/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20053888]

Heidegger. EvoIa. Serrano. What am I looking for? Is any of this going to help me, or is it just intellectual masturbation? I wish I could just pray and find meaning from this mess. I wish I could pray and the White race would be saved and there'd be a new optimistic future ahead of us - exploring some post-apocalyptic free-for-all, or colonising distant planets (reddit cringe I know). Everything on earth is explored. Our race is dying. Even if we have a rebound, it won't be for hundreds of years when we'll have shrunk to like 1% of the world population. Then there's the very realistic prospect of being enslaved by Chinese, or the White race dying off and earth being inherited by either the soulless bug creatures (asians) or the apes, polluting the planet, leaving not a single blade of grass untouched. Everything else is just copium/hopium. I think I'm an atheist and I 100% sincerely have been praying to God these days. It gets worse every day. I haven't been able to relate to the mass culture for 6 years.

[Anonymous No.20053901]

I pray to God and I don't think I believe in Him. I try read religious books (EH, Traditionalism/perennialism, reading about ancient European paganism, etc.) but I can't commit to it for some reason. Maybe it's because I can't *force* myself to believe?
Please pray for me. I'm trying.

[Anonymous No.20053904]

Take all these famous people and only read their rivals.

[Anonymous No.20053911]

>Everyone is telling me to read Atheist Evola? I'll read Christian Goebbels.

[Anonymous No.20053998]

>>20053888
>Heidegger
the deepest mysteries of the Western intellectual tradition
>Evola
if you start with Introduction to Magic, a way to live the mysteries in real time
>Serrano
YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO CUUTTTT ME OFFFFFF

[Anonymous No.20054048]

>>20053888
>saves Western culture through music

[Anonymous No.20054394]

Try reading a softer introduction to Western esotericism like Eliade or Versluis, or Steiner's How to Know Higher Worlds. Evola and Heidegger are compatible but you won't find immediate answers in either, especially not in Heidegger.

Right now you're all hatred of degeneracy, and no love or longing for the higher orders of being. Despising the "low" is supposed to push you toward the "high," always balancing out in a new equilibrium as the increasing levels of disdain for base material and dissolute people impel you to greater levels of self-realization. If all you can see is hate and despair, as ends in themselves rather than means to an end, then you're going to burn yourself up. You won't get immediate answers unless you go into this gently and with faith that there is something more. That faith will come in stages, and at first it's the hardest to follow because the first stage is the least clear, it's when you have to rely most on gut feeling because you don't have any intellectual apprehension yet.

You've been raised by a culture that teaches, both implicitly (through subtle nihilism woven into everything) and explicitly (through deliberate ideology and propaganda), that all ideas and beliefs must be intellectually, "rationally" justified, but justification is understood here in a very particular way. Your mind has been trained to burn and excoriate everything that comes into it, violently turning it over in your mind's eye with maximum cynicism and preemptive incredulity, as the test of whether it's "rational" or not. But this whole culture of cynical rationality presupposes (i.e., does not itself rationally justify, just assumes without justification) that the ONLY kind of rationality an idea can possess is "that which withstands scrutiny by some random cynical atheist cynically tugging on it and trying to pull it apart with his 'common sense'." It doesn't at all account for the possibility that this "common sense" is only a starting point, and an impoverished one compared with what is actually possible.

In other words, it teaches people to be arrogant and impatient, and to only let things "in" if they pass a very cursory test, like your mind is always preemptively in a state of "This better be good!" about new ideas. But even the ideas "I don't know what I don't know; I could be wrong in such a way that it prevents me from seeing I'm wrong in subtle ways" and "Everyone feels that what they currently believe in is right; but I know I've felt that I was right, and been wrong; so I should always potentially doubt the feeling of certainty" are themselves in defiance of common sense. Being smart enough to integrate these ideas into your consciousness is already a stage higher than pure, unalloyed common sense, which is arrogantly self-sufficient, and heavily promoted by the current nihilistic culture because it keeps people stupid and complacent.

[Anonymous No.20054399]

>>20054394
Once you have these ideas integrated you ALREADY know what faith feels like, because the "faith" you have for an order of understanding beyond your own present understanding is like a candle compared to the sun of actual metaphysical knowledge. It's a dimmer light but still light. Remember that this kind of longing for truth beyond what one presently knows is a total paradox for ordinary common sense: a purely common sense mind would think "understanding is simply understanding! how can an 'external' order of ideas conflict with the ideas I now know, and feel that I know, and feel that I know that I know, are correct?" To feel that there may be truth beyond what you know, an ultimate state of absolute Reason beyond your contingent states of finite reasoning, is the foundation of all theology (θεολογία) in the Aristotelian sense of the term, meaning the highest form of metaphysics. You're already engaged in preliminary theoria (θεωρία):
>For thought (nous) is what is capable of receiving the object of thought, i.e., the essence/substance [of the thing] and it is active when it has it, with the result that the latter more so than the former is the divine thing that thought seems to have, and contemplation (theôria) is what is most pleasant and best.

Heidegger will teach you THIS, that is, theoria in the abstract, and the need for a return to the "openness" of theoria. Evola will teach you that this has always been practiced by human beings, that the West has a vibrant esoteric tradition with many points of ingress (most of which have become obscured by the modern crisis, but they still exist), and that the modern regime of cynical rationality I described above is only a tiny, subordinate subset of fully developed human reasoning.

Modern "reasoning" is everywhere implicitly invoked to mean "thinking" and even "Reason" in and of themselves, and is explicitly propagandized as the only meaningful form of ideality (for example in modern secular education, which only acknowledges discursive reason and biologically reductive "feelings" and "desires" as forms of cognition). But it is actually analogous to the medieval distinction between ratio (discursive, "technical" reason, "means-ends" reasoning) and intellectus (understanding in the sense of ultimate contemplation, comprehension of essence), and also analogous to "l'esprit géométrique" which Pascal identified with the Cartesian thought of his day, and to which he counterposed his own esprit de finesse, the intuitive thought-feeling in which fetishized Cartesian "rationality" is actually situated.

[Anonymous No.20054405]

>>20054399
This is a useful opportunity to experiment with how bound by arrogant common sense your present thinking is. If you hear about this spirit of finesse, "intuition," etc., and you immediately and reflexively think "well so what, so we have hunches and feelings about things while reasoning normally, big deal, so there's a demi-conscious, demi-rational 'feeling' component to thinking, so what, presumably psychology can account for that too," then your thought is still infected by the, themselves rationally unjustified, presumptions of secular psychology: thought = rational-calculative discursive thought, and anything else can be relegated to sub-rational "feelings, desires, preferences, etc." Because that's not what Pascal meant. This shows more what he means:
>Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point. On le sent en mille choses. C'est le cœur qui sent Dieu, et non la raison. Voilà ce que c'est que la foi parfaite, Dieu sensible au cœur.
>The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God perceived in the heart.

Now you can see the limits of common sense yet again here by the fact that most readers of this quote think Pascal is simply, and only, juxtaposing "faith" and "reasoning," a reading which again relies on the unjustified presumption that there is a necessary dichotomy between the two, i.e. that if Pascal is talking about them he must be apprised of the "common sense" position that they are necessarily distinct. Pascal is thus usually read as a boring fideist, as if he tacitly agrees with the correctness of the Cartesian rationalist spirit and the inescapability of the cage of secular rationality, but then, as a personal quirk of "subjective belief" (whatever that means), he "chooses" to believe in something "beyond reasoning" (whatever that means).

In fact what Pascal is doing is appealing to a much older tradition of understanding how human understanding works, a tradition with roots in medieval philosophy which itself is grounded in both platonic and Augustinian illuminationist thinking, all of which traditions make metaphysical and scientific arguments for themselves. You can't know just by hearing this whether you will AGREE with these arguments, and become an illuminationist, but hopefully it's at least clear how arrogant, presumptuous common sense thinking can prevent you from even NOTICING that there are alternatives to be investigated. Even people who study Pascal make the mistake of reducing him to an uninteresting fideist.

[Anonymous No.20054411]

>>20054405
But people who take the time to "open" themselves to the possibility that there is an order of understanding beyond their own, that Pascal knows something they don't and is saying something more than "hey, we both have basically the same views on faith and reason; I just choose faith where you choose reason," something from a loftier vantage point that has to be mounted before it can be seen from, those people not only discover an entire contiguous tradition linking Pascal with Plato, they begin to discover other interesting things, like the fact that Descartes himself was deeply indebted to this tradition, and that Descartes was not a "Cartesian" and certainly not a "secular" thinker. And they start to notice the violence that the supposedly common sense tradition of secular rationality and nihilism is doing even to people it claims as its own forebears, like Locke, Newton, and Samuel Clarke (all profoundly religious, and Newton was a hermetic alchemist).

Will you have esoteric realizations of the supersensible order of being just by realizing this? No, but someone who can see these subtle lines of thought running through the entire Western tradition, and how those lines begin to be sidelined and smothered only in modernity, leading ultimately to modern people who can't even conceive of the possibility of their existence anymore, but need to be led (at first often painfully) to see them and then "with" and "through" them, is a lot closer to understanding some of the stranger things Heidegger or Evola says than someone who never applied pressure and stress to his common sense thinking and never went beyond himself.

The history of philosophy doesn't begin with so-called "faculty psychology," with the enumeration of "parts" of the mind and how they "work," it begins with Plato defining knowledge not as an innate capacity of a biological machine but as the longing of the soul for union with, and perfectly clear insight into, the order of things, the "unity in multiplicity." It continues with Aristotle, who is also not an empirical faculty psychologist but someone who takes for granted that understanding is both a divine force and a divine order in which humans participate.

[Anonymous No.20054419]

>>20054411
If you care about things, you already believe in the order underlying them. What Plotinus called "the flight of the one [i.e. you, the individual] toward the One [the ultimate underlying totality of everything that exists]" is already taking place, and it's doing it in exactly the ways Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and Pascal all said it would, namely piecewise and approximately, through intuition and instinct. You care about the white race and you care about exploration, but one second of reflection will show that it's incoherent to defend these as "ultimate" values, in and of themselves. There's always the question of WHY you value them. And you're not an idiot, so you would immediately begin giving some justification in terms of goodness and truth, in at least proximate forms like purity and promethean self-overcoming, and the need to defend goodness in the world against degradation and usurpation by evil.

In other words your anger about the degradation of good things and their purity is already a manifestation of a belief in the Good and the need to protect it, prior to you even knowing this - which is proof that there exists an order (with seemingly moral content) prior to all mediate and proximate rationalizing. You are in effect already having faith in, already "praying" to, the Good and the True. Hopefully this makes some more sense of what Pascal meant by the intuition of the heart guiding reason and always being one step ahead of it, "having reasons the reason itself did not know." Far from being "subjective reasons" (a concept which finally reveals itself as a solecism, a contradiction in terms), the reasons of the heart ARE rational, just in a higher way, which arrogant discursive reason finds itself having to catch up with. Ratio serves intellectus, not the other way around. You already have faith, otherwise you wouldn't care about any of this. Only automata don't have faith, and even "dead" nature itself seems to strive toward higher form in the same way that mere reason strives toward ultimate contemplation.

That process of stunted reason catching up with latent understanding, of ratio having to raise itself to the level of intellectus by coming into accordance with it (reason serving faith, or in the old formulation "faith seeking understanding," fides quaerens intellectum - which hopefully no longer reads as a nonsensical putting of "irrational" faith before "rational" reason), IS the next frontier to be explored. Someone like Heidegger can help you to the threshold of the possibility of renewing that exploration, at a higher level than the Greeks ever imagined. Someone like Evola can help you by heaping up as much data as possible, revealing as many potential avenues of inquiry as possible. They don't offer finished "systems" because that's something that arrogant common sense does, believing human reason is ready to capture the entire universe in a bottle because it can build a shitty electric car.

[Anonymous No.20054427]

>>20054419
Reading philosophy isn't about capturing the totality (unity) of things (multiplicity) in a bottle and begin done with it, it's about realizing YOU are currently in the bottle, and the goal is to remove the cork and reintegrate with the totality in a way where you realize the totality was always already a part of you and vice versa. And ultimately even the glass bottle itself was just a concrescence of certain energies and potentials within the same totality, so all that is necessary to dissolve its "hardness" and its function as a "barrier" between you and the Whole is to realize that it was always already impossible to be separated from the One.

All things are proximate - why do you care about the white race or promethean values like uncovering hidden truths? Because these are goods. But contingent, particular goods are proximate too - proximate for what? Why do you care about "goods?" Because something in you, at a level you can't perceive directly but which "drives" and underlies every ACT of perceiving you undertake, is already structured by assumptions about the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, as the conditions of particular good, true, and beautiful things.

Don't get hung up on the proximate values themselves, use them to orient yourself like the stars at night. You don't "hate the Chinese," you hate the evil they currently represent. That doesn't mean give up these fights, it means begin to learn what you are fighting for, to make the fighting not only easier but sweeter. The more you learn, the more the objective structure of things will become visible to you, and the more effective at fighting you will become, and the more you do this, the more you will be able to learn, etc.

Modern secularism and nihilism have not cut you off from "the right system," whether perennialist or Catholic or anything else. They have cut you off from THEORIA, which is the PROCESS, not a system, though it may reveal proximate "systems" useful for reason which serves understanding. You need to learn how to learn again, so you can begin to even see the alternatives. Not learn any one particular thing. You're already attuned to this and already in the process. You're currently experiencing what Aquinas called righteous (justified) anger and despair. Just don't let it become an end in itself.

[Anonymous No.20054466]

>>20053888
Aryans will lose control of the earth at the end of every aeon and will regain control at each beginning.

[Anonymous No.20054506]

I read some Evola and regretted it a lot.

[Anonymous No.20054545]

>>20053888
> I wish I could just pray and find meaning from this mess. I wish I could pray and the White race would be saved
You sound like a jew. Europeans are men of action, not of wishing and waiting. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.20054551]

>>20054506
Let me guess, you were filtered?
>>20053911
Evola was no atheist, tranny. Keep sucking that jew cock.

[Anonymous No.20055197]

>>20054506
Did you start with the Grail book like that chart says? I think that turns a lot of people off.

[Anonymous No.20055255]

>>20055197
That chart is horrible. And Mystery of the Grail is possibly my favourite Evola book but I wouldn't recommend starting there.

[Anonymous No.20055262]

>>20053888
TradLARPing will not save you.

[Anonymous No.20055784]

>>20054427
Masterful. A true diamond in this rough. You remind me of Pierre Grimes. Are you familiar with him?

[Anonymous No.20055796]

>>20053888
Checked, read Guenon before Evola

[Anonymous No.20055846]

>>20053888
The Global Liberal order is collapsing anon
it isn't
>"going to"
it isn't
>"about to"
it is.
Very clearly and explicitly and down to its deepest foundations of global economy.
Without that system to prop up the liberalism as an ideology, the ideology will in the years to come quickly collapse.
By some metrics it already HAS collapsed or is at the least collapsing given the increasingly Nationalistic border and trade policies even LIBERAL democracies are FORCED to implement due to the inevitable results of their system.
Cornana was just the virus we happened to get.
The truth is a borderless world where anyone and everyone with a few hundred dollars could travel ANYWHERE in the world was NEVER sustainable.
9/11 was the first major proof of this
The coronavirus was the second.
I think we on the legitimate right to often find even ourselves falling into the belief that the direction of our civilization speaks to a sense of
>>>>"Progress"
The status quo IS NOT progressive.
Biological Social Structures like gender roles, heternomartiviety and racial consiousness where bread into humans by thousands of years of natural selection and where fundimental to creation of civilization.
Those who are undermine these foundations are themselves regressive extremists attempting to take us to a point of primate hedonism and egoism before even the base of tribal dynamics properly emerged.
They are in no way shape or form
>"On the right side of history"
And those who follow their ideology (including the chinese who's state is explicitly founded on Marxism) will inevitable collapse and die off
Already they are actively cutting off the genitals of their children, aboring their unborn offspring, and embracing homosexuality to such an extent their birth rate is falling bellow 1 child per couple.
Again none of this is even a
>"Prediction"
at this point,
we are SEEING the end result of the global economy, the demographic and socio-economic crisis, the inability for 1st world nations to succesfully conqure third world tribal groups.
All of this is areadly (quite litterally and explicitly) passing away infront of our eyes
And if you have the foresite to avoid the effects of the collapse?
You WILL live to se a better world to give to your children then you were born into.
Not one as decadent or hedeonistic
But one far more sutainable, a world which seeks its own survival.

[Anonymous No.20056579]

>>20055796
this, read crisis first