Out of all things, why would traditionalists embrace perennial philosophy...

Out of all things, why would traditionalists embrace perennial philosophy? Seems something very odd to be embraced by supposed moral objectivists. Or am I missing something here? Enlighten me on this issue, Veeky Forums.

What traditionalists are you referring to OP?

what's perennial philosophy? why do you think it would be odd for people who believe in objective morality to adopt it?

Julius Evola types and their contemporary counterparts, i.e. the ones we see shitposting today.
the idea that every single belief structure in the world has at its core one single universal truth? I mean, if moral objectivism is true, and seeing how it is applicable to cultural issues, wouldn't it follow that certain beliefs brought up by certain cultures are inherently false and immoral?

It's the only thing palatable to repressed christian faggots.
They don't want to accept that religion is not something that can stay nationalistic for long, as believers WILL eventually put their religion above the state.
Nationalistic atheism is the only true path to traditionalism.

That's one thing I never understood about Evola. He seemed to be well aware of deeper spiritual truths, and yet he took the meme response of declaring "lel life is a struggle so you gotta kill others in order to give it purpose!"

Ultimately, I think what you "believe" doesn't actually reflect on whether you're an asshole or not. Evola was a turbo-douche, but because he talked about the "Kali Yuga" and "transcendent nature of man," he apparently gets a free pass for advocating borderline-genocide.

>traditonalism = objective morality
What is this meme? Progressives are the ones who tend to believe in a universalist pro-freedom humanism while traditonalists tend to be tribalists .

>traditionalists

Because these "traditionalist" you speak of lost contact with actual tradition. They either reconstruct it or just do the exact opposite left does.

>as believers WILL eventually put their religion above the state
Isn't the notion that the state is above the nation (note: nation, not people) in and of itself progressive?

>"lel life is a struggle so you gotta kill others in order to give it purpose!"
This, too, I find it odd that struggle is translated to violence. Quite resembling of Muslims, but then again they seem to be the true "traditionalists", whatever that means at this point.

The more you think about it, it does seem true. But in another sense progressives also seem to believe that that same universalist principle is rooted in all cultures, hence the cultural subjectivism. Or maybe I'm missing something again.

So perennialism is the belief that every single belief structure in the world has at its core one single truth? I don't see the point of it, then, because wouldn't it still allow for every single belief structure to have a shit tonne of mistakes in addition to that one single point of correctness?

I don't see why a traditionalist or anyone would object to your description of perennialism. I imagine you can find at least something true at the foundation of every belief structure. Even if it is just "Being is", which is the most fundamental point of all.

but that's bullshit since state=/=nation, the state is just the material, while the nation is formed by acknowledging the commonalities between individuals of certain group be it philosophical, cultural, religious or linguistic, a nation doesn't even fucking exist until it's members acknowledge their commonalities as something that links one another, in truth the nation exists because of the individual giving meaning to the comunal, the state/patria/pays is nothing but a political administrative term and that's why you can have states with many nations inside of them, hell even local identities can constitute a nation from a constructivist point of view, someone saying "I am Texan because XYZ" and having people say "Hey I'm Texan too because XYZ" and so on creates a Texan nation.

and religion is tied with the notion of nationality because it's part of the commonalities that make people belong to a certain identiy group

"AN AUTHENTIC SPIRITUAL DOCTRINE HAS NO RITES, NO PRIESTS, NO PROSELYTIZERS, NO SCRIPTURES, NO FORM, NO NAME."

I could be considered a traditionalist. The philosophy I follow is Stoicism. Never read Evola.

it's not that they all have the same single truth but that they come from a common root, kinda like Campbell's monomyth and Jung's archetypes

Almost all modern religions unavoidably transcend nations and they either end up shaping new nations or destroying true nationalism.
No true christians will ever think of themselves first as a nationalist, high religiosity in a religion like christianism is incomptatible with nationalism.

Evola was a Nietzschean who wanted to de-materialize Nietzsche so he coated his crap in a bunch of Hinduist and occultist beliefs. I don't understand why he called it traditionalism, reactionaries who actually valued tradition like de Maistre would have him hanged.

>de-materialize Nietzsche so he coated his crap in a bunch of Hinduist and occultist beliefs
What? That's retarded.

that dépends on the indivuduals if they put their religion commonality as most important then of couse it will trascend their nation but if they take that religion as part of something larger that gives form to their percieved nation then it's tied to the nation itself best example is Polish nationalism, they percieve Poland as catholic, and being catholic as an intrinsic part of being Polish, so there the religion is not trascending the nation but is part of the nation or are you saying that just because they aren't LARPing as pagan treehuggers like that idiot Vikernes they are not true nationalists?

neoplatonism was the height of pagan philosophy and influenced some of the more mystical aspects of christian philosophy through augustine
regardless, it's probably the most spooked era in philosophy, so it's no wonder /pol/ troglodytes would adopt it.

The problem is that catholicism is not a nationalistic religion at all but an inherently universalist one and could cause problems of interests if Poland is ever in conflict with a very catholic nation. (And I don't even talk about the whole Vatican problem)
Overall christianism was maybe the biggest player in paradigm shift of giving some inherent value to all humans instead of only worthy co-citizens.

A nation being united and proud because of christianism is POSSIBLE, and I don't judge individual christian nationalists for that but it's like a nation whose citizens are united by the belief in globalism and race-mixing because they don't actually act on it, people in the future will eventually act on it once the inertia of nationalism is not there anymore and act on things destroying it.
Eastern europeans nations are often united by christianism and it's not a problem because of many other factors making them nationalistic anyway, but in several centuries christianism will still be as strong and the dormant seed of globalism will awaken.

Oh, weird. You could just raise some kids in isolation on an island and they'd come up with something that literally couldn't have come from some prior story.

Sounds dumb as.

but that's literally what cultures continents apart did, hell the myth of Quetzalcoatl has the same narrative structure as the Heracles myth, they are both "The hero's journey" that's what Campbell wanted to expose with his Monomyth theory, that no matter how apart people are, their stories always follow the same central concept and structure

>a nation whose citizens are united by the belief in globalism and race-mixing

and this is how you know someone has literally no grasp in political theory

Because traditionalists are usually irrational.

"Traditionalists" are just LARP'ing memers.

So we're back to common truth rather than common root, unless we're saying common root in the sense that they were all written by human beings.

But christianism is litteraly globalism if you apply it.

nigger read up on the theory behind in identity construction, your logic can apply to every belief system, the concept of nation is not an objective thing, it's a societal construct (not in the gender bullshit sense lefties scream about), if community views a particular belief as something that binds them together it will become part of their foundation myth and identitarian construct, your idea that nationalism will die it's stupid, everyone even the cosmopolitan fucks are nationalist since they suscribe to a particular set of beliefs that bind them in commonality with other cosmopolitans, every religion on this earth can be nationalistic if it serves the individuals that compose a nation to acquire a particular identity, nationalism is rooted in individualism trascending into a community.

Your notion of nationalism comes from a purely political and materialist one when there are many more metaphysical implications to the concept of nation and identity, of course the political elite will try to subvert the nations into thinking this way, Geller alludes to this in his writings were he denies the notion that nationalism (or the identitarian constructs that form a nation) are subservient to the state, the nation is for the common people and the state is for the elites who have to ensure that the nation or nations that compose the state can continue to exist, like some french revolutionary said "Aristocrats have no nation"

everything can be globalist if you apply it to a globalist idea

but that commonality across all cultures come from something, it's not a truth per se but some universal concept deeply ingrained in humanities hivemind, take the concept of a dragon for example, it appears acroos all the globe but it stems for the 3 things ancient humans feared: snakes, fire and predators, those concepts grew into a collective idea, so the dragons have a common root on the human psyche same as the hero's journey, there is a metaphysical or metapsychological root that makes every heroic story in history have the same narrative structure, you can interpret it as a root or truth it doesn't really matter but that we have some universal concepts it's undeniable

Yes, and now it sounds like you're just talking about a common root in the sense that all the stories are told by humans. It's a practical point, rather than a philosophical discussion of some metaphysical truth. Kind of like pointing out that any user interface based on keyboards and mice will necessarily share certain things in common, even if designed in isolation.

I follow the teachings of the dioscouroi, Plato and Aristotle, so I obviously believe there are these metaphysical truths. I just don't know what perennialists say about it, and why it would necessarily offend traditionalists.

As far as I know real perennialist also follow Plato and Aristotle's way of truth, but I could be wrong, on your first point that's true but because all is told by humans then there should be some big metaphysical root for concepts that are deeply ingrained in our psyche, atleast for abstractions.

traditionalists are offended by fucking everything because most people who call themselves traditionalist have no fucking idea what it means