/lit/ - Literature

>>18190457
Finished reading Ride The Tiger yesterday and didn't understand his thesis about the aristocratic soul not reproducting or having a wife. He seemingly boxed in the type as a lonely wanderer warrior archetype. This might be a trancendental way of being, but not in any way contributing to tradition. Why not reproduce? Because we're in the Kali Yuga already?
>just amor fati bro
Quite a pessimistic view, which is ironic condiering he criticizes nihilism throughout half the book

Philosophers make terrible parents, whats so fucking hard to understand? Yet the affirmative philosopher must make it his duty to undermine anti-natalism even as he realises his own fatherhood would be a disaster. No contradiction.

>>18190457
Materialist bugman spotted. It's the maintenence of principle that matters. He explained this in detail.

It makes no sense to tie yourself down with a (((modern family))) or whatever petty scraps of a normalcy you can manage to assemble among the ruins. No amount of fat ass birthing hips will guarantee your child is spiritually equipped to integrate with your life's task that you've suddenly chosen to entirely pour into them. Of course you'd definitely be a better parent than others but you may infact be honed for a greater task. He said if you can't approximate the model or essence of the Roman Patriciate, then don't bother if you're serious about maintaining Tradition.

If what matters is maintaining principle then your best option is to network and work with ascetic and differentiated types to Ride the Tiger and preserve the essence of tradition before it's banned or lost. Pic related but with esotericism.

>>18190905
based sentiments

>>18190890
From interviews with his daughter Camus was a great dad.

>>18190860
H had several children, but he wasn't very happy about it.
His concern is that modern marriage lacks the exhalting sacred characteristics of tradition, and due to the kali yuga, your children might be your biologically, but not spiritually i.e. you might give birth to a basedboy.
This things, and considering that he believes ylu should put effort in what you do (i.e. if you get married yoi should devote yourself to your wife and children) makes you unable to create more things in life, or to sacrifice yourself for a caise, even a personal one (which father would want to leave his wife and children alone?).
I don't agree with him me and my gf love each other very much

>>18190936
Camus was unique among philosophers desu

>>18190860
He explains these things very clearly. Reread part 7 particulalry the chapter on the family.

If you haven't read Revolt much of Evolas Final assertions on a particular issue may seem insufficient due to a lack of context. Point being everything be values belongs to something absolute, partials often sabotage this and fail to bolster the remedies of contemporary reactionaries with the necessary foundations.

>>18190976
Everything he*

>>18190976
>reread part 7

https://youtu.be/-KYxreLHPco

Part 7:
25) 6:12:34
26) 6:24:42
27) 6:42:13
28) 7:05:18

>>18190457
no
slavery is tradition
we will save slavery because it is nice

>>18190936
He said philosophers.

Evola has a granddaughter and she is smoking hot. Just a fyi.

>>18191340
show pics

>>18190905
>It makes no sense to tie yourself down with a (((modern family))) or whatever petty scraps of a normalcy you can manage to assemble among the ruins
lmao, the coping incelry at his zennith

>>18191424
>Evola the notorious polygamy endorsing womanizer badboy occultist sexologist was an incel
You have to go back

>>18191340
>>18191362
Yeah seriously. Why is there no info on his surviving family?

>>18191502
He was an incel because he was afraid of true women, like every reactionary, and only made it with low tier braindead stacys. He was no different to contemporary losers who pay in order to have sexual intercourse.

>>18191565
Someone who has sex can't be celibate, fucking mong.

>no bud he was spiridually celibate
No such thing.

>>18191506
Probably distancing from fascist connections or whatever.

>>18191565
>he was afraid of true women
>writes several chapters on the subject of the absolute union between the sexes throughout his works and an entire fucking book about it, pic related.

>braindead stacies
>aristocratic women

Maybe if you actually read him or read about him you'd stop making an ass of yourself.

>>18190457
>by doing absolutely nothing
Evola once killed a man.

>>18191609
Some outrageous claims are being made here. Prove it. Prove it now.

So Evola was the first larper then? Interesting.

>>18191749
>fought in a war
>spearheaded one of the most influential esoteric groups at the time
>practiced what he preached (i guess that kind of is live action role play)
>put his life into the hands of fate by walking around during air raids

>>18191424
Incelism is a neoliberal externality
Now kys

>>18191749
He was a mountain climber

>>18190457
Only Catholicism can bring back the traditional spiritual values that the West lacks. I don't know why so many traditionalists ignore this fact.

>>18191728
He shot a man with a small pistol near Montmarte at some point.

>>18191767
Outside of spearheading esoteric groups, he's not that unique for a man of his time. Yet, he still felt compelled to write about muh tradition and muh aristocrat of the soul. To me Junger is more relatable and practical.

>>18191794
>Only Judaism* can bring back the traditional spiritual values of the west.
Ftfy Christkike

>>18190860
This is also the only eyebrow raising I had when reading RtT. In The Sufi of Rome, he did express regret of not raising a family.
>>18191794
It's interesting that you mentioned that. Evola did write an essay which can be found in The Metaphysics of Power, where how the sacrality of marriage can be defended in Catholicism by having couples first enter a civil union as a "trial marriage", and if they still want to be together, they can be joined in holy matrimony.

>>18191794
>bring back the traditional spiritual values that the West lacks
Christianity will never make a comeback if trad larpers insist we need it because 'bro it will make society so cool think of the values bro'
People don't believe in a religion because it will make society better with based values, this is so retarded.
People need something to believe in, tradlarpers are sabotaging themselves.

>>18191827
He didn't say Judaism, he said Catholicism. Happy to help friend.

>>18191896
That's what I said: Levantine monotheistic slave morality horseshit with nothing to do with the western tradition

>>18191601
eros is an incel-core concept

>>18191801
source?

>>18192008
>Higher Love is an incel-core concept

Sexual promiscuity is a prole-core concept.

>>18192022
>higher love
you clearly don't know what eros or love means as concepts.

>>18192042
I'm done replying to your bait, it was fun while it lasted.

>>18192059
No it wasn't

>>18192090
>>18192042
>>18192008
>>18191565
>>18191424
Holy reddit

>>18190457
>the gibberish nonsense will never see it coming

>>18190457
>be Evola
>address the analytical and practical elements of your worldview in separate books
>decades later some zoomer on anxiety medication skims RtT and then whines on /lit/
>>18190860
Evola's point is that the purpose of the family is to continue a lineage, but our civilisation has become so degenerate that even if you raise your own blood children they may very well get brainwashed by libs. In other words, from his perspective it was more worthwhile to look for spiirtual heirs that you can educate and develop, rather than produce your own blood descendents who may end up joining modernity anyway. This is not something that he claimed everyone must do, mind you. It was simply a suggestion that some may wish to take up and others may not.
>>18191825
Are you ethnically Germanic?

>>18192655
How'd you know? But yes I'm mostly Germanic. Also nice dubs.

>>18190860
Because Evola was influenced by Stirner who made same argument, but the aristocratic soul is a Nietzchean twist to it.

>>18193077
You were too dismissive towards a man who lived an extraordinary life, which imo is a typical example of novelty-seeking Germanic behaviour. Similarly your dismissal of tradition suggests you are rootless and Germanics are among the most rootless people today. Finally, there's the Junger bit - I really like him, but the only things that could make Junger more relatable to someone in comparison to Evola are either his confused musings on environment or his later phase of "dude mescaline lmao" which for some reason seems to be really popular with Germanics. You guys take way too much drugs imo.
Anyway, if you want to be more specific then I will gladly try to pitch Evola to you in terms that you personally will find attractive. Just tell me what you like and dislike about both Junger and Evola.

>>18193153
based bro, heil Evola.

>>18194078

>>18190457
Isn't that just slave morality bro?

>>18193153
Why do you feel the need to attack what you don't understand? Oh yeah, Evola.
Are you American?

>>18190905
You are questioning so much. Not very Trad-like

>>18194217
>Why do you feel the need to attack what you don't understand? Oh yeah, Evola.
What am I attacking?
>Are you American?
No.

>>18190860
>>18190905
>all this shit
Are evola fags just larpers?

What tradition are you guys talking about?

>>18194241
Tradition - capital T. Sophia Perennis.

>>18194246
Explain this. Now. >>18193110

>>18194246
>softcover books with ugly covers
Looks like you already lost.

>>18194254
Not that anon, but Evola and Stirner share precious little in common. Both of them propose a radical rejection of modern life, however Evola thought that Stirner's "spook" shit was far too broad and excluded the possibility of the existence of spirit or personality, making it practically useless for Traditional men.

>>18194301
>Traditional men
Why didn't he ask to be stoned to death instead of sitting around in a wheelchair?

Wish I had met him IRL. Would evola accept drinking a beer with you and discuss metaphysics over it or would he call you a degenerate for drinking alcohol?
I also would like to ask him what he thinks about waifuism.

>>18194311
Read Meditations on the Peaks. One chapter is devoted to a memory where he got nicely drunk on wine with his friends in a cabin amid the mountains and went walking on the ice for dangerous fun.

>>18190457
>>18190860
>>18190905
>>18190943
>>18191601
>>18191767
God I love seeing pol-tards fighting each other in their echo-chamber thread about a worthless philosopher, doing their best to blind each other to the evident fact that Evola is a lump of incoherent theories, fallacies, badly researched religious babbling, and superstition re-adapted for the modern morons. Please, go on.

>>18194307
Why would he anon?
>>18194311
Nice trollpost but to answer it seriously, no he doesn't consider alcohol degenerate, but he probably would consider waifus degenerate because the (unironic) waifu-lover is emotionally dependent and his love for the waifu is aberrant and sterile.
>>18194356
You have never read Evola.

>>18194356

>>18194374
>you have never read Evola
The first reaction you give me every time I criticize him is that I have never read him precisely because you have spent the last months cultivating in your brains the exact same worms he had. Too bad I had read the guy for two years straight and probably know more than you about it. I just enjoy popping up in these threads to antagonize the average evola reader, who is, by all means, an idiot who has read little beside Evola. Yet, your argument is, like most of Evola's, the usual argument from authority: "you haven't read x, thus you can't speak". If you want to be confrontational don't set yourself above me and address my post, coward.

>>18190905>>18190925

I am amazed how atheists became infatuated with '''''''society'''''after they killed god.

>>18194488
Criticize a particular idea of his.

>>18194325
>>18194311
Evola being an atheist, he is an hedonist, a sex and drug maniac who craves for mental entertaining and faux danger, like a woman who fantasized being violently raped while walking alone at night and getting pregnant from it.

>>18194520
Evola is a pathetic intellectual who can't stop analyzing society, like any asshole born after the renaissance and being desperate to pass his mental rambling for something of value, always in need of fantasizing a great danger to ''''''''''''''''society'''''''''''''''''in order to justify is infatuation with his fake insights in human societies. Atheists today still spread the FUD about how the christians or the atheist nazis will take their precious atheist democracies back in order to kill them

>>18194488
>The first reaction you give me every time I criticize him is that I have never read him precisely because you have spent the last months cultivating in your brains the exact same worms he had.
You have never read Evola.
>Too bad I had read the guy for two years straight and probably know more than you about it.
Really anon? Try me. Funnily enough, I have also been reading Evola for two years and probably know more about him than you do.
>I just enjoy popping up in these threads to antagonize the average evola reader, who is, by all means, an idiot who has read little beside Evola.
You are playing the impartial and highly cultured judge right now, but in all likelihood, you have not read Evola, so really what you are saying is that you regularly shill against him in order to try and dissuade others from learning more.
>Yet, your argument is, like most of Evola's, the usual argument from authority: "you haven't read x, thus you can't speak".
Yes anon. That's how it is with any book, unless you are a pseud retard.
>If you want to be confrontational don't set yourself above me and address my post, coward.
These is nothing to address anon, it's literally YOU setting yourself above the rest of the people in this thread (so you are projecting here) and throwing some lame ad hominem. Nothing of substance in your post. Nothing to even vaguely suggest that you have read a single sentence by Evola.

>>18194535
As I thought, schizo rambling from someone who hasn't read him.

>>18194525
>Evola
>atheist

The Christcel mind is a wicked place.

>>18194520
1. Ciclicity of time and recurrence of eras is not philosophically justified anywhere in his works except by the argument that many religions talk about it, as is the idea that order depends upon an established metaphysical order.

2. His historical reconstruction in Revolt is entirely wrong and you must be on par with flat earthers to believe hyperborean and atlantidean civilizations were in any way historical realities.

3. His understanding of masculine and feminine in Metaphysics of Sex is entirely derivative of Weiniger, with the addition of the usual religious babbling. Basically, a book that talks about femininity in the usual incel tones (female= passive, earth, either lover or mother ecc.) + "all these religions say I'm right". Also, "jazz bad" for some reason.

4. The sources he uses in his book on the Graal are entirely cherrypicked, and the connections he makes with other traditions are on the level of pub conversation between undergraduates. He doesn't care going into deep into anything and as long as he notices vagues similarities (e.g. graal legends / life elixir legends), he'll just say they are the same because they derive from the usual metaphysical plane of tradition in which likely they all shared despite never bothering to inquire about possible historical influences, ecc. "Things look similar, must be because of this entirely made up thing which I assume is at the base of everything"

>>18194535
You have never read Evola.
>>18194592
>1. Ciclicity of time and recurrence of eras is not philosophically justified anywhere in his works except by the argument that many religions talk about it, as is the idea that order depends upon an established metaphysical order.
Evola set out to expound and articulate a worldview, not to autistically prove every single claim and assertion he makes. According to Evola's own beliefs, a person's internal constitution has a far greater effect on what he chooses to agree or disagree with, rather than the logical soundness of any given belief.
>2. His historical reconstruction in Revolt is entirely wrong and you must be on par with flat earthers to believe hyperborean and atlantidean civilizations were in any way historical realities.
Hyperborea and Atlantis specifically fall outside his "historical reconstruction". Evola draws a line between known history and pre-historical time, which he also values greatly. Hyperborea and Atlantis would fall in that category. All of this, of course, still assumes that he's using those concepts literally. Personally, I interpret his discussion of Hyperborea in symbolic and mythological terms.
>3. His understanding of masculine and feminine in Metaphysics of Sex is entirely derivative of Weiniger
I do not imagine that comes as a surprise, given that he repeatedly cites him as one of the people who influenced his thought.
>with the addition of the usual religious babbling
This is not a criticism, it simply shows that you did not understand what you were reading. I do not fully blame you, as Metaphysics of Sex is actually one of his more challenging texts, IMO.
>Basically, a book that talks about femininity in the usual incel tones
Oh god, you are retarded. Fuck. How did this happen anon, you were doing so good thus far?
>(female= passive, earth, either lover or mother ecc.) + "all these religions say I'm right"
Metaphysics of Sex is, as the name suggests, a metaphysical examination of sex. Are you surprised that Evola draws on various ancient traditional teachings in order to form metaphysical conclusions about femininity?
>Also, "jazz bad" for some reason.
Yeah, jazz bad.
>4. The sources he uses in his book on the Graal are entirely cherrypicked, and the connections he makes with other traditions are on the level of pub conversation between undergraduates. He doesn't care going into deep into anything and as long as he notices vagues similarities (e.g. graal legends / life elixir legends), he'll just say they are the same because they derive from the usual metaphysical plane of tradition in which likely they all shared despite never bothering to inquire about possible historical influences, ecc. "Things look similar, must be because of this entirely made up thing which I assume is at the base of everything"
If you object to the very premises of perennialism then obviously you will never be satisfied with any amount of argumentation made on that basis.

>>18194488
You have never read Evola

>>18191794
Catholicism is dead

>>18194698
>not autistically prove
so you agree that he has no proof. Good. Autistically proving stuff, or at least trying so with argument, is what distinguishes a good philosopher from a charlatan.

>you are retarded
I may as well be, but I do not believe sympathetic associations that were already old by the time Ficino re-imported them in Italy during the Renaissance. Evola stands by the side of superstitious people who would argue that the insides of animals could tell the future: that's the level of accuracy and epistemic value of a claim such as "the woman is lunar" and "the woman is relational" and "the woman is earth" and "the woman is either lover or mother".

>Are you surprised Evola draws conclusions from ancient traditional teachings to form metaphysical conclusions?
No - that's what he does all the time. Only, you cannot draw conclusions from analyzing cultural manifestations such as religious texts. To say "this is true because this text says this" is a clear fallacy called argument from authority and...

>object the very premise of perennialism
...perennialism as a whole is based on the fallacy that by bringing in authoritative texts from several traditions you are going to demonstrate anything and draw conclusions. Which cannot be done: you draw conclusions from arguments, not from cherrypicking random bits of old myths you like and think are similar and comparing them with other myths, and then state how those vague resemblances actually both draw from an ooga booga magic thing you invent on the spot.

Perennialism is overall undefendable and ridiculous, and it is the last bastion of stupidity into which people who would otherwise just yield to religious superstation take refuge so to keep living into fiction.

>>18194863
Not him, but it was already proved prior to Evola's extrapolation.
Read Guenon.

>>18194356
Evola has probably shat on all your favorite philosophies and philosophers. If you ever read him with an open mind you would be ruined. Then again you would probably be filtered, midwit.

>>18194863
>so you agree that he has no proof. Good. Autistically proving stuff, or at least trying so with argument, is what distinguishes a good philosopher from a charlatan.
Proof for what? The very premise of his thought is that people are drawn to ideas and concepts that reflect them best. Evola provided a description of the ideas that reflect him and other men like him.
>I may as well be, but I do not believe sympathetic associations that were already old by the time Ficino re-imported them in Italy during the Renaissance. Evola stands by the side of superstitious people who would argue that the insides of animals could tell the future: that's the level of accuracy and epistemic value of a claim such as "the woman is lunar" and "the woman is relational" and "the woman is earth" and "the woman is either lover or mother".
You mean to tell me that you read all of Metaphysics of Sex and did not realise that Evola defines the sexes as platonic ideals? Yes, THE woman is lunar, THE woman is earth, etc. etc. As to this or that specific woman, she may conform to the ideal of woman to a greater or lesser extent.
>Only, you cannot draw conclusions from analyzing cultural manifestations such as religious texts.
Right okay, so you dismiss his methodology out of hand and are then surprised to find his views incoherent. I guess we're done here then?
>To say "this is true because this text says this" is a clear fallacy called argument from authority and...
Thank god that's not what he does.
>...perennialism as a whole is based on the fallacy that by bringing in authoritative texts from several traditions you are going to demonstrate anything and draw conclusions. Which cannot be done: you draw conclusions from arguments, not from cherrypicking random bits of old myths you like and think are similar and comparing them with other myths, and then state how those vague resemblances actually both draw from an ooga booga magic thing you invent on the spot.
Pure genius, you just obliterated comparative studies of any type. Excellent work anon.
>Perennialism is overall undefendable and ridiculous, and it is the last bastion of stupidity into which people who would otherwise just yield to religious superstation take refuge so to keep living into fiction.
So in other words you are a materialist bugman and are willing to die on that hill. Why did you actually read Evola? It would be useless to people like you even if you perfectly understood everything. What a strange person you are.
>>18194909
Based Guenonreader.

>>18194863
R u an atheist monkey?

>>18194998
Perenialism is an escape by nihilist desperate to pass their mental ramblings as true, because they have no original thoughts (being nihilists) and deluding themselves that gurus have the answer, since the nihilists lack critical thinking. For a nihilist, everything is equal, a teaching is the same as another teaching. No wonder atheist girls are so drawn to this crap.

>>18195234
Nice cope, but here's the issue anon. Materialists can and will poke holes into your stupid fundamentalist and literalist interpretation of a given text and that will utterly destroy any prestige your religion enjoys. This is the absolute state of Christianity atm. Why is this possible? Because the contingent factors are being assigned primary importance - take for example, "Jesus came to reveal the divine teaching to the world and save everyone!" Well, why did he show up so late? Why not make it obvious? Why reveal this divine teaching through the son of a random, impoverished carpenter? Why reveal that thousands of years after civilisation had already become entrenched? Jeez, that makes no fucking sense, does it now? But if you open your mind just a little and ask yourself, "hey, what if there is something to that", then you can see the perennialist perspective and realise that Jesus was a man gifted enough to see the perennial divine truth and then chose to share it with the people around him. Suddenly, it turns out that thousands of years of development spread over dozens of religious traditions was not, in fact, completely wasted on meaningless shit. We can observe that all these religions shared an aim, a goal, a method. We can see the similarities. We can conclude that their wisdom is drawn from the same source. Then we can retain absolute confidence in the validity of the spiritual dimension without having to worry about it being delegitimised on purely contingent arguments ("But Jesus didn't exist!" etc.)

>>18195021
No, but I like my thoughts about god to be consistent

>>18195409
Did you eat your banana already?

>>18195407
based

>>18191565
Ywnbaw

>>18194500
If not immortality then fraternity

>>18195234
based take, stupid perrenialists don't realize that most traditions are satanic inversions of the one true tradition

>>18195407
dumbass incel nobody is doubting the validity of the spiritual dimension except for bugmen, the whole question is what is true and what is prelest (a term i'll borrow from the orthodox)

>>18196267
Yeah, well, there are A LOT of bugmen today and they are utterly crushing you in the public sphere, so a lot of young people are being converted to bugmanism too. Despite being a Christian since birth, my faith was dead and essentially artificial precisely because the bugmen were making so many excellent points. Perennialism is what gave me the ability and the life of spirit to see and understand traditional wisdom rather than simply try and rationalise various copes.

>>18193153
>a man who lived an extraordinary life
yeah, walking out in the open during bombing raids sure is extraordinary

>>18196368
Yes anon. That's the thing that initially got me interested in his works. I was not disappointed.

>>18196521
did you not hear about the part where he ended up spending the rest of his life fingering shit out of his asshole because of that retarded decision?

>>18196803
Call it what you will, it drew my attention to his books so I am glad that he did it. Plus he proved he had bigger balls than any other man in Europe. He didn't care and I don't care either.

>>18190457
Based and antinatalistpilled
Breeding is literal monkey business. Antinatalism is true aristocratic choice in this decadent shitehole.

>>18194356
>badly researched religious babbling