3 ms·

> we disagree Which is fine. I am not trying to convince you, I am responding to your (and GGP's) question on why he is promoted. > Must I fall prostate befo

by aaplok 3y ago

> we disagree Which is fine. I am not trying to convince you, I am responding to your (and GGP's) question on why he is promoted. > Must I fall prostate before their authority so as not to come across as "presumptuous"? Of course not. On the other hand, denying that these people's literary opinion has value beyond some vile feelings about abhorring nature does come across as presumptuous.

eternalban 3y ago
Agreement was not my aim. [Of course we can agree to disagree.] I am pointing out that a different reading of the corpus is possible. On the second point you have misunderstood as well. They are entitled to their opinion, and are representative of a selected subset of thinkers in their era. The main issue is how they position themselves in relationship to "nature" (as you put it) which is rejected. Presumptuous only enters the picture if one insists, as you do, that such a choice can only be validated by a cultural and intellectual establishment (which is also rather characteristic of that set).
- aaplok 3y ago
  I feel that you are shifting the goalpost and trying to drag me into a debate I am not interested in. Your question was simple: "OP was asking why de Sade is promoted so heavily. [...] OP's question is also my question. Why is this vile little man being promoted so much?" My answer to you was simply in response to that question. I don't claim that these people are right, I don't claim that their reading is the only possible reading. I try to explain under which possible reading Sade interests some people enough that they promote him. You are welcome to rebut my point, but to do it, it is not enough to give an alternative reading. This is a different debate, which you would need to take up with people who are interested in promoting Sade (of which I am not). > Presumptuous only enters the picture if one insists, as you do, that such a choice can only be validated by a cultural and intellectual establishment Please give me the quote(s) where I do that. This is not the point I was trying to make, so if I mis-expressed my idea I would welcome an opportunity to correct myself.

by aaplok 3y ago

eternalban 3y ago

Agreement was not my aim. [Of course we can agree to disagree.] I am pointing out that a different reading of the corpus is possible. On the second point you have misunderstood as well. They are entitled to their opinion, and are representative of a selected subset of thinkers in their era. The main issue is how they position themselves in relationship to "nature" (as you put it) which is rejected. Presumptuous only enters the picture if one insists, as you do, that such a choice can only be validated by a cultural and intellectual establishment (which is also rather characteristic of that set).

aaplok 3y ago
I feel that you are shifting the goalpost and trying to drag me into a debate I am not interested in. Your question was simple: "OP was asking why de Sade is promoted so heavily. [...] OP's question is also my question. Why is this vile little man being promoted so much?" My answer to you was simply in response to that question. I don't claim that these people are right, I don't claim that their reading is the only possible reading. I try to explain under which possible reading Sade interests some people enough that they promote him. You are welcome to rebut my point, but to do it, it is not enough to give an alternative reading. This is a different debate, which you would need to take up with people who are interested in promoting Sade (of which I am not). > Presumptuous only enters the picture if one insists, as you do, that such a choice can only be validated by a cultural and intellectual establishment Please give me the quote(s) where I do that. This is not the point I was trying to make, so if I mis-expressed my idea I would welcome an opportunity to correct myself.