Why don't people on here prefer de Sade over Stirner?
At least Sade goes all the way
Why don't people on here prefer de Sade over Stirner? At least Sade goes all the way
Why don't people on here prefer de Sade over Stirner?
At least Sade goes all the way
I don't know, wasn't Stirner a Hegelian? If I'm not mistaken he uses some version of historic materialism, which is somewhat interesting. How does Sade present his thought? I never bothered checking it out.
I meant it about both being the extremes of individualist thought
Yes, but form is as important as content, especially when it comes to thought. You have to be convincing.
Because he was a coomer and this board is sick of coomers and the pontification of every facet of society
>but what if we make your literature and philosophy to be porn as well?
No
>le coomer
It has nothing to do with it, Stirner develops his thought in a somewhat convincing fashion, he goes all the way in "destroying" things and rebuilding them.
He uses as a vehicle of his philosophy a girl having sex with a bunch of men. It’s coomer shit that no one wants to read in an age when cucking and porn are shoved down our throat every day
What is the difference, the problem is that how is that more convincing than historical materialism? Historicism can be somewhat taken seriously today, because it is a strong way of thinking.
Both philosophers are honestly a bit silly but Stirner uses wit and dabbing and charm as a vehicle for his philosophy, Sade uses a girl fricked over 9000 men (his ultimate fantasy) as a vehicle for his. If Sade wanted to be taken seriously then maybe he should have tried to image humans as something besides genitals
there are at least three version of Justine and the first is really bad, also, his best work is philosophy in the bedroom.
If for you the 120 days of sodom is about cooming you may be the freak
Philosophy in the Bedroom is also coomer dogshit.
try to act it out with your friends and you may find out that it's mostly comedy
Porn films almost all use a comedy style narrative, what’s your point?
Because their actors can't deliver anything else
>If for you the 120 days of sodom is about cooming you may be the freak
Did you read a de Sade biography? He was a deranged pedo rapist who got memed into a socialite intellectual
How did he do it?
By actually thinking about shit and writing his thoughts on a piece of paper. So no, he was not just some deranged pedo rapist.
He was generic hedonist you fricking moron.
It's amazing how atheists still cling to their fantasy that atheism is not hedonism lol
>writing his thoughts
About as profound as any niche erotica today. Any vampire rape fantasy today is on the literary level of Sade
I don't know, I don't care, but if he was the precursor of it. He literally made a genre that gets religitards seething, because people insist on imitating him.
>Immersion (Piss Christ) is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine
You'll probably love this too, then. A true work of genius.
Just among his contemporaries, Chateaubriand. Or Hugo.
I don't care, that is the point. Am I seething over that piss? No, I don't give a shit. I'm seeing things as they are.
Despite not caring, you bothered to make a post pointing out how Sade "gets religitards seething". I figured you meant it as a quality.
My gripe with Sade was purely aesthetic, and I'm not really a devoted Christian, more of a dabbler. Maybe I should give him another read, it's been a while.
Agree with you reg. the arts and the idea in the last line, but as far as I remember, Sade lays the 'evil' on so thick that it becomes almost a parody; a case of less is more.
Well, I still don't care, I'm only here because other threads are more boring than this one. And I never noticed that until this thread happened, but I still don't give a shit about him, I don't care, I'm fine with the fact that he was a pedo, degenerate rapist and everything. I've read Mishima who was a literal nazi monarchist terrorist, those Greek degenerate who would frick boipussy and so on. I don't care.
In the sense that, it is just a fricking book, I'm not going to marry this fricker, or live next to him or anything. I'm fine with him.
>evil
His characters are unironically how people would act without moral conditioning.
>never watched discovery channel
Who tells him? Nature is somewhat ok.
This is how it would be.
>without moral conditioning.
The very forbidden-ness of his perversions is what makes them so delicious to him. That requires a society with moral conditioning.
Casanova said that it was a shame the old regime failed, because it was the hypocritical nature of libertinism that made life very exciting. While now that people are liberated, they don't feel like going against the old morals anymore. Same with feminism and all. Now that there is no pleasure to be found in forbidden secret sexual endeavours, people are going back to old school puritanism
the new atheist puritanism is a fake one and entirely artificially created in order for the bourgeois to coom better.
Both are very good authors, but I believe that your christian morals make you consciously avoid and ignore the witty and funny style of de Sade, because you spend too much time judging the author as degenerate. Mind you, I'm clearly not a christian hater or something, and I believe the death of christianity has brought upon de death of sobriety in arts, which is a terrible thing, but I find it sad that your inclination towards moralizing books might cut you off from really great reads. Of course Sade is not the end of all things there are many other things to read in a lifetime but read this idea: showing good doesn't inspire good, while showing evil inspires good in most people.
>Piss Christ
Old hat. Today (or rather, 5 years ago), the avante garde would be to create a christ cum jar.
tell us what is the highest literary level according to you then
I don't know, but historicism is a thing, people still say that you can't judge authors based on our current values. That you have to take their time into account and so on. This is Hegel's legacy, it still resonates throughout our discourse, you can literally hear people saying such things on social media and youtube and whatever.
And how does Sade go beyond Stirner?
Sade is irritating precisely because his values are too close to our time. Just live for yourself and frick frick frick nihilism is shoved down our throats every day and the ruling class fricks kiddos with impunity
>Just live for yourself and frick frick frick nihilism is shoved down our throats every day and the ruling class fricks kiddos with impunity
WTF are you talking about?
>In 2021, about 40.02 percent of all family households in the United States had their own children under age 18 living in the household.
And what frick frick frick nihilism is supposed to mean?
> the ruling class fricks kiddos with impunity
And this? Is there something up with Biden that I'm unaware?
you read like chat GPT
Really? I'm an ESL learner, and I wrote that myself, anon. I'm honestly flattered that you thought that. Have a photo of my hand to prove that I'm a hooman. 😀
That's good then, I'm sorry for doubting you.
Yeah but it's bad comedy/ all modern porn is a bastard of de Sade's work, and since he stirred the bottom of creativity in what can be done with vile shit, they can always be lesser version of sadist works
Are you incarcerated?
No, it is just that my windows have bars, but I'm living on a farm.
Pornification*
This is your brain on christniggotry
This is your brain on porn. Sade literally jerk offd almost every page he wrote according to his memoirs, hundreds of times daily to the point he said semen wouldn’t come and it just made his dick raw
And he still wrote more than you ever will
So did F. Gardner
>Stirner
Who?
Stirner's is an immanent critique, because Stirner does not lay claim to any transcendent or absolute Truth, Value or Reality (which would itself require the same type of self-alienation to create) or access to any other privileged perspective which would allow him to speak from any position beyond his own particular, finite, unique perspective. Also
>"Who, then, is 'self-sacrificing?' In the full sense, surely, he who ventures everything else for one thing, one object, one will, one passion. Is not the lover self-sacrificing who forsakes father and mother, endures all dangers and privations, to reach his goal? Or the ambitious man, who offers up all his desires, wishes, and satisfactions to the single passion, or the avaricious man who denies himself everything to gather treasures, or the pleasure-seeker, etc.? He is ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices.
>And are these self-sacrificing people perchance not selfish, not egoist? As they have only one ruling passion, so they provide for only one satisfaction, but for this the more strenuously, they are wholly absorbed in it. Their entire activity is egoistic, but it is a one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism; it is possessedness."
In these passages, Stirner clearly rejects Sade's path to self-fulfillment, arguing that the desires owns the person more than the reverse: possession becomes possessedness.
Man reading this quote I really gotta start with Stirner and not with the Greeks, then Schoppy and Nietzsche, and see from there.
I like them both but their synthesis outgrew them. Pic rel.
Nietzsche is about creation.
O my brethren! With whom lieth the greatest danger to the whole human future? Is it not with the good and just?—
—As those who say and feel in their hearts: “We already know what is good and just, we possess it also; woe to those who still seek thereafter!”
And whatever harm the wicked may do, the harm of the good is the harmfulest harm!
And whatever harm the world-maligners may do, the harm of the good is the harmfulest harm!
O my brethren, into the hearts of the good and just looked some one once on a time, who said: “They are the Pharisees.” But people did not understand him.
The good and just themselves were not free to understand him; their spirit was imprisoned in their good conscience. The stupidity of the good is unfathomably wise.
It is the truth, however, that the good MUST be Pharisees—they have no choice!
The good MUST crucify him who deviseth his own virtue! That IS the truth!
The second one, however, who discovered their country—the country, heart and soil of the good and just,—it was he who asked: “Whom do they hate most?”
The CREATOR, hate they most, him who breaketh the tables and old values, the breaker,—him they call the law-breaker.
For the good—they CANNOT create; they are always the beginning of the end:—
—They crucify him who writeth new values on new tables, they sacrifice UNTO THEMSELVES the future—they crucify the whole human future!
The good—they have always been the beginning of the end.—
He predicted all the seethe. Which is kinda funny to watch here, I would never notice it in any other place, because people tend to be stuck on their bubbles with their "peers".
is about creation.
No, it's about coping with imaging narratives wherein you are a good guy for being hedonistic
holy projection
because he's a coomer spook.
The problem with religitards is that they can't fricking see a piece of paper with a somewhat nice calligraphy that they get crazy and feel like either burning or idolizing it.
The real reason is because everyone has heard of de Sade and nobody knows who Stirner is.
But he is asking why the opposite happens here.
Because praising unknown authors gives you nerd cred on hipster boards like IQfy and IQfy
>words on a piece of paper
get with the times we're in 2023
Coomer trash.
IQfy seethes because they can never write anything as moving as this passage
>Hairy as a satyr, flat-backed, with slack, drooping buttocks that rather resembled a pair of dirty rags flapping upon his upper thighs; the skin of those buttocks was, thanks to whipstrokes, so deadened and toughened that you could seize up a handful and knead it without his feeling a thing. In the center of it all there was displayed – no need to spread those cheeks – an immense orifice whose enormous diameter, odor, and color bore a closer resemblance to the depths of a well-freighted privy than to an butthole; and, crowning touch to these allurements, there was numbered among this sodomizing pig’s little idiosyncrasies that of always leaving this particular part of himself in such a state of uncleanliness that one was at all times able to observe there a rim or pad a good two inches thick. Below a belly as wrinkled as it was livid and gummy, one perceived, within a forest of hairs, a tool which, in its erectile condition, might have been about eight inches long and seven around; but this condition had come to be the most rare and to procure it a furious sequence of things was the necessary preliminary. Nevertheless, the event occurred at least two or three times each week, and upon these occasions the Président would glide into every hole to be found, indiscriminately, although that of a young lad’s behind was infinitely the most precious to him.
the true mark of a literary genius
I kneel
i fricks with sade. i don't frick with stirner. libertinism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> libertarianism. dear libertarians: kys
It's literally just because of the gross fetishes.
Like, I'm also a sadist that enjoys reading philosophy about the joys of abuse and rape but then you have to read extensive passages where people get pissed on and eat poop...
That really kills my intellectual curiosity... and boner...
and I hold it dear to defend sade as not just an other low brow porn writer, appolinaire wrote some actually dump porn that is the same flavour as modern internet porn, and it doesn't go further.
Sade has a genius style and is a man that went so far that no one could ever hope to go beyond, he made parn after him obsolete. You'd have to be incarcerated for longer than him, be touched by the same grain of madness, and yet be touched by some pure transcendental beauty like him to explore beyond
ITS LITERALLY BECAUSE OF ENGELS MEME DRAWING AND THE WORD SPOOK. IQfy IS A MEME. IT'S ABOUT THE MEME POTENTIAL. 66 REPLIES AND NO ONE GETS TO THE TRUTH AND ANSWER OF OPS QUESTION. THIS BOARD IS DEAD. HISTORY IS FORGOTEN. TIME MOVES FORWARD BUT THE STASIS REMAINS.
>meme potential
His book got Marx seething hard
>>it's usually sexually repression that cause dark sexual fantasies(like rape fetishes)
women have them all the time. You have to understand that the bourgeois and women have the same mind: they are hedonistic and schizophrenic people who love to create a second life during the day where they are saints, just to enhance their debased orgies during the night.
Those 2 species are the only ones able to sustain high hypocrisy in their life, precisely because they have no introspection. And this is why when they took power to create democracy, they turned society into a meaningless slop of hypocrites obsessed with cooming and materialism all the time, and virtue signaling from time to time.
IMHO the whole 'stirner le bad' thing is a forced meme. When reading 'ego ant its own' for the first time, it felt like most beautiful thing ever. It was like reading Nietzsche for a first time, except without the nausea that comes with Nietzsche. Like Stirner was a pure Bolivian coke but Nietzsche - a second hand crack.
Dunno bout de Sade, BC I'm no cooler. I guess I'll check him out then.