Philosophy

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts) Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:41 AM Apr 2013

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (Tuesday Afternoon) on Mon Sep 9, 2013, 10:47 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author (Original Post) Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2013 OP

I had no idea libodem Apr 2013 #1

Wow libodem Apr 2013 #2

I have read some of his books, and they are interesting for different reasons. ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #3

What's interesting ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #4

that he had no boundaries is fine ... Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2013 #5

True, but I think ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #6

libodem

(19,288 posts)

1. I had no idea

Reply to Tuesday Afternoon (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:51 PM

Apr 2013

I'm off to chase that link. Be back later. Soooo fascinating.

libodem

(19,288 posts)

2. Wow

Reply to Tuesday Afternoon (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:07 PM

Apr 2013

Interesting, is all I can say.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)

3. I have read some of his books, and they are interesting for different reasons.

Reply to Tuesday Afternoon (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:20 PM

Apr 2013

Nature is a big part of his philosophy. He believed denying the urges given to us by nature was unnatural, and therefore all morality was vice, unless they were naturally inclined to only act morally.

There are some good Sade movies. Quills is good for most mainstream audiences, while Salo is better for fans of his stories.

Quills is about de Sade himself while he is an insane asylum. Salo is an Italian movie that is mostly the introduction and first chapter of his book, The 120 Days of Sodom, except the setting was changed to fascist Italy. Salo is very strong, and should not be viewed by children or adults with weak stomachs.

ismnotwasm

(42,019 posts)

4. What's interesting

Reply to Tuesday Afternoon (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:54 PM

Apr 2013

Is not so much his views, as his relative honesty about them. If he would have shut up, or practiced discretion, not pissed off the church, he could have indulged himself without getting locked up. I've always thought he was a living exposure of the end result of a gentrified social system.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)

5. that he had no boundaries is fine ...

Reply to ismnotwasm (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:07 PM

Apr 2013

that he did not want to respect that other people do have boundaries was an issue for him and his downfall.

respect for personal space.

ismnotwasm

(42,019 posts)

6. True, but I think

Reply to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:48 PM

Apr 2013

He wasn't the 'only one' to indulge himself. He was gentry, and therefore should have been protected to a certain extent. He seems to have wanted to rub others' faces in their own hypocrisy. I'm not a fan of his work, too self indulgent--but it's been a long, long while since I've read anything, so I'm kind of winging it here.