RSS
埃米尔·乔兰（Emil Cioran）， De l’inconvénient d’être né （巴黎：Gallimard，1973 年）。
Growing up in France, I was never attracted to Emil Cioran’s nihilist and pessimistic aesthetic as a writer. Cioran was sometimes presented to us as unflinchingly realistic, as expressing something very deep and true, but too dark to be comfortable with. I recently had the opportunity to read his De l’inconvénient d’être né (On the Trouble with Being Born) and feel I can say something of the man.
The absolutely crucial fact, the elephant in the room, the silently screaming subtext concerning Cioran is that he had been in his youth a far-Right nationalist, penning positive appraisals of 阿道夫·希特勒 and a moving ode to the murdered Romanian mystic-fascist leader Cornelius Zelea Codreanu. Cioran had hoped for the “transfiguration” of Romania into a great nation through zeal and sacrifice. Instead, you got utter defeat and Stalinist tyranny and retardation. I’d be depressed too.
A perpetual question for me is: 为什么 did such great intellectuals (we could add Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Ezra Pound, Knut Hamsun, Mircea Eliade . . .) support the “far-Right”? This is often not so clear because the historical record tends to be muddied both by apologetics (“he didn’t really support them”) and anathemas (“aha! You see! He’s a bad man!”). Like 约翰·托兰德, I don’t want to condemn or praise, I just want to understand: Why did he believe in this? Was it:
- Fear of communism?
- Skepticism towards democracy and preference for a stable, spirited regime? (That argument was very popular among thinking men in the 1920s, even the notorious 库登霍夫-卡勒吉伯爵, spiritual godfather of the European Union, supported Italian Fascism on these grounds!)
- Racialism?
- 反犹太主义？
- Opposition to decadence?
- The dangerous propensity of many intellectuals for ecstatic spasms and mystical revolutions?
In Cioran’s case, his Right-wing sentiment appears to have been motivated by 1), 2), 4) 5), and perhaps especially 6).
After the war, Cioran renounced his Right-wing past. This may have been motivated by understandable revulsion at the horrors of the Eastern Front and the concentration camps. In any event, this was certainly not a disinterested move. Mircea Eliade – a fellow supporter of Codreanu who later thrived as a historian of religions at the University of Chicago, infiltrating the academy with Traditionalists – wrote of Cioran in his diary on September 22, 1942: “He refuses to contribute anything to German newspapers, in order not to compromise himself in the eyes of his French friends. Cioran, like all the others, foresees the fall of Germany and the victory of Communism. This is enough to detach him from everything.”[1]Mircea Eliade， The Portugal Journal (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2010), 35.
There had been a thriving far-Right French literary and intellectual scene, with writers who often had had both a fascist and pan-European sensibility. The 解放 in 1944 put an end to that: Robert Brasillach was executed by the Gaullist government during the 净化 (Purge) despite the protestations of many fellow writers (including André Malraux and Albert Camus), Pierre Drieu La Rochelle committed suicide, and Lucien Rebatet was jailed for seven years and blacklisted.
As literally an 爱国者 metic (he would lose his Romanian citizenship in 1946), Cioran, then, did not have much of a choice if he wished to exist a bit in postwar French intellectual life, which went from the fashionable Marxoid Jean-Paul Sartre on the left to the Jewish liberal-conservative Raymond Aron on the right. (I actually would speak highly of Aron’s work on modernity as measured, realistic, and empirical, quite refreshing as far as French writers go. Furthermore he was quite aware of Western decadence and made a convincing case for the culturally-homogeneous nation-state as “the political masterpiece.”) Although Cioran had written several bestsellers in his native Romania, he had to adapt to a French environment or face economic and literary oblivion. What’s an apology secured under coercion actually worth?
This is the context in which we must read De l’inconvénient d’être né. These are the obsessive grumblings of a depressed insomniac. (Cioran’s more general mood swings between lyrical ecstasy and doom-and-gloom suggest bipolar disorder.) His aphorisms often ring true, but equally tend to be hyperbolic or exaggerated, and are almost always negative, like a demotivational Nietzsche. In some respects 最好 to Nietzsche, insofar as the great explosion the German hysteric foresaw is past us, and his brand of barbaric politics seems quite impossible in this century. Cioran, like Nietzsche and Spengler, knows that nihilism and decadence are the order of the day, but living in the 战后时代, he can certainly no longer hope that “blond beasts” or “Caesarism” might still save us. Cioran in this sense is more relatable, he is talking about 我们的世界.
Cioran despairs at the inevitable mediocrity of human beings and the vain temporality of the human condition. (What’s the point of even a good feeling or event, if this event will, in a second, disappear and only exist in my memory, which will in turn disappear? This will no doubt have occurred to thoughtful, angsty teenagers.) Birth, 实施例, is the first tragedy – like the fall of man – from a perfect non-existence, with limitless potentiality, to a flawed and stunted being.
Jean-François Revel observes: “Imagine Pascal’s mood if he had learned that he had lost his bet, and you’ll have Cioran.”
A question: Was Cioran’s despair more motivated by being a Rightist spurned by destiny or by his own dark temperament? Would he have written such works in a triumphant Axis Europe?
Cioran is like a Buddha (the spiritual figure most often cited in De l’inconvénient) who stopped halfway, that is to say, at nihilism and despair. But Siddhartha Gautama went further, from the terrifying recognition of our impermanent and insubstantial experiential reality, to a new mental state, reconciled with this reality, to the path of sovereignty and freedom.
Had I been able to meet him, I’d have invited Cioran to my Zendō – where speaking, indeed all expression of human stupidity, is formally banned through the most truthful silence. And how good is truth for the soul!
The Way of Awakening is not found in books.
Actually, Cioran’s Buddhist connection should be dug into. The Zen monk 大战德丸 was in Paris passing on the Dharma to Europe at exactly the same time, in the 1970s.
My initial response to De l’inconvénient was annoyance that it had been written (I can quite understand Alain Soral’s frustration with Cioran). The postwar Cioran can certainly seem like an umpteenth authorized manifestation of the ‘glamorously aesthetic’ French 颓废 intellectual, the misunderstood genius, the starving artist, who is just way ‘too deep’ for his own good or for you plebs to grasp.
I remember his 1941 在法国, a perversely playful 颂 至 颓废 法国 (those three words together disgust me), as an ostensibly appalling little work. France 才不是 need any more encouragement on the downward path.
Cioran certainly has a morbid fascination with spiritual rot.
The Germans of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were already quite right to want to preserve themselves from the contagion of French decadence (oh sure, there’s a 直线 of 文化 止 the “Indo-Germans” 至 Frederick the Great’s Prussia); right up to the May-June 1940 editions of 信号 understatedly mocking the infertile French with photographs of fez- and turban-wearing Negro and Mohammedan 战俘. (Apologies for not providing a direct link to the relevant 信号 issues, apparently our historians have still not got around to digitizing this publication, peak circulation 2.5 million in 1943.)
Sorry, krauts, it came anyway through the North-American route!
De l’inconvénient initially reinforced my impression that the postwar Cioran was not worth reading. However, there are some hopeful diamonds in the despairing rough. Some of Cioran’s aphorisms are actually quite inspiring, such as the following: “Any overcoming of desire empowers us. We have all the more control over this world as we take our distance from it, when we do not commit to it. Renunciation confers limitless power” (p. 44). (And let us bear in mind again Eliade’s paraphrase above, that it was the prospect of German defeat and communist triumph which was “enough to detach him from everything.”)[2]Note: detachment does not mean 投降. For those who do not understand, I recommend the 巴格瓦吉塔是， 叶隐, D. T. Suzuki’s explication of “the Way of the Sword” in 禅与日本文化, or indeed watching the countenance of the faces of men about to strike their opponent in Akira Kurosawa’s classic film 七武士.
On one level, Cioran’s work is a legitimate expression of the depths of postwar despair. From the psychological point of view, man really was (and is still, despite a few flickers) sinking more and more into untruth, into materialism and consumerism and ‘choice,’ into a childish view of life, one not cognizant of our nature as mortal, social, and unequal beings. All the truths contained in our dying traditions, however imperfect the latter were, are forgotten.
Amidst the politically-harmless mass of depressing and demotivational thoughts, Cioran sneaks in some very true observations about 废. This shows, as plainly as anything, that he remained a man of the Right in his heart.
I believe Cioran provides a key to understanding his nihilist work in this book, namely:
We get a grip on ourselves, and we commit all the more to being, by reacting against nay-saying, corrosive books [livres négateurs, dissolvants], against their noxious power. These are, in short, books that fortify, because they summon the energy which contradicts them. The more poison they contain, the greater their salutary effect, as long as we read them against the grain, as we should read any book, starting with the catechism. (p. 97)
Cioran is putting forth a challenge to be overcome: taste the depths of my despair, truly contemplate and acknowledge the futility of life . . . What is your answer?
Cioran’s books: contemplation of the void . . . a summoning.
I find Cioran both uncomfortable and 刺激, clamoring for more, eager to discover and accomplish more. Fecund stimulation is most important, whether in reading, work, or life. (For that reason I also recommend reading Ezra Pound’s non-fiction.)
Cioran’s nihilist and depressing aesthetic will not appeal to everyone or even to most. But if that’s how a man builds up his brand and sells his books, who am I to judge? Especially if you can sneak in some subversive truths. (In this respect, Cioran reminds me of Michel Houellebecq, one of the last manifestations of French culture. All this goes back to Socrates-as-satyr.)
Still, we observe that many men of the Right took a more straightforward route: Maurice Bardèche avenged his brother-in-law Brasillach’s execution by continuing to write in favor of fascism, Julius Evola always stood up for the Axis and for Tradition, Dominique Venner wrote as a historian, Europe’s living memory, and committed his own 切腹, as a sacrifice to the gods . . .
Each man fights in his own way. Again, who am I to judge?
[1] Mircea Eliade， The Portugal Journal (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2010), 35.
[2] Note: detachment does not mean 投降. For those who do not understand, I recommend the 巴格瓦吉塔是， 叶隐, D. T. Suzuki’s explication of “the Way of the Sword” in 禅与日本文化, or indeed watching the countenance of the faces of men about to strike their opponent in Akira Kurosawa’s classic film 七武士.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
如果你想通过读萧沆的一部作品来了解他，请选择他的作品 Cahiers.
谢谢你的提示！
耶稣基督是真理、道路和生命。 唯有祂能拯救我们，而祂是创造我们的。 拒绝他是绝望，从存在堕入非存在。 救恩可以在祂的教会，即圣正教会中找到。
最近重读萧沆，我现在的想法是，仅仅是对法西斯主义的失望导致了他的战后虚无主义。 直到 1940 年，他才写了科德里亚努的赞美诗，甚至在 1960 年代的一篇文章中对希特勒进行了侧面赞扬。 如果德国赢得了战争，我相当肯定他会成为一名宣传员。 他的情况与意大利意识形态变形者库尔齐奥·马拉帕特（Curcio Malaparte）的情况相似。 诚然，他的虚无主义出现在 1930 年代（“在绝望的高度”），但我认为如果历史发生了不同的变化，他会将其埋葬在一种尼采式的活力论之下。
I went through a Cioran phase and found some of his aphorisms marvelous. But I agree with G.D. that ultimately they aren’t worth the time. Partly, you have to be suspicious of someone who tells you that things are so bad but nevertheless both doesn’t kill himself and continues to labor on his little works. I probably shouldn’t mention the two together, but I feel the same way about Oscar Wilde’s witticisms; they charm me at first but soon seem empty and pointless (although I don’t feel the same about The Portrait of Dorian Gray).
有趣的信息。 感谢您的评论！
Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Ezra Pound, Knut Hamsun, Mircea Eliade . . . – and many many more including many Catholic conservative thinkers. Mostly forgotten. We need an anthology. We need to relearn their thoughts became fascism is the only future that can save us. The future of liberal world is not worth living.
Guillaume, thanks. I’d never heard of Cioran, but there are a few works of his in our local university library.
“Skepticism towards democracy and preference for a stable, spirited regime?” Well, I’m sort of in that camp, but I don’t think we have much of a democracy at all to begin with.
We actually have something of a “soft fascism” in the States, in my opinion, comprising the “Council of 25,000”, the political lobbies that write the legislation and regulations and play the senior partner in their relations with Congress.
What’s missing in America’s fascism is the human touch. Our version is just a money racket for the high rollers. No high-flown rhetoric to emphasize our common American-ness, our commonality as citizens. At street level, the Americans I know speak in empty and very guarded political cliches–mostly.
萧沆……有人能告诉我他的姓在英语中的发音吗？ 提前致谢。
Chaw rhan（重音在最后一个音节上。）
我想罗马尼亚在二战中把她的屁股交给她与这无关。 羞辱性的军事失败（更不用说导致失败的非常错误的决定）可能会导致一个人对意识形态感到失望。 地缘政治、军事和经济现实很糟糕。
In Cioran’s defence – everyone was doing it at the time.
Take these tidbits from none other than Winston Fucking Churchill:
和
和
Or this, from Lloyd George (after the re-annexation of the Rhineland):
Or this, from Anthony Eden (to his wife) in 1934, after meeting Hitler:
Eden’s comment in particular is worth considering, given that he was a known for being a man of refined sensibilities (as opposed to the syphilitic inbred half-American Churchill). To gain a proper impression as to whether Eden was ‘just being gentlemanly’: he took an immediate and visceral dislike to Mussolini, who he considered “a complete gangster” and “the Anti-Christ”.
Later on, of course, the Poles refused to cede the Danzig Corridor (content in the knowledge that if Germany took it back by force, both France and England would declare war on Germany, which they did0. At that point, Churchill had to do a π/2 (180°) turn and demonise Hitler – and since Churchill was a sociopath with literally zero principles, he had no moral qualms about doing so (and consigning a hundred million people to die, and handing 300 million people to Stalin at Yalta).
WWII – like WWI – can be laid at the feet of people like Churchill. As can the Cold War.
Yawn… give it another 10-20 years, and the mythic nature of the Jeebus stories will be accepted – just as the mythic nature of the Moses stories now are: the “Moses is Myth” hypothesis was absolutely heterodox as recently as the late 80s – but by 1995 it was the ‘scholarly consensus’.
希望人们会闭嘴，说一个失败的、虚构的、一世纪反叛的犹太人是如何成为道路、真理和生命的。
It’s not even good poetry – it reads like the sort of turgid pseudo-profound twaddle one might expect to find in the diaries of SJW/NPC teenagers and Twilight fans.
“After the war, Cioran renounced his Right-wing past. This may have been motivated by understandable revulsion at the horrors of the Eastern Front and the concentration camps.”
Please tell us what you think those “horrors” were. Then present proof of them.
Or are you just reciting what you are told to recite?
Kratoklastes: It has been fashionable to announce the imminent death of Christianity since the 1880’s. (It seems that’s the decade you are living in intellectually. This is very common among TV-watching Americans.) Even your hero Sigmund got on the bandwagon! Evidently you are expecting some sort of materialist’s retribution for the Fall of The Berlin Wall, the surging of Christianity in China despite systematic government persecution, the slow-motion collapse of the so-called “European Union,” the “Yellow Vests” in France, and other developments which have infuriated and perplexed you. Just keep watching CNN until the end. It will assuage your misery to some degree.
当苏联占领比萨拉比亚和北布科维纳时，罗马尼亚就做出了这一选择（26 月 30 日的最后通牒）。这是其他国家提出要求并接受的触发因素——匈牙利于 7 月 XNUMX 日，保加利亚于 XNUMX 月 XNUMX 日（后者是根据预先谈判的条约）。
安东内斯库于 6 月 14 日成为独裁者； 21月XNUMX日，当地法西斯分子签名支持他。XNUMX月XNUMX日，同样的法西斯分子刺杀了总理，这是上述所有事情发生在反法西斯政府统治下的最好证据。
罗马尼亚人并不是为了攻击苏联而攻击苏联。一年前，苏联首先在比萨拉比亚签署《里宾特洛甫-莫洛托夫条约》，并提出要求。苏联人甚至不关心罗马尼亚的立场。他们只是想要土地。
我怀疑罗马尼亚历史上是否有过很多领导层自行做出决定的时刻。也许是 1912 年？
萧沆整个三十年代的兴奋是由真诚的信念所激发的，但他的信念又得到了未经选举产生的腐败政府的强化，这些政府给他、埃利亚德和其他类似的人带来了很多麻烦。在大多数人无法进入医院和领取养老金的时代，萧沆是一位接受国家资助的哲学家。当车轮转动的时候，谁不会心烦意乱呢？
It’s not clear why you think that the continued 存在 of a thing, is the same as the thing not having vastly-reduced social power.
Times were (and not so long ago) that being an atheist meant exclusion from being able to give evidence in a court (or be on a jury) or to hold public office. Nowadays, only the most retard-infested shitholes in the world retain that sort of rule (parts of Africa, and the dumber parts of the US).
Times were (as recently as 1980 in my jurisdiction) that religiously-inspired laws against homosexuality resulted in gay men being imprisoned. Nowadays, half the fucking priesthood has been exposed as closet benders (if not actual closet chiuld-rapists). [Best story of the week: ‘gay conversion therapy’ Jesus-freak charlatan quits in order to be totally gay]
Times were, that women stupid enough to maintain membership in “the Church” were consigned to life as breeding sows. Nowadays “the Church” can’t attract more than about 5% of women who finish high school, and the average age of a Catholic nun is ~73.
Times were, that if you entrusted your child to “the Church”, you exposed your child to a 500-fold increase in the risk of child-rape, with almost zero probability of the perpetrator being brought to justice. Nowadays, the Vatican’s “money guy” just got found guilty of fucking children.
TL;DR: these things take time – the job’s maybe half-finished, but folks like me have irrevocably broken the spine of “the Church” as an organ of social power in the West. The oxen is slow, but the mountain has patience，就像这样。
Ask yourself how long it took “the Church” to suppress the Arian heresy – then compare that to how long anti-theists in the West have had legally-unrestrained freedom of action. We’ve had less than a generation to really ‘swing the arms’, and now “the Church” is just a massive property portfolio with a paedophile network in a management role.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it is only in the mid-90s that the scholarly consensus was forced – by overwhelming evidence – to accept the mythicist hypothesis as it relates to Moses, the Patriarchs, and most of the rest of the Old Testament (bear in mind that in the 1940s, the OT was the supposed doctrinal basis for granting a bunch of Eurotrash the ‘right’ to invade Palestine).
The final acceptance of the non-historicity of Jesus, is simply another step to forcing nonsense out of social power: by the end of this century, even politicians will not see any benefit to invoking the name of anyone’s Special Imaginary Sky-Monster.
Christianity is growing in China because that’s where the poor, ignorant peasants are (along with South America, Africa, and the US Bible Belt): it’s pretty much the same list of backwards places where dumb-fucks who are taking upo smoking while the rest of the world is giving it up as a very bad idea.
I’ll stipulate that there is also some growth in the genuine huckster-style “prosperity gospel” charlatanry, which is to Christianity what cartoons are to literature – but that’s always a short-term, weak-adherence adventure for people who want prosperity to fall out of the sky rather than working for it.
Ouch (for you): it’s not often that I go more than 24 hours without calumniating psychobabble, so the notion that Freud is a hero of mine is an indication that – like all apologists – you’re more interested in rhetorical effect than you are in making sure you’re speaking from a position where you know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Note: I am in no way claiming that anyone who disagrees with me is obliged to read – or even 浏览 –我的 作品 before they write. However I do think some ‘due diligence’ is required of those who make declarative statements about my affection (or otherwise) for historical figures, or my fealty (or otherwise) to causes.
To put it in context: I could claim – 刮 – that you support kiddie-fucking: after all, it’s part of of the stock-in-trade of the Catholic hierarchy. If I were of a mind to do that, I would have a quick look through the first few screens of your comment history and see if there was any evidence: if not, I would refrain. However since it’s not germane to the issue, it’s not even relevant (even though I am 差不多 可靠的[1] ).
That’s the difference between ‘faith-based’ approaches, and scientific ones: faith-based argumentation involves pulling evidence-free bullshit out of your thin air; chucking it into the conversation; and seeing if it sticks.
‘Faith-based’ argumentation stops working once you lose the social power to set a motherfucker on fire, which is why it’s losing in the West when the matter under contention is religion. (It’s still the ‘go-to’ method for argumentation in politics).
[1] my cat told me I am infallible – I invite you to prove that’s not true
谢谢你的评论。你的意思是萧沆对民主政府（当时的独裁政府）停止向他支付工资感到不安，尽管他严厉斥责民主？我相信他的第一笔资助来自德国人（洪堡研究所），第二笔资助来自法国研究所。
Good point on Churchill, Lloyd George, and Eden. Cioran really was infatuated though: “I don’t think anyone admires Hitler in Germany more than me,” or some such. But, obviously, he was quite entitled to his opinion and his sentiments.
感谢您的评论！
Venner committed suicide inside the cathedral of Notre Dame, hardly the place for a cardinal sin,
The Western media, whether out of decadence or just money-grubbing, likes to hype sex scandals. The more out of the ordinary the sex scandal, the better for ratings and clicks. Sure, there were some draconian and abusive practices lurking about in more socially conservative eras, like the sweeping condemnation of all gay people and sweeping the worst sex crimes under the rug. It is not at all clear that contemporary, fake-feminist nations have defeated such things by upending thousands of years of set social mores.
Some things are worse.
How, prey tell, do you explain disturbing-cubed phenomena in this secular neoliberal era of social “progress,” like the 300% percent increase in mass shootings in the USA, including children shooting up schools—children from areas of the country that you would not describe as hick enclaves, even children raised by educated, professional, dual-earner parents, parents with all of the liberal virtues of sophisticated, secular wokeness?
I have never read Cioran’s work. This lovely article was informative. It is sad when the work of historic painters, poets and thinkers cannot be extracted from political fashions. Their oeuvre should be seen from an angle of detachment. It should be judged for aesthetic merit, not by political correctness or whatever gauge of the day the ruling Establishment of that day demands. No less than when dictators of any kind (fascist or communist) reign, the Establishment figures of Western democracies are often courtiers or careerists. Their economic and publicity agendas dictate how they must judge art, literature and philosophy.
Academics are supposed to ride above all of that, serving as a detached, professional filter that separates enduring quality from mere thought trends. Academic freedom guarantees them secure employment despite free speech, but the whole tenure-track thing now demands more obsequiousness due to too many people getting PhDs in the fake-feminist era, reducing the value and the thought-liberating power of a PhD. It is just one more quality-assurance measure, backfiring on the West.
纪尧姆，谢谢。
I sometimes imagine a political movement with the vigor to have America’s Whites and Blacks, Gentiles and Jews, Browns of all sorts linking arms and singing old-fashioned American patriotic songs on the Mall in Washington.
We can be pretty sure such a movement would have its leaders co-opted, paid off, undermined by other means, successfully threatened, or, possibly, murdered.
Oswald Mosley decried the “mafia-zation” (he used a more sharp anti-Italian slur) of politics, and I think he meant the capacity of nominally representative “liberal” Western governments to subvert the “common good” in favor of insider rackets of all sorts.
My reading of the relevant fascist literature is pretty modest, but it’s hard for me to not admire the intellectual and moral courage of those who saw something fundamentally and irredeemably wrong in their governments’ workings.
I’m aware of explicit fascism’s down side, but a front page headline in my local newspaper just today says “400,000 Deaths Later . . . US Opioid Epidemic”, and there are multiple trials in progress that appear to have the wealthy Sackler family, their Purdue Pharmaceuticals, other opioid manufacturers, and drug wholesalers linked in a scheme to oversell addictive drugs on flimsy clinical evidence. How much worse could an explicit American fascism be? (Those 400,000 deaths are over a 20-year period.)
Venner was not a Christian.
Which of Cioran’s works are good introductory works?
Life is often harder than death so I don’t greatly respect those who end it all. I have no objection to anyone committing suicide if they are of sound mind, but where he did it was an intentional affront to Catholics. Complaining about homosexual marriage, one would think he might have a little more respect for members of the denomination that was most opposed. Maybe some of those Catholics are nihilists too!
在两次世界大战之间，罗马尼亚并不民主。通常，在选举之前，国王会从对他来说最有用的政党中任命一位首相。国王偶尔会任命来自 5% 政党的首相。反过来，该政党将控制选举，并确保他们获胜。他们不需要付出很大的努力就能做到这一点，因为40%的政党获得了更多席位，从而获得了多数席位。有时，国王会在获胜方中挑选一位更温和的成员，而不是其领导人。最终，在 1937 年选举之后，国王任命了一位来自 9% 政党的首相，一年后，禁止除他的政党以外的其他政党参加。
尽管在截止日期后提交，萧沆申请洪堡研究所资助的申请还是成功了，这要归功于理查德·恰基 (Richard Csaki) 的亲自干预，他要求德意志奥斯陶斯特研究院院长莫斯巴赫 (Mosbach) 重新启动遴选过程。反过来，恰基是一名德裔德国人，出生于奥地利占领期间的锡比乌，担任德国澳大利亚研究所所长，他受到罗马尼亚大使馆新闻专员佩特雷·伊尔库斯的游说，他与我们国家支持的哲学家出生在同一个村庄。
事实上，萧沆直接与法国政府合作，以获得巴黎的津贴。但在1937年，他有4本书，而在1933年，当他前往柏林时，他有0本书，22年。
An Infamous Past: E.M. Cioran and the Rise of Fascism in Romania （2005）by 玛塔·佩特鲁（Marta Petreu）
衰变简史 （1949）by E.M.Cioran
All Gall Is Divided: The Aphorisms of a Legendary Iconoclast (1952) E.M.Cioran
历史与乌托邦 (1960) E.M.Cioran
感谢。
Although then a New Leftist, I had a Cioran year early in my adult life, after my Nietzsche year. I’ve never met anyone who knew who Cioran was, let alone anyone who could talk with me about him.
For me, back then, his nihilism was at the utter extreme, but so was his wit. I was miserable at the time, yet found him hilarious. He was my secret cheer. If he were as desperate as he said he was, he would never have had the strength to aphorize. It dawned on me that the real Cioran is the opposite of the authorial character. After the third book, I’d learned most of his tricks and moved on.
Read any of his easier to find books and you’ll get what he’s about.
Many Cioran readers are taken by surprise by the form. However, such witticisms are common to his geographic space and in particular in his time. My grandma, who didn’t go to school, but was approximately his age, and born just across the mountains from his Rasinari, would improvise shit that would make your ears bleed, similar to Cioran’s sarcasm in “No one has died of someone else’s pain”.
It took me a while to understand that the writers who send similarly deep messages, but cannot be quoted, are much more entertaining, in literature terms.
As for philosophy as a field, I suspect modern physics and cellular biology destroyed many of its subjects. God? Conscience? Yeah, right. Immortal soul? Top kek.
非常有趣的信息。谢谢你！
Also, many of the people who made it in 1933 were friends with Nae Ionescu. This University of Bucharest professor had an outsized influence on the minds of these youth, as well as on various ministers, claiming for a while that he was an adviser to King Carol II.
Going a bit back to my previous post, it matters that Romania had two somewhat competing kings. In 1927, when Ferdinand dies, his son, Carol II, is skipped from crown inheritance, due to his preference for concubinage with a married Jewish commoner. Instead, Mihai, the minor son of Carol II, was named king. De facto, the near-absolute powers of the king are left to a regency, comprising the highest rank in the Romanian Church, a judge, and a politician (no nobles). In 1930, Carol II changes his mind, and makes himself king, with the help of other politicians, who wave their hand at Mihai being rebranded “grand voivod”. Following the humiliations of 1940, Carol II resigned again, leaving his son to deal with Hitler and Stalin. In a country where the king was so powerful, any true influence over the current king was gold, and any appearance of support for other groups was a risky bet.
Nae Ionescu was mostly bluffing. His highest achievement was to be considered as a candidate for the internal secret service, in 1930, during the absurd Carol II restauration. By 1933, feeling sided, Nae Ionescu begins to oppose Carol II. This is when his pupils start fending for themselves. Nevertheless, while other upfront opposition figures, and even prime ministers, are jailed, or die in state-sanctioned murder, or in terrorist attacks, Nae survives, essentially untouched until 1940. His erstwhile protegee, the Jew Sebastian, survives comfortably in midtown Bucharest, moaning about so many anti-Semites and about poor service during his 1943 ski holidays (peak Holocaust, apparently).
People who were thought as smart by Ionescu have done great, Cioran included. My grandparents, not so much. Google pictures of Romanian peasants in the thirties, and read Sebastian’s moans or Eliade’s travel memoirs, to become instantaneously Stalinist.
Despite graduating from Munchen, despite being appointed professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the best university in the country, Nae Ionescu did not write any book. Eugene Ionesco, who was immune to Nae Ionescu’s charms, mocks “the professor” Nae Ionescu in Rhinoceros. His character is called the Logician.
萧沆绝对是个烂人。一个如此憎恨存在的人应该体面地自杀。光是他写过什么，就足以说明他不过是个野心家，乐于死而厌恶生。他真正想要的只是文学名声。他的腿很烂
According to articles 77-91 of the Constitution from 1923, the Romanian king did not have near-absolute powers, but the powers of an American president, plus the power to dissolve the Parliament. Do not whitewash the present day Romania. Of course, this comes from the desire to have a hard-to-make-accountable oligarchy, of political parties or otherwise, just like Dacian Cioloș, the former soviet commissar would say.