According to the Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran a person would be better off not to have been born. He determined suffering is the rule in life and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. All actions, he says, are or will be cause for regret.

The notion of well-being for Emil is an illusion that many people will harbor off and on during their lives but will in the end be unable to sustain. Apparently Emil thinks it would be better to be, now, where he was before he was born-which is where he must be since he died in 1995.

I guess Emil spent most of his life under a dark cloud; his mother told him at one time, had she known he was going to be so unhappy she would have aborted him. The notion of the accidental nature of his existence seems to have been somewhat of a lift, leading him to the idea that, potentially, suicide is always a possibility.

Emil’s lack of empathy for his fellow man led him to embrace the totalitarian politics of World War II Europe; no doubt he has to be seen as the quintessential misanthrope. Still, he had good friends, companionship and wrote quite beautifully in a lyrical style. He was an artist, really.

It makes me wonder if there wasn’t a certain Stoic resignation in Emil’s behavior; perhaps writing all those negatives provided the opportunity to not have to think about them so much.

I’ve been getting caught up in winning and losing lately. The politics, these days,is getting pretty cut-throat and the pressure to take sides, whether regarding sports activities, political discussions, philosophical positions, religious notions, you name it, is increasingly intense. It almost seems as if winning or losing is more the issue than thoughtful reasoning about issues. Winning, it seems, becomes synonymous for many with success.

I read an article recently that suggested one was less likely to succeed if she was overly optimistic. I guess the idea is too much optimism inhibits the drive to compete; to strive for the head of the line, for the promotion or the big raise. The optimist, the writer suggests, assumes good things are in store regardless of how hard she works for them.

It seems to me the whole idea of winning presupposes a common desire which will be satisfied by material reward resulting in an enhanced sense of well-being. This ‘success’ will never be more than temporary which means additional winning will be required to not simply sustain it but to avoid the debilitating depression of ‘failure’, the result being a vicious cycle of competing egos egged on by media hype and recognition. Then, one day I awake to the realization someone else is determining my values for me; my well-being is no longer in my own hands and has become embedded in the competitive, material realm.

Well, I’m not having any of it. I really don’t care how popular success is measured. I’m staying positive and optimistic. I’ll look past the material realm and embrace the purity of beauty and truth. I understand this may require some disassociation.