|
Helsing posted:I thought of the ultimate philosopher of liberal modernity (which ironically means he is anticipating the philosophy of many forms of contemporary conservatism). Even better he's one of the few writers who is still genuinely scandalous enough that a lot of people will become angry or judgement simply knowing you've read him: De Sade. The guy had some... interesting... beliefs. For instance, he was a strong opponent of the death penalty but believed that murder should be legal. I'm sorry for going off topic with this, but if I want to read some Sade, what's the best or a good translation? It looks like the best options are an old Grove Press series from the 50s/60s and more recent translations from Oxford.
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Helsing posted:I thought of the ultimate philosopher of liberal modernity (which ironically means he is anticipating the philosophy of many forms of contemporary conservatism). Even better he's one of the few writers who is still genuinely scandalous enough that a lot of people will become angry or judgement simply knowing you've read him: De Sade. The guy had some... interesting... beliefs. For instance, he was a strong opponent of the death penalty but believed that murder should be legal. What the heck does this have to do with anything?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
De Sade is hilarious from a certain perspective because he wrote book after book expounding this worldview he had and literally all of it is just him having this incredibly complex jerk off fantasy life. In 2016 he'd be super into Sonic the Hedgehog, you just know it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I know I shouldn't, but I'd probably read sonic fanfic written in his style. And then never feel clean again.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
How much of his work was done from a jail cell, again?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:How much of his work was done from a jail cell, again? Not enough.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Is he honestly portraying the man in that story as an ideal example of the normative order of things? Reactionaries frequently fall afoul of the is-ought gap, but even then that text betrays a lack of understanding of what is, let alone whether it ought to be the case.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Yeah I was under the impression that Sade was, while not exactly "trolling" for his day, still doing something intended to comment satirically on the grotesque hypocrisy of imperial French social mores.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:What the heck does this have to do with anything? De Sade is literally part of the dark underbelly of the European Enlightenment. It seems perfectly natural to talk about him and his ideas. If you just want to laugh at grown men with shaved heads and fake skulls pretending to drink scotch while they rant about the fall of western civilization then there's a thread in PYF that does exactly those things. But speaking more generally long winded digressions on tangentially related topics are kind of just my thing, so apologies if that's not your cup of tea. Jack Gladney posted:I'm sorry for going off topic with this, but if I want to read some Sade, what's the best or a good translation? It looks like the best options are an old Grove Press series from the 50s/60s and more recent translations from Oxford. I don't know De Sade well enough to give an intelligent answer here. Most of the stuff I've read by him was in the form of free online editions of his work. If you want a hard copy then as a general rule a more recent translation is probably better because, like Nietzsche, De Sade didn't get very much scholarly interest or respect in the English speaking world until more recently. The thing you need to keep in mind, though, is that De Sade writes pornography. It's pornography inflected with all kinds of weird and sometimes interesting comments on the enlightenment and modern society but it also gets really tedious reading page after page of his elaborate yet repetitive sexual fantasies and kinks. Personally I struggle to read more than short bursts. This is a pretty good article on De Sade and how he's been interpreted. In "The Culture of Narcissism" Christpher Lasch (pp. 66-70) also discusses De Sade as representing the extreme logical conclusion of western individualism, "the glorification of the individual in his annihilation". Ocrassus posted:Is he honestly portraying the man in that story as an ideal example of the normative order of things? Reactionaries frequently fall afoul of the is-ought gap, but even then that text betrays a lack of understanding of what is, let alone whether it ought to be the case. Well, I was suggesting that certain extreme anti-Democratic libertarians like Hans Herman-Hoppe have a philosophy much closer to De Sades worldview than it might appear at first glance, but De Sade himself wasn't exactly a reactionary. He was more of a mandman pervert and pornographer but he spent a good deal of the revolutionary and Napoleonic era in prison because of his perverted ideas and writings so it's not as though he was just a privileged aristocrat who decried the revolution. If anything his ideas were too extreme and revolutionary for the revolutionists themselves, which lead to the socially conservative Napoleon Bonaparte to have him arrested and imprisoned. That having been said, I don't think De Sade can just be dismissed out of hand as a crazy guy who doesn't understand nature. As Lasch argues in that link I posted above his ideas have an uncanny resonance in contemporary culture even if most of us will naturally feel compelled to reject everything he's saying as utterly abhorrent, which is precisely why he's interested to read despite the many flaws you can find in his work.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:Yeah I was under the impression that Sade was, while not exactly "trolling" for his day, still doing something intended to comment satirically on the grotesque hypocrisy of imperial French social mores. I mean, when he was allowed on the battlements of the bastille out of his cell, he would shriek obscenities at the people passing by. When the revolution was building, his shrieking became political. I think that regardless of his political opinion, he was some kind of severe misanthrope.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I'd like to imagine Sade being the @dril of his day.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
De Sade's pornographic writings are so terrible that one wonders whether it was deliberate. He could write, when he wanted to.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
To be gratuitously on-topic, another excerpt from Phil Sandifer's forthcoming book, this one on the concept of pwnage - getting hacked - the fear of someone invading your mind and turning it against you.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:De Sade's pornographic writings are so terrible that one wonders whether it was deliberate. He could write, when he wanted to. I always assumed he was bored and wanted gently caress with people. like he wrote a literal The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs but with a ton more sexual violence and published it, just because it was the edgiest poo poo he could think off. I mean i am no lit major/expert. but thats what i got from reading his stuff. He was just an rear end in a top hat who hosed with people. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 22:27 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:De Sade's pornographic writings are so terrible that one wonders whether it was deliberate. He could write, when he wanted to. Yeah after first becoming interested in him I found a book of stories by him in a second hand book store and figured it would be interesting to flip through them. They are uniformly awful and often amount to little more than an elaborate set up for a dick joke. And yet, in some of his books, there's definitely a sort of perverted genius at work. There's something so twistedly delightful about the logic here: quote:is not he who receives always humiliated? And is this humiliation not sufficient payment for the benefactor who, by this alone, finds himself superior to the other? Is it not pride's delight to be raised above one's fellow? Is any other necessary to the person wh obligation, by causing humiliation to him who receives, becomes a burden to him, by what right is he to be forced to continue to shoulder it? Why must I consent to let myself be humiliated every time my eyes fall upon him who has obliged me? Instead of being a vice, ingratitude is as certainly a virtue in proud spirits as gratitude is one in humble;
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There's something so twistedly delightful about the logic here: wiregrind fucked around with this message at 06:22 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Isn't that rubbish just based on (or an interpretation of) Nietzsche's "master-slave morality"? I think this particular borrowing from Neitzsche would be very difficult to pull off.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Nick Land. As part of embracing the machine-god who lurks at the end of time. Excuse me, the Eschaton is very clear that it is not our god.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Excuse me, the Eschaton is very clear that it is not our god. Real shame about Stross discontinuing that series. I wonder if he's aware of Sandifer's book.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Isn't that rubbish just based on (or an interpretation of) Nietzsche's "master-slave morality"? To be explicit, contra GunnerJ, he came a bunch of years before Nietzsche.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Excuse me, the Eschaton is very clear that it is not our god. That's because the Ubermensh psychos win. At least in Land's version.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
A lot of De Sade's writing needs to be viewed through the lens of satire. The torture porn he wrote was poo poo he was legitimately getting off on, but he also recognized that human history has basically been the struggle between workers and everyone else. A lot of his passages that seem like bizarre championing of the privileged are really just him saying, "this is what the rich actually believe!" It's just sometimes difficult to understand this because you can't help but pick up on the undertone of De Sade going, "gee, it sure would be great to be rich and powerful so I can murderfuck kids."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:A lot of De Sade's writing needs to be viewed through the lens of satire. The torture porn he wrote was poo poo he was legitimately getting off on, but he also recognized that human history has basically been the struggle between workers and everyone else. A lot of his passages that seem like bizarre championing of the privileged are really just him saying, "this is what the rich actually believe!" It's just sometimes difficult to understand this because you can't help but pick up on the undertone of De Sade going, "gee, it sure would be great to be rich and powerful so I can murderfuck kids." So are you saying John Ringo is a modern day Marquis de Sade and everything he is written is parody of Neoconservatives?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:So are you saying John Ringo is a modern day Marquis de Sade and everything he is written is parody of Neoconservatives? I personally think De Sade was full on not being a satirist. Just a weird rear end in a top hat guy
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
When he was in prison, he also had censers reading everything he wrote, so some of it might have been trying to make them cry
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Isn't that rubbish just based on (or an interpretation of) Nietzsche's "master-slave morality"? It's a sardonic deconstruction of Christian morality that flips the script and argues that altruism is a sublimated form of selfishness and that charity and pity are disguised forms of domination so it's certainly in the same intellectual ballpart as Nietzsche, Schopenhaur and La Rochefoucauld, but De Sade was born a hundred years before Nietzsche so it's not based on him. Charity can often be a form subtle way of expressing your superiority and power over another person. While this is hardly a conclusive demonstration of anything, this youtube video of a "homeless" man trying to give money to people (as opposed to begging for it) is a pretty interesting example of how angry people become when they become objects of charity rather than givers. People instinctively understand something that we're not supposed to acknowledge publicly, which is that being the object of charity and pity is contemptible and is essentially a way for our "benefactors" to lord it over us.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Charity can often be a form subtle way of expressing your superiority and power over another person.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Chesapeake area Indians thought the King of England was kind of a huge scrub as a king because he kept having people give him things and didn't give anything to their ambassadors.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
I can definitely see ingratitude as a virtue to the proud being an aspect of many personalities. Some people are super dickish to people who are nice to them and I do think sometimes it's because they can't handle being obliged to their benefactors. You may not consider it especially insightful but I think it's sometimes accurate.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Helsing posted:While this is hardly a conclusive demonstration of anything, this youtube video of a "homeless" man trying to give money to people (as opposed to begging for it) is a pretty interesting example of how angry people become when they become objects of charity rather than givers. I couldn't watch much of this video, it was too obviously fake with bad actors
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Helsing posted:...People instinctively understand something that we're not supposed to acknowledge publicly, which is that being the object of charity and pity is contemptible and is essentially a way for our "benefactors" to lord it over us. nah, you're just broken.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:nah, you're just broken. Dignity is a pretty fundamental need. There are conditions under which one's own powerlessness can be exploited to deprive them of their dignity, including some in which one's hardships are simultaneously reduced or removed. There are also ways of helping another person that do not assault his or her dignity.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:nah, you're just broken. You've clearly never paid attention to the spectrum of tipping behaviors. Ever seen a wealthy American tourist get pissed of for not being allowed to tip in a country that doesn't permit it? Ever seen someone at a restaurant who lines up a bunch of ones at the start of the meal and takes them away one by one for every perceived fault in the service he's receiving? Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 06:28 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Sure, but that dude is arguing that all charity comes from a place of contempt. It's very Randian. If you feel contempt when you give someone a couple bucks, that's an indictment of you personally, not all Humanity. ^^*edit* That there are a lot of broken people doesn't mean that it's not useful to point out that finding the needy contemptible isn't normal. Dollar tipper people are rightfully derided. Peztopiary fucked around with this message at 06:31 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Sure, but that dude is arguing that all charity comes from a place of contempt. It's very Randian. If you feel contempt when you give someone a couple bucks, that's an indictment of you personally, not all Humanity. The quote is saying that, socially, being the subject of charity is demeaning. You don't have to hold contempt for the people you're donating to, but it is certainly easy to feel smugly superior for your good deeds.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
It's not inherently demeaning, it isn't an unspoken societal rule (excuse me, instinctual (lol)) to pretend otherwise, and people who think it is are broken.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
It is demeaning to lose autonomy and to be reminded that you do not have autonomy. If you are a decent human being, you sometimes think about how not to humiliate others when doing for them what they cannot do for themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
I agree. Not what the dude said. At all.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Neither Nietzsche nor Rand were the first people to conflate gratification for hedonism, and they won't be the last. It's confusing how organisms are internally structured to continue a pattern of behaviors (the reward circuit), with puritan notions of leisure as sinful, to rationalize anti-social behavior. It holds social behavior to an impossible standard, then condemning it as morally equivalent to selfishness when it fails that standard - in this view, 'true' altruism, where you feel nothing or pain when helping others, would be impossible, because no organism would then be altruistic. rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:29 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Yeah the problem with the whole idea of "altruism is really just hedonism" is that it only makes sense if you don't apply it to anything else. If you start applying that logic to other concepts or actions besides altruism it becomes clear that this logic only works by conflating "hedonism" with "doing things for any reason at all" and thus the only non-hedonistic action possible is one that is entirely random.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 17:59
|
|
