Markis de Sade

Subject: Markis de Sade Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:24 am

Does anyone here recognize the eloquent markise as a philosopher?
In which tradition should we integrate him, with chamfort, voltaire and nietzsche?
Is there any connections with schopenhauer? What kind of impact has he inflicted on contemporary thought?

I would like to hear your opnions on this.

Subject: Re: Markis de Sade Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:31 pm

The Marquis de Sade was openly atheist in his belief and unrestrained in morals.His sexual perversions involved inflicting pain on his lovers. The word 'sadism' is his contribution to our language.

De Sade was very similar to a man who would arise a century later and give us the doctrine of "nihilism." That man was Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) who was an open atheist, secular purist and like de Sade, died in an insane asylum.

Nihilism means nothingness. Nihilists believe that there is no purpose or meaning to life, no God to serve, no life after death and no authoritative morality or absolute truth. It's not hard to see that anyone attempting to live as a nihilist would find life to be a boring drudgery.

Schopenhauer was "a lonely, violent and unbefriended man , his system of philosophy was based on that of Kant's. Schopenhauer did not believe that people had individual wills but were rather simply part of a vast and single will that pervades the universe: that the feeling of separateness that each of has is but an illusion. So far this sounds much like the Spinozistic view or the Naturalistic School of philosophy. The problem with Schopenhauer, and certainly unlike Spinoza, is that, in his view, "the cosmic will is wicked ... and the source of all endless suffering."

The lesson from all this is that people cannot find moral guidance or meaning in life apart from God.

The very fact that virtually all secularists are syncretists who borrow Christian concepts of morality is itself a witness to the fact that Christian morality has the ring of truth and has its source in divine wisdom.
.

Subject: Re: Markis de Sade Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:34 pm

Im not sure if you wrote this yourself or if this is a copy/paste from another book or website.

The descrption of de Sade and Schopenhaur is shallow but correct. So, why this hate against nihilism and violence? Hasnt history shown that believin in "divine" transcencent essences like GOD is as violent as anything? Both nietzsche and de sade rejects any kind of "future" in that sense, theyre getting high on water, on the haeccity, the "thisness" of the situation. Isnt their body centrered philosophy way better than any other kind of "great project" thinking like Hegel or Kant?

Subject: Re: Markis de Sade Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:44 pm

Actually I read about those philosphers , Probably That info may be a shollow but as u said it's correct !!! coz how did we know about them except from books ???!

So let us talk deeply about what u mentioned about nihilism and violence , i not hate Nihilism but I hate Violence , There is a big difference between the two and sometimes strong Nihilism can end into Violence ! , I believe that Marquis de Sade was really ill and that was obvious in his "sadism" But being an ill doesn't mean we should hate him but I think may be it was genetic issue or something he couldn't control.....or may be it was in his chemical.

For example , Nietzsche was good in Nihilism but he didn't reach to the horrible violence that Marquis reached !!!.

About The history shown that believin in "divine" transcencent essences like GOD is as violent as anything , I think u r talking about old Testment in the bible where u see most of it killing and murdering.....u can say it's similar to soldiers who protect their country from enemies...what they suppose to do other than killing the enemies??? On the other hand God helped his nation in old Testment to get out of Egypt where They were treated as slaves !!!...If u will judge anything according to one action only then u will be not judging fairly....Sometimes u must deal wiz thing firmly as well as wiz kindness.

I'm not trying to say good things about God But I'm trying to analyse what's going on logically.
.

Subject: Re: Markis de Sade Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:13 pm

I do not refer exlipicitally to the old testament, I refer to transcendental essences in general, like "reason", "god", "the future", "humanity" ergo things that are made up by our dreams and wishes rather than facts on the ground. and so on,

I was trying to be provokative with mentioning de sade as a philsopher but I see clarity in his brutality, in his wish to write about and try to demonstrate exactly how ill a human person can be and not trying to hide it. Its pornographic, yes. And i do not support it, nevertheless i see a cold reasoning in him, he doesnt believe in "goodness" or anything in particular and he sees the world for what it is, very brutal. Ones mind can be deceived by ideals and wishes, nature is not perfect acccording to man, it doesnt serve his needs. I think that should be remembered.

Im not in favor of any kind of theism, I believe in keeping an ironic approach to ideas and to nature, one can not expect nature, human nature or other to act according to ones wishes, it doesnt follow from this that everything is preferable. We are still humans.

Subject: Re: Markis de Sade Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:18 pm

I have a comment about what you previous mentioned That Markis didn't believe in "goodness" or anything in particular and he sees the world for what it is, very brutal. Ones mind can be deceived by ideals and wishes, nature is not perfect acccording to man, it doesnt serve his needs. I think that should be remembered.

So the question "Is there any goodness on earth? "and how can be goodness while it's not perfect according to man ??...and If we assume that it serve his needs totally " Is Markis going to be satisfied and happy ?

Subject: Re: Markis de Sade Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:03 am

Miro wrote:: .So the question "Is there any goodness on earth? "and how can be goodness while it's not perfect according to man ??...and If we assume that it serve his needs totally " Is Markis going to be satisfied and happy ?

It doesnt serve mans needs. In nature there is cruelt beyond imagination. Nature is nor good or bad, nature just is. Its up to our conscience to decide if we like what we see or not. But why hide away from reality? And believing in things unseen and unknown to man?