I really want to read guenon but I don't know exactly what he contributed to philosophy and how its applicable now...

I really want to read guenon but I don't know exactly what he contributed to philosophy and how its applicable now. Also, can I read his stuff and not become hindu and still take stuff from his works? Like idk what fascinates him so much but I'm planning to follow the chart Yea Forums made about him but I also don't want to waste my time with some hinduism shit. Please help? Thanks

Attached: 250px-Rene-guenon-1925.jpg (250x253, 14K)

>I'm planning to follow the chart Yea Forums made about him but I also don't want to waste my time with some hinduism shit.
It is literally 'hinduism shit' so you're kind of fucked. i read a few of his books and thought it was a massive waste of time but some people seem to find it enlightening, so Idk.

Also it feels like he beats around the bush an immense amount, the one book that seemed to get to the actual point was The Multiple States of Being.

also im really into D & G if that helps for anything.

>It'd be cool if I combined Guenon's traditionalism and D&G Post-Structuralist/PoMo views in my thesis

will he help me become a wizard?

I heard thats a really hard text of his though? Can I just jump right into it?....Surely not?

Traditionalism doesn't engage with philosophy

Read Malfatti's "Étude sur la Mathèse," Deleuze's introduction to it, and Guénon's review of it. Compare and contrast the bunch. Could be interesting

Guénon delivers a scathing critique of Eurocentrism and colonialism in East and West.

It's not a shark infested water, it's a book ffs. If you're having trouble following then take notes or look up the concepts that confuse you. It's a bunch of shit like this:

IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER we noted the distinction between
the possibilities of manifestation and the possibilities of non-manifestation, both being included equally and by the same right in total
Possibility. This distinction precedes n1ore particular distinctions,
such as those between the different modes of universal manifestation, that is, the different orders of possibilities comprised therein,
which are distributed according to the special conditions to which
they are respectively subject, and constitute an indefinite multiplicity of worlds, or of degrees of Existence.
If we concede this and define Being in the universal sense as the
principle of manifestation, and at the same time as comprising in
itself the totality of all the possibilities of manifestation, we must say
that Being is not infinite because it does not coincide with total Possibility; and all the more so because Being, as the principle of manifestation, although it does indeed comprise all the possibilities of
manifestation, does so only insofar as they are actually manifested.
Outside of Being, therefore, are all the rest, that is, all the possibilities of non-manifestation, as well as the possibilities of manifestation themselves insofar as they are in the unmanifested state; and
included among these is Being itself, which cannot belong to manifestation since it is the principle thereof, and in consequence is itself
unmanifested.

the traditionalists were the real SJWs
just more proof that the far left and far right are the same

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 24K)

Guenon is very good but I would say the people who read him tend to misinterpret his work. He by no means advocated for westerners to convert to Hinduism en masse and his works upon Hinduism come from the fact that he thought Hinduism to be the most profound and oldest metaphysical tradition known to man. He in truth was against westerners adopting eastern religions due to the issues regarding translation, faulty initiations, western biases etc.
Neither did he say that there is no salvation for the soul of western man in Catholicism (he makes a difference between salvation and esoteric knowledge). He is principally important for his work on examining the biases of the western conscious and providing a general critique of modern intellectual tendencies.
The Chart is good for the first 3 books (intro to Hindu Doctrines, crisis of the modern world, and reign of quantity), but after that a chart is rather pointless and you should read specifically what you feel you will benefit the most from. The first two I mentioned are fairly easy and fairly interesting reads, but after that, if you want to read his metaphysical works and aren't familiar with scholastic theology or Hindu metaphysical terms, you are going to struggle a bit. You can surely get lots from reading him though if you are not interested that much in Hinduism. Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines isn't even totally about Hinduism and you can read the first 108 pages and get all you need without him even mentioning it really.

>what he contributed to philosophy
guénon trashes western philosophy over and over again. He's EXTREMELY erudite. He knows western philosophy by heart, yet he recognizes it for what it is; extremely lacking. Probably one of the most erudite author of the 20th honestly.

This is what you should read him for if you are not willing to convert to some obscure denomination of islam

You should read reign of quantity, east and west and crisis of the modern world at least. Leave the Hindu stuff for now.

Guenon is apolitical as far as European politics are concerned and focused the vast majority of his work on nothing but metaphysics, symbolism, and religion in general. He is completely outside of any neo-liberal dichotomy. It was Evola who politicized traditionalism.

I cant find this book anywhere

I feel you.
>really wants to read X because it's aesthetically attractive but don't know exactly what is it's contribution to philosophy and how its applicable
>starts reading X anyway
>doesn't have a framework to evaluate the claims made as true or false, it all seems arbitrary and unfalsifiable
>drops X
I have been doing this for some time now, and honestly, it's disorientating. I can't make sense out of anything, I can't integrate anything new, I have no meta-narrative that unites all of the fragmentary knowledge and heuristics i have, and everything i read is just more fragments, and I still have to follow moral imperatives of economic life and social demands of others close to me, so I'm forced to accept more arbitrary ideological and metaphysical presuppositions underlying everyday interactions, institutions, language...

Guenon is against those sort of philosophical "systems" that seek to create their own lens with which to view a problem. Hence, he was extremely against thinks like psychoanalysis that seeks to reduce everything to the psyche etc. He views metaphysics (through the form of tradition) as a way to examine reality in a way that is not subject to the particulars of either profane philosophical systems or exoteric religion.

What about Charles Upton?

Attached: 51J77ViCeHL.jpg (907x1360, 62K)

is this guenon but against christianity? cause thats what it looks like

IIRC, near the end of his life, Guenon gave up on Catholicism as a valid tradition.
>salvation for the soul
Guenon meant deliverance as per the Hindu concept of liberation. Salvation is uniquely Western.

>"The modern worldview and the anti-traditional worldview are one and the same"

Wtf? What did he meme by this? Why did he hate smartphones and progress so much?

Attached: Rene Guenon.jpg (192x263, 7K)