/lit/ - Literature

>retvrn to tradition?
I don't think so. We about to conquer and colonize the galaxy through our sheer will to power. Anti-egalitarian progressives, futurists; Prometheus is our father.

Please recommend right wing progressive literature. One anon recommend me to read Junger's The Worker ASAP.

Thread for discussing the ideas and books of thinkers associated with the Traditionalist school, sometimes also known as the Perennialist school. Including but not limited to:

- Rene Guenon
- Martin Lings
- Seyyed Hossein Nasr
- Frithjof Schuon
- Ananda K. Coomaraswamy
- Julius Evola
- Jean Borella
- Titus Burckhardt
- Philip Sherrard
- Marco Pallis
- Michel Valsan
- Charles Upton
Also thinkers indirectly affiliated, influenced by, or similar to Traditionalism:
- Henry Corbin
- William Chittick
- Mircea Eliade
- Arthur Avalon etc

Here's a documentary on Perennialism:
https://youtube.com/watch?t=135s&v=P_CNg4dpU54

An hour long interview with Julius Evola
https://youtube.com/watch?t=611s&v=QiCtdi5nCoA

And lastly, a talk by the most eminent Traditionalist around today:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fIjW1z-ZAX8

Would you guys be willing to read a translation of a sympathetic critique of Evola´s traditionalism from a Catholic point of view?

http://www.larramendi.es/es/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.do?path=1028813

I agree with Moldbug's idea that leftists are all power hungry evil people.


>NOOOOOOO, STOP HECKIN IMPORTING IMMIGRANTINOS!!! I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO EARN THE MONEY FOR A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS!!! I'M NOT ABLE TO GIVE UP MY HECKIN CULTURAL PREFERENCES!!!

>NOOO, STOP COOPERATING WITH THE HECKIN GLOBOHOMO SYSTEM!!! I CAN'T COMPETE!!! I CAN'T STAND THE TASTE OF BUGS! I CAN'T BEAR TO GIVE UP MEAT!!!

>NOOOOO, STOP AUTOMATING THINGS AND DEMANDING THAT ALL WORKPLACES BECOME DOMINATED BY HR AND CORPORATE DOUBLESPEAK AND FORCED SOCIALISING AND AFTER WORK KARAOKE EVENTS!! I'M TOO UGLY, INARTICULATE, AND LACKING IN SOCIAL SKILLS TO COMPETE WITH REGULAR PEOPLE!!!

>NOOOOO, STOP EATING ONIONS AND BEING 10 LBS UNDERWEIGHT AND A DYEL SKINNYFAT!!! I CAN'T MENTALLY BEAR SACRIFICING PHYSICAL STRENGTH AND NUTRITION AND MY HECKIN HORMONE BALANCE TO COMPETE IN THE BRUTAL GLOBAL MARKETPLACE!!! I NEED MY 8 HOURS OF SLEEP AND ENDORPHINS!!!

>NOOOO, STOP WORSHIPPING BLACKEROONIES AND TAXING REGULAR PEOPLE TO VIRTUE SIGNAL YOUR WAY TO THE TOP!!! MY HECKIN FAIRNESS!!! MY MORALITOONY!!!

>NOOOO, STOP DEMANDING I GET IN THOUSANDS OF DEBT TO GO TO COLLEGE!!! I'M NOT SMART OR CONNECTED ENOUGH TO GET IN TO AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL!!!

>IF JULIUS CAESAR OR NAPOLEON OR ALEXANDER THE GREAT OR ATTILA THE HUN OR GENGIS KHAN OR ADMIRAL NELSON WERE ALIVE, THEY'D KICK ASS!! THEY'D BE DROPKICKING SOFTWARE ENGINEERS IN THE WENDYS PARKING LOT WHILE HOMELESS!!! THEY DEFINITELY WOULDN'T BE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS MCKINSEY CONSULTANTS AND CAREER POLITICIANS OR INVESTMENT BANKERS!!!

Capital T Traditionalism, like Marxism, is not actually a philosophy of history at all, but a political ideology that uses history like a tool, as a foundation for political aims. It is contemptuous of real history and has no desire to reach its true essence.

Can one be both a philosopher and a historian? The philosopher speculates on truths and ideals that transcend time and space, while the historian judges the expressions of each historical period separately and independently. It was quite acceptable in the age of Hegel and Herder, when the field of history was in its infancy, to conceive of a priori philosophical systems and smother history underneath them. But in the age post-Ranke it is the height of charlatanry. He who philosophizes about history after Ranke is, or at least should be, shackled by the most basic assumption of Ranke's revolutionary method: that each historical epoch must be judged independently and that every system of belief is shaped by its historical environment. When one attempts to expand the Hegelian philosophy beyond the scope of Western Europe, or Traditionalism to account for the possibility of cultural originality, they swiftly disintegrate. Like Marxism, Traditionalism has nothing but myopic criticism to give of the modern age and consequently has nothing meaningful to say about it. As Ranke says, history is the arch-nemesis of the philosopher.

The general is reached through examination of the particular. A philosophy of history attempting to employ Ranke's method must be formulated a posteriori, in which history is allowed to speak its mind and the philosopher listens and observes accordingly. This is the view that every thought of a human being is incomprehensible without its historical context. It would seem impossible then for the philosopher of history to actually be a philosopher since nothing is really "true" only the forms of consciousness that predominate in a particular age.

But this is not the case. Awareness of the contextual nature of truth brings with it awareness of the Heraclitean aspect of history which in its essence is one of ultimate and pure Becoming. An a posteriori philosophy of history therefore demands a philosophy of ultimate and pure Becoming. The dynamic and continual shaping and reshaping of human consciousness through time is the eternal law. There is nothing that exists outside consciousness, which constitutes reality itself. Human thought is the constant that illuminates the world and creates living forms out of that which is dead.

Being is that which every historical culture aims itself towards, but what constitutes Being as a particular culture conceives of it is relegated to particular belief systems which are observably fluid and drift over the centuries. There can be no absolute Being, only the contextual and particular. According to this view even Being falls under the domain of pure Becoming in the fluid motion of the world and the dynamic totality of human history.

We had a good thread last time so let's keep it going

Reading Crisis of the Modern World atm because his intro to hinduism isn't on Kindle, it's pretty interesting so far

The modern condition as a natural reaction to hypocritical conservative and traditional institutions
newmanleary.wordpress.com/2021/03/14/the-modern-condition-as-a-natural-reaction-to-hypocritical-conservative-and-traditional-institutions/
>The cause for the modern condition can be simplified as just a natural reaction to the hypocritical conservative and traditional institutions, the fact that they don’t uphold the values they believe in and refuse to acknowledge reasoning. The lack of understanding, sincerity and responsibility in their upholding lost their power which turned them into routines and habits that deteriorate with every generation. This is the reason why rebellions and subversive attacks by foreigners work, they are seen as meaningless and archaic artifacts. Though them being irrelevant, archaic and meaningless can’t be further from the truth, they were imposed as an adaptation for overcoming the hostility and futility of primitive societies which required reasoning, peace and social coherency, something lost to the contemporaries of these institutions. The modern condition is not one of social progress as they love to claim but a rather one embracing primitivity, the lack of social coherency through abolishing not just the chastity and purity before marriage but marriage itself, the insignificance of reasoning by encouraging of impulsivity and the end of peace by normalizing and rewarding perversions and disorders which is a bottomless pit of negative desires. Though once again, one has to fully comprehend that the modern condition is a reaction to hypocrisy which causes hopelessness, failing to acknowledge that will make all your actions against it vain. These institutions turned into power structures focused on total domination rather than looking for a higher meaning of life. It’s completely natural as a reaction to rebel against structures that see you as a mere resource instead of a person that they should pour their resources in so he can reach his potential and double their investment. These structures forgot the most fundamental tool and the cause of their success , that of high culture. This in turn destroyed their empathy and turned them into resource hogging monsters to the point where they would corrupt the source from which they feed from and embrace racial diversity as an even bigger scheme for embezzlement. This is also true for perversions and disorders like homosexuality and genderism, they exist because they are natural reactions to complexes and traumas and which are caused by abuse, sadistic chastising, unfairness, apathy, and lack of belonging that are prevalent in primitive and the repression in coherent societies shows foul play as their cause is opposite of the values they are supposed to hold. This is why we need to comprehend that empathy and reasoning are the staples of these institutions and not pride and hostility.

So im a young European male and im learning about Guenon and the perennialist school. Guenon himself converted to Sufism because for him it was the best chance a European had at metaphysical understanding and traditional living. Should I just convert to Sufism? It seems like it would solve my problems a great deal. Getting married with a traditional woman in a traditional country seems more and more reasonable with each passing day in this miserable society.
Also is Hinduism even an option? Could i ever hope to understand it as a westener or like Guenon said Sufism is the best way?

link to the old thread:
>>17736406

Thread for discussing the ideas and books of thinkers associated with the Traditionalist school, sometimes also known as the Perennialist school. Including but not limited to:
- Rene Guenon
- Martin Lings
- Seyyed Hossein Nasr
- Frithjof Schuon
- Ananda K. Coomaraswamy
- Julius Evola
- Titus Burckhardt
- Philip Sherrard
- Marco Pallis etc
Also thinkers indirectly affiliated, influenced by, or similar to Traditionalism:
- Henry Corbin
- William Chittick
- Mircea Eliade
- Arthur Avalon
- Aleksandr Dugin etc

It was time for a new thread.

Thread for discussing the ideas and books of thinkers associated with the Traditionalist school, sometimes also known as the Perennialist school. Including but not limited to:
- Rene Guenon
- Martin Lings
- Seyyed Hossein Nasr
- Frithjof Schuon
- Ananda K. Coomaraswamy
- Julius Evola
- Titus Burckhardt
- Philip Sherrard
- Marco Pallis etc
Also thinkers indirectly affiliated, influenced by, or similar to Traditionalism:
- Henry Corbin
- William Chittick
- Mircea Eliade
- Arthur Avalon
- Aleksandr Dugin etc

Why did the Traditionalist school never talk about Sikhism? What would Evola, Guenon, Coomerswarmy (and the rest) say about it? Since it emerged in the 16th century or so is it a degeneration, or a genuine renewal?

It has:
A) A sacred language preserved from its inception with no changes
B) Initiatic tradition in the Khalsa (dunno how Evola didn't find this and coom in his pants, warrior-priest tier shit)
C) Metaphysics are its central concern and doesn't take the exoteric Abrahamic dogmatic line of "everyone else is evil", doesn't proselytize

Those are a few examples that are most obvious.

From an ISIS publication

>The late historian Alfred Crosby (1931 – 2018), who finds the genesis of the quantitative mind in the West around the 13th century, says even more so than technology, the quantitative mind affected the arts. He gives examples from leading Christian theologians of medieval Europe: The leading of these speculative minds, Italy’s Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), while talking about God, stipulates “his reasoning and language are almost mathematical.” Aquinas was unsurprisingly a favorite of René Descartes, “a crown prince of rationalist philosophy and virtual inventor of coordinate or analytic geometry” [5]. The French polymath Nicole Oresme (1225 – 1274) “anticipated the great sixteenth and seventeenth century astronomers” [6], in the sense that like the English physicist Isaac Newton (1642 – 1726) way later, he considered the universe to be a clockwork, and thus God as some sort of cosmic mechanic.

>We can easily understand what such conception of the Godhead entails: it reduces Him to an external, and not even necessarily active, force, which can be impersonal. A neo-jahmiyyah [7] apperception of divine names and attributes which are so non-existent and essentially meager that it leaves almost no notion of God at all. It’s thus no wonder, in “Enlightenment” Europe, the deist philosophers privileged this idea of God being a clockmaker, as it fitted well with their contempt and even hate of normative expression of traditional religiosity.

https://peopleoftawhid.org/technology-as-a-mode-of-secular-liberal-theology/

Are they para-figures of other divine beings, did they *literally* exist as humans? I'm not asking for Zeitgeist. I'm asking for the answer Guenon or Evola would give to the question.

Does he even argue anything

post 'em lads. thanks in adv.

Honestly I don't even know where to start. I'm interested in ancient knowledge and mysticism.

are these compatible? i feel like i'd accept lord jesus christ into my heart if it were more intuitive that these could be compatible in any way.

instead, christian friends push me further from christ when they say Traditionalism is incompatible with christianity, leading me down the Nietzsche-pill path of christianity=christcuck mentality

What are the best traditionalist books?

Are contemplation and action equal paths to transcendence?

>still less must this complacency which abjures Science claim that such rapturous haziness is superior to Science. This prophetic talk supposes that it is staying in the centre and in the depths, looks disdainfully at determinateness, and deliberately holds aloof from Notion and Necessity as products of that reflection which is at home only in the finite. But just as there is an empty breadth, so too there is an empty depth; and just as there is an extension of substance that pours forth as a finite multiplicity without the force to hold the multiplicity together, so there is an intensity without content, one that holds itself in as a sheer force without spread, and this is in now way distinguishable from superficiality... Such minds when they give themselves up to the uncontrolled ferment of substance, imagine that, by drawing a veil over self-consciousness and surrendering understanding they become beloved of God to whom He gives wisdom in sleep; and hence what they in fact receive, and bring to birth in their sleep, is nothing but dreams.
ouch

Hey lit, I’m currently reading Hindu Doctrines by Guenon and am thoroughly enjoying it. However, I’m not sure where to go from here after I finish.

I have Revolt Against the Modern World, and was going to read that next, but I’ve noticed a lot more Traditional philosophers ( such as Nasr) mention Schuon and Coomarawsamy far more often. Obviously part of that is due to Evola’s politics, but I’m now wondering if I should read those author’s works first.

Anyone have any thoughts on these two authors, or on Perennial philosophy reading lists?

>More than 50 % of psychology papers do not replicate, I'm sure that more than 99% of what your grandmother told you does

>We need to learn from collective experience over time
Metaphorical truths >>>>>>>>>>> bogus statistical "analysis"