*Appeals to tradition*

Tradition = eternity

How do one does philosophical investigations without tradition?

I don't know which one of you two morons is more retarded.

Definitely me

...

it's not philosophy you retard

>*Appeals to progress*

And this is considered philosophy?

>liberal institutions don't promote reactionary ideas
really makes you think

>I have never heard of it being discussed by my uni's literature professors and never seen the wink of it on /r/books.

...

>it isn't mentioned anywhere in Marxist echo chambers so it's not worth my time

You'd think Veeky Forums would be immune to low level bait like this.

top tier bait my dude

>and never seen the wink of it on /r/books.

I giggled

how did you retards get baited like this

Tradition is a point of reference and ideal, not a mere premise in a syllogistic argument. Evola isn't "arguing" in order to convert you. Tradition is real, living, and effective. Disregard it at your own peril.

"new Tradition" is an oxymoron. Don't conflate Ride the Tiger with his earlier work. In any case, in RTT he was arguing that we should hold on to the inner, essential side of Tradition, but drop the exterior because the exterior is no longer effective or salutary. In Revolt he was just doing an overview of various themes spanning different Traditions. He wasn't arguing for anything like what you've implied yet. He was generally antichristian though.

Quality post. RATMW is not a normative argument espousing a standard of behavior, but a reflection of modernity and a critique of post-Versailles Europe.

Can you explain some more? Sounds very interesting

Read the first 118 pages of Rene Guenon's Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines.
cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Rene Guenon/organized/accounted/Rene Guenon - Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines.pdf

tl;dr Tradition is rooted in metaphysics which is perennial and unchanging. Modernity is a deviation from Tradition, ergo it has a negative and contingent character―it is defined with reference to the Tradition from which it deviates. There's way more to it than that, though. Read the book.

Will do. Thanks

Here's a chart I made, hth.

Is Evola still worth reading?

Yeah, but he's more politically oriented. Also he and Guenon disagreed on where action and contemplation stood in the metaphysical hierarchy, and Evola insisted that spiritual power and secular power should not be separated.

>Yeah, but he's more politically oriented.
you can always ignore his political books and read his books about traditions like the buddhism one

he will sperg out about aryans from time to time but it's a great book otherwise

Doctrine of awakening is unironically fantastic.

Well, there are two main theses in Evola:

(1) "Most religions of earth show signs of an undergoing "tradition" or share similar characters philosophically speaking."
This theses is the conclusion of an induction argument resulting from gathering data from different religions, mythological traditions, etc.
This argument is sound (though it may be false, for instance if someone came up with a different interpretation for the same data adding to it a stronger justification)

2. "We should live according to this philosophy most religious traditions share"
Now this is just an argument from authority. The fact that all religions make similar statements about the world does not mean that they are true.
This argument is unsound.

Nonetheless, Evola's point looks persuasive if you start from a Platonic metaphysics, i.e. believing that there is an upper level of Forms/Being and a lower level of sensibles/Becoming.

There is still a lot that could be elaborated philosophically in him. Still, I think he's a great historian of religion and should be respected as an intellectual, despite of his political leanings.

What do you think of this?

This is a helpful chart.
Thanks!

Haven't read it. It seems to be a collection of essays. Could be a good intro.
Your're welcome.

Not him but as a fellow Gay-non reader I would say that your pic contains a large selection of many good pieces of writing by him but that you would probably be much better off by starting with "intro to hindu doctrines" and then reading the specific works of his that interest you most.

It takes time to read his whole corpus and you might not be thralled by all of it but if you read 'the essential' you would be missing out on important info and so you'd be best served by reading his 'intro' and than branching out from there into what interests you.

fixed it

Checked, nice b8 m8

Kek

>appeals to God
>doesnt even know what that God is

And this is considered philosophy?

Doesn't even know "who" God is

much more important question with an answer too obvious for most brainlets to get

weren't warriors traditionally above priests?

I think it was usually

Priests > Warriors > Merchants > Workers/Slaves/Whatever

Not in any meaningful sense and it varies by kingdom and era. Not to mention the cultus of the populace and the ruling caste.

kings and nobility mostly came from the warrior class, though. maybe i'm not understanding exactly what is meant by a "traditional" society.

>this is considered philosophy
no its not. you’ve been meme’d on by /pol/ and rw pseuds LARP’ing as vedics and egyptians

>tfw just spent all day in archive reading Evola's letters
>tfw handling papers Evola handled and signed

I FEEL THE INITIATION OVERTAKING ME

WHO WANTS TO HAVE TANTRIC SEX

Thanks user. Just finished I.T.T.S.O.T.H.D the other day. Truly fascinating work. Interesting to discover that practically all of western philosophy/ science/ astrology is derived from eastern metaphysics.

Kings rule the earthly realm and priests have dominion over heaven, so to speak. Since heaven is, uh, the more moral/real realm, priests > kings, even if it seems that kings do more.

pics or it didnt happen

The interesting part is where he tries to pass off his own insecurities and bias' as profound thought.

The books are really fucking interesting, I've only read like 2 and a bit but they seem to appeal to certain ego's if I'm being honest. I kind of question his followers ability to think for themselves.

It's like a dethroned king writting a reactionary book calling for the divine right to be reinstated and justifying it in the most verbose way possible. I dunno what do you guys think?

...

>belief in ghosts and telepathy
lmao why would anyone read this

>He hasn't personally witnessed the paranormal

Well played, user

>He believes he has witnessed a natural event that violates the laws of nature.

>laws of nature

Pre sure Stirner was a big materialist, he believed in the laws of natural physics - probably in a solipsistic way. I think he wrote quite a bit on biology and races, not too sure though.

>nature is a spook so ghosts are real

>Make a post calling out bait
>Lmao get baited
So this is the true Veeky Forums experience

Ghosts could hypothetically exist regardless of whether the concept of laws of nature was valid or not. If it wasn't valid that would be enough but if they existed but the concept was valid that would mean it involved phenomena that science had not discovered/understood.

Evola, Guenon and all the other Traditionalists shit on science for good reason though. In a Trad thread bringing up science is useless. According to the generally established trad view science is wholly inferior to anything having to do with Metaphysics, with deals with fundamental reality. Science is predicated upon logic which is weak application of intelligence.

The highest form of intelligence and the true meaning of the term is essentially supra-rational, and deals not with logic and contingent subjects but rather deals with things of a metaphysical nature. The highest form of knowledge is one where there is no distinction between knowledge and the subject of knowledge itself; this is impossible with logic as logic involves cognition about a subject. Since time immemorial the perennial tradition has passed down the means to metaphysical knowledge and the context to understand it.

Focusing on arbitrary constructs like science distracts attention from things of a higher order, that actually deal with the fundamental nature of existence more so than any numbers games or study of matter/energy.

You are free to disagree but you should recognize that the spook of scientism is but a blink of an eye in the history of humanity, that there is an overwhelming amount of tradition and accumulated wisdom that points out its folly, and that for all it material successes scientism directly ties into the spiritual and moral degeneration of modern civilization.

I like you. You can fuck my sister.

It's simple, retards:
>ghosts and other paranormal phenomena have been observed countless times
>laws of nature cannot be broken
>paranormal phenomena exist but are not violations of natural laws

Ghosts can't exist because the idea of a corporeal incorporeality is a contradiction. You are using the logical law of non-contradiction here
>The highest form of knowledge is one where there is no distinction between knowledge and the subject of knowledge itself; this is impossible with logic as logic involves cognition about a subject
in order to undermine logic itself, which is a performative contradiction.

I don't think science is the end all either, and I detest deterministic believers in scientism; they smack of a secular Calvinism. But to say that ghosts can exist anywhere other than in the mind is foolish; it's like saying a sailboat could hypothetically go against a current with no wind or any other sort of force carrying it in that direction. It's thinkable, true, but it will never happen. As Kant says, it's idle imagination rather than understanding.

If James Joyce had anything worthwhile to say, he wouldn't only have traction in small literary circles. Clearly J.K. Rowling is superior.

>because the idea of a corporeal incorporeality is a contradiction
So stop defining them as a corporeal incorporealities retard
>make up contradictory definition
>hurrr it can't exist look its a contradiction

What else can you call a manifest spirit?

The phenomena has been observed many times. There is no evidence suggesting what the nature of the phenomena is. That's all. We don't know what "ghosts" are, although there are loads of ridiculous theories. It doesn't negate the fact that the phenomena itself has been observed. Giving it a contradictory definition won't make it go away.

Is there anyone Evola WASN'T the virgin to?

I like Serrano's fiction and his book about Jung, but his other shit is fuckin kookoo

Did you read Devi, Jung, and Evola before him? If not, then it might be hard to understand what he's talking about. Also you have to already be pretty /pol/-tier if you want to study his conspiracies. I imagine most normalscum would be put off by Serrano immediately.

Ok, you fucking massive brainlet, let me put it another way; what is the phenomenON you are observing? If it is a single phenomenon you should at least be able to provide a general description of its occurrence. If not (which is, not incidentally, the case), then it's not fair to rank it in the category of phenomena, and this type of event should more appropriately be called a story, which most reasonable people consider it to be.

You can't call my definition out as false, then refuse to provide one.
>lol bro ghosts are like maybe real but nobody knows what they are spooky rite

>You can't call my definition out as false, then refuse to provide one.
Actually, I can. It's called "not knowing". If I don't know something I don't pretend to know it. At the same time, if I don't understand something the rational thing to do is to simply acknowledge that I don't understand it, not to completely deny its existence.
>it's not fair to rank it in the category of phenomena
lmao, so don't call it a "phenomena" if that triggers you. Call it "chicken soup" for all I care. I don't care what label you tack onto it.

/thread

So, whenever you see something you don't fully comprehend, you say, "well shucks it must've been a ghost"? And if you have absolutely no knowledge of what it is, how can you separate this thing in question from the idea of non existence, if you have no idea what it looks like, how you see it, or whether you see it?

>he doesn't understand Metaphysics

There is a general (trigger warning) PHENOMENA which we call the ghost phenomena. It has known characteristics: apparitions of people or animals that walk through walls, appear and disappear etc. We don't understand the nature of this phenomena but it has been observed many times. I never said I had absolutely NO knowledge. I am aware of the existence of the phenomena, I just don't understand its nature or mechanism.

>It has known characteristics: apparitions of people or animals that walk through walls, appear and disappear etc.

Right, so as far as perception (the only basis for understanding of natural phenomena) is concerned, these ostensible events have the characteristics of physically manifest spirits. But physical things in nature are not incorporeal, since if they were, they would not be physical, and vice a versa. So there are no ghosts. Thanks for playing

Not the guy you're replying to but you're a retard.

notanargument.jpg etc.

>physically manifest spirits. But physical things in nature are not incorporeal, since if they were, they would not be physical, and vice a versa. So there are no ghosts
1. I Never said they were physical
2. I Never said they were "spirits" in whatever way you are defining that term

Woah. You seem very well veraed on this. What are thoughts on Madame Blavatsky’s views? Are any of her works based on anything within the realm of possibility?

...

I’ve only read Devi. But I have Ebola on my reading list to. What do you think I should start with in regards to Jung’s stuff? I have Adolf Hitler the ultimate Avatar on my reading list but I’m going to have to do a lot more reading before I get round to it

Kek

Ahhh

No, seriously. If you're actually interested in Blavatsky then read that book.
ia801305.us.archive.org/30/items/reneguenon/1921-Theosophy-HistoryOfAPseudo-religion.pdf

Oh okay thanks. I don’t know too much about her only that she thought that Aryans descended from Atlanteans.. which I’m inclined to believe

not in medieval times. There's a reason the Pope literally crowned Charlemagne, that doesn't mean that the church has terrestrial executive power above kings, but the king still has to bow to the law of god, so the church is in that sense above nobles and kings

>It's like a dethroned king writting a reactionary book calling for the divine right to be reinstated and justifying it in the most verbose way possible. I dunno what do you guys think?
well, given that Evola was literally nobility in a time when aristocracy had lost their position it makes sense. But I'm personally not a fan of psychologizing people, it gets to a point when you start confusing the highest with the lowest when you do that as Guenon warned.

...

>everything is a spook
>except actual spooky ghosts
makes sense

I've been going down this path myself recently, suprisingly it ended up with me starting to read the greeks after giving Guenon a try with Reign of Quantity. Subject matter is very interesting but the understanding of metaphysics required is way beyond what I have

be aware that Guenon considered classical antiquity more degenerated than medieval times. Evola thought the opposite i think

>classical antiquity more degenerated than medieval times

Wtf i haye antiquity now