/lit/ - Literature

>>17648540
>Is it worth reading Evola in your opinion?
No. Absolutely fucking not

>>17648540
It is. Read Revolt Against the Modern World, then branch out as you like.

>>17648540
it is, not quite an evolaist, but its an interesting read regardless.

>>17648540
Pic related is a good entry level book to read before Evola

>>17648540
>Was thinking about finally reading Evola. What would /lit/ recommend?
The Path of Cinnabar or Revolt Against the Modern World. The latter is sort of his magnum opus.
>Is ride the tiger a good place to start?
Emphatically, no.
>Is it worth reading Evola in your opinion?
Yes but I agree with the sentiment that he’s a dangerous author to read.

>>17648566
>dangerous author
Not according to the world's largest ecommerce platform

>>17648566
>dangerous author to read.
What do you mean by this?

>>17648540
>Is it worth reading Evola in your opinion?
No.

>>17648572
You might start referring to everything you like as solar, masculine, or Tradition, and everything you don't like as lunar, feminine, or chthonic. Other people will not be able to converse with you properly and you may become paralyzed from the waist down as a result of walking around without paying attention to your surroundings.

>>17648572
It’s very easy to read only some of his books and end up misinterpret his ideas or to just fail to think about the context of his writings. It’s extremely common here and it’s why you’ll be able to count the number of good takes on Evola on one hand.

>>17648566
>he’s a dangerous author to read.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>17648588
>yo that's so fucking solar bro
Idk man that sounds cool

>>17648540
>Is ride the tiger a good place to start?
It depends on what you want to read, but yes.
>Is it worth reading Evola in your opinion?
Yes.
>>17648566
>The Path of Cinnabar
I would recommend reading Cinnabar after you have at least familiarised yourself with his general body of works.
>>17648568
What do you mean anon?
>>17648572
>What do you mean by this?
He has very very radical critiques of... well, everything. He's also convincing. This becomes problematic if you can not adopt his formula for life after you have read him.
>>17648669
Frogposting is not an argument, fren. At least read the material you wish to criticise.

>>17648566
>dangerous author to read
Anon, its just a book, ink and paper, words on a page.

>>17648781
>he's never gotten his worldview crushed to dust by a book
I feel bad for you.

>>17648773
>What do you mean anon?
Shipped and sold by Amazon iirc. So dangerous lmao

>>17648803
Wrong type of danger, anon. Things that are "dangerous to the public" are banned, things that can fuck up your life in any and every way are perfectly fine. Evola is dangerous to read because he makes it impossible for a thinking person to see the world the same way. What course of action each person deems appropriate in light of that is another matter entirely. I think you're just doing a roundabout complaint about how he hasn't been "deplatformed" yet, although he's already getting defamed and discussing him in a public setting is challenging at the very least.

>>17648793
>getting worldview crushed is dangerous
Anon, you think too highly of yourself and your views if you think that is dangerous. Or more like its dangerous to your ego, which isn't really that dangerous to your actual life.

now THIS is a dangerous author, good book too.

>>17648815
>he makes it impossible for a thinking person to see the world the same way.
I take it you don't read much else in the way of philosophy? Anti-democratic theosophist conservatism shouldn't really be blowing your mind. People have been anti-democratic since ancient times. People have believed in woo mythology as a justification for their views on politics and ethics since ancient times. People have believed everything younger or newer is degenerate since ancient times. Start with the fucking Greeks.

>>17648540
>Is it worth reading Evola in your opinion?
Depends, only if it will lead you to more competent writers(Guenon).

>>17648843
I detect a bias

>>17648862
You can exit the trads by reading the Indians

>>17648871
>people who disagree with wheelchair wizard are biased

>>17648819
>Or more like its dangerous to your ego, which isn't really that dangerous to your actual life.
This is a strange point of view. Do you think that your conscious self has no effect on how you live your life?
>>17648843
Well you obviously haven't read him yourself so maybe you should not be commenting on what should and should not be blowing minds.

>>17648877
No need to exit the trads, since they are telling exactly the same things but also for other religions.

>>17648781
>its just a book
What you’re gambling with, and Evola would agree here, is your soul. Moreover, this is an author who had led people to move into all sorts of deviations from religious normal in their homes from Orthodox Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, bizarre sorts of NeoPaganism, and even Luciferian Satanism and radical Islam as well as radical political ideas. For example, one might read the Doctrine of Awakening and think that Evola was a Buddhist who endorsed Buddhism but he wasn’t and he didn’t. This is an author that can turn your world upside down leave you even more confused than the author was, if not a little depressed at the state of things. Nobody approaches him with a sense for nuance or context and that’s why it can be dangerous.

>>17648896
>Well you obviously haven't read him yourself so maybe you should not be commenting on what should and should not be blowing minds.
Oh so he isn't an anti-democratic theosophist conservative? Maybe you need to come to terms with there being nothing new under the sun.
>>17648906
>don't bother with primary sources just read these polemicists who used them to support their op-eds on why new things are bad
Trads are some of the laziest people jesus christ

YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO READ WHAT WE PERMIT YOU TO GOYIM
Dangerous authors like Evola need to be banned!
NO THINKING ALLOWED.
Pop-Sci, Modern Fiction and Liberal Politics only!
CRITICAL THINKING IS BANNED

>>17648932
You really haven’t read these books, have you...?

>>17648935
Cope harder, Evola is sold by Sneed's Feed and Seed
>>17648803

>>17648935
no one has this opinion
maybe except for the nazis ironically

>>17648946
Can you explain why you think he is so brilliant or original—without just saying he is brilliant or original and that people who disagree have not read him?

>>17648932
>Oh so he isn't an anti-democratic theosophist conservative?
Indeed, that would be wrong.
>Trads are some of the laziest people jesus christ
Pic related.
>>17648949
Holy based.

Has anyone here actually read Evola? He is discussed all the time but it seems like nobody actually has any clue what he wrote.

>>17649026
I have, yeah.

>>17649026
The hard pill to swallow about Evola is that loosely 1 out of 20 people who discuss him actually read him and only 1 out of 10 people who read him actually understand him.

>>17649026
I haven't read him yet personally but i watched a video from Unism go over some of his books/concepts the other day and it got me interested. It's one of those chosen few kinda things from what i can tell
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwp0VWtMwtM

>>17648896
For sure, your conscious has effect on your body, and vice a versa. But its not really the books fault if you're thrown into turmoil by what essentially is just ink on a paper. Arguably such a person can be thrown off by almost anything.
>>17648931
I know that he inspires eccentric people, who also cherry pick from his writings. I don't really see the things you listed as bad though, not when compared to ''normal'', even though I might not agree with listed worldviews.

>>17648661
This. Stupid people shouldn't read Evola since he just makes them worse.

>>17649061
>For sure, your conscious has effect on your body, and vice a versa. But its not really the books fault if you're thrown into turmoil by what essentially is just ink on a paper. Arguably such a person can be thrown off by almost anything.
This is a ridiculous argument - written words are just symbols that stand in for verbal words, which are also symbols that stand in for concepts and ideas. Concepts and ideas are intimately tied to the functioning of consciousness, which is the core of human life.

>>17648815
I´ve read him and he´s just a run of the mill conservative mystic, there´s literally nothing new he presents to the conversation

>>17649088
Can you name some run of the mill conservative mystics and describe their typical ideas, then contrast that with Evola so that I can get a better idea of where you're coming from?

>>17649065
You don’t have to be stupid to not get it. I’ve said this one hundred times on this board about this author but I’ll say it again. Julius Evola is actually a very complex, nuanced, and frankly, confused author. The way he chose to write and things he chose to write on as well as the things he chose to leave out lend themselves to a certain ambiguity in his work in which you can really only pull together if you do a deep deep dive on him and even then, expecting to come out with some sense of radical clarity, I think is foolish.

>>17649068
To me that sounds like the ego, not the consciousness.

>>17649061
>I don't really see the things you listed as bad though, not when compared to ''normal'', even though I might not agree with listed worldviews.
I’m not sure how you can take such an author seriously while also not seeing the gravity in radical gambling with (something like) your immortal soul.

>>17649114
I've already had a good bit of occult experience before reading Evola so I didn't find him particularly difficult, refreshing even, but you are right even smarter people can get it twisted with him if they're reading without context and the necessary experience with what he's actually talking about.

>>17649125
>not seeing the gravity in radical gambling with (something like) your immortal soul
Do demonstrate this for us won't you?

>>17649114
You are mistaken anon, he is not a "confused" author. He writes very clearly. What makes him confusing is that he has a very different perspective and he doesn't try to foist it upon his readers. Which leads to situations like the one you mentioned earlier in the thread in regard to the Doctrine of Awakening book.
>>17649123
You get my point anon. Books are just containers for ideas. Ideas play a huge part in a thinking person's life.

>>17649147
You might but even an occult background isn’t exactly a satisfaction or pre-requisite. The fact is this guy covered such a large area and was actually pretty lost himself at times, but failed to explain that. For example, Evola was still searching for a Tradition well into his 40s and 50s. A lot of his readers don’t know that. A lot of readers also don’t know how when he deployed to the Alps as an Artillery Officer he met soldiers from the mountain area who firmly believed in all sorts of ghosts, spirits, creatures, that inhabited the mountains while he himself had an experience in the mountain where he was affected by a lightning storm. That
contextualized his subsequent obsession with philosophical idealism and his idealist phase. His essay on Carlo Michelstäedter, for example, is something that I think explains quite a lot about his so-called “personal equation” and his project broadly but it’s something that is rarely, if ever read. This is also a guy who found it distasteful to write about himself and details about his personal life beyond what he felt was absolutely necessary. It’s things like that which make him difficult to really “get” no matter the reader.

>>17649162
What?

>>17649170
He was a confused author. Readers like to lend him a degree of authority that simply wasn’t there and which he never claimed to have. He never regarded himself as “maestro” and he admitted as much in his personal writings around middle age. I also disagree that his writing is clear. It became clearer as time went on but his early writing, especially his idealist writings, are very clunky and difficult to understand. I mentioned his essay on Michelstäedter here >>17649191. I would venture so far as to say 99.9% of this board would struggle to understand it.

>>17649200
Can you evidence that reading a book by wheelchair wizard will damage my immortal soul or not?

>>17649191
>Evola goes to Euro-Kentucky and finds out about Euro-Bigfoot
Unironically kino. I'd rather read about Evola than read him.

>>17649222
> can you provide explicitly natural evidence for explicitly supernatural states
No.

>>17649239
I'll just have to trust you then, O Sagacious One

>>17649191
>You might but even an occult background isn’t exactly a satisfaction or pre-requisite. The fact is this guy covered such a large area and was actually pretty lost himself at times, but failed to explain that.
It is what it is. Anyone sufficiently interested in their own development will take their time with Evola, get what understanding they can from him, but in no way treat him as the sole authority on these matters. I genuinely think he's a poor entry-way into occultism because of just about everything you mentioned. He's a very good bridging point between an occult perspective and other fields of thought, but one would only limit themselves if they stick to only him alone, which is the downfall of many Traditionalist types.

>>17649262
This is not the thread for you.

>>17649311
He’s a poor entry into most thing he writes on I think. He’s also poorly read by approached through certain lenses, usually the political one. Not to take away from him because I know it sounds like I’m trashing him right now. Im not. I find him to be a very very valuable author and he influenced me personally quite a lot. I’m just trying to say it as I see it. I don’t exactly know why but I’ve had conversations with a few people and I’ve found people who grew up with strict Catholic backgrounds seem to “click” more than those who didn’t. It’s a very small sample size but I think there’s something there maybe because of the abstraction of ideas and the history or something. I really don’t know yet. Anyway, yeah. I agree with what you’ve said.

>>17649219
>>17649191
I don't think I have ever seen anyone even mention an essay on Michaelstaeder so that's probably not an issue. I have read his books, articles and compiled essays and don't feel like I am missing anything. The reason he did not describe his personal life was precisely because he thought it was extraneous and would be confusing to people today.
>>17649233
Read his essays anon, they feel a lot more personal. Meditations on the Peaks is a wonderful read too.
>>17649311
Depends on what you mean by occult, I don't think there is a better place to go than the Traditionalist school for spiritual knowledge.

>>17649353
>I don't think I have ever seen anyone even mention an essay on Michaelstaeder so that's probably not an issue.
No, but that’s my point. It’s not the sort of thing which is misinterpreted in itself but rather is the sort of thing which actually gives a lot of context to his thinking broadly and one might not get that were they not to read it. I’m not saying you specifically don’t get it either. I’m just speaking broadly here.
> The reason he did not describe his personal life was precisely because he thought it was extraneous and would be confusing to people today.
I’m aware that’s one of the reasons but I actually think he kind of failed in that regard.

>>17649353
>I don't think there is a better place to go than the Traditionalist school for spiritual knowledge.
Gee I wonder... maybe some primary sources?

>>17649380
I think what he means is that for a lot of readers, but obviously not all, Traditional school writings are pretty effective at 1) cutting off the world of the profane for people who still have doubts or at least addressing the doubts in a way that’s satisfying and 2) giving them some sort of compass whereas before they had none. I’ve met quite a lot of people who found some value in reading them in their earlier, more confused days.

>>17649377
>I’m aware that’s one of the reasons but I actually think he kind of failed in that regard.
Why do you say that? He went quite far in limiting information on his background and honestly I am glad for it.
>>17649380
No shit. Unfortunately, anon, most people today will understand absolutely nothing about "primary sources" without some sort of additional explanation and education. I read the Traditionalists first, which sparked my interest in engaging with theology more broadly. Consequently, when I read the Gita later I actually felt like I understood it, rather than just screeching about pantheism or something else stupid.

>>17649125
Can you prove you're not gambling by not going or looking into those ''deviations''?

can someone make an infographic for Evola ffs?

>>17649400
>Why do you say that?
Well, we just disagree on this point. I think his concealing personal details and information actually did too much to shroud his writing in vaguery and ambiguity. I personally feel the net effect is negative. You know? Writers don’t exist in a vacuum no matter how hard they try and I think his affinity for the sort of attitude that came along with what Eliade called the “legionnaire movement” made him incorrectly want to shroud his writings in as much anonymity as possible. It’s a noble desire I suppose but I think it’s a disservice to his readers who’ve been left confused or misguided. Some authors claim he became a Sufi. I think that’s not correct but did he? The answer would answer a lot of questions for us but we will probably never know.

>>17649435
There already is one. It's literally the first result for "evola reading order."

>>17649425
Probably, but that’s not what I was saying. There’s a degree to which you’re necessarily gambling either way. That’s precisely why the stakes are high and such things shouldn’t be taken lightly or without really rigorous nuance.

>>17649352
I haven't read Evola but from what i been heard about him is Evola is more about the spirtual side of things

>>17649439
>I think his concealing personal details and information actually did too much to shroud his writing in vaguery and ambiguity.
The intention was the exact opposite anon, by removing extraneous information you allow the ideas to speak for themselves. I think it was a good call.
>Some authors claim he became a Sufi. I think that’s not correct but did he? The answer would answer a lot of questions for us but we will probably never know.
The Path of Cinnabar is all you need in terms of contextualisation. AFAIK he was unhappy with the direction Guenon took in his pursuit of Tradition, so I very strongly doubt that he'd consider Sufism.
>>17649465
One of the best parts about Evola IMO is that he aims to discover the spiritual dimension in profane life as well, rather than just rigidly separate the two.

>>17648548
>>17648557
>>17648581
>>17648588
>>17648669
look at them seethe
doesn't this already tell you everything you need to know, OP?

>>17649532
>The intention was the exact opposite anon
No, I know that was the intention. I think it had the opposite effect.
> The Path of Cinnabar is all you need in terms of contextualisation
Here we just disagree.

>>17648540
You could have read Ride the Tiger in the time you've spent making these threads.

>>17648588
>>17648755
how about we ditch based&cringe and go with solar&lunar?

>>17649455
That list is strange, like why would you need to read the Hermetic Tradition before Revolt, Men among the Ruins, and Ride the Tiger

The more I think about it, the more I get the impression that the Western world would have run over the Islamists and terrorists if this had been fifty years ago. In the Europe of the forties or fifties, the annexation of our cities by Middle Eastern immigrants had never been accepted. We have the will and the member to reveal among the package, what holds us back are loud organizations that are mostly controlled by female representatives. Instead of tackling the problems before they become insurmountable, these newly released women urge us to reflect, humble, understand and show empathy. The Muslim men, on the other hand, are not held back by their women, they are instead given the opportunity to gain the upper hand in the conflict because they are the attacking party.

>>17650622
"Need" to?

>>17650648
Once times get hard women lose all rights. This has been a repeating pattern throughout history in the west. We just forget the past.

>>17650182
Would be pretty solar if more people did. Bunch of moonfags around here.