When thinkers like Guénon, Evola, etc., refer to “Tradition”, are they referring to something akin to the Great Chain of Being, as illuminated in Arthur Lovejoy’s seminal work, The Great Chain of Being (1936)?
Furthermore, is Heidegger’s recasting of the Aristotelian four causes as “debts, obligations, directions” in his essay “The Question Concerning Technology” (and perhaps his greater project about Being) also related to the great chain of being?
As a friendly reminder to the new janny hires, philosophy can be discussed in Yea Forums with explicit references to the texts involved. In this case, it is The Great Chain of Being and The Question Concerning Technology.
Everything, except GOD, has in itself some measure of privation, thus all individuals may be graded according to the degree to which they are infected with mere potentiality.
Cameron Robinson
>except God Then he wouldn’t be all knowing and all encompassing, now would he? If you’ve posited something God excludes your concept of God is deficient and therefore isn’t a concept of God.
Adam Reed
Which god?
Ryan Murphy
When Guenon speaks of Tradition he's thinking of secret Buddhism that supposedly existed since the beginning of time, but really it's all made up by him and his freemason theosophist handlers.
Robert Bolton, who is very anti-Guenon, actually reformulates perennialism to make it more about the Great Chain of Being, and in doing so proves that the self is real, and Guenonian Buddhism is wrong.
I don't think Heidegger has any relation to Lovejoy and the GCB.
Tyler Turner
Who is Robert Bolton? I’ve heard his name mentioned a few times lately. It’s hard to figure out what he’s written though because of his basic name.
>When thinkers like Guénon, Evola, etc., refer to “Tradition”, are they referring to something akin to the Great Chain of Being, as illuminated in Arthur Lovejoy’s seminal work, The Great Chain of Being (1936)? I a not familiar with Lovejoy's work but that does sound like Tradition
Luis Bell
>Robert Bolton Isn’t they like a neo con politician?
Julian Carter
There is only one GOD.
GOD isn't separate from himself.
Dominic Bell
God can do anything, and everything is possible in Him
That’s not a theoretical prop in order to ensure presence
The theme that Heidegger is referring to in that text goes back to Hölderlin and his idea of the distance/the leave that gods have taken in relation to us
Jayden Lewis
Through the Trinity God becomes a Man so that He can predicate himself as finite. So I suppose if He wanted, he could write such a book, beget a Son, and command the Son to begin reading it, whereupon your paradox would be satisfied.
Jeremiah Garcia
>Robert Bolton refuted by Shankara (pbuh)
Kevin Morales
I think you're thinking far too superficially in a way that makes you unwilling to make bold connections. Reread The Question Concerning Technology with a special attention to what I described in the OP and come back to me.
Brayden Smith
bump
Noah Martin
Verily, he emptied himself of his divinity and became just as man, subjecting himself to Father. Is he GOD no longer?
Gavin Stewart
>There is only one GOD.
And which one is it?
Joshua Turner
The only one.
Zachary Hernandez
Read Humanismusbrief where he explicitly touches upon Scala naturae
Adam Martinez
Where exactly? I checked several translations through CTRL-F with likely terms but found no hits.
Dominic Martinez
wanted to add that I just found out about weak theology, and man that just sounds deism with extra steps.
Ryan Murphy
Have you ever considered the possibility that the GCB is the shit and Heidegger sucks?
Luis Stewart
Again, which one? There's quite a bunch to choose from, and all of them claim that their version, just like you do, is the only correct one. So how do I know which is the actual only correct one?
Mason Davis
>deism Is about a God distant and disinterested in the world, not intimately involved in loving it Review the Trinity chart I posted and try again
Sebastian Taylor
>chart Is he subjecting himself as god to an impossible task of reading the book which he can, or as man which he cannot?
Jaxson Cox
God posits himself as Father to beget a Son subject to finitude, predicating Himself thereof while remaining infinite in Himself.
Bentley Taylor
Use abductive reasoning. Think about the best possible God who allows for the best possible moral universe, then think about the most likely source of divine revelation. You can figure this one out with your conscience. Who do you like best? Laozi? Muhammad? Moses? Jesus Christ? Quetzalcoatl? Why?
Not an easy task, I know. I went through a whole swathe of options before I settled on the Bible (with Catholicism being the… least worst… of the denominations). Remember, religion is not supposed to be opposed to reason and knowledge, at least in a broad and holistic sense. I just don’t think anything can surpass the New Testament in its beauty or Jesus Christ in his perfection.
But if you’re going to sit around and pretend that all of these religions have equal value, then I’m going to consider you to be a nitwit who doesn’t care about anything. These are matters of life and death. At the very least try to use your brain and your heart.
Eli Russell
>Catholicism being the… least worst… it's a pedophile bandit ring that came into existence to pass gold coins between bankers and kings. rotten legacy of old man larping as romans.
Carter Hill
Unitarian universalist easily. Everyone goes to heaven and there are no moral rules bigoted against homosexuals. Catholicism is for horrible assholes in comparison
Aiden Adams
Hate to break it to you but they are going to Hell
Caleb Miller
God doesn't exist. I just answered which religion had the best possible moral universe
Dominic Morgan
Then you can party with your sodomite friends in Hell, if the Devil gives you enough reprieve from searing your flesh for eternity.
Cameron Lee
And if Christians would leave it at that everything would be fine. It's only when they insist on enforcing their bullshit when we're alive that you get problems.
Cameron Harris
I am starting to think this perennialism of Guénon, Schuon, ACK etc might not be Traditional at all... For example there is a good article refuting the idea that Gregory Palamas could have learned from the sufis, that he and Rumi could have been perennialists etc, when in fact they were exclusivists. The author even mentions Guénon in passing, which surprised me, and a passage by a schuonian (Cutsinger)
However what makes me doubt even more the perennialism is the moral conduct of some of them, and of theosophists (who were the first perennialists), along with other things. For example I find it very had to think Ramakrishna was a saint. People claim he was a perennialist but from what I read he despised the idea of sin, penitence etc.
Andrew Powell
AKC*
Chase Evans
>Robert Bolton, who is very anti-Guenon Bolton is good. I enjoyed his "The Order of the Ages". He mentions Lovejoy there, yes.
Also attacks the monism of Guénon in his exchange with Upton.
Correct. Heidegger was extremely cringe and basically recanted his entire philosophy at the end of his life when he went back to Catholicism.
Dominic Barnes
Mate, Guenon had no clue about things he preached. He thought Ibn Arabi was exactly the same as Shankara and told Europeans to pack up their bags and move to the middle-east to get initiated into Sufism and follow the teachings of Ibn Arabi which would lead them to crypto-Buddhism.
Turns out Guenon had only read one work of Ibn Arabi which turned out to not even be by Ibn Arabi was a misattribution. Ibn Arabi goes hard against the Shankara type of crypto-Buddhism, but Guenon swore that this was all the same shit. He didn't know what he was talking about.
Perennialism is about as true to reality as thinking SJW pronouns will lead to equality and peace. It's completely disconnected to reality and is all armchair pseud posturing. And this isn't even getting into everything he got wrong about Hinduism.
Liam Rogers
Bolton and Caldecott are the best writers published by Angelico Press. The rest are all Guenon dick-suckers.
Nolan Lopez
I even enjoy Guénon's books, but I don't believe the idea of an unbroken initiation dating from before the deluge or even older.
The thing is: the more I read about neovedanta types, the more I see perennialism being preached, but this isalways in service of a hindu primacy but individuals who are not exactly orthodox. Either the neovedanta got the perennialism from theosophists or the other way.
Levi Nguyen
You think the best possible universe is where evil goes unpunished and is even rewarded. You’re not a moralist.
Hunter Nguyen
>However what makes me doubt even more the perennialism is the moral conduct of some of them
Guenon loved opium and couldn't stop smoking it (just look at any picture of him) and Schuon was a child molester and nudist.
Grayson Scott
>Either the neovedanta got the perennialism from theosophists or the other way.
It came from the Theosophists. Privileging Advaita can't be argued from history or theology. Guenonfag, who lives his entire life on Yea Forums (shows how much Advaita gnosis really is useless and cringe) had to change his favorite translation of the Upanishads because it was revealed that the translator did not believe in Advaita primacy. And neither did Guenon's Sanskrit teacher.
Justin Rivera
>Think about the best possible God who allows for the best possible moral universe, then think about the most likely source of divine revelation.
A god that tortures people for ever for not loving him enough certainly doesn't come to mind. Anyway, you sound like just another run-of-the-mill fundamentalist, and can't tell why your religion is the right in a way that differs significantly from how a muslim would justify his belief. There's nothing in your post that he wouldn't be able to use, despite the both of you reaching completely different conclusions
Adam King
God doesn't torture anyone. Hell is a state of being chosen by the individual.
Not that user
Liam Bell
Holy shit, is Guenon just a retarded sophist?
John Wood
>but this isalways in service of a hindu primacy I want to elaborate a little: they appear tolerant and all, open to all religions, but they will preach hindu traditions in the expense of the other religions --- in ways that compromise them.
Kayden Allen
Here’s a very simple test for you. Is Prophet Muhammad beyond reproach? No. Shariah courts executed people for trying to consummate marriages with prepubescent girls.
Is Jesus Christ beyond reproach? Yes. I can’t name anything reprehensible that he did.
You’re far more the fundamentalist than I am if you can’t admit that reason can’t play a part in distinguishing what religions are suitable for all mankind and what religions ought to follow their expiration date.
Joseph Ramirez
>Is Prophet Muhammad beyond reproach?
According to muslims, yes he is
>Shariah courts executed people for trying to consummate marriages with prepubescent girls.
So? This was commanded by Allah almighty, that makes it good by default
>Is Jesus Christ beyond reproach? Yes. I can’t name anything reprehensible that he did.
Again, so what? Everyone claims this about their religion.
>You’re far more the fundamentalist than I am if you can’t admit that reason can’t play a part in distinguishing what religions are suitable for all mankind and what religions ought to follow their expiration date.
And you have yet to explain why the latter shouldn't be yours
Ethan Scott
You’re willing to abandon all sound judgment because some religious people are fundamentalist. And then you accuse me of fundamentalism, even after I provide you with good reasons to discount one religion in favor of another, the fact that that prophet had committed an inexplicable evil. Do me a favor and look at yourself in the mirror before you engage in another religious debate. If you want to reduce everything to a he said, she said, etc., context while throwing away the notion that we can judge who is more correct, then we can’t have a reasonable conversation.
