Evola on Nietszche

Traditionalism is a reverse pleb filter

I honestly dont think Nietzsche was planning his philosophy to be universal for everyone and to make some new society were we all agree with eachother. He was more going directly at those with potencial to gain power and its more individualistic than everything.

>I honestly dont think Nietzsche was planning his philosophy to be universal for everyone and to make some new society were we all agree with eachother.
Of course. You'd have to have not actually read him to think otherwise. Zarathustra goes on long tirades against egalitarianism in its various forms (philosophical, psychological, social, political, religious, etc.) and he explicitly addresses "hyperboreans" at the start of The Antichrist before he divulges his new principles of will to power.

>If he'd practiced nofap
he did, all the time

Probably he read all of Nietzche, he was an admirer of Nietzche on merit of him being prophetic, but just disagreed with his solutions.

A caste system based on the reign of the overman is still materialist and is not based on a transcendent traditional religious structure. I’m not actually in total agreement with Evola’s writings I’m just a fan of him cuz I find him interesting from a Christian perspective

Yeah I know, but it’s still a materialist solution.

Of course

The problem with evola is that at the end of the day, what he says isn’t true. His writings are interesting and he has nuggets of truth and solid metaphysics in explaining the solution to secularist modernity. But when he digs into the fine details about implementing a gnostic traditionalist religion based on some weird hindu pagan mash-up, you start seeing evola is wrong and slightly insane.

He changed my perspective on many things and I consider him a great writer but he’s just ultimately wrong

>and is not based
from a christian perspective I guess it wouldn't be. But it is based on a transcendent traditional religious structure. right?

I think Evola's philosophy ties in with the concept of initiation as seen in the esoteric religions and occult schools. Initiation is the process whereby one comes into understanding of his true nature as he now sees reality for what it truly is. Now there are two options, either this process of initiation is real or it's a hoax. A lie intended to control others. Saying that Evola is wrong and slightly insane is the same as saying that Buddha was wrong and slightly insane.

I guess I don't understand what you (or both of you) mean by materialist. Nietzsche described nihilism as having three primary psychological conditions, and he already knew that just founding the solution on "will" or "the material" was not a solution to nihilism, but the final cause of it (in Will to Power he writes: "But as soon as man finds out how that world is fabricated solely from psychological needs, and how he has absolutely no right to it, the last form of nihilism comes into being: it includes disbelief in any metaphysical world and forbids itself any belief in a true world. Having reached this standpoint, one grants the reality of becoming as the only reality, forbids oneself every kind of clandestine access to afterworlds and false divinities—but cannot endure this world though one does not want to deny it.").

I think Nietzsche's solution was a lot more peculiar than just being a materialist one. He seemed much more in favor of a kind of plurality of will that both acknowledged the illusion and also reveled in it, so that there was no opportunity for the psychological conditions behind nihilism to arise.

Yes but Evola didn’t like Christianity that much because he believed it was too far disconnected from the primordial gnostic tradition. I think he only sympathized with early Christendom although he considered the crusades to be the greatest war in the history of humanity because it was fought for mostly metaphysical reasons from the perspective of the crusaders.

I haven’t studied Initiation, I gave up on Guenon and Evola a while ago. But the description of it just sounds like a person coming to terms with spiritual truths, I guess that’s why Guenon said the west was becoming satanic by promoting counter-initiation.

From my Christian perspective I believe Buddha was wrong, insane idk. The reason I find evola somewhat “insane” is because for his worldview in “Revolt” he basically pieces together and cherry picks little things from different religions and different time periods (out of context usually) and then pieces them together into what he calls the primordial traditional worldview. This doesn’t disprove his metaphysical arguments though, but it comes across as a desperate LARP to me.

>, the last form of nihilism comes into being: it includes disbelief in any metaphysical world and forbids itself any belief in a true world. Having reached this standpoint, one grants the reality of becoming as the only reality, forbids oneself every kind of clandestine access to afterworlds and false divinities—but cannot endure this world though one does not want to deny it.
This leaves the individual confined to looking for meaning in the material world

Once you have rejected the divine you are confined to the temporal existence

Nietzsche is more concerned with going your own way that is meant for you. That's what his solution was. Continuing to talk about these realities is to miss his point.

>your own way
This is essentially a secularist materialist worldview, and is ironically a liberal-egalitarian view of humanity. To think that an individual can craft out "their own" meaningful existence was Evola's problem with Nietzche.

That's all I'm saying

You're going your own way right now by labeling Nietzsche's philosophy in a context that makes sense for you. You're already proving that we succeed at doing this, all the time.

As an aside, Nietzsche saw Christ as fundamentally a Buddhist.

I haven't read Nietzche's writings on Jesus but a lot of figures who are attempting to reach the divine have overlapping characteristics in different ways.

Fundementally I don't see similarities between Jesus and Buddha in their proper context. I suppose there's a reason secularist westerners like to cross over from Christianity to watered-down Buddhism though

To really get a notion of initiation you have to read Evola's Introduction to Magic. But the content soon becomes obscure. It's like Plato's allegory of the cave.
I consider initiation central to Evola's whole philosophy. Whithout it everything else becomes pretty much meaningless.

No, 'the material world' is still a metaphysical reality. One of Nietzsche's main points is that when you 'kill' the divine and replace it with materialism, you retain all the internal logic but change the figurehead. You kill God so that Man can take his exact place with only a superficial change; nihilism is still is operating principle. In other words you don't understand Nietzsche on even a cursory level so you shouldn't be debating about him, it's only going to distract legitimate discussion.

He saw what Christ originally said as fundamentally Buddhist (i.e. late stage nihilism); but that the West was still only at early-mid stage nihilism so they could only accept Christianity after his teachings had been brutally raped by St. Paul. Christianity isn't Buddhist, it's mid-stage nihilism (Judaism being early-stage, if I remember correctly); the natural development of humanity (in the grasp of nihilism) is what leads to watered-down Buddhism according to Nietzsche, not the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism.

>No, 'the material world' is still a metaphysical reality.
Metaphysics of the material world are not the same as the static divine.

I understand what Nietzche is saying, but Nietzche fundementally rejects the divine. That's what this disagreement between Nietzche and Evola is.

He does not literally believe there is an existence beyond our physical plane with a God, spirits, evil spirits ect., and that is where his solution for nihilism fails in Evola's opinion

Why not just read Schopenhauer, Lichtenberg, Carlyle, Emerson, Ockham, and Bishop Butler. It would cover pretty much all of “Nietzsche’s” ideas

No, he absolutely did not

And neither would most religious people of his time.
In his view, Christ was more than a simple "pious martyr," an example of the virtues to which human beings aspire. A true "prophet" is a man of faith. Thus, a "prophecy" was simply a statement of the human condition that was fulfilled -- for him, the fulfillment of the human condition.
For Nietzsche, man's moral code is essentially an expression of his soul . In other words, a system of morals (a "moral code") is to be seen as the manifestation of a state of the soul. This is the "philosophy of life" and is, by modern standards, a bit of a stretch. But it is at least a good starting point.
Nietzsche's concept is important not only to his own day , but also to our own -- a time when the concept of God was in danger of being diluted to the point that it became a cultural myth.

Nietzsche doesn't lack belief entirely though, as you're suggesting, and as Evola seemed to understand.

There was a Nietzschean tendency towards asceticism among many European philosophers, and an increasing interest in spirituality, of an apocalyptic kind. However, Nietzsche did not subscribe to this or a similar style of mysticism.

In a way, he is not so much a nihilist, though he did believe that man was doomed to his own destruction — he believed that he could never attain the perfect life of God. And yet he did, as you suggest, try to get his own life back. In fact I think he wanted to do that more than anything else.

>It is plain what was finished with the death on the cross: a new, an entirely original basis for a Buddhistic peace movement, for an actual, not me rely promised, happiness on earth.

From The Antichrist, section 42.

And elsewhere he says Christ was actually an egoist

Quote it or fuck off