Traditionalism

What Traditionalists should I read other than Guenon and Evola?

>Zolla
>Eliade
>Serrano?
>??

Attached: renée guénon.jpg (700x700, 43K)

>Evola
>trad
this meme needs to end, I fucking hate /pol/

Gonna hijack this asking for the guenon/evola guide I saw. I know to start with the Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, but not sure where to go after.

Nasr himself called Evola a "crypto-traditionalist."

Don't read Zolla, Zoella is much better.

Crises of, and then Revolt Against, The Modern World.

>Evola
>not a huge proponent of the Traditionalist school

Imagine living in denial because another board at times adopts his political ideology

Attached: dennis.jpg (347x424, 19K)

giorgio agamben

>Spengler
>Eliade

for sure

Attached: 1467606735751.jpg (600x894, 83K)

Kuehnelt-Leddihn if you would consider him a traditionalist; he was no fan of democracy to say the least

Nasr himself has some pretty modernist opinions as well.

Donoso Cortés.

That's the Burke kind

Primary sources. That means ancient religious texts and Greek and Roman stuff.

can someone make an eliade chart, or at least post how to get into

Easiest way to get into him:
>Myth of the Eternal Return
>Just the methodological preface from Patterns in Comparative Religion
>The Sacred and the Profane

Then his other books from this initial period (1945-1956~):
>Forge and the Crucible
>Rites of Initiation
>Images and Symbols
>The rest of Patterns
>Shamanism
>Yoga (if you want)

Then whatever you want from his later stuff like The Quest. Aside from Shamanism and Patterns, all of these books are like 150~ pages in pocket-sized editions. Eliade is also very repetitive; once you get the basic metaphysics down from Myth, and the method from the preface of Patterns, the others are just him applying the metaphysics and method to various aspects of culture, to come up with the archetypes that Eliade personally thinks are culturally a priori: the Cosmic Tree, the Centre, Cosmogony, the various elements etc. Patterns is the most explicit outlay of these archetypes, and shamanism and yoga make the point that any seeker of archetypal knowledge or experience is by definition an initiate into sacred knowledge; Forge does the same with alchemists.

Eliade was reading Jung's and also Bachelard's archetype theories in the '50s, and like those two guys he is being literal about the existence of the archetypes they believed were real. If you still like Eliade after reading all that stuff, you can read his Journal for 1945-1956, which is pretty short and skimmable, and the Portugal Journal for some points of historical interest.

His fiction is just "okay." It's him applying the same ideas again, as with everything he writes. The Forbidden Forest is the big one, and includes a self-insert that is also an insert of Evola. It's about the camouflage of the sacred in the profane, the real in the ephemeral. Some of his Romanian stuff of the '30s is more interesting, but I don't think it has been translated yet - Hooligans and Serpent, mostly. Maitreyi (Bengal Nights) is mostly interesting as a piece of literature from the time.

Also yes he was a huge fascist in the 1920s-1930s, pretty much Evola 2: Romanian Boogaloo.

Eliade is accessible but also very repetitive. Read the sacred and the profane and you've pretty much learned all you need to know about him.

If you're going to do that I'd say make it Myth of the Eternal Return instead because he is writing for postwar France at the same time Guenon is publishing _Reign of Quantity_, Teilhard de Chardin is publishing _Phenomenon of Man_, etc. Sacred and Profane is him tidying up his views and includes two essays irrelevant for the layperson, on his relation to Rudolf Otto and a history of "comparative religions" that traces it as a perennial discipline of archaic philosophy (but mostly the essay is just about the method of Religionswissenschaft since the 19th century).

MotER also has more of his "anti-Hegelian" philosophy, which is a nice (but unreflective) parallel with developments in political theology at the time. Eliade was never a great philosopher, but he was friends with Junger, Schmitt, etc., and what he hamfistedly means by "Hegel" in MotER is very similar to what both left and right political theology was saying in the '30s and '40s which is interesting if you get into that stuff later.

Actually if anyone is interested in seriously reading Eliade I would recommend they add Otto to their list just for the hell of it, The Idea of the Holy (Das Heilige). Amazing book, insanely influential in the 20th century, and short.

>traditionalism
>waa waa women aren't enslaved by men anymore and black people can vote now waaaaaaa

off yourself, reactionary scum

it's 2018, get used to it

all of the best writers are reactionary or fascist kiddo.

You seem to know your eliade user. I've only read The sacred and the profane, myth and reality, and a bit of images and symbols. All three felt as if they were the exact same book, just written under different titles, which bothered me alot because he already had the bad habit of repeating himself in each single book. It just felt like there was nothing to be gained by further reading him.

Terrible bait, back to plebbit.

politicized faggots in EVERY thread. They would politicize a rock if they could. Good thing anytime mass politicization happens, the hordes of plebs fueling this phenomenon go get killed in the incoming world war.

throw in every fucking jungian psychologist who has gone through fairytales and identified archetypes related to traditional masculinity

I consider myself a Jungian, as it its the field in which I am the most familiar with. Traditionalists, such as guénon, completely rip apart Jungian psychoanalysis. And rightly so, Jung adapted old wisdom and religious ideals to our new cultural predispositions, which traditionalist vehemently fight against. Jung was facing the future according to enlightenment thinking, although he was no enlightenment apologist

I used to be into this stuff but lately i'm getting the feeling more and more these guys are trying way to hard to sound profound and are just talking about a tradition that has never existed outside the idealized versions of religion they have in their heads.

I'd agree with one these posts above you would be much better of just reading original religious scriptures and philosophical works.

He's not a traditionalist, but I feel Hero with a Thousand Faces by Campbell meshes really well with any of the usual Traditionalist authors. It has the same sort of comparative mythology aspect, while also offering some good counterpoints to Traditionalism. He still gives plenty of mythological examples that can be tied back to the others, eg great cycles in history, heroism, transcendent truths etc. Plus, it's a really good read, Campbell has a great writing style.

Another counterpoint book that lies in the same vein is the Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. It's also about universal truths found in traditional cultures, but imo it was a pretty boring read and I really had to trudge through it. I also disagreed with a ton of it, but I nonetheless valued it as a sort of different perspective on the universal truths understood by our ancestors.

This barely even makes sense, most of Evola's works are about comparing the traditional man with the modern man, and expounding on "Tradition" as he called it. How is that not Traditionalist?

Attached: 1520454285858.jpg (1600x1144, 1.1M)

de maistre

I got you.

Attached: Evola.png (994x4724, 1.6M)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was needing.

>Crises of, and then Revolt Against, The Modern World.
I would also throw in Yuga by Marty Glass. You can think of it as an updated version of Reign of Quantity or RAtMW. His writing style is conversational and unconventional, even by modern standards, but what I find most interesting is, he synthesizes Marx, Baudrillard, and Ellul, with the Traditionalists.

Evola will give you plenty to read already, if you do it right at least, and you are sure to reap rewards from reading his work

Attached: Evola guide.jpg (993x3657, 1.22M)

None except
>Greek and Roman stuff.
and Jaeger
+ Maistre

Marco Pallis for Buddhism, Coomaraswamy for Hinduism, Buddhism and Indian art, Nasr for Islam and Sufism.

The traditionalists are best read alongside the primary eastern texts themselves

There's no reason to give a fuck about traditions, and don't come up with a petersonian excuse like "Y-you gotta do what you gotta do, if it's old it works!"

I wish Evola were alive so he could power up his ki and show you not to talk that way about tradition.

This, but unironically

How does the ideal traditionalist differ from the everyday Joe?

Now, I want somebody to make a shoop of Evola with super saiyan hair.

The peterson excuse is a bunch of jumbled metaphors about lobsters, a bird that attacked him and about how he fantasizes about killing children

>There's no reason to give a fuck about traditions
There are plenty. Just as you have given in to one desire; to pretend that traditions suck. This allows you to let go and live your life as a stupid go- ape.

Living your life as an ape does would be the pinnacle of traditionalism though. Truly back to the beginning of human tradition.

Nope. Plus the traditions we value are usually Aryan/Indo-European traditions (and occaisonally far Eastern ones, like Daoism or Confucianism) not older BS.

Fuck off LARPer, you browse Veeky Forums and are a virgin shut in.

Traditionalists are the fedoras of religious thought

>waaaa wa politics don't matter
End yourself

Traditionalism is a neurological disease. It doesn't even make sense. Ever notice how all traditionalists want to go back to the time they were "on top", but never the time before when they weren't? Like I don't see any of these little fedora kids advocating to go back to feudalism so they can work on farms for their lords.

All the best writers died before fascism was even a concept, statist scum.

Bringing up "fedora" is pretty lame to be honest, otherwise yes, I have noticed this. They aren't capable of metacognition; if you lived in the Middle Ages you would know of no better world, so you would stick to your feudalism and take it in stride as if it were the natural state of being.

The power of individual rationalisation is at best weak. A cognition of the world based upon purely an individuals experience is a myopic view and the wisest human incorpoates the lived experience of those billions other humans that came before him.

The reason why 'traditionalists' want to go back is based on two items
first the worldis in a constant state of decay and to go back means to be young again.
Secondly the past is known and the futue is unknown, it is much easier to carry oneself nobily if the variables and outcomes are understood.

Rescue your father from the belly of the whale friend.

Savitri Devi

what are the chances of a face being this symmetrical?

>Like I don't see any of these little fedora kids advocating to go back to feudalism so they can work on farms for their lords.
I unironically wouldn't mind this tbqh.

Attached: SerfVsSalaryMan-3.jpg (600x456, 40K)

Tradition means metaphysical doctrines as preserved in Hinduism, sufism, taoism and to a lesser extent other traditions... It doesn't mean just old social customs.

I just bought this. What am I in for?

Attached: 518DGNZNVoL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 51K)

>Can barely find any Evola books in French
They are translated but not printed anymore, for fucks sake.

Peterson isn't a Tradionalist, he's a glorified Liberal.

Traditionalism isn't about a time period, brainlet.

*dies of diarrhea*

They had herbs to stop that you know

Why is her forehead so short?

I'd rather be a serf and die at 30 with a sense of fulfillment and purpose, than be a wagecuck with an office job pushing papers to work for a pension, and have only a sense of ennui to show for it.