the prototype for centuries of insipid hacks who's work has resulted in a flowering of artistic degeneracy

Yeah like Baudelaire or Rimbaud, right anon ?

>It's only value now is anthropologic

I'd say historical more than anthropologic, but alright.
>for on one side he provides a template of blandness and unoriginality to provocateurs

True that, but that's the price to pay if you want to have genuine transgressive artists. It could be worse, in my opinion. Provocateurs aren't that numerous.

>exhorting tasteless reactionaries to seek out a hidebound standard as a refuge.

One couldn't care less about what tasteless reactionaries say or do, unless one is an idiot.

My current opinion about Sade is that although he's just a rambling rethorician himself, he influenced genuinely good writers, and his interesting if nothing else for his craziness and novelty. As for the edgeline he sired, like I said earlier, it's forgettable enough not to be hold as a grudge against him.

Also, >>4687317 is a closet scatophile. You're all warned now.

>> No.4687367

Sade is the Plato of modernity.

Paglia's, Foucault's, and Sloterdijk's commentaries on Sade's works are all very good.

>> No.4687414

The fact that Sade still manages to piss people off shows that he is still a relevant and interesting author.
As >>4687275 says, he was an enlightenment man who took the values of his age to their absolute conclusion. That his writings still shock and offend is a testament to his unique lack of moderation and modesty.
The scene in 'Juliette' when the eponymous character joins the Pope in a satanic orgy is particularly good - it's horribly offensive even in the 21st century, and hilarious too.
De Sade is top comedy because he's a man who simply does not give a fuck. He wrote whatever he wanted to write and carried on writing even after being imprisoned

>> No.4687423

>tfw you slap your girl in the face

thank you based sade

>> No.4687430

>>4687358
>Never did I quite imply that.

In response to my denigration of him, you countered by informing me that he was a hysterical smasher of common morality and that I'd be hard pressed to find earlier example of someone so methodically and so emphatically going against the values of his time. You then said he deserved credit

>Baudelaire or Rimbaud

Now, that's an appeal to the authority the names of Baudelaire or Rimbaud invoke. Perhaps you assume I would tremble at the suggestion that I would pick bones with Baudelaire or Rimbaud. They are not the issue here. But then again, did you not say the edgeline he sired was "forgettable" while maintaining he influenced genuinely good writers. You ought to distinguish them.

>True that, but that's the price to pay if you want to have genuine transgressive artists.

If that is the exchange, then I would soon demand a refund. Obscenity for the sake of obscenity has no use, and it grows especially wearisome when it attracts and encourages those who assume they are being profound by spouting off the most revolting things they can think of.

>Provocateurs aren't that numerous.

Bizarro. Which is quite lucrative and also taught at universities.

>> No.4687431

Dworkin's was better

>> No.4687433

>>4687414
>The fact that Sade still manages to piss people off shows that he is still a relevant and interesting author.
Strange then, that this thread consists of people praising him or halfheartedly dismissing him.

>> No.4687454

Sade is the most non-hypocritical philosopher. Prove me wrong.

>> No.4687477

>>4687423
Hey, hey, hey!

>> No.4687482

>>4687477
don't you approve, pretty lips?

>> No.4687501

>>4687477
is this a reference to Blurred Lines

>> No.4687512

>>4687200
>Sade is the truest.
There's no convincing hedonists that they might be wrong because they've replaced the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of whatever is pleasurable today. Sade and like "philosophers" are their time's equivalent of our anti-natalists and transhumanists.

>> No.4687527

>>4687512
Have you read Sade m8?

>> No.4687535

>>4687240
>>4687260
These two

>> No.4687561

>>4687200
>materialist

>> No.4687838

>>4687561
Implications?

>> No.4688575

>>4687512
>objective fact today that serotine and dopamine are the only worthwhile things in life
>saying that hedonists are wrong

>> No.4688583

>>4687512
>objective fact today that serotine and dopamine are the only worthwhile things in life
Proving >>4687512 right

>> No.4688664

>>4688583
Are you denying it?

>> No.4688678

#shitbabyboomerssay

>> No.4688701

>meet feminist tumblr strong womyn
>she wants nothing more than to get raped and abused

how do women work?

>> No.4688704

>>4688701

muh psychosexual coping

>> No.4689185
File: 13 KB, 281x400, Epicurus[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4689185

>being a positive hedonist
>ever

>> No.4689242

>>4689185
Epicurus was a positive hedonist. He had to be, otherwise he would have went the way of Hegesias in his reasoning. Epicurus' response to the question why he doesn't kill himself if life is all about avoidance of suffering is that the state of ataraxia is itself a positive pleasure. An untroubled state radiating a calm pleasure without suffering is preferred to the absence of pleasure, so remaining alive is justified.

Basically Epicurus, Sade (and the Cyrenaics for that matter) are after the same thing. Epicurus just thinks sitting around doing nothing being a poorfag is the most pleasurable way of life, while Sade thinks being a powerful richfag with a large harem to which he can do everything he likes in addition to comforts and luxuries is a better way of doing so. Same goal, different methods.

>> No.4689275

>>4689242
Well, It comes down to your circumstances. If you are born poor, what would Sade want you to do? Work to acquire wealth etc. Epicurus would say that it's better not to have any ambitions of that sort. So he differs from Sade.

>> No.4689290

>>4688701
fetishes != political positions

i have a thing for getting pissed on but i don't think society should be rearranged aroundgolden showers

>> No.4689312

Because society.

It's not a functional position, even if I agree with him, what will I get from behaving/thinking like him?

>> No.4689317

>>4689275
Judging by his works (and deeds), Sade would probably just suggest you turn to crime to acquire whatever you want.