/lit/ - Literature

>>15158746
I'm very interested, thanks.

>>15158730
> Even books like Revolt are really nothing like what Rowsell does. Honestly, I’d Revolt isn’t real philosophy than neither is Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy.
Nietzsche is more of a poet than a philosopher.
> "God does not exist. The Ego must create him by making itself divine."
>''The truths that allow us to understand the world of Tradition are not those that can be "learned" or "discussed." They either are or are not. We can only remember them, and that happens when we are freed from the obstacles represented by various human constructions (chief among these are the results and methods of the authorized "researchers") and have awakened the capacity to see from the nonhuman viewpoint, which is the same as the Traditional viewpoint ... Traditional truths have always been held to be essentially non-human''
Again, as I said, Evola is always referring to authority but never expounds the content of any tradition as it were. Even a work such as Doctrine of Awakening is an exposé and doesn't apply this 'ancient wisdom' in any relevant philosophical argumentation. I've often met these types of people: they encounter a school of thought, a tradition, a writer, which/who distrusts discursive human knowledge/rationality and are relieved by this because it ends many of the questions they ask themselves pertaining to being, death, God. These are usually quite blunt pilosophies such as Gnosticism, Taoism, Upanishadic Heracliteanism with a lot of aesthetic appeal and a narrative, but very little content. EVERY NOTEWORTHY THINKER OR SCHOOL OF METAPHYSICS RECOGNIZES THE LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE AND THE HUMAN INTELLECT. Finding the truth takes time and effort but it exists. However, if Revolt, his magnus opus, makes these faults, I see little reason to bother with his other work.