Luciano Duarte | Literature and philosophy

Nietzsche and Cioran: Philosophy for Teenagers?

It has become commonplace to say that Nietzsche and Cioran are not authors for adults, that the whole philosophy of both does not cause strong impressions but in adolescents. I say for my part: I read Nietzsche and Cioran, above all, for aesthetic pleasure. I consider both, before philosophers, skilled artists; I see in them an expression power that I cannot find in other places; and the validity or not of their philosophies, for me, is secondary matter. If I were to analyze only by logic, I would say Nietzsche’s philosophy, if taken by block, is absurd; Cioran’s I would say leads us to apathy. But, for me, none of this constitutes demerit. Those who seek in philosophy a foolproof manual to guide their thinking and their actions do better by reading self-help. I am not obliged to box Nietzsche and Cioran in the “I do not agree” group, I do not feel uncomfortable facing their ambiguities or delusions; on the contrary, I consider them as masters of style. As I said, I read both for aesthetic pleasure, to find beauty and acuity in expressions and to see them give rise to discomfort in me. And I still notice the poverty in the words of those who tax Nietzsche and Cioran’s entire work as “philosophy for teenagers.” Nothing shallower than summarizing everything as “right” or “wrong”, this only demonstrates narrowness of vision and inability to deal with the ambiguous, the complex. Finishing a work full of nuances, impeccably written and saying only “I do not agree” seems to me the most adolescent of generalizations.

____________

The Artist and the Coherence

I will say here what is an obviousness to me: an artist owes nothing for coherence.. If he thinks it is necessary, he has the freedom to throw it into space. And why do I say that? Because bores me seeing critics say about how incoherent an author is. For me it is very clear: when a philosopher or essayist sits and puts himself to write the goal is one: logic; the author will organize his arguments to expose his reasoning in the most clear and accurate way he can achieve. Not the artist. When an artist sits at the table the goal is another: it is to express the feeling with the greatest power possible, or to make the strongest impression on the reader. Different things. That’s why it is impossible to compare Aristotle and Fernando Pessoa. One does one thing, another does another. And the artist who sacrifices expression for coherence simply diminishes his art: defending ideas does not concern his work. On the verses of a giant:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself;
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

____________

Future of Humanity

I have some optimistic perspectives on the future of humanity. Here is one: I imagine a hypothesis in which, in the near future, digital advances would enable John, a cold meat storer, to buy a ticket to embark forever on an instigating virtual reality. (In order for the world to become really better with the advance, the ticket price would have to be affordable; say, costing the equivalent of three years of manual labor.) Then John would no longer be an underpaid worker, with terrible prospects, dissatisfied with life, harassed by the banks and would adopt an interesting nickname, giving up a poor life to enter in another stimulant, full of adventures and challenges, that kept glory and respect for the hardworking player. The new John, depending on his effort, could occupy a prominent position in his new reality. On the other side, here on the real world, science could invent a machine that would maintain the functioning of the brain independently of the body; this would allow John, once a participant in the new reality, to be cut from the neck down, and his vital organs could be destined for transplants. It is rather an optimistic possibility: John would be satisfied and make the happiness of some needy. In addition, his remains – at first useless – could be used in scientific research or other purposes that interested the evolution of mankind. I believe that, in this way, science and digital technology would certainly be operating for general happiness, for the well-being of society and for the progress of humanity in a socially sustainable and conscious way.

____________

Intelligent Attitude

Perhaps it is an intelligent attitude to inebriate the senses at every opportunity and in all the free time that arises, throwing sand into consciousness and silenting the inner voice that arises singing to the human being the macabre melody of the emptiness. Is facing it a sign of courage? It could be… But certainly denying the abyss (eternally postponing the confrontation with nothingness) allows a socially acceptable and sensible life according to the terms of modernity. The other option is, dancing to the sound of a funeral waltz, sinking into desperate and atrocious melancholy.

____________