Stefan

Interpretarea la “Titus Andronicus” e dezamăgitoare. Din perspectiva mea, piesa e un prequel la filmele horror cu Vincent Price din anii ‘70. Și la “Hamlet” sunt probleme. La un moment dat, autorul susține ca nu suprainterpreteaza, ceea ce pare comic în contextul în care autorul dedica nu mai putin de 12 pagini dialogului plat al ofițerilor de garda de la debutul piesei. Din nou, e abuziv sa deduci creștinismul personajului principal din dialogul lui Hamlet cu Horatiu din actul V referitor la pronie. Îmi vine sa spun cu Eminescu, “de e sens într-asta, e întors”. O cunoaștere (mai buna) a psihanalizei, fata de care autorul e refractar, i-ar fi fost utila.

(3rd read: June 2013.)

To be arguably the greatest philosopher in history (or at least the most radical one) and to also be a brilliant poet (in Baudelaire's and Trakl's league): who could be Nietzsche's equal?

“Und dienen will ich nun und nie.”

“...gesund ist, wer vergass.”

“Geh nur die selber treulich nach: -
So folgst du mir - gemach! gemach!”

“Flamme bin ich sicherlich.”

“adlerhaft, pantherhaft
sind des Dichters Sehnsüchte.”

Paul Chetreanu-Don este un autor polivalent, cu contribuţii însemnate în poezie, psihoterapie şi – acum – în filosofie. Recenta sa carte, Convorbiri în intimitate, scrisă în colaborare cu o pacientă, descrie un incitant travaliu psihoterapeutic, în siajul psihologiei existenţiale. În Aşa simţit-a Zarathustra, scriitorul clujean încearcă să decripteze una din operele fondatoare ale modernităţii, tratatul filosofic şi poematic Also sprach Zarathustra de Friedrich Nietzsche.
Într-un context internaţional, în care studiile nietzscheene par să ia avânt – cele mai notabile rezultate recente par a fi I am Dynamite! de Sue Prideaux ori Hiking with Nietzsche: On Becoming Who You Are de John Kaag, ambele publicate în 2018 –, Aşa simţit-a Zarathustra propune o triplă retematizare a filosofiei lui Nietzsche. Cartea este, în primul rând, o biografie, bazată pe reacţiile autorului german la două evenimente semnificative din viaţa sa (întâlnirile cu Richard Wagner şi Lou Salomé – de altfel şi S. Prideaux îşi începe biografia cu episodul „astral“ al sincronicităţii dintre Nietzsche şi Wagner). În al doilea rând, avem o naraţiune alternativă la Also sprach Zarathustra – mai exact o reinterpretare a textului „sacru“ nietzschean din perspectivă emoţională. Nu în ultimul rând, volumul oferă o călătorie iniţiatică pe urmele lui Nietzsche, în care Paul Chetreanu-Don încearcă să reconfigureze „paşii profetului“ la Weimar, Jena, Basel, Sils-Maria şi, mai ales, Torino, unde explodează bomba psihotică, din care se naşte modernitatea la începutul anului 1889.

https://www.revista-apostrof.ro/arhiva/an2019/n8/a11/

6 stars.

“Dying was nothing and he had no picture of it nor fear of it in his mind. But living was a field of grain blowing in the wind on the side of a hill. Living was a hawk in the sky. Living was an earthen jar of water in the dust of the threshing with the grain flailed out and the chaff blowing. Living was a horse between your legs and a carbine under one leg and a hill and a valley and a stream with trees along it and the far side of the valley and the hills beyond.”

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.]

Things I've learned from this book. One: Philosophers are self-contradictory - perhaps because the world is unphilosophical. There is a silent conflict between the field of immanence and traditional philosophy. Two: Perhaps philosophy is not the answer with a capital A. Sometimes our hearts are burning and philosophy remains ice cold in a condescending way. Philosophy is escapist and thinks that salvation is irrelevant. Three: The way the author conceives the narrative of philosophy is original. You catch a glimpse of the historical magic of philosophy. It's not a book for the academic philosopher, it's a book for a philosophy student with fresh eyes, who overpowers seriousness and gravity.

Un rechizitoriu (savuros uneori) al dictaturii din USR. Bine scris, persiflant, (auto)ironic dar și cu mult suflet. Pătat uneori de narcisism și resentimente. Îi lipsește totuși respirația unei capodopere. Comparabil cu F. Kafka. Numai că la scriitorul praghez coșmarul e trasat cu precizia unui chirurg. Vezi de pildă “Colonia penitenicară”. Ardelean nu mi se pare încă în posesia unei scriituri care să zugrăvească coerent “oroarea existenței”. Hotelul infernal în care se desfășoară trama nu este cu adevărat terifiant; are uneori un aer burlesc, alteori o dimensiune abstractă, livrescă. Lui Ardelean îi lipsește o tușă de răceală schizoidă pentru a regiza coșmarescul asemenea “Meduzei” lui Rubens. Și în afară de amintitele resentimente narcisiace, impresia de megalomanie (apărută probabil ca o reacție compensatoare la condiția nonconformistă și marginală a autorului, exclus din “marea conversație” de Hristos KKK și alți Kritikoi) este uneori stridentă. În plus, e recurent și supărător procedeul “deus ex machina”, care n-ar trebui atât de uzitat într-o carte – de altfel – peste medie.

Palahniuk owes a lot to the author of “White Noise”. Especially Heinrich frequently enters in a Tyler or Rant mode. DeLillo's novel is impressive, in spite of its somehow dated “heroic” Postmodernism . Open a book by Palahniuk, Ellis or Clevenger and you would reach a more violent, shocking and intense universe, a version of “Postmodernism in war against itself”. A recent philosopher noted that one must only read a text published after 2010 or watch the latest movie to feel what life after Postmodernism means and to see how dated Postmodernism which believed in itself is. Influenced by Baudrillard, Lyotard, Becker but also by Kierkegaard and Tolstoy, DeLillo writes a brilliant novel, almost a “classic” I would say, that can easily compete with Joyce for instance and that becomes a point of reference, a Ground Zero for the revolutionary masterpieces of the 1990's and 2000's created by his - acknowledged or closet - disciples.

My favorite contemporary philosopher ... A very accesible, spiritual and intelligent book about the outsiders of philosophy, a true Nietzschean/ Deleuzian war-machine directed against victorious, official and dualist Platonism. I have already read vol. 6 of the series and I await with excitement the counter-historical depiction of Nietzsche.

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)!

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.

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.

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.

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.