/lit/ - Literature

>>19010599
>I've never read any traditionalist author because my intuition tells me that traditionalism is wrong about everything
So, you have a political stance opposite or in contradiction to traditionalism, you believe that your political stance is irrefutable, and thus refuse to read any opposing literature under the justification that it's all pseudo-intellectual (as opposed to the real justification, which is that you're afraid to challenge your own opinions).

>>19010599
>Have I made a mistake?
Yes

>>19010599

>>19010616
Wrong

You've made a shit thread.

>>19010610
then why don't you read this? are you afraid to challenge your world view?

>>19010618
A gross misrepresentation of the contents of this thread. You need to go back to your home board of Redddit.

>>19010610
No, my intuition told me that traditionalism is wrong and I trust that instinct. It's as simple as that.

>>19010626
He is probably on no fap.

>>19010599
This is literally Guenon's position on modernity. His intuition tells him his wrong and intuition trumps all

>>19010626
That's not a philosophical treatise or dialogue, it self-identifies as porn. If it gained some societal/academic traction and people claimed it to be the former, then I would read it. There's a pretty big difference between reputable/controversial academic texts and shit like Bronze Age Man or Black Future
>>19010636
>No, my intuition told me that traditionalism is wrong and I trust that instinct.
You shouldn't.

>>19010660
So, you have a political stance opposite or in contradiction to Black World Order, you believe that your political stance is irrefutable, and thus refuse to read any opposing literature under the justification that it's all pseudo-intellectual (as opposed to the real justification, which is that you're afraid to challenge your own opinions).

by definition is traditionalism not foolish? is it not a specific collective of 'traditionally traditional' thought that is talked about? why not just call it paleoconservatism?

>>19010672
If you had read my post you wouldn't have thought this was a clever response.

>>19010679
Capital "T" Traditionalism is not paleoconservatism but rather some weird new age alt-right mashup exemplified by Evola and Guenon. I don't know which traditionalism OP is talking about

>>19010711
so its a meme

Well, if traditionalism was worth anything it wouldn't have collapsed into the pile of dung we call modernity, would it?

>>19010849
eyup

>>19010649

>>19010849
>if the human body was worth anything, there wouldn't be a 0.01% lifetime chance of it randomly developing a cancer cell which goes on to corrupt the entire organism

>>19010849
No you don't understand if we just roll back the clock and never start it again we can avoid all the problems of modernity that I care about such as the behavior of women, the presence of foreign cultural influences, and bad taste in architecture.
t. ignatius

A change happened so it's good
t. progressivism

There's a reason why those ancient books were cared for by many generations, there is treasure greater than gold inside.

>>19011369
We don't need an ideology to know this

>>19011341
A change happened so it's decay
t. Traditionalist

>>19010599
do you want a pat on the back or something? either read more or stay retarded, no one actually cares

The "change = bad" thing is Hume-tier conservatism. I'm not sure why this gets equated with Traditionalism. Hume was not a Traditionalist, he was just a lukewarm conservative empiricist who thought that human society and morals couldn't be improved by reason pure and simple. Same goes for Bacon.

the fuck does "traditionalism" even mean to you retards? "anything that's not modern"?

>>19010599
what do you mean by traditionalist

>>19010610
how can he be in contradiction if he's never read it to know what it is

>>19011476
Did you not read the op retard? I said that I've never read a traditionalist author.

>>19011476
He's talking about people with 99 IQ I think.

>op proving js mill right
Yup time to go read poetry

>>19011536
Single digit IQ detected

>Have I made a mistake?
Yes:
"On the basis of these premises, the opposition of the traditional world to themodern world is also an ideal one. The character of temporality and of “historicity”is essentially inherentonly to one of the two terms of this opposition, while the otherterm, which refers to the whole body of traditional civilizations, is characterized bythe feeling of what is beyond time, namely, by a contact with metaphysical realitythat bestows upon the experience of time a very different, “mythological” form basedon rhythm and space rather than on chronological time.3Traces of this qualitativelydifferent experience of time still exist as degenerated residues among some so-calledprimitive populations. Having lost that contact by being caught in the illusion of apure flowing, a pure escaping, a yearning that pushes one’s goal further and furtheraway, and being caught in a process that cannot and does not intend to be satisfied inany achievement as it is consumed in terms of “history” and “becoming”—this isindeed one of the fundamental characteristics of the modern world and the limit thatseparates two eras, not only in a historical sense but most of all in an ideal, meta-physical, and morphological sense."

-Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World

I disregard traditionalism because I don't believe in time.

No, you're correct OP. Never waste time with things you already know are wrong. Same goes for people forcing themselves to "understand" a form of political theory they know to be retarded (i.e. marxism). As for Traditionalism in particular, I regard Martin Lings and Gai Eaton to be great writers but the general influence of Traditionalism is extremely insidious, Guillaume Faye is always right, De Benoist is always wrong. Trad is now used as a deradicalization meme (simp for muslims, stop being racist, check out of politics and contemporary issues, bury your head in theology). It'll always be pushed as semi-edgy to get fools onboard and turn them away from certain viewpoints but it'll never be proscribed or deplatformed like actually radical notions (racism and antisemitism).

First, define "Traditionalist".

>>19012239
>First, define "Traditionalist".

>>19010599
Do you mean «traditionalism» or «Traditionalism»? Either way if you couldn't make that clear then you are retarded. Also prejudiced.

>>19012239
Define "first"

>>19012356
First we would have to agree on the definition of "Define".

>>19012356
Define "circle"