/lit/ - Literature

>>14635660
>Libraries might as well stop having his books in stock desu.
That's what I convinced my uni's library to do. Thankfully many of us are Guenonians here and have grasped his masterful retroactive refutation of the entirery of Whitehead in five short paragraphs.

>>14635660
>>14635717
Can you guys sum up Whitehead and why he is wrong? I know next to nothing about him.

>>14635717
based, /lit/ is a /guenonian/ website

>Guenon
Refuted by Nietzsche. Guenon was just another dogmatist. Nothing more.

No one takes Whitehead or Guenon seriously. Stop fooling yourselves and read serious philosophy.

>>14635813
The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life— a veritable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age; and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?

Be that as it may, one has the general impression that, in the present state of things, there is no longer any stability; but while there are some who sense the danger and try to react to it, most of our contemporaries are quite at ease amid this confusion, in which they see a kind of exteriorized image of their own mentality. Indeed there is an exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere ‘becoming’, leaving no place for the changeless and the permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this ‘becoming’, thus implicitly denying true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, namely transcendent and universal principles. One can go even further and say that it amounts to the negation of all real knowledge whatsoever, even of a relative order, since, as we have shown above, the relative is unintelligible and impossible without the absolute, the contingent without the necessary, change without the unchanging, and multiplicity without unity; ‘relativism’ is self-contradictory, for, in seeking to reduce everything to change, one logically arrives at a denial of the very existence of change; this was fundamentally the meaning of the famous arguments of Zeno of Elea.

>>14635847
However, we have no wish to exaggerate and must add that theories such as these are not exclusively encountered in modern times; examples are to be found in Greek philosophy also, the ‘universal flux’ of Heraclitus being the best known; indeed, it was this that led the school of Elea to combat his conceptions, as well as those of the atomists, by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Even in India, something comparable can be found, though, of course, considered from a different point of view from that of philosophy, for Buddhism also developed a similar character, one of its essential theses being the ‘dissolubility of all things ’. These theories, however, were then no more than exceptions, and such revolts against the traditional outlook, which may well have occurred from time to time throughout the whole of the Kali-Yuga, were, when all is said and done, without wider influence; what is new is the general acceptance of such conceptions that we see in the West today.

It should be noted too that under the influence of the very recent idea of ‘progress’, ‘philosophies of becoming’ have, in modern times, taken on a special form that theories of the same type never had among the ancients: this form, although it may have multiple varieties, can be covered in general by the name ‘evolutionism’. We need not repeat here what we have already said elsewhere on this subject; we will merely recall the point that any conception allowing for nothing other than ‘becoming’ is thereby necessarily a ‘naturalistic’ conception, and, as such, implies a formal denial of whatever lies beyond nature, in other words the realm of metaphysics— which is the realm of immutable and eternal principles. We may point out also, in speaking of these anti-metaphysical theories, that the Bergonian idea of pure duration’ corresponds exactly with that dispersion in instantaneity to which we alluded above; a pretended intuition modeled on the ceaseless flux of the things of the senses, far from being able to serve as an instrument for obtaining true knowledge, represents in reality the dissolution of all possible knowledge.

>>14635854
This leads us to repeat an essential point on which not the slightist ambiguity must be allowed to persist: intellectual intuition, by which alone metaphysical knowledge is to be obtained, has absolutely nothing in common with this other ‘intuition’ of which certain contemporary philosophers speak: the latter pertains to the sensible realm and in fact is sub-rational, whereas the former, which is pure intelligence, is on the contrary supra-rational. But the moderns, knowing nothing higher than reason in the order of intelligence, do not even conceive of the possibility of intellectual intuition, whereas the doctrines of the ancient world and of the Middle Ages, even when they were no more than philosophical in character, and therefore incapable of effectively calling this intuition into play, nevertheless explicitly recognized its existence and its supremacy over all the other faculties. This is why there was no rationalism before Descartes, for rationalism is a specifically modern phenomenon, one that is closely connected with individualism, being nothing other than the negation of any faculty of a supra- individual order. As long as Westerners persist in ignoring or denying intellectual intuition, they can have no tradition in the true sense of the word, nor can they reach any understanding with the authentic representatives of the Eastern civilizations, in which everything, so to speak, derives from this intuition, which is immutable and infallible in itself, and the only starting-point for any development in conformity with traditional norms

Whitehead's whole project retroactively refuted and ended in only 5 paragraphs

>>14635838
Whitehead is a serious thinker don't be ignorant and lump him in with other 4chan memes. No one here can even talk about him seriously besides that Eris guy because no one here has read him or can comprehend him.

>>14635847
Imagine being so ugly and freaklike that your fanboys have to shoop your face so that it would look at least a little bit normal but it won't work.

>>14635833
I’m not too familiar with Guenon, as I’ve only read Evola, but Evola is compatible with Nietzsche, so I assume Guenon is as well.

In “The AntiChrist,” Nietzsche argues for the basis of ontology to be intuition, which is exactly what perennialism also argues.

Think of it this way, Metanarratives = Demiurge = False Reality/Simulacrum (see Baudrillard)

>>14635847
Based as fuck.

>>14635863
Whitehead was serious when he was working with the brainlet Russell. After their project failed, he coped by going full Hegel-tier retarded.

>>14635863
>don't be ignorant
Whitehead literally believed in ignorance (maya) as a prime virtue...

>>14635871
>Baudrillard
>Nietzsche
>Evola
It may come as a surprise to some, but all of these thinkers were irrefutably btfo by Guenon (pbuh).

>>14635872
His true genius showed after he abandoned Russell

>>14635883
Stop memeing

>>14635884
I see nothing but blatant obscurantism.

>>14635871
>for the basis of ontology to be intuition,
Here it needs to be added that this intuition must be 'intellectual' and not merely 'sensible'; a distinction Guénon will go to great lengths to reminder the reader of.

>>14635888
>888
Based words of power, my friend.

>>14635888
>muh obscurantism
This is the complaint of plebs desu. And he tries to be as clear as he can.

>>14635893
LOL I MADE THAT IMAGE BASED

t. Albanian Evola poster

>>14635887
It is the truth, brother... You shall have to see if you wish to achieve gnosis.

They're not intelligent enough to understand monism.

>>14635901
>BASED
Based...

>>14636038
:)

>>14636031
Monism is so 4 centuries ago lmao it is also reductive.

>>14635871
Simulacra aren't really false realities.

>>14636135
They are basically false reference points, which is more so what I was trying to get at.

>>14635660
You're neither funny, clever nor interesting

>>14635906
Reading this image fucked my eyes up

I never heard about either of these people before this forced meme with all the autistic samefag threads.

Are either worth reading or should I just filter this shit?

>>14636223
>Are either worth reading
Only One of them is.

>>14635906
How can one monkey be so based?

>>14635660
Saged and reported for spamming/flooding I dont care how cleverly you try to disguise your forced meme trash.

>>14635660
Based. Whitehead has been cancelled from philosophy.

>>14635660
They don't though...