/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12209471]

>In our time it is fashionable to exalt work of whatever sort and no matter how it is accomplished, as if it had some superlative value in itself independently of any consideration of another order. Contrary to what the moderns think, any work that is done indiscriminately by anyone solely for the pleasure of acting or because of the need to ‘earn one’s living’ hardly merits being exalted, and indeed it can only be regarded as something abnormal, opposed to the order that ought to regulate human institutions, to such a point that, in the conditions of our age, it only too often acquires a character that without any exaggeration qualifies as ‘infra-human’. What our contemporaries seem to ignore completely is that work is not truly valid unless it conforms to the very nature of the being that accomplishes it and results therefrom in a spontaneous and necessary way, as it were, so that it is no more than the means for that nature to realize itself as perfectly as possible.
- "Glorification Of Work" - René Guénon

Is Guénon right /lit/?

Is there any superlative value to perform work for work's sake and are we to hail those working class heroes who hardly do nothing more than ‘earn one’s living’ and maximize the profits of Mr. Shekelstein?

Is it some sort of stoic endeavor to waste your life away doing something absolutely loathsome only to survive?

>But it has always been this way!
Hardly so. This is extremely modern phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.12209508]

THIS UGLY MUTHA

[Anonymous No.12209566]

>Is there any superlative value to work for work's sake?
It doesn't seem like Guénon is lauding that, here. He wants labor to
>conform to the very nature of the being that accomplishes it
and
>result therefrom in a spontaneous and necessary way.
In other words, rather than the Marxian idea that work is somehow valuable only in and only of itself, and thus the basis of some artificial, centralized society, he seems to be praising work as the engine of a natural, spontaneous order: that is, the market economy. Sorry goy; Guénon is a (((lolberg))).

>Is it some sort of stoic endeavor to waste your life away doing something absolutely loathsome only to survive?
Do you know what stoicism is?

[Anonymous No.12209591]

>>12209471

Work is a form of violence whereby the workers impose their labor and its results onto the unwilling and unimpressed in order to subjugate them. If workers' will truly was what they say it is, then work would be the the most exclusive thing in the world, the unwilling and unimpressed would be left to themselves, most workers forced into idleness for being unworthy, and the fruits of labor guarded even from their owners.

[Anonymous No.12209634]

>>12209566
>he seems to be praising work as the engine of a natural, spontaneous order: that is, the market economy.

This passage, if I recall correctly, is after discussing the disapperance of artisanship and dynastic transference of the craft from father to son for example.

[Anonymous No.12209664]

I don't like working and I don't like the cult of working, but the historic precedents of being either a slave or a serf under a very small upper class that enjoyed complete leisure at the expense of the other two, doesn't seems to good.

[Anonymous No.12209680]

>>12209664
So you don't also believe that Caste systems of the ancient world have ever had any basis and it has always been some kind of enslavement type of scenario and some sort Marxist struggle of the workers/slaves against the upper classes?

[Anonymous No.12209683]

>>12209471
He is right insofar as what he describes basically is the Hindu caste system, which had a rough equivalent in the Chinese and Islamic world, and even during the medieval era of Europe; and that with the advent of the modern world people began to be viewed as a arbitrary unit of labor which could be assigned to anything instead of people having a 'calling in life'. Despite the 'less freedom' one might have in sort of a system, there are also many advantages as well which Guenon begins to illustrate in the last sentence of that paragraph.

>Is it some sort of stoic endeavor to waste your life away doing something absolutely loathsome only to survive?
Not in the least unless others like family are dependent on you, and even then that fact that you have to do that your whole life itself indicates a large problem with the society to begin with.

>>12209566
>he seems to be praising work as the engine of a natural, spontaneous order: that is, the market economy. Sorry goy; Guénon is a (((lolberg))).
That's wrong, he is prasing work in the sense of one's divine role in the cosmic hierarchy, i.e. it being someone's dharma to work as a farmer or warrior because they were born into that caste/family (because of actions etc in previous lives). He is praising that in the sense of it being a way in which one aligns which the universal order, and as it were comes closer to it through the paths which are best according to each position as for example Krsna explains the separate paths of karma-yoga and jnana-yoga and tells Arjuna as a Kshatrya he should practice karma-yoga.

[Anonymous No.12209705]

>>12209680
It is enslavement, as we are enslaved today except to an increasingly abstract master.

Maybe they had basis. But the existence of a helot, dalit, or peasant in the Shogunate sound even more debased and depraved, no matter how you put it.

[Anonymous No.12209729]

>>12209705
But since Authority and Order in the ancient world of humans were said to be direct representatives of the Authority and Order in Heaven, this is especially true of the Chinese system, would this be some sort of rebellion againt the cosmic order itself?

Of course, not all of us believe in this type of "ordination", but such rebels, as if it were, would not find peace in any system whatsoever. Some sort of similar state to "Permanent revolution" of the Marxist theory but taken to even more extreme conclusion.

[Anonymous No.12209730]

>>12209664
Historically those upper class people got into that position and kept it because they had higher IQ's and were just generally better at running things, the cream rises to the top and when it doesn't periodic warfare, revolutions and other events help shakes things up and restore the natural order. All this is reflected in India today for example where the Brahmin classes that have closely observed marriage laws for centuries have much higher IQs than most low-caste Indians. It's inevitable that one group of people are going to run things, it should be the most qualified who do so and those who are instructed in the best way by the tradition of their forefathers, otherwise you open up room for all sorts of potential errors when you allows a revolving chair of figures and parties to try their hand at ruling. You also have to keep in mind that this relation is not simple one of picking the best person to ruthlessly rule over the masses, but in most cases in particular in the east these people on top were part of the same united religious tradition as the masses and acted as their confessors, gurus, teachers, guides, healers, counselors etc. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Those people on top might not be able to stand being laborers and their talents would be wasted, many low-IQ peasants would not be able to replace those people on top and would perform best as a peasant.

Also, the 'peasants, serfs etc' in many of these cultures in many ways had much more fulfilling lives than many people in the modern world. They might not travel or be well-educated but they would raise large families, usually being deeply involved in religious life and would have lots of free time in-between crops harvests in many regions.

[Anonymous No.12209750]

>>12209730
>Historically those upper class people got into that position and kept it because they had higher IQ's and were just generally better at running things, the cream rises to the top and when it doesn't periodic warfare, revolutions and other events help shakes things up and restore the natural order.

So you think the Communist upheaval of Russia for example was rightful restoration of the natural order when the aristocracy was murdered, millions were purged etc. and bunch of communist/marxists agitators seized power?

[Anonymous No.12209773]

Of course he's right, but he could've gone further to make fun of anglos and their fucking labour fetish.

[Anonymous No.12209808]

>>12209750
No it was not, minutes after I posted that post I reread it and anticipated that someone would ask something like "well was the French revolution restoring order?". I should have replaced the word revolution with coup.

The French and Russian revolutions were anomalies, throughout most of history dynasties would regularly face upheaval and get replaced by another that did a good job instead of being retards like the soviets. See the example of China where if someone did a bad job they were considered to have lost the mandate of heaven and then some general, steppe nomad or relative would take over and found a new dynasty that kept the place functional and restored the mandate. The French and Russian revolutions were not revolutions to restore previously existing order (which is essentially what's happening when someone tries to take over as king from another king who is doing badly) but were completely trying to tear down all remnants of the previous order. Those revolutions were already completely immersed in modern and anti-traditional ideology which is why they were different from the usual palace plots of the middle ages.

[Anonymous No.12209846]

>>12209808
>The French and Russian revolutions were anomalies, throughout most of history dynasties would regularly face upheaval and get replaced by another that did a good job instead of being retards like the soviets. See the example of China where if someone did a bad job they were considered to have lost the mandate of heaven and then some general, steppe nomad or relative would take over and found a new dynasty that kept the place functional and restored the mandate. The French and Russian revolutions were not revolutions to restore previously existing order (which is essentially what's happening when someone tries to take over as king from another king who is doing badly) but were completely trying to tear down all remnants of the previous order. Those revolutions were already completely immersed in modern and anti-traditional ideology which is why they were different from the usual palace plots of the middle ages.

That kind of Kshatriya-overtakes or seizing of power would a much more modern phenomenon in terms of the Four Ages and the Yugas which Guénon talks about. And even then, we would be talking of Kali-Yuga.

How does this fit the narrative of Kali-Yuga where literal thieves and exploiters are said to be the ruling class?

[Anonymous No.12209976]

>>12209846
>That kind of Kshatriya-overtakes or seizing of power would a much more modern phenomenon in terms of the Four Ages and the Yugas which Guénon talks about.
A few things to say there, I would hesitate before labeling a bunch of Masonic French liberal politicians and Russian-Ashkenazi Marxist organizers as Kshatryas, the Russian Empire's military was much more pro-White than the Soviets and even within the military it was the non-ethnic Russian elements who mostly supported the Soviets, a group of Latvian rifleman were instrumental in their seizing power. Those revolutions can be moreso viewed as certain elements of the unqualified masses rising up and disastrously trying their hand at king rather than Kshatryas seizing power from Brahmins. It is true that these kind of abnormal anti-traditional revolutions are much more a modern phenomena in no small part because they all stem from modern ideologies.

>How does this fit the narrative of Kali-Yuga where literal thieves and exploiters are said to be the ruling class?
Because in the narrative of the Kali-Yuga described mainly in the Bhagavata Purana and in some other texts, it says that the rulers will be elected from among a group of evil people and that the priests don't have knowledge of God. It's saying that the ruling class will be illegitimate, that's why. The present ruling class is certainly not anything resembling the Brahmins in any other sense than statistically they have a higher IQ than the masses (which is almost inevitable everywhere anyway). It's not that the ruling class has grown corrupt and irreligious but this is only the secondary effect of the proper people who should form the ruling class being usurped of their influence and control over society through the spread of the ideas of secularism and democracy, and then also these people who had potential being indoctrinated from childhood in accepting those values. You can trace it all from the Christian kingdoms of the middle ages down through the renaissance, reformation, enlightenment, the French revolution, the world wars and then suddenly BANG we are in a world where most countries are democratic and undemocratic monarchies are viewed as horrible. Everything I'm saying would remain true even if we really had democracies but then on top of that it's especially bad because our democracies are themselves frauds controlled by multi-national corporations and banking cliques.

[Anonymous No.12210001]

>>12209664
For centuries farmers got to spend the cold months doing whatever they wanted.

[Anonymous No.12210133]

I think this is actually one of the biggest reasons Evola despised capitalism. It led to the death of the craftsman and severed art from the divine. There's no longer dignity it what they do.

[Anonymous No.12210331]

So while Guénon is not anti-work, he's at least not a productivist...

[Anonymous No.12210467]

>>12209566
>as the engine of a natural, spontaneous order: that is, the market economy

that doesn't follow...he's praising something more akin to fascism or feudalism

[Anonymous No.12211637]

>>12210467
Engineered, totalitarian society is scarcely natural and scarcely spontaneous, pretty much by definition. Some powerful minority must disrupt the existing order and very deliberately impose their will on it. If a system can only take a path when work is done on it, that path is not spontaneous, and the end state would certainly not be "natural".

[Anonymous No.12211854]

>>12211637
dont you have a tumblr post to make about rhizomes or something?

[Anonymous No.12211911]

>>12211854
"order" in the image is literally represented by a branch of a tree. Arborescent structures are the literal opposite of rhizomes. Jesus fucking christ, get a brian

[Anonymous No.12213016]

>>12209664
Not how it was at all, no matter the place or time. Study some history.

[Anonymous No.12213067]

>>12209508
>>12209471
>ywn have a beautiful elongated horse face
why live

[Anonymous No.12213491]

>>12211911
and yet which picture looks more rhizomatic, you fucking yuppie artist?

[Anonymous No.12213739]

>>12209471
Is he talking about the dehumanising effect of capital?

[Anonymous No.12213792]

>>12213491
Truly a Socrates for our times.

[Anonymous No.12214531]

>>12213739
Guenon would consider that only a secondary effect of the conditions of the present era, he is more talking about society losing the proper perspective on the relation of man to the world and to the livelihood one lives by.

[Anonymous No.12214874]

>>12209471
>Is it some sort of stoic endeavor to waste your life away doing something absolutely loathsome only to survive?

Yes and yes - but the implied negative emotionality of the stoic endeavor is wrongly considered bad or "wasteful". I would argue quiet the opposite, that the stoicism intended here in fact exalts the individual. Which seems to be Guenons point as quoted in OP, but without the whining.

[Anonymous No.12214891]

>>12214874
>Which seems to be Guenons

Did you even read the quote? Guénon defines that as infrahuman existence

[Anonymous No.12215025]

>>12214874
There’s also the stoicism that comes with walking away and embracing the consequences.