/lit/ - Literature

What is it about this man that inspires such seething hatred among a certain subset of /lit/ posters? Is it the witty denunciations, the verbal skewering of so many of /lit/'s idols, the complete eviscerating of modernist ideology?

>mfw someone on /lit/ refers to the writings of a 20th century philosopher as "metaphysics"

>eastern thought isn't mostly better than western philo-

Does Guénon btfo Kant? I just started reading him and I'm wondering if someone who's read a lot of both can compare their ideas and evaluate who's right.

Does not anyone else it highly ironic that the first thing, when you search "Guenon" in various image searches you get endless images of apes? Or apes in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guenon

Was René Guénon literally the Ape Of Thoth?

>The Ape of Thoth is often thought of as human reason. It follows Thoth, the god of wisdom, around mimicking his divine wisdom with its weak play-acting.
>The Word is in the hands of both Tahuti and his Ape. Tradition has it that the Magus is followed by the Ape of Thoth, who ensures that all his words will be misunderstood. The Word, once the pure expression of a Cosmic Mystery, has now become trapped in a thicket of its own ramifications and reifications. Like all contingent phenomena, it is ultimately impermanent and unsatisfactory.

He spent all of his life trying to rationalize, intellectualize and in words explain Wisdom or Jnana, which itself cannot be never truly communicated by letters or rationalization

Only the last word escaping from his husk to be the condensation of his whole madness:
>René Guénon died on Sunday, January 7, 1951; his final word was "Allah"

Writing multiple articles, books during his lifetime, his whole of thought being summarized in some Abrahamic tribal fetish of the goat herders and camel riders

Seriously it is just way too humorous when you think about it. He literally was the Ape of Tahuti and nothing more. Tragicomedy of sorts.

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.