[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 21 KB, 346x350, Rene-guenon-1925.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19337324 No.19337324 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone summarize Guénon's critique of materialism for me? In what essay does he discuss this the most?

>> No.19337333

idk some incel seethe probably

>> No.19337417

>>19337324
Materialism leads to trannyism
Trannies are gay
Therefore materialism is gay and so are u

>> No.19337426

>>19337333
But he had a based tradwife and children

>> No.19337495

>>19337417
This guenon guy was eerily prescient

>> No.19337497

>>19337417
ascended

>> No.19337517

>>19337324
His critique of materialism and modern scientific assumptions are found scattered across mainly 4 books:

East and West
Crisis of the Modern World
Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times
Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus

You should read all 4 to thoroughly digest his thoughts on the matter

>> No.19337544

>>19337517
understood

thank you

>> No.19337560

>>19337324
Metaphysics is superior to and precedes physics
Therefore physics can say nothing about metaphysics
What is metaphysics?
Whatever Guenon's feels is metaphysics using his intuition

>> No.19337563

Another Guénon thread, another day where larpers and nu-lit zoomies are outed as illiterates. The hordes of kids spamming PBUH aren't very bright. Anyways, Principe du calcul infinitésimal is what you're looking for OP, it's his best aongside règne de la qt.

Guénon is intelligent but mostly wrong about everything. But he makes liberals seethe eternally and turns puritan kids into literal schizos so obviously he has some insights.

>> No.19337572

>>19337563
What is he wrong about ?

>> No.19337576

>>19337563
if hes wrong about everything then who is right?

>> No.19337597

>>19337576
Being right or wrong isn't a popularity contest. If someone is wrong it doesn't mean someone else has to be right.

>> No.19337651

>>19337563
>Guénon is intelligent but mostly wrong about everything.
He is RIGHT about everything

PBUH

>> No.19337680

>>19337563
>poasts title in French
>subtly claims the intellectual high ground over his fellow posters
>subtly claims the intellectual high ground over Rene fucking Guenon
Yeah, that's a pseud in the wild, alright.

>> No.19337758

Brigaded by posters who learned about Guénon from (me) is priceless.

Before I tell you why Guénon is wrong, I want to make sure the explanation will not be lost on you so I want the epic trad kids calling me a pseud to point towards the axioms of traditionalism and explain how traditionalism holds up (or doesn't) against its own postulates. I will not address the undemanding readers who can't into methodology and rigour.

>> No.19337774
File: 33 KB, 500x483, fuck off.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19337774

>>19337758

>> No.19337876

>>19337758
>Before I tell you why Guénon is wrong,
an impossible task, as he wasn’t wrong

>> No.19337890

>>19337758
I learnt about Guenon long before I came to this board. Cope and seethe loser.

>> No.19338158

Guenon is the calling card of the schizophrenic

>> No.19338507

>>19338158
*of the chad metaphysician

>> No.19338520

>>19337324
Another day, another guenon shill thread

>> No.19338537

>>19337324
reign of quantity

>> No.19338674

>>19337680
>intellectual high ground over Rene fucking Guenon
Not exactly an achievement.

>> No.19338690

>>19338674
He was the smartest person of the entire 20th century

>> No.19338918

>>19337563
absolutely seething pseud

>> No.19339255
File: 70 KB, 452x363, 0n896.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19339255

>>19338674
>t. you
>>19338690
Par with Evola IMO.

>> No.19339628

>>19338674
let me remind you that your opinion is irrelevant

>> No.19339757

>>19339255
Evola didn't have the talent for languages that Guenon did, or the deep understanding of mathematics that Guenon did either.

>> No.19339787

>>19339757
>deep understanding of mathematics that Guenon did either
Guenon wouldn't be able to pass a freshman calculus course. Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus is him raging at basic definitions without any type of sustained mathematical reasoning.

>> No.19339790

>>19337324
If you want a summary of Rene Guenon then you can either read The Essential Rene Guenon or A Prophet for a Dark Age and look up what you need.
https://www.scribd.com/read/496144775/Prophet-for-a-Dark-Age-A-Companion-to-the-Works-of-Rene-Guenon#
(Sorry I can't find the full version anywhere)
But I wouldn't recommend approaching Guenon in this way. Just pick a a book and read it, maybe start with The Crisis of the Modern World or something.

>> No.19339793

>>19339787
*Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus is him refuting the contradictory definitions given by unprincipled and confused modern mathematicians who can't into basic reasoning.

>> No.19339803

>>19339757
IDK I was really impressed by Evola's writing and its contents. Also doesn't he have some sort of mathematical competence? He makes references to mathematics every now and again, at least. Didn't he study some type of engineering at university or something like that? I can't remember.

>> No.19339805

>>19339793
>refuting the contradictory definitions
It's him saying he doesn't like the definitions not him finding contradictions between them. His problem with the infinite is a purely linguistic one. If Guenon had a found a contradiction that would have been mathematically significant and recognized. But a contradiction is not the standard definition being different from your definition

>> No.19339816

>>19339805
>His problem with the infinite is a purely linguistic one
No, it's a logical one. Modern mathematicians ignore that truth that time, space and quantity are determined conditions and as such the true infinite (not limited by anything) can never be encompassed or included within one of them.

>Indeed, it is not because a thing is not limited in a certain sense or in a certain respect that one can legitimately conclude that it is limited in no way at all, the latter being necessary for it to be truly infinite; not only can it be limited in other respects at the same time, but we can even say that it is of necessity so, inasmuch as it is a determined thing, which, by its very determination, does not include every possibility, and this amounts to saying that it is limited by that which lies outside of it; if, on the contrary, the universal All is infinite, this is precisely because there is nothing that lies outside of it. Therefore every determination, however general one supposes it to be and however far one extends the term, necessarily excludes the true notion of the infinite; a determination, whatever it might be, is always a limitation, since its essential character is to define a certain domain of possibilities in relation to all the rest, and by that very fact to exclude all the rest.

>Thus it is truly 'nonsense' to apply the idea of the infinite to any given determination, as for example, in the instance we are considering more particularly here, to quantity or to one or another of its modes. The idea of a 'determined infinite' is too manifestly contradictory for us to dwell upon any longer, although this contradiction has most often escaped the profane thought of the moderns; and even those whom one might call 'semi-profane', like Leibnitz, were unable to perceive it clearly. In order to bring out the contradiction still further we could say in other fundamentally equivalent terms that it is obviously absurd to wish to define the Infinite, since a definition is in fact nothing other than the expression of a determination, and the words themselves show clearly enough that what is subject to definition can only be finite or limited. To seek to place the Infinite within a formula, or, if one prefer, to clothe it in any form whatsoever is, consciously or unconsciously, to attempt to fit the universal All into one of its minutest parts, and this is assuredly the most manifest of impossibilities.

>> No.19339820

>>19339805
>>19339816

>What we have just said suffices to establish, without leaving room for the slightest doubt and without necessitating any other considerations that there cannot be a mathematical or quantitative infinite, and that this expression does not even have any meaning, because quantity is itself a determination. Number, space, and time, to which some people wish to apply the notion of this so-called infinite, are determined conditions, and as such can only be finite; they are but certain possibilities, or certain sets of possibilities, beside and outside of which there exist others, and this obviously implies their limitation.

>In this instance still more can be said: to conceive of the Infinite quantitatively is not only to limit it, but in addition it is to conceive of it as subject to increase and decrease, which is no less absurd; with similar considerations one quickly finds oneself envisaging not only several in finites that coexist without confounding or excluding one another, but also infinites that are larger or smaller than others; and finally, the infinite having become so relative under these conditions that it no longer suffices, the 'transfinite' is invented, that is, the domain of quantities greater than the infinite. Here, indeed, it is properly a matter of 'invention', for such conceptions correspond to no reality. So many words, so many absurdities, even regarding simple, elementary logic, yet this does not prevent one from finding among those responsible some who even claim to be 'specialists' in logic, so great is the intellectual confusion of our time.

- René Guénon (PBUH)

hylics seething

>> No.19339830

>>19339816
The standard definition for infinite is any set that is not finite. Not whatever mystic woo woo Guenon wants to say is the definition. That the standard definition is not Guenon's definition is not a contradiction in the standard definitions

>> No.19339869

>>19339830
>The standard definition for infinite is any set that is not finite.
That “standard” is but a blink of an eye in the history of men giving difference definitions of it, in any case it fails to adhere to basic logic and the meaning of words in English since the addition of the “in-“ prefix before “finite” (i.e. limitation, what is limited) is supposed to negate that word to which it is added, according to the rules of how English works.

So “in-“ + “finite” etymologically means the negation of all limitedness or finitude. Another meaning like “a set that is not finite” is a pseudo-definition that doesn’t follow from the etymological meaning of the word; and moreover the definition you gave is a a contradiction in terms, since a set by being distinguished from other sets can only be but limited, were it not limited it would include all possible sets, but by being different from them it’s already limited to begin with and can never be “not finite” i.e. “not limited”. Your definition fails basic logic by saying “X which by being X is limited is also magically not-limited because I say so” but this is totally illogical.

>> No.19339870

>>19337576
actual professionals on their respective fields
if you want actual math, read math book, if you want actual studies about asian theology, read asian studies prfesional, if you want actual philosophy, read philosophers and so on and so on
guenon was a jack of all trades and master of nones

>> No.19339879

>>19339869
Again you're just repeating what I just already said. Guenon's issue is linguistic and has nothing to do with finding contradictions in the definitions like you claimed above. He showed zero mathematical ability

>> No.19339894

>>19339803
Evola was good with languages (Italian, French, German, English, Latin, Greek, reading Sanskrit, possibly more) but Guenon was a whole other level, I won't even try to list them all. Evola studied engineering in university but dropped out near the end because it was too bourgeois. Evola plane often operated in the "real world," Guenon was purely into metaphysics. It is hard to compare the two, both were really smart, but I would say Guenon was the ultimate galaxy brain meme and Evola was a step below (spiritual warrior vs. priest). But still, you can't really compare them. Guenon and his followers can be too dogmatic and formalistic, which can limit them, Evola is much more practical and isn't limited by things like initiatic regularity, for example. He has strong convictions with regards to temporal matters and as a result discriminates against things like Freemasonry (which is totally subversive) while Guenon is more "open-minded" and doesn't totally write it off, even if he admits it is subversive.

>> No.19339907

>>19339879
He was excellent at mathematics in his profane studies

>>19339870
Guenon was superior and viewed things from atop a mountain instead of in the forest.

>> No.19339962

>>19339879
>Guenon showed zero mathematical ability
>t. literal who that will never amount to anything