Guenon's Western Influences

idk much about guenon and never read him but i know hes placed in the esoteric tradition which would include the corpus hermeticum, marcilio ficino, rosicrucianism, boehme among others

He cites Leibniz favorably, though. He has lots of reservations and critiques, but over all he likes Leibniz.

oh and plotinus of course

bump

No, Guenon is not associated with Renaissance-style esoterism. he never mentions Boehme once nor Marsilio Ficino once. He views esoterism outside of the complement of orthodox religion very negatively. He does mention Rosicrucianism, but in a way that is likely much different from what you are implying but your other words. I don't understand why you would even bother posting regarding his influences if you haven't read him.

>he never mentions Boehme
yes he does. he considered him an authentic initiate

im sure im underestimating how unique he is, but it does seem unlikely that his esoteric understanding has no roots in ficino even if he never cited him directly or even read him directly - i suppose theres always the possibility with esoteric thought that it all came from within though.

You can add to those whom he oppose: Bergson, Spinoza, Schopenhauer (he explicitly criticized Schopenhauer's limited reading of the Upanishads and partially blamed him for the poor understanding of them in the West) and all the pragmatists.

Guenon thought that Leibniz was the most intelligent of modern philosophers, even though he criticized him.

>(he explicitly criticized Schopenhauer's limited reading of the Upanishads and partially blamed him for the poor understanding of them in the West)

what did Schope get wrong?

He and Schuon consider the reinessance a murder of tradition, they hate anything newer than the 12 century so I would also be surprised by him being into the reinessance hermeticists.

I have however heard cynics claim he is a product of the very reinessance he despised, and the occult too, due to his relation to Theosophy through Papus.

he is, there are only guenons and evolas in the kali yuga

So a list of his references could be:

Nonwest:
Ibn Arabi
Shankara

West:
Plato
Aristotle
Plotinus
Medieval Scholastics
Leibniz
Kant
Schopenhauer
Bergson

Attached: 681c7e7138cb4d5c030a64e5978a8d9c.jpg (736x872, 135K)

Please explain further.

Can you give me any kind of source for this?

>these references
so guenon was basically your average internet midwit?

He is responsible for the common assimilation of pessimism to Buddhism and, thus, for the sentimental consolation on eastern doctrines.

>Please explain further.

im saying we cant have a reflexive concept of tradition as tradition unless we are in its dying throes or "twilight", say what you will about Hegel but he's fundamentally right that the great macro-forces of the earth are only perceivable as they recede, while caught up in them, in their immediacy, there is no such thing as "tradition". go back in time and ask Egyptians how they like their perennial tradition and they'll look at you like you had ten heads.

cry me a river you fucking moron

What? These were the dominant thinkers of his time.

You think "real" philosophers dont read descartes and kant? These both radical changed the trajectory of modern philosophy.

Bergson was one of the most influential french philosophers of the time.

I think you're overestimating the average midwit.

So you're saying that guenon is a product of reinessance esotericism and 19th century occultism, but that is inevitable because there is no other way to see tradition as they saw but in its receding?

No, he's saying that the owl of Minerva flies at dawn
have you not read Hegel?

Havent, still on Kant.

stop wasting your time on Guenon then you midwit

I'm saying Guenon's understanding of tradition, as your own, is mediated by this fact, and hence not "pure" as you would think it is.

I'm not saying Guenon is a charlatan, I'm saying you got your work cut out for you.

>im saying we cant have a reflexive concept of tradition as tradition unless we are in its dying throes or "twilight".
I'm not sure what you want to convey but for what understood: isn't it exactly the current situation?
>while caught up in them, in their immediacy, there is no such thing as "tradition".
Yeah, where there is a univocal tradition like in the Vedic Period onwards until the invasions (modern ones) on the Indian subcontinent, there was no need to refer to it as a traditional age at that time.

>You think "real" philosophers dont read descartes and kant?
Umm, nope. All you need is Marx, Foucault and Deleuze.

I suppose what I'm saying is to divest yourself of the notion that you're receiving tradition in its purity, and that even beyond Guenon, you've got some serious work to do to de-program the mind-virus of the times.

I'm not saying Guenon is an idiot or anything.

Sweetie, we're talking about philosophy, not culture studies.

That doesn’t mean there weren’t exceptions during the Renaissance as there were exceptions during just about every period in human history. They’re very specific on what they reject in the Renaissance. I don’t think genuine hermeticists would be included in that rejection. What they rejected was inventiveness and subjectivity in art, the cult of genius, excessive emphasis on originality, rejection of tradition etc. It’s quite excessive to suppose that Guenon would dislike someone or a school of thought just by virtue of having been born during a certain period. There have been legitimate esotericists in every period.

Not very nice, I like Guenon and Kant. Whose metaphysics would you recommend.

Thanks, I figured. I'm working on it currently. I'm under no delusions that Guenon isn't a frame of reference.

His lack of respect outside of trad circles is evidence of that.

Not hipster enough for you? Do you require obscure references in order to consider someone “serious”?

>Not very nice
Obviously not. Unlike your other interlocutor I think that Guenon and thinkers like him are charlatans. I think you're probably wasting your time studying him. No, I haven't read him and I have no interest in reading him. I don't care what you think--I've seen too many stupid discussions about this FAGGOT to care. You are as terrible as he is.

>Can you give me any kind of source for this?
I don’t recall for sure which book, but I think it might have been Perspectives on Initiation. What he says, basically, is that a lot of people see Boehme as some kind of spontaneous mystic, but he disagrees with this view and says that if you study the details of his life closely one can see that the experiences that led to Boehme’s spiritual development were far from fortuitous. He doesn’t elaborate further on what specifically about Boehme’s biography he is referring to, but makes it clear that Boehme was no mere “mystic”.

Do you have references for this. Guenon is pretty against isolated gnostics and seems to believe that the primordial can only be accessed through traditional initiation.

I agree with your premise, I just dont know that Guenon would.

>you've got some serious work to do to de-program the mind-virus of the times.

Yeah, I dont feel attacked. Later guenonians do some work on his thought where they found inaccuracies so that helps.

I more interested in understanding Guenon as Guenon than accessing his true traditional initiation.

not that user, but
> I'm saying you got your work cut out for you.
Of course, I agree. There is no problem with it, you still have a great sense of the intellectuality of the tradition exposed in his works.

>Guenon's understanding of tradition is not pure.
Well, due to the fact that most traditions are almost dead, completely hidden and distorted since modernity sprang, it would be impossible for him to have a ''pure'' (in the strictest sense of the term, understanding it as literally living it) understanding. Following this, nobody who was born after 16th century had a ''pure'' understanding of tradition. As absurd as you put it.

I'm not really concerned with Guenon being accurate, I just like his work. I read occultism as well, I dont think it's TRUE either.

Not everything is science. I like the literature.

Who are you reading?

Oh, neat. I'll have to keep an eye out for this.

I have an interest in protestant mysticism.

precisely, it's no fault of his own. he is a son of his times.

Didnt guenon believe he had access to true primordial tradition through islam? Wasnt that his whole deal?

Though whether he did or didnt is a pointless discussion.

>against isolated gnostics
A lot of people can appear isolated without being so in actual fact. Guenon’s comments on Boehme make that clear. I’m not aware of any direct comments on Renaissance Platonists by Guenon, so I can’t provide sources, but I don’t see any reason for rejecting them.

I don't think Guenon would say he tried to transmit the traditions he covered on his books in their purity. In my opinion Guenon is excellent as a preparation for tradition. He brilliantly divest you (as you noted) of all prejudices of the modern western mind and indicate the true traditional path to follow.

>I'm not really concerned with Guenon being accurate, I just like his work. I read occultism as well, I dont think it's TRUE either.
Then you're a PUSSY

Wouldnt his references to reinessance esotericism thinking it was reaching into the greek ancients but actually only doing it in an exoteric form when the western tradition died at the end of the 12th century kind of a direct attack on that position?

Who do you read?

Not Guenon lmao

I don’t understand your post, could you rephrase that? Anyway, he didn’t think the Western tradition died, it just went underground, and in any case Renaissance Platonism was brought over from the East (Byzantine Empire) by Gemistho Platon.

Guenon thought the western tradition of platonism and christianity died at the end of the 12th century.
Over the next 200 years it got worse.

The reinessance was an exoteric appropriation of greek thought which was nothing like the actual primordial tradition.

I can only see this as a reference to ficino and mirandola.

A further note: he believed that christianity even retained some aspects of truth so I guess a case could be made for reinessance platonism as well.

I think it would be inaccurate to say guenon at all thought highly of the renaissance hermeticists, however. I've just never seen it.

>I've just never seen it.
Have you ever seen the contrary (i.e. him explicitly condemning them)? If not you should not make assumptions in either way.

I guess that somewhat fair. However, guenon is really clear about who he respects in the west, and that seems to end with the scholastics (and he even finds them lacking).

Plus, doesnt his repudiation of reinessance appropriation of platonism point directly at ficino and mirandola.

So in "Crisis" he says the reinessance was the death of many things because it was a false return to Greco roman civ, it was limited to outward aspects only contained in writings.

Doesnt that seem directly related to ficinos translation of platonic texts and mirandolas engagement with plato

Heres I think the nail in this coffin:

Guenon hated humanism; both ficino and mirandola are primary figures in reinessance humanism.