/lit/ - Literature

Just read Rene Guenon instead.

Congratulations, you've discovered reactionary literature.
If it had anything worthwhile to say, itwouldn't only have traction on a small 4chan board.

You know how I know that you come from r*ddit

>>10660874
>Appeals to tradition
>Has nothing to do with the tradition that Evola talks about
Tradition as "we have always done it that way" is not the tradition studied by Evola.
No go back to r*ddit and keep trying to understand fallacies.

>*Appeals to novelty*

And this is considered philosophy?

>>10660890
This, so much this.
I have never heard of it being discussed by my uni's literature professors and never seen the wink of it on /r/books.

>>10660988
>it's not talked about on reddit so it's not worthwhile
really makes you think

>>10660874
>appeals to tradition
That's not what Evola was talking about. It's why he is so critical of Christianity, and why he proposes to do away with anything "traditional" in the modern age to pave way for a new and true Tradition.

>>10660874
How about reading the book

Tradition = eternity

How do one does philosophical investigations without tradition?

>>10661064
>>10660988
I don't know which one of you two morons is more retarded.

>>10661136
Definitely me

>>10660874

>>10660874
it's not philosophy you retard

>*Appeals to progress*

And this is considered philosophy?

>>10660988
>liberal institutions don't promote reactionary ideas
really makes you think

>>10660988
>I have never heard of it being discussed by my uni's literature professors and never seen the wink of it on /r/books.

>>10660988

>>10660988
>it isn't mentioned anywhere in Marxist echo chambers so it's not worth my time

>>10660988
You'd think /lit/ would be immune to low level bait like this.

>>10660988
top tier bait my dude

>>10660988
>and never seen the wink of it on /r/books.

I giggled

>>10661064
>>10661136
>>10661218
>>10661257
>>10661272
how did you retards get baited like this

Tradition is a point of reference and ideal, not a mere premise in a syllogistic argument. Evola isn't "arguing" in order to convert you. Tradition is real, living, and effective. Disregard it at your own peril.

>>10661117
"new Tradition" is an oxymoron. Don't conflate Ride the Tiger with his earlier work. In any case, in RTT he was arguing that we should hold on to the inner, essential side of Tradition, but drop the exterior because the exterior is no longer effective or salutary. In Revolt he was just doing an overview of various themes spanning different Traditions. He wasn't arguing for anything like what you've implied yet. He was generally antichristian though.

>>10661795
Quality post. RATMW is not a normative argument espousing a standard of behavior, but a reflection of modernity and a critique of post-Versailles Europe.

>>10661795
>>10662265
Can you explain some more? Sounds very interesting

>>10662380
Read the first 118 pages of Rene Guenon's Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines.
http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Rene%20Guenon/organized/accounted/Rene%20Guenon%20-%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Study%20of%20the%20Hindu%20Doctrines.pdf

tl;dr Tradition is rooted in metaphysics which is perennial and unchanging. Modernity is a deviation from Tradition, ergo it has a negative and contingent character―it is defined with reference to the Tradition from which it deviates. There's way more to it than that, though. Read the book.

>>10662425
Will do. Thanks

>>10662512
Here's a chart I made, hth.

>>10662539
Is Evola still worth reading?

>>10662550
Yeah, but he's more politically oriented. Also he and Guenon disagreed on where action and contemplation stood in the metaphysical hierarchy, and Evola insisted that spiritual power and secular power should not be separated.

>>10662565
>Yeah, but he's more politically oriented.
you can always ignore his political books and read his books about traditions like the buddhism one

he will sperg out about aryans from time to time but it's a great book otherwise

>>10662592
Doctrine of awakening is unironically fantastic.

>>10660874

Well, there are two main theses in Evola:

(1) "Most religions of earth show signs of an undergoing "tradition" or share similar characters philosophically speaking."
This theses is the conclusion of an induction argument resulting from gathering data from different religions, mythological traditions, etc.
This argument is sound (though it may be false, for instance if someone came up with a different interpretation for the same data adding to it a stronger justification)

2. "We should live according to this philosophy most religious traditions share"
Now this is just an argument from authority. The fact that all religions make similar statements about the world does not mean that they are true.
This argument is unsound.

Nonetheless, Evola's point looks persuasive if you start from a Platonic metaphysics, i.e. believing that there is an upper level of Forms/Being and a lower level of sensibles/Becoming.

There is still a lot that could be elaborated philosophically in him. Still, I think he's a great historian of religion and should be respected as an intellectual, despite of his political leanings.

>>10662539

What do you think of this?

>>10662539

This is a helpful chart.
Thanks!

>>10662804
Haven't read it. It seems to be a collection of essays. Could be a good intro.
>>10662819
Your're welcome.

>>10662804

Not him but as a fellow Gay-non reader I would say that your pic contains a large selection of many good pieces of writing by him but that you would probably be much better off by starting with "intro to hindu doctrines" and then reading the specific works of his that interest you most.

It takes time to read his whole corpus and you might not be thralled by all of it but if you read 'the essential' you would be missing out on important info and so you'd be best served by reading his 'intro' and than branching out from there into what interests you.

>>10661186
fixed it

>>10660988
Checked, nice b8 m8

>>10661186
Kek

>appeals to God
>doesnt even know what that God is

And this is considered philosophy?

>>10663605
Doesn't even know "who" God is

much more important question with an answer too obvious for most brainlets to get

>>10661186
weren't warriors traditionally above priests?

>>10663618
I think it was usually

Priests > Warriors > Merchants > Workers/Slaves/Whatever

>>10663618
Not in any meaningful sense and it varies by kingdom and era. Not to mention the cultus of the populace and the ruling caste.

>>10663644
kings and nobility mostly came from the warrior class, though. maybe i'm not understanding exactly what is meant by a "traditional" society.

>>10660874
>this is considered philosophy
no its not. you’ve been meme’d on by /pol/ and rw pseuds LARP’ing as vedics and egyptians

>tfw just spent all day in archive reading Evola's letters
>tfw handling papers Evola handled and signed

I FEEL THE INITIATION OVERTAKING ME

WHO WANTS TO HAVE TANTRIC SEX

>>10662539
Thanks anon. Just finished I.T.T.S.O.T.H.D the other day. Truly fascinating work. Interesting to discover that practically all of western philosophy/ science/ astrology is derived from eastern metaphysics.

>>10663654
Kings rule the earthly realm and priests have dominion over heaven, so to speak. Since heaven is, uh, the more moral/real realm, priests > kings, even if it seems that kings do more.

>>10663701
pics or it didnt happen

The interesting part is where he tries to pass off his own insecurities and bias' as profound thought.

The books are really fucking interesting, I've only read like 2 and a bit but they seem to appeal to certain ego's if I'm being honest. I kind of question his followers ability to think for themselves.

It's like a dethroned king writting a reactionary book calling for the divine right to be reinstated and justifying it in the most verbose way possible. I dunno what do you guys think?

>>10660890

>>10660874
>belief in ghosts and telepathy
lmao why would anyone read this

>>10665076

>He hasn't personally witnessed the paranormal

>>10660988
Well played, anon

>>10665097
>He believes he has witnessed a natural event that violates the laws of nature.

>>10665164
>laws of nature

>>10665204
Pre sure Stirner was a big materialist, he believed in the laws of natural physics - probably in a solipsistic way. I think he wrote quite a bit on biology and races, not too sure though.

>>10665204
>nature is a spook so ghosts are real

>>10661729
>Make a post calling out bait
>Lmao get baited
So this is the true 4chan experience

>>10665246

Ghosts could hypothetically exist regardless of whether the concept of laws of nature was valid or not. If it wasn't valid that would be enough but if they existed but the concept was valid that would mean it involved phenomena that science had not discovered/understood.

Evola, Guenon and all the other Traditionalists shit on science for good reason though. In a Trad thread bringing up science is useless. According to the generally established trad view science is wholly inferior to anything having to do with Metaphysics, with deals with fundamental reality. Science is predicated upon logic which is weak application of intelligence.

The highest form of intelligence and the true meaning of the term is essentially supra-rational, and deals not with logic and contingent subjects but rather deals with things of a metaphysical nature. The highest form of knowledge is one where there is no distinction between knowledge and the subject of knowledge itself; this is impossible with logic as logic involves cognition about a subject. Since time immemorial the perennial tradition has passed down the means to metaphysical knowledge and the context to understand it.

Focusing on arbitrary constructs like science distracts attention from things of a higher order, that actually deal with the fundamental nature of existence more so than any numbers games or study of matter/energy.

You are free to disagree but you should recognize that the spook of scientism is but a blink of an eye in the history of humanity, that there is an overwhelming amount of tradition and accumulated wisdom that points out its folly, and that for all it material successes scientism directly ties into the spiritual and moral degeneration of modern civilization.

>>10665315

I like you. You can fuck my sister.

>>10665246
>>10665164
It's simple, retards:
>ghosts and other paranormal phenomena have been observed countless times
>laws of nature cannot be broken
>paranormal phenomena exist but are not violations of natural laws

>>10665315
Ghosts can't exist because the idea of a corporeal incorporeality is a contradiction. You are using the logical law of non-contradiction here
>The highest form of knowledge is one where there is no distinction between knowledge and the subject of knowledge itself; this is impossible with logic as logic involves cognition about a subject
in order to undermine logic itself, which is a performative contradiction.

I don't think science is the end all either, and I detest deterministic believers in scientism; they smack of a secular Calvinism. But to say that ghosts can exist anywhere other than in the mind is foolish; it's like saying a sailboat could hypothetically go against a current with no wind or any other sort of force carrying it in that direction. It's thinkable, true, but it will never happen. As Kant says, it's idle imagination rather than understanding.

>>10660890
If James Joyce had anything worthwhile to say, he wouldn't only have traction in small literary circles. Clearly J.K. Rowling is superior.

>>10665364
>because the idea of a corporeal incorporeality is a contradiction
So stop defining them as a corporeal incorporealities retard
>make up contradictory definition
>hurrr it can't exist look its a contradiction

>>10665402
What else can you call a manifest spirit?

>>10665407
The phenomena has been observed many times. There is no evidence suggesting what the nature of the phenomena is. That's all. We don't know what "ghosts" are, although there are loads of ridiculous theories. It doesn't negate the fact that the phenomena itself has been observed. Giving it a contradictory definition won't make it go away.

>>10661186
Is there anyone Evola WASN'T the virgin to?

>>10665422
I like Serrano's fiction and his book about Jung, but his other shit is fuckin kookoo

>>10665427
Did you read Devi, Jung, and Evola before him? If not, then it might be hard to understand what he's talking about. Also you have to already be pretty /pol/-tier if you want to study his conspiracies. I imagine most normalscum would be put off by Serrano immediately.

>>10665416
Ok, you fucking massive brainlet, let me put it another way; what is the phenomenON you are observing? If it is a single phenomenon you should at least be able to provide a general description of its occurrence. If not (which is, not incidentally, the case), then it's not fair to rank it in the category of phenomena, and this type of event should more appropriately be called a story, which most reasonable people consider it to be.

You can't call my definition out as false, then refuse to provide one.
>lol bro ghosts are like maybe real but nobody knows what they are spooky rite

>>10665439
>You can't call my definition out as false, then refuse to provide one.
Actually, I can. It's called "not knowing". If I don't know something I don't pretend to know it. At the same time, if I don't understand something the rational thing to do is to simply acknowledge that I don't understand it, not to completely deny its existence.
>it's not fair to rank it in the category of phenomena
lmao, so don't call it a "phenomena" if that triggers you. Call it "chicken soup" for all I care. I don't care what label you tack onto it.

>>10660929
/thread

>>10665460
So, whenever you see something you don't fully comprehend, you say, "well shucks it must've been a ghost"? And if you have absolutely no knowledge of what it is, how can you separate this thing in question from the idea of non existence, if you have no idea what it looks like, how you see it, or whether you see it?

>>10665364
>he doesn't understand Metaphysics

>>10665475
There is a general (trigger warning) PHENOMENA which we call the ghost phenomena. It has known characteristics: apparitions of people or animals that walk through walls, appear and disappear etc. We don't understand the nature of this phenomena but it has been observed many times. I never said I had absolutely NO knowledge. I am aware of the existence of the phenomena, I just don't understand its nature or mechanism.

>>10665494
>It has known characteristics: apparitions of people or animals that walk through walls, appear and disappear etc.

Right, so as far as perception (the only basis for understanding of natural phenomena) is concerned, these ostensible events have the characteristics of physically manifest spirits. But physical things in nature are not incorporeal, since if they were, they would not be physical, and vice a versa. So there are no ghosts. Thanks for playing

>>10665555
Not the guy you're replying to but you're a retard.

>>10665563
notanargument.jpg etc.

>>10665555
>physically manifest spirits. But physical things in nature are not incorporeal, since if they were, they would not be physical, and vice a versa. So there are no ghosts
1. I Never said they were physical
2. I Never said they were "spirits" in whatever way you are defining that term

>>10665315
Woah. You seem very well veraed on this. What are thoughts on Madame Blavatsky’s views? Are any of her works based on anything within the realm of possibility?

>>10665621

>>10665436
I’ve only read Devi. But I have Ebola on my reading list to. What do you think I should start with in regards to Jung’s stuff? I have Adolf Hitler the ultimate Avatar on my reading list but I’m going to have to do a lot more reading before I get round to it

>>10660988
Kek

>>10665627
Ahhh

>>10665638
No, seriously. If you're actually interested in Blavatsky then read that book.
https://ia801305.us.archive.org/30/items/reneguenon/1921-Theosophy-HistoryOfAPseudo-religion.pdf

>>10665643
Oh okay thanks. I don’t know too much about her only that she thought that Aryans descended from Atlanteans.. which I’m inclined to believe

>>10663618
>>10663654
not in medieval times. There's a reason the Pope literally crowned Charlemagne, that doesn't mean that the church has terrestrial executive power above kings, but the king still has to bow to the law of god, so the church is in that sense above nobles and kings

>>10663854
>It's like a dethroned king writting a reactionary book calling for the divine right to be reinstated and justifying it in the most verbose way possible. I dunno what do you guys think?
well, given that Evola was literally nobility in a time when aristocracy had lost their position it makes sense. But I'm personally not a fan of psychologizing people, it gets to a point when you start confusing the highest with the lowest when you do that as Guenon warned.

>>10665076
>>10665097
>>10665164
>>10665204

>>10665204
>everything is a spook
>except actual spooky ghosts
makes sense

I've been going down this path myself recently, suprisingly it ended up with me starting to read the greeks after giving Guenon a try with Reign of Quantity. Subject matter is very interesting but the understanding of metaphysics required is way beyond what I have

>>10665893
be aware that Guenon considered classical antiquity more degenerated than medieval times. Evola thought the opposite i think

>>10665896
>classical antiquity more degenerated than medieval times

Wtf i haye antiquity now

>*Appeals to sensory experience*

And this is considered philosophy?

>>10663707

Wrong

>>10665315
But how do you *understand* metaphysical truth? You'd have to be divine yourself

>>10665422
Mussolini

>>10665896
>classical antiquity more degenerated than medieval times
Why?

>>10665243
Nope. He is a materialist, but largely discusses the abstract ideas to which people submit themselves(while arguing that these ideas are ultimately insubstantial and people are throwing their self-ownership away for nothing).
In discussing the ideas to which people submit themselves on a collective level, over the various stages of history, he posits a dialectical process by which people overturn one ruling idea only to submit to another, moving from the World through God/Spirit through Man and finally concluding with the Ego. He briefly touches on Asian culture and categorizes it as mainly beholden to Spirit, and he uses 19th-century racialist terminology, but that's the closest he comes to touching on race.

>>10667039
Female members of the imperial family would go to brothels and fornicate with hundreds of men and possibly a donkey.

>>10665364
Using logic to argue against the existence of a higher and supra-rational form of knowledge is self-defeating. It's like you were trapped in a box and some people were lowering down a ladder to help you out but you were like "leaving the box would violate the rules of the box and is thus impossible"

>>10665651
There is actually decent evidence contained in the Vedic texts that the Urheirmat of the proto-indo-europeans was located in the arctic circle or near the north pole at a period where it was inhabitable, aka hyperborea.This is documented in Tilak's book 'the artic home in the vedas', a shorter summary of the evidence can be found in this article.

https://www.systematics.org/journal/vol1-3/SJ1-3c.htm

This is a different subject than the ancient tales of an advanced civilization spreading culture to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Incas etc as Graham Hancock has written books about. The two subjects may or may not be related.

>>10667039
>>10665899

Guenon considered the classical world of the Greeks and Romans to be degenerate in the sense that the deities of the greco-roman religion were humanized and personified and the higher principles for which they stood were lost. The greco-roman religion really was lacking any sort of comprehensive metaphysical teaching, the greco-roman world did have the mystery cults, pythagoreans, neoplatonists etc but these were fringe movements instead of being the established tradition which meant that the wider culture was still not at all based on metaphysical principles, this laid the ground for the eventual anti-metaphysical character of modern western culture after an interlude of the west being semi-traditional during the 'dark ages' of the medieval era.

>>10667481
>the deities of the greco-roman religion were humanized and personified
Doesn't that also apply to the religions before them? (except rudimentary ones like animism and what not)

>>10667481
Then all I need to do to exempt my arguments from the necessity of possessing logical validity is say they relate to the "supra rational." I would be able to pass off any contradictory nonsense as materially possible by making this claim.

>>10665588
What the fuck do you think the word apparition means?

>>10667553
This is what it looks like when you are cthonic as fuck.

>>10667481
I’ve got that book on my reading list. I’m becoming extremely interested in this topic.

>>10667630
Better to rule in Hades than serve on Olympus

>>10667653
M'lord.

>>10667681
Glad to finally have proportionate respect, now give me a pomegranate

>>10665851
The pope tricked Charlemagne, it wasn't supposed to go this way

>>10667700

>>10667704
>the virgin charlemagne
>the chad pope

>>10665555
>takes one (1) intro to modern philosophy class
Oh, I wish I were in the land of Kant'yans
The reason there is not forgotten
Look away! Look away!
Look away, Undergrads!

>>10666562

Not necessarily. The ultimate metaphysical reality of the universe is something beyond the ordinary perception of people although according to which particular subset of Tradition you subscribe to this state may be realized as an arahant, jivanmukti etc.

Metaphysical knowledge extends beyond knowledge of the ultimate reality of the universe though. In the trad sense anything based in universal principles may be regarded as metaphysical. A religious text may be regarded as metaphysical if it deals with such kinds of higher knowledge, it hasn't have to immediately induce enlightenment in the reader in order to qualify.

If you seek these kinds of knowledge and experiences ideally you could be initiated by someone with the proper authority and experience. As this is a rarity in the west though, the next best thing is just to study the scriptures themselves, which could be combined with a regular meditation or yoga practice for added benefit.

If you haven't read any trad /lit you would be best off starting with a bit of them before diving into the primary sources. Guenon's 'intro to hindu doctrines' is invaluable.

Hinduism is most exoteric eastern tradition in the sense that it's primary texts openly discuss the heights of metaphysics from every angle; the information is freely available for anyone with the capacity to understand it. For this reason it's a natural choice for someone interest in traditional metaphysics. The Prasthana Trayi forms the core of Hindu metaphysics and anyone interested in understanding it should read the Trayi accompanied by the commentaries of one of the Vedanta masters, which provides the thread that tie it togather into a coherent understanding instead of a series of nice-sounding aphorisms. Adi Shankara's are the best IMO, Ramanuja's are acceptable too. There is a huge wealth of valuable Hindu texts aside from those too.

Daoist texts are also very metaphysical, the Tao Te Ching and the works of Zhuangzhi are very much worth reading. Some of the traditions like Sufism are more taught face-to-face and have less primary texts although if you do enough research you can find good texts for almost every tradition.

>>10667481
>The greco-roman religion really was lacking any sort of comprehensive metaphysical teaching, the greco-roman world did have the mystery cults, pythagoreans, neoplatonists etc but these were fringe movements instead of being the established tradition which meant that the wider culture was still not at all based on metaphysical principles, this laid the ground for the eventual anti-metaphysical character of modern western culture after an interlude of the west being semi-traditional during the 'dark ages' of the medieval era.
This is why I say Catholicism is degraded paganism, but paganism is degraded Catholicism. Of course, the mystery schools you listed are something altogether different from paganism.

>>10668832
*isn't degraded paganism

>>10666562
Sincerely meditate on the mysteries rosary, and the Virgin Mary/Sophia may bequeath wisdom to you

>>10660988
>liberals shy away from conseravtive/traditionalist thinkers
IMAGINE
MY
SHAWK

>>10668036
I’ve just downloaded Adi Shankara’s commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, what else can I get my hands on by him and where from?

/pol/tard here, got in this thread because I saw that Evola pic and kept reading throughout this thread and a lot of stuff (if not everything) goes above my head.

How do I git gud?

>>10669354
Start with the greeks

>>10669354
you forget about Evola forever and you read Oswald Spengler instead

>>10667852
I'm quite sure I've read more Kant than you, animeposter

>>10665651
he has no valid criticisms of what Blavatsky taught, he wrote this book to destroy theosophical credibility to boost his own sales. He lifted countless ideas from her books as did Evola. Everything both Evola and Guenon said about ghosts, subtle bodies, universal religion, metaphysics and initiation comes from Theosophy its not their ideas. They took a red pen and just blotted out her name from everything they said.
>>10667481
No its because Guenon was a Catholic.
>mysticism is persecuted with death in the middle ages but initiation is the basis for medieval religion


How the fuck am I the only person who can see that Guenon is a hack fraud and so is Evola? Everything they believe is stolen, all of it is self serving, all of it is done to please either Fascists or the Catholic Church what a fucking joke.

>>10669354
Start with Rene Guenon’s - Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines

>>10669354

Start with Plato. Everything in philosophy is a reaction to him.

>>10669574
>Guenon was Catholic
So that’s why he thought the only traditional doctrine that was an option for the West (if it wanted to return to a purely intellectual doctrine) was Catholicism..

>>10669594
Is this bait?

>>10669219

Amazon sells english translations of his commentaries on 8 Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras as well as 5 or 6 of his non-commentary works. Some 10/10 advaita or advaita-influenced texts not by him (but also on amazon) include the Ashtavakra Gita, The Yoga Vasistha and The Bhagavata Purana. I don't know much about where to download free copies of them. Many of them are quite long though so it makes sense to have a physical copy, one translation of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya is over 900 pages.

I'm reading Alladi Mahadeva Sastri's translation of Shankara's Bhagavad Gita Bhashya right now, it's quite good.

>>10669574
>unironically shilling Theosophy

I hope you are trolling

>>10660988
Five years ago this poster would be lucky to get three replies. When will the newfags learn?

>>10669727
>I'm reading Alladi Mahadeva Sastri's translation of Shankara's Bhagavad Gita Bhashya right now, it's quite good.
Managed to find a free copy of this. I think I will read the Mahabharata and Ramayana before I get into it though.

>>10669895

It's not necessary to read either of those first, you could read two at the same time and be fine.

In it Shankara quotes from the Upanishads and the Mahabharata but his quotations are not such that you won't understand them if you haven't read those texts. It's done usually either to justify his interpretations by the Śruti or to draw parallels with others texts such as the Mahabharata, the context is for the most clear on it's own though.

Aside from very minimal notes by the translator the text doesn't hold your hand at all and is obviously intended for those who are familiar with Hinduism. Guenon's 'hindu intro' alone explains about two thirds of the terms that are used in it and if you just look up any of the remaining terms any time you come across an unfamiliar word it's not a difficult or obtuse read. At times Shankara actually goes out of the way to list 3 or 4 hypothetical counter-arguments one could raise to his individual points and then addresses them in turn.

>>10665896
Certainly the Greeks and Romans but I'm pretty sure he considered the Egyptians and Persians to be fairly Traditional civilizations.

>>10670699
Excellent. Thanks anon

>>10669574
>He lifted countless ideas from her books as did Evola. Everything both Evola and Guenon said about ghosts, subtle bodies, universal religion, metaphysics and initiation comes from Theosophy its not their ideas.
you are either retarded or you haven't read actually read Guenon

>>10670801
Guenon unironically believed that the egyptian's demise was because they developed magic too much

>>10660988
Fantastic bait. 9/10.