Marquis de Sade (1740–1814)

If you read de Sade as erotica, you miss the whole point of what he was trying to do. It is really a philosophy book in the form of a novel. His thesis which he draws out through hyperbolic pornography and sadism is: 1) Radical Naturalism and atheism. Humans are part of nature. There is no Platonic realm where moral universals reside. Moral absolutes don't exist. At best, they are purely human creations. 2) Pleasure and Pain are guides to behavior. Since there is no afterlife, you might as show more well maximize your pleasure. Radical hedonism 3) Freedom and Free will. Moral free will - the ability to choose good over evil - is illusory. Humans are not ultimately free but are driven by our 'nature' - inclinations. 4) Power and Transgression. Breaking taboos, including sexual and moral ones, is natural and enlightening. Transgression is a way to reveal the truth about human nature and critique hypocritical society. Might isn't right because there is no such thing as right or wrong. The stronger just do what they want and the weak have to suck it up. As Thucydides said, the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. In a nutshell, de Sade's philosophy is: radical libertinism + moral naturalism. It is interesting question to ask if Justine had to strive to be virtuous because that was her nature? She couldn't choose to be a libertine. If you are squeamish when reading it, just tell yourself that it is a fictional story. Nothing in the story happened. Unfortunately, the things described have occurred in history. show less

“Now, dear reader, you must prepare your heart and your mind for the most impure story that has ever been written since the world existed, such a book being found neither among the ancients nor among the moderns.”
It sounds like a very cheap excuse (like reading Playboy for the interviews), but I read this primarily out of historical interest (and okay, maybe a little curiosity too). I'm just going to say it straight: this is gross, but really gross, extremely gross, in ways you can show more barely imagine. And it is not only the unimaginable sexual escapades that de Sade describes, but mainly the ever-increasing violence, and the sickening way in which other people (especially women and children) are degraded to mere objects.

To be honest: I mainly read the run-up to the book and most of the 'stories' of the first cycle (the first of 4), and even then, gradually I began to read diagonally, skipping the worst passages. I didn't have the stomach for it to begin with (some scenes really make you feel sick), and also, after a while the endless descriptions of the excesses really started to get boring. That also says something. Moreover, according to de Sade, that first cycle only contains a description of the “simple passions”. From the schematic overviews of the next three cycles (which he did not write out, thanks heaven), it can be concluded that after that first ‘simple’ cycle, it only goes crescendo into gruesome torture, up to and including the most beastly mutilations and even murder.

Curiously, all this is presented by de Sade as a kind of scientific experiment. The core of the story is that 4 friends (rich and powerful men) isolate themselves in a Swiss castle, together with about 30 victims, and for 4 months indulge themselves in an endless series of sexual and violent deeds, and while doing that, meticulously recording and sharing all their emotions and experiences. Regularly they debate on, for instance, what brings the greatest pleasure (the act or the desire for it), and its moral implications (or rather, the lack thereof), almost like in a Platonic dialogue.

So, even amidst these excesses occasionally interesting things can be found, I mean on a philosophical level (imagine!). For instance, they conclude that their happiness comes from the fact that others (their victims) cannot enjoy what they can, in other words: inequality and domination are basic goods. Or that good and evil are completely arbitrary, and that therefore everything is allowed. Striking, but not unexpected, are the fierce attacks against the church and against religion in general: only Nature (with a capital) counts, because, by making possible the most terrible acts, nothing (and certainly not God) stands in the way of doing just that, and therefor every evil is justified. It is the libertine “natural philosophy” that de Sade keeps coming back to.

Now, one of the points I was curious about is to what extent de Sade can be seen as an exponent of the Enlightenment of the 18th century, a thorny issue. Ok, he was part of the nobility, and therefore thoroughly rooted in the ‘Ancien Regime’, but so were other Enlightenment philosophers. And agreed, his focus was certainly not on higher reason, but on the contrary on the dark side of the human species. But his approach exudes the rationalistic-mechanistic view that is so typical of the French 'philosophes' of that period. Only look at the thoroughness with which the four ‘masters’ perform their brutal deeds, in a systematic-premeditated order, report on them and discuss them. In a way you can surely say that de Sade also exposes the dark side of Enlightened rationalism, eventually leading to the Holocaust (I'm not saying anything new, here).

Naturally you wonder: what was the personal motivation of de Sade to write all this, and especially why in that excessively explicit way? I know: libraries have already been written about it. And the views on this range from “de Sade just had a sick mind”, to “he wanted to provide a brilliant insight into the seething, stinking pit that hides inside each of us, but which we usually keep hidden”. I guess, all these views are valid. And so I definitely came to understand why the figure of Sade, and his writings, continue to fascinate, even after more than 2 centuries. But if you want my (completely non-binding) advice: beware, if you want to read this, know what you're getting into.

Annex: I have now also read his Justine ou Les Malheurs de la vertu (the reworked version from 1797), and I must say that it is on a much higher literary level (ok, this sounds very “I read Playboy for the interviews”-ish), it is a little bit less explicit, and, actually contains a little less violence, although it remains very rude and particularly derogatory of the female species. But above all it contains many more well-developed passages that philosophize about the (im)moral aspects of libertine behavior, and in that sense it is much more interesting. show less

I don't like Sade. Remove pornography, the violence of graphic sexual scenes in which he indulged ad nauseam, and all that's left are philosophical platitudes, sophisms as boring as they are ignorant. Here's an embodiment of that. More, in this particular work, the sex itself is not even worth it.

The virtuous Sophie/ Justine is constantly humiliated, robbed, and raped by a whole gallery of perverts characters, in adventures that are supposedly meant to illustrate the laws of nature: the show more weak (those believing in charity, empathy, compassion) can only end up, and rightly so for Sade, suffering at the hands of the strong (the selfish and violent ones). I won't even bother to denounce such nonsensical ethos! Suffice to say that there's not much of a plot, and so that this whole tale is plain boring. Young and depraved homosexuals, libertines monks, brigands and forgers... Sade's imagination surely is inhibited! But it's all so predictable that, even if you read it only for the sex (something which is sick in itself -again, it's mostly all about a poor girl being raped over and over...) it will probably annoy you more than anything else. Personally, it may have been edgy back in its days, but, no matter how hard it tries (no pun intended...) to disguise itself under the cover of a supposed 'revolutionary ethos', to me this was nothing more than disturbing porn for twisted pervs and losers (well, Sade spent a great deal of his life in jail...).

The ending is just plain caricature. show less

'Philosophy in the Bedroom', or how the education of Eugénie, a young girl of an astounding naivety when it comes to everything related to sex, is used as a pretext to offer a big fuckery (literally) as sad as a porn movie encompassing from adultery to gay sex, and incest to rape. The poor girl is surely better entertained than in a convent, but, honestly, what bollocks!

Is there any 'philosophy'? Well, apart from the word figuring in the title, you'll be hard pressed to find any in here! show more The problem with Sade, as always, is that he caricatures, and caricatures outrageously at that. To him, nature can only be cruel and violent, and so our instincts can only be cruel and violent too. Rape and murder are, in fact, here justified in a short ending essay, libertarian for sure but reading more like some idiotic anarchist pamphlet written by an angry teen than a ethos to be adopted by any kind of decent society, let alone a society even giving in to our natural instincts (Sade seems to have never heard of empathy...)!

Can we reproach him his naivety, though? After all, Sade was battling with questions still dividing us all nowadays, and, if we can forgive him his answers, this kind of idiocy (everything is natural, so everything should be allowed -just have a look at what goes on in certain socio-biologist circles...) still circulate quite dangerously... Regardless, other thinkers (even of his time) were more clued on!

It may be entertaining as literary pornography (although perverse at times). From a purely intellectual perspective, though, the ideas defended here might be revolutionary, but they're also so caricatural it borders on the laughably ridiculous. One star for the porn, and another for the effort. And I'm done with Sade! show less