So I'm reading this book and seeing things

How? Aristotelian metaphysics and all its derivatives provide a very viable alternative to a Platonic metaphysics without requiring the acceptance of something as strange as a Platonic heaven.

They, fundamentally, are not incompatible. Only the superficial examiner comes to that conclusion. It's a matter of perspective. They are both dealing with the same realities, only Aristotle is bottom up and Plato is bottom down view.

point is i used to be incredibly scared of death since it appeared as unavoidable oblivion but as long as there is another option at all i am not afraid

They aren't really incompatible at all. On the contrary, they complement each other very well.

I've only got through Physics to understand his thought and Poetics as a teenager. Where should I go from it?

Aristotelian in rebus universals is very much incompatible with the Platonic ante rem idea of universals

see my other post. They are compatible from a "perspictavist" standpoint. Aristotle is a bottom up view of reality, Plato is top down.
oops meant to write top down for Plato.

"perspectivist"*

so what the fuck do i have to do to become immortal? can i just enlist in the army and do something in a moment of pure action or do i have to be initiated into some cult or some shit

You're already immortal.

No man by his own power can make himself immortal. All will be forgotten, even if it takes a billion years. Only by attaching yourself to someone already immortal can you hope to live forever.

youtube.com/watch?v=9a8YL_vwlsY

Except that's not the case at all. No matter what perspective you take, Aristotle's idea of universals do not exist in an extra-worldly realm and Plato's idea of universals do not derive from imperfect instantiations of them.
Saying that each are correct under different perspectives does not make them compatible, as neither of the thinkers would have agreed, and it only requires a larger metaphysical framework that not only fits both but somehow reconciles them. What you end up with is something that is neither Platonic nor Aristotelian, and taken to its ends may result in something completely unrecognizable just in order to reconcile the viewpoints.
Also I'd like to point out that a perspectivist view could not reconcile the Aristotelian idea that uninstantiated universals are nonexistent (because to be a universal is to be something instantiated) with the Platonic idea that universals, instantiated or not, are the true world and the material we see around us are merely imperfect representations of that.

You can be as narrow minded as you wish. That's your prerogative. They are perfectly compatible if you don't examine them superficially.

What are these books really about? I'm a complete noob, but I've heard people praising them before

Traditionalist weltanschauung. Guenon is heavier in his emphasis on metaphysics, Evola on action, but they're both traditionalists.
youtube.com/watch?v=hnnXKmGQ4nI

I'd actually say Aristotle operates both bottom-up and top-down, insofar as he makes a distinction between order of explanation (universals being first-order
here / "said-of") and order of being (primary substances and the categories / "present-in"). The major stumbling block I see here is how Plato finds the issue of flux
and essence compared to Aristotle.
In what sense would you say they they are dealing with the same metaphysical principles? I can grasp finite within the infinite, but I do not see how transcendence
which is which is distinct and hovers above the world can be reconcilable, or interact with, immanence. Though I am interested to hear how.

...

...

It always bothered me how guenon doesn't have a forehead.

doesn't seem that bad, he just has a long face which makes it seem relatively smaller

but guenon's books have better covers and seem more entertaining so I am a bit conflicted here..

You mean evola's books?

After 20 years of not masturbating I have become one with metaphysical truth that the abrahamic religions call god

>converts to islam
Heh nothing personal west

yeah I did write that incorrectly, I meant evolas books seem more fun and aesthetic

Anyone have an .epub of this? I can't deal with PDF's

Op here, I got mine on Pirate Bay, don't know about other.

Sorry, it was a pdf. My apologies

On the right hand side of the webpage are 9 different formats of the book available to download, among them .epub

archive.org/details/JuliusEvolaRevoltAgainstTheModernWorld

That's just the original PDF converted to EPUB.

Well then just zoom in nigga, like make the text larger smdh

lol he looks like a background character from a Hellboy comic

That's basically what he was in real life. His writing was the logistical support for the struggle against the forces of evil.

I'm casually working on one right now so it's going to take a long time. All I have is the text from the PDF so I have to manually format the text and remove the extra spaces on every line. Plus there's a ton of footnotes on every page. It's very labor intensive but I don't know better way to do it.

Does he address the JQ?

read Hume.

Guenon doesn't, but Evola does in Men Among the Ruins.

Cuz you are right now, epic twitter leftypol memer?

Throughout his writings he notes the Jewish over-representation in Bolshevism, makes the point that the flaws of western culture/Christianity are in part because it's partially based on jewish culture/Judaism, and he repeatedly talks about how "those who are in charge" manipulate the masses into ignorance of the truth and of metaphysics and into believing all the 'modern' spooks etc. He elsewhere writes about the metaphysics of Kabbalah and other things in Judaism but was definitely hip to the JQ.

I don't think he addresses the JQ explicitly but the implication of his writings are that if western society was able to reestablish it's intellect and understanding of Tradition/metaphysics and consequently organize society around traditional principles then subversion/ignorance would no longer be a serious issue.

dats a whole lotta interpolatin n shiet you just did my nigga

Not really, he explicitly says in East and West in addition to several other books that he thinks the best thing for the west would be for it to develop its understanding of Tradition and of metaphysics and to base western society around that in the same way that eastern cultures are, although he explains that he's not talking about the west adopting eastern culture but the west returning to basing itself on timeless metaphysical principles like the eastern ones do.

It's not that big of a leap to assume that if this took place than a few jewish-owned media pieces would not be able to reverse everything and turn everyone back into good goy sheeple again. In a truly traditional society people would stop caring about mass-media and mental sludge like sports and tv and would instead acquire their values from and let themselves be guided by Tradition and not the MSM.

He says that the reason for negative Jewish influences was secularization of Jews. He believed that Orthodox Judaism, and its various mystical streams, were perfectly valid and traditional.

I would agree that he view certain sects of Judaism as valid traditions although at one point in "Intro to Hindu Doctrines" he attributes the relative absence of the genuinely metaphysical in Christianity to the fact that it's the product of the Jewish and Greek mind.

He writes about how there was an excessive 'religious' focus in Judaism to the detriment of the metaphysical (without necessarily saying it was entirely lacking). He also writes about how the Greeks were obsessed with aesthetics and external appearances and tended to humanize deities while losing track of the metaphysical principles for which they really stand for (outside of maybe mystery cults).

In the view he lays out he thinks these two factors led to the fact that Christianity is dogmatically 'faith-based' and to a lesser extent 'mystical' (mysticism being inferior to metaphysics in his view); and why it's really devoid of a comprehensive metaphysical teaching. Christianity combined Greek and Jewish thought and become something encumbered by the Form, dependent on faith and spontaneous mystical experiences, without any metaphysical tradition stemming from universal principles. Of course he notes exceptions but that's an accurate depiction of how he viewed modern Christianity, he viewed Medieval Christianity as better but still notes the inferiority of that to the genuinely eastern traditions.

So yes he viewed Judaism and even certain eras of Christianity as being legitimate representatives of the perennial Tradition but didn't hesitate to note their flaws in comparison to say Hinduism, Daoism, Islam etc.

>So yes he viewed Judaism and even certain eras of Christianity as being legitimate representatives of the perennial Tradition but didn't hesitate to note their flaws in comparison to say Hinduism, Daoism, Islam etc.
Exactly. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It's still a valid tradition, but certainly he considered it in some ways inferior to others.

I do. Use calibre to convert it, but before using calibre use a program that can crop the pdf to a certain size (as if it were an image). That program is useful for removing page numbers at the bottom of a page and chapter names at the top. After 'cropping' it, you can convert it in calibre and you should get a very readable file.

Try

if you're editing in Word play around with advanced Find and Replace... You can fix many extra spaces at once if you get it right

Christianity is not deficiently metaphysical: Hinduism is excessively metaphysical.

The reason that Christianity is not overtly metaphysical is because it is the religion sent by God to mankind for their salvation, and metaphysical speculation is the privilege of few, not of mankind. Religions like Hinduism and Buddhism that are too excessively metaphysical and mystical end up becoming elitist and detached from mankind, which is totally contrary to the purpose and essence of Christianity: which is to bring God to all mankind without distinction. Nevertheless, Christianity has always had theologians and monks who practiced metaphysical speculation and mystical contemplation, and you can find their thought in writings such as the Philokalia and the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, as well as later mystics even to the present day.

Liberation > Salvation

Live like Diogenes.

>good goy sheeple
>mental sludge like sports and tv
the pic related would seem almost redundant given what thread this is, but still

This post is a profound testament to your far-reaching intellect. You have seen right through their mystification, their irrational charade, pierced them, as it were, with the katana of your skepticism. I applaud your, sir! I applaud you!

True, but Christianity offers a greater liberation than Hinduism as well.

The Works of Zhuangzi

terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html

What liberation would that be? As far as I know they don't offer Liberation at all.

Liberation from error, sin, death. From our own human corruption into spiritual rebirth, freedom, and divinization: "the liberty of the glory of the children of God."

>Regard as free not those whose status makes them outwardly free, but those who are free in their character and conduct. For we should not call men in authority truly free when they are wicked or dissolute, since they are slaves to worldly passions. Freedom and happiness of soul consist in genuine purity and detachment from transitory things.

St. Anthony

>The incensive power and desire, on the other hand, are to be treated like the servant and the handmaid of another tribe (cf. Lev. 25: 4I-42). The contemplative; intellect, through fortitude and self-restraint, subjugates them for ever to the lordship of the intelligence, so that they serve the virtues. It does not give them their complete freedom until the law of nature is totally swallowed up by the law of the spirit, in the same way as the death of the unhappy flesh is swallowed up by infinite life (cf. 2 Cor. 5:4), and until the entire image of the unoriginate kingdom is clearly revealed, mimetically manifesting in itself the entire form of the archetype. When the contemplative intellect enter this state it gives the incensive power and desire their freedom, transmuting desire into the unsullied pleasure and pure enravishment of an intense love for God and the incensive power into spiritual fervor, an ever-active fiery elan, a self-possessed frenzy.

St. Maximos the Confessor

>Spiritual freedom is release from the passions; without Christ’s mercy you cannot attain it.

St. Thalassios

>The man engaged in ascetic practice cannot rise above ethical propriety, unless he goes beyond the natural law -- as Abraham went forth from his own land -- and beyond his own limited state of development -- as Abraham left his kinsmen (cf. Gen. 12:1). In this way, as a mark of God's approval, he will be liberated from the all-embracing hold of pleasure; for it is this veil of pleasure, wrapped around us from our birth, that prevents us from receiving complete freedom.

St. Ilias

that sounds like the stoic apatheia, and buddhism clearly goes beyond it as that stage is just a preparation for the unconditioned in that system, not sure about hinduism

>evola had kids
source?

Point me to one passage in Plato beside the one in the Phaedrus about the "topos hyperouranios" that indicates Plato believed in a heaven or world of forms.

italians

>Christianity is not deficiently metaphysical

One could argue that if that were the case then western society wouldn't have arrived at the point it is today where it is ignorant of metaphysical principles and basically exemplifies the Kali Yuga.

It is true that in certain eras and with certain fringe figures there were metaphysical ideas being propagated in Christianity but since these were not an essential part of the main doctrines it meant that very few people were aware of them in comparison to the vast majority of believers which consequently led to ignorance among the masses which spread upwards with time.

If Christianity was not heavily lacking in the metaphysic then the west would be much closer to an eastern traditional culture. The sad state of things today is a testament to how Christianity eventually failed in this regard.

i see your point, but most eastern cultures haven't proved very resilient either to our degeneration as soon as money starts pouring in

Anyone who decides to be open-minded and look at the evidence will find that the top opinion-makers in media are overwhelmingly Jewish and that they tend to denigrate any sort of tradition that belongs to white European culture and relentlessly attack people who profess to be guided by higher values if that means they don't agree with progressiveism.

It's much easier and takes less time to half-ironically throw around terms like 'good goy sheeple' then to earnestly write out a whole paragraph trying to accurately explain the situation every time it comes up in a thread because many people on Veeky Forums are already well aware of the trend.

>attacking me as a fedora for saying sports and tv is trash

Nothing has contributed to the detriment of the American mind and the Americanized-west more than the over-fascination with television and televised sports.

The average American literally watches on average 5 hours of television a day. Think of all that time and brainpower wasted that could be spent reading or doing other things of an intellectual or productive nature.

nydailynews.com/life-style/average-american-watches-5-hours-tv-day-article-1.1711954

It's true that globalization has spread modernity and western culture all around the globe but across vast swathes of the middle east, India and SE Asia outside of the biggest cities you'll still find Traditional cultures exactly as Guenon describes them in his works, as opposed to the West where the entire culture has been anti-traditional since the renaissance.

It allways boils down to Plato vs Aristotle. And Aristotle wins every time.

>>since the renaissance.
You misspelled "Since when Phillip the Fair burned the templars and invented the nation-state".

How so?

...

wtf

Fascism and homosexuality go hand-in-hand

...

This

t. 17 year old

This sentence provided a unique look I never thought of.
>In most cases, savage tribes should not be considered a pre-civilized state of mankind, but rather as extremely degenerated forms of very ancient races and civilizations.
We need to go deeper

This is speaking of those tribes that lost their spiritual virility. I must admit thought that I am confused on what the author is trying to say, something about the specific orientation of the kings following specific rites helps a civilization proper. How does he draw such metaphysical conclusion? How do you know if the right orientation is being done, and could this even be possible to achieve in modern times?

Gonna read it too, I assume it's a brand new Bible

Good post, thanks

I think Evola is full of shit. I am not a complete scientific materialist, there may indeed be "many natures" outside of the material as Evola claims. But his inductive method only shows that ancient society put faith into rites and spiritual authority, not that such a system was truly efficacious. He even gives a credulous explanation of how when spiritual authorities brought misfortune upon their people it was said to be because they had committed some impiety.

>It was believed, for instance, that the consequence for failing to implement the fundamental Aryan virtue of always telling the truth, and thus being stained by lies, caused the "glory," or the mystical efficacious virtue, to abandon the ancient Iranian king, Yima. All the way up to the Carolingian Middle Ages and within Christianity itself, local councils of bishops were at times summoned in order to investigate what misdeed perpetrated by a representative of the temporal or ecclesiastical authority could have caused a given calamity.

OK, sure. Or maybe shit just happens.

good book