Obsession of The Essential by E.M. Cioran

Krilons Resa

Jerry's married?!
Nov 7, 2002
31,080
1,101
113
43
Inside dorian's gym bag.
When every question seems accidental and peripheral, when the mind seeks ever greater problems, it turns out that in its procedure it no longer comes up against any object but the diffuse obstacle of the Void. Thereupon, the philosophic energy, exclusively oriented toward the inaccessible, is exposed to ruin. Scrutinizing things and their temporal pretexts, it imposes salutary embarrassments upon itself; but, if it seeks an increasingly general principle, it is lost and annihilated in the vagueness of the Essential.

Only those who stop apropos in philosophy flourish, those who accept the limitation and the comfort of a reasonable stage of anxiety. Every problem, if we get to the bottom of it, leads to bankruptcy and leaves the intellect exposed: no more questions and no more answers in a space without horizon. The interrogations turn against the mind which has conceived them: it becomes their victim. Everything is hostile to it: its own solitude, its own audacity, the opaque absolute, the unverifiable gods, and the manifest nothingness. Woe to the man who, having arrived at a certain moment of the essential, has not drawn up short! History shows that the thinkers who mounted to the top of the ladder of questions, who set their foot on the last rung, that of the absurd, have bequeathed to posterity only an example of sterility, whereas their confreres, stopping halfway up, have fertilized the mind's growth; they haveserved their kind, they have transmitted some well-turned idol, some polished superstitions, some errors disguised as principles, and a system of hopes. Had they embraced the dangers of an excess progression, this scorn of charitable mistakes would have rendered them disastrous to othersand to themselves; they would have inscribed their names on the confines of the universe and of thought - unhealthy seekers and arid reprobates, amatuers of fruitless dizziness, hunters of dreams it is not permitted to dream...

Ideas refractory to the Essential are the only ones to have a purchase on men. What would they do with a region of thought where even the man who aspires to settle by natural inclination or morbid thrist is jeopardized? No breathing in a realm alien to the usual doubts. And if certain minds locate themselves outside the agreed upon inquiries, it is because an instinct rooted in the depths of matter, or a vice rising out of a cosmic disease, has taken possesion of them and has led them to an order of reflections so exigent and so enormous that death itself seems of no importance, the elements of destiny mere nonsense, and the apparatus of metaphysics no more than utilitarian and suspect. This obsession with a last fronteir, this progress in the void involve the most dangerous form of sterility, beside which nothingness itself seems a promise of fecundity. The man who is difficult in what he does - in his task or his adventure - has merely to transplant his demand for finish to the universal level in order to be no longer able to complete either his work or his life.

Metaphysical anguish derives from the condition of a supremely scrupulous artisan whose object would be nothing less than being. By dint of analysis, he achieves the impossibility of composing, of perfecting a miniature of the universe. The artist abandoning his poem, exasperated by the indigence of words, prefigures the confusion of the mind discontented within the context of the existent. Incapacity to organize the elements - as stripped of meaning and savor as the words which express them - leads to the revelation of the void. Thus the rhymer withdraws into silence or into impenetrable artifices. In the face of the universe, the over-exigent mind suffers a defeat like Mallarmé's in the face of art. It is panic before an object which is no longer an object, which can no longer be manipulated, for - ideally - its limits have been transcended. Those who do not remain inside the reality they cultivate, those who transcend the task of existing, must either compromise with the inessential, reverse gears and take their places in the eternal farce, or accept all the consequences of a severed condition which is either superfetation or tragedy, depending on whether it is contemplated or endured.

- E.M. Cioran

Discuss.:Spin:
 
Doomcifer, I really doubt most on this board can understand or appreciate Cioran. Frankly I wouldnt waste his honeyed words on them. Who knows where this thread will go? Perhaps someone will try to prove there is a GOd and a soul based on readings posted on the internet or in a Tim LeHaye book.

Where was that passage from? I thought I had read everything he had written except On The Heights of Despair--which I ordered yesterday.
 
speed said:
Doomcifer, I really doubt most on this board can understand or appreciate Cioran. Frankly I wouldnt waste his honeyed words on them. Who knows where this thread will go? Perhaps someone will try to prove there is a GOd and a soul based on readings posted on the internet or in a Tim LeHaye book.

Where was that passage from? I thought I had read everything he had written except On The Heights of Despair--which I ordered yesterday.

Yes, I figured as much but it was worth a shot.

It is from A Short History of Decay which is probably his hardest to digest because of it's monstrous depth and Shakesperian prose. I wouldn;t doubt that you have read it since it is fairly easy to find.
 
I have read it, but it was more than year ago--thus my forgetfulness.

Is it just me, or do you also treasure every word he put to paper? I laugh every time i read him; and instead of being put down by his nihilistic gallows humor, I feel envigorated.
 
speed said:
I have read it, but it was more than year ago--thus my forgetfulness.

Is it just me, or do you also treasure every word he put to paper? I laugh every time i read him; and instead of being put down by his nihilistic gallows humor, I feel envigorated.

I completely agree. I feel as if he is directly talking to me because I see "eye-to-eye" with him on so many subjects. I also find myself laughing out loud at his biting sarcasm - far more biting than even Neitzsche.

The thing that is so great about him is that he doesn't offer a solution as most thinkers try to do. He realizes that there actually isn't any real answers. He pushes the envelope whereas most, if not all, thinkers grab a hold of prejudices and ignore the fragility of existence/being.

I took a long time to finally get a hold of a certain individual who I could really relate to, in a sort of anti-philisophical way. I still haven't read every single thing he has ever written yet, but I am working on it. I'm about halfway through as of now.
 
all the abstractions make the reading, not difficult, but pointless. I keep waiting to find something to grap hold of. What I am able to guess a significance from promises a contradiction before the sentence's end.

Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to find an essence to an essay that is all abstract at core. Maybe I need to read more, though.

Every problem, if we get to the bottom of it, leads to bankruptcy and leaves the intellect exposed: no more questions and no more answers in a space without horizon.

Try to figure that out. The intellect, which is one's education and thoughtfullness, when exposed, is here defined as a space without horizon, empty I presume. Well, there is no literal signifigance to be had because an intellect needs a horizen just as much as space is defined by borders, or the stuff inside the space. Honestly, it's just a mess to critique, but how else can a person try and follow this author's point?

I dislike being discriminatory, but this wouldn't even work as poetry.


If the author would forego his flare for the superfluous, some things could be called perceptive. The above quote works just fine like this:

"Every problem, if we get to the bottom of it, exposes the intellect."

If that is what the author intended on, consider how much waste is afforded through his haphazard analogy. What is the point in having waste in a sentence that attempts to expose the intellect's waste as the perpetrator of problems?
 
Øjeblikket said:
all the abstractions make the reading, not difficult, but pointless. I keep waiting to find something to grap hold of. What I am able to guess a significance from promises a contradiction before the sentence's end.

Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to find an essence to an essay that is all abstract at core. Maybe I need to read more, though.



Try to figure that out. The intellect, which is one's education and thoughtfullness, when exposed, is here defined as a space without horizon, empty I presume. Well, there is no literal signifigance to be had because an intellect needs a horizen just as much as space is defined by borders, or the stuff inside the space. Honestly, it's just a mess to critique, but how else can a person try and follow this author's point?

I dislike being discriminatory, but this wouldn't even work as poetry.


If the author would forego his flare for the superfluous, some things could be called perceptive. The above quote works just fine like this:

"Every problem, if we get to the bottom of it, exposes the intellect."

If that is what the author intended on, consider how much waste is afforded through his haphazard analogy. What is the point in having waste in a sentence that attempts to expose the intellect's waste as the perpetrator of problems?

His essays are not nearly as good as his aphorisms. I also agree he uses superfluous language in his essays. In fact, one could read his one sentence aphorisms and come away with the very same points it takes him a few pages of ornamental language in his essays. Alas, isnt this true of most philosophers?

SO, like many Eastern European writers like Dostoevsky, Gogol, Tolstoy who also wrote essays that I always thought werent very good, Cioran should have stuck to what he really was good at: aphorisms.
 
speed said:
SO, like many Eastern European writers like Dostoevsky, Gogol, Tolstoy who also wrote essays that I always thought werent very good, Cioran should have stuck to what he really was good at: aphorisms.


I gather that this essay is one of his experimental pieces then? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for literary catharsis, but not all the time.
 
No, this is one of his better essays.

Try some of his aphorisms:

If truth were not boring, science would have done away with God long ago. But God as well as the saints is a means to escape the dull banality of truth (Tears and Saints p57).



All nihilists have wrestled with God. One more proof of his kinship with nothingness. After you have trampled everything underfoot, his is the last bastion of nothingness left(Tears and Saints p 65).

The repression of criminal impulses is a major cause of unhappiness. How many frustrations and how many individuals we could get rid of if we were to let ourselves go! We bury in our souls the corpses of those we have not killed. Misanthropy is the miasma of their putrefying carcasses. There is a failed executioner in each of us. (Tears and Saints p 91-92).



Life is a reality only for wholesome people, high priests of eternal stupidity (Tears and Saints p 94).

Failure thrusts us into a paroxysm of lucidity. The world becomes transparent in the implacable eye of the sterile and the clear sighted man who no longer believes in anything. The failed man knows everything, he is a La Rochefoucald without genius (Tears and Saints p 97).



Were I a poet I wouldn’t allow Nero to go unavenged. I know something about the melancholy of mad emperors. Without the likes of Nero, the deaths of empires lack style, decadence is uninteresting (Tears and Saints p 97).


Beware of those who turn their backs on love, society, and ambition. They will take their revenge for having renounced… (All Gall Is Divided 3).

The public hurls itself upon the authors called “human”; the public knows it has nothing to fear from them: halted like their readers, halfway down the road, these authors propose compromises with the Impossible, a coherent version of Chaos. All Gall Is Divided 9

We cannot sufficiently blame the nineteenth century for having favored that breed of glossators, those reading machines, that deformation of the mind incarnated by the Professor—symbol of a civilization’s decline, of the corruption of taste, of the supremacy of labor over whim.

To see everything from the outside, to systematize the ineffable, to consider nothing straight on, to inventory the views of others!… All commentary on work is bad or futile, for whatever is not direct is null.

There was a time when professors chose to pursue theology. At least they had the excuse then of professing the absolute, of limiting themselves to God, whereas in our century nothing escapes their lethal competence. All Gall Is Divided 15.

Objection to scientific knowledge: this world doesn’t deserve to be known. All Gall Is Divided 28.


 
speed,

I might not agree.


No, this is one of his better essays.



If truth were not boring, science would have done away with God long ago. But God as well as the saints is a means to escape the dull banality of truth (Tears and Saints p57).

who is this guy speaking about and who is he speaking for? His conditioning is soo God centred that it's already hampered his construct of truth; no wonder he seeks to escape whatever it he is calling truth.

this isn't good writing...

All nihilists have wrestled with God. One more proof of his kinship with nothingness. After you have trampled everything underfoot, his is the last bastion of nothingness left

is he promoting God or the nihilist? who the hell cares? it means jack shit to me. really.


The repression of criminal impulses is a major cause of unhappiness.

Old news. Unsubstantied. It's been said better and precisely much clearer by Ernest Becker -- "Life cannot go on without the mutual devouring of organisms... each organism raises its head over a field of corpses, smiles into the sun, and declares life good."

Life is a reality only for wholesome people, high priests of eternal stupidity

what is this dude on about?
 
Well I guess we are going to have to totally disagree on Cioran. I think they are all brilliant. I just dont think you get his gallows like wit and humor. From your comments this is the quote that I think describes your personality:

We cannot sufficiently blame the nineteenth century for having favored that breed of glossators, those reading machines, that deformation of the mind incarnated by the Professor—symbol of a civilization’s decline, of the corruption of taste, of the supremacy of labor over whim.
To see everything from the outside, to systematize the ineffable, to consider nothing straight on, to inventory the views of others!… All commentary on work is bad or futile, for whatever is not direct is null.

There was a time when professors chose to pursue theology. At least they had the excuse then of professing the absolute, of limiting themselves to God, whereas in our century nothing escapes their lethal competence. All Gall Is Divided 15.

You see, he is calling you and your over-analysis out as pointless and ridiculous. You dont seem to be in on this extremely cynical nihilistic joke. His books are filled with these humorous paradoxes: for example he states being born is the one fault he can never forgive his mother for. But the irony is, even though he finds life ridiculous, laughing and mocking the world makes it worth living. I dont know, I think one has to be born a certain way to accept this essentially cynical view of life. Ive read all the works I can find on the classical cynics, and they all state the ancient cynic's used to say a man is born a cynic, he cannot convert. Perhaps its not for everyone.

There is perhaps a slight error in the Tears and Saints translations as they were originally written in Romanian, whereas the rest of his works were in French. And most of his aphorisms are structured where he gives the meaning or punchline of his aphorism first, and then explains. I find it refreshing.
 
Knowledge and/or Consciousness = Decadence, Ojiblikket.

"Better to be an animal than a man, an insect than an animal, a plant than an insect, and so on. Salvation? Whatever diminishes the kingdom of consciousness and compromises its supremacy."
 
Doomcifer said:
Only those who stop apropos in philosophy flourish, those who accept the limitation and the comfort of a reasonable stage of anxiety. Every problem, if we get to the bottom of it, leads to bankruptcy and leaves the intellect exposed: no more questions and no more answers in a space without horizon. The interrogations turn against the mind which has conceived them: it becomes their victim. Everything is hostile to it: its own solitude, its own audacity, the opaque absolute, the unverifiable gods, and the manifest nothingness. Woe to the man who, having arrived at a certain moment of the essential, has not drawn up short! History shows that the thinkers who mounted to the top of the ladder of questions, who set their foot on the last rung, that of the absurd, have bequeathed to posterity only an example of sterility, whereas their confreres, stopping halfway up, have fertilized the mind's growth; they have served their kind, they have transmitted some well-turned idol, some polished superstitions, some errors disguised as principles, and a system of hopes. Had they embraced the dangers of an excess progression, this scorn of charitable mistakes would have rendered them disastrous to othersand to themselves; they would have inscribed their names on the confines of the universe and of thought - unhealthy seekers and arid reprobates, amateurs of fruitless dizziness, hunters of dreams it is not permitted to dream...
This reminds me of Nietzsche's aphorism:

"20. A few rungs down. One level of education, itself a very high one, has been reached when man gets beyond superstitious and religious concepts and fears and, for example, no longer believes in the heavenly angels or original sin, and has stopped talking about the soul's salvation. Once he is at this level of liberation, he must still make a last intense effort to overcome metaphysics. Then, however, a retrograde movement is necessary: he must understand both the historical and the psychological justification in metaphysical ideas. He must recognize how mankind's greatest advancement came from them and how, if one did not take this retrograde step, one would rob himself of mankind's finest accomplishments to date.

With regard to philosophical metaphysics, I now see a number of people who have arrived at the negative goal (that all positive metaphysics is an error) but only a few who climb back down a few rungs. For one should look out over the last rung of the ladder, but not want to stand on it. Those who are most enlightened can only go so far as to free themselves of metaphysics and look back on it with superiority, while here, as in the hippodrome, it is necessary to take a turn at the end of the track."

While the two aphorisms aren't identical, per se, to me there are definite parallels...