A lot of what’s called philosophy is just (”just”) art. Cioran was right to point this out and he arguably falls into exactly such a category. Philosophy should be more explicit and demanding as to its nature and function in relation to other fields (the empirical sciences especially). For all their failings, the logical positivists and those aligned with them held the correct stance, broadly, regarding this, and so I think always have to be celebrated for that. It’s a movement about which, when I come to evaluate it, I seem to always arrive at conclusions along the lines of “it’s heart was in the right place, it was a good and worthy attempt, and we should try something like it again,” and, historically speaking, there’s not really much more you can ask for than that. And this is not even to necessarily dismiss those things which would be ejected from philosophy-proper under such a conception, indeed I think they would find renewed purpose and vigour for it. The arts are a wonderful form of expression and many ideas that have spent centuries lingering around as some obscure idea in continental philosophy or whatever could find much more utilitarian existences when set free from that. Nietzsche and the pessimists are a prime example, and I say that as a pessimist, so I’d be losing quite a bit as a philosophical pessimist in abandoning my attempts to systematise them (which by this point I already have). The point being: just because something is called, or commonly understood as, philosophy, does not mean it is, or that it is helpful to think of it as such.