95612377 a Destructive Philosophy Klossowski

7/28/2019 95612377 a Destructive Philosophy Klossowski

1/21

A Destructive Philosophy

Author(s): Pierre KlossowskiReviewed work(s):Source: Yale French Studies, No. 35, The House of Sade (1965), pp. 61-80Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2929454 .

Accessed: 29/04/2012 11:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2929454?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2929454?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale


2/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKI

A Destructive hilosophyWhen twantsmartyrs,theismhas onlytospeak;myblood is readytoflow.-LaNouvelleJustine

In Sade's work the uneasy conscience of the debauched libertinerepresents transitional tate of mind between the conscience ofsocialmanand the atheisticonscience f the philosopher fNature.It offers t one and the same time those negativeelementswhichSadian thought, n its dialecticalmovement,makes great effortsoeliminate, nd the positiveelementswhichwillmake it possibletomovebeyond this ntermediarytate of mind n order to get to theatheistic nd asocial philosophy f Nature and a moralsystem asedon the dea ofNature s perpetualmotion.The libertine's onsciencemaintains negativerelationshipwithGod on onehand andwithhis neighbor n the other.Both,the notionof God and the notion fhisneighbor,re indispensableo him.Therelationship ithGod is negativebecause thelibertine'sonscience,as we find t in Sade, is not atheisticn a cold-bloodedway; ratherits atheisms the result f effervesencend therefore f resentment;his atheism s only a form f sacrilege.Only theprofanation f re-ligious ymbols s able to convincehim of his apparent theismwhichis thusclearly distinguishableromthe conscience of the atheisticphilosopher orwhom sacrilegehas no significance eyond ts revel-ation ofthe weaknessof the ndividualwho indulges n it.

At times he atheismwhich s affected y the ibertine onscience,and the wrongwhich t projectsdoing,are meantto be provocationsaddressed o the absentGod as though candalousprovocationswerea wayof forcing hatGod tomanifest is existence:Iftherewere a god and if thatgod possessedpower,would heallow the virtuewhichhonorshim to be sacrificed o vice asyou intend o do; would this all-powerful od allow a weakcreatureikemyselfwho,compared o him, s as themite nthe eye of the elephant,would he, I ask, allow this feeblecreature o insulthim, coff t him, tand up to him, and of-fendhimas I takepleasure n doing at everymoment f theday?

This kindof impunitydds to thedelight f the ibertineonscience:61


3/21

Yale French Studiesthe greater hepunishment erited y his action, he greater hevaluewhich e attributeso crime. is consciences always ctivatedby remorse;ndeed heremorseeems o providehe nergyorhiscrimes. he debauched ibertineoes not seek to commitctionswhichhave been renderedndifferenty perpetualmotion, s theatheist hilosopherslaim.Whathe seeks o commits Evil; thepur-suit f Evil willbe essential othe xtensionf his sphere fenjoy-ment: What nimates s is nottheobject f ibertinage,utratherthe dea of evil."As a result,heobject f ibertinageoldsnointer-estunlesst eads o the oing fgreatervil.Nordoeshe exclude hepossibilityfdoing vilwell;on thecontrary,n thatpossibilityefinds hewhole alueofcrime. he consciencefthedebauched ad-istkeeps tsclaim n freewilland uses ts moral ategories,ll thewhilemaintainingbeliefn tsability o do evil.The consciencefthedebauchedibertine,ccordingo Sade'sdescription,otonly p-pears o be incompleteppositiono atheism ut lso has a counsin-shipwith he nalysisfEvilfor vil's akewhich e findnSaintAu-gustine's onfessions.Such consciences consequentlyusceptibleo elaboratingn en-tiredestructiveheologyenteredbout the religionf a SupremeBeingof Wickedness,heonly upreme eing hat aint-Fond,heexemplarf thegreat ibertinend debauchedord, s willing o pro-fess.Thisreligion f evil s notyet eady odeny rime s thephi-losophy f perpetual otion oes,butprefersoadmitt as an out-flow rom he xistencefan infernal od.Nor s ittherefutationfthedogma oundn the irstersion fJustine,hat he nnocent ustbe sacrificedor he alvation f theguilty.t is only heother ideofthat octrine;t exalts henecessityf njusticexistingn God. nfact,onfrontedith hemysteryfRevelation,he stonishedeason- if twishes o articulatehedogman anguage hichlsoconveysits sense f scandal is obliged o substitutehe material fblas-phemyor herevealedmatter.n thatway t gives n exact xpres-sionto the mpression adeby themysteryn a reasoningacultywhich as been bandoned o tsownresources.rom hat oint n,when onfrontedith rime ndsuffering,t will ee n orthodoxynattempto legitimatehe rimesf theguiltyarty hrough theoryofexpiationasedon the xpiatoryirtue fthe ufferingsfthe n-nocent.n reality,rthodoxyttributesrime oman's reedomo sinandattributeshe xpiatoryirtuearned ythe nnocentarty'suf-feringothe nnocentarty'sccount.What he candalizedeasonsimputingo orthodoxys precisely hatreason tself ishes o pro-claim s itsowndoctrine a doctrine hich, houghtsconclusionsgo in a quite ontraryirection,illhave the ppearancefseekingtosetup itsmeritoriouserms n thebasisof a supernaturalriginfor in.Allthe llswith hich odafflictsan anthus e considered

62


4/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIas the ransomGod exacts beforehe allows man the right o inflictsufferingnd tobe unlimitedlyicious.To theextenthatGod can beviewed as the originalguiltypartywho attacked man before mancould attackhim, to that extentman has acquired the right nd thestrengtho attackhis neighbor. nd if thisdivine ggression as beenof vastproportionst has therebyegitimizedor ll time he mpunityofthe guilty arty nd the sacrifice f the nnocent.

If theevils whichoverwhelmme from he day of my birth othe day of my death prove God's indifferenceo me, thenmay verywell be mistaken bout what I call evil. What Icharacterizes evil where amconcerned s apparently verygreatgoodwhere hebeingwhohas broughtmeintotheworldis concerned.And if I receive evil fromothers, enjoy theright f returningt, and even thefacility f deliveringvil tothem irst; nce I become aware of this, vilbecomesgoodforme as it is for the being who has createdme in his dealingswithme,and I am satisfied y the evil I do to others s Godis satisfiedy the evil he has done to me . . .Evil "which s a moralbeing nd nota createdbeing, n eternal eingwhich xistedbefore he world and whichformed he monstrousndexecrablebeingwho created o bizarre world" can onlysustain hatworld throughvil, can only perpetuate t for evil, and allow othercreatures o existonly f they re impregnated ith vil:

Thismode which s the very oul of thecreator s also thatofthe creaturewho is shaped by it. It will exist even after hesoul's demise. Everything as to be wicked, barbarous, n-human as your God is - and these are the vices whichmustbe adopted f one wishes o please him; not that here smuchhope of succeeding ince thatevil which always doesharm, he evil which s God's essence, could not possiblybesusceptible ither o love or gratitude.f this God who is thecenter f Evil and ferocity ormentsmanand has nature ndothermentorment imthroughoutis existence,whatreasonis there o doubt thathe acts in the same way, and perhapseven nvoluntarily,n thiswisp which urvives fterman andwhich .. is nothing ther han evil? . . No matterwhat hisconduct n thisworldmay be, no mancan escape thisfright-fulfatebecause everything hichhas been brought o life nthewombof Evil must return here.That is the law of theuniverse.Thus the hateful lements f the wickedman areabsorbed ntothecenterof the wickednesswhich s God inorder o returnndanimate till ther eingswhowill be bornto similar orruption ecause they re thefruit f corruption.

Whatwillhappento the good creature?63


5/21

Yale French StudiesThemanyou allvirtuoussnotgood, r fhe s good owardsyou,hecertainlys not owards odwho snothingtherhanEvil, whodesires othing ut Evil,who seeksnothingutEvil. The manyou speakof s simply eak, ndweaknesssan evil. Sucha man, incehe is weaker han heabsolutelyvicious eing, . . will ufferll themore . . [But] hemoreman hallhavemanifestedices ndfailuresnthisworld, hecloser hallhecome o hisunchangingoal whichs wicked-ness, nd the esswillhe haveto sufferonsequentlyhen eis reunitednthehome f wickednesshich consider o betheprimematter f theworld's ormation.

Thus far rom enying od as the theist oes or ofpardoningimallhiswrongs,s deists o," the onsciencefthedebauchedibertineagrees o admitGodwith ll hisvices.The existence fevil n theworld ffordsim hechance o blackmail od whomhe considersthe ternal uilty arty ecausehe is theoriginal ggressor.o ac-complishhis oal, he ibertineonstantlyasrecourseo traditionalmoral ategoriess thoughoa pactwhichGod hasviolated. uffer-ingbecomes promissoryotedrawn n God.The ibertineonsciencelsoneeds o establishnequally egativerelationshipithtsneighbor:I amhappywithhe vil do to othersas God is happywith he vilhedoes to me." The ibertine'snjoy-ment omes rom hefact f the ontinuousppositionetweenhisideaandthenotion f ovefor ne's neighbor.e makes se of thisoppositionnestablishingistheoryfpleasurehroughomparison.Oneofthe our ebauched en nthe120Journe'ese Sodome ays:Only ne essentials missing rom urhappiness pleasurethroughomparison,pleasurewhich an only e born romthe ight ftheunhappy,ndwe seenoneof that reed ere.It's at the ightfthemanwho sn't njoying hat have ndwho ssufferinghat know he harmfbeing bleto say: Iamhappier han e s.Wherever en re qualandwhere if-ferencesonot xist, appiness illnever xist;t'squite ikethe ituationfthemanwho doesn't ppreciatehepriceofgoodhealth ntil ehasbeen ll.

How thenre theunfortunateobe comforted?The pleasurewhich omes o mefrom his leasantompari-sonof theirtatewithminewouldnot xist f were ocom-fort hem. ywithdrawinghem rom heirmisery, wouldallowthem o taste moment fhappinesswhich, ince tdraws hemloser o me,would emovehewholeoy ofcom-parison .. Inorder o establish ore irmlyhis ssentialif-ferencenhappiness,twould e preferableoaggravateheircondition .

64


6/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIThus theconscience f the debauched ibertine,houghtturns hemupside down, s content o remainwith hose moral categorieswhichthe atheist onsciencewill condemn s structuresorged ythe weak.But, out of theirneed for comparisons, he strongput theirownstrengthn trial.By making comparison f his conditionwiththatoftheunfortunate,hefortunate an makesa fatal dentificationithhim.In tormentinghe object ofhis lust n orderto derivepleasurefromhis suffering,nd by seeing nthe sufferingf anotherhis ownsuffering,e willalso see his ownpunishment.aint-Fond, fter av-ing mistreated family f poorpeople outrageously,upposedlyhashimself ssailedby two men whomhe has ordered o whiphim.Thisstagedwhipping s carriedoff o well thatthe fearwhichhe inspiresin the weakbecomes, n thisexhibition f strength,is ownfear: "Ilove to makethemundergo hesortof thingwhich roubles nd over-whelmsmyexistence o cruelly . ." At this tage,his conscience e-mainsrivettedothereality f theothers; e hopes to deny hatrealitybut only ntensifiestby the love-hatredwhichhe avows forothers.The debauchedmanremains ttached o thevictim f his lustand tothe ndividualityf thatvictimwhose sufferingse would ike to pro-long "beyond he boundsofeternity ifeternityas any."The trueatheist, o the degree hathe really xists, ttacheshimself o no ob-ject; caught nnature's erpetualmotion, e obeyshis mpulses,ook-ing upon others s no more thannature's lag.The conscience f thedebauched ibertineannotgiveup itsall toohumanaspirations; er-haps only thestoic atheistwould be capable of doingso. The liber-tine's onscience emains bsessednot onlyby his neighbor s victim,butalso by death.He cannotgiveup thesingular opeofa futurendinfernal ifewhichamounts o saying hat he cannotconsent o theannihilation f his "sinning ody"precisely ecause of his senselessdesireto workout his fury n thesame victim hroughoutternity.

In thisphasehis consciencenone the ess betrays murky eed forexpiation an expiation which, fhis need could be elucidated,would have no otherdirectionhan thatof self-liquidation, freeingof the selfby the self.These are the positiveparticulars f his con-science.The degree o whichhe seeks expiation s the degree owhichhis consciencerepresents ne of the moments f Sade's own con-science.His needfor xpiation eeks satisfactionnhiswillingnessorisk ternal amnation in order,without oubt, o nourish hesuf-ferings f his victim;but his willingness lso impliesa continueddesireto sharethat uffering.Saint-Fondreveals still nother haracteristicrait f the libertineconscience:pride n hissituation,corn orhis fellowman, nd,finally,a hatred.mixedwithfear, f "thatvile owlifeknown s thepeople."All theelements f this haughty ttitude o hand in glove withtheexercise of humiliating ebaucheries,most of which are planned65


7/21


8/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIlonger existsat all. Bodies are transmuted . . metamor-phosed, ut hey renevernert.nertias absolutelympossi-ble formatter hether attersorganizedr not.Weigh hesetruthsarefullynd youwill ee where heyead andwhattwisthey ive ohumanmorality.

Oncearrived t this bservation,indingimselfnthe hresholdftheunknown,isthoughturningackon itself, e withdrawstillfurther,candalizedythe heernevitabilityfhisconclusions.henhe takesholdofhimselfndaccepts isdiscoveries.s a result,heatheisticndmaterialisticpeechesf some fhischaracterstrikesas just so manymomentsn his thought'sfforto getawayfrommoral ategories;his s whatgives he speeches heir uite pecialdramatic lavor.Matter,which s perpetuallynmotion nd whichshivers ith leasure ithouteing bleto obtainny leasurenthisside fdestructionrdissolution,eems obe neitherlindnorwith-outwill.sn't here omepurposenthis niversalgent?We become hepublic t a strangepectaclewhere ade insultsNature s he usedtoinsult od;hediscoversnNaturehetraitsfthatGod who created hegreatestumber fmenwith heaimofmakinghem un herisk f eternal ortureseven houghtwouldhaveconformed orewith oodness ndwith eason nd ustice ocreate nly tones ndplants atherhan oshapemenwhose onductcouldonlybring ndless hastisements."utwhat frightfultateNature uts s n"since isgust ithife ecomeso strongnthe oulthat heres not singlemanwhowouldwant o iveagain, ven fsuch an offer eremade on thedayof his death . . yes, abhorna-ture; nd detest erbecause know erwell.Aware fherfrightfulsecrets, have fallenback on myself nd I have felt . . I have ex-perienced kind fpleasurencopying erfouldeeds.What con-temptiblendodious eing o makemeseethedaylightnlynordertohaveme find leasureneverythinghatdoes harm o myfellowmen. h quoi! hadhardly eenborn . . I hadhardlyuitmy radlewhen hedrewmetowards hevery orrors hich re herdelight!Thisgoes beyond orruption . . it is an inclination, penchant.Herbarbarous and can only nourish vil; evil is her entertainment.Should love uch mother?o; but will mitateer, ll thewhiledetestinger. shall opyher, s shewishes, ut shall urse erun-ceasingly. ."These are thewords f thechemist, lmani, character hosepsychologyeflects arvelouslyellone of thepositionsetforthnSade'sthought.ikethedebauchedibertine,lmani s still volvingwithinhe phere fmoral ategories.vil strikes im s beingNa-ture's nique lement,s itwastheunique lementftheGodwhowasabsent o thedebauchedibertine.nd this riminalhemistlso

67


9/21

Yale French Studiesbelieves hat he olution o theproblem f eyil s tobe evil.Sade'sthoughtere ffers furtherttitudef purely uman evolt, revoltwhich as no hopeother han o remain evolt. he reproach irectedagainst ature,venmore han hereproachirectedgainst od, sclearly estined o remainwithout nswer nd evenwithoutnypsychic enefit,ince t is addressedo a situation hosevery or-ruption xcludes ny dea of justification.he atheistmindwhichlaunchedhe nathemagainst ature, adwantedts ffortorenderabsurd hereproach hich e cannot epressndwhich scapes romhim n spite f himself. is conscience,hought acceptsNature sthe upremenstance, as notyetgiven p themechanismfmoralcategories hich,n his strugglegainstGod,hasbeenfound obeuseful nd necessary.n God his conscienceound engeance. utonceGodhas beenrejected, ismaneuvers undone ythediscoveryofperpetual otion. incethenotion f movementbsorbs ll ideaofannihilationhatgoes beyond simplemodificationfmatter'sforms, an an no longer eply youtrage owhathe considers a-ture's utrage;man feelshe is unavenged.We see anotheractorevelopingn Almani's tatement.ts effectis to showus that vil appearsnhisspeech nly s a simple ermadequate or ranslatinghe ffectf henaturalynamismithwhichthe cientist's ind opes o identifytself.Whatwe see inAlmani'sresolve o copy he"foul eeds" fNature s an effortt reconcilia-tionwith niversal rder r, better, ith niversal isorder. s hisindignationxpressests astonishment,uriositynd the desire oknow ecomemanifest;hemind endsmore nd more owardson-sideringtself s an integral art f Nature,which as nowbecomethedomain f its nvestigations.f minddiscoversn natural he-nomena, otonly lind nd necessaryaws, ut lso itsownpurpose- andtherebycoincidencef tspurposewith hosenatural he-nomena then hose henomenaillbelong o itas so many ug-gestions hichmindmust ringnto eality."Punishmentsre alwaysproportionateo the crime, nd crimesarealways roportionateotheamountf nformationossessed ytheguilty arty: heFlood presupposesxtraordinaryrimes ndthose rimes resupposehatwe possess nformationnfinitelyreaterthanwhatwe really ave."Theseare Joseph e Maistre's ommentsonoriginalin.What should iketoemphasizeere or ater se isthe deaofa crime-informationelationship,notiontrikinglyepre-sentednSade'sthoughtndevenmore trikinglynthat fcertainof hisheroes.fknowledgendsup by becoming crime,whatwecallcrimemust ontainhekey o knowledge. s a result,t s onlyby xtendinghe phere fcrimeurtherndfurtherhatmind,each-ing hose xtraordinaryrimes, ill ecoverts ostknowledge thatknowledgehichs infinitelyreaterhanwhatwe possess.

68


10/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIPossessed by such dispositions,ade will push materialistictheismto a point where t will be investedwith the formof a truly rans-cendental atalism.We see an exampleofthis ntheSystem f Natureset forth ythe Pope inhislongdiscussionwithJuliette. ere Sade'sthought eterminedlyets way from ts human conditionn order oattemptntegration ith mythicalosmogony theonlychanceithas,apparently,fgettingwayfrom hetrialwhere tstands s muchaccused as itwas at thebeginningf its efforts.n vain Sade seeksajudgewho will acquit him,and does thiseventhoughhe has with-drawn he udge'scompetence n therealm ofhumanmorality.Sade first fall admitsof the existence f an original nd eternalNaturewhoexistsoutside he realmof thethreekingdoms f speciesand ofcreatures theanimal,vegetable, nd mineral]."Were Natureto findherself ubjectto other aws,the creatureswho are the resultofherpresentawswouldno longer xist." Naturewould stillexist,thoughunderdifferentaws. "Creatures,neither eautifulnor goodnorvaluable,"are the result nlyof blind aws. Nature createsmanin spite ofherself; he creates aws specially pplicableto menand,from hatpoint on, she has no further ontrol verhim.At thebe-ginning f thePope's speech, hisNature s seen as beingentirely is-tinct romman'snature;butthoughmanis no longerdependent nthis originalNature,he still cannotescape from he laws which areproperlyhis: the laws of self-preservationnd procreation.Theselaws,moreover, re in no way necessary o Nature, and this is thefirstndication f his irrelevancewithin he core of theuniverse.Hecan quadruplehis species or annihilate tcompletely ithout he uni-verse'sfeeling he slightesthange.Here Sade sees Naturebecomingawareof thecompetitor erown movement as raised up:

Ifmanmultiplies is species,he is right ccording o his ownlights; f he destroyshis species,he is, by the same lights,wrong;but in Nature's eyes all this s changed. f he multi-plies, he is wrongbecause he takes away fromNature thehonorof a newphenomenonincethe result f the awswhichgovernhim is necessarily ew creatures. f thosewho havebeen ssuedforth o not propagate, aturewill ssue forth ewonesand willenjoy a facultyhe no longerhas ...In multiplying, an, incehe follows law inherentnlytohim,doesdecidedharm to thenaturalphenomenawhich are withinNature'scapacity. Foreseeingthe conflict, ade modifieshis terminologyorender t more ccuratefor a description ftheprocess he wishestodramatize:"If creatures estroy hemselves, hey re right s far asNature s concerned, ortheythencease to make use of a receivedfaculty, utnot of an imposed aw,and commitNatureto thenecessi-tyofdeveloping ne of hermostbeautiful aculties

69


11/21

Yale FrenchStudiesMultiplicationf the species is no longerconsidered o be a lawwhich he creature annotget away from; t is onlya facultywhich

competeswithNature's riginal aculty.More andmore, s the peechgetsmoredeeply nto tsdescription f theconflict, ature,first d-mitted s a forceobeyingblind laws, reveals herself s havingpur-pose: she is creative volution. ade says openlythatman, n pro-pagating r by not destroying imself, inds Nature to thesecondarylaws ofthe pecies and deprivesher of her greatest otential.Nature,if she thereby inds erselfhe first lave to herown aws, seemsonlymoreaware of it and manifests ith ven greatermpetuousness hedesireto break the chains of her aws:Doesn't she show us to whatextent ur multiplicationisturbsher . . how much she would like once more to escape bydestroying ur procreative bility . . doesn't she prove thisto us by the afflictions ithwhich he ceaselessly verwhelmsus, by the divisions nd dissensions he sows in our midst ..by this tendency owardsmurderwithwhich she inspires sat every nstant . . Consequently, hosemurderswhich ourlaws punish o rigorously,hose murderswhichwe assume tobe thegreatest utragewhichone can do to Nature,not only,as you can see, do herno wrongbut cannot do herwrong;rather hey become useful to her outlook since we see herimitating hem o often nd since it is certain hatshe doesso only because she hopes for the total annihilation f thecreatures he has issued forth n order the betterto enjoyherfaculty f creatingnew ones. The greatest coundrel nearth, he abominable nd ferocious nd barbarousmurdereris thusonlytheorgan of her aws . . . only the motivepowerof herwishes,and the surest gent of her caprices.

In thesepages we see the dimensions f the pathwhich Sadian manhas traversed romhis theology f a Being supreme n its wicked-ness to thisconception fNature. We saw himat first ccepting heexistence fGod in order to declare God guilty nd to take advan-tage of God's everlastinguilt; ater we saw him confusing his Godwitha no less ferociousNature, but still keepinghimselfon theside of moral categories.But the satanization f Nature was onlypreparing or the iquidation f moral categories.The conception fa Nature which aspires to recaptureher highestpotential ignifiesin effect he dehumanization f- ade's thought-a dehumanizationwhichnow takes on theform f a singularmetaphysics.f Sade, incontradistinctiono what he habitually ffirms,ow goes so far asto consider man entirelydistinctfrom Nature, it is primarilynorderto emphasizebetter profoundack of harmony etweenthenotionof the human beingand the notion of the universe.Eager toreclaimhis own rights, e is also eager to explain that the extent

70


12/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIofNature'sffortsust e measuredn direct roportiono thatackofharmony.n Sade'sattemptemightlso see his will oseparatehimselfrommanby mposingn himselfhecategoricalmperativeof a cosmic ituation hich emands he annihilationf all that shuman.Withoutoubt, hat ade s tryingo do is declare issepara-tion rom Naturewhichsthe lave fherown aws-and todo sowithout ature's nowingbout t. But though ature, s it is saidelsewheren the ystem f Pope Pius VI, uses thismeans orecoverherpowers, erwork n making opulationserish rom ime otimefromllness, ataclysms,ars, nd discord,r from rimes f scoun-drels, ctually orks nly o the profitf that econdary ature fthe threekingdoms hich re ruledby the'laws of a perpetualmetempsychosis.venwere heto sendoutgreat riminalsrgreatplagues apableof annihilatinghethree ingdoms,hewouldonlycommit nothermpotentct.To bring bout their isappearance,Naturewouldhavetodestory erselfotally,ndshe doesnothavethatkindof mastery.

Thus he coundrel's urdersot nly elpNature ttain oalsshe would therwiseever ulfil ut also aid the aws whichthekingdomseceived longwith heirnitial mpetus. sayat their irstmpetusn order o facilitate nderstandingfmy ystem;ince here asreally ocreationndsinceNatureis eternal,he mpetuss given erpetuallyndlastsas longas there re beings. he impetus ould nd when herewereno more reaturesnd at thatpointwouldfavor therm-petuseswhichwouldbe thosedesired y nature; utNaturewillonly rrive t thatpointwhen here s a totaldestruc-tionof the goal towardswhich rimes end.The result fthis ituations that criminal ho might e able to over-whelm he three ingdomsll at once by annihilatinghemand their roductiveaculties ouldbe the ndividual hohad best ervedNature . .

A too perfect armony ouldhave evenmoredrawbackshandis-order;fwar, iscord,nd crimes ere o be banished rom he arth,the mindof the threekingdoms,urned o the greatest iolence,would hen estroyll the theraws fNature.Theheavenlyodieswould ll stop, he nfluences ouldbesuspended ecause of the unbalancingominion f one ofthem; herewouldno longer e either he force f gravityor ofmotion, hus t is that hecrimes f men,disturbingthe power f the threekingdoms revent hatpowerfromarrivingt a point f dominance nd maintainhatperfectequilibriumntheuniverse hichHorace calledrerum on-

71


13/21

Yale French Studiescordiadiscors. rime s thereforeecessary o the world;and themost sefulrimes re thosewhich reate hegreatestdisturbance: refusalo propagatend destruction. . theseare examples fcrimes ssentialo Nature . . [Yet] enoughcrimeswillnever e committedn this arth o satiateNa-ture's urninghirstor hem.

Sade soars directlyntomyth. he philosophyf his century olonger ufficesnce tbecomes question f resolvinghe problemraisedby cruelty. s wehave ust seen,he would ike to integratecrueltynto universalystemhere t wouldbe broughto itspurestate y recoveringts cosmic unction.enceforth,assions-fromthe imple assions o thecomplicatednes-have a transcendentalsignificance:fmanbelieves e s satisfyingimselfnbeing bedientto them, e is in realitynly atisfyingn aspiration hich oesbe-yondhisperson.

That murdererelieves e is destroying;e thinks hatheis absorbing. his s sometimeshe startingoint f hisre-morse. et us bring imcomplete ranquillityn that core;and fthe ystem hich have ustdevelopedsnotyetwith-in his grasp, et us prove o himby facts isible o his eyethat e has not ven hehonor fdestroying,hat he nnihila-tion f which eboastswhenhe is healthyndwhich auseshim o tremble henhe is ill, s thoroughlyull, ndthat tis impossibleo achieve ny uccessnhis enterprise.Let us for momentompare heprinciplef ife nd death,whichwilldetermineade's newposition n the problemf destruction,with reud'sdeath nstinct.reud, pposing his nstincto that fEros-the life nstinct-useshe two notions s the basis for hisontologicalheory.WhileFreud onlyenvisagesife at the organiclevel,Sade-much morethe metaphysicianespite ppearances othecontrary-admitsf no differenceetween ife at the organicand norganicevel;hedetaches imselfromllconsiderationshichrelate o the pecies nd to the ocialmilieu n order o offer singleprinciple:

Theprinciplef ife nall beingss no other han hedeathprinciple; e receive hemboth andnourish hemboth atthe same time.At thatmoment e call death, verythingappears odissolve;we believe hisbecauseof theexcessivedifferencehichs then isiblenthis ortionfmatter hichno longer eems live. But thisdeath s only maginary;texists nlyfigurativelynd has no reality.Matter, eprivedof themore ubtle ortionffhatterhich ndowedtwithmotion,s nottherebyestroyed;ll it does is change orm,

72


14/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIbecome corrupt, nd that is alreadya proofof themotionit conserves. t nourishes he earth,fertilizest, and helps intheregenerationftheotherkingdoms s well as in its own.There is, in the end, no difference etweenthe firstifewereceive nd this econd ifewe call death; for he firsts madefrom the matterformed n the woman's womb while thesecond follows the same process: matter s renovated ndreorganized n the earth's ntrails . . The original reationis an example of this: these aws producetheirfirst rogenythrough process of exhaustion; heyproduceotherprogenyonly through estruction.n the first nstance,matters cor-rupted; n the second, t is putrefied.n both processeswe seethe onlycauses of this mmensityf successive reations; heyare nothing ut the initialprinciples f exhaustion nd anni-hilation.

Corruption, utrefaction, issolution, xhaustion, nd annihilation:these are aspects of life's phenomenawhichwillhave a meaningforSade that s as moral as it is physical.Only motion s real; creaturesare nothing ut motion's hangingphases. There is a tempation omake a very autious omparison etween his onception f perpetualmotion and the Hindu doctrine f Samsara. Nature's aspiration oescape fromherself n order o recover n unconditionedtatewouldseemtobe a dreammuch ike thatproposedby the notion fNirvana-at least to the extent hata Westernman has a capacityfor suchdreams. ade, rather hansetting ff n thepath whichSchopenhauersearched or, hrashesuttheoneNietzschewas to follow:theaccept-ance ofSamsara,the eternal eturn f the ame thing.Sadian man-having accepted the notionof a Naturewhich is nomore shrewd n wickedness han the Supreme Being,no more vo-racious than the Minotaur, ut rather nslaved from he start y herownlaws and the first mong the universe's ictims will arrive ta pointwherehe considershimself microcosm f Nature, uffering,like Nature,from is own activity. hat activity, ather han allowingNatureto achieve her highest otential, llows her only to create, odestroy, o create anew, along withher creatures, n a cycle whichprovesher mpotence. he Pope's "System" howsus two competingforces:Nature'saspiration o recoverher highest otential, nd theprinciple f the life and death of the three kingdomswhich s theprinciple f perpetualmotionbringing bout successive reations. nreality, he phenomena re the same. Perpetualmotion s blind, buttheaspiration o escape from he laws of thismotionby destructionand crimedoes no more than show our awarenessofmotion'srole.Sadian manwilldiscoverhis own conflictn thisdualism nd perhapscatchglimpses f a final olution.The problem f the cycliccreation

73


15/21

Yale FrenchStudiesanddestructionosedbyNaturesnotmuch ifferentrom heprob-lem of therealityf others s it appears o hisconscience. ust sNature reatesbstaclesorherselfyherwill ocreate,adianmancreates isneighborut of a willto create imself.e seems odothis utofa need odestroyheother. et he had onceaspiredoabreakwith his ecessity;hroughisaspirationowardsnnocenceehad admittedhe xistencef others nd given hem eality.tillheremainedaddledwith henecessityfdestroying;ndsince e wishedto prolong heexistence f others, e becameguilty t thatverymomentecausehehaddecided oprolonghe thers'xistencenlyin order o destroyhem. ikeNature,which lways nd simultane-ously spires oand renouncestshighest otential,adianmanfacesthequestion fwhether e canrenounce thers ndbe preparedodestroy.Ifcomparison ith heunfortunate a comparison hich emainsindispensablef he ibertines to know appiness presupposesheexistencefhisneighbor,hefirsttep o be taken n thedirectionfa renaturalizationfcruelty ill e todeny herealityfhisneighborandto rid the notion fneighborf itsmeaning.n implyingheneighbor'sxistence,he leasure fcomparisonmplies vil.Love ofneighbor,he himera hich aunted ade, s convertedy the iber-tine onsciencento love-hatredftheneighbor. ere the ibertinemakes mistake,or ove-hatredfhisneighbor,hilethelps iqui-date he ealityfthe ther,iquidatesisownreality.HowcanSadianmanevergiveup hisobject,whichs theother,andaccept estructionnall itspurity,s hemust o ifhe isfaithfultohis dea of a Nature reed rom heneedofcreating?o do so, hemust enounce,ot ust he ther,ut lso his ndividualonditionsa self.In apparentlyolipsisticerms, quantityfstatements ade bySade's charactersmply doctrine hose onclusionsre thoroughlyopposed.Under heguise f a Naturespiringo tshighestotential,thedoctrineakes bsolute ndsovereignesire s its principle. utinthenameof thisprinciple,testablishesetweenhe elf nd theother negativeeciprocity:

Thefalse deaswhichwehaveof the reatures ho urroundus are still he source f an infiniteumber f judgementswhosemoral asis serroneous. e forge himericaluties orourselves here ur relations ith hese reaturesre con-cerned,imply ecause heyhink hey ave imilar uties o-wards s. Ifwe havethe trengtho renouncell thatwe ex-pect romthers,urdutiesowardshemwill e immediatelyannihilated.hat, fterll, are all the arth'sreatureshenmeasuredgainst single neofour desires? ndbywhat

74


16/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIrighthould deprivemyselffthe east fmy esiresnordertoplease creature ho s nothingo me and who holdsnointerest hatsoeverorme . .

Oncethe thers nothing,otonly m no longernythingorhim,but amnothing heremy wn onsciencesconcerned,nd tmakeslittle ifferencehetherheconsciences stillmine.For if breakwith heother n themoral evel, shallalsohave broken,n thelevel fexistence, ithwhat properlym. Atanymoment canfalltothemercy f he ther howill ffer e the ame ort f tatementas myown: Letus havethe trengtho renouncell thatwe expectfrom thers. he wager s pragmatic.et, evenbefore hiskindofstatements made, hereflectiverocesswhich eads to ithas gonemuch urthern ts nvestigations.Themoralnihilism hich ends o suppress wareness foneselfand the ther nthe evel f cts, utwhichmplies ofewerontra-dictions n Sade's part, ppearshere s the astconsequencefhisatheism.n effectadecouldnot imit imselfo denyingheexist-enceofa personal od,theprinciplefa selfwho s responsiblendwho stheguarantorf ade'sown elfhoodndprivacy;emust lsoattack im.Just s we sawhim ttackingheprinciplef the onser-vation nd propagationfthe pecies,we see himnow makingnissue fthenormativerinciplef ndividuationn order o givefreescope o the rosive orces ehas described: heperversionsndab-normalitieshich ndicateheemergence ithinhe ndividualfasensitive olymorphismywhich onsciousndividuationas beenaccomplishedithinndividuals.utfar romeing atisfiedith e-scribinghoseabnormalities,e lends them he eloquence f hisspokesmenhorefutehe xistencefa God,guarantorf henorms,inorder oplead, nthe anguage fthose ery orms,he auseoftheabnormalitieshey ear. Now the supposed bnormalitiesre ab-normalitiesnly o thedegreehat hey reexpressedn this anguage- the anguage f a conscience hich s unable o take account ftheirositive ontent,hat s, of thepositiveolymorphismhich,na negativemannerndinaccordance ith ade'srationalisticermi-nology,emainsributary.erewe are touchingn the ingularela-tionshipetweenade andreason, n the onstantnteractionetweenthe bnormalnd thought,ndonthe ontradictionetween eason'seffortoenunciateniversalsven s itpleads and npleading f-fers n extreme xample freasonreduced xclusivelyo its ownterms thevery pecial ause of abnormality.ut we are at thesame ime ouchingn the dventuref a consciencend are seeingitsmisunderstandingsnd ts nares nce tbegins omeditaten themeaningfthose orceswhich re hostile o individuation. hat tdoes s inverthose orces o that heymaybetransformedntowhat

75


17/21

Yale French Studiesthe gentmostneeds norder o give redibilityohis speech. adeelucidateshis misunderstandingithout eallyresolvingt; and,throughis spokesmen,e disguiseshe snares t contains ndthusprovides heSadianconscience ith omeelasticity.The dose of cruelty ithwhich ature as more r less furnishedeach ndividuals nomore han heother ide ofdesirewithwhicheveryonedentifiesimself,s though e were tsonly gent,nthemomentf nitial warenessf the elf. orat that oint he mpulseto crueltyndangersimwith estructionust s heendangersthers.The manwho asks:what reall the arth's reatures henmeas-ured gainst he east fmydesires?s already hevictim f themis-understanding,heplaythingf an impulsewhich aisesquestionsabout tself. e is individuatedutheresents is ndividuation.heimpulse fdesire an end ts bsoluteharactero the ndividualho,as his part fthebargain,endshis anguage odesirewhich asnolanguage. anguageborrows esire'sviolence ecause violence sscarcenthendividual ho ufferss much romts ackashe wouldlike o seethe theruffer.he results that e turnsgainst he therthe hallenge hich adbeendirectedgainst im: Let us havethestrengthorenounce hatwe expect romthers. he formula er-mits rupture hichompensatesisrhetoricalolipsismybringingback nto uestion isawarenessfhimself.With his s his-oint fdeparture,adeattemptsofindn outletfor henecessityodestroyy a negationf destruction;isconceptof a Naturewhodestroyserownworks ow dentifiesestructionwithhepurityf desire. his s theproposal ontainedn histheoryofapathywhose herapeuticalue s in its capacity o provokeherenunciationf theother's eality,utas a consequence,f his ownreality oo.Thepractise f pathy,s it s suggestedy Sade'scharacters,re-supposed hatwhatwe call soul, conscience,ensitivity,eart, reonlymiscellaneoustructuresroughtbout y a concentrationfthesamedrivingorces. nder ressure romheworld fothers, heseforces an transformhe acultiesntontimidatingnfluences;ut ustas readily, hen nder ressurerom urown nner rives, hey anbecome ubsersivenfluences;neithernstance,heir eactions im-mediate.What emainsonstants thefact hat ur own nner orcesintimidatesat the erymomenthat heymake nsurgentsutofus.

Blot outyour oul . . try o find leasureneverythinghatalarms our eart; rriveuickly. . attheperfectionfthisbrand f stoicism;napathy ouwilldiscover whole rowdofnewpleasures hich re delectablena wayquitedifferentfromhoseyouthinkre foundn the source fyourfatal76


18/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIsensitivity. n the basis of my errors, have establishedprinciples; ince thattime, have knownfelicity.

How does this intimidatingnsurrection,r this insurrectionaln-timidation, ork ts way in us? By imageswhich, eenbeforewe act,inciteus either o act or to suffer cts, and also by images of actswhich,already committed, ome back to us and rekindle he con-science;the conscience heyrekindle s, of course, that faculty s ithas been reconstructed y dormantdrives:On one side there s theimpossibilityf reparations,nd onthe other the impossibilityf figuring ut whichwe shouldhave the greater epentance or. Consciencegrows dizzy andis so silent s to makeus capable of extending rimebeyondthe imits f life.This condition ndicates hatconsciencehasa very pecial qualitywhencomparedwith heothermoods ofthe soul: it can annihilate tselfbecause its operationshavebeen amplified.

Yet elsewhere ade observes hat he same is trueofsensitivity:Anyextension f it leads to its annihilation." hat observation onfirmshim nhisbelief hatthe samedrives re at work n bothstructures,working ither o intimidaterto subvert. hus our awareness four-self and of others s the mostfragile nd the most transparentffunctions. s soon as our impulses ntimidate s bycreating ear orremorse, ither n thebasis of magesof actions erformed r actionsstill o be undertaken, e must ubstitute cts of anykindeach timethe images seemon the verge of becoming ubstitutesor acts or ahindrance o our performinghem.Thus Juliettes encouraged

todo in coldblood the same thingswhich,doneinfrenzy,recapable of making s remorseful. y doingthiswe deal fromstrengthach timevirtue howsher head again,andthishabitofmolesting er n a positiveway, t the momentwhena cer-tain calmin the senses seems to make herreappearance os-sible and desirable, s one of the surestwaysof annihilatingher forever.Use thissecret, t is infallible; s soon as a mo-mentof calm producesvirtue n the guise ofremorse andthat s always the guiseshe uses in order to recapture sas soon as thathappens, mmediately o thethingyou werethinkingbout withregret..

How can this practise of apathy become a viable method for theachievementf "voluptuous oughness"?Nothingwould seem morecontradictoryn Sade thanthisbreak withotherswhen the result ftheaboltion of our dutiestowardsothersand theirconsequent x-77


19/21

Yale French Studiesclusion rom ursensitivitys translatedlearly nd constantlyyacts which, ecause ftheir iolence, eed theother actswhichbytheir ery ature eestablishherealityftheothernd ofmyself.If theother s no longernythingorme,and f am nothingorthe other, ow can these cts be performedince, n effect,heywould urn utto be the cts fa nothingna nothing?Inorderhat his othingever gain e filledymy ealityndtherealityf he ther,hroughhepresenceither f njoymentrofre-morse, must isappearnan endless eiterationf ctswhich run hedanger f regrettingecause,when hey re suspended,he realityof theother mposes tself n me once again. also run herisk foverestimatinghem ecauseof the enjoymenthey ringme. Therisk s there nce takecredit or hat njoymentrthat egret,ronce give redit or t to theotherwhomaybe its ource.Saint-Fond,heperfectype f theperverseibertineho has notgot beyond he stageofnegative eeling orhis fellowmen,failsin his fidelityo this necessity y allowinghis victim s muchrealitys he allowshimself.n effect,isconsciences intimidatedby ts' wn mpulses;nly his an explain iswish o pursue isvic-tim always hesame victim throughoutternity.is self-awarenessunctionsn termsftheawareness e continuesohaveofhisvictim'self-awarenessnmomentsfsuffering,self-aware-ness whichmakes hevictimn accomplicen thedelightsf thetorturer.What s thepurpose ehind hisreiterationf similar ctswhichis dictated y themoral ttitudef apathy? ade clearly nderstoodthedifficultyven n thosemoments henhewas unable o resolvethedilemma: he enjoymenthich egative ontactwith heotherprocures orme shouldbe anticipateduiteas much s remorse.Remorse ere s only he other ide of enjoyment,ndthetwo areonly ifferentormsfbehavior hich ave heirourcesn the amedrives.Henceforthctsshouldnot be informedy that njoymentwhichs procured ytheparticularualities f a single victim,"utonly y thenegation f theobjectwhich rovokesuch cts.And norder hatthis reiteration ay validate negation f destructionitself toa pointwheret s emptiedfall content thenumberofreiteratedcts and the quantityf sacrificedbjectsbecomeofcapital mportance.uantityepreciateshevalueof objects; uanti-tyundermines y ealitynd that ftheother. husthemoral rin-ciple fapathy, hich rovokeshegreatestisturbancenthedrives,tried ocreate coincidencefthedisturbanceithn equally trongwariness esigned oguaranteehepurity f thedisturbance.f thehabit fapathys torender he ndividualapableof doing n coldblood actswhichwouldhave broughtemorse hendone n a mo-ment ffrenzy, similar rocess ouldbe found orvice; with he

78


20/21

PIERRE KLOSSOWSKIresult hatvirtuewould neverhave a chance to make us remorseful."In virtue'sname you will no longerconceiveof repenting,ecauseyou will have grown ccustomed o doing evil in answerto virtue'sreappearance nd in order o do evilno longeryouwouldprevent erfrom ver appearing . . "Could this be the solution o the dialecticaldramavisible n theSadian conscience? The answer dependson an answer to a moredifficultuestion: Can the conscience f Sadian man acceptany solu-tion?To get beyondthenotionof evil,which s alwaysconditionedby the degreeof realityhe accords to others,we have seen Sadianman carrythe exaltation f the ego to its height;yet the height fthisexaltationwas supposed to be found n apathywhere the egoabolished tself imultaneously ith the other,whereenjoyment is-associated itselffrom destruction, nd where destruction dentifieditselfwithdesire n its pure form. n thisway, the Sadian consciencereproducesn its own operations heperpetualmotion f naturewhichcreatesbut which, ncreating, ets up obstaclesforherself. he onlyway she recoversher liberty, ven momentarily,s by destroyingerown works.(This essay, which appears herein slightly educed form,was pub-lished as one of the prefaces o the Cercle du Livreprecieux ditionof Les 120 Journe'es e Sodome. Grateful cknowledgements madeforthe right o translate nd reproduce.)

79


21/21

Yale French tudie

VirtuebetweenLust and Irreligion,ngraving rom he 1884 LiseuxeditionfJustine.BeineckeRare Book andManuscript ibrary,Yale80

95612377 a Destructive Philosophy Klossowski

Documents