/lit/ - Literature

>>14177740
Evola literally anticipated Guenon, what the fuck are you talking about?

Yep

>>14177749
wat? I thought everybody told me to read Guenon first otherwise you wont understand a thing he is talking about and that Evola came from Guenon's traditionalist school.

>>14177749
Guenon was twelve years older and started writing heavily prior to Guenon.

>>14177754
it's true, ignore that poster.

>>14177754
Lmao, absolutely wrong. Both Guenon and Evola came from the traditionalist school of Spengler, but they were writing the same shit in the same years, separately, with Evola slightly anticipating Guenon. They're on the same plane.

>>14177757
*Evola

>>14177760
It's false as fuck.

>>14177757
First published book of Evola: 1920
First published book of Guenon: 1921

And I thought the internet was enough to check stuff before talking shit.

>>14177760
Okay, thank you anon.

>>14177761
Then why does everybody say one will not understand Evola without reading Guenon if one does not precede out of the other? And they came from Spengler's traditionalist school? I thought this was the mystic traditions?

>>14177766
>First published book of Evola: 1920
>First published book of Guenon: 1921
>And I thought the internet was enough to check stuff before talking shit.
That doesn't mean Evola didn't heavily depend on Guenon's works proceeding that. Btw Guenon wrote his most famous pieces prior to Evola.

>>14177754
>>14177767
>You have to read X before Y
I don't understand why everyone on this site says this. If something comes up I'm not familiar with, I'll just look it up. I'm interested in Evola, so why would I start anywhere else? If I want to study further, then I'll move on to Guenon.

>>14177782
Because you also might want to read Nietzsche and cannot understand him just by browsing the internet, you can know his ideas but not understand his spirit. So you read Nietzsche or Guenon before Evola.

>>14177772
>>77772
So close.

>>14177767
The only reason they say that is because the major book of Guenon (The Crisis of the Modern World) came out in 1927, while the major book of Evola (Revolt Against the Modern World) came out in 1934. However this doesn't mean anything. They started writing about tradition and mystic stuff in the same years, and for the same reason they later became friends. However the paths they followed are separate, each one got to write his major work on his own. There's not a derivative relation.

>>14177766
Evola's early books were on western philosophy, german idealism and gay occultist bullshit, it wasn't until after reading Guenon that he started to write about metaphysics and traditional proper

>>14177772
>heavily depend on Guenon's works
Absolutely not. Evola's work, if anything, depended on Spengler, just like Guenon's.

>>14177798
For Evola there's no distinction between "occultist bullshit" and tradition, so you're wrong.

>>14177794
Anon I'm sure that Guenon wrote many things that Evola read, and talked many things that Evola heard, and Evola knowing this did not repeat himself in his own writings and so this somewhat basis or great effect can only be found in Guenon's work. And it is something we know to exist because of comparative studies.

>>14177766
Evola's first book was Pagan Imperialism, which was before Traditionalism ever came into conception, and his thought evolved way beyond what he discussed in it. Even Evola said you shouldn't read it.

>>14177799
>work cannot depend on two figures heavily at once
Bruh.

>>14177804
That doesn't mean the distinction isn't there.

I'M GUNNA POST IT

>>14177805
>>14177808
>>14177809
Saying that the philosophy of Evola depends on Guenon is just wrong, period. Evola was heavily influenced by Spengler, Italian fascism (Gentile, for example) and the avant-garde artistic movements (dada, futurism, surrealism). Evola and Guenon found out about each other at some point and they became reciprocally interested, but their paths are different and completely separate.

>>14177813
Cool, memes made by Frenchmen, it's probably the first time I see anything like that.

>>14177818
Then how can you explain Evola's obvious Guenonian works?

>>14177813
I don't recall Evola ever wearing glasses.

>>14177740
Just read all three of them, they are all good philosophers/theologians despite their differences, then make up your own mind. Nietzsche is probably best to read first then the other two in any order.

make up your own mind on them, dont listen to the /pol/tards who say hurr durr Guenon was libcuck sandnigger, or the actual libcucks who say hurr durr Evola was fashtard misogynist incel. Just read them for yourself

>>14177826
Evola is different in the regard where he placed the Kshatriyas in a higher caste than the Brahmins, and he naively thought Tradition can be restored in the West.

>>14177831
What did Guenon think of Christianity?

>>14177839
Obviously different anon, but it's obvious he heavily relied on Guenon for many of his ideas.

>>14177740
The only book of his that requires some prior reading of Nietzsche is Ride the Tiger. Guenon is still a prerequisite for all of his works, particularly Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times.

*AHEM*

LEARN ITALIAN

>>14177842
Same anon you just replied to. I wasn't denying that he was influenced by Guenon. I'm just saying Evola saw Tradition from a different point of view.

>>14177840
I haven't read much of Guenon yet, but from what I know he liked the esoteric dimensions of it, but considered it, in a practical sense, to be inferior to Islam. Sufi islam basically has everything Christianity has, but without all the mindless larping of "JESUS IS MUH LORD AND SAVIOUR"

>>14177848
Shame I don't know Italian, I remember some guys on /pol/ talking about learning it for this book when I used to browse there.

Qrd? I forget what the book is.

>>14177849
Of course he did, because he came to the concept of Tradition from a totally different point of departure. The fact that Evola did read some of Guenon's books (just like Guenon had read Evola's articles on Italian journals) doesn't change the fact that they came from different backgrounds. The only reason why you may prefer to read Crisis of the modern world before Revolt against the modern world, is because the former came out a few yeas before.

>>14177851
Sounds pretty gay anon, Islam lacks the true spirit of it which dominated the Zeitgeist of the world for a millennium.

Islam has some good bits but from my knowledge of it, it just seems like a specifically Desert religion.

>>14177740
I'm not sure. I was familiar with Guenon and Nietzsche before reading Evola, so I don't know what it's like to read Evola without that knowledge. It shouldn't be impossible, but you might have difficulty understanding the whole worldview. It takes quite awhile for 18-24 year old White guys who have spent most of their life on the computer to break from their current mindset enough to see Evola's worldview. This is super important, because you see lots of people who will read authors, but not really "get" them. They usually walk away from this fruitless endeavor by memorizing a couple lines to knit-pick, and declare the author a hack. Happens to many philosophers, but it's a lot more potent in this situation because by its nature it is the antithesis of the modern mindset. Evola is "backwards," "depraved," and "illogical" to those without a good background.

I do not think you will have such troubles if you approach Evola from the perspective of gaining knowledge, rather than some sort of intellectualism. Definitely do not read Evola just looking for talking points to back up the far-right/third-position. There are other, more profane, authors for that.

>>14177854
You see all these faggots talking about esoteric Islam? Well, De Giorgio would BTFO all of them, because in his conception everyone was born in the bosom of a certain tradition (which is, itself, part of a bigger and unique tradition, the Primordial Tradition) so you don't need anything more than what your place of birth offers you. If you were born in Europe, for instance, your tradition is the Christian tradition and you have to stick to it. If you get out of Christianity because >muh freedom, you're just getting out of the right path, la diritta via (Dante, Inferno I, 3rd line). This, of course, doesn't mean that Christianity is superior to Islam. It just means that you have to stick to Christianity, like an Arab will stick to Islam. In this sense, comparing religions is dumb. The tradition in which you were born is the only one that can feed you, give you life, sense, meaning, and a viable path towards a reachable horizon.

>>14177856
man who cares where the religion came from? it has good ideas, and gives good societal cohesion, much better than western modernity.

The advantage islam has, in regards to perennialism is the fact that islam is the only religion which states that Prophets had been sent to every nation and every tribe. Obviously the type of Islam they preached wasn't exactly the same as the type of Islam that was preached by Muhummad, it was adapted to the culture.

A good example is someone like Krishna from Hinduism. The way the Brahman is described in the Upanishads and the Gita is exactly the same as the way God is described in the quran. And the Bhagavad Gita talks about submitting your will completely to Brahman, some very Islamic concepts

The Zoroaster is another obvious example of a prophet of "Islam", and there are even some lesser known people like Pythagoras who also claimed to be Prophets from God, and taught very similar things to what is found in esoteric Islam & Hinduism

>>14177883
>I need 'x' tradition because thats where I was born

>>14177894
>I post memes on 4chin because thats where I was born

>>14177856
>Islam lacks the true spirit of it which dominated the Zeitgeist of the world for a millennium.
Absolutely this. Well worded, anon.

>>14177890
Comparing religions when they clearly descend from the same sacred spring is the most stupid thing you can do. Christianity and Islam are, of course, different, but totally equivalent when it comes to the richness of their metaphysical content.

>>14177883
Guenon retroactively refuted this by proving that Catholicism has lost the knowledge of what their own rituals mean and therefore the only possible hope is to convert to Islam

>>14177918
Thats what I mean, i dont believe that all religions are "the same", but I do believe that they all share the same essence & metaphysical truths

>>14177922
De Giorgio retroactively refuted this by proving that Catholic values are universal and immortal and if they fall into a phase of decadence they simply need to be reactivated and restored. Guenon's point is like "let's stick to whatever is cool right now in the world".

De Giorgio and Guenon were close friends btw.

>>14177922
he said that heychasm in eastern orthodoxy was an example of traditional Christian teachings in his book on christian esoterism

>>14177922
Guenon never said Islam is the only path available for Westerners, only that it is the most accessible. Though he did converting and living a different tradition from the one you're born into is incredibly hard and can only be done by integrating yourself in every facet of its culture be it language, community, religion, and so on.

>>14177883
I mostly agree with you however there must be a particular hierarchical self evaluation which requires the contrast of other religions. Which not only requires the continuum of the uniquely aesthetic of each, but also of the value of each. In this world, no thing is the same, and no thing equal. Just as the texture of life and so experience of the crab is different to the cat, so is their value.

I am Christian because it is both the Religion of my Ancestors(tradition) as well as it's great value.

Also what if say an Arab was raised with the religion of the Incas?

>>14177890
>man who cares where the religion came from?
That matters a lot, have you read any of the works by Strauss, the racialist? He talked about the Desert soul of the Semitic peoples. This religion is uniquely reflective of those peoples, that culture, the land, the history, and the production of all those things there of.

>much better than western modernity.
But I wouldn't say Western Christianity.

>Implying Islam didn't come from Muhummad
dropped.

>>14177958
Christianity is the cause of Modernity by the way. John Locke, the father of Liberalism, used Christianity to justify Liberalism. Now Modernity has gotten so bad that Christianity seems like it's anti-modernity.

>Implying Islam didnt come from Muhummad
"Islam" means submission to God. many other prophets have also taught a type of submission to a God or Gods. that, by definition, is Islam. Even if it is completely different to the type of Islam taught by Muhummad. I already said here >>14177926

>>14177918
>Absolutely this. Well worded, anon.
Thank you.

>>14177966
And the Kings of old used Christianity to justify monarchy, you can justify anything with anything pretty much. And as silly as it is to state Christianity being the reason modernity exists, it is even more ridiculous to say that modernity is Christianity.

>>14177966
>"Islam" means submission to God. many other prophets have also taught a type of submission to a God or Gods. that, by definition, is Islam. Even if it is completely different to the type of Islam taught by Muhummad. I already said here >>14177926
It was meant to be a joke anon. Still, it's silly to use the term Islam just because of the word itself. And I have a question, at what point does religion become and cease to be so?

>>14177958
>I mostly agree with you however there must be a particular hierarchical self evaluation which requires the contrast of other religions. Which not only requires the continuum of the uniquely aesthetic of each, but also of the value of each. In this world, no thing is the same, and no thing equal. Just as the texture of life and so experience of the crab is different to the cat, so is their value.
If you feel entitled to judge religions you're immature and/or dumb. Since you were not born in an Islamic country, you're not able to fully understand its religion and tradition, so you can't judge it. That's what De Giorgio would say. According to him, at the time when he was writing The Roman Tradition there was only ONE person in the world who was able to understand the Primordial Tradition. One person in the entire world. He doesn't say the name. However this should be enough to give you an idea of how complex and inaccessible is the real, profound comprehension of the Primordial Tradition. All we know is that it exists, and from that sacred fount came all the different traditions of the world, like rivers springing from the same mountain.

>Also what if say an Arab was raised with the religion of the Incas?
That's okay because De Giorgio doesn't believe in biological difference between races. He was perfectly aware that Rome was full of different peoples from the very beginning of its history, and what held them together in peace and prosperity was the fact of belonging to the same sacred tradition.

>>14177883
>born in Europe, therefore follow Christianity and not Paganism

Reason #1 that I know this is retarded.

>>14178157
Neoplatonism is better than Neopaganism. Neoplatonism can be Perennial as well

>>14177740
definitely Nietzsche first.

>>14178157
If you had read the book you wouldn't say so, because De Giorgio sees Christianity and Paganism as the same tradition – or, to be precise, as two continual traditions in the bosom of Rome. That's why the book is called The Roman Tradition.

>>14178159
>Neoplatonism is better than Neopaganism
I agree, Neoplatonism gave better results almost in every field, from philosophy to literature, music, art, etc.. But both are cool, so whatever.

>>14177929
and what is cool now? Hitlerism

>>14177918
The Quran and hadiths as a text is way below the Gospels and the OT. The life and times of Muhammad are really quite vapid.

>>14178239
Yeah, even the fact that Muhammad was just emulating Christ is pretty cringe. However I still think their literature and doctrines are quite impressive, so I can't disrespect them.

Depends. If you are still a virgin, then yes. Otherwise read some quality philosophical works

>>14177740
it really depends on what evola books you are reading... metaphysics of war, meditations on peaks, hermetic tradition, doctrine of awakening, and the myth of the grail can be read without Neeche/gaynon

>>14178072
>If you feel entitled to judge religions you're immature and/or dumb. Since you were not born in an Islamic country, you're not able to fully understand its religion and tradition, so you can't judge it.
Don't be so stupid anon, I'm not saying what my judgement is, negative or positive, I am simply saying I am entitled to judge. If one judges by his religious morality and another religion directly contradicts that, as example, then I must hold that Religion to be wrong and of all sorts of characteristic spirit. For if I do not judge by religion than what do I judge by? I can clearly say that the religion of an African tribe, though I may not know it's exact spirit (which I admit may be beautiful in its textually unique aesthetic), stands inferior before my religion of Christianity, or before anon say Hinduism.

>the Primordial Tradition
I'm not saying I don't believe in it but what exactly would be your proof, specifically as what proves it apart from the Jungian conception of religion. As I already vaguely understand the general "proof" for it, just not the comparing specificity [proof] of it.

>That's okay because De Giorgio doesn't believe in biological difference between races. He was perfectly aware that Rome was full of different peoples from the very beginning of its history, and what held them together in peace and prosperity was the fact of belonging to the same sacred tradition.
What held Rome together was the core European stock, as well as the same sacred tradition which cannot be unknown.

>>14178176
Cheers anon.

>"While no new metaphysical doctrines are possible, the appearance of a new exterior form based on an earlier one is not inconceivable,"
Very interesting, I suppose the question left is how can one state that there can be no new doctrines yet accept the validity of the prior doctrines. I suppose it is not a question of times progress from there to now, but instead there unique revealing value of the good. An intuitive disparaging of quantity.