Why does he trigger people so badly?

t. nonwhite who doesn't understand archetypes

Sorry, I'm not an Aristocrat of the Soul™ like you m'lord. I am but peasant brain'd ethnic detritus, as there's an Irish on my dad's side. What I am a bit curious about though is what part of Evola's work convinced you to come argue with complete randos on an anime forum instead of riding the tiger or something. Just can't imagine a warrior soul doing this. Could it be that you are in fact a directionless tradLARPer goofball instead, and not one of the elite that Evola was talking about?

i'm normie presenting with a decent job and a wife, and you're the one effortposting here. the fact that you get triggered so easily by my pointing out in a couple sentences how your 'refutation' of evola is bullshit is pretty telling of your mindset. as they say, rentfree.

Idk who’s more cringe the poster who thinks hyperborrea was real or you

Evola’s books are just explaining what he believes is the natural order according to his worldview. It’s really not that LARPy. An aristocrat of the soul just means someone who understands liberal freedoms are decadence and hierarchy is natural, that’s all

>Evola studied engineering in Rome, but did not complete his studies because he "did not want to be associated in any way with bourgeois academic recognition and titles such as doctor and engineer."

Kek his degree was too hard so came up with a bullshit excuse so as not to lose face, this cunt would fit right in here.

>the fag implies hyperborea was a real physical place
He really doesn't. In fact he makes it quite clear in Revolt that he's merely using the myth to extrapolate what an idea traditional society would look like.

>An aristocrat of the soul just means someone who understands liberal freedoms are decadence and hierarchy is natural, that’s all
But he got hit by shrapnel! Checkmate!

>hyperborea was a real physical place
It's called Finland nowadays.

>believing in ritualist magic in the 20th century isn't that LARPy

alright man

All repeat patterns are rituals. Active participation of rituals of higher learning is definitely a great advancement for anybody.

Oh yeah that’s larpy

I really don’t get if he believes in that stuff or not. I read his books and I never saw anything like that In there

>why yes, I convened with belial last night in the laundry room surrounded by tea lights, why do you ask?

Attached: witches of east arlen.jpg (1024x768, 83K)

Yeah this is what I thought

I read revolt and never heard him saying hyperborrea was literally real, I thought he was just explaining myths

>I’ve never actually heard an argument against either of their writings, but people just call them names instead. Have their haters and detractors ever read them?
And I have never heard an argument in favour of their writings, whenever I ask I get meaningless initiatic/borderline cultist drivel.
No one is getting mad at Evola and Guenon, it's their following that is hated

come on m8

Attached: itm.jpg (338x499, 29K)

If you're doing a ritual with half-assed assets, then you need enough despair and wishes to balance it out.
You need to believe in what you're doing. The use of subpar environments breeds subpar thoughts and patterns. Just look at modern architecture and all in its sphere of influence.

Nigga looks like the Penguin from batman!

Attached: 9614ed6e939c5e60b9dc52d050caa80e.jpg (357x348, 11K)

The main effect of his "ritual magic" was to strengthen the will and become tough against worldly disruptions and societal mental traps/illusions. For example he was in constant and excruciating pain due to his injury, but he persisted just fine without medication and assistance because of his rituals/practices/spiritual exercises.

Evola never developed anything like a political program or a plan of action, so in that sense I don’t think he has anything to offer "activists" and people trying to shit on him should reconsider his agenda. Evola always addressed the individual who has higher aspirations. So where I think he has value is in helping a Right-inclined individual to cope with living in a liberal, degenerate age that bombards us with garbage advertising, ,garbage values, nihilism, hedonism, and you know the rest....

I think the idea that there exists some kind of metaphysical transcendent tradition is retarded, it's in conflict with Kant's epistemology

How does Kant conflict with evola?

I haven’t read Kant yet

Oh nooo not Kant’s epistemology??!! What are we going to do???

This thread demonstrates why. Just look at the damn thing.

Evola was a professional shit-flinger. His primary concern, at all times during his career, was to say/write whatever it took to draw attention to himself. The only consistency in his life was his egoism. You can justify any number of contrary positions by referring to his work; his writings therefore lack any overarching logical or rational thought. He’s all surface, no substance.

Pic related.

Attached: IMG_1598.jpg (447x447, 37K)

You mispellt Iceland, litteraly Última Thule.

Attached: IMG_1599.jpg (326x499, 25K)

Why didn’t he study philosophy then?

Metaphysical claims cannot lead to any sort of knowledge, moral claims can only be derived and motivated by a moral law.
This guy is willing to believe in total nonsense lol

>"I am a contrarian" in so many words

Which freedoms are decadence? Can you explain this a bit further? I'm quite curious

>Metaphysical claims cannot lead to any sort of knowledge,
Litteraly self disproves in the first sentence of his argument.

hyperbola is literally what Scandinavians were called by Greeks, all the peoples mentioned in the mythologies are real.

>I think the idea that there exists some kind of metaphysical transcendent tradition is retarded
How come?
>it's in conflict with Kant's epistemology
Consider that you may not be the only actor involved in that hypothetical transcendent tradition, and that should solve this problem. You could also consider the tradition to be akin to breathing; merely accessing our own transcendent capacity.

Nope, that's a trascendental argument, not a metaphysical one (also trascendent does not mean trascendent).
>How come?
Eh, you're asking me to summarise the entire Critique of Pure Reason. To cut it shortly, metaphysical claims deal with objects that are outside of our possible experience. When this happens our reason can only end up in unsolvable antinomies and paralogisms. As such we can think about God or the World as such, but the claims we make about it are all problematic, also their negation is equally coherent.
I genuinely don't know what this
>Consider that you may not be the only actor involved in that hypothetical transcendent tradition, and that should solve this problem. You could also consider the tradition to be akin to breathing; merely accessing our own transcendent capacity.
means

Evola was retroactively debunked by Kant. He could not contend with the doctrine of transcendental idealism.

Nope, that's a trascendental argument, not a metaphysical one (also trascendent does not mean trascendent).
Cope more.

For Guenon it’s that this place is flooded with at least five threads about him every single day.

leftypol faggots who think this is r/books

>I genuinely don't know what this: "Consider that you may not be the only actor involved in that hypothetical transcendent tradition, and that should solve this problem. You could also consider the tradition to be akin to breathing; merely accessing our own transcendent capacity." means.
A metaphysically transcendent tradition does not merely operate on reason. Consider it organic growth among metaphysical layers. Breathing is a tradition, a recurring pattern that allows for so much more. The tradition itself only has to change you; what you are will have access to metaphysical knowledge and utilities, but not before it has grown metaphysical lungs, leaves or eyes. So to speak.
The other point is that we are not in a metaphysical vacuum, the common interpretation is 'memetic organisms', spirits, faeries, angels, demons, monsters, Gods, eldritch beings living there... Plenty of traditions have been made to alter the metaphysical 'location' or 'biome', protective spells and the sort, prayers of hope, protection and guidance...

Google what "trascendental" means lol. Oh well, Kant does not deny the existence of a metaphysical reality, rather he rigorously go through all our mental faculties and concludes that we cannot have knowledge (or experience) of said reality (even if it exists, we cannot know it). As such, theoretically speaking, he would treat such traditions as fantasies that should be eradicated from our corpus of knowledge.
That said, for Kant Ideas can have practical applications. For example Kant says that our speculative reason cannot tell anything about the existence of God, but its Idea is necessary for us to think about certain things that are necessary in our practical conduct (i.e. at a conceptual level I need God as a regulative concept in order to develop the notion of sanctity, which is what every finite rational entity should strive for, for purely moral, therefore practical reasons). That said, I don't see how archetypal thought (since we're talking about Evola) could ever have such a regulative function, in fact it blatantly contradicts all the other tenants of Kantian practical philosophy (for examplw the subjective condition of finite rational entities would end up determining our will, therefore excluding the moral law as its sole determination - that's a big no-no for Kant).

>Google what "trascendental" means lol.
I know what trascendental means you are the one misusing it. Because you're coping.

>It was real in my mind
>t. Evola

The mindset of "If people are calling me a retard, it must be because I'm right and they don't want me to know it" is not one you should build your worldview on, user

Because of all the work of the (((counter-initiation))) in order stop everything that leads to true spirituality.

Guenon recognize the prayer of Jesus in orthodoxy as an esoteric tradition, he recognize the hesychast tradition. He does it in "initiation and spiritual realization" chapter 2 "christianism and initiation". Hope it helps you in your spiritual journey.
Just become orthodox if your really wants to find God and you think real christianity is your way.

Schuon tried what he could to save papism. In all this he suffered from prelest (spiritual illusion), like a lot of papist "saints", what Guénon call "mysticism" in contrast to initiation, he made articles about that and orthodox tradition talks about that too. He for example gave the baraka to catholics (which is forbidden), said women have now more often piety and spiritual gifts than men in a chapter named "the feminine element in mahayana bouddhism". Which is only true in papism that is an abnormality and is totally effeminate and gay (sorry but it's true, I'm a former catholic myself). But read what I said above, the true christian spirituality is only alive in orthodoxy.

For francophone readers (haven't found it in english right now) :
esprit-universel.over-blog.com/rené-guénon-–-christianisme-et-initiation

>Pic related is one of Schuon's paintings, he made others like that and made photographies of him meditating naked (unfortunately I haven't found them now)

Attached: 774022286.jpg (695x1024, 432K)

Probably a case of having an insufferable fanbase obsessed with one-upping people with how "traditional" they are because "ride the tiger bro", without reading or understanding a thing about Evola.

Attached: 1560109943591.jpg (512x768, 79K)

Nice meme

Still, a distinction must be done between Guénon and Evola. Because Guénon said Evola didn't understood his work and said he has nothing to do with him.

Attached: QMseS1e.jpg (1200x478, 108K)

Dude the argument I've referenced was literally the Trascendenal Deduction, possibly the most famous trascendental argument ever thought by Kant. You're 100% retarded

Well that one fell flat.

Condescending prick

A correct condescending prick
Anybody trying to base their values on what allows them to trigger other people the most is a worthless faggot

bump

>Schuon tried what he could to save papism. In all this he suffered from prelest (spiritual illusion), like a lot of papist "saints", what Guénon call "mysticism" in contrast to initiation, he made articles about that and orthodox tradition talks about that too.
I am not sure why Schuon would want to 'save' 'papism' as he was a muslim. As to say he suffered prelest, you have to remember that he wasn't a 'papist' and was well aware of what Guenon said in regards the distinction between mysticism and gnosis
>He for example gave the baraka to catholics (which is forbidden),
I have heard of this but from a dubious source from a individual who has a hard on against traditionalism which is hardly unbiased.
>said women have now more often piety and spiritual gifts than men in a chapter named "the feminine element in mahayana bouddhism". Which is only true in papism that is an abnormality and is totally effeminate and gay (sorry but it's true, I'm a former catholic myself).
Anecdotally, I find that to be true atleast in the west which bares the forefront of the counter-tradition which can obscure its real treasures, not everyone who has a sense for tradition can stomach doctrinal orthodoxy if its ambiance is a seeming contradiction
>nudity
I am not sure what this is ment to prove, nudity isn't inherently wrong and the images were only meant for his inner circle.
If you're interested in a indepth anaylsis of christian initiation and the nature of its 'mysticism' within the guenonian paradigm I suggest jean borella's 'Christ the Original Mystery'.

TL;DR: Evola's based.

>reddit quipping

But what if I'm actually right and they don't want me to know it?

How? Please explain how Evola’s philosophy directly conflicts, in a way that isn’t easily resolvable. And please stop saying things like ‘retroactively debunked’, you sound like an idiot.

Kant is a literal actual factual retard, even worse than Hegel, y'all pseuds on some dumb

kys

Kant - Gay, never even left his hometown.
Evola - Based, ran around Vienna during a bombing run just for fun.

Kant - Died with a working dick and legs.

Not that he ever used them (or, at least, it).

pic related refuted evola in her book on phenomenology

Attached: 6fd0ddaffdf7b4f82d0b00ef75b89f73.png (860x1040, 582K)

>Guenon
Because he started out as a forced meme and hasn't left.
It's maddening.

t. fag who guenon refuted

cringe

they just a bunch of gnostic doodoo heads

>Anytime evola or Guenon are mentioned on this board, the reaction is visceral.
It’s actually the other way round, especially in the case of Guenon where his autistic fanboy loses his shit even in ironic threads.

No it wasn’t lmao, Greeks identified hyperboreans as either dacians or ural barbarians in their own writings. It was the Scandis that identified themselves as hyperboreans in the 17th century.

>muh Euhemerism
cringe

All I know about him is that he was some weird, pagan neo-feudalist who believed in cum magic. I also know he was one of those mystics that were so common in the late 19th century and early 20th at that time, a phenomenon that thankfully now only exists in either neopagans, or bored left-wing housewives. Frankly, when I see the people that are his fans, I'm immediately put off of ever reading him. In fact, I actually know someone who tried his whole cum magic thing out, and surprise, surprise, he's this depressed, bitter dude that spends all his time on the internet and can't get over his one and only ex.

What I will say about the people that were roughly similar to him (mostly the fascists and their derivatives) is that they were all these highly analytical men that viewed the world and the people within it in a very "on-paper" fashion. They all desperately tried to be revolutionaries that boxed people into categories, sometimes through force, and it ended EXTREMELY poorly. And now look who the natural inheritors of those ideologies are... It's quite the indictment.

cause Drumpf -> Bannon -> Evola -> Guenon

>Professor Dugin writes: “A charmed world is one in which there is no barrier between idea and realisation.” If we can think of two men married to each other – then they can be married to each other. If we think a man can be a woman – then he can.
>In their book, Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari imagine a body without organs. A human being not tied down to the reality of the flesh. They imagine a schizophrenic walk - a person who has become nothing more than intensities of desire – unobstructed by the Real of the body.
>The modern Liberal state regards each individual as an atomized being, with a separate and private relationship to the state. So, a Nigerian with an Irish passport is to be regarded as perfectly interchangeable with a Gael with an Irish passport. In effect, the Nigerian and the Gael are annihilated, and replaced with a bodiless legal entity called the citizen – or, these days, mostly just known as “the consumer.” Everything that made him human, i.e. his language, culture, family, friends, his place as a father, a son, a brother, are made irrelevant. And such bodiless legal entities can, of course, contract a bodiless, gender neutral marriage.

Just like believing in god, right?

Attached: 1556940738974.jpg (480x640, 42K)