Evola's Critique of Theosophy

[Anonymous No.19176818]

In chapter 9 of 'The Path of Cinnabar' (translated 2009) Evola makes a critque of theosophy titled "Hermeticism and My Critique of Contemporary Spiritualism" where he recapitulates his arguments made in his earlier 'The Mask and Face of Contemporary Spiritualism'.

Does it hold up or is he making a "no true Scotsman" argument against Blavatsky's theosophy?

[Anonymous No.19176936]

>>19176818
Hello logo

[Anonymous No.19177004]

>>19176936
will loco ever recover from this? it seems like every week is a new all time low

[Anonymous No.19177008]

>im not like the other theosophists
every tradlarper ever

[Anonymous No.19177028]

>>19177008
Traditionalism is much different from theosophism because it does away with all the western prejudices and "mystic" shit. I don't know how you could read Guenon's Reign of Quantity and think it was truly comparable to Blavatsky, you're either being dishonest or are just stupid/ignorant if you think so.

[Anonymous No.19177038]

>>19177028
>oh i like a little bit of rome, a little bit of greece, a little bit of india, a little bit of egypt, a little bit of islam and my system consists of picking my favorite thrice-translated quotes
>no i'm not a theosophist what gave you that idea

[Anonymous No.19177163]

>>19177038
Not at all, thanks for showing how little you know about it. Traditionalism is about taking what is perennial and what transcends all of these things, taking everything into account, to arrive at the unchanging truth behind them all, through synthesis (not syncretism). Pathetic strawman btw, you're too small-minded for spirituality, so stick to exoteric christianity, there's no shame in that and it's better than getting into vulgar occultism and ruining your life.

[Anonymous No.19177298]

>>19176818
Cinnabar has a path? I thought it was basically just a gym, a few houses, and the pokemon mansion

[Anonymous No.19177351]

>>19177163
Cool projection, why don't you pick an actual tradition instead of inventing "Tradition" and pretending it always existed. It's moderns cataloging things they find and lazily assimilating them to an ideal to produce classification, nothing more, certainly nothing spiritual about a dry exercise of autodidactic doxography by proto-otaku.

[Anonymous No.19177361]

>>19177298
You can catch a Growlithe there right? See the real esotericism is that its evolved form, Arcanine, is the only true "Legendary Pokémon." Not even Evola knew this, only the wise masters of Kanto, who refused to initiate him because he was region locked.

[Anonymous No.19177472]

>>19177351
Do you have an actual critique of the Traditional method or are you going to keep giving your opinion?

[Anonymous No.19177593]

>logo still coping after his dumbest take/self-own of the year
i love these dumpster fire e-celeb narcissists, top tier entertainment

[Anonymous No.19178956]

>>19176818
>a "no true Scotsman" argument against Blavatsky's theosophy?
Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.19178981]

>>19177298
Bro something about Cinnabar is fucking spooky. The abandoned mansion with the weird South American travelogues about Mew, resurrecting those creepy fossils from the Museum from the dead, the fucking unnatural glitch demon you can summon via an esoteric ritual along its coast.

Everyone talks about Lavender Town but that whole part of the game around Cinnabar just feels cursed.

[Anonymous No.19179490]

These esoterics were all stupid, right? That is, when they were not dangerous.

[Anonymous No.19179553]

>>19177163
Traditionalism has extremely weak methodology. Firstly, in order to find what is ‘perennial’ we need a definition of that term - since the number of issues on which every religion is agreed is practically zero. Now, we’re going to need a way to ‘quantify’ the occurrence of an idea, and a threshold at which an idea is said to be perennial. However, we also then must define what is a separate religion, which is challenging since religions aren’t static, and if we take the doctrine at a particular time that is just cherry-picking. Also, religions influence each other, and only ideas that arise independently can truly be said to be perennial. So clearly this task is virtually impossible to undertake with even a vague sort of objectivity.

[Anonymous No.19179596]

>>19179553
No, we don't. Your standards are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.19179612]

>>19177472
>>19179596
>nooo you can't have an opinion
Of all the cults to join... you join one that only exists online and ends with you attacking a walmart by yourself?

[Anonymous No.19179651]

>>19179612
Did I step on your vagina?

[Anonymous No.19179668]

>>19179651
Lmao

[Anonymous No.19179729]

>>19179596
So you’re saying that you just pick and choose based on, what, gut feelings? Traditionalism is completely subjective? And here you say that using this school you can uncover the truth.

[Anonymous No.19179746]

>>19179729
>So you're saying
No, I'm not, Cathy Newman.
It's not subjective. It just doesn't adhere to your arbitrary standards, but to traditional standards. You could read the introduction to Revolt where this is explained for you.

[Anonymous No.19179767]

>>19179746
Are you truly such a piece of intellectual driftwood that you cannot defend your positions? All you gave me was a buzzword and a suggested reading. Make an argument, describe your methodology, or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.19179803]

>>19179767
Why have you gotten your panties into such a twist? I just told you Traditionalism doesn't adhere to your standards. The reason for this is explained in the introduction to Revolt, which is why I recommended you read it. If you don't want to or think that's ridiculous, that's fine, but go cry about it somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.19179818]

>>19176818
All philosophy is prevarication.

[Anonymous No.19179825]

>>19179803
Yes we're all aware that traditionalism has its own methodology of "things I like are telluric" and "things I don't like are chthonic." Stop pretending to be tough because you agree with a book you fucking nerd

[Anonymous No.19179839]

>>19179825
>"things I like are telluric" and "things I don't like are chthonic."
At least read something so you know why it asserts what it does before trying to criticize it, pea brain.
>Stop pretending to be tough because you agree with a book you fucking nerd
Lmao I don't even fully agree with Evola, yet what you're doing here is just pathetic.

[Anonymous No.19179840]

>>19179803
I made the following criticism: Since Traditionalism is basically just a popularity contest for religious ideas, you have to find a way to show what is popular.

[Anonymous No.19179851]

>>19176818
Why would you want to read fascist and anti-Semitic garbage?

[Anonymous No.19179854]

>>19179840
>Traditionalism is basically just a popularity contest for religious ideas
But it's not. What a strange hill to die on.

[Anonymous No.19179860]

>>19179839
>it's pathetic to disagree with me
anon, you're going to be late to school, time to log off 4channel and go to class

[Anonymous No.19179862]

>>19179840
>>19179825
>>19179729
>>19179612
>>19179553
>>19177038
>>19177351
>imagine unironically falling for this bait

[Anonymous No.19179865]

If this is the e-celeb thread, can someone shoot a link to the last full episode of BAP's podcast, where the guest is Moldbug?

[Anonymous No.19179875]

>>19179851
Go back

[Anonymous No.19179906]

>>19179875
To reading things that are actually worth reading? If you mean Reddit, the reason they don't want you to go there is because they think it will un-indoctrinate you.

[Anonymous No.19179949]

>>19179860
Making up shit is not disagreeing with something, retard. You have to actually understand something to be able to disagree with it.

[Anonymous No.19179959]

>>19179553
Your ‘critique’ of Traditionalism is extremely weak and betrays a lack of familiarity with Guenon’s writings.
>Firstly, in order to find what is ‘perennial’ we need a definition of that term - since the number of issues on which every religion is agreed is practically zero.
Perennial here means ‘eternal’, Traditionalism is not saying that every religion agrees on every detail, but rather that there is an eternal (perennial) metaphysical truth, which exists independently of religion and which descends down into the human sphere when it appears through the medium of religion, when it manifests itself in the form of esoteric teachings within religions that in certain cases can differ on a surface level from the exoteric doctrine; while in other traditions the metaphysical teaching is more openly taught, less esoteric. Guenon, Schuon and Coomaraswamy identify this eternal metaphysical truth as being non-dualism, and they cite writings and scriptures which reveal an understanding or non-dualism in almost every major religious tradition. They don’t say that every religion contains a 1:1 copy of Shankara-style Advaita, but rather say that the same truth which Advaita is a clear expression of is also pointed to directly or indirectly in other traditions esoteric/mystic traditions. And they don’t say that the esoterism of all traditions amounts to simply Advaita either, since they also admit a gradient of esoteric teachings, some of which make more concessions to popular sentiment etc relative to other schools. The ones that make more concessions are just more indirect.

>Now, we’re going to need a way to ‘quantify’ the occurrence of an idea, and a threshold at which an idea is said to be perennial.
This is not something which can be proven after a certain number of citations, it’s a worldview which people can choose to accept or reject, in the writings of the Traditionalists they cite countless texts which back up what they say, they have no desire to quantify this to skeptics, but are just explaining their worldview, for the benefit of those who are curious and open-minded towards these ideas; their books are not written for skeptics and atheists.
>However, we also then must define what is a separate religion, which is challenging since religions aren’t static, and if we take the doctrine at a particular time that is just cherry-picking.
This is no problem for Traditionalists, since they admit that religions are fluid and change, the eternal metaphysical truth which exists independently of religion is what is unchanging.
>Also, religions influence each other
Yes, but it cannot be demonstrated or proven that X doctrine appearing in Y religion is the result of Z influence but these inevitably amount to subjective opinions. So the mere fact of influence taking place does not prove disprove anything regarding the eternality of a metaphysical truth.

[Anonymous No.19180045]

>>19179949
In these threads it always just so happens that any disagreements with Tradition are due to not understanding it ("you're making stuff up," "yuo didnt read my guru," etc.)

[Anonymous No.19180212]

>>19179865
upvoted

[Anonymous No.19180269]

>>19180045
That’s not true, people can disagree with it for all sorts of reasons while understanding it, such as for example they are atheists, or they reject the premise of perennialism outright, or they hold to a ‘linear progress’ conception of history; one can do all of these while fully understanding traditionalism or/and Guenon’s books; most critiques of the Traditionalist school tend to mischaracterize what it says and strawman its ideas though.

[Anonymous No.19180287]

>>19180269
>disagree with trads
>give them a reason
>they say you just don't understand
It happens EVERY time, it is always that the opponent just didn't read thoroughly enough

[Anonymous No.19180359]

>>19180287
>>give them a reason
What reason?

[Anonymous No.19180372]

>>19180287
You assume all reasons are equal, but they aren't. If your reason is based in mischaracterization, you've either not read or understood what you read, or worse.
People like Frater can explain why they disagree with Evola without mischaracterizing his ideas.

[Anonymous No.19180435]

>>19180372
>only people I like can disagree with the other people i like
Dangerously based, you ride that tiger

[Anonymous No.19181311]

>>19179862
it isn't bait he unironically is a low IQ pseud who should lurk more

[Anonymous No.19181321]

>>19179612
>still no argument
Tradchads win again, without even trying this time. Join us or be BTFO.

[Anonymous No.19181328]

I feel like I was a pioneer of hating Logo, I'm so glad everybody else has caught up on how insufferable that guy is now.

[Anonymous No.19181330]

>>19180435
I don't like Frater. He just has at least half a brain.

[Anonymous No.19181333]

>>19179553
All of this is already accounted for you fucking halfwit. You clearly haven't even read Guenon or Evola, not even their wikipedia pages. This is either bait or you're legitimately stupid.

[Anonymous No.19181350]

>>19179840
>I made the following criticism: Since Traditionalism is basically just a popularity contest for religious ideas, you have to find a way to show what is popular.
I didn't know people this stupid posted on /lit/. What do you normally read?

[Anonymous No.19181366]

>>19179860
>still no argument

>>19181328
Good for you to have such clear vision. I didn't know about him until recently and as soon as I saw him I thought he looked like scum, then when I looked into him I realised I was right.

>>19180287
Yes, you haven't actually given a reason, you have basically just shown that you don't understand the first thing about Traditionalism and you disagree with your false conception of it.

[Anonymous No.19181398]

>>19181366
>you don't understand the first thing about Traditionalism and you disagree with your false conception of it.
Every single time in every single thread, tradfags cope and seethe over the only book they've read

[Anonymous No.19181444]

>>19180269
this

>>19179959
interesting how nobody has tried to refute this

[Anonymous No.19181446]

>>19181398
>still no argument
>telling others to cope
JUST

[Anonymous No.19181548]

>>19181444
Trips of truth. Bait retard hasn't even attempted addressing this >>19179959

[Anonymous No.19182274]

bump