/lit/ - Literature

>>16453311
read Guénon

>It seems that nothing exists for modern man other than what can be seen and touched; or at least, even if they admit theoretically that something else may exist they hasten to declare it not merely unknown but “unknowable,” which absolves them from having to give it further thought. If nevertheless some persons still are to be found who try to form some kind of idea of an “other world,” relying as they do on nothing but their imagination they picture it in the likeness of the terrestrial world and transfer to it all the conditions belonging to that world, including space and time and even a sort of “corporeality”; in speaking elsewhere of spiritualistic conceptions we have given some very striking examples of this kind of grossly materialized representation; but if the beliefs there referred to represent an extreme case in which this particular feature is exaggerated to the point of caricature, it would be a mistake to suppose that spiritualism and the sects more or less akin to it retain the monopoly of this kind of thing.

>Indeed, in a more general way, the intrusion of the imagination into realms where it can yield no useful results, and which ought normally to remain closed to it, is a fact which in itself shows very clearly how incapable modern Westerners have become of raising themselves above the realm of the senses; there are many who do not know how to distinguish between “conceiving” and “imagining,” and some philosophers, such as Kant, go so far as to declare “inconceivable” and “unthinkable” everything that is not capable of representation. In the same way everything that goes by the name of “spiritualism” or “idealism” usually amounts to no more than a sort of transposed materialism; this applies not only to what we have described as “neo-spiritualism,” but also to philosophical spiritualism, although the latter considers itself to be the very opposite of materialism.

>The fact is that spiritualism and materialism, in the philosophical sense of these expressions, have no significance apart from one another: they are simply two halves of the Cartesian dualism, whose radical separation has been turned into a kind of antagonism; and, since then, the whole of philosophy has oscillated between these two terms without being able to pass beyond them. Spiritualism, in spite of its name, has nothing to do with spirituality; its conflict with materialism can be of no interest to those who place themselves at a higher standpoint and who see that these opposites are fundamentally very near to being equivalent, their supposed opposition reducing itself, on many points, to a merely verbal disagreement.

>>16387440
Based

>>16273802
>BECOME FUCKING GOD BRO
if only Nietzsche knew how

Why did he end up converting to Islam and not to Hinduism? Wasn't Hinduism more to his liking? And wouldn't Hinduism be a better choice because it's closer to the European spirit (as is explained by survive the jive) in one of his videos.

>study history and philosophy
>become islamic traditionalist

anyone else?

>>15009654
Read René Guénon (pbuh), brother. He is the only truth.

>>15008377
Wise choice, brother.

>>15006601

https://vocaroo.com/cGAxU5ElgiY

>>14991329
>The Eastern doctrines are unanimous, as also were the ancient doctrines of the West; in asserting that contemplation is superior to action, just as the unchanging is superior to change. Action, being merely a transitory and momentary modification of the being, cannot possibly carry its principle and sufficient reason in itself; if it does not depend on a principle outside its own contingent domain, it is but illusion; and this principle, from which it draws all the reality it is capable of possessing-its existence and its very possibility can be found only in contemplation, or, if one will, in knowledge, for these two terms are fundamentally synonymous, or at least coincide, since it is impossible in any way to separate knowledge from the process by which it is acquired. 4 Similarly change, in the widest sense of the word, is unintelligible and contradictory; in other words, it is impossible without a principle from which it proceeds and which, being its principle, cannot be subject to it, and is therefore necessarily unchanging; it was for this reason that, in the ancient world of the West, Aristotle asserted that there must be a 'unmoved mover' of all things. It is knowledge that serves as the 'unmoved mover' of action; it is clear that action belongs entirely to the world of change and 'becoming'; knowledge alone gives the possibility of leaving this world and the limitations that are inherent in it, and when it attains to the unchanging-as does principial or metaphysical knowledge, that is to say knowledge in its essence-it becomes itself possessed of immutability, for all true knowledge essentially consists in identification with its object.

>>14984068
how can one man be so based?

In "The Crisis of the Modern World" why does he sperg out so hard on Western Philosophy? I really enjoyed the previous chapter of Sacred and Profane science but for the most part he goes out of his way to say again and again that Western Philosophy is a negation of itself etc etc, and even this claim itself is almost entirely baseless in the rational sense. Should I skip 'Individualism' and move on to the next chapter because its getting beyond redundant at this point and I read IttSotHD prior due to the retarded chart so I feel like i'm going over this for the 4th time now. Guenon has an interesting perspectives but he's really repetitive sometimes

Where do I start with Rene Guenon?

Not contemporary Western Civilisation, but in general.

I’ve just finished reading the first part of An Introduction To The Studies of The Hindu Doctrine, and a good half of the book so far is dismissing or outright attacking Western Civilisation.

I fundamentally agree with him so far, at least regarding his facts, but I dislike the biased conclusions he draws. He highly stresses detaching yourself from your own cultural background to study any Eastern culture, or foreign culture in general, in favour of trying to the best of your ability to view their culture from their perspective rather than through your own biases, which I think is both profound and unfortunately rarely understood insight, going as far to agree with him in saying that many probably aren’t mentally capable of fully, or even partially detaching themselves from their own culture to study or experience others objectively, or from their subject viewpoint. I agree with this premise, but Guenon seems to commit the opposite sin. In trying to view the outsider from their perspective he views himself and his civilisation from an outsiders perspective as well, and an extremely critical one at that.

A good example of this would be how he completely diminishes the significance of the Greeks and therefore the founding of Western Civilisation as we generally know it. One of his main arguments is that the Greeks created little to nothing of their own, borrowing and adapting all of their main ideas from the East. While this view is technically correct, it not only doesn’t consider the value of adaptation, but greatly diminishes it.

If someone gave me a clear pice of paper and I made an origami bird out of it I would have essentially done nothing but make an adaptation to an already preexisting thing, and by no means an original one, even supposing that I invented an entirely new way crafting origami sculptures. Nonetheless it would always be an adaptation, not an entirely “original” creation. But to diminish such a beautiful pice of art for merely being “an adaptation of a preexisting thing” is self evidently ridiculous and childish. Yes it’s an adaptation, but I’d argue that the adaptation has proven so significant as to make it its own thing, in its own right, regardless of what it was originally adapted from. It has clearly been improved upon and drastically altered.

Where can I read about the Guenonian opinion on Judaism? Did he think it was possible for a convert to attain a high level following the Judaic path?

Is it true that Guénon BTFO Theosophy in his book Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion?

Describe this image in your finest prose