/lit/ - Literature

>>17722458
Guido De Giorgio was the real friend of Guenon, not Evola

>>17722458

Il Miglior Fabbro

>>17722458
guenon was rightfully the anti-evola. they were not friends

the author of my diary desu and Jesus Christ

>>17722458
Serrano and Jung
>>17722483
They were friendly acquaintances, they weren't anti-eachother. Apart from some disagreements over details they mostly espoused the same ideas.

>>17722502
>espoused the same ideas
no. evola was a man of action, guenon of contemplation. evola was adept of magic, guenon despised it. despite interest in the orient they were seeking different things

>>17722502
You can't be friend with someone if you have disagreements with him

>>17722521
Stop being so autistic about it, they mostly believed in the same things but disagreed on some details.
>evola was a man of action, guenon of contemplation.
That's because evola was a kshatriya and guenon a brahmin.
>vola was adept of magic, guenon despised it.
It's far more nuanced than that.

>>17722521
Evola was a warrior, Guenon was an autist

>>17722528
kek

>>17722536
by guenon's own definition evola was strictly a counter initiation agent, an anti-tradition. guenon was polite in the letter exchange but to another associate guenon revelead how evola was getting things wrong

>>17722546
>by guenon's own definition evola was strictly a counter initiation agent, an anti-tradition.
False.
> guenon was polite in the letter exchange but to another associate guenon revelead how evola was getting things wrong
Sure, they were both autists and liked to dig into these things. They both respected eachother nonetheless.

>>17722562
since when respect in letter exchange between two intellectuals is sign of friendly acquaintance? stop pushing this nonsensical bromance. evola was by guenon's definition anti-tradition.

it is usually evolians who push this idea they were friends but to anyone who has read and understood guenon it is clear they were opposites.

>>17722582
>since when respect in letter exchange between two intellectuals is sign of friendly acquaintance?
Since forever? They were both recluses, genius.
>evola was by guenon's definition anti-tradition
False, your (incorrect) bias is showing.
>it is usually evolians who push this idea they were friends but to anyone who has read and understood guenon it is clear they were opposites.
Stop sperging, they were opposed in some details but not nearly entirely. Marx would be an actual opposite of either.

>>17722619
why marx? due to materialism? do you not know men of action are also materialists? as a man of action evola was as much materialist (seeking material transformation) as marx --- both revolutionaries.

a kshatriya and a brahmin are not opposed in "details". action and contemplation are two poles.

i'll repeat once and for all: by guenon's definition evola was anti-tradition and as much as you may like evola this is a matter of truth you can't argue against.

>>17722658
I feel bad for falling for your bait anon, well done

>>17722676
not bait.

khastriyas are centered on will, brahmin on intellect. will is will to power, active transformation of the world. throughout history you'll see all revolutions happened by the warrior caste against the priest caste. get your reading of tradition straight. you can't reconcile one with the other.

>>17722698
You can stop now anon, it was funny before but not anymore

>>17722778
tiresome. you did not attempt a single rebuttal. most of what i say is based on the reading of guenon's works. if you can use his works to defend the idea their disagreement was merely on "details" (specially when guenon states clearly any attempt at trying to return to tradition would be anti-traditional) and that they were friends (seeking the same goal) then i'll admit i'm wrong. the simple fact evola was an adept of magic put him in guenon's list of "charlatans" (as he calls them)

evola by guenon
>Evola doesn’t lack any pretentions, as you see; but, for my part, I continue to think that he does not understand at all what we mean by ‘intellectuality’, ‘knowledge’, ‘contemplation’, etc., and that he doesn’t even know how to make the distinction between the ‘initiatic’ point of view and the ‘profane’ point of view. It appears that he has the intention to publish a review of my work on the Vedanta in the journal Realistic Idealism; we will see what that will be. In any case, in spite of everything that we have tried to explain to him, he persists in finding ‘rationalism’ in the Vedanta, all while failing to recognize that he then takes this word ‘rationalism’ in a rather different sense that is usually given to it.

>>17722528
Based

Guevola

>>17722546
So Evola was basically a controlled op glowie?

>>17723099
the ultimate chad

>>17723099
The ultimate onions

>>17722658
>as a man of action evola was as much materialist (seeking material transformation) as marx
The actual fuck are you talking about cunt.

>>17722698
Warrior caste came before the priest caste.

Conservative Revolutionary frens :3

>>17723369
fascism and materialism are two sides of the same coin. not only that, it is the nature of those ruled by will to seek active transformation of the world. warrior and kings are the class for that. we don't even have to take into account any association of evola with fascism to reach the realization he is a materialist as all men of action are.

>>17723373
knowledge precedes action

>>17723392
>fascism and materialism are two sides of the same coin
Too bad Evola wasnt a fascist :^)
You should read his works also if you are so sure of him being a materialist.

>knowledge precedes action
Knowledge precedes submission.

>>17722698
>all revolutions
citation needed

meant fascism and marxism (not materialism) are two sides of the same coin

>>17723414
whatever he called himself he was infatuated with the same means of political revolution, be it in his infatuation with codreanu, mussolini or futurism

>>17723423
not my idea and i can only provide the source by a portuguese speaking philosopher. this is stated in one of mario ferreira dos santos' class on hindu literature. i find it to be true

>>17723448
>whatever he called himself he was infatuated with the same means of political revolution
Yeah well he did live in Italy during WW2. Its hard not to be involved in that situation.

>>17722458
Reminder, there can be no warrior and priestly classes in small tribal societies of a few hundred men. These are both artificial constructs.

>>17723392
Evola was against material revolution and said the battle is not in time and space but the inner realms

>>17723455
No, that's retarded. Of course they would exist, just in a smaller scale. In tribes of less than 50, perhaps. But that's no civilization to speak of anyway.

>>17723448
A specifically military take over is a coup.
But what about all the communist revolutions? That would be intellectual 'priest class' types convincing the peasants to overthrow the imperial traditionalists in many cases, with the warrior types in the formal army playing a more peripheral role.
And then you have political subterfuge and gradual intelligence based infiltration. The communists again employed those strategies to create revolution.

To say all revolutions are warrior caste against the priest class ignores politics, which are obviously a huge driving factor. There are also scenarious where royal relatives decide they are more worthy than the current monarch and try to overthrow them with bloody results. It might be called a civil war, but it is a revolution of sorts, with the warriors on both sides.

>>17722458
They tasted each other's cummies UwU

>>17723718
i listened again the lecture. he actually says that the first ever revolution in a cultural cycle is by the nobility/warrior against the priest caste, then the bourgeois against the noble/warrior caste which is always the second revolution, not that all revolutions are due to priest-warrior struggle. it is certainly the case of contemplation vs action since the only contemplative caste is the priest, and both nobility/warriors and bourgeois/merchants are active.