Advertisement

Against the Dialectic of Enlightenment; or, How Not to Read Kant Avec Sade

  • Henry Martyn LloydEmail author
Chapter
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

The conclusion situates the book within the broader revisionist trends in Enlightenment Studies and makes clear its challenge to the ways in which Sade is often deployed in contemporary “Continental” Philosophy and Critical Theory. The book’s reconstruction of Sade’s philosophical “system” makes clear the inadequacy of understandings of the period that have located Sade as the “dialectical” other to Kant. The specific targets of this conclusion are Horkheimer and Adorno’s famous Dialectic of Enlightenment, and those who have deployed the Kant avec Sade trope. The conclusion demonstrates that such uses of Sade cannot withstand sustained scholarly attention to Sade’s actual philosophy.

References

  1. Boucher, Geoff. 2018. “A Road Not Taken: Critical Theory After Dialectic of Enlightenment.” In Rethinking the Enlightenment: Between History, Philosophy, and Politics, edited by Geoff Boucher and Henry Martyn Lloyd, 221–46. Maryland: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  2. Diprose, Rosalyn. 2002. Corporeal Generosity: On Giving with Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty, and Levinas. New York: State University of New York System.Google Scholar
  3. Ferrone, Vincenzo. 2015. The Enlightenment: History of an Idea. Translated by Elisabetta Tarantino. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Habermas, Jürgen. 1982. “The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment: Re-reading Dialectic of Enlightenment.” Critical Theory and Modernity 26: 13–30.Google Scholar
  5. Hatab, Lawrence. 2017. “Nietzsche.” In The Cambridge History of Moral Philosophy, edited by Sacha Golob and Jens Timmermann, 482–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Israel, Jonathan. 2011. Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights, 1750–1790. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lacan, Jacques. 1989. “Kant with Sade.” October 51: 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lloyd, Henry Martyn. 2018a. “The French Enlightenment Attempts to Create a Philosophy Without Reason: The Case of Diderot and the Effect of Helvétius.” Intellectual History Review 28 (2): 271–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lloyd, Henry Martyn. 2018b. “Reason and Rationality Within the ‘Enlightenment of Sensibility’; Or, Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, and French Philosophy’s First ‘Linguistic Turn’.” In Rethinking the Enlightenment: Between History, Philosophy, and Politics, edited by Geoff Boucher and Henry Martyn Lloyd, 151–76. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  12. Lloyd, Henry Martyn. 2018c. “What Is It to Rethink the Enlightenment?” In Rethinking the Enlightenment: Between History, Philosophy, and Politics, edited by Geoff Boucher and Henry Martyn Lloyd, 1–38. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  13. Meeker, Natania. 2006. Voluptuous Philosophy: Literary Materialism in the French Enlightenment. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meeker, Natania. 2014. “Sade at the End of the World.” In Sade’s Sensibilities, edited by Kate Parker and Norbert Sclippa, 87–101. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Moore, Alison. 2010. “Sadean Nature and Reasoned Morality in Adorno/Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment.” Psychology & Sexuality 1 (3): 250–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nobus, Dany. 2018. The Law of Desire: On Lacan’s ‘Kant with Sade’: The Palgrave Lacan Series. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Pagden, Anthony. 2013. The Enlightenment and Why It Still Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Reill, Peter Hanns. 2005. Vitalizing Nature in the Enlightenment. Berkeley and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Roberts, Julian. 2004. “The Dialectic of Enlightenment.” In The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, edited by Fred Rush, 57–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Schmidt, James. 1996. “Introduction: What Is Enlightenment? A Question, Its Context, and Some Consequences.” In What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions, edited by James Schmidt, 1–44. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt, James. 1998. “Language, Mythology, and Enlightenment: Historical Notes on Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment.” Social Research 65 (4): 807–38.Google Scholar
  22. Schmidt, James. 2018. “What, If Anything, Does Dialectic of Enlightenment Have to Do with the Enlightenment?” In Aufklärungs-Kritik und Aufklärungs-Mythos, edited by Sonja Lavaert and Winfried Schröder. Boston and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (Forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schoeman, Marinus. 2007. “Generosity as a Central Virtue in Nietzsche’s Ethics.” South African Journal of Philosophy 26 (1): 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steintrager, James A. 2004. Cruel Delight: Enlightenment Culture and the Inhuman. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. White, Richard. 2015. “Nietzsche on Generosity and the Gift-Giving Virtue.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 24 (16): 348–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1994. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Wood, Allen W. 2012. “Antimoralism.” In The Cambridge History of Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century (1790–1870), edited by Allen W. Wood, 491–518. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Žižek, Slavoj. 1999. “Kant with (or Against) Sade.” In The Žižek Reader, edited by Elizabeth Wright and Edmond Wright, 283–301. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Historical and Philosophical InquiryUniversity of QueenslandSaint LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations