What do you think?
Rate this book
Cioran sau ispita nazismului
Cu toata admiratia pe care o au cititorii din Romania si din Franta pentru opera lui Cioran, scrierile sale de extrema dreapta, ba chiar favorabile Germaniei naziste, din anii '30, raman un motiv de stupefactie. Julien Santa Cruz analizeaza peste o suta de articole si cateva dintre lucrarile de tinerete ale filosofului pentru a intelege acest moment exaltat si isteric din biografia sa. Orientarea fascizanta a tanarului Cioran nu poate fi explicata doar printr-o lipsa de maturitate si prin circumstantele in care se afla, ci tine de gustul sau pronuntat pentru lipsa de masura si de o paradigma de gandire ostila democratiei. Nu este vorba de o adevarata adeziune ideologica la tezele hitleriste, ci mai degraba de un raspuns prin violenta verbului la sentimentul golului, la chinurile identitare si metafizice care-l asaltau pe Cioran in acea perioada. Julien Santa Cruz, profesor de istorie, identifica in lucrarea de fata originea si cheia faimosului nihilism cioranian. Astfel se intelege mai bine profunzimea scepticismului filosofului si alegerea etica a renuntarii ulterioare la orice forma de angajament fata de o idee, de orice natura ar fi aceasta. Traducere din limba franceza de Madalina Constantin.
240 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2023
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 26, 2025
0/10. Wouldn’t recommend this to anyone.
First, it doesn’t do what it says on the tin. It doesn’t explain anything. It’s a literary analysis and riffing on Cioran‘s oeuvre before and after his time in Germany and Romania. That’s just what it is. It attempts to identify and build on the themes in his writing but not only those relating to his fascination with Hitler. It’s a pretty complete analysis of the body of work.
But, again, from a literary, not a philosophical perspective. It barely places him alongside other thinkers and it’s not chronological or otherwise ordered except by arbitrary thematic groupings. What it mostly does is express in words not his own, but similar in floweriness and obtuseness this author‘s idea of what Cioran was on about. And when I say flowery language I mean it reads like fiction in very purple prose and that the words barely tie together into a coherent sentence most of the way through. This isn’t because he’s using specialist language either. No, let me give you a (freely translated) example:
„Thus, the uprooting from his own immunological sphere was perceived as a catastrophe, itself part of the apocalyptic narrative of History. This banishment regained (sic!) the exclusion from the original paradise. This adventure could only lead to an extraordinary series of expenditures preceding a catatonic extinction.“
Now, I‘m used to obtuse specialty language but I have no idea what the hell this is. The author‘s language is less intelligible than the citations from Cioran‘s works and those are out of context.
This also creates a problem with authorial „voice“ because I’m not exactly sure what he’s doing. It reads like he is constantly paraphrasing Cioran himself instead of expressing his opinion. Because he seldom if ever leaves this weird perspective that is completely immersed in Cioran‘s views but also not that author’s own. As this is an important point for the critique I will make down below: I am assuming here that everything not cited expresses the author‘s own opinions because this is after all his work. And if he is choosing to immerse himself so throughly into the views of Cioran in his hitlerist period as to not be able to provide an outside perspective at all, that’s also on him.
So then. This is literal Nazi apologia, by the book definition of such. It explains the appeal of Nazism (and yes I do mean Nazism cause he was first a fan of Hitler and only afterwards and incidentally of the Iron Guard) for Cioran earnestly, unironically and without any outside perspective and it hand-waves away his anti-Semitism throughout WW2 and after the period as well as his fascination with Hitler. It even males the argument that he can’t have been that bad as he was just writing out his thoughts, not actually acting them out (yes. The person sent as ambassador to France by the genocidal military dictatorship that was rounding up all Jews at the time was just a person without significant regime ties 🙄🙄🙄). It also completely misrepresents the definition of anti-Semitism arguing that Cioran‘s later approach to Jews which consisted of highlighting their otherness and Chosen status and literally calling himself a Jew because he’d been (voluntarily) exiled from his homeland does not constitute anti-semitism. Because. (I honestly have no idea what the argument could be here. Stating something along the lines of „people hate Jews because they’re all so extraordinarily gifted so that hatred is actually the supreme form of jealousy“ is clear-cut no questions asked anti-semitism by the literal book. The author even cites other authors that did a comprehensive analysis and come to that conclusion but decides to disagree for some reason). Oh there’s also this one absolutely classic letter by Cioran where he mentions upon getting to Paris he was helped out by a Jew and how nice he considers the Jews to now be. To be fair he tried to save this particular friend from the concentration camp but didn’t manage to convince him and obviously the man ended up dead.
If there’s one thing I love about reading this book in 2025 it’s the similarities and how little discourse has changed in 100 years. It’s fun to read the words of one of the OG edgelords in the 30s with their „at least Hitler actually gets something done man“ and his hate for liberals and all their morals and urges to balance.
His whole book is basically a defense of Cioran‘s fascination with extremism which is hand-waved away by:
- he was very young (about 20-30 during that period)
- he had insomnia
- he deeply regretted it (no proof of that provided, the quotes basically amount to Cioran saying he was young and stupid which sure, can explain why I skipped school as a teenager but is a little bit under requirements for someone who was a member of the literal Antonescu regime and who proceeded to republish his famous fascist writing in the 90s by simply deleting the most egregious anti-semitism without so much as an explanatory note - something pointed out by the author himself who also notes that that work was even more recently published in full.)
- he was fascinated with the negativism and will to destroy of the Nazis and a big fan of their imperialism which he wanted Romania to adopt and considered essential for a historical legacy, but he didn’t think Jews were singularly responsible for Romania‘s downfall. He just wanted them removed so they wouldn’t hinder progress (yes, yes Cioran did say that in so many words apparently).
I mean. I don’t even know what to say except for the verdict I gave it above. This book will for this reason alone end up in the woodchopper.
But if you happen to be a fan of (literal or successor Nazis) this book will also not satisfy you.
- it doesn’t provide any historical background to the author and period except in footnotes citing authors that dealt with it in more detail
- it doesn’t provide a psychological or sociological analysis of why right-wing ideology found such fertile ground with him and a whole generation of young Romanian intellectuals (it mentions other books that do)
- it doesn’t explain the basics of Nazi philosophy that supposedly drew him in or the German and far right philosophers he studied in university and that he’s the successor of.
In short it does none of the work relating to anything outside the actual texts of the author and instead insists on taking this expressly cynical and sarcastic Romanian (he is characterized as such by the author) at face value or something. As such this whole book will be remembered for the one citation of Mihail Sebastian calling Cioran a cynical coward, which is the only apt (and necessary) characterization.
The only way the author manages to impart some knowledge of Cioran is almost against his will and by accidentally insulting him (calling him an unimportant philosopher and pointing out how his entire life is a failure). He keeps calling him the philosopher of life and action but as opposed to Sebastian in that one-liner never manages to point out his lack of actual action (and also one could argue risk-taking in life in general) as a clear hypocrisy. He never brings in any medical studies of the effects of insomnia on the brain and body (devastating and especially so after years and years of it). Etc. it’s just an extremely one-sided book in all respects.
First, it doesn’t do what it says on the tin. It doesn’t explain anything. It’s a literary analysis and riffing on Cioran‘s oeuvre before and after his time in Germany and Romania. That’s just what it is. It attempts to identify and build on the themes in his writing but not only those relating to his fascination with Hitler. It’s a pretty complete analysis of the body of work.
But, again, from a literary, not a philosophical perspective. It barely places him alongside other thinkers and it’s not chronological or otherwise ordered except by arbitrary thematic groupings. What it mostly does is express in words not his own, but similar in floweriness and obtuseness this author‘s idea of what Cioran was on about. And when I say flowery language I mean it reads like fiction in very purple prose and that the words barely tie together into a coherent sentence most of the way through. This isn’t because he’s using specialist language either. No, let me give you a (freely translated) example:
„Thus, the uprooting from his own immunological sphere was perceived as a catastrophe, itself part of the apocalyptic narrative of History. This banishment regained (sic!) the exclusion from the original paradise. This adventure could only lead to an extraordinary series of expenditures preceding a catatonic extinction.“
Now, I‘m used to obtuse specialty language but I have no idea what the hell this is. The author‘s language is less intelligible than the citations from Cioran‘s works and those are out of context.
This also creates a problem with authorial „voice“ because I’m not exactly sure what he’s doing. It reads like he is constantly paraphrasing Cioran himself instead of expressing his opinion. Because he seldom if ever leaves this weird perspective that is completely immersed in Cioran‘s views but also not that author’s own. As this is an important point for the critique I will make down below: I am assuming here that everything not cited expresses the author‘s own opinions because this is after all his work. And if he is choosing to immerse himself so throughly into the views of Cioran in his hitlerist period as to not be able to provide an outside perspective at all, that’s also on him.
So then. This is literal Nazi apologia, by the book definition of such. It explains the appeal of Nazism (and yes I do mean Nazism cause he was first a fan of Hitler and only afterwards and incidentally of the Iron Guard) for Cioran earnestly, unironically and without any outside perspective and it hand-waves away his anti-Semitism throughout WW2 and after the period as well as his fascination with Hitler. It even males the argument that he can’t have been that bad as he was just writing out his thoughts, not actually acting them out (yes. The person sent as ambassador to France by the genocidal military dictatorship that was rounding up all Jews at the time was just a person without significant regime ties 🙄🙄🙄). It also completely misrepresents the definition of anti-Semitism arguing that Cioran‘s later approach to Jews which consisted of highlighting their otherness and Chosen status and literally calling himself a Jew because he’d been (voluntarily) exiled from his homeland does not constitute anti-semitism. Because. (I honestly have no idea what the argument could be here. Stating something along the lines of „people hate Jews because they’re all so extraordinarily gifted so that hatred is actually the supreme form of jealousy“ is clear-cut no questions asked anti-semitism by the literal book. The author even cites other authors that did a comprehensive analysis and come to that conclusion but decides to disagree for some reason). Oh there’s also this one absolutely classic letter by Cioran where he mentions upon getting to Paris he was helped out by a Jew and how nice he considers the Jews to now be. To be fair he tried to save this particular friend from the concentration camp but didn’t manage to convince him and obviously the man ended up dead.
If there’s one thing I love about reading this book in 2025 it’s the similarities and how little discourse has changed in 100 years. It’s fun to read the words of one of the OG edgelords in the 30s with their „at least Hitler actually gets something done man“ and his hate for liberals and all their morals and urges to balance.
His whole book is basically a defense of Cioran‘s fascination with extremism which is hand-waved away by:
- he was very young (about 20-30 during that period)
- he had insomnia
- he deeply regretted it (no proof of that provided, the quotes basically amount to Cioran saying he was young and stupid which sure, can explain why I skipped school as a teenager but is a little bit under requirements for someone who was a member of the literal Antonescu regime and who proceeded to republish his famous fascist writing in the 90s by simply deleting the most egregious anti-semitism without so much as an explanatory note - something pointed out by the author himself who also notes that that work was even more recently published in full.)
- he was fascinated with the negativism and will to destroy of the Nazis and a big fan of their imperialism which he wanted Romania to adopt and considered essential for a historical legacy, but he didn’t think Jews were singularly responsible for Romania‘s downfall. He just wanted them removed so they wouldn’t hinder progress (yes, yes Cioran did say that in so many words apparently).
I mean. I don’t even know what to say except for the verdict I gave it above. This book will for this reason alone end up in the woodchopper.
But if you happen to be a fan of (literal or successor Nazis) this book will also not satisfy you.
- it doesn’t provide any historical background to the author and period except in footnotes citing authors that dealt with it in more detail
- it doesn’t provide a psychological or sociological analysis of why right-wing ideology found such fertile ground with him and a whole generation of young Romanian intellectuals (it mentions other books that do)
- it doesn’t explain the basics of Nazi philosophy that supposedly drew him in or the German and far right philosophers he studied in university and that he’s the successor of.
In short it does none of the work relating to anything outside the actual texts of the author and instead insists on taking this expressly cynical and sarcastic Romanian (he is characterized as such by the author) at face value or something. As such this whole book will be remembered for the one citation of Mihail Sebastian calling Cioran a cynical coward, which is the only apt (and necessary) characterization.
The only way the author manages to impart some knowledge of Cioran is almost against his will and by accidentally insulting him (calling him an unimportant philosopher and pointing out how his entire life is a failure). He keeps calling him the philosopher of life and action but as opposed to Sebastian in that one-liner never manages to point out his lack of actual action (and also one could argue risk-taking in life in general) as a clear hypocrisy. He never brings in any medical studies of the effects of insomnia on the brain and body (devastating and especially so after years and years of it). Etc. it’s just an extremely one-sided book in all respects.
October 29, 2025
Interesting insight in the way people get hooked on extreme ideologies and their appeal as well as why Romania is a fertile breeding ground for right-wing extremism and the obsession with messiah-like figures and religion-like ideals you do need to have background knowledge on this but it is an insight nonetheless ), personally I enjoyed this and it kinda showcases why Cioran is the most Romanian person of all time:
>a manic hater
>first award winner of the Oppression Olympics
>hates romanians
>cowardly
>antisemitic
>fails once and gets demoralised for life
>a manic hater
>first award winner of the Oppression Olympics
>hates romanians
>cowardly
>antisemitic
>fails once and gets demoralised for life
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews