tl;dr:
>a knife can slice bread
>but it can also kill
>blackpilled again

every excerpt of him posted on this site gives me the impression that he's trying to copy Nietzsche but lacked the ability to write good prose, and he also sounds very edgy, like MySpace Instagram types of edgy.

>>25385045
he is very witty and very amusing, pirate him and give him a chance at least. he does not pretend to be a philosopher, just an overread reader

>>25385008
Lots of words to say nothing much of anything

I tried reading him and I REALLY should be interested seeing as though I'm an antinatalist/pessimist, but I just can't stand the writing. I just hate it. It's like semi poetry but not. It's just annoying to read. Make a point or don't. Make a claim or don't. It's more like poetry. I hate poetry.

>>25385008
I feel that his works improve dramatically if you pretend that they are satire.

>>25385008
Very good. He is sadly the position I always fall back into. I can probably read whatever I want, but I will ultimately end up finding him the most correct.
Most people will make the mistake to just start reading into his aphorisms without any previous knowledge. At least start with some of the few interviews or some of his essays. You will get the core of his thinking more quickly and less edgy. His aphorisms weren't meant to deliver any message or be systematic, so it will appear a little pointless.

>>25385045
He was definitely influenced by Nietzsche. He liked his insights but found him too naive in the end. I would probably say that I like his prose more than that of Nietzsche and I have even read Nietzsche in German, while Cioran only in translation.

>>25385309
>At least start with some of the few interviews or some of his essays.
What do would you recommend?

>>25385008
Too wimpy for me. Life sucks, no shit huh?

>>25385309
>found Nietzsche too naive in the end
>what is Cioran's response?
>muh just don't like anything that seems optimistic to me

Go kys.

>whoa whoa slow down there and let me talk you out of that.

So schope cope.

>muh muh muh well uh lookee ay me meta
>muh writing is a way to explore myself kind of like masturbating.

Also a freebie. If you have an erection just go ejaculate. Nothing was contributed. If you're that committed to pessimism you won't even masturbate. You should be at a state of nothing where the op shouldn't even have happened since you sound too optimistic.

>>25385008
People who have sex so frequently and casually don't deserve to be taken seriously when talking about doomerism.

>>25385008
I think that he looks like Eraserhead's protagonist.

>Si le dégoût du monde conférait à lui seul la sainteté, je ne vois pas comment je pourrais éviter la canonisation.
Based!

>>25385812
I would honestly mostly start with some interviews. The one with Jason Weiss, Michel Jakob or the documentary of Gabriel Liiceanu, which includes an interview. Even many of his essays suffer from being to playful with language. His actual opinion could be hard to be filtered out of there. But during an interview he doesn't have too much time to do that. Direct question and mostly direct answers. He gives pretty straight forward information about his main topics like insomnia, suicide, etc.
If you get the basic idea, you can pretty much read any work of his. I don't remember which of his essays I found the best, but I think I liked Heights of Despair quite a bit. But I am sadly quite resistant to read more of his works. I have read a few, but he already mentioned quite a few times that he pretty much wrote the same book over and over again. All of his works very mostly identical to his first book. And you can honestly feel that.

>>25386062
>Go kys.
Feels like reading Cioran. Thanks for reminding me.

>Nothing was contributed.
That sums up Cioran pretty well. He is a walking contradiction and I am not even sure why people call him a philosopher. He himself admits: "I have invented nothing, I have merely been the secretary of my sensations". I just enjoy reading him. I would have loved it if he would have written such an introspective stream of consciousness book like Bernhard does.

>If you're that committed to pessimism you won't even masturbate.
He mainly criticizes Nietzsche because:
>What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.
>It’s because that whole vision, of the will to power and all that, he imposed that grandiose vision on himself because he was a pitiful invalid. Its whole basis was false, nonexistent. His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he’s pathetic, it’s very touching, like a character out of Chekhov. I was attached to him in my youth, but not after. He’s a great writer, though, a great stylist.
>He observed men only from a distance. Had he come closer, he could have neither conceived nor promulgated the superman, that preposterous, laughable, even grotesque chimera, a crotchet which could occur only to a mind without time to age, to know the long serene disgust of detachment.

I don't necessarily agree with his criticism, for it is as intuitive and unfounded as Nietzsches whole philosophy. And Cioran doesn't force himself to be a pessimist. He just always falls back into it. If you would ask him, he would gladly choose to be something else.

>>25386702
Some of his points aren't without merit. How can someone who is so isolated still access the irrationality of group environments? There is also a point to be made that Nietzsche's philosophy produces a mindset wherein unless thought is taken to the extreme points or generates a result then it's worthless. Both of these seem too far removed from the course of everyday discourse, and appear either as impossibly tyrannical or a high speed version of Dance Dance Revolution. This criticism is also difficult for Cioran to maintain since he admits he loves tyranny and admits that suffering which continues too long destroys the reason and the senses.

>Cioran remains inside the accepted social spaces and succumbs to fragility. He doesn't escape his own criticism of Nietzsche.
>Cioran leaves the accepted social spaces and turns into Nietzsche. His own criticism is unflattering to himself.
>Cioran continues and loses all of the coherence he may have been able to claim.

This cyclical process is most frequently a result of differing value judgements. I personally suspect Cioran at some point didn't want to be seen as a pupil of Nietzsche's philosophy, but it's too difficult, if not impossible, to refute it from the inside. It always appears as though he is merely imitating, in hopes someone else will do it for him. This isn't a write off of Cioran as a whole, rather just that it is difficult to avoid the 2 most popular pessimists if you want to be the patron of pessimism.

My fav song of his

https://youtu.be/7hgwOTK2xN4