"The Temptation to Exist" makes an interesting complement (or foil?) to Paul Tillich's "The Courage To Be." The two map opposite poles of our spiritual life, as well as revealing two different meanings that ultimate lucidity can have. Read on its own, Cioran's perspective seems incomplete, forced. Only in this fertile opposition does it get its full sense for me.
“Every work turns against its author: the poem will crush the poet, the system the philosopher, the event the man of action. Destruction awaits anyone who, answering to his vocation and fulfilling it, exerts himself within history; only the man who sacrifices every gift and talent escapes: released from his humanity, he may lodge himself in Being. (...) One always perishes by the self one assumes: to bear a name is to claim an exact mode of collapse.”
Cioran takes Nietzscheanism to its ultimate, self-undermining conclusion. Ultimate lucidity is to be found in a turning against oneself - a self-unraveling - that at times borders on the morbid,. Any positive stance we take on the question of Being is not just a gamble anymore, but pre-determines its own "exact mode of collapse." The self creates its world ex-nihilo, unsupported by any meaning-producing encounter with the world. Because of this, all positions that the creative self constructs specify a determinate mode of delayed self-annihiliation.
One wonders at times how much of this work is a self-inebriating literary exercise. But then, I'd be lying to myself if I took such a no-nonsense, naturalistic approach and denied that such essential questioning had its place, and that really, we all know life is grand doesn't need questioning. Ultimately, Cioran shows just how little grounding is left for the self that is determined to place its -entire- life into question (and not just select domains within that life, as past philosophers did).
I find Zagajewski's thought about Cioran to be right on the mark:
“Doubt is more intelligent than poetry, insofar as it tells malicious tales about the world, things we’ve long known but struggled to hide from ourselves. But poetry surpasses doubt, pointing to what we cannot know. Doubt is narcissistic; we look at everything critically, including ourselves, and perhaps that comforts us. Poetry, on the other hand, trusts the world, and rips us from the deep-sea diving suits of our “I”; it believes in the possibility of beauty and its tragedy. Poetry’s argument with doubt has nothing in common with the facile quarrel of optimism and pessimism. The twentieth century’s great drama means that we now deal with two kinds of intellect: the resigned and the seeking, the questing. Doubt is poetry for the resigned. Whereas poetry is searching, endless wandering. Doubt is a tunnel, poetry is a spiral. Doubt prefers to shut, while poetry opens. Poetry laughs and cries, doubt ironizes. Doubt is death’s plenipotentiary, its longest and wittiest shadow; poetry runs toward an unknown goal. Why does one choose poetry while another chooses doubt? We don’t know and we’ll never find out. We don’t know why one is Cioran and the other is Milosz.”
Or why one is Cioran and the other is Tillich. Reading this, the same question keeps coming back to one: what inner force in the thinker ultimately determines the nature of his/her commitment to being? What determines whether *I* will choose on the side of meaning or on the side of doubt? That primordial decision certainly determines the course of all one's other thoughts.
Cioran is the master of the negative epiphany, of the anti-epiphany. He will specify the precise "mode of collapse" of any of the meanings and revelations that sustain us through life. Eugene O'Neill described these very well in "A Long Day's Journey Into Night":
"...And several other times in my life, when I was swimming far out, or lying alone on a beach, I have had the same experience, became the sun, the hot sand, green seaweed anchored to a rock, swaying in the tide. Like a saint's vision of beatitude. Like the veil of things as they seem drawn back by an unseen hand. For a second you see, and seeing the secret, you are the secret. For a second there is meaning! Then the hand lets the veil fall and you are alone, lost in the fog again, and you stumble on towards nowhere for no good reason.”
These fleeting experiences of meaning reveal a sense of unity, of reconciliation with the rest of being, and bring, temporarily, a great sufficiency. All this Cioran denies and treats as a self-alienating projection onto the inhuman world of meanings that we create. The only genuine meaning to be found is in absolute, vacuous independence and in a "pure" act of self-reflexivity that withdraws from all such projection and psychological outsourcing onto the world. There's something almost Manichean in his rejection of any relation with the non-human background world. Perhaps this is what we get when we philosophize from the presumption that there can be an I without a Thou.
But, of course, nobody actually lives on the bread of negation. He himself is tortured by this self-contradiction: he can never quite fully realize his own stance. Negation is always parasitic. There is thus something either dishonest, or repressed, about a work that seeks to build itself solely on the lucidity of negation. It doesn't express its true motive force. So what is the positive force that drives the negation of a Cioran? Engaging with such questions as this book opens up - sometimes directly, sometimes implicitly, by its very presence - can yield a lot of insight into the human psyche and into the sources of philosophy in our lives.