Proust says that we must also fear the past, I say that we must fear neither the future, nor the past, whenever we can

It is not enough in love, as in everyday life, to fear only the future: one must fear the past, which often becomes real to us only after the future, and I am not simply speaking of the past about which we learn only after the event, but of the one we have carried within us for many years, and which we only now learn to read.

Aussi il ne faut pas ne redouter dans l’amour, comme dans la vie habituelle, que l’avenir, mais même le passé, qui ne se réalise pour nous souvent qu’après l’avenir, et nous ne parlons pas seulement du passé que nous apprenons après coup, mais de celui que nous avons conservé depuis longtemps en nous et que tout à coup nous apprenons à lire.

We must rejoice, that we have learned to read! That the past is behind, that we are delivered, etc. And as stoics say, or are they Epicureans? No. Past is already behind, future has not come yet (if ever it comes or we arrive to it). And when the future will come, either we will be different, or the circumstances we imagine. And as usual, we imagine circumstances differently. But what we must bear in mind is that Proust is explaining all this from a "unphilosophical human point of view". For example, what a lover feels. But a lover is never a man.