• This topic has 5 voices and 4 replies.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #342128

    Anonymous

    In the circles of what we might euphemistically call the “revolutionary right,” or more broadly the “anti-liberal right,” one can observe the recurrent rise—like outbreaks of acne—of what one can only call “metaphysical traditionalism.”

    Authors like Evola or Heidegger are in general the pretexts—mark my words: the pretexts—for the expression of these tendencies, many aspects of which seem to me negative and demoralizing. These authors themselves really aren’t the problem. To speak only of Evola and Heidegger, the works of neither author—whose true ideas are often extremely distant from those of the “Evolians” and “Heideggerians”—are susceptible to the criticisms that apply to their right-wing “disciples” who are in question here.

    How do we characterize this “deviation” of metaphysical traditionalism, and what are the arguments against it? This mentality is characterized by three axiomatic presuppositions:

    1. Social life must be governed by “Tradition,” the forgetting of which brings about decadence.
    2. All that relates to our time is darkened by this decadence. The further back one goes in the past, the less decadence there is, and vice versa.
    3. Ultimately, the only things that matter are “inner” preoccupations and activities, turned towards the contemplation of a certain something usually called “being.”

    Without lingering over the relatively pretentious superficiality of this outlook which prefers, instead of true reflection and clarity, the facile obscurity of the unverifiable and the free play of words, which—under the pretext of depth (and even, in certain authors with strong narcissistic tendencies, of “poetry”)—ignores the very essence of all philosophy and all lyricism, one should especially recognize that this metaphysical traditionalism is in profound contradiction with the very values it generally claims to defend, i.e., counteracting the modern ideologies, the spirit known as the “European tradition,” anti-egalitarianism, etc.

    Indeed, in the first place, the obsession with decadence and the dogmatic nostalgia that it induces make it seem like a reverse progressivism, an “inverted” linear vision of history: the same frame of mind, inherited from Christian finalism, of all “modern” progressivist ideologies. History does not ascend from the past to the present but descends.

    Only, contrary to the progressivist doctrines, traditionalism cultivates a profoundly demoralizing pessimism toward the world. This pessimism is of exactly the same type as the naive optimism of the progressivists. It proceeds from the same mentality and incorporates the same type of vanity, namely a propensity to verbose prophecies and to set oneself up as a judge of society, history, and the like.

    This type of traditionalism, in its tendency to hate and denigrate everything in the “present day,” does not only lead its authors to bitterness and an often unjustifiable self-conceit, but reveals serious contradictions that make its discourse incoherent and unbelievable.

    This hatred of the present day, the “modern age,” is absolutely not put into practice in day to day life, unlike what one often sees, for example, in Christianity. Our anti-moderns can perfectly well benefit from the conveniences of modern life.

    By this they reveal the true meaning of their discourse: the expression of a guilty conscience, a “compensation” carried out by deeply bourgeois souls relatively ill at ease in the current world, but nevertheless unable to get beyond it.

    In the second place, this type of traditionalism usually leads to an exaggerated individualism, the very individualism that their “communitarian” vision of the world claims to denounce in modernity.

    Under the pretext that the world is “bad,” that their contemporaries are patent decadents and imbeciles, that this materialist society “corrupted by science and technology” cannot understand the higher values of inwardness, the traditionalist, who always thinks of himself as standing on the mountain tops, does not deign to descend and accept the necessity of combat in the world, but rejects any discipline, any solidarity with his people, any interest in politics.

    He is interested only in his hypertrophied self.

    He transmits “his” thought to future generations like a bottle in the ocean—without seeing the contradiction, since they are supposedly incapable of understanding it because of increasing decadence.

    This individualism thus leads logically to the very reverse of the original ideology, i.e., to universalism and implicit globalism.

    Indeed, the metaphysical traditionalist is tempted to believe that the only associations that count are “spiritual,” the communication of great thinkers, which is similar throughout the world, regardless of their origin and source, provided that they seem to reject “Western modernity.” They replace the service of the people, of politics, of community, of knowledge, of a cause, not only with the service and contemplation of the self, but with the service of mere abstractions.

    They defend “values,” no matter what their place of incarnation. From this, for some, comes a captivation with Orientalism; for others, a militant globalism; and for all of them, a disillusioned disinterest in the destiny of their people.

    One even arrives at straightforwardly Christian attitudes—on the part of “philosophers” who usually busy themselves fighting Christianity.

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2010…-is-the-enemy/

    It's funny how actually everybody has a different view what's the error in our society today, some think its progressiveness while the author above thinks it's traditionalism…

    #362634

    Anonymous

    This piece of /…/ must have been written by some extreme leftist "intellectual".

    #362635

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    It's funny how actually everybody has a different view what's the error in our society today, some think its progressiveness while the author above thinks it's traditionalism…

    That pretty much perfectly shows the left-right dichotomy. Right-winger traditionalists say "we must do this since we have always done it." While left-winger progressives and liberals say "what gives you the right to tell us what to do?" And that is the extent of the mainstream sphere.

    Both sides do not realize that they are correct in a way, but both sides also do not realize that they are missing something key, a greater goal and purpose to serve and work towards, and thus will be stuck forever in their squabble.

    #362636

    Anonymous

    We should embrace good aspects of traditionalism and good aspect of progressivism. Infact a true traditionalism dosent exist anymore at all for some centuries.

    We have quite diluted traditionalism nowday.

    #362637

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    History does not ascend from the past to the present but descends.[?QUOTE]

    The analogy I go by is neither ascending or descending but flowing.  One act or belief is a response to another.  If there is any "ascending" taking place, it is more a form of building upon.  Protestantism was started out as a reply to real liturgical abuses within the Catholic Church.

    Only, contrary to the progressivist doctrines, traditionalism cultivates a profoundly demoralizing pessimism toward the world.

    I don't see how  What actually gets me "down" is over regulation often attributed to the liberal left.

    This type of traditionalism, in its tendency to hate and denigrate everything in the “present day,” does not only lead its authors to bitterness and an often unjustifiable self-conceit, but reveals serious contradictions that make its discourse incoherent and unbelievable.

    Bitterness?  Interesting.  The Order to which I am a member (Secular Franciscans) was established by St. Francis himself just before he went on the serve as a Chaplin in the Crusades.  One thing which he taught was a gift from God was play.  He taught that people need to both play and work.  In a more modern example, John Paul II wrote that it is a spiritual mandate to keep "holy The Lord's Day (Sunday).  However do not be so legalistic that such rest becomes a burden."
    While the Catholic Church (often attributed as being "rules oriented right") does hold to a conservative approach, there is also a heresy which is being more strict than the Church.

    This hatred of the present day, the “modern age,” is absolutely not put into practice in day to day life, unlike what one often sees, for example, in Christianity. Our anti-moderns can perfectly well benefit from the conveniences of modern life.

    What the Catholics call the "Heresy of Modernism" is not refusing to take advantage of modern conveniences.  What we (Catholics) call Modernism is the attempt to blend modern thought with Traditional teachings.  It is more of an attempt to claim that such practices like abortion are acceptable within the faith. 

    By this they reveal the true meaning of their discourse: the expression of a guilty conscience, a “compensation” carried out by deeply bourgeois souls relatively ill at ease in the current world, but nevertheless unable to get beyond it.

    Interesting.  Consider that the Church says that for a believer to actively and consistently choose to refuse the forgiveness of Christ is Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit and the only unforgivable sin (regardless of how serious the other sins are).

    In the second place, this type of traditionalism usually leads to an exaggerated individualism, the very individualism that their “communitarian” vision of the world claims to denounce in modernity.[/QUITE]

    Do you have evidence for this?

    Under the pretext that the world is “bad,” that their contemporaries are patent decadents and imbeciles, that this materialist society “corrupted by science and technology” cannot understand the higher values of inwardness, the traditionalist, who always thinks of himself as standing on the mountain tops, does not deign to descend and accept the necessity of combat in the world, but rejects any discipline, any solidarity with his people, any interest in politics.

    I'm not sure which sample of "traditionalists" you looked at to arrive at this conclusion.
    There is such a thing as the "Justifiable War" theory.  This states that if negotiations have failed or clearly impossible, destruction by the enemy in your home land would be severe, long lasting, and imminent, then going to War can be ethically the right option.  This is what the RCC teaches.

    He is interested only in his hypertrophied self.

    The last person who thought he qualified to be a saint is the saint himself.

    He transmits “his” thought to future generations like a bottle in the ocean—without seeing the contradiction, since they are supposedly incapable of understanding it because of increasing decadence.

    Could you supply an example.

    This individualism thus leads logically to the very reverse of the original ideology, i.e., to universalism and implicit globalism.

    Now you're sounding like the American foreign policy.  Believe it or not Obama (who is very left wing) actually required third world nations to set up abortion clinics or not get other humanitarian aide (even if abortion is contrary to the nations culture).

    Indeed, the metaphysical traditionalist is tempted to believe that the only associations that count are “spiritual,” the communication of great thinkers, which is similar throughout the world, regardless of their origin and source, provided that they seem to reject “Western modernity.” They replace the service of the people, of politics, of community, of knowledge, of a cause, not only with the service and contemplation of the self, but with the service of mere abstractions.

    Consider the two (2) Commandments as summarized in the New Testament.  To "Love God with all your mind, body and soul.  The Second is to Love your neighbor as yourself."  Especially the second sounds like service to community and others.  One definition I have heard for "love" in the spiritual realm is to "place the good of the other person as more important than your own good."  However, people don't often see why something is good.  The child doesn't understand that receiving an injection at the doctor's office will mean better health later, he just knows it hurts and therefore cries to his mother (who does understand).  Not everyone sees their situation (and therefore the good) on an impartial level.

    They defend “values,” no matter what their place of incarnation. From this, for some, comes a captivation with Orientalism; for others, a militant globalism; and for all of them, a disillusioned disinterest in the destiny of their people.

    Sweeping generalizations are also a danger to the understanding of a situation.

    One even arrives at straightforwardly Christian attitudes—on the part of “philosophers” who usually busy themselves fighting Christianity.

    Not fighting Christianity.  Fighting the mis-understanding of Christianity.  Bishop Fulton Sheen said "Less than a hundred people have a problem with the Church.  Millions of people have problems directed towards the Church based upon their mis-understanding Her teachings."

    It's funny how actually everybody has a different view what's the error in our society today, some think its progressiveness while the author above thinks it's traditionalism…

    Interesting and true.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

9 User(s) Online Join Server
  • TypowaPolskaKobieta
  • kony97
  • Piachu
  • Oliver (TW BLOCK)
  • jorgos
  • Tujev