"cushy"? He quitted the Academy and stayed poor for most of his life. He refused every literary awards that he received. He was a solitary living in the same small apartment in Paris until his death.
None of those point to any kind of troubled life (except his sickness at the end). He got all kinds of scholarships and awards early on, he had continued recognition throughout his life, had an income from his books and never had trouble to find a publisher, he went through the most troubled period of Europe and didn't lift a finger to fight (on the contrary: he was partial to the Nazis and the Romanian Iron Guard), and could get a job at any time but refused.
I'm really curious why are you so wound up against him to mount such a strong an "ad hominem" attack against him?
Yeah, his work had mostly only aesthetic value imho (aka "worthless", I agree), bu one doesn't judges philosophers based on their life and character, one judges their ideas. And even so, I'd have no problems of with a philosopher who was lazy and sympathized with horrible people. Heck, if Hitler wrote good philosophy himself I'd praise his philosophy despite the person (note: he did not, I agree, Mein Khampf is 100% crap).
In the case of an artist, I'm sure you'd consider their life experience and artistic production to be deeply inter-related.
It's the same with philosophy and literature. Only mathematical logic and similar formal philosophy is immune from an analysis that takes the author into account...
The "New Criticism" of the mid-20th century which rules out considerations of biography is just one possible stance. The censorious tone of dang concerning a personal reaction to Cioran feels like part of a HN ethos of denying the value of subjectivity. A deadly caricature of life as lived by engineers.
I daresay “good philosophy” is based on the rigor of the ideas themselves, not the lives of philosophers themselves. The canon of philosophy is replete with men who did distasteful or abhorrent things, but their ideas are studied nonetheless.
>I daresay “good philosophy” is based on the rigor of the ideas themselves, not the lives of philosophers themselves. The canon of philosophy is replete with men who did distasteful or abhorrent things, but their ideas are studied nonetheless.
That only drives the point further: there are no ideas in Cioran, just (or in any case, mostly) whining.
My mentioning of his life wasn't to diminish his ideas (or rather, the lack thereof), just to show how unjustified the whining.
If you have a happy life won't you be pissed/scared at the idea of death?
Is there a philosophy that can give you comfort regarding the idea of death that is not a religious thing, the only idea that gives me a extremely small comfort is the idea that time is relative so in theory a dead person is stil young and living somewhere in the past just we can't get there.
Maybe look into Epicureanism. In particular, before you read wikipedia or stanford's encyclopedia, I'd recommend this letter[1] written by Epicurus himself.
> If you have a happy life won't you be pissed/scared at the idea of death?
Why? Because it is the normal thing to do? Is it expected of you to be afraid of death? Is the natural inclination to be afraid of just thinking about dying?
I am "fearful" of death in the sense that if something is likely to cause my death in the present moment, I will act towards self-preservation.
But the idea of death, that just thinking of one's demise would cause one anguish is a sign one hasn't calibrated his priorities correctly. Pragmatically speaking, there are so many things to think about (and even moreso to do), so why would anyone focus on something that they cannot ever change? Besides their own self-imposed torture in the name "philosophy."
This will come off as snarky, but I recommend you find some more things to fill your time.
Your post reeks of a lack of empathy. The same kind that inspires the thin person to tell the fat person to just not eat so much. It's perfectly fine to not understand someone else, but it's another thing to assume they can snap their fingers and instantly reform themselves in your image.
On the contrary, I empathize with the plights of humanity. I know first-hand how difficult it is to be alive, what it's like to be downtrodden, and even how difficult it is for some of us to lose weight.
But, going through the extremely terrible has given me a better perspective on: the true severity of problems, whereas one who suffers will be stuck in such a negative and hopeless mindset, even if such is not true at all; the problems that are strictly self-imposed, as opposed to those one has no control over; and the extent to which one's problems can be fixed by putting in conscious effort.
As there are few who truly are unable to lose weight, without extra effort and accommodations, there are few that are truly stuck with unmanageable and crippling thanatophobia.
Have you heard of former drug addicts being harder on addicts than those who've never faced the problem themselves? This is relevant to our discussion.
While people need support and understanding, the victims themselves must take personal responsibility for their issues as well.
I think it is only natural to want good experiences to last for as long as possible and to be at least a little "pissed", as the parent comment put it, when you think about the inevitable end. It's similar to your instinct of self-preservation, only on a longer timescale. Of course it would probably be most enjoyable if one could just permanently forget about death and live life to the fullest, but that kind of oblivion seems almost impossible for such an important concept. Also without the prospect of death one might not be as inclined to make the most of what little time one has available. I guess you describe a kind of stoic philosophy where one shouldn't be concerned by things one cannot change at all, but that requires a lot of conscious effort, at least that's my personal experience, and the untrained human reaction to the fact that the good days are numbered is to be "pissed".
> It's similar to your instinct of self-preservation, only on a longer timescale.
I haven't thought of it like that. But it would seem one is an unconscious reaction, spurred on by the autonomous nervous system, while the other is a (seemingly) conscious choice (if we don't get into determinism).
Then we get back to the beginning. You can influence the outcome of a sudden event, but not your own destined death down the line. Taking your "natural to want good experiences to last for as long as possible and to be at least a little 'pissed'," into account, doesn't that align with my parent comment? By consciously obsessing about how your days are numbered and that you have relatively little time alive, are you not contributing to your own state of being "pissed?"
Are you not being self-sabotaging?
> I guess you describe a kind of stoic philosophy where one shouldn't be concerned by things one cannot change at all, but that requires a lot of conscious effort, at least that's my personal experience, and the untrained human reaction to the fact that the good days are numbered is to be "pissed".
My response to this will sound aggressive, but once we identify a lapse in our untrained thinking, the practical thing to do would be to fix this.
In other words, as you mentioned, we can override such thoughts with sustained conscious effort. It may be difficult, but it would be a better use of time to make ours as good as it can be.
>I haven't thought of it like that. But it would seem one is an unconscious reaction, spurred on by the autonomous nervous system, while the other is a (seemingly) conscious choice (if we don't get into determinism).
OK, I thought you weren't only talking about unconscious processes but also short-term decision-making like "I'm not going to try this unknown berry because it might kill me". I don't know why I used the word "instinct", since that implies unconscious processes indeed.
As for the rest, I completely agree with everything you said, my point was mainly what I expressed in my last sentence, regarding the reaction an "untrained" human mind would have, which of course can be overcome with some effort.
I was also thinking on the case when others you are about die and you are thinking if they are lost forever, I am not sure if you had this feelings, maybe if you are religious you can find much easier some comfort,
The first time, I cried when the realization hit me. All of the things we couldn't do anymore and the hole that he would leave was terrible to think about.
I changed my mindset into something very cliche, but it works for me:
We can no longer create memories together, but I can still cherish the ones we had and pass on the same good he brought into my life, to others. Sort of like remembering one's legacy and passing on the torch.
I don't believe there is an intrinsically correct answer for these human situations, so picking the most efficient one is best.
This is correct to an extent--good modern philosophizing does, in the end, deal with the clarity of concept. But your conception points to a fascinating development in the history of philosophy.
If you return to the ancients, living philosophically was more important than the conceptual edifice or system building we conceive of as philosophical today--that's why we run into somewhat blatant contradictions in the systems of the neo-platonists and others--it is not that they were necessarily poor systematizers and let their concepts run away from them--that man didn't quite have the same intellectual power for reasoning cleanly yet--but that systemic clarity was not their goal--they had only an effect in mind.
The ancients were almost therapists in a sense--their whole goal was to get one living in the right way--thus few of them actually bothered to write as the philosophical schools were centered on practices, rituals, meditations etc.--progressions--and not just explication--exegesis of a master's thought was important--but only to the extent it had a direct impact on one's life and the way one lived. A philosopher, to the ancients was simply anyone who lived in a certain way--and by certain principles, whether or not they had conceived of those principles or learned them--the designation came with the living and the way not with intellectual output, but with intellectual activity(living with a love of wisdom). There's a reason Epictetus's text is called Enchiridion, which means manual or handbook--the same can be said of the use of the word Sutra
Then the middle ages hit and philosophy became far more theoretic as it was subordinated to theology--it became the so called handmaiden of theology--now its whole purpose was conceptual clarification, system building, logic--in order that one might know God, might develop a theological framework, put all the cosmological ducks in order.
I scarcely have to describe how the analytic tradition in the 20th century drove this notion of philosophy primarily as systematizing, abstract, and having little connection with one's actual practice and way of living further, and indeed to an extreme. As someone once enmeshed in the analytic tradition myself, I find nothing more distasteful than stuffy academic philosophy--it is necessary sure, but we must recall that philosophy was foremost supposed to teach one how to live (or how to die ;) ).
Wittgenstein is perhaps the only "analytic" that offers a philosophy similar to those of the ancients--You'll find that even the Tractatus, which helped birth the most arid and abstract form of philosophizing, logical positivism, if you read it carefully, is actually a text meant to directly influence the way you live and resolve some problem of living more than it is the presentation of some metaphysical, logical framework--indeed, the propositional structure of that text is more or less a smokescreen--W., like Socrates, like Nietzsche, presents a mask--remove the numbers, re-title it "Aphorisms"--has anything changed?
Hadot's book, Philosophy as a Way of Life is a great study on this shift from philosophy as lived, therapeutic practice to philosophy as a primarily textual, abstract, academic profession--and like all professions, limited by exterior considerations.
I like your views on philosophy, and I recently read and liked that Hadot book. I'm guessing that you studied philosophy formally, but I'm curious, what do you do now? (My email is in my bio if you want to continue off HN)
Would you please not post snarky dismissals and especially not start off threads with them? It degrades discussion and we're hoping for better.
If an article (or philosopher) is so not to your taste that you can't think of anything else to say, please just don't comment. Nothing is to everyone's taste, and there's usually something else that's interesting.
You're a pretty great poster and I hope you know that the frequency with which your posts are greyed out is a good indicator that you often push the right buttons.
A bunch of tech-nerds who routinely act skeptical of women testimony about harassment, waxing poetic about the nuances of the thought of a Nazi sympathizer.
> "there is no present-day politician that I see as more sympathetic and admirable than Hitler",[1] while expressing his approval for the Night of the Long Knives—"what has humanity lost if the lives of a few imbeciles were taken"
HN: "wow; beautiful, thoughtful stuff. really makes me think."
Has anyone in this thread written any comment of the sort, regarding such a hateful excerpt? It would be shocking if they did, but I haven't read anything like that.
It's interesting to note that you are agreeing with Coldtea but for completely different reasons.
Coldtea is saying that Cioran's works are intrinsically crap, without mentioning once Cioran's Nazi sympathies as a reason.
On the other hand, you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that because Cioran was a Nazi sympathizer, then all of Cioran's works must necessarily be crap, because it would not be acceptable to think otherwise.
Emil Cioran is a pretty twisted individual, but his writing is amazingly beautiful. In particular, De l'inconvénient d'être né is pretty fantastic, especially in French (haven't read any translated versions, so can't vouch for it).
I was introduced to him by my previous boss. I was going through some rough times, and my boss recommended some of his books, summarising Cioran's thoughts on the matter of suicide as being a crutch to survive.
He saw suicide as an eternal escape hatch. No matter what happened, he still had the comfort (and control) of being able to say "Stop."
I'm not sure I would agree that it is the main message, but it is true that On the Heights of Despair does allude to that way of thinking.
I highly recommend Cioran, to anyone who is interested by philosophy. As with most philosophers you will read about, there will be major disagreements between you and the author, but his works have definitely shaped how I perceived parts of life.
Indeed, I'm a native Romanian — his original works are almost lyrical. They did wonders during my depressive stages, especially “Pe culmile disperarii” (“On the Heights of Despair”) — will try it in English soon.
Is it sad that seeing this quote makes me happy? There is a sinister symmetry between the content and delivery, I wonder how the sentiment of this quote changes in different languages...
I think Ciorian is interesting to understand as a case study in how an ecstatic nihilism can lead one to embracing all kinds of horrors. Before there was /pol/ recruiting white supremacists and online ISIS pledges, there was a young Ciorian aligning himself with the Nazi-affiliated Romanian Iron Cross.
Understanding the draw of his thinking can help one understand the intellectual premise on which disaffected young men and women are seduced further into darkness.
Mechanicism combined with nihilism is a solid foundation for amoral realism. Of you give power to that thinking you'll basically fabricate an opportunist personality that will do social engineering justifying means thought ends. Invariably, genocide will be closely lurking.
> The Ancients are no good; to think about death is not to experience it – to believe one is not afraid of it only shows one has not yet met it:
What about people who thought they will die and were ok with it? Or those that did indeed die and were, at least apparently, ok with it? Those cases are not so rare.
It seems to me that, all philosophical attitudes apart, fear of death is a matter of character. Fear, after all, is an emotion and as such it is difficult, though probably not impossible to control consciously.
"Buddhism was too foreign a fantasy of escape for a deracinated westerner."
This is where Cioran missed his 'escape latch' from the egocentric fear of death's grasp. It's challenging to explain this concisely:
We die all the time. Every time you go to sleep, every time you learn something that changes your behavior, every time you leave your home, and ultimately, we die pretty much any time we engage in life. Why? Because everything about you changes over time- the cells on your body (they get replaced every ~7yrs) and the neuron behavior in your brain. The ego is an illusion the brain sometimes manufacture to internalize action. Talk to people that have experience "ego-death" via meditation or hallucinogens- they often drop the feeling of death's sting, in my experience. Death of oneself only causes the amount of fear in proportion to the attachment to 'oneself'. It's like being afraid that magic will die one day... which might be a terrible fear provided you truly believe in magic. But if you do believe in your ego, then you have no other choice than to fear non-existence. You might ask how does one carry on in the world without ego? You engage in the world much like the natural world engages with you. You live your values, which will prompt you to action. There's nothing wrong unboxing your ego when you need it from time to time, provided you dispel it when it's no longer useful... just like how we decide to believe in magic when we go see a magic show.
There's an amazing class taught by Professor Kagan on Life and Death that I'd highly recommend:
I can't help but thinking, for those of us interested in living the life we have until we can't any more, that this line of thinking is ultimately much more helpful. Death is a single, important, instant in our existence. We must give it the consideration it is due, but I also don't like the idea of being trapped by my own mortality. It will come when it comes, and I don't want to cheat myself of all the moments in between wrestling with its specter.
> Talk to people that have experience "ego-death" via meditation or hallucinogens
What if the ego's dissolution is the actual illusion? This reminds me of Sam Harris' "Waking Up" where he tries to construct a rational argument for the self being an illusion just because one can reach a temporary state of not being aware of it.
The choice of which of the two is the actual illusion has no basis in rational thinking.
He's definitely a gifted writer, there's no doubt about that. But the core of his writings... I've tried to read his stuff, since it was quite popular in some circles I was frequenting back in college. I just couldn't. I had a truly physical reaction of revulsion. I literally felt like throwing up.
Very gifted individual, but deeply afflicted by depression. His was a medical case.
51 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadPass, and go directly to someone like Schopenhauer...
Yeah, his work had mostly only aesthetic value imho (aka "worthless", I agree), bu one doesn't judges philosophers based on their life and character, one judges their ideas. And even so, I'd have no problems of with a philosopher who was lazy and sympathized with horrible people. Heck, if Hitler wrote good philosophy himself I'd praise his philosophy despite the person (note: he did not, I agree, Mein Khampf is 100% crap).
It's the same with philosophy and literature. Only mathematical logic and similar formal philosophy is immune from an analysis that takes the author into account...
The "New Criticism" of the mid-20th century which rules out considerations of biography is just one possible stance. The censorious tone of dang concerning a personal reaction to Cioran feels like part of a HN ethos of denying the value of subjectivity. A deadly caricature of life as lived by engineers.
That only drives the point further: there are no ideas in Cioran, just (or in any case, mostly) whining.
My mentioning of his life wasn't to diminish his ideas (or rather, the lack thereof), just to show how unjustified the whining.
[1]: http://www.epicurus.net/en/menoeceus.html
Why? Because it is the normal thing to do? Is it expected of you to be afraid of death? Is the natural inclination to be afraid of just thinking about dying?
I am "fearful" of death in the sense that if something is likely to cause my death in the present moment, I will act towards self-preservation.
But the idea of death, that just thinking of one's demise would cause one anguish is a sign one hasn't calibrated his priorities correctly. Pragmatically speaking, there are so many things to think about (and even moreso to do), so why would anyone focus on something that they cannot ever change? Besides their own self-imposed torture in the name "philosophy."
This will come off as snarky, but I recommend you find some more things to fill your time.
But, going through the extremely terrible has given me a better perspective on: the true severity of problems, whereas one who suffers will be stuck in such a negative and hopeless mindset, even if such is not true at all; the problems that are strictly self-imposed, as opposed to those one has no control over; and the extent to which one's problems can be fixed by putting in conscious effort.
As there are few who truly are unable to lose weight, without extra effort and accommodations, there are few that are truly stuck with unmanageable and crippling thanatophobia.
Have you heard of former drug addicts being harder on addicts than those who've never faced the problem themselves? This is relevant to our discussion.
While people need support and understanding, the victims themselves must take personal responsibility for their issues as well.
I haven't thought of it like that. But it would seem one is an unconscious reaction, spurred on by the autonomous nervous system, while the other is a (seemingly) conscious choice (if we don't get into determinism).
Then we get back to the beginning. You can influence the outcome of a sudden event, but not your own destined death down the line. Taking your "natural to want good experiences to last for as long as possible and to be at least a little 'pissed'," into account, doesn't that align with my parent comment? By consciously obsessing about how your days are numbered and that you have relatively little time alive, are you not contributing to your own state of being "pissed?"
Are you not being self-sabotaging?
> I guess you describe a kind of stoic philosophy where one shouldn't be concerned by things one cannot change at all, but that requires a lot of conscious effort, at least that's my personal experience, and the untrained human reaction to the fact that the good days are numbered is to be "pissed".
My response to this will sound aggressive, but once we identify a lapse in our untrained thinking, the practical thing to do would be to fix this.
In other words, as you mentioned, we can override such thoughts with sustained conscious effort. It may be difficult, but it would be a better use of time to make ours as good as it can be.
OK, I thought you weren't only talking about unconscious processes but also short-term decision-making like "I'm not going to try this unknown berry because it might kill me". I don't know why I used the word "instinct", since that implies unconscious processes indeed.
As for the rest, I completely agree with everything you said, my point was mainly what I expressed in my last sentence, regarding the reaction an "untrained" human mind would have, which of course can be overcome with some effort.
The first time, I cried when the realization hit me. All of the things we couldn't do anymore and the hole that he would leave was terrible to think about.
I changed my mindset into something very cliche, but it works for me:
We can no longer create memories together, but I can still cherish the ones we had and pass on the same good he brought into my life, to others. Sort of like remembering one's legacy and passing on the torch.
I don't believe there is an intrinsically correct answer for these human situations, so picking the most efficient one is best.
If you return to the ancients, living philosophically was more important than the conceptual edifice or system building we conceive of as philosophical today--that's why we run into somewhat blatant contradictions in the systems of the neo-platonists and others--it is not that they were necessarily poor systematizers and let their concepts run away from them--that man didn't quite have the same intellectual power for reasoning cleanly yet--but that systemic clarity was not their goal--they had only an effect in mind.
The ancients were almost therapists in a sense--their whole goal was to get one living in the right way--thus few of them actually bothered to write as the philosophical schools were centered on practices, rituals, meditations etc.--progressions--and not just explication--exegesis of a master's thought was important--but only to the extent it had a direct impact on one's life and the way one lived. A philosopher, to the ancients was simply anyone who lived in a certain way--and by certain principles, whether or not they had conceived of those principles or learned them--the designation came with the living and the way not with intellectual output, but with intellectual activity(living with a love of wisdom). There's a reason Epictetus's text is called Enchiridion, which means manual or handbook--the same can be said of the use of the word Sutra
Then the middle ages hit and philosophy became far more theoretic as it was subordinated to theology--it became the so called handmaiden of theology--now its whole purpose was conceptual clarification, system building, logic--in order that one might know God, might develop a theological framework, put all the cosmological ducks in order.
I scarcely have to describe how the analytic tradition in the 20th century drove this notion of philosophy primarily as systematizing, abstract, and having little connection with one's actual practice and way of living further, and indeed to an extreme. As someone once enmeshed in the analytic tradition myself, I find nothing more distasteful than stuffy academic philosophy--it is necessary sure, but we must recall that philosophy was foremost supposed to teach one how to live (or how to die ;) ).
Wittgenstein is perhaps the only "analytic" that offers a philosophy similar to those of the ancients--You'll find that even the Tractatus, which helped birth the most arid and abstract form of philosophizing, logical positivism, if you read it carefully, is actually a text meant to directly influence the way you live and resolve some problem of living more than it is the presentation of some metaphysical, logical framework--indeed, the propositional structure of that text is more or less a smokescreen--W., like Socrates, like Nietzsche, presents a mask--remove the numbers, re-title it "Aphorisms"--has anything changed?
Hadot's book, Philosophy as a Way of Life is a great study on this shift from philosophy as lived, therapeutic practice to philosophy as a primarily textual, abstract, academic profession--and like all professions, limited by exterior considerations.
If an article (or philosopher) is so not to your taste that you can't think of anything else to say, please just don't comment. Nothing is to everyone's taste, and there's usually something else that's interesting.
A bunch of tech-nerds who routinely act skeptical of women testimony about harassment, waxing poetic about the nuances of the thought of a Nazi sympathizer.
HN: "wow; beautiful, thoughtful stuff. really makes me think."
It's interesting to note that you are agreeing with Coldtea but for completely different reasons.
Coldtea is saying that Cioran's works are intrinsically crap, without mentioning once Cioran's Nazi sympathies as a reason.
On the other hand, you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that because Cioran was a Nazi sympathizer, then all of Cioran's works must necessarily be crap, because it would not be acceptable to think otherwise.
I was introduced to him by my previous boss. I was going through some rough times, and my boss recommended some of his books, summarising Cioran's thoughts on the matter of suicide as being a crutch to survive.
He saw suicide as an eternal escape hatch. No matter what happened, he still had the comfort (and control) of being able to say "Stop."
I'm not sure I would agree that it is the main message, but it is true that On the Heights of Despair does allude to that way of thinking.
I highly recommend Cioran, to anyone who is interested by philosophy. As with most philosophers you will read about, there will be major disagreements between you and the author, but his works have definitely shaped how I perceived parts of life.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Caraco
Understanding the draw of his thinking can help one understand the intellectual premise on which disaffected young men and women are seduced further into darkness.
If you like him and aphorisms, you may enjoy this Colombian: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/340970.Nicol_s_G_mez...
What about people who thought they will die and were ok with it? Or those that did indeed die and were, at least apparently, ok with it? Those cases are not so rare.
It seems to me that, all philosophical attitudes apart, fear of death is a matter of character. Fear, after all, is an emotion and as such it is difficult, though probably not impossible to control consciously.
This is where Cioran missed his 'escape latch' from the egocentric fear of death's grasp. It's challenging to explain this concisely:
We die all the time. Every time you go to sleep, every time you learn something that changes your behavior, every time you leave your home, and ultimately, we die pretty much any time we engage in life. Why? Because everything about you changes over time- the cells on your body (they get replaced every ~7yrs) and the neuron behavior in your brain. The ego is an illusion the brain sometimes manufacture to internalize action. Talk to people that have experience "ego-death" via meditation or hallucinogens- they often drop the feeling of death's sting, in my experience. Death of oneself only causes the amount of fear in proportion to the attachment to 'oneself'. It's like being afraid that magic will die one day... which might be a terrible fear provided you truly believe in magic. But if you do believe in your ego, then you have no other choice than to fear non-existence. You might ask how does one carry on in the world without ego? You engage in the world much like the natural world engages with you. You live your values, which will prompt you to action. There's nothing wrong unboxing your ego when you need it from time to time, provided you dispel it when it's no longer useful... just like how we decide to believe in magic when we go see a magic show.
There's an amazing class taught by Professor Kagan on Life and Death that I'd highly recommend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8
> Talk to people that have experience "ego-death" via meditation or hallucinogens
What if the ego's dissolution is the actual illusion? This reminds me of Sam Harris' "Waking Up" where he tries to construct a rational argument for the self being an illusion just because one can reach a temporary state of not being aware of it.
The choice of which of the two is the actual illusion has no basis in rational thinking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Robert_Eduard_von_Hartm...
Both have terrific yet bleak senses of humor and beautiful prose.
He's definitely a gifted writer, there's no doubt about that. But the core of his writings... I've tried to read his stuff, since it was quite popular in some circles I was frequenting back in college. I just couldn't. I had a truly physical reaction of revulsion. I literally felt like throwing up.
Very gifted individual, but deeply afflicted by depression. His was a medical case.
I haven't read his non-fiction, but his fiction is incredible.
1. https://www.discogs.com/Current-93-With-Thomas-Ligotti-In-A-...