/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16959491]

A question for Guenon and Evola readers: what do you guys think is so bad about modernity? And is there a precise moment in time where you believe things were better?

I am trying to have an honest discussion here, so I'll lay out my position first: I do not think modernity is bad at all. In terms of almost every aspect, there has been no age more blessed than modernity. I had a phase, as a student of classics, in which I believed the ancient greek/roman mindset was the peak of human thought. During that time, I read through Evola's Revolt, Ride the Tiger, Metaphysics of Sex, and Graal writings, as well as Guenon's King of the World, Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta, Dictionary of Sacred Symbols, plus Eliade's History of Religion. Most of this stuff, after going through some modern philosophy and modern literature, looks and sounds derivative, argumentatively weak, and ridden with arguments from authority - which is a point I tried to push several times in several threads here.
Up to now, I have noticed a certain reticence in answering the question "what is problem with modernity" with precise explanations about what is bad and why. If possible, I'd really like to have an honest discussion about this, to better understand your point of view. I do not want to have mindless fights with insults, I just want to hear some arguments from people who also read Evola and Guenon, and possibly respond to them.

[Anonymous No.16959574]

>poverty is at an all time low
>living standards are higher than ever
>life expectancy keeps increasing
>information is more or less freely accesible almost instantly
>war is not as popular as it once was (soon it's going to be a century without major scale conflicts)
>technology boosts life quality

Sure, we have some other problems arising from the modern world, I'm not arguing it's perfect, but there are some visible benefits

[Anonymous No.16959645]

>>16959574
This is more or less what I would argue. All the points from Evola and Guenon on a supposed decay of modernity seem based on superimposed conceptions of morality and value which they draw from historical and cultural studies, rather than philosophical argument, but the more I look into their writings, the weaker these conceptions look to me - especially because interpretation of human culture, as well as uses of previous human beings, in no way can yield as a result a set of normative indications on how it is "good" to live without the (notoriously controversial) "appeal to nature" argumentative strategy, i.e. humans were doing x for a long time, therefore x is naturally good.

[Anonymous No.16959671]

>>16959574
nobody cared about the macroeconomic variables you've mentioned prior to modernity, the only thing this graph proves is that modernity is winning by standards that were established by modernity itself, not a big achievement if you ask me

[Anonymous No.16959693]

>>16959671
why is it not a big achievement? What are better standards and what societies were good at satisfying them?

[Anonymous No.16959771]

>>16959693
? you clearly did not understand the most basic precepts of traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.16959792]

>>16959574
>Asking for quantitative measurements of a qualitative decline
Ngmi

[Anonymous No.16959843]

>>16959771
It is entirely possible, this is why I am asking you. I would like you to explain to me what are the good standards for a society if the modern one is not good, and to be precise and explicit about what you find bad about the modern society.

>>16959792
What negative qualitative changes has society undergone? And when was it better than this?

[Anonymous No.16959938]

>>16959843
Not him. I can't give you an articulated reason but I can give you an example. Despite the material quality of life being the best it ever has been in history, the rate of suicide is at an all time high in the first world.

[Anonymous No.16959964]

>>16959491
The problem is that both temporal and spiritual imperium is at the hands of the manager/merchant/vaysha class, and these people have no capacity to properly rule either the State or the Religion. So all is fake and gay. I would have literally no problem with technology if secular power was in the hand of the knightly/leader/kshatryia class and ideological power was at the hands of a priestly/ascetic/brahman class.

[Anonymous No.16960187]

>>16959671
>>16959792
No, I mentioned poverty as an example that general quality of life has improved, and given that it's impossible to measure 'moral quality' 'happiness' etc, I can only exemplify measurable things. Otherwise it's your word against a pro-tech pro-modern lad.

>>16959938
Back then suicide wasn't as reported as it is nowadays, and still you'd need to prove that modern society is causing such high rates

[Anonymous No.16960258]

>>16960187
Anon: even normie psychiatrists/psychologists agree about mental illness, especially depression, becoming more prevalent.
If you were seriously trying to improve your positions rather than defending a preconceived notion you would seek out studies yourself instead of saying "nuh uh, you haven't proven this!"

[Anonymous No.16960322]

>>16959491
It depends on your definition of modernity, if modernity is the state of the world now then there was no time in human history where modernity was bad because our condition always improves with technology. If modernity is the dominant or current trend of dominant ideology of the day that however can be criticized. So let's assume this, then modernity refers to sexual liberation, neo-liberalism, less free speech etc etc which can criticized off course. I think it's dangerous to say modernity must be right because human progress is at an all time high, it makes it impossible to critisize anything because its modernity.

[Anonymous No.16960335]

You didn't understand either of them if this question isn't answered for you. Let alone Plato if you think you have read him.

Being > Matter. You can have all the abundance of worldly things like a lot of people do in a liberal society, but it is all of process. All these whims fade and change, everything is in a state of flux. The most you can hope to acquire is an authentic Tradition that acts as a golden chain to the time of the Golden Age, where the union of Man with God and the copies aligned with their divine molds of the Forms. Through Tradition and immersion in the sacred you can acquire in your worship, if you're pious, virtuous and just, a state of henosis and escape Matter's shadows. Quantity means nothing, whether it's the years you live or the meaningless consoomer goods you acquire, this is the nihilism of the modern world: living longer = good, because you're too scared of what you think is a void of nothing beyond death. Nothing is thought of as qualitative. A holy warrior of Mohammed dying in combat in the 7th century in his 20s is infinitely superior to a 21st century Last Man who will quake like a gerbil and piss himself in a hospital bed cared for by strangers. That Muslim ghazi will have drastically worse material conditions for all his life, but he has connection to the Divine, and sacrifices what little empty and illusory material things and experience he has for a transcendental purpose of striving toward God.

[Anonymous No.16960360]

>>16959938
If you became suicidal back then you also didn't need to kill yourself - if you couldn't take care of yourself you would die

[Anonymous No.16960414]

>>16959574
The people that produce this data set the poverty line intentionally low so that basic infrastructure is enough to shift the figure. There are suicide nets in factories and the life of wagies in the countries we’ve “helped” develop are still god awful but because it makes a lot of money people are invested in framing sweat shops as a good thing

[Anonymous No.16960419]

>>16959574
Decline of art, decline of community, overworking. Some of the most important things.

[Anonymous No.16960451]

>>16960258
wtf anon it's not like defending preconceived notions matters here, I'm in for suggestions if you have any

Besides, let's say it's true, do you think a less technological society would be a solution to both quality of life and suicide rates?

[Anonymous No.16960467]

>>16960414
There are similar graphs divided by continent, and the trend is the same for every one, even in Africa it's a (slow) downward slope, but still

[Anonymous No.16960494]

>>16960467
I don’t want to be an asshole but I don’t think you understood my post. The point is that the metric itself is an intentionally low bar so that it ignores livable but still miserable poverty

[Anonymous No.16960508]

>>16960419
>decline of art
says who?
>decline of community
If you argue in favor of democracy then no, over the centuries countries became more democratic. If you argue for non-democratic ruling then sure, it's getting worse
>overworking
Again, over decades it's been reduced from 12-16hs to 10hs to 8hs and some countries are lowering that as well

[Anonymous No.16960519]

>>16960494
You have a point, the graph doesn't mention the not-so-extreme poverty range, so... true

[Anonymous No.16960557]

>>16960508
>says who?
Says people who subscribe to the classical tradition which is most people to a certain extant.
>decline of community
I'm talking about socially
>Again, over decades it's been reduced from 12-16hs to 10hs to 8hs and some countries are lowering that as well
My father worked a minimum wage job and was able to pay for college for himself and my mother and live in a nice gated apartment.

[Anonymous No.16960584]

>>16960519
Another fun factoid is that among the poor in America expected lifespan has actually been decreasing since I want to say the 70s. Most of the metrics people use to talk about how great modernity is usually hide the issues with modernity by focusing specifically on things that have gone down globally as the poorer countries have modernized

[Anonymous No.16960648]

>>16959491
i think it's just the fact that we somehow believe this great amazing period of history can go on and improve forever

[Anonymous No.16960651]

>>16959491
>>16959574
As another Anon said, increased material prosperity has been accompanied with ever-growing issues in the general population around stress, anxiety, identity and depression. Even according to modern psychological research, there appears to be a certain level of comfort beyond which people need to actualize themselves in relation to other, less quantifiable, values.

To take this from a Traditional perspective, we also have to take this in the context of a view which admits of an existence aside from the body: are my consumer goods helping me toward spiritual realization? Yes, a great deal of 'information' on the subject is now available but I think a case can be made the signal to noise ratio at least balances out the benefits vs direct access to initiatory bodies, given that the goal here is not mere gathering of information but a change of interior state. It's not an extrapolation from nature, but a direct knowing of it. Perhaps that does leave one open to criticisms of argument from authority - one knows legitimate authority when one sees it - or not.

Similarly, modern medical techniques, while providing some obvious immediate benefits, have been dysgenic even by modern quantity-based IQ metrics. There are parallels to that, I think, in how the character of a people is affected; their "form" in the sense Evola sometimes used it. Consider, for example, the change of focus from using our technology national space exploration projects to mass market entertainment goods.

[Anonymous No.16960718]

>>16959491
People have forgotten how to have tantric sex and multiple orgasms. My mom said her generation knew how, but this ancient wisdom has now been lost to the mists of time

[Anonymous No.16960740]

>>16959491
>And is there a precise moment in time where you believe things were better?

No, and this is what memesters don’t get about the traditionalists.

From the foreword to Revolt Against the World:
>”As far as the historical aspect is concerned, it is necessary to indicate the width of the horizons confronting us. In an antitraditional sense, the first forces of decadence began to be tangibly manifested between the eighth and the sixth centuries B.C., as can be concluded from the sporadic and characteristic alterations in the forms of the social and spiritual life of many peoples that occurred during this time. Thus, the limit corresponds to so-called historical times, since according to many people, whatever occurred before this period no longer constitutes the object of “history.” History is replaced by legends and myths and thus no hard facts can be established, only conjectures. The fact remains, however, that according to traditional teachings, the abovementioned period merely inherited the effects of even more remote causes; during this period, what was presaged was the critical phase of an even longer cycle known in the East us the “Dark Age,” in the classical world as the " Iron Age,” and in the Nordic sagas, as the “Age of the Wolf. [...]
This is the case as far as the historical aspect is concerned, and yet this aspect is totally relative. If everything that is “historical” is included in what is “modem,” then to go beyond the modem world (which is the only way to reveal its meaning), is essentially a process of traveling beyond the limits that most people assign to “history.” It is necessary to understand that in this direction, we no longer find anything that is susceptible again to becoming “history.” The fact that positive inquiry was not able to make history beyond a certain period is not at all a fortuitous circumstance, nor is it due to a mere uncertainty concerning sources and dates or to the lack of vestigial traces. In order to understand the spiritual background typical of every nonmodem civilization, it is necessary to retain the idea that the opposition between historical times and “prehistoric” or “mythological” times is not the relative opposition proper to two homogeneous parts of the same time frame, but rather the qualitative and substantial opposition between times (or experiences of time) that are not of the same kind. Traditional man did not have the same experience of time as modem man; he had a supertemporal sense of time and in this sensation lived every form of his worid, Thus, the modem researchers of “history” at a given point encounter an interruption of the series and an incomprehensible gap, beyond which they cannot construct any “certain” and meaningful historical theory; they can only rely upon fragmentary, external, and often contradictoiy elements—unless they radically change their method and mentality.”
[1/2]

[Anonymous No.16960745]

>>16959491
>what do you guys think is so bad about modernity?
The most compact way to explain it is to say that modernity replaced the sacred centre that imbues every civilisation and walk of life with meaning. The crisis of nihilism and the death of god are both due to the materialism, rationalism and antitraditionalism of modernity (and especially Enlightenment thought).
>And is there a precise moment in time where you believe things were better?
This is a problematic question. What does "better" mean? I would have certainly been more content to have lived in an earlier era and I have several picks I'd prefer. Does that make a given period "better"? If so, then there were a at least a few eras I'd consider superior to modernity.
>Most of this stuff, after going through some modern philosophy and modern literature, looks and sounds derivative, argumentatively weak, and ridden with arguments from authority - which is a point I tried to push several times in several threads here.
Your post was very interesting up to here. If you find the works of the Traditionalists "derivative and argumentatively weak", then you have frankly failed to understand what they are saying as far as I am concerned. I am sure you will disagree, but I implore you to at the very least keep an open mind if you ever revisit those works.
>>16959574
There are visible benefits, but they are entirely quantitative and meaningless to me and many other people. Why are deaths of despair skyrocketing? Why shouldn't I kill myself? Why shouldn't you? What's the meaning in living your eighty years of relative material prosperity as a soulless cog of the machine, before finally dying alone, forgotten and decrepit? Is such a death preferable to that of the war hero slain on the battlefield at the apex of his youth?
>>16959645
You have read neither of those authors and are unqualified to comment. Neither Evola nor Guenon deal with merely "cultural", "moral" or "tradition" (conceived in the folklore sense) material. Both of them oppose the naturalistic biases.
>>16960335
Good post.

[Anonymous No.16960748]

>>16960740
The last half should’ve also been greentexted.

[2/2]
>“[...]On the basis of these premises, the opposition of the traditional world to the modern world is ideal. The character of temporality and of “historicity” is essentially inherent only to one of the two terms of this opposition, while the other term, which refers to the whole body of traditional civilizations, is characterized by the feeling of what is beyond time, namely, by a contact with metaphysical reality that bestows upon the experience of time a very different, “mythological" form bused on rhythm and space rather than on chronological time.”

[Anonymous No.16960785]

>>16959574
He issue is that we have no ability to evolve at the pace of technology, so even though life is materially better for billions then it was for the top 1% just 50 years ago, we get deeply psychologically disturbed by modern life. Humans are always gonna get pissed at inequality which has been increasing since the reset following ww2 and ww2, as also seen in wages stagnating for 40 years while productivity continues to increase year on year. Throw in the final mental hand grenade of social media, urbanisation, bespoke cultural consumption etc and you can see why people believe something is wrong with modernity.

[Anonymous No.16960804]

>>16959491
>>16959574
The modern world is a prison of comfort and safety and denies higher peoples their higher challenges and meaning and the only metric our success is measured by in is the whims of economics. Theres no consideration for the future or past as a living experience, rather the only consideration is graphs and autistic trivialities.

[Anonymous No.16960830]

>>16960785
I think it's also worth bearing in mind that most of the comments about prosperity in this thread are focused on the West. If it's that bad here, what is the comparison for, say, being a garment worker sleeping on a concrete factory floor in Gujerat vs Vedic civilization.

[Anonymous No.16960854]

>>16960748
(pbuh)

[Anonymous No.16960861]

>>16959574
yes, viewed through a purely material lense, things are ‘better’. but man is not mere matter, but also spirit.

>>16960804
this argument is from materialist premises (“we became too comfortable!”) as well and thus not in line with traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.16960898]

>>16960861
Material conditions can be anathema to spirituality and it's foolish to ignore them when discussing why modernity is bad

[Anonymous No.16960918]

>>16960451
>do you think a less technological society would be a solution to quality of life
No. But I am skeptical of the value of metrics like QOL. The happiest, most satisfied, most in harmont people I have known were buddhist monks living in the middle of a jungle who didn't even have electricity.

>do you think a less technological society would be a solution to suicide rates
Almost certainly. Banning social media alone would help. Abolishing all electronic media would do wonders for it. Gassing marketing people? Amazing. Censoring loud music? Brilliant. Make people spend a few weeks with nothing to do but sit in the candlelight reading the classics and see humanity regain its purpouse.

[Anonymous No.16960973]

>>16960718
I can confirm your mom knows how.

[Anonymous No.16961047]

>>16959491
>And is there a precise moment in time where you believe things were better?
This question presupposes that Traditionalists believe there were better times and they want to arbitrarily rewind the clock, which is a sentiment that is all too commonly held between conservatives and reactionaries. Traditionalists do not hold such a view, rather they focus on staying true to their spiritual and metaphysical traditions despite living in the modern world.

[Anonymous No.16961088]

Reading this all, I have a similar question:
There have been complaints about "modernity measuring modernity" and other similar problems. Instead, people have asked we use things like happiness (>>16959938) and the quality of art (>>16960419). These seem to be, at best, descriptions of modernity (descriptions that we can and have of course argued), but there's no good reason I've seen to prioritize them over OP's original modernist assumptions. Could someone please (if they believe this is possible at all) explain a reason why we should prioritize their non-modern assumptions over OP's modern ones?

As for the OP's question, I'm not sure Evola or Guenon ever did say that modernity was necessarily worse than any other time. They simply said 1. Saying it is better requires a certain outlook which is only present in the modern time and 2. People who have a different outlook that befits another time for one reason or another view this particular society as bad, as they do not agree with the modernistic assumptions that the goodness of modernity is based on.

[Anonymous No.16961110]

>>16961088
>Could someone please (if they believe this is possible at all) explain a reason why we should prioritize their non-modern assumptions over OP's modern ones?
Because if you are asking people discontent with modernity to argue only in terms defined by and for modernity, you are being unfair.
>
As for the OP's question, I'm not sure Evola or Guenon ever did say that modernity was necessarily worse than any other time. They simply said 1. Saying it is better requires a certain outlook which is only present in the modern time and 2. People who have a different outlook that befits another time for one reason or another view this particular society as bad, as they do not agree with the modernistic assumptions that the goodness of modernity is based on.
This is essentially correct. Evola and Guenon obviously believe that modernity is vastly inferior to tradition, but from their perspective different human types will show different affinities, such as the affinity for the superior and the affinity for the inferior. There is no inherent value judgement even with these considerations, though.

[Anonymous No.16961139]

>>16961110
>you are being unfair
And why does this matter? If I bring up terms defined by and for something other than modernity, doesn't this unfairly bias the discussion against modernity as well?

[Anonymous No.16961147]

>>16959491
based effort poster

[Anonymous No.16961162]

>>16961088
It looks like you want a more materially minded critique but you're probably not going to get that from traditionalists even though that critique can be made, see left critiques of modernity

[Anonymous No.16961171]

>>16961139
>And why does this matter? If I bring up terms defined by and for something other than modernity, doesn't this unfairly bias the discussion against modernity as well?
If you are trying to discuss something with people who disagree with you and then demand that they argue within the confines of your narrow worldview rather than their own, do not expect to get very far. Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if the conversation is "unfair". Just keep in mind that people won't be happy to have an unfair conversation.

[Anonymous No.16961173]

It’s just rightoids deflecting their own unhappiness onto the world instead of just acknowledging that something is wrong with them. Pathetic really.

[Anonymous No.16961196]

>>16959843
>What negative qualitative changes has society undergone? And when was it better than this?
I think, speculatively and without any real argument, that there were social and family values and realities that are fundamentally healthy that modernity breaks through the constraints imposed by industrialised life

[Anonymous No.16961199]

>>16960748
/thread
Nobody has read the traditionalists on this board.

[Anonymous No.16961214]

no spiritual values, no spiritual rigour -> materialistic society -> Sodom ->

[Anonymous No.16961253]

>>16960335
Dangerously based post

[Anonymous No.16961256]

>>16960508
>Again, over decades it's been reduced from 12-16hs to 10hs to 8hs and some countries are lowering that as well
I really think work was different in pre-industrial times. a community coming together oversomething they have made together is not the same as factory-line work. pretty sure Marx held this as a criticism of capitalism, that it makes work soulless. I watched a documentary recently of an old brother and sister who had worked the land their whole lives and kept animals. the sister described the work as "so much fun", and was sad that she felt that modern people do not get to have that

[Anonymous No.16961258]

>>16961171
Well, I guess that means that we're at an impasse! You are asserting that the assumptions you're making aren't understandable to the OP and the assumptions the OP is making aren't understandable to you. If what you're saying is correct, then there's no point even trying to explain what you dislike about modernity or what he likes about it because you will never understand the other person's perspective.
>>16961162
I wasn't necessarily asking for that. I was more looking for a reason to prefer traditionalists' values to materialists'. If there is no reason for that, then that is also interesting.

[Anonymous No.16961296]

>>16961258
If you want to understand Traditionalism though then you need to understand that it values different things. Traditionalists don't care about material conditions in the same way that you do, the closest that they'll ever come is criticizing material conditions as being conducive to spiritual decay and that's not even something you'll get from the larpers here

[Anonymous No.16961320]

>>16961088
>>16961110
>As for the OP's question, I'm not sure Evola or Guenon ever did say that modernity was necessarily worse than any other time. They simply said 1. Saying it is better requires a certain outlook which is only present in the modern time and 2. People who have a different outlook that befits another time for one reason or another view this particular society as bad, as they do not agree with the modernistic assumptions that the goodness of modernity is based on.
>This is essentially correct. Evola and Guenon obviously believe that modernity is vastly inferior to tradition, but from their perspective different human types will show different affinities, such as the affinity for the superior and the affinity for the inferior. There is no inherent value judgement even with these considerations, though.
This. A person who is characteristically a viashya or shudra would prefer to be born in this era, while someone who has the character of a brahmin or kshatriya would prefer to be born in a far earlier era.

[Anonymous No.16961341]

>>16961088
I'm reminded of Colin Wilson's argument against existentialist pessimism: that people in positive states, peak experiences and so on, generally perceive more information from their environment than those in closed-off depressive states. Religious transcendence and direct insight could be an extreme version of this sort of thing if one admits the possibility of it. And people who have that sort of religious experience tend to return from it with a certain set of ideas which are fairly consistent across times and cultures.

A particular historical period is 'good,' or modernity is 'good,' only to the extent that it represents THE good as a metaphysical reality which is accessible to human beings. Like Evola's stance on Fascism: one is fascist to the extent that it presences that in the world successfully - or Platonist, or Modern, in the same way.

[Anonymous No.16961353]

>>16961296
But, if that's all true, then why are they called "traditionalists?" OP comes from the liberal tradition and therefore believes material conditions are important.
1. Why is he any less "traditionalist" than Evola when both justify their beliefs through their respective traditions?
2. How can you consider yourself a traditionalist when you reject all the traditions taught to you in favor of some other concept of good?

[Anonymous No.16961382]

>>16961341
>religiously experienced tend to perceive more information than those who aren't
Well, then I'm confused. Why can't they then explain those perceptions and their information to me? I could get it if spiritual experiences were extremely rare and thus only a couple of people had them (who could be bad at explaining those experiences), but when there are millions claiming that experience, including multiple articulate philosophers, how can I assume they are right?

[Anonymous No.16961388]

>>16961353
Traditionalists don't necessarily believe that you should practice the tradition you were raised in though or else they wouldn't be looking towards past traditions for spiritual insight. It is true though that Traditionalists by definition are raised outside tradition since if you were for example a member of some amazonian tribe you wouldn't be reading Evola and Guenon

[Anonymous No.16961398]

>>16961353
Because 'Tradition' here refers to the idea of a single underlying unity in the world's religious traditions, not any particular agglomeration of cultural habits. There is no 'liberal tradition' in this sense.

[Anonymous No.16961418]

>>16961388
>>16961398
Well, then, in that case, "traditionalism" to Evola and Guenon means something entirely different from what "traditionalism" means to the rest of the philosophical tradition (MacIntyre, Burke, Oakeshott, etc.).

[Anonymous No.16961431]

>>16961382
Spiritual experiences are actually way more rare than you think they are and people that are simultaneously able to articulate spirituality well are rarer still. Going to church does not in fact guarantee spiritual experience

[Anonymous No.16961443]

>>16961353
>How can you consider yourself a traditionalist when you reject all the traditions taught to you in favor of some other concept of good?
It’s like you have a schewed meme understanding of what the traditionalists were about. Guenon was literally a european frenchman who learned Arabic, moved to Cairo and become a devout muslim taking the name of ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥyá. In the early 20th century.

>>16961418
Yes, they are not european conservatives.

[Anonymous No.16961455]

>>16961418
Also, what a way to define ‘THE’ philosophical tradition, western frankish chauvinist.

[Anonymous No.16961456]

>>16959491
America.

[Anonymous No.16961473]

>>16960258
Psychology is literally a product of the last century, so there is absolutely no way to quantify how happy people were before that. I would say that we became better at defining, individuating and possibly treating mental illness than before, which is why we can quantify it better. But there were no detailed categories for it before the last one hundred years, and I can't think of another field of study which would be actively concerned with quantifying the happiness of a given population. It seems to me, as a consequence, that measuring the happiness of populations prior to psychology, as well as trying to quantify it in any way, is not really a viable option from an historical point of view

[Anonymous No.16961485]

>>16961418
Exactly! It is this and (>>16960740, >>16960745) that larpers, trolls, leftoids, and /pol/tards don't get which are fundamental to understanding Traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.16961507]

>>16961485
Indeed, its why I often find the term "Perennialism" more suitable to avoid confusion

[Anonymous No.16961516]

>>16961485
Mean to put >>16960748, not >>16960748/

[Anonymous No.16961557]

>>16961382
>Why can't they then explain those perceptions and their information to me?
For the same kind of reason that people generally struggle to fully articulate experiences to people who've never been in a similar situation, but to a degree proportionate to the 'distance' of the state from ordinary consciousness. People can try to explain it, but they can't give you the interior experience which you would need to determine whether their representation was accurate.
>how can I assume they are right?
Normally, we have two options to test a claim: seek personal experience or turn to the opinion of those experts who have dedicated their lives to a subject. Those who have spent their lives meditating seem fairly unanimous in their own finding and have laid out paths for practical work should you wish to verify it. I would also mention that a number of verifiable external manifestations of ability by e.g. Tibetan monks have been dismissed in the past, before being reinvestigated and validated by Western scientific models. If their practice enables them to do things ordinary people cannot in the physical sphere, perhaps their claims about other spheres are worth at least some consideration.

[Anonymous No.16961559]

>>16960745
First of all, thank you for the honest answer, anon. Here's what I would object:

>the sacred centre that imbues every civilisation and walk of life with meaning.
Now, what is the historical evidence that there was ever a sacred center to give any given society a meaning? In terms of writing, before modernity it is incredibly hard to know how "normal people" lived, and even harder to know what their actual beliefs and states were. Representing the life of the everyday man has been a necessity for history and literature only in the modern age. Before that, history is mostly history of aristocrats and educated people. So, in my opinion, there is very little evidence that societies as a whole felt meaning. At least, in my experience as a student of classics, I can tell you we know little to nothing to how the average greek or roman thought or felt: so how can we say they (or any other pre-modenr society) had a stronger sense of meaning to their lives?
As a consequence, if gathering historical evidence about shared, common thoughts of everyday men in pre-modern societies makes it difficult to claim that certain societies had a stronger sense of meaning - how can we even say this sense of meaning actually exists at all?
What if - very prosaically - modernity is not better or worst than other society, but simply more vocal concerning its everyday distress? What changed with the advent of modernity, in my opinion, is that we have become faster and more effective at communicating with each other - first through print, and ultimately through the internet. More data about human experience are now registered than ever before - so, in my opinion, it would only be natural that more distress about life is registered as well.
To reassume: it seems to me that the arguments to claim a stronger sense of meaning what actualized, or even possible, in other societies, are very weak.

I hope this also addressess your other two answers. But here is what I would ask you specifically:
>I would have certainly been more content to have lived in an earlier era and I have several picks I'd prefer. Does that make a given period "better"?
Seconded. I thought, for a long time, that ancient Greece, specifically Athens, would have been a fantastic place to live. But the question that made me change my mind was this: would you like to be a commoner in any pre-modern society? And if yes, can I ask you in which one and why?

[1/2]

[Anonymous No.16961566]

>>16961559
>what is the historical evidence
lmao
>Before that, history is mostly history of aristocrats and educated people. So, in my opinion, there is very little evidence that societies as a whole felt meaning
oh no no anon

[Anonymous No.16961623]

>>16961258
>Well, I guess that means that we're at an impasse! You are asserting that the assumptions you're making aren't understandable to the OP and the assumptions the OP is making aren't understandable to you. If what you're saying is correct, then there's no point even trying to explain what you dislike about modernity or what he likes about it because you will never understand the other person's perspective.
Not quite. Both me and OP are free to express our perspectives on modernity and understand each other. What is unlikely is a synthesis of both perspectives, since they are incompatible.
>>16961382
>Well, then I'm confused. Why can't they then explain those perceptions and their information to me?
Suppose a blind man asks you to explain sight to him or a deaf man to explain sound. How do you proceed? Transcendence is something you can only experience on your own. Any explanation will necessarily be awkward and insufficient, which makes sceptics all the more eager to dismiss it.
>>16961418
Yes, you could maybe go and read the Traditionalists and see how they define Tradition in order to find out what their school of thought is about.
>>16961473
This is pure cope. People have studied the effects of wealth and industrialisation on happiness and satisfaction on society. The industrialisation and urbanisation of countries like China and India, for example, is far more recent than the establishment of psychology. Japan went from a feudal regime to a modern industrialised state in a couple of decades.

[Anonymous No.16961627]

>>16960745
>you have failed to understand what they are saying
Again, this is a very real possibility. This is why I think they are derivative and argumentative weak.
1. Derivativeness: most of the thought Evola and Guenon put forward, in terms of the kind of metaphysics is described, is basically Platonism. Reality is supposed to mirror a specific metaphysical order, which is timeless and unchangeable. Reality, however, changes, although cyclically, which is why such metphysical order is reflected in it with different degrees of perfection according to whether we are in a dark age or a golden age. See: >>16960748 All this is very easily traceable in Plato, and they are adding less beside the claim that most religious and cultural manifestation they analyse agree with the aforementioned metaphysics.
2. For this reason, they are argumentatively weak: because no cultural, historical, or religious analysis can be used as an argument to claim that any given metaphysical order exists. They are either - as Evola does - taking this (Platonic) metaphysics as a given, or supporting it with arguments from authority: the fact that many sources agree on a given vision of the world is not proof by any means that that vision is true (see: heliocentrism). Maybe I fail to see what the point of presenting these arguments is - maybe they just take this metaphysics a base for their arguments and are actually trying to demonstrate something else. I am open to this possibility. But I cannot possibly accept a Platonic metaphysics, with all its problems, as a "state of fact", especially when it is supposed to be ethically normative and dictate how I should live my life, and what actions have value.

These are more or less my critics and why I think they are not good philosophers - maybe they are not philosophers at all, and I am wrong, but I still think there is much to criticize in their premises.

[2/2]

[Anonymous No.16961726]

>>16961623
I haven't really been responding in a bit, but this one caught me off guard in its almost extreme level of haughtiness.
>transcendence cannot be explained
Well, this would make sense if not for the context it is in. I am specifically responding to this post: >>16961341 which says that, in a transcendent state, one is better at perception and logic, not "one is in a different state of perception or logic," but "one is in a more effective one. This isn't just your mistake (>>16961557 made it, too), but you really should pay more attention to the context in which an assertion is stated.
>maybe you should go read...
Anon, I have. Remember, I was someone who has (largely) agreed with your understanding of traditionalism. My main intention has been to understand what Evolaposters think, not what Evola thinks. This is why I started out of the gate with this post: >>16961088 which specifically separated the argument which Evola-posters were making from the argument Evola himself made - because they are different.
>we can understand each other
What I'm saying is you cannot. Both of you will always say, "he believes x," but neither of you can ever fully understand because they are based on assumptions that aren't even necessarily logical (differences of perspective, that is). So, you can never fully understand the other person's perspective. Simply saying, "no, I can," isn't much of an argument.

More to the point, you write very annoyingly. The conditionals you start your sentences off with make you sound like you've presumed you have more knowledge of what you're talking about than the people you're talking with. That starts to be a problem when you drop in on a conversation and ignore all the context in which it was introduced.

[Anonymous No.16961762]

>>16961623
>This is pure cope. People have studied the effects of wealth and industrialisation on happiness and satisfaction on society.
Good, let's look at the studies then. What do you have in mind, precisely? I would be keen to read a study that proves that, with industrialization, the wellbeing of the majority of the population of a given country is significantly worsened. I do not believe in any way that industrialization created the perfect utopia, but in terms of quantifying happiness, it seems very weird to me that societies would throw away a better living standard for a worse one. If industrialization didn't improve the wellbeing of at least most of the population, both materially and mentally, why would most societies pursue it anyway? If the best way to live is the non-industrialized way, why are most societies either industrialized, or trying to become industrialized?

[Anonymous No.16961771]

>>16959574
like i give a fuck about any of those things

[Anonymous No.16961780]

>>16961771
What do you give a fuck about?

[Anonymous No.16961782]

>>16960508
Pre-industrial revolution the working day was more like 4 hours, if you had to even work that day.

[Anonymous No.16961814]

>>16960918
Melbourne has one of the highest quality of life indexes in the world. Now looking at all the people who arent working class and live out west in government housing, we are left with pill munching middle class women that drink a bottle of red every night.

[Anonymous No.16961816]

>>16961726
>My main intention has been to understand what Evolaposters think, not what Evola thinks.
That's a rookie mistake on your part. Most evolaposters haven't even read Evola. Since you've known this, why did you even bother to strike up a conversation in the first place?

[Anonymous No.16961822]

>>16961780
bitches and getting money

[Anonymous No.16961835]

>>16961816
Because I want to learn about an unusual political group on the internet. It's interesting to hear about the oddities in the same way that it's interesting to read odd philosophers.

[Anonymous No.16961850]

>>16961835
>unusual political group on the internet
Evola isnt political. His works are primarily;y concerned with meta-physics.
Evolaposters arent some fringe political group like you faggots were treating the alt-right in 2015. Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.16961860]

>>16959645
>>16959574
>>16959491
Nice reddit bugman mentality.
Modernity brought the desire to tear down the old world and create a new one based on rational principles. It has increased man material wealth, but had left him unsatisfied, divorced and alienated form his past, from his natural character and wishes, and from meaning to his life. Modernity had eventually turned against human nature itself in order to satisfy it's revolutionary and consumerist impulse.

[Anonymous No.16961869]

>>16961559
>what is the historical evidence that there was ever a sacred center
The many, many stone monuments to it, for a start. The motif of the center, associated with the sun, turns up again and again when we do have written records, in parallel with archeological remains which follow on from those that predate them.
>shared, common thoughts of everyday men
The meaning that matters here isn't person X's subjective sense of life satisfaction, it's their alignment with a meaning which exists beyond themselves whether they are conscious of it or not.
>What if - very prosaically - modernity is not better or worst than other society, but simply more vocal concerning its everyday distress?
Our society has more opportunities to express impulses in many areas which those in the past would have tried to master in themselves.
>>16961627
Evola wouldn't have considered being called derivative a criticism but a manifestation of a mistaken lust for novelty. If metaphyscial order is unchanging, there's no need to dazzle you with new interpretations of it.
>easily traceable in Plato
And in other things, like possible Vedic influence on the Greeks, prior influences on the Vedas, subsequent influence of Platonism on Christianity and Islam, etc.
>the fact that many sources agree on a given vision of the world is not proof by any means that that vision is true
Which is possibly why the priestly and aristocratic cultures of past epochs didn't wasnt their time trying to 'prove' it to the common man.
>(see: heliocentrism)
Further proof that Anaximander is corrupting the youth.
>Maybe I fail to see what the point of presenting these arguments is
I think for those taking an interest in them in the present day, the point is often that they form a map for practice and experience. They're not only arguments to be taken intellectually, but taken into the heart which, like the sun, is igneous, central, and perceives beyond words.

[Anonymous No.16961870]

https://juliusevola.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/24-american-civilisation.pdf
Quick read.

[Anonymous No.16961886]

>>16961850
No, I'm talking about Evolaposters, not Evola. I already know what Evola thinks.
The concept that Evolaposters are not mainly informed by politics is ridiculous to me. The very fact that they are reading Evola, someone involved politically and much less involved in the actual development of the traditionalist school thought-wise (in comparison to someone like Guenon).
>this isn't like the alt-right
Keep telling yourself that. I'm glad you think, behind their wall of anonymity, the people you're talking to aren't the same annoying teenagers and boomers as the alt-right. That's not quite true, though.

[Anonymous No.16961895]

>>16961886
Add "displays that they are at least somewhat motivated by politics" to the end of the second paragraph. Forgot to finish my sentence for some reason.

[Anonymous No.16961931]

>>16960508
>Again, over decades it's been reduced from 12-16hs to 10hs to 8hs and some countries are lowering that as well
Lmao no, premodern man worked way less, don't take The Jungle as your baseline

[Anonymous No.16961952]

>>16961886
It's not Evolaposters I see continually injecting politics into these threads. It would indeed by naive to pretend that wasn't a consideration, but neither is it the only reason people read the author of some of the best works on hermetics of the last century.

[Anonymous No.16961988]

>>16961559
>>16961627
>Now, what is the historical evidence that there was ever a sacred center to give any given society a meaning?
Do you think that everyone in the history of the world shared the exact mental dispositions and experiences of modern people? If your answer is no, then it is obvious that things were different before. In what ways were things different? Well, traditional societies were characterised by the predominance of the sacred in all spheres of life. In other words, the sacred center was immanent to everything - the aristocracy lived by divine principles and legitimacy, the clergy aimed to preserved, develop and spread holy truth, the intellectuals pondered the meaning of things with an acknowledgement of the sacred, the artists drew sacred images and according to sacred rules, the peasants lived by the laws of their religion and had deeply ingrained rituals they followed (check the daily prayers required for Catholics, for example). Everything revolved around the sacred, which bestowed meaning on every struggle and endeavour. That's the sacred centre.
>In terms of writing, before modernity it is incredibly hard to know how "normal people" lived
This is besides the point if we are discussing civilisation, which is shaped top-down. Also, your argument is not convincing. I think it'd be equally, if not even more difficult to find out what the normal people think today than before mass literacy.
>and even harder to know what their actual beliefs and states were.
It's possible and there is a lot of work already done on this, even (and perhaps especially) by postmodern scholars.
>Before that, history is mostly history of aristocrats and educated people.
This is again besides the point. These people run society and are all the more important from a Traditionalist perspective.
>So, in my opinion, there is very little evidence that societies as a whole felt meaning.
If you think that premodern societies also experienced the crisis of nihilism, then you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree to the utmost.

[Anonymous No.16961996]

>>16961559
>>16961627
>At least, in my experience as a student of classics, I can tell you we know little to nothing to how the average greek or roman thought or felt: so how can we say they (or any other pre-modern society) had a stronger sense of meaning to their lives?
By studying the cultural, social, religious and institutional traits of their civilisation. If the Romans had some of the food during their feasts reserved for their gods, whom they considered their siblings, should we believe that they were convinced in the meaninglessness and irrelevance of human life? Probably not. The Traditionalists engage with these themes a lot - in fact, I am paraphrasing Evola here. History is also useful.
>As a consequence, if gathering historical evidence about shared, common thoughts of everyday men in pre-modern societies makes it difficult to claim that certain societies had a stronger sense of meaning - how can we even say this sense of meaning actually exists at all?
Your standards for evidence are arbitrary and the universalisation of your experience as the eternal status quo is fallacious.
>What if - very prosaically - modernity is not better or worst than other society, but simply more vocal concerning its everyday distress?
"Everyday distress" isn't the issue, we have a lot less of that. What we have more of is pure existential dread. It's almost farcical how vastly disproportionately modern people are fixated on death and meaninglessness in art, philosophy, culture etc.
>To reassume: it seems to me that the arguments to claim a stronger sense of meaning what actualized, or even possible, in other societies, are very weak.
I can see no other explanation here other than you misunderstanding the arguments you are engaging with or lacking the background information necessary to see their validity. I see nothing worth fighting for, much less dying for in the world today.

[Anonymous No.16962008]

>>16961559
>>16961627
>Seconded. I thought, for a long time, that ancient Greece, specifically Athens, would have been a fantastic place to live. But the question that made me change my mind was this: would you like to be a commoner in any pre-modern society? And if yes, can I ask you in which one and why?
If I get to pick all the circumstances, then we are already drifting off into the field of fantasy. What I can tell you is that I wouldn't have minded being a lower class pleb so long as I got to attend Plotinus's public lectures and speak to him. Of course, this presupposes that I would retain my current personality, which wouldn't be the case - my life would have been conditioned by my background and I am sure my priorities in such a case would have been quite different.
>1. Derivativeness: most of the thought Evola and Guenon put forward, in terms of the kind of metaphysics is described, is basically Platonism. Reality is supposed to mirror a specific metaphysical order, which is timeless and unchangeable. Reality, however, changes, although cyclically, which is why such metphysical order is reflected in it with different degrees of perfection according to whether we are in a dark age or a golden age.
This would be because the Traditionalists consider Plato to be one of the earliest known Initiates. Naturally, his thought reflects that, though to say that the Traditionalists only propose Platonism is reductionist.
>All this is very easily traceable in Plato, and they are adding less beside the claim that most religious and cultural manifestation they analyse agree with the aforementioned metaphysics.
This too is important and original work. How many besides the Traditionalists have recognised similarities in Greek and Brahmanic spirituality?

[Anonymous No.16962009]

>>16961886
No one cares if you are talking about who you think to be the readers of a philosopher. What you perceive to be the topics of discussion for evolaposters isnt the writings of Evola.
I dont even know where to begin with this... Its entirely pointless. But a good example of whats wrong with modernism... Retards such as yourself seeking out to attack interpretations than the actual writings themselves. Its all a game of group identity for you kids. Fucking disgusting!

[Anonymous No.16962016]

>>16961952
I suppose I have a different definition of "Evolaposters" than you. My definition comes from my side (as a non-Evolaposter) of the equation. I see annoying, political teenagers posting about Evola. Even if there are a few smart ones, they probably don't spend most of their time on 4chan. Therefore, the vast majority of posters are always going to be the dumb teenagers. I see this and think, "huh, they seem interesting; I'd like to learn more about what they believe."
On the other hand, you as a non-teenage Evolaposter, think most interactions with Evolaposters are going to be with someone who doesn't care about his politics, as all Evola-related interactions with you, an Evolaposter who doesn't care about his politics, share that trait. Based on that, we have different definitions of what an Evolaposter is. Therefore, when I talk about "Evolaposters," we quickly find that we are speaking two different languages.
That is my interpretation, anyway.

[Anonymous No.16962017]

>>16961559
>>16961627
>the fact that many sources agree on a given vision of the world is not proof by any means that that vision is true (see: heliocentrism).
You are missing the point. Geocentrism is "true", even today, despite the fact that the planet Earth actually revolves around the Sun. Geocentrism is a symbol. The sublunar sphere is the realm of the changeable, material, impermanent forces whereas the celestial sphere is that of divinity and transcendence. Even here, you have a sense of "above" and "below", a coherent, qualitative view of the universe with clearly defined values, completely unlike the quantitative and generally meaningless model that we owe to modern physics, which gives us information about astronomy but nothing on its meaning and relevance to human life. It's quite likely that if you introduced the ancients to the heliocentric model, they would have considered it irrelevant and entirely besides the point. That traditional civilisations seem to be in complete agreement with each other on a whole host of similar issues can hardly be declared accidental.
>Maybe I fail to see what the point of presenting these arguments is - maybe they just take this metaphysics a base for their arguments and are actually trying to demonstrate something else.
The point is to revive living spirit. I am getting the feeling that you conceive of metaphysics as some sort of secular philosophic speculation. This is a view incompatible with the view the Traditionalists take on the matter.
>But I cannot possibly accept a Platonic metaphysics, with all its problems, as a "state of fact", especially when it is supposed to be ethically normative and dictate how I should live my life, and what actions have value.
You are not required to do so, the Traditionalists only invite traditionally oriented people to investigate their findings. As to how you should live your life, this is not something that the Traditionalists believe should be controlled by some "external" force, even if that force is an institutionalisation of traditional metaphysics. Rules are pointless without spirit behind them. According to this metaphysics, you are far greater than even a god. If you choose to live by what is natural to your divine aspect, then that is your prerogative. If you choose to deny that aspect, that is also your prerogative. If you choose to exalt all that is material, temporal and impermanent - the body and its elements, then that, too, is your prerogative. At any point we are talking about a natural, free choice - not something compelled out of you. That would be pointless and counterproductive.
>These are more or less my critics and why I think they are not good philosophers - maybe they are not philosophers at all, and I am wrong, but I still think there is much to criticize in their premises.
You are correct. They are not philosophers, they are metaphysicians or perhaps ontologists. From that perspective philosophy is a means to an end.

[Anonymous No.16962019]

>>16961886
>>16962009
I didnt even read the last part of your post before replying, had I did I woudnlt have even replied

>this isn't like the alt-right
kys political mush brain. you are not even a human.

[Anonymous No.16962037]

>>16962009
See: >>16962016
Again, my intention with my OP was to A: say something about Evolaposters and B: say something about Evola. People focused on A rather than B, so I am talking about A rather than B. Again, I think we have different definitions of what an "Evolaposter" is.

[Anonymous No.16962042]

>>16962016
>I see annoying, political teenagers posting about Evola
Show me one. And for that one I can show you a dozen shit posts about evola from anti-evola faggots that have no reason to shit post about evola other than their fucked up misinformed opinion that he is some icon for a 'political fringe group'.

[Anonymous No.16962052]

>>16962037
Its clear from this thread you dont even know what Tradition is. You confuse it with history.
I dont care what you think evolaposters are either.

[Anonymous No.16962056]

>>16962042
>there are more anti-Evola people than pro-Evola people
Redditors are also annoying. They aren't fringe, though, because there are many of them. And they aren't interesting because they aren't fringe. I don't like to post about uninteresting things.

[Anonymous No.16962069]

>>16962056
Yeah so your boogeyman doesnt exist. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.16962071]

>>16962042
This is my example: >>16962052

[Anonymous No.16962086]

>>16962069
When did I ever say they had power? All I said was that they were interesting. Many things are interesting.

[Anonymous No.16962183]

>>16959574
read Modernity and Cultural Decline

[Anonymous No.16962469]

>>16961726
>I haven't really been responding in a bit, but this one caught me off guard in its almost extreme level of haughtiness.
I did not at all mean to be haughty, I meant exactly what I said and I am sure the practical nature of this problem is obvious. That the other anon has a secularised understanding of transcendent states is his problem, not mine.
>non, I have. Remember, I was someone who has (largely) agreed with your understanding of traditionalism. My main intention has been to understand what Evolaposters think, not what Evola thinks. This is why I started out of the gate with this post: >>16961088 which specifically separated the argument which Evola-posters were making from the argument Evola himself made - because they are different.
Sorry, I didn't know that's you, I just assumed it's some random retard chiming in from the sidelines. At any case, IDK why you'd be interested in what Evolaposters think when 90% of us are retarded. Evola has real arguments and positions, Evola posters just parrot bulletpoints.
>What I'm saying is you cannot. Both of you will always say, "he believes x," but neither of you can ever fully understand because they are based on assumptions that aren't even necessarily logical (differences of perspective, that is). So, you can never fully understand the other person's perspective. Simply saying, "no, I can," isn't much of an argument.
Using different metrics to judge the validity of a claim does not necessarily imply inability to comprehend the claim in itself. You can understand my position. You may think it's unjustified bullshit, but you can still comprehend it and its basis. You are capable of it, anyway.
>More to the point, you write very annoyingly. The conditionals you start your sentences off with make you sound like you've presumed you have more knowledge of what you're talking about than the people you're talking with. That starts to be a problem when you drop in on a conversation and ignore all the context in which it was introduced.
Sorry, I've been told I write like a faggot before, but I can't really help it. It just feels right.

[Anonymous No.16962492]

>>16961762
Look up statistics on the suicide crisis in America, as well as the opioid epidemic, friendship amongst millennials and zoomers (a quarter of millennials are friendless) and the rising age at which people lose their virginity. This will be evidence enough of the rapidly worsening problem - alongside maybe single motherhood rates. For my part, I really don't give a shit about positivist science because I think it's predicated on completely worthless epistemology. I will engage with it if you provide any data points you want me to discuss, but I don't bother to read any of it or store it in my free time unless the topic is of particular interest to me.

[Anonymous No.16962528]

>>16962492
this is interesting, are you a rightard Evolaposter or a communist?
also:
the decline in sex among the youth is something that rightards should be very happy about, and yet they rarely mention it. why?

[Anonymous No.16962577]

>>16962528
Are you OP? After reading your takes on "Evolaposters" and how you're interested in the perspective of "annoying perpetually online political teenagers" I am genuinely sceptical of any further engagement with you. Seems like a serious waste of my time.
Anyway, I am a "rightard" as the mention of epistemology probably demonstrates.
>the decline in sex among the youth is something that rightards should be very happy about, and yet they rarely mention it. why?
What rightards are you referring to? Evangelical boomers are probably over the moon. Young men who think neoconservatism is just as gay, if not more gay, than leftism and postmodernism? Not so much. Right wing ideology among youth correlates with the desire to return to the origins and a desire for communal struggle and loyalty. This has very little to do with Constitutional idolatry.

[Anonymous No.16962990]

Since this is the most active Evola thread I've seen in a while I just post my most recent musings and questions about him here.

The vehemency with which he proclaims the inadequacy of the now and demands action towards a positive vertical movement is something I find very engaging in his work.
But most of it seems to embedded in the rise of not just an individual to a higher state but rather the emergence of an entire community of people who all collectively strife for that exact spot with the king at the top and the others following in turn.
But where will these kings come from? All lines of tradition and initiation are broken. There are royal lines of blood in the world but as far as my knowledge goes none have any solar aspirations in them. I'm a peasant just as my fathers and forefathers where so I can not aspire to become a king or an aristocrat of any sorts. Kali Yuga is still well underway and there seems to be no way out for the foreseeable future.
I really like the direction they are pointing towards but at the same time it seemingly makes any form of moving towards the vertical almost impossible.

[Anonymous No.16963026]

>>16962528
>the decline in sex among the youth is something that rightards should be very happy about, and yet they rarely mention it. why?
Not who you were responding to, but I see this as a rather bizarre and pitiable state of affairs. On the one hand, your typical modern man believes he is not a realized man until he loses his virginity. On the other hand, neither men nor women see the inherent value in retaining one's virginity. This inversion of values is bad enough, but it becomes absurd and somewhat comical when feminists and leftists use words like 'incel' to deride anyone who refuses to cowtow to the leftist groupthink. The word incel implies that men who do not have sex are not realized men and are thus, a loser, which implies that men are sexual conquerors. What's ironic here is these feminists and leftists who use this word out of derision don't realize they are saying men must be sexual conquerors, which reifies patriarchy.

This pseudo-Freudian assault is not only subversive to feminism, but subversive to asceticism as well. Some leftists, academicians, and psychologists would call and pathologize ascetic monks, priests, and nuns who take vows of chastity as "sexually repressed". This has recently taken an especially hostile turn when leftists accuse anyone participating in a pseudo-ascetic practice like No Nut November as fascist. It is inconceivable to them that celibacy and asceticism can lead to a more spiritually, or at least psychologically fulfilling life. Freud has done more damage to our pursuit of the sacred than people realize, and I would exhume and desecrate his remains if I ever get the chance.

[Anonymous No.16963081]

>>16962990
>But most of it seems to embedded in the rise of not just an individual to a higher state but rather the emergence of an entire community of people who all collectively strife for that exact spot with the king at the top and the others following in turn.
Spiritual community is a theme in all major spiritual traditions - for example, both Buddhism and Tantric yoga. It's certainly something important. I believe it was in Metaphysics of War that he said that it's useful to consider yourself to be a part of a spiritual army rather than a lone and isolated individual, precisely because of the effects that generate on the personal level. I might have also read that in one of his other works, though.
>But where will these kings come from?
(The answer is you, anon.)
>All lines of tradition and initiation are broken.
Evola spent a lot of his time writing about the different ways in which one may make direct contact with the transcendent or in other words, form a new, first link in a brand new initiatory chain, at least theoretically. I've already spoken to three or four anons who seem to have achieved considerable results with his Introduction to Magic and his guide on Hermeticism. I've tried them as well, though I have no results to show for it yet.
>I'm a peasant just as my fathers and forefathers where so I can not aspire to become a king or an aristocrat of any sorts.
Are you really a peasant, anon? You live in a time that encourages all sorts of formlessness and instability. According to Evola himself, if there was any time in which a man could become whatever he wished, then it is now. The Kali Yuga is a challenge. Rise to the challenge, if you wish - just make sure your decision comes from the inside and that you are resolute about it.
>I really like the direction they are pointing towards but at the same time it seemingly makes any form of moving towards the vertical almost impossible.
It's certainly very difficult. According to Evola, the only way to make contact with transcendence today is on the "preformal plane" - in other words, in terms of pure experience, without any institutional or contingent factor that can make transcendence more easily accessible to you. This is why Evola wrote Ride the Tiger, Men Amongst the Ruins and his works on spiritual traditions (introduction to magic, yoga of power, doctrine of awakening etc).

[Anonymous No.16963219]

>>16963081
>I've already spoken to three or four anons who seem to have achieved considerable results with his Introduction to Magic and his guide on Hermeticism. I've tried them as well, though I have no results to show for it yet.
I am very curious of the praxis of Evola's occultism, especially the Intro to Magic books and The Hermetic Tradition since they are very rarely discussed. Can you link me to any posts or threads, please?

[Anonymous No.16963315]

>>16963219
>I am very curious of the praxis of Evola's occultism, especially the Intro to Magic books and The Hermetic Tradition since they are very rarely discussed. Can you link me to any posts or threads, please?
All I've got is a bunch of screenshots, but there's too many for me to post them all and I don't have them on hand. If you read the books carefully and put in effort to understand and live them, everything will become clear.

[Anonymous No.16963379]

>>16963315
I don't care and I'm a patient guy. You can upload all the screenshots on mega whenever you're able, assuming this thread will still be up.

[Anonymous No.16963402]

>>16959491
>"what is problem with modernity"
In short, the complete ignorance and/or outright denial of supernatural (spiritual) reality and aspects of life.

[Anonymous No.16963459]

>>16959491
Silence, Anglo

I no longer wish to be wealthy

I just want to be happy

[Anonymous No.16963594]

>>16959574
>measuring poverty as $/day
>what is printing money and inflation

Don't tell me you brainlets fell for this, right?

[Anonymous No.16963949]

>>16960335
Anon, I'm currently reading Guenon's "La crise du monde moderne" and really enjoying it so far. Do you have any books to recommend?

[Anonymous No.16963963]

>>16960335
You realize neither Guenon nor Evola were Gnostics?

[Anonymous No.16963983]

>>16960335
>A holy warrior of Mohammed dying in combat in the 7th century in his 20s is infinitely superior to a 21st century Last Man who will quake like a gerbil and piss himself in a hospital bed cared for by strangers. That Muslim ghazi will have drastically worse material conditions for all his life, but he has connection to the Divine, and sacrifices what little empty and illusory material things and experience he has for a transcendental purpose of striving toward God.
And here you are, posting on 4chan. Explain yourself. I’m serious btw. How have you put this into practice?

[Anonymous No.16964138]

>>16959964
this