Over several weeks we will engage with the thought of Immanuel Kant and the Marquis de Sade, culminating with a reading of Jacques Lacan's seminal essay "Kant with Sade".
The dark side of the European Enlightenment is an enduring topic in critical philosophy. The intellectual encounter of Kant with Sade offers us a particularly intense variation on this theme: Kant the rigorous philosopher of the moral law on one side -- Sade the ultimate antinomian and libertarian on the other. In 1807 Hegel argued that the empty abstraction of Kantian duty led directly to the Reign of Terror spearheaded by Robespierre and the Jacobins. Hegel saw that the absolute freedom glorified by the Enlightenment was an abstract universal devoid of living particularity - a force of pure negativity operating in the human subject. Therefore, any attempt to actualize it was bound to produce the caput mortum and lifeless cadaver left behind by the French guillotine.
Should we read Sade's work as the consummate expression of this sinister conspiracy between absolute duty and death? Can we, following Lacan, regard his Philosophy in the Bedroom as a properly philosophical site, akin to the schools of ancient Greece? Paradoxically, Sade saw himself as a radical naturalist and a slayer of superstitious taboos, ultimately championing the vitality of human reason. If we do take Sade seriously as a philosopher, what does his extreme thought tell us about modernity, the (non-)position of the subject and the destiny of our times? While perennial, these questions have renewed significance in our current cultural and geopolitical climate.
Note: Sade's work is notoriously provocative. For this group, we will avoid his graphic portrayals and focus on the philosophical outlines of his radical naturalism and its consequences. Our aim will be to put this perspective in a mature philosophical dialogue with thinkers such as Kant, Hegel, Lacan and the Ancients. As with all texts of this nature, readers' discretion is strongly advised.
We will begin with a reading from Kant's Groundwork, proceed with several sections from Sade, then return to Kant and work our way up to Lacan's essay encompassing both thinkers. Depending on group interest, we may bring other voices into the conversation along the way, such as Hegel, Ancient materialists (Aristippus, Lucretius, Epicurus), contemporary psychoanalysts, French readers of Sade, etc.
This is the up-to-date reading schedule for the Kant with Sade reading group.
You can find all readings in the Google Drive folder linked at the bottom.
👇 scroll down for the links 👇
Also see below for some reflection questions.
⸻
Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
Preface & Section 1
Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
Section 2 (especially pp. 30-48)
Note: The selections from Sade contain strong themes of sexuality and violence. While we're focusing on his radical philosophical views, some graphic elements are unavoidable. Most of the portions we're not reading are extremely graphic. Please read with discretion.
Sade's Philosophy in the Bedroom (tr. Seaver & Wainhouse)
Dialogue 3, pp. 276-298
Wikipedia article for overview and plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Bedroom
Sade's Juliette (tr. Wainhouse)
Part 4, pp. 960-981 (Pope Braschi's speech)
Wikipedia article for overview and plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_(novel)
Sade's Philosophy in the Bedroom (tr. Seaver & Wainhouse)
“Yet Another Effort, Frenchmen, If You Would Become Republicans” in Dialogue 5, pp. 387-455
Reading TBA
What does it mean to act from the good will alone according to Kant? Is such an action even possible in reality, and if so how?
Is it cruel or inhuman to say that actions done from the feeling of love (and not pure respect for the law) have no moral value? Or must we agree with Kant that respect for the law is the true source of morality?
Is there room for genuine Otherness in Kant? He claims that I respect the other only because of their universal rationality, in which I also share. Even duties to others bind me only because I myself will them as law via my rational autonomy. Is the Kantian other (as well as the Kantian self), then, anything more than an abstract placeholder for universal reason?
Is there an "unconscious other" implicit in Kant's moral philosophy that it leaves unnamed and unexplored? What would this "shadow" side be? If so, does his ethics of autonomy — and the social and political order built upon it — contain the seeds of their own instability and even destruction?
Can we read Kant through a Bataillean lens? If moral dignity exceeds all price, does this place it in the realm of ecstasy and unconditioned expenditure? Is Kantian autonomy a form of Bataillean sovereignty? Yet what would Bataille (and other French writers) say about Kant's unswerving embrace of reason, duty and law?Â
To anticipate the psychoanalytic lens: If we were to say that pure reason is Kant's mode of jouissance (i.e. his enactment of unconditioned desire, his refusal to compromise on his desire), must this necessarily detract from reason's dignity and universal moral force?
It’s clear that Kant and Sade, each in his own way, appeal to Nature as the source of their philosophy. We should probably expect this from an Enlightenment thinker. But how can they arrive at such radically opposed conclusions about the right conduct of life, if they have what seems like the same Natural starting point?
 Are the ideas of God and virtue in Sade's text simply inert and erroneous fantasies to be abandoned once and for all? Or do they have a more positive role to play in his transgressive scheme? For example, why is Mme de Saint-Ange so vehement when she asks EugĂ©nie to forswear all religion (p. 286)? And why do all of Sade’s characters seem endlessly to return to the ideas of God and virtue, only to violate them over and over again through word and action?Â
Ultimately can de Sade arrive at his radical conclusions based on reason alone – especially considering the limitations of knowledge he himself admits via Dolmancé? Is the basic question posed by Sade simply one of knowledge (truth vs. false appearance), or are we in quasi-moral territory after all: i.e. that of moral decisions, basic allegiances, faith, essential life commitments, ultimate concern, etc.? Is there something like faith in a materialist Nature (a quasi-theology) that Sade is urging us to accept?
Depending on group consensus, future readings on this topic may include Hegel, Ancient materialists, contemporary psychoanalysts, and French readers of Kant / Sade.
Find all readings in this Google Folder:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VPRdvZYmUKBY3cSxD8xC8sTYtSEKBXDs?usp=sharing
Join the meeting using this Google Meet link on Saturdays @ 1 pm EST / 10 am PST: