Sade S Concept of Freedom as Nihilism

Sade -- Philosophy in the Bedroom

The Marquis de Sade's Dolmance argues for the elimination of religion, particularly monotheistic religion, as a necessary step toward a liberated republic. In Sade's estimation, the two constructs could not coexist. I disagree with Sade on at least two grounds. We know for a fact that religion and a free republic exist. Furthermore, Sade uses the term "freedom" but means nihilism.

Why, according to Dolmance, are monotheistic religions -- especially the Christian religion -- ill-suited for republics? Do you find his reason convincing? Give well supported reasons for your answer.

Dolmance, a 36-year-old bisexual libertine, believes that the abolition of religion would be France's last vital step toward the liberated republic. According to Dolmance,

[Y]ou cannot possibly liberate [Europe] from royal tyranny without at the same time breaking for her the fetters of religious superstition; the shackles of the one are too intimately linked to those of the other; let one of the two survive, and you cannot avoid falling subject to the other you have left intact. It is no longer before the knees of either an imaginary being or a vile impostor a republican must prostate himself; his only gods must now be courage and liberty. Rome disappeared immediately Christianity was preached there, and France is doomed if she continues to revere it (Sade, Philosophy in the bedroom, translated, 2002, p. 92).

In Dolmance's estimation, monotheistic "superstition" necessarily shackled the believer, dooming him to subjugation to "royal tyranny."

I disagree with Dolmance. The United States is probably the clearest example of a republic with many coexisting monotheistic religions but none being the official religion and all being separated from the state, allowing the republic to remain viable. If a single monotheistic religion was the official state religion, that might be a different matter in which a free republic is subjugated to religion; however, Sade is not merely speaking of a monotheistic religion controlling the state; he is talking about the very presence of monotheism making a free republic impossible. We in the United States know, for a fact, that it is untrue. Of course religion and a free republic can coexist: they do coexist.

Secondly, the "liberated" republic of which the Marquis de Sade speaks through Dolmance is actually a nihilistic republic, one rejecting all moral principles because, in Sade's estimation, life is meaningless. Consequently, Sade's notion of a free republic is peculiar at best and bizarre at worst. In that narrow construct, Dolmance is correct: a nihilistic republic is not possible in the presence of a monotheistic religion because the religion endorses moral principles and militates against the notion that life is meaningless. The two concepts would necessarily battle to the philosophical death of one of them. Sade was clearly on the side of militant atheism. He relentlessly ridiculed the ideas of God and religion. He was "a fanatic misotheist" who stated, "[I]f there isn't a God, I'll invent one' for the sole purpose of mocking and deriding the invented God" (Bloch, 1899).

Sade's dedication to the nihilism that he calls "freedom" is fleshed out in some of his other works, as well as a major work about him by Iwan Bloch. Sade's philosophy springs from his radical egotism, which reportedly made him militantly antitheist (Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, pp. 29-42). God does not exist and the universe is shrunk in significance and meaning to completely materialistic, self-perpetuating Nature in which "the perpetual motion of matter explains everything" (Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, p. 43). Humans are nothing more than machines, so there is no moral responsibility or accountability for being depraved, sexually or otherwise (Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, pp. 43-50). In Sade's universe, none of that matters because there is no afterlife, no ultimate accountability (Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, p. 402). Morality itself is fictitious, something learned by a child in his specific culture and ultimately untrue because all morality is culturally and geographically relative (Sade, Philosophy in the bedroom, translated, 2002, pp. 217-218; Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, p. 89). Worse yet, since Nature uses dead life to create new life, Nature is supposedly served and pleased by destruction and death, making murder a good act and mass murder even better (Sade, Philosophy in the bedroom, translated, 2002, pp. 237-8, 329-332).

In Sade's nihilistic brand of "freedom," the individual is isolated with no obligations to any God, society or other indiidual and has solely selfish motives. Each person is pitted against all other individuals, with the adage to "Enjoy myself, at no matter whose expense" (Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, p. 99). This so-called "freedom" means inflicting pain on others and enjoying it (Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, pp. 316-317) and average humans are the utilitarian toys of wealthy and powerful libertines, who enjoy greater pleasure with greater cruelty (Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, pp. 340-341). Consequently, in Sade's universe, all individuals are isolated entities who necessarily struggle against all other individuals.

Sade uses his brand of nihilistic "liberty" to rationalize every form of depravity, from sexual depravity to murder to cannibalism. Why not? If God, right, wrong, moral responsibility and transcendent meaning do not exist, existence is meaningless and nothing one does or does not do matters. Furthermore, Sade's "libertines," such as Dolmance, are so bored and so driven by insatiable appetites that they plunge into increasingly terrible crimes that ultimately leave them unsatisfied and even more destructive. The increasingly depraved acts to not sate their desires or amuse their boredom, so these libertines ultimately seek universal destruction (Sade, 120 days of Sodom, 1785, p. 545; Sade, Juliette, translated, 1968, pp. 700, 781-782, 1039). In sum, Sade's notion of "freedom" is based on the nonexistence of God, utter meaninglessness of existence, increasingly depraved self-gratification and destruction until one is left only with the desire for total annihilation.

It must be admitted that Sade's notions greatly influenced other philosophers/writers. Charles-Pierre Baudelaire and Gustave Flaubert are merely two of the notable French philosophers/writers who apparently agreed with Sade's nihilistic worldview. I understand that the Marquis de Sade is a highly revered philosopher in some circles but I despise him and his debasing, decadent ideas, none of which constitutes "freedom" as I know it.

C. Conclusion

The Marquis de Sade's Dolmance claims that the eradication of religion would be France's last necessary step toward becoming a liberated republic because monotheistic "superstition" chains the believer and dooms him to suppression by "royal tyranny." I disagree with Dolmance for at least two reasons. First, the United States belies his claim because this is a free republic with numerous coexisting monotheistic religions; we have shown that monotheism and freedom can coexist. Secondly, when Sade speaks of "freedom," is actually speaking of nihilism, the rejection of all moral principles because, according to Sade, life is meaningless. Using his peculiar notion of "freedom," it is conceivable that monotheism could not coincide with a "free" (nihilistic) republic because religion endorses moral principles and militates against the notion that life is meaningless. There would be a struggle to the philosophical death between the two constructs.