How Evola turned me away from the right

>comparing Evola to right-wingers
>why I prefer pineapple to green apples
Right-left-centre-shit distinction is purely modern invention from the French revolution. Anyone into perennialism sends both right- and left-wingers to khuy where they belong.
Being right-winger is OKay-ish, but to rise above modern degeneracy one has to leave the "Enlightenment" political paradigm altogether.

Incas.

*tip*

Are you implying that your rejection of it invalidates their claims?

This is a bad post, and your perception of 'right wing' seems to vary between some sophomoric bastardization of a sole right wing party (GOP) in the United States and absolute shitposting.

aka /pol/

>clumping all right wingers into your arbitrary straw man based on nothing

stop reading Evola, you don't deserve it.

>left/right

"Ancient" is synonymous with extreme relative ignorance. It certainly isn't synonymous with fucking truth or whatever traditionalist imbeciles believe.

Good thing you stopped being a right-winger but muh new-age spirituality is retarded as well. Evola is just hippy nonsense.

HOLY DIVER

>"Ancient" is synonymous with extreme relative ignorance.
So you're a fan of Whig history. Cool. This seems to be your opinion, not a fact. You're probably more ignorant than many people in the ancient world were.
>It certainly isn't synonymous with fucking truth or whatever traditionalist imbeciles believe.
I don't think you know anything about traditionalism or any particular tradition.
RIDE THE TIGER

I'm a different user and probably coming from a completely different perspective but I also think traditionalism pretty flawed. Tradition itself is not a quality, and many vaunted "traditions" are not traditions at all, they are completely foreign to most people.

His ideas are really interesting but his writing style bores me to death.

>some traditions are foreign for some people
And how does this makes traditionalism flawed?
Some people are too dumb to count, that doesn't make mathematics flawed.

>but I also think traditionalism pretty flawed.
That's your right.
>Tradition itself is not a quality,
What do you mean?
> and many vaunted "traditions" are not traditions at all,
What do you mean?
>they are completely foreign to most people.
How does that stop them from being traditions?

Again, it seems like you don't know much about traditionalism. If you would read Evola (most of his books are on YouTube in audio form), you'd know that these aren't good objections to his philosophy.

>You're probably more ignorant than many people in the ancient world were.

That is an unbelievably fascinating level of delusion. Even if I weren't an extremely curious kid and then an extremely curious adult who can actively participate in conversation on almost any subject there is, you'd still be wrong. Logic dictates that even the dumbest, most ignorant shitheads I've ever met still know thousands of times more about the world than the most informed humans of the ancient world.

>Logic dictates that even the dumbest, most ignorant shitheads I've ever met still know thousands of times more about the world than the most informed humans of the ancient world
Please show this logical process. No anecdotal evidence, please, no "dumb guys I've met and you didn't", only logic.

>That is an unbelievably fascinating level of delusion.
Are you sure?
>Even if I weren't an extremely curious kid and then an extremely curious adult who can actively participate in conversation on almost any subject there is, you'd still be wrong.
Being curious and able to talk about things doesn't take away ignorance.
>Logic dictates that even the dumbest, most ignorant shitheads I've ever met still know thousands of times more about the world than the most informed humans of the ancient world.
See

Because those dumb, ignorant shitheads will still passively absorb information by merely existing in modern society. In ancient civilization there's very little information to absorb at all, let alone passively. It's incredible to me that you're even arguing this.

>Right wingers
>Using subjective terms that don't mean anything

>Because those dumb, ignorant shitheads will still passively absorb information by merely existing in modern society.
Oh, so you're not talking about any particularly significant mental property or event, you're just assuming that computers make people smarter by being around them.
>In ancient civilization there's very little information to absorb at all, let alone passively.
Is that true?
>It's incredible to me that you're even arguing this.
It's incredible to me that you're so oblivious.

If you could travel backwards in time 2,000 years and not be the smartest person on Earth then I'm astonished you can even find the power button, let alone type.

>If you could travel backwards in time 2,000 years and not be the smartest person on Earth then I'm astonished you can even find the power button
So you think IQ goes up over time necessarily? You think that knowing what a particle accelerator is counts as the antithesis of ignorance in a world where scientific institutions don't exist?

Breadth of knowledge is not equivalent to intelligence or insight.

Most certainly not in cultural or spiritual matters.

Read it in Italian then.

If some random modern man is to be translated 2000 years ago, almost all his knowledge would be useless without all the societal institutions and technological infrastructure left 2k years in the future that demand said knowledge. He wouldn't even know a single language to communicate with locals, total maladaptation. Therefore he would be as good as a drooling retard or a human-like animal, much less smartest person on the planet.
So your thought experiment is invalid.

IQ does go up over time, it's called the Flynn effect. It's gone up markedly in the last few decades alone.

Modern psychology is superior to "spirituality" in every regard. Tools such as cognitive behavioral therapy are refined forms of spirituality with most of the nonsense stripped away.

>It's gone up markedly in the last few decades alone.
Do we have data from antiquity?

Are you one of those Ancient Aliens lunatics or something? You must be trolling.

>What do you mean?
Traditions can be good or bad, the fact that something is traditional does not make it worthwhile, likewise the fact that something is modern does not make it worthwhile.

>What do you mean?
They are seen through rose tinted glasses by people with a poor understanding of the past and are not actually a relevant part of our culture or our civilisation.

>How does that stop them from being traditions?
They are not customs which have been handed down to us from generation to generation, they are ideas that modern people have read about in a history book and attempted to resurrect.

>If you would read Evola
There are many books I have to read before Evola, nonetheless my objections aren't to Evola in particular but traditionalism in general, especially reactionary ideas. Evola has some ideas I like insomuch as I understand them and others that I don't. If Evola has refutations I'd like to hear them.

he's clearly an ariosophist
>m-muh hyperboreans
>muh cataclysm of materialism

I'm just wondering why you're making an argument based on data from the past few decades, when the argument is about antiquity.
You ought to just read Evola. Objections to "traditionalism" in general are even more vague, you're objecting to every single tradition and all of their devotees at the same time when you're doing this. It's ludicrous.
But you're wrong.

This. I'll be the end of a lot of "tradition" in my family line and I find it extraordinarily difficult to feel bad about it.

>Biological race
Nice meme

>I'll be the end of a lot of "tradition" in my family line and I find it extraordinarily difficult to feel bad about it.
Here's the thing: Your feelings don't impact the validity of the tradition, any more than they impact the validity of an argument made in a valid argument form.

>So you think IQ goes up over time necessarily?
IQ has gone up in the last century.

How the fuck is everyone taking literacy, basic mathematics and basic scientific knowledge for granted.

gud pst

>you're objecting to every single tradition and all of their devotees at the same time when you're doing this. It's ludicrous.

no, he's rejecting traditionalism in itself. the concept of traditionalism. he clearly said that, too. how is that ludicrous?

>IQ has gone up in the last century.
We aren't talking about a century ago, we're talking about antiquity. Is there data on ancient IQs?
>How the fuck is everyone taking literacy, basic mathematics and basic scientific knowledge for granted.
We aren't taking them for granted, we're aware of the fact that English wasn't spoken 2,000 years ago and that scientific knowledge is practically useless outside of societies with institutions capable of using it. Math, well, maybe you could impress some smart people.

>no, he's rejecting traditionalism in itself. the concept of traditionalism. he clearly said that, too. how is that ludicrous?
Rejecting a universal entails rejecting all of the particular instantiations of that universal.

evola's entire thing is that modernity severed our relationship with the ancestral traditions and principles that made life authentic and worth living.

He doesn't care about left or right. His beef is with people who think that modernity is good.

>You ought to just read Evola.
I will eventually

>Objections to "traditionalism" in general are even more vague,
sure.

>you're objecting to every single tradition and all of their devotees at the same time when you're doing this.
What gave you that impression? I'm just saying ideas shouldn't be given more credence just because they happened at some point in the past. Living traditions deserve scrutiny too but they aren't my main gripe. I like tradition as cultural thing and I often prefer tradition to novelty but I would never use tradition as a justification for any moral or practical questions.

Instead of acting indignant why can't you just address what I said

traditionalism:

"the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition, human reason being incapable of attaining it."

just because you reject traditionalism does not mean you reject every tradition. that is nonsensical.

unless of course you use a very broad definition of traditionalism:

traditionalism:

"the upholding or maintenance of tradition, especially so as to resist change."

if that is the case you oppose any upholding or maintenance of tradition, which automatically means opposing traditions in and of itself.

however the first definition to me seems worth debating over while the second one does not, wouldn't you agree?

>
Modern psychology is superior to "spirituality" in every regard. Tools such as cognitive behavioral therapy are refined forms of spirituality with most of the nonsense stripped away.

They aren't strictly equivalent, and to make a value judgement is erroneous. As Nietsche argued, to strip away all fiction will only leave meaninglessness. He knew science would do that very thing.

>we're aware of the fact that English wasn't spoken 2,000 years ago
Speaking English doesn't make you more or less intelligent than speaking Latin. We aren't arguing about who is best equipped to survive in the other's world.

>and that scientific knowledge is practically useless outside of societies with institutions capable of using it.
Knowing how disease is transmitted is useful. Knowing how levers work is useful. knowing about cauterising wounds or tempering iron is useful.

>Math, well, maybe you could impress some smart people.
Do you seriously believe maths has no practical functions? Have you ever even done anything? I've worked on organic farms, in construction sites, on sailboats and in markets. Maths was incredibly useful.

Not to mention literacy, which again is basic.

You are definitely taking this for granted.

>We aren't talking about a century ago, we're talking about antiquity. Is there data on ancient IQs?
There is data on contemporary pre-industrial societies in the third world, and it isn't good. Obviously genetic differences are a confounder. I think it's reasonable to believe that the agrarian and industrial societies of a century ago are more comparable to antiquity than the information-based society of today. I'd go so far as to say that iq levels of the ancients were even lower, obviously just an opinion but without time travel we'll never know.

evola wrote a book titled "fascism viewed from the right"

he's right wing

SATANIC TRIPS

How the hell did a discussion about tradition devolve into a shitting match over the intelligence of ancients?

>I'm just saying ideas shouldn't be given more credence just because they happened at some point in the past.
I don't understand why, though.
>I like tradition as cultural thing and I often prefer tradition to novelty but I would never use tradition as a justification for any moral or practical questions.
Why not? Do you think utilitarianism or some other modern ethical philosophy is simply more likely to be correct than a traditional morality, like Confucianism?
>"the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition, human reason being incapable of attaining it."
I don't think you're that familiar with traditionalism.
>"the upholding or maintenance of tradition, especially so as to resist change."
>if that is the case you oppose any upholding or maintenance of tradition, which automatically means opposing traditions in and of itself.
Also not really similar to any form of traditionalism I'm familiar with.
>Speaking English doesn't make you more or less intelligent than speaking Latin. We aren't arguing about who is best equipped to survive in the other's world.
Why not?
>Knowing how disease is transmitted is useful. Knowing how levers work is useful. knowing about cauterising wounds or tempering iron is useful.
Sure. The only one of those things that comes from modern knowledge is the first. Even then, the concept of a quarantine is centuries old.
>Do you seriously believe maths has no practical functions?
Where did you get that?
>There is data on contemporary pre-industrial societies in the third world, and it isn't good.
lol
Some egotistic retard decided he was smarter than anyone in the ancient world and had to start yelling about it.

...

>This thread
>one autist yelling "LALALALA EVERYONE IN ANCIENT TIMES IS STOOPID BECAUSE I SAY SO LALALALALA" "JUST BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS DONE THAT WAY DOESN'T MEAN IT'S EXTREMELY STUPID MY OPINION IS FACT"

He's the man that managed to criticize the Nazis for not being right wing enough.

Nazis are not "right wing" or "left wing".

Nazis werent right wing. They were third positionists.

Huh. Never heard of him before, but he's pretty close to my own positions.

So that makes me a traditionalist, I guess?

*sniff* The only people not guided by PURE idoeology.

I honestly do not know what you mean by that. Is that a joke? What does it mean? And what does Nicki have to do with it?

Niki is a Monarch, *sniff* is a reference to Zizek, and Traditionalists are not heavily ideological such as... Nazis, or Fascists.

Did you post a picture of him in another thread, too? What the fuck do you think you're trying to prove? The Russian Orthodox Church is pure ideology.

It has nothing to do with the church m8.
What's wrong with you?

>It has nothing to do with the church m8.
Why not? The Tsars had a lot to do with the Church.

I am just posting him as an image.
Literally no other reason.

Yeah that is obviously a polemic title to sell books. It worked. He was great at coming up with catchy book names. Metaphysics of Sex? I mean come on.

I bet those dumb shit heel farmers know a shitload about agriculture, weather patterns, seasons, wildlife and plants. But it's the current year so we are so much more enlightened? Leftists like you disgust me you're so stuffed up and lack self awareness it's pathetic. 8/10 bait

HOLY SHIT YOU ARE DUMB. TRADITION IS LIKE SCIENCE IT IS BUILT OFF THE PAST AND THE EVENTS OF THE PAST. DO YOU JUST IGNORE ALL THE SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS AND START OVER AGAIN WHEN YOU WANT TO DO MATH? WHY TOSS OUT TRADITION IF YOU WILL NOT DO SO FOR EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE? YOU MEME LOVING TRENDY KEKLICANS HOW IS YOUR GIRLFRIENDS BULLS SON SHED?

>muh spirit

Evola is less fun Aleister Crowley

This is not how you type like Rei.

>I'll say ancestral to pack-in a positive connotation before the argument even starts.

Just call them what they are, long dead people. Just as stupid as alive people, but there was no facebook to prove it, so you only hear about the few smart people that lived among them.

I've been listening to Evola's Ride the Tiger in audiobook format. The chapter In the World Where God is Dead explains everything that's going on in the world today.

kek

Opinions aren't facts buddy

neither should new ideas becuase they're new and "progressive", not giving a fuck about the past is the reason why Europe is this situation, millions of people from a cult where statistically every other person is an extremist in one way or another (pew research), where they're literally sieging & destroying border fences with improvised rams, and the population of Europe wants them in becuase it's "progressive"

traditionalism works becuase you know that the system you had works, you don't know that this new idea works in practice, so you'll need a long time to think it over before implementing it or not

You are conflating a gorillion right wing attitudes and positions into a highly self-contradictory mish mash. I don't think Evola was that bad but there are way smarter people on the right.

This. Edmund Burke was probably one of the smartest people who ever lived.

Evola to people like De Maistre and Burke is what Stefan Molyneux is to Evola.