Eliade actually was great. people who say he's a lightweight guenon or a jung-rehash are retarded

Is his work purely historical or does he formulate stuff as well? Like, am I going to get an overview and comparison between esoteric beliefs or does he go beyond that?

any work in which he writes about his catholic faith? I've read about 3-4 books by him, but he doesn't say much about (his) christianity.

he was also part of the eranos group

not to my knowledge. ive emailed wendy doniger several times and she's super nice and helpful if you really want an answer. wish id gone to uc

How does his account of ER differ from the Dionysian Pessimism deduced from Nietzsche’s account? Want to make sure I’m not co flating the two when I dive in. I can elaborate if necessary, but my own view of N’s ER is based pretty much on the literature (Dienstag being the most relevant and succinct).

Eliade was Orthodox and some of his work is rather difficult to reconcile with Orthodoxy but he always maintained that he was Orthodox.

Guenon is just orientalism, he is but a carpet dealer, plain and simple.

Eliade is a carpet dealer too.

just finished it. I'm lost. What was it all about? At first I thought it was about possession.

I thought it really was about reincarnation and shamanism and maybe language (?).

Not that user, but I’ve been reading the first volume of his History of Religious Ideas and I’m loving it. I don’t think I am missing so much making it my first contact with Eliade. The main problem I see is that it is fundamental to reread the book, since there are a lot of informations in each chapter.
But also I think it is very interesting to reread the three volumes after reading some of his other works, since he makes references to his other books in certain passages. Maybe before following to the second volume of the series I’ll move to the Sacred and Profane.
Do you think it is needful to be acquainted with the Nietzschean concept of eternal return before reading The Myth of Eternal Return?

i thought Mircea was a woman this whole time!

Both, paradoxically. He defined the limits of religious studies, then went beyond. Eliade's writings (not unlike Guénon) can be extremely dry and academic, yet touch highly abstract and philosophical subjects.

All these authors were very rigorous in their publications and research. Leurs oeuvres ne laissent rien transparaître (?their works are not self-revealing? meh). That's where their interests lies.

Eliade's definition of Eternal Return is to be perceived as a modality of being (intrinsically linked to his concept of the sacred) Nietzsche's ER is, in fact, nonsensical as it implies a non-metaphysical, temporal grounding to the ER, which is in essence metaphysical. It is the same problematic brought forth with the concept of the übermensch. How can we 'metaphysicize' what we perceive as nihilistic trivialities? Nietzsche was extremely bold in this regard.

>If we observe the general behavior of archaic man, we are struck by the following fact: neither the objects of the external world nor human acts, properly speaking, have any autonomous intrinsic value. Objects or acts acquire a value, and in so doing become real, because they participate, after one fashion or another, in a reality that transcends them. Among countless stones, one stone becomes sacred and hence instantly becomes saturated with being because it constitutes a hierophany, or possesses mana, or again because it commemorates a mythical act, and so on. The object appears as the receptacle of an exterior force that differentiates it from its milieu and gives it meaning and value.

>Now let us turn to human acts those, of course, which do not arise from pure automatism. Their meaning, their value, are not connected with their crude physical datum but with their property of reproducing a primordial act, of repeating a mythical example. Nutrition is not a simple physiological operation; it renews a communion. Marriage and the collective orgy echo mythical prototypes; they are repeated because they were consecrated in the beginning ("in those days," in illo tempore, ab origine) by gods, ancestors, or heroes.

Eternal return is archetypal repetition, 'echoing mythical prototypes'.

No. Look above. Eliade is archaic ontology, as he called it, whereas Nietzsche is... reckless anti-intellectualism?

He is so fucking based and redpilled that I am actually shocked that someone had mentioned him on this damned board for pseuds

Oh, I see, you don’t understand Nietzsche. Opinion discarded.

Anyone else have thoughts on his History of Religious Ideas? I think Peterson has mentioned it and I don't have a high opinion of him. Just making sure before I start reading something like this.

It's fantastic. Fuck Peterson for mentioning it.

>he said nonsensical! he must hate nietzsche and doesn't understand him
>opinion discarded
....... okay reddit, I have literally read N's ENTIRE bibliography, whereas you have read one of his books as an undergrad to flex on your pleb friends. I distorted Ns view to highlight, in contrast, eliade's definition of ER. You probably read the Will to Power LOL

>refereces both secondary literature and specific canonical terms
>udontreadido.jpg
Tell yourself whatever you have to buddy. “Distorted” and “mildly retarded glossing” mean the same thing in some made up language I’m sure. I can run circles around you for days regarding Nietzsche. And I’m really saying YOU don’t understand ER.

>”which in essence is metaphysical”
Ironic you mention WTP, as it is Nietzsche’s chief metaphysical doctrine, which leaves no space for something like a “metaphysical” account ER. You’re missing something key about one of the two doctrines here whether in scope or type.