>This world was created from God's fear of solitude. In other words, us, the creatures, have no other meaning but to distract the Creator. Poor clowns of the absolute, we forget that we live dramas for the boredom of a spectator, whose claps have never reached the ears of a mortal.
Probably would have been astute over 200 years ago. Now, just seems like quaint rephrasing of a highly famous line in King Lear. Not remarkable in today's world. In fact, quite mediocre.
>>7420839
>>7420847
The phrasing of Cioran's thoughts is where the substance lies entirely. You're missing the point. The authorial intent is not to philosophize.
>>7420848
>I don't need any support, advice, or compassion, because even if I am the most ruinous man, I still feel so powerful, so strong and fierce. For I am the only one that lives without hope.
You can't fuck with Cioran.
what a fucking drama queen
>>7420883
>Only those are happy who never think or, rather, who only think about life's bare necessities, and to think about such things means not to think at all. True thinking resembles a demon who muddies the spring of life or a sickness which corrupts its roots. To think all the time, to raise questions, to doubt your own destiny, to feel the weariness of living, to be worn out to the point of exhaustion by thoughts and life, to leave behind you, as symbols of your life's drama, a trail of smoke and blood - all this means you are so unhappy that reflection and thinking appear as a curse causing a violent revulsion in you
>>7420855
This is so vague as to be completely useless. I get that you feel slighted and that you have to somehow defend yourself, but this is weak.
>The phrasing of Cioran's thoughts is where the substance lies entirely.
This means absolutely nothing. It's like saying "The words put into that sequence is where one derives the true meaning." It's like some line you pulled out of an all-purpose "Specious Rebuttal Rolodex".
>You're missing the point.
Glib, ignorable comment that explains nothing but designed to negate my post—on what grounds? Doesn't matter. Just gotta defend yourself.
>The authorial intent is not to philosophize.
No one said it was.
So is Cioran one of those philosophers who assume that the entire world is feeling as shitty as them, but are just in denial about it? Why can't they just accept that they're of an unfortunate constitution?
>>7420896
I'm not OP, I didn't make this thread. I am not Cioran, and even if I were, I would not feel slighted. What I am is irritated by your condescension. Your claim was baseless, particularly considering you don't even understand the intent of his art. Yes, ART, not academic writing.
I think you're the one with self esteem issues you pedantic fuck. Now if you want to really discuss, be nice, as opposed to deconstructing my anonymous post. I didn't mean to offend you. Your initial post may as well be as vague as mine too. How's grad school?
>>7420897
Cioran isn't a philosopher, he is a lyricist.
>>7420953
He's neither.
>>7420953
ie he is the early 20th century equivalent of the fat goth writing lame faux-suicidal poetry on her tumblr
>>7420839
laughable notions there, especially when attributing mortal qualities to prime absolute principle that engenders existence while being beyond existence itself
>>7420960
It's how he got his meals. That's a part of it.
>>7420960
yeah but more maudlin
it's very obviously meant to be funny
Does anyone else here believe in antinatalism?
>>7420839
>Poor clowns of the absolute, we forget that we live dramas for the boredom of a spectator, whose claps have never reached the ears of a mortal.
Reads like Cormac McCarthy desu
>>7420960
Point me to those well-written tumblrs, I want to read them
>>7420855
Are you trying to say that nihilism is such a ridiculous notion that only a brilliant stylist can make something out of it?
Because I agree.
>>7421053
Antinatalism is without a doubt the only matter worth discussing in ethics and morality, but very few peoplec want to take morality to its logical conclusion and the ones that do (Cioran, Zappfe, Ligotti, etc.) are derided as sad sacks and losers.
There is a reason for this. If everyone was an antinatalist we would not be here to discuss it. Just like any other animal, reproductive drive has been heavily selected for in humans but, unlike most animals, we also have all of the mental gymnastics and rationalizations that scramble to justify why we do what we do. Few people stop to consider the moral ramifications of reproduction and even fewer decide that having children is morally repugnant.
Most will use a multitude of excuses, "I want to continue my legacy" or some such self-serving nonsense, and whatever rationalization is used for justifying being a slave to your DNA is always more important than the happiness and agency of your hypothetical children.
People are born, engage in a bunch of bullshit, have kids, and then die, usually having accomplished little and will quickly be forgotten even by their grandchildren. But all of this is justified because nobody wants to see past their own desperate clinging to life, nobody wants to see that it's less of an individual choice and more of a strongly selected-for biological trait, and more importantly nobody wants to be seen as a sad sack. There are things to buy and selfies to take and bitches to fuck.
