Traditionalism = Philosophical Shitposting?

Seriously why couldnt these guys write clearly? It doesnt matter how far back into their catalog I go, their prose is so goddamn turgid and incoherent. After every paragraph Im like "the fuck did I just read?". When you do strain yourself and parse through it more carefully you're like they went through all *that* to say *this*? It's like a "twilight language" designed to repell normies. I guess Im a normie.

>inb4 bad translations. Doesnt matter who translates it both guenon and evola do this shit.

Are they worth the trouuble?

Other urls found in this thread:

dinghal.com/bibliotheek/The_Crisis_of_the_Modern_World.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You're just a modern pleb who was never taught to read properly.

What that means?
How do I learn to "read properly"?
Like according to pic related or what?

I managed to trudge through a more or less complete tour through Academic Buddhist PHD-thesis-level logic and Madyamakha/philosophy books. It was fuckin hard and trial & error but easily worth it.

Are these guys worth it?
Or is there, as you say a necessary preparatory skill - and if so how do I attain it without going back to uni?

Don't waste your time, its all New Age nonsense. They were writing at a time when Europe was first being exposed to eastern religions and philosophy. Evola is ok in small doses but Guenon was especially autistic.

Did you need to learn to "read properly" before you read them? If so, how do?

Here you go

You kind of have to already be familiar with a lot of the things they talk about, otherwise their writing is impenetrable. Some of their books are also easier reads than others.

>Crisis of the Modern World, by Guénon
>Revolt against the Modern World, by Evola
>not crystal clear

Nigger do you have ADHD or something?
While some of their more obscure works might be somewhat complicated to read, like King of the world, or Ur & Krur, just devote your brain to actually understanding what they mean.

Write down notes if you have to.

Thanks. I saw this the other day and tracked down what I could in terms of reading order. Including Guenon, which many say is necessary to read before Evola.
I highly doubt their thinking and ideas would confound me - although I get that they assume a familiarity with Western philosophy I probably dont have. I just cant get used to their weird long-ass sentences and writing style or something.

I do have ADHD apparently. I was diagnosed as an adult and was told Im so far along on the spectrum that if I had the hyperactivity component I would have been in prison long ago.
Still, I read alot and do well if the information is interesting and important to me.

I think you just need to give more time. I'm myself in pretty much the same spot, interested in traditionalism but not quite there yet understanding it. Usually ideas are easy and quick to get and I personally made the mistake in underestimating in how hard it would be to get it.
Diagnosed at 18 too, ADD.
>I read alot and do well if the information is interesting and important to me.
Same. Reading things you don't really want to is unbearable.

dinghal.com/bibliotheek/The_Crisis_of_the_Modern_World.pdf

Just read the first couple of pages and think I understood what he was saying about the cyclical ages pretty well.
I think its just a matter of practice and focus, unless you're referring to a more complicated part my advice would just be to keep trying and you'll get there.

Also, its not that I have read those two books and didnt understand them. I have started those and others - gotten like 3-10 pages in and started to wonder if there is something earlier they have written that will sound less Needlessly dense and which will then make this a more comfy read.
Each time I try a new more "introductory" book it all sounds the same. Progress, history, society, all of it is degenerate, kali yuga-tier. And then they go on to describe some ancient-Greek style metaphysical/heroic ideal for everything that nothing does or can live up to.
And if this is all they ever get around to saying but shroud it in smoke I would sort of like to know before I put in the effort.

Bro.

>cyclical ages

If any of you are interested cyclical ages, please look into Guénon's Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles, as well as the works of the french writer Gaston Georgel, who wrote at least 5 interesting books on this topic.

I'm not a good reader, but even I manage to slowly get a grasp of their philosophy.
I started with "The Crisis of the Mondern World" and I'm reading "Revolt Against the Modern World" at the same time.

Right. I guess what Im wondering is - whether their ideas are coherent and simple enough but shrouded in a prose style or convention that makes it needlessly difficult to read. I know it was more common to write that way back then. But when I was doing my M-thesis I was constantly getting hammered to say the most with the least. Clarity and brevity being the proof of my understanding. Much of "the literature" i had to review was written with this ethos in mind as well.
I never studied the classics or philosophy. I actually studied art.

>mfw trying to read through "the hermetic tradition"

> Spend a whole year reading Evola. Only *then* will you get it pleb

Ok thanks

This was my face trying to read RATMW and the Holy grail.
Feels like hes repeatig the same shit over and over.. people keep telling me how awesome his writing is.. I think theyre just the fashy version of hipsters who read shit that nobody else will for the sake of it.

well repeating isn't necessarily bad given the sort of knowledge they are trying to pass to you, you should read at least the beginning of Guènon's "Intro to the study of Hindu doctrines" to perhaps understand his style

the hermetic tradition though is so dense, it's not like you can't understand what he is saying, it's just that every line implicitly contains so much info about various traditions and obscure texts that plebs like us would have to actually know about before being able to read the text in a deeper way and not just superficially
fugg I haven't even read the bible yet

I read Guénon´s "Reign of Quantity and Signs of the Times" and could not properly understand half of the stuff he is on about

Planning to read it second time.

King of the World was easy reading for me. So was "Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion"

You live embroiled in the Anglo-Saxon tradition which not only despises that type of philosophy but also actively does not train you to read it.

Nonetheless, if you don't like them, try reading neo-thomists. They are dry as fuck and will satisfy your autism. They are traditionalists too.

In a sentence, there is the essence and the form; get rid of the form as much as you can and go to the essence of it.

>its all New Age nonsense.
He shit on New-Ageism and multiculturalism in all of his books, did you read it backward?
Guénon is Gnostic if i'm forced to define him in a single word.

>They were writing at a time when Europe was first being exposed to eastern religions and philosophy.
The stupidity and ignorance in this sentence is amazing, that is why I am not a democrat. What is antiquity?

I highly recommend reading René Guénon over Julius Evola, because the first is like a master to the second in a way.

Gaston Georgel, Je vais y jetter un coup d'oeil merci cousin.

Interesting advice. Thanks.

>In a sentence, there is the essence and the form; get rid of the form as much as you can and go to the essence of it.

Clear.
I also just downloaded the audiobook of Adler and Van Doren's How to read a Book.
I've seen it around and meant to get to it. I guess the time is now.