[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 7 KB, 192x263, Rene Guenon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13033295 No.13033295 [Reply] [Original]

>"Contemplation > Action."
> t. René Guénon

Why though?

>> No.13033373 [DELETED] 

>>13033295
Why do you people insist on these meme "philosophers". I bet none of you reading Evola or this guy have read Kant or Hegel or Leibniz or anything like that and are just looking for marginal quacks to validate your dumbass traditional beliefs.

>> No.13033386

>>13033373
>"Muh Kant"

Did Kant even reach moksha? Don't think so.

>> No.13033400 [DELETED] 

>>13033386
I don't even really like Kant but he's like, widely considered the most important philosopher since Aristotle. Like that isn't up for dispute, you've outed yourself as a pseud.

>> No.13033684

too tired to move

>> No.13034179

>>13033373
rude

>> No.13034298

>>13033373
I bet you dont even know the difference between tradition and Traditionalism

>> No.13034316

>>13033373
Maybe if you read them you might understand? Guenon and Evola are steadily becoming more well known for a reason.

>> No.13034753

>>13033295
Guenon meant that knowledge > action, not contemplation > action; there is a difference. His reasons for doing so has to do with the fact that the major eastern/metaphysical doctrines he focused on usually teach this in their major writings. Based on the Upanishads which more or less state as much the school of Advaita Vedanta teaches that moksha is reached through knowledge of the Atma and not through any other means aside from when they indirectly lead to the former achievement; Shankaracharya makes a number of points about this in his works such as that anything done within the realm of manifestation (such as action) is inherently transient and can never produce a permanent effect pertaining to beyond manifestation such as moksha; moreover he notes that anything which would be caused by action would be subject to change/causation and therefore not truly eternal, Atma-jnana differing from this insofar as it's synonymous with the end of ignorance which leaves one in the unchanging reality that was existing all along but without subjecting it to causation as this knowledge entails just the end of wrong views, similar to how when you realize that the mirage is not real it leaves the sand that was acting as its substratum completely unchanged. Action can coexist with ignorance and it is only knowledge which is mutually incompatible with it, just as you can walk around a closed box but you can't both know and not know the contents of it at the same time, one destroys the other. This type of reasoning and doctrines are found throughout many metaphysical schools which teach of a suprarational understanding reached through 'intellectual intuition' or through the 'heart'. For example in Sufism there is a hadith of unclear origins similar to the Upanishad mahavakyas which appears in the writings of people like Al-Ghazzali and Ibn-Arabi which goes something like "the prophet said he who knows himself knows his Lord", the relevance here being obvious. Evola for whatever reason (I suspect it stemmed from some urge to somehow 'rebel against' Guenon) tried to make it seem like NO EVERYONES WRONG TANTRAS RIGHT ACTIONS BETTER because some tantric doctrines talk about utilizing action as a means of reaching the Absolute but even here Evola is kinda being dishonest and misrepresenting things because Hindu tantra never regards action as an aim in itself but only as a means to approaching liberation which tantric texts usually describe as involving some sort dawning of a supra-rational understanding (i.e. knowledge) at the final stage anyways, in one essay Evola laughably tries to brush this aside by saying most tantric adepts won't reach that point anyway so it doesn't matter. Also, real action presupposes a multiplicity of actors, objects and instruments which most traditional doctrines tend to refute.

>> No.13034756 [DELETED] 

>>13034298
I do. The latter is the school of 'thought' that Guenon and Evola belonged to.

>Maybe if you read them you might understand?
I read enough Evola, no thanks.

>>13034316
>Guenon and Evola are steadily becoming more well known for a reason.
By whom? Far-right high school dropouts? There's a reason nobody in academia has heard of them, save for when the aforementioned high school dropouts draw academics to their attention through their public buffoonery, like in this case: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/11/what-do-readers-know-about-julius-evola.html

>> No.13034765

>>13033400
This. A pajeet and a couple of schizoposters (possibly one and the same) ruined the /phil/ side of /lit/.

>> No.13034781 [DELETED] 

>>13034298
I do. The latter is the school of 'thought' that Guenon and Evola belonged to.

>>13034316
>Maybe if you read them you might understand?
I read enough Evola, no thanks.

>Guenon and Evola are steadily becoming more well known for a reason.
By whom? Far-right high school dropouts? There's a reason nobody in academia has heard of them, save for when the aforementioned high school dropouts draw academics to their attention through their public buffoonery, like in this case: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/11/what-do-readers-know-about-julius-evola.html

>> No.13034803

>>13033373
>Why are you reading this sage, ten-language-speaking, mathematical savant spiritual leader? Read this senile obscurantist philosopher responsible for centuries of authoritarian suffering! Professors will give you brownie points..

>> No.13034833 [DELETED] 

>>13034803
>obscurantist
I too am the philosophical equivalent of a fetus.

>responsible for centuries of authoritarian suffering!
The only reason the same can't be said about your meme-tier idols is they had comparatively no influence.

>> No.13034889

>>13034833
You’ve never even read Guenon, and yet you’re attempting to speak on him. Why? It’s clear you don’t take any of this seriously, otherwise you wouldn’t criticize things you don’t know the slightest about.
If you actually cared, you’d be criticizing Guenon’s philosophy, but you can’t because you’ve never read him. You came to jerk off about how you read Hegel and Kant and how everyone else should too. And you also somehow think influence means merit, meanwhile I guarantee you spaz out whenever Marcus Aurelius or the stoics are brought up, considering your current spazzing out.

>> No.13034957 [DELETED] 

>>13034889
>You came to jerk off about how you read Hegel and Kant
Your philosophical worldview can't be taken seriously if you haven't read Kant; them's the breaks.

Maybe Guenon is worth taking seriously, but it would help if I ever came across philosophy-educated people who endorse him. It's a little obvious that the people on this board who go on about him and Evola have never immersed themselves in rigorous philosophy on any serious level.

>I guarantee you spaz out whenever Marcus Aurelius or the stoics are brought up
Lol what does this have to do with anything? I've read the Stoics. They're worthy of serious philosophical attention unlike these guys.

>you haven't read him
I have better things to do with my time. Like I said, I regrettably spent some of it on Evola. Not making that mistake again.

>> No.13035085

>>13034957
Yeah, Evola and Guenon aren’t at all the same.
>Your philosophical worldview can't be taken seriously if you haven't read Kant; them's the breaks.
Your philosophical worldview can't be taken seriously if you haven't read Guenon; them's the breaks.

>> No.13035095

>>13034781
If you weren't such a condescending ass maybe I'd believe that you didnt just do a surface reading on wikipedia

>> No.13035097

>>13034803
Implying authoritarianism is a bad thing.

>> No.13035112

>>13035085
>not having read Kant and making philosophical claims = not having read Guenon and making philosophical claims
Not equivocable dude. Sorry your education is bound to whatever VR you’ve cooked up for yourself.

>> No.13035128

>>13034957
Not the anon you are replying to, but Guenon was extremely well versed in western philosophy, especially that of Leibniz, Aquinas, Descartes, Bergson, and Kant. His book, The Reign of Quantity, while not totally about the history of western philosophy, has fairly lengthy sections where he does nothing but discuss the metaphysical implications of their thought. If you just read one of his books and think he was against western philosophy for no apparent reason, you are misunderstanding him.
I think you are right that more Guenon fans should read more of western philosophy though; I think too many people use him as a cope to simply ignore western thought that gets too complex. That's not what he tried to do in critiquing western thought. I generally speaking dislike much of how people interpret Guenon and almost loathe with how certain people put his thought into spiritual practice, twisting his words to justify their own fantasies.
However, to claim that Guenon is not worthy of serious philosophical attention is rather close minded. Many important thinkers, like them or not, were directly influenced by (Eliade, Carl Schmitt, Coomaraswamy, Dugin, Evola) and he has made his way into many traditionalist (lowercase emphasis here) circles in Catholicism, Sufi Islam, and partially into mainstream academia through S. H. Nasr and the like.

>> No.13035138 [DELETED] 
File: 178 KB, 615x372, eeu7NZr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13035138

>>13035085
>Your philosophical worldview can't be taken seriously if you haven't read Guenon; them's the breaks.
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=kant
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=guenon

>> No.13035142

>>13034957
I'm not the same anon but reading your posts I'm relieved someone like you will never touch Guenon's works. You're too stupefied by western philosophy to understand things properly. The acid critique of occidental mind makes perfect sense when I have the displeasure to meet people like you.

>> No.13035148

>>13035128
Good post

>> No.13035158

>>13035138
>popularity fallacy
Essentially your entire argument

>> No.13035171

>>13033373
>meme philosophers
Both Guenon and Evola were experts in religious study and world philosophy
The fact you're so dismissive of them because they arent widely taught in schools (I wonder why) just proves to me that you havent even given them a fair shake. Nobody that has actually read these men would dismiss them as brainlet "meme" philosophers. In truth they aren't even philosophers, they're just decoding what is already there.

>> No.13035198 [DELETED] 

>>13035158
No, it's appeal to expertise. Which might be an informal fallacy, but that doesn't mean much; we need induction to live our lives.

You would know this sort of thing if you read Kant, or Hume.

>> No.13035266

>if only you would read this one person's philosophy you would know why they're right

they cant all be right, r-right?

>> No.13035289

>>13035266
No philosopher is right about everything.
Like Nietzsche said, at some point their own bias corrupts the pursuit of truth.

>> No.13035351

>>13033373
Evola and Guenon are more in the realm of occultism/"alternative" religions/spirituality and thus have no real importance to either left-wing Marxists who care about sociology or apolitical guys who are interested in topics like consciousness, free will, reality, etc. Their audience is the main problem, since they're pretty easy to understand (somewhat like Nietzsche, as opposed to Schopenhauer and Hegel) and thus, easy to intellectually abuse.

>> No.13035483

>>13035128
Please don't leave /lit/

>> No.13035537

>>13033373
Kant? More like cunt! Haha. Hegel? More like kegel! Hehe. Leibniz? More like Chloe Moretz! Huhu.

>> No.13035579
File: 238 KB, 1024x756, 1545541208407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13035579

>>13035537

>> No.13035729

>>13033373
If you were to invest one iota of your time into the contemplation of the reason why some ideas (and their creators) become popular and generate influence, and others do not, you'd understand why you are wrong. Unfourtanetly, you are too much of faggot to be capable of performing this feat.

>> No.13035769 [DELETED] 

>>13035729
>marginal man i like is unpopular for bad reason
How convenient.

>> No.13035878

>>13035128
>dugin as important thinker

>> No.13035884

>>13034781
>There's a reason nobody in academia has heard of them
Yeah cuz liberalism won and those books are anti-liberal so why would they read them

Academia curates a lot of gay/dumb shit

>> No.13035890

>>13034781
>that link
>fascism alerts
is this bait?

this is bait

>> No.13035918

>>13035884
Evola wasn't interested in academia. His entire life was devoted to mysticism and rejecting the middle-class notions of academia. It's like wondering why hyper detailed hentai drawings are not ranked with Warhol.

>> No.13035942 [DELETED] 

>>13035884
Here's some anti-liberal political philosophers taken seriously in academia off the top of my head;
Marx, Schmitt, Stirner, Nietzsche, Plato.
I'll be nice and leave out Hobbes because he was a predecessor to liberalism, and Heidegger because he didn't write much in the way of political philosophy.

Here's some who are not:
Guenon, Evola.

>> No.13035947 [DELETED] 

>>13035884
>>13035884
Here's some anti-liberal political philosophers taken seriously in academia off the top of my head:
Marx, Schmitt, Stirner, Nietzsche, Plato.
I'll be nice and leave out Hobbes because he was a predecessor to liberalism, and Heidegger because he didn't write much in the way of political philosophy.

Here's some who are not:
Guenon, Evola.

>> No.13035953
File: 21 KB, 323x499, 41e4jo9lazL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13035953

>>13035947
>and Heidegger because he didn't write much in the way of political philosophy

>> No.13035954

>>13035947
>Marx, Schmitt, Stirner, Nietzsche, Plato.
All of these fit into the scientific secularist bug shit that liberal soys love

Anally fist yourself into a coma retard

>> No.13035957

>>13035918
>His entire life was devoted to mysticism and rejecting the middle-class notions of academia. It's like wondering why hyper detailed hentai drawings are not ranked with Warhol.
Sounds like some interesting novel shit that academia would find sexy and exotic

>> No.13035976 [DELETED] 

>>13035954
>All of these fit into the scientific secularist bug shit that liberal soys love
Not really, no. Definitely not Nietzsche or Stirner.

>> No.13035979

>>13035976
Definitely Nietzsche. The idea of the superman is a purely materialist/secularist idea

>> No.13036003

>>13035884
>liberalism won
>i really mean leftism by the way
yeah, theres totally no way tons of dedicated intelligent people participating in academic philosophy just come to similar conclusions naturally, rather the system must be broken and biased and brainwashing these autonomous intelligent individuals, and /lit/ people plus a few historical randoms we specifically sought only AFTER making up our minds about these sorts of things must be the real geniuses who figured it all out, right?

thats how it works right?

>> No.13036013 [DELETED] 

>>13036003
based

>> No.13036017 [DELETED] 

>>13035979
>The idea of the superman is a purely materialist/secularist idea
Nietzschean ethics is all about rejecting materialism, what are you on?

Anyway, that position doesn't make much sense since Evola is very into Nietzsche. Was Evola a cucked liberal too now?

>> No.13036031

>>13035957
I mean, he was basically a wealthy dude whose entire worldview was based on an amateurish (though not necessarily incorrect) understanding of Nietzsche and Hinduism. I'm sure many here have the potential to be just like him, but with conveniences like RPGs and strategy games, modern man can pretty easily live out his pseudo-elitist, medievalist fantasies while the rest of the world continues in unending, modern misery.

>> No.13036034
File: 34 KB, 817x443, 1526429579358.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13036034

>>13036003
>Wow, many unbiased intelligent people all searching for the objective truth participating in a federally funded program all came to the same conclusions
>this means they were right and objectively smart!
it's just sad people are this stupid

>> No.13036039

>>13036017
>Nietzschean ethics is all about rejecting materialism, what are you on?
The worship of will is a secular materialist idea.

>Evola is very into Nietzsche
He thought Nietzsche was smart in his analysis of what was happening to the west, but he did not agree with Nietzsche. He has entire essays arguing against Nietzsche in Ride the tiger

>> No.13036043

>>13036034
yes im told thats how it works, youre stupid if you think anyone inside academia has a brain, the big deep secret is that only people outside academia are smart and not sheeple

this is unironically people's epistemology now and its fucking frightful

>> No.13036053
File: 57 KB, 600x600, 1522794439114.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13036053

>>13036043
>yes im told thats how it works
>im told
LMAO holy shit please stop this is unreal

>> No.13036055

>>13036017
That’s exactly why Evola is shit compared to Guenon. If you removed all the Nietzschean influence from his books he’d be so much better

>> No.13036057

>>13036053
le funny wojak meme is how i show i have big brain

>> No.13036058
File: 143 KB, 625x773, 1529051679875.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13036058

>>13036057
>le funny wojak meme is how i show i have big brain
I'm told that's how it works

>> No.13036066 [DELETED] 

>>13036055
lol

>> No.13036067

>>13036055
>If you removed all the Nietzschean influence from his books he’d be so much better
There isn't Nietzchean influence except Evola's response to Nietzsche's claims, which were appropriate

>> No.13036071

>>13036058
holy shit read it again dude

youre making an ass of yourself its fucking hilarious

>> No.13036079

>>13033373
Kant is like a sleeping pill

>> No.13036087 [DELETED] 

>>13036053
>>13036058
Lol I don't think you read that post right. Embarrassing.

>>13036079
>I read philosophers based on their entertainment value/ease and not the substance and rigor of their arguments

>> No.13036089
File: 44 KB, 800x450, brainlettttt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13036089

>>13036071
>youre making an ass of yourself its fucking hilarious
actually keep going

tell us how the gov't funded institution employed various unbiased intellectuals to engage in the free market place of ideas to curate only the most objective truths for future customer indoctrination of this objective truth

and tell us how you were told that's how it works

>> No.13036090

Guenon always makes me happy.
I was introduced to him in 2012 through a gnostic bus driver in San Diego. The only mystic/religious material I had read or knew of prior to that was Yogananda. I don’t know if Rene was already gaining traction then but good times were had with Crisis of the Modern World.

>> No.13036092

>>13036089
go the fuck back to /pol/

>> No.13036094 [DELETED] 

>>13036089
>and tell us how you were told that's how it works
they didn't say that lol. re-read the post carefully

>> No.13036095

>>13036089
idiot you still havent read the post right

>> No.13036105

>>13035351
You’ve never read Guenon.

>> No.13036123

>>13036105
Have you read any Hindu, Buddhist, or Islamic texts?

>> No.13036175

Are there any leftist interpretations of Guenon and Evola?

>> No.13036192

>>13036175
Define "Interpretations"
If you mean are there leftists kvetching about them, yes plenty
But if you mean are there leftists that have adapted their ideas, then I dont see how that could be possible
They are probably to the right of literally everybody, Evola was like the only person on earth to unironically say that Fascism didn't go far enough

>> No.13036207

>>13036123
Nice deflection. Yeah

>> No.13036534

>>13035198
We get it, you get all your orientation from academia and you're unironically concerned about academic relevance.
I don't like guenon either but this is not a serious response.

>> No.13036631

>>13035142
posts like this imply that you understand anything about western philosophy when it’s clear you do not. also, terms like “occident” expose you as the blog reading pseud that you are.

>> No.13036633

>>13035729
>reducing the intellectual supperiority of CPR to popularity
absolutely seething

>> No.13036638

>>13035953
you’ve never read that, have you?

>> No.13036643

>>13036039
>the worship of will
>uses “materialism” to mean “materialistic”
kys anon. Nietzsche diagnosed the decadence of modernity centuries before you were thought of. and you fundamentally misunderstand “wil to power.” how’s high school

>> No.13037070

>>13033295
This is the most basic Aristotelian statement. In fact, contemplation is the superior form of action, since its end is contained within its own actualization and coincides with its principle.

>> No.13037093

>>13033373
>why not read all these failed projects instead of unexplored interesting ideas
i wonder why

>> No.13037209

>>13037070
History proves you wrong.
The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood. -Bismarck

>> No.13037984 [DELETED] 

>>13037093
I agree, why read failed projects like Guenon that never picked up any influence instead of Kantian thought which is still lending itself to new ground centuries later?

>> No.13037989

>>13036003
>autonomous intelligent individuals
That's it guys, I'm calling God. Were aborting this planet.

>> No.13037994

>>13034781
This is patently untrue, Guénon has been quite influential on religious studies in academia.

>> No.13038028

>>13033295
He means Adi Shankara's view that spiritual knowledge (jñana) is required to achieve liberation. In Shankara's view, action (karma) and devotion (bhakti) are useful but ultimately lead to knowledge if practiced correctly. This is using the Bhagavad Gītā's threefold classification of spiritual practices (yogas).

>> No.13038198

>>13037989
please do, since youre intelligent enough to see the truth no one else with education sees apparently

>> No.13038219

>>13037209
ok but memesmark paved the way of total German destruction with his "realpolitik" aggression. So I guess if you want to autistically destroy your country, yeah Iron and blood and all that.

>> No.13038233

>>13036192
Evola noted, correctly, that fascism wasn't a return of pre-revolutionary French monarchism and did not pretend to be.
>>13033373
muh categorical imperative man is worthless except for virtue signalers. Imagien finding value in Hegal as well, who did nothing more than try to Protestantize the Greeks.

>> No.13038271 [DELETED] 
File: 41 KB, 800x450, grug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13038271

>>13038219
>Imagien finding value in Hegal as well

>> No.13038279
File: 41 KB, 800x450, grug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13038279

>>13038233
>Imagien finding value in Hegal as well

>> No.13038285

>>13038279
Hegal is just idealist atheism. I'm not at all impressed with modernist philosophers and this includes German idealist. Although I will grant that Hegal is more profound than materialist.

>> No.13038287

>>13038279
>Let me do all these math equations to prove existences can't exist without existence hurrrrr

>> No.13038306

>>13038285
can you english correctly please

the absolutely incredible iq levels of the traditionalist crew

>> No.13038309

>>13035954
>Plato is secular
c'mon

>> No.13038316

>>13038306
>can you english correctly please
you forgot to capitalize the "E." Can you English correctly please?

>> No.13038329

>>13038306
how ironic that you have to resort to autism instead of actually defending Hegel.

I've read Hegal as well as Alexandre Kojève's brilliant explanation of Hegel. Really i'm not that impressed. Hegel reminds me of those who "think they will heard for their many words" that Jesus warned about.

>> No.13038332

>>13038316
LOL this is the mighty comeback to repeatedly spelling Hegel wrong on /lit/

>> No.13038337

>>13038329
how about actually reading hegel

tell us more about how jesus would be cool with evola please im really interested to hear your thoughts

>> No.13038343

>>13038332
Are you offended that I misspelled your idol? who the fuck cares, like a typical troglodyte instead of engaging with ideas you need to resort to discussing people. In this case it's me and my spelling.

>> No.13038344

>>13035112
Social reality is virtual reality. Infact, for the man who thinks of man as extremely limited and bettered by his culture, it has become an inverse marker for quality and importance, for public and academic attention to be paid to a work

>> No.13038355

>>13035128
Damn good post

>> No.13038367

>>13038337
>how about actually reading hegel
I read him. It was boring obscurantism justifying itself with meme math. Kojeve's explanation was much better.
>existence can't exist without nonexistence
>dialectic is not two ideas but observing the language around the ideas
>endless meta-narratives
>totally contradictory followers.

>> No.13038384

>>13035171
Yes, the cult of originality has corrupted the implicated meaning of word philosophy, and Guenon explicitly addressed this while rejecting that he was one; there is one truth to be uncovered, originality of form is of import in transmitting the substance, and to prioritise it over substance and truth is the modern materialism brought down to the level found enjoyable and thereby, to society, saleable

>> No.13038407

>>13038367
>>13038337
Hegel conflated that which was natural with that which is good. That's why he hated the concept of miracles. He was a vulgar philosopher who's beloved by vulgar people. Including Marx.

>> No.13038415

>>13038343
"engage me and change my mind, haha you cant"
this is what you are doing, this is what all the pseuds do, even though everyone can do this, but the fact is some people know more than others

you began by calling kantians virtue signalers and characterizing all of hegel's work as just protestantizing the greeks, then doubting that someone could find value in anything he ever wrote, but you are the one who is engaging ideas seriously yes? it was totally, absolutely, definitely my fault to ever think you weren't when you began the way you did, right?

>> No.13038424

>>13038407
im pretty sure marx did the opposite of assuming what was natural order and tendency was always good?

>> No.13038426

>>13038415
>characterizing all of hegel's work as just protestantizing the greeks,
Yeah I feel this way. Truly I do. You draw offense at what's my neutral opinion?

>> No.13038442

>>13038415
>>13038426
I'm not asking you to engage me. I'm asking you to engage the ideas, which you still have not. Why is it so blasphemous to you that
dismissed Hegel? Is he your surrogate prophet. You are a total hypocrite for coming into this thread completely dismissive of Guenon, yet when one is dismissive of Hegel you flip out.

>> No.13038446

>>13038426
you are just so neutral arent you

you dont think many people smarter and better than you would agree that youre painting someone with a big dismissive and inaccurate brush

youre not the person who engages ideas seriously that you think you are

>> No.13038456

>>13036631
I've read enough to know that even though some systems are fun to read, namely Leibniz's Monadology and Spinoza's Ethics, they are all individual systems and limited.
Plato, Aristotle, Neo-Platonism and Scholasticism are the closest to real metaphysics you can get.
Ignoring the shallowness of your comment, I used the term occidental purposefully because Guenon uses it in his works.

>> No.13038457

>>13038446
>comes into thread totally dismissive of Guenon
>he's a meme hack, read my bois Hegel and Kant instead
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN HEGEL IS ONLY PROTESTANTIZING THE GREEKS REEEE YOU ARE A GRUG A PSEUD A HACK YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENTATION SKILLS

>> No.13038460

>>13033295
Hes a pussy

>> No.13038467

>op posts a question about an idea Guenon wrote about
>several people answer OP's question but those posts aren't even replied to and the thread just turns into a bunch of complaining that people who like Guenon et al don't think Kant or Hegel are the greatest of all time

get a grip you guys, not everyone is going to like your meme philosopher, big wup

>> No.13038476

>>13038457
nice engagement with ideas, well memed my friend

>> No.13038479

>>13033373
> I bet none of you reading Evola or this guy have read Kant
But I have and Guénon certainly has either.

>> No.13038484

>>13038476
See my engagement here
>>13038367
and
>>13038407
Yet you had nothing to say. Strange.
Reminder you came into this thread about a traditionalist philosopher and decided the best thing to do is call traditionalism "dumbass." it's pathetic .

>> No.13038486

>>13035138
>https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=guenon
yes, we know anglos are autistic materialists, what's your point

>> No.13038496

>>13038484
read those posts again, do you think thats what any actual philosopher takes serious engagement to look like?

>> No.13038505

>>13038496
Yes.

>> No.13038509

>>13038505
well it doesnt

>> No.13038511

>>13038509
Humor me.

>> No.13038524

>>13033373
Holy smokes! based post. I doubt traditionfags will recover since they will be too busy reading real philosophers.

>> No.13038550

>>13038511
you said hegel is obscurantism and meme math. you said hes a vulgar philosopher loved by vulgar people.

thats your engagement with someone, it would be thrown out by any philosopher if its unironically all you had to give

if youre trying to be serious, by all means start making posts with more substance

>> No.13038601

>>13033373
fpbp

>> No.13038604

>>13038446
>inaccurate
Ok so he takes Platos idea of forms, but instead of having these forms in the realm of Spirit he puts them in the realm of the mental idealism. For Hegel the transcendent is found in the materialistic naturalism as it relates to said mental idealism. The fact that he was a Protestant theologian who had a love affair with the Greeks has nothing to do with this, despite it being remarkably similar to what it would look were one to protestatnize the Greeks.
>>13038550
hahah ok stay made hegal boi. Him and kant are pseuds for virtue singulars like yourself and you've only demonstrated that all you can do is bitch about some contradictory opinions phrased in same condescending manner you came into the thread it.

>> No.13038616

>>13038604
>first half
better
>second half
and then you fuck it up

>> No.13038630

>>13038604
idiot thats not what pseud means

>> No.13038653

>>13038616
>and then you fuck it up
Why can you dish it out, but not take it? Here's a quiz on Hegal: Which is more properly a Hegelian Dialectic?

A.)
>Thesis - I can dish it but can't take it
>Antithesis - I can't dish it out but I can take it
>Syntheis - I can dish it out and take it

Or

B.)
>thesis= I can dish it out but can't take it
>Antithesis - I can only dish it out and take it because i'm a child who doesn't respect others but wants to be respected
>Synthesis = I should give people respect if I dish it out

????

>> No.13038668

>>13038653
dude you were given the chance to be serious and substantive, and you fucked it up, its that simple

do you want a match of shitslinging then

>> No.13038672

>>13038496
more virtue singling. REAL PHILOSOPHERS DO IT THIS WAY. I'M A REAL PHILOSOPHER, LOOK. THE WAY I DO IT IS THE WAY REAL PHILOSOPHERS DO IT.

>> No.13038676

>>13038672
yeah youre not virtue signaling at all right, only opponents virtue signal, big brains have to say their opponents virtue signal its the winning strategy of the millennium

>> No.13038712

>>13037984
Failed in what sense?

>> No.13038716
File: 16 KB, 391x280, male-chef-kissing-fingers-against-260nw-172938398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13038716

>>13034833
precise

>> No.13038720

>>13038676
>big brains have to say their opponents virtue signal
except you literally did it by playing the "real" philosopher card
>>13038668
anon, honestly I had to give you an out. I know you can't give a defense to any of Hegel's opinions because his work is so convoluted and you've probably only read his wiki bio. At any time you could have chosen to respond to what is perfectly valid understanding of Hegelian opinions which I have articulated.

My true mistake was taking for granted your level of knowledge. When I say "Hegal was just an attempt to Protestantize the Greeks" i made the assumption that everyone would just get it because it's so obvious to me. Yet apparently to you it makes no sense.

I'll tell you the truth. as traditionalist I forced myself to read up on Hegal despite hating his ideology with a passion simply so I could know what the heck people meant when they were talking about Hegel. I outlined real Hegelian thought and anyone who knows about Hegel could validate it, even if they disagree with my interpretations. The thing about Hegel is that in all his convoluted words many many people walk away with very different understandings.

As much as Traditionalist thinkers like Guenon might seem inaccessible to some, i've never read a traditionalist who was as inaccessible as German Idealist. And no, not because German idealism is too high-iq (although you certainly need a high-iq to approach them with any understanding).

>> No.13038728
File: 3.70 MB, 4000x4000, Thinking-Man-Green.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13038728

>>13034889
Marcus Aurelius was arguably the greatest Roman emporer. Stoicism was (syncretically) the dominant school of thought for centuries of ancient Roman history. IMAGINE, for a moment,
considering Guenon and Evola
At the level of Marcus Aurelius and the stoics

>> No.13038731

>>13038676
Why not read trad ideas in light of the West? They're both incredibly interesting in their own right, and at their cores seem to be interested in the same attainment but one realized in time and the other as an inward reality.

There is a lot of overlap between Evola and Hegel's conception of Spirit (to an extent), and i can give you examples if you like

>> No.13038768

>>13038604
>>13038720

It's curious that there are at least 3 Protestant hypostases, and...a few Greeks, but no combination thereof is analogous to Hegel. And finding him "convoluted" is just pathetic, misreading aside, a telltale sign of poor short-term memory. Stop smoking weed.

>> No.13038812

>>13038720
you are wrong anon. i have read hegel, kant, and other chunks of german idealism, ive read the science of logic so i was quite giddy when you said "meme math," but i asked you to say more than just dismissive remarks and you didn't. now you're saying, "alas anon i brought my power level down hoping you'd get me." i got you perfectly, but you dont realize why it comes across as a shibboleth when you demand serious engagement but provide what you did as your examples, and then resort back to shitflinging when youre asked to give actual serious engagement

>> No.13038844

>>13038720
go and call real scientists, real historians virtue signalers too

>> No.13038855

>>13038728
Learn how to read fucktard.

>> No.13038870

>>13033373
Fucking extraordinary. People are applauding this retard for criticizing someone he openly admits to never having read.

>> No.13038890

>>13038731
by all means share

>> No.13038894

>>13038812
It really is impossible for you to comprehend that not everyone walked away from Hegel as impressed as you were, huh? Why is so hard to understand that not everyone finds value in endless meta-narratives based on dry etymology? when I talk about the meme math I mean all the junk about negation matrixes and all that. it just does not offer to me anything of value.

>> No.13038902

>>13038894
>>13038812
Meta-narratives, I should add, I don't even agree with at a fundamental level.

>> No.13038921

>>13038894
i dont agree with hegel on most things, and its not hard at all to understand that people (like you) dont find value in hegel, i dont think you get what the problem really is.

you began by insinuating nobody could find value in g.w.f. "protestantized greeks" hegel. big surprise someone said youre painting him with a broad brush, big surprise someone would challenge your claim, but you keep acting like whats surprising is how the other side reads you. what the fuck anon

>> No.13038943

>>13038921
On the contrary you began insulting traditionalism in a most vulgar fashion, and then drew great offense at the mere notion that Kant appeals to virtue singulars and Hegel is just Protestantized Hellenism.

I'm not expert by any stretch but I know enough to have a conversion beyond the wikipedia page. Interestingly, unlike me, you have not offered a single substantive post on Hegel beyond name dropping one of his books and a vapid critique my interpretation of his philosophy .

>> No.13038954

>>13038456
good lord you’re retarded. i don’t even know where to start.

>> No.13038957

>>13038954
>i don’t even know where to start.
very true.

>> No.13038981

>>13038954
start with the greeks

>> No.13038995

>>13038921
>i dont agree with hegel on most things
what do you agree with him on?

>> No.13039035

>>13038995
i dont know if you care about metaphysics, philosophy of science, or philosophy of explanation, but the immediate thing that comes to my mind is science of logic 11.304-305 where hegel complains about offering "laws" as explanations of things like gravity when the "laws" are just re-statements of the observed phenomena. in a more philosophy of language/history of philosophy area, i think hegel's dialectical reasoning stems from the behavior of the copula (of predication, of identity) in ordinary categorical logic of the time, and i think there's interesting connections with kant and the infinite judgment that I think are underlooked outside german idealism studies, with fichte playing a bit of a mediate role in the development. there's more, but that's all i'll give you.

as someone who is into guenon and evola i take it you wont be interested in any of that (but maybe im wrong), and thats exactly what i mean, when all you get out of hegel is politicized, you miss out on other valuable things the guy said

>> No.13039093

>>13039035
The problem is that I've accepted the phenomenal world as a subjective interpretation already ala Plato. I didn't need Science of Logic to come to that conclusion.

I totally reject man as a dialectic being, and by extension dialectic logic, since I believe in an immortal soul, yet man as a dialectic must by definition be finite. You could have just stated this type of stuff from the begging but instead you chose to pout. The worse that would have happened is we could agree to disagree. Were you to have actually read Evola, you'd know that his perception on sciences is similar. For example Evolian notion of Involution, which essentially states the the observed phenomena of evolution can easily be interpreted in other directions.

The problem is that you've been projecting this whole time. I've only talked about metaphysics and theology. Nowhere did I make political stipulations from Hegal. You've come into this argument with a stick up your butt about fashy Guenon and Evola,

This is what modernist philosophy has devolved into. baka.

>> No.13039167

>>13033295
But isn't contemplation an action?

>> No.13039187
File: 23 KB, 464x713, mishima-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13039187

>>13033295
> "Action > Contemplation"
>t. Yukio Mishima

>> No.13039192

>>13038954
>r-retard, i have so many things to say but i wont

>> No.13039194 [DELETED] 

>>13039093
you dont understand what i wrote, and yet you still think you have the higher ground

this whole time i havent given a shit about whether you agree or disagree with hegel.

here anon, maybe this will help:

stage 1: people were flinging shit. i give you some shit for not engaging a philosopher seriously. you act surprised, and demand that i engage you seriously. so i say, fair enough, can you engage hegel seriously first?

stage 2: we're supposed to be engaging everyone seriously here, but i tell you why youre not doing it right with hegel, and then shit gets flung (saying im virtue signaling and whatever the fuck). note that at this stage im not flinging any shit at evola or guenon at all, but you still think thats what this shit is still all about.

the sad part is you get close and then fuck up again, like i said here:
>13038616

>> No.13039204

>>13039093
you dont understand what i wrote, and yet you still think you have the higher ground

this whole time i havent given a shit about whether you agree or disagree with hegel.

here anon, maybe this will help:

stage 1: people were flinging shit. i give you some shit for not engaging a philosopher seriously. you act surprised, and demand that i engage you seriously. so i say, fair enough, can you engage hegel seriously first?

stage 2: we're supposed to be engaging everyone seriously here, but i tell you why youre not doing it right with hegel, and then shit gets flung (saying im virtue signaling and whatever the fuck). note that at this stage im not flinging any shit at evola or guenon at all, but you still think thats what this shit is still all about.

the sad part is you get close and then fuck up again, like i said here:
>>13038616

>> No.13039263

>>13039167
this explanation will be kind of reductionist, but it's more a question of which lifestyle is more sanctified: That of a priest or that of a knight? This under the assumption that it is a proper priest, and the knight a proper knight. It's about doing these things correct. The priest can't be a pharisee, the knight can't be a thug.

the question remains even if one removes the "warrior" aspect. is it holier to be a monk cloistered in a monastery or a priest out doing missionary work? Since the Traditionalist knows that meditation, spiritual combat are prayer are efficacious, this isn't a matter of the cloistered monk not having a value but more a question of which has more value.

The question exist in other sources, for example St. Brigitte remarked that the holy warrior was more important than the monk because while the monk dawns for spirtual combat, the holy warrior dawns for physical combat. Which most would agree, is needed to protect the country. Without warriors, you risk instability

Evola was the real aggressor in this as he had a condescension towards clerics while glorified warriors. in his mind "The blood of warrior is closer to god than the prayers of the faithful or the ink of the philosophers." Although he eventually caved ad admitted that contemplation and action were, as you said, two sides of the same coin.

Guenon's opinions on the matter were already answered brilliantly
>>13034753
>>13037070


I think ultimately though both would agree course that both warriors and clerics are needed for society to function. There's probably some people who are better off being warriors, monks, priest, ect. I don't think it's a size fits all package

>> No.13039304

>>13038219
Name one major change in history that happened without violence

>> No.13039562 [DELETED] 

>>13038442
>>13038457
>>13038943
>>13038484
>I wake up and check this thread and everyone thinks I'm the Hegel poster.

This guy is based though. Calling Hegel "meme math" has to be the most embarrassing thing I've seen on this board in a while. Glad they're dishing out the punishment.

>> No.13039626

>>13036092
Know your place, sweaty!

>> No.13039871

>>13038890
For one that spirit is processual and immanent for both Hegel and Evola, and I think to the extent the latter subscribes to this notion is also to the extent he got hoodwinked by a kind of weird Nietzschean/Hegelian historicism that's a story for another day

Both identify God with reflexion: compare the Buddhist "this is not me, this is not my self" etc. with Hegel's insistence that that the mind is the body's difference with itself: the dialectic is immanently propulsive, negativity is the (self-)registration of conditions, which necessarily evoke alternatives, etc. Evola just radicalizes this.

>> No.13039884

>>13039871
thanks anon, i appreciate

>> No.13040015

Kant is too fucking boring, only a lowlife would read him outside of academia.

Geunon speaks to the warrior soul of the human

>> No.13040192

>>13033295
this dude looks like a deer so no read

>> No.13040277
File: 73 KB, 1012x1012, C84F6E19-BC01-43E9-8093-0E03AE260333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13040277

>>13033373
im studying theology and phil. at an ivy league school and just from your post i can tell you have yet to read the people your recommending. Evola and Guenon's talk of metaphysics should be argued with reasoning the East was obviously driven by emotion in terms of their traditions its not like you can just say "hur durr read some aristotle, your uneducated mucks"you wouldn't say stupid shit like if you read Hume or Aristotle, metaphysics is a way of life they have their own way of understanding intelligence and acquiring it. This isent some shit i learned reading either guenon or evola but through the people you mentioned, they all clearly have a respect for Eastern traditions which you, do not have. Not only that but the greeks themselves gave credit to the East as they were huge inspirations for their thought. So please read the people you mentioned before sounding like a psued and putting their names under positions which they not only did not hold but you do not understand.

>> No.13040462

>>13040277
undergraduate or graduate philosophy at the ivy league place? makes a huge difference

>> No.13040483

>>13033295 >>13033373 >>13034753 >>13037070 >>13038028 >>13038460 >>13039167 >>13039187 >>13040192

Guenon is a piece of shit. I am much wiser, contemplative, intelligent, and CREATIVE than him. I have written one of the greatest scriptures of all time and received divine revelation from numerous important religious figures. I have also had some of my fiction published.

I am not schizophrenic, for I am a functional member of society who takes no drugs. In fact, I am highly educated and academically successful. Granted, I am the closest thing to Maitreya, Saoshyant, Second Coming of Christ, or what have you.

My scripture has far more depth and profundity than this bullshit you spread. Guenon is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to me. Read my scripture before deciding on the merit of what I have to say.

>> No.13040495
File: 117 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13040495

>>13040483
>it's the autistic zoroastrian-buddhist spammer who usually lurks /his/ and who wrote the cringefest manifesto about 'neozurvanism' (lol)

get help

>> No.13040499

>>13040495
>cringefest

Nothing about is cringefest. If you have any actual constructive criticisms, I would be okay with hearing them.

>> No.13040505
File: 1.07 MB, 656x480, Work_on_your_midair_refuelling_Trigger.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13040505

>>13040483
>im smarter
Easiest way to spot an insecure brainlet

>> No.13040506

>>13040499
>about is
about it is*

>> No.13040514

>>13040505
Go ahead and criticize literary works you haven't even bothered to read.

>> No.13040517

>>13039871
>the dialectic is immanently propulsive, negativity is the (self-)registration of conditions, which necessarily evoke alternatives, etc. Evola just radicalizes this.
>immanently propulsive
>radicalizes this

That god awful style. I didn't study philosophy and so I've got no ground to speak, but I've cracked open a few books written by modern commentator of philosophy and it all sounded like this. It's so horrible.

>> No.13040529 [DELETED] 
File: 22 KB, 300x225, cringe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13040529

>>13040277
I never said anything bad about Eastern Philosophy you absolute pseud. Just these two clowns. I can tell you're bullshitting about studying phil, otherwise you wouldn't have made that undue inference.

>> No.13040543

>>13040517
Psh thats nothing kid read some Evola

"One who is the cause and effective master of motion does not himself move. He inspires motion and directs action, but he himself does not act, in the sense that he is not transported, he is not involved in action, heisnot action, but is, on the other hand, an impassive, utterly calm and imperative superiority, from whom action proceeds and on whom it depends. As opposed to this idea of true and mastered action, which is only thinkable, however, on the basis of purification from the samsāric element, one who acts while identifying himself with his action, impulsively, urged by passion, by desire, by the irrational, by restless need or vulgar interest, such a one does not really act, but is acted upon. However paradoxical it may sound, his is a passive action - he stands under the sign, not of virility, but of femininity. And under the sign of femininity, the whole modem "telluric" and activist world also stands. It is only a lower, anti-aristocratic form of action that predominates here. Otherwise, it actually betrays that half-conscious desire to deafen and distract, that agitation and clamor that reveal dread of the silence, the internal isolation, the absolute being of higher nature, or it becomes a weapon employed in the revolution of man against the eternal that indeed marks the limit of the samsāric "ignorance" and intoxication of fallen beings."

>> No.13040556

>>13040543
That's actually way more enjoyable.

>> No.13040695

>>13033373
>muh Hegel muh Kant muh Leibniz
>shitting on marginal philosophers

Pseud confirmed.

>> No.13040747

>>13040556
I dunno maybe a bad example, i just pulled it out of a pdf at random
That actually reads ok
But I find a lot of his work (especially Revolt) to be really dense and hard to read
He uses a lot of big words and really elaborate ways of explaining pretty simple things

>> No.13040784 [DELETED] 

>>13040695
You have to familiarize yourself with the mainstream of a field before going "these fringe weirdos are actually right". That's my only point. You people are really no better than Randians or LessWrongers otherwise.

Someone with respectable knowledge of philosophy as a field can try and dig up the merits of such fringe figures, and I'd take them seriously. But if you haven't read Kant, you don't fall in this category.

>> No.13040808

>>13040543
Still a trillion times more readable than Hegel lmao.

>> No.13040813

>>13040747
Revolt isn't the first thing people should read. It's supposed to be the place where he defines the fundamental concepts of big T Tradition in reference to which the world must be evaluated. The problem with it from the point of view of a new reader is that it doesn't start at all with what an ordinary person would know.

Man Among the Ruins is better in this respect.

(I don't really like Evola by the way.)

>> No.13040817

>>13035954
>scientific secularist bug shit that liberal soys love
Holy cringe

>> No.13040823

I admit that I am kind of an idiot and a pseud desu

>> No.13040853

>>13040823
Well, at least you admit. I, however, am not. Neo-Zurvanism is much better than all of this uncreative, insipid bullshit. It has more intellectual depth and mystical profundity. Stop wasting your time with filth, people.

>> No.13040859

>>13040853
>at least you admit.
at least you admit it*

>> No.13040861

>>13040813
I agree
I had a hard time getting into his mindset with Revolt but after reading some of his essays and Ruins, Revolt was a lot easier to get through. Still a bit hard headed at times.
Although I really like Evola. I just dont like his prose as much as someone like Nietzsche for instance (who I read directly before reading Evola). Probably a bad comparison though, Nietzsche has a really nice writing style.

Why dont you like Evola?

>> No.13040869

>>13040861
Evola is an idiot compared to me and my project. You are all wasting your time. I am pretty much one of the greatest of all modern thinkers. If you read my first philosophical-mystical manifesto, you will understand. It is a big project that involves many things. I have pretty much "hit the goldmine" in terms of mysticism, so-to-speak. Of course, you idiots prefer to babble away about bullshit rather than question me earnestly.

>> No.13040892 [DELETED] 

>>13040869
>Evola is an idiot compared to me
That isn't exactly an achievement worth bragging about.

>> No.13040893

>>13040869
hail ahriman

>> No.13040894

>>13040869
Literal ACTUAL autism

>> No.13040909

>>13040892
Why are you all interested in discussing the content of people's characters rather than ideas? You don't even know what my metaphysical system is about.
>>13040893
My metaphysical system has more in common with Mahayana Buddhism, but it is altered and refined to be more conducive for creative expression. Some contemplative pieces of artwork do have literal identity with Infinity. The way one creates truly transcendent, numinous art is through frequent solitude and contemplation, which is synonymous with wisdom.

The use of spenta and angra is used more for aesthetic purposes to help frame analyses. I have received three divine revelations:

1) Han Shan
2) a Daoist immortal
3) Zurwandad

Notice how it leans a bit more towards Eastern mysticism?
>>13040894
Emily Dickinson and many other artists were somewhat autistic. It is a personality trait. Autism can be either destructive or constructive. Being autistic over Sonic is different than being autistic over high-literature, genuine mysticism, and more, wouldn't you say?

You should not judge the veracity of literary works without reading them.

>> No.13040919
File: 1.47 MB, 382x308, 1549852632433.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13040919

>>13040909

>> No.13040937

>>13040909
tell me about your revelations, do you mean to tell us you were visited by these personages and they told you things?

did you shake hands? were they physical, go-through?

what do you think of people who get visited by other personages who give them messages completely other than the ones you got? are they all liars? or do you think the personages might have been the liars? or are they hallucinating?

>> No.13040941 [DELETED] 

>>13040909
Did you read the eastern texts in original language, or are you a pseud who uncritically read the dogshit translations?

>> No.13040953
File: 33 KB, 480x438, shriek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13040953

Thanks for derailing the thead you psycho

>> No.13040963

>>13040937
Read my scripture and be your own judge. I am not like a fraud trying to take your money. I do have a genuine message, one that your dumb Traditionalists rarely focused on. Ask yourself this, is artwork that is produced during periods of deep absorption, sincerity, and so forth, which solitude helps cultivate, in identity with the Infinite?

My group is encouraging more creativity but of a contemplative, wise variant that can be analyzed in the analytic, aesthetic framework I provided. It is not like other religious systems with their authoritative mechanisms that sap out creativity, true reflection, and more. I am encouraging true meditation and its fruits.
>>13040941
The translations of Red Pine (Bill Porter) and Yampolsky are not that bad, but you are correct that a translation can never be identical with the original.

>> No.13040964

>>13040861
>Why dont you like Evola?

Evola believes in the "doctrine of the two world", the idea that there is a spiritual realm that is realer than the material plane and of which our world is only a kind of reflection or derivative. I'm too much of a materialist to believe this.

I'm also unsure about the possibility of Evola's project as a whole. A lot of what he writes strikes me as a reaction against "disenchantment", which causes him to then attempt to retrieve, in a study of traditional system, a way for the modern person to re-establish contact with the enchanted. (This is what the second world in the doctrine of the two world is supposed to do.) But the problem I have with this is that I do not believe people can consciously or truly chose what they believe. They cannot will themselves into believing in an enchanted world. And so the very act of self consciously studying traditional systems in the abstract already negates the possibility of becoming un-detached, serious believer in those system, for a belief in them requires and did require a certain degree of earnestness and naivete. But the type of study Evola is conducting presupposes critical distance.

In other words, Evola's project as an intellectual is based on a mental attitude that guarantees that one won't be able to believe in those old systems as the people who used to believe in them did believe in them. It will be an artifice.

Then I have some problem with Evola's view of Tradition as that which is unmoving and the plain fact of evolving technology. Again, I'm too much of a materialist to fail to notice that technology shapes the world more so than Platonic ideals or spirit world entities might. What's Evola's answer to the definitely non traditional airplane? Cellphone? Medicine? Multi national corporation? Modern drone based warfare? Is he gonna editorialize about the virtue of the medieval guild contra the evils of Toyota?

And then, still because of the doctrine of the two world, Evola has a tendency to veer into straight up magical thinking. Since he posits a world beyond the material world which allegedly determines it, it's only a short step to supposing that human can enter into contact with the spirit world in order to influence it, which will then in turn influence the material realm. There is a tendency in Evola to want to make that move.

>> No.13040979

>>13040953
>psycho
The only psychos here are you who want everything to fit neatly into your creativity-sapping didactic schema. You are not interested in true self-inquiry or wisdom. You are merely interested in learning sterile knowledge and its regurgitation in a manner that makes you feel better about yourself.

Ultimately, what I am promoting is a step above your pathetic traditionalists. It is trying to understand the mystical domain of the artistic.

>> No.13040981 [DELETED] 

>>13040963
>The translations of Red Pine (Bill Porter) and Yampolsky are not that bad, but you are correct that a translation can never be identical with the original.
But which did you read? If you read their translations, how do you know the translations are any good?

>> No.13040993

>>13040981
I have read both. I believe Red Pine's translations are good because he gives accompanying commentary from the patriarchs and other figures of that time period. His translation of the Diamond Sutra is especially good.

>> No.13041001

>>13040963
i dont think reading scripture answers my question though.

so-called prophets might be lying about their message. if theyre not, they might have hallucinated. if they didnt, they might have got their message from lying spirits (if anything like that exists). if i was a real prophet not just a fraud, id make sure to at least think about these things nice and hard. but the majority of so-called prophets at least today sound like they couldnt give a fuck about epistemology, theyre here to peddle a message.

two kinds of people, when called out this way, continue to act the way you did, unreflectively. one: people whose cognitive capabilities are impaired, like schizophrenics, which would explain the hallucinations. two: liars who are bullshitting other people.

>> No.13041019

>>13041001
Truth becomes fiction when the fiction's true;
Real becomes not-real where the unreal's real.

Also...
>two kinds of people, when called out this way, continue to act the way you did, unreflectively.
Without reading my scripture, you are just arguing a straw man. In fact, it is you who is being unreflective.

It doesn't matter to my religious goals whether it was actual communication or hallucination, both being valuable in their own right. Without reading my scripture, you will just continue debating a straw man and mischaracterize my goals.

>> No.13041024

>>13040964
Well he does say often that his works aren't meant to enlighten people, they are meant to be a beacon for people who already share his attitude towards life. He just wants to help set those men on the right path and not let them stray into nihilism about the modern world.
So he's not looking to be a teacher or anything like that, in fact he disapproved of being called "mentor". He just wants to decode the information already there to aid likeminded individuals already on the path. In the hope that it will eventually lead to a "silent-revolution" where these values and ideas that are almost dead will have a resurgence in the subconsious of the masses.

As far as technology I believe he simply thinks of it as a non-entity in regards to the principles of Tradition. I'm inclined yo agree with him. I dont see technology affecting the morale of people as much as I do the underlying spiritual currents of the past century. I could be wrong, but all I think technology has done has accellerated a sickness already there.
In the long run I think the absence or presence of technology is largely irrelevant when considering Traditionalism.

In regards to his two world doctrine, the way I understand it is that the Traditions come from a kind of Meta-Truth that isnt bound to time or place. When he speaks of the other world and of magic he's speaking about the "Truths" that have arisen in almost every major culture and religion despite isolation from one another, the divine realm in which these Truths come from that apply regardless of time or place.
At least thats the way I understood it.

>> No.13041033 [DELETED] 
File: 48 KB, 980x869, damaged.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13041033

>>13041019
>It doesn't matter to my religious goals whether it was actual communication or hallucination, both being valuable in their own right.

>> No.13041043

>>13041033
The point is, there is a lot of truth to epistemological solipsism, which Neuroscience validates with "representational theory of mind". You are a memelord, edgelord faggot who lacks any cultural or literary sophistication, hence why you mock works you haven't even bothered to read.

>> No.13041048

>>13033400
This is the problem with modern philosophy, it assumes there's a "hierarchy of thought", as if something as arcane and complex as the human psyche can be judged based on the ideas of a few very-specific, highly contextual thtinkers.

baka desu senpai.

>> No.13041062

>>13041019
everything i said is still true even if you are right and you really did get veridical revelations. the problem is that you see my post as an attack, and dont reflect on the possibility of yourself being deluded either by hallucinations or lying spirits, you just want to peddle to me.

that DOES give me good reason to think you are either schizophrenic or a liar, because a real truth-seeking prophet should be more self-critical like im saying. im actually giving you far more benefit of the doubt right now than anybody else will, other than your followers.

>> No.13041065

>>13041048
>baka desu senpai
When will they drop these filters
Its been like 5 years already the whole t b h s m h f a m meme is dead

>> No.13041076

>>13041062
Listen, I would have no issue with constructive criticism or even dismissal if you read my scripture, in full, and thought over its message. Instead, you choose to dwell on this ridiculous banter.

Your criticisms don't mean anything unless you read the scripture. It's like someone saying they hate a novel or book without bothering to even read it thoroughly.

>> No.13041077 [DELETED] 

>>13041048
>there are no better or worse philosophers uwu
TIL Thales was on the same level as Deleuze.

>> No.13041086

>>13041077
Who decides who is "better" and who is "worse?" By what metrics are you judging them?

>> No.13041091 [DELETED] 

>>13041086
Academic relevance is a pretty good metric, as I've said a few times already.

>> No.13041095

>>13041091
Does that make Jesus the best philosopher ever, given the absolute dearth of literature written on him and his ideas?

>> No.13041098 [DELETED] 

>>13041095
No.

>> No.13041105

>>13041076
thats not how it works dude. youre being disingenuous, and not a seeker of truth. if youre not even a tiny bit self-reflective enough to think "wow, what if the taoist immortal was actually not the taoist immortal but a lying spirit or a hallucination," thats your problem not mine, im just telling you that it is a problem. YOU are the one who should be self-doubting your own revelations. you, who have read your own scripture, since you authored it.

>> No.13041106

>>13041098
But according to your metric (academic influence), he fits the bill. Why isn't the the best philosopher ever then?

>> No.13041113

>>13041105
Listen, without reading my scripture, you are just arguing a straw man. You don't know what I've even trying to convey. You are unbelievably stupid. I am trying to make it clear to you that my scripture isn't even about the "divine revelation" and there are even metaphysical arguments in it.

I tend to agree with Deleuzian metaphysics to a certain degree. You can see some of Deleuze's influences in my work actually.

>> No.13041118

>>13041077
There is some Deleuzian influence in my scripture if you are interested in reading it.

>> No.13041122

>>13041113
>I've even
I'm even*

>> No.13041128 [DELETED] 

>>13041106
I'll let you figure out why comparing Jesus to someone like Aristotle on this topic is a category mismatch. If you were asking about the latter, I'd answer your earlier question with "probably".

>> No.13041134

>>13041113
where do I read it?

>> No.13041138

>>13040964
>>13041024
Also about the man influencing the spiritual world, thats not possible. Evola's idea of the divine realm is an unchanging eternal world. The gods dont change like humans do. The truths dont change because they are perennial.
He also warned against new-age occultism and similar shit like what you described.

>> No.13041139

>>13041128
If your argument is that "Aristotle was a philosopher whereas Jesus wasn't", then I'd argue, actually you very easily consider Jesus a philosopher, no less than you could consider Heraclitus or Parmeniders philosophers. What's your reasoning for not including him in with others?

>> No.13041140
File: 398 KB, 1856x1372, neo-zurvanism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13041140

>>13041134
You can read the first scripture, as a PDF, here after you join. Here is a brief summary before I give the link:

"This group exists to revive Zurvanism for the modern world. Dharmic Temple of Zurvan has elements of both dualism and monism in its system. In this school, Spenta Mainyu refers to the life-giving and nurturing power, which is best captured in high-quality children's artwork. Angra Mainyu, in contrast, is adversarial, catabolic, and thanatotic in its fundamental disposition, and it is best seen through horror artwork. However, they are both twins of the supreme Zurvan, which is metaphorical for Infinite time. Contrasting the nature of spenta and angra mainyu, through art and in relation to the supreme principle Zurvan, can help one attain liberation. Both Spenta and Angra are in some sense ‘seeking’ and moving asymptotically towards the Absolute or Undifferentiated, albeit from diverging directions."

tinyurl
(dot)
com
/y4ctfaxr

>> No.13041153

>>13041139
Not him but are preachers really the same as philosophers? Aren't we starting to throw the term philosophy around a bit liberally?
Assuming Jesus was even a real person and not just a myth, did he really do any philosphising?

>> No.13041159

>>13041134
Dont get sucked in to this spergs cult lad

>> No.13041162

>>13041113
i
am
not
arguing
against
your
doctrine

its an epistemological point about your revelations.

im not strawmanning you. like i said, you could be 100% right, and my point would hold. it turns out i do doubt that youre right at all precisely because youre not self-reflective though. but thats a conclusion that doesnt rely on strawmanning your doctrines one bit.

>> No.13041163

>>13041159
You haven't even read the scripture. I'm honestly not arguing for anything cult-y. Why are you so presumptuous?

>> No.13041167 [DELETED] 

>>13041139
We'll be going down a long rabbit hole if we get into this.

You know why considering Jesus the best philosopher ever is absurd; that's why you brought him up as a counterexample. And I reply by saying that if you said it about Aristotle (someone with analogous academic relevance) I would be inclined to say he's up there among the best philosophers ever.

Admittedly, the metric I proposed is very inductive. One that might please you more is the rigor and breadth of the philosopher's thought, but it's a very informal metric that isn't easy to measure. There's an obvious way in which one philosopher is simply more profound, rigorous, original, insightful, etc. than another. Academic relevance is an easy way to inductively measure this in a more concrete way. You won't get a more satisfactory answer than that.

>> No.13041178 [DELETED] 

>>13041162
>youre not self-reflective though.
Nope, it is you who is not self-reflective. If Gurdjieff were here, he would say you are asleep whereas I am not. Why? Because you choose to fixate on one TRIVIAL point I made. My scripture doesn't even spend 2 sentences talking about my revelations. It is irrelevant to what I am arguing for.
>but thats a conclusion that doesnt rely on strawmanning your doctrines one bit.
You choose to doubt the validity of my scriptures based on this exchange. You are interested in a personality cult, like most people who get involved in lesser traditions.

What is it I am ultimately encouraging. Let me repeat for your pea-brain. I am encouraging frequent solitude and contemplation in order to help create great art. It's not like other religions where I say I am exclusively in contact with something divine which you are not. Every being can open their minds to the Infinite, which is always near. Every sentient being has Buddha nature but few turn inward to it.

>> No.13041193

>>13041162
>youre not self-reflective though.
Nope, it is you who is not self-reflective. You choose to fixate on one TRIVIAL point I made. My scripture doesn't even spend 2 sentences talking about my revelations. It is irrelevant to what I am arguing for.
>but thats a conclusion that doesnt rely on strawmanning your doctrines one bit.
You choose to doubt the validity of my scriptures based on this exchange. You are interested in a personality cult, like most people who get involved in lesser traditions.

What is it I am ultimately encouraging? Let me repeat for your pea-brain. I am encouraging frequent solitude and contemplation in order to help create great art. It's not like other religions where I say I am exclusively in contact with something divine which you are not. Every being can open their minds to the Infinite, which is always near. Every sentient being has Buddha nature but few turn inward to it.

>> No.13041201

>>13041159
>>13041163
It's not like I am forming a cult, keeping people entrapped through mental games (the way Jim Jones does), or whatever. If you read the scripture, in full, and it doesn't speak to you, then more power to you. You have no compulsion to stay and can leave with no issue. Honestly, my goal overlaps with Deleuze to some extent, but there are some marked differences.

>> No.13041210

>>13041153
>"Straight through them, on the broad way, did the maidens guide the horses and the car, and the goddess greeted me kindly, and took my right hand in hers, and spake to me these words: - Welcome, noble youth, that comest to my abode on the car 25 that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers! It is no ill chance, but justice and right that has sent thee forth to travel on this way. Far, indeed, does it lie from the beaten track of men ! Meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things, as well the unshaken heart of persuasive truth, as the opinions of 30 mortals in which is no true belief at all. Yet none the less shalt thou learn of these things also, since thou must judge approvedly of the things that seem to men as thou goest through all things in thy journey. "

~ Ezekiel, describing his encounter with heavenly spirits in the Book of Ezekiel.

(Oh wait, it's actually Parmenides, the founder of Western ontology, in his book On Nature.)

>> No.13041223
File: 2.31 MB, 1134x820, 1554779677598.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13041223

>>13041140
>links to fagbook
not off to a great start

>However, they are both twins of the supreme Zurvan, which is metaphorical for Infinite time.
Why would anyone feel compelled to worship infinite time? seems pretty lame

>Contrasting the nature of spenta and angra mainyu, through art and in relation to the supreme principle Zurvan, can help one attain liberation. Both Spenta and Angra are in some sense ‘seeking’ and moving asymptotically towards the Absolute or Undifferentiated, albeit from diverging directions."
But if Spenta and Angra both move towards the Absolute then everyone should have attained liberation already because both the two poles of good and bad and their associated symbolism lead to it, anyone occupying any mental state or doing any activity other than perfectly straddling the fence between the two would be on the path to it and so everyone should have already achieved it by now just as a result of going about their business if this was indeed the eternal truth of things, not a very logical system

Also, with all this talk of reaching the Absolute through liberation how is this not a cheap rip-off of Vedanta?

>> No.13041228

>>13033295
only a coward does that

>> No.13041241

>>13041223
Read the scripture, and it will answer most of your questions.
>But if Spenta and Angra both move towards the Absolute then everyone should have attained liberation already because both the two poles of good and bad and their associated symbolism lead to it, anyone occupying any mental state or doing any activity other than perfectly straddling the fence between the two would be on the path to it and so everyone should have already achieved it by now just as a result of going about their business if this was indeed the eternal truth of things, not a very logical system
Your English is terrible, and this is a misinterpretation of what I am arguing for. Not all spenta and angra art are moving towards the Infinite. What helps one move towards the Infinite is frequent solitude in natural scenery and contemplation, which is synonymous with wisdom. This helps provide the foundation of depth and nuance by which one creates great sincere art, which can move towards the Infinite in its own way. My scripture goes more in-depth and is influenced by Deleuze to some extent.
>Why would anyone feel compelled to worship infinite time?
You do not worship time. It's more that your contemplative artwork becomes timeless.
>Also, with all this talk of reaching the Absolute through liberation how is this not a cheap rip-off of Vedanta?
They don't place as much emphasis on the creative domain as I do.

>> No.13041280

>>13041153
To follow up on this post >>13041210, my point is that what has now been dubbed "philosophy" (meaning "love/affection of wisdom") is more akin to "scepticism" (meaning "thinking, inquiring.")

To that end, I would say you COULD make an argument that Kant is a better "thinker" than someone like Jesus or Muhammad, since his ideas came from his own power of thought, over the more "revelatory" nature of Jesus' or Muhummad's ideas. But with that being said, I think it's a shame that we've reduced the "love of wisdom" to just pure, distant intellectual pursuit, with seemingly little emphasis put on our hearts or practicality.

>> No.13041282

>>13041223
>>13041159
>>13041134
>>13033295
You can read the scripture here if you are wary of joining the Facebook group. However, I recommend reading it full before judging its message. If it speaks to you, then I recommend joining the group.

https://docdro.id/zLoWavb

>> No.13041289

>>13041282
>it full
it in full*

>> No.13041291

G O
A W A Y

>> No.13041293
File: 126 KB, 1026x602, 1555958220490.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13041293

>>13041241
>Infinite is frequent solitude in natural scenery and contemplation, which is synonymous with wisdom.
That's not synonymous with wisdom though, you can hypothetically contemplate anything from porn to video games in the solitude of nature without that constituting wisdom, it seems as though you're substituting that definition of wisdom as a result of your failure to define it in a more precise way that also fits into your system.
>You do not worship time. It's more that your contemplative artwork becomes timeless.
it doesn't though, so much art has been destroyed and lost throughout history, in fact art is actually destroyed by time; and even hypothetically speaking what is even the relative value of this? Does all our timeless art go to a magical platonic fairyland in the sky where it's immortalized for eternity? how does that benefit us in any way or seem like a logical explanation for the meaning of existence? I'm at a loss for words for how you could (I assume) take yourself seriously

>> No.13041296

>>13041291
Ultimately, imageboard subculture is anti-intellectual and full of edgy uncultured memelords who prefer screaming rather than actually taking time to read. Read the scripture in full, ponder on it deeply, and see if it speaks to you or not. Nothing I'm saying is insane. In fact, it's you who is being the belligerent and stupid one here, not me.

>> No.13041306

>>13041293
Read the scripture here:

https://docdro.id/zLoWavb

Art that is made for its own fulfillment from a contemplative and sincere mind has a kind of Infinity. It is like a diamond or pearl that is aligned with and of the actuality of the Infinite. Read the scripture in full and ponder over this stuff yourself.

Also, your meme image is retarded.

>> No.13041309
File: 61 KB, 812x1024, 1b77pc4c2cl21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13041309

>On Technology and Futurity: The Necessity of Dharmic Zurvanism

>19.The technological endeavors of man are not an obstacle to Dharmic Zurvanism or its teachings, but the false teachings of some may lead those who invest too deeply into technological progress as their salvation fall astray from the absolute Voidness and Wholeness that is the sacred Paradox of Greater Zurvan.

>20.This means, after all, that those who worship technological endeavors would trust a technological system that has still been incapable of producing consistent human happiness while offering a provisional diversion that may in itself be Spenta in principle, but in action ultimately creates different levels of suffering in the realm of Lesser Zurvan's Angra aversion/diversion or Spenta attachment/diversion, and the mortals of this world still suffer just oh so differently long ago as they will in the future and as they also co-exist in the simultaneity of the past and present.

>21.In the relative future it may be possible that a sentient computer AI will emerge and that at the behest of men creates simulated worlds whereby they can upload their minds into for bliss, or somehow totally evade the co-presence of Zurvan. However, even such networks of superhuman artificial intelligence and simulated worlds cannot offer true solace from the curses and blessings of Zurvan, for wherever there is Lesser Zurvan, the commingling and impermanence of Twin Mainyus will persist. This is the folly of the ultimate goal of transhumanism, even while some aspects of transhumanism may offer great help to those suffering. Regardless of those advantages, none of us in the expansive web of consciousness can establish indestructible walls to barricade oneself from the fiery flux of Zurvan, for wherever there is the differentiation of Time, there is a beginning and an end, which thereby leads back to that which has no beginning. That is, all differentiation is tinged with the melancholy that processes will invariably come to an end.

>> No.13041317

>>13040514
Post it here

>> No.13041320

>>13041309
Quoting passages out of context with mocking images doesn't mean anything, you edgelord faggot. Also, that's not the overall thesis of my manifesto. Moreover, it is more like a criticism of Transhumanism, which parallels Heraclitean and Deleuzian philosophies in certain ways.

>> No.13041324

>>13041317
I just did twice. Here:

https://docdro.id/zLoWavb

>> No.13041433

>>13041296
Dude, take a fucking hint

>> No.13041442

>>13041433
You take the hint and read this scripture, in full, before dismissing it like a pompous, anti-intellectual asshole. If it doesn't speak to you, that's fine, but at least read it in full, thoroughly, before acting like a snarky and dim-witted asshole.

https://docdro.id/zLoWavb

>> No.13041445

>>13041442
No you fucking idiot I dont want to read your pseud shit
Go back to your blog

>> No.13041456

>>13041445
Dismissing things outright without taking the time to look it over is what a pseud would do, you dumb faggot.

You can't judge it as being pseudointellectual without actually giving it a shot, you dumb faggot.

Now read it fully and thoroughly and see if it speaks to you or not. It is far more profound than most of thinkers discussed here.

>> No.13041498

>>13041456
>DUDE READ IT READ IT READ IT READ IT
"No"
Blogging and advertising is against the rules

>> No.13041526

>needing to read philosophers when all that is true is self-evident

>> No.13041533

>>13041498
It's not blogging or advertising. I'm just making the point it's a step above the Traditionalists like Guenon. It's not a matter of who wrote or shared it. It is simply obvious, to any honest reader that this is far better than anything Guenon or Evola ever wrote.

>> No.13041537

>>13041533
It is also better than most lesser traditions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and if you disagree, well... then you are an icchantika.

>> No.13041814

>>13041282
Holy hell that is one heaping tablespoon of ideology! How could one man be so deluded?
Sad.

>> No.13041821
File: 1.14 MB, 480x358, 1529532954175.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13041821

>>13041533
>>13041537
Get help.

>> No.13041952

>>13040483
Imagine being this counter initiatic initiator and making an idol of yourself. You are either a crazy man or someone deceived by demons.

>> No.13041962

Is it over? Can we get back on topic now?

>> No.13041968

>>13033373
are people actually this narrow minded? i know its probably just bait but damn.

>> No.13041984

>>13041280
>my point is that what has now been dubbed "philosophy" (meaning "love/affection of wisdom") is more akin to "scepticism" (meaning "thinking, inquiring.")
Thinking and inquiring is part of wisdom. The word 'philosophy' is already pretty loose as it is, but to simply call anyone who loves wisdom a 'philosopher' is dishonest. No, Ezekiel wasn't a philosopher.

>> No.13041997

>>13041280
You see the difference between a preacher like Muhammad and a philosopher is that a philosoper usually has to actually explain their thinking and back it up with either the implication of common sense or with actual evidence

>> No.13041999

>>13041962
not until the retarded tradfaggots calm down and de-sperg.

>> No.13042003

>>13041968
and you just took the bait idiot.

>> No.13042014

>>13041999
Pretty sure its you buddy
Read the topic of the thread and rethink your life ok? Nobody cares about your schizo cult

>> No.13042511 [DELETED] 
File: 913 KB, 888x888, 1548924626576.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13042511

>>13041968
Someone hasn't read Kant.

>> No.13042516 [DELETED] 

>>13041997
A good way to summarize the difference is that a philosopher can answer (or at least try to answer) "why?". A religious preacher doesn't, they expect you to believe them on faith.

>> No.13042588

>>13042511
Kant is really nothing special, the reverence for him in western philosophy really says more about the intellectual bankruptcy of western thought than it says anything about Kant. The Kantian analysis of knowledge was already made in the 2nd or 3rd century by the Sautràntika Buddhist school who explicitly talk about the sensation coming from the thing-in-itself and the relation imposed upon them by the ideation of the a priori categories of thought, the same basic insight appears in some other eastern schools too. Kant's ideas about universal democracy/republicanism were laughably moronic, his obsessive focus with conventional morality was insipid and mundane.

>> No.13042633 [DELETED] 

>>13042588
yes that's why the kyoto school scrambled to intergrate his philosophy into theirs, because he had nothing new to add to eastern thought. pseud brainlet

>> No.13042683

>>13042633
Wow, a bunch of modernizing nationalistic Japs wanted to quit blowing smoke up each others asses with zen koans and so they adopted aspects of western thought along with western governance, medicine, technology etc because they thought it'd help them, wtf I love Kant now! Need I go into the various western philosophers who ripped ideas from the east or expounded ones the east already had long ago? That some Japs liked Kant says nothing, Japanese Zen already is like a spinoff series of a spinoff series and so it's hardly surprising that it would be found lacking in areas; that has little to do with the rest of eastern thought.

>> No.13042816

>>13042014
>i-it's not those trad spergs it you!
had it not been for them taking the bait in the first place your thread would not have gone to shit but I suspect it was your plan all along that is why you're quick to defend them

>> No.13043514 [DELETED] 

>>13042683
is this your brain on nationalism

>> No.13044403

>>13041814
>>13041821
>>13041952
>giving condescending meme-like remarks without actual thorough analysis
I think somewhere like /pol/ is more on the level of your shitty intelligence.

>> No.13044524

>>13042588
>intellectual bankruptcy of western thought
Yet these brainlet Buddhist never made any scientific breakthrough
>inb4 muh spirituality and well being
stop being a faggot

>> No.13044537

>>13044524
I mean let me ask you anon, be honest: what are we here for?

>> No.13044696

>>13044537
>be honest
Ok.
We are here as humans due to natural selection.
Meaning and reasons for behavior are highly subjective, and people seek and reach relative well being and satisfaction in many different ways. There is no universal nor objective morality no matter how much philosophical pondering you will have.
Anyway, far Eastern intellectual progression is a joke compared with that of the West, they may have touched some vague ideas that have a relative degree of truth, but they never got the detail, rigor, and resolution as much.

>> No.13044717

It's funny how one random thread about Guenon turns into a 270-post thread while the constant threads being pushed about Delueze never get more then 10 replies

>> No.13044895

>>13044717
Its because it triggers people and they feel compelled to post bait
I dont usually like to make broad generalizations but leftists really are intolerable of anything that doesnt fit in nicely with their views this thread is proof

>> No.13045004
File: 1.68 MB, 1049x920, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13045004

>>13039263
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him. “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

>> No.13045047

>>13038446
you argue like a woman

>> No.13045088

>>13045004
Woah dude *hits blunt*
Thats deep
War sucks, man

>> No.13045101

>>13044717
Guenonfag actually reads while the deleuzefags merely posture. Even so, Deleuze is superior.

>> No.13045103

Stirner refuted all these old farts

>> No.13045117

13045103
Not even worthy of a (You)

>> No.13045150

>>13045047
How does a man argue, anon?

>> No.13045154
File: 27 KB, 299x373, 1549687565121.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13045154

>>13045150
Like this
*farts*

>> No.13045543

>>13044696
>muh Darwinian evolutionism
Explain how consciousness can arise from nothing.

>> No.13045895

>>13045101
>There is no multiplicity here whatsoever. He who sees as though there is difference here, goes from death to death.
Katha Upanishad 2.1.11

Deleuze BTFO!

>> No.13046118

>>13041095
This post is a day old but that's literally the opposite of what dearth means you little shit
Stop trying to use fancy words without knowing their meaning you fuck

>> No.13046162 [DELETED] 

>>13046118
lol btfo

>> No.13046995
File: 204 KB, 2518x1024, 1525233942963.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13046995

>still putting Evola on the same level as Guenon

>> No.13047002 [DELETED] 

>>13046995
please let this thread die

>> No.13047010

>>13047002
Seems like a pretty shit thread to be honest like most /lit/ threads about Guenon but this needs to be said.
On the surface they seem alike but there's a wide abyss between the two. Even Guenon disavowed Evola when he was alive.

>> No.13047047

>>13046995
I dont understand this meme and I never will
Probably made by someone who hasn't read either of these people

>> No.13047107

>>13047047
If you had read them both and their personal letters (I don't think they were translated in english) you'd understand that everything on this meme is true
One of the rare cases where it's not even a strawman.

>> No.13047124

>>13047107
Yeah you just leave out that he abandoned his civilization and moved to egypt to marry an arab, and the fact that he was an armchair thinker and not a man of action like evola who repeatedly put his own life in danger, also volunteered in two world wars, and lived by his principles until his death.
That said I do think that Guenon was right about a lot of things that Evola disagreed with.
But just because they disagreed on a lot of things didn't mean they hated one another, or that it has to be a competition between the two, they are both equally important to the traditionalist school. Putting one above the other is retarded.

>> No.13047146

>>13047124
>Putting one above the other is retarded.
Truth is one. Error is multiple.
Guenon did not hate Evola but he often pointed out where Evola was wrong and simply corrected what needed to be corrected. Evola mixed traditional ideas with his own warrior ideals that made him view christianity as "weak" along with his weird ideas of the aryan race, etc.

Also people who criticize Guenon for being an "armchair thinker" (lol) and abandoning his civilization (re-lol) simply don't understand metaphysics altogether. It's a domain where one's country, religion and individuality doesn't matter.
The LARPers who wants to "ride the tiger" in order to create after the Kali yuga a new better western society don't understand that the Kali Yuga ends with the complete destruction of the world in a very religious sense. There's no point in being faithful to one's civilization or one's race... The only think that will matter will be your spiritual level.

So no they aren't on the same level. I like Evola for his fighting spirit but he isn't a model. The dude didn't even have a religion because "muh feminine death cult" that's the number one sign to spot someone who thinks he understood but didn't

Guenon >>> Coomaraswamy = Michel Valsan >> Schuon & co >>>>>> Evola

>> No.13047198

>>13047146
>Evola mixed traditional ideas with his own warrior ideals
This is true, and one of the things I side with Guenon over.
>that made him view christianity as "weak"
I think that had more to do with his Nietzschian influence than his warrior ideals, but is he wrong? Modern Christianity is a far cry from what it once was, and from the traditions that preceded it. Traditionalism is about unbroken lines of tradition, the argument could be made that Christianity (and Islam as Evola pointed out) is dubious.
>along with his weird ideas of the aryan race, etc.
I'm starting to think you haven't actually read Evola. When Evola says "Aryan" he means Indo-Europeans. That's the name they were formerly known by. He believes that the direct descendants of the aryan race have qualities that are aryan and therefore are apart of that spiritual race closest to the divine realm.
>Also people who criticize Guenon for being an "armchair thinker" (lol) and abandoning his civilization (re-lol) simply don't understand metaphysics altogether. It's a domain where one's country, religion and individuality doesn't matter.
If all that you are concerned with is transcendence then sure, I guess.
Evola was concerned with transcendence and it was a major focus of his work, THE main focus of his work, but he also cared about the material world as well, insofar that he wanted to see his attitude towards life revived in the subconscious of the masses through a "silent revolution" by "riding the tiger". And personally I will always admire someone willing to die for their ideas, even if they aren't as coherent or sensible as someone elses. Guess thats just my bias. Guenon did run away, he can justify it however he wants. If you dont care about this physical world and only care about transcending, then why are you still here? If nation, race, culture, and religion is all just a means to an end, then suicide is the option that many likeminded Traditionalists took.
>The LARPers who wants to "ride the tiger" in order to create after the Kali yuga a new better western society don't understand that the Kali Yuga ends with the complete destruction of the world in a very religious sense.
This isn't completely true. The Kali Yuga does end in complete destruction, but the idea its-self that crops up in multiple religions and cultures around the earth doesn't frame it this way. Ragnarok doesn't frame it this way. Its the destruction and rebirth through the survivors of the dark age.
You sound like someone who hasn't actually read Ride the Tiger because you clearly dont understand it. You shouldn't be so dismissive of Evola it just makes you look dishonest. Call it "LARP"ing if you want, it's better than being a coward.

>> No.13047593

>>13038424
Marx is gnostic so that makes a difference here.
As bad as Hegel is, he never went full gnostic.