Can we talk about Evola and traditionalism in general? thoughts? was the enlightenment a mistake?

Can we talk about Evola and traditionalism in general? thoughts? was the enlightenment a mistake?

try to keep pol & antipol memes out of the way

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QiCtdi5nCoA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8&t=1s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The enlightenment was a mistake because it gave birth to the mental illness known as atheism.

He has some interesting insights but his emphasis on occultism and civilization having a 'transcendent' reference point muddles many of his observations. He also mistakes fundamentally the nature of many ancient civilizations.

Ride the Tiger's social commentary is interesting but again the mysticism kind of ruins it.

Doctrine of Awakening is god-tier though.

Evola should only be read in the context of the Perennial Philsophy, making him into a political theorist misses the point entirely

evola wasn't a traditionalist

he supported Tradition (capital t)

Tradition of acting like a fool and becoming a burden for society?

"Tradition," which is written with a capital T, refers to the notion of a "primordial Tradition." The term "tradition" is derived from the Latin word tradere, meaning "to convey." It is a polysemic term, thus causing intellectual confusion in respect of its various meanings. >"Tradition" connotes the ongoing transmission of cultural content in a historical processes linked to a founding event, or an immemorial past. Second, Tradition also refers to customs, historical memories, and folklore, which are inherited from the past and have permanence. Tradition is fundamentally opposed to the modern world, novelty, and change. In addition, Tradition is a form of collective consciousness related to the primordial identity of human communities. It is the memory of what has been, with the duty to transmit and enrich the traditions of the past. This is the project of Tradition in the esoteric sense. In the religious and metaphysical senses, Tradition connotes a corpus of myths, texts, and rituals. Tradition inspires specific cultural or social activities. It is fundamentally spiritual and metaphysical. It refers to a unique tradition, a "primordial Tradition" that precedes all local traditions. It is also a metaphysical doctrine, which is superhuman, immemorial, and guided by the wisdom of universal and invariable first principles. Or, as Mark Sedgwick succinctly writes, a Traditionalist is "someone who prefers a specific established practice over something that has replaced it."3 Tradition is sometimes confused with what Anglo-Saxon authors call Perennialism, or a quest for the "Tradition" which reconciles all religious traditions. Finally, for Guénon, "Tradition" could only be found in the monotheistic religions rather than pagan societies. Guénon insisted that Traditionalism must be understood in its esoteric meaning, which means, in short, acceptance of the "School of Tradition," a current of thought founded by René Guénon.

You wanna know what really triggers me about the modern world? The concept of "rights". The idea that people have certain "rights" and therefore may do those things. The worst offender has to be the "right to life". Apparently you have a "right to life", and that would then be the reason why you may live. Ludicrous. Not trying to be edgy or anything.

Evola is a good author, one of my favorites right now.

Here's a great interview with Evola:

youtube.com/watch?v=QiCtdi5nCoA

>was the enlightenment a mistake?
Perhaps that's a little too strong a redpill for most of us. However I think we could all agree that it was a mixed bag of good and bad.

Elaborate. What's wrong with 'rights' as a political theory?

>The concept of "rights"
Many pre-modern socities had concepts of rights. For example the right of the father via Pater Familia. They weren't "muh human rights." nor were they necessarily rights you agree with. But they had rights.

not sure how it's redpilled at all, it's a politically neutral statement.

post-modernism is a rejection of the enlightenment from a leftist orientation

This right here:
>"that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be understood universally through human reason."

I took that from here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

I think it's ridiculous. Obviously there's no such physical thing as a "right". And i think that there are clearly no metaphysical "rights" either. In the natural world, there is only might, and so might makes right.

The Roman state recognized the rights of Pater Familias. Had they wanted to, they could have denied that right. They simply chose not to restrict it, because the Romans respected that tradition. I don't think that the right of the Pater Familia was "inherent by virtue of human nature"...

>"rights… have no marks in them of natural origin, but many of artifice and contrivance. They are too numerous to have to have proceeded from nature; they are changeable by human laws; and have all of them a direct and evident tendency to public good, and the support of civil society”

Hume

I can agree with that statement... Hume was a bro.

I tend to interpret the concept of 'natural rights' in the context of social contract theory.

A "Right" is anything you could do in a state of nature, if no one stopped you. The right to speech, protection, assembly...murder, rape, theft.

People cede a portion of their 'rights' in the creation of the civilized state.

Though in terms of "God-given" or "Nature-granted" rights, I have nothing but contempt. Its a reificiation of an abstract concept, nothing more.

Thinking of reading this guy's works. I'm a complete newbie to philosophy though. Which other works should I read before his stuff? Which one of his books should I begin with?

nietzsche

you should also know a lot about history and religion

This, Evola is densely written and references older thinkers CONSTANTLY.

Start with the greeks.

Yes, that sounds reasonable to me. You have the "right" to do anything, as you could in the "state of nature". And any higher form of civilization therefore arises, when one (or several) people decide to restrict the rights of others, by creating laws. Thus "rights" can only be restricted, and so what we are dealing with is "You shan't's" not "You may's", if that makes sense.

I will say that the concept of Rights has one solid utility that should be kept in mind. It defines something that exists apart from the government. Its not something the State "gives" you, its something the State HAS to let you do, to maintain legitimacy.

Its a kind of anti-law. If Laws are things the State forbids the populace do, then Rights are things the populace forbid the State to do, or else.

People whose political theory images all rights as flowing from the State don't have that advantage.

Evola isn't the saviour the Alt-Right make him out to be, morality wise the guy was a absolute degenerate and mostly used esotericism as a excuse to engage in depravity.

It depends what you're interested in. Metaphysics? Esotericism? Politics? IMO fascism viewed from the right is the best to start out with. Mostly because I started out with it.

You can read as much esoteric fascist literature as you want, but if you have no sound economic theory to back up any of your arguments (natsocs) you'll never achieve a "successful" society, especially if you advocate for a welfare state.

You assume the right wing is inclined to subscribe to a specific morality. This isn't necessarily the case.

Corporatism

Evola's philosophy has literally zero basis other than being based off Hume's Is/Ought Fallacy.

Basically Evola's whole goal is to try and justify his aristocratic standing in society through some esoteric charlatanism and his works against certain "mistakes" in human history (whatever that means) is his inability to cope with his loss of social standing and the continued diminishing of his class.

t.salty bourgeoisie

Atheism is neurotic while religion is psychotic
Choose your poison, it doesn't really matter

And yet we've won and will go on winning for the rest of time. We can't be stopped.

Evola's entire body of work is basically autistic screeching.

Looks like my grandpa who's Sicilian

>Society is a nest of alienated hedonists and consumerists which is rapidly eating itself as 'outdated' traditional institutions fade away
>W-we're winning!

Yeah, until more 'traditional' Muslims come in and conquer your ass, like every barbarian tribe in history.

I don't even agree with Evola's mysticism, but many of his critiques of modern society are completely valid.

>muh anything I don't like is degeneracy

>Muslims
Every time the bourgeois is under threat it corrects itself and kicks out the virus. It happened in the 30's and I'm betting it ill happen again. The biggest threat to us is the loss of our personal capital and property. Once these things are affected by Muslim immigration then the middle class will react and you're seeing this with recent voting patterns throughout Europe and America.

t. neckbearded """über"""("""mensch""")

DID SOMEONE SAY EVOLA

If the western world survives, it will survive by flying screaming towards the political Right. The new generation is looking to be the most nationalist and conservative since the Greatest Generation.

This isn't a matter of magic or 'Tradition' with a capital T, its a matter of social institutions that are rotting and decaying and which will either be repaired or the entire society will be replaced by one with more functional institutions.

Decadence doesn't destroy civilizations, it just weakens them enough that they're easier to conquer by less dysfunctional civilizations.

ses

>If the western world survives, it will survive by flying screaming towards the political Right

Yep and which class will be leading this charge? Certainly not the aristocracy who are long dead. No. It will be the bourgeoisie and once the threat is over the cycle will repeat again. Doesn't matter what political ideology the bourgeoisie use; they'll always exist.

Evola isn't advocating for the far right. Far from it. He doesn't want the middle class to have any political agency at all. He doesn't want a right or left because this is inherently a middle class concept.

>He doesn't want a right or left because this is inherently a middle class concept.
He made "fascism viewed from the right" because he was a radical rightest.

Islam is part of the political right and the backwards barbarism of /pol/ and the like is no different.

>the backwards barbarism of /pol/
lol

>Islam is part of the political right
The right left spectrum is so borderline retarded I don't know why anyone on Veeky Forums humors it.

It's all relative. Saddam and Assad are secular socialist nationalist. Poltical speaking from a social standpoint they are far more right wing than anything mainstream found in the West. Same with ISIS. It's about ideology vs ideology. Not left vs right.

He did view the bourgeoisie as superior to what he knew would come after it. Evola considered the bourgeoisie just another group of suckers in the cycle.

...

testing if i am still banned

yey

>right to life
>modern

Some of the first known codes of law in history can be summed up as "the strong should not harm the weak". There is no tradition that contradicts this, even tribal societies try to protect life when possible.

Evola was a hack. He basically took whatever he liked (like 'survival of the strongest' - yeah, that sure doesn't sound like something Darwin came up with) and stated that it's all part of some primordial tradition. So you cannot disagree with me because then you are going against our most ancient tradition (that I just discovered)!

The West is still the most prosperous part of the world, the only problem we have is low birth rates. Which are connected entirely to wealth. You can already see Muslim countries having lower birth rates as they get more prosperous, just look it up. And when Muslims come to Europe they are also slowly moving towards our demographics. These things have zero to do with being "traditional" or not, but with material wealth.

Btw we are overcoming low birth rates too. Francd already has a fertility rate that's over 2 and no, it's not just because of immigrants. Scandinavia is also impriving in this regard. The secret is a strong welfare state that gives you incentives for having kids.

>survival of the strongest'
Evola never claimed "survival of the strongest" as a core tenet. The closet to this was his belief that the warriors were the greatest members of society.

You are historically illiterate if you think the concept of rights is modern. For all your trying not to be edgy that's the only thing you come off sounding as.

If anyone should meet you on the street, they should aquaint your brain with the pavement, as you'd have no problem with that, not believing in rights and all. Not trying to be edgy or anything.

youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8&t=1s

>
>
>

wtf i hate evola now

My problem with Evola is he is pretty much Marxist lite.

>rabid anti-Marxist
>Marxist lite
What?

Not really, religion should be seen as a intellectual support, while promoting glorious role-models and moral guidelines.

universal rights are. It's leftist-christian bullshit. Traditional conceptions of rights always came with duties related to your organic function in society. Also you're a triggered leftist cuck.

>everything I don't like is the same

>It's leftist-christian
Both of which have been opposed since 1700s

>You are historically illiterate if you think the concept of rights is modern.

Of course it is lol, ancient greeks and romans had no notion of "rights" as we understand them.

But they did. See

The Frankfurter Schule came with almost exactly the same critique

Yes we can talk about it.
I have good thoughts from what I've heard.
Yes the enlightenment was a mistake
No, there will be plenty of /pol/ contributions within our discussion
You are welcome OP.

>The new generation is looking to be the most nationalist and conservative since the Greatest Generation

You're joking right?

He's probably some triggered libertarian who thinks anyone who doesn't like capitalism is automatically leftist.

I have to agree. Humans should have a right to live, and attempt to be happy.

But then the US government gave us rights with respect to the government. We have a right to speak freely without the federal government stopping us. Today though people think its some kind of universal religious form. They have a right to say whatever they want wherever they want. And then they make up more of these rights. Its a 'human right' to get gay married. Its a human right to have abortions.

They just make it up as they go.

Its pathetic and obviously poorly thought out nonsense with no philosophical foundation.

He references a lot of philosophy from Kant on and he also references a lot of religion from Christianity to Buddhism.

It can be a bit difficult if you are uninitiated to these subjects but I think you'd still understand his general outlook though the supporting evidence and proofs, if you will, may be more of a challenge.

Of course rights exist, it's basic law. Natural rights go beyond law, or at least claim to.