Julius Evola: Radical Traditions

[Anonymous No.9037500]

What is /lit/'s take on Evola?

I understand most of you are tranny faggots but there must be some open minded people who dont REEEEE at the idea of different thoughts

[Anonymous No.9037517]

>>9037500

[Anonymous No.9037554]

>>9037500

I agree with most of what he says, but his take on "tradition" that goes way back to 'antediluvian' times doesn't exist.
If there ever was a perennial philosophy, it isn't a solar based one, but a lunar/stellar one with a mother goddess the likes of Kali in the center.

I don't see how he doesn't get this studying tantrism and the sorts...

[Anonymous No.9037641]

[Anonymous No.9037646]

>>9037641

Evola never really and fully approved of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.9037685]

>>9037646
Evola never fully committed to anything, he was a contrarian meme edgelord

[Anonymous No.9037834]

>>9037685
Lies and slander

[Anonymous No.9038065]

There have been respectable reactionaries in the history of thought (Hobbes, Confucius). Evola is not one of them. If you take this hooting mystic seriously you deserve ridicule.

[Anonymous No.9038350]

>>9037834
It is not slander, I resent that!

It's only slander if it's spoken, in print it's libel.

[Anonymous No.9038363]

middle 3rd row
mods delete this please thanks

[Anonymous No.9038392]

>>9038065
Basically this if you really want to read read reactionary literature read someone like Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Confucius

[Anonymous No.9038422]

>>9038392
>Machiavelli
>Hobbes
>Confucius

>Reactionary

Are you guys fucking retarded

They're realists, not reactionaries

[Anonymous No.9038643]

Based, progressives on this board would rather read about transgenders and approving pedophilia though

[Anonymous No.9038660]

>>9038422
Machiavelli was more than anything a radical amoralist, but if you're inclined to style Hobbes and Confucius as "realists" it just means you're conservative as well. Doesn't mean they aren't.

[Anonymous No.9038668]

>>9038643
I fixed your image to be more accurate.

[Anonymous No.9038682]

>>9038668
nice

[Anonymous No.9038683]

>>9038668
There is 1 thread right now

[Anonymous No.9038688]

>>9038683
There are two threads on the front page alone. And you also need to look at it from the sense that these threads are made every day. People don't lurk before they post anymore. I blame facebook.

[Anonymous No.9039096]

My thoughts on Julius Evola are:

>Liberalism has often been reproached for this purely external and materialistic attitude toward what is earthly and transitory. The life of man, it is said, does not consist in eating and drinking. There are higher and more important needs than food and drink, shelter and clothing. Even the greatest earthly riches cannot give man happiness; they leave his inner self, his soul, unsatisfied and empty. The most serious error of liberalism has been that it has nothing to offer man's deeper and nobler aspirations.

>But the critics who speak in this vein show only that they have a very imperfect and materialistic conception of these higher and nobler needs. Social policy, with the means that are at its disposal, can make men rich or poor, but it can never succeed in making them happy or in satisfying their inmost yearnings. Here all external expedients fail. All that social policy can do is to remove the outer causes of pain and suffering; it can further a system that feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and houses the homeless. Happiness and contentment do not depend on food, clothing, and shelter, but, above all, on what a man cherishes within himself. It is not from a disdain of spiritual goods that liberalism concerns itself exclusively with man's material well-being, but from a conviction that what is highest and deepest in man cannot be touched by any outward regulation. It seeks to produce only outer well-being because it knows that inner, spiritual riches cannot come to man from without, but only from within his own heart. It does not aim at creating anything but the outward preconditions for the development of the inner life.

(From Ludwig von Mises' "Liberalism")

[Anonymous No.9039105]

>>9037500
I largely agree with his thoughts

I'd love to have seen fascism not being implemented until several decades after similar to far left ideologies so we would have more strung out philosophy to digest

[Anonymous No.9039112]

>>9038065
I thought confucius was more conservative than reactionary

[Anonymous No.9039143]

>>9039096

>Austrian crap

Yeah go somewhere else with your voluntaryist crap.

[Anonymous No.9040651]

he is /ourguy/

[Anonymous No.9040670]

>>9038688
>People don't lurk before they post anymore
So much this, will they ever take time to read?

[Anonymous No.9040678]

anon from /pol/, comes to /lit/ to discuss evola. many such cases.

[Anonymous No.9040969]

>>9039143
This was a statement entirely separate from his economics views (in terms of which school one would subscribe to) and he wasn't a voluntaryist.

[Anonymous No.9042251]

Is Jews Ebola /ourguy/?

[Anonymous No.9042269]

>>9037517
Kek

[Anonymous No.9043425]

>>9042269
top kek

[Anonymous No.9043439]

>>9037500
Read "Men Among The Ruins". Loved it. I agree with him on most topics, especially his emphasis on the metaphysical. I wish this board wasn't so infested with Marxist cucks.

[Anonymous No.9043456]

>>9040651
He might be /yourguy/. He's certainly not /myguy/. I have a different guy.

[Anonymous No.9043459]

>>9039096
>liberals seek spiritual wellbeing
Not for the past at least half century, retard. They are the MOST materialistic and the most in denial of the spiritual.

Also, what a typical amoral Jewish apology to implicitly allow degeneracy whilst escaping blame for its destruction. Shouldn't have expected more I guess.

[Anonymous No.9043462]

you can just tell that all these faggot Evolaposters haven't even read him

[Anonymous No.9043469]

>>9043456
Who is /yourgoy/?

[Anonymous No.9043474]

>>9043462
Example? Which posts? Why? You're just talking out of your ass to feel superior. This board doesn't need any more pretentious wankers. Please leave.

[Anonymous No.9043494]

>>9040651
Possibly

[Anonymous No.9043499]

>>9040651
He could be if this place wasn't a leftist shit-hole.

[Anonymous No.9043517]

>>9038065

>tfw to smart for Evola's esotericism

[Anonymous No.9043527]

>>9043459
You didn't read far enough in. He was saying that liberals do not actually seek spiritual wellbeing from the state because they don't see the state as a good mechanism for it precisely because social policy (state policy) can only deal with material matters and spiritual wellbeing is immaterial (though good material conditions certainly make finding spiritual wellbeing easier.)

Also I have no idea why you are connecting him with liberals of the last half century, because he is a liberal in the classical manchester/libertarian tradition. He is saying that the state can't possibly hope to disallow degeneracy because it will then just become more degenerate as it slinks underground.

[Anonymous No.9043537]

He has a fun interpretation of Nietzsche, and dares to try and rip Heidegger a new asshole.

[Anonymous No.9043555]

>>9043527

>He was saying that liberals do not actually seek spiritual wellbeing from the state

This is one big strawman. His detractors do not link spiritual well-being explicitly from the state. They make the much grander point that a civilization/culture that does not hold spiritual well-being as its highest ideal, well inevitably cease to seek it. Given the explicit dialectical link between the state and culture, they see the state as a means to this end - rather than an 'end' of spiritual well-being in itself.

Any society that places physical/material well-being over spiritual well-being will end up, sooner or later, forsaking the former. Modern society is evidence enough of that - religion/spirituality are receding, with atheism/scientism on the rise.

[Anonymous No.9043584]

>>9043499
why are you so angry

[Anonymous No.9043650]

hinduboo fag

[Anonymous No.9043675]

>>9043650

So was Schopenhauer. He recommends reading the Bhagavad Gita before going into The World as Will and Representation.

Maybe there's something to it?

[Anonymous No.9043708]

>>9043527
I did understand that. You're not understanding my criticism.

>>9043555
Put much better than I could. Nice trips also.

[Anonymous No.9043715]

>>9043675
I think Hinduism is pretty close to the mark as an accurately representation of spirituality. Everything else is kind of a lesser shadow of it. It's also the oldest, so that's something. However, for me, none of the major religions satisfactorily answer the problem of pain, particularly in the natural world.