/lit/ - Literature

"Clearly the materialists themselves are more incapable than anyone else of becoming aware of these things or even of conceiving them as possible, blinded as they are by their preconceived ideas, which close for them every outlet from the narrow domain in which they are accustomed to move; doubtless they would be as astonished to hear of them as they would be to know that men have existed and still exist for whom what they call 'ordinary life' would be quite the most extraordinary thing imaginable, because it corresponds to nothing that occurs at all in their existence. Nevertheless such is the case, and furthermore, these are the men who must be regarded as truly 'normal', while the materialists, with all their boasted 'good sense' and all the 'progress' of which they proudly consider themselves to be the most finished products and the most 'advanced' representatives, are really only beings in whom certain faculties have become atrophied to the extent of being completely abolished."

Now let's see the materialists seething:

>>14716132
my hylic detector is beeping!

>>14572196
>I mean what was his goal, to show that the illusion is somehow flawed?

THE PRECEDING CONSIDERATIONS implicitly contain the solution to all problems of the sort raised by Zeno of Elea in his famous arguments against the possibility of motion, or at least in what appear to be such when one takes the arguments only as they are usually presented; in fact, one might well doubt whether this was really their true significance. Indeed, it is rather unlikely that Zeno really intended to deny motion; what is more probable is that he merely wished to prove the incompatibility of the latter with the supposition, accepted notably by the atomists, of a real, irreducible multiplicity existing in the nature of things. It was therefore originally against this very multiplicity so conceived that these arguments originally must have been directed; we do not say against all multiplicity, for it goes without saying that multiplicity also exists within its order as does motion, which, moreover, like every kind of change, necessarily supposes multiplicity. But just as motion, by reason of its character of transitory and momentary modification, is not self-sufficient and would be purely illusory were it not linked to a higher principle transcendent with respect to it, such as the 'unmoved mover' of Aristotle, so multiplicity would truly be nonexistent were it to be reduced to itself alone, and did it not proceed from unity, as is reflected mathematically in the formation of the sequence of numbers, as we have seen.

What is more, the supposition of an irreducible multiplicity inevitably excludes all real connections between the elements of things, and consequently all continuity as well, for the latter is only a particular case or special
form of such connections. As we have already said above, atomism necessarily implies the discontinuity of all things; ultimately, motion really is incompatible with this discontinuity, and we shall see that this is indeed what the arguments of Zeno show. Take, for example·, the following argument: an object in motion can never pass from one position to another, since between the two there is always an infinity of other positions, however close, that must be successively traversed in the course of the motion, and, however much time is employed to traverse them, this infinity can never be exhausted. Assuredly, this is not a question of an infinity, as is usually said, for such would have no real meaning; but it is no less the case that in every interval one may take into account an indefinite number of positions for the moving object, and these cannot be exhausted in analytic fashion, which would involve each position being occupied one by one, as the terms of a discontinuous sequence are taken one by one.

Safehouse for real oldfag /lit/ anons
Retards banned instantly.
No spam, only real constructive discussion. Not a fucking advertisement

"""https://discord.gg/7WuEft"""
Please, lets built a comfy/ cozy place for knowledge/ideas sharing.
Now on i'll be banned. see you anons.

pic unrelated

I was hesitant to pick him up because of that autistic poster, but boy was I wrong. His diagnosis of profane-modernity and individualistic materialism is so concise and explicit, it puts continental philosophers to shame. And unlike marxists, he actually has a tried and tested solution: The Sacred.

Can't believe I wasted all my time memeing him, this shit changed my outlook in life. I should have never doubted you Guenon poster, I look forward to reading Reign of Quantity & Signs of the Times.

I was hesitant to pick him up because of that autistic poster, but boy was I wrong. His diagnosis of profane-modernity and individualistic materialism is so concise and explicit, it puts continental philosophers to shame. And unlike marxists, he actually has a tried and tested solution: The Sacred.

Can't believe I wasted all my time memeing him, this shit changed my outlook in life. I should have never doubted you Guenon poster, I look forward to reading Reign of Quantity & Signs of the Times.

>tfw you realise that Guenon and the Traditionalists are all just gnostics

What does Guénon think about death?
Does he believe in afterlife/heaven/hell or some kind of reincarnation?

Do you think Plinker has read any Guenon? How would he respond to Guenon’s arguments?

>>11846787
Bro, why do you count quantities, when we could into qualities?

Reminder that the Renaissance was a reduction in knowledge to merely human proportions and the definitive mark of Kali Yuga

I've read both Evola and Guenon, I'll read Frithjof in the future but there is one question that keeps bugging me, and it's an epistemological one

I don't have the book in front of me but I'll roughly paraphrase what Guenon says in Crisis of the Modern World when it comes to the question of perennialism. He starts of by explaining that he believes that we have been in Kali Yuga for the last six millenium, and that we are very likely headed for the last phase of said Age. He also explains that while time is cyclical, it is not a linear cycle but rather oscillates frequently. Examples he uses of this is how Humanity, while slowly degrading (he explains why degradation is necessary but it is moot to this point) frequently has drastic reductions in knowledge, so that we veil even more of the perennial truth. Further exemplifying the point he uses two major timepoints which are very similar in his view.

The first one is around 600BC, which, once I read, actually made sense to me. Around 600BC is when we move from Pre-history (what historians classify as Legendary times) and actual history. On the Chinese front we see old Chinese traditions split to Confucianism and Taoism. In the Middle-east we find Zoroastrianism rooting. In the west, we see the beginnings of "Ancient Greece" (he rejects that it suddenly began and that there was a major Greek civilization before Homeros). This point in time does seem very special to me aswell, and Guenon argues that it was a major shrouding of true knowledge.

The second point is less global and pertains to the west alone. The Renaissance around 1400AD. This degradation is the one we currently still belong to.

So what is this degradation he keeps referring to? It is one of limiting knowledge to human proportions. Humanism, empiricism, rationalism and all the other -isms exemplify this descenscion. Before the Antiquity we had Legendary pre-historic times, and before the Renaissance we had the Middle ages which Guenon was a fan of. This in fact, is the similarities he sees between Antiquity and "Modern" times and the two time-points i referred to earlier.

Hopefully I haven't misrepresented Guenon and can move on to my question. The question is essentially why are historians wrong when they are sceptical of Perennial knowledge? He very briefly argues that contemporaries are simply ignorant and arrogant and don't want to learn deeper truths. He puts forward very aggressive critique of what he calls "profane" philosophy that is reduced to human levels, needless to say he sees little benefit to German idealism. Is there really no way to retain perennial knowledge using philsophy? I hope the question was clear enough and that the responses are interesting. Thanks for reading

>>11663881
With one exception

>>7371428
If European right wingers had any balls, they'd follow the example of Based Guénon.