/lit/ - Literature

>>12713114
look at this guy's twitter though
https://twitter.com/wrathofgnon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

ignore his autism and look at all the nice old buildings

>>12713114
You understood nothing about them.

>tfw no matter how many butthurt attacks, no matter how many deranged rants, no matter how many ad hominem claims, no matter how many attempts to sideline and derail threads, no matter how many copypastas are made, that people will NEVER stop posting about the Traditionalists on /lit/ and there will always be a core group of Traditionalist-minded people forever present on the board posting about them on occasion

das it mane

>>12713185
based and adept-pilled

>>12713114
Subversion is tradition that should be preserved. ;)

Boy I sure do hate Nietzsche

>>12713114
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a smallscale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]

53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.

>>12713783
Ted is talking about american conservatives. Traditionalism has literally nothing to do with conservativism

>>12713114
>Italian and French "traditionalists"
>have to resurrect Hindu scripture and obfuscate any connection to the Greeks in order to appear relevant
Evola and Guenon are such plebs.

>>12713986
>muh greeks

>>12713986
What do you mean by obfuscate any connection to the Greeks? In the Introduction to Hindu Doctrines Guenon talks extensively about how many Greek ideas were inspired by the eastern traditions.

>>12714020
Despite what he says, his focus on Eastern doctrines indicates an ignorance about the Greeks or a subtle attempt to devalue them.

>>12714059
This

>>12714059
>>12713986
plebs

>>12714059
Even if we assume that's true I don't see what that has to do with the question being asked unless you think obfuscation means devaluing. What is with Traditionalism that makes the critics so aggressively stupid? You guys remind of the New Atheists.

>>12714104
And you think this makes Hinduism more important study material, why?

>>12713879
>Traditionalism has literally nothing to do with conservativism
wew

>>12714125
And you think I'm going to answer such a loaded question, why?

>>12713879
This, American conservative is a political party, no philosophy only advertisement.

>>12714123
It's obfuscation because he fails to note that Greek religion and mythology is several times more advanced than Hindu religion and mythology, only drawing basic parallels and not exploring further.

>>12714141
Hindus worship a blade of grass the contribution is it's novelty not a good foundation

Rene Guenon knew more about the future than any post-modern academic did. I suggest actually reading him sometime. Or you can continue to rant about things you don’t understand.

>>12713114
Direction, as you frame it, is meaningless.
A way can be forged forward by adopting and re-inventing measures of the past.
All movements are built on the past. What the powers that be chose to focus on make the difference.

>>12714132
He is right. The American Conservative party is in no way traditional, and only adopt a thin and fragile mask of tradition in order to gain enough traction to push the rest of its agenda.
American politics in general is as toxic as it gets.

>>12714146
There is so much more novelty in the Greeks... I understand finding comparative studies interesting, but when these earlier civilizations are praised simply for the sake of being earlier, something more nefarious has to be going on. It's ignorance or defiance.

>>12714153
>The American Conservative party is in no way traditional
they're essentially "regressive liberals"

>>12714059
Greeks were pederasts anyways

>>12714167
Good pleb joke

>>12714141
Again, let's assume everything you said is true. That's it? You don't like him because he didn't talk about what you wanted him to talk about? I think you're pathetic. Do your own comparative studies.

As far as I can tell, Traditionalists are another response to the nihilistic condition of modernity, they claim to transcend Nietzsche, but Nietzsche predicted their response of trying to put the worms back in the can perfectly. They claim to be rooted in eternal divine truths, but the fact that we can't know truth (if indeed truth exists) makes that claim fundamentally worthless; there's nothing to engage with in them, you either agree with them or don't, and they have no power to convince if you don't already agree with them.

>>12714197
I'm not saying I don't like him. I'm saying he's plebs. And he'll make you one too if you place much importance on him.

>>12714200
>I don't know the truth, therefore no one can damn it!

>>12714209
He's a pleb because he won't talk about what you want to talk about and he'll make me a pleb because he doesn't talk about what you want him to. Got it.

>>12714141
>Greek religion and mythology is several times more advanced
explain how this is quantified

>>12714223
Good response, but it doesn't change the fact we're still trapped in a a prison of our own subjective sensorium, unable to experience anything without the distortions of our senses and our biases.

You don't know divine truth, nobody does, you have faith in divine truth.

>>12714200
>we can't know truth
how do you know?

>>12714243
>I'm limited by my own subjectivity, therefore everyone is damn it!!

>>12714223
Think before you post next time.

>>12714234
He's plebs because he chose an inferior culture as his primary domain of study and elevated them to a higher significance than deserved. But don't take my word for it, consider a more advanced study of the Greeks to see what I mean.

>>12714249
I get where you're going with this but the liar's paradox still has information value. We're trapped in our own subjective sensoriums and everything we experience is coloured by the distortions of our senses and biases. You can put your fingers in your ears and sing, but it wont change that.

>>12714257
>We're trapped in our own subjective sensoriums
how do you know?

>>12714249
We can know that for some reason. Don't ask me why, just be impressed by my reference to Nietzsche.

>>12714253
Ah, so I'm talking to God then, am I? How is it to experience something entirely outside of yourself, not filtered through your own senses or mind?

>>12714239
Examine the scope of influence of not only the culture itself but of the cultures that were influenced.

>>12714255
Why do you repeat yourself? You don't have to respond if you don't have anything interesting to say. You didn't contradict my summary at all.

>>12714265
>"so I'm talking to God then, am I?"
>he doesn't know about the Supreme Identity

>>12714259
Am I talking to God right now? If not, I can assume that you're a human being, who experiences reality with human senses and a human brain. Do you have anything more insightful to contribute than playing the why game in the hopes of overturning basic facts of epistemology.

Traditionalists are a symptom of nihilism in that they took the entrapment of our subjectivity as an excuse to deny reality and substitute whatever they felt like substituting, rather than accepting their limitations and trying to build something upon that. This is why Nietzsche remains superior to them, because he didn't advocate denying the reality of the situation; he suggested building something beyond nihilism, rather than trying to step back from its precipice.

>>12714159
It's probably because they are fresh fields compared to the familiarity of terrain with the classics through modernity. Appeals to aimless.

>>12714268
how is “scope of culture” quantified, and how much weight do we assign to the process of influencing?

>>12714268
Extent of influence does not prove superiority of doctrine. Contemporary pop/American culture is also influential, but is patently complete garbage.

>>12714239
Quantification a false premise, never base a position on quantification.

>>12714285
>>12714286
>the complexity of a culture isn't measurable
You guys are goofs.

>>12714283
>"beyond nihilism, rather than trying to step back from its precipice."
>he doesn't know about the place of Non-Being or the Unmanifest in traditionalist metaphysics

>>12714260
We can know that because there are different forms of knowledge. In this case it's a knowledge similar to that of the pragmatists, who defined knowledge in terms of capability and practical rammifications, rather than exterior ontological knowledge. I know how to tie my shoes, and if I could not, I would know the presence of this inability, even if I can't know the ontological reality of the shoelaces themselves.

>>12714283
>basic facts of epistemology.
what are those? I thought we just had the sensorium

>>12714243
You don't experience the Divine through gross senses you mong.

>>12714295
okay, it’s measurable so tell me how to measure it.

>>12714295
No, actually, it is YOU who are the real Goof™

>>12714292
he’s the one trying to quantify things.

>>12714300
Unextended reality is nothing new to western metaphysics. It features quite strongly in Spinoza's metaphysics.

Is Guenon more accessible than Evola?

>>12714286
Pop is not influential, ubiquitous, but intellectuals have the most influence

>>12714318
Sounds like he is qualifying geeks as superior

>>12714321
Interesting, can you give a basic definition of Spinoza's use of this concept?

>>12714302
See >>12714301 Knowledge of epistemology is rooted in capability, rather than the trivia of something exterior.

>>12714307
You experience it with your mind. You either believe this is something different from your mind, or you don't. Once again, traditionalism has no power to sway if you don't already agree with it.

>>12714334
The unextended thought of God that hasn't taken a form of reality as we understand it.

damn... so this is the power of eastern thought...

>>12714311
A number of factors, obviously.

>quality of living
>sophistication of nutritional and medical knowledge
>sophistication of arts
>tech and engineering prowess
>duration of influence on other cultures
>frequency and potency of output of genius
etc.

>>12714339
That is pretty similar. But why "unextended'? Are their any concrete examples of such a "thought" or is that by definition impossible? What does Spinoza make of ideas, in the Platonic sense, like "the Good"? New to Spinoza's thought.

We know near eastern philosophy is inferior to greek because they never advanced past small scale farming community. Simple as. You may not like it, you may cover your ears, but art and philosophy require hierarchy.

>>12714335
What you're debating isn't Traditionalism itself, but dualism. And the debate around has been ongoing for millennia, so yeah I do think it has power to sway.

>>12714377
superpower by 2020

>>12714335
what are practical ramifications? all I have are sensations

>>12714401
>>12714377
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6Lznha9EQ0

Holy shit, you people do love to rant about nothing.

tldr we can't know everything, Abrahamic religions are obviously bullshit, be an übermensch, your own master. And if you must believe in a God, let it be Spinoza's

Now fuck off with these retarded questions

>>12714420
Please go to another board if you want to post some fat nigger, thanks.

>>12713783
The problem with this this is that if you would adapt such traditionalism the whole world would have to do it or your country would eventually get annexed by a country whose politics is pragmatic and efficient.

>>12714369
Spinoza believes that thought is the fundamental substrate of reality, and that its extension from god in a deterministic fashion is what creates reality. In this all things wind up "conscious" in a sense, though in objects they're conscious mostly in possessing a force that holds them cohesive from outside forces and reaches its ultimate stage in humans. He doesn't seem to believe in a platonic realm of thoughts, but thoughts are still a very real thing in his system (being that thought is the fundamental substrate of reality).

>>12714405
Your capabilities if you take as an axiom that the external reality your perceive with your senses is potentially real in some fashion.

>>12714420
based massaposter

>>12714461
So would his "hierarchy of reality" look something like this:
>God
>Unextendable Thought
>Unextended Thought
>Extended Thought
>Material World

>>12714433
>fat
>extremely in shape

Pick one

>>12714474
okay
>fat
picked

>>12714346
This is actually a technological advancement, a huge leap forward in poo capabilities.

>>12714415
Boasting its western development. While we're on the topic is the British aisles even loosely aligned culturally or spiritually with the rest of western heritage?

itt: people who have never even read the wikipedia page of the Traditionalist school let alone any literature

>>12714474
Fat, obviously.
You'd be deluded if you think otherwise.

>>12714501
>British aisles

>>12714461
>Your capabilities
my what?

>>12714473
Sort of. God is in all things however. so the entire hierarchy could be summed up as "God."

>>12714534
Your capabilities. What you are capable of doing. For instance, you're clearly capable of forming words, typing, etc.

>>12714737
Right. Just as in Guenon's thought
>the Principle
>Unmanifestable
>Unmanifested
>Being
>Formless Manifestation
>Formal Manifestation
>Principle inheres in everything, everything inheres in the Principle

>>12714517
I'm not going to waste my time reading about a philosophical school that the proponents of which have given me no reason to care about. The traditionalists aren't even particularly important in a historical sense, being that their influence on philosophy at large was so minor.

>>12714758
>I'm not going to waste my time reading
And yet you waste your time arguing about their views, views which you have not even educated yourself about. smdh

>>12714750
Spinoza's thought has been compared to the Vedanta idea of Brahman.

Anyhow, my point here is that these ideas aren't a new addition to western metaphysics, nor are they even something that fell by the wayside in western philosophy (Spinoza is very much from the modern period of philosophers, and he was an important influence to the German idealists and Nietzsche).

Taking this into consideration, I don't think there's any reason to say to that these ideas in and of themselves indicate any particular social model or way of being. Spinoza's influence on the enlightenment was highly radical in regards to its interactions with "traditional" institutions. For just about any idea in philosophy, you can find it put to competing, mutually conflicting ends by different thinkers.

>>12714517
I read the book title

>>12714770
The man is doing good work keeping others on the right path

>>12714770
You can engage with the ideas as their proponents present them.

Am I good to move on to Evola when I have finished Hindu Doctrines, Crisis of the modern world, and Reign of Quantity by Guenon? If you think there is a better traditionalist author and a good book from them, that would be great too. Thanks friends.

>>12714785
>The man is doing good work keeping others on the right path
rofl you sound like a religious fundamentalist

>>12714781
>For just about any idea in philosophy, you can find it put to competing, mutually conflicting ends by different thinkers.
Aurobindo sounds like a pretty good example of that vis a vis Vedantic metaphysics, as well. Been reading some essays about him. You read into his thought, at all?

>>12714816
No. What's he all about? If you don't mind giving me a brief summary. I love reading about stuff like this.

I think a good example of what I'm talking about, on a note unrelated to these metaphysics, is the ends Protagoras and Nietzsche put their perspectivism. Protagoras thought that a natural conclusion of these ideas was a relatively egalitarian democratic ideal, and Nietzsche quite the opposite.

If I just want to dip into what traditionalists have to say to "round out" my largely secular (when not Catholic), Analytical, and quantitative understanding of modernity and the enlightenment, should I just read Guenon's books on Reign of Quantity and Crisis of the Modern World? Would he be a better choice than Evola? I'm largely put off by Evola from the charts because it seems that he's into a lot of woo-woo bullshit, but I do appreciate the comparative religions angle of searching for perennial truth.

>>12714795
Thank you, we need religious quality fervour in our pursuits

>>12714838
You want to start off with Guenon. That is pretty much accepted by all who are into the school of thought. You should start by reading Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines. It is his first work and gives a good overview of his thought. If you want a Catholic traditionalist look up jean Borella.

>>12714836
I'm too new to Aurobindo to give a summary, his thought is really broad. But basically it's Vedanta with an evolutionary/dialectical twist.

*ding ding*
Attention, all Abrahamicucks
AHEM

You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.

is this a good book?

>>12714854
That's interesting. I'll give it a look and come back to it at a later date. Thanks for the name.

>>12714886
It's a fun read. The more nitpicky trads can't stand it, but being a trad doesn't mean you have to be a stuck up cunt, so I say go for it

>>12714898
I recommend ripping articles about him from JSTOR (get sci-hub if you don't have it), there's a lot of good ones. His main book (The Life Divine) is pretty dense.

>>12714886
I'm skeptical of any academic analysis of the movement given traditionalists are so against aademia. But like the other anon said, it might be good if you want an intro.

Is this evola chart good? I kinda wanted to start with his hermetic writings but I don't know if that would be over my head without reading mystery of the grail

>>12714911
I don't mind dense reading. I doubt he'd be any worse than Aristotle.

>>12714939
K, but he has a lot of his own unique terminology which can be very difficult to follow. Do as you wish, tho.

Neetchan dabbed on Trads over a century ago, why are people still hanging on to metaphysical LARPs? Embrace modernity in all its materialistic glory

>>12714748
how do you know? you aren’t sensing me doing any of those things

>>12714958

>>12714059
Have you read him? He quotes Plato and Aristotle throughout his works and was a fan of Neoplatonism, he just thought for good reasons that some of the issues with modern western society spring from seeds lain by the Greeks themselves.

>>12715008
Are you under the impression I'm a radical empiricist or something? Because my point here has been criticizing sense-experience as a source of knowledge.

>>12714958
How did he do so?

>>12715039
What's your point supposed to be here? NIetzsche very likely had a breakdown due to brain cancer. Him developing brain cancer has no bearing on the validity of his views.

why do fanboys of the Greeks feel the need to compare and rate everything else to the one philosophical culture they align with, instead of just reading everything on its own terms and finding value where they find it

>>12714932
I don't think there's any real logic to the reading order. Things are marked mandatory and optional for no reason and many books like East & West will reference both the Doctrine of Awakening and the Yoga of Power, and I know the Mystery of the Grail references the Revolt quite a bit.

I think reading orders in general are bullshit. You're better off jumping in with what interests you with the understanding that you're not going to understand most of what you read.

>>12713114
Everyone who disagrees with Traditionalism has never read about it and has no idea what it is.

It isn't what people think it is

>>12714132
Traditionalism isn't "traditionalism" in the sense that we talk about it. It isn't 1950's LARPing or something like that.

Read the books you retards

>>12714200
Secularism is unnatural and they are not breeding. Secularists won't even be alive in 50 years

>>12715799
>Secularism is unnatural and they are not breeding.
How can you be so ignorant of the world today when there's literally social media in your face to prove you otherwise?

>>12713114
>The Traditionalists were wrong about everything
Imagine being the emerging fruit of all those traditions and claiming that. Ha! You are the flaw.

The pace of modernity is fundamentally too ferocious for the present mental faculties of the homo sapien. The evidence is abundant.

>>12716033
How can you be so ignorant when there's literally birth statistics and census data in your face to prove you otherwise?

>>12716070
>they are not breeding.
Show me those statistics indicating that no secularists are breeding.

>>12716033
Look at the birth rates retard. Religious conservatives are outbreeding secularists by 150%. Secularists aren't even reproducing at replacement level

>>12716083
Unless there's been significant changes since 2014, this report seems to suggest that the secularists are pretty high up on the food chain regardless of those "declining birth rates" you're clambering about. Accumulating wealth > shitting out lots of dumbass poor kids.

>>12716098
Which really just proves his point. This discussion is about birth rates, not wealth accumulation.

>>12716110
He or whoever said it's unnatural and then followed that up with "they are not breeding." His point was that it's unnatural and the proof is that they'll be extinct. Accumulation of wealth is proof that they won't be going extinct anytime soon. Most of the religious groups lower on that list will go extinct before secular groups do.

>>12716080
You could have found this yourself in 20 seconds.

>>12716118
Without reproducing at a replacement rate they will go extinct. I don't know how you can argue against that.

>>12716127
They don't need to reproduce at a replacement rate to survive when they have a high concentration of wealth. Wealth is survival, and also more than that. The strongest families will not only survive due to their wealth (and just by having 1 or 2 kids at most), but will also have the most social power in the future.

>>12716122
Thanks for sharing that they actually are breeding.

>>12713114
So you're a postmodernist then... gotcha...

>>12716141
>All this wealth, and no children to inherit it.
Wow. Such power.

They may hold out for a long while, but the societies they rule will increasingly become more and more religious and demand leaders that reflect their beliefs.

>>12716149
Yeah, at much lower rate than anyone except Buddhists. Or do you read everything with autistic literalness?

>>12716156
1 child would be under the replacement rate, but 1 child is all they need to inherit that power in the future.

>the societies they rule will increasingly become more and more religious and demand leaders that reflect their beliefs.
They'll demand representatives that they think reflect their beliefs. It's worked that way so far.

>>12716161
This isn't a pink board, this is a blue board and /lit/ at that. Don't make statements like "they aren't breeding" if you don't mean it. And I've already shown you how the point about the decreasing birth rates is a moot one, here >>12716098 your argument falls apart once you see that and realize their birth rate isn't 0.

>Abrahamicucks
>Fertilicucks

>>12714059
>a subtle attempt to devalue them
Any Westerner who aligns more with Eastern doctrines than Western ones is therefore trying to devalue the former?

>>12713185
only because small minded people breed at a larger rate

>>12715511
Because they feel like all the time spent reading the Greeks would be somehow partially wasted if the Greeks weren't the end-all be-all of philosophy and metaphysics. They become emotionally invested in the argument and it becomes a matter of self-worth.

>>12715777
Trips of truth, this same stuff happens every thread. People think they are arguing against Burke, Carlyle, De Maistre etc when it actually has very little to do with them, a great example is that moronic "Nietzsche btfo Guenon without even knowing his ideas!" poster)

>>12716098
>accumulating wealth
>dying without kids
>donating it to a foundation when you die
>your one kid ends up converting to Christianity as the culture changes

Christian governments are being implemented all across Eastern Europe, the majority of youth in Europe and the USA are right-wing Christians with conservative views on most issues.

Christians are reproducing at a rate of 2.7 and secularists at a rate of 1.5. That is below reproduction rate. Secularism is getting BTFO in every intellectual debate as it builds some progressive dystopia that everyone hates. By 2050 secularists will make up 15% of the population, maybe not even that considering many will convert to a religion as secularism fails.

Bend over gaytheist the coming age of Christendom is COMING

>>12716246
It's ironic that you are calling people into Traditionalism small-minded when they are the ones who take the time to learn about and read through Islamic, Indian and Chinese philosophy often in addition to the normal western stuff and the people against Traditionalism are the ones freaking out because other people stray outside the bounds of Greek and western philosophy and take an interest in other things. I think you have it backwards as far as who's small-minded.

>>12715465
all we have is the sensorium, dude

>>12716281
>your one kid ends up converting to Christianity
Not gonna happen to the smarter families since they invested their wealth into educating their kids properly.

>Secularism is getting BTFO in every intellectual debate as it builds some progressive dystopia that everyone hates.
I find it funny you think you'll be in control of anything in the future when you're this retarded.

>>12716175
>Fertilicucks
Think about it for a moment. Carefully. If you live 'freely' but your life is not alive you were just coping with your own self-destruction by lashing out at other things as long as you could.

>>12714860
Idols are real in many ways. Transcendent trinitarian God and even the Platonic God are superior to the meme gods such as the US dollar / mammon.

>>12716351
>but your life is not alive

>>12716307
>wealth
That's not a permanent value hierarchy. In fact it's a hindrance for humanity. Germans got it right twice.
>educating their kids
State generated dogma...
>properly.
t. Metaphysiclet without a meaning for this word.

>>12716393
>That's not a permanent value hierarchy.
Nothing is. Worthless comment.

>In fact it's a hindrance for humanity.
Doesn't seem to be one. Just a hindrance for the dumber people in the species.

>State generated dogma...
Kids of wealthy parents don't get a State-mandated education.

>t. Metaphysiclet without a meaning for this word.
The meaning is pretty clear: properly, as in in alignment with my taste, which I regard as superior to yours, considering you make much dumber arguments than I do.

>>12716374
Yes. All life not possessed by parasitic entities seeks to self-replicate; life deems itself worthwhile by this process. There are times where it takes the back seat to a sacrifice for gods or other people / in-group population, but this is true.

>>12716407
>Doesn't seem to be one
Look at history and take a glance at wealth distribution and debt situation. If psychology didn't mentally castrate most of the population there would be civil war by now.

>>12716414
>Look at history and take a glance at wealth distribution and debt situation.
How does this at all prove that it's a hindrance for humanity? How about taking a glance at the difference in output between civilizations with class distinctions vs. communistic civilizations in history?

>If psychology didn't mentally castrate most of the population
I'm not sure what this means. Psychology doesn't have a mind of its own.

>>12716407
>Nothing is. Worthless comment.
Life is, though. You declare that you are not a worthwhile existence by opposing fertility.

>>12716407
>Kids of wealthy parents don't get a State-mandated education.
yes they do dumb brainlet
inb4 muh private school

>>12716424
>How does this at all prove that it's a hindrance for humanity
National socialists got their economy right. You might still think that low quality products that sell on hype should replace everything for bigger numbers on arbitrary lists, but I want real good to be manifest.

>>12716425
>Life
doesn't share the same meaning for everyone.

>>12716430
>private education is limited to private schools
And you're calling others brainlet, lol

Embrace
>Capitalism
>Individualism
>Solipsism
>Ruthlessness
>Hedonism

Muh Traditionalism is just the biggest COPE for people who can't win at life, simple as

>>12716424
>I'm not sure what this means. Psychology doesn't have a mind of its own.
If a bullet hits your brain it won't gain your mind. If you dry yourself in a microwave it won't be alive. Psychology is an environmental hazard that harmed humans at large by granting the most powerful tools of control to machiavellian types.

>>12716439
I don't have a problem with natsoc, but the idea that a universe can exist where no one is being exploited in it is a naive pipe dream, and I know that's basically what your attack on money boils down to. My argument was never that money is the most efficient system, just that it IS significantly efficient, meaning it's not much of a hindrance.

>>12716447
>state education is limited to state schools

dumb
brainlet

>>12716471
>the whole world is controlled by the gubment, maaaaan!

>>12716447
>doesn't share the same meaning for everyone
Life extends to the future and to the past. You cut yourself off from both to devour yourself. If it is a sacrifice for the metaphysical good - sure, go ahead.

>>12716473
>uh oh he btfod me better call him tinfoil
actual lol

Traditionalists? Bruh those dudes can't even ollie

>>12716467
>but the idea that a universe can exist where no one is being exploited in it is a naive pipe dream,
Not what I said. Capital as an organism is growing old and self-destructing the same way its worshipers are. The quality of all products is being reduced by the sustainability protocols. Like an old man eating his children. This simply will end. Yellow vests are one example; they burn propaganda factories.

>>12716465
>>12716480
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>12716492
>missing my point
I never implied "State education is limited to State schools." Yet my statement still stands. Kids of wealthy parents get a private, non-State mandated education, mostly due to their connections.

>>12716516
>Kids of wealthy parents get a private, non-State mandated education
nope

>>12716508
>it's not one of the oldest traditions to show off your new tricks

Modernity is a goldfish eating itself to death but sure loves the flakes that float in front of its eyes.

>>12716510
>Capital as an organism is growing old and self-destructing the same way its worshipers are.
While that may be true, you better not be thinking this means we'll be going back to any previous state of being. Nothing at all suggests this is even POSSIBLE. The Abrahamic religions will never again have an iron grip on the world like they did in the past.

>>12716534
>we'll be going back to any previous state of being.
Dust to dust. Life to life.

>>12716527
Welp, got me there. Better go read my KJV, pray some hail mary's and start living frugally, I guess

>>12716522
>Kids of wealthy and smart parents
Just in case you didn't understand me.

>>12716540
>hey look fellow ape, hear this quip I just learned!

>>12716541
>nope
Just in case you didn’t understand me

>>12716538
Traditionalists are the dust, by the way.

>>12716581
Closing your eyes doesn't make the fist flying towards your face disappear.

>>12714362
U came across as somewhat intelligible at first, but you just completely outed yourself you dumb fuck.

>>12716534
christianity as a societal substrate will stay strong for centuries to come (ie the worship of god-as-caesar and caesar-as-god). it'll take a grand disenchantment on an absolutely global scale to purge this mindset from our cultural DNA, perhaps it'll require even the destruction of "faith" itself.

>muh create meaning
You're not going to create shit, you're just going to be a cog in the system. The only thing you will create is delusion about weather you create meaning or not.

> I will become overman
See above, fuckin plebs

> muh money, sex, genius, quality of living, knowledge.

All worthless and vain in the end. Nothing is of value without the transcendental element. Don't try to argue this, you know it in your bones.

>>12716597
cringe

>>12713114
>pretends to be contrarian in order to continue his /trad/ general
I really wish that based mod comes back and banishes you retards again. This whole 'movement' is a joke and most of these threads aren't literature related anyway, its just vanity masturbation (despite tradfags being the least trad people in existence).

>hurr muh Guenon
lmao this guy is at it again isn't he?

>>12717329
u guys are so incredibly mean to this guenonperson, don't think that the universe doesn't take note of everything you do to others. u r being incredibly mean to a kind fellow sharing his personal information

>>12717175
What's dumb about that post? Did you really think there was a simple formula for measuring something like the complexity of culture? Do you even know what culture is? It's a combination of all those things, and therefore all those things must be taken into account when measuring a culture's complexity, roughly speaking.

If you really want a simpler answer, it's this: you can measure the complexity of a culture by looking at its philosophers. What do the philosophers write about and what do they understand? What are others writing in response to these philosophers? The complexity of a culture is going to shine brightest in its most complex individuals, who are going to be the philosophers.

>>12717229
>it'll take a grand disenchantment on an absolutely global scale to purge this mindset from our cultural DNA, perhaps it'll require even the destruction of "faith" itself.
Basically. It'll require another eugenics program like Christianity already employed during the Dark / Middle Ages.

>>12717388
how do you quantify the complexity of a philosopher?

>>12717379
>kind fellow
lmao

>>12717407
You don't quantify it, you judge it.

>>12717415
ah, so it's wrong to say one culture is several times more advanced than another

>>12717419
There's nothing wrong in saying that. If there was, there'd be something wrong in saying anything at all, ever, because all language is the expression of a perspective. Mathematics is a part of language, not separate from it. What makes things unequal isn't mathematics, but power in things. There is a finite amount of energy in the world and it accumulates where power does.

>>12717436
>There's nothing wrong in saying that
sure there is. you can't quantify it.

>>12717443
>Mathematics is a part of language, not separate from it.
i.e., the universe extends beyond mathematics. As does philosophy, which is the reflection of the real.

>>12717419
nothing wrong with judgement, a civilization that shits in the ground is far less advanced than a civilization that makes robot toilets. You don't a special quantifier for this, use your common sense you stupid brainlet.

>>12717450
>the universe extends beyond mathematics therefore math words mean whatever i want them to mean
is this that postmodernism thing i've been hearing so much about?

>>12717457
i'm not the one trying to quantify it you stupider brainlet

>>12717461
But math words DO mean whatever I or you want them to mean. The meaning of words is inextricably tied to those who interpret and use them.

You've ignored my point completely. You're asking for the quantification of something that can't be quantified, because it extends beyond the realm of quantifiability. If anything, you're the one acting like the postmodernist right now, in trying to tell me that judgment (i.e. taste) is irrelevant to philosophical matters. The postmodernists make a similar point when they say that there is no truth, because they've reached the stage in metaphysics where the foundation of things becomes illusory and they therefore grow to disbelieve in the existence of foundations.

WHEN I SAW THE STASHUE I CLAPPED

>>12717466
>y-you can't quantify it bruh
lmao this stupid niggard thinks he's bright by parroting a single word, just admit that you think brown scribbles are superior no need to beat around the bush

>>12717475
>something that can't be quantified
then don't say it can be quantified you dumb brainlet
>>12717496
you just said you can't quantify it you retard
fuckin brainlets think im pro pajeet all of a sudden

>>12717528
>then don't say it can be quantified
Quantification isn't what I meant by "measuring." What I meant by measuring was evaluating using analytical study as a backdrop.

>>12717559
"judgment with supportive reason," rather.

>>12713114
>better or worse
spook
>the way
spook
>forward
spook

>>12716307
>educating their kids properly
Yeah kids love learning about brilliant secularist theories like gender fluidity, man on man buttsex, white privilage, and how their ancestors were monkeys. That's so cool!

>I find it funny you think you'll be in control of anything
There won't even be any of you left in 50 years. You'll have all died from AIDs and being eaten alive by cannibal niggers in progressive city cages

>>12717772
You seem to be confusing white secularists with Jewish pomos.

>>12716583
The fertile people are the life. Tradition is how you manage that. The traditions change, adapt and evolve together with the populations they live with. Sometimes they die and sometimes they go extinct. But you are one generation of ape, not the future.

>>12717597
how deconstructive of you

>>12718149
People like that just want to ignore things. Spooks are a great use of time.

>>12714958
Funny you say that, because Nietzsche wasn't a contemporary to the traditionalists and was actually one of the only modern philosophers that Evola referenced as having somewhat correct views.

>>12718149
*blocks your path*

>>12716173
>They are breeding so slowly that they are going to be replaced.
Better now, fag?

>>12714243
>we're still trapped in a a prison of our own subjective sensorium, unable to experience anything without the distortions of our senses and our biases

Pseudo Academics will get the bullet eventually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

>>12718557
They have already won due to amassing so much wealth and causing huge societal shifts in their favor. And who knows if they really will be replaced? If a breakthrough in cloning happens first, well... the future is uncertain is what I'm saying.

>>12718984
The reason secular shitlib bugmen don't have kids has mostly to do with them not wanting to spend the money and devote the time needed, not for biological reasons. Cloning will always remain more costly than normal pregnancies and they'd still have to raise, clothe, feed and educate them anyway. Cloning is not likely to have any effect on secular birthrates, if anything it will further lower their fertility because they'd want to do it over the natural method and would have to save up more for it which means less often and at a later age.

>>12719157
Unless there's a massacre again where entire libraries are burned down, millions of people are slaughtered, whole electrical and server grids are destroyed, etc. then there's no reason to believe these declining birth rates equal the diminishment of future secularist influence on the world. And I personally think the world is too intricate now for such a revolution to ever really take place.

More or less everything scientists have worked on since the 19th century has been a part of that growing secularist attitude, and that attitude was caused by the work of the Christian scientists that came before. As long as any of that work or history is preserved, such an attitude will continue to emerge in the world.

>>12719315
Revolutions, in the old style, are becoming increasingly unfeasible. That doesn't mean that revolution itself is no longer a possibility. It may simply adopt other forms, such as the formation of separatist enclaves, whether in virtual space or in reality. Various new and unique forms of subversion of the status quo can be expected to accompany such efforts.

>>12716464
The truest of Chads would lead a revolution

>>12719492
Y'mean... like God Emperor Trump leading the right-wing revolution that sparked the beginning of a shift back towards the right that's been much-needed for a long time? Pay attention to elections across the West as 2019 carries on and also in 2020... I anticipate a concession of right-wing victories or shifts to the right compared to previous elections.

You can thank the radical left, they're our best PR.

>>12713129
A traditionalist on twitter, lmao.

>>12720214
Fuck off tranny shills!

I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he lets billions of dollars flow to Israel.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he passes gun control.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he renews DACA.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he brings in the largest numbers of immigrants ever.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he bans antisemitism.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he leaves Obamacare completely intact.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he cuts taxes permanently for Jews and their businesses and temporarily for the rest of America.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he decides we need to stay in Syria and Afghanistan for as long as it takes to win.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he intervenes in Venezuela.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if worldwide mandated homosexuality is extended to transsexuality.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he appoints the most Jews in recent history to positions in the government.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he decides to extend the trade war with China indefinitely and let Jew-owned conglomerates foreclose of every single farm in the nation.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if he gives companies more tax cuts after they move jobs overseas.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if Planned Parenthood remains funded.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if record numbers of migrant caravans are welcomed into our border and fed, housed, and clothed with taxpayer money until they can have their asylum processed.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if America pays every single cent of the border wall out of its own citizens pockets.
I will never stop voting for Trump, even if the wall is not built until it's Ivanka's turn to be President. Because I TRUST THE PLAN AND WHEN IT IS COMPLETE IT WILL BE GREAT!

MAGA!