/lit/ - Literature

>>12081535
>>12081585

Guenon for a start, and several other comparative scholar religion such as Eliade made a better work than him. Also, my problem is with the argument: showing that all religions of the world agree with you is basically just saying "since everybody said that it must be true", which is a really anti-philosophical claim of seeing the search for truth.
And philosophically speaking, all he is saying is reassumed in the introductory paragraph of Revolt - when he states that Tradition is something transcendent for him and that he thinks that the earthly order is the manifestation of a superior trascendent (possibly a-temporal and a-historical) order. This is Platonic metaphysics, if you read the Timaeus you will find all of this explained in a far better, philosophically engaging way. What I found annoying about Evola is that he's working like a literary critic, making small (and possibly not very relevant) claims and bringing tons and tons of textual material bended in interpretation to fit the claim. That is not how philosophical research should be done. Nor do I think that it is particularly "manly" or "warrior-like" to bow in front of the authority of any book. The rhetorical move he is using - as well as many other scholars of religion - is to make you think that things are true because they are ancient. This is a fairly common tendency in Italian philosophy, since the Renaissance (look at Ficino and Bruno) and before, which still resonates today in the idea that "the classics got it all". While I do believe that there is a great deal of value in the classics, they should not be venerated because they are old, as well as any text, and the fact that an ancient source agrees with what you say is, in all fairness, not an argument.
So this is why I disagree. Again, there are many things I would concede to him, such as being a good writer, a good scholar of religion, and one of the most relevant philosophical figures in Italy. I think that the ostracism of Evola from the Italian academia and its appropriation by the likes of the alt-right and "wannabe" fascists parties in Italy is shameful, as he deserves to be studied as a relevant intellectual. But he is not a particularly brilliant philosopher for me, nor do I think that his word should be taken as gospel.