/lit/ - Literature

>>11125905
>is guenon a determinist?
That's a good a good question, actually I have no idea. I would suspect that he would consider most of the debates around this question to be rooted at a purely discursive level, and hence just circular arguments that go around and around indefinitely with no final resolution. Still, just because most of the debates on this question are either poorly framed, purely semantic, or poorly defined doesn't mean that there isn't a postion on that question which doesn't accord more truly with "intellectual" knowledge (pic related). I don't know how Guenon resolves or relates to the free will vs. determinism debate, unfortunately. I also don't think it's that useful or pertinent of a question. Kind of like a story the Buddha tells about a man shot with a poisoned arrow. The imperative thing to do is remove the arrow as quickly as possible and apply the proper medicine. It would be pointless to begin speculating as to the origin of that arrow, the type of wood it is made up of, the name of the person who shot you with it, the motive of that person, etc. Same goes for this debate. The resolution for it "is what it is", whether we know it or not, and the resolution of it on a purely discursive level has little to do with attaining whatever it is we must attain in this short lifetime. Not discouraging you from exploring the qeustion, just suggesting you don't attach an undue importance to purely speculative and discursive questions.

>>11081883
>the academy certainly would object strongly
I don't care until they can demonstrate that they are correct and Guenon's views are incorrect. Guenon's justification for his views are convincing to me and so I accept them. My own experience with religion confirms what he says, and many others also confirm it. I'm always willing to change views if sufficient reason is given for doing so.
>object strongly to the identification of a core, "real" metaphysic
That's the same as saying they don't believe in an ultimate Truth. If that's the case then by what standard are the things which they claim to be true, true? If you throw out the concept of Truth, in the ultimate sense, relative truths go out the window as well.
>for instance the identification of some recurrent notion of intellectus that is consistently invoked and described across many different cultures
It's absolutely necessary to posit the existence of the intellect. If we don't have a faculty for apprehending truth this casts doubt on all our claims.
>The academy is currently much more like Durkheimians and cultural anthropologists than perennialists, that is they are neo-Kantians
I'm not going to base my views on the latest intellectual fashions. Today they're "Durkheimians", tomorrow something else.
>with no commitment to metaphysics whatsoever
That's a huge problem for them. Not a problem for me.
>if you said "Adi Shankara and Guenon are saying the same thing!" they would literally and actually laugh at you and consider you quaint.
I'm not the Advaita poster, but as I've said: if they cannot demonstrate why they are correct, then I don't care.
>Like I said, I think they are wrong
Well, why are you arguing then?
>But I am telling you that if you want to convince people
But I don't. I just want to discuss these ideas with two kinds of people:
1. those already familiar with them who have a favorable view
2. those open minded and curious about them.
The people I don't want to discuss with are those who stamp their feet on the ground and demand to be convinced. And why should I? I'm not a proselytizer trying to save your soul.
>you can't do it by saying that your standpoint is self-evident
A claim which I have never made.
>Nobody within his own discipline ever took his exposition of supposedly transhistorical primordial symbols seriously
Guenon spends a lot time justifying his views of symbolism and explaining it. You can reject it or accept it, but don't dismiss it as "you just have to believe just because". It's more complicated than that.

Intellect versus Reason. An important distinction that is rarely made today.

>>11016371
>eastern thought" is vastly inferior to western thought, the former is just mystical mumbo jumbo about the self and the latter is logical investigations into creative concepts

How I know that you're a brainlet is that you hold up the concept of logic as being the ideal by which things should be measured, which reveals that you're unaware that the superior form of knowledge is direct intuitive knowledge, which is immediate and does not have to rely on reflection to confirm something. Logic is only a secondary and specialized application of intelligence, and is inferior to immediate understanding where there is no distinction being being and knowledge. See >>11015909

>>10999144
It's not a question of mixing anything. Metaphysical principles are capable of being applied to very diverse domains, in fact, to all domains, so no religion could really be an exception to that rule assuming it's an "orthodox" religion. Metaphysical principles are by nature universal. Really appreciating this fact requires a habituation to a new mode of thinking which isn't widespread in our age, but was more common in the past. We rarely even make the distinction between ratio and intellectus today (pic related).