/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14799468]

What exactly is the second religiosity that Spengler wrote about? Is it what we currently see with people looking for spiritualism in asinine nonsense like witchcraft and horoscopes?

[Anonymous No.14799485]

Spergler didn't really know what he was writing about

[Anonymous No.14799487]

>>14799485
yes he did

[Anonymous No.14799496]

[Anonymous No.14799500]

>>14799496
who wrote this?

[Anonymous No.14799502]

It's been a while since I read him so I can't remember.

IIRC he may have been talking about those people who, in observing their culture in decline, try to grab onto the flotsam and trappings of the institutions that once gave their culture form and a principle of order. in other words, the main drive to this religiosity is entirely negative - the principle motivation not being an affirming belief in religion, but seeking refuge from the perceived chaos in their world.

What you're talking about is more in line with Guénon's counter-tradition and the spiritist fallacy, which are the affirmative beliefs of those who embrace the decline of the dominant culture and see it as an opportunity to pursue their own ends.

[Anonymous No.14799511]

>>14799500
"Jordan Peterson and the Second Religiousness" by John Tierney

[Anonymous No.14799519]

>>14799496
Now this is interesting, because it seems not to support either of my presumptions >>14799502 but rather something more along the lines of Toynbee's Universal Church of an internal proletariat (Toynbee had a somewhat idiosyncratic use of "proletariat" fwiw).

Either that, or Spengler is implying that counter-tradition leads to the establishment of tradition in the next culture, which is something Guénon would balk at and firmly denounce.

[Anonymous No.14799534]

>>14799511
>Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.14799564]

>>14799519
Pretty sure Guenon falls under what Spengler describes as mystic frauds who play with spiritualism without really believing it
>>14799534
It's about the fact that Jordan Peterson is a sign that the Second Religiousness is here

[Anonymous No.14799600]

>>14799468
>old nonsense good
>new nonsense bad
hmmm

[Anonymous No.14799614]

>>14799564
>Pretty sure Guenon falls under what Spengler describes as mystic frauds who play with spiritualism without really believing it
I'd question whether Spengler was qualified to make such assertions.
His metahistory is interesting. His conception of the birth of Ur-Symbols from which cultures manifest their qualitative differences is interesting. But by-and-large, Spengler was concerned with exoteric and mundane matters, and could only speak on religion and metaphysics as a bystander.

[Anonymous No.14799663]

>>14799564

>>14799614
Spengler didn't say that. That is how Guenon and especially Evola appear to me, as a student of Spengler, without having read Guenon (I read a bit of Evola and thought it was nonsense).

[Anonymous No.14799876]

>>14799468
It would be more like a renewed Catholicism, or possibly some form of world-weary Protestantism. Fairly old-fashioned, but genuine enough in faith. It would depend on the individual and country, though. Evangelicalism seems to be a big thing in America and some other places. A lot of Catholics, too, of course. Nothing technically stops it from taking non-Christian mystical forms, but it would need some kind of serious following to have legs. Parts of Scandinavia, perhaps. Youthful dabblings with superstition would be a precursor at most.

[Anonymous No.14800193]

something I've noticed is that Peterson holds a Jungian mythologizing/metaphorical view of Christianity in a way similar to what neopagans are doing. Very interesting to see this form of religiousness arising in multiple independent areas and I think you're right to call this the beginning of the second religiousness