Besides, the "M" (for Michel or Mihai) in "E. M. Cioran" is incorrect. (I don't know where it comes from; it's a recurrent mistake in both French and English websites. Maybe it's a nom d'auteur, but for the moment I can't find something that can prove it.)

The French people from de 50s/60s say the same thing! :lol:

Until the 1960s, it was commonplace here that the teacher must physically punished his students. And until the 80s, humiliating punishments were still in place... Not to mention gum chewing. :sweat:

I know a bit about American and Dutch education systems. Comparing with France, these three systems are far more relaxed (that is to say, they are pedagogic). Here, we have what we called "republican school" (often opposed to pedagogic system), i. e. (generally, because it's less and less regular): the students get up when the teacher enters the classroom and wait for the teacher to tell them to sit down. It doesn't happen in United States neither in the Netherlands. Food and phones are forbidden in class; friendly relations with the teacher are also forbidden. In French, we have a T-V distinction, so we always says "vous", which is formal, to the teacher, never "tu", which is informal. The lessons are more magisterial than in the US or the Netherlands; they are not interactive or fun (except rare cases). Concerning the lessons's quality, it really depends on the teacher. Some are great, other bad or even lazy. There's a lot to say. ... ... ! :smile: Nevertheless, there is no big differences between the level of an American/Dutch high school student and a French one. I even think that the French student has a better level in literature & philosophy, because our education focuses on it. ... ...

In other words, to ek-sist!

... ... Don't forget to be not to not be, but to para-be, that is to say to be the one who don't go away! :joke:

In the long run it's not amusing at all. It's even a little bit toxic. Lacan said about the saint: "we don't know where he takes us"... It can be true for Cioran sometimes!

Yes, "grinding rose" meaning "to be optimistic".

I read/listen (interviews) a fair bit of Cioran, and I gave up analysis of his thoughts few years ago: he said that there was nothing more funny than a man who tries to do some analysis... of his thoughts!

If you can read some French, here is the thesis of Nicolas Cavaillès, a specialist of Cioran's works, in which he compiles in the beginning all the "kind words" that Cioran had against his analyzers. ...

For example, etc.:

Toute exégèse est profanation. — Cioran

Je n'ai jamais lu un sermon de Bouddha ou une page de Schopenhauer sans broyer du rose. — Cioran

:lol:

The triangle is a geometrical object which, normally, is seen as a full revelation of itself. Nevertheless, the phenomenological reduction tells us the opposite. It suprises me tremendously that we can see these simililarities both in Bergson and Husserl, in terms of truth – this one becoming a great virtuality. To some extent, there's somehow fideism in this ideational shell.

I think here Aquinas was inspired by Luke 13:24-29. Strangely, this quest of authenticity did not appeal Heidegger. Yet he said that a real man is a man who knows the mysteries of Being, that is to say who admits that forgetfulness (the fundamental inability) of mankind as one criterium to be authentic. The choice of a triangle is a good choice because geometry tends to revealed itself through the eyes and to tell everything. Therefore, to say that it have a possibility to speak more, to be perfectly perfect, it's a really good choice; Schopenhauer did not the same reasoning, and the kantians will put geometry into the rubric of "which doesn't speak"... ... :groan: Husserl, with his intentionality, gives to the mysteries of beings – Heidegger will put Being instead of God, to be the guarantee of this named mysteries. ... ...

Camus was for sure less theoretical than Sartre. Nevertheless, Camus was also a real humanitarian when Sartre was cleary a communist who's not interested in reality. It's not a plea for Camus. I think Camus was a real plaintive; L'Etranger is the proof: Meursault agoraphobia shows in fact how he was himself "agoraic". He (Meursault) exteriorizes his sins. At least Sartre seems to have a great sense of guilt... For example what he called the "universality" (universalité du savant bourgeois, etc.), which demonstrates above all how the sartrian enterprise was a discomfort from a fall; a fall because of the social classes discovery. In other words, I think Camus was too much peaceful – a clear case against him, because he did not realized his own guiltiness. ... ... Yet it's an axiom of psychoanalysis!

A very interesting conference-debate, but only in French:

Look by yourself: Nietzsche, The Antichrist, §60. But Nietzsche loved epidermal reactions. If he likes France, it's against Germany, that is to say because of his hatred against German nationalism. If he likes Bizet, it's against Wagner, that is to say because of his hatred against antisemitism. Yet I don't think this is entirely lie and persona. Maybe it's because he was neurotic! :lol:

Jesus and Christ are signifiants, so (automatically) they are a mixture of Imaginary and Real. Nevertheless when I say Jesus I speak about the singularity Jesus itself, and nothing else. I speak about the man. Even if it's very difficult to understand nowadays, because we are impregnated by Judeo-Christian culture, and therefore by a certain conception of Jesus and Christ. In fact, I rely on Nietzsche who makes the distinction (very well known) between Jesus (the most noble of the Jews – Human, all to human, §475) and Christ (paulinian deformation). The Muslims do the same distinction, which is funny when you know that Nietzsche loved islam (the supporters of Positive Christianity did also the same distinction, between the Aryan Jesus and the judaized paulinian Christ), and that it might explain how Jesus became new Christ, so to speak, by the means of the Judeo-Christian impulse (un)consciously. I don't buy the scams of jungian New Agers and so on, but I think that Jesus is really the archetype of the symbolism's ambiguity. So ambiguous in his teachings that even anthropological relativism isn't enough.