/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5973693]

Sister is going through a Sade phase and wants me to read Philosophy in the Bedroom. Is it worth it, or this guy mainly a hack? she was reading me some excerpts from Justine before and I didn't find him all that deep, especially for someone often consider a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5973707]

Dude, you're sister's trying to give you a hint.

TAP. THAT.

[Anonymous No.5973717]

>>5973693
She wants you to read philosophy in her bedroom.

[Anonymous No.5973718]

>>5973693
post pic of sister

[Anonymous No.5973722]

DUDE

[Anonymous No.5973727]

>>5973693
Sade exposed the degeneracy during his times and was jailed upon false claims. He's interesting if you read his works as satire. Your sister is probably fantasizing about bondage and likes him for the wrong reasons.

[Anonymous No.5973728]

>>5973707
>>5973717
>>5973718

>people whose book recommendations i trust

[Anonymous No.5973739]

>>5973727
No, she likes him as a philosopher of individual liberty.

But your idea is interesting, maybe I should suggest it to her.

[Anonymous No.5973749]

Are you the one who's sister tried to give you Hippocratic medicine?

[Anonymous No.5973754]

>>5973749
You guessed correctly.

[Anonymous No.5973759]

>>5973754
she wants to fug

[Anonymous No.5973770]

>>5973759
That's like saying she's a pedophile for like Lolita.

[Anonymous No.5974281]

>>5973770

[Anonymous No.5974289]

>>5973693
de sade is fuckin' great. no homo.

[Anonymous No.5974305]

>>5974281
NO THERES NO FUCKING CONTRADICTION BECAUSE NABOKOV DIDNT RAPE HIS FUCKING DAUGHTER HOW CAN SOMEONE BE THIS STUPID JESUS CHRIST

[Anonymous No.5974317]

>>5974305
The topic is literature
>the opinion of a critically acclaimed literary writer
>the opinion of a professional poster of a Hyperborean dream board
hm, which will I go with?

[Anonymous No.5974326]

>>5974317
Is this how you usually make decisions in life?

[Anonymous No.5974330]

>>5974326
Yes. For instance, I trust doctors when it comes to medicine more than trust 4chan posters.

[Anonymous No.5974341]

>>5974330
have fun

[Anonymous No.5974348]

>>5974289
>>>/fit/

[Anonymous No.5974369]

I'm pretty sure your sister wants to fuck.

[Anonymous No.5974378]

>she was reading me some excerpts from justine

[Anonymous No.5974393]

>>5973693
>Is it worth it, or this guy mainly a hack?
>hack
It probably isn't falsifiable, no, and he didn't a lot of empirical testing. It's also very exaggerated. So yeah, he's a hack, anon, he's totally pretentious. Better not dirty your autistic mind with his books, you might die!

[Anonymous No.5974431]

read this OP
http://rsvpamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Libido-Dominandi-Part-I-Chapters-1-5_E.Michael-Jones_2000_St.-Augustines-Press.pdf

Then pass it on to her.
It's short and demolishes Sade.

[Anonymous No.5974453]

>>5973693
Philosophy in the Bedroom is good.

Also, going through a Sade phase means going through a phase where's she's likely open to the idea of incestuous sodomy.

Is your sister pretty, anon?

[Anonymous No.5974460]

plz post pics

[Anonymous No.5974466]

>>5974453
Are you actually suggesting that he should sodomize his sister? It's a shame people don't get banned for this kind of stuff but they do for saying a few derogatory words about kikes.

[Anonymous No.5974471]

>your sister will never force you to read Venus in Furs and de Sade
>your sister will never force you to worship parts of her with your mouth while she posts this post on /lit/

[Anonymous No.5974480]

>>5973693
She wants 2 fuq

[Anonymous No.5974481]

>>5974466
I'm not suggesting anything, just sharing a suspicion.

Also, there is nothing really wrong with having anal sex with your siblings, necessarily.

[Anonymous No.5974497]

>>5974481
>Also, there is nothing really wrong with having anal sex with your siblings, necessarily.

you must be pretty jaded to think like this
maybe you should stop going on the internet and watching films

[Anonymous No.5974504]

>>5974497
What's wrong with it, then?

[Anonymous No.5974513]

>>5974504
do you believe in objective morality?

[Anonymous No.5974514]

>>5974513
I don't, but even if I did I couldn't see what's wrong with it.

Why do you believe it is wrong?

[Anonymous No.5974519]

Is there any point reading Sade if you're a virgin?

[Anonymous No.5974521]

>>5974514
>I don't

Then your asking me "what is wrong . . . " is sophistical, because you don't even acknowledge the existence of right and wrong. What's the point in arguing with a hypocrite who will ask someone to explain the morality or immorality of an act when he doesn't even believe in morality in general?

[Anonymous No.5974529]

>>5974504
Not that guy, but the taboo on incest can be seen as a precondition of human civilization, as it forces people to interact with people outside their immediate family or trine, thus a softening in that regard might not be a step towards greater liberty and fulfilment, but instead a regress below the standards that enable these in the first place. Other than that, can't think of anything.

[Anonymous No.5974530]

>>5974521
Oh well, even if he doesn't believe in objective morality, there are still reasons for not doing certain things, like walking off cliffs or hurting people you care about.

[Anonymous No.5974533]

>>5974521
I'm curious how you would argue incestuous anal sex is wrong under the assumption that objective morality does exist. I want to know by what kind of reasoning you came to that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.5974536]

>>5974519
Inspiration, motivation, justification, making to-do lists.

[Anonymous No.5974538]

>>5974529
The Egyptians were a pretty great civilization,, yet siblings often married.

[Anonymous No.5974543]

>>5974521
Tu quoque, nerd. He can ask that all he wants.

[Anonymous No.5974547]

>>5974538
Good point, but did this happen outside of the royal elite?

[Anonymous No.5974549]

>>5974538
>Several of the Egyptian Pharaohs married their siblings and had several children with them (for example, Tutankhamun married his half-sister Ankhesenamun. Tutankhamun himself was the child of an incestuous union between Akhenaten and an unidentified sister-wife). It is now generally accepted that sibling marriages were widespread among all classes in Egypt during the Graeco-Roman period. Numerous papyri and the Roman census declarations attest to many husbands and wives being brother and sister, of the same father and mother.[18][19][20][21]

[Anonymous No.5974560]

>>5974549
>degeneracy starts at the top

who knew

[Anonymous No.5974568]

>>5974521
You're someone who is afraid of social taboo. However, that is not objective, just my opinion.

Objectivity isn't necessary for discourse, you autist.

[Anonymous No.5974572]

>>5974560
the marquis knew

[Anonymous No.5974575]

>>5974560
Why do you assume it started from the top? Because Romans weren't taking census before Rome controlled Egypt?

[Anonymous No.5974578]

>>5974533
It's against divine law, civil law, it's degrading to treat another or allow oneself to be treated as a sex toy, it's against our instincts, sex for the sake of pleasure is narcissistic and effeminizing (it harms you and your neighbour).

none of this will mean anything to a sociopath though

[Anonymous No.5974582]

>>5974549
>Tutankhamun married his half-sister Ankhesenamun. Tutankhamun himself was the child of an incestuous union between Akhenaten and an unidentified sister-wife
What a compelling counterexample, a deformed inbred who didn't live past his teens

[Anonymous No.5974585]

>>5974568
being afraid of transgressing social taboo is often a good thing

but my real issue is not that my society condemns it but that God does, and that's inimical to the spiritual nature of man. There's a lot of things that my society fails to condemn which are just as, if not more, repugnant.

[Anonymous No.5974587]

>>5974578
>d as a sex toy
What if he's loving?

>it's against our instincts
Obviously not, sex governed purely by instinct will fuck anything. Dogs fuck legs, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k

>sex for the sake of pleasure is narcissistic and effeminizing
Sex for any other purpose is against our instincts.

[Anonymous No.5974588]

>>5974549
To add to this King Tutes had various health problems due to his fucked up genetics.

Ancient Egypt was still a great civilization though by any regard.

[Anonymous No.5974593]

>>5974585
Welp. Should have known you were christian with that herd mentality.

[Anonymous No.5974594]

>>5974588
You act like King Tut was the only one. He was probably one out of many.

Napoleon's kid have fucked up genetics, btw.

[Anonymous No.5974595]

>>5974587
Our sexual instinct tend toward procreation as its end, not pleasure, which is just a means to that end.

You don't need to sodomize someone to love them. In fact, if you did love someone, you wouldn't harm them by sodomizing them.

[Anonymous No.5974597]

>>5974585
God married his sister, you ill-read oaf.

[Anonymous No.5974598]

>>5974594
Uh, where did I imply that?

[Anonymous No.5974601]

>>5974597
God doesn't have a sister.

[Anonymous No.5974603]

>>5974578
Not even the one you're talking to (but instead the one who pointed out the connection of the taboo with civilization), but there's a number of issues with your post:
>It's against divine law, civil law
Appeals to authority aren't exactly good moral arguments
>it's degrading to treat another or allow oneself to be treated as a sex toy
It really isn't. Giving or receiving sexual pleasure is downright virtuous.
>it's against our instincts
Then nobody would want to do it.
>sex for the sake of pleasure is narcissistic
Wouldn't that apply to doing anything for pleasure? Should nothing ever be done for pleasure?
>and effeminizing
That doesn't strike me as carrying any sort of moral quality
>(it harms you and your neighbour)
Hiw so? That would matter, but you'd have to point out how that harm is caused.

I do in fact believe in objective morality, but none of those points is convincing.

[Anonymous No.5974604]

>>5974595
>Our sexual instinct tend toward procreation as its end, not pleasure,
That's not actually true, or else chimps wouldn't masturbate and women wouldn't have clits.

[Anonymous No.5974615]

>>5974604
Sex has developed as a pleasurable experience (including the development of the clitoris) precisely because those who had more fun with sex made more babies. It's natural selection bruv.

Not that I agree with the person you're replying to, but that's not the fault in his reasoning.

[Anonymous No.5974621]

>>5974601
>>5974601
Who is Hera?

>>5974595
You'd do well to read The History of Sexuality. The entire distinction between sexual bodily pleasure and other sorts is artificial. Our society, especially because of marketing, tries to make sexual pleasure sublime and apart, but when a foot massage is sexual and when it isn't is really an artificial issue. And that is why men don't lip kiss anymore, even though it used to be quite common among men who were close, because it's "sexual". Bodily pleasures of intimacy have to do with a lot more than procreation, or even "sex" in the spooky sense it's used in today. Bodily contact has a lot to do with social boding, not just instinctual driven by procreation like Freud would have you believe. Kissing your mother on the cheek is not solely driven by the desire to have babies with her, neither does intercourse itself have to be about that.

The fall from innocence is our own doing by trying to make certain bodily pleasures "dirty" and others "clean", because we want something "dirty" to hold as sublime and the meaning of life, because we're that fucking edgy.

[Anonymous No.5974677]

>>5974578
>It's against divine law
Not all people who subscribe to objective morality share your particular divine law though, so this is pretty arbitrary and relative.

>civil law
Depends on the place.

>degrading
Why would sex between two consenting adults be degrading?

>it's against our instincts
If it was, people wouldn't do it.

>sex for the sake of pleasure is narcissistic and effeminizing (it harms you and your neighbour).
Why else would you have sex? It's not necessary for procreation any more so pleasure is pretty much the only motivation left.

[Anonymous No.5974689]

>>5974595
>you wouldn't harm them by sodomizing them.
you're doing it wrong bruv

[Anonymous No.5974695]

>>5974588
looks like kim kardashian after chemo

[Anonymous No.5974699]

>>5974595
>Our sexual instinct tend toward procreation as its end, not pleasure, which is just a means to that end.
>teleological biology

Not even once.

[Anonymous No.5975657]

>>5974497
> you must be pretty saded to think like this
fixed that for you

[Anonymous No.5975686]

>>5973727
>megalomaniac pervert writes about megalomania and perversion
>It is hailed as brilliant satire

Where have I seen this before.

[Anonymous No.5975692]

>>5974621
this is pure ideology

[Anonymous No.5975698]

>>5975686
Who is that?

[Anonymous No.5975703]

>>5975698
some dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.5975887]

>>5974431

>Taken in the context of Sade's writings, which is the correct context, Newtonian science becomes a justification for sexual pleasure...

Bad crazy. Very bad crazy. Funny, though.

[Anonymous No.5975891]

Oh yeah, also, sister totally wants the D. If you've any inclination to pee in her butt, OP, you must strike while the iron is hot.

[Anonymous No.5975912]

>>5975891
She's very cute and lovable and we're quite close (we used to read to each other under the blanket with a flashlight) but her being my sister makes such a thing impossible, it would be like trying to fuck my mother, dude, there's just not a sexual code of programming in my brain there. Also seriously doubt she has inclinations toward me like that, when someone recommends Sade on /lit/ it doesn't mean they're sexually into, so why would it in real life?

[Anonymous No.5975924]

>>5975912
>when someone recommends Sade on /lit/ it doesn't mean they're sexually into, so why would it in real life?

That's not a great argument, really. Consider:

"I really want you to fuck me."

^^^ I just said that on /lit/, and obviously I don't mean it. But if your sister walked into the room right now and said it, the fact that saying it on /lit/ doesn't indicate it's truthful isn't a good reason to suppose your sister doesn't mean it.

I mean, maybe she doesn't want it. But then, maybe she does. If you're not into it I suppose it doesn't matter either way.

[Anonymous No.5975968]

>>5973739
>>5973693

>No, she likes him as a philosopher of individual liberty.
I enjoy liberated womyn very much. Give me her number

[Anonymous No.5975975]

>>5975924
If you say that here, you're probably joking. Whereas if you recommend Sade here, you're seriously suggesting I read Sade.

[Anonymous No.5975980]

>>5973693

[Anonymous No.5975986]

Anyone who reads Sade is a filthy degenerate.

[Anonymous No.5975988]

>You will never be forced red Justine by anon's sister.

[Anonymous No.5976024]

>>5975988

[Anonymous No.5976045]

>>5975986
This

[Anonymous No.5976046]

>>5975986
My sister is actually rather squeamish,she doesn't even swear, it's a bit unusual for her if anything.

[Anonymous No.5976100]

>>5974466
Epic post SJW.

[Anonymous No.5976216]

>>5976046
She's deep into ass and pain play bro
Get after it

Also during a lecture he was compared to G.E. Lessing as criticising and exposing the degeneracy, hypocrisy and wanton indifference of the ruling class(es) of the Enlightenment/Late Enlightenment. As such I don't know if he was that interesting or groundbreaking, but time also didn't allow us the continuation of the above parallelle, so maybe it's something to consider.

[Anonymous No.5976250]

>ctrl+f dying priest
>no results

http://eupraxsofia.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/marquis-de-sade-dialog-between-a-priest-and-a-dying-man.pdf

Read this OP, it's a short story with mostly philosophy and not so much depraved stuff. If you like it, advance to reading philosophy in the bedroom.

[Anonymous No.5976418]

>>5976046
>My sister is actually rather squeamish,she doesn't even swear, it's a bit unusual for her if anything.
How old is she ? What does she study ? What is her social background ?

[Anonymous No.5976438]

>>5976418
17 and she's majoring in math. Her social background is the same as mine, pretty normal.

[Anonymous No.5976451]

>>5976438
your sister is masturbating a lot

[Anonymous No.5976470]

>>5976451
You're projecting a lot.

[Anonymous No.5976480]

>>5976438

>17
>reads Hippocrates and de Sade
>math major

Fuck her for me, OP, if not for yourself.

[Anonymous No.5976483]

>>5976451
whoooaa his sister has sexual desires?

r u from MI-6

[Anonymous No.5976498]

>>5976480
Pretty sure the idea that she even wants to fuck is just /lit/ projecting its autism. She's recommended plenty of works to me before, all of a sudden Sade and hurr durr she wants to fuck. Can she not recommend any work with sexuality without it being a come-on? If I had a brother who recommended it, would it be a come-on?

[Anonymous No.5976513]

>>5976498
>Pretty sure the idea that she even wants to fuck is just /lit/ projecting its autism. She's recommended plenty of works to me before, all of a sudden Sade and hurr durr she wants to fuck. Can she not recommend any work with sexuality without it being a come-on? If I had a brother who recommended it, would it be a come-on?
She is 17

[Anonymous No.5976518]

>>5976480
>fucking someone smarter than yourself

[Anonymous No.5976528]

>>5976518
If people never did that, it would lead to people like you, products of a race to the bottom.

[Anonymous No.5976532]

>>5975912
>>5976438
So she's a smart sort of innocent QT that likes to read and wants to introduce her brother to Sadean libertinism?

This is just like in my Bolivian painted pottery.

[Anonymous No.5976540]

>>5976498
You should actually read Philosophy in the Bedroom and see for yourself.

Sade literally justifies fucking your sister up the ass and more.

[Anonymous No.5976547]

>>5976498
Be a good brother and recommend her some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich

[Anonymous No.5976650]

Hardly any posts here actual address my question.

[Anonymous No.5976751]

>>5976650

No offence, but your question is pretty uninteresting. I'll address it a few times to make up for the deficit.

-Yes.

-No.

-Maybe.

-He's an interestingly anachronistic thinker, but not one who's likely to strike you in a way that leads to his becoming a central figure in your own worldview. What he says is primarily noteworthy for the time at which he said it, rather than for the actual content itself. What he says that you agree with, you will find almost surely that you already agreed with it; in all likelihood, he will persuade you of nothing. The things he says you don't agree with, you will find that his elucidations add nothing to your disagreement; he will not temper your disposition by subjecting it to a difficult interrogation that demands much introspection and analysis to refute. As such, he's an interesting oddity and worth your time if you have it to spare, but don't expect anything world-shaking. If de Sade can rock your world in this day and age, your world is dangerously small.

-Can you repeat the question?

-de Sade's primary legacy as an author is the ease with which it permits young women to subtly propose incestuous relations while maintaining plausible deniability. His immortality is thus assured.

-Yes again.

-No again.

-Maybe again.

-Can you repeat the question again.

Happy?

[Anonymous No.5976784]

>>5976751
Some french writers claim that his work is only doable in french, due to the language structure and its beauty. They are not clear as to the why of this though.

[Anonymous No.5976802]

>>5976784
Classic fucking French

[Anonymous No.5976906]

>>5973739
>philosopher of individual liberty

If that's the aspect of Sade she likes the most, you should point her towards Angela Carter's "The Sadean Woman" if she hasn't already checked it out.

I really wish I knew anyone else who liked or had even read some of Sade's work.

[Anonymous No.5977156]

>>5976650
Dude, your sister sounds too cool to NOT talk about.

Even if she doesn't want your dick, you should probably find some way to suggest it while maintaining plausible deniability.

I was the first responder
>>5973707
And I'm a little sorry for bringing up sex with your sister (thought I'm positive it would have come up anyway, and I vaguely suspect that you know it would and this whole thread is just you fucking with us. Maybe you don't even have a sister).

But I'll pretend to take your original question seriously enough to say: yes, I think Sade is good enough to warrant reading it. He's titillating, sometimes thrilling. You'll also have one more thing in common with your sister, and one of the primary joys in this life is the companionship of friends, lovers and family and sweet memories in common.

Honestly, your question is kinda dumb because it's a no-brainer.

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.5977158]

>ITT - I have not read Sade general

Read Lacan's essay on Sade and Kant. Oh, wait, it also can't be translated to your pleb-ass language.


>>5976784
Learn French and find out, prole.

[Anonymous No.5977164]

de sade was a dog fucker, and he wants your girlfriend to fuck dogs also. imagine a world run by an oversexualised guardianista and that would be de sade's world.

[Anonymous No.5977174]

>>5977156
Question needs asking because I don't have time to read every damn thing she recomends

anyway I'll take a look at it

[Anonymous No.5977179]

>>5977158
French rates above English, which is a nigger language of drumbeats, but French sure as shit ain't no patrician language like Latin and Greek. Any language without heavily inflection is petit bourgeois tier at best. French is dumbed-down soldier slang, that's probably why it skips pronouncing so many letters.

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.5977191]

>>5977179
>French is dumbed-down soldier slang, that's probably why it skips pronouncing so many letters.
No, that's not why; and if you want to know why, I'd gladly explain it to you.

[Anonymous No.5977192]

>>5973739
>philosopher of individual liberty
Who you gonna call?

[Anonymous No.5977206]

>>5977158
tripfags a shit

particularly ones pretending to read lacan. go read seminar vii you log

[Anonymous No.5977261]

>>5977192
Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.5977381]

>>5973693
To answer your question, Philosophie dans le boudoir is very worth it, even after you've finished jerking it. It's only after reading that that I'd recommend going on to 120 Days of Sodomy or Justine (and for the completist, Juliette).

[Anonymous No.5977408]

>>5977192
Spookbuster?

[Anonymous No.5978908]

>>5977158
>Read Lacan

LOL.

No.

LOL.

[Anonymous No.5979050]

>>5977192
tutudu-dududuu

[Anonymous No.5979492]

>>5977192
not him, but can you do it anyway cos i'm interested

>>5976751
so you think de sade is tame then ?

[Anonymous No.5979496]

>>5979492
replied to the wrong post ; meant for
>>5977191

[Anonymous No.5981855]

do it feggit