[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 23 KB, 300x351, Julius-Evola.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18670155 No.18670155 [Reply] [Original]

>"The advent of Christianity marked the beginning of an unprecedented decline." (Revolt Against the Modern World, pg. 278)

>> No.18670179

Cringe, hate that slimy Italian tbqh

>> No.18670207

I’d be more inclined to sympathize with his position if he gave any sort of case whatsoever. In reality, he wrote very little about Christianity besides a brief essay on the mystical Traditions in Catholicism and a declaration that he took issue with the beatitudes but found it suitable for a “slave caste”. This is quite literally a man who was singularly obsessed with Tradition but failed to investigate the single most obvious Tradition, or at least potential Tradition, in his world. That’s a monumental failure and disservice to your readers if you ask me and René Guenon is only slightly better in that regard.

>> No.18670340
File: 288 KB, 801x814, 1626022653175.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Heres that whole section before you leftypol trannies say he doesn't explound upon his theme:


I think it's in the chapter at 23:18 IIRC

>> No.18670354


>> No.18670371

I’ve read the book and he doesn’t actually put forth any real arguments as to why or how this is the case. It really just assertions that it is, in fact, the case. I said he didn’t write a rigorous analysis of Christianity.

>> No.18670436
File: 369 KB, 1182x820, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

More than enough arguments, just not the ones you approve of. One doesn't need to a rigorous analysis of christianity when we can look at its fruits throughout history.

>> No.18670468

Those are literally not arguments. He is simply declaring “this was Jewish and appealed to irrational people so it wasn’t heroic and that’s bad”. It’s objectively nonsense. I’ve said it twice now but I’ll say it again because you seem to have not gotten the point. He did not do a rigorous analysis of Christianity. This talk of fruits may as well be gibberish.

>> No.18670523
File: 1.78 MB, 378x368, 1624925758376.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Just read Nietzsche. You have read Nietzsche haven't you? You don't just namedrop /pol/ meme authors and then shit up /lit/ for (You)'s, do you?

>> No.18670586


He didn't need one. He and more important matters to sift through. Christianity bound itself to unrealism and a schizo larp detached from reality. The only thing keeping it going after (file related) Martin (nigger) Luther has been inertia and residues in the collectives and institutions and psyche of western man. Christianity hasn't meant anything principally in 500 years because it gave up on reality and lowered the standard for the sacred to "lol just say you read the book and belieb(cuz cool new printing press) and you win a participation trophy in heaven for eternity". It's a devotional placebo that denies the person transcendence in this life and makes the spirit into a one use plastic spoon that is only fulfilled after death. It also states than man is imperfect and must bear guilt and faults and remain stuck in lower states rather than raising his level into purer states above(that can be witnessed within this life) with initiation. Christianity took the sacred initiatic notion of death and resurrection and made it into nothing but a prosthelatizing vow without any real action. Sort of like how public school is meant to scoop up the lowest common denominator and all you are expected to do is regurgitate what you are told and made not to autonomously generate anything from within yourself and especially not supercede the teacher or lesson in any measure.

>> No.18670594
File: 142 KB, 1200x1200, Fat Greasy Fedora Neckbeard Basement Redditor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Forgot file*

>> No.18670599

>He is simply declaring “this was Jewish and appealed to irrational people so it wasn’t heroic and that’s bad”.
Yes? He is comparing it to the Roman "religion" that came before, and it is absolutely correct in that regard.
You can say it how many times you want, it's not going to change the fact that one does not need to do a rigorous analysis of christianity when it can be refuted by what is has wrought. You calling it gibberish is nothing but cope.

>> No.18670665
File: 442 KB, 1695x1435, 0606210108b~4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Not enough people are able to recognize the historical shifts in principle. And not enough people see that fucking demonic nigger martin luther for what he was.

>> No.18670960

> it’s totally a good argument
> well okay it’s not a good argument but that’s because he didn’t need one
I can’t believe I share a board with idiots like this. I hope you’re very young for your own sake.

>> No.18671006

He does explain it though even if it's in short simple breakdowns. Again you're missing the point because you want to. Christianity ended initiation therefore it killed the sacred. End of story.

>> No.18671133

No, you’re missing the point. None of these arguments and more to the point, they are not a rigorous analysis of the Tradition, it’s validity, or anything else. He did not write one. To simply claim that Christianity ended initiation is literally nonsense. It’s lazy is it what it is. The guy didn’t do what he should’ve done because he was too blinded for his hate of everything he saw as bourgeois and that’s just the sad truth.

>> No.18671149

>n-n-no he didn't use the arguments I approved of! Therefore he is lazy
Stop it. This anon is correct >>18671006, he explains very clearly how christianity lost its initiatory character. He did exactly what he set out to do, the fact that you don't think it's good enough does not matter.

>> No.18671173

Nietzsche parroting, and worse, inconsistently addhering to it. Nietzsche's disdain of Christianity was justifiable for his dionysianism, Evola does not build on the same terms, spiritually.

>> No.18671187

>you don't need to know about what you're criticizing to criticize it.
Brilliant, likewise, one does not need to argue with evolians to know they are intellectually and spiritually inferior people, you just need them to speak freely.

>> No.18671196

I am sure this is the most retarded post I have seen this week.

>> No.18671206

He explores it much deeper in Pagan Imperialism
However, he later regretted writing that book and retracted his anti-catholic stance

>> No.18671216

If you're implying Evola did not know about christianity nor studied it carefully, you're not only retarded but also ignorant. He was raised a catholic and was very well read in christian texts. He knew very well what he was criticizing.

>> No.18671262

I think it is stupid to designate a term referencing someone's followers to the one they follow, don't you think? Anyhow, I disagree and your argument pointing to his having been raised a catholic is incredibly stupid, since most catholics were raised catholic and there is no necessary correlation. His critiques of Christianity are just Nietzsche's, if there is any due critique is because of Nietzsche, not because of his own intellectual merits.

>> No.18671275

He's not wrong

>> No.18671305

You were talking about Evola himself with the same criticism above.
>I disagree and your argument pointing to his having been raised a catholic is incredibly stupid, since most catholics were raised catholic and there is no necessary correlation
Did you miss the part of him being very well read in christian texts? He knew more about catholicism than the average christian by far.
>not because of his own intellectual merits.
Evola keeps stating that his ideas are not his own but he is merely relaying them. Your attempted gotcha falls flat.

>> No.18671316

Evola LARPers are so fucking gay.

>> No.18671451

You're literally in denial

Nietzsche was a pseud that openly denied metaphysics and didn't even know what initiation was. Keep coping. Evola barely touches on the "muh slave morality" jargin used by Nietzsche and atheists because he came from a initiatory and spiritual perspective wherein both of those transcend a choice of petty "morality" which is indeed a social construct which is subordinated to higher principles and intelligences.

You're literally choosing not to acknowledge that Evola in almost every core assertion is a standalone modern thinker and making his own conclusions from each situation. You can't compare him to Nietzsche or Spengler without acknowleging that indeed Evola went further and didn't halt or deflect for some sort of preferential logical or scientific hubris. In the case of Guenon they shared similar positions but Evola by merit of works and living longer was able to organize deeper analysis as well as more solutions. It's indicative that Evola gets called a copycat immediately after the person stating he's a copycat was filtered from the beginning and couldn't grapple with his conclusions and had to ask about them.

>All critiques of Christianity are either Nietzsche or Scienists.
Back to plebbit

>> No.18671463

Reading Evola I always get the opinion that he just had zero interest in Christianity and any opinions held were knee-jerk reactions without proper reasoning. In his later works he starts to lighten up to Christianity, but the distaste just shifts focus to the Church itself.

>> No.18671467

>You were talking about Evola himself
I am a different poster.
>Did you miss the part of him being very well read in christian texts?
Considering the two facets a tradition inherits and expresses, what are his critiques?
>He knew more about catholicism than the average christian by far
I agree, but there is not much value in it since it is not difficult; the majority is not comprised of intellectuals, this applies to every tradition, every civilization.
>Your attempted gotcha
No gotcha intended whatsoever. The lack of merit is not for borrowing from someone else but for missing the arcane reasons of such ideas.

>> No.18671483

Evola's view of Christianity can be boiled down to the one point and one point only.
>solar vs lunar
And his classification of it being a lunar religion is just from looking at the Church 1000+ years after its foundation.

>> No.18671493

Why are you in a fucking Evola thread and bitching about 'unrealism and schizo larp detached from reality'?
Get the fuck out. Go to /v/ or something you materialist bugman.

>> No.18671507

>I am a different poster.
Sure you are.
>Considering the two facets a tradition inherits and expresses, what are his critiques?
That it's lost most of its esoteric contents and is almost purely exoteric, and therefore empty. It's a tradition for tradition's sake. All its positive aspects can be found in other traditions in a more coherent and less diluted form. The living truths it once possessed are long gone. It has been weaponized to weaken Europe from within, both as catholicism and protestantism.
>I agree, but there is not much value in it since it is not difficult; the majority is not comprised of intellectuals, this applies to every tradition, every civilization.
Fair enough, but he did understand the metaphysics of catholicism at least.
>The lack of merit is not for borrowing from someone else but for missing the arcane reasons of such ideas.
Evola expanded upon Nietzsche's criticism of christianity by comparing it to both Roman religion and judaism (of which it is a mixture among other things). You can call thart "not his own intellectual merit" and I don't think he'd care, it doesn't invalidate his criticisms of christianity.

>> No.18671508

>Christianity ended initiation therefore it killed the sacred
Initiation ended before Christianity. The Egyptian and Alexandrian mystery schools had been opened to the plebs for a good 200 years before Christ.
With Christianity the initiation shifted from a master-student relationship to a pure relationship with Christ.

>> No.18671520

Ah it's the "Evola just calls everything he doesn't like lunar" retard again.
No, he didn't just look at the church a millenium after its foundation. He also commented on early christianity and early catholicism, which he admired to some extent, but mostly for the pagan elements it had absorbed and continued to express which were later ironed out.
That Evola filters you doesn't make him unrealistic nor schizo.

>> No.18671527

I’ve read Pagan imperialism and that’s just not true. He makes sweeping assertions based on historical events and extrapolates that to nonsecial asserts of character, psychology, etc. the whole thing is a pagan apologetic without any justification and he certainly doesn’t explore the validity of Christianity in a self contained way at all. He literally never wrote an investigation of Christianity. I don’t know how this is being denied because it’s a matter of fact.

>> No.18671530

>Initiation ended before Christianity.
>With Christianity the initiation shifted
How can it shift if it was never there in the first place? This is a cope.

>> No.18671533

He talks about Christianity in "Eros: Mysteries of Love", "Hermetic Traditions", and "Ride the Tiger". Read his later work for more nuance approach to Christian themes. His early approach was merely nietzschean, later in life he admitted that he did not do Christianity justice.

>> No.18671537

You can keep repeating it but the fact is that he doesn't need to write an investigation of christianity that you will accept in order to show its many faults. I'm not sure why you think it needs your stamp of approval.

>> No.18671538

He wrote elsewhere that he accepted a view of morality that was subjective and he rejected the beatitudes. He wrote elsewhere an short essay discussing Mystical esotericism in Catholicism (even though he referred to Christianity broadly in it, it was only Catholicism). Otherwise, he literally never wrote a single investigation of the Christian Tradition. Any claim to the contrary is a blatant lie.

>> No.18671539

Also of note: It was a Priest who taught Evola Hermiticism.

>> No.18671545

he states in one of his books that he doesn't think he needs to critique christianity because Nietzsche already did so in full

>> No.18671547

No, you’re right. The guy who was singularly obsessed with Tradition never bothered to even engage the Tradition of his homeland but instead chose to make blind and sweeping assertions which I should just accept as fact because anon said so. What lunacy.

>> No.18671548

The 'classic' initiation ended before Christianity, if that makes more sense to you.

>> No.18671549

He had less interest in Christianity because because it had little interest with initiation and a working metaphysics than most other religions.

>> No.18671557

It doesn't. If christianity had no classic initiation to build from but conjured it from thin air, it is nothing more than a syncretistic larp.

>> No.18671561

Yeah, he briefly discussed it and mostly in the disparaging assertive sort of way that I already mentioned. He never actually justifies any criticism of doctrine, it’s validity, esoteric traditions, nothing.

Right. So exactly as I said, the Traditionalist authority conveniently didn’t think he had to write about Christianity because Nietzsche or something. A complete failure.

>> No.18671571

well he did a 180 on his views towards christianity later so there's no need to get so upset about it

>> No.18671572

Not only is that false, asserted by literally no one but Evola, but that assertion itself was conjured out of thin air.

>> No.18671576

Except that he did, just not in the way you would like. That is the point you're refusing to understand. He wrote on many aspects of christianity regarding tradition, just not the ones or to the extent you think are good enough. You are not the arbiter. Even if he had, you would still dismiss it for some arbitrary reason. His thesis makes sense with or without your approval.

>> No.18671585

Not sure why that matters since I’ve stated multiple times now that what’s at issue here is whether he did or did not actually do a rigorous analysis of it, and he didn’t as a matter of fact. Whether his opinion went from negative without basis to positive without basis is not important. And I’m not upset. I just frustratingly find myself having to reiterate and defend what is simply a true statement.

>> No.18671591

You might want to elaborate on how it is false, and explain how christianity can claim on the one hand to be a living tradition and on the other to be made up.

>> No.18671596

No, he didn’t. If you have one, point it out or show it to us. I think you actually just don’t seem to know what a justification or an argument is. His thesis makes no sense. It’s a blind assertion. Just because you agree (baselessly) doesn’t make it true. It certainly doesn’t make it nuanced, thorough, or anything else.

>> No.18671600

You cannot deny the obviously abundant and pertinent influence of Nietzsche on Evola. I myself am averse and critical to Nietzsche's rejection of more profound metaphysical and spiritual examinations (even when it comes to positive implications for his own philosophy), but I know what is worth in Evola is because of the nietzschean élan [that is, the emphases on action and the cultural and political observed implications, which is to emphasize the immanent power of the Sacred, Dionysus, with Nietzsche]. Nevertheless, we should not deny metaphysics and spirituality in Nietzsche, despite its cornucopia being well hidden, being worth remembering that Heidegger likewise saw metaphysics there.

Thinking critiques of Christianity could only be derived from modern science and Nietzsche is to betray your narrow knowledge of the issue here. Nietzsche's critiques are most pertinent, and valid even!, because of what is hidden in the pagan fervor.
You clearly miss a lot here. Not your fault, it is too hidden, ironically enough, too esoteric even for you, truthful esoterists!

>> No.18671601

>Jesus is literally the word
>nothing to build upon
Lel, it is the foundation of everything.

>> No.18671611

Evola was always more interested in the Christian Knightly tradition than shit like sacraments and rites like Rama Coomaraswamy.
what exactly do you mean by 'rigorous analysis'?

>> No.18671621

see >>18670436. Yes, I know you don't think it's good enough, but that doesn't matter since it is part of a larger argument. You can try to explain why you think he is wrong in asserting what he does. You have for some arbitrary reason decided that for Evola's criticism of christianity in the historical development of Europe to hold, he needs to adhere to your subjective standards. He doesn't.

>> No.18671627

Jesus Christ is literally God

>> No.18671630

>He is the word because I say so
Alright then, thanks for wasting my time. That's the definition of conjuring it up from thin air.

>> No.18671634

>He is the word because I say so
Not because I say so, but because The Bible and experiences of all those with faith demonstrates so.
You arent initiated so you dont know :^)

>> No.18671635

And I'm the Queen of England.

>> No.18671641

>what exactly do you mean by 'rigorous analysis'?
I mean that more or less evaded investigation into the validity of Christian Tradition or else wrote very brief, very shallow criticisms which predicated almost 100% on moral departures, sweeping and unfounded assertions, or Nietzsche, who by the way, would not even be taken seriously by any other so-called Traditionalist. The man outright rejected Christianity but didn’t even investigate the religion beyond a mediocre essay called Mistica Cristiana. He had a imperative to a rigorous investigation as to whether or not Christianity was a valid Tradition and justify his positions on its rites, theology, initiation and he did not do that.

>> No.18671648

>The Bible says it therefore it's true
Lmao you people never learn
>You arent initiated so you dont know :^)
There's nothing to be initiated into in christianity except cope and delusion. Go back to redddit.

>> No.18671649

have you read Sufi of Rome?

>> No.18671654

It’s not an arbitrary reason. Those are quite literally not arguments, not justifications. I don’t know what else to tell you. If I say “X happened and that appealed to them because they have a fractured psychology” that’s not a justification of an argument. It’s not even a nuanced opinion. It’s speculative nonsense.

>> No.18671655

Again, he didn't need to because objectively looking at the current state of christianity and its path leading up to it says enough. It's not his fault christians were unable to live up to christ's ideal.

>> No.18671660

You my friend are a hylic.

>> No.18671661

Yes and I think that book’s claims are dubious at best but I don’t see your point since he didn’t write the book.

>> No.18671665

Yes it is and I've explained over and over why. They are arguments and justifications, just not the ones you approve of. I'm very sorry for you. You cannot live up to the argumentative expectations of Dawkins yet I doubt you care.

>> No.18671667

Okay. Readers are only gambling with their souls but since anon said he didn’t need to, we’ll all trust that everything he said is true just because it just is.

>> No.18671668

>objectively looking at the current state of christianity and its path leading up to it says enough
This is a result of the kali yuga, not Christianity. Id argue without Christianity the decline would have been a lot more severe.

>> No.18671675

No, I'm the queen of England.

>> No.18671678

You don’t even know what a justification is and you’ve not explained a thing.

>> No.18671686

No, christianity hastened the decline and that's exactly what Evola described in the passage I posted above. The part you keep refusing to engage with because you don't like its implications.
You can disagree with him or refute him, but all that's done here is people screeching that he's not as rigorous as they want him to be. Too bad.

>> No.18671695

I have, you just refuse to address them and instead keep whining that it's not good enough by your subjective standards.

>> No.18671700

Refute what? I’m stating a fact, which is that he didn’t write, and in fact never did, any rigorous investigation into Christian Tradition. It never happened. That’s not some theory of mine. He didn’t do it.

>> No.18671706

well it's not a rigorous analysis but he does talk about various aspects of Catholicism
anyways, Evola repeatedly states than the Christian Warrior Tradition is only 1/3 of the Western Warrior Tradition, the others being Roman and Nordic/Germanic
IMO you are approaching it too much from a Guenonian POV desu. Evola's ideal man was Corneliu Codreanu - who embraced Orthodox /trad/

>> No.18671711

No, you haven’t. The guy just takes the invalidity of Christianity as an a priori given, asserts all kinds of nonsensical speculations using history, psychology, and all kinds of other shit, insists that you have to accept it as true, and you, like an idiot, just accept it. If you want to just blindly accept it be my guest. I think that’s unironically retarded and I refuse to accept blind assertions from a guy who failed to engage it when it he so clearly had an imperative to do so.

>> No.18671713

Yes and as I've explained countless times now it's irrelevant to his thesis to do that. You can keep crying about it but it won't change anything.

>> No.18671721

No he doesn't, he explains very clearly why considers (modern) christianity to be invalid. It's not nonsensical speculations just because you don't like the implications. Again you refuse to engage with it because it doesn't live up to your subjective standards, the exact thing you're accusing him of doing. You absolute hypocrite.

>> No.18671727

If pagan traditions were too weak to remain, they would have been too weak to continue into the future.
The Kali Yuga had began before Christ. The fall of pagan traditions had began before Christ. I've read the passage you posted early in the thread, and it doesnt pertain to a 'hastened decline', its in regard to how Christianity managed to gain hold early in its life (while simultaneously ignoring that the other traditions were already in their death throes).

>> No.18671729

Okay but this is my point. Evola just starts from the point of politics, moral subjectivity, and other a priori givens that are not actually a priori givens. No matter how you spin that, there’s a critique waiting around the corner. If you suggest you rejected it solely on the basis of moral disagreement, you’re a relativist at best. If you suggest you rejected it because of a lack of theological validity, or some other specific critique whether about rites of initiation or whatever, you actually have to back that up with sound arguments and he never does. He just accepts Nietzsche’s critiques as a given and expects you to do the same.

>> No.18671734

>he explains very clearly why considers (modern) christianity to be invalid
Except he doesnt at all. Thats what you choose to read into it.

>> No.18671737

Replacing dying traditions with an even lower empty one is not hastening the decline? Alright then. You're not making a great case here.

>> No.18671741

No, he does. I at least expect you to have read Revolt where he does just that. The fact that it's not as "rigorous" as you think it needs to be is irrelevant.

>> No.18671742

>Sure you are
Not worth getting into such pettinesses, but this betrays your insecurity here.
>it's lost most of its esoteric contents and is almost purely exoteric
And what are his reasons for such declarations? Christianity has unbroken apostolic chain.
>It's a tradition for tradition's sake
You know even Guénon would find this affirmation absurd insofar as every tradition is a tradition precisely for being founded on and carrying le perennial wisdom, that is, there is no empty traditional form, the exoteric cannot be anything without the esoteric. Reminding you that here I am only pointing the flaws of the superficial pseudo-arguments you present, that is, judging by your own terms.
>All its positive aspects can be found in other traditions in a more coherent and less diluted form.
As I said, there are two facets of a tradition, and the anthropological facet in Christianity, what is revealed here, is not found in any other religion, not even Judaism (insofar as there is anthropological ambiguity). This explains the pagan stark opposition to it (it is an opposition on anthropological understanding). I refrain from revealing more.
>The living truths it once possessed are long gone. It has been weaponized to weaken Europe from within, both as catholicism and protestantism.
It cannot be gone when it is expressed by Christ, even if most are unaware of it (as I said this is far more esoteric than any modern theosophistic especulations you perennialists like to adhere to). But I agree that it is through an unconscious usurpation and subversion of this truth that plays a role in a demoralization of Europe and even Christianity itself [unconscious because what was revealed laid indelible influence on the world, mainly Europe through the Church]. Necessary to remember also that this is not the only demoralizing force, its opposite, a nietzschean force, also plays a role.
>he did understand the metaphysics of catholicism at least.
I'm genuinely curious, could you give a summary of precisely the metaphysical points he addresses?

>> No.18671746

True or false?: Evola never wrote anything regarding the validity of Christian theology or it’s rites of initiation.

The only justification he’s ever given is moral departure from the beatitudes, which implies religious relativism and his whole fucking project is moot. If you’re alluding to his nonsense statements like how “Christianity appealed to an irrational part of being” that is literal fucking nonsense and speculation, almost by definition to the tee. It doesn’t even suggest a line of argumentation as to what makes it irrational. It’s speculation. This isn’t even up for debate.

>> No.18671753

>And what are his reasons for such declarations?
You’re just supposed to like take his word for it or something.

>> No.18671755
File: 133 KB, 800x1067, Oryza_sativa_in_Kadavoor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>everything is words
This is your brain on Christianity.

Touch grass.

>> No.18671759

>Replacing dying traditions with an even lower empty one
Thats your opinion and its incorrect. The other traditions are founded in worship of the material representations, what is created rather than the creator, of lust, of desire, of anger, jealously, bloodshed. Whereas Christianity is purely transcendent.
If you consider that empty.. Then well I dont know what else to say to you.

>> No.18671761

You must be an atheist. Why are you even here?

>> No.18671774

No, it's objective observation and correct.
>The other traditions are founded in worship of the material representations, what is created rather than the creator, of lust, of desire, of anger, jealously, bloodshed. Whereas Christianity is purely transcendent.
That's pure projection, upside down, and provably false. I really hope this is bait. But then again christians have proven how retarded they are when it comes to conceiving of worldviews apart from their own.

>> No.18671777

>That's pure projection, upside down, and provably false.
Then prove it false.

>> No.18671791

>True or false?: Evola never wrote anything regarding the validity of Christian theology or it’s rites of initiation.
False, he did in Revolt. Just not smeared out over hundreds of pages, refuting every christian scholar along the way, because it has been done to death already.
>autistic screeching
Yes we know of your arbitrary standards by now. You're just triggered that he saw the issues with christianity for what they really are and pointed them out.

>> No.18671796

>False, he did in Revolt.
No, he didn’t. That’s a blatant lie and you just lost whatever little debate we’ve been having here.

>> No.18671797

>No, it's objective observation and correct
Please explain how it is empty and lesser when Christ walked the earth and performed miracles, when Saints have performed miracles, when Christianity managed to survive through harsh persecutions from all angles. All while pagan traditions died and remain dead.

>That's pure projection, upside down, and provably false
Absolutely not.

>> No.18671798

The Vedas are older, deeper, metaphysically richer than the bible. Christianity in its development has brought nothing but
>lust, of desire, of anger, jealously, bloodshed
Just look at the 30 year war.

>> No.18671806

>refuting every christian scholar along the way, because it has been done to death already
Can you post these countless refutations of every Christian scholar?

>Christianity in its development has brought nothing but lust, of desire, of anger, jealously, bloodshed
Is either a blatant lie or extreme ignorance. Either way, you're not worth talking to.

>> No.18671810

He did, both in the first part and the second part on different levels. He writes explicitly on the issues with christian initiation. But I accept your concession.

>> No.18671815

Sorry. Maybe I wasn’t clear. When I said
> prove it false
I actually wanted you to prove it false, not assert vague bullshit which doesn’t prove anything.

>> No.18671824

I don't disagree with your posts ITT
I just think Evola was more interested in the Roman Tradition and Catholicism was simply a means to reviving it.

>> No.18671826

No, he didn’t. You’re either incorrect or blatantly lying. There’s no concession here.

>> No.18671827

>Christ walked the earth and performed miracles, when Saints have performed miracles, when Christianity managed to survive through harsh persecutions from all angles.
We have no proof of this except for the bible, which was compiled decades to centuries after his death. Yes there's nice allegories and parables you can learn from but that proves nothing. It's also funny he ended up on the cross.
Pagan traditions lived on in christianity and were its only redeeming qualities.

>> No.18671833

> not assert vague bullshit which doesn’t prove anything.
Like yourself when you said >>18671759? Funny how that works.

>> No.18671838

That’s true. That’s not my concern or my critique though and my critique is only half opinion.

>> No.18671840

He did, you just apparently have not read the book. That's not my problem. Not reading his magnum opus and then calling me a liar is absolutely a concession. Evola explicitly wrote on the initiatory issue of christianity.

>> No.18671843

Different person.

>> No.18671848

I can't smell that, retard. You should have called him out instead then.

>> No.18671863

I’ve read the book. I’ve read many of his books. A lot more than just his 3 most well-known ones. I think you just fundamentally misunderstand quite a lot here.

>> No.18671873

I didn’t do that because I understand what his basis for saying that is. I asked you to prove it because I don’t see yours and you said it’s probably false. So please.

>> No.18671917

People expect Evola to take a look into rites and rituals when he more or less rejects the sacerdotal worldview in favor of the active worldview
This is why he placed the King (not the kshatriya), above the Brahmins. The King, the Emperor, is the active force. Then he goes into various depths of religious matters to describe why he states this, going with the legends of the Great Matters, Charlemagne, Arthur, and Alexander; the Barbarossa dynasty against the Popes; the Buddha being named Cakravartin, emperor of the world, why he chooses theravada over mahayana.
He more or less disregards the sacerdotal for the active, so there is no need at all to take a look into christian sacerdotality. He looks at christian activity, and sees that it in its origins was negative, a reactivity, and only experienced a proactivity during the middle ages until it generally usurped the kingly forces, then itself suffered a peasant revolt during the reformation, and failed to capitalize on anything during the counter-reformation, dooming itself to failur

>> No.18671935

good post

>> No.18671954

1) Then he should’ve refrained from offering his commentary on its sacerdotal validity, but he didn’t do that. He can’t assert its invalid, expect you to accept that as fact, and then dismiss it on that basis when that’s challenged. And besides it’s not merely the sacerdotal aspect which is an issue here.
2) how is that not ultimately relativism? If the only thing that matters is activity (and specifically that activity which he personally sees as good or bad but putting that aside for a moment) then any religion is good and valid as long as it gives you the activity you want right?

>> No.18671959

and btw none of this is engaging with the other fundamental issue here which is his rejection of sacerdotal aspect entirely, something no one else espoused and which he similarly never actually justified.

>> No.18671965

Yes, for Evola, there were multiple different religions throughout history which offered an authentic Tradition. Remember that he believed that the exoteric aspects of doctrines would differ, but the esoteric aspects were one and the same inasmuch as their metaphysical belief system.

>> No.18671970

Right so ultimately everything he offered was totally subjective, his whole project is moot, and I don’t actually have to accept any of it nor should. Just as he chooses to reject this or that on the basis of this activity, I can accept this or that on the exact same basis and it renders his entire project nonsensical.

>> No.18671981

It's not just on the basis of activity, it's on the basis of an initiatic process which gradually teaches complex metaphysical truths. Evola is quite clear that this is why modern fascism is doomed to failure, because it is solely focused on action based on a materialist view of the world.

>> No.18671990

Take this quote. In it he rejects the "grace" of Christ. He does not like this passive activity of Christianity. Why should a man have to wait on Christ to be redeemed, why can't he redeem himself, or even moreso reach the level where he becomes as equal to Christ.
This is exactly what Evola believes in when he talks about Stoicism in Metaphysics of War,
>"Stoic Romanity offers us an excellent insight into this, provided that it is known as it really was, as true and indomitable lifeaffirmation, far from the preconceived opinions which endeavour to make us see in the Stoic only a stiffened, hardened being become foreign to life. Can one really doubt this, when Seneca affirms the true man as superior to a god, since, while the latter is protected by nature from misfortune, man can meet the latter, challenge it, and show himself superior to it? Or when he calls unhappy those whohave never been so, since they have never managed to know and to measure their force?"
he then quotes seneca directly
>‘Who is worthy of the name of Man, and of Roman’, Seneca writes precisely, ‘who does not want to be tested and does not look for a dangerous task? For the strong man inaction is torture. There is only one sight able to command the attention even of a god, and it is that of a strong man battling with bad luck, especially if he has himself challenged it.’

>> No.18671997

But he never engages these “metaphysical truths” on the basis of their being true or false. That’s the fundamental issue here.

>> No.18672056

For Evola, the fundamental worldview of Traditionalism is the dichotomy between becoming and being. Becoming can be viewed, in the Buddhist sense, as self-identification, desire, and the fixation on the physical world. Being is to embody the principle, which can be viewed, again in the Buddhist sense, as a life sufficient unto oneself, abandoning self-view, which is characterized by heroic action and contemplation in accordance with virtue. A religion is Traditional if it offers an initiatic path for the acolyte to move from becoming to being.

>> No.18672073 [DELETED] 

Anonymous 07/18/21(Sun)14:44:33 No.18671973▶>>18671984 (You) (You)
Anonymous 07/18/21(Sun)14:45:06 No.18671976▶>>18671984 (You) (You)
File: 1626220695204.gif (3.15 MB, 415x415)
3.15 MB
>>18671968 (OP) (OP) (OP)
PERSEY UBOMPA, THE UNVANQUISHABLE OUTLAW 07/18/21(Sun)14:47:01 No.18671984▶
File: -=.png (5 KB, 200x352)
5 KB
/lit/ - Literature
[Post a Reply]
08/21/20 New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17 New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16 New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]
[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]3 / 1 / 4 / 1 [Update] [Auto]
File: אמא שלך כל כך גיי.png (254 KB, 785x1000)
254 KB
Anonymous 07/18/21(Sun)14:44:16 No.18671971▶>>18671973
>>18671968 (OP) (OP) (OP) (OP)
Feel free to destroy this board. It's fucking trash anyway
Anonymous 07/18/21(Sun)14:44:33 No.18671973▶
Anonymous 07/18/21(Sun)14:45:06 No.18671976▶
File: 1626220695204.gif (3.15 MB, 415x415)
3.15 MB
>>18671968 (OP) (OP) (OP) (OP)
Anonymous 07/18/21(Sun)14:50:22 No.18671999▶>>18672006 (You)
>>18671984 (You) (You)
AGENT SAMSON BATES 07/18/21(Sun)14:51:53 No.18672006▶
File: mmmmmmmmm.png (21 KB, 645x770)
21 KB
THOMAS FARDY 07/18/21(Sun)14:56:56 No.18672031▶

>> No.18672131

Okay but that’s doesn’t address the critique. For one, he never actually engaged Christianity on the basis of whether it actually does or does not do that. You won’t find theosis mentioned anywhere in any one of his books. For another, he doesn’t actually justify that view in and of itself. He just accepts it a priori.

>> No.18673343

That's the point though. Reading Evola implies you are aligned with him already regarding the supposed inferior nature of aimless "rationalizing" and are ready for something higher, and what he exposes are not simply "metaphysical truths" but rather the methods of how to achieve the states that allow for you to "see for yourself". He saw himself as a DIY practical teacher/guide, not a philosopher.
He never actually engaged anything from a true/false metric, and it's not an issue as the supposed truths are learned through direct experience instead of being declared. Often their whole point is that they cannot be explained in the first place. He assumes you're already familiar with what he touches on and plots concepts according to how relevant they are to his goal, he couldn't care less about (dis)proving them, and never intended to. Rationalism is blinding and decadent, why would he engage in it?

>> No.18673701

>That’s a monumental failure and disservice to your readers if you ask me and René Guenon is only slightly better in that regard.

You do not understand their positions.

Christianity, itself, as a religious tradition was a compromise. It came to save (and continue) the Tradition that was almost destroyed by the Fall of Rome, especially the cataclysmic religious syncretism that happened in the last stages of the Roman Empire.

From the viewpoint of Evola, Christianity was better than nothing, but like Guénon I think argues, that Christianity sacrificed all true esoteric and inner core to exoteric universalism that penetrated whole Europe/Western world. It is another thing argue did Christianity ever have an "esoteric" dimension (like Sufism and similar practices in Islam etc.), but according to /trad/s like Guénon, all the inner and initiatory aspect of Christianity disappeared with the destruction of Templar order in the 1400s (or possibly continued in a much more veiled fashion through Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry), but essentially, Christianity was an exoteric shell after those milestones.

>> No.18674078

In any case Nietzche indubitably said it better

>> No.18674084

Based. Evolafags are just larpers.

>> No.18674097

Christianity still has esotericism. It's hidden in plain sight.

>> No.18674149

americans bout to seethe

>> No.18674156

No it doesn't. It is empty ritualism like this


It is only exoteric and aesthetic hollow ritualism without any mystical or esoteric dimension

>> No.18674320

I understand their positions perfectly well. It’s a simple fact that neither investigated it thoroughly. You don’t understand the arguments being presented and you take them as an authority because you’re a fool.

>> No.18674370

>Rationalism is blinding and decadent, why would he engage in it?
Okay. Several things you’ve said here are just factually not even true but on this point specifically, ask evola because he engages with it plenty. He goes so far as to rely on modern psychology to craft his hot takes and historicity a la Nietzsche. You’re missing the fundamental point here which is that you dismiss these things he “doesn’t need to do” but the problem is that his only method for making any of his claims is entirely subjective and that renders the entire project moot and absurd. Even if I put aside the sacerdotal aspect entirely for a moment and take each on the basis of activity and metaphysical truths, there are multiple questions you need to answer. What are those metaphysical truths, universally and particularly on Christianity? He never answers. He relies on a consensus determines validity sort of logic because a handful of religions just happen to have overlapping “metaphysical truths”. And as for the activity, it’s all from the starting point of his own personal morality, which he sees as subjective anyway. Just as easily as he tosses out this or that as good or bad, I can do the same and not be incorrect. So you have a guy writing as an authority on religions who in your words not mine tosses aside the sacerdotal aspect, focuses on activity but does so from his own unfounded and unjustified subjective starting point, then moves on to esoteric metaphysical truths that may or may not even be truths but unfortunately, consensus doesn’t determine truth and then he’s egregious enough to have people defend his dismissal of rationality but then making sweeping historical assertions like how “Christianity appealed to irrationality”. What a colossal failure. If what you’re saying is true, every argument he ever made is subjective at best, totally unfounded, unjustified, can be denied as easily as it can be accepted, and his entire project has been worthless. You have to be a fool to not see this, or fundamentally misunderstand basic, like Plato level basic, philosophy and logic to understand or you have to unironically believe “x is true because Evola said so” which is a level of retarded we don’t have to touch. He quite literally expects you to just accept his subjective starting point as a priori and you just do it for no good reason whatsoever.

>> No.18674373

Nice strawman. You are such a disingenuous weasel.

>> No.18674378

It’s not even the same starting point. The fact that you’d say so shows you’re clueless as well.

>> No.18674395
File: 136 KB, 984x902, germancrash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>saved the classical canon from destruction because the Romans couldnt be arsed to preserve it
>stabilized Europe and brought a time of peace not seen since the Pax Romana
>fended of Muslim invaders
>educated people and did away with pagan superstitions about witchcraft and whatever those idiots believed in
>built giant monuments and patronized the arts, catalyzing the advent of the Renaissance of the arts
>invented the University
>limited the unlimited power of the nobility
Oy vey but muh space travel, Romans were known for their scientific breakthroughs!

>> No.18674428

Fuck jannies

>> No.18674691

>educated people and did away with pagan superstitions about witchcraft and whatever those idiots believed in
>removed the spiritual from the world, leaving it all in an metaphysical plane, paving the way for modern moaterialism

>> No.18674730

>A guy who spends his whole career writing about esotericism doesn't care for a religion that has no esoteric counterpart and actively rejects having one

>> No.18674767

That’s not even true. He fucking admitted there is an esoteric aspect of Christianity and he wrote an essay on it called “Christian Estoerism and Mysticism”. He quite literally didn’t have an interest in it because Nietzsche didn’t like it he wanted to be “anti-bourgeois” or something.

>> No.18674788

>a religion that has no esoteric counterpart

>> No.18674816

Evolafags want to attack Christuanity as a LARP at tuey same time they pretend their esoteric bullshit gives them magic powers.

>> No.18674826

The fuck you on about? Christian devotional practices gave the common man a more tangible access to the spiritual than he ever had before.

>> No.18674873

christianity demystified the world, when the only piece of spiritual you believe him is god, than one only has to not believe in that god to become a full on materialist. That's what most modern atheist, which are a growing subsection of nearly all western nation, believe "I don't believe in god, ergo there is nothing but matter"

>> No.18675181

Why do so many on the right of the political spectrum see the world as in a state of constant decline? It seems mentally exhausting.

>> No.18675207

So you also reject Islam, Platonic, and Neoplatonic thinking then?

>> No.18675213

by essance the right is about conservatism and the left progressivism. Society almsot always leans left for this reason.

>> No.18675219

yes, the post I was originally responding to was talking about pagan's tradition christianity snuffed out

>> No.18675227

So the Platonists and Neoplatonist weren’t pagans then?

>> No.18675242

they can be classified as such, but I don't think this is what he was refering to when he said "pagan superstitions about witchcraft and whatever those idiots believed in"

>> No.18675247
File: 111 KB, 416x649, 486048_1_ftc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Have you ever tried Christian meditation to see if it elevates your mind? You only know the ritual aspect because you're an outsider. It's forgivable but your tone is pathetic. This is the /lit/ board, right? Why not try some of these exercise if you want mystical experiences Christianity offers. You probably have never had an interest in anything spiritual in life, and just treat religion as an ideology and aesthetic.

>> No.18675252

I know that. That’s why I brought them up, obviously…

>> No.18675277

By creating a dichotomy between the spiritual world and the material world, christianity has made it easier to simply discard the spiritual aspect and embrace a materialist worldview.
Other schools of thoughts who share this characteristic would cause the same consequence if they dominate the culture the same way christianity did.

>> No.18675292

>By creating a dichotomy between the spiritual world and the material world,
Never happened. Holy Spirit represents spiritual in the material world.

>> No.18675344

there is a difference between what the philosopher and theologian know and what the mass believes.
Replacing a world rich with spirits or gods of al kind who are intresically tied to places on this earth with one father who art in heaven changes how one percieves this world.

>> No.18675363

It’s just headcanon. Not only were those prevalent ideas in this enchanted world you’re referring to (Julian endorsed Neoplatonism) but this idea that it sucked mystery out fo the world is total nonsense. What do you even mean? That people were no longer superstitious, believed in the supernatural? They did. The Middle Ages was filled with magic and “enchantment”. Evola himself served with artillery officers who were devout Catholics but believed certainly the Alps were inhabited by elves and monsters of all things. This whole thing is just speculative hot takes based on complete nonsense and therein lies the single biggest issue with Evola and his readers. This is a guy who suggests he rejects modernity and rationalism and then proceeds to give historical and psychoanalytical hot takes on Jews, early Christians, Romans, and Meds. It’s all bullshit. He made it up as he went along and relied on whatever was convenient, no matter how illogical. I’m ironically supposed to just accept his preaching as if it was revealed to him or something…

>> No.18675375


>Nietzsche was a pseud that openly denied metaphysics
What do you mean by "denied"?

>> No.18675393

You are right. It is so obvious these people only care about spirituality, religion, tradition as an accessory for their own political inclinations.

You are not wrong to see a demystification in Christianity, but you direct it to the wrong place. Christianity demystifies religion (paganism), not the world.

>> No.18675533

>Christianity demystifies religion (paganism), not the world.
sounds interesting, any books that talk about it?

>> No.18675642
File: 927 KB, 1463x2259, D044EE27-E248-4F23-86D2-59726F0DCEA5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I don’t like XYZ so it’s not true

>> No.18675823

I mostly see the opposite
>See how meaningless life is without god? that must means it's true

>> No.18675908
File: 786 KB, 1638x2048, priest praying rosary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The Rosary is the most potent Christian initiation-mystery of our era. It exist in plain sight but only a select few know it has miraculous insights into the esoteric. Evola didn't practice Rosary meditation because in his words, it was too feminine. And he's right. It is a feminine spirituality. For people who are not hung up on masculinity v femininity, it offers valid initiation for all Christians of sincere heart. As for Evola's critique that Christian mysticism is too "vague" compared to sufi and kabbalah, it only means that it's our job as Marians to clarify Christian esotericism in a more accessible manner. The end result will be a Christianity which is heterodox and heretical compared to the status quo. But it must be done for the sake of the human race. A lofty order for brave men. Where would we even begin? How? Answers yet unanswered. I have faith heroes will rise up and bring about the Age of the Holy Spirit/Marian Age/Age of Aquarius with all it's fruits.

>> No.18675962

I don’t know about the rest but I find it ironic that a guy who was hung up in esotericism dismissed Christian esotericism because he didn’t find it accessible enough…

>> No.18675988

There's no initiatory aspect of praying the rosary. It's mantra.

>> No.18676027
File: 238 KB, 863x1280, mary icon looking downward.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's initiation. The Virgin Mary herself initiates you

>> No.18676037

This is blatant bait, obviously trying to false flag.

>> No.18676042

You are reciting prayers over and over again until you get into a rhythm. It's not initiation. You're just grabbing vocabulary from tradlarp meme authors and smearing together your personal spiritual practices.

>> No.18676048

Nope. You can expect Mary's visitation at some point.

>> No.18676080

Ok so you're actually doing some mother goddess worship thing. Which I don't have a problem with per se. But you shouldn't let your tradlarp friends know or they will call you a lunar chthonic degenerate agent of the counter-initiation.

>> No.18676089

Isn't that just "self-initiation" which isn't the same thing as a esoteric tradition?

>> No.18676114

Ah, you're retarded. I see. All of creation flows from God and is in tune with him. To contemplate creation is to invite union of the spirit with God, and he gives us intermediaries in the the Saints to enlighten us.
But you don't care, you just want secrets and magic powers like a video game.

>> No.18676149
File: 158 KB, 297x475, 2327660.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You can be initiated by divine beings. It doesn't need to be another human. Go through the motions outlined by manuals such as pic related with an open heart and you will be raised up to level of consciousness and feelings in the body which non-initiates don't have access to. This is the purifying of your sin on the earth and the moving beyond the exoteric dogmatism.

>> No.18676153

>"The advent of liberalism marked the beginning of an unprecedented decline." (My Diary Desu, pg. 1)

>> No.18676212


Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.