Stefan
Cain calatoreste prin timp si rescrie Vechiul Testament. Dialogurile dintre Cain si Dumnezeu mi-au amintit de cele dintre Jupiter si Oreste din Mustele. Avem, in fapt, un mic manual de antiteologie, mai profund decat cel oferit de Onfray. Mi-ar fi placut ca textul lui Saramago despre Avraam sa fie accesibil lui Kierkegaard si cel despre Iov lui Sestov. De fapt, critica pe care o efectueaza Saramago sacrificiului lui Isaac este mult mai radicala si mai profunda de cat cea operata de Dawkins!
“l-am omorat pe abel pentru ca nu puteam sa te omor pe tine” (32)
“domnul i-a poruncit lui avraam sa-i sacrifice propriul fiu, a facut-o cu desavarsita naturalete, asa cum ceri un pahar cu apa cand iti e sete” (72)
“[avraam], frustratul calau” (75)
“Istoria oamenilor e istoria neintelegilor lor cu dumnezeu, nici el nu ne intelege pe noi, nici noi nu il intelegem pe el.” (81)
“copiii [din sodoma] erau nevinovati” [!!!] (89)
“daca dumnezeu n-are incredere in oamenii care cred in el, atunci nu vad de ce oamenii acestia ar trebui sa se increada in el” (123)
[Citatele sunt dupa editia de la Polirom.]
Houellebecq wrote H. P. Lovecraft: Contre le monde, contre la vie in 1991, three years before publishing his debut novel, Whatever (Extension du domaine de la lutte). His book on Lovecraft, translated into English in 2005, is the avant-garde which precedes Houellebecq's great war machine. I would consider the oeuvre a pseudo-auto-biography, reminiscent of Baudelaire's perception of Poe, of Nietzsche's Schopenhauer as Educator and, clearly of Savater's graduation thesis on Cioran. To make it clear, Nietzsche's Schopenhauer is Nietzsche himself, along with his Wagner: it is a way of writing about oneself indirectly. What I find fresh and pioneering about Houellebecq's essay is his discovery of an alternative route to world nihilism. To name some of the others: 1) Schopenhauerian – Wagnerian (as Baudrillard has put it); 2) Palahniuk's post-existentialism from Fight Club, Pygmy and Rant; 3) Baudrillard – Žižek – The Matrix; 4) Lars von Trier. Against the World is in fact a way of attacking Nietzsche through Schopenhauer, something that many of Nietzsche's disciples won't appreciate. To say No to life is to go against the test of the eternal return, to choose damnation and resentment over life's affirmation. A Nietzschean cardinal sin! However, one can acknowledge that it is sometimes difficult to endorse life when the feelings of alienation (more exactly fear and hatred against the world) seem to prevail over one's natural (?) inclination to harmony, peace and balance.
Ciclul Poetul la New York e fantastic si sper sa ma intorc la el, studiindu-l mai atent. In rest, poezia lui Lorca e interesanta, dar neimpresionanta. Desi e clar ca pentru a-l cunoaste intr-adevar, un poet trebuie citit in original, stilul lui Lorca (in versiunea lui Novaceanu) mi-a amintit de maniera de scriere a lui Blaga.
Either I am becoming a radical atheist, or the book is weaker (more tedious and way too sentimental) than Scorsese's movie. Although I am a fan of Kazantzakis and I salute a Nietzschean Jesus, there was something fundamentally wrong about this book. Right now I can't really be sure where the evil lies: my perception or the crude reality. I believe that the novel is somehow dated: a Heretical reading of the gospels, a Gnostic interpretation of the Christian myth would be much darker and deeper in our Zeitgeist than in the 1950's. For example I found Saramago's version more interesting. However, it is an essential reading for all those who want to explore so to say religion beyond religion. The reaction of the Greek Orthodox Church who excommunicated Kazantzakis mainly for conceiving an alternate Jesus, is, simply put, dumb. From the perspective of film philosophy, the book's final chapters are similar to Matrix.
Demonadologia, ultima parte a strălucitei cărţi Cucamonga, publicată de Iulian Tănase la Herg Benet, este o realizare subtilă al acestui important scriitor contemporan de avangardă. Demonadologia este o pastişă după celebrul tratat leibnizian, ironizat în epoca sa de Voltaire. Tănase propune un joc intelectual superior, pe care îl desăvârşeşte prin intermediul unei interesante combinaţii de logică, matematică şi poezie. Îl vom urmări îndeaproape:
„Demonada este ... particula lui Demonezeu.” (s.a.) (1) Acesta este punctul de plecare.
„ ... [D]emonade[le] sunt adevăraţii atomi ai naturii răului şi, într-un cuvânt, elementele lucrurilor care alcătuiesc cea mai rea dintre lumile posibile.” (s.a.) (3) Schopenhauer, un alt critic acerb al lui Leibniz, considera că trăim în cea mai rea din lumile posibile. Chiar dacă nu este o afirmaţie ce se poate dovedi ştiinţific (cum arată celelalte lumi posibile?), avem de-a face cu un adevăr al coşmarului, care în momentele de suferinţă intensă, este plauzibil.
„Răul este etern. Mai mult, în cea mai rea din lumile posibile, răul este etern, necesar şi suficient. În schimb, binele, în această lume, este tern, contingent şi insuficient.” (4) Am extras acest pasaj pentru inspirata antiteză etern-tern dar şi ideea (dacă trecem dincolo de masca parodiei) contingenţei binelui merită evidenţiată. De multe ori, dacă faci binele, eşti considerat un imbecil şi un fraier. „Îţi faci de lucru”, cum se spune în limbaj cotidian. Pe când o aplicare discretă, abilă a răului, iscusită ca o împunsătură de cuţit, rezolvă o întreagă melodramă.
„Demonadele nu au o relaţie strânsă decât cu conştiinţa răului. Cine a spus că răul se naşte din ignoranţă s-a înşelat.” (14) S-au înşelat, deci, platonicienii şi creştinii. Nu s-a înşelat Dorian Gray.
Mai multe aici:
http://egophobia.ro/?p=8567.
“We are no longer dealing, as in the case of St. Augustine, with a precursor of Existentialism. Pascal is an existentialist.” (William Barrett, Irrational Man, p. 111) This is why I read/ studied this book. Barrett is right: many Existentialist themes are approached by Pascal (for instance death, authenticity, possible absurdity of faith - the great thesis of Kierkegaard's FT). However, his fanaticism, intolerance (uninspired dismissals of Judaism and Islam) and especially the insistance of the humiliation and servitude of the human being in front of God do not appeal to me.
A bit too unphilosophical & journalistic (e.g. I can't get over the feeling that Hitchens was writing the book with the tv and the news on: this version of reality, however official it may be, is not relevant for me). I prefer Michel Onfray's version of Nietzschean atheism and I wonder why there are so few philosophers in the atheist controversion: it's almost like the theologians and scientists (more exactly authors writing either for God or for science) do all the talking. Still Hitchens is a wonderful rhetorician and a master of argumentative discourse and as an atheist, I had much to learn from him. And to paraphrase a recent article by Lesley Chamberlain on Nietzsche from the Guardian (07.02.2012 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/07/political-message-nietzsche-god-is-dead?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038): we should distrust the God of Reason and with him, all the Enlightenment. We need a deeper, more complex (even more ambiguous) atheism!
I haven't read Hadot yet but he clearly inspired the structure and shape of this book. The Romanian author writes very well though and he is very eloquent about some seminal distinctions in philosophy. I was very interested in the stuff he wrote about practical philosophy and the meeting between spiritual excercises and “hardcore” philosophy (Heidegger, Foucault, etc.).
I confess I am interested in Schelling as Kierkegaard's educator. I understand “The Concept of Anxiety” much better after reading Schelling's fabulous account of originary evil. It's clear to me now why Bakunin and Engels attended Schelling's classes – he was dangerously close to nihilism. One can say about him what another author wrote about Schopenhauer in a different context: his own philosophy and Nihilism are divided by a thin wall. I wonder: how would Schelling write in a non-theological context, so to say, after the death of God? I think he would be even more radical than the fiercest Nietzscheans. Although a metaphysics of the will is clearly documented (“Wollen ist Ursein”), I believe that Heidegger is being dishonest and falls prey to a common prejudice in suggesting that Schopenhauer's main principle is unoriginal.
Although being a major fan of both Carriere and Eco, I found their tone too nostalgic and reactionary. I expected to hear more about ebook readers & “digital cosmology”. Perhaps if the late Baudrillard and Zizek had met and started to talk about books, the rhythm and content of the discussion would have been much more spectacular.
“Blindness (is) the school of God” would be the key sentence of Voiculescu's only novel. The book has no clear structure, the story has seemingly no direction or purpose but the language is great (Soviany has inherited and perfected this rich and spicy vocabulary) and the grotesque scenes from prison (similar description of the criminals in Eugen Barbu) are splendid.
Some of the early poems are wonderful, Teodorescu creating his distinct voice inside Romanian surrealism. I wasn't so fond of the Marxist and late poems, where Teodorescu is either militant in a ridiculous way or nostalgic and minor. I didn't like this edition as well, because it doesn't show from which poetry collection are the poems taken. I would have liked to further study the early Surrealist books. It is clear that Teodorescu deserves a final and extensive Romanian edition, similar to that devoted to Naum. Speaking of Naum, perhaps the best text in the book is “122 of Dead Bodies”, written by both Teodorescu and Naum: it's a brilliant display of poetry and philosophy.
A few great poems, which show that Caraion is an upgraded Bacovia and that the Romanian poet really understood and created an original form of nihilism. Probably Caraion wouldn't have published most of the pieces though, because some require extensive rewriting. I would place Caraion in the same league with Cioran, who is much more famous than him, but shares his angst, pessimism and despair.
I didn't know Beckett was a genius as a theorist. A very Schopenhauerian study (also influenced by Descartes in its structure and vigorous deductive technique) and an amazing way to see Proust with new lens. In his later writing career, Beckett, like all great creators, has a sort of epistemological and ontological modesty and moderation (meaning he could be understood at different levels: he has a superficial face you can admire, even if you hadn't understood him completely – and a deeper persona, you can grasp only after careful study). Like Balzac or Hugo, you can catch a glimpse of his genius even if you don't get him completely. But in this study on Proust, written when he was 24, Beckett shows no trace of “universalist” generalized wise modesty, he writes with cynism, sheer brilliance and aggressiveness like a bloodhound. It's so intense that I've almost highlighted the whole book and my extensive notes would look like Borges's map. And one should compare him to Ionesco, his rival and co-creator of the absurd theater, who also, in his Romanian-written essays, was equally brilliant, surreal and aggressive as a theoretician (e.g. see Ionesco's “No”, where he demolishes some of the best Romanian writers of the day, the same way he destroys Hugo in “Ego”). I was amazed by Beckett's highly coherent and explosive writing and I wonder, considering his level, if he ever blew up a literary genre. I mean I apreciate Joyce both as a poet and dramatist but his creations in those genres are distinctly minor. But Beckett was a titan as playwright and novelist and also a major, I venture to say, philosopher.
One of Beckett's least “absurd” and most philosophical plays. I find it better than his “Godot” and “Endgame”. Those were highly “beckettian”, meaning they had that characteristic trademark of master and slave dialogue, of BDSM despair and cynicism. “Eleutheria” reminds me more of Ionesco, with his satire of bourgeois society and impression of mechanical gestures and eternal return of nothingness from “The Bold Soprano”. Very funny (of course in a sad way, beyond the sadness somehow), containing nihilistic traits and the subsequent pastiche of that nihilism. A masterpiece and a great introduction to Beckett's theater. Very existential as well: if we take away the absurd, we have an atmosphere reminiscent to Sartre and Camus.
“Why are you drinking?” demanded the little prince.
“So that I may forget,” replied the tippler.
“Forget what?” inquired the little prince, who already was sorry for him.
“Forget that I am ashamed,” the tippler confessed, hanging his head.
“Ashamed of what?” insisted the little prince, who wanted to help him.
“Ashamed of drinking!”
—
Awesome!!!
Some have seen in Panait Cerna the next Eminescu, but in his brief life (1881-1913), the Romanian poet did not produce something comparable to his forerunner. Most of Cerna's works are influenced by Cosbuc and Vlahutza: a sort of metaphysical, folkloresque meditation upon our persihable existence and luck. Considering his message, I totally dislike Cerna's Romantic, rural and somehow pre-Modern style. But one cannot but admire his technical brilliance: if he lived in another age and had another masters, he would be a great poet. He certainly has the skills (=techne)!
A wonderful book about a journey in hell or a manual of how to face your “noche obscura”. The contrast between nihilism and emerging existentialism and the dialectical harmony between Continental philosophy (mostly Plato, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche) and Indian wisdom is superb. I almost feel skeptical towards the novels written today (which I usually enjoy) after reading this 1927 manifesto about the destruction and resurrection of Atman.
Clearly Nietzschean, inspired by esoteric Christianity, alchemy and Tarot and written by a spirit different (perhaps stronger) than Nietzsche. Some of Jung's ideas are delelopped in Meyrink's work as well. A piece of experimental psychology with a touch of Medievalism in it. I'm not very fond of the parodical and satirical pages.