Fanaticism and E. M. Cioran’s “Lyrical Leprosy”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A highly captivating article of interest on fanatism and forms to avoid false certainties. The SparkNotes reference, however, is a truly disappointing element of the otherwise solid and thought-provoking text. It should be deleted. It gives the impression as if it were an old conference paper which has not been revised properly by its author. Indeed, the author’s style is quite unique and very passionate, but I believe a more neutral tone would be recommended in a scholarly article. Furthermore, the study contains unnecessary and subjective comments such as 1) footnote 26: Christopher Hitchens’s book God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Crow’s Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2008 “The book has been a success; I have consulted its 19. printing.” (page 6). or 2) footnote 19: Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet. Tr. R. Zenith. London: Penguin, 2015, p. 33. The translation is beautifully readable, unlike SHD. (page 4).

 

Other observations:

Not all reader may be familiar with Carol Burnet TV sketch, and the connection appears to be a bit obscure for those unacquainted with it.

 

George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker and Warburg, 1984, p. 2 (1984 - Full Text.pdf – Google Docs)  page 7 Which google docs (?)

Author Response

Dear Referee,

I have now done everything you recommend and require.

• I deleted my quotation from SparkNotes. And I clarified the 1984 context.
• I deleted the Carol Burnett case.
• I have deleted the two "unnecessary and subjective comments".
• About "a more neutral tone would be recommended in a scholarly article": I know this, but at the same time Cioran's style is extremely extreme and I also wanted to follow his tone of voice. To write neutrally about his ideas would be misleading. And at this stage, I don't know how to tone it down without rewriting the paper.

Thank you for comments,

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed this read. I have several thoughts on wether the use of terms such as pessimism and nihilism would be relevant for the discussion, as a way of thinking about indifference and ironic skepticism. I enjoyed your delineation of terms for the discussion. I think this essay clearly states its position, argues its point, and will offer lots of room for critique regarding the proposed conclusion; which is a great thing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words. I have published a lot recently, after my retirement, and a report like yours is indeed very welcome. I like to write controversial and "difficult" papers.

Regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper would be better if you tuned down your personal anger. Also, the conclusion is more a turnabout from your argument than a logical conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

About the angry tone, all I can say is that Cioran himself is so extreme, and I wanted to convey that to the reader. I thought that kind of participatory, "internalized" approach is more "true" than any analysis can be. And I think Cioran is important because of his anger and outrage.

About the ending: I need to reconsider it, but I meant a kind of "dialectical" turn that at the same time would soften my angry approach. My plan was to start the paper angrily, following Cioran, and then soften my approach in the end.

From my point of view, this angry approach is also an experiment, both stylistically and substantially. I wanted to see how it feels to write aggressively, and whether it works in a philosophy paper. All 3 Refs were positive, which was both pleasing and surprising to notice.

Thank you for your generally positive approach to and opinion of my essay,

greetings,