What do you people generally think of Julius Evola and his works?

What do you people generally think of Julius Evola and his works?
Are there any authors or books Sup Forums would recommend that lean more towards presenting ideas and information to promote critical/philosophical thinking and self-assessment rather than "you should, we should, I should" books that dictate how the author believes you or society at large should think and act?

Other urls found in this thread:

thekingdomwithin.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Julius-Evola-Hermetic-Tradition-1.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Hard to explain really. It's people like Evola who set the stage for the, "Everything is slowly going to rot if we stray further and further away from our true aristocratic spirit."
You should read some Nietzsche too.

>Hard to explain really. It's people like Evola who set the stage for the, "Everything is slowly going to rot if we stray further and further away from our true aristocratic spirit."
>You should read some Nietzsche too.

Pretty much this. Just don't read too much Nietzsche if you're prone to depression...

Maybe the most right wing thinker i've ever read and the only person i've read who criticized the Nazis from the right. Revolt against the modern world is a good place to start with Evola. He hammered at the idea of equally as a morally good way to structure society.

bump

>Depression
There's nothing to be depressed about in Nietzsche's works. His core philosophy is to struggle to live according to one's individual nature, to love ones fate, and to learn from the mistakes of the past in order to steer oneself towards their fate.

He's a descendent of dragons.

He was compelled to write (express) and there are a number of us who hear his draconic words.

thekingdomwithin.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Julius-Evola-Hermetic-Tradition-1.pdf

I am trying to figure out if he had a form of Ultra human or superman like Nietzche....anyone know?

Evola was a hack, there are better than him in his field.

He focused a bit more on what's happening around us, why it's bad, and what we can do to outlast it.

>There's nothing to be depressed about in Nietzsche's works. His core philosophy is to struggle to live according to one's individual nature, to love ones fate, and to learn from the mistakes of the past in order to steer oneself towards their fate.

First chapter of Beyond Good and Evil, he shits all over one of the oldest philosophies there is... Stoicism... You're a moron if you think he was all sunshine and daisy's. He's not the nihilistic piece of shit that most people say he is, but he's by no means a walk in the park.

But did he have any ideal of the "ideal man" or something along the like?

it's 50/50 split.
Anons here either love him or hate him.

>to love ones fate, and to learn from the mistakes of the past in order to steer oneself towards their fate.

Also, how does one love thy fate if one does not know thy fate? Sound like blind optimism to me, not very Nietzschian at all. Perhaps one would benefit from reading Voltaire's Candide or Optimism.

>Evola was a hack, there are better than him in his field.

Perhaps you could explain why?

Yes, he did shit on the platonic way of thinking and stoicism, but in his opinion he believed that the only way to live one's life was according to their own will and not by that of self restraint.
Again, hard stuff to get into: Basically he believed that the love of one's fate was apart of the great will to power. To not deny both the bad and the good in ones existence but to keep moving forward towards self betterment until you die without holding any regrets. Look at the ending of Candide, remember when his teacher was like, "If we didn't go through all that hardship we wouldn't be here now eating food together." That's the Nietzschian way of thinking.

What was evola's ideas of technology? Could tech lead to unity for the human race? A form of transcendence? Or is technology going to lead us away from transcendence?

Evola would have nothing to do with pol pussies

I don't believe so, I think he left that to Nietzsche.
I'm not sure if he wrote on technology or not, I do know that he wrote transcendence came from the struggle of self determination and betterment.

Read "The Myth of the Twentieth Century".

Read Eugene Ionescu, JP Sartre, Nietzsche, and John Fowles' The Magus. Those all have good self-introspective ideas about pushing your limits or understanding the basest existentialist states of man.

Winetou, Papillon, and Sven Hassel books also do a good job of pumping you up in similar ways.

Ayn Rand and Dostoevsky are also very good grandiose and verbose writers that instill that spirit of gravitas into their stories.

Regardless of what people say about them (mostly the former), I still believe they're worthy writers to explore.

Lol no, read Tacitus Germania and then Mein Kampf. A good read could be Savitri Devi or Houston Stewart Chamberlain who were all associated with the NSDAP.

Also:

how predictable of you

Ayn Rand.
How about no you vaginal cunt

Ayn Rand.
How about yes, you fucking hive-minded imbecile.

I love his philosophy right up to the point where hyperboreans vibrate at the god frequency and travel dimensions

At that point I switch to Spengler.

I never read Spengler, but it just sounds like masturbation over history. "Muh Caesarism" and so on. Also he was a jew.

he does cite the roman empire as the height of western civilization in the ancient age, but that is not very uncommon. his view of history is cyclical and borrows to some extent for east Indian philosophy, and his most well known (and most difficult work) the decline of the west talks of non-European history as well, though it does focus on european history.

>Yes, he did shit on the platonic way of thinking and stoicism, but in his opinion he believed that the only way to live one's life was according to their own will and not by that of self restraint.

T. sophist

>"If we didn't go through all that hardship we wouldn't be here now eating food together."

The whole point of that book was to not be a blind optimist or a sad pessimist, nothing more, nothing less. To think that you must endure hardship to reap the rewards in life, is simply not true. Life is hard, for most, life is rewarding, for most, you have a skewed sense of perception.

It'll be a long time before anyone is capable of understanding what Nietzsche was on about, best not pretend online though hey?

A true hero of the conscious European man.

His views om nobility are incorrect, nobility is anti fascist, anti esotoric, anti revolutionary, degenerate, fat, weak and anti nationalist.


The extermination of the landed anti nationalist nobility interested only in getting fat off the peoples free labor gave rise to the freedom of nature that gave rise to the modern age with nationalism.

Nobility would sell their daughters to nigerians if it protected their priviliges.

You should read "Revolt Against the Modern" World instead of "Ride the Tiger."

In that book, he goes into much more detail about the historical and religious/mythological justifications for his worldview instead of just bitching about people not living they way he things they should.

Remember he was heavily into the occult. So be careful not to go down too far into some of his writings and research unless you WANT to deal with the same demons that tormented him.

Bump for a non slide thread with value

bump for interest

I massively interested in evola, really.

I would like to know more about his concept of

Linear time vs cyclical time. I think he believed in cyclical time more? Anyone got info on this?

this is an Evola guide that can help you understand him.

TLDR start with "The hermetic tradition" that's the easiest to read among his books.

Rand left half the human condition in the waste bin. Other than that, her writing is as dry as her old cunt.

Also this for graduating from Evola to the Ironguardpill.

>(((Ayn Rand)))
>le ancap lolbertarian

kys nigger faggot

Evola is good.
The Christian/Pagan dichotomy is solved in Evola, but racetards don't realize race isn't the end all be all of existence. Suppose whites rule the earth, whites divide laterally, superior whites and inferior whites will find themselves in conflict despite being of the same ethno-race.
That's a bit too esoteric for post 2015 Sup Forums.
Don't read Nietzsche, he is trash.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
He accuses others of being naive meanwhile he holds now disproven views upon science and philosophy.
He gets you with his prose then gives you trash in his huffy-like """"argument""""
Nietzsche doesn't have a core philosophy.
Your take on Nietzsche is Plato and Aurelius' take on life at large, Nietzsche hated both of them.

Nietzsche's superhuman is a child's fantasy.
Evola had the Aristocratic Traditional Man, which unlike Nietzsche's man was not a new man, but an old man, the man who resisted Nietzsche's superman at every turn. The aristocratic man will outdo the superman.
The superman is 10 inches above apes.
The Aristocratic Man is 10 feet beneath angels.

>Ayn Rand

>Ayn Rand
Pass

I'm not a roman catholic, so to me, he's just an amusing toy I watch the jesuits push along.

I don't think whites will divide laterally if we promote the betterment of our entire species.

There will always be division

I think it's natural human behavior to divide. We're a small tribe species; even within larger tribes of our primitive times they would separate into sub-groups within the tribe.
To be man means to be a part of "us vs. them" mentality.

It doesn't have to be that, we're talking about it in here aswell
I think once we hold full dominion over the Earth we'll set ourselves from the "Us vs Them" mentality to the "Us vs The Universe" mentality. Nothing will be able to stop us but ourselves which is why we must go to the greatest lengths to quell all forms of infighting.