/lit/ - Literature

>>14886341
its not a idealization, but that metaphysics was in harmony with social order and ethos.

>>14886341
none of it is about idealising the past nor returning to the past. it's returning to primordial tradition, not going back in time.

>>14886341
That's the impression i got from reading Revolt Against The Modern World. It's just a stupid way of looking at history, trying to fit all of history into some retarded scheme. Reminded me of Marxism.

>>14886341
Read Evola. He says right in the preface (or the first chapter, I don't have it in front of me right now) Revolt Against The Modern World. The world of Tradition is not a historical, but a qualitative time. It refers to the super sensible realm. Like Plotinus interprets the Golden Age or Rule of Cronus as being the intellectual hypostasis, and the consequent Ages, Silver, etc., as the lower hypostases. They have historical instantiations, but they are mere images like ring seals on wax or forms on ever-fleeting matter.

Traditionalism is metaphysics which is beyond idealism.

>>14886875
You have no idea what idealism means

>>14886341
Absolutely all of it.
People just use it as a means to cope with a world that has cucked them.
Instead of taking direct action to achive systemic change that they will read absolute shit like Evola and blame the jews for their miserable life.

>>14886895
They should blame marketing instead, the jewish contribution to it isn't the real problem

>>14886884
sounds like you're projecting boomer

>>14886341
>How much of traditionalism is in essence an idealization of a time from the past that really didn't exist?
Evola never mentioned a specific "time" it was more of a spiritual age

A lot of Evola assumes you understand the basics of what he's talking about here is a good list of topics to get Familiar with

>>14886341
you're thinking of romanticism

After pic above move on the Guenon you don't have to read everything but definitely learn his interpretation of Hindu metaphysics Evola mentions these quite a bit.

It’s about principles.

forgot trip on the last post :^)

When you finally get to Evola read around Revolt Against the Modern World then hit the trilogy last.
The minor books and essays provide a context to RATMW

>>14886341
The basic logic of Traditionalism is this. Reactionaries in Evola's time were (rightly) critical of modernity. But as an alternative to it they wished to return to a status quo ante, to a period before their immediate present. But this period, on a grand scale, was itself revolutinary with respect to the one before it. Take for example those who idealize 1950's America today. Comparing 1950's America with the Victorian Era, one sees that the former was already in an advanced stage of the societal decay! In Evola's day, Christians, monarchists, idealized the Middle Ages and Medieval Christendom. But Christianity was already an egalitarian and revolutinary ideology with respect to the Ancient World! And so on and so forth.

So, quite contrary to OP, Evola held that Tradition was not about idealizing a specific historic stage in the past (because they are all passing and contingent), but about discovering the metaphysical principles that animated every (small t) traditional society in the past, which principals, unlike temporal societies, are eternal and can always be rediscovered.

>>14886909
Sounds like you’re gay

>>14886969
big cope friend

>>14886959
So in their fight against modernity, Evola somehow figured out how to redefine traditions as essentially being the best that modernity has to offer?

>>14886915
Literally "I'm 16 and this is deep".

>>14886915
Pic related is honestly garbage advice in my opinion. Evola is probably the single misunderstood author on /lit/, maybe the most misunderstood author since the 20th century. He’s not a “pill” and he’s not an end-point. He works his way upward across an extremely broad range of topics and finds where they converge so that he could offer himself as a guide and that’s the key to his works. I was raised traditional italian catholic and I think that made him more accessible to me although I couldn’t articulate why. Approaching him through the lens of politics or more modernist authors is probably the single worst way of approaching this extremely nuanced author and stuff like pic related is just the result of attempting to co-opt a shallow reading for political ends, which Evola in all likelihood plainly rejected in his books. If he interests you, read Evola’s books, read the books of his intellectual influences, read the books he cites, read his essays online and keep in mind he is not writing for everyone especially on the contemporary “right”. There’s an author named Cologero who’s translated some his works and has maintained several blogs which are very well-versed on Evola and the topics he discusses. Those would be good resources.

>>14886973
I'm not sure about that, but... There is a sense in which Traditionalism, in Evola's view (I don't think Guenon and other would agree), was forward looking. This emerges out of his cyclical view of history. Western societies were more degenerate than Eastern, but this meant that the East was yet to go through the same process that the West is going through now, and that the West could be farther ahead in the cyclical process, meaning closer to the next Golden Age. Hence, I think, his positive view of Italian Futurism, Dadaism, which were destructive of modern bourgeois society, and Left-Hand and Tantric practices (which were "forbidden" in the Golden Age, but were the most effective in the Kali Yuga).

>>14886959
>But as an alternative to it they wished to return to a status quo ante, to a period before their immediate present
Wrong!
Reactionaries seek a return to a Golden Age which is no where near the 'immediate present'

>Take for example those who idealize 1950's America today. Comparing 1950's America with the Victorian Era, one sees that the former was already in an advanced stage of the societal decay
you're mistaking Traditionalists with boomer conservatives this is wrong

>Evola's day, Christians, monarchists, idealized the Middle Ages and Medieval Christendom.
Rightly so it was a better time however no one sees that as an ideal time.

>But Christianity was already an egalitarian and revolutinary ideology with respect to the Ancient World! And so on and so forth.
Evola has stated this long before you have.

>So, quite contrary to OP, Evola held that Tradition was not about idealizing a specific historic stage in the past
correct.

>>14886959
This is one of many concepts and missed a thing or two, but is still a very good reading and probably the only good reading I’ve ever seen on /lit/. Thanks for this reply.

>>14887000
You misundertood my entire post.
>you're mistaking Traditionalists with boomer conservatives this is wrong
Yes if you read my post I was explaining how Evola criticized the "boomer conservatives" of his time.

>>14887000
You don’t know what you’re talking about.

>>14887001
Thanks fren

>>14886792
This, the answer is as plain as day for anyone who has ten seconds to think about it or who has any familiarity with the texts, but this is /lit/ so we're all going to talk about it as if it were up for discussion anyway.

>>14886928
Pic related is not complete garbage and the list of reading is good but the fanboying of pagan imperialism, a book Evola himself stated to be his most regrettable work, and Revolt Against the Modern World along with his other strictly political works and the pictures are revealing of a desire to co-opt Evola in favor of militant but modernist reactionary politics and a poor and shallow reading of Evola. Modern reactionary politics is the single worst way to approach Evola and people who read through his stuff through the lens of reactionary politics end up missing the bigger picture.

>>14886976
>Literally "I'm 16 and this is deep".
lol butthurt

>>14886990
>Pic related is honestly garbage advice in my opinion
sounds like your opinion is trash

>>14887012
you're projecting boomer

>>14886341
All of it.

>>14887099
Care to point out why?

>>14887120
No projecting here. You didn’t even read the reply you’re responding to correctly and he pointed out as much. I just want the right people to get something out of this author beyond memes and absolute retard-tier “read siege” takes because think Evola was le edgy right winger. “Reactionaries seek a return to the Golden Age” is just blatant nonsense so please don’t speak on topics you know absolutely nothing about.

>>14886971
Big cock? Yes, I do have one, and no you’re not getting a peek

>>14886341
All of it, they believe that before the cavemen (already a decadence) there were fucking Atlanteans kek

>>14887246
but surely a smell though, right?

>>14887254
"Yes."

>>14886341
>>14886959
>The basic logic of Traditionalism is this. Reactionaries in Evola's etc..
Why talk about EVOLA when TRADITION is a term literally coined by Guénon? Why don't you address Guénon instead of Evola's crude distortion of metaphysics?

Traditionalism and Guénon get brought up way too much on this board yet I have NEVER seen an actual understanding of traditionalism. No one has read Guénon, the 14yo memers are just sullying his name. One who might see your post and think it is sensible but it's not, Evola distorts metaphysics to fit his own preconceived views of metaphysics. He has insights but generally I would advise against reading him.

>>14887254
There is recent proof of a meteor hitting the earth around 12,000 years ago, and the date coincides PERFECTLY with the dates given by PLATO for the existence of atlantis. Is PLATO wrong? Why do we have buildings older than the mesolithic in Africa? Not because of some grand conspiracy (or maybe, I don't care) but because archeologists and historians are limp dicked academics who can't be bothered to republish every book because of one discovery, they'd rather we study their own books for another century before making any change to them.

>>14887276
I don’t know if I would say Evola distorts metaphysics but he does take a radical departure from Guenon and much of Evola’s life and works is contradictory to the implications of Guenon’s teachings. I agree with your premise though that the 14 year old memes who like Evola because fascist Italy are utter garbage and it’s almost worthless to even discuss him if you’re not familiar with Guenon. I tried to allude to as much in my other replies here.

>>14887266
Well, okay then

It's all a huge larp regardless, human beings are the product of extra terrestrial genetic engineering. Humans are fundamentally, psychologically, and biologically crippled. Progressiveness, veganism, and trans-humanism are an attempt repair ourselves and this existential lot we find ourselves inhabiting.

>>14886457
Define this "primordial tradition"

>>14886959
>And so on and so forth.
based

Traditionalism is the practice of paralytically lingering on the genesis of the past, contrary to Radicalism, which is the practice of synthesizing the radical/root principles & lifestyles of past generations with those ones that were developed for - thus enabling them to optimally grow into, and become ripe within - the future.

>>14888414
>the practice of synthesizing the radical/root principles & lifestyles of past generations with those ones that were developed for - thus enabling them to optimally grow into, and become ripe within - the future.
That's not radicalism, that's just how cultures normally progress. Radicalism entails a rupturing, cutting stems off entirely and creating new ones.

>>14888440
You either: entirely ignore what is radicalism (derived from root “radi-” (root)), which, contrarily, entails working from within the root, or are yourself severed from your own ontological root, causing you to possess an erroneous, volatile notion of the term.

>>14888562
nigger we dont care what some root meant are you fucking braindead

>>14888562
The reference to root in radicalism means the opposite of what you're saying. Radicalism wants to uproot, to go all the way back to the source and change things fundamentally. It's in contrast with incrementalist and conservative practices.

>>14886341

>>14888687
>Radicalism wants to uproot, to go all the way back to the source and change things fundamentally.
>change things fundamentally.
Yes, and this can only be done by having a cardinal root/fundament - which is necessarily Good - to go to, and by having the capability to work from it, in the first place, thereby enabling one to eliminate the pollutants, and to sow its cardinal principles upon the purified soil; radicalism is not mutually equivalent with extremism, regardless of number of roots of the latter, or of how close the latter may approach the cardinal root, which comprehends all.

>It's in contrast with incrementalist and conservative practices.
Radicalism is antithetical to both: conservatism, and liberalism.

>>14888706
But what is this unifying theory that forms the base for these sporadic golden periods of the past? What triggers them, and more importantly how can we trigger them, both for individual and civilizational enlightenment?

>>14888687
>Radicalism wants to uproot, to go all the way back to the source and change things fundamentally.
>change things fundamentally.
Yes, and this can only be done by having a cardinal root/source/fundament - which is necessarily Good - to go to, and by having the capability to work from it, in the first place, thereby enabling one to eliminate the pollutants, and to sow its cardinal principles upon the purified soil; radicalism is not mutually equivalent with extremism, regardless of number of roots of the latter, or of how close the latter may approach the cardinal root, which comprehends all.

>It's in contrast with incrementalist and conservative practices.
Radicalism is antithetical to both: conservatism, and liberalism.

>>14888938
Think about what radicals want to do with capitalism. they don't want to keep it in its fundamental form but alter it, they want to completely get rid of it.

>>14888953
That is because Capitalism is an an aberrant, extreme, deficient economical system, being a product of zionism, which is the ideopolitical root of virtually all that is Evil & wicked in the world.

>>14888985
Can't really argue with that desu

>>14888985
Be that as it may, do you not see how the word radical is used here? Liberals and conservatives want to keep it around basically but disagree on specifics, radicals want to completely get rid of it.

I sort of understood what you were saying above though, that the radical is going back to some even earlier root(human labor in the abstract or something, whatever) and that is what they will perform their synthesis on.

>>14889001
>radicals want to completely get rid of it.
I ignore to what "radicals" you are referring here, but the only authentic, geniune radicals are Antizionists & National Socialists.

>I sort of understood what you were saying above though, that the radical is going back to some even earlier root(human labor in the abstract or something, whatever) and that is what they will perform their synthesis on.
That is vaguely accurate, but to be clear: I am primarily referring to Aryan protoculture & universalism, which are the original root proper of culture & civilization.