/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17667491]

Is it pretty safe to say that Evola "solved" Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.17667527]

>>17667491
More like an array of 20th century thinkers. Evola being one of them. Others being Jung, Heidegger and Junger.

[Anonymous No.17667533]

>>17667491
Nietzsche hated antisemites like Evola

[Anonymous No.17667534]

What did he solve?

[Anonymous No.17667540]

>>17667534
The issues that plagued Nietzsche's whole life

[Anonymous No.17667545]

>>17667491
No, but there’s a vein of Evola’s thinking which can be described as basically radically religious nihilism or just Nietzschean I guess.

>>17667533
Please stop commenting on people you haven’t read.

[Anonymous No.17667547]

>>17667540
What a fucking vague response
Did he solved syphilis?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17667551]

>>17667491
No.

[Anonymous No.17667552]

>>17667533
Evola's view of the Jews was like Nietzsche's. He thought they were cringe when they embodied liberalism, capitalisms and general slave morality, but he didn't hate them based on their religion or race.

[Anonymous No.17667579]

>>17667491
Evola was the person who least understood Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17667581]

>>17667534
Pretty much Evola said that proper Tradition clarifies the confusion of the world Nietzsche felt.

[Anonymous No.17667594]

>>17667581
Which is ironic because afaik Evola himself never clearly found refuge in any Tradition and ended up espousing a form of religiosity that it seems like literally no one adhered to let alone believed and admitted a degree of confusion basically until he died. I don’t mean that to disparate him either but rather just to point out the reality.

[Anonymous No.17667656]

>>17667534
>>17667551
>>17667579
For now we must set aside such allusions to a higher dimension οί experience οί a liberated world in order to define more precisely what such a vision οί existence offers us in realistic terms. It is, in fact, the principle of purely being oneself. This is what remains after the elimination οf what philosophy calls "heteronomous morality," or morality based οn
an external law or command. Nietzsche said this about it: "They call you destroyers οί morality, but you are οnly the discoverers οf yourselves";l and also: "We must liberate ourselves from morality so that
we can live morally."
By the latter phrase, he means living according to one's own law, the law defined by one's own nature. (This may result in
the way οί the superman, but only as a very special case.) This is οη the same lines as the "autonomous morality" οf Kant's categorical imperative, but with the difference that the command is absolutely internal, separate from any external mover, and is not based
οn a hypothetical law extracted from practical reason that is valid for all and revealed to man's conscience as such, but rather to one's own specific being.

Nietzsche himself often presented these issues as though they were equivalent to naturalism. One frequently finds in him the simplistically
physiological and materialistic interpretation οί human nature, but it is basically inauthentic, accessory, and prompted by his well-known
polemic against "pure spirit." ln fact, Nietzsche saw deeper than that, and did not stop at the physical being when he spoke οf the "greater
reason" contained ίn the body and opposed t0 the lesser reason: that which "does not say Ι, but is Ι," and which uses the "spirit" and even
the senses as "little tools and toys." It is a "powerful lord, an unknown sage that is called oneself (Selbst}," "the guiding thread οf the Ι that suggests all its ideas to it," which "looks with the eyes οf the senses and listens with the ears οf the spirit." He is not speaking here οf the physical but οf "being" in the full ontological significance οf the word. The
term he uses, das Selbst, can also be rendered by "the Self" as opposed
to the Ι (Ich): an opposition that recalls that οf the traditional doctrines already mentioned between the supra-individual principle οf the person and that which they call the "physical Ι"

[Anonymous No.17667727]

>>17667594
>espousing a form of religiosity
What is it?

[Anonymous No.17667731]

>>17667533
Evola's view on Jews is that they are pretty much expected to rule over us with finance since we have abandoned ali higher principles above the coin and that they are a symptom of a disease, non the disease itself.

Neo-Nazi larpers like to call modern degeneration a symptom of Judaism when in face it is infact the other way around from the perspective of Europe proper. The fact that this is always misunderstood is more reason why Fascism and other Plebianized forms of radicalism are always destined to be bottom of the barrel low IQ, low accountability trash that fundamentally neglects itself.

[Anonymous No.17667746]

>>17667491
>>17667527
>>17667534

[Anonymous No.17667751]

>>17667727
Wish I could give it a label, but I can’t. At times he seemed to espouse a sort of twist on Christian Neoplatonism. At other times, he seemed devoutly attached to an idea of an Ancient Roman religion. At other times, he seems to have preached a weird sort of left hand path beyond existence and non-existence Buddhism. He almost certainly was tempted by Islam at one point. It’s just a hodge podge of metaphysical ideas that I’m not sure anyone really believed. It’s not even clear that he believed it as much as his writing might suggest.

[Anonymous No.17667777]

>>17667731
I get your point and it’s a fair one, a culture and people that act like ours deserves to be slaves sure. However there was a culling 80 years ago of Europe’s rational and strong men, and since then the fact the Jewish bakers are dominating the financial system fairly or unfairly of the world is not my gripe, the problem of genociding not just whites but all people to turn them into the goyim is my beef bro. I don’t want to be goyim my g

[Anonymous No.17667784]

>>17667777

checked

[Anonymous No.17667839]

>>17667751
Holy Fuck go actually read him.

He believed in Tradition and the World of Tradition. Which is a timeless notion that helps man remain sovereign over himself and the animals and is the essence of his relationships with God and higher reality. Our understanding of this is so plundered at this point that we have literally become animals bound to the Earth and coarsely materialistic relationships with reality. This has gotten so bad that people have (even back then) the attention span of a goldfish, priorities lower than ants and the perceptibility of worms. The face that people cannot understand anything outside of matter explains why he is willing to enslave and abandon app notions of himself to it with fervor so that it can merely sustain his meangless life and he can die without those many invisibile responsibilities that give Humanity it's Sovereignty and Greatness. This is the purpose of Tradition, and the essence of Manhood, to be the virile impregnating force that gives matter a more dignified possibility.

>>17667777
We haven't been strong for a good thousand Years fren, the renaissance, enlightenment and romanticism are great testaments to our confusion and suffering in secularism and humanism.

[Anonymous No.17667847]

>>17667839
Autocorrect is a bitch

[Anonymous No.17667867]

>>17667551
You haven't even read him, butterfag

[Anonymous No.17667904]

>>17667839
See? This is why I hate discussing this author. You say “holy shit go read this author” but I’m quite certain you’ve only read, what? Maybe 3 or 4 of his books? I’ve read an absolute ton of this guy, and his essays, and his early work, and his letters, and his citations, and a lot of authors that are tangentially related to him. What you’re saying is basically nonsense. Saying he “believed in Tradition” is a vague nothing that doesn’t actually indicate his participating in anything whatsoever. There are many different religions that he could’ve partaken in to participate in this “Tradition” and he participated in none of them. In his own words, he was still searching for a Tradition at 50 years old. You midwits are all so eager to correct everyone about things you have barely scratched the surface level of that you have utterly deluded yourself into believing you understand anything about anything. You can’t even reference where he discusses the left hand path behind existence and non-existence Buddhism in talking about, can you? You can’t tell me how Evola’s ideas about Nietzsche pertained to Carlo Michelstäedter, can you? You can’t tell me what he said about yoga sutras regarding purification of the mind and intellectual intuition in German idealists for the Baptist Theological Society of Rome, can you? I can tell you’re one of these people who came to Evola via /pol/ or politics. You all need to learn how to shut up and realize you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do.

[Anonymous No.17667917]

>>17667904
Holy shit based

[Anonymous No.17667920]

>>17667656
Once the crude physiological interpretation is cleared away, there emerges a valid attitude for the man who must stay standing as a free
being, even in the epoch of dissolution: to assume his own being into a willing, making it his own law, a law as absolute and autonomous as Kant's categorical imperative, but affirmed without regard for received
values, for "good" or "evil," nor for happiness, pleasure, or pain. (Nietzsche too -regarded hedonism and eudaemonism, the abstract,
inorganic search for pleasure and happiness, as symptoms οί weakening and decadence.)
The man ίη question affirms and actualizes his
own being without considering rewards or punishments, either here or in an afterlife, saying: "The way does not exist: this is my will, neither good nor bad, but my WILL."4 in short, Nietzsche hands on the ancient sayings "Be yourself," "Become what you are," as propositions for today, when all superstructure has fragmented.

We shall see that the existentialists take υρ a similar theme, albeit less confidently. Stirner is, however, not to be counted among its antecedents, because in his idea οί the "Unique" there is virtuallynoο opening οί the deepest dimensions οί existence. One has to go back to Μ. Guyau, who equally posed the problem οί a line οί conduct beyond any sanction or duty; he wrote: ''Authoritarian metaphysics and religion are leading-strings for babies: it's time to walk by oneself. ... We should look for revelation in ourselves. Christ is no more: each of us must be Christ for himself, and be joined to God as far as he will or can be, or even deny God." It is as though faith still existed, but "without a heaven waiting for us or
a positive law to guide us," as a simple state. Strength and responsibility must be no less than they were long ago, when they were born from religious faith and from a given point of support, in a different human type and a different climate. Nietzsche's idea is identical.

[Anonymous No.17667935]

Is it wrong to see Evola as a historian?

[Anonymous No.17667954]

>>17667904
to be fair, as someone as well read as you should know, Evola had his own ideology, his "magical idealism." Evola was an expert on Traditionalism but insofar that he was "part" of a tradition, well I mean it's almost a silly question. Evola was a radical traditionlist who didn't believe there were valid traditions for Europeans. He seems to have personally practiced tantric yoga and Buddhism, which is probably the closest he got. His main persona was a sort of radical individual with Traditionalist sensibilities as opposed to modernist sensibilities. Not a sufi guru ala Guenon.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17667983]

>>17667867
https://www.confero.ep.liu.se/issues/2016/v4/i1/160111/confero16v4i1_160111.pdf

[Anonymous No.17667987]

>>17667751
What does he say about Greek and Norse myth?And Roman religion?

[Anonymous No.17668039]

>>17667491
No. I Solved Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17668046]

Guenon was the one clearly more strict on the importance of following an actual orthodox tradition in order to reach proper initiation and states of being as high as one is capable to reach, which is ultimately the purpose. Evola was less strict about the possibility of "self-initiation", ergo I don't exactly see the reprisal about not following a specific tradition in his case.
By his writings on alchemy, which if I'm not mistaken hint at him receiving direct influence from genuine practicing alchemists, that may very well have led him to comprehend at a deeper level the subject/object of the matter without remaining attached to it.
I mean, even if Guenon eventually did get into a proper initiatic path, it's not like he himself didn't "flirt" with various sources, from hindus to gnostics

[Anonymous No.17668073]

>>17667904
kek

[Anonymous No.17668078]

>>17668046
Two points
1. Self-initiation is possible with the right tools
2. I recall a footnote in "hermitic traditions" which stated that it was a priest which taught Evola alchemy. Certain sects of Italian priest during Evola's lifetime would have absolutely known and practiced alchemy.

[Anonymous No.17668300]

>>17667904
Does baby need a wipe wipe awww don’t cry

[Anonymous No.17668326]

>>17667581
One of Nietzsche's big points was that there's no going back. Clinging to a tradition is pissing in the wind when confronted with the Modernity Monster. At best, you stem the tide for a short while, but that's it.

[Anonymous No.17668379]

>>17667954
>Evola had his own ideology, his "magical idealism."
Yeah but according to him, he abandoned this like thinking early on. Also, in his own words he was not a Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.17668413]

>>17667987
He wrote a ton of about the Greco-Roman religion. It’s well-known that he a particular affinity for Rome and the Roman State Religion. It’s hard to distill it town to “what he said” about it in just a reply here, however. As for German myth, I’m sure he commented on particulars here or there, but I can’t think of anything off the top of my head. He wrote an essay about George Dumezil. If the question you mean to ask “was he a Greco/Roman/Germanic/Nordic Pagan?” the answer is, despite his affinities, no, not exactly.

[Anonymous No.17668468]

>>17668046
>Evola was less strict about the possibility of "self-initiation", ergo I don't exactly see the reprisal about not following a specific tradition in his case.
But that’s not true. He didn’t deviate at all in his believing in the importance of participating in a valid, living imitation. His hang up was that he didn’t find the paths Guenon took agreeable. He almost certainly explored Sufism at one point and it’s been asserted he was secretly a Sufi. I don’t think that’s the true but the point is he at least investigated it and was still looking for something well into middle age before he simply resolved to stay in the West and not participate in one. The incredible irony of Evola is this is a man who admired characters like Corneliu Codreanu and Nicholas Roerich, and who’s thinking was developed later by mystical thinkers such as Vladimir Solovyov and yet during his resolution to remain Western he was totally unwilling to even entertain further investigation into the Tradition of Orthodox Christianity and mystical Christian currents beyond what he wrote about in Cristiana e Mistica. I’m not saying he would’ve been satisfied in that regard but he didn’t even explore it and totally failed in that regard out of sheer hubris and stubbornness. Instead he continued to write haphazardly about tantra, hermeticism, esotericism, and the occult to the point that some readers have now (mistakenly) interpreted his writing as an endorsement of left hand path luciferianism, satanism, or neopaganism. I think the criticism is more than due deserved.

[Anonymous No.17668478]

>>17668078
>1. Self-initiation is possible with the right tools
And you’re predicating this idea on...?

[Anonymous No.17668538]

>>17667904
>I can tell you’re one of these people who came to Evola via /pol/ or politics. You all need to learn how to shut up and realize you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do.
Classic fucking pseud comment. This is why this board is shit.

[Anonymous No.17668549]

>>17667491
Depends on who you ask. Evola is required reading though, guy is off the charts based.

[Anonymous No.17668586]

>>17668468
He has a lot in common with Crowley. Complex figure.

[Anonymous No.17668770]

MUTHAPHUGA NO! THIS FUCKING EDGELORD FUCKS UP ON HIS WEEB STUFF, HE SAYS THE KALI YUGA RELATES TO THE GODDESS KALEE WHEN IT REFERS TO THE DEMON KALI WHO WILL BE DEFEATED BY THE END OF SAID IRON AGE...FUCK MAN, YOU GUYS NEED TO READ A BOOK.

For FUCK'S SAKE STOP REFERENCING THIS DICK

[Anonymous No.17668788]

>>17668538
> doesn’t deny it
> can’t comprehend that /pol/ isn’t a worldview or a proper lens for examining literature with norther is politics upstream from a paradigm
> thinks he has the high ground
You should really consider the final bit of advice.

[Anonymous No.17668799]

>>17668586
Eh. He does have a bit in common with Crowley I guess and he spoke positively of Crowley in one of books, but again, that really only reinforces the negative criticism.

[Anonymous No.17668843]

>>17668788
>thinks he's talking to one person
PLEASE take your meds

[Anonymous No.17668946]

>>17668843
It's entirely applicable to you as well if you take exception to anything he said.

[Anonymous No.17669204]

>>17667904
I actually do understand his standings on LHP and RHP because I've actually read him. Your reply was literally just autistic screeching nobody asked for. And "believe in Tradition" is what he actively calls it throughout all his works. None of my post was incorrect spare the autocorrect issues.

[Anonymous No.17669512]

I expected this thread to be way worse desu,I am pleasantly surprised
>>17667839
Basado

[Anonymous No.17669535]

>>17667533
again with this fucking meme gtfo

[Anonymous No.17669553]

>>17668549
What do you think of Bowden's lecture on him? Is it accurate?

I haven't read Evola yet.

[Anonymous No.17669636]

>>17667551
>unironically believes Nietzsche advocated anarchism
Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.17669650]

Nope.

[Anonymous No.17669652]

>>17667491
"Traditionalism" exists only in the imaginations of a group of 4channers and twitter accounts promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever: reactionism spiced with larping and morsels of racism. I don't believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using twitter to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable disaffected young men. I agree with Deleuze's remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a "movement" whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity.

[Anonymous No.17669657]

Marcilio Ficino & Goethe solved nihilism. The traditionalists are roleplaying

[Anonymous No.17669670]

>>17669652
This
Every Evola thread is the same as the one before it. Just “trad” pseuds who have /d/ porn one tab over. Banning these threads would be a massive improvement.

[Anonymous No.17669691]

>>17669553
Not really. Bowden's ok (he doesn't get anything massively wrong) but I wouldn't take his word for anything. Read him yourself, same goes for Nietzsche.

Also, stay the hell out of these threads. They are a cesspit of people screaming about who understood who with virtually no substance to anything being said. I doubt 90% of people in these threads have read more than one or two books from either author. Make up your own mind.

[Anonymous No.17669733]

>>17669691
>Also, stay the hell out of these threads. They are a cesspit of people screaming about who understood who with virtually no substance to anything being said. I doubt 90% of people in these threads have read more than one or two books from either author. Make up your own mind.


le cope

[Anonymous No.17669739]

>>17669652
>inb4 this gets 100 you's
This copypasta unironically mocks most people who critique evola

>>17669691
>>17669670
>he fell for it
Go back

[Anonymous No.17669753]

>>17669739
>h-he feel for the c-copypasta!
I don’t care if it’s a copypasta, it’s still correct.

[Anonymous No.17669837]

>>17669753
No he didn't, it describes like, two people globally.

[Anonymous No.17669850]

>>17667751
>Wish I could give it a label
I'm sure you do wish that, but if you had a small amount of reading comprehension you would've noticed Evola was explicitly against exoteric universalism and the "labelling" that comes along with it.

[Anonymous No.17669922]

>>17669753
Holy shit I'm not even a Evola worshipper but you are pathetic
He is wrong
Check this >>17667839

Oh and also I'm never going to take someone who doesn't understand western esotericism,jewish mysticism,hermeticism,platonism and neo-platonism/gnosticism,''hinduism'',occultism,european mithology and religion in general seriously when he talks about Evola,you absolute fucking hylics.

Considering you seem to enjoy a copypasta that uses the word ''reactionism'' I also want to remind you leftists can't possibly revolt,the technological utopia you envision will never happen either.
Authors like Ted K(as an introduction) and Jacques Ellul(harder and more detailed) come to mind.

Even at the time Ellul wrote his text,he noted that Technique had already become independent of the machine,for Technique had transcended the limits of (economic) production to encompass all activities.
Blaming Capitalism is therefore not at all sufficient,since the Machine encompasses far more than capitalism does.Technique causes everything to have to be considered in terms of the Machine.Progress is far broader than Capitalism because even its supposed antithesis Communism still fits withing this same expectation that the only ''truths'' about human society is the technical operation to make it function more efficiently as a giant social machine.
In a perverse re-deffinition of the term,growth was once instinctive but is now rational (economic growth,technical progress,social progress etc..)
Both Capitalism and Communism accept this re-deffinition and only disagree over which method will yield a better result from a strictly technical level.
Bonus points if anyone knows where I copied this from,I'm tired kek

Leftists/progressives can't ''win'',they will lead humanity into a nightmare if they continue to rule.
I'm also not an an-prim monke larper despite enjoying an-prim lit,anarchism can't work.

[Anonymous No.17669933]

>>17669922
Evola does not understand any of those either. He already got filtered by entry level philosophy like Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17669935]

>>17669922
Technique causes everything to have to be considered in terms of the Machine.Progress is far broader than Capitalism because even its supposed antithesis Communism still fits withing this same expectation that the only ''truths'' about human society is the technical operation to make it function more efficiently as a giant social machine.
Literally nothing wrong with it. Seems like a good way forward.

[Anonymous No.17669937]

>>17667904
lol you got BTFO

[Anonymous No.17669966]

>be Evola in Wien during late WWII
>fate will never let me die! I am too important!
>let's put it to test
>take a walk in the streets during a fucking air bombing
>near explosion shockwave snaps his spine
>bound to wheelchair the rest of his life
>can't even tell when shits himself

lmao philosophers are so dumb

[Anonymous No.17670026]

>>17669966
Whoever wrote that post in pic related is just as equally gay, however

[Anonymous No.17670150]

>>17669935
Weak bait anon
>literally nothing wrong with it
Spelling mistakes
Btfo
>>17669933
Nietzche is worth reading despite being a retard.
Go debate being vs becoming somewhere else.
I'm not a Evola worshipper,particularly because I feel like I have a better understanding of a few specific things than he does.
But Evola is very much worth the time to understand anon,despite the meme status.

And yeah I am assuming these 2 replies are the same guy.
>>17669922
In addition,the whole idea that the communist system will ''serve the people'' is EQUALLY as delusional as believing a democratic system will ''serve the people''.

[Anonymous No.17670211]

>>17670150
People on all sides misunderstand Evola. Kinda strange hes so controversial. Truly one of those only chosen few kinda guys.

[Anonymous No.17670218]

>>17670150
I never said they weren't worth reading but Evola has not said anything profound that could even tear the fabric of what Nietzshce proposes, and while Nietzsche's diagnosis is right his solution is very obviously wrong

[Anonymous No.17670245]

>>17669966
>saving pol screencaps
Imagine being this much of an npc lol

[Anonymous No.17670258]

>>17669966
>D&G, notorious for being anti-fascism, were totally on our side guys!!
/pol/ is so pathetic

[Anonymous No.17670410]

>>17669850
Fuck off retard. I wish I could give it a label because it’s useful for communication here and no other reason. You people are such faggots honestly. You make discussion impossible.

[Anonymous No.17670421]

>>17669204
No, you don’t. The thread is about Nietzsche and I challenged you to explain what he thought about Nietzsche and Michelstäedter in relation. This is easily tied to his ideas about LHP but you can’t do it because you don’t know what you’re talking about nearly as much as you think you do. I’ll say it again because it’s worth saying, you all need to learn to stop trying to be lecturers and start being students.
There’s a Guenon quote about people who think they know everything. I’ll leave it to you to find it.

[Anonymous No.17670426]

>>17669937
> no rebuttal
> no critique
> just hurr durr dude you got owned
You mental midgets are a nightmare to sift through honestly. You render discussion totally impossible.

[Anonymous No.17670441]

>>17670410
>and no other reason
Anyone can see through you.

[Anonymous No.17670456]

>>17670441
Honestly, fuck off dude. I come into threads about this author because I’ve read an absolute ton of his work and about his life. I think he’s a valuable author. But it’s always the same, isn’t it? Former and current /pol/ posters find Evola, read some of his books, cannot escape thinking through a shallow and explicitly political lens, are so hubristic that they think they actually fully understand his thinking, come to /lit/ and assert their half-truths, get called out for approaching through the wrong lens, get triggered and claim only pseuds point that out, and no one can ever get anywhere or learn anything about the author. If you dare to infringe on their immediate interpretation, they make any discussion totally impossible so that the only discussion that can be had is the wrong one. If it’s not the people who can’t get off their fash filter than it’s the wanna be 1-uppers who just want to argue semantics about terminology. Case in point. It’s like living Groundhog Day on /lit/ over and over. I’m done trying to talk about this guy with people who don’t have eyes to see or ears to listen. I’m done trying to talk about this guy with you clowns. You and he will be forever resigned to irrelevant obscurity.

[Anonymous No.17670488]

>>17670456
All I said was that you were stupidly trying to pin a meaningless label on him, one which even already exists - it's called perennialism. And you even went on to absurdly claim that he didn't "believe" in any of the doctrines he wrote about, when it was never a matter of belief with him to begin with - this immediately gave away your intentions and the perspective you were approaching him from. I made no assertions about any of his writing or thought apart from the fact that he never claimed to rigidly adhere to any exoteric beliefs, which is something he explicitly wrote about many times over. The rule of thumb for me whenever Evola or similar authors are brought up is to never engage in discussion with someone clearly arguing in bad faith, which it appeared you were eager to do from the start. I'll admit, I don't know Michaelstaedter's exact influences on Evola, mainly because I'm not really interested in Michaelstaedter himself, I only know a few details about him from some footnotes, yet I don't see how this would necessarily render someone's knowledge of Evola or Nietzsche flawed. If you want to discuss Michaelstaedter's influence right now, then I'll gladly read, but otherwise I am not particularly interested.

[Anonymous No.17670518]

>>17668478
my own self-initiation.

[Anonymous No.17670530]

>>17670518
So I’ll take that to mean that either you think you’ve been delivered divine relegation and are literally a prophet posting on /lit/ or else you are just making shit up that no one anywhere endorses.

[Anonymous No.17670534]

>>17668468
Evola hated the morality of the beatitudes and also hated Augustinian sexual attitudes. It's not surprising he didn't find solace in Christianity. Do you have answer to someone who rejects those aspects of Christianity?

[Anonymous No.17670542]

>>17670530
I'm not a prophet, I just started practicing a well-known form of mysticism several years ago and had unique experiences is all.

[Anonymous No.17670614]

>>17670534
No, I don’t but that’s not to say there aren’t any. Speaking personally, this is something I take issue with him on but the purpose of my comment is so much to say “this is the answer” as much as it is to point out the unwillingness to investigate it at all. I’m just trying to say it seems like he set himself up for inevitable failure from the beginning precisely because he had this set of suppositions which didn’t allow him to even investigate. That’s a failure in my book.

[Anonymous No.17670615]

>>17670614
Isn’t so much*

[Anonymous No.17670643]

>>17670534
An admittedly to simple but obvious possible answer is that the Orthodox faith doesn’t grant so much primacy to the gospel as does the Catholic or Protestant denominations. It’s pretty obvious that what he rejects is the talk of meekness and mercy but therein lies the problem, I think. He’s too blinded by the distaste for modern life and the Christianity he knew, which created a race to moral purity and pacifism. The problem is two fold the . For one, it assumes uniform interpretation across the Christian faith. Prima scriptura and sola scriptura are Catholic and Protestant things. For another, it presupposes his own moral compass above that of the faith and I don’t think that’s a good way to investigate. In fact, it’s not an investigation at all. So there’s multiple problems there. I mean, he might say he rejects the beatitudes but does he actually investigate them in the context of the Holy Tradition anywhere? I’m almost certain he doesn’t. As for the Augustinian sexual attitudes, I don’t think I know enough there to speculate or offer a comment but I think you see what I’m trying to say here.

[Anonymous No.17670685]

>>17670643
>For another, it presupposes his own moral compass above that of the faith and I don’t think that’s a good way to investigate
What do you mean 'his moral compass'? Evola's philosophy partly rested upon the idea that morality was subjective, which he wrote about particularly when discussing Buddhism and Olympian spirituality. This wasn't his "compass", but his philosophical position from the start, which lined up more with Nietzsche. This is the single reason he was not amenable to scripture or moral revelation, which is universal much like Kant's categorical imperative, which he also despised for the same reason, even though it didn't originate from scripture or faith (which would refute your idea that it was merely Evola's reaction to Christianity). What this means is Evola's rejection of universal imperatives was not just a tendency of his personality, but a crucial part of his thought.

[Anonymous No.17670688]

>>17669966
>fate will never let me die!
>he literally survives a walk in the street during a fucking air bombing
I mean, that proves him right if anything

[Anonymous No.17670709]

>>17670685
>Evola's philosophy partly rested upon the idea that morality was subjective, which he wrote about particularly when discussing Buddhism and Olympian spirituality. This wasn't his "compass", but his philosophical position from the start, which lined up more with Nietzsche.
Right but it’s pre-supposed is my point. He took Nietzsche a priori and never deviated from that. So he’s constantly measuring Christian scripture against a subjective morality, which as far as I know, he never really investigated let alone justified. Here too there’s another mistake in thinking that it’s satisfactory to investigate scripture in the context of scripture alone. Again, only Catholics and Protestants believe in prima scriptura or sola scriptura respectively. It may have been a crucial part of this thought but I still don’t see it as rigorous or necessarily as justified. I especially don’t see it as nuanced considering he wrote particularly about Protestantism and Catholicism but afaik never touched Orthodoxy at all.

[Anonymous No.17670731]

Evola was the original "conservatism is the new punk rock" type. He tried to appropriate Nietzsche into his boring traditionalist philosophy to make it seem edgier than it really is.

[Anonymous No.17670771]

>>17667491
No, that would be Bataille

[Anonymous No.17670776]

>>17670731
>conservatism is the new punk rock
nobody has ever thought this, reactionism is not conservatism

[Anonymous No.17670789]

>>17670731
>be a man of action and dominate those who are weaker than you without hesitation. The boring world of man as consuming animal is wrong: There is a great eschatological battle against your soul and we are the last men standing in this war. You are a true prince over slaves.

>nah man, Evola was just a bourgeois racist liberal who's philosophy amounted to "do as your grandpa did."

[Anonymous No.17670791]

>>17670776
nice semantics juggling

[Anonymous No.17670809]

>>17670789
>nah man, Evola was just a bourgeois racist liberal who's philosophy amounted to "do as your grandpa did."
The core philosophy of traditionalism is pretty much this. The parts you added to make him look sexy is Nietzsche style amoralism. Disregard moral norms, try to dominate those whoa are weaker than you etc. As a result his philosophy combines all that is rotten about traditionalism without any of the positives, like the focus on moral and intellectual virtues. Tryhard scribblings for pretentious edgelords.

[Anonymous No.17670813]

>>17670809
You’re not even close as much as you think you are. It’s actually the almost completely opposite implication for any Westerner.

[Anonymous No.17670844]

>>17670709
>he never really investigated let alone justified
What do you mean? Morality has never justified itself, there is no onus on him to invent a moral system unless he makes (universal) moral claims or assertions, which I don't believe he ever did.
>Again, only Catholics and Protestants believe in prima scriptura or sola scriptura respectively.
I'm guessing Orthodox Christianity has similar doctrines even if it doesn't solely rely on scripture (if you can elaborate on the Orthodox view of morality, I would be interested. I assumed it was largely the same as Catholicism). Large parts of Evola's philosophy hinge on the Nietzschean (reassembled into Evola's system) conception of moral subjectivity, so you can easily see why he steered clear from Christianity. I think he would even agree with you that this view of moral universality was related to his personal characteristics, but his response would be, "indeed it is, because that is my nature." What has to be said lastly is that he's not "measuring Christian scripture against subjectivity", he is actually measuring it against his own spiritual type, or at least the spiritual type of the Olympian (which, according to him, includes Gautama) who never relied upon universal moral systems like Christianity. If I could be bothered gathering up actual references at the moment, I'd show you the line where he actually endorses pseudo-universal moral systems, but only for "the masses", which would be technically compatible with Christianity.

It's a nuanced issue, because Evola was not totally hostile to Christianity which you might have noticed if you've read most of his work. He endorsed returns to Catholicism, for instance, under certain conditions (virile, as opposed to escapist returns to keep it short). His tendency not to investigate Christianity more rigorously is obvious, it is his personal inclination. He did spend time with Christian monks in their camps, which he wrote about in his autobiography, but he was never impressed with their practices because, for one, he considered it too scholarly. So it's not like he never gave them a chance. It's also possible he never investigated Orthodoxy to any great extent because he simply didn't know any Orthodox languages - I'm not sure, but in the end I don't consider it a very relevant topic in relation to him.

[Anonymous No.17670996]

>>17670844
You misunderstand what I’m saying. There’s a set of logical and metaphysical pre-suppositions that are innate in the assumption that “morality is subjective”. As far as I know, Evola never even bothered to really investigate or justify this. He also didn’t bother to investigate if Nietzsche was wrong or explain why he wasn’t wrong. It seems to me Nietzsche is simply taken as the starting point as a given. It’s not a call to invent a moral system. It’s a call to at least investigate the basis of beliefs regarding morality, even subjective morality. Is it really subjective? Evola never asks the question. There’s also something wrong about starting from the basis of morality but I won’t go there.

Orthodoxy does value the beatitudes and scripture at large but where Orthodoxy departs from both Catholicism regarding scripture is that it’s viewed as part of the Holy Tradition. It’s not given primacy over the Church, the councils, the sacraments, the ordained emperor, etc. Catholicism grants primacy to scripture and Protestants believe in “by scripture alone”. So when assessing Orthodoxy as it relates to scripture one has to consider the whole body of Holy Tradition teachings. Here you also see a race to moral perfection in the West via Catholicism and Protestantism yet in the East it’s always been maintained that the goal is theosis. That sure sounds like it might be in line with Traditional thinking to me. It some of us will never know. Now to be clear, I am not an Orthodox, just an interested reader. I’m not claiming that Orthodoxy provided satisfactory answers definitively. I’m just pointing out that to me it really seems like Evola was really not as nuanced or rigorous as he should’ve been. Regarding the point about measuring against his nature or spiritual type, again, here to there’s a whole host of presuppositions are simply taken as fact and the result is that morality becomes the starting point. Where does he actually show that his spiritual type is at all a good measure. His hostility to Christianity isn’t really important to me. What’s important to me is whether his project can be said to be complete or not and I sincerely don’t think it can be. You know? The fact that this guy commented so much on the spiritual disintegration of the West, investigated Eastern methods, resolved to return to the West and stand resolute, but never actually bothered to even consider the Orthodox form of Christianity, represents a colossal failure to me, as valuable as I’ve found his writing otherwise. It’s hyper relevant in my view and there isn’t really an excuse for why if you ask me. Like I said, we know he admired Eastern characters and he was certainly aware of some things happening at that time. We’re just supposed to accept his personal inclination as valid in a vacuum and I’m sorry but that’s just not satisfactory to me and I’m sure other readers also.

[Anonymous No.17671005]

>>17670844
>>17670996
Just to add another point, how much did Evola comment on the war between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines to illustrate an example of papal primacy fighting for power over the god ordained emperor. The irony here is that the Orthodox view would imply Evola’s whole argument. It seems strange that he’s willing to dig up this event from the annals of history and historicize a la Nietzsche but won’t do it with the East-West schism.

[Anonymous No.17671188]

>>17670844
>He endorsed returns to Catholicism, for instance, under certain conditions (virile, as opposed to escapist returns to keep it short)
to paraphrase another interesting point of his in this vein is that he pretty much said mainstream Christianity is a better alternative to being a basedboy bugman or being an aimless nihilistic materialist. It should be obvious as to how someone who followed sincerely followed catechism would be superior to someone who was totally lacking spirituality. Still, for aristocrats of the soul such mainstream Christianity seems more as a stepping stone to deeper experience than a finish line.

[Anonymous No.17671263]

>>17671188
>Still, for aristocrats of the soul such mainstream Christianity seems more as a stepping stone to deeper experience than a finish line.
Why?

[Anonymous No.17671283]

>>17671263
Not who you're replying to but as to why they are saying christianity is a stepping stone and not a decent end result is likely because they are both an american and lack the intelligence to comprehend theology

[Anonymous No.17671296]

>>17671263
imo there's a number of reasons I feel this way, the greatest of which is personal, but from an intellectual standpoint I'd say the most pressing is that Christianity doesn't have answers to the problem poised by Hinduism i.e. why exactly is the revelation to Moses more authentic than the revelation to Arjuna. It's easy for Christianity to dismiss Judaism and Islam as heresy, and to dismiss Buddhism as being a sort of inverted Christianity where annihilation is sought over individuation. But for Hinduism, Christianity doesn't really have a justification of supremacy .

[Anonymous No.17671316]

>>17671283
Do you think people not raised Catholic/Orthodox have trouble apprehending some of Evola? I’m the guy who is asking the long questions above. I’m an American but was raised strict Roman Catholic and this is something I’ve suspected. Just curious why you made the American comment.

>>17671296
I’m not sure I agree but I’m not looking for a debate here, just a curious observer. That’s a better answer than what I was expecting I suppose. That said, none of these people that have been mentioned were Hindus.

[Anonymous No.17671317]

>>17671188
>>17671263
Evola's reason for taking a similar stance was that he considered Christianity to have categorized initiatic experience as demonic or heretical.

[Anonymous No.17671321]

>>17671296
>>17671316
Sorry. None of these people mentioned were Hindus so I don’t see why these “spiritual aristocrats” would be Hindus and thus, I don’t see why it would be a sticking point.

[Anonymous No.17671327]

>>17671317
Where does he say this? Christianity seems to me to have a pretty clear method of initiation. That doesn’t sound right.

[Anonymous No.17671351]

>>17671327
Introduction to Magic vol. I, page 261
>On a lower plane, the most typical instance of this animus is found in Christianity. Christianity has the character of one of the most unilateral priestly traditions that have ever developed, to the point of becoming a mere religion devoid of every esoteric dimension. Thus the attitude of Christianity against everything that resembles "magic" has always been symptomatic; Christianity did not hesitate to associate with "magic" and "diabolical arts" everything that, in general, pertains to the world of initiation.

Ride the Tiger, page 195
>So we can see that the sexual taboo was given a greater emphasis than life itself, and many more examples of this could easily be provided. But when, with a regime of interdictions and anathemas, one is so preoccupied with sexual matters, it is evident that one depends on them, no less than if one made a crude exhibition of them. On the whole, this is the case in Christianized Europe—and all the more so since positive religion lacks both the contemplative potential and the orientation toward transcendence, high asceticism, and true sacrality.

[Anonymous No.17671370]

>>17670258
Just read through that image and he clearly didn't say that, are you illiterate?

[Anonymous No.17671374]

>>17671351
>Introduction to Magic vol. I, page 261
Again, I think is more a critique of the Catholic and Protestant church specifically than Christianity at large and doesn’t really deal with the topic of initiation.

> Ride the Tiger, page 195
I think the same applies here. He doesn’t mention initiation at all here. And again, this whole moral purity thing is a Western phenomenon. I don’t want to sound like I’m crusading for the Orthodox Church because I’m not but I know enough to know that the Orthodox Church doesn’t have the same views of sex that the West had. I probably sound like a broke record at this point but I’m just really unsatisfied but his unwillingness to dive into Orthodoxy.

Back to the point I guess, I don’t really see how either of these pertain to initiation.

[Anonymous No.17671382]

>>17671316
Americans have a handicaps both spiritually and intellectually.
We can see this in its totality with the cringefest that is the american protestant.
However there is more similarities within the US then outside of it
An American catholic is similar to an American protestant then they are to a European

[Anonymous No.17671432]

>>17671317
that's not exactly it afaik. Evola thought Christianity was a wayward initiation turned religion. An eclectic conglomeration of various spiritualities and cultures which never really found itself and developed a unified esoteric doctrine in the way the jews developed kabbahlah and the muslims developed sufism. Christianity ,in his view, was largely contingent on it's historical circumstances. The good, the bad, and the ugly. As far as "demonic" is concerned Evola actually liked the fact that Christianity forbid the occult because it protected people. Evola wasn't a witches and warlocks sort of figure.
>>17671321
I'm not referring to Evola himself, moreso people who apply Evola's philosophy to their lives in the present. If we accept that god is dead on the grounds that there are too many valid narratives presented to us to take Christianity's claims for granted, Eventually you find enough contradictions within Christainity which can only be excused through blind faith. This is fine in itself, but eventually it gets the point where you're a heretic anyway if you have to deny Christian dogmas again and again and again.

[Anonymous No.17671503]

>>17671382
I agree and disagree. Where I disagree is the idea that Europeans are somehow distinct or “above all that” is totally fantasy if you ask me. If anything it’s that type of hubris, which Europeans are uniquely susceptible to.

>>17671432
>Eventually you find enough contradictions within Christainity which can only be excused through blind faith. This is fine in itself, but eventually it gets the point where you're a heretic anyway if you have to deny Christian dogmas again and again and again.
Is that even true? Again, I think these are just blanket statements which are usually unjustified or the extent that they are justified they are based on particular instantiations. How can you make a blanket truth claim about something while totally ignoring a large segment of it? You can’t.

[Anonymous No.17671515]

>>17671374
>>17671374
>I think is more a critique of the Catholic and Protestant church
This is in the context of an Anon's previous comment about "mainstream" Christianity in particular. Evola never discusses Orthodoxy in any detail as far as I'm aware and I think that's something that's become quite apparent over time as a bit of an oversight on his part as people increasingly look to it as an alternative. He does seem to have had a lot of respect for Mount Athos and so on.
>He doesn’t mention initiation at all here.
Surely the correct orientation of the religion is a prerequisite for a genuine initiatic strain within it? He makes a distinction between initiation per se and mystical experience which I think is relevant here:
>In particular, an important factor has been the mutilated character of Christianity when compared to the majority of other traditional forms; mutilated, because it does not possess an “esotericism,” an inner teaching of a metaphysical character beyond the truths and dogmas of the faith offered to the common people. The extensions represented by sporadic experiences that are simply “mystical” and little understood cannot make up for this essential lack in Christianity as a whole. This is why the work of demolition was so easy with the rise of so-called free thought, whereas in a different, complete tradition the presence of a body of teachings above the simply religious level would probably have prevented it.
So you might have very noble individuals and experiences, but do you have an orderly chain of initiation being passed down as a lineage? Possibly not, if the 'active' character of these things is disprivileged.

[Anonymous No.17671554]

>>17671432
>Evola wasn't a witches and warlocks sort of figure.
I think his issue was that he didn't believe Christianity made any distinction between the subpersonal and superpersonal versions of these things, so somebody like Meister Eckhart ends up being treated the same as village witch. It's like his criticism of psychoanalysis in that regard, a failure to correctly assign things to their place in a hierarchy of experience.

[Anonymous No.17671578]

>>17671515
I don’t think there’s much debate that the Catholic Church at least has a method of initiation. Whether or not it’s valid or complete is another question but it’s there via the sacraments if nothing else. If we narrowed his critique to Western Christianity then sure, I think I’m in agreement with what he said.

[Anonymous No.17671597]

>>17667551
You're one of those morons that somehow thinks that Nietzsche wants us to all live in anarchist communes. This is above your level.

[Anonymous No.17671613]

>>17667581
So bury your head in the sands of Tradition? I guess that's a "solution" of a sort.

[Anonymous No.17671671]

>>17670421
>let me keep freaking out about things that were never part of the conversation

[Anonymous No.17671728]

>>17671671
It’s extremely relevant actually.

For those interested, I’ll take a picture of the essay in English once I get home and post it here.

[Anonymous No.17671737]

>>17671728
Heres my Essay bro

[Anonymous No.17671790]

>>17667491
>A hindu fascist who tought he tought casting anal spells who improve your metaphysical transcendence finished an atheist who denied metaphysics altogether

Bravo anon

[Anonymous No.17671801]

>>17671503
>I agree and disagree. Where I disagree is the idea that Europeans are somehow distinct or “above all that” is totally fantasy if you ask me. If anything it’s that type of hubris, which Europeans are uniquely susceptible to.
reality proves otherwise

[Anonymous No.17671894]

>>17671613
Nietzsche buried his head in nihilism. Tradition is lifting your head out of the sand.

[Anonymous No.17672313]

>>17671801
Only if you lack any awareness or experience

[Anonymous No.17672340]

>>17667751
>He almost certainly was tempted by Islam at one point
Didn't he die a Sufi? That's more than "tempted". Once you go down the Universal Tradition rabbit hole you can't escape the draw of Islam

[Anonymous No.17672369]

>>17672340
>Didn't he die a Sufi?
It’s been alleged but there’s no actual evidence that I know of and I don’t believe he ever actually became a Sufi. As for Islam broadly, I disagree completely.

[Anonymous No.17672390]

>>17671894
NEETCH ISN'T A NIHILIST YOU FUCKING IDIOT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.17672811]

>>17669739
>This copypasta unironically mocks most people who critique evola
no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.17673173]

>>17667581
You haven't read Evola

The Tradition Evola refers to isn't a bunch of dogmatic laws, it's an entirely different ontology of being that even Nietzsche couldn't wrap his head around it if he tried. By it's very nature, few can understand it in it's Absoluteness. And by the nature of the modern world being secular and animalistic, it's something that is on an entirely different plane of existence from the perception of most.

Hint:
>Sky Father(Solar Tradition) - Earth Mother(Cthonic Material Sustenance)

[Anonymous No.17673184]

>>17673173
> Nietzsche couldn’t even wrap his head around it
> I digested it immediately after reading Men Among the Ruins though

[Anonymous No.17673259]

>>17673173
>Nietzsche
>metaphysics

You do realize those 2 don't go together right?

[Anonymous No.17673310]

>>17670245
>>17670258
That isn't a screencap from /pol/, that's a blue board

[Anonymous No.17673443]

>>17673310
Hmm, what about this?

[Anonymous No.17673528]

>>17667904
I can tell you're a faggot IRL

[Anonymous No.17673570]

>>17673528
> gets called out and feels need to reply
> nuh uh ur gay
Pathetic

[Anonymous No.17673991]

I started translating Evola's Theory of the absolute individual to English. Don't hold your breath.

[Anonymous No.17674013]

>>17673570
Just the way you write. You do sound like a faggot

[Anonymous No.17674335]

>>17673991
Thank you, I'm looking forward to it (if you're serious). I've been curious as to what his pre-rejection-of-Western-philosophy philosophy looked like.

[Anonymous No.17674345]

>>17674013
And you sound like a triggered /pol/ poster so here we are.

[Anonymous No.17674352]

>>17673991
It already exists in English.

>>17671728
> pic

[Anonymous No.17674359]

>>17674352

[Anonymous No.17674367]

>>17674359

[Anonymous No.17674373]

>>17674367

[Anonymous No.17674383]

>>17674352
Are these pictures from Absolute Individual?

[Anonymous No.17674398]

>>17667527
In what way did any of those achieve that? Did they refute his atheism? Did they complete metapsychics?

[Anonymous No.17674405]

>>17674383
No. Sorry. This is his essay on Carlo Michelstäedter from Magical Idealism.

[Anonymous No.17674467]

>>17673259
Nietzche was a metaphysican. He hated metaphysics but still practiced it throughout his work and his life.

[Anonymous No.17674484]

>>17667731
>It's your own fault, goy!

[Anonymous No.17674493]

>>17674484
>stop Jewing yourself! stop Jewing yourself!

[Anonymous No.17674512]

>>17674352
>It already exists in English.
Who published it?
>>17674405
>Magical Idealism.
Same question for this one

[Anonymous No.17674547]

>>17674512
Sorry. I mean, that it was Magical Idealism which already exists in English.

I actually don’t remember. I have it printed and bound. It says the translator is a Cologero Salvo and it’s a compilation of essays from The Individual and the Becoming of the World.

[Anonymous No.17674603]

>>17674547
No worries, thank you. Salvo is the person who also translated Pagan Imperialism and runs a website with (among other things) Evola translations.
I hope all of his early books are translated and published eventually.

[Anonymous No.17674617]

>>17667491
No

[Anonymous No.17674619]

17674617
>No

[Anonymous No.17674824]

>>17674467
There is no metaphysics to derive from Nietzsche so he couldn't have possibly been a metaphysician.

[Anonymous No.17674900]

>>17674824
>Will-to-Power

[Anonymous No.17674916]

>>17671894
I don't think you are using 'nihilism' correctly in this context.

[Anonymous No.17674938]

>>17674900
Not posited as metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.17675232]

>>17670688
lol this honestly, didn't he do it a couple times as well? Based if anything.

[Anonymous No.17675253]

>>17670150
This post doesn't have enough replies. I'm hesitant to contribute to the thread because I've only read 2 books by Evola, but I'm enjoying lurking. I like the effortposts so I wanted to throw a (you) your way.

[Anonymous No.17675405]

>>17667552
>he didn't hate them based on their race/religion, he just hated them because their race/religion embodies certain vile characteristics

lol

[Anonymous No.17676188]

>>17671801
typical hubris-tic euro response honestly

[Anonymous No.17676329]

>>17674398
>Nietzsche
>metaphysics

[Anonymous No.17676345]

>>17667551
youll still never be a women

[Anonymous No.17676382]

>>17667491
No that was Marinetti.

[Anonymous No.17676393]

I find myself in the same state of quantum spirituality that Evola was probably at. Pure atheism seems completely untenable, but at the same time I feel no need to attach myself to a spiritual path or religion, nor does one give me enough to come to it's side. Where the hell do you go from here? I guess the only thing to do is go balls deep into ascetic "world overcoming" practices and transcendental states and see if something can be discovered first hand. That or wait for the god emperor.

[Anonymous No.17676748]

>>17669922
copied bit sounds like something Nick Land would say, did I miss?

[Anonymous No.17676988]

Inked ravens of despair claw holes in the ass of the worlds mind

[Anonymous No.17677228]

>>17671515
I have to ask, as a Muslim, why are you so eager to simp for Evola? My religion is definitely more warrior than priestly but it is extremely harsh in magic and if Evola doesn't like that then who cares? He's an unbeliever, I look to prophets and their righteous followers. There is no "critique" here by him, just a complaint that magic is not tolerates which is not a "critique" anymore than those who complain homosexuality isn't tolerated. Yes, magic is satanic, and so is Evola for shilling it

[Anonymous No.17677304]

>>17667491
OOH moooonkeys got PERSUADED by that catchy RYDE THE TYGER,
exactly. exactly. that's the cues for the circus monkeys.
aghast by mUH LATE-STAGE MODERNITY
WOE WOE WOE wow wowie ouchie (Mommy?).

Cant u dumbass see, that the tiger is the one that's free?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6dxMD3qZkI

[Anonymous No.17677371]

>>17677304

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

When the stars threw down their spears
And water'd heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

[Anonymous No.17677386]

>>17674467
Holy fuck you're retarded

[Anonymous No.17677420]

>>17669739
>>17669922
>>17670150
Who is the artist?

[Anonymous No.17677426]

>>17677228
I think you've missed my response about how Evola is employing the term 'magic'. There are methods which make use of inferior, sublunary forces, usually for materialistic ends - typical views of witchcraft for example - and there are methods which aim at ascent towards that which is superior. Evola is very carful to differentiate between them:
>Even during the Middle Ages, the term "magic" did not have the restrictive sense I have mentioned. If anything, this term could be applied to what, at the time, was called "natural magic," in contrast to which Agrippa—to cite him alone—conceived a heavenly magic and a divine magic as disciplines that had very different goals and dignities.
>All this shows that it is permissable to use the term "magic" without confusing it with the empirical practice of psychic powers, referring high magic instead to a particular way of understanding the same initiatic science.
None of which, of course, requires the rejection of, or subversion of, traditional religion. There's an entire tradition of Hermeticism in the Islamic world following this kind of thinking, with 'natural magic' being a subset of divine law rather than a replacement for it. His issue with Christianity was that it fails to make this distinction. One can disagree with that, but it's important to understand he was defending initatic practice within a traditional framework, not making a case for spiritualism or occultism per se.
>My religion is definitely more warrior than priestly
Evola saw warrior culture as requiring a level of detachment which was already in line 'magic' as he conceptualized it because both require a separation from the conventional notion of the self. Compare Evola on jihad:
>In the Islamic tradition a distinction is made between two holy wars, the “greater holy war” (el-jihadul-akbar) and the “lesser holy war” (el-jihadul-ashgatj. This distinction originated from a saying (hadith) of the Prophet, who on the way back from a military expedition said: “You have returned from a lesser holy war to the greater holy war.” The greater holy war is of an inner and spiritual nature [...]
>The "enemy" who resists us and the "infidel" within ourselves must be subdued and put in chains. This enemy is the animalistic yearning and instinct, the disorganized multiplicity of impulses, the limitations imposed on us by a fictitious self [...]
and Evola on magic:
>The "Whore" in several alchemical and Gnostic texts symbolizes the humid principle, above all in its expression of yearning, passivity, and openness to receive indifferently any form. Once this is assumed and acted upon by the initiatic fiery principle, it becomes transformed and fixed, giving rise to the nature of the regenerated ones.

[Anonymous No.17677445]

>>17677426
>>In the Islamic tradition a distinction is made between two holy wars, the “greater holy war” (el-jihadul-akbar) and the “lesser holy war” (el-jihadul-ashgatj. This distinction originated from a saying (hadith) of the Prophet, who on the way back from a military expedition said: “You have returned from a lesser holy war to the greater holy war.” The greater holy war is of an inner and spiritual nature [...]
>>The "enemy" who resists us and the "infidel" within ourselves must be subdued and put in chains. This enemy is the animalistic yearning and instinct, the disorganized multiplicity of impulses, the limitations imposed on us by a fictitious self
A lot of exegesis for a Hadith that is considered weak and at odds with the other hundreds of Hadiths on jihad

As for using "magic" to mean mysticism, or esotericism (mysticism comes in conceot from pagan mysteries, esoteric initiation), it's newspeak. Magic etymologically comes from magianism and specifically the learned in fortune telling and so on, as a religious prohibition it is precisely and specifically, in both Christianity and Islam, disliked because it is about involvement in the supernatural not specifically related to Allah, which means it is related to other supernatural forces, namely demons

[Anonymous No.17677461]

>>17677228
https://www.loc.gov/item/18004673/

[Anonymous No.17677479]

>>17677445
monotheism was a mistake

[Anonymous No.17677498]

>>17677461
The guy isn't even a Sunni, this is like linking a work by a Moonie who happens to be Mexican and saying it shows how his theory of magic is Catholic

>>17677479
Monotheism was required for creation to exist and without it constants would be impossible

[Anonymous No.17677576]

>>17677445
>at odds with the other hundreds of Hadiths on jihad
It looks to me like most of the scholars who consider it to be at odds with other Hadiths seem to to be aiming to disprove the 'moderate' idea that Jihad is exclusively an internal endeavor, rather than saying that Islam actually precludes a spiritual approach to war, no? Do you have any sources which would contradict it? Or Jami at Tirmidhi 1621: "The Mujahid is one who strives against his own soul"?
>As for using "magic" to mean mysticism
He isn't: "First, when we talk initiatically about "identification," what we mean is always an active identification, not a confusing and merging with or sinking into something; it is not an infra-intellectual and emotive state, but a state of essential and superrational clarity. Here lies the difference between the mystical and the initiatic spheres; it is an essential difference, even though not immediately evident to those who, apart from things and abstract concepts, can see only a dark night in which, for them, all cats are black."
>Magic etymologically comes from magianism and specifically the learned in fortune telling
The root is the Proto-Indo-European prefix 'megh-', meaning ability or power in a generalised sense. Consider mögen in German, 'might' in English, or mȍťь in the Slavic languages.

[Anonymous No.17677642]

>>17677576
The issue is not that there isn't an internal jihad, which all scholars agree to, it's called jihad an-nafs (jihad against the soul). The issue us presenting it as something seperate from external jihad that you "go back to", when in fact as is clear in the Qur'an and numerous Hadiths, external jihad presumes and requires internal jihad and those who are weak in internal jihad are exactly the ones who will chicken out from external jihad. The idea not fighting is higher than fighting is something this Hadith presents which is completely bogus as the Qur'an says not equal are those who don't fight to those who do, and says the latter is superior by many degrees. EVERYONE makes jihad of the soul but not everyone gets strong enough in it to fight, often with zero material gain and at much expense

Mystery rites were initiatory

The the word magic is from magians and their common etymology doesn't change that

[Anonymous No.17677754]

>>17677642
>The issue us presenting it as something seperate from external jihad
Which Evola does not do. I can't "in order to understand the heroic asceticism or "path of action," it is necessary to recognize the situation in which the two paths merge, "the lesser holy war" becoming the means through which "a greater holy war" is carried out, and vice versa"
>The idea not fighting is higher than fighting is something this Hadith presents
That isn't the argument Evola is making though.
>EVERYONE makes jihad of the soul but not everyone gets strong enough in it to fight, often with zero material gain and at much expense
Wheras there's entire books worth of material of him making this point.
>The the word magic is from magians and their common etymology doesn't change that
If you're discussing a writer who used it in a particular sense, and explained in detail that they were doing that and their reasons for it, then yes, I think it does change the interpretation of their work. It's an argument he already responded to 90 years ago.

[Anonymous No.17677759]

>>17677754
Lost a bit of text there but you get the point I suppose.

[Anonymous No.17677789]

>>17667656
Why doesn't Evola smile more. Maybe he'd cheer up then.

[Anonymous No.17677798]

>>17674938
>>17677386
Will-to-Power is metaphysics by definition . A model which fundamentally explains reality. Not in "empirical" terms, but in metaphysical ones.

[Anonymous No.17677800]

>>17667552
Yep you're retarded

[Anonymous No.17677810]

>>17677789
If you watch his French TV interview he actually seems really happy.

[Anonymous No.17677862]

>>17677754
The Hadith does, hence its popularity. It suggests the internal jihad is not present in war. A stronger Hadith is

>Standing for an hour in the ranks of battle in the Path of Allah is better than standing in prayer for sixty years.

[Anonymous No.17677952]

>>17677798
That's your interpretation and it's a bad one. It wasn't a model for "reality" at all. Nietzsche's epistemology does not acknowledge such things.

[Anonymous No.17677980]

>>17677952
>Nietzsche's epistemology
God one lol

[Anonymous No.17677994]

>>17677789
Most formal photos and portraits in those days, especially for men trying to convey masculinity, did not involve smiling, both for that reason just given and convention.

[Anonymous No.17678006]

>>17677980
>God
Nice Freudian slip bro

[Anonymous No.17678394]

>>17677952
>That's your interpretation and it's a bad one.
so all realty being a giant mass of energy that never expands or retracts, and repeats itself over and over again, is NOT metaphysics? I think you're just 101 bro.

[Anonymous No.17678471]

>>17678394
>a giant mass of energy that never expands or retracts, and repeats itself over and over again
Many readers of Nietzsche make the mistake of thinking that Nietzsche was labeling a metaphysical system when he wrote such passages, when he was simply doing what he saw everyone else doing, which was creating/interpreting. All knowledge is merely creation/interpretation; metaphysics relies on an opposite epistemological view; he doesn't provide a description of a new metaphysics anywhere in his books.

[Anonymous No.17678486]

>>17678471
you seem overeducated on the subject without being able to critically interpret it for yourself.

[Anonymous No.17678500]

>>17678486
>overeducated
I just read his books, which should be the bare minimum for anyone attempting to discuss any particular philosopher.

>without being able to critically interpret it for yourself.
Empty words.

[Anonymous No.17679060]

>>17667491
Guenon did.

[Anonymous No.17679065]

>>17678500
>I just read his books
I can tell.

[Anonymous No.17679222]

>>17679065
You can tell what, exactly? That you have no way of winning this argument?

[Anonymous No.17679264]

>>17679222
>You can tell what, exactly?
that you're the type of bugman who can absorb knowledge in the manner of an encyclopedic factoid but have no ability to contemplate it's substance.

[Anonymous No.17679321]

>>17679264
Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest. Only the bugman reads Nietzsche thinking he's positing a new metaphysics, when that's as far off from his point as you could possibly get.

>I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them; the will to a system is a lack of integrity.

>For us, the falsity of a judgment is still no objection to that judgment — that's where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange.

[Anonymous No.17679669]

>>17667777
jewish bakers are poisoning the bagels of civilization

[Anonymous No.17679727]

>>17667904
>calling someone else a midwit
>whilst entrenching your ego in knowledge rather than understanding
ngmi

[Anonymous No.17679822]

>>17679222
based pic related, truly nietzschean motherfucker he was.

[Anonymous No.17680047]

>>17679727
> *ignores all of an author’s writing*
> “it’s intuitive, dude just trust my interpretation”