What do you think?
Rate this book
The Marquis de Sade: An essay by Simone de Beauvoir
English, French (translation)
Paperback
First published January 1, 1952
About the author
Simone de Beauvoir
319 books9,359 followersSimone de Beauvoir was a French author and philosopher. She wrote novels, monographs on philosophy, political and social issues, essays, biographies, and an autobiography. She is now best known for her metaphysical novels, including She Came to Stay and The Mandarins, and for her 1949 treatise The Second Sex, a detailed analysis of women's oppression and a foundational tract of contemporary feminism.
----
Simone de Beauvoir est née à Paris le 9 janvier 1908. Elle fit ses études jusqu'au baccalauréat dans le très catholique cours Désir. Agrégée de philosophie en 1929, elle enseigna à Marseille, à Rouen et à Paris jusqu'en 1943. C'est L'Invitée (1943) qu'on doit considérer comme son véritable début littéraire. Viennent ensuite Le sang des autres (1945), Tous les hommes sont mortels (1946), Les Mandarins (prix Goncourt 1954), Les Belles Images (1966) et La Femme rompue (1968).
Simone de Beauvoir a écrit des mémoires où elle nous donne elle-même à connaître sa vie, son œuvre. L'ampleur de l'entreprise autobiographique trouve sa justification, son sens, dans une contradiction essentielle à l'écrivain : choisir lui fut toujours impossible entre le bonheur de vivre et la nécessité d'écrire ; d'une part la splendeur contingente, de l'autre la rigueur salvatrice. Faire de sa propre existence l'objet de son écriture, c'était en partie sortir de ce dilemme.
Outre le célèbre Deuxième sexe (1949) devenu l'ouvrage de référence du mouvement féministe mondial, l'œuvre théorique de Simone de Beauvoir comprend de nombreux essais philosophiques ou polémiques.
Après la mort de Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir a publié La Cérémonie des adieux (1981) et les Lettres au Castor (1983) qui rassemblent une partie de l'abondante correspondance qu'elle reçut de lui. Jusqu'au jour de sa mort, le 14 avril 1986, elle a collaboré activement à la revue fondée par Sartre et elle-même, Les Temps Modernes, et manifesté sous des formes diverses et innombrables sa solidarité avec le féminisme.
----
Simone de Beauvoir est née à Paris le 9 janvier 1908. Elle fit ses études jusqu'au baccalauréat dans le très catholique cours Désir. Agrégée de philosophie en 1929, elle enseigna à Marseille, à Rouen et à Paris jusqu'en 1943. C'est L'Invitée (1943) qu'on doit considérer comme son véritable début littéraire. Viennent ensuite Le sang des autres (1945), Tous les hommes sont mortels (1946), Les Mandarins (prix Goncourt 1954), Les Belles Images (1966) et La Femme rompue (1968).
Simone de Beauvoir a écrit des mémoires où elle nous donne elle-même à connaître sa vie, son œuvre. L'ampleur de l'entreprise autobiographique trouve sa justification, son sens, dans une contradiction essentielle à l'écrivain : choisir lui fut toujours impossible entre le bonheur de vivre et la nécessité d'écrire ; d'une part la splendeur contingente, de l'autre la rigueur salvatrice. Faire de sa propre existence l'objet de son écriture, c'était en partie sortir de ce dilemme.
Outre le célèbre Deuxième sexe (1949) devenu l'ouvrage de référence du mouvement féministe mondial, l'œuvre théorique de Simone de Beauvoir comprend de nombreux essais philosophiques ou polémiques.
Après la mort de Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir a publié La Cérémonie des adieux (1981) et les Lettres au Castor (1983) qui rassemblent une partie de l'abondante correspondance qu'elle reçut de lui. Jusqu'au jour de sa mort, le 14 avril 1986, elle a collaboré activement à la revue fondée par Sartre et elle-même, Les Temps Modernes, et manifesté sous des formes diverses et innombrables sa solidarité avec le féminisme.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
February 2, 2022
Faut-il brûler Sade? = Must We Burn Sade?, Simone de Beauvoir
The Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) has been labeled everything from a sadomasochistic pornographer (The 120 Days of Sodom) to the fiction writer responsible for the ideas that led to the Nazi death camps. Must We Burn Sade? Peels away the negative legacy that has shrouded Sade for too long.
Deepak Narang Sawhney points out that "Sade's legacy has been neglected, recreated, fictionalized, and venerated by medical guilds, literary hacks, religious detractors, and intellectual movements. In the past two centuries, Sade has come to represent many things for many people. . . . It is unclear whether we know Sade the writer or the apparatus which has been set up to either condemn or to sanctify his life and work."
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز چهارم ماه مارس سال2009میلادی
عنوان: آیا باید ساد را بسوزانیم؟؛ نویسنده: سیمون دوبوار؛ مترجم امین قضایی؛ ای.بوک، در67ص؛ موضوع مارکی دو ساد از نویسندگان فرانسه - سده20م
در کتاب آیا باید «ساد» را بسوزانیم؟ «سیمون دوبوآر» از نگاه اگزیستانسیالیستی، به بحث درباره ی شخصیت و آثار «مارکی دو ساد» میپردازند، و تلاش میکنند شخصیت وجودی «ساد» را بررسی کنند، که چگونه از خود، فردیتی در برابر جامعه میسازد؛ جنایت، هرزگی، عیاشی، از مشخصات زندگی و آثار «مارکی دو ساد» است، که «سیمون دوبوآر»، به جای بررسی روانکاوانه، تلاش میکنند آنرا نوعی مبارزه ی فردی «مارکی دو ساد»، قلمداد کنند؛ آنچنانکه خوانشگر حتی با نگاهی سرسری به این کتاب مجذوب «ساد» و نگاه ویژه ی او میشود؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/01/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ 12/11/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
The Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) has been labeled everything from a sadomasochistic pornographer (The 120 Days of Sodom) to the fiction writer responsible for the ideas that led to the Nazi death camps. Must We Burn Sade? Peels away the negative legacy that has shrouded Sade for too long.
Deepak Narang Sawhney points out that "Sade's legacy has been neglected, recreated, fictionalized, and venerated by medical guilds, literary hacks, religious detractors, and intellectual movements. In the past two centuries, Sade has come to represent many things for many people. . . . It is unclear whether we know Sade the writer or the apparatus which has been set up to either condemn or to sanctify his life and work."
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز چهارم ماه مارس سال2009میلادی
عنوان: آیا باید ساد را بسوزانیم؟؛ نویسنده: سیمون دوبوار؛ مترجم امین قضایی؛ ای.بوک، در67ص؛ موضوع مارکی دو ساد از نویسندگان فرانسه - سده20م
در کتاب آیا باید «ساد» را بسوزانیم؟ «سیمون دوبوآر» از نگاه اگزیستانسیالیستی، به بحث درباره ی شخصیت و آثار «مارکی دو ساد» میپردازند، و تلاش میکنند شخصیت وجودی «ساد» را بررسی کنند، که چگونه از خود، فردیتی در برابر جامعه میسازد؛ جنایت، هرزگی، عیاشی، از مشخصات زندگی و آثار «مارکی دو ساد» است، که «سیمون دوبوآر»، به جای بررسی روانکاوانه، تلاش میکنند آنرا نوعی مبارزه ی فردی «مارکی دو ساد»، قلمداد کنند؛ آنچنانکه خوانشگر حتی با نگاهی سرسری به این کتاب مجذوب «ساد» و نگاه ویژه ی او میشود؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/01/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ 12/11/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
October 21, 2017
ساد ما را مجبور می کند تا مسئله اساسی عصر خویش را به طور کامل و به شکل های مختلف بازبینی کنیم: رابطه‌ی واقعی بین انسان و انسان
سیمون دوبوآر
سیمون دوبوآر
November 18, 2016
دوستانِ گرانقدر، در موردِ این کتاب نمیدانم چی بگویم؟! و چه بنویسم!... میدانم که در پایان بعد از خواندنِ این کتاب، حالتِ سردرگمی به شما دست خواهد داد
ابتدا درودِ فراوان بر دوستِ خردگرایِ من «امین قضایی» که همچون همیشه ترجمه هایش همچون شخصیتش، خوب است و درست
لازم به توضیح است که بگویم: فهمِ جملات و مفاهیمِ کتاب کمی پیچیده است، پَس تصور نکنید ایراد از ترجمۀ جنابِ قضایی بوده است، چراکه وی عادت به توضیحات در موردِ واژگان و روان نمودنِ ترجمه ندارد، و با پیش فرضِ اینکه خواننده از اکثرِ واژگانِ به کار برده شده آگاهی و شناختِ قبلی دارد، کتاب را ترجمه میکند
دوستانِ عزیزم، این کتابِ 66 صفحه ای، از آن دسته از کتبی است که با یک بار خواندن، فهمِ آن دشوار است... به هر حال سخن از «ساد» در میان است... واقعاً نگاهش به روابطِ جنسی بسیار عجیب بوده است، آنقدر عجیب که واژۀ «سادیسم» از او و رفتارش پدیدار شده است
اولین فکری که از ذهنِ من خطور کرد این بود که، می توانم «ساد» را درک کنم؟! نه... همدردی با «ساد» در حکمِ خیانت به اوست!... «ساد» خودپسندی را بر دوستی برتر میداند، اما این مانع از واقعیت بخشیدن به دوستی نمیشود
شهوترانیِ جمعی و سکسِ گروهی ارتباطی اصیل میانِ هرزه هایِ «ساد» ایجاد میکند،... من جسمِ خود را در جسمِ دیگری تجربه میکنم، پس همواره من برایِ من وجود دارد، واقعیتِ تکان دهندۀ همزیستی، ما را از اندیشیدن رها میکند
دوستانِ عزیزم، «اروتیسیسم» برایِ «ساد» بهترین و تنهاترین راهِ ارتباط است و به بیانِ دیگر، گویا گاییدنِ یک انسان بهتر از درک کردنِ اوست
ولی اشتباه برداشت نکنید، اعمالِ «ساد» هیچ شباهتی به «پورنوگرافی» ندارد، دوستانِ خوبم، میشود اینگونه رَوایش کرد که «ساد» به واسطۀ «اروتیسیسم»، نه تنها به طور جسمانی دخول را انجام میدهد، بلکه احساس میکند که از نظرِ روحی هم این دخول صورت گرفته است، بین «اروتیسیسم» و «پورنوگرافی» تفاوت بسیار است
خواندنِ این کتاب و قضاوت در موردِ «ساد» دقیقاً همان چیزیست که نویسندۀ این کتاب «سیمون دوبوآر»، شما را با ذکاوتِ بسیار بالا مجبور به آن میکند،... من شخصاً نمیتوانم به راهِ حل هایِ ارائه شده توسطِ «ساد» رضایت دهم، شما را نمیدانم
عزیزانم «ساد» در سال 1795 نوشته بود: لذتِ جنسی به نظرِ من هوسی است که تمامیِ دیگر هوس ها، مطیع آن هستند، و تنها در این هوس، همۀ هوس ها یکی میشوند
در نهایت باید بگویم، «ساد» در تنهاییِ سلولِ زندانش در تاریکی اخلاقی زیست، تا ما را مجبور به اندیشیدن در موردِ رابطۀ انسان با انسان کرده باشد
***************************
امیدوارم این توضیحات، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
ابتدا درودِ فراوان بر دوستِ خردگرایِ من «امین قضایی» که همچون همیشه ترجمه هایش همچون شخصیتش، خوب است و درست
لازم به توضیح است که بگویم: فهمِ جملات و مفاهیمِ کتاب کمی پیچیده است، پَس تصور نکنید ایراد از ترجمۀ جنابِ قضایی بوده است، چراکه وی عادت به توضیحات در موردِ واژگان و روان نمودنِ ترجمه ندارد، و با پیش فرضِ اینکه خواننده از اکثرِ واژگانِ به کار برده شده آگاهی و شناختِ قبلی دارد، کتاب را ترجمه میکند
دوستانِ عزیزم، این کتابِ 66 صفحه ای، از آن دسته از کتبی است که با یک بار خواندن، فهمِ آن دشوار است... به هر حال سخن از «ساد» در میان است... واقعاً نگاهش به روابطِ جنسی بسیار عجیب بوده است، آنقدر عجیب که واژۀ «سادیسم» از او و رفتارش پدیدار شده است
اولین فکری که از ذهنِ من خطور کرد این بود که، می توانم «ساد» را درک کنم؟! نه... همدردی با «ساد» در حکمِ خیانت به اوست!... «ساد» خودپسندی را بر دوستی برتر میداند، اما این مانع از واقعیت بخشیدن به دوستی نمیشود
شهوترانیِ جمعی و سکسِ گروهی ارتباطی اصیل میانِ هرزه هایِ «ساد» ایجاد میکند،... من جسمِ خود را در جسمِ دیگری تجربه میکنم، پس همواره من برایِ من وجود دارد، واقعیتِ تکان دهندۀ همزیستی، ما را از اندیشیدن رها میکند
دوستانِ عزیزم، «اروتیسیسم» برایِ «ساد» بهترین و تنهاترین راهِ ارتباط است و به بیانِ دیگر، گویا گاییدنِ یک انسان بهتر از درک کردنِ اوست
ولی اشتباه برداشت نکنید، اعمالِ «ساد» هیچ شباهتی به «پورنوگرافی» ندارد، دوستانِ خوبم، میشود اینگونه رَوایش کرد که «ساد» به واسطۀ «اروتیسیسم»، نه تنها به طور جسمانی دخول را انجام میدهد، بلکه احساس میکند که از نظرِ روحی هم این دخول صورت گرفته است، بین «اروتیسیسم» و «پورنوگرافی» تفاوت بسیار است
خواندنِ این کتاب و قضاوت در موردِ «ساد» دقیقاً همان چیزیست که نویسندۀ این کتاب «سیمون دوبوآر»، شما را با ذکاوتِ بسیار بالا مجبور به آن میکند،... من شخصاً نمیتوانم به راهِ حل هایِ ارائه شده توسطِ «ساد» رضایت دهم، شما را نمیدانم
عزیزانم «ساد» در سال 1795 نوشته بود: لذتِ جنسی به نظرِ من هوسی است که تمامیِ دیگر هوس ها، مطیع آن هستند، و تنها در این هوس، همۀ هوس ها یکی میشوند
در نهایت باید بگویم، «ساد» در تنهاییِ سلولِ زندانش در تاریکی اخلاقی زیست، تا ما را مجبور به اندیشیدن در موردِ رابطۀ انسان با انسان کرده باشد
***************************
امیدوارم این توضیحات، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
November 18, 2014
de Beauvoir’s Bookended Life Concerns
1927:
"The theme is almost always this opposition of self and other that I felt upon starting to live. Now has come the time to make a synthesis of it.”
Simone de Beauvoir, philosophy student, Sorbonne, July 10, 1927
1979:
Jessica Benjamin:
"So when you wrote in 'L'lnvitée' that...what really upsets [Françoise] about Xavière is that she has to confront in her another consciousness, [is that] not an idea that particularly came (from) Sartre?
Simone de Beauvoir:
It was I who thought about that! It was absolutely not Sartre!
Jessica Benjamin:
But that is an idea which it seems to me appears later in his work.
Simone de Beauvoir:
Oh! Maybe! (Laughter) In any case, this problem . . .of the other’s consciousness, it was my problem."
Simone de Beauvoir, interview with Jessica Benjamin and Margaret Simons
Interrogatories
The interrogatory title of this essay implies a number of other questions, not all of which are expressly answered.
Who is the "we" that might do the burning? The State, society (i.e., the collective of both men and women), women (as a subset of society) or feminists (as a subset of women)?
One thing this essay is not, at least in my opinion, is a gender-based analysis or condemnation of Sade.
It is very much a philosophical and moral analysis of his works, which only in one or two instances comments on the relationship between the two sexes as such.
Overall, Beauvoir was more concerned with establishing the philosophical and moral seriousness of Sade’s works.
Pierre Klossowski - "Roberte agressée par les esprits qu'elle a censures"
An Hegelian Purple Patch
"Must We Burn Sade" was published in an amazing eight year purple patch for Beauvoir.
She started writing "The Second Sex" in 1946 and published it in 1949.
While writing "The Second Sex", she re-read Hegel’s "The Phenomenology of Spirit" (having first been exposed to Hegel in 1926 and having first read the book in its entirety in 1940).
She finished the novel "The Mandarins" in 1954. In between, she worked on this essay on her trip to the United States in 1951 (during which she stayed with Nelson Algren whom she had met on the 1947 trip that was documented in her book, "America Day by Day").
She published the essay in two parts in "Les Temps Modernes" in December, 1951 and January, 1952. It was published in book form in 1953.
I mention Hegel by way of anticipating the extent to which Beauvoir’s most famous book and this essay were influenced by her reading of "The Phenomenology of Spirit".
Reasonable Aberrations
At the time of this essay, as well as now, public opinion of Sade swings between the satanic and the divine. Some associate him with cruelty. Others hail him as a prophetic genius who heralded "Nietzsche, Stirner, Freud, and surrealism."
The scandal about his writing and ideas is understandable. The praise is a reaction. But Beauvoir equally regards the cult that deified and hailed Sade as a “divine Marquis” as a betrayal and disservice to the man and his achievements.
For her, he was "neither villain nor idol, but a man and a writer [who] has come back at last to earth, among us."
Public opinion is primarily divided along moral lines. How do we feel about the conduct which he indulged in or wrote about?
However, Beauvoir feels that his merit sits somewhere between these two extremes:
"His chief interest for us lies not in his aberrations, but in the manner in which he assumed responsibility for them. He made of his sexuality an ethic; he expressed this ethic in works of literature. It is by this deliberate act that Sade attains a real originality."
Just as Hegel built an elaborate system to explain his worldview, so did Sade. In a way, his private system was a personal moral framework designed to replace that imposed by the State or society:
"The fact is that it is neither as author nor as sexual pervert that Sade compels our attention: it is by virtue of the relationship which he created between these two aspects of himself. Sade's aberrations begin to acquire value when, instead of enduring them as his fixed nature, he elaborates an immense system in order to justify them."
A Repertory of Sexual Possibilities
Sade is associated with cruelty, but beyond that, little is understood about what he or his characters did that qualifies for this description.
In reality, his "aberrations" consisted mainly of whipping (and being whipped) and sodomy (and being sodomised), sometimes at the same time.
The debauchees were usually paid prostitutes who consented to whatever was expected of them. When Sade asked the Marseilles prostitute, Rose Keller, to consent to being "known from behind" by his valet, Latour (while Sade watched), she declined. Instead, Sade fondled and whipped her with a cat−o'−nine−tails, while he himself was buggered by Latour.
For this and similar acts, he spent a total of 27 years in prison, during most of which he converted his experiences and the products of his imagination into literature.
Regardless of our own moral judgment of these activities, Beauvoir didn’t see fit to analyse Sade solely or even primarily in terms of gender issues.
In other words, there is a sense of neutrality about what he or we get up to in the boudoir or the brothel or between the sheets:
"On the verge of his adult life he made the brutal discovery that there was no conciliation possible between his social existence and his private pleasures."
It’s almost enough for Beavoir to justify Sade’s greatness as a writer, philosopher and moralist that:
"Sade established systematically, according to the prescriptions of a kind of synthetic art, a repertory of man's sexual possibilities."
Courtesy: ScreetownGhost, deviantArt
http://screetownghost.deviantart.com/...
Private Affairs of State
Sade believed that the State should remain out of private and moral affairs:
"It is not the opinions or vices of private individuals that are harmful to the state, but rather the behavior of public figures."
Beauvoir extrapolated:
"The real plagues [on the State and society] are established injustice, official abuses, and constitutional crimes; and these are the inevitable accompaniments of abstract laws which try to impose themselves uniformly upon a plurality of radically separate objects.
"A just economic order would render codes and courts useless, for crime is born of need and illegality and would vanish with the elimination of these grounds. The ideal regime, for Sade, was a kind of reasonable anarchy:
"‘The reign of law is inferior to that of anarchy. The greatest proof of what I advance is to be found in the fact that all governments are obliged to plunge into anarchy when they wish to remake their constitutions. In order to abrogate its old laws, a government is obliged to establish a revolutionary regime in which there are no laws. New laws are ultimately born of this regime, but this second state is nevertheless less pure than the first, since it is derived from it.’"
Transgression
For all of his opposition to the legislation of morality, Sade still derived greater pleasure from his activities, precisely because they were both legally and morally transgressive:
"Crime is the soul of lust. What would pleasure be if it were not accompanied by crime? It is not the object of debauchery that excites us, but rather the idea of evil.
"In the pleasure of torturing and mocking such a woman, there is the kind of pleasure which comes from sacrilege or the profanation of the objects offered us for worship.’"
Conversely, virtue in its own right had no appeal for Sade. It was a form of empty subjection to the State or society:
"Happiness lies only in that which excites and the only thing that excites is crime…
"Virtue can procure only an imaginary happiness; ‘true felicity lies only in the senses, and virtue gratifies none of them.’"
Eroticism
Sade’s private pleasures clearly went beyond the boundaries of both marriage and social norms at the time (even if many others indulged in them):
"There was only one place where he could assert himself as such, and that was not the bed in which he was received only too submissively by a prudish wife, but in the brothel where he bought the right to unleash his fantasies."
His fantasies were primarily sexual:
"Sexual pleasure is, I agree, a passion to which all others are subordinate but in which they all unite."
Ultimately, Sade’s existence becomes subordinate to eroticism:
"He subordinated his existence to his eroticism because eroticism appeared to him to be the only possible fulfillment of his existence… Sade made of his eroticism the meaning and expression of his whole existence."
The Sex Life of the Imagination
Ironically, Sade’s appetite for eroticism was satiated more by literature than by the sexual act itself:
"If he devoted himself to it with such energy, shamelessness, and persistence, he did so because he attached greater importance to the stories he wove around the act of pleasure than to the contingent happenings; he chose the imaginary."
Real life is almost secondary to literature and the life of the imagination:
"I have imagined everything conceivable in this sort of thing, but I have certainly not done, and certainly never will, all that I've imagined."
Beauvoir adds:
"…there is only one way of finding satisfaction in the phantoms created by debauchery, and that is to accede to their very unreality. In choosing eroticism, Sade chose the make-believe.
"It was only in the imaginary that Sade could live with any certitude and without risk of disappointment. He repeated the idea throughout his work.
"’The pleasure of the senses is always regulated in accordance with the imagination.’
"’Man can aspire to felicity only by serving all the whims of his imagination.’
"It was by means of his imagination that he escaped from space, time, prison, the police, the void of absence, opaque presences, the conflicts of existence, death, life, and all contradictions. It was not murder that fulfilled Sade's erotic nature; it was literature…that erotic universe of which, out of sensuality, boredom, defiance, and resentment, he had constructed the only world which counted for him."
Again, she highlights the link with crime and vice:
"No one has emphasized with more vigor the link between the imagination and what we call vice; and he gives us, from time to time, insights of surprising depth into the relation of sexuality to existence."
The Illusion of Sovereign Power
Still, sex has overtones of other drives. Beauvoir explains Sade in terms of a thirst for "the illusion of power" (not for power as such, but the illusion):
"’What does one want when one is engaged in the sexual act? That everything about you give you its utter attention, think only of you, care only for you . . . every man wants to be a tyrant when he fornicates.’
"The intoxication of tyranny leads directly to cruelty, for the libertine, in hurting the object that serves him, “tastes all the pleasures which a vigorous individual feels in making full use of his strength; he dominates, he is a tyrant."
The Enchanted Domain
In his capacity as author, Sade remains sovereign in the world of his literature and his imagination (to which list, we could potentially add philosophy):
"…he is free to make things happen in this forbidden domain."
Beauvoir sees analogies with the world of Gothic fiction:
"Caves, underground passageways, mysterious castles, all the props of the Gothic novel take on a particular meaning in his work.
"They symbolize the isolation of the image. Perception echoes data's totality and, consequently, the obstacles which the data contain. The image is perfectly submissive and pliant. We find in it only what we put into it.
"The image is the enchanted domain from which no power whatever can expel the solitary despot."
Master and Slave
It’s in this context that Beauvoir analyses both Sade the person and author and his work in terms of the concepts outlined by Hegel in "The Phenomenology of Spirit".
Beauvoir had a lifelong interest in the relationship between the consciousness of the Self and the consciousness of the Other. She embraced Hegel’s analysis whole-heartedly when she became aware of it.
It features heavily in the Introduction to "The Second Sex". But it is even more integral to this essay.
The problem is that the erotic or violent conduct which we now call Sadism involves cruelty, hurt and pain inflicted by the Self against an Other. Sade refers often to "the pleasure to be derived from making people suffer."
Whether or not it is consensual, Beauvoir explains it in terms of the Self.
Only if it resulted in death or murder would it constitute a real "life and death struggle" as described by Hegel.
However, it is more obvious that the relationship between Self and Other is analogous to Hegel’s Master/Slave relationship.
According to my reading, this relationship occurs within each person’s consciousness. However, I suspect that in both "The Second Sex" and this essay, Beauvoir transfers the concept to the sensual world.
In the sensual world of "The Second Sex", the Master is invariably the male and the Slave is the female. The dilemma for women is how to go beyond the Master/Slave relationship with men and enjoy mutual recognition.
It doesn’t seem to be important to Beauvoir in this essay that Sade is a male and his activities are described from his point of view.
What seems to be important is that the male (Sade) is trapped, his development is arrested at the Master/Slave level, and hasn’t progressed or sublated to the stage of mutual recognition.
Sade remains a master, a despot, a tyrant.
Sade’s Apartness
Beauvoir believes that the sex act can be and result in mutuality, reciprocity and recognition.
However, these consequences are missing in Sade.
Sade asks, "What able−bodied man . . . does not wish . . . to bedevil his ecstasy?"
Sade remains trapped in a world in which:
"the sexual act creates the illusion of sovereign pleasure...
"Pleasure requires neither exchange, giving, reciprocity, nor gratuitous generosity. Its tyranny is that of avarice, which chooses to destroy what it cannot assimilate."
Beauvoir speculates that:
"... all his sadism strove to compensate for the absence of one necessary element which he lacked. The state of emotional intoxication allows one to grasp existence in one's self and in the other, as both subjectivity and passivity. The two partners merge in this ambiguous unity; each one is freed of his own presence and achieves immediate communication with the other."
She sees in Sade "a combination of passionate sexual appetites with a basic emotional 'apartness' which seems to me to be the key to his eroticism."
Sade is never able to overcome the apartness or separation of the Self and the Other. He is never able to experience mutuality, reciprocity or recognition. He even went as far as to say:
"…any enjoyment is weakened when shared...
“One must do violence to the object of one's desire; when it surrenders, the pleasure is greater."
Isolation without Abandonment
It’s almost as if Beauvoir is suggesting that Sade has never experienced love:
"…he shrinks from the kind of equality which is created by mutual pleasure…
"From adolescence to prison, Sade had certainly known the insistent, if not obsessive, pangs of desire. There is, on the other hand, an experience which he seems never to have known: that of emotional intoxication. Never in his stories does sensual pleasure appear as self-forgetfulness, swooning, or abandon."
Sade is always self-conscious, cold, cerebral. He is afraid that if he drops his guard "freedom and consciousness would be lost in the rapture of the flesh."
Instead, he sits back, disengages and watches himself as a spectacle. Notwithstanding the presence of the debauchee, the debaucher remains effectively solitary. Sade builds this worldview into a philosophy:
"Man is isolated in the world...All creatures are born isolated and have no need of one another."
In effect, Sade's philosophy is founded on a denial of the need for recognition.
From Other to Fraternity
Just as Sade does not value the mutual recognition of Self and Other, he sees no need for fraternity:
"Now I beg of you to tell me whether I must love a human being simply because he exists or resembles me and whether for these reasons alone I must suddenly prefer him to myself?
"…My neighbor is nothing to me; there is not the slightest relationship between him and myself."
Beauvoir regards Sade's world as an "ethical darkness."
She doesn’t look to him for revelations or easy answers. There are none.
However, Beauvoir values Sade, because he forces us to ask the right questions, even if they disturb us:
"If ever we hope to transcend the separateness of individuals, we may do so only on condition that we be aware of its existence [the ethical darkness]. Otherwise, promises of happiness and justice conceal the worst dangers.
"Sade drained to the dregs the moment of selfishness, injustice, and misery, and he insisted upon its truth.
"The supreme value of his testimony is the fact that it disturbs us. It forces us to re-examine thoroughly the basic problem which haunts our age in different forms: the true relation between man and man."
Or to put it in more gender-neutral Hegelian terms, the true relation between Self and Other.
SOUNDTRACK:
Wilco - "Impossible Germany" (Live)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I79m...
"Nothing more important
Than to know
Someone's listening;
Now I know
You'll be listening."
1927:
"The theme is almost always this opposition of self and other that I felt upon starting to live. Now has come the time to make a synthesis of it.”
Simone de Beauvoir, philosophy student, Sorbonne, July 10, 1927
1979:
Jessica Benjamin:
"So when you wrote in 'L'lnvitée' that...what really upsets [Françoise] about Xavière is that she has to confront in her another consciousness, [is that] not an idea that particularly came (from) Sartre?
Simone de Beauvoir:
It was I who thought about that! It was absolutely not Sartre!
Jessica Benjamin:
But that is an idea which it seems to me appears later in his work.
Simone de Beauvoir:
Oh! Maybe! (Laughter) In any case, this problem . . .of the other’s consciousness, it was my problem."
Simone de Beauvoir, interview with Jessica Benjamin and Margaret Simons
Interrogatories
The interrogatory title of this essay implies a number of other questions, not all of which are expressly answered.
Who is the "we" that might do the burning? The State, society (i.e., the collective of both men and women), women (as a subset of society) or feminists (as a subset of women)?
One thing this essay is not, at least in my opinion, is a gender-based analysis or condemnation of Sade.
It is very much a philosophical and moral analysis of his works, which only in one or two instances comments on the relationship between the two sexes as such.
Overall, Beauvoir was more concerned with establishing the philosophical and moral seriousness of Sade’s works.
Pierre Klossowski - "Roberte agressée par les esprits qu'elle a censures"
An Hegelian Purple Patch
"Must We Burn Sade" was published in an amazing eight year purple patch for Beauvoir.
She started writing "The Second Sex" in 1946 and published it in 1949.
While writing "The Second Sex", she re-read Hegel’s "The Phenomenology of Spirit" (having first been exposed to Hegel in 1926 and having first read the book in its entirety in 1940).
She finished the novel "The Mandarins" in 1954. In between, she worked on this essay on her trip to the United States in 1951 (during which she stayed with Nelson Algren whom she had met on the 1947 trip that was documented in her book, "America Day by Day").
She published the essay in two parts in "Les Temps Modernes" in December, 1951 and January, 1952. It was published in book form in 1953.
I mention Hegel by way of anticipating the extent to which Beauvoir’s most famous book and this essay were influenced by her reading of "The Phenomenology of Spirit".
Reasonable Aberrations
At the time of this essay, as well as now, public opinion of Sade swings between the satanic and the divine. Some associate him with cruelty. Others hail him as a prophetic genius who heralded "Nietzsche, Stirner, Freud, and surrealism."
The scandal about his writing and ideas is understandable. The praise is a reaction. But Beauvoir equally regards the cult that deified and hailed Sade as a “divine Marquis” as a betrayal and disservice to the man and his achievements.
For her, he was "neither villain nor idol, but a man and a writer [who] has come back at last to earth, among us."
Public opinion is primarily divided along moral lines. How do we feel about the conduct which he indulged in or wrote about?
However, Beauvoir feels that his merit sits somewhere between these two extremes:
"His chief interest for us lies not in his aberrations, but in the manner in which he assumed responsibility for them. He made of his sexuality an ethic; he expressed this ethic in works of literature. It is by this deliberate act that Sade attains a real originality."
Just as Hegel built an elaborate system to explain his worldview, so did Sade. In a way, his private system was a personal moral framework designed to replace that imposed by the State or society:
"The fact is that it is neither as author nor as sexual pervert that Sade compels our attention: it is by virtue of the relationship which he created between these two aspects of himself. Sade's aberrations begin to acquire value when, instead of enduring them as his fixed nature, he elaborates an immense system in order to justify them."
A Repertory of Sexual Possibilities
Sade is associated with cruelty, but beyond that, little is understood about what he or his characters did that qualifies for this description.
In reality, his "aberrations" consisted mainly of whipping (and being whipped) and sodomy (and being sodomised), sometimes at the same time.
The debauchees were usually paid prostitutes who consented to whatever was expected of them. When Sade asked the Marseilles prostitute, Rose Keller, to consent to being "known from behind" by his valet, Latour (while Sade watched), she declined. Instead, Sade fondled and whipped her with a cat−o'−nine−tails, while he himself was buggered by Latour.
For this and similar acts, he spent a total of 27 years in prison, during most of which he converted his experiences and the products of his imagination into literature.
Regardless of our own moral judgment of these activities, Beauvoir didn’t see fit to analyse Sade solely or even primarily in terms of gender issues.
In other words, there is a sense of neutrality about what he or we get up to in the boudoir or the brothel or between the sheets:
"On the verge of his adult life he made the brutal discovery that there was no conciliation possible between his social existence and his private pleasures."
It’s almost enough for Beavoir to justify Sade’s greatness as a writer, philosopher and moralist that:
"Sade established systematically, according to the prescriptions of a kind of synthetic art, a repertory of man's sexual possibilities."
Courtesy: ScreetownGhost, deviantArt
http://screetownghost.deviantart.com/...
Private Affairs of State
Sade believed that the State should remain out of private and moral affairs:
"It is not the opinions or vices of private individuals that are harmful to the state, but rather the behavior of public figures."
Beauvoir extrapolated:
"The real plagues [on the State and society] are established injustice, official abuses, and constitutional crimes; and these are the inevitable accompaniments of abstract laws which try to impose themselves uniformly upon a plurality of radically separate objects.
"A just economic order would render codes and courts useless, for crime is born of need and illegality and would vanish with the elimination of these grounds. The ideal regime, for Sade, was a kind of reasonable anarchy:
"‘The reign of law is inferior to that of anarchy. The greatest proof of what I advance is to be found in the fact that all governments are obliged to plunge into anarchy when they wish to remake their constitutions. In order to abrogate its old laws, a government is obliged to establish a revolutionary regime in which there are no laws. New laws are ultimately born of this regime, but this second state is nevertheless less pure than the first, since it is derived from it.’"
Transgression
For all of his opposition to the legislation of morality, Sade still derived greater pleasure from his activities, precisely because they were both legally and morally transgressive:
"Crime is the soul of lust. What would pleasure be if it were not accompanied by crime? It is not the object of debauchery that excites us, but rather the idea of evil.
"In the pleasure of torturing and mocking such a woman, there is the kind of pleasure which comes from sacrilege or the profanation of the objects offered us for worship.’"
Conversely, virtue in its own right had no appeal for Sade. It was a form of empty subjection to the State or society:
"Happiness lies only in that which excites and the only thing that excites is crime…
"Virtue can procure only an imaginary happiness; ‘true felicity lies only in the senses, and virtue gratifies none of them.’"
Eroticism
Sade’s private pleasures clearly went beyond the boundaries of both marriage and social norms at the time (even if many others indulged in them):
"There was only one place where he could assert himself as such, and that was not the bed in which he was received only too submissively by a prudish wife, but in the brothel where he bought the right to unleash his fantasies."
His fantasies were primarily sexual:
"Sexual pleasure is, I agree, a passion to which all others are subordinate but in which they all unite."
Ultimately, Sade’s existence becomes subordinate to eroticism:
"He subordinated his existence to his eroticism because eroticism appeared to him to be the only possible fulfillment of his existence… Sade made of his eroticism the meaning and expression of his whole existence."
The Sex Life of the Imagination
Ironically, Sade’s appetite for eroticism was satiated more by literature than by the sexual act itself:
"If he devoted himself to it with such energy, shamelessness, and persistence, he did so because he attached greater importance to the stories he wove around the act of pleasure than to the contingent happenings; he chose the imaginary."
Real life is almost secondary to literature and the life of the imagination:
"I have imagined everything conceivable in this sort of thing, but I have certainly not done, and certainly never will, all that I've imagined."
Beauvoir adds:
"…there is only one way of finding satisfaction in the phantoms created by debauchery, and that is to accede to their very unreality. In choosing eroticism, Sade chose the make-believe.
"It was only in the imaginary that Sade could live with any certitude and without risk of disappointment. He repeated the idea throughout his work.
"’The pleasure of the senses is always regulated in accordance with the imagination.’
"’Man can aspire to felicity only by serving all the whims of his imagination.’
"It was by means of his imagination that he escaped from space, time, prison, the police, the void of absence, opaque presences, the conflicts of existence, death, life, and all contradictions. It was not murder that fulfilled Sade's erotic nature; it was literature…that erotic universe of which, out of sensuality, boredom, defiance, and resentment, he had constructed the only world which counted for him."
Again, she highlights the link with crime and vice:
"No one has emphasized with more vigor the link between the imagination and what we call vice; and he gives us, from time to time, insights of surprising depth into the relation of sexuality to existence."
The Illusion of Sovereign Power
Still, sex has overtones of other drives. Beauvoir explains Sade in terms of a thirst for "the illusion of power" (not for power as such, but the illusion):
"’What does one want when one is engaged in the sexual act? That everything about you give you its utter attention, think only of you, care only for you . . . every man wants to be a tyrant when he fornicates.’
"The intoxication of tyranny leads directly to cruelty, for the libertine, in hurting the object that serves him, “tastes all the pleasures which a vigorous individual feels in making full use of his strength; he dominates, he is a tyrant."
The Enchanted Domain
In his capacity as author, Sade remains sovereign in the world of his literature and his imagination (to which list, we could potentially add philosophy):
"…he is free to make things happen in this forbidden domain."
Beauvoir sees analogies with the world of Gothic fiction:
"Caves, underground passageways, mysterious castles, all the props of the Gothic novel take on a particular meaning in his work.
"They symbolize the isolation of the image. Perception echoes data's totality and, consequently, the obstacles which the data contain. The image is perfectly submissive and pliant. We find in it only what we put into it.
"The image is the enchanted domain from which no power whatever can expel the solitary despot."
Master and Slave
It’s in this context that Beauvoir analyses both Sade the person and author and his work in terms of the concepts outlined by Hegel in "The Phenomenology of Spirit".
Beauvoir had a lifelong interest in the relationship between the consciousness of the Self and the consciousness of the Other. She embraced Hegel’s analysis whole-heartedly when she became aware of it.
It features heavily in the Introduction to "The Second Sex". But it is even more integral to this essay.
The problem is that the erotic or violent conduct which we now call Sadism involves cruelty, hurt and pain inflicted by the Self against an Other. Sade refers often to "the pleasure to be derived from making people suffer."
Whether or not it is consensual, Beauvoir explains it in terms of the Self.
Only if it resulted in death or murder would it constitute a real "life and death struggle" as described by Hegel.
However, it is more obvious that the relationship between Self and Other is analogous to Hegel’s Master/Slave relationship.
According to my reading, this relationship occurs within each person’s consciousness. However, I suspect that in both "The Second Sex" and this essay, Beauvoir transfers the concept to the sensual world.
In the sensual world of "The Second Sex", the Master is invariably the male and the Slave is the female. The dilemma for women is how to go beyond the Master/Slave relationship with men and enjoy mutual recognition.
It doesn’t seem to be important to Beauvoir in this essay that Sade is a male and his activities are described from his point of view.
What seems to be important is that the male (Sade) is trapped, his development is arrested at the Master/Slave level, and hasn’t progressed or sublated to the stage of mutual recognition.
Sade remains a master, a despot, a tyrant.
Sade’s Apartness
Beauvoir believes that the sex act can be and result in mutuality, reciprocity and recognition.
However, these consequences are missing in Sade.
Sade asks, "What able−bodied man . . . does not wish . . . to bedevil his ecstasy?"
Sade remains trapped in a world in which:
"the sexual act creates the illusion of sovereign pleasure...
"Pleasure requires neither exchange, giving, reciprocity, nor gratuitous generosity. Its tyranny is that of avarice, which chooses to destroy what it cannot assimilate."
Beauvoir speculates that:
"... all his sadism strove to compensate for the absence of one necessary element which he lacked. The state of emotional intoxication allows one to grasp existence in one's self and in the other, as both subjectivity and passivity. The two partners merge in this ambiguous unity; each one is freed of his own presence and achieves immediate communication with the other."
She sees in Sade "a combination of passionate sexual appetites with a basic emotional 'apartness' which seems to me to be the key to his eroticism."
Sade is never able to overcome the apartness or separation of the Self and the Other. He is never able to experience mutuality, reciprocity or recognition. He even went as far as to say:
"…any enjoyment is weakened when shared...
“One must do violence to the object of one's desire; when it surrenders, the pleasure is greater."
Isolation without Abandonment
It’s almost as if Beauvoir is suggesting that Sade has never experienced love:
"…he shrinks from the kind of equality which is created by mutual pleasure…
"From adolescence to prison, Sade had certainly known the insistent, if not obsessive, pangs of desire. There is, on the other hand, an experience which he seems never to have known: that of emotional intoxication. Never in his stories does sensual pleasure appear as self-forgetfulness, swooning, or abandon."
Sade is always self-conscious, cold, cerebral. He is afraid that if he drops his guard "freedom and consciousness would be lost in the rapture of the flesh."
Instead, he sits back, disengages and watches himself as a spectacle. Notwithstanding the presence of the debauchee, the debaucher remains effectively solitary. Sade builds this worldview into a philosophy:
"Man is isolated in the world...All creatures are born isolated and have no need of one another."
In effect, Sade's philosophy is founded on a denial of the need for recognition.
From Other to Fraternity
Just as Sade does not value the mutual recognition of Self and Other, he sees no need for fraternity:
"Now I beg of you to tell me whether I must love a human being simply because he exists or resembles me and whether for these reasons alone I must suddenly prefer him to myself?
"…My neighbor is nothing to me; there is not the slightest relationship between him and myself."
Beauvoir regards Sade's world as an "ethical darkness."
She doesn’t look to him for revelations or easy answers. There are none.
However, Beauvoir values Sade, because he forces us to ask the right questions, even if they disturb us:
"If ever we hope to transcend the separateness of individuals, we may do so only on condition that we be aware of its existence [the ethical darkness]. Otherwise, promises of happiness and justice conceal the worst dangers.
"Sade drained to the dregs the moment of selfishness, injustice, and misery, and he insisted upon its truth.
"The supreme value of his testimony is the fact that it disturbs us. It forces us to re-examine thoroughly the basic problem which haunts our age in different forms: the true relation between man and man."
Or to put it in more gender-neutral Hegelian terms, the true relation between Self and Other.
SOUNDTRACK:
Wilco - "Impossible Germany" (Live)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I79m...
"Nothing more important
Than to know
Someone's listening;
Now I know
You'll be listening."
Read
February 13, 2019Kitap Sadizm kelimesini borçlu olduğumuz Sade'ı tanımak, onu acı vermekten keyif almaya iten şeyleri anlamak adına girişilmiş bir uğraş. Beauvoir'e göre Sade'ı diğerlerinden ayıran sadece kendine ve çevresindekilere karşı daha dürüst olması. Beavuoir Sade'ın dünyada olup biten zorbalıklara kayıtsız kalıp, toplumu yaşanabilir kılmak için hakimlerin ve yargıçların hükmüne güvenle sığınan insanın kayıtsızlığının, bir zorbanınkinden daha kibirli ve alçakça olduğuna inandığı için zorbalığı seçtiğini söylüyor.
''Öldürmek var, yargılamak yoktur Sade'a göre.''
Böylece Sade, kolay olanı seçip uyumluluğun altına sığınarak kendi hayatını sağlama alanlara karşılık, kendi canı pahasına, hapse düşmek, izole edilmek pahasına acı vermeyi, içinden gelen gücü yaşatmayı tercih ediyor. Beauvoir'e göre Sade bunu yaparak, işkence edilene de gücü ele almak için açık bir kapı bırakıyor. Güçlü ve zorba doğanın karşısındaki acziyetini, doğayı groteskçe taklit edip ona karşı gelmekte buluyor Sade. Kendini doğadan üstün sayıp, doğanın yasalarını yumuşatarak kültüre entegre eden topluma karşılık Sade insanı hayvandan farksız görmüyor.
''Suçlu bir şekilde öldürme edimi insanın tek hüneridir.''
Böylece Sade hem kendi yaşamı, hem de karakterleri aracılığıyla güç uygulamanın, zorbalığın kibirini, hakimlerin yargıçların kibirine tercih ediyor. Suçlu, zalim olarak görülmeyi göze alarak içinden geleni yapma cesaretine sahip. En azından içinden bir şeyler geliyor...
Ben Sade üzerinden güç-suç-yasalar-doğa üzerine ilerleyen tartışmayı çok doyurucu buldum. Kısa ve öz, okuması çok keyifli bir kitap. Fikirlerine karşı çıksanız bile temellendirmeleri çok karş koyulabilecek türden değil. Şöyle de bir avantajı var savunduklarının; kültürü o kadar entegre bir şekilde taşıyoruz ki zihnimizde, kültürün dayattıklarını kendimizin sanıp benimserken hiç şüpheye düşmüyoruz. Böyle olunca da kendimize ait olan, içimizde dönüp duran şeyleri tanımaktan uzak kalıyoruz. Birine acı çektirmek, ölen birini görmek gibi şeylerin düşüncesi bile tiksinç geliyor belki. Ama bunlar ölümle, üstelik de temelinde kendi ölümümüzle ilgili tasarılarımızdan doğduğu sürece ne kadar ''öteki''ni düşünerek varılan yargılar ayırt etmeye pek muktedir değiliz. Sade'ın bu iki yüzlülüğü grotesk bir tutumla gözümüze soktuğunu düşünüyorum.
Sade'in işkence ettiği kadınlardan biri olmak istemezdim gibi ama bir yandan da Sade'ın yaptıkları ve yazdıkları üzerine düşünmek keyif veriyor. Ben de işkence edilen olmak pahasına, işkence etmeyi göze aldığımda bu iki yüzlülüğümden kurtulup, başımın üzerinde ateşten bir hale ile dolaşacağım günleri özlemle bekliyorum.
''Öldürmek var, yargılamak yoktur Sade'a göre.''
Böylece Sade, kolay olanı seçip uyumluluğun altına sığınarak kendi hayatını sağlama alanlara karşılık, kendi canı pahasına, hapse düşmek, izole edilmek pahasına acı vermeyi, içinden gelen gücü yaşatmayı tercih ediyor. Beauvoir'e göre Sade bunu yaparak, işkence edilene de gücü ele almak için açık bir kapı bırakıyor. Güçlü ve zorba doğanın karşısındaki acziyetini, doğayı groteskçe taklit edip ona karşı gelmekte buluyor Sade. Kendini doğadan üstün sayıp, doğanın yasalarını yumuşatarak kültüre entegre eden topluma karşılık Sade insanı hayvandan farksız görmüyor.
''Suçlu bir şekilde öldürme edimi insanın tek hüneridir.''
Böylece Sade hem kendi yaşamı, hem de karakterleri aracılığıyla güç uygulamanın, zorbalığın kibirini, hakimlerin yargıçların kibirine tercih ediyor. Suçlu, zalim olarak görülmeyi göze alarak içinden geleni yapma cesaretine sahip. En azından içinden bir şeyler geliyor...
Ben Sade üzerinden güç-suç-yasalar-doğa üzerine ilerleyen tartışmayı çok doyurucu buldum. Kısa ve öz, okuması çok keyifli bir kitap. Fikirlerine karşı çıksanız bile temellendirmeleri çok karş koyulabilecek türden değil. Şöyle de bir avantajı var savunduklarının; kültürü o kadar entegre bir şekilde taşıyoruz ki zihnimizde, kültürün dayattıklarını kendimizin sanıp benimserken hiç şüpheye düşmüyoruz. Böyle olunca da kendimize ait olan, içimizde dönüp duran şeyleri tanımaktan uzak kalıyoruz. Birine acı çektirmek, ölen birini görmek gibi şeylerin düşüncesi bile tiksinç geliyor belki. Ama bunlar ölümle, üstelik de temelinde kendi ölümümüzle ilgili tasarılarımızdan doğduğu sürece ne kadar ''öteki''ni düşünerek varılan yargılar ayırt etmeye pek muktedir değiliz. Sade'ın bu iki yüzlülüğü grotesk bir tutumla gözümüze soktuğunu düşünüyorum.
Sade'in işkence ettiği kadınlardan biri olmak istemezdim gibi ama bir yandan da Sade'ın yaptıkları ve yazdıkları üzerine düşünmek keyif veriyor. Ben de işkence edilen olmak pahasına, işkence etmeyi göze aldığımda bu iki yüzlülüğümden kurtulup, başımın üzerinde ateşten bir hale ile dolaşacağım günleri özlemle bekliyorum.
August 16, 2018
"Her an boşu boşuna, haksız olarak, binlerce insan acı çekiyor, ölüyor, ama hiçbirimizin kılı bile kıpırdamıyor buna: Varlığımız kendi olanaklarını yalnız böyle olaylar pahasına kazanıyor da ondan. Sade'ın erdemi herkesin yalnız kendi kendine utançla itiraf ettiği şeyi yüksek sesle bağırmasında değil, Sade bu işin kavgasını da üstlenmiştir. Kayıtsızlığa karşı kıyıcılığı seçmiştir. Bireyin kendisini insanların kötülüğünden çok iyiniyetine kurban gittiğini sandığı şu çağda bu kadar yankı uyandırması da bundandır; bu müthiş iyimserliği yıkmak konusunda bireyin yardımına koşmuştur Sade.."
Zaman zaman konu çok dağılsa da sanırım kitabın özeti buydu.
Zaman zaman konu çok dağılsa da sanırım kitabın özeti buydu.
Read
January 20, 2020Sade okumadan önce onun hakkında yazılan bir kitap okumak istedim. Benim için iyi bir seçim oldu.
Read
March 19, 2017Sometimes the legacy of a writer can be more interesting than the writer himself. Donatien Alphonse François, le Marquis de Sade, has not gone into history as an especially gifted author. Most people will remember him as the ‘inventor’ of sadism, as the ultimate libertine. During his lifetime, of which he spent 27 years in various prisons and asylums, he wrote countless novels, short stories and plays.; most of them consisting of long, detailed descriptions of murder, rape, torture, blasphemy and coprophilia, with the occasional quasi-philosophic conversation. They aren’t necessarily great, or even good literature, but they do, in my opinion at least, give an fascinating insight in the mind of an psychotic man and a very specific 18th century subculture.
His works were, not entirely without reason, banned is most countries. Although they still circulated in small groups (see Luis Buñuel’s 1930 film L’age d’or), they seemed to have been forgotten. This changed during the middle of the 20th century. Society became more open and some countries decided to life their bans. It led to two reactions. On the one hand there were those who argued that the books should immediately be banned again. On the other hand there were those who defended De Sade, those who admired his unique view on society.
One of the defenders was the French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. In her essay Faut-il brûler Sade she asks if the Marquis still has any relevance in our modern society. The answer, she quickly reveals, is yes. She immediately admits that he didn’t have much literary talent. His philosophy however, could still be very useful. She sees him as the ultimate fighter for freedom. His look on the human condition and the relationship between the individual and the state could still be very relevant in today’s society.
She tries to explain De Sade’s works within this interpretation. At times it feels a bit far-fetched. Her explanations of De Sade’s thoughts not always substantiated and she tends to make quite a lot of assumptions without any real evidence. His open atheism, homosexuality and stance against capital punishment were indeed extremely progressive for 18th century standards. Painting him as a philosophical hero may go too far. It’s more likely that he just tried to provoke as many people as possible with his writings. He may certainly have had philosophical ideas, but De Beauvoir’s interpretation is too improbable.
If you want a realistic, conventional biography of De Sade and his works, this essay will not be very interesting. There are simply too many assumptions for a serious psychological profile. It does however, give a unique view of this man; one that may not be entirely realistic, but is nevertheless an intriguing one.
His works were, not entirely without reason, banned is most countries. Although they still circulated in small groups (see Luis Buñuel’s 1930 film L’age d’or), they seemed to have been forgotten. This changed during the middle of the 20th century. Society became more open and some countries decided to life their bans. It led to two reactions. On the one hand there were those who argued that the books should immediately be banned again. On the other hand there were those who defended De Sade, those who admired his unique view on society.
One of the defenders was the French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. In her essay Faut-il brûler Sade she asks if the Marquis still has any relevance in our modern society. The answer, she quickly reveals, is yes. She immediately admits that he didn’t have much literary talent. His philosophy however, could still be very useful. She sees him as the ultimate fighter for freedom. His look on the human condition and the relationship between the individual and the state could still be very relevant in today’s society.
She tries to explain De Sade’s works within this interpretation. At times it feels a bit far-fetched. Her explanations of De Sade’s thoughts not always substantiated and she tends to make quite a lot of assumptions without any real evidence. His open atheism, homosexuality and stance against capital punishment were indeed extremely progressive for 18th century standards. Painting him as a philosophical hero may go too far. It’s more likely that he just tried to provoke as many people as possible with his writings. He may certainly have had philosophical ideas, but De Beauvoir’s interpretation is too improbable.
If you want a realistic, conventional biography of De Sade and his works, this essay will not be very interesting. There are simply too many assumptions for a serious psychological profile. It does however, give a unique view of this man; one that may not be entirely realistic, but is nevertheless an intriguing one.
June 19, 2016
خیلی سخت بود خوندنش و حتی درکشم سخت بود
April 26, 2016
خیلی سخت و پیچیده توضیح داده بود و در مقابل نقد آلبر کامو در مورد ساد این کتاب هیچی نبود
November 12, 2023
از آنجایی که جامعه و طبیعت لذات او را جرم تلقی می‌کرد، او خودِ جرم را به لذت تبدیل کرد. او می‌نویسد: «این ابژه‌ی عیاشی نیست که ما را تهییج میکند، بلکه ایده‌ی شر است.»
July 31, 2020
این کتاب بیان میکند که ساد، هرچه بود؛ غلط یا درست؛ بد یا نیک، زشت یا زیبا، ستمگر با ستمدیده، بر واقعیت خودش ایستاد و از آن دفاع کرد و همین شیوه‌ی دفاع کردنش بود که باعث ماندگاریش شد. ساد به جای تسلیم شدن، جنگید و اصول را به چالش کشید.
October 22, 2015
Marquis de Sade'ı bir feminist gözüyle irdelemesini beklerken onun cinsel ahlaka öfkesini yazdıklarıyla vermesine değinilerde bulunmuş ve onu olumlamıştır. Cinsel tabular ve olmazsa olmaz ahlak bekçiliğinin kuyusunu kazan ve insanın en derinden sakladığı kendi sırlarını bile günyüzü eden Marquis de Sade (bence) anlaşılmadı ve uzunca da anlaşılmayacak.
November 2, 2017
اه، کشتارگران، زندانبان ها و ابلهان همه‌ی رژیم ها و حکومت ها، چه وقت خواهد رسید که علم آموزش دادن انسان را به علمِ کشتن و زندان انداختن او ترجیح دهید؟
June 16, 2022
jossain 3-4 tähden välillä liikutaan…
kamppailin nimikkoesseen kaa
”Uskoakseni tämä onkin yksi kirjallisuuden täysin korvaamattomista ja olennaisista tehtävistä: se auttaa meitä kommunikaatioon alueella, joka on kaikkein yksinäisintä meissä ja joka toisaalta liittää meidät kaikkein läheisimmin toisiimme.”
kamppailin nimikkoesseen kaa
”Uskoakseni tämä onkin yksi kirjallisuuden täysin korvaamattomista ja olennaisista tehtävistä: se auttaa meitä kommunikaatioon alueella, joka on kaikkein yksinäisintä meissä ja joka toisaalta liittää meidät kaikkein läheisimmin toisiimme.”
July 30, 2019
Marquis de Sade'ın hayatına ve felsefesine Simone de Beauvoir tarafından güzel bir bakış olmuş. Bu kitapla hem Sade'ın hayatına dair önemli birkaç şeyi öğrenmek mümkün oluyor hem de Sade'ın felsefesini Beauvoir'ya göre genel olarak kavrama imkânı elde ediyorsunuz.. Bundan önce yine Sade'a dair Pierre Klossowski'nin Komşum Sade kitabını okumuştum. Her ne kadar Sade'ı Yakmalı Mı'ya göre daha derin bir araştırma ve inceleme söz konusu olsa da Sade'ı Yakmalı Mı daha yalın ve temel bir anlatıma sahip. Bu kitapta da yer yer Klossowski'nin görüşlerine yer verilmiş ve zaman zaman Beauvoir'ca eleştirilmiş. Eğer bu Marquis de Sade kimdir, genel olarak felsefesi nedir öğrenmek istiyorsanız hem Sade'ı Yakmalı Mı'yı hem de Komşum Sade'ı tavsiye ederim; ancak Komşum Sade dediğim gibi Sade'ı Yakmalı Mı'ya göre daha ağır, o nedenle ilk olarak bu kitaptan başlamak faydalı olabilir.
January 3, 2013
Simone de Beauvoir attempts to explain de Sade's thinking. There are some perceptive comments by her and interesting biographical details from what we know of his life. It probably helps to read most of his novels before reading this otherwise it can seem complicated and does contain plot spoilers.
August 17, 2019
«مغرور، تند مزاج، سودایی و افراطی در همه‌چیز با قوه‌ی تخیلی فاسد که تاکنون نظیر آن دیده نشده است. خلاصه‌ی کلام من اینطوری هستم، یا مرا می‌کشید و یا همان‌طور که هستم قبولم می‌کنید چون من عوض نخواهم شد.»
و آن‌ها کشتن او را برمی‌گزینند.
ساد دلالت‌گر اخلاق سیاسی است، آن‌هم به واسطه‌ی سکسوالیته‌ای بی‌مرز. روشنگری ناگزیر از مازاد خویش است؛ مازادی که ساد آن را به تصویر می‌کشد و روشنگری را به وحشت می‌اندازد.
شاید نوشته‌ی دوبووار در قیاس با عقل ساد بلانشو و ساد همسایه‌ی من کلسوفسکی بررسی ضعیف‌تری به‌نظر برسد اما همچنان جزو معدود منابع و متونی است که ما در فارسی، راجع‌به ساد در اختیار داریم.
آری، «باید وحشت آفرید؛ آن‌چنان که -هرگز- کسی حتی شبیهش را هم ندید�� باشد.»
و آن‌ها کشتن او را برمی‌گزینند.
ساد دلالت‌گر اخلاق سیاسی است، آن‌هم به واسطه‌ی سکسوالیته‌ای بی‌مرز. روشنگری ناگزیر از مازاد خویش است؛ مازادی که ساد آن را به تصویر می‌کشد و روشنگری را به وحشت می‌اندازد.
شاید نوشته‌ی دوبووار در قیاس با عقل ساد بلانشو و ساد همسایه‌ی من کلسوفسکی بررسی ضعیف‌تری به‌نظر برسد اما همچنان جزو معدود منابع و متونی است که ما در فارسی، راجع‌به ساد در اختیار داریم.
آری، «باید وحشت آفرید؛ آن‌چنان که -هرگز- کسی حتی شبیهش را هم ندید�� باشد.»
September 26, 2014
Bastante interesante.
Simone de Beauvoir nos trata de explicar como El Marques de Sade pensaba, nos ayuda a interpretar todo lo que dice en sus libros. Lo leí ya que estoy interesada en leer Las 120 Jornadas de Sodoma pero antes quería entender un poco al Marques de Sade.
November 15, 2014
El marqués de Sade era un dogmático, amargado y pesado. El ensayo de Beauvoir vale la pena.
Read
December 16, 2023Eka ja vika essee suosikkeja, muut meni vähän yli meikämymmelin suorituskyvyn
January 18, 2024
a sort of “affirmation” about a controversial author, written by an author about whom I have mixed feelings. Beauvoir's attempt to rehabilitate Sade may inadvertently perpetuate harmful patriarchal norms.
her emphasis on intellectual freedom overlooks the potential harm these writings can inflict on women, reinforcing oppressive power dynamics rather than challenging them within the feminist framework.
her emphasis on intellectual freedom overlooks the potential harm these writings can inflict on women, reinforcing oppressive power dynamics rather than challenging them within the feminist framework.
July 29, 2018
This is actually a pretty good book and an interesting perspective on de Sade. The translation however is terrible. The translator chose not to translate paragraphs that were 'too obscene', which leaves large chunks of the page in French.
On the plus side I've learned a lot of new French words for various anatomical bits.
On the plus side I've learned a lot of new French words for various anatomical bits.
November 14, 2017
Whatever you've heard about the Marquis de Sade (Sadism, sadist and other derivations come from him), he was infinitely worse. He wrote explicitly to shock and to corrupt; a man so depraved that he was tossed in the Bastille for 11 years, and then an asylum. What Simone de Beauvoir has done in this magnificent essay is to carry out a judicious and thorough inquest, free of morality and cant, to the very soul of the Marquis: Why he was so antagonistic towards religion, why he held that the highest pinnacle of human achievement was the libertine's, and if (or why) he really carried out the gore and decadence of his writings in his actual life.
I found this essay in a collection of Sade's writings “The 120 Days of Sodom and Other Writings”, It is lengthy (about 100 pages), but well worth the effort because it is rigorously argued and situates Sade in his proper historical – if not literary – context.
"He made of his sexuality an ethic; he expressed this ethic in works of literature. The reason for his tastes is obscure, but we can understand how he erected these tastes into principles, and why he carried them to the point of fanaticism.”
Of the many insights de Beauvoir offers in this essay, she argues –convincingly– that de Sade did not carry out all his perversions in his work in his real life (though he did dither dangerously close). “I have imagined everything conceivable in this sort of thing,” he writes, “but I have certainly not done, and certainly never will, all that I have imagined.” We know, for example, that he was arrested for his excesses in a brothel (he was married), and that these excesses reached such a disquieting character that the inspector of Police, "Inspector Marais warned the procuresses to stop giving their girls to the Marquis.” We know that another incident shows him "beating his victim with a cat-o’-nine-tails and a knotted cord and, probably, slashing her with a knife and pouring wax on the wounds." We also know, and Sade openly acknowledged, his coprophilia. Everything so far indicates a personality well beyond the Freudian pale.
"Evil is unspectacular and always human, shares our bed and eats at our table.” - W.H Auden
It might interest a certain mind to know that in December 1793, the author of '120 days of Sodom' in his role as Grand Juror, was imprisoned by the Revolutionary government during the terror, for charges of 'moderatism'. The foulest libertine the world has ever known was a...moderate? He had a conscience, and committed the unpardonable act of tempering justice with mercy, refusing to condemn the family of Madame de Montreuil. He said of his arrest: “I considered myself obliged to leave the chair to the vice-president; they wanted me to put a horrible, an inhuman act to a vote. I never would.” The connotations of Sadism in our age (cruelty, beatings, bloodshed, torture, a certain sexual extravagance) do not form a neat linear narrative to the facts and events of the life of Marquis de Sade. That, in my opinion is the real merit of this work. Simone de Beauvoir treats de Sade with the complexity he deserves.
With the bare facts out of the way, would I recommend reading Marquis de Sade? Well, Simone de Beauvoir has done the hard reading for all of us. I 'tried' reading also, fearing a certain intellectual timidity in not reading a work because of its crudity. I've read his "Dialogue between a Priest and a dying man", and found it wanting, save a few witty repartees consisting mainly of the marquis rehashing old Materialist arguments against religion that had existed since Hume, and probably prior. But when I tried to tackle "Justine; or Philosophy in the bedroom", I couldn't get past half-way, and even that was a struggle. I've read, and enjoyed Oscar Wilde – and Wilde was as decadent as the best of them – so I didn't think I could really be shocked by anything in literature. But "Justine" actually offended my natural Christian sensibilities - and I'm not even religious. What he says in that book, I won't reprint here. Inquiring minds might wonder, and I say good luck to you brother.
Albert Camus died in a car accident on his way to the train station - train ticket in his pocket. It's the sort existentialist death he would have welcomed, a manifestation of the spontaneous violence and 'gentle indifference of the universe' he believed in, and wrote about in L’estranger (The Stranger). Leon Trotsky, Russian Revolutionary, Old Bolshevik, intellectual and 'the greatest jew since Christ', died in Mexico, his head slashed open with a pick axe by one of Stalin's agents - a death fitting of a radical revolutionary. And the Marquis de Sade? The unabashed enemy of innocence; sexual theorist, libertine, SADIST and relentless religious antagonist; what does he get for all his mischief? He dies peacefully in an asylum next to a female admirer who had spent the previous thirteen years pretending to be his daughter. C'est La Vie.
I found this essay in a collection of Sade's writings “The 120 Days of Sodom and Other Writings”, It is lengthy (about 100 pages), but well worth the effort because it is rigorously argued and situates Sade in his proper historical – if not literary – context.
"He made of his sexuality an ethic; he expressed this ethic in works of literature. The reason for his tastes is obscure, but we can understand how he erected these tastes into principles, and why he carried them to the point of fanaticism.”
Of the many insights de Beauvoir offers in this essay, she argues –convincingly– that de Sade did not carry out all his perversions in his work in his real life (though he did dither dangerously close). “I have imagined everything conceivable in this sort of thing,” he writes, “but I have certainly not done, and certainly never will, all that I have imagined.” We know, for example, that he was arrested for his excesses in a brothel (he was married), and that these excesses reached such a disquieting character that the inspector of Police, "Inspector Marais warned the procuresses to stop giving their girls to the Marquis.” We know that another incident shows him "beating his victim with a cat-o’-nine-tails and a knotted cord and, probably, slashing her with a knife and pouring wax on the wounds." We also know, and Sade openly acknowledged, his coprophilia. Everything so far indicates a personality well beyond the Freudian pale.
"Evil is unspectacular and always human, shares our bed and eats at our table.” - W.H Auden
It might interest a certain mind to know that in December 1793, the author of '120 days of Sodom' in his role as Grand Juror, was imprisoned by the Revolutionary government during the terror, for charges of 'moderatism'. The foulest libertine the world has ever known was a...moderate? He had a conscience, and committed the unpardonable act of tempering justice with mercy, refusing to condemn the family of Madame de Montreuil. He said of his arrest: “I considered myself obliged to leave the chair to the vice-president; they wanted me to put a horrible, an inhuman act to a vote. I never would.” The connotations of Sadism in our age (cruelty, beatings, bloodshed, torture, a certain sexual extravagance) do not form a neat linear narrative to the facts and events of the life of Marquis de Sade. That, in my opinion is the real merit of this work. Simone de Beauvoir treats de Sade with the complexity he deserves.
With the bare facts out of the way, would I recommend reading Marquis de Sade? Well, Simone de Beauvoir has done the hard reading for all of us. I 'tried' reading also, fearing a certain intellectual timidity in not reading a work because of its crudity. I've read his "Dialogue between a Priest and a dying man", and found it wanting, save a few witty repartees consisting mainly of the marquis rehashing old Materialist arguments against religion that had existed since Hume, and probably prior. But when I tried to tackle "Justine; or Philosophy in the bedroom", I couldn't get past half-way, and even that was a struggle. I've read, and enjoyed Oscar Wilde – and Wilde was as decadent as the best of them – so I didn't think I could really be shocked by anything in literature. But "Justine" actually offended my natural Christian sensibilities - and I'm not even religious. What he says in that book, I won't reprint here. Inquiring minds might wonder, and I say good luck to you brother.
Albert Camus died in a car accident on his way to the train station - train ticket in his pocket. It's the sort existentialist death he would have welcomed, a manifestation of the spontaneous violence and 'gentle indifference of the universe' he believed in, and wrote about in L’estranger (The Stranger). Leon Trotsky, Russian Revolutionary, Old Bolshevik, intellectual and 'the greatest jew since Christ', died in Mexico, his head slashed open with a pick axe by one of Stalin's agents - a death fitting of a radical revolutionary. And the Marquis de Sade? The unabashed enemy of innocence; sexual theorist, libertine, SADIST and relentless religious antagonist; what does he get for all his mischief? He dies peacefully in an asylum next to a female admirer who had spent the previous thirteen years pretending to be his daughter. C'est La Vie.
February 3, 2013
ترجمه ي كتاب خيلي بد بود. كتاب به وضوح ويرايش نشده بود. نمي دونم چقدر مي شه از كتابي كه مجاني تو اينترنت منتشر مي شه توقع داشت، اما به هر حال ترجمه ي بد باعث شد خوندنش برام اصلا لذت بخش نباشه. كتاب مقدمه درستي نداشت و براي من كه صرفا به خاطر اسم سيمون دوبوآر كنجكاو خوندن بودم، تا مقدار قابل توجهي از كتاب، فكر مي كردم دارم رمان مي خونم. چون تو اينترنت هم نتونسته بودم اين كتابو تو ليستاي كاراي دوبوار پيدا كنم.به هرحال اگه به فلسفه يا روانشناسي جنسي علاقه دارين توصيه مي كنم اين كتابو به فرانسوي يا انگليسي بخونين!
August 13, 2015
I recently recommended Justine as a jest to several good reads friends. In fact leaping into de Sade would be a very bad idea. This book by Simone de Beauvoir however provides an excellent introduction to the Sade phenomenon and in fact makes a very good substitute for actual reading anything by the mentally deranged Marquis de Sade.
August 15, 2018
A distruptive man's vision by a distruptive woman's analysis
February 21, 2021
I would prefer not to
August 25, 2018
Cet essai, dans la collection nrf de Gallimard en contient en fait 3:
- Faut-il brûler Sade?: Une analyse de style de Sade en relation avec sa vie, et une réflexion sur comment son écriture informait sa vie et vice-versa, mais aussi de toute l'hypocrisie de la société à son époque que Sade, en affirmant ouvertement ses comportements, ne faisait que montrer au lieu de le cacher comme ses contemporains.
- La pensée de droite, aujourd'hui: Un fascinant essai qui analyse les discours de la droite des années '50 sous plusieurs de ses angles et de ses penseurs et comment cette pensée s'affirme dans l'espace publique et par quels raisonnements fallacieux elle tente de s'imposer
- Merleau-Ponty et le pseudo-sartrisme: Une critique d'un ouvrage de Merleau-Ponty dans lequel il accuse à torts des réflexions à Sartre alors que ce n'est pas du tout ce qui était écrit ou encore les déformations que le philosophe essaie de générer à partir des écrits de Sartre et ainsi de lui prêter des intentions qu'il n'a pas. Il s'agit essentiellement d'une défense de la pensée de Sartre et de soulever les incohérences et égarements (voir mensonges) de Merleau-Ponty dans sa critique d'un sartrisme qui n'existe en fait pas (d'où le pseudo-sartrisme).
Tout de go, j'écarterais le dernier essai de ma critique, il ne m'intéressait guère, c'est une réponse à une critique, très bien faite, mais qui parle de concepts philosophiques et en fait référence et si on n'a pas lu ces deux ouvrages (ou même l'ouvrage de Sartre), on ne comprendra pas grand chose de ce qu'il se passe. Merleau-Ponty a cependant beaucoup l'air de quelqu'un qui déforme la pensée d'autrui pour pouvoir la critiquer plus facilement.
J'ai été un peu déçu de Faut-il brûler Sade? puisque je m'attendais à une réflexion sur ce que valait l'oeuvre d'un violeur qui met en scène les violences qu'il commet ou fantasmes (surtout ce dernier) dans ses écrits (disons les choses comme elle le sont), mais ce n'est pas exactement ce à quoi Beauvoir s'attarde. Elle repense plutôt avec un autre angle les violences que Sade a commises, les remets dans un contexte qui ne les banalise pas, mais qui montre bien que ce n'était pas le plus hypocrite dans ses agissements, montre la force de son style et distingue bien le fantasme de la violence réelle (qu'elle ne pardonne certainement pas). C'est beaucoup plus une critique de la société de l'époque de Sade à travers ses écrits, ses lettres et procès, qu'un jugement "moral" sur l'oeuvre de Sade elle-même. Ça soulève certainement des questions intéressante et j'en apprends définitivement plus sur l'homme en lui-même et sa critique de la bourgeoisie qui lui a valu de nombreux et longs emprisonnements, pas pour les raisons qu'on pourrait penser en premier lieu.
Finalement, l'essai qui m'a définitivement accroché est La pensée de droite, aujourd'hui. On dirait que tout ce que Beauvoir analyse à son époque, n'a qu'à peine changé aujourd'hui. Ce ne sont plus les mêmes noms, les mêmes slogans, exactement les mêmes philosophies, mais c'est tellement similaire!!! Une part de l'analyse porte notamment sur une vision où l'être humain est fondamentalement mauvais et comment ça permet de justifier la violence et la guerre. Une autre sur comment après la victoire contre le fascisme, les penseurs avec des affinités pour cette "philosophie" on repensé leur système de pensée pour la bâtir autour d'un "honneur" à défendre. Une autre idée très pertinente soulevé par Beauvoir est toute l'idée conservatrice de cycle où en fait toute avancée dite "progressiste" n'est qu'un moment dans la roue et que le conservatisme reviendra définitivement dans un autre moment, pas nécessairement lointain, que ce n'est donc pas un progrès, mais bien une idée temporaire. Cette idée de roue est aussi illustré avec l'idée que la droite montrera l'ascension sociale comme excessivement facile et avantageuse en disant, par exemple, que tout le monde peut gagner à un tirage de loterie, mais que la gauche soulignera plutôt qu'il y aura 99 perdants pour 1 gagnant à une loterie. Cette roue permet aussi de réfléchir, de manière plus contemporaine, le slogan américain de Trump "Make America Great Again", avec cette idée qu'on peut revenir à une époque et ses valeurs et effacer aussi tout les progrès sociaux et les combats des mouvements des droits civiques par exemple; que le progrès social est toujours réversible et le sera toujours et que ce n'est qu'une question de saisir le moment. En tout cas, tellement de réflexions qui ne faisait que m'évoquer les réflexions politiques actuelles de la droite (canadienne comme américaine, je connais moins les autres pays). Définitivement un must qui permet d'outiller et de déceler la philosophie derrière le discours de beaucoup de politiciens.
- Faut-il brûler Sade?: Une analyse de style de Sade en relation avec sa vie, et une réflexion sur comment son écriture informait sa vie et vice-versa, mais aussi de toute l'hypocrisie de la société à son époque que Sade, en affirmant ouvertement ses comportements, ne faisait que montrer au lieu de le cacher comme ses contemporains.
- La pensée de droite, aujourd'hui: Un fascinant essai qui analyse les discours de la droite des années '50 sous plusieurs de ses angles et de ses penseurs et comment cette pensée s'affirme dans l'espace publique et par quels raisonnements fallacieux elle tente de s'imposer
- Merleau-Ponty et le pseudo-sartrisme: Une critique d'un ouvrage de Merleau-Ponty dans lequel il accuse à torts des réflexions à Sartre alors que ce n'est pas du tout ce qui était écrit ou encore les déformations que le philosophe essaie de générer à partir des écrits de Sartre et ainsi de lui prêter des intentions qu'il n'a pas. Il s'agit essentiellement d'une défense de la pensée de Sartre et de soulever les incohérences et égarements (voir mensonges) de Merleau-Ponty dans sa critique d'un sartrisme qui n'existe en fait pas (d'où le pseudo-sartrisme).
Tout de go, j'écarterais le dernier essai de ma critique, il ne m'intéressait guère, c'est une réponse à une critique, très bien faite, mais qui parle de concepts philosophiques et en fait référence et si on n'a pas lu ces deux ouvrages (ou même l'ouvrage de Sartre), on ne comprendra pas grand chose de ce qu'il se passe. Merleau-Ponty a cependant beaucoup l'air de quelqu'un qui déforme la pensée d'autrui pour pouvoir la critiquer plus facilement.
J'ai été un peu déçu de Faut-il brûler Sade? puisque je m'attendais à une réflexion sur ce que valait l'oeuvre d'un violeur qui met en scène les violences qu'il commet ou fantasmes (surtout ce dernier) dans ses écrits (disons les choses comme elle le sont), mais ce n'est pas exactement ce à quoi Beauvoir s'attarde. Elle repense plutôt avec un autre angle les violences que Sade a commises, les remets dans un contexte qui ne les banalise pas, mais qui montre bien que ce n'était pas le plus hypocrite dans ses agissements, montre la force de son style et distingue bien le fantasme de la violence réelle (qu'elle ne pardonne certainement pas). C'est beaucoup plus une critique de la société de l'époque de Sade à travers ses écrits, ses lettres et procès, qu'un jugement "moral" sur l'oeuvre de Sade elle-même. Ça soulève certainement des questions intéressante et j'en apprends définitivement plus sur l'homme en lui-même et sa critique de la bourgeoisie qui lui a valu de nombreux et longs emprisonnements, pas pour les raisons qu'on pourrait penser en premier lieu.
Finalement, l'essai qui m'a définitivement accroché est La pensée de droite, aujourd'hui. On dirait que tout ce que Beauvoir analyse à son époque, n'a qu'à peine changé aujourd'hui. Ce ne sont plus les mêmes noms, les mêmes slogans, exactement les mêmes philosophies, mais c'est tellement similaire!!! Une part de l'analyse porte notamment sur une vision où l'être humain est fondamentalement mauvais et comment ça permet de justifier la violence et la guerre. Une autre sur comment après la victoire contre le fascisme, les penseurs avec des affinités pour cette "philosophie" on repensé leur système de pensée pour la bâtir autour d'un "honneur" à défendre. Une autre idée très pertinente soulevé par Beauvoir est toute l'idée conservatrice de cycle où en fait toute avancée dite "progressiste" n'est qu'un moment dans la roue et que le conservatisme reviendra définitivement dans un autre moment, pas nécessairement lointain, que ce n'est donc pas un progrès, mais bien une idée temporaire. Cette idée de roue est aussi illustré avec l'idée que la droite montrera l'ascension sociale comme excessivement facile et avantageuse en disant, par exemple, que tout le monde peut gagner à un tirage de loterie, mais que la gauche soulignera plutôt qu'il y aura 99 perdants pour 1 gagnant à une loterie. Cette roue permet aussi de réfléchir, de manière plus contemporaine, le slogan américain de Trump "Make America Great Again", avec cette idée qu'on peut revenir à une époque et ses valeurs et effacer aussi tout les progrès sociaux et les combats des mouvements des droits civiques par exemple; que le progrès social est toujours réversible et le sera toujours et que ce n'est qu'une question de saisir le moment. En tout cas, tellement de réflexions qui ne faisait que m'évoquer les réflexions politiques actuelles de la droite (canadienne comme américaine, je connais moins les autres pays). Définitivement un must qui permet d'outiller et de déceler la philosophie derrière le discours de beaucoup de politiciens.
July 2, 2017
Marquis de Sade ile rastgele bir kitap alışverişimde tanışmıştım. Daha önce Aylak Adam'ın aforizmalar serisinden bir kaç kitap edinip, okuduğumdan; Marquis de Sade-En Çok Kendisine Yabancıdır İnsan'ı alıp, okumamla tanımış olmuştum. Kitap içerisindeki -kimi- aforizmalardan çok etkilenmiştim; "*Tanrı öz oğlunu dananın böğrü gibi astı. Bana yapabileceklerini düşünmek tüylerimi ürpertiyor.(s7) *Ya beni öldür ya da olduğum gibi kabullen zira değiştirilirsem lanetlenirim.(s8) *Mutsuzluklarıma benim düşünce tarzım değil diğerlerinin düşünme tarzı neden oldu.(s15) *...kişiyi Yaratıcı'sına bağlayan ve varoluşu için bu ulu sahibe duyduğu minnetini ibadet yoluyla kanıtlamaya mecbur tutan antlaşmaya din diyorsunuz, değil mi?(29) *...dünyada kötülüğe izin veren Tanrı'dır oysa kudret bütün kötülükleri engelleyebilirdi." daha sonra kimdir ne değildir anlamak maksadıyla hakkında bir-iki yazı/makale okumuş ardından bir filme denk gelmiştim. Filmin adını hatırlamıyorum-zaman harcayıp aramak/bulmak da istemiyorum- kaldı ki yarısına kadar anca izlemişimdir. Okuduğum o birkaç yazı ve filmin ardından; 'Bu sözler, bu adamdan mı çıkmış yani!' diye düşünüp, umduğumu bulamadığımdan, üzülmüştüm.
Kaç zamandır Simone de Beauvoir okumaları yapmak istiyordum, Sade'la ilgili bir kitabı olduğunu görünce-bir feministin diliyle/düşünüşüyle de tanımak amaçlı- ilk okuma olarak Sade'ı Yakmalı Mı?'yı tercih ettim, iyi ki de okumuşum. Sade benim gözümdeki o ilk yerini tam olarak almış olmasa da; filmin ve, o birkaç makalenin izlerini sildi. Bana kalırsa Simone de Beauvoir, Sade'ı/Sade'ın yapıtlarını(günümüze ulaşan) oldukça objektif değerlendirmiş ve Sade'ı sapkın, sadist, mazoşist olarak değil de Kişi olarak ele almış. Güzel bir okuma oldu benim için.
Ekstra olarak katkısı da: Sadomazoşizm'in terim olarak Sade'dan geldiğini öğrenmiş oldum-cahillik işte-. "Uyguladığı acıların nedenini kendinde arayarak, kıyıcı da, eline geçirdiği araç, daha doğrusu nesne kadar o edilgin duruma katılmaktadır. Şu halde bu iki yönsemeyi Sade'cı mazoşizm (Sadomasochisme) adı altında birleştirebiliriz galiba."[kitabın bu bölümüne gelmeden yaklaşık 5-10 sayfa önce acaba sadomazo/Sade ilişkisi var mıdır? diye düşünürken cevap niteliğinde karşıma çıktı(=]
Kaç zamandır Simone de Beauvoir okumaları yapmak istiyordum, Sade'la ilgili bir kitabı olduğunu görünce-bir feministin diliyle/düşünüşüyle de tanımak amaçlı- ilk okuma olarak Sade'ı Yakmalı Mı?'yı tercih ettim, iyi ki de okumuşum. Sade benim gözümdeki o ilk yerini tam olarak almış olmasa da; filmin ve, o birkaç makalenin izlerini sildi. Bana kalırsa Simone de Beauvoir, Sade'ı/Sade'ın yapıtlarını(günümüze ulaşan) oldukça objektif değerlendirmiş ve Sade'ı sapkın, sadist, mazoşist olarak değil de Kişi olarak ele almış. Güzel bir okuma oldu benim için.
Ekstra olarak katkısı da: Sadomazoşizm'in terim olarak Sade'dan geldiğini öğrenmiş oldum-cahillik işte-. "Uyguladığı acıların nedenini kendinde arayarak, kıyıcı da, eline geçirdiği araç, daha doğrusu nesne kadar o edilgin duruma katılmaktadır. Şu halde bu iki yönsemeyi Sade'cı mazoşizm (Sadomasochisme) adı altında birleştirebiliriz galiba."[kitabın bu bölümüne gelmeden yaklaşık 5-10 sayfa önce acaba sadomazo/Sade ilişkisi var mıdır? diye düşünürken cevap niteliğinde karşıma çıktı(=]
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews